Modelling of Linebreak in High-Pressure Gas Pipes. Kimambo.

City Research Online
City, University of London Institutional Repository
Citation: Kimambo, C. (1996). Modelling of linebreak in high-pressure gas pipes.

(Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City University London)
This is the accepted version of the paper.
This version of the publication may differ from the final published
version.
Permanent repository link: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/7934/
Link to published version:
Copyright and reuse: City Research Online aims to make research

outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience.
Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright
holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and
linked to.
City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk

MODELLING OF LINEBREAK
IN HIGH-PRESSURE GAS PIPES
by
Cuthbert ZM Kimambo
A thesis submitted to
City University
in partial fulfilment of the
requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
July, 1996
Department of Mechanical
Engineering. & Aeronautics
City University
London
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
LIST OF TABLES 6
LIST OF FIGURES 7
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 10
DECLARATION 11
ABSTRACT 12
NOMENCLATURE 13
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 16
1.1 TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN PIPELINES 16

1.2 RUPTURE AND BLOWDOWN OF GAS PIPELINES 17
1.3 COMPUTER CODES FOR ANALYSIS OF FLUID FLOW IN PIPES 19
1.4 PREVIOUS WORK AT CITY UNIVERSITY 22
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASIC

EQUATIONS FOR UNSTEADY FLOW 27
2.1 INTRODUCTION 27
2.2 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS AND SIMPLIFICATIONS 32
2.2.1 Dimensionof Flow 32
2.2.2 Flow Phase 34
2.2.3 Fluid Structure Interaction 36
2.2.4 Minor Lossesand Changesin Cross-section 38
2.3 DERIVATION OF THE BASIC EQUATIONS FOR UNSTEADY
FLOW OF A COMPRESSIBLE FLUID IN A PIPE 39
2.4 THERMODYNAMIC AND TRANSPORT PROPERTIES 48
2.4.1 Introduction 48
2.4.2 Thermal Equationsof Statefor Real Gases 50
2.4.3 TheoreticalApproach to the Equation of State 53
2.4.3.1 Introduction to the Basic Principlesand Equations 53
2.4.3.2 The Principle of Corresponding States 56
2.4.3.3 Extension of the Principle of Corresponding States 57
2.4.3.4 CommercialComputer Software 58
2.4.3.4.1 IUPAC 58
2.4.3.4.2 QUANT 58
2.4.3.4.3 PREPROP 59
2.4.4 Other Approachesfor Real-GasMixtures 60
2.4.5 Caloric Equationsof State 60
2
2.5 FRICTIONAL FORCE 62
2.5.2 Steady Flow Friction Factor 63
2.5.3 Flow-Dependent Friction Factor 64
2.5.4 Frequency-Dependent Friction Factor 68
2.5.5 Friction Factor for Two-Phase Homogeneous Flow 69
2.5.6 Friction Factor With Respect to Fluid Structure Interaction 70
2.5.7 Approximation of Friction Factor When Solving the Basic Equations 70
2.6 HEAT TRANSFER 71
2.6.2 Heat Transfer Process 71
2.6.3 Calculation of Heat Transfer 74
2.7 OTHER APPROACHESTO THE BASIC EQUATIONS 79
CHAPTER 3: METHODS FOR SOLUTION OF THE BASIC EQUATIONS 82

3.1 INTRODUCTION 82,
3.2 NUMERICAL METHODS OF SOLUTION 83

3.2.1 Finite-DifferenceMethods 83
3.2.1.1 GeneralDescription 83
3.2.1.2 Explicit Finite-DifferenceMethods 84
3.2.1.3 Method of Characteristics 86
3.2.1.4 Lax-Wendroff Second-OrderTwo-Step Method 88
3.2.1.5 Implicit Finite-DifferenceMethods 89
3.2.2 Finite-ElementMethods 90
3.2.3 Flux-DifferenceSplitting Schemes 92
3.2.4 Method of Lines 94
3.2.5 Wave-PlanMethod 96
3.3 A REVIEW OF SOME NUMERICAL STUDIES 97
3.3.1 GeneralStudieson TransientFlow 97
3.3.2 Studies on Pipeline Rupture and Blowdown 109
3.4 DISCUSSION OF NUMERICAL METHODS 118
CHAPTER 4: THE COMPUTER MODEL FOR LINEBREAK ANALYSIS 122
4.1 SIMPLIFICATION OF THE BASIC EQUATIONS OF FLOW 122

4.1.1 Shouldthe SmallTermsbe Neglected? 122
4.1.2 Solution Procedure 124
4.1.3 Representationof Non-Linear Terms 126
4.2 INITIAL AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 126
4.2.2 SteadyStateAnalysis 128
3
4.2.2.1 Basic Equations for Steady State Flow 128
4.2.2.2 Incompressible Flow 130
4.2.2.3 IsothermalCompressibleFlow 130
4.2.2.4 Adiabatic CompressibleFlow 132
4.2.2.5 Non-isothermalNon-adiabaticCompressibleFlow 139
4.2.3 Break Boundary Conditions 140
4.3 NUMERICAL SOLUTION OF THE BASIC EQUATIONS FOR

UNSTEADY FLOW 146

4.3.2 Method of Characteristics 148
4.3.3 MacCormack Second-orderTwo-step Method 179
4.3.4 Warming-Kutler-Lomax Third-order Method 182
4.4 VARIABLE GRID SIZE 184

4.5 APPLICATION OF THE QUANT SOFTWARE FOR
THERMODYNAMIC AND TRANSPORT PROPERTIES OF FLUIDS 187
4.6 COMPUTER CODES 192

4.7 PREPARATION OF GENERAL GAS AND SYSTEM DATA 205
CHAPTER 5: A REVIEW OF SOME EXPERIMENTAL AND

NUMERICAL DATA 212
5.1 INTRODUCTION 212
5.2 LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS 213
5.2.1 Description of the Shock Tube Test 213
5.2.2 Review of SomeLaboratory Experiment 214
5.3 REVIEW OF SOME FULL-SCALE PIPELINE EXPERIMENTS 217
5.4 REVIEW OF SOME NUMERICAL DATA 220
5.5 SELECTION OF TEST DATA 222
CHAPTER 6: VALIDATION OF THE COMPUTER MODEL 226

6.1 VALIDATION PROCEDURE 226
6.2 COMPARISON OF COMPUTER MODEL PREDICTIONS
WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 227
6.2.1 Foothills Test Data 227
6.2.2 British Gas Test Data 231
6.2.3 SNGSO Test Data 237
6.2.4 API Test Data 244
6.3 DISCUSSION OF VALIDATION RESULTS 249
4
CHAPTER 7: CASE STUDY: THE SONGO SONGO-DAR ES SALAAM
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE 272
7.1 A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF TANZANIA'S ENERGY SECTOR 272
7.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SONGO SONGO GAS DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT 274
7.2.1 Background Information 274
7.2.2 Gas Properties 275
7.2.3 Preliminary Pipeline Design 277
7.3 COMPUTER SIMULATION OF A LINEBREAK IN THE

SONGO SONGO-DAR ES SALAAM GAS PIPELINE 281
7.4 DISCUSSION OF SIMULATION RESULTS 286.
CHAPTER 8: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK 288
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSIONS 291
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 297
APPENDICES 309
A GeneralEquations 309
B Expressionsfor Equation of State 310
C Expressionsfor Friction Factor 314
D List of Programmesand Sub-routines 318
E Programme Listings (in a floppy disk)
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 McAdams Constantsfor Natural Convectionto Air
Table 4.1 PossibleBoundary Conditions
Table 4.2 General Gas and System Data Layout
Table 6.1 Foothills Tests GeneralData

Table 6.2 AverageGasCompositionfor Foothills Tests
Table 7.1 Average(Mol. %) Composition of Songo SongoGas
Table 7.2 Songo SongoGasProperties
Table 7.3 ProjectedGasDemandfor the Three Scenariosfor Years 2011 and 2016
Table 7.4 EstimatedGasVelocities and Pipe Sizes
Table 7.5 Pipe Parameters
Table 7.6 Block Valve Parameters
6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Flow Pattern for Air-water Mixture Flowing in a Pipe

Figure 2.2 SketchShowing the Control Volume at the Beginningof a Time Step
Figure 2.3 SketchIllustrating Equation 2.2
Figure 2.4 Conical Control Volume Illustrating Body Forces
Figure 2.5 Control Volume Illustrating Heat and Work Transfer
Figure 2.6 Distributionof Pressure,TemperatureandVelocity Along the Pipe Diameter
Figure 2.7 RadialTemperatureDistributionAcrossa PipeSectionand its Surroundings
Figure 3.1 Finite-differenceGrid Illustrating the Two-step Lax-Wendroff Method
Figure 4.1 Grid Illustrating SteadyState Analysis
Figure 4.2 Pressureand Velocity Variations Illustrating Flatt's Decompression Model
Figure 4.3 Decompression Curve at the Break Boundary
Figure 4.4 Grid IllustratingHybrid Method of Characteristics
Solutionat Interior Points
Figure 4.5 Solution Domain Using Interior Points Only
Figure 4.6 Grid Illustrating Hybrid Method of Characteristics Solution at Boundary
Points
Figure 4.7 Finite-differenceGrid Illustrating the MacCormackMethod Solution

Figure 4.8 Finite-differenceGrid Illustrating the Warming-Kutler-Lomax Method
Solution
Figure 4.9 Grid Illustrating Hybrid Method of CharacteristicsSolution at Interior
Boundary Points Without Interpolation
Figure 4.10 Grid Illustrating Hybrid Method of CharacteristicsSolution at Interior
Boundary Points With Interpolation
Figure 4.11 Flow Chart for Tiley's ComputerProgramme
Figure 4.12 Flow Chart for the Main Computer Code for the New Model
Figure 4.13 Flow Chart for Sub-programmeSTEAD
Figure 4.14 Flow Chart for Sub-programmesTRANS and BREAK for Transient
Analysis
Figure 4.15 Flow Chart for a Typical Method of CharacteristicsProgramme
Figure 4.16 Flow Chart for Sub-routinesS..MOC.. 1 and S..MOC..2
Figure 4.17 Dimensionsof the Test Sectionof the Pipe
Figure 4.18 Diametersof the Pipe in the Test Section
Figure 4.19 Test Sectionof the Pipe After the Break Illustrating a Variable Grid
Figure 6.1 Schematicof Foothills Test NABTFI
7
Figure 6.2 Schematicof Foothills Test NABTF7
Figure 6.3 p-t Curves for Foothills Test NABTFI East Comparison with First-order
Method of Characteristics Predictions
Figure 6.4 p-t Curves for Foothills Test NABTFI East Comparison with MacCormack
Method Predictions
Figure 6.5 PressureWave PropagationSpeedfor Foothills Test NABTF 1 East

Figure 6.6 p-t Curvesfor Foothills Test NABTF7 West Comparisonwith First-order
Method of CharacteristicsPredictions
Figure 6.7 Pressure Wave Propagation Speed for Foothills Test NABTF7 West
Figure 6.8 Schematic of British Gas Tests BGT1, BGT2 and BGT3
Figure 6.9 p-t Curvesfor British GasTest BGTI Comparisonwith First-order

Figure 6.10 p-t Curvesfor British GasTest BGT1 Comparisonwith Second-order
Figure 6.11 p-t Curvesfor British GasTest BGT1 Comparisonwith MacCormack
Method (Alternative 1) Predictions
Figure 6.15 p-t Curves for British Gas Test BGT3 Comparison with MacCormack
Figure 6.16 p-t Curvesfor British GasTest BGT3 Comparisonwith Warming-
Kutler-Lomax Method Predictions
Figure 6.17 p-t Curvesfor British GasTestBGT3 Comparisonwith First-order Method
of CharacteristicsPredictions(Ax=0.01 m)
Figure 6.18 p-t Curves for British Gas Test BGT3 Comparison with Second-order
Method of Characteristics Predictions (Ax=O. OIm)
Figure 6.19 p-t Curvesfor British GasTest BGT3 Comparisonwith Second-

order Method of CharacteristicsPredictions(Ax=0.1m)
Figure 6.20 PressureWave PropagationSpeedCurvesfor BMI Tests
Figure 6.21 PressureWave PropagationSpeedCurvesfor University of Calgary Tests
Figure 6.22 Schematicof SNGSOTest
Figure 6.23 u-t Curvesfor SNGSO Test Comparisonwith First-order Method of
CharacteristicsPredictions
8
Figure 6.24 p-t Curves for SNGSO Test Comparison with First-order Method of
Characteristics Predictions
Figure 6.25 Velocity Head Curvesfor SNGSOTest Comparisonwith First-order

Figure 6.26 Schematicof Alberta PetroleumIndustry Tests APIT1 and APIT2
Figure 6.27 Schematicof Alberta PetroleumIndustry Tests APIT3
Figure 6.28 Mass Flow Rate for Alberta PetroleumIndustry Test APITI Comparison
with Second-orderMethod of CharacteristicsPredictions
Figure 6.29 Pressure at Intact End for Alberta Petroleum Industry Test APITI
Comparison with Second-order Method of Characteristics Predictions
Figure 6.30 Mass Flow Rate for Alberta Petroleum Industry Test APIT2 Comparison
with First-order Method of CharacteristicsPredictions
Figure 6.31 Pressureat Intact End for Alberta PetroleumIndustry Test APIT2
Comparisonwith First-order Method of CharacteristicsPredictions
Figure 6.32 Mass Flow Rate for Alberta PetroleumIndustry Test APIT3 Comparison
with First-order Method of CharacteristicsPredictions
Figure 6.33 Pressureat Intact End for Alberta PetroleumIndustry Test APIT3
Comparisonwith First-order Method of CharacteristicsPredictions
Figure 7.1 Map of Africa Showing the Location of Tanzania
Figure 7.2 Map of TanzaniaIndicating the Location of the SongoSongo Gas
DevelopmentProject
Figure 7.3 Kilwa Kivinje-Dar es SalaamGasPipelineLocation Map
Figure 7.4 PipelineRoute from Songo SongoIsland to Dar es Salaam
Figure 7.5 Line PressureProfile for Low Scenario
Figure 7.6 Line PressureProfile for Medium Scenario
Figure 7.7 Block Valves Location
Figure 7.8 Line PressureProfile for High Scenario Comparison with Model Predictions
Figure 7.9 Line Pressure Profile for Simulated Break in the Songo Songo-Dar es
Salaam Pipeline
Figure 7.10 Mass Flow Rate Profile for Simulated Break in the Songo Songo-Dar es
Salaam Pipeline
9
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
to
I wish to expressmy sinceregratitude and appreciation all individuals and
organizationswho contributedto the successfulcompletionof this study.

I wish to expressspecialthanksand appreciationto my supervisor,Prof. A. R. D.
Thorley,first for providingthe researchtopic; for his continuousencouragement;guidance;
criticisms; and support, evenin mattersbeyondacademiclife.

I alsowish to extendparticularthanksto the GermanGovernmentwho, through the
GermanAcademicExchangeService(DAAD) provided generousfinancial support for the
study programmeand also for the purchaseof the QUANT software for thermodynamic
and transport propertiesof fluids.
Particular thanks also go to the University of Dar es Salaamfor granting study
leave, support and encouragement during the study period.
It is not possibleto mention every individual and organizationwho assistedbut I
amvery muchindebtedto Mr. ReneFlatt of the SwissFederalInstitute of Lausanne,whose

untiring contributionin variousacademicaspectsof the project hasbeeninvaluable.In this
regard I also wish to mentionProf. StephenRichardsonof Imperial College, London.
I wish to thank all organizationswhich generouslyprovided various literature and
data used in this study. In particular I would like to mention British Gas Plc, the Energy
ResourcesConservation Board, and the NOVA Gas Transmission both of Alberta, Canada
for providing experimentaldata; and the Ministry of Water, Energy and Mineral, and Hardy
BBT Ltd. in Dar es Salaamfor providing information about the proposed Songo Songo to
Dar es Salaam natural gas pipeline.
10
DECLARATION
I grant powers of discretion to the University Librarian to allow the thesisto be

in
copied whole or part without further referenceto the author. The permissioncovers
in
only single copies made for study purposes, subject to normal conditions of
acknowledgment.
11
ABSTRACT
Although there are many computercodesavailablefor analysisof fluid transients,
only. a few are known to be applicable to linebreak situationsand their scopeis limited.
Thereis, therefore,still a big potentialfor developmentwork in the subject. Discrepancies
between different models which have been developed have mainly centred on the
assumptions used in developing the basic partial differential equations of flow, and
subsequent simplifications;the thermophysicalmodel used;representationof various terms
in the equationssuchasthe friction term; andthe numericalmethod of solution of the basic
partial differential equations.
A previous model developedby Tiley (1989), overestimated the actual wave speeds
and had problems of instability of the solution. A new approach, in which the three basic
partial differential equation of flow are derived, based on the assumption of an unsteady
quasi-one-dimensional flow of a real gas through a rigid constant cross-section area pipe,
and using the Gamma Delta method is used. No further simplification is made on the basic
equations. Significant improvements have been made on the type of equation of state,
thermodynamic model, heat transfer approximation and friction factor representation. The
QUANT software for thermodynamic and transport properties of real gases is used. A flow
dependentexplicit equation of Chen (1979) is used to calculate the frictional force and heat
transfer is calculated using the concept of recovery factor and adiabatic wall temperature.
Numerical solution of the basic equations is performed using the third-order Warming-
Kutler-Lomax method, the second-order MacCormack method and the method of
characteristics. A pc based computer coding with the C language is used.
The QUANT softwarehassuccessfully beenincorporatedwith the programme. The
full benefitsof the softwarecould not be realisedwith linebreakproblemsdue to limitation
of the range within which it gives output at present, but satisfactory results have
neverthelessbeenattained.
An improved and more accurateway of calculatingthe break boundarycondition
has beenused. A non-uniform grid spacinghasbeenused,which allow fine grid spacing
in the vicinity of the break in order to enableaccuratemodelling of the rapid transients
occurringin that part. Two differentmodelsfor calculatingthe heat transfer i.e. one for the
caseof pipesexposedto the atmosphereand buried pipeshavebeenincorporatedwith the
model.
Experimental data from full-scale pipeline tests is used to validate the computer
models. Results from the computer model simulations show good agreement with the
experimental data. The MacCormack method has been found to be unsuitable for modelling
transient flow following linebreak in high-pressure gas pipelines. The method of
characteristics has proved to be the method of solution for such applications. A better
understanding of the flow following a break in high-pressure gas pipes is achieved,
especially the decompression behaviour at the break boundary. Data gathered from
feasibility studies conducted in the late 1980's for a pipeline in Tanzania is used to validate
the steady state analysis model and to simulate a linebreak in the pipeline. Results of the
computer simulation are discussedand recommendationsmade on the suitability the pipeline
design.
Additional work is recommendedon refining and further testing of the computer
programmesandusingthe Gamdelepsmethod which covers all the three phasesregion i.e.
gas, liquid and gas/liquid.
12
NOMENCLATURE
Symbol Description Units
A Cross-sectionareaof pipe m-
a Wave speed m/s
c Pipe wall thickness in

C Courant number -
Cp Specificheat of gas at constantpressure J/kgK
Cv Specificheat of gasat constantvolume J/kgK
d Pipe diameter m
D Depth of pipe m
E Energy of the system i
e Specificinternal energyof gas J/kg

F Force N
f Friction factor -
g Gravitationalacceleration ßs2
H Vertical height/piezometricheight m
h Specificenthalpyof gas J/kg
hBL Heattransfercoefficientthroughtheboundarylayer WATR

hcA Convectiveheat transferto the atmosphere W
I Inventory/mass of gas in the pipeline kg
k Thermal conductivity W/UK
L Length of pipeline/wettedperimeter m
M Molecular weight of gas l
Ma Mach number -
m Mass flow rate of gas kg/s
NL Avogadro's number -
p Static pressure of gas Pa
Pr Prandtl number -
Q Heat transferrate per unit volume J/m3s
q Pseudo-viscosity
variable N/m2
r Radial distanceof the pipe m

R Specificgas constant J/kg
13
Rc Recovery factor -
Re Reynolds number -
S Specificentropy of gas J/kgK
St Stanton number -
T Temperature of gas K
t Time S
U Overall heat transfercoefficient Walk
u Flow velocity of gas mIs

V Volume flow rate of gas m3/s
W Work done by the system i
x Horizontal distancealong the pipe m

Z Compressibilityfactor of gas -
Greek Symbols
a Polytropic alphacoefficient -
ß Polytropic beta coefficient -
Polytropic gammacoefficient -
A Small changein the quantity -
DE Changein energyof the system J
S Polytropic delta coefficient -
e Polytropic epsaloncoefficient -
e Roughness of pipe m
6 Angle of inclination of pipe to horizontal MdiWs
K Ratio of specificheats -
Coefficient of dynamicviscosity kg/ms
v Kinematic viscosity m2/s

p Density of gas kg/m3
v Specificvolume of gas m3/kg

(D Viscous dissipationfunction -
x Thermodynamic quantity/dryness fraction -
ýr Conical angleof the pipe I
cp Free parameter =
0 Heat flow into the pipe per unit length of pipe per unit time Jim s
w Frictional force per unit length of pipe N/m
14
Subscripts
A Atmosphere
aw Adiabatic-wall
BL Boundary layer
c Critical
CA Convectionto atmosphere
D Darcy's
e Equalization
eff Effective
F Fanning's
m surroundingmedia
o Stagnation/initial
p At constant pressure/pipe
pw Pipe wall
R Reduced(ratio to critical value)
r radial
S Isentropic
wo Outer pipe wall
wi Inner pipe wall
Superscripts
- mean
15
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN PIPELINES
Transportation of natural gas in pipelines takes place at very high pressures (typically
35-150bar, though higher pressures are also used). In main transmission lines, the gas
mixture normally exists in one phase (liquid phase), thus avoiding problems such as multi
phaseflow and reduction in pipe capacity. These high pressure pipelines, normally cover
very long distances. The largest natural gas pipeline network in the world is the USA one,
with a total length of more than 1.5 million kilometres. The former USSR network is the
second largest in the world. In the United Kingdom, the national transmission system
covers approximately 5000 kilometres plus another 12000 kilometres, with pressures of up
to 7bar in the regional distribution systems. In the Netherlands, the high-pressure system
consists of a series of transmission lines with a total length of over 6000 kilometres.
Following recent discoveries of natural gas in the South Eastern Coast of Africa, plans are
to
now well underway construct pipelines to transport the gas to with
areas. highest market
potential. In Tanzania, a 200km pipeline is under construction for transportation of natural
gas from Songo Songo Island to Dar es Salaam and in Mozambique, a 900km pipeline will
be constructed from Pande to the Republic of South Africa.
The amountsof natural gas stored in the transmissionlines are enormous. In the
Netherlandssystemdescribedabove,the yearly flow amountsto over 7x 1010kilogramme
of naturalgas. To give a feelingof the amountsand their qualities, a 145 kilometre typical
pipelinewould containabout 7000 tonnesof natural gas,which is equivalent
high-pressure
to 100MW of heat power for 40 days. With such large amountsof naturalgas contained
in pipelinesystems,potentialhazardssuchas pollution, fire and economiclossesdue to the
spillingof the gas in caseof a rupture are of great concernand needto be thoroughly and
accurately assessed. This will in turn be the basis for designing and implementing
preventivemeasuresfor suchhazards.One exampleof such caseswas in Alberta, Canada,
where it was necessaryto accuratelymodel sour gas (natural gas containing hydrogen
sulphide)pipeline rupture, in order to set guidelinesfor land developmentpolicy.
At present, there are over a dozen computer codes for analysingtransient flow
behaviourof fluids in pipelines.Somework which hasbeendone in the past three decades,
on pipe rupture and blowdown in gas transmissionlines, is summarisedin Section 1.2.
16
1.2 RUPTURE AND BLOWDOWN OF GAS PIPELINES
It hasbeenstatedin section 1.1 that the amountsof natural gas stored in the transmission
lines are enormousand the potential hazards,such as pollution, fire and economiclosses
due to the spillingof the gas in caseof a rupture, are of great concern. Assessmentof the
flow situationfollowing a linebreakin suchpipelinesis crucial, in order to be able to design
and implementpreventivemeasuresand to plan corrective action for such hazards.

Most pipeline ruptures occur accidentallydue to causessuch as material failure;
poor or lack of maintenance,

faultyoperation;damageto pipelinesdue to excavationwork;
anddamageof pipelinesby falling objectsfrom platforms, shipsand icebergs. Within the

last decade,the world has witnessedseveraldisastersresulting from accidentalpipeline
ruptures. Theseincludethe Piper Alpha disasteron the night of 61hJuly 1986 and more
recently(April andMay 1995)in Russiaand South Korea respectively. The South Korean
rupture was causedby pipeline damage,due to excavationwork and it resultedin many
deaths.The Russianpipelinerupture is thought to havebeencausedby pipe failure due to
corrosion. After the Russianpipelinerupture, flamescould be seenup to 25000ft high and

severalsquaremiles of forest were set on fire. Pipe blowdown is a controlled venting to
is
and usuallydoneprior to shutdownor repair. In this report, both rupture
the atmosphere
and blowdown are referredto as linebreak.
Analysisof the flow following a linebreakin a gas pipelineis done using computer
modelswhich havebeenvalidatedwith the best availableexperimentaldata. A review of

experimentaldata which is availableon linebreakhas shown that it consistsof data from
shock tube tests; laboratory experimentson short sectionsof pipes;linebreaksimulation
experiments on full-scale pipelines such as those reported by Bisgaard, Sorensenand
Spangenberg
(1987)andVan Deeen& Reintsema(1983); rupture and blowdown tests on
sectionsof full-scale pipeline such as the Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Ltd. (1981); and
measurementson full-scale pipeline systemduring accidentalrupture such as the Piper
Alpha disasterduring which somedata was recorded.
One essentialrequirementbefore performing computer modelling of a given pipeline
ruptureis that the test data, specificgas data and pipeline systemdata must be preparedin
the form requiredby the computerprogramme. Often this involves making a number of
assumptionsandsimplifications,suchasassumingsomeparametersto be constantfor some

interval. Computer software suchàs QUANT, PPDS-IUPAC, ASPEN PLUS
and
17
PREPROP for calculation of thermophysical properties of fluids are available and make the
processmuch easier and accurate, while maintaining a sound computation speed. System
data such as pipeline dimensions,is usually included in experimental data. However, some
variables such as grid size, friction factor, Stanton number etc. need to be determined. A
suitable grid size needs to be chosen in order to produce stable results and to adequately
model the physical behaviour such as the shock wave fronts. Transient analysis in the
vicinity of the break is very crucial. However, it is often not easy to obtain the required
experimental data and with the required accuracy in this area. Consequently, the only
available option is to use computer models. In the more recent studies, such as those by
Picard and Bishnoi (1989), Tiley (1989) and Chen, Richardson and Saville (1992) variable
grid sizeswere used in the vicinity of the break, in order to enable close monitoring of the
expansion waves.
The flow of gas following a rupture in a high-pressuregas pipeline is one caseof
rapidtransientflow of compressible
fluids in pipelines.Suchflows are governedby the well
known setof threepartialdifferentialequationsderived from the principlesof conservation
of mass,momentumandenergy. The gas propertiesare describedby an equationof state.

These,togetherwith appropriateauxiliary conditions, determinethe mathematicalstate of
the gas. Many assumptionsand simplificationsare involved in the processof formulating
and manipulatingtheseequations. All theseaspectsare presentedin this thesis.
Whena ruptureoccurs,the operatingparameterssuchas pressure(p), flow velocity
(u), density(p) andtemperature(T) at different parts of the systemvary considerably. For
example, T could fall to such an extent that it could render part of the pipeline unusable
after the rupture, due to changesin it's material properties. It is thereforevery important
to be able to determinethesevariations in order to be able to decide which parts of the
pipeline should not be usedand thus avoid further disaster. In modelling a linebreakin a
gaspipeline system,questionssuchaswhat is the magnitudeof the flow rate at the broken
pipe end, how quickly will it diminish with time, what is the pressure,what is the
temperatureandhow are thesegoing to affect the rest of the systemhaveto be answered.
Anotherimportantparameteris the speedof propagation
of pressurewavesin the system,
which also hasa bearingon the fracture behaviourof the pipe material.
18
Resultsof transientanalysisin rupturedpipelines,whether producedby experiments
or computermodels, are in
normally presented a set of graphs. The more commonlyused
arethe pressure,temperature,flow velocity,massflow rate, pressurewave speedand mass
of gas in the pipelineas functionsof position and time.
1.3 COMPUTER CODES FOR ANALYSIS OF FLUID FLOW IN PIPES
Nearlythirty computercodes,for the analysisof fluid transientsituationsin gaseousand/or

multi-phase flows, are known to have been used; and some of these are available
commercially.TheseincludePIPENET, PIPESIM, PIPESIM PLUS, SURGE, EXPRES,
PIPETE, IMF, IPSA, TOFFEA, SIMPLE-2P, PISO-2P, PIPETRAN, TRANSFLOW,
TRAC, FLASH, RODFLOW, RELAP, FEAT, OLGA, PLAC, FLUENT, FLOW-3D,
PHOENICS,PRO-II, HYSIM, FLOWMASTER, TGNET, PIPE 1, PIPE2, BLOWDOWN
andPIPEBREAK. In addition,someorganisations,suchas British Gas [Mallinson (1996)]
andGASUNZEof theNetherlands[De Bakker (1993)], have developedtheir own models
suited to their own pipelineoperations.
FLUENT, FLOW-3D and PHOENICS are general purpose codes for multi-
dimensionaltwo-phaseflow, but limitedto dispersedflow or particle tracking. Algorithms
for separatedand stratified flow analysisinclude IMF, IPSA, TOFFEA, SIMPLE-2P and
PISO-2P. OLGA and PLAC are one-dimensionalflow codes which do not assume
homogeneous
two-phaseflow and are therefore suitedto low-speedtwo-phasefluid flow.
FLASH, RELAP, RODFLOW andTRAC arenormallyusedfor Loss-Of-Coolant-Analysis
(LOCA) in nuclearpower plants. They are therefore suited for situationswhere the two-
phase fluid is primarily a steam-water mixture. FLOWMASTER, of the British
Hydromechanics
ResearchGroup (BHRG), can handlefluid systemswhere both rapid and
slow changes occur in the boundary condition. FEAT is based on a finite-element
numericalmethod of solution.
TGNET, PIPE1, PIPE2 and BLOWDOWN are among the group of codes for
analysisof transientsfollowing high-pressure
gaspipelineruptures. PIPE1 and PIPE2 were
developedby Flatt (1985-1989) at the SwissFederalInstitute of Technology, Lausanne.
PIPET is for perfect gaseswhereasPIPE2 is for real gases. It is known that at least one
companyhasoffered to acquirethe codes. BLOWDOWN is a computer code which can
be used to simulate the emergency blowdown of vessels and pipelines containing
hydrocarbons. The programme can predict pressure, temperature and multi-phase
composition within a vessel or a pipeline; temperatureof the wall; and efflux: all as
19
functions of time. Development of the code [Richardson (1993-96)] started in 1984 at
Imperial College, London; and the first version of the code was produced in 1988. It has
since then undergone constant modifications and testing, which it is claimed have not yet
involved any correction, but have extended considerably the range of problems which it can
handle. An independentstudy commissioned to compare BLOWDOWN with PRO-II and
HYSIM concluded that it is BLOWDOWN alone which is capable of dealing with systems
containing liquid' condensate or comprising more than one-vessel. BLOWDOWN is now-
used by many gas and oil companies for the simulation of depressurisation systems.
Applications have included a large number of individual vessels on offshore platforms and
onshore installations, a number of multiple vessels connected to a common blowdown

header,complete platforms and sub-seapipelines. BLOWDOWN is being used throughout
the SHELL Group of Companies. British Gas has decided that it will only use
BLOWDOWN for depressurisation calculations. BLOWDOWN can also be used to
simulate the repressurisation of a system (which is effectively just depressurisation in
reverse) and the whole programme is common to repressurisation and depressurisation.
The main physicaldifferencebetweenthe two is that the fluid tends to get warmer (and
muchwarmerif the processis fast enough)in the former, while in the latter it tends to get
colder (and much colder if the depressurisationis fast enough).
PIPEBREAKis a computerprogrammewhich was developedand is being usedby
British GasPlc for linebreakanalysis.The GASUNIE pc model for hazardassessment can
model gas outflow for complex pipeline networks with different elementsand different
outflow scenarios,all in one model. It can model linebreak,venting and leakage. It can
handleelementsdefining different boundaryconditions,which can represent,for example,
the simplifiedbehaviourof a compressor. The emphasisin developingthis model was put
on user friendliness,robustnessand the ability to model complex networks. The basic
relations are solvedusing implicit finite-differenceschemesand a graphicaluser interface
makesinputting of the network very easy. An estimateof the accuracyis claimedto be 5
to 20 per cent,andin the GASUNIE context, this is consideredto be sufficient for hazard
analysispurposes.
There are numerousstudiesin which attemptswere made to develop computer
codesfor analysisof transientsin rupturedhigh-pressuregas pipelines. Perhapsthe earliest
publishedmodelfor the analysisof gaslinebreakis that by Sens,Jouveand Pelletier (1970).
Therehavesincethenbeenseveralattemptsto developcomputer modelsfor gas linebreak
analysis,including that by Tiley (1989) which was the starting point of this study. Sens,
Jouve and Pelletier (1970) claimedthat results from their model were identical
with their
20
experimental results. Arrison, Hancox, Sulatisky and Banerjee (1977) compared
predictions from their RODFLOW code with experimental data for blowdown of a
loop containing two pumps, two heated sections and two heat
recirculating water
exchangers arranged in a figure-of-eight geometry. Groves, Bishnoi and Wallbridge
(1978) developed a computer model to calculate decompression wave velocities in natural

The model was validated with the experimental data of Groves (1976).
gas pipelines.
Cheng and Bowyer (1978) used their quasi-one-dimensional unsteady compressible fluid
flow code to simulate two cases of transient flow. Transients caused by a sudden pipe
rupture at the left hand side of a three duct steam system were predicted. Lyczkowski,
Grimesey and Solbrig (1978) presented comparative results of their alternating gradient
method with analytical results and also their experimental results.

A study by Alberta PetroleumIndustry, GovernmentEnvironmentalCommittee
(1978) reported on two existing hydrogen sulphide isopleth (constant concentration of
hydrogen sulphide lines) prediction models, one blowdown model and a simplified
blowdown model developedduring the study. Predictions from the blowdown models were
validated with experimental results in a subsequent study [Alberta Petroleum Industry,
Government Environmental Committee (1979)]. Knox, Atwell, Angle, Willoughby and

Dielwart (1980), presentedresults of their theoretical model and compared them with their
experimental data. Cronje, Bishnoi and Svrcek (1980) presented their adiabatic model and
compared its results with the experimental data of Groves (1976). Other studies include
those by Fannelop and Ryhming (1982), Van Deen and Reintsema (1983), Bisgaard,
Sorensenand Spangenberg (1987), Lang and Fannelop (1987), Picard and Bishnoi (1988
and 1989), They (1989), Botros, Jungowski and Weiss (1989), Lang (1991), Kunsch, Sj, en
and Fannelop (1991 and 1995) and Olorunmaiye and Imide (1993).
Whereas the physical phenomena of a pipeline system response following a rapid
transient event is well explained for the other cases such as pump trip, rapid valve closure
etc., the contrary applies for the caseof a linebreak, despite all the studies mentioned in this
section. It is stated that when a break occurs in a high-pressure pipeline, the pressure drops
virtually instantaneously at the break and rarefaction waves are transmitted up and down
the pipeline and are rapidly dissipated when the fluid in the pipe is a gas. Expansion waves
are created in the section of the pipe upstream of the break and flow reversal occurs in the
section of the pipe downstream of the break. This study investigates further the linebreak
phenomenon,especially at the break boundary with the aim of achieving a better

understandingof the phenomenonand a more accurateand stablemodel.
21
The processof developinga computer model for analysisof transientflow of gas
in pipelinesentailsthree main steps,namelyformulation of the basicgoverning equations,
numericalsolution of the equationsand finally validation of the model with experimental
data. Discrepanciesbetweendifferent modelswhich havebeendevelopedfor analysisof
transientsfollowing a linebreakin gas pipelineshave mainly centred on the assumptions
made in developing the basic partial differential equations of flow, and subsequent
simplifications; the thermophysicalmodel used; representationof various terms of the

equationssuchasthe friction term etc.; and the numericalmethodsusedfor solution of the
basicpartial differential equations.
Following a critical review of the previous study by Tiley (1989) a new approach,
basedon the GammaDelta method developedby Flatt (1989), is used. The three basic
partial differential equationsof flow are derived for unsteadyquasi-one-dimensionalflow
of real gasesthrough a non-rigid variable cross-sectionarea pipe. The only subsequent
simplification are assumptionsof constant cross-sectionarea and rigid pipe walls. The
QUANT software for thermodynamicand transport propertiesof real gasesis used. The
softwareis basedon the virial equationof stateand also containsthe isentropicgammaand

delta coefficients(ys and SS)required for the GammaDelta method. A flow dependent
explicit equation is usedto calculatethe friction losses. Numerical solution of the basic
equationsis doneusing the methodof characteristics;the second-orderMacCormack and
third-order Warming-Kutler-Lomax explicit finite-differencemethods.
1.4 PREVIOUS WORK AT CITY UNIVERSITY
This work [Tiley (1989)] was an attempt to developa computer model which can simulate
a linebreak occurring in a gas pipeline. The procedure involved derivation of the basic
simultaneous partialdifferentialequationsof motion which mathematicallymodel unsteady
fluid flow in a pipeline,by assuminga one-dimensionalhomogeneousflow,
constantvalue
steadyflow friction factor,constantvalue Stanton numberand neglectingminor lossesand
changesin cross-sectionareaof the pipe. The equationswere solved numericallyusing the
methodof characteristics.A computercodewaswritten in FORTRAN 77 and a Gould PN
9005 mainframecomputerwas usedto solve the mathematicalmodel. Finally, the
model
was tested using experimentaldata. It is reported that although the theoretical model
successfullysimulatedthe rapidexpansionof a gas following a linebreakin a high-pressure
pipeline,comparisonof the model resultswith experimentaldata which was available,did
22
highlight someareasof concern. Theseinclude overestimatingactual wave speedsand
problemsof instability of the solution. Further work was recommendedin the two areas
mentionedaboveand also further refinementand testing of the model.
In this study,the whole approachusedby Tiley (1989) hasbeencritically reviewed.
The subjectswhich havebeenexplored include the following:
(a) One-dimensionalflow assumption.
(b) Homogeneousflow assumption.
(c) Neglecting minor lossesand changesin cross-sectionareaof the pipe.
(d) Classificationof the partial differential equations.
(e) Use of a constantvalue steadyflow friction factor to calculatefriction losses.
(f) Use of a constantvalue Stanton number to account for heat transfer (simplified
model of heat transfer).

(g) Use of the method of characteristicsfor numerical solution of the basic partial
differential equations.
(h) Use of FORTRAN 77 and Gould N 9005 mainframecomputer.
(i) Estimationof the gasconstantsspecificheat at constantpressure(Cr), specificgas
constant(R), critical temperature(T,,) and critical pressure(Ps).

(j) Physicalmodellingof a linebreaksituation.
(k) Assumptionthat pipe walls are inelastic.
(1) Determinationof compressibilityfactor.
(4n) Limitation in the amountand scopeof experimentaldata.
(n) Simplificationof the basicequations.
The one-dimensional
flow approximationwas usedon the basisthat for high
Reynoldsnumberflows, asin gas transmissionlines, the approximationhasbeenshown to
be very good for steadyand slowly varying flows. This was despitethe fact that in the
region of influence on flow of bendsand fittings and particularly where there are large,
rapid changesin conditions,as in the caseof a linebreak,larger discrepanciesare expected
from the one-dimensional
approximation. An alternativeto this approximationis to apply
the method used in turbulent boundary-layertheory which is lengthy and complicated.
Someworkers haveusedthis method. A review of their work hasbeendone in order to
find out the limitationsof usingthis method and the significanceof errors introduced in the
model by assuminga one-dimensionalflow.
23
Homogeneousone-dimensionalflow meansthat property distribution is uniform
over the cross-section. This includes assumptionabout velocity profile, which is to be
in
examined more detailpresently.The study by Tiley assumeda homogeneous flow. The
validity of this assumptionwas investigated. Darcy's steady flow friction factor was used
on the basis that there had been no friction factors defined for transient gas flows. It was
stated that the use of steady flow friction factor for transient flow causesvery little error
when the flow variations are of relatively low frequency and amplitude, but it was also
admitted that when large, rapid disturbances are occurring, a significant error may be
incurred. The latter fact was consideredwhen selectingthe steadyflow friction factor and
in
also subsequentcalculations. From the review made,in this study, of flow (Reynolds
number)andfrequency-dependent friction, it is strongly felt that the use of constantvalue
steadyflow friction factor for transientflow could introduce quite considerableerror in the
modelresultsandcould in fact be oneof the major causes
of the inaccuracies
observedwith
the model. A considerableamount of work on frequency-dependentfriction in transient
fluid flow simulationhasbeenidentified. This hasbeenreviewedbut not usedin this study
becausethe effectsof unsteadyfriction, in addition to steadyfriction, are very small. The
other issuesraised by Tiley concerning the friction factor such as friction factor for two-
phaseflow and approximationof the friction term havealso beencritically reviewed.
The threepartialdifferentialequationsdescribingthe transientflow were classified
as "non-linear hyperbolic partial differential equations",while they are in fact "first-order
quasi-linear hyperbolic partial differential equations". However, this variation in
classification of the equationshad no impact on the solution and results obtained. An

investigationhasbeenmadeon the relative magnitudesof the minor lossesand changesin
in in
cross-section area a practical situation order to assessthe significanceof the error
introducedby neglectingthem. The decisionon whether or not to neglectthem hasbeen
reviewed basedon the findings of the above investigationand other factors affecting the
developmentand executionof the model.
A constantvalueStantonnumberwasusedto accountfor heat transferon the basis
that variationsin Stantonnumberwith flow rate are not sufficient to warrant the additional
computationinvolved,andthat the heattransferterm in the basicequationsis comparatively
small. Also in deriving the equation for the heat transfer term, it was assumedthat in a
rapid transient, the pressurechangesoccur instantaneously,allowing no time for heat
transferto take placebetweenthe pipe and the surroundings(adiabaticflow). It hasbeen
argued by others that no models are known for the general case of heat transfer in
non-steady flows, where there is no thermal equilibrium between the pipe and the
24
surroundings. The literaturesearchmade has revealedthat there hasbeenprevious works
on this subject. A review of thesehas been done in Section 2.6 and, as a result, the heat
transfermodel hasbeenimproved.
The Berthelot equationof statewas usedto determinethe compressibilityfactor,
since it was said to producecomparativelyaccurateresults for gasesand vapours at low
temperatures. It was statedpreviouslyby Thorley and Tiley (1987), that sincethe terms
involvingcompressibilityfactor in the basicequationsareusually relatively small, a complex
equationof statewould be uneconomicalin terms of computer time. Therefore, only the
relatively simple equationswere examined. Also equations of state were preferred to
compressibilitychartsbecausethe former can easilybe programmedinto a computer and
canbe solvedfor derivatives. The equationof state for a real gas and the thermodynamic
identity were used before applying the Berthelot equation of state. In this study, other
approaches andequationsof statewhich could be usedto produce better results havebeen
considered.
The isobaricheat constant(Cr), isocharicheat constant(C'), specific gas constant
(R), critical temperature (T) and critical pressure (pJ of the gases used in various
experimentsemployedto validate the model were estimatedby assumingconstantvalues
for pressureandtemperaturerangesencounteredfor CP;dividing the universalgas constant
by the mean molecular weight of gas for R; Grieves and Thodes method for T,; and
Rausnitzand Gunn methodfor p, A recommendationwas madefor this to be one of the
areasto be experimentedin, in an attempt to improve the model. In this work, different
methodsof estimatingtheseparametershavebeenreviewed and the QUANT software for
thermodynamicandtransport propertiesof fluid hasbeenchosen. Also test data in which
as manyas possiblegas constantsare specified,hasbeenselected.
The assumptionthat the pipe walls are inelasticwas madewithout any discussion
to justify its validity. It is known that the transientbehaviourof a pipeline systemdepends
upon the elastic propertiesof the conduit (including conduit size,wall thicknessand wall
material), external constraints(including type of supports) and the freedom of conduit
movement in the longitudinal direction. Thesehavebeendiscussedin Section 2.2.3. In
deriving the basic equationsthe terms a(pu2A)/ax and a(puA)/ät were
neglectedon the
basisthat they are very small. Studiesare known which have arguedfor the
retention of
each and both of theseterms. These have been reviewed in this study and it has been
decidedthat they shouldboth be retainedbecausethe error intoducedby
neglectingthem
is very significant.
25
Tiley reviewed some of the popular numericalmethodsused for modelling fluid
transientsandselectedthe methodof characteristics. The main merits of this method were
saidto be the ability to handlesmalltime stepsrequiredfor rapid transients;relatively more
accuracy,andability to posethe boundaryconditions properly. It was also statedthat the
method of characteristicsis more suited to single pipelines. Since the conclusionof the
studyby Tiley, there hasbeenmore studiesemployingand comparingdifferent numerical
methods of solution available. It was therefore found necessaryto update the review
carried out by Tiley, in order to decideon the most suitablenumericalmethod.
A novel feature of Tiley's model, compared to those which were previously
availableis that it allowsfor the possibilityof flow reversaldownstreamof the break as well
ashandlinggrid size reduction in the vicinity of the break. Both thesefeatureshavebeen
adopted in the model developed in this study. Tiley's main code consists of two
programmes,one performinga transientanalysison a given shock tube or single pipe, and
the other converting the required section of the numericaloutput of the first programme
into graphicalform.
26
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASIC

EQUATIONS FOR UNSTEADY FLOW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Unsteady flow of compressiblefluids in pipelines is describedby a set of three partial

differential equations,derived from the principles of conservationof mass (continuity
equation), conservationof momentum or Newton's second law of motion (equation of
motion or momentum equation) and conservation of energy or First Law of
Thermodynamics(energyequation). The gas propertiesare describedby an equationof
state. Thesetogether with appropriateauxiliary conditions, determinethe mathematical
state of the gas. Many assumptionsand simplifications are involved in the processof
formulating and manipulatingtheseequations. The form of the equationvaries with the
assumptions made regarding the condition of operation of the gas pipeline and any
simplifications made. Based on the above the equations may, in the more general
classification, be linear, quasi-linearor non-linear; parabolic or hyperbolic; and first- or
second-order.
It is generally preferred to keep the equations as simple as possible, without
significantlyreducingthe accuracyof results in a particular model, in order to economise
on computationallabourandtime andalsoto minimisethe computer memory requirement.
This rule is very effectivefor modelling of slow transients,but there seemsto be not much
room for manoeuvrein the caseof rapid transients,and especiallylinebreakproblems. In
the latter case,the equationshaveto be usedalmost without any simplification in order to
achievethe required accuracycriteria. In most of the studiesreviewed,it is generallyfelt
that researchershavemadevarious assumptionsand simplifications;usedone form of the
basicequationsor the other; representedthe various terms in particular ways; in order to
suit a particular methodof solution or application and vice versa. Suwan and Anderson
(1992)arguedthat alternativeformulations,interpolations,friction force representation,or
time integration,which maybe appropriatefor parabolicproblems,will all violate the basic
information carrying physics of a hyperbolic problem. Most cases of unsteady
one-dimensionalflow, where disturbancepropagationvelocities do not vary significantly,
by quasi-linearhyperbolicpartial differential equationsfor continuity and
arecharacterised
momentum. On the other hand, complex phenomenasuch as stratified and intermittent
stratified-bubble(slug) flows require a two-dimensionaltransientanalysis.
27
Various analyticaltechniqueshavebeenused to reducethe numberof equations
before employing the relevant numerical procedure. Van Deen and Reintsema (1983), for
example, introduced a technique which reduces the energy equation to a single

parameter-in-massequation without the assumption of isothermal or isentropic flow. It was
stated in section 1.3, that the processof developing a computer model for transient analysis
of gas pipelines entails three main steps, namely formulation of the basic governing
equations, solution of the equations and finally validation of the model with experimental
data. This chapterdealsentirelywith the first step. Essentiallythe sameapproachas used
by They (1989) is used but an improvement is made on the assumptionsused and
representationof the various terms, with an overall objective of achievingmore accurate
and numericallystableresults.
Tiley (1989)assumeda one-dimensionalhomogeneousflow in an inelasticpipe and
neglectedminor lossesand changesof cross-sectionareaof the pipe. Three simultaneous
non-linear(Though the equationshavebeenclassified by Tiley (1989) as non-linear,they
are in actual fact quasi-linear)partial differential equationswhich mathematicallymodel
pressuretransientsin a non-perfectgaswere derived. A constantvalue steadyflow Darcy's
friction factor was used to calculate frictional losses. Heat transfer into the pipe was
approximatedby a constantvalue Stanton number. The Berthelot equationof state was

consideredto be the most suitablefor this application. A formulation using the general
equation of state for a perfect gas and the thermodynamicidentity from the Joule-Kelvin
effect was used.
Since the developmentof the Tiley model and even before, there has been a
amountof researchactivity on theoretical modelling of fluid transients,and in
considerable
particular those aspectsrelatedto linebreakin gas transmissionsystems. A great number
of these have been thoroughly and critically reviewed and consideredin this study.
Followingthis reviewa new approachbasedon the gammadeltamethoddevelopedby Flatt
(1989), is used. The three basic partial differential equationsof flow are derived for
unsteadyquasi-one-dimensional flow of real gasesthrough a rigid constantcross-section
area pipe. No further simplification is made on the basic equationsand the QUANT
software for thermodynamicand transport propertiesof real gasesis used. The software
is basedon the virial equationof state and also containsthe
coefficientsrequired for the
gammadelta method. A flow dependentexplicit equationis usedto calculatethe friction
losses.Numericalsolutionof the basicequationsis effectedusing explicit finite-difference
methods.
28
There are three basic approaches by which fluid flow problems are formulated;
namely the control volume, integral or large-scale analysis; infinitesimal system, differential
or small-scale analysis; and experimental or dimensional analysis. In all these cases, the
three basic conservation laws of mechanics i. e. conservation of mass, momentum and
energyplusthe thermodynamic equationof state and associatedboundaryconditions must

be satisfied. A control volume is a finite region chosencarefully with open boundaries
which mass,momentumand energyare allowed to cross. A balanceis madebetweenthe
incoming and outgoing fluid and the resultant changeswithin the control volume, and
details of the flow are normally ignored. In the infinitesimalapproach,the conservation
laws are written for an infinitesimal system of fluid in motion and become the basic
differential equationsof the fluid flow. To apply them to a specific problem, one must
integrate these equations mathematically over the volume, subject to the boundary
conditionsof the particularproblem. Exact analyticalsolutionsare often possibleonly for
very simple geometriesand boundary conditions, otherwise numerical integration on a
digital computeris used. Experimentalstudy may be full-scale or laboratory based.
The differential approachcan be usedfor any problem but in practice the lack of
mathematicaltools and the inability of digital computersto model small-scaleprocesses
makes the application of the differential approach rather limited. Even computer
programmessometimesfail to provideaccuratesimulationbecauseof either the inadequate
storageor inability to model the finely detailedflow structure characteristicsof irregular
geometriesor turbulentflow patterns. The dimensionalanalysisapproachcan similarly be
applied to any problem but lack of time and money and generality often makes the
experimentalapproachlimited. The control-volume analysisis consideredthe most useful
of all the three approachesas far as practical engineeringapplicationsare concerned. It
givesusefulresultsin a reasonableamountof time, though sometimesgross and crude. In
applicationssuchasmodellingof a linebreakin high-pressuregas pipelines,the differential
or infinitesimal approachis normally usedand later validatedwith experimentalresults.
In fluid flow problemsthe dependentvariables,i.e. p, p, u etc., are functions of the
independentvariablesLe. t and x, in the caseof one-dimensionalflow. In any given flow
-
situation,the determinationby experimentor theory of the fluid propertiesas a function of
position and time is consideredto be the solution to the problem. There are two distinct
fundamentalmethodsof specifyingthe flow field, namelythe Eulerian description
and the .
Lagrangian description. In the Eulerian form, the independentspacevariablesrefer to a
coordinatesystemassumedto be fixed in spaceor translatingand through which the fluid
is moving. The flow is characterised
by a time-dependent
velocity field which is to be found
29
by solving the initial value problem. In the Lagrangian form, the independentspace
to
variablesrefer a coordinate system fixed in the fluid and undergoingall the motion and
distortion of the fluid, so that the particlesof the fluid are permanentlyidentified by their
Lagrangian variables, while their actual positions in space are among the dependent
variablesto be solvedfor.
Although the Eulerian and Lagrangian forms are essentially equivalent, the
Lagrangian form gives more information i.e. it tells where each bit of fluid came from
initially and has the virtue that conservation of mass is automatic. This results in
in
considerablygreater accuracy some problems. Ritchmyer (1957) stated that for the
abovereasons, the Lagrangianform is for in

generallypreferred someproblems a one space
variable. For problems in two or more spacevariables and time, the Lagrangianmethod
encounters seriousdifficulties. In particular, the accuracyusually decreases
seriouslyas
time goeson, dueto distortions,unlessa new Lagrangianpoint-net is definedfrom time to
time, which requiresdifficult and usually rather inaccurateinterpolations. From this point
of view, the Eulerianform is moreattractive. However, the Eulerian form is almost useless
if thereareinterfacesbetweenfluids having different thermodynamicpropertiesbecauseit
provides no simple mechanism for telling which kind of fluid is to be found at a given
instantat a givennet-point(for problemsin one spacevariable,sucha mechanismcan easily
be provided). Many schemeshad been tried, some combining the features of the
LagrangianandEulerianformsbut therewas no satisfactoryuniversalmethod that had been
found for generalmulti-dimensionalproblems.
Fashbaughand Widawsky (1972) stated that the Eulerian formulation is usually used
in steady-statefluid flow problems and the Lagrangian formulation is used more extensively
in unsteadyflow and is more desired for solution of shock propagation problems. Also the
fact that the Lagrangian formulation yields more information, such as where each bit of fluid
originates initially, facilitates locating temperature contact surfaces propagated in the pipe.
The study compared two methods namely the pseudo-viscosity and the Lax-Wendroff
numerical method in modelling the effects of duct area change on shock strength in one-
dimensional viscous air flow. It was concluded that a one-dimensional variable area
Lagrangeanalysisis adequatefor predicting shock flow through a duct areaincreaseof up
to at leastarearatiosof 10 to 1. In addition,the Lagrangianformulation using the pseudo-
viscosity numericalmethod of solution was recommendedand preferred to the Eulerian
formulationwith the Lax-Wendroff numericalmethod of solution for accuratepredictions
in very long ducts, where an appropriatefunction for the friction factor shouldbe used.
jo
Ames (1977) stated that until the early 1960's, the only known stable difference
approximations for the Eulerian form were less accurate than those for the Lagrangian
form. Consequently, the Lagrangian forms were preferred. Both systems have
approximately the samecomplexity. The major disadvantage of the Eulerian system arises
when interfaces(shocks) occur separating fluids of different density. The Lagrangian form
does not have the spatial coordinate mesh fixed in advance and may require refinement of
the mesh as computation advances. This possibility of regridding arises since the Lagrange
form is constructed so that mass between two successive mesh points is approximately
conserved. White (1988) stated that certain numerical analyses of sharply bounded fluid
flow, such as the motion of isolated fluid droplets are very conveniently computed in
Lagrangian coordinates. Other more recent writers, including Batchelor (1992) argued that
the Lagrangiantype of specificationis usefulin certainspecialcontextsbut it leadsto rather

cumbersomeanalysisand in generalis at a disadvantagein not giving directly the spatial
gradientsof velocity in the fluid.
In fluid dynamicsmeasurements,the Eulerian method is the most suitable. To
simulatea Lagrangianmeasurement, the probewould haveto movedownstreamat the fluid
particlespeeds.However, this is sometimesdone in oceanographicmeasurements,where
flow metersdrift along with the prevailing current. The Eulerian formulation has almost
exclusivelybeenusedin all recentstudiesandliterature,evenin such caseswhere according

to the abovediscussion,the Lagrangiandescriptionwould seemmore appropriate. For the
sake of convenience,the continuity equation has been derived based on the Eulerian
approach, while derivation of the momentum and energy equations is based on the
Lagrangianapproach.
The equationsof flow of fluid in a pipe can be quite complex, especiallyfor cases
such as high-pressuregas pipeline ruptures. This is more so if all aspectsof the flow are
to be taken into consideration. However, the equationscan be handledconvenientlyby
makinga setof assumptionsandsimplificationsregardingthe condition of the flow. In this
particular casefor example,one hasgot to decidewhether to use a one-dimensionalor
multi-dimensionalflow approximation,singlephaseor multi-phaseflow, include structural
effects of the system,consider minor lossesand changesin cross-sectionarea etc. The
inclusion of viscous and thermal effects has beenwell discussedby among others Tiley
(1989) and Issa (1970), and therefore need not be repeatedhere. It is therefore being
assumedthat in the equationsbeing formulated,viscous and thermal effects are included

i. e. non-isothermalviscous flow. Further simplificationscould be made,for exampleby
neglecting body forces etc. Various workers have made different assumptionswhen
31
developingthe basic flow equations,dependingon their particular flow situations. They
(1989)assumeda one-dimensional homogeneousflow in an inelasticpipe, neglectingminor
lossesandchangesin cross-sectionarea,when developinga model for pressuretransients
in a rupturedhigh-pressuregas pipeline. The sameassumptionswere madeby Goldwater
and Fincham(1981) and Osiadacz(1987). They all arrived at the sameset of equations.
White (1988) gave a detaileddescriptionof the derivation of similar equationsfor three-
dimensionalflow andMoe andBendiksen(1993)usedequationsfor three-dimensionaltwo-
phaseflow to develop their model. Chen, Richardsonand Saville (1993) presenteda set
of equationsfor a transienthomogeneoustwo-phaseflow model.
2.2 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS AND SIMPLIFICATIONS
2.2.1 DIMENSION OF FLOW
In one-dimensional flow, the components of the fluid velocity in the circumferential and
radial directions are ignored. A flow can be assumed to be one-dimensional if the rate of
changeof gas properties normal to the streamline direction is negligible compared with the
rate of changealong the streamline. This means that over any cross-section of the pipe all
the gas properties can be assumedto be uniform. The assumption of one-dimensional flow
gives satisfactory solutions to many problems where either the cross-section area changes
slowly along the path of the stream of gas, the radius of curvature of the pipe is large
compared with its diameter or the shape of the velocity and temperature profiles are
approximately constant along the pipe. For one-dimensional flow of a fluid; p, p, u etc. are
only functions of t and x. The one-dimensional model enables derivation of the basic
equations of pipeline flow in a simple fashion.

In real fluid flow situations, especially in the case of high-pressure natural gas flow
in pipelines, the flow cannot be truly one-dimensional because
viscous effects will produce
a velocity profile across the pipe with the local velocity zero at the pipe wall and reaching
a maximum in the centre. Moreover, the flow is turbulent so that there are random motions
superimposedupon the meanflow. Ansari (1972) investigatedthe influenceof including

radialflow on the solution of unsteadypipe flow equations. It was shown that neglecting
the radialvelocitycan lead to substantialerror in the determinationof the axial velocity of
flow. The effectof the assumptionof negligibleradialflow was also investigatedin.
relation
to anotherassumptionwhich is commonlymade,i.e. the gradient of the axial velocity in the
32
axial direction, in viscous flow, is negligibly small compared to the in
gradient radial
direction. It was found that for slow transientsthe latter assumptionis valid while the
former is not and vice versafor the caseof rapid transients. The departurefrom the one-
dimensionalflow assumptionwill be even more pronouncedwhere there are bendsand
fittings in the pipeline. Nevertheless, despite the foregoing, the one-dimensional
in
approximation gastransmission
systemshasbeen shown to be very good for steadyand
slowly varying flows. When the variations in flow are large and rapid, such as in high-
pressuregaspipelineruptures,larger discrepancies
are expectedfrom the one-dimensional
approximation.A morerigorousapproachis to apply the integratedequationmethod used
in the turbulent boundarylayer theory.
Therearemanystudiesandcomputermodelsdevelopedfor multi-dimensionalflow
A
analysis. few computercodesbased flow
on multi-dimensional modelssuch as FLOW-
3D arecommerciallyavailable.However,thesemodelscan only be appliedto somespecial
caseswith confidence.Shin(1978)discussedthe extensionof the one-dimensionalmethod

of characteristicsto two space dimensions. The extended method uses the same
simplificationsand retainsthe similar simplicity and efficiency as in the conventionalone.
The two-dimensionalmethodis applicableto both the cartesianand axisymmetricsystems
andincludesthe conventionalmethod as a specialcase. Wylie (1982) presenteda similar
numerical method for analysis of low-velocity two-dimensional transient fluid flow
problems. The method contains similarities to the one-dimensional method of

but
characteristics doesnot follow the traditionalcharacteristicstheory for two-dimensional
problems. The most up to date and comprehensivestudy is that by Moe and Bendiksen
(1993), which presentedthe physicalbasisof a new type of multi-dimensionaltwo-fluid
model, particularly suited for transient flow problems. A basic differencebetween this
modeland the other modelsis in the solution procedure,aiming in particular at improved
predictions of transientproblems. The numericalschemeis basedon an extensionof an
earlier one-dimensionalmodel and employsan implicit finite-differencescheme.
It follows from the abovediscussionthat the three-dimensional is
approximation the
natural method for the linebreak problem being modelled. However, for the sake of
simplicity, the one-dimensionalmodel is used with the aim of extending it to three-
dimensionsin the future. As shown in the abovementionedstudies,the extensionof one-
dimensionalmodelsto two- and three-dimensionalmodelscould, in principle, be achieved
especiallyif caution is madein representationof the other terms of the equations.
33
2.2.2 FLOW PHASE
When a high-pressurenatural gas pipelines is ruptured, the temperature falls hence
condensationoccurs. A multi-phaseflow situation is therefore likely to be encountered.

Multi-phaseflow in generalis a very complicatedphenomenon.It is convenientlyclassified
into flow regimeswhich may be further grouped into two main types, namelydispersed
(particles,bubblesand droplets) and separated(stratified, annularand elongatedbubbles)
flows. More complexflow regimesoften occur as combinationsof these,suchas stratified
and annular flows with entrainmentand slug flow. Flow regimes that are commonly
encountered are stratified (wavy or smooth), annular dispersed,intermittent (slug) and
dispersedbubbleflows. Theseare shown in Figure 2.1. In relatively long pipelines,with
possiblylargepressurelosses,severalof theseflow regimesmay exist simultaneouslyas a

result of changingin situ flow rates and physical properties of the fluids. A gas-liquid
mixture may be treated as a pseudo-fluid,if the mixture and its motion may be treated as
homogeneous.
Dispersedflow regimeshavebeenquite extensivelystudied recentlyusing two- and
three-dimensionalmodels. For two-phaseflow, however, at leastthree generalpurpose
codes are available namely FLUENT, FLOW-3D and PHOENICS. For separatedor
stratified flow, there has been severalstudies,including those by Oliemans(1987); Wu,
Pots, Holdenberg & Meerhoff (1987); and Moe & Bendiksen (1993). In the multi-
dimensionalMoe-Bendiksenmodel,the generaltwo-fluid equationshavebeenappliedwith
the assumptionof a singlepressurefield. The modellingof constitutive laws at the interface
is not generalbut focusedon separatedor stratified flows. A volume equationis applied
for the pressure, enabling a direct two-step solution procedure. Oliemans (1987)
investigated the accuracyof two-phaseflow trunk line predictionsby a one-dimensional
steady model for stratified wavy flow in horizontal and inclined pipes. Wu, Pots,
Holdenberg and Meerhoff (1987) investigatedthe exact location of the transition from
stratifiedto non-stratified flow for a high-pressuregas-condensatesystemin a large pipe

both experimentallyand using the Taitel-Dukler mechanistic
model and the Wallis one-
dimensionalwave theory.
According to the one-dimensionallinear wave stability criterion for high-pressure
gas-condensate flow in an 8 inch pipe,unstable(non-stratified) flow occurs at much higher

liquid fractionsthanaccordingto the Taitel-Dukler flow
regime map. This is confirmed by
34
Superficial Water Velocity, Vgl ft /sec
b NÖÖOO ,
2r N
0ö Zi
:1 z': 00
On
0
z
0G0-.
o
p --b- OC
0o
000
0
o
s 00
mG y
ý,. 0
1
r: 49, ....
o0.
0o
w co rlt
vcD
G7
0
N o
.,
(CD tj
O n rt.
C) ., o
co
---P --º
ýý oC' O C
Gý -' ýt
-4' o ""s
N
Tt
CD Rf
0 ýý
,'fi
t l4
'ýjý ý1
C
C
Source: Govier and Aziz (1972)
Fig. 2.1 Flow Pattern for Air-water Mixture Flowing in a Pipe
35
measurements in a pipe using natural gas and live condensate at a pressure of 75 bar.
Experimentally, at the theoretical transition to unstable waves, stratified flow shifts to a
flow pattern featuring pipe wall wetting and liquid entrainment. The transition to
intermittent flow was observed at still larger liquid loadings. It was concluded that a proper
theoretical description of this flow regime transition most likely requires a more
sophisticated modelling with due account being taken of two-dimensional effects, liquid
entrainment and non-linearity. For the intermittent flow boundary, some promising results
have been obtained by determining the unstable solution of the one-dimensional transient
stratified model.
In analysingpressuretransientsin bubbly air-water mixtures; Padmanabhan,
Ames
andMartin (1978)useda homogeneous
modelwhich consistsof one-dimensionalequations
of conservationof massfor each of the phasesand conservationof momentumfor the
mixture. BhallamudiandChaudhry(1990) developeda third-order accurateexplicit finite-
differenceschemefor transientflows in one-dimensionalhomogeneousgas-liquid mixtures
in pipes. The gas-liquid mixture was treated as a pseudo-liquid. Chen, Richardsonand
Saville (1993) used a two-phase model called the two-fluid model, in which the local
instantaneousconservationequationsareformulated for eachphase. In the model by Tiley
(1989), the fluid was assumedto be homogeneousand no provision was made in the
representationof the various terms such as friction, for the possibility of a two-phase
mixturebeingpresent..For the sakeof simplicity, the sameapproachis usedin this study.
However, significant errors could be introduced in the solution because of this
simplification.
2.2.3 FLUID STRUCTURE INTERACTION
The classicalwaterhammertheory only predicts the extremeloading on a system long

as
as it is rigidly anchored. When a piping systemhas certain degreesof freedom severe
deviationfrom the classicaltheorymay occur due to motion of the
system.Pressurewaves
exertforceswhich causea compliant systemto move. As a result of the motion, pressure
waves are formed. This phenomenonis known as Fluid Structure Interaction. Fluid
StructureInteractionis essentiallya dynamicphenomenon,the interactionbeing
causedby
dynamicforceswhich act converselyon fluid and pipe. The forces in
sucha piping system
are classifiedin two groups namelydistributed forces and local forces. Typical examples
36
of distributed forces are fluid pressureand friction. In the caseof fluid pressure,rapid
pressurefluctuationscausea pipeto expandor contract therebycreatingaxial stresswaves
in the pipewall. The stresswavesin return generatepressurefluctuations in the enclosed
fluid, resulting in a coupling known as Poisson Coupling. Similarly, friction force is
responsiblefor friction coupling. In most practical systems,frictional coupling is weak.

Local forces act on specific points in a system,such as elbows, teesor valves and cause
axial and lateral motions which generate pressure waves in the fluid resulting in an
interactioncalledjunction coupling. Junctioncouplingis generallydominantcomparedwith
Poissonandfriction couplings. Lawooij and Tijsselling (1990) conducteda study of Fluid
StructureInteractionin compliantpipingsystems.They concludedthat the most significant
couplingmechanismsare Poissonandjunction coupling. A simpleguidelinewhich states

when interaction is important is formulated in terms of three time scalesi.e., the time in
which the pressureis built up, the eigenperiodsof the structure and the time scaleof the
waterhammerwaves. Theyalsoconcludedthat Poissoncoupling is important for the fluid
when significantmodesof interaction are dominatedby stiffness.
To consider the motion of the pipe, three main displacementsare distinguished
namely axial displacement,lateral displacementand rotation. Therefore in general, the

dynamics of a pipe systemare influencedby four wave families, i. e. axial, flexural
and
torsional waves in the pipe wall and pressurewaves in the fluid. Theseco-exist during
transience and have different degreesof influence on the transient behaviour. Fluid
Structure Interaction in compliant piping systemsis modelledby extended
waterhammer
theory for the fluid and by beam theory for the pipes. In buried pipelines, the lateral
restraint is usually sufficient to ensurethat the overall behaviour is dominatedby axial
effects. Hence most analysesof Fluid Structure Interaction have focused on the
propagationof axialwavesi. e. pressurewavespropagatingalong the walls of the pipe. In
suspendedpipelineshowever, few lateral restraintsexist and account should be taken of
flexural and torsional waves.
In a studyon Fluid StructureInteractionin flexiblecurvedpipes, Stittgen
and Zielke
(1990)concludedthat the influenceof structural motion
on the internal pressureis smaller
than the time dependentinternal pressurebut can still be of influencein particular cases.
They also concludedthat pressurewaves in flexible pipes
are quite dependenton visco-
elastic wall properties. Rachid and Stuchenbruck (1990) stated that the mechanical
propertiesof the material,the temperatureand the degreeof stiffnessof the supports,have
37
a significant influence on the response of the system. Stiffer pipe materials i. e. those with
mechanical damping will experience higher pressures than more compliant pipe systems.
They also found that Poisson effects can induce significant piping motion especially in long
pipe reachesand cause high frequency peaks for pressure and stress in visco-elastic pipes,
e.g. up to 25% above the rigid pipe model. However, mechanical damping of the pipe
material tends to degrade the solid wave front quite quickly. In most cases, high
frequenciesgeneratedby the Fluid Structure Interaction mechanism are virtually eliminated
before the first fluid cycle.
In practicethe valueof the sonicvelocityin the fluid in a pipeis influencedby the

elasticityof the confiningwalls and the compressibilityof the fluid. As the elasticity of the
wall materials increases,the effective value of sonic velocity decreases. This effect is
commonly neglectedfor typical high-pressuregas pipelines. However, some workers
including Wood, Dorsch and Lightner (1966), Zielke (1968), Hirose (1971) and
Beauchemin and Marche (1992) have all taken into consideration the effect of pipe
elasticity. This has resulted in an additional term in the continuity equation. In the
Beauchemin-Marchemodel, no simplification was made on the basic equationsand in
addition the effect of variable cross-sectionarea was included. Despite this, the model
could still be implementedwith acceptablecomputationalcosts.
In the study by They (1989) the effects of Fluid Structure Interaction were not
considered. The sameapproachis followed here in order to maintain simplicity of the

modelandalsobecausethe review madedoesnot concludeany significantjustification for
incorporating Fluid Structure Interaction in the model. A consideration of the wall
elasticityis takeninto accountwhendevelopingthe basicequationsof fluid flow. It should

be noted however, that in the study by Tiley (1989) the pipe was assumedto be inelastic
i.e. elasticityof the pipe walls is negligiblecomparedwith the compressibilityof the fluid.
2.2.4 MINOR LOSSES AND CHANGES IN CROSS-SECTION
Anothereffectworth consideringin the formulationof thebasicequationof the flow, is that
arisingfrom minor lossesandchangesin cross-sectionarea. Swaffield (1967 and 1968-69)

investigated the influenceof bendson fluid transientswhich were propagatedby
a rapid
valve closure in a long pipeline. He used a short dimensionalanalysisand a seriesof
experimentaltestswhich were designedto record the pipe diameterto thicknessratio, pipe
38
elasticity to fluid bulk modulus ratio, restraint applied to the pipe, bend radius of curvature
to pipe bore ratio, included angle of the bend and initial flow velocity. He concluded that
the influence of a bend is solely dependent on its geometry. Empirical formulae were
developedto expressthe reflection and transmission of a transient at a bend in terms of the
bend radius of curvature to pipe bore ratio and included angle. Otwell, Wiggert and
Hatfield (1985) investigated the effect of elbow restraint on pressure transients. They
observedthat if an elbow was fully restrained,there was no alteration of a pressure transient

travelling through the elbow. However, if an elbow was not fully restrained, there was a
significant alteration of the liquid transient. The alteration was related to the direction and
amplitude of the motion of the elbow and it was therefore thought to be dependent on the
mechanicalcharacteristicsof the piping and pipe support structure. A numerical model was
developed, which accurately predicted pressure and velocity responses.
Sincein this casewe are dealingwith relatively long and straight lines (rather than
networks), the assumptionthat minor lossesare negligible is reasonable. Tiley (1989)

assumedthat the abovelosseswere smallcomparedwith the distributedfrictional lossesand
therefore neglectedthem. The sameassumptionis used in this study. Generally,most
workershaveassumedthat the cross-sectionareaof the pipe is not a function of the axial
distanceor varies slowly. In somespecialcasessuch as in cooling ducts etc. where the
cross-sectionareavaries appreciablywith distance,the effect hasbeenincorporatedinto

the basic equations. However, in somestudieson compressibleflow, including thoseby
Zielke (1968) and Flatt (1989), the equationsare basedon a variable changein cross-
sectionarea. Tiley (1989) neglectedchangesin cross-sectionareaof the pipe. Also in this

study, it is assumedthat the cross-sectionarea of the pipe is not a function of the axial
distance. However, the basic equationsof flow have been derived
with provision for
varying cross-sectionareawith axial distance.
2.3 DERIVATION OF THE BASIC EQUATIONS FOR UNSTEADY

FLOW OF A COMPRESSIBLE FLUID IN A PIPE
Derivation of the basicequationsdescribinga homogeneouscompressiblefluid flow in

a
pipefrom first principlesis very well known. For one-dimensionalflow in an inelasticpipe
with minor lossesandchangesin crosssectionalareaneglected,They (1989) and Osiadacz
(1987) derived the three conservationequations,in the
conventionalform using different
39
approaches. Nevertheless, they both arrived at similar equations. Zucrow (1977) derived
the basic governing equations for unsteady one-dimensional and quasi-one-dimensional

isentropic flow and also for generalised flow. White (1988) described the derivation of
similar equations but for the case of a three-dimensional flow.

Literatureon derivation from first principlesof more complexphenomenasuchas
the one being proposed in this study is rather scarce,but the equations concerned have been
stated by various workers who used them. In this study, the basic equations for unsteady
quasi-one-dimensionalflow of real gases through non-rigid non-constant area pipes, using

the gamma delta method, are used. The gravity term, is also included. These equations are
valid for three fluid forms namely, real (or perfect) gas, homogeneous liquid/vapour mixture
and liquid. This form of the equations simplifies considerably computer codes and is
conceived to deal with problems where several of the three fluid forms appear
simultaneously. The approach is rigorous from the thermodynamic point of view and takes
into account the compressibility of the fluid and considers the vapour as a real gas.
Formulation of the energy equation for unsteady flow of fluid in pipes has commonly
contained either specific internal energy or specific enthalpy. Each of the above mentioned
dependent variables is related to the other dependent variables p, p and T by a caloric
equation of state which is often a complicated non-linear empirical correlation in integral

form. This procedure sometimes involves as many as 20 or more gas dependent
coefficients. With the help of the two non-dimensional coefficients y and S, it is possible
to eliminate the specific internal energy and specific enthalpy from the energy equation,
resulting in considerable computing economy.

The threebasicequationsof conservationfor unsteadyflow are derived from first
principles,assumingthat the cross-sectionareaof the pipe varies with t as well as with x.

The approach used in deriving the basic equationsis very similar to that used by Flatt
(1993a). The major differencebetweenthis derivation and that of Flatt is that the gravity
term has beenincluded,whereasFlatt neglectedthe gravity term. The centre line of the
pipe is assumedto be stationary. Dependingon which one is more convenient,either the
Euler concept which is denotedby (c3.. /at) and (a../ax) or the Lagrangeconcept of full
derivativeswhich is denotedby (d../dt) areused. It is possibleto transformfrom one of the
two approachesto the other, by using the following mathematicalequivalence:
-"-"u- (2.1)
dt at ax
40
In this derivation, the control volume is regardedto be fixed in space(according to the
Euler concept) and attachedto moving particles of the fluid (according to the Lagrange
concept).
Continuity equation:
The continuity equationis derived using the Eulerian approach. An infinitesimal control
volume for a pipe with varying cross-sectionarea,which is depictedin Fig. 2.2 is used.
v s
LZ., ®v
ýj
svv
DUCT WALL AT
,.. It+ dt
UCT WALL AT t
LA
--u ------------------
Coritrol Volume
Fig.2.2 Sketch Showingthe Control Volume at the Beginning of a Time Step
Massbalanceis performedacrossthe control volume. The total massof the control volume
with length dx after time dt is the sum of massflux into the control volume, massleaving
the control volume and mass flux through the fictitious stationary pipe wall. In equation
form, this is represented as follows:
2x/ 1e [APu
A+A a(axu)A
l -A pu ' "( )Pur (2.2)
at
where
L= wettedperimeter
Ur= radial velocity of the pipe
41
x at t+clt
at x at tt
BA
dt
at
Fig. 2.3 Sketch Illustrating Equation (2.2)
Thetwo parameters
arerelatedthroughthe followingequation:
aA
. Lur (2.3)
at
Neglecting the small terms i.e. those containing (dx)2, substituting equation (2.3) and
dividing throughout by Adx, equation(2.2) reducesto the following equation:
ap aApu ap au aAp
at ax A ax ax at A
Rearrangingand using equation(2.1) we get the following equation:
8p. äp dp au_äA pu_öAp

. _p ý2 4ý
at ax dt 8x äx A at A
Let the last two terms of equation (2.4) be represented by the notation 1;. Therefore
aAl LA'
--P (2.5)
at AA ax
For rigid and cylindrical pipes ý=0. - The continuity equationis obtainedby substituting
equation(2.5) into equation(2.4), resulting into the following equation:
ä? ap . PL (2.6)
.u
42
Momentum equation:
The momentumequationis derivedaccording to the Lagrangeconcept. The forces acting
on the control volume are shown in Fig. 2.4.
al) dx
PA -
Fig. 2.4 Conical Control Volume Illustrating Body Forces
Applying Newton's second law of motion to the control volume, in x direction, the
following equationis obtained:
du [PA
a(ý'A)dx
(A pdx) . pA - . .L dx odl pAgsin 9 dx
dt ax - -
ax
Substitutingthe value of dl = dx/Cosl, and simplifying we get the following equation:
du ap aA dx
Ap dx --A dx dx .pA dx -- pAgsin 0 dx
dt -p -
ax ax 8x cos 4r
Dividing throughout by Adx we get the following equation:
du 8p w
-_ - - Pgsin 9
r dt er A cos liº
Using equation(2.1) for du/dt anddividingthroughoutby p, we get the following equation:
all ap au
'1 . ti .-"- grin e (2.7)
at p ax ax pAcos 4r
For a uniform diameterpipe, Cosgr= 1.
43
Energy equation:
The Lagrangian approach is used in deriving the energy equation, and heat transfer into the
control volume in x direction is neglected. This assumption is very common for gaseous
flows.
il dx dt
x.
Fig. 2.5 Control Volume Illustrating Heat and Work Transfer
Applying the first law of thermodynamics to the control volume, the following
equation
results:
0. a(Mu) pdxdt
pAdxde pAu- Au. dr- pLdxu,.
dt ax -pAgudxsin0(2.8)
dt
The specificinternalenergy at stagnationconditions,ea,is

given by the following equation:
eo =e+ '/2u2 (2.9)
Dividing throughoutequation(2.8) by Adx and using equation(2.3),
we get the following
equation:
de aP äA au
°u pu P aA n_pg
_ P rt me (2.10 )
dt 8x A 8x cox A at A
Rearrangingequation(2.6) for au/ax we get the following

equation:
44
lp1dp1
au 8A u öA (2.11)
ax dt A at A öx
Similarly, rearranging equation (2.7) for ap/caxwe get the following equation:
ap du (2.12)
.-p "_" pgsine
ax ar A cos 4r
Substituting equation(2.9), (2.11) and (2.12) into equation (2.10) we get the following
equation:
(
de du du (a u pu äA
p. pu- -l pu- "" pugsin0 --
dt dt dt Acos'4r A ax
(pdt
pdp pöA puaA paA
f + . _ .0_ pugsin0
Aat A ax Aat A
Simplifying and rearrangingresultsin the following equation:
de pdp cri A
(2.13)
dt p dt Acos 4r A
The specific internal energy is related to specific enthalpy through the following
thermodynamicrelationship:
e-h-p (2.14 )
P
Differentiating equation(2.14) with respectto t we get the following equation:
de A1 dp
.pdp (2.15)
dt di p dt p2 dt
Both the continuity and momentum equations i. e. equations (2.6) and (2.7) contain
only p, u and p as the dependentvariables and neither of these equationscontain the

variable h. It would therefore be convenient to eliminate h from equation (2.15) by
it
replacing with the variablesused in the continuity and momentumequations. This is
achievedby using the gammadelta method, which was developedby Flatt (1993b) and
which is -derivedin the following part of this section. For small changesin the domain as
is the casein this model, y and 8 are assumedto be constant.
45
In deriving the basic relationship for the gamma delta method, the polytropic
coefficients of Dzung (1944) which are described in Section 2.4.5, for the particular case
of isentropic process are used. The coefficients are as follows:
as " (2.16)
v(aT)
Rs- (2.17)
p ar
s
ap
Ys' -v (2.18)
p av)
s
The three coefficients are related to each other by the following relationship:
Ps = -as Ys (2.19)
Flatt (1989) derived a relationshipfor the coefficient 8s which is expressedas follows:
1
8s. 1- -1-vIaTJ (2.20)
as Tl öv
s
Another expression relating the specific enthalpy to the isentropic alpha and beta
coefficientswas derived by Flatt (1985b) and is as follows:

dh = (1- as) v dp + ßs p dv (2.21)
From equation(2.20)
as
1 -as. I "1- (2.22)
as- 1 as- 1
and from equations(2.19) and (2.20)
YS
PS - (2.23)
as -1
Substitutingequations(2.22) and(2.23) into equation(2.21) we get the following equation:
as YS
dh . vdp . p dv
as- 1 8S- 1
46
Rewriting using p we get the following relationship:
as 1 YS
dp - p dp (2.24)
dh -as-1
p 6s- 1 p2
Differentiating equation(2.24) with respectto t, the following is

equation obtained:
A as 1 dp Ys pdp (2.25)
dt as -1p dt as -1 p2 dt
Substitutingequation(2.25) into equation(2.15) andsubsequentlysubstitutingthe resulting
equationinto equation(2.13) we get the following equation:

as dp Ys dp dp p dp p dp wu Q
p
Ss -1 dt Ss -1p dt dt p dt p dt Acos 4r A
Simplifying we get the following equation:
6s - (6s - 1) dp 1 (ys dp p
p wry (2.26)
6s- 1 dt 6s -1p dt Acos ilr A
.
The speedof soundis relatedto ys by the followingequation:
a2. YSP (2.27)

P
Substituting equation (2.27) into equation (2.26), using the equivalencepresentedin
equation(2.1) the
and rearranging; energyequationtransformsto the following:
ap uap uaPl Ira

f _Q2raP . (as_ 1) .ul (2.28)
at ax lJlJat ax A cos4'
The continuityequation(2.6) containsthe partialderivativeof p with respectto time, while

the momentumequation(2.7) containsthe partial derivative of u with respectto time. For
convenience of numerical solution of the three equation of conservation, the energy

equationis rewritten suchthat the term containingpartial derivative with respectto time,
would be that of p only. This condition could be achievedby substitutingthe continuity
equation(2.6) into equation(2.28). The resulting equation,which is usedin the numerical
solution is as follows:
47
ap It ap 2 au 1( (aIt
+aP äx . das - 1) l\ n+ _)i J. a (2.29)
at ax Cos
Equation (2.29) is simpler than equation (2.28). However, in deriving the characteristic and
compatibility equationsfor the numerical method of characteristics, equation (2.28) has to

be used instead of equation (2.29) because the latter fails to produce a unique solution.
This is explained further in Section 4.3.2.
2.4 THERMODYNAMIC AND TRANSPORT PROPERTIES
2.4.1 INTRODUCTION
The threebasicequationof conservation[Equations (2.6),(2.7) & (2.29)] must be written

with dependentvariablesin sucha way that the solution of pressure,velocity, densityand
temperaturecould be obtained.This is in general,commonlydone by using the equations
of stateandsomeotherthermodynamicrelationships,which are definedby the model used

to representthe transientevent. An equationof state is an expressionwhich interrelates
andwe distinguishbetweentwo typesof equationsof statenamely
propertiesof substances,
the thermal and the caloric equationsof state. A gas which obeysthe ideal gas thermal
equationof state(EquationB-Iin the Appendix)is saidto be thermally perfect; and if it has

constantspecificheats,it is saidto be caloricallyperfect(the terms ideal gas and perfect gas
are sometimesusedas synonyms). Sections2.4.2,2.4.3 and 2.4.4 deal with the thermal
equationsof statewhile section2.4.5 dealswith the caloric equationsof state.
Therearemanydifferentwaysto approachthis problem,for exampleVan Deen and
Reintsema (1983) and Tiley (1989) used the general equation of state for a real gas,
P- ZpRT (2.30)
andthe thermodynamicidentity basedon the Joule-Kelvin effect [Zemanskyand Dittman

(1983)];
T81d e.
dh .Cp dT 1p (2.31)
Pp
to obtainthreeequationscontainingthe compressibilityfactor, Z, and its partial derivatives.

The latter were then substitutedin terms of pressure,temperatureand velocity; using the
Berthelot thermal equationof state.
48
Generallythe thermodynamicprocessduring a transientevent can be represented
by two major categorisations,namelythe perfect or real gas model and the isentropic or
non-isentropic(polytropic) decompressionmodel. Thereis a wide selectionof equations

in
of statevarying accuracyandcomplexity. The to in
choiceof which equation use a given
situation is determinedby the type of gas that is being modelled, the level of accuracy
required, the temperatureand pressurerangesthat are likely to be encounteredand the
amountof availablecomputerspacethat caneconomicallybe used. This subjectis covered
in the following sectionsof this chapter,and someof the availableequationsof state are
presentedin Appendix B. The perfect gas equationof state holds at low pressuresin the
vapour and gas regions. The perfect-gasmodel, whether isentropic or non-isentropicis
perhapsthe simplestand thus it hasbeencommonpractice,when predicting transientsin
a ruptured gas pipeline to assumethat the fluid will behaveas a perfect gas. The basic
premisein makingthis approximationis that any non-idealeffect that may occur will only
affect the initial stagesof decompression,and for the majority of the releaseprocess,the
fluid will behaveas a perfect gas. Significantdeparturescan, however occur betweenthe
perfect gas and the real fluid decompressionbehaviourdue to condensationeffects.

Resultsfrom studiesby PicardandBishnoi (1988 and 1989) and Flatt (1985-1989)
show that the perfect-gasmodel can underestimatethe transientpressurein gas pipeline

rupturesby morethan20%, andunderestimate
the massflow rate of gas escapingfrom the
rupturedpipe by up to 50%. One of the major weaknessesof the perfect-gasmodel is its
inability to predict the sudden drop of sound velocity that occurs at the onset of
condensation. However, the perfect gas assumption has been used by several workers
including Lyczkowski, Grimesey & Solbrig (1978); Lang & Fannelop (1987); Kunsch,
Sj oen & Fannelr p (1991); Lang (1991); Chen, Richardson & Saville (1992); and
Olorunmaiye & Imide (1993). Lang (1991) admitted that the assumption of a perfect
gas
leads to errors in the flow rate of about 25% but
made the assumption in order to
demonstratethe possible use of the spectral method. Kunsch, Sjuen
and Fannelop (1991)
made the assumptionof an ideal gasjust for the sake of simplicity. They expressed the non-
ideality of the gas by a compressibility factor, which
was taken to be 0.82 for the pressure
levels encountered in the investigation. It was claimed that the important
results such as
mass flow rates were qualitatively well described by the ideal gas model. Another aspect
to be considered in using: an equation of state for natural gas is the composition of the
different substancesthat make up the gas. For
example, Flatt (1985), instead of regarding
49
natural gas as consisting of diverse C. H. gases of locally differing composition, methane
(CH4) was used. Approximately 90 to 95% of natural gas consists of this substance whose
thermodynamic characteristics are known. The is

perfect-gas model not considered for
but instead decompression takes into

application in this study, a real-fluid model, which also
consideration the is
mixed nature of natural gas, used.
2.4.2 THERMAL EQUATIONS OF STATE FOR REAL GASES
The term equationof staterefersto the equilibrium relation, in the absenceof specialforce
fields,betweenpressure,volume, temperatureand composition of a substance,whether it
be quite pure or in a uniform mixture. In terms of a functional relation it is expressedas,
(p, v, T, x) -0 (2.32)
,
An equation of state may be applied to gases, liquids and solids. An equation of state for
a real gas accounts for dissociation and ionisation which is important where very high
temperaturesare encountered. Over five dozen equations of state are known to exit, which
represent the liquid, vapour and liquid-vapour regions. These include the Van Der Waals
(1873), Clausius (1880) Dietrici (1899), Berthelot(1899-1903), Wohl (1914), Keyes
(1917), NBS-National Bureau of Standards (1923) Beattie-Bridgman (1928), Keyes-

,
Smith-Gerry (1936), Lennard-Jones-Devonshire (1937), Benedict-Webb-Rubin (1940),
Hlrschfelder-Bird-Spotz (1949), Redlich-Kwong (1949), Bloomer-Rao (1952), Martin-Hou

(1955), Hirschfelder-Buehler-McGee-Sutton (1958), Pings-Sage(1959), Storbridge (1962),
Costolnick-Thodos (1963), Flory-Orwall-Vrij (1964), McCarty-Stewart (1965), Goodwin
(1967), Martin (1967), Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) (1972), Peng-Robinson (PR) (1976),
Van Reet-Skogman (1987) and the Kamerlingh-Onnes equations of state.

There are two general approaches to the development of an equation of state,
namely the theoretical approach and the empirical or semi-theoretical approach. The
theoretical approach is basedon either the kinetic theory or statistical mechanics, involving
intermolecular forces. The empirical approach has been covered in detail by, among others,
Martin (1967). The empirical approach is more of a convenient method of interpolation if

it is applied to a pure substance. It can become dangerously inaccurate when used in
unfamiliar situations. Empirical equationshave been used more widely than theoretical ones
becauseof lack of data to enablethe application of the latter equations to various practical
50
situations and fluids [Münster (1969)]. However, the theoretical approach gives high
accuracy and a basis for a wide application.

In the searchfor an equation of state, one must first make a decision on the amount
and kind of data that will be required to obtain the parameters in the equation; range of
density to be covered; and the precision with which the pressure, volume and temperature
(p,v,T) data are to be represented. For some applications it is desirable to have an equation
which can be obtained from a minimum of data i. e. the critical temperature, pressure and
volume; or the boiling point; or some molecular parameter. In other applications, an
equation is sought which will represent a large amount of experimental p-v-T data within
the precision of the experiment. In all pressure-explicit equations, density is paramount. If
the same order of precision is to be maintained, a relatively simple short equation will
suffice for low densities,whereas a long complicated equation will be required if coverage
is to include both high and low densities. High precision equations have many arbitrary
constantswhose values depend primarily upon the density range and in a minor way upon
the temperature range. For example, an equation representing precisely up to a fiftieth of
the critical density may need only two constants, while four or five constants will be
necessary when in the region of half the critical density. To continue up to the critical
density at least a half dozen or more constants will be required and twice that many will be
needed if the goal is one and a half, or two times, the critical density.
The Keyes equation of state produces data within the experimental precision for
densities of up to a little over half the critical density, while the BWR equation of state,
used by Kiuchi (1993), gives good precision for a density range well past the critical
density. The Bloomer-Rao equation of state is essentially the same as the BWR equation
of state in which the temperature coefficients have been modified to fit nitrogen data. The
Keyes-Smith-Gerry equation of state can achieve extremely high precision in calculating
thermodynamic properties of steam, but is valid only to a third of the critical density. The
Hirschfelder-Buehler-McGee-Sutton and Costolnick-Thodos equations of state cover a
wide range of densities and simultaneously maintain a precision which is acceptablefor
practical applications. In these equations the p-v-T plateau of data is divided into regions
and separate equations are written for the different regions. The Flory-Orwall-Vrij and
Lennard-Jones-Devonshireequations of state possesshigh precision but the
range of their
applicability is limited to the liquid region where the densities are always significantly
greater than critical densities.The Van Der Waals, Clausius, Dietrici, Berthelot, Wohl and
51
Redlich-Kwong equations of state cover the whole range of density from infinitely
liquid, but fairly large deviations from experimental

attenuated gas to compressed with
is low but it is inaccurate
results. The Van Der Waals equation quite accurate at pressure,
The Dietrici is
equation reliable near the critical point for many
near the critical point.
fluids. However, incurred in other regions far from the critical isotherm
organic errors are
hence it cannot be used for largely varying temperatures. The Berthelot equation
and
accurate results for gases and vapours at low temperatures.

produces comparatively
Thorley and Tiley (1987) and Tiley (1989) considered the Van Der Waals, Dietrici
and Berthelot equations for application in the analysis of transients in a ruptured high-
pressuregas pipeline and found the Berthelot equation to be the most suitable. Picard and
Bishnoi (1987) used the Peng-Robinson (PR) and the Soave-Redlich-Kwong(SRK)
to calculate the thermodynamic speed of sound in single-phase fluids

equations of state
consisting of pure components and mixtures and in the two-phase region of a multi-
component mixture. Both the PR and SRK equations of state were noted for their ability
to provide quite accurate vapour densities and generated reliable equilibrium ratios.
However, neither was able to provide liquid densities with the same level of acceptability
although the PR equation of state was somehow better than the SRK equation of state.
Both the SRK and PR equations of state were weak in predicting sound velocities in liquids,
although eachwas considered to have shown some promise for application to i.

vapours e.
with errors less than 10%. The Van Reet-Skogman equation of state, used by Kiuchi
(1993), is considered adequate for reasonable ranges of pressure and temperature.
therefore, that for caseswhere the fluid is transported

It is generallyrecommended
at conditions near the critical point, more sophisticatedequations are required. Also, simple
equations of state such as the Redlich-Kwong equation of state fail by far to fit the data
within the experimental precision. Even up to the critical density, errors of the order of 5%
is
of more can occur which considered completely intolerable. These equations can fit data
quite precisely over limited rangesbut they definitely are not the tools to correlate good p-
v-T data within the experimental precision. They cannot therefore be seriously regarded
as more than a qualitative tool for predicting p-v-T behaviour. The Beattie-Bridgman
equation of state, which contains five adjustable constants, represents with some accuracy
the whole range above the triple point. The Martin equation of state, used by Flatt (1985),
is the sameas the Martin-Hou equation of state with the addition of the exponential terms,
which permit the former equation to go to about 2.3 times the critical density as opposed
52
to 1.5 times the critical density reached by the latter. The equation of Martin has the
valuable property that it is also solvable explicitly in respect of temperature. For the
practical application, the extra expenditure in computation time with the real gas variant
was 13% as compared with the corresponding ideal gas computation.

In deciding on the use of one of the equationsof state, or the other, it has been
common practice to choose the simplest possible equation. Various workers have justified
their choice in different ways. For example Flatt (1985) argued that, in view of the relative
simplicity of the one-dimensional flow model used, it was not necessary to demand too
high an accuracy from the equation of state and therefore used the Martin equation of state.
However, he later admits [Flatt (1993-96)] that the use of the Martin equation of state and
an empirical C(p) correlation is inconsistent from the thermodynamic point of view, and
therefore recommends the use of a theoretical equation of state of the type h= h(p, S).
Thorley and Tiley (1987) argued that since the two terms in which the compressibility
factor and its derivatives appeared i. e.
T az p az
and
Z arp z ap
are usually relatively small, a complex equationof state would be uneconomicalin terms
of computertime and thereforeused the Berthelot equation of state.
In this study the theoretical approachto equationsof stateis used.,Though more
complex, it is as accurateas experimentaldata. As a result of this high accuracy, the

theoretical approachto equationsof state is well suited for analysisof high-pressuregas
transients and it has been used under similar circumstancesby Richardsonand Saville
(1991),with satisfactoryresults. As far as possible,real gas
propertiesand data are used
in the model.
2.4.3 THEORETICAL APPROACH TO EQUATION OF STATE
2.4.3.1 Introduction to the Basic Principles and Equations
In this approach,the macroscopicpropertiesof the fluid such

as pressureand temperature
areessentiallydeterminedby the interaction of very many particles(atoms, molecules),in
contrast to properties definable for single atoms or molecules, even though the latter
properties are usually measuredin systemswith very large number of particles. The
53
underlying idea is that a probability aggregatecan be constructed,with the help of which
certainprobabilisticstatementscan be derived about the systemunder consideration. The
theoreticalapproachto the developmentof the equationsof state hasdevelopedover many
years,utilisingboth the principlesof classicaland quantummechanics.From the viewpoint
of statistical mechanics,a system is consideredto consist of an enormous number of
molecules,eachof which is capableof existing in a set of statesat different energylevels.
The moleculesareassumedto interactwith one anotherby meansof collisionsor by forces
causedby fields. A systemof moleculesmay be perceivedto be isolatedor, in somecases,

consideredto be embeddedin a set of similar systemsor ensembleof systems. Concepts
of probabilityareapplied,andthe equilibriumstateof the systemis assumedto be the state
of highestprobability. The fundamentalproblemis to find the numberof moleculesin each
of the molecularenergystates(population of the states)when equilibrium is reached. It is
not the intention of this study to go into the detailsof theseprinciplesbut rather to find a
useableform of an equationof statebasedon this approach,that will representthe situation
beingmodelledasaccuratelyaspossible. For further detailson theseprinciples,the reader
is referred to Münster (1969).
On the basisof this theoretical approach,the microscopicdescriptionof a system
involvesspecifyingmanyquantities,which are not suggestedby our senseperceptionsand
cannotbe measurede.g. configurational,residual,partition,moleculardistribution functions

etc. The relationbetweenthe macroscopicand microscopicpoints of view lies in the fact
that the few directlymeasurable
properties,whosespecificationconstitutesthe macroscopic
description are really averagesover a period of time of a large numberof microscopic
characteristics. For example,the macroscopicquantity, pressure,is the averagerate of

changeof momentumdueto all the molecularcollisions madeon a unit area. In statistical
mechanics,an ideal gas is definedas a systemof non-localisedparticleswhoseinteraction
energycanbe neglectedrelativeto the total energyof the system. The laws of ideal gas are
limiting laws at zero pressure. Their practical significanceis due to the fact that they
frequently give sufficiently good approximationsfor simple gasesat ordinary pressures.
Deviations from the ideal gas laws, which are due to intermolecularforces, ariseat finite
pressures thus the necessityfor real gas considerations. For real gases at ordinary
at leasttwo effectsappear,which can only be includedby the addition of special
pressures,
constants. Theseconstantsare known as the volume correction, which takes account of
the volume of the moleculesthemselvesand the pressurecorrection; which takes account
54
of the intermolecular forces of attraction. The Van der Waals equation of state was the first
to take into account these considerations. The quantitative results of the Van der Waals
equation are generally not satisfactory, but nevertheless represent the behaviour of real
gases in a fairly satisfactory qualitative manner. The Beattie-Bridgman equation of state

proved itself the best from the viewpoint of convenience of computation.
The most generalequation of state is the Kammerlingh-Onnesequation of state
(EquationB-17). In this formulation, the equationis representedas a power seriesin v'.
The equationis commonlycalled the virial equationof stateand the coefficientsB, C. D.
E, etc. are known as the second,third, fourth, fifth, etc. virial coefficients respectively.
The coefficientsvary with temperature,anddependon the nature of the gas and are related
to molecularpropertiesof the gas. In the pressurerangefrom zero to about forty standard
atmospheres,only the first two terms in the expansionare significant. In general, the
greater the pressurerange, the larger the number of terms in the virial expansion. The
equationis usedto accountfor the behaviourof realgasesespeciallyat high pressures.The
is
equation tedious to use but one of its merits is that once the virial coefficients are
determined,the behaviour of any real gas can be predicted. An averagereduced virial
equationof statecanbe obtainedby introducing the reducedstatevariablesp1,T, and v, in

placeof p, T and v. The reducedvirial equationof stateis:
2468
pryr D, Ce F
(1ýBrKe+C/e e) (2.33)
ýE/Ce
Te yr 8
vý yr v' Vr
where the reducedstatevariableare
P, "pT, "TV-v (2.34)

P, Tc vc
and the coefficientsBr, C1,Dr etc. are of the form

b2 b3 b4 bs
B, - bl " (2.35)
Tr Tr Tr 7"r
and the critical coefficient
NLRTe
Ke - (2.36)
pcvc
55
(NL is Avogadro's number). The importance of the reduced form of the equation of state
(Principle of Corresponding States-Refer to Section 2.4.3.2) is due to the fact that many
substances have almost the same thermal equation of state in the reduced state variables.
The value of K,, evaluatedby Münster (1969) from equation (2.36) above, when pr Tr yr 1
is K. 3.43. The remaining 25 numerical coefficients in equation (2.33) are available from
Landolt-Bornstein Tables. Also availablefrom this reference are the coefficients of the Van
der Waals equation for various substances.
2.4.3.2 The Principle of Corresponding States
The principle of correspondingstatesis basedon the fact that any equationof state
f(p, v, T, A, B, C) =0 (2.37)
which does not contain more than three independentconstantscan by insertion of the
critical data be put into the form
<P(P,unT,) =0 (2.38)
The above changeis possiblebecauseone of the three constants(A, B, C), i.e. the gas
constant is universal and the two others can be eliminatedby meansof the following
equation:
ap alp
äv - av 2o - (2.39)
pr
Equation (2.39) holds at the critical point. Equation (2.38), which no longer contains
constantsrelatingto specific substances,hasuniversalvalidity. This is called the principle

of corresponding states. In its simplest form, the principle of corresponding states
postulates that the surface p1= gv, T1) is the samefor all membersof a given set of
substances.
The fact that anyusefulempiricalequationof statecontainsmore than two specific
constants meansthat this principle can not be rigorous in the strict sense. On the other
hand, experiencehas shown that the principle is obeyedvery exactly by a few substances
and that for the remainder,all degreesof approximationoccur up to completefailure. It

wasconcludedby Münster(1969),that the principleof correspondingstateswill be obeyed
by the heavierinert gasesand non-polar diatomic moleculesat best, For
other substances,
deviationswill be greaterthe more unsymmetricand
polar the moleculeis. The principle
56
to to
of correspondingstatesappliesonly sphericalmoleculesand pure substances.Kay
(1936) developeda methodof calculatingthe p-v-T data of hydrocarbonmixtures,based
on the principleof correspondingstates.The p-v-T of the mixtures as

expressed deviations
from the perfectgaslaw werecorrelatedwith similar data on pure hydrocarbons,using the
pseudocritical temperature and pressure. This was compared with experimentally

determineddatafor eleventypical hydrocarbonmixtures in the gaseousstate, over a wide
range of temperatureand pressureextending from the saturatedcondition to the highly
superheatedcondition abovethe critical region. It was claimedthat the accuracyof the

methodwas comparable to that with which the principle of correspondingstateswas found
to hold for pure hydrocarbons. It was observedthat the reducedp-v-T relations of pure
hydrocarbons were not exactly the same for different hydrocarbons. However, the
differences were, in general,insignificant except at high reducedtemperatures. In this
region the differenceswere a function of molecularweight.
2.4.3.3 Extension of the Principle of Corresponding States
Two majorlimitationsof the principle of correspondingstates,namelyrestriction to a set
of substancesand restriction to pure substances,necessitatedits extensionto cover these

situations.Onesuchextensionis that by RowlinsonandWatson(1969). In their approach,
they expressedthe residualand configuration propertiesof a fluid in terms of residualor
usually termedthe referencesubstance.Non-

configurationpropertiesof a pure substance,
spherical molecules were included by the use of shape factors. The principle of
corresponding stateswas defined by a pair of equationsthat relate the configurational
properties.The equationswere chosenso that the conventionalprinciple of corresponding
statesemergesas a specialcase.
Saville and Szczepanski(1982) presentedtwo methane-based
equationsof state,
one valid over the reduced temperaturerange of 0.2-2.6, and the other valid over the
reduced temperaturerange of 0.35-2.6. The equations are extended versions of the
Benedict-Webb-Rubinequationof stateand were intendedfor use as referenceequations
of state in the calculationof thermodynamicpropertiesby the principle of corresponding

states. The equationsreproducedexperimentallymeasuredpropertiesof the fluid phase
over the whole region for which they exist (reduced temperaturesof 0.47 to 3.3).
Extensionto highertemperatureswas madeby utilising experimentalmeasurementsmade
57
on nitrogen and hydrogen, and an empirical scheme was used for reduced temperatures
below 0.47. The two equations were reported to have provided a satisfactory basis for the
calculation of thermodynamic properties of hydrogen and the two-phase behaviour of

hydrogen-hydrocarbon mixtures, provided the pseudo-critical parameters are used for
hydrogen and that the temperature of interest is well above the critical temperature of
hydrogen, so that the effect of quantum behaviour of hydrogen molecules is small. Full
phase diagrams were calculated for the mixtures including the critical region.
2.4.3.4 Commercial Computer Software
2.4.3.4.1 IUPAC
The IUPAC equation of state packageis one of a variety of packagessupplied by the

Physical Property Data Service (PPDS), which is operatedby the National Engineering
Laboratory,UK andthe Institution of ChemicalEngineers.- The equationof state package
has been produced by the IUPAC ThermodynamicTables Project Centre of Imperial
College, London. It comprises a suite of computer programmes to calculate the
thermodynamicpropertiesof a small number(currently 10) of pure fluids to an accuracy
is
which comparablewith that of the best experimentaldata. The fluids coveredso far are
ethylene,methane,nitrogen,oxygen,propylene,carbondioxide, argon, hydrogen,propane
andethane.Availableexperimentalresultson the fluids havebeencritically evaluatedand
selected data fitted to an equation of state using statistical methods. Every property is
calculated from a single equation of state for each fluid, which ensuresthermodynamic
consistencyamongstall properties.
The heatcapacity,enthalpyanddensityare availableat any point in the fluid region,
within wide limits of pressureand temperature,or on the saturationline. The equationof

statepackageis written in FORTRAN IV in the form of a portable sub-programme,which
can be readily linked to designprogrammes. The sub-programmehasbeendevelopedto
suit a numberof user applicationsand computer environments.
2.4.3.4.2 QUANT
QUANT is a computer programmefor thermodynamicand transport properties of real
gases and their mixtures. The programmeis owned by Silberring EngineeringLtd. of
58
Zurich, and is based on the virial equation of state. In the present version, calculation is
possible only up to the second virial coefficient, but an extension to further virial
coefficients is under way. The source code of QUANT is written in the Microsoft
ProfessionalBASIC languagebut could be linked to any particular application programme

in
written any of the usual Microsoft languages such as FORTRAN, PASCAL, or C. The
programme delivers properties of elements, compounds and any of their mixtures; but is
restricted to the gaseousphaseso far. QUANT uses spectroscopic and other experimental
information as a basis for its formulation. Residual properties of pure gases and their
mixtures, including partial properties of components in the latter, are calculated using the
virial equation of state. The virial equation of state is said to be the only one which allows
one to deduce the properties of mixtures from those of pure substances using a sound
theoretical basisand moderate amount of additional information. The virial coefficients are
represented by proprietary temperature functions which allow a reliable smoothing and

interpolations of experimental data as well as their extrapolations beyond the limits of
experimental evidence. QUANT operates on IBM compatible personal computers.

A particularvariationof QUANT prints extendedgas propertiesin the standardor
real stateas a function of standardstatefugacity or pressureand temperature,in addition

to those deliveredby the standardversion of QUANT. The additional data consistsof
isocharicheat capacityrelatedto the gas constant(C,/R); isentropicexponent,also equal
to the ratio of the isobaricto isocharicheatcapacity(K = CJC); and the partial derivatives,
ap, ß., y.r, ys and Ss. These properties are availablefor all substances,mixtures, units
parameter rangesand steps covered by QUANT. The data from this variant is very
important in relation to the yS method describedin Sections2.3 and 2.4.5.
2.4.3.4.3 PREPROP
RichardsonandSaville(1991) usedthe extensionof the principle of correspondingstates,

developedby Rowlinson and Watson (1969), and the methane-based
referenceequations
of Saville and Szczepanski (1982) [equations A-19 and B-20], to calculate the
thermophysicalpropertiesin a computermodelfor blowdownof pipelines(SLOWDOWN).
Usingthe resultof the abovementionedstudies,they developeda computerpackagecalled
PREPROP, for calculation of thermophysicalproperties of multi-componentmixtures.
Their choice of the correspondingstatespackagewas necessitatedby the needfor good
59
enthalpy and density simultaneously. The model has
prediction of phase equilibrium,
agree well with results
experimental for blowdown of natural gas
producedresultswhich
pipelines.
2.4.4 OTHER APPROACHES FOR REAL-GAS MIXTURES
A much simpler approachfor dealingwith real-gasmixtures is the use of Dalton's rule of

Amagat described by Holman (1980).
additive pressuresor the rule of additive volumes,
The difference between thesetwo and the law of partial pressuresis that the individual
pressuresor volumesare calculatedfrom somereal-gasequationof state. This simplified

interaction
approachneglects betweenthe and
molecules,
constituent therefore considerable
errors are expected. In addition to these simple additive rule, there are many relations
which havebeendevelopedfor the calculationof real-gasmixtures properties.

Kay (1936) developedthe simple proceduredescribedin Section 2.4.3.2, which
assumes that the mixture may be treated as a pseudo-puresubstancewith someempirical
artifice used to determinethe pseudo-critical constantsfor the mixture. According to
Holman(1980),the procedureis accurateto within 10%over a wide rangeof temperatures
and pressures.
2.4.5 CALORIC EQUATIONS OF STATE
For a real gas, the specific heats vary with temperatureand pressure,and the caloric
equationof statemay take the form:

C=C(T, p) (2.40)
When a high-pressure natural gas pipeline breaks, the gas can escapesfrom the pipe in a
process that is sometimes approximated as isentropic. The isentropic model assumesthat

heat conduction and wall friction are negligible. However, during isentropic decompression
of any gas the temperature falls drastically. With natural gas of high specific gravity, this
may lead to pressuresand temperatureswhich fall within the two-phase (gas-liquid) region.
Non-isentropicdecompression
modelsare developedbasedon the thermodynamics
of two-phase(liquid-gas) real-fluid, multi-component mixtures and the laws for unsteady
i.
non-isentropic processes, e. viscousdissipationand heat transfer occurring. There have
been various such models developedfor different applications,but in this study three
60
models are considered, namely those by Picard & Bishnoi (1989), Flatt (1985-1989) and
Richardson & Saville (1991). These models are briefly discussed here. Both models were
developed for analysing transient flows following a rupture in a high-pressure gas pipeline
and were used in conjunction with the method of characteristics. The Picard-Bishnoi non-
isentropic decompression model utilises the thermodynamics relationship,
T dS -A-1 (2.41)
Pdp
It determines the complete decompressionhistories at all locations inside the pipeline

including the rupture point and the emergencyshut-down valve. In working with the
model,it becameapparentthat a numericalinstabilitymaydevelopat the rupture plane from

problemsinvolving non-isentropicflow if the selecteddistancebetweengrid nodesis too
large in the high gradient region immediatelyupstreamof the rupture plane (numerical
instabilitywas not observedfor problemsinvolving isentropicflow). In order to overcome
the instability problem without creatingexcessivecomputationaldemands,use was made
of non-uniform grid spacing(refer to section4.4) to allow for fine grid spacingnear the
rupture planewhere grid spacingis most critical and coarserspacingfurther back. Since
non-isentropic effects in the region of the rupture plane seemedto be causedby the
instabilityproblem,a secondstrategywasto imposea short isentropicregion at the rupture
plane. This approximation was consideredto be valid assumingthe isentropic region is

small relative to the total pipe length. The use of the modification completelyeliminated
the rupture planeinstability problem.
The Flatt non-isentropic decompression model is based on the polytropic
coefficients of Dzung (1944), which are as follows:
a° -v
rav Y° --p vap ßO - ram (2.42)
aT)t av PaTl
tt
where the subscript a correspondsto an optional index which representsany set of

thermodynamicquantity e.g. p, v, T, h, S, etc.; the polytropic characteristicnumber,
äh
ýº v (2.43)
andthe Gibbsequationwhichis sometimes

describedasthe "definitionof entropy"
T ds - dh -v dp (2.44)
61
Flatt (1989), further developed the model by introducing a new coefficient Ss, which
enabledit to cover both bi-phase and homogeneous gas-liquid as well as pure liquid flows.
This approach is called the gamma delta method and in principle can be generalised to three
dimensional flow. The basic relationships for this method, whose complete derivation is
given in Section 2.3 is:
a y
dh vdp. pdv (2.45)
a-1y-1
where,
aT
b-1-v (2.46)
T(8v
s
The delta-coefficient of the gamma-deltamethod and also the coefficients a, ß and Ys

havebeenincorporatedinto the realgassoftware,QUANT, describedin Section2.4.3.4.2.
A non-isentropic
decompression
modelandthe Flatt gammadeltamethodhavebeenused
in this study.
2.5 FRICTIONAL FORCE
2.5.1 INTRODUCTION
For gas flow in short and medium length pipelines,frictional effects are often small and
localised,hencethey havenormally beenconsideredrelatively unimportant in view of the
overall uncertaintiesinvolved in modelling most practical problems. However, for long

pipelines, the principal reasonfor changein pressurealong the pipeline is due to friction
losses.The frictionaleffectsare,cumulativeandbecomeimportantfor long term transients.
In long pipesthey cangive riseto significantpressuredrop and line packing under transient
conditions. Modellingof frictionaleffectsmaybe done either by numericallyevaluatingthe

frictional factor in equation(2.47) using known flow field data or by using experimental
correlations.The shearstressat the wall tends to be proportional to the pressuregradient,

while the averagevelocity may be out of phasewith the pressuregradient becauseof the
inertia of the main flow.
The friction term in the basic equationsis denoted by ca and is defined as the
friction force per unit length of the pipe opposing the flow. After
assumingthat the minor
62
losses are negligible, the frictional force per unit length is expressed by the empirical
relationship;
Ap ul2 l
AD (2.47)
As the transients progress, and the high frequency content of the pressure waves dies out,
is
a point reachedwhere the is
explicit procedure no longer suitable. An implicit procedure
that allows large time-steps is more appropriate. Consequently, in modelling frictional
effects in high-pressuregas pipeline transients, a number of questions have to be answered.

These are discussed in the sections of this chapter which follow. Over 20 friction factor
expressionshave been identified in this study. These include those by Hagen-Poiseiulle for
laminar flow; Blasius (1911), Uhl (1965), Panhandle "A", Smith (1956) and Chaudhry
(1979) for partially developed turbulent flow; Von Karman (1930), Nikuradse (1933) and
Smith (1956) for fully developed turbulent flow; Colebrooke (1939), Oliemans (1976),
Moody (1947), Swamee-Jain(1976), Zigrang-Sylvester (1982), Shacham (1980), Haaland
(1983), Wood (1966), Colebrooke-White or Prandtl-Colebrooke (1938-39), Churchill
(1977) and Chen (1979) for the transition region. The relevant expressions for the friction
factor are presented in Appendix C.
It shouldhowever,be admittedthat only very little seemsto be knownfrom the

theoreticalpoint of view of the realbehaviourof frictional effectsin transientflow because
the problem is non-linear,thus making the finding of analyticalsolutionsunlikely. Flatt
(1986)attemptedto explainthis phenomenon
for a ruptureat the upstreamend of a straight
pipe. He illustrated his argument with figures for the caseswith and without frictional
effectsbeingconsidered.Accordingto his modela pressurepeakwould appearsomewhere

in the middle of the pipe, its location correspondingapproximatelyto the location of the
flow reversali.e. wherethe velocityis zero. With increasingtime, the pressurepeak slowly
movestowards and until it reachesthe closedend.
2.5.2 STEADY FLOW FRICTION FACTOR
The use of a steadyflow friction factor to representthe wall shearstressis only justified
theoreticallyfor steadyflow. For the calculationof unsteadyflow in pipesthe steadystate

friction term is usuallyused,and can produce acceptableresults,althoughit is well known
that this term does not describethe real physical phenomenonaccurately. Perhapsit is
63
reasonableto expect this to be valid for small perturbations around a steady flow condition
to support this. However, this would not be
and some experimental evidence exists
expected to be true in the case of large and rapid disturbances.
Van Deen and Reintsema (1983) argued that the Darcy friction factor is weakly
dependent on Reynolds number, but it may be considered as constant in the region of
interest because of the large Reynolds numbers (Re > 10) involved. Being aware of the
limitation of using a steady flow friction factor for unsteady flow, Thorley and Tiley (1987)
its use in modelling of unsteady transient flow of compressible fluids in
recommended
pipelines. Their justification was that there had been no friction factors defined for transient
gas flows, except some time-dependent friction factors for laminar liquid flow and also on
the basis that "tuning" of the friction term may be employed when investigating rapid
transients. Tiley (1989) used a constant value steady-state friction factor in modelling of
pressure transients in a ruptured high-pressure gas pipeline. The basis of this choice was
the assumption that fully developed turbulence was achieved and if necessary a flow
dependent friction factor could be substituted into the analysis provided that the
improvement in the results obtained justified the additional computing involved. The
various expressions for steady-state friction factor are presented in Appendix C.
2.5.3 FLOW-DEPENDENT FRICTION FACTOR
The flow of fluids in pipelinesis categorised,dependingon Reynoldsnumber,into either

laminar flow, partially or fully developedturbulent flow. Friction factor is dependenton
the type of flow ascategorisedabovewhich may vary from point to point in a pipeline, and
in addition on pipe roughness. The traditional way of estimatingthe friction factor for a
Newtonianfluid flowing througha pipe is basedon the well known Moody Friction Chart.
This chart is madeup of various relevantequationsfor different flow regimes.However,
in numericalmodellingof flow situations,thesechartsare unsuitableand equationshaveto
be used. Numerous equationshave beendevelopedfor estimatingfriction factors. The
mostwidely usedarepresentedin Appendix C. For laminarflow (Re < 2100), the Hagen-
Poiseiulleequationis usedi.e.
64
AD - (2.48)
It should be noted that the Darcy friction factor is four times the Fanningfriction factor.
64
For fully developedturbulence,the rough pipe law which assumesthat the friction factor
is solely dependent on the pipe roughness and size is used:
L.
I dJ
Al logt . B1 (2.49)
E
YJD
where A, andB, areconstants.For partially developedturbulenceeither the smooth pipe

law or the Blasius form of the smooth pipe law are used. Here the friction factor is
assumedto be only dependenton the fluid properties and pipe size. The smooth pipe law
is traditionally expressedas:
-" A2 log (Re fD) + B2 (2.50)

ID
The Blasiusform of the smooth pipe law is given as:
fD A3 Re as
" (2.51)
where A2, B2, A3 and B3 are all constants. The above equationis true only over a very
limited range of Re. For the transition zone between partially and fully developed
turbulencea combinationof both the roughand smoothpipe laws is used. The Colebrooke
equation(EquationC-2) hasbeenuniversallyadoptedfor this regime. However, there are
numerous other equationswhich could be solved explicitly, and with almost the same
accuracyas the Colebrookeequation.
The key factor in applying a flow-dependentfriction factor is the determinationof
which flow regimeis to representthe flow at a particular point and time. This situation is
exacerbated by the fact that, in many practical flow situation manyflow regimesexist and
thus different equationshave to be used. Typical high-pressuregas pipeline flows are
characterised by their highReynoldsnumbers. The key decisionto be madefor such flows
therefore,is whetherit could be assumedthat fully developedturbulencehasbeenachieved,
so that the roughpipelaw which is independentof Reynoldsnumberand henceflow could
be employed. If however, the flow is in the partially developedturbulent
regimeor even
in the transitionzone betweenpartially and fully developedturbulence,the friction factor
would vary with changesin the Reynolds number (for Newtonian fluids this is not a
problem).
65
In this study,an expressionfor friction factor is selected,which covers as much as
possible, all the flow i.
situations e. Re and e/d expectedduring the transientevent being
modelled. Particular attention is paid to for

expressions friction factor, which cover the
transition zone from partially to fully developedturbulent flow. As seen in Appendix C,
there are more than twenty expressionsfor the friction factor in this zone. Though the
Colebrooke equation is the most accurate(it representsdata within 5% of experimental
results), it hasthe disadvantage

that solution for the friction factor requiresiteration. This
makes it less for

attractive computermodels. Swamee and Jain(1976) presentedan explicit
equation[EquationC-8], which was found to yield valuesof the friction factor well within
±1% of the Colebrooke-Whiteequationfor 10-6s e/d s 10"2and 5x 103s Re s 10'. The
equationwas alsofound to be applicableover the entire turbulent zone of pipe flow, unlike
the Wood equation[Equation C-7] which is not applicableto smooth-turbulentflows and
computes the friction factor within ±5% of the Colebrooke equation. The Swamee-Jain
equationwas found to be easyto apply.

Zigrang and Sylvester(1985) made a review of nineteenexplicit friction factor
equations. Three among these were developed in their above mentioned study. They
classified the equations, according to precision, into three categories namely simple
equations [Equations C-11, C-14 and C-15]; intermediate precision equations [Equations
C-16, C-17 and C-18]; and highest precision equations [Equations C-19, C-20, C-21 and
C-22]. The equationswere compared for precision against the Colebrooke equation, and
for complexity, in the range 2500 s Re s 107 and 4x 10"s ses0.005. Though the
equations have relative errors of up to 13%, all the equations in the intermediate and
highest precision categories were found to have relative errors well within 1% of the
Colebrooke equation (within 6% of experimental data). The study concluded that the high
accuraciesin the highest precision category are unnecessary. In this study, more attention
will be paid to the range of flow i. e. Re and e/d which the various equations cover, rather
than wasting too much time in finding an equation with the highest precision. The accuracy
in calculating the friction factor in real systems is influenced by how well the pipe wall
roughnessand diameter are known. Both these parametersmay vary with time and position
in the pipe.
At leasttwo expressionfor friction factor i.e. those by Chen(1979) and Churchill

(1977) [equations C-5 and C-6 respectively] exist, which cover the whole range of
Reynoldsnumbersandpipe roughnessandwhich produceresultswhich are nearly the same
66
as those produced by the Colebrooke equation. The Chen equation was used by Bisgaard,
Sorensenand Spangenberg(1987) in modelling of transientsin a ruptured high-pressure gas
pipeline. This is
equation also used in this study, because it is it
explicit, covers the whole
range of Reynolds number, and it is simpler than the Churchill equation. The most popular
method of estimating flow-dependent friction factors is by using the quasi-steady friction
formula, whereby the steady-state expressions are used for unsteady flow. The friction
factor is calculated for each grid point as a function of Reynolds number without
consideration being made to the fluctuation of velocity and the gradient of the other values.
Eichinger and Lein (1992) proposed and investigated two new methods of
presentingthe unsteadyfriction term namelybasedon wall shearstressand on friction
power.The formulafor unsteadyfriction term basedon wall shearstressis solely dependent
on the value of the gradient of velocity in the nearwall region. In this casecalculationof
the velocity profile near the wall is of extremeimportance. This appliesin particular to
turbulent flow becauseas the Reynoldsnumberincreases,so doesthe gradient near the
wall. The formula for the friction term based on the friction power is based on
considerationof energyof the incompressiblefluid. The differencebetweenthe work of
the internaland externalforces and the increaseof the kinetic energyof a volume element
of an incompressiblefluid is the dissipationper unit of time. Preliminaryinvestigationof
unsteadyflow usingthe two unsteadyfriction termsrevealedthat the resultsobtained,using
the friction factor basedon the wall shear stress,were considerablybetter than those
achieved using the friction term based on the friction power. Moreover, numerical
difficulties sometimesarosewhen using a friction term basedon friction power. For this
reasonthe friction term basedon wall shearstresswas preferredand usedas an unsteady

friction term. The formulafor unsteadyfriction term basedon wall shearstress,which was
usedby Ohmi, Kyomen and Usui (1985) is as follows:
4v au
(a . I (2.52)
gd 8r r' r
where ro is the radiusof the pipe.

ThorleyandTiley (1987) recommendedthe use of a constantfriction factor which
theyclaimedwill usuallybe adequateasa first approximation. The basisfor their argument
wasthat in practicethe basicdata for determiningthe friction factor, evenfor steadyflow,
will rarely be known within a few percent. In this study, the explicit equation of Chen
(1976) [Equation C-5] and the friction term formula based on wall shear stress are
recommended.However, the equationof Chenhasbeenused.
67
2.5.4 FREQUENCY-DEPENDENT FRICTION FACTOR
In the study which proceeded this work i. e. by Tiley (1989) very little attention was paid
to the dependenceof friction factor on the frequency of transient events. In this study, an
extensive investigation is made on studies available on this subject. However, it is admitted

that there has not yet been any satisfactory results to justify the application of a frequency-
dependent friction factor in this model. The first and most significant work on frequency
dependentfriction in transient pipe flow was by Zielke (1968). He developed a procedure
within the framework of the method of characteristics that utilises the recent history of the
transient to take the shift in phase between the boundary film and the main flow into
account for the laminar flow case. His equation relates the wall shear stress in transient
laminar pipe flow to the instantaneous mean velocity and to the weighted past velocity
changes. Based on the pioneering work by Zielke (1968), Brown (1969) developed a
quasi-method of characteristics,applied to forcing functions which depend on non-local and
non-instantaneous (former) states of the system.

Hirose(1971) was the first to extendthe Zielke idea into turbulent flow. He used
an empiricallydevelopedweighting function to adaptthe methodof characteristicswhich

is very simple comparedto the analytical expressionfor laminar flow basedon Zielke's
approach. Trikha (1975) derived a similar expressionfor frequency-dependent

friction in
transientlaminarflow which approximatesthe exact expressionby Zielke very well in both
the time andfrequencydomains. This approximationis simpler,easyto program, requires
significantlylesscomputerstorage and computationtime and henceis more practical than
the exact expressionby Zielke. Kagawa et al (1983) developeda model which requires
lesscomputerstorageand computation time than Zielke's exact model and more accurate
thanTrikha's approximationmodel. Kagawa'sapproximateweighting function is derived
by approximatingZielke's function with the first-order lag elementone by one so its time
constants of the first order lag elementsreducevery slowly, which shows that by taking
many more terms of the first order lag elementsKagawa's model could reach good
accuracy.By comparingpredictionswith experimentaldata, Budny, Wiggert and Hatfield
(1990) concluded that frequency-dependentfriction factor for laminar flow based on
Zielke'sequationcanbe extendedinto the transitionzoneandbeyond,at leastto a Reynolds
number of 11,000and is capableof predicting the decayover manycycles.
68
Yigang and Jing-Chao (1990) developed a new approach for simulating frequency-
dependentterms both in the frequency and time domain by using the method of non-linear
square integral optimum. Because this new method is optimised over a large frequency
range and needs fewer terms of the first order lag elements than Kagawa's model, it
possessesan excellent high speed of calculation and accuracy in both frequency and time
is
simulations and more practical for analysing the frequency and transient responses,
pressuresurges,and pressureattenuationsin hydraulic pipelines. In the Trikha and Kagawa
models, the equation of frequency-dependent friction in the time domain includes an
unknown current flow rate value. Therefore an interactive algorithm is needed to calculate
the frequency-dependent friction in the method of characteristic, which also makes the
simulation complex and time consuming. The Yigang-Jing-Chao method does not need
iterating and requires only half of the computation time of Trikha and Kagawa models.
Vardy (1992) and Vardy, Hwang and Brown (1993) concludedthat the use of
similar
expressions to that developed
by Zielke (1968) for transientlaminar friction in pipes,
isjustified theoreticallyandexperimentallyfor transientturbulent friction. In this casethe
weighting function curve ceasesto be unique but rather a family of curves exist, one for
each value of the product (f d Re). The Zielke expressionis shown to be an asymptotic
limit of the familyof weighting function curves. Further work is going on [Vardy (1993)]
to providea theoreticalframeworkat higherReynoldsnumbersand to explore the influence

of frequencyeffectsin turbulentflows at all Reynoldsnumber. It should also be noted that
the expressionis applicableonly to moderateReynoldsnumbersand only to smooth pipes.
Someprogresshasbeenmadein extendingthe work to higher Reynoldsnumbersand to
rough pipes. All expressionssuch as Trikha's are limited in the range of time scalefor
which theyareapplicableand henceappropriatenumericalcoefficientshaveto be chosen.
From this review, it seems rather too early to start applying these frequency-
dependentfriction terms in the modelling of transients in high-pressure gas pipelines. Since
the effects of unsteady friction, in addition to steady friction, are very small in such
applications, a frequency-dependent friction factor is not used in this model.
2.5.5 FRICTION FACTOR FOR TWO-PHASE HOMOGENEOUS FLOW
During depressurisationof dense-phasegasesin a ruptured pipeline,the existenceof two
phases,gas and liquid, is likely to occur. In the process of modelling such an event
69'
to
therefore, one needs consider how to handlethe situation, including the friction term.
The friction factor is strongly dependent on the liquid fraction and different calculation
techniquesgive substantiallydifferentresults. There are two main techniquesof presenting

the friction term in two-phase flow namely, by modifying the Reynolds number and the
for friction factor; including in the for
roughnessterm in the equation and expression
friction a multiplier for two-phasefriction, which is determinedempirically.
The expressionby Oliemans (1976) [Equation C-3] is an example of the former
technique.ThorleyandTiley (1987) the

recommended use of the latter techniquebecause
it is relatively simple and had alreadybeen adaptedby various authors for analysis of
transient flow situations.They claimedthat modifying the Reynoldsnumberand roughness
is for
term moreappropriate steadyflow analysis.The two-phasefriction factor is not used
in this study.
2.5.6 FRICTION FACTOR WITH RESPECT TO FLUID STRUCTURE

INTERACTION
The phenomenonof Fluid Structure Interaction has been discussedin depth in Section
2.2.3, and need not be repeatedhere. With respect to Fluid Structure Interaction the
friction term in the momentumequationmust be corrected for axial motion of the pipe i. e.
the relativefluid velocityis of importance.Sinceit was decidedearlier, in Section2.2.3 not
to includethe effectof Fluid StructureInteraction in this its
model, effect on friction factor
is also being neglected. However, this gives an indication of the numberof factors that
affectthe friction andhow difficult it is to achievean accuraterepresentationof the friction
term.
2.5.7 APPROXIMATION OF FRICTION FACTOR WHEN SOLVING THE

BASIC EQUATIONS
It hasalreadybeenstatedin Section2.5.1that frictional effects in transientflows are highly
non-linear. Terms in which finite-differencesare used to representquantitieswhich are

integrals rather than derivatives, in particular pipe friction, may introduce numerical
instabilityandrequireparticularcare. It hasbeenarguedthat a linearisedfriction term does
not adequately represent this high frictional effect in gas and so a second-order
approximationsuchas the trapezoidalrule hasbeenused.
70
However,SuwanandAnderson(1992) discoveredan unconditionally stablelinear
implicit approximationsadoptedfrom the method of characteristics,which was the most
accurateof the manyapproximationstestedover representativesrangesof data. A second-

order approximation (refer to section4.3.2) is used to calculatethe friction force in this
model.
2.6 HEAT TRANSFER
2.6.1 INTRODUCTION
Whenever a disturbanceoccurs in pipe flow system, it causeschangesin temperature

becausethe changein pressureand velocity of the gas involves an accelerationthat in turn
derivesit energyfrom the internal energyof the gas. This situation leadsto heat transfer
betweenthe gasandits surroundings.The heattransferterm, 0, is defined as the heat flow
into, or from the pipe wall per unit length of pipe. Although this term is considerably
smallerin magnitudethan the friction term, it is still a necessaryinclusion especiallywhen

consideringlong distancepipelines.
Heat transfer occurs by means of forced convection through the turbulence
boundary layer of the gas in the pipe, conduction through the pipe wall, by natural
convectionoutsidethe pipeandradiationto the surroundings.There are two extremecases

of heat transfer namelyisothermalflow and adiabaticflow including the specialcaseof
isentropic flow. In the isothermalflow model the temperatureis assumedto be constant
and therefore there is a net heat flow through the pipe. In this casethe energyequation
becomesredundantexceptto calculatethe value of the heat transfer, n. In the adiabatic
model,it is assumedthat thereis no net flow of heat through the pipe. However, in reality
some heat transferwill take placebetweenthe gas and its surroundingsalthough thermal
equilibrium will not alwaysbe achieved.
2.6.2 HEAT TRANSFER PROCESS
The mostcommonapproachin unsteadyflow modelling hasbeento use either of the two
extremecasesdescribedin Section2.6.1. Isothermalflow relatesto slow dynamicchanges.

If a pipe is long and the changeis relatively gradual,the gas will tend to
come to thermal
equilibriumwith the pipe. The massof the pipe is usually much greater (order of 15 times)
71
than the gas it contains. In this kind of situation therefore, the assumption of constant
temperature is reasonable. Adiabatic flow relatesto fast dynamic changes in the gas, where
it is assumed that the pressure changes occur instantaneously allowing no time for heat
transfer to take place between the pipe and the surroundings.
The subject of whether or not the isothermal flow assumptionis adequatefor
modellingrapidtransients,especiallythosefollowing a ruptured high-pressuregas pipeline,

hasbeendiscussed
by amongothersFlatt (1993-96). It is generallyconsideredthat for such
flow situations,the isothermalmodel is inadequateand thus the energyequationhasto be
used. However, the isothermal model has continued to be used by various workers
includingLang andFannelop(1987);Kunsch, Sjoen& Fannelop(1991); Lang (1991); and
Olorunmaiye & Imide (1993). Wilson (1981) investigatedthe heat transfer to a fluid
experimentally. He observedan isothermalcondition throughout the length of the pipe,

exceptfor aboutthe last200 diameters,during which the rapidly acceleratingflow near the
pipeexit wasmovingtoo quickly to gain heat from the pipe walls. The justification which
is commonlygiven for this assumptionis that the massflow rate at the rupture shows a
negligiblysmalldifferencebetweenthe isothermaland adiabaticmodels. Kunsch, Sjoen&

Fannelep (1991).and Lang (1991) used both the adiabaticand isothermalassumptions.
Both studiesobservedthe differencein flow ratesat the break betweenthe two modelsto
be very small. Kunsch, Sjoen and Fannelep(1991) attributed this fact to the opposite
effectsof the critical density(higherfor isothermalflow) and the critical velocity (lower for
isothermalflow), on the chockedmassflow rate, which was observedby Ryhming (1987).
Surprisingly,Olorunmaiyeand Imide (1993) found that the flow rate predicted at
the broken end of the pipe was lower than that of a model basedon the adiabatic flow
assumptionby about 18%, but at the sametime agreeingquite well with that of Lang and
Fannelop(1987),for isothermalflow. However, the p(x,t)-distributions of the two models
arequitedifferent(30% discrepancy).Flatt (1993-1996)believesthat this fact was known

to someof the workerswho haveusedthe isothermalmodel, but they pretendednot to be
aware of it. He statesthat the coincidenceexplainedabove comesfrom the fact that the
isothermal flow model leadsto almost equal but opposite relative errors in density
and
velocity, such that their product, pu (=m/A) is nearly correct. Flatt (1993-1996)
demonstrates analyticallythat the use of this assumptionfor gas pipeline rupture problems,
is in fact a violation of the secondlaw of thermodynamics.
72
In his modelfor unsteadycompressibleflow following a rupture in a long pipeline,
Flatt (1986)usedboth assumptionsof isothermaland adiabaticflow. Admitting that both
assumptionsare extremelyidealised,reality being somewherein between,he appliedthe

isothermalassumptionon the initial conditions and adiabaticflow for the time thereafter.
Hisjustificationwasthat the isothermalassumptionis not valid if important changesin the
stateof the particleoccur over shortdistancesasis the casenear the broken

thermodynamic
endof a pipeline.Beforethe rupture,the flow is slow and the time a particle takesto move
along the whole pipeline is long. The isothermal flow approximation for the initial
condition therefore appearsvery reasonable. The suddenintroduction of the adiabatic
hypothesishasalmostno effect on that part of the pipeline situatedbetweenthe upstream
end of the pipe and the location of the wave front. This hypothesisis confirmed by
using the Mollier-entropy diagramfor a steady
experimentalresultsandthermodynamically
adiabaticpipe flow of a perfect gas with low Mach number. The hypothesisof adiabatic
flow, especiallynearthe broken end where particlesare acceleratedrelatively rapidly and
over a short distancewas consideredcloser to reality than the hypothesisof isothermal

flow. He recommendedthat for long time intervals the heat transferredinto the pipeline
should be accountedfor though admitting that this would considerablycomplicate the

analysis.
In their similar model Van Deen and Reintsema(1983) startedby admitting that
since the thermal contact betweenthe pipe and its surroundingsis generallydifficult to
estimate,or is evencompletelyunknown,it is difficult to give a reliableestimateof the heat
transferinto the pipe. However, they avoidedthe problem of estimatingthe heat transfer
by assumingthat the temperatureand pressurechangesduring the transientphenomenon
could be described by a linear relationship;

VT - b.Vp (2.53)
where b is a constant to be determined. This representationis more general than the

common practice of assumingeither isothermalor isentropic flow. Equation (2.53) was
substitutedinto the energyequationandafter eliminationof 12+cauan equationwithout the
unknown b was obtained. In this study, a non-isothermalnon-adiabaticheat transfer
model is used.
73
2.6.3 CALCULATION OF HEAT TRANSFER
For fluid flows at high velocities,the velocity of flow varies from zero at the pipe wall to
the free streamvelocity outside the boundarylayer. This velocity distribution, which is
shown in Fig. 2.6, setsup viscousstresseswhich do shearingwork on the fluid particles.
The work in turn increasesthe internal energyas well as the temperatureof the particles.
The resultingtemperaturegradientcausesheat to be transferredthrough the fluid from the
region near the wall to the main body of the fluid, in order to transport the energy
dissipatedby the shearwork.
Fig. 2.6 Distribution of Pressure,Temperature and Flow Velocity Along the Pipe Diameter
Two differentapproaches
to calculationof heat transfer to the gas were considered
in this study. In the first approach,one of the relationshipsbetweenthe dimensionless
numbers, namely Re, Pr, Nu and St is used to calculate the convective heat transfer
coefficient across the boundary layer. In the second approach the adiabatic wall
temperature and recovery factor are used to calculatethe heat transfer. The difference
betweenthe two approaches is only the way in which the heattransferbetweenthe fluid and
the innerwall of the pipe is calculated. For the rest of the system,the analysisis the same
for both approaches.The two alternativesfor calculatingthe heat transfer to the fluid
are
describedin the remainingpart of this section:
(a) Heat Transfer Calculation by Using Adiabatic Wall Temperature and

Recovery Factor
After the effectsof viscousshearingwork and heat conduction

within the boundarylayer
have beenbrought to a balanceeverywherein the fluid, the
pipe wall is at an equilibrium
temperature (T,,,). The temperaturedistribution in the boundary layer is
as shown in
74
Fig.2.6. The temperature difference responsiblefor the heat transfer from the pipe wall into
the fluid is related to the adiabatic wall temperature and an empirical value, R, known as
the recovery factor. The recovery factor is related to the adiabatic wall temperature by the
following relationship:
T°" T
Re (2.54)
To-T
T T,
where and areaveragefree streamstatic and stagnationtemperaturesrespectively,as
shown in Fig. 2.6. T. is calculatedby equation (2.75). Shapiro (1953) pointed out that
variousexperimentshad yielded valuesof recovery factor for subsonicpipe flow between
0.87 and 0.91; and for supersonicpipe flow between0.83 and 0.90.
From equations (2.54) and (2.75):
Ta "T+RcU2 (2.55 )
2Cp
The heattransferthrough the pipe wall and from the outside pipe wall to the surrounding
atmosphereis given by the equation:

Sä=Up. (T. )=Uo(TA-Tj (2.56)
0-T..
The overall heat transfercoefficient acrossthe pipe wall is given by the equation:
kp
Up (2.57)
2c
In 1+
d
The overall heat transfer coefficient from the outer pipe wall to the surrounding
atmosphereis calculatedin either of two ways, dependingon whether the pipe is exposed
to the atmosphereor buriedin a mediumother than air at atmosphericconditions. In most
cases,pipes would be buried in either the ground (for onshore pipelines) or water (for
offshore pipelines). The overall heat transfer coefficient outside a buried pipe is given by
the equation:
km
Uo " (2.58)
2D
In 1
d . 2c
and that for pipesexposedto the atmosphereis given by the equation:
75
U. "d. c hCA (2.59)
2
In equation(2.58) above,it is assumedthat heat transfer is uniform in all radial directions
of the pipe. For naturalconvectionin air at atmosphericpressure,hcAis calculatedusing

the following simplified expression:
hCA.Ber L
(2.60)
whereB andC areconstantsdependingon the geometryandL is the significant length, also

a functionof geometryandflow. AT is the temperaturedifferencebetweenthe surfaceand
the bulk air in K.
McAdamssuggestedvaluesfor horizontal cylindersas shown in Table 2.1 below.
The values of hcAcalculatedfrom thesecoefficients have the dimensionsof W/m2. The
constantnumbersPr andGr arecalculatedusing equations(A-12) and (A-14) respectively.

For most casesof high-pressuregas flow in pipes,the product GrPr lies between 10' and
109. The first row of Table 2.1 is used,resulting into the following equationfor hCA:
TA T"WO
h 1.32 4 (2.61)
C4 " d
GrPr B C L
10'<GrPr<109 1.32 'A Diameter
109<GrPr<1012 1.24 1/3 1
Table 2.1 McAdams Constants for Natural Conversion to Air
The value of T,, is calculated from equation (2.56) as follows:

0
Up,, Ta. UoTA
TM, - (2.62)
Uý + Uo
An approximatedvalue of T0 is usedin equation(2.61) to calculatethe value of hCA.In

this study,the valueof T,, at the previousgrid point is used. However, if a higher degree
0
of accuracyis required,an iterationprocedurecould be used. The value of ä2is calculated
usingequation(2.56),afterthe abovecalculations.The radialtemperaturedistribution over
a sectionof the pipe and its surroundingsis shown in Fig. 2.7.
76
(b) Heat Transfer Calculation by Using Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient Across
the Boundary Layer
to
Two relationships are commonly used calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient
across the boundarylayer, namelythe Colburn equation and the Dittus-Boelter equation
(1930). The Colburn equationis as follows:
Pr-73
St = 0.023 Rd-0.2 (2.63)
St is evaluatedat the averagemeanfluid temperature,Re and Pr are evaluatedat the

where
film
average temperature, Re>104,0.7<Pr<160, and L/d>60. The Dittus-Boelter equation
(1930) is as follows:
Nu = 0.023 Re°-gPr" (2.64)
where n=0.3 if the fluid is being cooled

n=0.4 if the fluid is being heated
All the fluid propertiesare evaluatedat the averagemeanfluid temperature.
Re>104,0.7<Pr<100,and L/d>60
Depending on whether equation (2.63) or (2.64) is used, equation (A-7) or (A-13)
respectively, are used to calculate the convective heat transfer coefficient across the
boundary layer (hßL). The overall heat transfer coefficient acrossthe boundary layer is
by
given the equation:
UBL .d1 (2.65)
BL
2
Equation (2.64) is not suitable for transient analysis of linebreak in high-pressure gas
because both cases of fluid being heated and being cooled occur during the
pipelines
transient event. This would require changing the value of n during the analysis, which
makes the procedure more complicated. The other overall heat transfer coefficients i. e. Up,
and U. are calculated in the same way as shown in section (a). Referring to Fig. 2.7, the
heat transfer into the gas is given by the equation:

Sä= UIL(Ta, - T) = Urw(Two - Tm) = UO(TA- Tn0) (2.66)
Equation(2.66) is solvedsimultaneously
for the valuesof either Tni and/or T. The values
obtainedaresubstitutedinto equation(2.66) together with the valuesof respectiveoverall

heat transfercoefficientscalculatedearlier, to obtain Sä. From equation(2.66);
UnL(T T) = Uew(THO- TM)
,-
(UBL + UPw)T - UewTwo- Ußß T=0 (2.67)
and
77
'VEPt P ERATITRE
Tw
--°---'-ýý-- ^
Tw
___
ýý
T ý
eýT ---
T.
i, ,,
I,
,
,,
tfH Ir . Ide bo tradarýla

RADIUS
er
Iraner free "trearm layer
P1p" w. 1L
Ouýaide boundary layer

or su rroasiid ing med lu !r
Fig. 2.7 Radial TemperatureDistribution Across a Pipe Sectionand its Surroundings
UPW(Two Tm) = UO(TA - Two)

-
UPwT,, + (UPW+ U0)TNO Uo TA =0 (2.68)

- i -
Multiplying equation (2.67) by (UPw +Uo) and equation (2.68) by UPw we get:
(UPW +Uo) (UBL + UPW)Twi (UPW +Uo) UPW Two = (UPW +Uo) UBL T (2.69)
-
-
(UPW)2 Tai + UPW(UPW +Uo)Two
= UPwUo TA (2.70)
Adding equation(2.70) to (2.69) we get:

Twi RUPW + Uo) (UBL + UPW) (UPW)2] = (UPW + Uo) UBL T+ Upw U. TA
-
(U19V+UO) UBL T. Up Uo TA
T (2.71)
wi 2
(UPW + Uo )(UBL + UPW) UPW
-
From equation (2.67)
(UBL ` Upw) TM - UBLT

Two - (2.72)
UPw
Tiley (1989)useda simplifiedapproachof estimatingthe heat transfer into the pipe.

Shearguedthat unlessthe pipe is lagged,it can be assumedthat the higher conductivity of
the piperesultsin a negligibletemperaturedifferencebetweenthe internal and externalpipe
78
walls.Thereforethe heattransfer may be estimatedby the temperaturedifferencebetween
the meanwall temperatureand the gas temperatureand using the Stanton numbermethod
for a circular cross-sectionpipe;
0- ad p uCpSt(T-T) (2.73)
The problemnow remainedto evaluatethe Stanton number. Tiley (1989) consideredtwo
methods,either using the boundarylayer theory or using a function of the Reynoldsand

Prandtl numbers. She arguedthat since the heat transfer term in the basic equationsis
comparativelysmallandsincevariation in Stanton numberwith flow rate are not sufficient

to warrant additional computationinvolved, a constantvalue Stanton numberwas used,
with provision for "tuning" eachsituation encountered. In this study, the heat transferis
calculatedusingthe adiabaticwall temperatureandrecoveryfactor method describedin (a).
2.7 OTHER APPROACHES TO THE BASIC EQUATIONS
A new approachto the basic equationsof flow has been proposedby Flatt and Trichet
(1995). The method is called the gamdelepsmethod and it utilises the fluid stagnation
properties. Stagnationpropertiesare defined as the properties resulting when a fluid is

deceleratedto zero velocity in a steadyflow adiabaticprocesswith no work interaction
occurring and also gravitational, magnetic, electric and capillary effects absent. In this
report,the stagnationpropertieswill be denotedby a subscripto. According to the first law
of thermodynamics,stagnationenthalpyis given by the equation:
2
ho .h. u
(2.74)
2
For a perfect gas, stagnationtemperatureis given by the equation:
To - T. u2 (2.75)
2Cp
The stagnationpressurefor a compressiblefluid flow is:
) x
po .p0Xt (2.76)
-T
79
The two non-dimensional
coefficients y and 8 describedin Sections2.3 and 2.4.5
in relation to the gammadelta methoddevelopedby Flatt (1993) havebeenusedby Flatt
and Trichet (1995), together with a third non-dimensionalcoefficient e, to calculatethe

for
stagnationproperties the liquid
gaseous, and the two-phaseregionsof a pure real fluid.
The coefficient e is calculatedusing the equation:
P aY
(2.77)
Y aP
S
This third coefficient e enablesdescriptionof an infinitesimalisentropic processin terms
of the Mach number. The three coefficientsy, 8 and e describeinfinitesimalprocessesin

a thermodynamicallyrigorous mannerand are valid for the gaseous,liquid and two-phase
regionsof a purerealfluid. Theywereusedin a new method namedgamdelepsmethod by
Flatt and Trichet (1995), who also used them to describe the relationships between
stagnationand static propertiesof real gases. The relationshipsare as follows:
bl
_
To 1e-1 Alfa c1 (2.78)
2
po p1s-21 )1ý21 `'1 (2.79)
_Y
E-1Z Af `'1
Po'P1" (2.80)
2 a
Y-b
Zo az1e21 7-1
At (2.81)
2 a2l
e- 1 2
ao "al At" (2.82)
2
The sign(-) on top of the dimensionlesscoefficientsdenotethe arithmetic averagesof the
valuesbetweenthe two states.
80
Stagnation properties provide a convenient reference state in studying properties
ofa flowing fluid. Flatt (1993-1996) suggests that the use of stagnation properties in the
equationsof conservation for unsteady flow of fluids in pipes avoids many difficulties due
to mathematical singularities at the choked end, which are often encountered when static
quantities are used. The proposed procedure, which is not yet known to have been used,
involves writing the conservation equations in the classical form with static quantities and
then substituting stagnation variables for the static ones.
The gamdelepsmethodenablescomputercodesto be written without the necessity

of distinguishingbetweenthe typesof phasethe fluid is in. This is especiallyrelevantto the
studyof linebreakin high-pressuregas pipelineswhere gas/liquidmixtures are anticipated
and the location of the beginning or end of vaporisation region varies with time. A
computercodewritten for any real gas can be usedfor a perfect gasby setting y=S=c=K.
Neitherthe gamdelepsmethod nor the stagnationpropertieshavebeenusedin this study.
The stagnationproperties were not used, as suggestedby Flatt (1993-96) becausethe
numericalalgorithm did not suffer the singularity problemssuchas those experiencedby

Flatt (1986). However,the useof the gamdelepsmethodis recommendedas the next stage
of this study. The gammadeltamethodwhich hasbeenusedin this model is applicableonly

for gas or liquid or homogeneousliquid/gasmixture phases.
81
CHAPTER 3
METHODS FOR SOLUTION OF THE BASIC EQUATIONS

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Unsteadyflow of fluids in pipelinescan adequatelybe representedby a systemof partial

differential equations, of first or secondorder depending on the type of problem, as
discussed in Chapter 2. Such systemsmay either be parabolicor hyperbolic. Methods
for solving these equations can quite generally be classified as either analytical or
numerical.Analyticalmethods of solution are very laborious as regardscomputation and

therefore are unsuitable for solving problemsof this nature, where the equationsare
rather complex. Analytical or exact solution is available only for greatly simplified
equationsandsituationsand it is very laborious It
as regardscomputation. offers the basis
for verifying the accuracyof numericaltechniques. As a result of theselimitations, the
analytical method of solution is not feasible normally for analysis of transient flow
in
conditions pipesystems. Many numericalmethodsare available and have been used for
the solution of theseequations.

Apart from the numericalmethod to be selected,the analystis faced with a choice
to
of whether use a distributed or lumped parameterapproach. In the lumped parameter
approach, the inertia of the fluid in a particular pipe is treated as a lump as opposedto
continuouslydistributedin the formerapproach.Distributed parametermodelling requires
a relatively complex analytical model and may involve a large number of calculation
necessaryfor fast transients in
occurring a time is
scalewhich short comparedto system
characteristictime. Lumped parametermodellingutilises a much simpleranalyticalmodel
and requiresfar fewer calculations. It savesmuch time and effort and it provides reliable
solutions for large complex networks. The time interval must be chosensmall enoughto
accountfor pressurewavestraversingthe shortestpipe section in the network, therefore
requiring carrying out frequent calculations.
In this chapter, the most commonly used numerical methods are described
together with their comparative advantages and drawbacks in various fluid transient
phenomena. The methodsare the method of characteristics,finite-differencemethods,

finite-element methods,flux-difference splitting schemes,the method of lines and the
wave-planmethod. More thanthreedozenstudies,which haveusedone or the other of the
82
above methodsof solution are summarised and discussed, with the objective of leading
to the selection of a method to be used for modelling of high-pressure gas pipe rupture.
3.2 NUMERICAL METHODS OF SOLUTION
3.2.1 FINITE-DIFFERENCE METHODS
3.2.1.1 General Description
Generally,the basisof finite-difference formulations is that the differentials of the dependent
variables appearing in the partial differential equations, are expressed in approximate
expressionsso that a digital computer which performs only standard arithmetic and logical
operations can be employed to obtain a solution. Two methods which are used for
approximating the differentials are the Taylor series expansion and the use of polynomials.
The approximations of the derivatives may be expressed as either forward, backward or
central differences; first-, second-order accurate and so on.

The finite-difference approximations are used to replace the derivatives that appear
in the partial differential equations. Finite-difference formulation of the partial differential
equations can be done in two ways, namely, explicit and implicit formulations. Finite-
difference methods are therefore categorised in the two types mentioned above. Among
the other categories of numerical methods, which have been covered separately in this
chapter, there are some which are based on finite-difference formulation. These are the
the
method of characteristics, flux-difference splitting schemes,the method of lines and the
wave-plan method. The above methodsare covered separately in Sections 3.2.1.3,3.2.3,

3.2.5 and 3.2.5 respectively. This section therefore, deals with formulations that are
entirely based on the explicit and/or implicit finite-difference formulations.

Solution procedures based on the explicit and implicit formulations are different.
In the explicit formulation, all unknownscanbe solvedfor directly at eachgrid point. In

the implicit formulation,more than one unknown existsand thereforethe finite-difference
equationsmust be written for all spatialgrid points, at a given time level, to provide the
samenumberof equationsas there are unknownsand which are solvedsimultaneously.
Obviously, the solution of explicit equations is simpler than the implicit equations.
However, implicit formulationsare more stablethan explicit formulations. This review
focuseson theexplicitandimplicitfinite-difference
methodsthat are relevantto the solution
83
flow of gas in pipelines. Detailed description of the equations used in
of unsteady
conjunction with the Lax-Wendroff second-order two-step method is given in Section
3.2.1.4. The MacCormack second-order method and the Warming-Kutler-Lomax third-
order methods are described in detail in Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 respectively.
3.2.1.2 Explicit Finite-Difference Methods
Explicit finite-difference methods integrate the basic partial differential equations by
considering the changes in the dependent variables along the direction of the independent
variables,producing the solution values at evenly spaced points in the physical plane. The
is as
method classified explicit becausethe value of the dependent variable at one particular
time level, is calculated directly from values of the dependent variable at previous time
levels. Many different explicit finite-difference methods, ranging from single-step
first-order accurate to four-step fourth-order accurate schemes,have been developed for
the fluid transient equations. Some of the popular methods are listed below:
(i) Forward Euler Method
(ii) Method of Lax
(iii) Lax-Wendroff Single-Step Method
(iv) Lax-Wendroff Two-Step Method
(v) Alternating Gradient Method

(vi). MacCormack Method
(vi) Rusanov-Burstein-Mirin Method
(vii) Abarbanel-Gottlieb-Turkel Method
(viii) Hopscotch Method

(ix) Leap Frog Method
(x) PseudoviscosityMethod
(xi) Warming-Kutter-Lomax Third-Order Method
Explicit finite-difference methods also have their advantages and disadvantages.
The major advantageof explicit finite-difference methods especially in comparison with the
method of characteristicsis that they are very simple to programme. The conservative law
form of the hyperbolic equations has the favourable property that conservative finite-
difference methods applied to it produce solutions automatically satisfying the
Rankine-Hugoniot relations across a shock, which greatly facilitates accurate shock
84
calculation. No special care need to be taken of the location of shocks, therefore it is
suitable for in
systems which shocks form. There are no eigenvectors to be computed.
Eigenvectors are needed solely for testing stability conditions. There are no linear or
non-linear equations to be solved. Explicit finite-difference methods need comparatively

little computer memory space since they solve the equations directly rather than
simultaneously. The majority of finite-difference methods (including implicit) models
neglect the term uau/ax as in the method of characteristics but some also neglect the term
a(pu)/at to get a creeping flow model. Second-order of accuracy is normally regarded as
sufficient for the analysis of gas transients. Finite-difference methods produce solution
values at evenly spaced points in the physical plane. One of the major disadvantages of
finite-difference methods,other than the method of characteristics, is that continuous initial
data may propagate along the characteristics thus making it difficult to handle. Explicit
methods suffer from stability problems since they are only conditionally stable. Time steps
are restricted by a stability criterion, which result in a large amount of computer time being
required. They are therefore not suitable for analysis of large systems or unsteady flows
over long periods of time. In the presence of shocks, methods of higher than first-order
produce considerable overshoot and oscillatory systems. A smoothing parameter for
overshoot can tend to smooth out the transientpeaks. Unlike the method of characteristics,
finite-difference methods are unable to solve the boundary conditions naturally.
The MacCormack Method is superior to the method of characteristicswhen

Courant number (Cj differs from unity appreciably. It is inherently dissipative i. e. because
it is second-orderaccuratein both space and time, no special shock capturing approach is
needed. It is unconditionally stableif C. is lessthan unity and it produces minimal precision

loss when C. moves away from unity. The method permits the use of a grid spacing that
is not overly fine even in highly complex cases. As the method is quite efficient, overall
computation effort remainsreasonable.The MacCormack method could be very well suited

for applicationsof increasing complexity such as two-phase, gas-liquid flow problems and
multi-dimensional flow. It is simple and has low development cost. The complete
equations can be used without making any simplification.

The pseudoviscositymethodhasa relativelygood accuracy. It is stableand more
suitablefor the Lagrangianformulation. Any shockfront that occursin the flow is spread
over morethan onefinite-difference
meshlengthand the dependentvariables;i. e. pressure,
velocity, density,internalenergy,entropy, etc. are continuousthroughout a shock front;
85
thus eliminating the needfor shock fitting. It producesno overshoot in pressureand is
more versatilei.e. can be usedfor variablecross-sectionalareaducts.
The Warming-Kutler-Lomax method is third-order accurate both in space and time.
It is a simple extension of the second-order schemes. The diffusive and dispersive errors
are easily controlled by selecting appropriate numerical parameters. It captures shock
without any special treatment.
3.2.1.3 Method of Characteristics
The methodof characteristicsis the natural numericalmethodfor quasi-linearhyperbolic
systemsin two independentvariables. By an appropriatechoiceof coordinates,pathscan

be defined in the x-t plane,calledcharacteristiclines, along which the systemof partial
differentialequationsis convertedinto a systemof ordinary differential equationsthat may
be solved by standard single step finite-difference methods for ordinary differential
The
equations. basic the is
rationaleunderlying useof characteristics that by an appropriate
choice of coordinates,the original systemof hyperbolicequationscan be replacedby a
system whose coordinatesare the characteristics. The use of this method becomes
particularly simplewhen appliedto two equationsin two dependentvariables. When the
characteristiccoordinatesareusedin this way, the methodis known as the naturalmethod
of characteristics.
One of the major drawbacks of the method of characteristicsis that if the dependent
variables are required at fixed time intervals, a two-dimensionalinterpolation in the

characteristicnet is requiredand this may be quite complicated. This drawbackhasbeen
overcome by the mesh method of characteristicscalled the method of specified time
intervals,which solvesthe characteristicequationson valuesfor the dependentvariables
coordinates. With the meshpoints definedin advance,and the

at specifiedtime-distance
interpolation taking place as computation advances,it becomes a one-dimensional
interpolation. Although the method of characteristicsis most ideal for the solution of
quasi-linearhyperbolicequationswith two dependentvariableson characteristics,which

is the naturalcoordinatesystem,a great deal of effort hasbeenmadeto extendthe method
to other more complicatedcases. However, this is at the expenseof simplicity and
accuracy.The aboveeffort includesthe extensionfor calculatingthree dependentvariables
encounteredin transient non-isothermalgas flow. Also severalmethods have been
86
developed to increase accuracy of solution in these complicated cases. A detailed
description of the procedure and derivation of equations used in method of characteristics
solutions is given in Section 4.3.1.

The method of characteristicshas many advantagescomparedwith the other
numerical methods of solution. In the method of characteristics solution, discontinuities in
the initial value may propagate along the characteristics, making it easy to handle them.
Large time steps are possible in the natural method, since they are not restricted by a
stability criterion. The boundary conditions are also properly posed. The method of
characteristicsis relatively accurate, but requires one to understand how it operates and to
choose a suitable time step. The method can be readily adapted to solve for three
dependentvariablesrequired for the analysisof non-isothermaltransient gas flow. It is time
consuming to programme on a computer. Discontinuous initial data and shock waves do

not lead to solution with overshoot and details are not smeared, in the natural method.
Exact solution is possible in the constant coefficient case with two dependent variables
regardless of eventual discontinuities in the initial data, in the case of the natural method.
No attention needs to be paid to the position of the shocks, in the hybrid method and in
generalit causesonly a small overshoot. The hybrid method is easily generalised to more
than two dependent variables. The natural method is unconditionally stable. The method
of characteristics also has some disadvantages. If more than two dependent variables are
required to describethe systemin the natural method, then the complexity increases. If the
solution of dependentvariablesin the natural method is required at fixed time intervals, then
two-dimensional interpolation in the characteristic net is required, and this can be very
complicated. The hybrid method is comparatively slow becausethe time steps are restricted
by a stability criterion. If calculation is to be performed in terms of an arbitrary set of
dependent variables, eigenvalues and eigenvectors are needed at each node (easy with
Riemanntype variables). Difficulties arise with curved characteristics, because it requires
solving for different levels of time at each step, which is tedious and time consuming and
increases the complexity. The hybrid method is difficult to apply to
networks becauseof
the restriction by the stability criterion i. e. Ax i ax At (the hybrid method is conditionally
stable). If more than two dependentvariables are required to describe the system, then the
complexity of the computation increases and hence computing costs and time become
considerably high. In order to simplify the computation, part of the momentum equation
i.e. the term uaulax in equation 2.7 is
neglected and thus yielding straight characteristics.
87
3.2.1.4 Lax-Wendroff Second-Order Two-Step Method
Referring to the finite-difference grid in (Fig. 3.1) and Equation (4.73), the two-step
second-order Lax-Wendroff approximation [as developed by Lax and Wendroff (1960)]

may be written as follows:
First Step:
I I
A(, 2J ?)-I p(t. B(rr)]' Agc(i. CUýý - O(Ox2, AQ (3.1)
22 t,) +2
Axr(r. t,ý) - t.º) '
Second Step:
A(,/,1)- A(,,) - 1. er(c c.0-2J. 2ýJ o(ex2,et2) (3.2)

ý
r. ,
-B, 2+ý 2ýJ
cr ,,.
0.21.2
xý 2ý 2i
where O(Ax2,At2) is the truncation or roundingerror.

A close examinationof Equations(3.1) and (3.2), revealsthat the valuesat all the points
at time levelt= i+ý/2canbe foundin the first step. Thesevaluesare then usedin the second
stepto derive the valuesat time level t =j+1. This is illustratedin Fig. 3.1.
a,
+t
I+1/2
ýIIIý
Joýbýo i-1/2 1 i+1/2 1+1
Distance
0 initial known values

0
values found the first step of calculation
Q values found from the second step of calculation
Fig. 3.1 Finite-DifferenceGrid Illustrating the Two-step Lax-Wendroff Method

The Lax-Wendroff methodproducesslightovershootat discontinuitiesand shocks.
It is mostsuitablefor dealingwith systemsin which shockwavesform. With this method,
it is easyto dealwith the energyequation.It hasa relatively
good accuracyand it is stable.
88
It is especiallyeffective for the Eulerian formulation. Any shock front that in
occurs the
flow is spread over more than one finite-difference mesh length and the dependent
i.
variables e. pressure,velocity, density, internal energy, entropy etc. are continuous
throughouta shock front; thus eliminatingthe need for shock fitting. The method yields
in pressure at the shock front, thus reducing accuracy in determiningpeak
an overshoot
pressure.
3.2.1.5 Implicit Finite-Difference Methods
In implicit methods the finite-difference equation contains, at a particular time level,
dependentvariablewhich cannot all be calculatedexplicitly from the previouslevel. Many
numericalmethods based on this principle have been developedand used for the solution
of various engineeringproblems. Those which have been popular for the solution of the
partial differential equations describing unsteady fluid flow in pipelines include the
following:
(i) Fully Implicit Method
(ii) Crank-NicolsonMethod
(iii) CentredDifferenceMethod
(iv) CharacteristicFinite-DifferenceMethod
(v) Explicit-Implicit Methods
(vi) Guy Method
(vii) Gear Method
(viii) Backward Euler Method
(ix) Beam-Warming Method
The major differencebetweenexplicit and implicit finite-differencemethodsis that

implicit methods are unconditionally stable. The restriction on time step, which is
with other methodsis overcome,i.e. no restriction on the maximumallowable

experienced
time step. The maximumpracticaltime step is limited by the rate of changeof the variable
imposedat the boundaryconditionsratherthanby limitationrequiredby a stability criterion.
In case of rapid transients, where small time-steps and large number of sections are
required, the method loosesthe advantageof fast computation. The major weaknessof
implicit finite-difference methods is that they can yield unsatisfactoryresults for rapid
transients. They are suitable for the analysis of slow transients on relatively large
89
networks. Somemethodshavebeenknown to produceerraticresultsduring the imposition
of sometypesof boundaryconditions. Computer programmesbasedon thesemethodsdo
not allow easyextension. The methodsrequire the solution of non-linear simultaneous
equationsusuallyby Newton-Raphsonlinearisationat eachtime step; for complicatedgas
networksthe matrixbecomesquite large,the computerstoragerequirementsbecomevery
largeand the solution time can be excessive.Thesedrawbacks have beenminimisedby
the use of a sparsematrix procedure.

The fully implicit method does not suffer from spuriousoscillationsbut does not
have as high asymptoticaccuracyas At-O, as the Crank-Nicolsonmethod. Though the
fully implicit methodinvolvessolution of simultaneousnon-linearequations,usually by the
Newton Raphsonmethod,the jacobians are sparseand therefore full advantageof this is
taken in solving the large set of equationseconomically. Stability of the method depends
tolerance. Rapid transientphenomenasuchas pulsationis filtered in case
on convergence
of large time-stepadopted.
The Crank-Nicolsonmethod has a high-order of accuracy. For suddenchangesin
the forcing function, the solution is prone to oscillation about the true solution. The
method involves the solution of simultaneous non-linear equations, usually by the

Newton-Raphsonmethod. It is relativelysimple,easierto programmeand readily extended
to pipelinenetworksof any size. Consequently,computation is much faster. The centred-
difference method requires a large amount of computer storage and lengthy execution
times. It hasthe advantageof using a sparsematrix method. The Beam-Warmingmethod
is second-orderaccuratein spaceand time. It introducesnegligiblediffusive errors and
capturesshock without specialtreatment.
3.2.2 FINITE-ELEMENT METHODS
The finite-elementmethodis believedto be one of the oldest. It was usedby Babylonians

to evaluatenumbersbetweenthose given in tablesand by early oriental mathematiciansin
the approximationof the circumferenceof a circle. Solving an engineeringproblem by the
finite-elementapproachinvolves the following steps:
(a) Formulation of governing equationsand boundaryconditions
(b) Division of the analysisregion into finite elements
(c) Selectionof interpolation functions
90
(d) Determination of element properties
(e) Assembling of global equations
(f) Solution of global equations

(g) Verification of solution
The finite-elementmethod consistsprimarily of replacinga set of differential equationsin
termsof unknownvariableswith an equivalentbut approximateset of algebraicequations
where each of the is
unknown variables evaluatedat a nodal point. Several different
maybe usedin the evaluationof thesealgebraicequations, and finite-element

approaches
methodsare often classifiedaccordingto the methodused. In order to arrive at a proper
method for a particular problem, it may be necessaryto examineseveralmethods. The
three most common methods of formulation of finite-difference equations are direct
methods,variational methodsand residualmethods.
Divisionof the solutionregioninto elementscan take the form of either one-, two-
elementsof varying shapes.There is usually not a singlecorrect way

or three-dimensional
of dividinga particularsolution region with all the others being wrong. Decisionson how
to divide up the solution region into elementsis basedon engineeringjudgment and there
areno definitiveguidelinesavailable.Dependingon the positioning of nodesin the element

and whether the sidesof the elementare straight or curved, finite elementsare generally
classifiedas simplex or higher order elements.Regardlessof the geometricalshape,finite
elementsare categorisedas either Lagrangianor Hermite elements. In contrast to the
Lagrangefamily of elements,the Hermite categoryincludesderivativesof the variablesas
well as valuesdefinedat the nodes. The theoreticalbasisof the finite-element methods

hasbeencovered extensively by Allaire (1985). Finite-elementmethodshavenot been
usedfor gas transientsas widely as the finite-differencebasedmethodsand thus there are

not many of thesemethodsknown.
Until recent years, only two methods namely the Galerkin Method, used by
Rachford and Dupont (1974), and more recently by Osiadaczand Yedroudj (1989) and
Kiuchi (1987);andthe movingfinite-elementmethod,havebeenused. Bisgaard, Sorensen
and Spangenberg (1987)developeda weighted residualfinite-elementmethodwhich uses

the Galerkin finite-element method to discretizethe equation. The most popular finite-
elementmethodsfor fluid transientsare thereforethe following:

(i) Galerkin Method
(ii) SpectralGalerkin Method
91
(iii) Spectral Collocation Method
(iv) Moving Finite-Element Method
(v) Method of Bisgaard-Sorensen-Spangenberg

Finite-element
methodshavesomeadvantagesover finite-differencemethods. The
former methods can be used to solve virtually any engineeringproblem for which a
differential equationcan be written. They have a higher accuracybecausecubic hermite
splineswhich shouldgive errors which areof 0(h°)couldbe used. However, this accuracy
cannot always be usefully realiseddue to the geographicalnature of networks. Finite
element methodsare most useful for two and three-dimensional
problems. Variational
to
methodsareeasy extendto two andthree-dimensional
problems. Residualmethodscan
be appliedto any problem for which a governingboundaryvalue problem can be written.
For the case of residual methods, once techniquesare learnt, the details are relatively
straight forward. The major disadvantageof finite-element methods is that they are
somewhatcomplex,with complexitybeingproportionalto the complexity of the differential
equations for that particular problem. Direct methodsare difficult to apply to two and
three-dimensionalproblems. Variational methodslack a functional for certain classesof
problems, for examplethose dealingwith the flow of viscousfluid. It is difficult to find
variationalmethodsfor someproblems,eventhough they exist. The procedurefor finite-
is
elementsolution ratherlengthyandnot widely usedin gas network simulation. When the
discontinuities,higher-ordermethodsmaynot alwaysgive more accurate
solutionpossesses
solutions.
The Galerkin method requiresa lengthy executiontime. It is formulated to treat
slow transients.Computerresourcesrequiredare small enoughand it hassomesignificant

theoretical advantages. In using the moving finite-element method, care needed in
treatmentof boundaryconditions. The methodis very complicatedto programme.
3.2.3 FLUX-DIFFERENCE SPLITTING SCHEMES
The conceptofupwinding hasbeenusedin local discreteapproximationsin finite-difference
andfinite-elementmethodsfor manyyears. Upwind schemeshavebecomepopular since

the beginningof the 1980'sandthesemethodsnow play an important role in computational
fluid dynamics. They offer a sound theoretical basis of the characteristictheory for
hyperbolicsystemsandarecapableof capturingdiscontinuities.Someof the most common
92
methods for the solution of the basic equations for transient gas flow are the X formulation,
flux-vector splitting methods and flux-difference splitting methods.
The flux-vector splitting methodswere pioneeredby Stegerand Warming. Van

Leer developed flux implicit relaxation algorithm, which is
a vector splitting with an
efficient, simple and capableof capturing the sharpshock waves. The simplicity of this
method, however, for
cameat a price of reducedaccuracy viscousflows due to the large
dissipation.Higher-OrderPolynomialExpansion(HOPE) schemeof Lion and Steffenand

the Low-Diffusion Flux-Vector Splitting Schemeof Van Leer were aimed at building up
a pure flux-vector splitting scheme with vanishingmassdiffusion. They did achievethe
requiredsplit mass but instability and non-monotonicityof the schemesare not acceptable
for practical calculations. Efforts have also beenmadeto improve the original Van Leer
by
scheme usingsome borrowed
techniques from the flux-difference splitting first
schemes
suggestedby Hanel and then extended by Van Leer. The Van Leer-Hanel (1990) Scheme
usesthe net massflux and the one side velocity, and the total enthalpyfor the transverse
momentumandenergyequations.A successfulandmorepromising schemewas suggested

by Liou andSteffen,the AdvectionUpstreamSplittingMethod (AUSM). They introduced
Mach
an advective by
number combiningsplit Mach numbercontributions from the original
Van Leer's masssplitting. In a variety of calculations,this schemewas reported to be as
as
accurateandconvergent the Roe flux-differencesplitting scheme,which was considered
to be the most accurateby then.
One of the more recent works in this area is that of Zha and Bilgen (1993). A
new flux vector splitting scheme, using the velocity component normal to the volume
interface as the characteristic speed, and yielding a vanishing individual mass flux at the
stagnationhas been developed. Flux-difference schemescan correctly capture shock waves

and provide criteria to discriminate the correct information carried by propagating waves.
The difference in flux between two adjacent node points is split into terms that will affect
the flow evolution at points either side of the section under investigation. It is assumed that
uniform flow occurs at each node point and over the cell extending one and a half grid
intervals each side of the node point. A discontinuity generally separatestwo neighbouring
cells in the middle of the interval, and the evolution in time of this discontinuity provides
the criteria for splitting the flux difference over an interval into terms associated with waves
that propagate up and down the pipe. The above procedure is known as the Roe method.
This method was extendedby Pandolfi to hyperbolic equations. The Roe method was used
frequently since it can take care of both steady shocks and contact discontinuities.
$3
In an attempt to extend the upwind idea to global methods such as spectral or
pseudospectralmethods, Huang and Sloan (1993) developed a new upwind pseudospectral
method for solution of linear singular perturbation problems without turning points.
Glaister (1994) presenteda flux difference splitting numerical scheme for the solution of the
Euler equations of compressible flow of a gas in a single spatial coordinate. The scheme
uses the Riemann solver for the Euler equations for a duct of variable cross-section and
using the (in
arithmetic mean contrast to the usual square root averaging of Roe's Riemann
solver) for computational efficiency.

Flux-difference splitting methodscan correctly capture shock waves and provide
criteriato discriminatethe correctinformationcarried by propagatingwaves. Good results
have been obtained for flux-difference splitting methods, but required numerical
experimentation.Flux-differencesplitting methodsare unconditionally stableand solution

at boundariescreateno difficulties. The X formulation method requirescomparativelylow
computing time and is sufficiently accurate. The disadvantageof the A formulation
is
methods, that shockwaveshaveto be treatedexplicitly. Flux-vector splitting techniques
of first-order are very diffuse. Higher order flux-splitting methodsgeneratepost shock
oscillations. A considerableamount of time is required to split the flux-difference. If a
second-order method is used the integration in flux-difference splitting methods, the
computation time is again increased. Some inaccuraciescan develop in flux-difference
splittingmethodsfor casessuchasinteractionof shocks. Flux-differencesplitting methods
arecomplexandrequirelargeexecutiontimes. The Zha-Bilgen Method is very simpleand
easy to implement. It is efficient and capableof capturing the crisp shock profile. With
third-order differencing,it producesresultswith least oscillationsnear the shock.
3.2.4 METHOD OF LINES
The methodof lineshasbeenstudiedand usedextensivelyin the former Soviet Union for
over forty years and more recently in the USA and other parts of the world. In this
method,a systemof partialdifferential equationsis transformedinto a systemof ordinary
differential equationsby discretizing all the equationsin.all but one independentvariable.
The systemof ordinary differential equationscan then be solvedby any suitablenumerical
method. For the casewherethe partial differential equationsdependon two variables,the

method of lines is essentiallya techniquefor replacingthe systemof partial differential
equationsin two variables,by an approximatesystemof ordinary differential equationin
one of thesevariables. Thus for the fluid transient equations,finite differencing in the
94
space variable leads to a set of time-dependentordinary differential equations. The
number of ordinary differential equationsis equal to the number of partial differential
equations multiplied by the number of grid points used. In the above example,spatial
derivatives are replacedby differencequotients. Sincefor the numericalsolution of the
generatedsystemof ordinary differential equationsthe time variableis in fact discretized

too, we finally obtain a full finite-differencesystem. Many of the known finite-difference
methodscanbe thoughtof asbeing generatedin this way. The boundarywithin which the
method is applied is taken to be a rectangle. Boundariesof more generalshapescan be
reduced to this form by suitablecoordinate transformations. Boundary conditions are
prescribed on all or some sidesof the rectangle. For applicationsin transient gas flow
analysis,a parabolic form of the partial differential equationsis used, for which the
boundaryconditionsare only neededon three sides.
Presently,thereis a generalpurposesoftwarecode basedon this method available.
Ames (1977), Holt (1984) and Osiadacz (1987) gave theoretical descriptions of this
method. In Holt's description,the method is basedon a second-orderpartial differential

equation of elliptic or mixed type whereasOsiadaczusesa parabolicpartial differential
equation. Osiadaczfurther discussesthe applicationof this methodto solve a systemof
partial differential equationsdescribingthe unsteadyflow of gas in pipes and problems
associatedwith its use, when dealingwith rapidly varying signalsand meansof avoiding
and overcomingthem. It has beenfound that the procedureis satisfactoryonly where
transients are gradual and continuous. There has been some recent studieswhere this
method hasbeenusedpractically to analyseunsteadyflow of gasin pipelines. Theseare

summarisedin Section3.3.
Sophisticated
packagesbasedon the methodof lines exist for numericalsolution of
ordinary differential equations. The method of lines is empirical and extremely simple.
Higher-order methodscan be used for the integration of time, for examplefourth-order
Runge-Kuttaor multi-steppredictor-correctormethods,which is approximatefor parabolic
problems. Numerical time-domainsolutions using the method of lines can be compared

directlywith correspondingmethodof characteristics solutions. The main advantageof the
method of lines is that it offers the possibility of utilizing highly developedsoftware for
ordinarydifferentialequations. The method of lines is only suitablefor numericalsolution
of partialdifferentialequations of elliptic, mixed-elliptic and parabolic type. It is usually
but not exclusively applied to parabolic problems. Special
care must be taken on the
95
formulation of boundary conditions. The method is convenient in particular where
lumped-parametersystemsof ordinary differential equationsin time is required. Second-
andhigher-orderaccuratemethodsdo not give better accuracyfor parabolicproblemsthan

first-order Euler integration. With the method of lines it is difficulty treat the boundary
conditionsproperly.
3.2.5 WAVE-PLAN METHOD
The wave-planmethodis basedon a physicaldescription of transientflow as a movement
of pressurewavesat sonic speedand correspondingpressure-flowrelationsfor the effects

of thesewavesimpinging on fluid elements. It has some similaritieswith the method of
characteristicssolution becauseof the techniqueof tracing sonic disturbancesthroughout
the system. The wave-plansolution is obtainedas follows:
(i) At the point or points in the fluid systemwhere a disturbanceis introduced, an
incrementalchangein fluid flow ratebecauseof the disturbanceover a short interval
of time is computed.
(ii) The incremental pressure.pulse accompanying the flow rate change is then
computed.
(iii) This pressurepulseis propagatedthroughout the systemat sonic speed.
(iv) The pressurepulseis partly reflected and partly transmittedat all geometricaland
physicaldiscontinuities.
(v) Pressure-andvelocity-timehistoriesarecomputedfor anypointin the systemby
summingwith timethe contributionsof the incrementalwaves.
The relationship between pressurehead and flow changescausedby a pressurewave
travelling in the fluid filled line can be computedfrom momentumconsiderations.
Application of this method has mainly beenon liquid systems and therefore the
basicpartialdifferentialequationshave beenderived from the equationsof continuity and
momentum. In the original formulation of this method by Wood, Dorsch and Lightner
(1966), the resulting equationsfor the casewhere the fluid and pipe are assumedto be
elastic, are non-linear partial differential equations. Sincethis method was formulated,
there has not beenmuch publishedapplication,until recently by Boulos, Wood and Funk
(1990) and again by Wood, Funk and Boulos (1990). Both of these are
on hydraulic
systemsapplications.
96
The wave-planmethod is more easilyapplied to complex unsteadyflow systems,
in additionto lendingitselfbetterto physicalinterpretation. Completesolution is obtained
i. e. both the transient and steady-stateresponseto a suddenlyimposed periodic flow
disturbanceareobtained.The disturbingfunction can be of arbitrary form and neednot be
periodic. Non-linear effects are easily included. The wave-planmethod is advantageous

in making certain types of dynamicresponsecalculations. For example,the responseof
areadistribution for which there would

fluid filled lineshavingtypesof axialcross-sectional
be little hope of obtaining closed-form analytical solutions, can be easily handled. The
methodreadilysolvesproblemsin which there is interaction betweenthe structural motion

of the conduits and the perturbationsin the fluid flowing within the conduit. It offers
certain advantagesfor handling it
complex networks and closely representsthe actual
mechanismof transient pipe flow. The main limitation of the wave-plan method when
dealingwith pipenetworksis that the time intervalmustbe chosensmall enoughto account
for pressure waves traversing the shortest pipe section in the network thus requiring
frequent calculations. However, there are economies in time when computing for
associatedlong lines as calculationsfor intermediatepoints can be omitted.
3.3 A REVIEW OF SOME NUMERICAL STUDIES
3.3.1GENERAL STUDIESON TRANSIENT FLOW
There have beenmany studieson fluid transientssincethe last review by Tiley (1989).
These, together with somewhich were not used in the above study are reviewed. Also
somestudieswhich wereusedin the previousreviewaredeliberatelyincludedso as to lead

to what is thought to be a more consistentselectionof a numericalmethod for modelling
transientsin rupturedgaspipelines.Most of the studiesarebasedon gas systems,although
a few basedon other systemshave also been included in order to support some of the
argumentsusedin selectingthe optimummethod. The studies are generallygrouped into
three categories. The first category is that of studies consisting of theoretical reviews
and comparisonsof various numericalmethodsof solution of fluid transient problems.
The secondcategory consists of practical studieson various fluid transientphenomena,
otherthanpiperupture. The third categoryis that of studiesdealingwith pipe rupture and

blowdown: modelling. The former two are dealt with in this section while the latter is
coveredin Section3.3.2.
97
In the first category i.e. theoretical studies, Ames (1977) made a very
comprehensivesurvey,descriptionand discussionof finite-difference for

methods partial
differentialequations. Someimportant hints were given to assistin decidingon whether
a particular method is suitablefor the solution being sought. If the equationsare of no

great complexity and are known to possesswell behaved solutions, finite-difference
procedurescan be employedproviding the limitations imposedby the characteristicsare

in
considered the development.
Sinceparabolicand hyperbolic equationscharacteristically
have open integration domains, explicit methods are applicable to these problems.
However, stability questionsare crucial to these situations. On the other hand, stability
difficulties are not as seriousin implicit methods. In many non-linear cases,the use of
implicit methodsleadsto the necessityto solvesetsof non-linearalgebraicequations. For
suchcases,there is little to be gainedby employingfinite-differencemethodsover that of

characteristics. However, in someproblemsthe proper use of implicit methodscan lead
to linearequations. Finite-differencemethodscan also be used for single or simultaneous
first-orderequations,providingthe convergenceand stability requirementsare considered.
Methodsof treating shocksby finite-differenceapproximationsinclude the Lax-Wendroff
and the pseudoviscositymethods. Numerical evidence shows that in the presenceof

discontinuousinitial valuesor shock waves,finite-differencemethodsof higher than first-
order produce solutionswith non-physicalovershoot.

Niessner (1980), compared different numerical methods for calculating
.
unsteadyflows. The methodsincludedare the method of characteristics,
one-dimensional
both explicit and implicit finite-differencemethodsand the method of lines. Advantages
and disadvantagesof each are discussedfor different fluid transient cases. Implicit
methods are appropriateif the time step is more restricted by the stability criterion of
implicit methodsthan by accuracyrequirements. Since the accuracy is determinedby
derivativesof the solution, the applicationof implicit methodsis likely to be successfulin
the casewherethe solutionvariesslowly in spaceandin time or where the important effects
propagateslowly with respectto the acousticwaves. This seldomoccurs with unsteady
flows, wherethe systemchangessignificantlywith small time intervals so that there is no
opportunity for larger time steps. The study concludesthat the Lax-Wendroff method
seemsto presenta good compromisebetweensimplicity, accuracy,speedand robustness
(moderateovershootin caseof shocks). Becauseof its simplicity, it can be
applied to all
pointsexceptthoseon the boundary. Seeminglywithout loss of overall accuracy,boundary
98
points can be handled by a proper adaption of the method of Courant-Isaacson-Rees.
Application of higher order methodslike the methodof Abarbanel-Gottlieb-Turkeloften
proveunhelpful becauseof the difficulty of a proper treatment of boundaryconditions even

if they are approximatedwith one order lower accuracytherebynot destroyingthe order
of the method. Someattractivemethodssuchas the leap-frog and the Hopscotch method

in
produce considerableovershoot the event of shocks.
GoldwaterandFincharn(1981)explainedanddiscussedapplicationsof someof the
popular numerical methods, including finite-difference methods, the method of
characteristicsand finite-element in
methods modelling gas supply systems. Osiadacz
(1987), gave a theoretical descriptionof various finite-differencemethodsfor computer
solution of partial differential equations describing unsteady flow of gas in pipelines.

Methods for both the parabolicand hyperbolic systemswere presented. Of relevanceto
unsteady gas flow are explicit and implicit finite-difference methods, the method of
characteristicsand the method of lines.
ThorleyandTiley (1987),provided a review of theoretical and some experimental
studieswith dense-phase
gas transmission
systems,without assumptions such as isothermal
and isentropicflow of idealgasandincluding the effects of wall friction and heat transfer.
The major aim wasto be ableto choosea numericalmethod to be usedto solve the partial
differential equationsdescribinggas flow transientsfollowing a pipe rupture. The more
popularmethodswerereviewed includingthe explicit

methodof characteristics, and implicit
finite-difference methods,finite-element methodsand flux-difference splitting schemes.
Implicit finite-differencemethodswere recommendedfor slow transientsbecausethey do
not require small time steps for stability, hence provide considerable saving in
time.
computational The for
method of characteristicswas recommended rapid transients
becauseof the advantageof using small time stepsto model eventschangingrapidly in
space and time. It was further stated that a method of solution that would not
accommodate a varying wave speedshould not be used for non-isothermalflows. The

Lax-Wendrofl'two-step explicit finite-difference method was recommendedas the most
suitable for dealingwith systemsin which shock waves form.

In the secondcategory of studies, Fashbaughand Widawsky (1972) presented
results of an analytical study concerned with a one-dimensionalprediction of the

propagationof shockwavesthroughair ducting systems,with variable cross-sectionalarea
and including attenuationsdue to viscous effects at the wall of the duct. Shock fitting
99
using the methodof characteristics,the pseudoviscosity method and the Lax-Wendroff
two-stepmethodwere considered. It was concludedthat shock fitting using the method
is complicated,especiallyfor problemswhere more than one shock front
of characteristics
is present.The pseudoviscosityfinite-differencemethod in the Lagrangeformulation was
found to predict with good accuracyshock waves propagating through ducts with
increasing cross-sectionalareas up to area ratios of at least 10 to 1. Either the
pseudoviscosityfinite-differencemethod in Lagrange formulation or the Lax-Wendroff

two-stepmethodin the Eulerianformulation can be usedfor predicting shock attenuation
in constantareaducts. The Lax-Wendroffmethodhowever,yieldsan overshoot in pressure
at the shock front, which reducesaccuracywhen determiningthe peak pressure. The

shockvelocitydiffersslightlybetweenthe two methods,which is attributed to the pressure
overshoot. The addition of the friction term (using a constant friction factor) in the
andthe Lax-Wendrofffinite-difference methodsbrings thesemethodsinto
pseudoviscosity
fairly good agreementwith experimentalresults. It was recommendedthat for accurate
predictionsin very long ducts,an appropriatefunction for the friction factor is neededand
the pseudoviscositymethod shouldbe used.
Padmanabhan,
AmesandMartin (1978)usedthe explicit-implicitmethod which was
introduced by McGuire and Morris for a simple boundary-value problem of wave
propagationin bubbly two-phasemixtures. The homogeneousmodel of two-phaseflow

was used to simulate the transient response of a flowing bubbly air-water mixture
to the rapidclosureof a valveat the downstreamend of a horizontal pipe 25mm
subsequent
in diameterand 18m long. Computationalong the boundarywas accomplishedusing the
method of characteristics. It was shown that in the event of discontinuity due to shock-
waveformation,the direct numericalintegration using the explicit-implicit method is much
simpler than the commonlyusedmethod of characteristics,which in this caseinvolves a
shock fitting procedure. It was concludedthat the explicit-implicit method is simpleand
versatile, and becauseof the implicit set of computationsis more suitable for boundary
value problemsthan suchexplicit methodsas the Lax-Wendroff scheme.
Mathers,Zuzak,McDonaldandHancox(1976) presenteda finite-difference
scheme
usingbackward-differencing
in time andwhich is structuredso that the differenceequations
resemble,asnearlyas possible,the methodof characteristics.This method was referred to

as the characteristicfinite-difference method. Special procedureswere presentedfor
treatment of discontinuities associatedwith phase transition (liquid to two-phase
and
100
Solutions from this were compared with experimental data
vapour to two-phase). method
for blowdown from subcooled conditions and with solutions obtained using the method of
It that the finite-difference scheme is simpler
characteristics. was concluded characteristic
and more versatile than the method of characteristics and produced good agreement with
It
the method of characteristics. also demonstrated a potential for the natural treatment of
boundary conditions and relative ease with which unequal segment lengths and junctions
be handled. In addition the scheme could readily be extended to more sophisticated

can
flow-boiling models, e.g. models which, consider flows with equal phase velocities but
unequal temperatures.
Kawabe (1982) developedan analyticalmethod for single and two-phase flow in
In this method, the piping network was represented by flow

arbitrary piping networks.
The thermal-hydraulictransients in the channelwere expressed by
channelsand vessels.
differential by
equations,which were solved an implicit method simultaneouslyfor
partial
the whole network with ordinary differential equationsdescribingthe changeof vessel
pressureand enthalpy. Osiadaczand Yedroudj (1989) reported on a comparisonof an

implicit finite-differenceschemewith the Galerkin finite-elementmethodusing linear and
cubicextrapolatingpolynomialsfor the simulation of transientphenomenon causedby the
changeof capacityof a compressor feeding a gas pipeline. The comparisonbetween the
analysed methodswas basedon the accuracy of results and computation time. In this
comparison,the basic equationswere derived from the laws of conservationof massand

momentum and further simplified into two types of equations. These are a non-linear
parabolicmodel,which could be simplifiedinto a linearmodel if variations of flow through
the pipe are small; and a second-orderparabolic partial differential equation, linear with
to
respect pressureat every time step. The two methodswere comparedon both the above
'forms of the basic equations. The study showedthat the finite-differencemethod has a
in
considerableadvantage computation time over the finite-elementmethod, while both
produce resultsof approximatelythe sameaccuracy.

Bhallamudi and Chaudhry(1990) reported on the application of two methodsof
integratingnumericallythe non-linearpartialdifferentialequationsdescribingtransient flows
in homogeneous in
gas-liquid mixtures pipes. The numericalmethodsare the third-order
explicit finite-differenceschemedevelopedby Warming, Kutter and Lomax (1973) and an
implicit second-orderfinite-differencescheme,which is a variation of the schemeof Beam
andWarming(1976). The Warning-Kutler-Lomaxschemeis an extensionof the presently
101
available second-order schemes. The diffusive and dispersive errors are easily controlled
in this scheme by selectingappropriate numerical parameters,and it is third-order accurate
in spaceand time. The Beam-Warming scheme is second order accurate in both space and
time, unconditionally stable and non-dissipative. Both schemes capture shocks without
special treatment. They observed that computed results using these two schemes
compared satisfactorily with experimentalresults and also with result obtained using other
numerical schemes. The study concluded that the method of characteristics usually
for in
analysingtransients single liquid flows is not suitable for mixture flows
employed
because of the pressure-dependent coefficients in the governing equations. The wave
velocity varies with pressure and shocks may form during the transient state.
Moe and Bendiksen (1993), presented the physics of a new type of
multi-dimensionaltwo-fluid model, basedon a first-order semi-implicit finite-difference

is
scheme, which solved in two steps applying a separateequation for pressure. The
numerical scheme is basedon an extensionof one-dimensionalmodels used earlier. A
basic difference between this model and the other existing models is in the solution
in
procedure, aiming particular at improved prediction of transient problems.A volume
is
equation applied for the pressure,enablinga direct two-step solution procedure,which
involves first the solution of pressureand velocities implicitly from the volume and
momentum equationsand then the solution of the specific massesfrom the continuity
equations. These linearised equation sets are solved directly applying a Gaussianband
solver, thus avoiding an iterative solution procedure. In local instantaneousformulations
of multi-phase flow, the domain is described by single-phasesubsets separated by
interphases. The conservation equationsfor single-phaseflow are applied within each
subsetandlocal instantaneous
transferrate of mass,momentumand energyare formulated
as boundary conditions at the interphase. The model differs from the other models for
separatedor stratified flow mainly in the ordering of the solution procedure sequence,
particularlythe stageat which the volume fraction is determinedas well as the degreeof
implicit-explicitness
to which the equationsareformulated. The model is designedto cover
a wide range of separatedflows with volumetric gas fractions from zero to unity.
Single-phaseflow is treated as a specialcasewhere the gas fraction or the liquid hold-up
is zero. There are no restrictionson the rangeof fluid propertiesthat can be applied, i.e.
in principle the model acceptsany fluid, liquid or gas. The model was verified through
extensivecomparisonswith availableexperimentaldataaswell asthrough comparisonswith
102
other models. It was shownthat this is
scheme robust, as well as massand (with a proper
correction) volume conserving. Single-phasesimulationsshow excellentagreementwith
analytical solutionsfor laminar flow,
pipeandchannel including dambreak and collapsing
liquid column problems. Four different types of transienttwo-phasephenomenawere
simulated. The data

model predictionscomparevery well with experimental and where
available with other models such as FLUENT. The dambreakproblem illustrates the
importanceof the horizontal convectiveterm in the momentumequationon the numerical
diffusion. More comprehensivestudiesof two-phasestratified and slug flow problems
were reported to be underway.

Kiuchi (1993), describeda fully implicit finite-differencemethod for calculating
isothermalunsteadygasflow in pipelinenetworks. The centred-differenceform was used
in space and a fully implicit algorithm in time. The algorithm for solving the finite-
difference equations is based on the iterative Newton Raphson method. Standard
Neumannstability analysisand an iterative convergence
methodare used. The Neumann
stabilityanalysisappliedto the equationsshow that they are unconditionally stable. The
iterative calculationmethodfor a junction with three branches,which was proposedby
Guy, wasused. The secondinertia term in the basicequationwas neglected. Calculation
results of a few valveopeningand closure samplecaseswere comparedwith those of the

two-stepLax-Wendroff method,Guy's implicit method in which
methodof characteristics,
the secondinertiaterm is includedand the Crank-Nicolsonmethod. It was found that the
method using the Crank-Nicolsonimplicit method in time, gives an unstablesolution in
the case of the large time stepsadopted, and even in the caseof small time stepsthe
methodgivesunrealisticoscillations.It was concludedthat explicit methodsgive a correct
answerwhenthe pipesare sufficientlydivided into small sections. Oscillationsare greatly
dampedin Guys methodandthe sametendencyis seenin the present methodwhen a small
numberof sectionsand large time stepsare adopted.

Comparisonson network applicationswere made for the presentmethod, Guy's
methodandthe methodof characteristics.Resultsof the three methodsagreedwell even

if the time stepis increasedfrom oneminuteto thirty minutes. The presentmethod showed
advantagein computationtime over Guys methodand most over the method

a considerable
of characteristics.Althoughthe presentmethodappliedto a pipe is unconditionally stable,
the iterative calculation at connecting points among pipes does not always assure
convergence. Therefore convergence has to be confirmed. It was found that stability
103
depends on the convergence tolerance. Excellent agreement with the method of
characteristicsand the two-step Lax-Wendroff method regarding accuracy and computation

is
time greatly reduced compared to the above methods in small time steps. Large time
steps can be used compared to explicit methods, which require small time steps according
to the Courant The method was found to have advantages in stability and
condition.
computationtime comparedwith the the

methodof characteristics, two-step Lax-Wendroff
method, Guy's method and the Crank-Nicolson method. It was also found that a rapid
transientphenomenon,suchaspulsation,is filtered in the case of a large time step adopted
with the presentmethod. Such problemsrequire small time stepsand a large numberof
sections and the subject of interest is thus

concentratedon such phenomena, losing the
advantageof fast computation. Finally it was found that convergenceof calculationsat
connecting points using iterative convergence methods dependson the time step, the
numberof iterations and pipeline size;but it is predictable in most cases.
Van DeenandReintsema(1983), useda discrete-spacecontinuous-timeapproach
on a second-orderfinite-difference method for the solution of the partial differential
equations on an analoguecomputer. Dynamic behaviour of a 90km long, 0.76m (30

inch) diametermaintransmissionline in the Gasuniesystemof the Netherlandswas used.
Gas was injected into the line from both sidesand deliveredfrom a seriesof points., A
gate valve in this line was closed and reopened after 45 minutes. Flow, temperature
during
andpressurewere measured and after reopeningof the valve at two points. It was
foundthat the form and magnitudesof experimentaland model resultswere quantitatively
correct.
Beauchemin and Marche (1992) showed that the use of the method of
characteristics over the MacCormack is

method no longer justified in contemporary
closed-conduittransientanalysiswhere the systems being studiedare highly complex and
the full equationsare used. Details of a numericalscheme,computation procedureand
treatmentof the boundaryconditionsof a full model employing the MacCormack scheme,
is
which a two-step second-orderexplicit finite-difference schemeof the Lax-Wendroff
type,were presented.The modelis basedon single-stepisothermalliquid flow in an elastic
pipe. A steadystatefriction factor was used and no simplificationwas madeon the basic
equations. The model was applied to many real world hydraulic transient problems
includingmultiplepumptrip-out in branchingnetworks with manydifferent types of pipes
(varyingwave speeds)and pump failure in a multiple-pipe single-branchsystem. Most of
104
thesecaseshad secondarycontrolling devicessuch as pressureregulating valvesand air
inlet valves, already present in the system and involved either the verification or the
design of primary control devicessuchasthrottled surgetanks and air chambers. It was
found that the MacConmackmethodis superiorto the methodof characteristicswhen the
Courantnumber(Ca differs appreciablyfrom unity. For this, precisionrather than cost is
the maincriterion, especially for well behavedC. When C. is much smallerthan unity,
the MacCormackmethodproducesresultswith a precision that could not be attainedwith
anyreasonablenumberof computationnodeswhen the methodof characteristicsis used.
Also an importantobservationwas maderegardingthe use of the MacCormackmethod.
The useof the first and second alternativesin successionon consecutivetime stepscould
introduce important oscillationsin the solution especiallywhere the basic equationsare
poorly approximated.This canbe avoidedby usingexclusively one of the two calculation

alternatives. Directional bias causedby the aboveis important only when working with
two spacedimensions,in which caseit is recommended
that the averagewith both methods
be used. Doing so does seemto smear the shock slightly and the computationtime is
doubled.
The study concludedthat the methodof characteristicsis the most accurate and
least costly for simple systems when C. is equal to unity. If C. is not equal to unity,
linear interpolations(spatialor temporal)arerequired,which can introducevery significant
attenuationsand dispersionerrors in the solution. On the other hand,the MacCormack

is
method superiorto the methodof characteristics whenC differs from unity appreciably.
The MacCormack method is inherentlydissipative,that is, because it is second-order
accurate in both spaceand time, no specialshock capturing approachis needed. It is

unconditionallystableif C. is lessthan unity, and producesminimal precision loss when
C. moves away from unity. The method permits the use of a grid spacing that is not
overly fine, even in highly complexcases and as it is quite efficient, overall computation
effort remains reasonable. The method could be very well suited for applications of
increasingcomplexity suchas two-phasegas-liquid flow problems;and multi-dimensional
flow. It is simpleand has a low developmentcost.
Boulos, Wood and Funk (1990), compared procedures based on an exact
anda wave-planmethod for solution of two simple

solution,the methodof characteristics
pressuresurgeproblems andcomparedthe results.The basicpartial differential equations
weregreatlysimplifiedby assumingisothermalflow and neglectingthe distributed frictional
105
the pipe as well as the convective terms. Friction effects were included in the
effectwithin
Calculations were carried out for all the three methods, using data
wave-plan method.
for
provided a caseof valve closure for a system of liquid flowing from a reservoir at the
upstream end to the downstreamend of a line of constantcross-sectional area. Two
cases were consideredfor eachmethod, that is one with an open end connecting the
upstream reservoir and the other where the orifice is positioned at the upstreamend
betweenthe entrancereservoirand the pipeline (simulatedfriction). It was shown that
each of these numerical methods produces a solution which is identical to the exact
It
solution. was also shown that an exact solution to transientcomplex piping system is
generallynot available.Resultsobtainedusing the numerical techniquesfor a network of
pipes agreedclosely with only minor differences.

Wood, Funk andBoulos(1990),compareda distributedparametermodel using the
wave-planmethod a to lumped parameter model based on a combinationof the dynamic

line andcontinuity equationsto form a set of differenceequationsfor a path of pipes,for
severalcasesof transientconditions in pipe networks. Two piping systems,a three pipe

junction systemanda network,were analysedusing both methods. Comparisonwas made
for various transient situations, including a ramp changein the head and sinusoidal
variation for the former system; and a pump trip, a 50% change in pump speedand a
sinusoidal speed change in the pump for the latter. It was observed that a distributed
parametertransientanalysisof a piping systemrequires a relatively complex analytical

model and may involve a large number of calculations. On the other hand,' a lumped
parameter analysisutilises a much simpler analytical model and requires far simpler
calculations. The time interval for distributed be
parameter model must chosento be
to
small enough account for pressurewavestraversing the in
shortestpipe section the
network, thus requiring the carrying out of frequent calculations. The number of
calculations is generally much larger than the numberrequired utilising the lumped
parametermodel. The study concluded that for fast transients,i.e. those occurring in a
time scalewhich is shortcomparedto the systemcharacteristictime, it is necessaryto use
a distributed parametermodel to accuratelydescribepressureand flow at a particular
point. For extremelyslow transientsit is often acceptableto use a quasi-steadymodel.
When the transient is too fast for a quasi-steadydescription, yet slow relative to the
system characteristic time, a lumped parametermodel may be used. A technique

employedto solve the lumped parameterequations,which comprise the dynamicmodel,
106
is similar to the simultaneous path method for steady state flow and provides reliable
solutions for large complex networks. The use of the lumped parameter model saves
much time and effort.
Suwan and Anderson (1992), developed a reliable basis for lumped-parameter
for
modelsuitable stabilityanalysisof self excited perturbations based on the methodof
lines, discounting the previous conclusionthat the procedureis satisfactoryonly where
transientsare gradual and continuous. The physical problem used was that of a rapid
transient initiated by an instantaneousdownstream valve closure. The model was
successfullyapplied to the in
prediction of compressor surging a systemwhere fluid
compressibility effects are important. The model produced results identical with the
It
method of characteristics. was found that a linear method of lines solution is not
necessarily identical to the linear method of characteristicsolution evenif axAt = Ox,
unlessit is appropriatelyformulatedandappropriateforward and backwardinterpolations

to information
areadopted represent transmissionin the characteristicdirections. This is
clearly most significant in problemswhere wave fronts are distinct and wave reflections
occur, for example with standing wave patterns often associated with self excited
oscillations. For slow transients or flood routing problemswhich are lessdominatedby
either boundary the

conditions, aboveconclusionwould not have the samesignificance.
Somesignificantaspectsregardingthe use of the method of lines were investigated in the
study. The dependentvariableshaveoften been taken as the original primitive variables

but this study concludedthat Riemannor Allievi characteristic variablesare preferable.
For the waterhammer hyperbolic equations, at least, a first-order discrete space
interpolation polynomial represents the underlying physics better than higher order
approximations. The terms in which finite-differencesare usedto representquantities

which are integrals rather than derivatives, in particular pipe friction, may introduce
numerical instability and require particular care. For time-domain simulations,
first-orderEuler integrationis more accuratethan higher-ordermethods,which introduce
errors by violating the hyperbolicequationdomain of dependence.

Zha and Bilgen (1993), presenteda new flux-vector splitting schemefor the
numerical solution of the Euler equation, using the velocity componentnormal to the
volumeinterface asthe characteristicspeedandyieldingvanishingindividual split massflux
at stagnation conditions (with Mach number approaching zero). This keeps the
of the flux-vector splitting schemes,such as being ableto capturecrisp shock
advantages
107
profile, simplicity and efficiency. The scheme also leads to vanishing numerical
dissipation for the mass and momentum equations with Mach number approaching zero.
It was stated that even though one of the diffusive terms of the energy equation does not
varnish, theoretical analysis indicates that diffusion may be ensured by using higher-order
differencing. Application of the scheme to solve the one-dimensional Euler equation
yielded solutions which are monotone and normal shock wave profiles which are crisp.
For a one dimensional shock tube problem with shock and contact discontinuities, this
scheme and the Roe flux difference splitting scheme, give very similar results, which are
the best compared with those from the Van Leer scheme and Liou-Steffen Advection
Upstream Splitting Method (AUSM) scheme. For multi-dimensional transonic flows,
sharp monotone shock wave profiles with mostly one transition zone are obtained. The
results were compared with those from Van Leer scheme,the AUSM scheme and also with
experiments.
It was concludedthat for viscousflow, the presentschememay be more accurate
than the flux vector schemewithout the mass flux vanishing at stagnation conditions.
.
The scheme with a Mach numberpolynomial of degreeone, which is the natural and
lowestdegree,is very simpleandeasilyimplemented.The scheme converges well for the
tested,
cases slightlyfasterthanthe AUSM schemeand slower than the Van Leer scheme.
With a third-order differencing method, the presentschemeproduced results with least
oscillationsneara shock. The resultsalsoagreed favourablywell with experimentalresults

for a transonicnozzle.
Huang and Sloan(1993) presenteda new pseudospectralmethod with upwind
featuresfor numericalsolution of linear singular perturbation problemswithout turning
points. It was shown that this upwind pseudospectralmethod has distinct advantages
relative to the standardpseudospectralmethod and the upwind finite-differencemethods
for singular perturbation problemswithout turning points. However, a conclusionwas
madethat it needsfurtherstudy to apply the upwind pseudospectralmethod to singular

perturbationproblemswith turningpointsand to the numericalsolution of high Reynolds
numberflow problemsin fluid dynamics.Glaister(1994) presentedresults producedby his
method, which has been describedin Section 3.2.3, for five shock tube test problems.
These were compared with exact solutions and solutions using other more complex
algorithms.It was generallyfound that the results are comparable. It was concludedthat
the Glaister method can be used for slab, cylindrically or sphericallysymmetricproblems
108
It
with confidence. was also concluded that the method can be used as a comparison with
from two-dimensional schemes by choosing a large number of mesh points for
results
accuracy and not be expensive on computing.
3.3.2 STUDIES ON PIPELINE RUPTURE AND BLOWDOWN
Work doneon this categoryof studiesis somewhat limited both in quantity and quality.
Oneof the earliestmodelsfor the analysisof gas pipeline rupture on record is that by Sens,
Jouve and Pelletier (1970). This was followed by Lyczkowski, Grimeseyand Solbrig
(1978). Knox, Atwell, Angle, Willoughby and Dielwart (1980) claimedthat three models
existed,which adequatelypredicted the transient

releaseof a gas from a ruptured pipeline.
These are described by the Alberta Petroleum Industry, Government Environmental
Committee (1978). There have sincethen beenseveralattempts to developa computer
model for gas pipe rupture analysis,including that by Tiley (1989) which forms the
starting point of this study. The majority of those which are in

discussed this report are
basedon the methodof characteristics. The rest are basedon various finite-elementand
finite-differenceschemes.Thesestudiesare summarisedin this section.
Sens,Jouve and Pelletier (1970) used an explicit finite-differencemethod for the
numerical solution of partial differential to

equations simulate transient flow in a gas
pipeline a few seconds after a break. Lyczkowski, Grimesey and Solbrig (1978)
investigated several explicit finite-difference numerical schemes for solution of
homogeneousequationsof changefor one-dimensionalfluid flow and heat transfer. The
Alternating Gradient Method (AGM), which is based on the two-step Lax-Wendroff
procedure,was found to be the most successful. Resultsusing the AGM were compared
with analytical results for an ideal shock tube and blowdown of an ideal gas, and also
experimental results for blowdown of a steam-watermixture. Agreementbetween the
resultswasvery good. Comparisonof the AGM with the two-step Lax-Wendroff method
for the shocktube indicatedthat the AGM is moreaccuratethan the Lax-Wendroff scheme,
probablydueto more numericaldampingin the AGM. Although the AGM is restricted by

a time-steplimitation which is slightly smallerthan the standardCourant condition for a
giventime-stepandmeshsize,it is at leastas accurateas implicit schemes.Sinceonly two
cyclesper time stepare needed,the AGM is fasterthana fully implicit scheme. In addition,
the AGM is simple to programme.
109
In the study by the Alberta Petroleum Industry, Government Environmental
Committee (1978) to evaluate and improve hydrogen sulphide isopleth prediction the
following techniques were used: two dispersion models, the INTERA Environmental
Consultants Ltd. (INTERA) model and the Energy Resource Conservation Board (ERCB)
model; and two blowdown models, the INTERCOMP Resource Development and
Engineering (INTERCOMP) model and a simplified blowdown model. Common
blowdown curves generatedby the INTERCOMP "TRANSFLOW" blowdown model were
used in both the ERCB and INTERA atmospheric dispersion calculations. The
INTERCOMP "TRANSFLOW" model uses the basic momentum, mass and energy
balances in a numerical simulator to calculate the time curve defining the rate of gas
blowdown from the pipeline. Among other things, the model has the capability of including
valve closure time, frictional effects and gas flow rate in the line before rupture in the
calculations. No further details of the models were given in the report.
Knox, Atwell, Angle, Willoughby and Dielwart (1980), reportedon a project to
assessthe basic source characteristic assumptionsrelevant to modelling of sour gas

pipeline ruptures and well blowouts. A 3.2 kilometres long, 168 millimetre diameter
pipeline was ruptured 32 times under varied conditions. A 7.1 kilometres long, 323
millimetrediameterpipelinewas alsoruptured and resultswere photographicallyrecorded.
The experimentalrupturing technique,transient releaserate and sensitivity to source
configurationwereevaluated.Parametersinvestigated included overburden,wind speed,

releaseangle,fracturelength, rupturemodeand line pressure. Computerinput parameters
which neededverification are plumerise,volumedilution and rate of release. The study
was based on three computer releaserate models which existed [Alberta Petroleum
Industry, GovernmentEnvironmentalCommittee(1978)] and which havebeendescribed
in the previous paragraph. It was confirmed that all the three computer releaserate
modelsadequatelypredict the transientreleaseof gas from a ruptured pipeline.

Cronje,BishnoiandSvrcek(1980) describeda procedureto solve the equationsfor
single-phase,one-dimensional,unsteady,compressible,frictional flow with heat transfer.

The procedureis basedon Hartree'shybrid method for solving the governing hyperbolic
partialdifferentialequations. In this numericalmethod, a rectangulargrid is superimposed

on the characteristicmeshin the time-distanceplane. The valuesof the variablesat points
lying on the characteristics
at time t are calculatedby linear interpolation from their known
valuesprevailingat the rectangulargrid pointsat the sametime, t. The governing equations
110
are integrated along their characteristicsover a time step at in time, to obtain the new
valuesof thesevariablesat the grid points at time t+ at, and the processis repeateduntil
the required time interval is covered. The method was applied to shock tube data that
simulatea gaspipelinerupture. It was shownthat the effectof friction is considerablymore
important than the effect of heat transfer. For large elapsetimes, the effect of friction is
significant and the numericalmodel predicted well the availableexperimentalvalues at

these times. However, the numerical model agreed with experimentaldata at higher
pressureratios, at short elapsetimes and nearthe rupture plane.
JonesandGough(1981)reportedon a theoreticalmodelfor analysinghigh-pressure
natural gas decompressionbehaviour. The method was incorporated in a computer

programme called DECAY. The model was tested with a seriesof experimentaldata,
which is reported in Chapter5 and Section6.2.2. Jonesand Gough (1981) also reported
that other organisations,including Exxon Production Researchand the University of
Calgary,were involvedin studieson high-pressuregas decompressionbehaviour. The two
organisation had developedsimilar modelsto that of the British Gas. Mallinson (1996)
reportsaboutanothercomputermodelcalled PIPEBREAK, which hasbeenvalidatedwith
recent full-scale pipeline experimentaldata with reasonablesuccess.
FannelopandRyhming(1982) studiedthe suddenreleaseof gasfrom long pipelines.
A straight forward solution basedon the time-honouredconcept of integral methodsin
boundary-layertheory was used. Spatialprofiles of pressureand flow rate were assumed
which satisfy the boundaryconditions. He defineddifferent time regimes,eachrequiring

a differentmethodof solution. The inviscidregimeis often of very short duration, probably
much shorter than the time required for a full break to occur. It is followed by a viscous
expansionprocessin which waveanddissipationprocessesare both important and in which
the pressureat the breakapproaches
the ambientvalue. The combinedinviscid and viscous
expansion-phasewere categorisedas the early time regime. The time regime when the
pressuredecreasesmonotonically towards the open end, such as in the caseof a break at
the low-pressureendwas referredto asthe late time regime. The intermediatetime regime
was definedasthe time which lastsfrom t=25 secondsto the time when the pressurepeak
has moved to the other (closed) end. Simple solutions
were developedfor flow casesof
primeinterest. Validity and accuracyof the methodswere checkedusing two procedures
namely variations of profile families and mathematicalanalysisof the partial differential
equationsbasedon an iterativeapproachcarried out to secondorder. The integral,method
was shown to have adequateaccuracyfor engineeringstudies.
111
Van Deen and Reintsema (1983), developeda computer model for high-pressure
transmission lines based it

on the method of characteristicsand compared with
gas
datafrom the Gasunie transmissionsystem. A leak was simulated by the fast
experimental
the pipelineto a nearbyparallelpipeline at a lower pressure.
opening of a valve connecting
Pressureresponsesat a point 10km downstream of the leak were investigated. Lack of
agreement in the magnitude of the reflected pressure waves was observed and attributed
to imperfect modelling of the boundary It
conditions: was also observed that changes in
the numerical values of the resistance factor of the pipeline have only a slight influence
on the value of the result.

Flatt (1985-1989),studiedthe use of the methodof characteristicsfor analysisof
flow in long pipelines following a rupture. In his model the
unsteadycompressible
isothermaland low Mach number, often applied in the caseof
simplifying assumptionsof
unsteady compressible flow in pipelines, were not used. To achieve higher accuracy,
higher-orderpolynomialsandan assumptionof correspondinglycurved characteristiclines
were also used. The algorithmsused were limited to shock free flows. An accuracy
criterion showedthat higher numericalaccuracy may be if
obtained the numberof grid
points was sufficiently large if
and a specialmodified form of the boundary conditions
at the broken section was used. The major difficulty encountered was due to the
singularity which resulted from the combinedeffects of friction and chocking (M, = 1),
occurring at the broken end. The results confirmed conclusions established earlier that
viscous flows with large values of 4flJd (order of magnitudeof 1000) behave very
differently from flows without friction. In particular the mass flow escapingthrough the
brokensection,and the pressurethere fall to much smallervalues. On the other hand, at
some distance
from the broken sectionthe pressurestaysat high valuesmuch longer than
in the casewithout friction. The study concludedthat the method of characteristicsis
to
more suited problemswith relatively low valuesof the fl
parameter , /d. Cases with
important frictional effects haveto be carefully checked regarding the accuracyof the
resultsand require manymore grid points than caseswithout friction.

Bisgaard,Sorensenand Spangenberg(1987), reported on a finite-elementmethod
developedfor transientcompressibleflow in pipelines. A weighted residualmethod with
a one-dimensional line
straight elementwith two nodes was combined with an implicit Euler
methodandappliedto the basicequationswithout makingany simplification. Higher-order

polynomialswereusedas interpolatingfunctions,sincederivativesmust be specified at the
nodes in additionto the variable itself. The Galerkin finite-elementmethod was usedto
discretizethe equations. Gaussquadraturewas usedfor the integration, where the order
112
of the Gaussquadrature was adjusted to the order of the polynomial. A fully implicit Euler
integration method was used for time integration after a third-order Runge-Kutta method
had failed the stability criterion. The method was used to describe blowout and to
determinethe performanceof a leakdetectionsystem. The first derivative of density and

the first andsecondderivativesof velocity were included since small leaksare more easily
recognisedfrom derivativesof specifiedvariablesthan from the variablesthemselves. A
comparisonwasmadebetweenfull-scale measurements carriedout on a 77.33 kilometres
gastransmissionline from Neustadtthrough Sörzen to Unterföhring, in Germany, and
corresponding finite element calculations. In the rupture simulation, the fluid was
assumed to behave like an ideal gas with constant specific heat flowing through a
convergent nozzle and calculationswere carried out with 21 elementsand a time step
length of 0.5 seconds. It was claimed that results from the computer model had
beencomparedwith processdatafrom a full-scalepipeline. However, this was
successfully
not shownin the paperfor the case of a pipe rupture. It therefore remains doubtful as
to whether the method could accuratelyand efficiently be used for the analysisof pipe
rupture problems.
Lang and Fannelop(1987) reported on a method for efficient computation of the
pipeline break problem. In their method, partial differential equationswere reducedto a

set of ordinary differential equationsby meansof proceduresin the family of the method
of weighted residuals. The reduced equations were integrated by standardnumerical
techniques. The finite-elementmethod, the spectral Galerkin method and the spectral
collocation methodwere all usedand resultscompared. It was demonstratedthat stable,
accurateand efficient solutions to the pipeline break problem could be obtained by the
methodof weightedresiduals. Although the approximatefunctions usedwith the spectral
collocationmethodwould appearto be suitedprimarilyfor elliptic problems,it was possible
to apply them to the hyperbolic equationsby modifying one of the coefficients. Good
results were obtained,and it was recommendedthat the computer time required by this
methodcouldbe furtherreducedwithout lossof accuracywhen the numberof polynomials
in the approximatesolutionsis reducedsuccessivelyduring the
courseof the calculation,
as the gradientsof pressureand velocity becomesmaller. It was concludedthat the best
resultsin termsof stability,accuracyandcomputingtime were obtainedwith the collocation
method.
Cheng and Bowyer (1987) presenteda general quasi-one-dimensionalunsteady
compressiblefluid flow code, which adoptedthe Eulerian approachand used the artificial
viscositymethodfor finite-differencenumericalintegrationof the governing equations. The
113
numerical method is a generalisedtwo-step explicit Lax-Wendroff finite-difference scheme
that includes an adjustableimplicit artificial viscosity term. Two sample computations were
used to demonstratethe code capability. In the first case,the transient imposed on a system
undergoing a pipe rupture was studied for different combinations of the effects of elbows
and restrictors. A steam vessel was considered to be the reservoir with a pressure of
1000psi (69bar) and a temperature of 550°F (288°C). A flow restrictor (with a throat
whose cross-sectional area is 36% of the- duct flow -area) - was located 8ft (2.5m)
downstreamof the secondelbow. In the secondcase,transientscausedby a suddenpipe
rupture at the left sideof three-duct systemwere predicted.

PicardandBishnoi(1988and 1989)usedtheir threemodels,namelythe Perfect-gas
IsentropicDecompression
(PID) model,Real-fluid Isentropic Decompression(RID) model
andReal-fluidNon-isentropicDecompression(RND) model to investigatethe importance
of real-fluidbehaviourin modellingof high pressuregaspipelineruptures. All thesemodels
arebasedon the methodof characteristics.Botros,Jungowskiand Weiss(1989), discussed
some computationalmodelsandsolutionmethodsfor gas pipeline blowdown and assessed
the significanceof the various assumptionsinvolved. Two physical models, namely a
volumemodel,wherea pipeis considered as a volume with stagnationconditions inside;
and a pipe model, where a pipeline section is consideredas a pipe with velocity
increasingtowardsthe exit wereconsidered.The pertinent equations for eachmodel were
solved analytically and numerically. The volume model was representedby a set of
quasi-linearordinarydifferentialequationswhich were solvedby a variableorder backward
differentiationformulamethod(Gear's method). The pipe model is governedby a set of
non-linear first-order parabolic partial differential equations,which were solved by a
first-order Euler implicit finite-differencescheme. It was concludedthat the accuracyof
results obtained from the various models and solution methodsdependsgreatly on the
ratio f .id of the pipe sectionunder blowdown and the stack relative size with respectto
the main pipe size. Generally as f Jd increases, predictionsusing all models tend to
become inaccurate. For relatively low IL/d values, all models provide reasonable
predictionsand thereforethe simple analyticalvolumecalculationscan be usedeffectively.
Tiley (1989), used the method of characteristics for pressuretransients in a
rupturedgas pipelinewith friction and thermal effects included. A real gas equation of
state (Berthelot equation) was usedand the "small terms" in the basic equationswere
neglected. A reducing grid size was used in the vicinity of the break to be enable
rarefactionwavesto be modelledfollowing a linebreak. The friction term was represented
by a second-orderapproximation.The valuesat a state I at the baseof the
characteristic
114
were foundby interpolatingthe grid points. Henceby solving theseequations,a first-order
approximation was obtainedfor the predicted pressure,temperatureand flow velocity.
Since the required stability and accuracy was not achieved using the first-order
approximation,this solutionwas used as an initial estimate in a second-orderprocedure.
Although the exact procedureof this secondorder model is dependent on the type of
grid point being examined,in principle, new values for the variableat state I were found
using quadratic interpolation. The coefficientsin the characteristicequationswere then
calculatedusing thesevalues. The coefficientswere averagedwith the previous state 1
coefficientsand the results were substitutedback into the characteristicequations. By
this method, new values for the predictedpressure,temperature and flow velocity were
obtained. Results were obtainedby performing a numberof computer simulationsfor a
set of data and comparingthe resultswith shock tube and full-size pipeline experimental
data. Problemswereencounteredwith numericalstability and accuracy of results. For
certain grid size and initial conditions, the solution became unstable at randompoints
along the pipeline. It was concluded that although this type of instability could be
controlled to an extent by varying the grid size and break boundary conditions, the
problemmaybe totally alleviatedby using an alternativenumericalmethodfor solving the
theoretical equations.
Lang (1991) reported on the computation of gas flow in pipelines following a
ruptureby a spectralmethod. The governing partial differential equationswere converted
into a schemesuitablefor solutionby a computerby a two step procedure. In the first step,
the collocationversionof the spectralmethod was usedto calculatethe spacederivatives.
The remainingordinary differential equationswere then integratedby standardnumerical
techniquesin the secondstep. Accurate resultswere obtainedfor short computing times
with only a few collocationpoints. Kunsch,SjoenandFannelop(1991) reported on a study
of the flow characteristics
closeto a shut-downvalve for an offshore gas pipeline,and over
the length of the segmentbetweenthe valve and a rupture. Integration of the partial
differentialequationswas performedwith the two-step MacCormack method. A fine mesh
size was imposed at the boundarieswhere the gradients can be large. Treatment of
boundary conditions, especiallythose relative to the valve, basedon conceptsfrom the
method of characteristics,proved to be adequate. The calculations showed a better
accuracythanpreviouslyusedmodels. In anotherpublication,Kunsch, Sjoenand Fannelop
(1995) concludedthat a preciseknowledge of the coefficient friction
of and other losses
coefficientsis not necessary.They demonstratedthat the massflow ratesare insensitiveto
the exactgeometricshapeand contraction ratio of the break, resulting from an accidental
115
They their model results with those obtained by Flatt (1985b).
rupture. also compared
They admitted that the results from Flatt's model (which was based on the method of
accurate than their's, for the inertia dominated early

characteristics) were probably more
ideal [Flatt (1993-94)]
time regime. They observedthat the gas assumption overestimated
the mass flow rate. Flatt (1985b) observed the opposite effect, when the perfect gas
assumptionwas used.
Chen,Richardsonand Saville(1992) presenteda modelfor simulation of blowdown
or rapid following
depressurisation a full-borerupture of pipelinescontaining perfect gases.
The equationsof gas dynamics were solved by the method of characteristicsusing four
differentalgorithmsnamelythe hybrid method,the hybrid methodwith multi-grid system,

wave-tracingand multiple wave-tracingmethods. The multiple wave-tracing method was
foundto be the mostefficientandaccuratemethodamongthe other methodsfor simulating
long gas line rupture problems. This methodwas usedto simulatethe blowdown of the
sub-seapipeline betweenthe Piper Alpha and MCP-O1 offshore platforms and the result
made during the night of the tragedy on the Piper Alpha
wascomparedwith measurements
found be in the discrepancy being due
platform. The resultswere to moderateagreement,
to real fluid behaviour. It was concluded that althoughthe perfect gas blowdown model
is not capableof modellingrealfluid behaviour,its simplicity and speedcombinedwith the
multiple wave-tracingmethod shouldprovide a quick yet reasonablyaccurateevaluation

of gas dynamics for to
risk assessment a gas transmissionline.
Chen,RichardsonandSaville(1993)developeda simplifiedfinite-differencemethod
to solve transient two-phase pipe flow problems. In this method, the flow channel is
discretizedusingstaggeredmesheswherethe flow velocity is definedat the cell edgeand
all other variablesdefined at cell centre. Following the guidelines of the Fourier stability
the
analysis, scheme treatsthe momentumconvection term explicitly and the flow velocity
in termsof pressure.The densityin the massconservationequation is further
is expressed
eliminatedusing a locally linearised equation of state so that the descritizedconservation
lawscanbe reducedto two differenceequationsin terms of mixture enthalpyand pressure
only. The only assumptionmade is that there is thermodynamic equilibrium betweenthe
two phases. The method has severaladvantages.Sincethe velocities in the momentum
equationsare decoupledfrom other statevariables,the extensionof this method to other
two-phaseflow modelsis very straight forward. The size of time step for the integration
is not limitedby a Courantnumberrestriction.The choiceof mixture enthalpyand pressure
permits the method to make transition between single-phaseand two-phase without
difficulty. Extensionto a multi-componentsystemwith concentrationstratification effects
116
is possible.Resultsof the model were presentedby way of examplefor the blowdown of
a 100mlong pressurisedLPG pipelineusing a homogeneoustwo-phaseflow model.
OlorunmaiyeandImide (1993) presenteda mathematicalmodel basedon unsteady
isothermalflow theory and solved by the method of characteristics. It was reported that
the model predicted results for natural gas pipeline rupture problems consistent with
predictionsof other workers. The accuracyof the numerical scheme when using linear
characteristics
with quadraticinterpolationwas found to be adequate. It was found that the
curvatureof the is
characteristics not as pronounced in isothermal flow as it is in adiabatic
flow andthereforeit is not necessary
to includethe effect of curvature of the characteristics
in the computationof unsteadyisothermalflows. It was concludedthat the model is useful
in analysingother unsteadyflows associatedwith pipeline operation, such as controlled
ventingto the atmosphereprior to shutdown or repair, and suddenchangesin pressureat

eitherendof the pipeline. The wavesgeneratedin theseoperationscannotbe as strong as
wavesassociatedwith pipeline rupture.
Gasunie
of the [De
Netherlands Bakker have
(1993)] developed for
a pc-model gas
out flow for complex pipeline networks with different elementsand different out flow
scenariosall in one model. It can model linebreak,venting and leakage. It can handle
elements like valves, vessels, restrictions and elements defining different boundary
conditions, which can represente.g. the behaviourof a compressor. The basic relations
are solved using an implicit finite-difference scheme. A graphicaluser interface makes
inputting of the network very easy. In developing the model, emphasiswas put on
userfriendliness,robustnessand the ability to model complex networks. The accuracyof
the model is estimatedat 5 to 20%, which is consideredby Gasunieto be sufficient for
hazardanalysispurposes.
The SouthwestResearchInstitute(SwRI) [Morrow (1996)] hasconducteda study,
to simulateventingof natural gas pipelines,for the Gas ResearchInstitute. The computer
modelwhich was reportedby OlorunmaiyeandImide (1993) was used. One of the aspects
which were consideredwas whether a leak detection systemcould distinguishbetweena
signalcausedby a pipelineleak andother transientsignalscausedby normal operation, such
ascompressorstartupandshutdownanddeliveriesof gas through branchedlines. Initially,
the computedtransientresultsoverestimatedthe gas outflow and pressuredrop. In order
to matchthe computedresultsto experimentaldata, the throat areaof the relief valve was
reduced below its physical size. This empirical adjustment,which is called "exit loss
factor", resultedin a fairly well agreementbetweencomputedand measuredpressures.
117
3.4 DISCUSSION OF NUMERICAL METHODS
The criteriauponwhicha suitablenumericalmethodis selectedfor analysis of a particular

fluid transientproblem is basedmainly on the accuracyof results and computation cost.
Each numericalmethod has its own advantagesand disadvantages. These have been
discussedin Sections3.3.1 and 3.3.2. In general, higher degrees of accuracycan be
achievedat the expenseof increasedcomputationallabour. The problem is to find, for a

given mathematical model of a pipeline,a numericalmodel which meets the criteria of
accuracyat relatively smallcomputationtime.
Before proceedingwith a discussionof the numericalmethods,it is important to
understandanddefinepreciselythetype of systemandtransientphenomenato be modelled.

The problem of gaspiperupture is highly non-linearand no generalanalyticalsolution is
yet known. The foremost objective of this study, therefore, is to develop a computer
modelwhich will lead to a better understandingof the unsteadyfluid dynamicsbehaviour
occurringinsidethe pipeline. Onealsoneedsto distinguishbetweensimulation of unsteady
gas flow in a single pipe and that in a complex gas pipe network, including the way in
which non-pipe elementsareprovidedfor in the simulation process. At this initial stage,
the model is limited to the simplecaseof a single pipeline, sincethe primary interest is
long, high-pressure trunk pipelines. However, note is taken of these other more
complex casesand a criterion of flexibility for extension to suchsituationsis addedin

the list of selectioncriteria. By the sameargumentand also the conclusion made by
Wood, Funk and Boulos (1990), that for fast transients it is necessaryto use a
distributedparametermodel,the samemodelis used. Despitetheir advantagesof simplicity
and fewer calculations,lumped parametermodels, including the method of lines are

therefore not suitablefor applicationin this particular situation.
Knox, Atwell, Angle, Willoughby and Dielwart (1980), showed that the system
responseto, and therefore its modelling, depends on among other things the rupture mode.
Botros, Jungowski and Weiss (1989) distinguished between two modes of rupture which
require different modelling approaches, one in which the exit area is much smaller than
that of the main pipe and the other in which the exit area is as large as the main
cross-sectional area. This study focuseson the latter case. However, with appropriate
specificationof the boundary conditions the model should be able to analyseany other
modeof rupture. For this casethe flow velocity in the pipe becomeshigh (about 350 m/s)
118
initially, at the ruptured section,and varies rapidly with time. Shock waves of varying
speeds are formed. Thesetravel up and down the pipe and are ultimately transmittedand
partly reflected at geometricaland contact discontinuities. For long transmission lines
(typically 150km), this could takesometime. A method must therefore be chosenthat
will accuratelyrepresentthese shock waves and accommodatethe varying speedsof the

waves without smearing the details or overshooting. With appropriate choice of a
numericalmethod, all shocksmay be treated wherever they in
appear the pipeline. In
addition,shock interactions with boundariesand other shock wavesmay also be treated.
Having readSections3.3.1and3.3.2, one would have probablyhad an answerfor
which numericalmethodis to be selected. As regards the review of numericalmethods

aswell asthe actual modelling of pipe rupture,the work by Tiley (1989) remainsthe most
recent and comprehensive.However, a major inconsistencyis observedin selecting the
methodof characteristicasthe optimum numericalmethod. This is mainly becauseit was
admitted that the Lax-Wendroff two-step explicit finite-difference method is the most
suitablefor dealingwith systemsin which shock wavesform. The study could also have
benefited from previous similar studies by Flatt (1985-1989) and Picard & Bishnoi
(1987-1989),which seemsto havearrivedat the sameresults and conclusions. The two
strong argumentsput forward by Tiley (1989), in favour of the methodof characteristics

are,small time step requirement and proper handling of the boundaryconditions. The
discussionin Sections3.3.1and3.3.2 showsthat thesecould both be achievedwith other
methods such as the explicit finite-differencemethod used by Beaucheminand Marche

(1992). In addition, in both the studiesby Van Deen and Reintsema(1983) and by Tiley
(1989), there appearsto be someproblems due to the representationof the boundary
conditions. Flatt (1986) claimedto have achievedhigher numericalaccuracyby using a

special modified form of the boundaryconditions at the broken section. However, the
algorithmshe usedare limited to shock free flows. It is therefore doubted as to whether
the advantageof the methodof characteristicson handlingthe boundary conditions really
holds in the caseof ruptured gas pipelines.
Thereareconflictingresultsregardingthe significanceof the friction effects on the
results,from the studiesof Van Deen and Reintsema(1983) and Flatt (1986). Whereas
the formerconcluded that changesin the numericalvalue of the resistancefactor of the
pipelinehave only a slight influenceon the results, the latter confirmedthe effect to be
the opposite for flows with large value of fl, /d. From the studies on modelling
of
119
transientsusing the methodof characteristics,the selection of whether or not to use the
method is basedon amongother things the ratios of fl, /d, Mach numberand Courant
number (C.). The method of characteristicsis more suited to problemswith relatively
low valuesof the parameterUd (order of magnitude of 250). For C. valuesnot equal
to unity, the method of characteristicsproducesinaccurateresults. Most of the studies
on gas pipe rupture, using the methodof characteristicshave produced unsatisfactory

results. Moreover, as stated by Bhallamudi and Chaudhry (1990), the method of
is not suitablefor mixture flows, which are likely to occur in high-pressure
characteristics
natural gas pipeline ruptures. Basedon this argument,it is thereforeconcludedthat the
method of characteristicsis not suitable for modelling of transients in ruptured gas
pipelines.
Implicit methods are appropriateif the time step is more restricted by the
stability criterion of explicit methods than accuracy requirement. Since accuracyis

determined by derivatives of the solution, the applicationof implicit methods is likely
to be successfulin caseswhere the solution varies slowly in spaceand time or where the
important effects propagateslowly with respect to the acoustic waves. This occurs
seldom with unsteadyflows where the system changessignificantly with small time
intervals so that larger time steps are not applicable. Implicit finite-differenceschemes
are more economical than the explicit finite-difference schemesand the method of
characteristics,althoughthe latter can achievemore accurate results. From the above
reasoning,implicit finite-differencemethodsare not favourablefor applicationsdealingwith
rapid transientssuchas in the caseof a ruptured gas pipeline.
The method of Moe and Bendiksen reported before, represents a typical model
for complex flow analysis incorporating aspectssuch as multi-phase and
multi-dimensional
flow. But since it is based on implicit finite-difference formulations, it is doubted
as to
whether it meets all the requirements for analysis of transients in a ruptured gas pipe.
However, the theoretical background and the procedure used, could form a useful basis for
developing a model for the particular case being addressed.
The recentapplicationsof finite-elementmethodsin transientcompressibleflow in
pipelines such as the one described by Bisgaard, Sorensenand Spangenberg(1987),

indicate a good potential of the methodsfor such applications. However,
compared to
finite-differencemethods,the latter haveconsiderable advantage in
computation time.
Addingthis to the complexity of formulating the finite-element
equations,especially in
120
unsteadygasflow in pipelines,the methodbecomesless favourablefor such applications.
Recentlydevelopedflux-differenceschemes,such as the Zha-Bilgen flux-vector splitting
method, appear to possessmost of the properties required for analysisof transientgas

flows. Also the wave-plan method looks promising as an alternative solution method,
although its applicationon gas transientsanalysisis as yet unknown.

Explicit finite-difference methods including the pseudoviscosity method, the
second-order two-step Lax-Wendroff method, the Alternating Gradient Method of

Grimesey and Solbrig (1978) and MacCormack method and the third-order
Warming-Kutler-Lomaxmethod,areby far the mostpreferred. Despitebeing efficient and
able to captureshock waveswith only a slight or no overshoot problems,they can very

well be suitedfor applicationsof increasingcomplexity such as two-phaseliquid-gas and
multidimensional flows and complete equations can be used. The MacCormack
second-ordermethodandthe third-orderWarming-Kutler-Lomaxmethodhave particularly
been selected,in addition to the methodof characteristics.
121
CHAPTER 4
THE COMPUTER MODEL FOR LINEBREAK ANALYSIS
4.1 SIMPLIFICATION OF THE BASIC EQUATIONS OF FLOW
4.1.1 SHOULD THE SMALL TERMS BE NEGLECTED?
Thereare two contradictory constraintsin developinga computer model for the transient
fluid in pipelines. On the one hand,it is requiredthat the description
flow of compressible
of the is
phenomenon accurateand on the other hand, it hasto be simpleenoughthat the
for
computational meansnecessary solving this model are reasonable. As a common
simplified
practice, modelsare sought which presenta reasonablecompromise between the
accuracyof the description,

computationtime and storagerequirements. Simplified models
are obtained by neglecting some terms in the basic equations, based on quantitative
estimations of the particular elementsof the equation, for some given conditions of
operation of the pipeline. Different authors have used various simplifications and have
neglectedor retainedone term or the other. The terms which are commonly neglectedin
the simplificationof the basic equationsare the inertia or accelerationterms, puäu/ax; the
convective term, uaplax; and the gravity term pgsinO. To decide which terms may be
neglected,magnitudesfor eachterm for characteristicvaluesof the variableare needed.

By consideringa high-pressuretransmissionline, where the dynamicvariations are
determinedby the fluctuations in demandwith significant changesoccurring on the time
scaleof hours,GoldwaterandFincham(1981)concludedthat it is reasonableto neglect the

inertia terms as they contribute less than one per cent of the friction term. This
approximation is referred to as the creeping motion approximation. However, if the

disturbances the
aremorerapid, valuesof the inertia terms in the region of the disturbances
will be significant. The creeping motion approximation is therefore not likely to be

satisfactoryin that region, though it may still be a reasonableapproximationto the gross
behaviourof the whole system. Weimann(1978) concludedthat the secondinertia term,
puau/ax, can be neglected, but the first inertia term, pau/at, should be retained if
disturbances.
with a cycle time of lessthan eight minutesare important.
Assuming steady-stateconditions and using a steady-stateflow computation
procedure,Osiadacz(1987)calculatedthe approximatevaluesof the particular terms of the

momentumequation. His results showedthat the first inertia term, secondinertia term,
122
gravity term and the friction term, amountedto 0.170 to 3.407%, 0.053%, 6.424% and
145.9%respectively,of the term describingthe pressuredrop along the pipe. The majority
of workers have neglectedthe second inertia term, but have retained the first term.
Goldwater and Fincham(1981) statedthat this decisionis influencedby the convenience
of this approximationin applyingthe methodof characteristics.Kiuchi (1993) arguedthat

the secondinertiaterm canbe eliminatedby assumingthat the convectiveterm is negligible,
andthe flow velocityis smallcomparedto the speedof sound. He justified his assumption
by the observationby Guy (1967) that for most casesof operationsin actual gas pipelines,
the ratio of the valuesof the pressureterm : first inertia term : the secondinertia term is
approximately 1:0.1:0.01. However, in the caseof high flow velocity, where the above
assumptionis not valid he recommendedthat the energyequation should be considered
becauseof the Joule-Thompsoneffect. A strong argumentfor retention of both the inertia
terms was put forward by Rachford(1972) and again by Rachford & Dupont (1974), on
the basis that their deletion is justified where models are used only to simulate slow
transients.
A simplification whereby the convective term has been neglected is known as the
acoustic approximation. Lavooij and Tijsseling (1990) argued that the convective term can
be neglectedif the fluid velocity is much smaller than the propagation speed of the pressure
waves. Moe and Bendiksen (1993) used the dambreak problem to illustrate the importance
of the horizontal convective term, in the momentum equation, on the numerical diffusion.
The gravity term is neglected in simplifications whereby it is assumed that the pipeline is
horizontal. The majority of workers have used this approximation in their
models. Flatt
(1993-1996) argued, by using the momentum equation of a stationary one-dimensional flow
with friction and gravity terms included, that for a typical pipe flow situation, the influence
of the gravity term is small compared to that of the frictional effects. He argued that since
the friction factor is not known accurately, the error made by neglecting the gravity term
is less important than the error in the friction factor
plus the error due to the one-
dimensional flow assumption. For unsteady flow, the uncertainty
on the friction factor is
actually very large. He noted the caseof two-phase flow is a totally different one as gravity
affects even horizontal flows. Such flows are extremely sensitive to how well the two
phases are mixed. Gravity, having the tendency to unmix the liquid and gaseous
components, can result in a significant error in the solution. However, this later effect is
not taken into account in the simplified model used in this study.
123
Two other terms in the basicequationswhich needto be consideredare the term
uaH/ax for the geometricvariation of the pipe cross-sectionalarea, and the term uap/c3x
for variationin cross-sectional
areaof the pipe dueto the elasticityof the pipe material. For
gaspipelines,wherethick walled and uniform diameterpipesare used,these

high-pressure
terms are normally omitted. However, some workers including Flatt (1989) and
Beauchemin& Marche (1992), haveincludedtheseterms. In the study by Tiley (1989);
all the four terms discussed i.
earlier e. the two inertia terms, the convectiveterm and the
gravity term; were included. This was despitethe fact that the method of characteristics
wasusedfor numericalsolution of the basicequations. However, the model did not take
into considerationthe terms representingthe variation of the pipe cross-sectionalarea.
Exaggeratedsimplification of the basicequationsmay lead to distorted understandingof
reality and false conclusions. On the other hand if the model is too complicated,it may
proveimpractical.Followingon from the foregoingargument,it is concludedthat the three
basicpartialdifferentialequationswill be usedin their "accurate"form i. e. Equations(2.6),
(2.7) and (2.29) with the exceptionthat the term for variation of cross-sectionareai. e. g
is set to zero. In addition the pipe diameteris assumedto be uniform i.e. cos* = 1. The
resolutionequationsare as follows:
Continuity equation
ap aP
u . pau 0 (4.1)
at ex ax
Momentum equation
au lap au
.u "-g sin0 (4.2)
at p 6x äx pA
Energy equation
öp öp Z äu 1
u "aP -A (as - 1)(p. w u) (4.3)
at äx ax
4.1.2 SOLUTION PROCEDURE
The basicpartialdifferentialform of the threeconservationequationsare to be solvedusing
a suitable numerical method. Different workers have used different approachesin

manipulatingandsolvingsuchequations.Cronje,Bishnoiand Svrcek (1980) developedthe
threeequationsof conservationin a very similarmannerto the one usedin this study. They
124
used the thermodynamicrelationshipsfor a perfect gas to obtain a set of transformed
equations,whichwerethen solvednumerically. Van Deen and Reintsema(1983) reduced
the three conservationequationsand the equation of state into two partial differential
equations (with respect to pressure, velocity and temperature), which were then solved
numerically. By introducing the so-called molar flow and substituting it to the continuity
and momentum equations, Osiadacz (1987) reduced the two equations into one second-
order partial differential equation.
As it can be seen above, there are various ways of manipulating the basic
conservationequations,which couldresultin different numbersand forms of the equations.
However,the majority of workers haveusedthe basicequations(after the simplifications
discussedin Section4.1.1),without manipulatingor combiningthem as shown above. For
flow, an equationof stateis added(in somecasescombinedwith
the caseof non-isothermal
the conservationequation).The basicprinciplein manipulatingtheseequationsis to ensure
mathematicalconsistency,i.e. the numberof equationsshould be the sameas the number
of unknown dependentvariables.
It hasalreadybeenstated,in Section2.3, that the three equationsof conservation
have been developedin a way which enablesthem to be valid for real (or perfect) gas
homogeneous liquid-vapourmixturesandpureliquids. The form of the equationsis almost
identicalto the onerequiredfor a perfectgas,which simplifiesconsiderablycomputer codes
andcandealwith problemswhereseveralof thesethree fluid forms appearsimultaneously.

The threeequationsof conservationcontain three dependentvariables,namelyp, u and p.
In addition, T, which is also required in calculating 0, needsto be determined. This
necessitatesthe addition of another equation, the equation of state, in order to ensure
mathematical consistency. These four equations will be solved simultaneouslyby a
computer,usinga suitablenumericalscheme. In Section2.4, a detaileddiscussionis made
of the available options which can representthe equationsof state. This work will be
greatlysimplifiedif one of the computersoftware packagesavailableis obtainedand used
a sub-routineof the main programme. The QUANT software is strongly recommended
becauseapart from the usual thermodynamicand transport properties the
of gas, it also
givesthe valuesof the partialderivativesap, ßr, YT' Ys and Ss required for the y8 method,
which is usedin this study.
The Chenexpressionfor friction factor [equation (C-5)] is usedto account for the
friction losses. The formula for unsteadyfriction loss based
on wall shearstresshasbeen
found unsuitablefor this study becauseit requires two-dimensionalflow
consideration.
Also the two-phasefriction multiplierhasnot been
usedat this stage. Using the two-phase
125
friction multiplier, the expressionfor the friction term becomes
AP UIUI 2
fD j (4.4)
d
where cZ is the multiplier for two-phaseflow. The heat transfer is calculatedusing the
recovery factor and adiabatic wall temperature method. The fluid properties used to
calculate both the friction force and heat transfer are flow dependent,rather than the
constantvalue Reynoldsand Stantonnumbersusedby Tiley (1989).
4.1.3 REPRESENTATION OF NON-LINEAR TERMS
The basicequationsfor the unsteadyflow of fluid in pipelinescontainterms which cannot

be representeddirectly by finite differences. Theseterms are the pipe friction term, the
secondinertiaterm, the convectiveterm, and the term representingthe geometricvariation

of cross-sectionalarea. Someworkers have avoidedthis problemby neglectingas many
of the aboveterms as possible. However, finite-differencemethodscan take into account
these non-linearitiesin the basic partial differential equations,which are neglectedin the
linear transfer techniquesbut which do have an influence on the flow. A second-order
approximationis usedto calculatethe frictional force.
4.2 INITIAL AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
4.2.1 INTRODUCTION
Partial differential equationsare classifiedaccordingto their order as first-, second-order
etc.; as either linear, or quasi-linearor non-linear; and either elliptic, or parabolic, or

hyperbolic. The criteria for this classificationis explainedin most literature dealingwith
partialdifferentialequations,includingAmes(1977),Hoffman(1989)and Lapidus & Pinder

(1982). Further classificationis made through the engineeringand physical problems
describedby thesepartial differential equationsas either equilibrium (boundaryvalue), or
eigenvalue,or propagation (initial value) problems;according to the type of initial and

boundaryconditions existing. Equilibrium problemsare problemsof steady-statenature.
Very often,but not always,the integration domainis closedand bounded. The governing
equationsfor equilibriumproblemsare elliptic. Eigenvalueproblemsmay be thought of as

extensionsof equilibriumproblems,wherein critical valuesof certainparametersare to be
determined in addition to the correspondingsteady-stateconfigurations. Propagation
126
problems are initial value problems that are unsteady-state or transient by nature.
Predictionof subsequent behaviourof the system,given the initial steady-state,is achieved
by solving the differential equation within the domain when the initial steady-stateis
prescribedandsubjectto prescribedconditionson the boundaries. The integration domain
is open. The problem of propagation of pressure waves in fluids, falls under the
classificationof propagationor initial value problems. Propagationproblemsare described
by parabolicand hyperbolicpartial deferentialequations.

In order to obtain a unique solution to a partial differential equation, a set of
(initial
supplementary andboundaryconditions)must be provided, in order to determinethe
arbitrary functions which result from the integration of the partial differential equations.
An initial conditionis a requirementthat the dependentvariable is specifiedat someinitial
state. A boundary is
condition a requirement that the dependent variable or its derivative
must satisfy at the boundary of the domain of the partial differential equation. Four
different types of boundaryconditions are distinguished,namelythe Dirichlet, Neumann,
Robin andmixedboundaryconditions. In the Dirichlet boundaryconditions, the dependent
is
variable prescribedalong the boundary, in the Neumann boundary condition, the normal
gradientof the dependent
variablealong the boundary is prescribed;in the Robin boundary
condition, the imposed boundary condition is a linear combination of Dirichlet and

Neumanntypes;andin mixedboundaryconditions, the boundarycondition along a certain
portion of the boundaryis frequently of the Dirichlet type and on anotherportion of the
boundaryis of the Neumanntype.
Theinitial conditionis the steady-state

conditionin the pipeprior to the initiation
of unsteadyflow. The initial conditions are also specifiedat the boundariesat the initial
time. Boundary conditions require valuesonly at full node points (points which have an
integral number in the spatial index) and do not involve any tentative locations.
Lyczkowski,GrimeseyandSolbrig(1978) statedthat when the numericalschemeis of the
higherorderthanthe differentialequations,as is often the case,more boundaryconditions
are required for the partial differenceequationsthan for the partial differential equations.
The additional conditions are referred to as missingboundary conditions. However, the
theory of characteristicsappliedto differential equationsrestricts the boundaryconditions
which may be specified. The boundary conditions which can be prescribed are inlet
(upstream), outlet (downstream) and closed boundary conditions. Missing boundary
conditionsonly occur for the inflow boundary. This additional information is obtainedby
127
extrapolatingfrom the interior. At an inflow boundary,the theory of characteristicspermits
only two itemsto be specified;andfor an outflow boundary,only one item can be specified.
Only a zero velocity may be specifiedat a closedboundary,in the caseof gas flow. For
liquid flow, cavitation can occur and for a vapour condensationmay occur.
When flow reversaloccurs at a boundarywhich was initially prescribedto be an
outflow boundary,the pressureat the boundaryremainthe same. However, the internal

energy at the inflow boundarythat was previouslyat the outflow boundarybecomesthe
internalenergyfrom the previoustime step. In the caseof rupturesin pipelines,boundary
conditions are specified at the break. As already stated in Chapter 3, one of the main
advantagesof the method of characteristicsis that the boundaryconditions are properly
posed. Moreover,whenusingfinite-differencemethodsof higher than first-order, it is not
possibleto solve the boundarynodesdirectly. Beaucheminand Marche (1992) gave the
two methodswhich aregenerallyusedin conjunctionwith the MacCormackscheme. The
first methodinvolvesusing the appropriatecharacteristicequationat eachboundary. The
second method involves extrapolation of interior fluxes at fictitious calculation nodes

beyondthe boundaries.The presenceof thesefictitious nodespermits differencingin both
directions even at the boundaries. The use of characteristicequationsis preferredto the
flux extrapolationmethodbecausethe formermethodgenerallyyields better overall results.
When using a third-order scheme,it is only possibleto solve for nodesj=3,4, N-2;
.....
where N is the numberof reaches. In this situation, a second-orderschemewithout the
third level is usedat the nodesadjacentto the boundary.
4.2.2 STEADY STATE ANALYSIS
4.2.2.1 Basic Equations for Steady State Flow
The details of the programmesdevelopedin this study are given in Section 4.6. After
promptingfor systemdataandin the caseof variablegrid size generatingthe distancegrid,
steadystateanalysisis performedfor all the distancegrid points in both the upstreamand
downstream sectionsof the pipe. Two separateprogrammeshavebeen
written one for
each of the pipe sections. The programmefor the downstreamsection dependson data
calculatedby the programmefor the upstreamsection. This makesit necessaryfor the
former programmeto be run in successionto the latter
programme.
128
The steady statemodel assumesa fully developedflow, with the fluid properties
beingknown at the initial grid point. The basicequationsfor steadystate flow analysisare
derivedfrom the basicequationsfor unsteadyflow (Equations(4.1), (4.2) and (4.3)). All
the partialderivativeswith respectto t areset to zero, thus resulting in ordinary differential
to
equationswith respect x. Assuming that the cross-sectionareaof the is
pipe constant,
the three ordinary differential equationsare as follows:
Continuity equation:
dP du
u .p .0 (4.5)
dx dx
Momentum equation:
dp du L
,PUA*I-! - 8sin 0 p- 0 (4.6)
dx lP
Energy equation:
dpP ai 1(as-t) °-.
dx .0 (4.7)
u dx Au
In addition to the abovethree equations,the QUANT software is used to calculatethe
andtransportpropertiesof the fluid. Also the equationof statecan be used

thermodynamic
in any form which is convenient for the type of assumptionsused. Given the fluid
properties at one grid point, the equations are solved simultaneouslyto obtain the
propertiesat the next grid point. Four different modelsall of which assumeviscous flow,
were developed in this study. The modelsare an incompressibleflow model and three
flow modelsbasedon isothermal,adiabaticand non-isothermalnon-adiabatic
compressible
flow assumptions.
Directiori of Flow
- DISTANCE[X]
AB
Fig. 4.1 Grid Mesh for SteadyState Analysis
Three numerical methods of solution are compared (only for incompressible

adiabaticflow assumption).The methodsarefirst-order backward,first-order forward and
second-orderfinite differencemethods.For the rest of the flow assumptionsonly the first-
order backward finite difference method is used. Aller calculating p, u and p; the
temperature of the fluid is calculatedusing either the QUANT software or the general
equationof state[equation(B-2)]. The speedof soundis calculatedusing either equation
(A-10) or (A-11), dependingon the assumptionsmade.
129
4.2.2.2 Incompressible Flow
The incompressible flow assumption means that

dp
p
dx
which accordingto the continuity equation(4.5) implies that

du
0
dx
From the momentumequation(equation(4.6))

dp
"_L. gsino p
dx pA
In onevariationof the model,it is assumedthat temperatureis constanti. e. isothermalflow
while in anothervariation an adiabaticflow is assumed.In both the variations, numerical

analysisis performedusing a finite-differencemethod in which the fluid propertiesat the
previous grid point are used to calculatethe new fluid properties at the new grid point.
This numericalmethodis referredto asthe backward differencemethod, and is of the first-
order of accuracy. Using this method and referring to Fig. 4.1, the pressuredifference
betweenthe two points is given by the following equation:
ep. --' " gsinepAr (4.8)

pA
p andu areconstantfor both the isothermalandadiabaticmodelsand T is also constantfor

the isothermalmodel. The temperaturedrop in the adiabaticmodel is obtainedby
differentiatingthe equationof state [equation (B-2)]. The resulting equationis as follows:
dp=ZRp dT
Rearrangingthe aboveequation,we get:
dp
dT
ZR p
which in finite differencesbecomes

°p
AT " (4.9)
ZRp
4.2.2.3 Isothermal Compressible Flow
From the continuity equation(equation(4.5))

du
dp p (4.10)
1130
and from the momentum equation (equation (4.6))
dp du ."g sing p dx (4.11)

--pu
PA
Differentiating the equation of state (equation (B-2)), with respect to p, we get:
dp (4.12)
ZRT
Equating the right hand side of equations (4.10) and (4.11) results in the following
equation:
dp du
ZR Tu
and rearranging we get

du -' (4.13)
PZRTdp
Substitutingequation(4.13) into equation(4.11), resultsin the following equation:
pU i
dp dp +w+ gsin9 pdx
pZRTpA
which upon solving for dp gives
g sing
dp `4 p dx
"-p
I1 - u2
ZR T
Based on the proceedingequationsand referring to Fig. 4.1, the finite difference
equationsbasedon the fluid propertiesat the previous grid point are as follows:
(1'
,g sin0
AP -pAP Ax (4.14)
1- u2
"ZRT
Au .-Z"RT Ap (4.15)
p
AP - -P Au (4.16)
u
and T is constant.
131
4.2.2.4 Adiabatic Compressible Flow
Equations(4.10) and(4.11) arealsousedfor this model. In addition, the equationof state

for adiabaticflow is used. The equationis as follows:
P= p" (4.17)
where n is the polytropic coefficient of the gas. Expressing equation (4.17) in natural
logarithmswe get the following:
lnp=nlnp
Assumingn is constantand differentiating we get:
dp
dp "p (4.18)
np
Similarly from equation(B-2) and assumingthat Z is constant.

dp dP
dT - - IT (4.19 )
P PJ
Three different numerical methods are used, in this thesis, to solve the four
differential equations(4.10), (4.11), (4.18) and (4.19). The three methodsdiffer in the
properties of the fluid usedto calculatethe dependentvariablesat the new grid point i. e.
point B in Fig. 4.1. In the first method,the fluid propertiesusedare those at the previous
grid point (point A). This is
method referredto as first-order backward differencemethod.
In the secondmethod,the propertiesusedare those at the new grid point (point B) and the
methodis calledfirst-orderforward differencemethod. The third method,is referred to as

a second-orderdifferencemethodandusesthe averageof the propertiesat the previousand
new grid pointsi.e. pointsA andB respectivelyin Fig. 4.1. A comparisonis madebetween
the threemodelswith regardto their accuracy,and simplicity. Sincemost of the data used
arefor relativelyshortpipelinesandzero initial flow velocity, it is generallyfound that there
is not muchdifferencein the resultsfrom the three methodsto justify further investigation
andvalidation. The first-orderbackwardmethodwas selectedfor use in all the steadystate

analysisprogrammes,especiallybecauseof its simplicity. Also sincethe steadystatemodel
is by itself a very inaccuraterepresentationof the flow of gas in high-pressurepipelines,it
is concluded that there is no justification for using a more accuratenumerical method.
However,for longerpipelinesandflow velocities which are significantlygreater than zero,
variations in the resultsfrom the three numericalmethodsare expected.
132
(a) First-order Backward Difference Method
In this method, the dependent properties of the gas p, u, p and T; are calculated based on
the properties of the gas at the previous grid point. The four differential equations (4.10),
(4.11), (4.18) and (4.19) are used to derive the finite-difference equations for this method.
From equations (4.10) and (4.18)
AU U AP (4.20)
np
From equations(4.11) and (4.20):

10 9I
.. g sin
lpA
Ap p Ax (4.21)
Ip u2
np
-1
and Au
Op --p (4.22)
U
or
Ap
AP-P (4.23)
np
From equation(4.19)
AT -AP -pT (4.24)
pp
Alternatively, equation(4.12) could be used insteadof equation(4.18), in which

case equations (4.20) and (4.21) would be replaced by equations (4.15) and (4.14)
respectively. The other thermodynamicand transport properties of the fluid are also
calculated,basedon the state of the fluid at the previousgrid point.
(b) First-order Forward Difference Method

Calculation of the four dependent gas properties p, u, p and T at the new grid point is
effected using values of the same properties at the new grid point. But in this study, the
other thermodynamic properties and also the transport properties used are based on the
previous grid point. Equation (4.6) expressed in finite differences is as follows:
Op + (P+Op)(u+Du)Au + (p+Op)lOx =0 (4.25)
where
l to
.g sin g (4.26)
pA
Equations(4.23) and (4.20) are usedto calculate Ap and Au respectively.
133
Calculation of A p:
(p.AP) Ap PAP °p°p

ep . . "
n (p"Ap) n(p"Ap) n(p. Ap)
(I- Ap
&P PAP
,
n(p"Ap) n(p"Op)
PAP n(P+AP)PAP
ep.
AP n( +Ap)[n( +Ap)-API
n(p.eP)( i- n(p"AP)
AP p °p (4.27)
np + (n-1)Ap
Calculation of Au:
(u. e u)Ap
AU .-
n(p"Ap)
uAp AuAp
" _ _
n(p«Ap) nip. Ap)
Ap uAp
Au 1" . _
n(p"Ap) n(,p"Ap)
Au uAp
--
Ap
n(p. Ap)I1.
l ncp, Ap)
Au uAp
--
n(p. Ap). Ap
Ap
Au --u (4.28)
np. (n . 1) Ap
Calculation of A p:
Equations(4.27) and (4.28) are substitutedinto equation(4.25) and rearrangedto form a
polynomialfunctionin A p. The polynomialis solved for A p, which is then substitutedinto

equations (4.27) and (4.28) to obtain Ap and Au respectively. Substituting equations
(4.27) and (4.28) into (4.25) we get:
134
ý(,
eP
PeP ,.AP _P ue
np . (n-1)ep np + (n. 1)ep np . (n. 1)ep
(
pAp lAx
p. -
np " (n-1)Ap
Multiplying throughout by [np + (n-1)Ap] and [np + (n+1)Ap]2

{[np + (n-1)Ap][np + (n+1)Ap]2 Ap) +
{[np+(n-1)Op] p+p Op){[np+(n+I)Op]u-u Ap){- u ip }+
([np + (n-1)Ap][np + (n+1)Ap]Z p+ [np + (n+1)Ap]Z p Ap) 1 Ax =0 (4.29)
Equation(4.29) canbe consideredas having three terms I, II, and III on the left hand side,
representedby the first, secondand third lines respectively. The three terms of equation
(4.29) are simplified as follows:
Term I:
I= [np + (n- 1)A p] [n2p2+ 2np(n+1)Ap + (n+1)2(i p)2] Op
_ [n3p3+ n2(n-1)p2Ap + 2n2p2(n+1)Ap + 2n(n+l)(n-1)p(ip)2 +
n(n+1)2p (A p)2+ (n-1)(n+1)2(Ap)3] Ap

I= n3p3 +n2(n-1)p2 + 2n2(n+1)p2(ß +
2n(n+1)(n-1)p ip3+ n(n+1)2p Ate' + (n+1)2(n-1)iß° (4.30)
Term II:
II = [npp + (n-1)P Op +p ip][npu + (n+1)u Ap -u Op][-u Ap]
_ (npp +np Ap)(npu + nu A p)(-u A p)
_ -u i p[n2p2Pu+n2p Pu OP+n2p Pu OP+n2 Pu(OP)2]

II = -n2u2 p()3 2n2u2 pp( - n2u2 p p2 (AR (4.31)
-
Term III:
III = [n2p2+ 2n(n+l)p ip + (n+l)2 (Ap)2][np + (n-1) Op + Op]pl Ax
_ [n2p2+ 2n(n+1)p Ap + (n+l)2 (Ap)2][np +n Op]pl Ax

_ [n3p3+ 2n2 (n+1)p2 Ap + n(n+1)2 p(Ap)2 + n3p2Op +
2n2 (n+1)p(Op)2 + n(n+1)2 (Ap)3]p 1 Ax

III = n(n+1)2 pl Ax(A )3 + n(n+1)(3n+1)pp I Ax (A2)2 +
= n2(3n+2)p2pl Ox ()+ n3p3 p! Ax (4.32)

Substitutingequations(4.30), (4.31) and (4.32) into equation (4.29) we get:
[(n+1)2(n-1)]LWp4+ [2n(n+1)(n-1)p + n(n+1)Zp- n2 pu2 + n(n+1)2 Ax]"' +
p1
[2n2(n+1)p?+ n2(n-1) p2 2n2ppu2+ n(n+1)(3n+1)pp I Ax](W +
-
[n3p3- n2p2put + n2(3n+2)p2Pl iXx](A2) + n3p3 10x (4.33)
p =0
135
Equation (4.33) is a fourth order polynomial in Ap and is solved using a recipe XZRHQR4,
which is a modified version of recipe XZRHQR from Press, Teukolsky, Vetterling, and
Flannery (1992) and Vetterling, Teukosky, Press,and Flannery(1992). The polynomial
equation(4.33) be in
can expressed a simplified form as follows:
al (Ap)4 + a2 (Ap)3 + a3 (A p)' + a4 (Ap) + a5 =0 (4.34)
where the coefficientsal to a5 are definedas follows:
al = (n-1)(n+l)2 (4.35)
a2 = 2n(n+l)(n-1)p + n(n+l)2 p- n2 pu2+ n(n+1)2p1 Ax (4.36)
a3 = 2n2(n+l)p2 + n2(n-1)p2- 2n2ppu2 + n(n+l)(3n+l)p pI Ax
a3 = (3n+1)n2p2-2pu2n2p+n(n+l)(3n+1)ppIAx (4.37)
a4 = n3p3- n2p2put + n2(3n+2)p2 p1 Ax (4.38)
a5 = n3 p3 pl Ax (4.39)
The fluid temperature is calculated using equation (4.19) as follows:
°ý'
ATT- -°P (T. e
1ý P
(A-P AP Ap AP
- T. - AT
PPPP
ApAP
AT -pp (4.40)
1-IAp PI
-
Pp J
(c) Second-order Difference Method

In this method, the fluid properties are based on the averages between the properties at the
previous and new grid points i. e. points A and B respectively, in Fig. 4.1. Equation (4.6)
expressed in finite differences for this method is as follows:
°-2")Au(p. °-2Pý °-2Pý

ep, (u. rAx(P. 0 (4.41)
Equations(4.23) and (4.21) are usedto calculate Ap and Du respectively.
136
Calculation of A p:
°P
(p ep
2) 2pAp App
e Pn f
AP) n(2p. Ap) n(2p. Ap)
(p "
2
°p 2PAP
nP 1- -
n(2p. Ap) n(2p. Ap)
2pAp
AP .
( Ap
n(2p+Ap) 1-
n(2p"Ap)
Op - 2pAp 2pep
n(2pÀp)_Ap 2np. (n_l)Ap
2pAp
AP . (4.42)
2np+ (n-1)Ap
Calculation of Au:
Du
u. - 0
(2u. Au)Ap (2uAp. AuAp)
eu
p n(2p+Ap) n(2p+Ap)
np. A2
ep 2uep
Au 1, ._
ný2P"ýP) n(2p"AP)
Au . -2uAp -2uAp
n(2p. Ap)+Ap
n(2p+Ap) 1.
n(2p+Ap)
Au -2uAp (4.43)
2np. (n. l)Ap
Calculation of A p:
In a similarway asfor the first-order forward differencemethod, substitution of equations

(4.42) and (4.43) into (4.41) leadsto a fourth order polynomial function in Ap, which is
alsosolvedby the numericalrecipeXZRHQR4. Substitutionof equations(4.42) and (4.43)

into (4.41) gives the following equation:
(-)uAp -2uAp POP pAp

Ap+ u+ p+ +i &x p+
2np+(n+1)Ap .0
-2np. (n+l)Ap 2np+(n-1)Ap 2np+(n-1)Ap
137
NB: For equations (4.42) and (4.43),
2np + (n+1) Ap= n(2p +A p) +Ap and
2np+(n-1) Ap = n(2p+ Op) - Op
Thereforemultiplyingthroughoutthe abovefinite-differenceequationby [2np + (n+l)Ap]Z
and 2np + (n-1) Ap we get

[2np + (n-1) Op][2np + (n+1)Op]2 Ap +
{[2np + (n+I)Op]u -u Op} {-2u Op} ([2np + (n-1) Ap] p+p ip) +
{[2np+(n-1)Ap][2np+(n+1)Ap]Zpl Ax+[2np+(n+1)Ap]2p/AxAp} =0 (4.44)
The aboveequationis split into three terms I, II and III representedby the left handside
first, secondand third lines respectively. The three terms are simplified as follows:
Term I:
I= [4n2p2+ 4np(n+1)Ap + (n+1)Z(Op)2][2np + (n-1),&p] p
_ [8n3p3+ 4n2p2(n-1)Ap + 8n2p2(n+1)Ap + 4np(n+1)(n-1)(Ap)Z+

2np(n+1)2(,&p)2+ (n-1)(n+1)2(Ap)3]i p
I= 8n; p3 (An) + 4n2 p2 (3n+1) ( )2 + 4np(n+1)(n-1)(AR)3 +
2np(n+1)2 ( )3 + (n-1)(n+l)2 (4)4
Term 11:
II = [(2np +n Ap + Ap)u -u Op][-2u Ap][(2np +n Ap - Op)p +p Op]
_ (2npu + nu Ap)(-2u Op)(2npP + nP AP)
-[4npu2 Ap + 2nu2(Op)2][2npp + np Ap]
_ -8n2p2u2 p Op - 4n2u2pp (Op)2 - 4n2u2pp (Ap)2 - 2n2u2 P(,&P)3

II = -8n2p2u2 P(") - 8n2u2pp (g)2 - 2n2U2P(A)3
Term III:
III = [2np + (n-1),&p +i p][4n2 p2+ 4n(n+l)p Ap + (n+1)2(Ap)2]p I &x
= [2np +n Ap][4n2 p2+ 4n(n+1)p Ap + (n+l)2 (Ap)2]p 1 Ax

_ [8n3 p3 + 4n3 p2 Ap+ 8n2 (n+l)p2 ip+ 4n2 (n+1)p(A p)2 +
2n(n+1)2 p(,& p)2 + n(n+1)2 (Ap)3]p 1 Ax
III = n(n+l)2 pI &x(4)3 + 2n(n+l)(3n+1)pp I Ax(A")2 +

4n2p2(3n+2) p1i x(A2) + 8n' p3 p 10x
138
Substitutingthe three terms I, II and III back into the original equation(4.44) we get the
following equation:
(n-1)(n+1)z (4)4 +
[2np(n+1)2 + 4np(n+1)(n-1) - 2n2 U2p+ n(n+1)Z pI Ox](g)3 +
[4n2 p2 (3n+1) - 8n2 u2 pp + 2n(n+1)(3n+1)pp 1 ix](AR)2 +
[8n3p3- 8n2p2u2p+ 4n2p2(3n+2) p/ Ox](AR) + 8n3p3 pl Ox =0 (4.45)
Equation(4.45) is a fourth-orderpolynomialin Ap and could also be expressedin the same

form as equation(4.34). The coefficientsof the polynomial are as follows:
al = (n-1)(n+1)2 (4.46)
a2 = 2n(n+1)2 p+ 4n(n+1)(n-1)p 2n2u2 p+ n(n+1)Z p/Lx (4.47)

-
a3 = 4n2(3n+1)p2 8n2u2 pp + 2n(n+1)(3n+1)ppl Ax (4.48)
-
a4 = 8n3p3 8n2p2u2 p+ 4n2(3n+2)p2p1 Ax (4.49)
-
a5 = 8n' p3 pi Ox (4.50)
The fluid temperatureis calculatedusing equation(4.19) as follows:
)(T+ AT
Ap
AT " -Ap
PP2
(. 4-p Ap
2AT - -LP 2T + -AP AT
PPPP
+&p eP
,
AT- pP (4.51)
Ap Ap)
pp
4.2.2.5 Non-isothermal Non-adiabatic Compressible Flow
All the threebasicequationsfor steadystate flow analysis,equations(4.5), (4.6) and (4.7),
are used in the non-isothermalnon-adiabaticcompressibleflow model. The QUANT

softwareis usedto calculatethe thermodynamicand transport propertiesof the fluid. The
procedureusedis as follows:
(i) The fluid properties at the previous grid point are calculatedusing the QUANT
software.
in (i) above,Säandw arecalculated.
(ii) Usingthe propertiesdetermined
(iii) Solving equations(4.5), (4.6) and (4.7) simultaneouslyfor dp, du and dp and
transformingthe resulting equationsinto finite-differenceequationsto obtain b p,
139
Au and A p. In all the calculations,the fluid properties are basedon the properties
at the previous grid point.

(iv) Calculationof the valuesof p, u and p at the new grid point.
(v) Repeatingthe procedurefor the subsequentgrid points.
Solution of equations(4.6) and (4.7) simultaneously,results in the following equations:
du 2w. AA 1.0
a (89' 1)
, gsin 6p.
dx u pA Au
A"t, ýu 1.
Sý1) + gsin 8p
`4 rt pA dx
du . -t
a2
pu - p-
u
a. wu 1.0.
(a 1) gsin e p
Au pA
du -- dx
(. z
E
pu 1
u
Transforminginto finite-differenceequations,we get the following equation:

(
Q. cou 1(.
(awl) gsin @p
Au ."A u__+ pA Ax (4.52)
)21
pu 1a
u
Expressingequation(4.6) in finite differenceswe get the following equation
Ap "- puAu - gsin 9 pAx (4.53)

pA
The temperatureat the new grid point is calculatedusing the QUANT software.
4.2.3 BREAK BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Correctapproximationof the initial valuesof the dependentvariables,p, u, p and T, at the

break point at the time of the break is equally as crucial as developingan accuratemodel
for analysis of the transient flow which follows. No matter how accuratethe transient
analysismodel is, it will give incorrect results if the initial break conditions are incorrect.
Whena full-borebreakof a pipe occurs, the gas escapesfrom the full areaof the pipe and
140
the propertiesof the gassuchasp, u, p andT changedrastically.In reality, the break could
be different from a full-bore break. The former is consideredto be the worst situation.
Althoughthe gaspropertieschangealmost instantaneouslyafter the break, this happensin
a finite interval of time. The problem here is to find a physicalmodel to representthis

process.Therehave been to
severalmodels calculatethe initial conditionsafter the break
of high pressurevesselsand pipelinescontaining gas. Some of theseare presentedand

discussedin this section.
British Gas [Jonesand Gough (1981)] developeda single-phasedecompression
that whena pipelinebreaks,the gas escapesfrom the full areaof the
modelwhich assumes
pipein a processthat is essentiallyisentropic. The decompressiondisturbancetravels back
into the pipe, with each pressurelevel propagating at a fixed speed. At the break, the
pressurelevelfalls until the gas is escapingat sonic speedwith correspondingequalisation

pressuregiven by the following equation:
2K
2 R"1
P, Po (4.54)
`" K+1
where the subscriptse and o denoteequalisationpressureand initial pressurebefore the

break respectively.
Flatt (1986) developeda homentropicdecompressionmodelwhich is represented
in Fig. 4.2. The initial conditionsbefore the break are calculatedby the appropriatesteady
stateand/ortransientanalysisprogrammesandarerepresentedby curves0-0-(I and A-B-

D for p andu respectively.A suddenbreak at the broken end at time t=0s is accompanied
by an instantaneous drop in static pressurefrom point 3 to a much lower pressureat point
4, correspondingto choked flow i.e. M, =1 for t>Os. The initial values pe(x), p. (x),
(,,.L)
a, (x) and u,(x) for L1sxsL, whereby the arbitrary value L-L' may cover one or more Ax
meshes,arecalculatedby equations(4.55) to (4.62) [Flatt (1986)]. The subscriptse and
o are as defined earlier.
(E2 U
u` 1+ 0ao (4.55)
ao To
K-1 u s- uo
Qs - 1- a (4.56)
2 ao 0
141
LW
Iu
1ý
Direction of flow
---------------------
ý
Vpstrmdkaaa E"d 33 rslwk
Fig. 4.2 DiagramaticRepresentationof the Flatt DecompressionModel
as K1 i
Po
P (4.57)
` a,, R To
s
as x-t
Ps Po (4.58)
ao
where
a0- KR To (4.59)
142
ýt '
To . ao (4.60)
E-x (4.61)
L
and
L- L'
0 t' (4.62)
ao
Kunsch,Sjoenand Fannelop(1991) developedan isothermalmodel which is very
similarto that developedby Flatt (1986). The resultingequationsfor the former model are:
us - ao -x-L (ao - aO) (4.63)

Ll -L
a, = as (4.64)
(uo-1
peP" 1x-L (4.65)
so
ao LI -L
where
P= lnp (4.66)
Tiley (1989) used a different approach,in which linebreakwas consideredas the
situation occurring in a shock tube when the diaphragm is suddenly ruptured. The
equationsfor particlevelocity for rarefactionwave assumingisentropicconditions and that
of particlevelocityof the compressionwavederivedby Earnshaw(1860) and Bannisterand
Mucklow (1948) respectivelywere used. The Earnshawequationis as follows:
1- ` (4.67)
u2a
K-1 -
po
and the Bannister and Mucklow equation is as follows:

P.
a -1
P
ue (4.68)
Ka _P`
(K " 1) + (Ka - 1)
2
a
I
The subscriptse and o are as definedbefore and the subscripta denotethe propertiesat
143
the resulting ambientconditions(low pressurezone). The equalisationpressure,p., was
determined by equatingequation(4.67) to (4.68) and solving for p., by iteration. Tiley
(1989)alsodefinedthe critical value of the equalisationpressureas given by the following
equation:
2K
2 K1
pý ýKr1 po (4.69)
All the three models discussedabove, those by Flatt (1986), Tiley (1989) and
Kunsch, Sjoen and Fannelep (1991) were consideredin this study. All except Tiley's
iterationmethodwerefoundto overestimatethe equalisationpressure,thus causingsevere
problemswith the numericalmethodfor transientanalysisafter the break. Even the Tiley's

equationfor critical equalisationpressureoverestimatedthe equalisationpressure. Tiley's
iterativemethodresultedin equalisationpressureand wave speedwhich are lower than the
critical values. Although this situation does not causeany problem with the numerical
method,it resultsin underestimation
of the initial gasoutflow and thereforeunderestimation
of the releaseratesand blowdown time. In addition, this method producesgood results
only if the low pressurezone (in this caseambient) state is defined close enough to its
actual value. This requires a trial and error procedure. It should be noted that the
propertieson the outsideof the pipe at the break are not the final ambientconditions. For
example, a break problem involving a pipeline with initial conditions before the break as
po 3.14MPa,as 378m/sand T,,=281K, the speedof sound at the low pressurezone after
the breakis 220m/swhile the speedof soundat the final ambientconditions is 399m/s. It
hasalsobeenfound that the arbitrary length L-L1,in Fig. 4.2, of one 0x meshis adequate
as a starting point for transientanalysisafter the break.

A muchsimplerandmoreaccuratemethod than any of the four methodsdiscussed
above is developed and used in this study. This method assumesthat the flow velocity and
wave speedat time t=Os after the break, at the break point (x=L) is the same as the speed
of sound at the break. In equation form, this is expressed by equations (4.63) when x=L
i. e.
u. = a0 (4.70)
and equation(4.64).
144
a [m/s] i
amax
t- ----
a,,,. -j-----
1
i
P[MPa]
Fig. 4.3 Typical DecompressionCurve at the Break Boundary
The equalisationpressureis calculatedexplicitly by substituting equation (4.70) into the

Earnshawequation(4.67). The resulting equation is as follows:
2r
3 -2Kjx1
pe po (4.71)
The valuescalculatedby equations(4.64) (4.70) and (4.71) representthe fluid properties

,
at the critical equalisationpressurei.e. point 2 in Fig. 4.3. Using this model, the maximum
possiblegasflow speedis achievedandthus reducing the possibility of underestimatingthe
gas outflow. The transientanalysisprogrammethen modelsthe flow after the break and
the stateof the gas at the break point, ideally, follows the path shown in Fig. 4.3 as O-®-
O-®.
Referring to Fig. 4.3, two distinct time regimesare consideredat the broken end.
As long as the pressureat the boundary x=L (Refer Fig. 4.2) is higher than the external
pressure, there will be choking of the flow i.e. M,., = 1. When the pressureat x=L
=L(t)
reaches the exterior pressure,the choking condition no longer holds and the boundary
145
condition is replaced by the condition that px_L(t)= p,. The choking and constant pressure
boundary conditions are representedby the straight lines (D-0 and Q -T respectively, of the
curve in Fig. 4.3.

It could be seenclearly, from equation (4.71) that the equalisationpressureis
independent of the external conditions, but finally the conditions inside the pipe (at the
break)will convergeto thoseoutsidethe pipe, through the path shownby the curve (D-0-
Q-T. At the start of the break, the stateoutside the pipe at the break point is markedas
point e. This staterepresentsa low wave speedresulting from the temperaturedrop due
to the suddenpressuredrop at the break. As the gas heatsup, the wave speedrisesto the
valuemarkedas point ®, which correspondsto the final ambienttemperature. However,

a situationcould existwherebythe exterior pressureis greater or equal to the equalisation
pressure. A typical examplecould be in pipes buried under water. In such cases,no
choking flow would occur and the constantpressureboundarycondition will be the only
existing one. The resulting processwould be as representedby the 0
path -0-04 in
Fig.4.3.
Any model which producesequalisationpressurewhich is higher than the critical
equalisationpressure(point ® in Fig. 4.3), for the casewhere p.>%, will suffer severe
problemswith the numericalanalysiswhich follows after the break.
4.3 NUMERICAL SOLUTION OF THE BASIC EQUATIONS FOR

UNSTEADY FLOW
4.3.1 INTRODUCTION
The various numericalmethodsfor solution of the basic partial differential equationsof
unsteadyfluid flow in a pipelineanda detaileddiscussionof their applicationsand suitability

for the solutionof the unsteadyflow equationsfor a ruptured high-pressuregas pipeline are
presentedin Chapter3. The shock-capturingexplicit finite-differencemethodsof solution

are preferredto the shock fitting schemeusing the method of characteristics. Both Tiley
(1989)andNiessner(1980)gavepresentationsof the basic partial differenceequationsfor
the more popularnumericalmethods.It is not intendedto repeatthis presentationhere,but
neverthelessa presentationwill be madefor those methodswhich are used in this study.

Explicit finite-differenceschemesrangefrom the single-stepfirst-order schemesto four-step
fourth-order schemes. Explicit finite-difference methods integrate the basic partial
146
differential equationsby considering the changesin the dependentvariables along the
directionsof the independent
variables.This producesthe solution valuesat evenly spaced
points in the physicalplane.
Various explicit finite-difference schemeswere presentedby Thorley & Tiley
(1987), Tiley (1989) and Niessner (1980). Niessner (1980) included higher-order methods.
This study focuses on the MacCormack and also the non-centred third-order Warming-
Kutler-Lomax method. These methods allow explicit calculation of approximate values
A of the solution at certain node points (i, j+1) of a rectangular grid from known exact
)+,
A(,
or approximate values j) of the solution at another node point (i, j), preferably belonging
to the past. No eigenvectors need to be calculated. Eigenvalues are required only for
testing stability conditions. Here "explicit" means that no linear or non-linear equations are
to be solved. In order to write the equations for the third-order Warming-Kutler-Lomax

finite-difference numerical method, the basic partial differential equations have to be
in
expressed the following form:
aA aA (4.72)
at .B ax . C. o
The form expressed

in equation(4.72) above,alsoappliesfor the method of characteristics.
The form stipulatedfor the MacCormack method is as follows:
ap) a(B)
+ .C (4.73)
at ax
MacCormack(1971) usedhis method for the time dependentNavier-Stokesequationsin
two dimensions. arelineari.e.bodyforcesandheattransferwereneglected.

Theequations
However,the methodcan be used in situationswhere the basic equationsare not linear as
done by Beauchemin and Marche (1992) for analysis of transient flow of a compressible
single-phaseliquid in an elastic pipe. The basic equations in that case were quasi-linear i. e.
in the same form as equation (4.72). The same approach as used by Beauchemin and
Marche (1992) is used in this study.
The threebasicpartialdifferentialequations(4.1), (4.2) and (4.3) can be expressed

in the matrix form of equation(4.72), where the matricesA, B and C are as follows:
P
rý (4.74)
P
147
20
u pa
B. .1u0 (4.75)
p
0pu
(1 -68)Q"tau)
A
W- (4.76)
.g sin 0
pA
0
Before performing transientanalyses,a steadystateanalysishasto be performedin order

to establishthe initial conditions (conditions at t= Os) in the pipeline. This could be
followed by transientanalysisbefore introducing the break boundaryconditions.
The discussionin Chapter3 concludedthat explicitfinite-differencemethodsare the
for
most suitable solutionof the basicequationsfor analysisof linebreakproblems. In this
case the equationsto be solved are equations(4.1), (4.2) and (4.3). The secondorder-
method developed by MacCormack (1971) and the third-order method developedby
Warming,Kutler andLomax (1973) are the most preferablefor this study. The methodof
be
characteristiccould also used,but it was selectedfor solution at the boundary points,
while the MacCormackmethodwas selectedfor solutionat the nodesnext to the boundary.
The threedifferentnumericalmethodsof solution mentionedaboveare usedfor complete
solution of the basic equations. The method of characteristicsis studied in two forms
namelythe first-and second-order. The different methodswere comparedwith regardto
accuracyof their numericalresults,stability and economyin computing resources.
4.3.2 METHOD OF CHARACTERISTICS
The theory of the method of characteristicis very well known and documented. It is
thereforenot intendedto repeatit in this study. For more details on the method, the reader
is referencedto amongothersCourantandFriedrichs(1948), Hartree (1955), Lister (1960)
and Ames (1977). The major weaknessof the natural method of characteristicsarisesin
the eventthat spatialdistributionof the dependentvariablesare required at fixed time. This
is normallythe casein manyfluid transientflow analyses.In such cases,a two-dimensional
148
interpolation in the characteristicnet would be necessaryand it could be complicated
dependinguponthe form of the equations.However, the problem can be avoidedby using
hybridmethods,which definethe meshpoints in advancein spaceand time. In the hybrid
methods, the interpolation is done as computation advances and consequently the

interpolation becomesone-dimensional.
Two commonhybridmethodsare thoseby Courant,Isaacsonand Rees(1952)

is
which a first-order method and Hartreee (1955) which is a second-ordermethod.
Accordingto Ames(1977)the Harteemethodis more accuratethan the Courant-Isaacson-
Reesmethod. Ames(1977)alsostatedthat the former method could be applied to second-
order systemswith only minor changes. Referring to Fig. 4.4, the hybrid method starts by
assumingthat the solution is known at the meshpoints on time level t. The intersections
of the characteristiclines with the time level t line i.e. points Q, R and S are unknown.
Thesetogetherwith the valuesof the dependentvariablesat point P are determinedusing
the characteristicandcompatibilityequations.Interpolationfor the valuesof the dependent
variablesand the positions of points Q, R and S is necessaryat eachstep.
The first stepin the methodof characteristicssolution is to convert the basicpartial
differential equationsof flow into ordinary differential equations. Two most common
methodsof achievingthis are the matrix transformationmethod, suchas the one usedby
Tiley (1989) and that of multiplying the basic equationsby an unknown parameterand
summingthem. The latter methodwas usedby Lister (1960), Wylie and Streeter(1978)
for isothermal flow (only two equations)and by Zucrow and Hoffman (1977) for non-
isothermal flow (three equations). The method used by Zucrow and Hoffman (1977) is
adaptedfor this study becauseof its simplicity, mathematicalrigour and also becausethe
equationsusedin this studyarevery similarto those usedby Zucrow and Hoffman (1977).
The commonpracticein the methodof characteristicssolution is to use first-order
andlinearapproximations to calculatevaluesat the next time level. Values obtainedin the

first-order calculationare usedas initial estimatesfor the iterative solution in the second-
order approximation. In the caseof hybrid methods,the first step is to find the positions
of the intersectionsof the characteristiccurveswith the distanceaxis at time t, point Q, R,
and S. This also could be done using either first- or second-orderapproximation. Tiley
(1989)usedlinear interpolation to determinethe intersectionpoints Q, R and S, basedon
valuesof u anda which were averagedbetweenthe respectivesurroundinggrid points for

eachof the characteristiccurves. First-order approximationwas usedto calculatethe
149
W
M
F-1
o.
t+o tp
lt
iRQMSN
DISTANCE
x- Ox x x+ Qx
Fig. 4.4 Hybrid Method of CharacteristicsSolution Grid
propertiesof the fluid at the next time step i.e. the interaction of the characteristiccurves
or point P in Fig. 4.4. New positions of points Q, R and S were defined using the
previously calculated intersection points and the newly calculated point P. Taylor's
theoremwas usedto deriveequationsfor quadratic interpolation so that new valuesof the
fluid propertiescould be calculatedat the basesof the characteristics.Thesevalueswere
then averagedwith the predicted values obtained from the first-order approximation or
previous second-order approximations. The results were used as variables in the

characteristicand compatibility equations.
Thereareother methodswhich havebeendevelopedfor applicationin the method
with the aim of simplifyingthe process,improving accuracyand reducing

of characteristics,
computation costs. For example,Flatt (1985) developeda singly-iterativesecond-order
method which was basedon the use of curved characteristiclines within eachnumerical
space-timemesh. No iteration was needin determiningpoints Q, R and S. Iteration was
requiredonly in determiningthe valuesat the next time level. Flatt (1985) claimedthat with
his algorithm, the overall procedureneededonly a single iteration and was as good as a
second-ordermethod,.giving more accurateresultswith lesscomputing time.

In this study,both the first- andsecond-orderapproximationsare used in succession
and taking full advantageof the flexibility of the C programming language. Different
subroutineshavebeenwritten for eachof the two orders of approximation. For the first-
order method, points Q, R and S are calculatedusing the characteristicequationsand the
150
values of u and a at point M initially, and the averages between the values at M and those
estimates at P in subsequent iterations. The fluid properties at Q, R and S are calculated
using linear interpolation between those at the respective surrounding grid points. A first-
order approximation is used to calculate the properties at the next time step i. e. point P, in
the first-order method. In the second-order approximation, the procedure is exactly the
same as that used by They (1989), which was described earlier, with the exception that
values calculated by the second-order approximation are not averaged with those calculated
using the first-order approximation. The latter values are only used in the first iteration of
the second-order approximation.
DERIVATION OF THE CHARACTERISTIC AND COMPATIBILITY

EQUATIONS
The basic equationsfor unsteadyflow are derived from first principlesin Chapter 2 and
further simplified in Section4.1.1. The resulting equationsare given as equations(4.1),
(4.2) and (4.3) for the continuity, momentum and energy equationsrespectively. The
characteristicandcompatibilityequationscorrespondingto equations(4.1), (4.2) and (4.3)

arederived by multiplying equations(4.1), (4.2) and (4.3) by unknown parameters81,62
and 83 respectively, summing the products and equating it to zero. In this procedure
referenceis madeto Fig. 4.4. For the sakeof convenienceof mathematicalmanipulation
the energy equation used is that given by equation (2.28), but after making the same
simplifications as those made to equation (2.29). The use of equation (4.3) leads to a
coefficientmatrix in which the elementsof one row are all zeros. This results in equation
(4.88) with both sidesbeing zeros and therefore no solution for 1. The starting equation
is as follows:
81(4.1) + 62(4.2) + 83(4.3) =0 (4.77)
Substitutingequations(4.1), (4.2) and (4.3) into (4.77) we get the following
equations:
ap (
au au I ap an cý
S1 . uaP 62
at " P- " -"--"u-"-"gsin9 .
ax ax at p ax ax PA
ap ap a?
a3 .u
2
(1-a) pW« o
at ax-
-a
at a2ttaP
ax s. A
151
au a2 ap au
(. a2
61 61ua- . ölpaa . . + ö2 u "
at ax ax at p ax ax
Q+ WU
b2 . gsin8 b3ap + b3 rta - b3 aZap - b3 a2 U-+ b3 0-6S) 0
pA at ax 8t ax A
ap
(S1-b3 a2au a2u)au
a2)aP . (a IU-E3ua2) (al
. p.
at ax ar ax
ap ap Q+týu
a3 +? + b3 u + SZ + gsin 8 S3 (1-bs) "0
49t p äx pA A
Factoring out the coefficientsof the x derivativeswe obtain the following equation:
aP 81 a2 ap
-a3
(atU "
-63ua2)
öx 61 u- 63 ua2 at
211-1 62 all
(alp. a2u)t
ax 81p. S2u at
a2 ap 63p ap
Su
p3 ax 52 , a3 pu at
[(1
a2 -' . g,;.e+63 ""
pA -as)Q.A ,o4.78)
The slopes of the characteristic curves dt/dx = 1, are the coefficients of the partial
derivativesof p, u and p with respectto t. Therefore:
a, - 63a2.62 63P
a1 u- a3 u a2 8, p "62u a2 ,63pu (4.79)
Assuming p, u and p are continuous,then

du au ai_
(4.80)
dx ax at
- (4.81)
ax ax at
dp ap ap
- + Jl (4.82)
dx ax at
152
Substituting equations(4.80), (4.81) and (4.82) into equations (4.78) we get the following
equation:
62+63u
(61 u-63ua2)dp+(61p+62u)du + dp+
P
((16s)(
82 PA 8+ 63 A" 0 (4.83)
+ gsfn -pA
Equation(4.83) is the compatibilityequation,which is valid along the characteristiccurves

determined by equation (4.79). What is required now is to eliminate the unknown
parametersS1,S2and S3from equations(4.79) and (4.83). Solving for S1,S2and S3 from
equation (4.79) we get the following equations:

(Au - 1) 81 + (0) 82 - a2 (Au - 1) 83 =0 (4.84)
(AP) 81 + (Au - 1) 82 + (0) 83 =0 (4.85)

(0)S1 + (A)82 + p(flu-1)83 =0 (4.86)
For equations (4.84) to (4.86) to have a solution other than 61 = 62 = 63 = 0, the
determinantof the coefficient matrix for the systemof those equationsmust vanish. Thus
Xu-1 0- a2(11u-1)
lp Au-1 0-0 (4.87)
01 p(Au-1)
The abovedeterminantis expressedas follows:
(Au - 1) [(Au - 1)2 - a2A.'] =0 (4.88)
Equation (4.88) is a cubic polynomial in I whose roots are as follows:

dt
A, .1 (4.89)
° dx
°u
;.. - (&)
dx
-1
u+a
(4.90)
dt 1
A (4.91)
dx u-a
Equation(4.89), (4.90) and (4.91) representthe three characteristiclines namelythe path

line characteristicCoandthe right- andleft-runningMach lines C. and C. respectively. The
compatibility equationalong the path line is obtainedby substitutingthe equationfor the

pathline i.e. (Xu - 1) =0 into equations(4.84) to (4.86). This substitutionresultsinto the
following solution:
153
S1 =0 SZ =0 S3 is arbitrary (4.92)
Substitutingequation(4.92) into (4.83) we get the following equation:
dp a2dp -- 1-8s)(Aýcvu) x (4.93)

- An
Similarly for the Mach lines, equations (4.84) to (4.86) are solved for the 8's as follows:
(A u- 1)82
bl . a2 6g (4.94)
- llp
.lp a2 S3 (A u- 1)63
82- (4.95)
2 (I u- 1) -p 1
61 a2 a3 (4.96)
-
Equations (4.94) and (4.95) are not independentand consequentlythere are only two
independentrelationshipsbetweenS1,S2and S3. This implies that one of the three S`s is
arbitrary. S3is chosento be arbitrary and equations(4.95) and (4.96) are substitutedinto
equation(4.83). The is
resulting equation as follows:
2U-
Aa
[_pa2
dp - du .
(Au-1) At-1
lpa2
(1-6S) + gsin0 dx -0 (4.97)
A (Au-1) pA
Usingthe equationfor the Mach line characteristicsin equation(4.88) i.e. (flu - 1)2 = a2
X2, equation (4.97) is simplified to:
I 1) [i_( 11 , _ul (Jlu-1)

(Auf-
--2dp ps du - +gsin9J dx"0 (4.98)
AIp Pl
Multiplying throughout equation(4.98) by A we get the following equation

[A1 A"c,)u
(Au-1)
dp - pdu . -a) - (AU-1) pw« gsür 0 dx "0 (4.99)
ISA pA
i.e. equations(4.90)and(4.91),
theequationfor the Machline characteristics
Substituting
we get the compatibility equationsfor Mach line characteristics,which are as follows:
154
Right-running Mach line characteristic:
[u+a
QA+tau ý'
dp + padu (1-SS)f +ap( + gsin0l dx (4.100)
--1
A) u+a pA J
Left-running Mach line characteristic:
dp - padu -- 11
u-a
(1-6S)
Q+c u-apw*
A u-a pA
gsin B dx (4.101)
Substituting equations(4.90) and (4.91) into equations(4.100) and (4.101) respectively,
we obtain the following equations:
( n+wu
dp + padu pa +gsin0 + (1-6s) dt (4.102)
pA
aA uI
dp - padu --- pa gsin 0JI+ (1-SS)Ì dt (4.103)
lJpA A+
Equations (4.93), (4.102) and (4.103) are the compatibility equationsalong the path line
characteristic Co and the right- and left-running Mach lines C, and C. respectively.
Accordingto the theory of characteristics[Courant and Friedrichs (1948)], every solution
of the original systemof partial differential equationsshould satisfy the characteristicand

compatibility equations. The converseis also true and therefore every solution of the
characteristic and compatibility equations must satisfy the original system of partial
differential equations.
A second-orderapproximation of the friction term is obtained by differentiating
equation (A-4), which gives:
aw adu
do - dp "
ap au
2w
dw -- dp . du (4.104)
pu
The averagevalue betweentwo given points, I and 2, is given by:

wl . W2
155
If w is the value at point 1 and w+dw is the value at point 2, then
w. (o + do) dc
--w+ -
22
do
(4.105)
2
Substitutingequation(4.104) into (4.105) we get:
0d- +2o
2( p ri
du
2p "u (4.106)
2p
J
The right handside of equation(4.106) is substitutedfor cain the compatibility equations
(4.93), (4.102) and (4.103) resulting in the following equations:
Along the path line characteristic: (NB: dx/u is substitutedby dt)
dui ±'-
dp - a2dp - 1-8s) 0.6)u(l+dp +
2puA
A dp 2Adp dp+dit
a
.-Q- Wu 1.
(1-6) dt (1-6S) dt 2p u
A dp 2A dp
a n_ wit dp
wlt _ wdrt
(1-bs) dt (1-6s) dt 2p
2
A
[(1_6s)dt] dp -awu dp. wdu - -A - (ou (4.107)
(143)dt 2p
Along the right-running Mach line characteristic:
Iapl )dt
dp , padu -- w" (1-bs)(A Äwu)
gsin8l
`/
1 padu paw (1-8s)wu

dp+ - pagsinO -1 (1-b )A -
dt dt pA AsA
A perdu P°
dp . - u(1-bs) . ca - paAgstnO - (1-bs)Q
dt di
.p
156
Substituting equation (4.106) for w we get the following equations:
A paA Pa 1+dp+ (1-SS)A

dp + du - paAgsin9 -
dt dt p 2p u
(P )
'-ý(1-6) dp . p4 (1-bs) + °-I du "
dp +2 .P +
dt uJ
1 (4.108)
- :, (1-as) - P. c.) - paAgsin e- (1-6s)0
P
Along the left-running Mach line characteristic:
[(1
0" Äýlý) j)d:
dp - padu --- api 7 gsin0 -bs)(Q
A
I (1-Ss)wu
dp - Pa du " paw (1-bs)A
. pagsinO -1 -
dt dt pA AA
A pE± Paco
dp- du " .A pagsin 9- (1-bs)Q - (1-bs)wu
dt dt
A paA Pa
dp - du -- u(1-6s) - o. paAgsin O- (1-8s)Q
dt dt p
Substituting equation(4.106) for ci, the following equationsare obtained:
A paA pa dp, dr1

dp - du "- u(1-6) - w l. " paAgsinO - (1-8s)°
dt dt p 2p It
(1_8s)
A pý
dp "u ý1-SS) -a dp w -a du -
dt 2pp dt u
P°
- u(1-as) - (a . paAgsinO - (1-as) a (4.109)
P
Equations(4.107), (4.108) and (4.109) are simultaneousequationswith three unknowns,
namelydp, dp and du. The equationscan be expressedin a simplified form as follows

all dp +a12 dp +a13 du = bl l (4.110)
a21 dp + a22 dp+ a23 du = b21 (4.111)
a31 dp + a32 dp + a33 du = b31 (4.112)

Equations (4.110), (4.111) and (4.112) are solved simultaneously together with the
characteristicequations(4.89), (4.90) and (4.91). The coefficientsof equations(4.110),

(4.111) and (4.112) are as follows:
all "A (4.113 )

(1 - 6$) dt
157
a2 G)u (4.114)
a12 --A -
(1 - dt 2p
S)
a13 - (u (4.115)
`4 (4.116)
a21 -
dt
a22 (1 (4.117 )
-u
PP
paA °- (4.118)
a23 - . (a (1 -6s).
dtu
a31 -A (4.119)
dt
a32 -u (1 - Ss) -a (4.120)

2PP
Pý as) (4.121)
a33 -- -w1- -a
dt u
bl I=- (0 + wu) (4.122)

b21 =[ -u(1 - SS)- a]w - pa Ag sin6 - (1 - SS)O (4.123)
b31 = -[u(1 - SS)- a]w + pa Ag sine - (1 - SS)Q (4.124)
Whereasthe naturalmethod of characteristicsis unconditionally stable,the hybrid method

is
of characteristics only conditionallystable. The stability criterion used is that of Courant,
Friedrichs and Levy, which statesthat the domain of dependenceof the exact solution is
contained within the domain of dependenceof the numerical solution. In symbols the
Courant-Friedrichs-Levystability criterion is representedas:
1
Ts (4.125)
(ýI ).,
The solution of characteristicand compatibility equationscould be obtainedusing
either a first- or second-order approximation. In the first-order method, one finite-

differenceapproximationis expressedas:
fX +Axgx)dx - f(x) Ax (4.126)
08
in
and the second-ordermethod, the is by
approximation expressed the trapezoidalrule as
follows:
fz +&xfx) dx - '/2[f(x) + gX+Ax)] Ax (4.127)
FINITE DIFFERENCE SOLUTION OF THE CHARACTERISTIC AND

COMPATIBILITY EQUATIONS
The following procedureis usedto calculatethe fluid properties at a point distancex, for
a new time level t+At, using the characteristicand compatibility equations:
First Stage: First-order Approximation:
(i) Determination of the positions Q, R and S by first-order approximation of the

characteristic equations: Referring to Fig. 4.4.
XQ=x - u`MAt (4.128)
(ut dM) At
XR =X- 4+ (4.129)
(utM At
XS =x- - atM) (4.130)
the denote
where subscripts the point on the x-t plane and the superscriptsdenote the time
level.
(ii) Determination of the fluid properties at Q, R and S by linear interpolation:

It is customaryto assumethat the characteristiclines are positionedas shown in Fig. 4.4.
However, the positions may not necessarilybe the samealways. For example, if u is
negative(oppositeto the directionof positive x shown in Fig. 4.4), the characteristiccurve

QP would shift to the opposite side of line MP. Also if the flow is choked or supersonic
the characteristicline SP would coincidewith line MP or shift to the opposite side of MP
respectively.In this way the valuesof fluid propertiesat position Q, for example,calculated
assumingthat it is between points L and M while it is in fact betweenM and N will be
incorrect. To avoid such problems,a two-stage procedureis used. In this procedure,a
is
check first performedto establishthe position of points Q, R and S in relation to points
L, M and N. Such provision was not included in the model by Tiley (1989). The only
propertieswhich are approximatedusing this method are p, p and u. The remainingfluid

propertiesare calculatedby the QUANT software using the valuesof p and p obtainedin
the first-orderapproximationas input values. The equationsfor first-order approximation
of fluid propertiesat points Q, R and S are as follows:
159
Fluid propertiesat position Q:
IfxQ<x
rx- xQ r - XQ r
PQ ' Px-ex " 1- (x ) Px (4.131)
ex Ax
r x- X0 r x- xQr
uQ ' U. + 1- () ux (4.132)
Ax -ex Ax
(x_xc
(x Q) (4.133)
PQ Px ex +1 Pxt
x ex
If xQ >x
x x x)
PO PxeX . 1- (xe Px (4.134)
Ax x
x x x)
ut uxex' (xe ux (4.135)
Ax x
x x x)
PQ " Pxex' 1- (xA px (4.136)
Ax x
Fluid propertiesat position R:

If XR<x
R 1- (X- R (4.137)
pQ "X p1.. " Pz
Ax
XOXR XR
UR ux-ex " 1- ( ) ii (4.138)
ex
xAxR
PQ Px-Ax ' 1- (xAXR) pt (4.139)
160
If XR> X
x x I
PR Pxex' 1- (xe )I Px (4.140)
Ax I z
xR- x X
ux. Ax + 1- (xR- ux (4.141)
UR '
Dz Ax
t XR- x XR- xr
PR ' Pxo x' 1- ()P. (4.142)
Ax Ax
Fluid propertiesat position S:

If xs<x
s 1- (x s) (4.143)
Ps 'x P: ex ' Px
Ox ex
s I- (x s) (4.144)
us -x Ux-ex ' U
Ox Ax
xs Px ex 1' (x x s) (4.145)
Ps-x e + Pz
e
If x$>x
t xs _x t x)
PS ' PxAx 1- (xs Pz (4.146 )
Ox Ax
us - (
x x ,
Uzes " 1- (x s
ex
x)
uz (4.147)
-) ex
r xs _x t x)
Ps ' Pxes ' 1- (xs i (4.148 )
ex Ax
(iii) Calculation of p, u and p at position P using first-order approximation:

The values of p, u and p at position P are obtained by expressingthe three differential
equation(4.110),(4.111)and(4.112)in finite differencesand solving them simultaneously.

The fluid properties used to calculate the coefficients of the equationsare evaluatedat
position M. The finite differenceequationsare as follows:
161
Along the path line characteristic, equation (4.110) becomes
alI(pe - pQ) + al2(pp- pQ) + a13(up-uQ) = bll

(4.149)
a11pp+a12pp+a13up=allpQ+al2pQ+a13uQ+b11
Similarly, equations (4.150) and (4.151) below, are obtained from equations (4.111) and
(4.112) along the right- and left-running Mach line characteristics respectively. The
equationsare as follows:
+ + +
a21 pp a22 pp a23 up = a21 PR a22 PR + a23 UR + b21 (4.150)
+ +
a31 pp a32 pp a33 up = a31 ps +a32 ps + a33 us + b31 (4.151)
Equations(4.149), (4.150) and (4.151) are simplifies as follows:

A11 pp + A12 pp + A13 up = B11 (4.152)
A21 pp + A22 pp + A23 up = B21 (4.153)
A31 pp,+ A32 pp + A33 up = B31 (4.154)
where the coefficientsare as follows:

All = all (4.155)
A12 = a12 (4.156)

A13 = a13 (4.157)
A21 = a21 (4.158)
A22 = a22 (4.159)
A23 = a23 (4.160)
A31 = a31 (4.161)

A32 = a32 (4.162)
A33 = a33 (4.163)

Bll =a11pQ+a12pQ+a13u. +bl1 (4.164)
B21 = a21 PR + a22 PR + a23 uR + b21 (4.165)
B31 = a31 ps +a32 ps + a33 us + b31 (4.166)
Second Stage: Second-order Approximation:
In orderto achievea higher degreeof accuracy,the second-order method is usedafter all

iterations of the first-order method have been completed. The values of pp, pp and up
calculatedusing the first-order approximationare used as initial estimates.
162
(i) Determination of the positions Q, R and S by second-order approximation of
the characteristic equations: Referring to Fig. 4.4.
l_ 2At
XQ- X1' (4.167)
uQkt U?
2et1 (4.168)
XR .x_1
(u . a)R (u . a)P
2A t
x*1 . x_ (4.169)
1 1
(u - a)S (u - a)y
where the subscriptsk and k+l representthe iteration numbers.
(ii) Determination of the fluid properties at Q, R and S by quadratic interpolation:
The very well known Taylor's theoremis used. The theorem producesa set of equations
for quadraticapproximationof the fluid propertiesat points Q, R and S. If higher accuracy
is required, a higher order polynomial could be used. Referring to Fig. 4.4, the Taylor's
expansionaround point M which is at a distancex, for a property, say p, is as follows:

(A2X) (A6X)
P(x. Ax) " p(x) . Ax p'(x) . p n(x) m(x) . (4.170)
. ...
(A X)2
)2 (AX)3p,,,
P(x-Ax) p(x) Ox p'(x) . p (x) (x) .... (4.171)
- - _
6
Adding equation (4.171) to (4.170) and neglectingterms with higher order than two we
get:
p(x+Ax) + p(x-Ax) = 2p(x) + (Ax)2 p!(x)
p"(x) [p(x. Ax) . p(x-Ax) 2p(x)1 (4.172)

-1 -
(A x)2
Subtractingequation(4.171) from (4.170) and neglectinghigher order terms we get:
p(x+Ax) - p(x-Ax) =2 Ax p'(x)
p'(x) (p(x. Ax) (4.173)

- " p(x-Ax)]
21
163
Substitutingequations(4.172) and (4.173) into equations(4.170) and (4.171), neglecting
higher order terms and interpolating for properties at position Q we get the following
equations:
(,&2)2
p(x, AxQ)P(x). AxQ j (x. Ax)P(x-Ax)]. [(p(x. Ax)"p(x-Ax)-2p(x)]) (4.174)
2-11 ( X)2
1 (ßx)2 1
P(x-AXg)P(x)-AXQ [p(x, Ax) p(x-Ax)], [p(x. Ax)"p(x-Ax)-2p(x)] (4.175)
2Ax 2 (0x)2
Equations(4.13 1) to (4.148) transform into equations(4.176) to (4.184), which follow:

Fluid propertiesat position Q:
k. 1 1 k. l 1 k. 1 2
Ir' ýxQ @L' PN 2pß) ýxQ
PQ - PM * PN) ' x) '2(, - - x) (4.176)
2Ax @L'
& x)2
k. 1 1 k.1
(Pe PN) (xQ (pL+ pN ) (xk l-x ý2
Q. pM ± - x) . -2 pM (4.177)
2Ax 2(ex)2
ýle uN) k-
(XQl (i"L. uN 2uM ) (xQl )2 (4.178)
uQl - UM t - x) - -x
2A1x 2(A x)2
Fluid propertiesat position R:

M1k. (XRl 1 k. l 2
@L' PN) @L. PN 2PM ) (xR (4.179)
PR 'P - x) .z - - x)
2Ax 2(Ax)
k.1 1 (Xk.l 1 k4
(xR 2
PR " pit (PL" PN) (PL. PN 2p ) (4.180)
2Ax R-x, . . - x,
2(Ax)2
k.1 ýL )(R 1 i-x2R ,

UR .f1rtM rt. uNxk'1 -x. Irj. u N -211 M)`R xk* (4.181)
2är 2(A x) 2 1L
Fluid propertiesat position S:

k. 1 / k. l (xsk. l 2
PS - PM (PL ' PN) @L'' Prº 2PM ) (4.182)
Ixs - x) - -x)
2Ax 2(0x)2
k.1 1 k.1 1 k.l 2

PS . PMT (PL+ PN)(xs (PL+ pN- 2p ) (xs (4.183)
2,&x -x). - x,
2(AX)2
l (UL. UN) 1- (xs 1-x )2
us. . tUMf x) .1Z (uL+ uN 2uM) (4.184)
2Ax lxs -
2(Ax)
The positiveandnegativesignsareusedif the positionof Q or R or S is betweenM and

N and L and M respectively.
164
(iii) Calculation of p, u and p at position P using second-order approximation:
The sameequationsas used in the first-order approximation, equations (4.152), (4.153) and
(4.154) are used. The fluid properties used to calculate the coefficients of the equations
are averaged between those at the newly established positions of Q, R and S and those
previously calculated at point P. Therefore, the coefficients of equations (4.152), (4.153)
and(4.154)arecalculatedasfollows:
A11 = '/2{[all]k+1Q + [all]kp} (4.185)
A12 = '/2([a12]k+'Q+ [a12]kp) (4.186)
+ [a13]kp)
A13 = '/2([a13]k+1Q (4.187)
+ [a21]kp)
A21 = '/2{[a21]k+1R (4.188)
A22 = '/2([a22]k+'R + [a22]kp) (4.189)
A23 = '/2{[a23]k+1R + [a23]"P) (4.190)

A31 = 'h ([a3 J]k+'S+ [a31]kp) (4.191)
A32 = '/2{[a32]k+IS+ [a32]kp) (4.192)
A33 = '/2([a33]k+IS+ [a33]kp} (4.193)
B11 = '/2{[R11]k+'Q+ [all]kp)pk+IQ + 1/2{[a12]k'1Q+ [a12]kp}pk+IQ+

+ [a13]kp} uk+1Q+ '/2([bl l]k+1Q+ [b11])
'/2{[a13]k+1Q (4.194)
+ [a22]kp) pk+1R+
+ [a21]kp)pk+1R+ 1/2{[a22]k+1R
B21 = '/2([a21]k+1R
'/2{ [a23]k+IR+ [a23]kp)uk+IR+ Y2{ [b21]k+1R+ [b21]kp} (4.195)
B31 = '/2([a31]k+'S + [a31]kp)Pk+1S + + [a32]kp)Pk+IS +
2([a32]k+IS
'/2{[a33]k+'S+ [a33]kp)uk+ls+ '/2{[b31]k+'s+[ b31]kp} (4.196)
Thevaluesof p, p andu calculated the

using abovecoefficientsareto be usedin the (k+l )'h
iteration. The iteration would continue until the required accuracycriterion i s met.
SOLUTION OF THE THREE SIMULTANEOUS LINEAR ALGEBRAIC

EQUATIONS
Equations (4.152), (4.153) and (4.154) are simultaneouslinear algebraicequationswith

three unknowns pp, pp and u, which are to be determined. A brief review of the various
forms andbehaviourof suchequationsis givenin this section. For further details reference
should be made in specialisedliterature. If there are as many equations as there are

unknowns, the systemof equationsis known as non-singular,and there is a good chance
that a uniquesolutionexists. A systemof equationsis singularif it fails to produce a unique
solutionanalytically.The latter situationcould result eventhough the numberof equations
165
is equalto the numberof unknowns,if one or more of the equationsis a linear combination
of the other (row degeneracy)

or if all the in
equationscontaincertain variablesonly exactly
the samelinearcombination(columndegeneracy).For equationswith the samenumberof
variablesas the numberof equations,row degeneracyimplies column and vice versa.
Someequationsmaybe too close to linearly dependentthat round off errors in the
computer render them linearly dependentat somestagein the solution process. In such
the
cases numericalprocedurefails. Also in
sometimesaccumulatedround-off errors the
solution processcan swampthe true solution. This problem emergesparticularly if the
number of unknowns is too large. In this case the numerical procedure does not fail
algorithmicallybut it returnsa setof solutionsthat arewrong. The closer a set of equations
is to beingsingular,the more this situation is likely to happen. Much of the sophistication
of complicated linear equations solving methods is devoted to the detection and/or

correction of thesetwo pathologies.
Methods of solution of linear algebraicequationsare generallyclassifiedinto two
categories,namelydirect and iterative methods. Direct methodsexecutein a predictable

numberof operations,while iterative methodsattempt to convergeto the desiredsolution
in however'many stepsare necessary.Iterative methodsare preferred when the loss of
significanceis critical either due to large numberof unknowns or becausethe problem is

close to singularity. On the borderline between direct and iterative methods,there is a
technique called iterative improvement of a solution that has been obtained by direct
methods. At the extremeend of the spectrum,there are linear problemswhich by their
underlying nature are closeto singular. In this casesophisticatedmethodsare necessary.
However, a techniquecalled singular value decompositioncan sometimesturn singular
problemsinto non-singularones,thus additional sophisticationbecomesunnecessary.

Severalpackagesareavailablefor the solution of algebraicequations,although not
always in the C language. These include LINPACK, developedby Argonne National

Laboratories,which was publishedandis availablefor free use. A successorof LINPACK,
called LAPACK is now available. Packagesavailablecommerciallyinclude those in the

IMSL and NAG libraries. Routines for various tasks are usually provided in several
possiblesimplificationsin the form of the input coefficientmatrix e.g. symmetric,triangular,

sparse,banded,positivedefiniteetc. Specialroutinesfor thesespecialcasehave advantages
of higher efficiency than the form provided for general matrices. Press, Teukolsky,
Vetterling and Flannery(1992) presenteda seriesof packageswhich include the Gauss-
166
Jordaneliminationmethod,LU decompositionmethods,tridiagonal systems,banddiagonal
systems, iterative improvement of a solution to linear equations, singular value
decompositionand packagesfor sparselinear systems.
Some workers have reported the problem of singularity in the solution of the
for flow
equations unsteady following linebreakin high-pressure in
gas pipelines,especially
near the break. Flatt (1986) explainedthis as being causedby the pressuregradient near
the breakapproachinginfinity i.e. (ap/cäx),
-. - 00owing to the choking condition (M, =1) and
the cumulativeeffect of friction over long pipelines. He proved analyticallythat as Mach
numbertendstowardsunity, the solutiontendstowardsinfinity. Flatt (1993-1996) suggests
that this problem could be eliminatedby using stagnationpropertiesof the fluid, in place
of the conventional
staticproperties. Tiley (1989) also reported similar problemswith her
model. She described it as instability which occurred at some grid sizes and initial
conditions,at randompointsalong the pipe. No such problemshavebeenobservedin this
study. The model hasbeentestedwith pipelinesof up to 68km length and pressureof up
to 12.5MPa. At some stageduring the developmentof the model, it was thought that
singularityproblemsexistedbut it was later found that they were causedby machineround

off error, incorrect initial break conditions and mistakesin the numerical algorithm. A
numericalrecipecalledXSVBKSB from Press,Teukolsky, Vetterling and Flannery(1992)
and Vetterling, Teukolsky, Pressand Flannery(1992) was modified and adoptedfor use
with the programmesdevelopedin this study. The recipe is basedon the singularvalue
decomposition,which sometimescanturn singularsetsof equationsinto non-singularones.
However,it was found that the recipesXSVBKSB could not handlethe kind of singularity
problems which were experiencedduring this study. In addition, the use of numerical
recipesfrom Press,Teukolsky, Vetterling and Flannery(1992) and Vetterling, Teukolsky,
PressandFlannery(1992) presentedan additional problem in that more computer capacity
is required to compile and run the recipes. This problem could be reduced by doing
separatecompilationof the recipes. However, sincesingularity is no longer a problemsin

this model,it was decidedto solvethe equationsusing a simpleanalyticalprocedure. The
procedureis as follows:
(i) Solution at interior points:
For interior grid points,solutionusingthe methodis asfollows: We first multiply equations

(4.152) and (4.153) by A21 and A11 respectively,obtaining the following equations:
167
All A21 pp + A12 A21 pp + A13 A21 u,, = B11 A21 (4.197)
A21 A11 pp + A22 Al 1 pp + A23 Al l up = B21 All (4.198)
Subtracting equation (4.198) from (4.197) we get:
(A12A21 - A22A11)pp + (A13A21 - A23 A11)up =B 11A21 - B21A11 (4.199)

Similarly, multiplying equations (4.153) and (4.154) by A31 and A21 respectively we get
A21 A31 pp + A22 A31 pp + A23 A31 up = B21 A31 (4.200)

A31 A21 pp + A32 A21 pp + A33 A21 up = B31 A21 (4.201)
Subtractingequation(4.20 1) from (4.200) we get:
(A22A31- A32A21)pp + (A23A31 - A33 A21)up = B21A31 - B31A21 (4.202)
Equations(4.199)and(4.202)arethensolvedsimultaneouslyfor upby multiplying equation
(4.199) by (A22A31-A32A21) and equation (4.202) by (A12A21-A22A11) and
subtracting. The resulting equationis as follows:

[(A13A21-A32A11)(A22A31-A32A21)-(A23 A31-A33A21)(A12A21-A22A 11)]up=
[(BI IA21-B21 A11)(A22A31-A32A21)-(B21 A31-B31A21)(A 12A21-A22A11)]
[(B11A21 B21All )(A22A31 A32A21 )-(B21A31 )(A12A21 A22A11
up . -B31A21 (4.203)
[(Al3A21 A32A11 )(A22A31 A32A21 )-(A23A31 A33A21 )(A12A21 A22A11 )]
Examinationof equations(4.116) and (4.119) show that, for constantdiameterpipesand
sameAt valuesfor both the RP and SP characteristics,the valuesof A21 and A31 are the
same. Consequently, equation (4.203) could be simplified further. However, this
simplification is not madebecausein some casesthe break is suchthat the cross-section
area at the exit is not the sameas in the rest of the pipeline. Either equation (4.199) or
(4.202) could be used to solve for pp. Using equation (4.199)
(B11A21 - B21A11)- (A13A21 - A23All )u
Pp
p (4.204)
(A12A21 - A22A11 )
Similarly,eitherequation(4.152), (4.153) or (4.154) could be usedto calculatepp. Using
equation (4.152)
B11 - A12 pp - A13 up
Pp . (4.205)
All
The valueof upcalculatedby equation(4.203)is usedin equations(4.204) and (4.205), and

the value of pp calculatedby equation (4.204) is used in equation (4.205). Equations
(4.203), (4.204) and (4.205) are also used for the caseof choked flow at the broken end,
sinceall the three characteristicsexist in the domain.
168
(ii) Solution at boundary points:
Solution at interior points by the method describedin section (i) would enablesolution
within the domainboundedwith circlesin Fig. 4.5. This meansthat at eachtime level, one
distance meshis lost on each end of the pipe section. Consequently,for any transient
analysis, a solution could not be obtained for the whole length of the pipe unlessthe
calculationstartedwith a pipe extendingbeyond both endsof the pipe section. The length
of the pipeshouldbe suchthat after calculation for the required numberof time levels,the
whole length of the test section would still be covered. Apart from the fact that such a
procedurewould be unnecessarilytime consuming,it is also not practical especiallyif the
boundaries are fixed or the analysistakes place over a long period of time. A typical
exampleof the latterconditionis in this study, where the break boundaryis fixed and it has
to be modelledthroughout the run time.
In order to enablethe boundary points to be fixed and modelled,someboundary
conditions have to be specified. Boundary conditions are additional parametersto the

characteristicand compatibility equations,which exist at the boundarypoints. They may
be the equationof the boundaryin the x-t planeand various specificationsof the dependent
variablesas a function of the independentvariables. To obtain a solution at a boundary

point, the number of additional equations required is the same as the number of
characteristiccurveslacking at the boundary point. Let us considera pipe flow from an
upstream boundary which is at a distancexo to a downstreamboundary which is at a
distancex,,. The equationsof the boundary points on the x-t plane are fixed at x=x, and
x=x for the upstreamand downstreamboundariesrespectively. For calculationbetween

time levelsto and t1, the meshesnext to both boundariesare representedin Fig. 4.6. The
characteristiccurvesdefined in Fig. 4.4 are superimposedon the boundary meshes. The
requirementis to find a solution at point P in Fig. 4.6 (a) and (b). It is assumedthat u is
positive in the downstreamdirection and also the flow is subsonicat both the boundary
points. The sameprocedureas for the interior points is used to calculatethe solution at
point P, but in this casethe numberof characteristicsand hencethe numberof equations
is lessthanthe numberof unknownsi.e. two equationslessin Fig. 4.6(a)
and one equation
lessin Fig. 4.6(b). In orderto obtain a unique solution at the boundarypoints, the
missing
equationsmust be replacedby specificationsfor someof the dependentvariables.
169
L
to
x
Lo
Fig. 4.5 Solution Domain in the x-t Plain Using Interior
However,the flow could be suchthat the two assumptionsmadein Fig. 4.6 do not
apply. A typical example in linebreak problems is that u could be negative in the

downstreamdirection in Fig. 4.6(b). If the magnitudeof u is lessthan that of a i. e. M, <1,
thentherewill be only onecharacteristiccurvepresentin Fig 19(b) i.e. the RP characteristic
curve. In to
order obtain a unique solution at point P, two specific boundaryconditions
haveto be specified. If the magnitudeof u is greater than or equal to that of a i. e. M, z 1,
then there will be no characteristiccurve existing in the x-t domain of dependencefor
solution at point P. In this case,the solution at point P will haveto be evaluatedentirely
from the specificboundaryconditions. However,if u is positive in the downstreamand the
flow is such that Mk 1, all the three characteristiccurves would exist in the domain of
dependence boundary
andno additional conditionneedsto be specified. A typical example
of this is
situation choked flow resulting after linebreakin high-pressuregas pipelines. A
similar situation would occur in the upstream section [Fig. 4.6(a)]. If M, z 1, and u is
negativein the downstreamdirection,therewould be no characteristiccurves in the domain

of dependence. The P
solution at point would have to be calculated in a manner based
entirely on the specific boundary conditions. But if u is positive in the downstream

direction, all the three characteristiccurveswould exist in the domain of dependenceand
no additionalboundaryconditionswould be required. This is the other caseof choked flow

in linebreak problems. If u is negative in the downstream direction and M, <I, two
characteristic curves would exist in the domain of dependenceand only one additional
boundaryconditionswould haveto be specifiedin order to obtain a unique solution at point
P.
170
1? I,
_ r"
111 BNRQ w'
(a) Upstream Boundary (b) Downstream Boundary
Fig. 4.6 Solution at Boundary Points
In general,therearefour differentcasesof boundaryconditionspecificationfor each
of the upstreamanddownstreamboundaries. The four in

casesare summarised Table 4.1.
However,in most steadyandslow transientflows in pipelines,alternatives3 and 6 in Table
4.1 are the most common. In rapid transientsfollowing linebreakof high-pressuregas
pipelines, any one combination of alternatives3,4,5,6,7 and 8 could occur. Before

performing a transient analysisall the necessaryboundary condition required to obtain
uniquesolutionsat the boundary throughout the run time should be specified. Sometimes
it is not easy to specify accurate boundary conditions and some approximations and
haveto be made. Examplesof boundaryconditions which are commonly used
assumptions
are constantp, constantmassflow rate, constantT, the prescriptionof p as a function of
t and the prescription of u as a function oft.
Calculation of the solution at boundary points when two characteristic curves exist:
Boundary condition: p at point P is given
In this caseequations(4.152), (4.153) and (4.154) transform to:

A12 p. + A13 up = B1 (4.206)
A22 pp + A23 u, = B2 (4.207)
A32 pp + A33 up = B3 (4.208)
where
BI =B 11 - All pp (4.209)
171
B2 = B21 - A21 pp (4.210)
B3 = B31 - A31 pp (4.211)
UPSTREAM CHARACTERISTICS DOWNSTREAM

BOUNDARY AVAILABLE BOUNDARY
1. u>a NONE 2. u>a
u Positive u Negative
3. u<a ONE 4. u<a
u Positive SP RP u Negative
5. u<a TWO 6. usa
u Negative SP QP u Positive
P RP
7. uZa THREE 8. uza
u Negative QP,RP & SP u Positive
Table 4.1: PossibleBoundary conditions
Dividing equations(4.206) by A12, (4.207) by A22 and (4.208) by A32 we get the
following equations:
A13 B!
PP u.P 4 212
A12 A12
A23 B2
Pp u-P (4.213)
A22 A22
A33 B3
Pp ` p (4.214)
A32 A32
Referring to Fig. 4.4, the characteristiccurves availablecould either be QP and RP, RP
and SP or QP and SP. If the characteristicsavailableare QP and RP, equations(4.212)

and (4.213) are solved simultaneously,obtaining the following equations:
B1 B2
A12 A22
uP
A13 A23
722
A12
BI A22 - B2 A12
:gy
p (4.215)
A13 A22 - A23 A12
From equation(4.212)
BI - A13 up
PP - (4.216)
A12
172
If the characteristiccurvesavailableare QP and SP, equations(4.212) and (4.214) are
solved simultaneously,obtainingthe following equations:

BI B3
A12 A32
uP =
A! .,, J ...
f1JJ
Atz A32
B1 A32 - B3 A12 (4 7171

A13 A32 A33 A12 I
-
As in the previous case,equation(4.216) is used to calculate pp. If the characteristic

curves existing are RP and SP, equations(4.213) and (4.214) are solved simultaneously
resulting into the following equations:
B2 B3
A22 A32
up "
A23 A33
A22 A32
B2 A32 - B3 A22
UP (4.218 )
A23 A32 - A33 A22
B2 - A23 up
Pp - (4.219)
A22
Boundary condition: u at point P is given
The sameprocedureas for the casewhen p was given as the boundaryconditions used.
Equations(4.152), (4.153) and (4.154) transform into the following equations:
A12 Pp BI
Pp (4.220)
All All
A22
P (4.221)
Pp
A21 A1
A32
P
Pp + " (4.222)
A31 A 31
where
B1 = B11 - A13 up (4.223)
B2 = B21 - A23 up (4.224)
B3 = B31 - A33 up (4.225)
173
If the characteristic curves available are QP and RP, equations (4.220) and (4.221) are
solved simultaneously, obtaining the following equations

BI A21 - B2 All
Pp (4. __ý.)
.. LLb
A12 A21 - A22 All
Using equation (4.220)

BI - A12 pp
pp . (4.227)
All
If characteristiccurvesavailableare QP and SP, equations(4.220) and (4.222) are
solved simultaneously,thus obtaining the following equation:

BI A31 - B3 All
Pp L4. ,.,,,
LLa ,)
A12 A31 - A32 All
Equation (4.227) is usedto calculatep at position P. If the characteristiccurves
availableare RP and SP, equations(4.22 1) and (4.222) are solved simultaneously,thus

obtaining the following equation:
B2 A31 - B3 A21
PP (4.229)
A31 A22 - A32 A21
Equation (4.221) is usedto calculatep at position P as follows:
B2 - A22 pp
Pp = (4.230)
A21
Boundary condition: p at point P is given
Using the sameprocedureas for the two casewhere p and u are give, the following
equationsare obtained:
A13 up BI
Pp " ()4.231
All All
A23 up B2
Pp (4.232)
A21 A21
A33 t[ BI
pp (4.233)
A31 A31
where
B1 = B11 - A12 pp (4.234)
B2 = B21 - A22 pp (4.235)
B3 = B31 - A32 pp (4.236)
174
If the characteristic curves available are QP and RP, equations (4.23 1) and (4.232) are
solved simultaneously, obtaining the following equations

Bl A21 - B2 All
Up " I't. ft-%-T%
c. I )
A13 A21 - A23 All
Using equation(4.221)
BI - A13 up
Pp - (4.238)
All
If characteristiccurvesavailableare QP and SP, equations(4.221) and (4.223) are
solvedsimultaneously,thus obtaining the following equation:

BI A31 - B3 All
up " ,,.,,zsy) ,
t4.
A13 A31 - A33 All
Equation (4.238) is used to calculate p at position P. If the characteristic curves
available are RP and SP, equations (4.222) and (4.223) are solved simultaneously, thus
obtaining the following equation:

B2 A31 - B3 A21
UP (4.240)
A23 A31 - A33 A21

B2 - A23 up
Pp (4.241)
p- A21
Boundary condition: Mass flow rate at point P is given
Substitutingequation(A-2) into equations(4.152) (4.153) and (4.154), we get the

following equations:
A12 pp A13 »m Bll
Pp (4.242)
All All A pp All
A22 pp A23 M B21
ýp * + (4.243)
421 A21 A pp A21
A32 pp* A33 t_ B31

ýp (4.244 )
A31 A31 App A31
If the characteristiccurvesavailableare QP and RP, equations(4.242) and (4.243) are
solvedsimultaneously,obtaining the following quadratic equationin pp:

r A12 A22 A13 A23
2_ Bil B21 th
Pp _ PP
All A21 All A21 All A21 A
175
The quadraticequationis solvedfor pp as follows:
B21 B21 Bil 2 ( A12 A22 A13 )

A23 th
Bll
4
All A21 A21 Al! All A21 All A2! A
Pp ()4 245
(All
A12 A22
2
A21

A12 A13 "'
BI1 - pp-
A pp
Pp . (4.246)
All
The value of u at position P is calculatedusing equation(A-2). If characteristiccurves
availableare QP and SP, equations(4.242) and (4.244) are solved simultaneously,thus

obtaining the following quadraticequationin pp:
A12 A32 2_ B11 B31 Au A33 th
Pp _ Pp
All A31 All A31 All A31) A
Bll B31 B31 Bl !2_4 A12 A32 A13 A33 to

± _ _ _
All A31 A31 All All A31 All A31 A
pp (4.247)
(Alt A32
2-
All A31
As for the previous case, the values of p and u at position P are calculated using
equations (4.246) and (A-2) respectively. If the characteristic curves available are RP
and SP, equations (4.243) and (4.244) are solved simultaneously, thus obtaining the
following quadratic equation in pp:
r A22 A32 2_ B21 B31 A23 A33 sir
t PP Pp _0
A21 A31 A21 A31 A21 A31 A

1B21 B31 B31 B21 24 A22 A32 A23 A33 th
_ _ _
A21 A31 A31 A21 A21 A31 A21 AH A
Pp (4.248)
A22 A32 )
2
A21 A31
A
B21 - A22 0., A23
- --
.r A pp
Pp . (4.249)
A21
The value of u at position P is calculatedusing equation(A-2).
176
Calculation of the solution at boundary points when only one characteristic curve
exists:
Boundary condition: u and p at position P are given
In this case equations (4.152), (4.153) and (4.154) are used. If the characteristic curve
which exists in the domain is QP:
B11 - All pp - A13 up
Pp (4.250)
A21
If the characteristiccurve which existsin the domain is RP:

B21 - A21 pp- A23 up
Pp - (4.251)
A22
If the characteristic curve which exists in the domain is SP:

B31 - A31 pp - A33 ti
Pp - p (4.252)
A32
Boundary condition: p and p at position P are given
Using the sameequationsas for the previous case,if the characteristiccurve which
existsin the domain is QP:
BIl - All pp - A12 p
1p- (4.253)
A13
If the characteristic
curvewhichexistsin the domainis RP:
B21 - A21 pp - A22 pp
/. p -
(4.254)
A23
If the characteristic curve which exists in the domain is SP:

B31 - A31 pp - A32 pp
., -_
"p (4.255)
A33
Boundary condition: u and p at position P are given
The sameequationsas for the previoustwo casesare used. If the characteristiccurve
which existsin the domain is QP:

Bl! - A12 pp A13 tI p
-
PI (4.256)
All
If the characteristiccurve which existsin the domain is RP:

B21 - A22 pP - A23 up
Pp " (4.257)
A21
177
If the characteristiccurve which existsin the domain is SP:
B31 - A32 pP- A23 up
Pp (4.258)
A31
Boundary condition: Mass flow rate at position P is given
Equation (4.242), (4.243) and (4.244) are usedto calculate p at position P, and
equation(A-2) is usedto calculateu at position P. If the characteristiccurve which
exists in the domain is QP, equation(4.242) is usedand the following quadratic equation
in pp is obtained:
A12 pp (All Bll) A13 m"0

" pp - pp.
A
The quadratic equationis solved for pp as follows:
(Bll f (A11 pp - BI! )2 -4 A12 A13 "-'

-All pp)
A
PP -2 (4.259)
A12
If the characteristiccurve which existsin the domain is RP, equation(4.243) is usedand

the following quadraticequationin pp is obtained:
A22 pp " (A21 pp - B21)pp + A23-" "0

A
(B21 -- A2 pp) f (A21 pp - B21)2 -4 A22 A23 m

A
Pp -2 (4.260)
422
If the characteristiccurve which exists in the domain is SP, equation(4.244) is usedand

the following quadraticequationin pp is obtained:
A32 pp . (A31 pp B31)pp . A33 A"0

-
A
(B31 - A31 pp) f (A31 pp - B31)2 -4 A32 A33 m

A
Pp (4.261)
2 A32
178
4.3.3 MACCORMACK SECOND-ORDER TWO-STEP METHOD
The finite differenceform of equation(4.73) usingthe MacCormack method can be written

in either of the two alternativesI or 2 describedbelow. The subscriptsand superscripts
usedrefer to Fig. 4.7.
ALTERNATIVE 1:
Predictor step (forward difference):

AP. A (4, i-A, ) tA
C, t (4.262 )
,t -Bit ex -
Corrector step (backward difference):

Ate - At - BI At - Aji) - Cr At (4.263)
Ax
ALTERNATIVE 2:
Predictor step (backward difference):

At (Ali 'A
AI-A A, C, t (4.264)
jý -B, - 1) -
Corrector step (forward difference):
Air A, ýr1 C, At
- -Bi -Aj - (4.265)
ex
Applyingthe methodusedby BeaucheminandMarche(1992), to write the finite difference
equationsfor equations(4.1), (4.2) and (4.3), the following equationsare obtained:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
Predictor step (forward difference):

PI
Pt -
tS
Pi - ur At (P<t
p1 )-P, sAtr,c,(.<< , (4.266)
Ax I.1 -
Ax 1 - ul
PI t1 At ýr t) (ut (6t
- u(At ut A g sing (4.267)
Ax Ar
Pt pt, A
pý ýr
Pt t text Ir r) r2ter t) rr
pr ' Pr - ur [a1] (1 t (4.268)
al ' Pr - Pr - rr, 1 - ur "A
A
179
t+o t
i _ýý
of
i- ii f- i
DISTANCE
Fig. 4.7 CalculationMesh for the Second-orderMacCormackMethod
Corrector step (backward difference):
Cl PI PI At (u(PI PI
(PItttAt ) (4.269)
Pr ' Pi _ ur - Pai) ' pt 0x - u11
Ax
PI
1 AL Pi At w,
Cl PI ýprPI PI ,- ýrlPI PI )+D sin 0 (4.270)
rr1 " ut - Pil ex - P1-1 ur - uýl , gsin
Ax
Pfl
PI PI P!
A1'_t tt 1
Cl Pl Pl A tý t pi) Pl 2 PI At ( PI P1 ). (1-[8s]r PI
[a, ] Pr A (4.271)
pr - pi - u1 Axe rrý- -ur"i A
Oxur
ALTERNATIVE 2:
Predictor step (backward difference):
p2 ttAttt (Pt ter ý9-u

tr (4.272)
Pr ` pr - u1 - p11 )- p1 ex
ex .1
It
P2 t1 At ýl tt tAt (tt (at
ur - trr P( Pi 1 ut - ttýl) .O . gsin 8 (4.273)
Ax Ax `nr
P
rtt
P2 tut At it t ý- tAt Irrt ýýýrr
Pr Pr at2 A 1. [6s] (4.274)
t Ax r - Pt-t r] Pr Ax rýi ut tA
180
Corrector step (forward difference):
C2 P2 P2 At P2 P2 P2 At t P2 )
(Pla )- (I (4.275)
p1 - pi - u1 Ax - pi p' i-I - ui
Ax
P2
C2 P2 1Ot P2 P2 P2 At lu P2 P2 j.
Ui . t, Pr 1r_U l (.1 -u
ArA. sin 8 (4.276)
rrr Ax l' Ax rJS
Pi P
P2
QP2.4ýP2
C2 P2 P2 A t'P2 P2ý P2 2 P2 At iý P2 P2) (1 P211
`rrr 4Pr277)
A (.
" Pr -Ili i p, r[Qr ] Pr i
r. -1([ U "b
s]r
e-xlpr. Ax A
The value of eachvariableat the end of a time step is the averageof the variables' values
at the beginning of the tim its
e step and correctedvalues.
t+nt ,r cý +e1 c2) (4.278)
Pi _ /2(Pi+ P. or p, _ '/2(pil +P
.
ui+et = 1/2(ui + uct) or u; +et = '/2(u; +u C2) (4.279)
Pý+et_ I/2(Pý+ Pc') or pi+et . '/2(p' +P CZ) (4.280)
It is possible to use eachof the two alternativesexclusivelyor alternativelyat eachtime
step. Another more complicatedalternativeis to use an averageof the corrected values

obtainedwhen both alternativesare carried out at every time step. In equationform, this
alternativeis expressedas follows:
Pf+nt _ ,/2 p1 + ,/4 Pica + 1/4Pcz (4.281)
Ui1+4
1_ 1/2U: + 1/4Uicl +1 U1C2 (4.282)
Piàt _ ,/2 pt + ,/4pci + ,/4pC2 (4.283)

The merits, demeritsand suitability for application of the three alternativesof using the
MacCormack method are discussedin Chapter3. In this study, the three alternativesare
compared. The main reason for his selection is that alternative 1 is simple. Using
alternative 2 would make it necessaryto calculate predicted values at the subsequent
distancepoint, which makesthe proceduremore complicatedand requiresmore computer
storage capacity. However, it should be noted that Beaucheminand Marche (1992)

recommendedthe use of average values with both alternatives, in cases where it is
important that the signalbe transmittedat the correct speed.
181
3.3.2 WARMING-KUTLER-LOMAX THIRD-ORDER METHOD
The finite-difference equations for the third-order Warming-Kutler-Lomax method for
hyperbolicequationsof the form of equation(4.72), and with referenceto Fig. 4.8, are as
follows:
At ýit ?
Ail) Ai Bi AtC( (4.284)
- -2 -Ai)
3 Ax 3
LB' (1))
A(e) .1t+ A+i) -2 411) (4.285)
, -A
23 Ax 3
(iý 2 0t ?
A, i . A/ýi -3 BI!, Aý) At Cý (4.286)
0x 3 t-t
2 AtBf (A(1) ?
A(2) .1. A(1) A(1)' - DtC(1) (4.287)
1-1 2 ý1 ,1-3 Ax t-t aI 1-2 3
At
AAit Bitýri'AL1)-? AtCr1 (4.288)
-2 3 Ax 3
2 AtBj (A(1) 1)) ?

A(t) -3Axr. A AtC(l) (4.289)
ri21.1 &1 i ai r3 - at
In order to able to obtain the solutions for all the above equations,it is necessaryto
the
calculate valuesof A(') C(1) C(1) C (')1+2.
These as
valuesarecalculated follows:
ib b j-19
(1) At f> >) 2f (4.290)
A1-2 " A1-2_2 B1-x ý-t AI2 -3 At Cß-2
3 Ox .7
The valuesC' ) i.,, C (') i, and C (')i+, are calculatedafter solving for Aß'1i.1,A"), and A(')
The values of the dependent variables at the new time level are calculated using the
i+j.
following equation:
Ai (0) !_1 At
Bf !! (- 1'!
2A(.2 " 7A1 - 7A1-1 - 2A i2 )8 3 At ý, (2) (2)1
Bý q 1.2 A1-i) -
-A, \
24 Ax Ax
Cif ý1ý1.2) 4A' 6Af 4Aý1) Aý2) (4.291)

'&t - - 1) . - ,
24
After developingthe finite-differenceequationsfor the Warming-Kutler-Lomax method,
is
what required now is to expressthe basic equationsof flow [equations(4.1), (4.2) and
(4.3)] in the form of equation(4.72). The value of cpin equation(4.29 1), which is called
the freeparameter,is chosensuchthat dissipationand dispersionerrors are minimum. The
182
following equations are used:
4C2n Con
= - (4.292)
(4CK " 1) (4 - CN)

(4.293)
5
where
C -pta sI (4.294)
Ax 'ý"
pX
J
uC
J-1
i- ii it i i+2
i-2
DISTANCE
Fig. 4.8 A Finite Difference Grid Illustrating the Three-step Warming-Kutter-Lomax

Method
Warming, Kutler and Lomax (1973) recommendedthat for practical purposesand for a
givenvalueof Courantnumbersuchthat ICJ s 1, the value of the free parametercpshould

fall in betweenthe valuescalculatedby equations(4.292) and (4.293). In this model, an
averageof valuescalculatedby the two equationsaboveis used. For equations(4.1), (4.2)

and (4.3) to be expressedin the sameform as equation(4.72), the former equationshave
to be expressedin a matrix form, where the matricesA, li and are as follows:
_C
p
u (4.295)
p
up0
0up (4.296)
0a 2p
u
183
0
-. gsin 9
pa (4.297)
+ W,. )
A
4.4 VARIABLE GRID SIZE
The concept of variablegrid size in the solution of the partial differential equations,was
introducedin orderto be ableto modeladequatelythe physicalbehaviourfollowing a break
in a pipeline; to reducethe CPU time; and to increaseaccuracyand stability of solution is
not very new. Press,Teukolsky, Vetterling and Flannery(1992) reported that practical
multigrid methodswhich are commonlyusedto solve elliptic partial differential equations
were first introduced in the 1970's. In such problems,conventionalelimination methods
can be quite inefficient and traditional iterative (or relaxation) methodstend to become
ineffective as the problem size grows. These limitations can be eliminatedby multigrid
methods. Multigrid methodsincreasethe speedof convergenceof solution.

In hyperbolicproblems,such as in this study, the situation is somewhatdifferent.
In the caseof linebreakproblems,the pressuredrop is very rapid and as a result very rapid
transients occur in the vicinity of the break at the early times after the break. These
transientsare transmittedto the side of the broken sectionwhich is away from the break
andtendto die awayasonemovesaway from the break. Even in the vicinity of the break,
rapidtransientsdie out with increasingtime after the break. With such rapid transientsin
the vicinity of the break, a very fine grid mesh is required in order to model the flow
accurately. The effect of grid size on accuracy,convergenceand stability in linebreak
problems has been investigatedby among others Flatt (1986) and Picard and Bishnoi
(1989). It is generallyconcludedthat stablesolutions are obtainedif the grid size is less
than or equalto somecriticalvalue. For typical pipelines(1km and above), the critical grid
size would result in excessivecomputationalload.
The practical solution to the above problem is to use what is referred to, in this
study,asthe variablegrid sizein order to avoid confusionwith the multigrid methodsused
for elliptic equations.The variablegrid method involves the use non-uniform grid spacing
in order to allow for fine grid spacingin the vicinity of the break,where
grid spacingis most
critical andcoarserspacingfurther away from the break. The use of this method was first
184
reported by Tiley (1989) and Picard and Bishnoi (1989). Since then it has become the
common practice for linebreak problems and it has been used by among others Kunsch.
Sjeen and Fannelep (1991) and Chen, Richardson and Saville (1992).
In usingthe variablegrid size method,an important parameterto be determinedis

the factor betweensuccessivegrid sizes. Tiley (1989) tried first a factor of ten and found
that sucha dramaticgrid size differencecausednumericalinstability in the solution. This
was probablycausedby interpolationerror betweenthe bigger grid mesh. A factor of two

was found to produce minimum instability. Chen, Richardsonand Saville (1992) used a
factor of five. There is no study known which hasattemptedto reducethe computation
load furtherby increasingthe grid size in the vicinity of the break after the rapid variations
havediedout. This would result in a more efficient programme,but the procedurewould
be more complicated.
In this study, a variablegrid size is usedand a factor of 2 is usedbetweenthe size
of two successivegrid sizes. The finest grid size is selected first, based on the stability of
the solution and also the length of the pipe section being modelled. If the grid size selected
is not small enough, problems could be encountered with stability in the solution. On the
other extreme, if the finest mesh size is too small, it may not be possible to model the whole
length of the pipe within reasonable CPU time and computer memory. A computer
programme for generating distance grid mesh has been written. It can generate up to a
dozen different mesh sizes. The number of different mesh sizes and the number of grids in
each size depends on the size of the smallest mesh size selected and the length of the pipe
being modelled. The grid generation programme generates only the distance mesh and the
time mesh is generated by the transient analysis programme as the computation proceeds.
A typical grid mesh for a variable grid analysis is shown in Fig. 4.9. Also the criteria for
selecting the smallest grid size is discussed in Section 4.7.

Solutionat the boundariesbetweendifferent meshsizes(interior boundarypoints)
may be performed in two different ways. In the first alternative, there is no interpolation
used and calculation is performed with different Ox and At on each side of the boundary
point. The finite-difference grid mesh for this alternative is shown in Fig. 4.9 above. In the
second alternative, interpolation is performed first, before the transient analysis, so as to

ensure the same grid size on both sides of the interior boundary point. Quadratic
interpolation basedon the Taylor's theorem the one used in Section 4.3.2 for the
, such as
secondorder method of characteristicsis used. The grid layout for this alternative is shown
185
Irat, rior Bourzdar}y
(a) Upstream Sectiori
. radar3y
(b) Dowristir eam Sectiori
o. irnitial known values:

O-calculated valuae for t1Ae time le'-el
Fig. 4.9 Finite-difference Grid Illustrating Solution at Interior Boundary Without

Interpolation
s... na Tt. n.
raa Ic
Intei, Iar Hounder
(a) Upstraarra Sectiori
Tf" L1 d
Flrýt Tlmý L ýýI
rý TImom Lý ý1
Brýýk
ht rler Bound wry

(b) Dowrastream Sectiori
0 Inlt151
_ known altýea:
äa Values
_ calculated by iriterpolatior
o Values= oaloulated b}- traaisier t anal}-wim

programme at. new time larval.
Fig. 4.10 Finite-difference Grid Illustrating Solution at Interior Boundary With Interpolation
186
in Fig. 4.10. The smallergrid sizesareusedat the interior boundarypoints throughout the
upstreamsection,while in the downstreamsectionthe bigger sizesare usedfor the second

time level calculation.
The reasonfor usingthebiggergrid sizefor the downstreamsectionis that it is not
possibleto interpolatefor point F in Fig. 4.10(b) without knowing the propertiesat point
G. At the time of calculating the new values at the secondtime level at the interior
boundary point, the valuesat point G will still be unknown. Tiley (1989) usedthe first
alternative for the second-ordermethod of characteristics. In this study, the second

alternativeis usedfor all the programmesusing numericalmethodsof high than the first-
order of accuracy. A first-order accurateprogramme,using the first alternativefor the
interior boundary points has been written. The programmecould be extendedto the
second-orderof accuracy.The interpolationprocedurewhich ensuresthe sameAx and At

on eachside of the interior boundarypoint i.e. the secondalternative,is more convenient
especiallywhen usingthe explicit finite-differencemethods.
4.5 APPLICATION OF THE QUANT SOFTWARE FOR THERMODYNAMIC

AND TRANSPORT PROPERTIES OF FLUIDS
The thermodynamic
andtransport propertiesof the fluid are calculatedusing the QUANT
software which was describedbriefly in Section 2.4.3.4.2. The QUANT software is
presently available in a version which can be used only on personal computers operating
under the MS-DOS environment and it can be run in two different ways. In the first way,
any quantity of data books can be printed (as hard copies or disk files) for any of the gases
included in the coveragerange or any of their mixtures. This method requires the selection
of such a spacing of parameter entries that is adequate for the application being sought.
Such files can be read by almost any programme, written in any programming language and
in any operating system. In this way, retrieval of information generated by QUANT
may
be more rapid (in particular if the files necessary for any particular case
are copied to the
RAMDRIVE) because once performed, QUANT calculations may be used as many times
as necessary. The data books written by QUANT deliver everything as a function of

pressure and temperature. Therefore some manipulation by either linear or polynomial
interpolation, in order to get the sought information as function
a of pressure and
temperature,is necessary. The output of specific volume is given in a dimensionless form
187
of compressibilityfactor, from which the former could be calculated. The temperaturecan
alsobe found therefromasa functionof pressureandspecificvolume but an iteration of the
compressibilityfactor becomesnecessary.
Calculation can be simplified further and acceleratedby restricting the storageof
data to properties at the standard state and to the virial coefficients, including their
temperaturederivatives.Thesesetsof data are dependentonly on the natureof a pure gas

or on the composition of the gas mixture and on temperature. They are independentof
pressureand specificvolume. But everything else (except transport properties) for real
gasescanbe calculatedfrom this data, using equationswhich are provided in the software
literature. This procedurewould, however,not deliveranyinformationabout the parameter
limits within which QUANT deliversvalid data of real gasesand caremust be taken not to
exceedthem.
In the second way of running the QUANT programme, output data for any
requested set of input parametersis returned and could be displayedon the screenor
returnedto the callingprogrammefor further processing. A masterprogrammewritten in
this way, canbe usedto prepareor modify the input parametersor any part of them for any
other masterprogrammeandto store them on disk files for repetitiveuse. Any pair of the
five thermodynamic properties, namely p, T, v, H/R and S/R can be used as input.
Alternatively, only one of the five properties could be used as input parameter,if the
properties are required at the dew point of an individual gas or the dew point of such a
component of a mixture which starts to condenseat the highesttemperatureor at the
lowesttotal pressure.Runningthe QUANT software in this way producesthe output data
at preciselythe input parameterstate,with iterationsbeing performedautomaticallyby the

QUANT programme. The output data is registeredin a randomaccessfile in the virtual
drive. The data is stored in the file as binary data in single precisionnumbersin IEEE
format. This methodis expectedto be morepracticalfor suchapplicationsas in this study.
Regardlessof which of the two options of using the QUANT software described
aboveis used,thereareadditionalinput parametersto be specified. Theseinclude data on

usedandunits of the input andoutput data. The presentversionof QUANT
the substances
covers over 100 individual substancesincluding hydrocarbons,alkenes,cycloalkanes,
inorganiccompounds,noblegasesandothergases. The input data in this caseincludesthe
chemical formulae of the substances,isomernumber,hyperfinestructurevariant number

(HFS) andfractionalcompositionof eachsubstancein the mixture. The HFS numberis a
188
numberwhich indicates
which of the differentisotopesare containedin the compound. For
example the HFS numberfor substancescomposedof the most abundantor most stable
isotopes, would have HFS value of zero. The other HFS variants are designatedby
numberse.g. 1 to 3 for hydrogen. For the first three parametersi. e. chemical formula,
isomer numberand HFS number;QUANT offers two options for their inputting namely
selectingfrom the QUANT default data and user selectedinputting. In a similar way, the
units for T, p, v, µ and k have to be specified before running QUANT. The input
parametersare store in appropriaterecords in the respectiverandom accessfiles in the

virtual disk. The data containedin those files is stored in a binary form, each record
representingeither a singleprecisionnumber,an integeror a characterin IEEE format or
an ASCII code. A typical exampleof input data for in
required a particular mixture order
to fully specifythe substancesusedis shown in Table 6.2.
A call to any of the QUANT programmevariantsreturnsthe thermodynamicand
transport properties of individual gas or of a gas mixture, including the input parameters,
in the units selected by the user. The speed of execution of the QUANT programme can
be increased by restricting the frequency of modifications of the list of substances. It can
also be increasedto a lesser extent by restricting the frequency of modification of mixture

composition. On the other hand, the speed of execution decreases with the increasing
number of components. The speedis not affected by changing units and is highest if p and
T are the input parameters. It is slightly lower when the other pairs of independent
parametersare the known input properties and it is significantly lower whenever output is
requested at the dew point. A mathematical co-processor greatly increases the speed of
execution. For example, in this study, it was observed that it took over two minutes to
calculate the output properties using the option in which output properties are produced
for an individual set of input parameters. The calculation involved a mixture of twelve
substances and was performed on a 486SX personal computer with 8MB RAM capacity
and a CPU speed of 25MHz, but without a mathematical co-processor. The same
calculation was performed within a few secondson a 486DX personal computer with 4MB
RAM, CPU speed of 33MHz and which is equipped with a mathematical co-processor.
When a pure gas was used on the former machine, the computation speed was comparable
with that of the latter machine for the mixture of twelve substances.
The QUANT software;producesa wide range of output thermodynamicand
transport properties,but lessthan a dozenare relevantfor the programmesdevelopedin
189
this study. The properties are M, p, T, v, CP/R, K, y,, S u, k. A big challenge was
encountered in linking the QUANT programmes to the CFD programmes written during
this study. The CFD programmes produced output in p, p (from which v can easily be
calculated) and u. The ideal situation would be to use the values of p and v calculated by
the CFD programmes as input properties to the QUANT programme, which in turn
produces output data including T and the other properties required for further calculations.
Either of the two ways of running the QUANT programme, which are discussed above,
could be used. It is evident, from previous discussions, that the latter option in which
QUANT is run for individual sets of input data is the most convenient. A procedure was
designedfor this method, whereby after registering the list of substancesand units (both of
which remain unchangedfor a particular pipeline analysis), the set of input values i. e. p and
v produced by the CFD programme are written in the form stipulated by QUANT to a
random accessfile PARAS. USR which residesin the virtual disk. The QUANT programme
is then called, only for doing calculation of properties and to produce output in a random
accessfile PROPS.DAT in the same fashion as the input data file PARAS. USR. Another
programme reads the binary data from the random access binary file PROPS.DAT and
returns the data in ASCII form to the calling CFD programme. Both the programmes for
writing and reading input and output data respectively, in the random access files have
successfully been written in the C language. What remains to be done is to write a
programme which could be called by the CFD programme, to invoke the QUANT
programme to do the calculation of output properties and write the output data in the
output file PROPS.DAT automatically. Either of the variant programmes QDB or QDF
supplied with the QUANT software, on request, was used but manual execution was
necessarydue to the menu structure through which they operate. This made it impractical
in this application where the call to QUANT programme needs to be done numerous times.
Moreover, the procedure is very slow, and thus it results in very long execution time if the
programmes are run using this method directly.

The alternative method i. e. using ASCII data books produced by QUANT, also
proved to be difficult. This is because the known properties produced by the CFD
programmesare p and v, while the required input parameters for the QUANT data books
are p and T. However, it is possible to use the values of p and v as input parameters, but
the procedure is cumbersomeand requires iteration becauseof the fact that the data books
contain the output of v in the dimensionless form of Z. Efforts to develop a programme
190
which would invoke the QUANT programme to produce output data in the random access
file PROPS.DAT automatically have yet to be completed. The task proved to be too
difficult, especially because of incompatibility of the QUANT programme with compilers
available, and insufficient information concerning the QUANT programmes. After some
correspondence with the supplier, a different programme, QTS, which is designed to co-
operate repetitively with any user's programme which delivers its input information as many
times as necessary and handles the output information from each consecutive run was
supplied. QTS was found not to be well suited for application in this study, where for each
calculation point, both thermodynamic and input parameters vary independently. The QTS
programme is limited to loops. Moreover, the programme is unnecessarily complicated and

difficult to run with large user's programmes, of the kind developed in this study. Flatt
(1993-1996) developed a programme RGAS 1 by modifying one of demonstration
programmes(FODEMO) supplied together with the programme QTS. The programme is

expected to be able to produce thermodynamicdata for a given gas or mixture of gases, one
thermodynamic parameter e.g. pressure being fixed and the other one being varied to
convenience. The result of this loop is written in a formatted ASCII file and its contents
may be displayed on the screen or sent to a printer.
The most practical approach for CFD programmes for unsteady flow of gas in
pipelines would be to include it as a programme unit containing tabulated values of all

thermodynamic properties required, expressedas functions of p and p for the domain of the
solution. This should include an interpolation procedure which for a given pair of values
of p and p, would produce the thermodynamic values of the remaining parameter. A
programme such as the one which was written by Flatt (1993-96) i. e. RGASI, would serve
to prepare the required data tables. A substantial economy is achieved in computing time
by using this approach, which was finally adopted for application in this study. The most
ideal procedure is the one in which the input thermodynamic properties are
written in the
random access file PARAS. USR, in the virtual disk and the output data read by a
programme written in C language. What is required now is a programme which will invoke
the QUANT software to do the calculation for each set of input data automatically. The
main disadvantage of this procedure is that it is very uneconomical in computing time.

The task of incorporating the QUANT software with the CFD programmeshas
provedto be muchmoredemandingthan it had previouslybeenanticipated. The QUANT

softwarehasprovedto havesomelimitations as far as its applicationin modellingof high-
191
pressuregas linebreak is concerned. However, the implications of the limitations have been
appreciated fully and the performance of the software is considered to be adequate.

Constant communication with the supplier was necessary and proved to be very useful.
Two major limitations of the QUANT software are lack of output at high pressures, typical
of those encountered in high-pressure gas pipelines, and also lack of output at very low
temperatures (minimum temperature at which QUANT delivers output is 200K for most
natural gas mixtures). The software is constantly being improved by the suppliers and a
later version which is expected to be released soon, but not soon enough for this
programme of study, is expected to be capable of producing output at higher pressures,

typical of those encountered in high-pressure gas pipeline applications. The substance
coverage range of QUANT is adequate to represent most natural gas mixtures.
4.6 COMPUTER CODES
One of the reasonsfor keeping the basic equationsof flow as simple as possibleis to
economiseon computationlabour, time and memoryrequirement. However, in the case

of modelling transients in ruptured high-pressuregas pipelines, the potential for the
realisationof the aboveis very limited. The reasonfor this is that, as seenin Section4.1.1,
the basicequationshaveto be usedalmostwithout any further simplificationsin order to
achieve the requiredaccuracycriteria. On the other hand,Taylor (1992) statedthat the

generalrule of thumbis that the valueof software exceedsthat of the associatedhardware.
Also sincemost engineeringprogrammingoccurs in somegroup context, continuity and
easeof maintenanceare significantfactors to be considered. A computer programmeis

thereforerequiredto be easyto developand maintain,as well as robust.
Most computer programmes for engineering applications use FORTRAN-77,
PASCAL and C. The latter two provide a richer programming environment, but
FORTRAN is generally faster in compilation speed. Programmes may actually be using
several languages, but many of the numerical utilities that are available are written in
FORTRAN. Justification for using FORTRAN includes, for example, that FORTRAN is
the acceptable language for the industry. Tiley (1989) used FORTRAN-77 to write her
computer model for analysis of transients in ruptured high-pressure gas pipelines. The
model consisted of two programmes, one performing the transient analysis and the other
converting the required section of the numerical output of the first programme into a
192
graphical form. In this study, it is recommendedthat the C languagebe used and a pc based
compiler adopted to compile and run the programme. The C language is efficient, compact
and also flexible. C is considered to be more professional and user friendly than
FORTRAN. The advantages of the C language over FORTRAN are even greater when
using the UNIX systembecauseC is the programming languagefor the UNIX system (99%
of UNIX is in Q. Also due to the fact that the author had no previous knowledge of either
FORTRAN or C, it is more profitable to learn C which is the most up-to-date language.
When using other sub-routines, such as the QUANT software for thermodynamic and
transport properties of the gas, problems may be encountered if these would be written in
other languagesthan C. However, if data is output to an ASCII file, it can be picked up by

programmes written in another language. QUANT is written in BASIC! and PREPROP
in FORTRAN. The QUANT software could be linked with programmes written in any
other language. Another aspect which needs to be considered is the computer hardware
requirement. Most workers, Tiley (1989) in particular, have justified their simplifications
of the basic equations with limitations in the computational labour, time and storage
capacity which could be utilised economically. With the present state-of-the-art of
computer hardware development (super computers), this may not be a big problem.
However, the main problem is the present accessibility of such computers, not only to the
author but also to most of the potential users of such programmes. If a computer
programme is to have wider application therefore, it should be designed such that it can be
handled by the type of computer hardware which is commonly available to the intended
users. It is therefore intended that all computer programmes which are developed in this
study, should be able to run on a pc.
Tiley (1989) used a Gould PN 9005 main computer to run her programme.
However, Richardson (1993-96) is using a 286 PC to run the BLOWDOWN programme.
This hasbeen possibleafter inclusion of a special card, Microway-i860 which can increase
the RAM memory capacity to 8-32MB. The full size card costs about 12000.00., It is
argued that the performanceof thesecards is at best using a 286 PC, compared to the later
models such as 386 and 486 PC's, becausethe bigger box of the former allows for better
cooling. This possibility enablessuch programmesto be run almost anywhere. The SHELL
Group is presently using this technology.
With the new generationof computersi.e. faster and higher capacitycomputers

such as the PENTIUM seriesof personalcomputersand supercomputers,the size of
193
problems which can be solved is greatly increased. Application of these computers to
engineering problems is increasing. Gathmann, Hebeker and SchöfFel (1991) reported on
a new FORTRAN code called PICUS, which simulatesshock wave propagation in complex
geometries. Special emphasiswas given to its implementation on modern supercomputers,
which in this case was an IBM ES/3090 with a vector facility. The PICUS code has been
developed to treat some more sophisticated effects; including three-dimensional geometry,
non-equilibrium chemistry and coupling with external heat conduction material. Even for
much simplified cases, the requirement for very fine computational grids for resolving the
intended physical phenomena with sufficient accuracy underscores the need for
supercomputers. The final version of PICUS is faster, by a factor of 20, than a previous
code with related objectives in mind. However, it should be noted that these machines
require a different computational approach to obtain the most effective results. The UNIX
system can be operated as a supercomputer using the Convex OS facility. This facility is
presently availableat the University College, London (UCL) and it can be accessedthrough
networking. At least one project in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and
Aeronautics at City University is benefitting by networking with the UCL Convex OS-
UNIX supercomputing.
An Outline of the Main Features of TILEY'S Model
The main featuresof the Tiley model, which was developedin the previouswork at City
University are listed in the following section. Thesewill help to indicate improvements
which havebeenincludedin the new model which is developedin this study. The main
featuresof the Tiley model are as follows:
(a) It allows the possibilityof flow reversaldownstreamthe break to be modelled.
(b) Handling grid size reduction in the vicinity of the break is possible.
(c) It can perorm transientanalysison a given shocktube or singlepipe.
(d) It gives numerical output for pressure, flow velocity and temperature at each time
step.
(e) A secondprogrammeconvertsthe required sectionof the numericaloutput into
graphicalform.
(f) Both programmeswere written in FORTRAN 77 for use on a Gould PN 9005
mainframecomputer.
194
(g) The computer model consists of a transient analysis programme and a graphics
programme.
(h) The transient analysis programme consists of a main programme and sixteen
subroutines
The transientanalysisprogramme(main programme)performsthe following functions:
(1) Prompting for gas and systemdata.
(2) Grid formation.
(3) Calling subroutinesSTEADI and STEAD2 to perform isothermal steady flow
upstreamand downstreamrespectively,producing initial values(p, T and

analyses
u) at every grid point.
(4) Calculate p, Z and their partial derivativeswith respectto T and p, (a, 0 and
isentropicand isothermalwave speeds.
(5) Maximum time step calculated on the basis of a stability criterion so that the
requiredtime step and run time may be entered.

(6) CallingsubroutinesSUB1 to SUB6 andBREAKI andBREAK2 to perform method
of characteristiccalculationof new valuesof p, T and u at first time level.

(7) Calculate p, Z and their partial derivativeswith respectto T and p, w, 0 and
isentropicand isothermalwave speedsfor the points.
(8) CallingsubroutinesSUBI to SUB6 andBREAKI andBREAK2 to perform method
of characteristiccalculationof new valuesof p, T and u at the next time level.

(9) Procedurerepeateduntil all time stepshavebeencompleted.
(10) CallingsubroutinesSUBUP and DOWN 1 to calculatenew valuesof p, T and u at
upstreamand downstreamboundariesrespectively.
(11) Printing out theseinitial valuesat the specifiedgrid points.
(12) Initiate the pipe break.
(13) Calculatethe equalisationpressureat the break.
(14) Determinethe numberof time stepsover which the pressuredrop occurs.
(15) Calculate new values of pressureat the break one time step after the rupture occurs.
(16) Calling subroutines BREAK3 and BREAK4 to calculate T and u at the break one
time stepafter the rupture occurs.

(17) Calling subroutinesSUBI to SUB6 to calculatenew valuesof p, T and u at each
of the internal points.

(18) Calling subroutinesSUBUP and DOWNI to calculatevaluesat the pipe
ends:
195
(19) Continue looping.
(20) Printing out results after each major time step until run time is reached.
The flow chart for the Tiley's model is presented in Fig. 4.11 and a list of its subroutines
is as follows:
STEAD I- isothermalsteadystate flow analysisupstream
STEAD2 - isothermal steadystate flow analysisdownstream
SUBI normal internal points upstream of the break
-
SUB2 internal
boundary points between different grid sizesupstreamof the break
-
SUB3 internal boundary points between different grid sizesdownstream of the
-
break
SUB4 - normal internal points downstream of the break
SUB5 - internal boundary points linking different grid sizesupstreamof the break
SUB6 internal
boundary points linking differentgrid sizesdownstream of the break
-
BREAKI - method of characteristicsanalysis at break point prior to the break
BREAK2 - definesthosevalues at the breakdownstream as the sameas those upstream
BREAK3 - calculatesT and u at the break point, in the upstreamsection
BREAK4 - calculatesT and u at the break point, in the downstreamsection
SUBUP - calculatesnew values of p, T and u at the upstreamboundary
DOWN1 - calculatesnew valuesof p, T and u at the downstreamboundary
GETFIL - opens data file
DMINV - calculatesthe inverseof a matrix
Programme Achitecture
The new model which is developed in this study, was intended to be an improvement on the
Tiley model. Therefore, the same approach as that used by They has been followed, as
much as possilbe. However, in order to achieve the above objective, some significant
changes have
been made to the approachwhich was followed by Tiley. The main featuresof the new
model, which are not presentin the They model, are as follows:
(a) A different form of the basicequations.
(b) The QUANT softwareis usedto calculatethermodynamicand transport properties
of the fluid.
196
INPUT DATA
GRID FORMATION
STEAD I STEAD 2
STEP CONTROL TIME
CALCULATING p,z,öz/öp.Ozlöf, w
BREAK 1 BREAK 2
SUB 1 SUB4
SUB 2 SUB5
SUB 3 SUB 6
SUB UP DOWN 1
PRINT
INITIATE BREAK
CALCULATE EQAULIZATION PRESSURE
DETERMINE TIME STEP
CALCULATE PRESSURE
BREAK 4
BREAK 31
Fig. 4.11 Flow Chart for Tiley's ComputerProgramme
197
(c) Various numerical methods of solution, including finite-difference methods of
second-and third-order are used.

(d) The C programminglanguagehasbeenadopted.
(e) The programmehasbeendevisedfor use on pc machines.
(f) Validation with full-scale experimentaldata hasbeenundertaken.
(g) Fewer simplificationshavebeenmadeon the basicequations.
(h) Variousmodelsfor steadystateanalysis,including incompressibleand compressible
adiabatic, isothermal and non-isothermalnon-adiabaticflow models, have been
considered.
(i) Heat transfermodelshavebeendevelopedfor both buried pipesand pipesexposed
to the atmosphere.
(j) Numerical output data is printed at the required distanceand time intervals.
The other features,which are also included in the Tiley model are as follows:
(i) Transientanalysiscan be performed for a given shock tube or single pipe.
(ii) Numerical output data is producedfor p, u, T, p and a at eachgrid point.
(iii) Allows the possibility of flow reversaldownstreamof the break.
(iv) Grid sizereductionin the vicinity of the breakcanbe handled.
(v) Graphicaloutput is produced from numericaldata, but in this caseusing
commerciallyavailablegraphicsprogrammes.
The layoutandarchitectureof this programmeis more complexand containsmany
moresubroutinesthan the Tiley model. The advantagesof the C programminglanguage,
includingthe possibility of writing many small subroutineshavebeenfully exploited. The
mainprogramme consists of INITIAL

subroutines (for initialising the executionof the main
programme) and SYSDATA (for inputting the general systemand gas data); and sub-
programmes STEAD (for performing steady state analysis),TRANS (for performing
transientanalysisbeforethe break)andBREAK (for performing transientanalysisafter the
breakhasbeeninitiated). Each of the three sub-programsprints numericaloutput in data
files at the requiredinterval. In addition, there are two other subroutines,GRIDGEN (for
performinggrid generation,in the caseof variablegrid size) and BRINC (for initiating the
break and calculating the fluid properties at the break, on both the up and downstream
sides). For eachof the threesub-programmes, namelySTEAD, TRANS and BREAK there
existsthe differentcombinationsand permutationsfor all the different steadystate models,
numericalmethodsof solution and heat transfer models;programmesfor analysisof the
flow up and downstreamthe break; and uniform and variablegrid size models.
198
The sameprogrammesare used for transientanalysisbefore and after the break.
The only alterationsmade,are on the equationsfor calculatingthe fluid propertiesat the
boundary points, which appliesonly for the method of characteristics.The uniform grid
sizeprogrammes have been includedbecause the procedurefor developingthis programme

involved the use of a uniform grid sizefirst. Otherwisethe variablegrid size programme
takes care of this condition. The programme was compiled and run on a personal
computer. An IBM compatiblepersonalcomputerwith a RAM memoryof 8MB and CPU
speedof 25MHz (486SX) performedas good as one with a RAM memory of 16MB and
CPU speedof 33MHz (upgraded486DX2). Personalcomputersare more convenientthan
mainframe computers,especiallybecauseof their portability which makesit possiblefor
be This
themto usedalmosteverywhere. factor is very important, for
especially this study,
where sometimesit may be to
necessary perform the analysis on site. In addition, the
QUANT softwarefor thermodynamicand transport propertiesof fluids is availablefor use
only with personalcomputers.

The main problem with personalcomputersis their relatively low computation
if time
speed,especially a small anddistance is
mesh usedand or if the pipe section is long.
The time usedto completethe analysisfor a one secondrun time could be as long as five
to six days(120 to 150hours). At the time when this simulationwas performed,constant
values for the thermodynamicand transport properties of the fluid were used. The
inclusion of the QUANT data files reducedthe executionspeedto lessthan a half. Also,
in orderto be ableto simulatethe flow in a pipelineof say 10km, in the sameway as above,
a run time of around thirty is

seconds required. With the samecomputing resourcesas
above,suchan analysiswould last up to a total of five months. Obviously such CPU time
is highly excessiveand should be reducedby using either a bigger grid meshor a faster
computer. For by
example, using Ox=1m,insteadof Ax=O.
lm which was used for the case
describedabove,the CPU time would be reducedby a factor of ten. However, the increase
in the in the grid size is limited by the stability criteria of the numericalmethodsand the
accuracyrequiredfor the results. Whateverthe case,the option of using a faster computer

needsto be consideredseriously. The use of chips suchas the microway numbersmasher
cardcontainingan 1860chip, which is presentlybeing usedat Imperial College [Richardson
(1993-1996)], is strongly recommended. The card costs about two thousand Sterling
pounds and it makesthe personalcomputer 5 to 10 times faster than a 486 personal

computer. The 1860chip is to be found in Sun spark stations. The use of Sun spark
199
CALL SUB-ROUTINE INITIAL 14 i INITIAL
CALL SUB-ROUTINE
GRIDGEN GRIDGEN
CALL SUB-ROUTE [-*-I

SYSDATA SYSDATA
CALL SUB-PROGRAMME STEAD 141 STEAD
CALL SUB-PROGRAMME
TRANS TRANS
CALL SUB-PROGRAMME
BRINC BRINC
CALL SUB-PROGRAMME
f BREAK
BREAK (I
Fig. 4.12 Flow Chart for the Main Computer Programme.
200
UPSTREAM SIDE ASK USER TO SELECT I DOWNSTREAM SIDE
STEADY STATE ANALYSIS
STINADW
STINAD VU STINADV
STISODU STISOUD
STISOVU STISOVD
STAB IBUU STAD I BUD
STADIBW STADIBVD
STAD IFUU STAD 1FUD
STADIFVU STAD 1FVD
STAD2UU STAD2UD
STAD2VU STAD2VD
STNONAUD
A'
Fig. 4.13 Flow Chart for Sub-programmeSTEAD Call
201
ASK USER TO SELECT TRANSIENT ANALYSIS
MODEL -TRANS/BREAK
UPSREAM SIDE DOWNSTREAM SIDE

:MOCAW TRMOCAUD
W TRMOCAVD
IBRMOCAVD
.W
IBRMCCAUD
W ITRMCCAVD
BRMCCAW BRMCCAVD
WKLAW TRWKLAUD
BRWKLAUU BRWKLAUD
WKLAw ITRWKLAVD
BRWKLAW BRWKLAVD
NB: Thesesub-programmesare for the caseof pipesexposedto the

atmosphere.For buried pipes,"A" is replacedwith "G".
Fig. 4.14 Flow Chart for Sub-programesTRANS and BREAK Calls
202
READ DATA FOR PREVIOUS TIME STEP FOR
DISTANCE POINT, FROM DATA FILE
ICHECK STABILITY CRITERION I
CALL SUBROUTINE SBMOCI TO PERFORM FIRST

ORDER TRANSIENT CALCULATION OF - p, r, u.
NO
IS
CHECK IF CONVERGENCE N IS MET:
THE QUANT CONVERGENCE CRITERION MET?
WARE
NO
CALCULATE FLUID YES
NO
PROPERTIESAT P
INCLUDING T
CALL SUBROUTINE SBMOC2 TO PERFORM SECOND
ORDER TRANSIENT CALCULATION - p, p, u.
CALCULATE SPEED INOI
OF SOUND ATP-S
CHECK IF CONVERGENCE CRITERION IS MET:

IS CONVERGENCE CRITERION MET?
YE
PRINT NUMERICAL OUTPUT FOR NEW TIME

LEVEL IN DATA FILES - t, x, p, T, U, p, S
GO TO THE NEXT DISTANCE POINT UNTIL END

OF SECTION IS REACHED: IS END OF SECTION
YES
GO TO THE NEXT TIME STEP UNTIL RUN TIME

IS REACHED: IS RUN TIME EXCEEDED?
YES END
Fig. 4.15 Flow Chart for a Typical Method of CharacteristicProgramme.
203
............................................................................:
ONLY FOR S..AfOC. 2
CALCULATE XQ,Xr & X.
CALL FORSUROUTINESUBHTAOR
SUBHTGTO CALCULATEa. o)AND 12AT P
....................................................... T
................................ .... ..........
CALL SUBROUTINE SUBHTA
CALCULATE p. u. p (AND a FOR
JORSUBHTG TO CALCULATE
AAS..IVI MOC.. 1)ATQ, RANDS
"I
....
at W ! 11\L if Al I Iý
ONLY FOR S..MOC

.1
....................................................... .............................. ..........................................
CALL SUBROUTINE SUBI-ITA OR SUBHTG
TO CALCULATE a, o)ANDf2ATQ
CALL SUBROUTINE SUBI-ITA OR SUBHTG

TO CALCULATE a, w AND t2 AT R
CALL SUBROUTINE SUBHTA OR SUBHTG

TO CALCULATE a, uýAND Q AT S
j
';ONLY FOR SJ tOC.. 2
..................... .........................................
CALCULATE THE COEFFICIENTS OF THE
THREE SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS
CALCULATE p, u AND p AT P
I RETURN p, u, p, TO CALLING I
PROGRAMMMS
Fig. 4.16 Flow Chart for the Sub-routinesS..MOC.: 1 and S..MOC..2
204
stationscouldthereforebe anotheroption for increasingthe CPU speed,especiallyif data
files producedfrom the QUANT software are used rather than running the software to
produceoutput at eachgrid point. The programmewas compiled and run using a Borland
C++ compilerversion2.1, which is basedon the MS-DOS operating system. The compiler
is compatiblewith the Unix versionusedin Sunsparkstations,and the programmesrequire
very minor alterationsto enablethem to run on the latter system.

Fig. 4.12 through 4.16, illustrate the various subroutinesand sub-programmes
developed in this study. The listing of all subroutinesand sub-programmesis given in
Appendix E.
4.7 PREPARATION OF GENERAL GAS AND SYSTEM DATA
Before any of the programmesdescribedin Section4.6 can run, all the required general
dataaboutthe systemandthe fluid mustbe obtainedandstored in ASCII form in a data file
calledSYSTEM.DAT. The data is stored in the sequenceshown in Table 4.2 and read as
an array ID. Only the numeric values i.e. the column designatedvalue is stored in the
SYSTEM.DAT file.
Pipe lengths: ID[0], ID[61, ID[7] and ID[81
All the subroutinesarebasedon the arrangementof the pipe shownin Fig. 4.17 below. The
test sectionconsistsof a straight pipe of length ID[6], extendingfrom a point at distance
ID[O] to a point at distanceID[O]+ID[6]. Direction of flow before the break is to the right.
The breakoccurs at a point at a distanceID[O]+ID[8] along the test section, which could
be anywherebetweenthe two endsor at one of the ends. Therefore the length from the
upstreamendof the sectionto the breakpoint is ID[8], and that from the break point to the
downstreamend of the sectionis ID[7].
Unlessotherwise thedistanceto the point at the upstreamendof the test

specified,
section i.e. ID[O] is taken to be zero. Assuming the break takes place on a plane
perpendicularto the axis of the pipe, and that no part of the pipe is lost during the break,
the total lengthof the test sectionis the sumof the length of the sectionupstreamthe break
and that downstreamthe break i.e. ID[6] = ID[8] + ID[7].
205
No Array Description Value Units
Element
1 ID[0] Length of pipe at upstream end [m]

2 ID[1] Outer pipe wall temperature at upstream [K]
end
3 ID[2] Thermal conductivity of pipe material [W/mK]
4 ID[3] Thermal conductivity of surrounding [W/mK]
medium
5 ID[4] Pipe diameter [m]
6 ID[5] Angle of inclination of pipe to horizontal [Rads. ]
7 ID[6] Total length of pipe section [m]
8 ID[7] Length of pipe section downstream the [m]
break
9 ID[8] Length of pipe section upstreamthe break [m]
10 ID[9] Finest distance mesh [m]
11 ID[10] Inner pipe wall surface roughness [m]
12 ID[11] Pipe wall thickness [m]
13 ID[12] Depth of the pipe below the surface [m]
14 ID[13] Temperature of the surrounding atmosphere [K]
15 ID[14] Pressure of the surroundings [MPa]
16 ID[151 Initial temperature of gas at upstream end [K]
17 ID[16] Initial pressure of gas at upstream end [MPa]
18 ID[17] Mass flow rate of gas [kg/s]
19 ID[18] Finest time step for transient analysis [s]
20 ID[19] Run time for transient analysis [s]
21 ID[20] Coefficient of dynamic viscosity of gas [Ns/m2]
22 ID[21] Initial density of gas at upstream end [kg/m3]
23 ID[22] Polytropic coefficient of gas [-]
24 ID[23] Compressibilityfactor of the gas at
initial conditions [-]
25 ID[24] Starting time for transient analysis [s]
26 ID 251 Density of gas at final conditions [kg1m3]
27 ID[26] Temperature of gas at final conditions [KJ
28 ID[27] Speed of sound of gas at final conditions [m/s]
29 ID[28] Molecularweight of gas [g/mol.]
30 ID[29] Equivalent pipe diameter at the broken end [m]
31 ID[30] Compressibility factor of gas at final
conditions (-]
32 ID[31] Ratio of specific heats of gas at final
conditions [-]
Table 4.2: General Gas and System Data Layout
206
Flow
----------------------------------------- -
Directiori
tn(eý
o(. ] m[o)týc (e]
Fig. 4.17a Test Section of Pipe Before the ßreßlc.
----
------
-------- [ý t0[I] ----
-----
Fig. 4.17b
ID(of
- Test Sectiori After the Drealc
Pipe Diameters: ID[41 and ID[291
The basicequationsderived for this study can handlesituationsin which the cross-section
areaof the pipe varieswith distancealong the axis of the pipe. However, in this model it
is assumedthat the cross-sectionarea and hence the diameter of the pipe is constant
throughoutthe test section. This assumptionis reasonablefor typical gas pipeline systems.
The diameterof the pipe is definedas ID[4]. Very often the break is not full-bore
i. e. the cross-sectionareaat the break is different from that at the rest of the pipe. This
situation is taken care of by the equivalent diameter at the break (ID[29]). A typical
arrangementfor sucha systemis shown in Fig. 4.18.
r[-ý4
[2fl]
----------------------- ------------------...
Hreak
Fig. 4.18 Diametersof the Pipe at Test Section
Angle of Inclination of the Pipe to the Horizontal: ID[51
Thisis theanglewhichthepipesectionformswith the horizontal.In mostcasesthe angle

is zeroi.e. thepipeis horizontalor for thesakeof simplicity,it is assumed
to be horizontal.
207
Mesh Size: ID[9J and ID[181
With the hybridmethodof characteristicsand the explicit finite-differencemethodsusedin

this model, a rectangularco-ordinate grid is required. To enablethe grid mesh to be
generatedfor both the uniform and variable size cases,only two parametersneed to be
specified,namelyID[9] and ID[18]. ID[9] is the finest distance in

meshwhich the cases
of uniform grid size is the samethroughout the length of the test section. In the caseof
variablegrid size, the distancemeshsize increasesby a factor of two from one meshsize
to the next and away from the break. Values of ID[9] smaller that 0.1m presented
difficultiesbecauseof computerfloating point error. It is therefore recommendedthat an
ID[9] valueof 0.1mbe takenasthe smallest. The finest time step ID[18], is determinedin
relation to the finest distancemesh, according to the Courant-Friedrich-Levy stability

criterion. ID[18] alsovariesin a similarfashionas ID[9] away from the break. For typical
high-pressure
naturalgaslinebreakproblems,the ratio betweenID[9] and ID[ 18] is around
1000.
Thedecisionon whetherto usea uniformor variablegrid sizedependsmainlyon
the lengthof the pipe sectionbeingmodelled. The variablegrid sizemodel enablesa much
longersectionto be analysed. The maximumnumberof grid points which can be handled
dependson the capacityof computerusedfor the analysis. For a 486 personalcomputer
with a RAM memory of 8MB, the maximum number of distancegrids which could be
handled is around 120. An optimum number is chosen that will ensure the required
accuracycriterion and reasonableCPU time are met. The grid meshfor both the sections
of the pipe i.e. upstreamand downstreamof the break are shown in Fig. 4.19.
Starting and Run Times: ID[24] and ID[19]
The run time for a particular transient analysisprogramme, ID[ 19], is the time during which
the transient event is being modelled. In the case of transient analysis after the break, this
is taken to be the time interval from when the break occurs until when the transient event
stops. The starting time in this case is taken to be zero.

For transienteventstaking placeover long intervals of time, it may be convenient
to do the analysesin batches.After eachbatch, the valuesof ID[ 19] and ID[24] should be
changedin the SYSTEM.DAT file. ID[24] is given the value of ID[19] in the previous
batchandID[19] is given a new value, until the required run time is reached. Care
should
208
ti
m
b
Q (a) Sectic r «:>f Pipe Upsti-earzi tFi brealc
7
0 m
ýG
a
V
w
A
a
jiH tn[o]
1DCt8
Direotiora of flow
(b) Section of Pipe Dowrtstream tine BraI<
Time Q
3
0
Q
Di. tancs
Fig. 4.19 Variable Grid Mesh Layout
be takento ensurethat the respectivedata files for the last time step of the previousbatch
are kept intact before starting the next batch analysis.
Physical Properties of the Pipe Material: ID[21, ID[10J AND ID[11]
ID[2] is the thermal conductivity of the pipe materialand it is usedin the non-isothermal
non-adiabaticsteadystate analysisprogrammesand in the transientanalysisprogrammes

to calculatethe heattransferthroughthe pipewall. The pipe wall thickness(ID[ 11]) is also
required and used in exactly the same way as ID[2]. The inner pipe wall roughness
(ID[10]) is usedby all the steadystateand transientanalysisprogrammesto calculatethe
frictional force.
Physical Properties of the Surrounding Environment: ID[1], ID[31,1D[121, ID[13]

and ID[141
The outer pipewall temperatureand temperatureof the surroundingatmosphere(ID[ 13])
are used by all the non-isothermal non-adiabatic steady state and transient analysis
programmesto calculate the heat transferthrough the pipe wall and from,the pipe to the
surrounding environment. The pipe wall temperatureneedsto be specified only at the
209
upstream end. In situations where this data is not available, an estimated value is used. The
estimatedvalue should be based on the temperature of the surroundings or of the gas, and
allow for a reasonable temperature drop. If the value of ID[1] estimated is not accurate
enough and also for points other than the upstream end, the programmes will calculate the
precise value through iterations.

The thermal conductivity of the surroundingmedia(ID[13]) and the depth of the
pipe below the surface(ID[12]) apply only in caseswhere the pipe is buried and for non-
isothermalnon-adiabaticprogrammes.They areusedto calculatethe heat transfer through
the medium, from the pipe outer wall to the surroundingatmosphere. In most casesthe
pipes are buried either under ground or water. The surroundingmediain thesecasesare
the mediain which the pipesareburied, and ID[ 12] is the depth of the pipe in the medium,
below the atmosphere.
Pressure of the surroundings(ID[14]) is the pressureof the place at which the
broken pipe discharges. If the broken pipe is open to the atmosphere,the surrounding
pressurewill be the local atmosphericpressure. In somecases,for examplepipesburied

under water, the broken pipe would dischargethe gas under water and the surrounding
pressure will be higher than the atmosphericpressure. In such case, the surrounding
is
pressure given by the following equation:
ID[14] = PA+ (P,,.g.ID[12]) (4.298)
wherepAisatmosphericpressureand pwis densityof the water and ID[12] is the depth of

the pipe in the water.
Physical Properties of the Gas: ID[15], ID[16], ID[17], ID[20], ID[21], ID[22], ID[23],
ID[25], ID[26], ID[271, ID[281, ID[30] and ID[31]
Among the above data the primary data which must be specified in all the steady state and
transient analysis programmes is the initial temperature, pressure and density of the gas at
the upstream end i. e. ID[15], ID[16] AND ID[21] respectively and mass flow rate of gas
before the break (ID[17]). With programmeswhich use the QUANT software i. the
e. non-
isothermal non-adiabatic steady state and all transient analysis programmes it is
not
to specifyboth T and p. The most practical way is to specifyT and calculate p
necessary
using the QUANT software, althoughthe opposite could also be used. This appliesonly
when the domain range of the parameterslies within the range in which the QUANT
software delivers output. Otherwiseboth T and p haveto be specified.
210
The fluid properties u (ID[20]), n (ID[22]), Z (ID[23]) all at the initial state of the
gas and M (ID[28]) are not required for the non-isothermal non-adiabatic steady state and
the transient analysis programmes. They are used by the other steady state analysis
programmes,and the are not all required by each of the programmes. For the programmes
using the QUANT software, all the fluid properties mentioned in this paragraph can be
calculated from it and need not necessarily be specified in the data file SYSTEM. DAT.
The fluid propertiesat the final conditions, are the propertiesof the gas at the state
in which the gas is expected to be after the transient event has ended. The properties which
need to be specified at the final condition are p (ID[25]), T (ID[26]), a (ID[27]), Z

(ID[30]) and K (ID[31]). These together with the pressure and temperature of the
surroundings (ID[14] and ID[15] respectively) are used by the programme for transient
analysis after the break as the properties of the gas at the final state, and to which the
programme must finally converge.
211
CHAPTER 5
A REVIEW OF SOME EXPERIMENTAL

AND NUMERICAL DATA
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Experiments on high-pressuregas pipeline rupture are commonly divided in two categories,
namely laboratory experiments and full-scale pipeline experiments. Laboratory experiments

have traditionally been performed using shock tubes although other variations are also used.
Full-scale pipeline experiments representmore realistically the situation being modelled, but
are very expensive, hazardous and entail significant practical problems. Data of this type
is therefore very scarce compared with laboratory data, and is in most cases restricted.
Laboratory experiments, on the other hand, are more practicable but do not accurately
representthe full-scale situation. However, results from shock tubes tests, especially those
using modified shock tubes (to include the effects of heat transfer, change in cross-sectional
area, etc.) are good enough and have been used in the absence of full-scale experimental
data.
Laboratory experiments have traditionally been performed using shock tubes
although other variations are also used. An alternativeto performing full-scale pipeline
experimentswould be to wait until a pipeline rupturesaccidentallyand collect the required
data. But sinceaccidentsoccurunexpectedly,areinherentlyunsafe,and often when people
ill
are preparedto collectthe requireddata,it is not possibleto collect all the requireddata.
The other alternative data available, is results from other similar computer models.
However, this type of data should be used with great caution. Experimentaldata on
linebreak problems and especiallyfull-scale-experimentaldata is becoming increasingly
available. Very often, experimentaldata is availablein a form which can not be used
directly without modifications,assumptions,extrapolationsand interpolations.
Resultof transientanalysisin ruptured pipelines,whether producedby experiments
or computermodels,are normally presentedin a set of graphs. The more commonlyused

arethe p-x, T-x, u-x, p-t, T-t, u-t, I-t, m-t and p-a curves. A review of experimentaldata
which is availableon pipeline rupture has shown that it consistsof data from shock tube
tests; laboratory rupture experimentson short sections of pipes; linebreak simulation
experiments on full-scale pipelines such as those reported by Bisgaard, Sorensenand
Spangenberg
(1987)andVan Deeen& Reintsema(1983); rupture and blowdown testson
212
sectionsof full-scale pipeline such as the Foothills Pipelines(Yukon) Ltd. (1981); and
measurements on full-scale pipeline system during accidental rupture such as the Piper
Alpha disaster.
Oneessentialrequirementbeforeperformingcomputermodellingof a given pipeline
ruptureis that the test data, specificgas data and pipeline systemdata must be preparedin
the form requiredby the computer programme. Often this involves making a numberof
andsimplifications,suchasassumingsomeparametersto be constantfor some

assumptions
interval. Computersoftware for calculationof thermophysicalpropertiesof fluids such as
PPDS-IUPAC,QUANT, ASPEN PLUS andPREPROPareavailableand makethe process
mucheasierandaccurate,while maintaininga soundcomputation speed. Systemdata such

aspipelinedimensions,is usually includedin experimentaldata. However, somevariables
such as grid size, friction factor, Stanton numberetc. needto be determined. A suitable
grid size needsto be chosenin order to meet the required quality of results. Transient
analysisin the vicinity of the break is very crucial. However, it is often not easyto obtain
the requiredexperimentaldataandwith the requiredaccuracyin this area. In that case,the
only availableoption is to use computer models. Consequently,a review of the available

computer modelsis made,from which suitableresults are to be selectedfor comparison
with the model being developed.
5.2 LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS
5.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE SHOCK TUBE TEST
A simple shock tube consists of a tube of constant cross-section, in which a diaphragm

initially separatestwo bodies of gas at different pressures. Rapid removal of the diaphragm
generatesa flow of short duration containing waves of finite amplitudes separated by quasi-
steady regions. Initially, after diaphragm removal, a shock wave travels into the low
pressuregaswhile an expansionor rarefactionwavetravels into the high pressuregas. The

quasi-steadyflow regions inducedbehind thesewavesare separatedby a contact surface
across which pressureand velocity are equal,but density and temperatureare in general
different. The shockheatingof the low pressuregasand the expansioncooling the high-
of
pressuregas,permita very wide rangeof flow temperatures
to be achieved. There is a very
wide rangeof researchapplicationsof shock tubes,including the study of the propagation
of pressurewavesin unsteadyfluid flow situations. A large numberof resultsfrom shock
213
tube experimentsexist and some of these are specifically on the modelling of unsteady fluid
flow, similar to that occurring in ruptured high-pressure pipelines.
Stronger shock waves can be producedwith various modificationsto the simple
shocktube. Thesemodificationsinclude driver gas heatingand areareduction from driver

to drivensections. The theory and performanceof simpleshock tubeshasbeendescribed
by Glass(1958); and Hall (19580) covers modified shock tubes.
5.2.2 REVIEW OF SOME LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS
There is a wide range of experimental results from shock tubes available. These have been
presented and discussed by Glass (1958), Issa (1970), Thorley & Tiley (1987) and Tiley
(1989). There seems to be not much published recently, on shock tube modelling of
ruptures in high-pressure gas pipelines. Most of the recent work is based on full-scale
pipeline experiments, which are becoming increasingly available.
Basedon a three point criteria, describedin Section 5.5, Tiley (1989) selectedthe
Groves-Bishnoi-Wallbridge
(1978) [referredto asthe Grovesdata] shock tube data and the
British Gasshocktubedata[JonesandGough (1981)]. The Groves data was also usedby
Cronje,BishnoiandSvrcek(1980)to simulategaspipeline rupture, with successfulresults.
In using the Groves data, Tiley (1989) had to makevarious assumptionsregardingshock
tube material (in order to estimatethe friction factor and Stanton number);the effective
rupture time of the diaphragm and the accuracy and sensitivity of the measuringand
recording devices. Therefore, no assessmentcould be made of the experimentalerrors
incurred. No suchproblemswere experiencedwith the British Gas data.
Lyszkowski,GrimeseyandSolbrig(1978) usedexperimentalresultsfrom ideal gas
shocktubetests and blowdown of an ideal gas from a 13ft (approximately4m) long pipe.
In the caseof the shocktube tests,the length of the pipe was 20ft (approximately6m) and
the initial pressureratio at the middle was 7.9 to 1 [114.7Ib/in' abs.to 14.7Ibrn'-abs.(7.9
to 1 bar)]. The velocity was uniformly zero and the internal energy was uniformly
80.62Btu/Ib(187.5kJ/kg)initially. A diatomicgas having a specific heat capacityratio (K)
of 1.4 was used. Resultswere presentedin the form of graphsof pressure,velocity and
internal energy; all as functions of the pipe length. The same
gas was used in the
blowdownexperiment.The ratio of the initial pressurein the pipe to
ambientpressurewas
214
2.83 and the initial pressure was 1,000 Ib/in2 abs (69 bar). Results were presented in the
form of closed end pressure and break velocity as functions of time after the break.
Ilic (1987)determinedexperimentally
the rate of transientmassdischargeof a two-
phasemixturethrougha shortpipe. An initially stagnantand saturatedcolumn of Freon-12
liquid stored in a 0.25 litre glass vesselwas used. Blowdown was initiated through a
3.2mm bore brass tube, 50mm long by opening a quick acting ball valve located
downstream from the pipe. Strain gaugepressuretransducerswith natural frequencyof
about 20kHz were usedto measurevapour pressurein the spaceabovethe liquid in the
glassvesselandthe pressureof the liquid at the exit of the dischargepipe. A Bourdon tube
compoundpressuregaugewasusedto indicatethe initial and final receiverpressures.The
fluid temperaturewas measuredat the exit plane of the pipe with a 0.2mm diameter
chromel/alumelthermocouplewhosebare hot junction was machinedflush with the pipe

bore andthermallyinsulatedfrom the pipe wall by a resin plug (1.6mm diameter)in which
the thermocouplewireswereembedded.A similarthermocouplemountedon the discharge
pipe wall showedthat the temperaturedrop was insignificantthroughout the blowdown

period, exceptduring the vapour stage. The pressuretransducerand temperaturesignals
were recordedon a high speedchart recorder. Resultshave beenpresentedin terms of
photographstaken at 0.33 secondsintervals,dischargingvesselmassinventory variation
with time and dischargetube exit characteristicsand driving pressurehistory. An initial
delayperiod was observedbefore the start of ebullition by the formation of vapour at the
bottom of the vessel.Discretebubbleseventuallycombinedto form a slug of vapour which
displacedthe descendingliquid surfaceand causedconsiderablemixing in its wake. At the
endof blowdown,only vapourissuedfrom the vessel. The criterion of choking was taken
to be the independenceof the pipe exit pressurefrom the receiverpressurechanges. This
condition was confirmedby the simultaneousmeasurementof the fluid exit temperature,
which showedsimilar trends to the exit pressure.
Haque, Richardson, Saville and Chamberlain(1990) reported on experiments
conducted on rapid depressurisationof large pressurevesselsat the Imperial College,

London. The aim of the experiments
wasto enableunderstandingof the physicalprocesses
involvedduringblöwdown. The experiments
involved the depressurisationof three vessels
ranging in diameter from 5 to 110cm, with length to diameter ratios from 10 to 3

respectively. Most of the measurements
were madeon vertical vesselsblowndown from
the top andfrom the bottom. However,measurements
werealso madeon horizontal vessel
215
blowdown through an exit on the axis of the end closure of the vessel. Measurements
recordedincludedpressure,temperatureand composition;all as a function of time during

the blowdown process. The vesselswere instrumentedwith pressuretransducersto
measurethe internal pressureand thermocouplesto measuretemperaturewithin the gas
spacein the vesselandthe surfacetemperaturesof the vesselwall, both inside and outside.
Pressurisationwas with nitrogen at 150 bar and depressurisationwas through an orifice
down to atmosphericpressure. A data logger was used to record all the pressuresand
temperaturesonce every 3 seconds.
Haque, Richardson, Saville, Chamberlain and Shirvill (1992) presented and
discussedexperimentalmeasurements
which were taken to validate their computer model,
BLOWDOWN. The experimentswere conductedusing different sizedvesselsoriented
verticallyandhorizontally;containinga rangeof different fluids; and with blowdown from

the top, bottom andsidethroughchokesof varioussizes.The experimentswere conducted
usingthreevesselsof differentsizes,in orderto checkthe effect of vesselsize on the model
predictions. The model showed that the predictions are scale-independent.The three
vesselsusedwerenamedasVessel1 to 3; andhad lengthsof 3.240m, 1.524mand 0.671m;
insidediametersof 1.130m,0.273m and 0.040m; and thicknessof 59mm,25mm and 5mm
respectively.Transducerswereusedto measurethe pressurein the vesselsto an estimated

accuracyof 10.2 bar. Pressuregaugeswere also usedto give direct measurements.Bare-
wire thermocouples
wereusedto measurethe temperatureof the fluid within the vesseland
alsoof the insideandoutsidewalls to an estimatedaccuracyof f0.5K. It was also possible
to withdraw samplesof the fluid from the top and bottom of the vesselat arbitrary stages
during blowdown, and to measure the composition of the samples using a mass
spectrometeranda gaschromatograph.In addition, a windowed port was attachedto the

upperpart of the vesselanda mirror set at an angleof 45° to the vertical within the vessel.
A video camerawasthenusedto view the fluid within the vesselboth horizontally, across
the upper part of the vesseloccupiedby gas; and vertically downwards, from the part
occupied by gas to the part occupiedby liquid. In this way condensationin the gas and
evaporation in the liquid could be monitored directly and continuously during the
blowdown. All measurementswere transmitted to data logging systemsand thence to
micro-computersfor subsequentdata reduction. The experimentswere carried out at the

Imperial College(for Vessel2) and the British Gas test site at Spadeadam(for Vessel 1).
216
ExperimentsusingVessel1 at Spadeadam
wereconductedon mixtures of methane,
ethane and propane;together with some on nitrogen (for comparisonwith the Imperial
Collegeexperiments).Someeighteenand fifteen setsof experiments,which were referred
to as SI to S18 and 11 to 115 were conducted at Spadeadamand Imperial College
respectively.The experimentscovereda wide rangeof different fluid compositions,vessel

orientation, blowdown directions and choke sizes. The experimentsat Imperial College
were,for safetyreasons,confined to non-inflammablebut representativefluids. Nitrogen

was usedasa representativegas phasesinceits critical propertiesare in the samerangeas
thoseof methane;andcarbondioxidewas used as a representativecondensablephasesuch
aspropane.The initial pressurewas,except in two cases120 bar for the Spadeadamtests;
and 50 bar for the Imperial College tests. Blowdown times were of the order of 1,500
seconds for the Spadeadamexperiments and 100 seconds for the Imperial College
experiments.Threeexperiments,namely11,S9 and S12; all of which were conductedwith
a vertical orientation of the vesselsand blowdown at the top position; were selectedas
representativecomparisonsfor the BLOWDOWN model. However, in the caseof the
pipelinerupturemodel,experimentscarriedout at a horizontalorientation of the vesselsare
morerepresentative.Richardson(1993-96)reportson further experimentalblowdown tests
on a 1.6m long, 0.3m diameter vesselat Imperial College; a 3.Om high, 1.3m diameter
vessel conductedby SHELL at Spadeadam;and a 0.3m high, 0.15m diametervesselat
Imperial College for a numberof flashingflow tests.
5.3 REVIEW OF SOME FULL-SCALE PIPELINE EXPERIMENTS
Perhaps the earliestfull-scale pipelinerupture tests are those reported by Sens,Jouve &
Pelletier(1970). The test was conductedon an 11,800mlong 0.1065minternal diameter
naturalgaspipelineat a pressureof 31.4bar. The resultsin form of p-t and u-t curves were
compared with calculatedresults and said to be identical. However, this is one of the
simplestcasesof naturalgasflow, sincethe pressurewas relatively low and measurements
were taken away from the vicinity of the break. In most cases,the pressurewould be so
high that the modelling would involve handling of liquid and gas phases. In a test
programme conducted by Alberta Petroleum Industry Government Environmental

Committee (1979), an existing 168.3mmoutside diameterpipeline which was typical of
sour gas lines in the province was used. The test section,approximately4.0km in length,
217
was burst at the midpoint. In addition, one rupture was performed on a pipeline of
323.9mm diameter and approximately 7.1 km long. Of the results presented, only the p-t
and m-t curves are relevant for this case.

Tiley (1989) used resultsfrom somefull-scale testson high-pressuregas pipelines
including those reported by Jones& Gough (1981) and Foothills Pipelines(Yukon) Ltd.
(1981). As for the resultspresentedby Jonesand Gough (1981), the tests were conducted
with naturalgasandusingshortsectionsof pipe. Tests, sectionswere 1.22mdiameter and

50m
approximately long with reservoir sections at both ends. The pipe was pressurisedto
approximately 90bar and a crack was initiated at the centre of the test section. Pressure
historieswere recordedat pointseitherside of the break, and resultswere presentedas p-a
curves. Similar for

results; testscarriedout by BMI, on behalf of British Gas; and for tests
that British Gas conducted for SHELL; were also presented.In these cases,the initial
pressureswere 120 and 140 bar respectively. The experimentsreported by Foothills
Pipeline (Yukon) Ltd. (1981) were carried out between 1979 and 1981 at the Northern
AlbertaTest Facility. Short sectionsof about 120mlong and 1.4mand 1.2mdiameterpipe
were chargedwith naturalgasof known compositionand to

pressurised between74bar and
87 bar. Fracturewas initiated at the centre of the test sectionand resultswere presented
in the form of p-t and p-a curves.
Van Deen& Reintsema(1983)usedexperimentaldata from GASUNIE to validate
their theoreticalmodel. In the experiment,a linebreakwas simulatedby rapidly openinga
valve which connectedthe test pipe to a parallel pipe at a lower pressure. Another set of
datafrom full-scalepipeline simulation of a rupture is that reported and usedby Bisgaard,
Sorensenand Spangenberg(1987), and which was carried out in 1979on a 77.33km gas
pipeline from Neustadt through Sörzen to Unterföhring in Germany. Gradle (1984)

presentedblowdown curves for natural gas i. e. graphsof blowdown time versuspipeline
volume (t-V curves), for different types of pipeline and at line pressuresranging from
13.8bar to 103.4bar. Knox, Atwell, Angle, Willoughby and Dielwart (1980) presented
results of sour gas pipeline rupture experiments. Two pipelines of a 3.8km, 168mm
diameteranda 7.1km,323mmdiameterwere rupturedat the midpoints of the test sections.
m-t curves were presentedfor the two pipelinesat an initial pressureof 69bar and gas
temperatureof 10°C. The total massof gas releasedwas also measured.Wilson (1981)
alsoreportedon full-scalerupture tests performedin 1978by Alberta Petroleum Industry,

GovernmentEnvironmentalCommittee(1979). Botros, Jungowskiand Weiss(1989) used
218
the data obtained during the blowdown of a straight gas pipeline section and a three-unit
compressor station for comparison with their models. Results were presented in the form
of p-t curves.
Richardsonand Saville (1991) used experimentaldata from one of three ruptures
of lines connectedto the Piper Alpha platform, which was monitored sufficiently well to
give useful validatory information; and also data from a line of length 100m and bore
150mm, containing LPG. In the latter case,initial pressuresof up to 21bar, and initial
of about293K were used. The blowdown was done through orifices ranging
temperatures
in equivalentdiameterfrom 0.0im to 0.15m(full-bore). Resultswere presentedin the form
of p-t and p-T curves,at the intact end of the line; and m-t, M-p curves. Someof these
results were also used by Chen, Richardsonand Saville (1992). Chen, Richardsonand
Saville (1993) reported on a 100mlong pipe with an internal diameterof 150mm,which
was fully rupturedat oneend. Pressureat the intactend and total massin the pipelinewere
recorded as a function of time. The pipe was filled with 95% propane and 5% butane
mixture at a pressureof l lbar and temperatureof 20°C. Much more data resultingfrom
laboratory experimentsand also full-scale tests,but which hasnot beenpublished,exist.
However, the data was not availablefor this study.
Mallinson(1996)reportsof recentexperimentaldata, which havebeenacquiredby
British Gas in addition to the onesreported by Jonesand Gough (1981). The new data
were obtained through full-scale pipeline tests, in collaboration with. several other
companies.Mallinson(1996) furtherstatesthat the cost of the experimentswas very high,
and as such the results are both valuableand also commerciallysensitive. This data was
therefore not availablefor this study.
Morrow (1996)reportson other recentfull-scalepipelineventing tests, which were
performedby a gas transportation company,in order to evaluateleak detectionsystems.

The pipelinesystemconsistedof parallelpipelineswith interconnectionsor cross-oversthat
could be openedor closed. The interconnectionswere spacedat regular intervalsbetween

compressorstations. A partial linebreakwas simulatedby venting gas through a smaller
diameter branch line terminatedby a remotely actuatedquick acting relief valve. A full
linebreakwas not simulated. P and T data were recorded. This information was received
too late to be able to follow up on the possibility of the data being madeavailable.
219
5.4 REVIEW OF SOME NUMERICAL DATA
Sens, Jouve and Pelletier (1970) claimed that results from their model was identical with
their experimental results described in Section 5.3. Arrison, Hancox, Sulatisky and
Banerjee (1977) compared predictions by their RODFLOW code with experimental data
for blowdown of a recirculating water loop containing two pumps, two heated sections and
two heat exchangersarranged in a figure-of-eight geometry. Results were presented as p-t
and T-t curves at different sections of the loop and different break sizes.
Groves, Bishnoi and Wallbridge (1978) developeda computermodel to calculate
decompression
wavevelocitiesin natural gas pipelines. The model was validatedwith the
experimentaldata of Groves (1976). Resultswere presentedas p-a curves. Chengand
Bowyer (1978)usedtheir quasi-one-dimensional
unsteadycompressiblefluid flow code to
simulatetwo casesof transientflow. Transientscausedby a suddenpipe rupture at the left
hand side of a three duct steam systemwere predicted. Results were presentedas p-t
curves. Lyczkowski, Grimeseyand Solbrig (1978) presentedcomparativeresultsof their

alternating gradient method with analytical results and also their experimental data
describedin Section3.2. The resultswere presentedas p-x, u-x and e-x in an ideal shock
tube 5msafter the break; p-t and u-t at the closedend of the pipe for an ideal gas; and p-t
for a blowdown of steam-watermixture pipe.
A study by Alberta Petroleum Industry, GovernmentEnvironmentalCommittee
(1978) reported on existing two isopleth prediction models, one blowdown model and a
simplified blowdown model developed during the study. Predictions from the blowdown
models were presented as m-t curves and validated with experimental results in a
subsequent study [Alberta Petroleum Industry Government Environmental Committee

(1979)]. Knox, Atwell, Angle, Willoughby and Dielwart (1980), presented M-t curves
resulting from their theoretical model and compared them with their experimental data
reported in Section 5.3. Cronje, Bishnoi and Svrcek (1980) presented graphs of results
from their adiabatic model and compared them with the experimental data
of Groves
(1976). Results were presentedas p-a curves for pure methane and argon. Wilson (1981)
presented an M-t and exit pressure ration against time for the full-scale pipeline rupture
experiments described by Knox, Atwell, Angle, Willoughby and Dielwart (1980).

Fannelopand Ryhming (1982) presentedseveralgraphswhich model the pressure
profilesandreleaseratesfollowing the ruptureof a gas pipeline. No experimentaldata was
220
used,and in the simulationthe break took place at the high pressureend. Van Deen and
Reintsema(1983) comparedresults from their numerical model with full-scale pipeline
whichweredesignedto simulateda linebreak. Graphsof pressureagainsttime

experiments
were presentedfor the two simulation experiments. Flatt (1985 and 1986), presented
variousgraphsresultingfrom predictionsof his model. However, data
no experimental was
to his
used validate modelpredictions.The graphspresentedinclude p-x, u-x, S-x, a-x and
m-x; and m-t curves.
Bisgaard,Sorensenand Spangenberg(1987) comparedresultsfrom the linebreak
in
simulation experimentsreported Section 5.3 with results of their numerical model.
Resultswerepresentedasp-t curvesfor the abovecaseand also for simulationof a rupture
in a straightpipelineusingtheir numericalmodel. Lang and Fannelop(1987) presentedm-t
curves,resulting from simulationswith three different methodsand comparedthem with

thosecalculatedby FannelopandRyhming(1982). They also presentedp-x and u-x curves
for various times after the rupture.
Picard and Bishnoi (1988) compared results from their computer models with
experimentaldatafrom the Northern Alberta Burst Tests [Foothills Pipeline(Yukon) Ltd.

(1981)]. Graph of pressureratio p/pL (where PLis the pressureat the initial condition)
versusexpansionwavevelocitywerepresented.Picardand Bishnoi (1989) used their three

modelsto demonstratethe importanceof real-fluid behaviourin modelling of high pressure
gaspipelineruptures. A casewasconsideredwherebyafter a suddenrupture of a 168.3mm
diametersour-gaspipeline,an upstreamemergencyshutdown valve closes,restricting the
blowdown length to 1000m. Pressureof the gas was I lobar. Resultswere presentedas
m-t, p-t, u-t a-t, and T-t curves.

They (1989) used the shock tube data used by Groves, Bishnoi & Wallbridge
(1978)i.e. that of Groves(1976)andthat of Jones& Gough (1981); and also the full-scale
pipeline experimentalresults of Foothills Pipeline (Yukon) Ltd. (1981) to validate her

computer model. Resultswere presentedas p-a and p-t curves. Botros, Jungowski and
Weiss (1989) presenteda seriesof p-t profiles resulting from their models predictions.
Comparisonswere made with their field measurementsreported in Section 5.3. Lang
(1991) presentedp-x, m-x and m-t curves,resulting from his numericalmodel. Kunsch,
Sjeen and Fannelop(1991) presentedm-t, I-t, u-t, p-t and p-x curves produced by their
computer model for rupture of sub-seapipeline connectedto processequipmenton the

platform through a vertical segment.
221
Richardson and Saville (1991) presented a series of graphs comparing predictions
from their model BLOWDOWN with experimental results. The results consist of p-t, T-t
and I-t curves at the intact end of the pipe; m-t and mass efflux curves against time at the
ruptured end; and massflux through the orifice with upstream pressure. Chen, Richardson
and Saville (1992) presented m-t, p-t curves at both the open and intact ends of the pipe.
The graphs consist of results obtained from the BLOWDOWN model and from
experiments. Haque, Richardson, Saville, Chamberlain and Shirvill (1992) presented p-t,
T-t and m-t following blowdown of a gas vessel. The data calculated using the
BLOWDOWN model was compared with experimental results. Chen, Richardson and
Saville (1993) presentedp-t curves at the intact end and m-t curves of the line predicted by
their homogeneous two-phase model and also resulting from experiments.
OlorunmaiyeandImide (1993) presentedm-t curves, producedby their model and
comparedthemwith resultscalculatedby Flatt(1986) and also Lang and Fannelop(1987).
5.5 SELECTION OF TEST DATA
In her selection of experimentaldata for comparisonwith the theoretical model, Tiley

(1989) usedthe following criteria:
(i) The variablesrequiredby the programmemust either be given in the experimental
data or be calculatedfrom it.
(ii) The experimentalresults must be of a form that can be directly comparedwith the
theoreticalcomputeroutput.
(iii) Details of the apparatusand procedureare necessaryin order to be able to assess
the experimentalerror and evaluatethe resultsobtained.
The samecriteria will be used in this study. All the recent data described in Section 5.3
was
not available for this study, despite the big effort made to secure it. The discussion of the
data which could be obtained and its screening for suitability in this study is
covered in this
section.
Whena breakoccursin a high-pressuregas pipeline,the pressureof the gas drops
virtually instantaneouslyat the break and rarefactionwavesare transmittedup and down
the pipeline and rapidly dissipatedwhen the fluid in the pipe is a gas. A flow reversal
occurs in the sectionof the pipe down streamthe break. In order to model thesewaves
properly,a reducedgrid sizeis normallyrequired in the vicinity of the break. Mass release
rates from pipeline ruptureswas studiedby Wilson (1981). The behaviourof gas during
222
its initial release,expansionand plume rise was studied by carrying out an exact momentum
analysisof the expandingjet outside the pipe rupture, and developing a more sophisticated
model for both the mass release rate and the plume rise of the momentum jet. The most
hazardous portion of the gas released during a pipeline rupture is emitted during the first
10 to 20 seconds, when the high initial mass flow causes the largest downwind
concentrations. There have been other but simpler models for predicting the initial release
rates from high-pressuregas pipeline rupture, including those by Flatt (1986) and Kunsch,
Sjoen and Fannelop (1991). Another factor which affects the release rates is the rupture
mode. This was studied by Knox, Atwell, Angle, Willoughby and Dielwart (1980). In most
cases a full bore rupture is assumed. Wilson (1981) also studied the heat transfer to the
moving gas through the pipe walls and observed from experiments almost an isothermal
condition throughout the length of the pipe, except for about the last 200 diameters during
which the rapidly accelerating flow near the pipe exit was moving too quickly to gain heat
from the pipe walls.
To be ableto producecomparable
results,a modeldevelopedfor suchas above
conditions and assumptions,should be validated with data obtained from experiments
performed under similar conditions. Criteria such as the one usedby They (1989), and
listed in this section, is very useful in selectingexperimentaldata for comparisonwith
theoreticalmodels. The reviewof experimentaldata availablehasrevealedthat the criteria
are very seldommet, and consequentlya numberof test setshave to be used in order to
validate a particular model. Also someassumptionshaveto be madefor somedata, thus
reducingthe accuracyof the data. For example,in using the Grovesdata, Tiley (1989) had
regardingshocktube materialin order to estimatethe friction
to makevariousassumptions
factor and Stanton number;the effective rupture time of the diaphragmand the accuracy
andsensitivityof the measuringand recording devices. Therefore, no assessment

could be
madeof the experimentalerrors incurred.
Four differentcategoriesof data for validating computer modelshavebeenreview
in this chapter. The main disadvantageof laboratory experimentaldata, including
shock
tube data, is that of its much smaller scale comparedto full-scale pipelines. The small
diameter effects observed by Groves, Bishnoi and Wallbridge (1978), thermal
effects
includedby amongothers Tiley (1989) and frictional effects discussedby Flatt (1986)
are
someof the importantfactorsagainstlaboratoryexperimentsdata. Under such a situation,
manyof the assumptions suchasfrictionless,adiabaticflow etc. which would not normally
apply to full scalepipelines,hold true. This meansthat a model developedunder such
223
assumptionsand validated with such data would produce comparable results, but it would
not produce correct results when applied to a full-scale pipeline. However, one the positive
aspects of laboratory experiments, is that high compression ratios could be used, thus
producing strong shock waves. On the other side, simulated rupture experiments represent
a more realistic presentation of all the in
effects encountered a full pipeline rupture, but
operate under very small pressureratios. For example in the experiments used by Van Deen
and Reintsema(1983) and Bisgaard Sorensenand Spangenberg (1987) the pressures varied
by approximately 0.2bar in 400 secondand 2.3bar in 2 hours. In a typical high-pressure gas
pipeline rupture, the pressureat the break would be reduced to near ambient pressure within
a fraction of a second. Simulated full-scale pipeline experiments therefore represent rather
slower transients compared to actual rupture experiments.

Full-scale pipeline rupture tests provide the most suitable data for validating
numericalmodels. But evenwith full-scalepipelineexperimentaldata, often measurements

do not existfor the sectionof the pipelinein the vicinity of the break and at the time interval
requiredto showall the importantvariationsof the properties.Somemodelsfor simulating

pipelineruptureswere claimedto havepassedsimplybecausethe datausedto validate them
was basedon laboratory experimentswhich could not representall the effects existing in
a full-scale pipeline. The claim by Haque, Richardson,Saville, Chamberlainand Shirvill
should be treated with great
(1992) that their model predictionswere scale-independent,
caution, since the study was on vesselsand not pipelines. In such casesthe effects
mentionedaboveare not significant. Numerical resultsfrom other modelsare only useful
asa qualitativecomparisonwhendevelopinga computermodel and preliminaryevaluation
and comparisonof results. They should not be regardedas final validatory evidence.
Although as seenin this review, there is plenty of experimentaldata for validation
of computer models, it is not easily available. When available,it is often in a form of

printed graphswhich requiresone to translateit into numericaldata. In somecases,the
specificationof the gas and test condition is not fully given and evenwhen given, it is not
always easyfor workers to obtain the propertiesof suchmixtures. All theseare someof
the factors that significantly affect the accuracyand validation of computer models for
rupture in natural gas pipelines. Even with a working model, there is a needto regularly
update the gas composition sinceas observedby Foothills Pipeline(Yukon) Ltd. (1981),
it changeswith time.
224
Computermodelsfor simulationof transientflow of gasfollowing a rupture in high-
pressurepipelinesmustbe validatedwith suitableexperimentaldata. Although all types of

datadiscussedin this paperare useful at somestageof developmentof a computer model,
full-scale pipeline rupture tests provide the most suitableand reliabledata for validating
computermodelsfor suchevents. Wheneverpossiblethis categoryof data shouldbe used

as the final and most reliable validatory test for computer models. The review of
experimentaldata availablehas reveal that a numberof test setshaveto be usedin order
to provide all the necessarydata required to fully validate a particular model. Also some
assumptionshave to be made for some data, thus reducing the accuracy of the data.
Although as seen in this review, there is plenty of experimentaldata for validation of
computer models,it is not easilyavailable.

Basedon this review, four setsof experimentaldata are selectedfor validation of
this computer model. The data is that reported by Jones& Gough (1981), Foothills
Pipeline (Yukon) Ltd. (1981), Alberta Petroleum Industry GovernmentEnvironmental
Committee(1979)and Sens,JouveandPelletier(1970). The test data is referredto in this
study as the British Gas, Foothills, API and SNGSO test data respectively. More details
about the tests and the data is are presentedin Chapter6.
225
CHAPTER 6
VALIDATION OF THE COMPUTER MODEL
6.1 VALIDATION PROCEDURE
It was decidedin Chapter 5 that four setsof full scalepipeline experimentaldata on pipe
sectionsof varyinglengths,diametersand operatingconditions will be usedto validate the

computermodelpredictions.The tests,which arereferredto as British Gas, Foothills, APT
and SNGSO;arebriefly describedin this chapter. The necessary
gas and systemdata which
was providedis presentedin tabular form and the experimentaland predictedresults from
the computermodelsarepresentedin graphicalform. The resultsare discussedin Section
6.3. The procedureusedin validating the computer model is as follows:
(i) All the data provided concerningthe gas and the test systemis stored in relevant
files in the QUANT softwareand transientanalysisprogramme. Data which is not
is
provided, estimatedbasedon someknown parameterof the systemor of similar
systems.
(ii) A datafile of thermodynamicand transport propertiesof the fluid which covers all
the range of dependablevariables(p, p and T) encounteredduring the transient
event is producedusing the QUANT software.

(iii) Computersimulationis performedfor the test sectionsdescribedin section4.6 and
numericalresults are stored in a data file at intervals for the dependantvariablest

and x sufficient to produce good graphicaloutput.
(iv) The computerprogrammeDSORT is usedto processthe data generatedin (iii) in
to a form which can be used by standardgraphical packagesto plot the require
graphs.
(v) A commercial graphical software EXCEL is used to plot the required graphs,
combiningboth the experimentaldatageneratedin (v) and the data predictedby the

computer model, which is generatedin (iv). Both setsof data are plotted in the
samegraph in order to provide good comparison.
(vi) Experimental data which are available in graphical form are converted into
numericaldata and stored in ASCII files which can be usedby standardgraphical

packagesto plot graphs.If the experimentaldata is available in numericalform, in
ASCII datafiles,thenthis step is not required. However, if the data file is too big,
226
then step (iv) may be applied also to the data.
experimental In this study, all the
data used to validate the computer models are availablein the form of printed
graphs.
Four setsof experimentaldata havebeenselectedto validate the computer
Only data is believed to representrapid transientbehaviour hasbeen used.
model. which
For all the four setsof data, the pipes are effectively horizontal, and are exposedto the
atmosphere. Therefore only the heat transfer model based on pipes exposed to the
is
atmosphere used.
6.2 COMPARISON OF COMPUTER MODEL PREDICTIONS WITH

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
6.2.1 FOOTHILLS TEST DATA
The testswhich were reportedby Foothills Pipeline(Yukon)Ltd.(1981), were carried out

between December 1979 and April 1981 at the Northern Alberta Burst Test Facility
(NABTF). A total of six tests, which are denoted as NABTFI, NABTF3, NABTF4,
NABTF5, NABTF6 andNABTF7, werecarriedout andwere reported. The main purpose
of the test to
was examinethe effect of gas composition on the fracture behaviourof the
pipe. Shortslengthsof a total of 243mand diameters of approximately 1.2 and 1.4m were
chargedwith naturalgasof known composition and pressurisedto between 74 and 87 bar.
Fracture was initiated at the centre of the test sectionby detonatingan explosivecutter.
Resultswerepresentedin the form of pressurehistoriesand timing wire data showing the
crack tip position. The data is presentedfor eachsection of the broken pipe which are
denoted as West and East. In relation to the computer model they are referred to as
downstreamand upstreamsectionsrespectively.
Out of the results presented,of relevanceto this study are the p-t and a-p curves.
Although the data can be usedto someextent to validate computer modelsfor linebreak
analysis, it was not intendedfor that purpose. The major reasonwhich makesthis data
unsuitablefor validating line break models is the fact that the fracture was designedto
propagatealong the axial direction of the pipe covering someconsiderablelengths. This
makesit difficult to modelthe breakboundary,especiallyusing this model where the break

boundaryis assumedto be fixed in the x-t plane.The shorter the axial distancecoveredby
the fracturepropagationthe more suitablethe resultsarefor validating the computer model.
227
Two major weaknesseshave been observed in the FOOTHILLS data. The first is
that of p-t curvescrossingeachother. The is secondthat of non-identicalcurves for the

two identical halvesof the broken pipe section. During the depressurisationof a broken
pipe, the pressureat the intact end remains higher than that at the broken end and the
pressuregradient follows the same direction throughout the depressurisationprocess.
Therefore, it is not possiblefor the pressureat a point in the pipe which is further away
from the break to be lower than that of a point which is nearerto the broken end, during
the first transient of the pressurewave following the break. The fact that this rule is not
followed by the FOOTHILLS tests results,indicatesthat the data presentedin this report
must be usedwith extremecaution.

The stateof the gas inside the pipe was stationarybefore the break. Assuminga
uniform temperaturethroughout the length of the pipe, there is in

a symmetry all the
propertiesof the fluid and the geometryof the pipe about the crosssection at the middle
of the pipe. The symmetry should be maintainedeven after the break, if the fracture
propagationis the sameon both sectionsof the pipe,unlessif therearestrongexternal
factorssuchaswind whichwould affectthe out flow of gasfrom the brokenends. In the
FOOTHILLS results,this condition is also not well followed.
Outer diameter(mm) 1422 1219 1219 1422 1219 1219

Wall thickness 13.71 15.24 13.71 13.71 15.24 13.71
P[kPa]] 7446 8687 8687 74446 8697 8143
T [C] 23-26 (-3)-(-4) 18.5 1819 (-4)-(-5) (-5)-(-6)
Pipe Material Gr.483 Gr.483 Gr.483 Gr.483 Gr.483 Gr.483
Gascomposition [%]
CH4 86.59 85.36 85.36 84.7 85.19 85.71
C2H6 6.8 8.22 7.68 8.21 8.07 7.94
C,H= 4.03 4.34 4.46 4.38 4.4 4.27
i-C4H, 0.262 0.182 0.238 0.201 0.203 0.214
0
n-C4H,o 0.421 0.278 0.331 0.235 0.3 0.311
i-C5H12 0.057 0.029 0.032 0.029 0.029 0.033
n-C5H12 0.034 0.028 0.032 0.03 0.029 0.03
n-C, H14 0.008 0.013 0.011 0.008 0.01 0.009
CO2 0.076 1.56 0.049 2.212 1.177 1.1409
N2 1.71 1.56 1.804 2.212 1.177 1.1409
Ar 0.016 1.56 0.013 2.212 1.177 1.1409
lo, 0016 0011 2212 1 1-1771 1-1409
_
Source:Foothills Pipeline(Yukon) Ltd (1981)
Table 6.1: Foothills Test GeneralData
228
Two test results, namely NABTFI EAST and NABTF7 WEST, are selected for
validation of the computer model. The result NABFTI EAST are used to validate the
model for flow reversalin the downstreamsection of the broken pipe and the NABFT7
WEST results are used for the upstreamsection.Both the NABTFI and NABTF7 tests
were performed with relatively short axial fracture propagation(approximately5m and

18m respectively). The length of the axial fracture propagationis more than three times
higher in NABFT7 test than in the NABFTI test. The test results produced for test
NABTF7 WEST seemto be more promising for validating of the model. Two main
reasonsfor this arethe lower timing wire velocityused for NABFT7 comparedto that used
for NABFT 1; and the long distanceaway from the broken end (18.28m comparedwith
4.2m for NABTFI)used asthe shortestdistanceto presentthe results. The shematicof the
Foothills test NABTFI and NABTF7 are presentedin Figs. 6.1 and 6.2 respectively.
I
GASFILL
UNE
SECTION OF PIPE UPSTREM OF THE BREAK
+
BROKEN END
UPSTREAMEND
BROKEN
END DQ HSTRUW
ENO
SECTION OF PIPE DOWNSTREM OF THE BREAK
A PRESSURE TRANSDUCER POSITIONS
DISTANCEor PRESSURETRANSDUCER
FROM UPSTREAMEND
Fig. 6.1 Schematicof Foothills Test NABTFI
229
121.5m
la
0 1219mm
t 0 0 08 UU L
P76W PT5W2 PT5WI P74W PT3W P
Q
PTRW
SECTION OF PIPE UPSTREM OF THE BREAK BROKENEND
GASFlu
UNE UPSTREAMEND
BROKEN END DOWNSTREAM

END
SECTIONOF PIPE DOWNSTREAIOF THE BREAK
DISTANCE OF PRESSURE TRANSDUCER

FROM UPSTREAM END
Fig. 6.2 Schematicof Foothills Test NABTF7
Sufficient data was provided concerning the test gas, to enable determination of
the rest of the required fluid properties using the QUANT software. The former are
summarisedin Table 6.1. The average composition of the gas used in the seven test which
is given in Table 6.2 is used as the input data to the QUANT software. A data file
FLUID. DAT is generated using the routine DFGEN, to cover the whole range of the
dependent variables(p, T and p) which will be covered by the transient event.
Results produced by the computer model are summarisedin Figs.6.7 to 6.11.

togetherwith the experimentalresultspresentedby FoothillsPipelines(Yukon) Ltd. (1981).
A grid spacingof Ox = 0.1m and At=0.0001s, at the broken end is used in the numerical
model and a variable grid spacingis used.
230
0
Chemical Formula TSM H FS
CH4 0 0 85.10
CA 0 0 8.00
C3Hg 0 0 4.40
i-C,H, 1 0 0.20
o 0.30
n-C4HIO 2 0
i-C5H12 1 0 0.03
n-CSH12 2 0 0.03
n-C6H14 1 0 0.01
CO2 0 0 0.07
N2 0 0 1.70
Ar 0 0 0.08
Table 6.2 Average GasCompositionfor Foothills Test
6.2.2 BRITISH GAS TEST DATA
The tests referred to as British Gas Tests are those which were reported by Jonesand
Gough (1981). They include a seriesof experimentswhich were carried out using short
pipe sections
of 120ft (36.6m) length and 4in (0.1016m) diameter,with a bursting disc at
oneend. The aim of the tests to
was validatea theoretical
model developedby British Gas.
The computer model, DECAY, could be usedto predict the decompressionbehaviourof
any gas mixture from any starting conditionsof pressureand temperature.

Threegasmixtures,namelymethanelethane, and a typical rich gas
methane/propane
mixture, were used. The decompressionwas performedfrom pressuresrangingfrom 70
to 125 bar (7. OMPato 12.5MPa) and temperaturesranging from 13 to 30°C. Gas of
knowncomposition
waspumpedintothepipeuntil the requiredconditions(p andT) were
attained. The bursting disc was explosively ruptured and the resulting decompression
behaviourwas recordedby pressuretransducersat a numberof locations along the pipe.
p and T curves together with the appropriate details on the gas composition, initial
conditionsof p and T were presented.The curvesinclude both the experimentalresults
and predictionsby the British GasDECAY model.
Also presentedin the report, are four setsof experimentalp-a curveswhich were
obtained from BMI using a 20 ft (6.1m) long 4in (0.1016m) diameter pipe; full-scale
fracture tests carried out by British Gas for Shell and North America sponsors;and full-
scalefracture tests carried out by BMI for Artic GasPipelinecompanies..For thesetests,

only the p-a datais presentedtogetherwith predictedresultsusing the British Gas DECAY
231
(ii) Position 14.17m From the
(i) P osition 4.21m From the Break
Break
Experiment
Experiment 8000-- M6
---
--- MOC-1 7000
6000-
8000 to
ä 5000
7000
6000- 4000
5000
H d 3000
ooo
a 2000
it 3000
2000 1000
1000
0 0
.. 1000
0 500 1000 0 500
Time [ms] Time [ms]
(iii) Position 25.02m From the (iv) Position 36.06m From the
Break Break
Experiment Experiment
--- MOC-1
8000 -- - MOC-1 8000
7000 7000
6000 6000
,...
Y 5000-- ic
4000-- 4000--
N
3000 3000
ä 2000
2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 500 1000 0 500 1000
Time [ms] Time [ms]
(v) Position 46.57m From the (vi) Position 101.44m From the
Break Break
Experiment 8000 Experiment

8000
ä MOC-1 --- MOC-1
--- ä A
7000 7000
v
6000 6000
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 500 1000 0 500 1000
Time [ms] Time [ms]
Fig. 6.3 p-t Curves for Foothills Test NABTFI East Comparison With
First-order Method of Characteristics Predictions
232
(i) Position 4.21m From the (ii) Position 14.17m From the
Break Break
aua.8000 8000
--- MCC-1 MCC-1
. arc 7000 ---
7000
,
6000 6000
I y
a ý
'A 5000-
ä
4000 ý
3000 3000 \
ýý..
2000 2000
1000 1000
0- 1 0
0 500 1000 0 500 1000
Time [ms] Time [ms]
(iii) Position 25.02m From (iv) Position 36.06m From the

the Break Break
Experiment
8000 ^m Experiment
. . MCC-1 J 7000
0- 7000 -- -MCC-1
1
5 ý 6000
y U)
y
5000-- 5000
a 4000--
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 11000--
0 0
0 500 1000 0 500 1000
Time [ms] Time [ms]
(v) Position 46.57m From the (vi) Position 101.44m From the
Break Break
8000 8000 Experiment

Experiment MCC-1
I -- -MCC-1 7ý
7000
6000 6000
N 5000 y 5000--
0. 4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0- i 0
0 500 1000 0 500 1000
Time [ms] Time imsi
Fig. 6.4 p-t Curves for Foothills Test NABTFI East ComparisonWith
MacCormackMethod Predictions
233
-4 - Experiment
-f-MCC-1 (dX=0.1m)
-, º-MOC-1 (dX=0.5m)
N
500
a
N
200
100
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Pressure JkPal
Fig. 6.5 Pressure Wave Propagatio n Speed for Foothills Test

NABTFI East
(i) Position PT2W (ii) Position PT3W
7 9000 - 9000-- MOG1
Y MOC-1 ---
---
8000 - 8000
... d
d
7000 1 7000 1
N I
6000 - ä 0000
CL
5000 5000
4000 \ 4000
3000 :: :: 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0- i
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
Time (ms] Time [ms]
(iii) Position PT4W (iv) Position PT5W1
ä Experimen Y
Eýe riment
8000 --- MOG1 8000 MOG1
---
7000 7000
6000 6000
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
Time [ms] Time [ms]
Fig. 6.6 p-t Curves for Foothills Test NABTF7 West Comparison With
234
(v) Position PT5W2 (vi) Position PT6W
9000-- 9000--
Experiment ä--0 Experi
MOC-1 " 8000 -M Cl;
-ent
8000 ---
7000 7000
a 6000-- 2 6000--
a
5000 5000
4000 4000
3000 3000
2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
Time [ms] Time [ms]
ýö 9000-
0.
8000
7000
ä
ent
5000 --- MOC-1
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
(vii) Position PTRW Timeims]
Fig. 6.6 p-t Curves for Foothills Test NABTF7 West Comparison
With First-order Method of Characteri stics Predictions
4
--f- Experiment
350 --E-MOC-1 (dX=0.5m)
300
250
ö, 200
N
150
3
100
50
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Pressure JkPaj
Fig. 6.7 Pressure Wave Propagation Speed for Foothills Test

NABTF7 West
235
model and two other existing computer models. The other models were developed by the
Exxon Production Research Company and the University of Calgary, and were based on
a similar theoretical approach to the one used in developing the British Gas model.
No furtherdetailswere givenon the full-scaletests,apartfrom the gas compositions
and the initial conditions of p and T. The full-scale results cannot therefore be used to
validate this computermodel. The pattern of the experimental results presentedby Jones
and Gough(1981) is in general more consistentthan that presentedby Foothills Pipelines
(Yukon) Ltd (1981). The problem of p-t curves for different positions on the pipe
crossing each other, which was reported in Section 6.2.1, is not so present in the data
describedin this section. The threetestsperformedby British Gasusing a multi-constituent
(typical)naturalgasmixture areusedto validatethis computermodel. The initial pressures
for the testwere 70bar,100barand 125bar,and the initial temperatureswere 29°C 25°C
,
and 25°C respectively. The three tests are referred to as British Gas Test 1,2 and 3
respectively.Theseresultsare usedto validate the computer model only in relation to the
p-t curves. As for the p-a curves,only the BMI (PRUDHOE BAY 1), BMI (PRUDHOE
BAY 2) andthe Universityof Calgary testsare used.These tests are referred to as BMI 1,
BM12 andUCT respectively. There are two main reasonsfor this selectionof data, apart
from that of availability of all the necessarydata to enablecomputer modelling. The two
reasonsare: firstly, the fact that the multi-constituentgasmixture representsmore closely
a typical natural gas mixture. The secondreasonis one which is of convenience. The
procedureusedto preparethe fluid property data file using the QUANT software, (refer
to Sections4.5 and 6.1.1) hasthe major deficiencyin that manualoperation is necessary
for each set of input data. Consequently,this procedure is very tedious and time
consuming.Test dataon gaswith compositionswhich are closest to that of the Foothills

tests(referto Section6.2.1), is selectedso that the samefluid property data file could be
used.
The compositiondatausedfor the gasmixtures in all the tests selectedis presented
in Table6.2 andresultsproducedby the computermodel together with their corresponding
experimentaldata, are presentedin Figs. 6.9 to 6.21. The samegrid spacingat the break
is used as for- the Foothills tests, including a variable grid spacing. A grid spacing of
Ax=0.1m and it ß. 0001s is used for all the tests,at the broken end. The Schematicof
the British Gas tests is presentedin Fig. 6.8.
236
36.6m
EE
101.6mm 9E8F
_a
mmm
CAS FILL DISC

BURSTING
UNE
DISTANCE OF PRESSURETRANSDUCER
FROM UPSTREAM END
Fig. 6.8 Schematicof British GasTests BGT I, BGT2 and BGT3
6.2.3 SNGSO TEST DATA
The experimentaldata used to validate this model so far, were carried out using rather
short pipe sections. The significanceof using full-scale data
pipeline experimental was
discussedin Chapter5. In this section,and also the one which follows full-scale pipeline
in
experimentsareused order to obtain a better validatory evidencefor the model. In this
sectionthe test resultswhich were reported by Sens,Jouve, and Pelletier (1970) are used
The test wascarriedout on a 11,800mlong 0.1065m internal diameternatural gas
pipeline,at a pressureof 3.14MPa, on the S.N. G.S.O gas system. A sectionof a pipe was
duplicatedand takenout of service temporarily. One end of the pipe could be connected
to the systemor isolated,while the other end was equippedwith a venting assemblywith
a cylindrical passageof 0.1m diameter.The assemblypermitted venting of the pipe to the
atmosphereby eitherburstinga discor by rapid operation of a stop-cock. It was observed
that the two methodsof ventingthe pipewere indistinguishablefrom one another when the
decompressionbehaviour at a point 6.159m from the broken end were considered.
However,substantialdifferenceswere observedat the broken end during the first few milli
secondsinstants after the break occurred. No details were provided regardingthe gas
composition, but it is assumedthat the gas used was a typical natural gas mixture of
compositioncloseto that of the Foothillstests(referto Table 6.2). Consequently,the same
data file for the fluid propertiesasusedfor the Foothills test is used.
Comparativemodelpredictionandexperimentalresultsare presentedin Figs. 6.23,
6.24 and 6.25. A much bigger grid spacingat the break (ten times that usedfor the
237
Experiment PT 1
--- Experiment PT 2
80 Experiment PT 3
""---"
---- MOC-1(dx=0.1m) PT 1
--
(u 1 '-` ""` `" - MOC-1(dx=0.lm) PT 2
"`
MOC-1(dx=0.1m) PT 3
60
a .1".
50
40
30
20
10
0iiii ---I IIi

05 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time [ms]
Fig. 6.9 p4 Curves for British Gas Test BGTI Comparison with
ExperimentPT 1
--- ExperimentPT 2
80 ""-""" ExperimentPT 3
-"-" MOC-2(dx=0.1m)PT 1
70 ti MOC-2 (dx=0.1 m) P12
----
MOC-2 (dx=0.1 m) PT 3
60
'ý
CL \ý " ".
50-
40
30
20
10
0ItIIIIF,
05 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time [ms]
Fig. 6.10 p-t Curves for British Gas Test BGTI Comparison with
Second-order Method of Characteristics Predictions
238
Experiment PT 1
80 --- Experiment PT 2
" Experiment PT 3
I- (V _-........ ---- mýý. " I fax=v. nný ri
,
a+ ý. MCC-1 (dx=0.1 m) PT 2
----
60-- MCC-1 (dx=0. lm)PT3
50 ".
,\\
- ti
4^
30 1 ý-
20
10
0iIIIII
05 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (ms]
Fig. 6.11 p-t Curves for British Gas Test BGTI Comparison with
MacCormack Method (Alternative 1) Predictions
ExperimentPT 1
120 --- ExperimentPT 2
"--"-" ExperimentPT 3
T -"-"MCC"1 (dx=0.lm)PT 1
A
ý. 100 "-"--ý (dx=0.1m)PT2
----MCC-1
-- - MCC-1(dx=0.1m) PT 3
1'
ý1
a
60 '
4
20
0i F1 ii
0 10 20 30 40
Time (ms]
Fig. 6.12 p-t Curves for British Gas Test BGT2 Comparison with
239
Experiment PT 1
--- Experiment PT 2
120 ----" Experiment PT 3

----MCC-2(dx=0. lm)PT1
---- MCC-2 (dx=0.1 m) PT 2

100- MCC-2(dx=0.1m) PT 3
N
'""
°: 80.1 ý
60
40
201
oa 2iº
0 10 20 30 40
Time [ms)
ExperimentPT I
--- ExperimentPT 2
120 -----" ExperimentPT 3
---"MCC-3(dx=O. 1m)PT1
I -"--MCC-3 (dx=O.tm)PT2
ä loo ,
` _. ... MCC-3(dx=0.t m) PT 3
80
1
"1
60 It
40
20
0i ri +
0 10 20 30 40
Time (ms)
240
Experiment PT 1
--- Experiment PT 2
140 ---"-" Experiment PT 3
---- MCC-3(dX=O.lm) PT I
------ý'.
120 ----MCC-3(dX=0.1m)PT2
MCC-3 (dX=0.1 m) PT 3
looP.
801
60-- 1
40
20
0
05 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (ms]
ExperimentPT 1
--- ExperimentPT 2
""""" ExperimentPT 3
140 -"-"WKL(dX=O. tm)PT1
-""- WKL (dX=O.tm) PT 2
- WKL (dX=0.1m) PT 3
120
"ý
11 t
ýs
11 `
20
0i 1i II1I1
05 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time Imsj
Warming-Kutler-Lomax Method Predictions
241
Experiment PT 1
140 Experiment PT 2
---
----"F n rimentPT3
ä1""""---" MOC-1(dX=0.01m) PT I
----MOC-1 (dX=0.01m)PT2
"'ý.
100--l. - MOC-1 (dX=0.01 m) PT 3
80 \ý
t\
40 ---' "_ ý- -- -
._.... "- .... -
20
0
05 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time [ms]
Fig. 6.17 pA Curves for British Gas Test BGT3 Comparison With
First-order Method of Characteristics Predictions (dX=O.Olm)
ExperimentPT I
--- ExperimentPT 2
-"""" ExperimentPT 3
140 (dX=0.01m) PT I
----MOC-2
"" '' "' .ý-"-- MOC-2 (dX=0.01 m) PT 2
120
11; MOC-2 (dX=0.01 m) PT 3
-.., -- --
Ä
a 100 '.
\
vä
80
Ni
v ýý_"tiý
60
20
0i1Ii11I
05 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time Imsj
Second-order Method of Characteristics Prediction (dX=0.01m)
242
Experiment PT 1
140--
--- Experiment PT 2
120- ý... .. _
----" ExperimentPT 3
H 100- 'ý. (dX=0.lm)PT I
----MOC-2
--"- MOC-2(dX=0.1m) PT 2
:1 MOC-2 (dX=0.1 m) PT 3
20
0
05 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time [ms]
Second-order Method of Characteristics Predictions (dX=0. lm)
I
-+ -Experiment BMI-1
1-f-Experiment
500 BMI-2
--A-MOC-2 (dX=0.05m)
400
N 300
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Pressure [bar]
Fig. 6.20 Pressure Wave Propagation Speed Curves for BMI

Tests
-"- ExperimentUCT
400
--f- MOC-2(dX=0.1m)
350 -A-MOC-2 (dX=0.01m)
Ný
250
200
150
goo
so
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Pressure Ratio
Fig. 6.21 Pressure Wave Propagation Speed Curves for

University of Calgary Test
243
Foothills and British Gas Test) is used. The reasonfor using such a big spacing is to
minimise CPU time. The analysisin this caseis performedfor a much longer time (25s)
comparedwith the hundredsand tens of millisecondsused in the Foothills and British gas
testsrespectively.No problemswere experiencedwith the numerical algorithm due to the
selectionof this large grid spacingat the broken end (Ax=1m, At=0.0001s). A variable
grid spacingis used and the largest ix=512m.
IA 100mm t
GAS FlU. BURSTINGDISC

UNE
PRESSURETRANSDUCER
POSITIONS
DISTANCE OF PRESSURE TRANSDUCER

FROM THE BURSTING DISC
Fig. 6.22 Figure 6.22 Schematicof SNGSO Test
6.2.4 API TEST DATA
The second set of full-scale experimental data is that which was reported by the Alberta
Petroleum Industry, Government Environmental Committee (1979). The tests were
performed as the second phase for a field verification programme of isopleth prediction
techniques. It involved a full-scale field programme to investigate, among other things, the
behaviour of gas emissions resulting from a pipeline rupture. The rupture mode was the
most critical variable examined. Two tests setups were used at the test site, which is
located in the Western gas field in Southwestern Alberta. The first and second tests are
referred to here as APIT1 and APIT2. The tests were carried out using an existing
168.3mm outside diameter pipeline which was typical of sour gas pipelines in the province
at pressuresof 6.9 and 3.45MPa respectively. The tests section was approximately 4.0km
long. It was burst at the mid point. The third test is referred to in the report as APIT3. It
was performed on a 323.9mm outside diameter and approximately 7.1km long pipeline.
Also in this test the pipeline was pressurisedto 6.9MPa pressureand ruptured at the middle.
The specification of the pipes used in the two tests was provided. As with SNGSO test,
no
244
(i) Position 1500m (ii) Position 2250m (iii) Position 3000m
From the Break From the Break From the Break
Experiment Experiment Experiment
16 --- MOC-1 16 --- MOC-1 16 MOC-1
---
14 14 14
12 12 12
10 10 10--
,
v v v
6-- ; 6 3 6
k
° 4 4 4
2 U.
-
2 2 2--
0ý 0 0- .
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Time (s] Time (s] Time (s]
(iv) Position 3750m (v) Position 4500m (vi) Position 5250m

16 16 Experiment 16
14 --- MOC-1 14 --- MOC-1 14 --- MOC-1
12 ' 12 12--
0 3 10--
ö 8 ö 8 üý. 8
d d
6 3 6.. 6
LL 4 4 4
2 2 2 Jý
01 0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 20 40
Time (s] Time (s]
Time (s]
(vii) Position 6000m (viii) Position 6750m (ix) Position 7500m

N
16 16 16--
Experiment Experiment- Experiment
14 --- MOC-1 14 MOC-1 8 14
P --- --- MOC-1
12 ' 12 "Z 12
3 10 10 10
M 8 8 U.
3
0
6 W 6 6
4 4 4--
2 2 2--
0 0 0 t--;
0 20 40 0 20 40 0 20 40
Time (s] Time (s] Time (s]
Fig. 6.23 u-t Curves for SNGSO Test Comparison With First-order Method of Characteristics Predictions
245
(i) Position 1500m (ii) Position 2250m From (iii) Position 3000m From
From the Break the Break the Break
Experimen Experiment Experiment

32 32 32
ä --- MOC-1 MOC - 1 ý MOC-1
--- ---
31 , 31
31
30 30
- 30
ä
Q. 29 a 29 29
28 28 28
27 27 27
26 26 26
25 25 25
0 20 40 0 20 40 0 10 20 30
Time [s] Time [s] Time [s]
(iv) Position 3750m (v) Position 4500m From (vi) Position 5250m From
From the Break the Break the Break
V 32 32 32
ä Ä a
d 31 a 31 31
30 30 E 30
d d
a 29
29 a a Experiment
28 28 MOC-1 28 --- MOC-1
--- MOC-1 ---
27 27 27
26 26 26
25 25 25
0 20 40 0 20 40 0 10 20 30
Time [s] Time [s]
Time [s]
(vii) Position 6000m (viii) Position 6750m (ix) Position 7500m From
From the Break From the Break the Break
32 v 32 32
31 31 31
30 30-- 30--
Vgl
N
04
N
Experimen Experiment R 29 Experiment
a MOC-1
28 MOC-1 28 --- MOC-1 28 ---
---
27 27 27
26 26 26
25 25 25
0 20 40 0 20 40 0 10 20 30
Time [s] Time [s] Time [s]
Fig. 6.24 p-t Curves for SNGSO Test Comparison With First-order Method of Characteristics
Predictions
246
(i) Position 1500m (ii) Position 2250m From (iii) Position 3000m
From the Break the Break From the Break
Experiment Experiment Experiment

MOC-1 --- MOC-1 MOC-1
--- ----
16 16 ö 16
14 14
c 14
12 v 12
90 12
w 10 d 10 x 10
8 x8 8
6 tLr__4 6 g
d v
>4 4 4
>2 2
2
0 0 0 +-+--a
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Time [s] Time is] Time
(iv) Position 3750m (v) Position 4500m From (vi) Position 5250m
From the Break the Break From the Break
16 Experiment ä 16 Experiment 16 Experiment

g 14 --- MOC-1 14 MOGt ä 14 MOC-1
--- ---
V 12 12--
12 --
X
41
10 x 10 10
d
8 8 x
L 8
6 > 6 6
4 L6 > 4
2 L4
0 -ýý 1 0 -1
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Time is] Time (s] Time is]
(vii) Position 6000mFrom

the Break (viii) Position 6750m (i x) Position 7500m
16 From the Break From the Break
d 14
C, "W 16
= Expenme
E " ä 16 ä
12 14 Experiment 14 Expeimerýt
--- MOGt
X 10 = 12 MOG1 'too 12 MOC-1
--- ---
v
10 10
8 . ,
> 8 8
6- > 6 > 6
4 4 4
2 2
2
0 0
0 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30 Time [s]
Time (s]
Time (s]
Fig. 6.25 Velocity Head for SNGSO Test ComparisonWith First-order Method of Characteristics
Predictions
247
data was provided for the gas composition. The same data which was used in the previous
sections is used for the fluid properties. Due to the long run times required, a coarse grid
spacing is used in order to reduce the CPU time. A grid spacing of Ox=5m and At=0.005s
is used for APIT1 and APIT2 tests, and a grid spacing Ax=1Om and Ot=0.01s is used for
APIT3 test. A variable grid spacing is used in all the computer predictions.
It was observed [Alberta Petroleum Industry, Government Environmental

Committee(1979)] that the rupturemodewasunpredictableand difficult to control. It was
found that under similar test conditions any of three different rupture modescould occur.
The threerupturemodesare bell opening,ring-off and a combinationof the two in which
one end is bell and the other ring-off. In bell rupture, the fracture is propagateda short
distancealongthe longitudinalaxis with the pipe remainingintact. In ring-off rupture, the
fracture is propagated a short distance along the longitudinal axis and then turned
circumferentialaroundthe pipe.The rupture sectionwould either be blown completelyout

of the line or remainattachedto the pipe by a small tab at either end.
A pressuresensorwas placedwithin 1mof the rupturepoint in order to ensurethat
the measurements*obtained were in the critical flow zone. It was observed that the
instrumentswere subjectedto extremeforces by the exiting gas jet and often they were
blown off the line if, the rupture mode was a ring-off. When the rupture mode was a bell
opening,the instrumentswere unaffected. A total of elevenexperimentswere conducted

for measuringflow rate data, six of which could not provide completedata becausethe
instrumentto measurethe critical flow were lost duringthe blowdown. The remainingfive
testsproducedsufficientdatato validate the computer models. Data from three tests (two
bottom ring-off andonesidebell) were combinedto form a set of experimentaldata for the
168.3mmdiameter pipe at an initial pressureof 6.9MPa (APIT1). Another test, in which
the rupture was top ring-off was used for the samepipeline but pressurisedto 3.45MPa
(APIT2). The lastof the five good tests was carried on with the 323.9mmdiameterpipe.
The line was pressurisedto 6.9MPa and the rupture mode was bottom bell. This provided
the datafor test APIT3. The datafor tests APIT 1, APIT2 and APIT3, which is described
in this sectionandthe correspondingpredictionfrom the computer
model developedin this
study, are presentedin Figs 6.28 to 6.33.
248
2000m
- ---------- -- ------ ---------- - --- - --------------- - --- - --------------- ----- - -- ----
$ 168.3mm
BREAK
us FlLL
UNE
A PRESSURE TRANSDUCERPOSITIONS
Fig. 6.26 Schematicof Alberta PetroleumIndustry Tests APITI and APIT2
3550m
S 323.9mm
4
BREAK
CASnu
urge
POSITIONS
PRESSURETRANSDUCER
Fig. 6.27 Schematicof Alberta PetroleumIndustry Tests APIT3
6.3 DISCUSSION OF VALIDATION RESULTS
GENERAL DISCUSSION
FannelopandRyming(1982) definedthe different time regimesfollowing a linebreak,each
requiringa differentmethodof solution. Thesearedescribedin Section 3.3.2. Also Knox,

Atwell, Willoughby and Dielwart (1980) discussedthe different rupture modes, which
requiredifferentmodellingapproaches.In this study, both the early and late time regimes,
which were defined by Fannelopand Ryming (1982), are modelledusing the various data
presentedin this chapter. The sametheoretical and numerical modelsare used for both
time regimes.Unlessthe pipe diameterand/or cross-sectionareais specifieddifferently at
249
200--
180--
API Model
160--
--- Exprimental
140 ...... MOC-2 (dX=5m)
120
LL 100
80
60--
40--
20--
00
50 100 150 200
Time (s]
Fig. 6.28 Mass Flow Rate for Alberta Petroleum Industry Test APIT1
Comparison with Second-order Method of Characteristics Prediction
7000
6000 1,, ý'"

`" Experimental
\
a,
v "'".
I--- API Model
...... MOC-2 (dX=5M)
d 4000--
3000--
\\
2000--
1000
1_1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time [s]
Fig. 6.29 Pressure at the Intact End for Alberta Petroleum Industry Test
APITI Comparison with Second-order Method of Characteristics
Prediction
t
250
100
90 --0 API Model

o, Exprimental
--W
80-
A MOC-1 (dX=10m)
D 70
ý- 60
50.
401.
30
20
10
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (s]
Comparison with First-order Method of Characteristics Prediction
3500
-0 Experimental
3000 -- -f-API Model
--A-MOC-1 (dX=10m)
2500
N
N
a 2000
d
rn
1500
1000
500
0 -------ý
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (s]
Fig. 6.31 Pressure at the Intact End for Alberta Petroleum Industry
Test APIT2 Comparison with First-order Method of Characteristics
Predictions
251
700- -
0 API Model
--01-- Exprimental
600
--Ar-MOC-1 (dX=10m)
w
500
U.
U, 400
G
300
200
100
0 ---- _I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (s]
Comparison with First-order Method of Characteristics Prediction
-0 Experimental
-ý-API Model
--Ar-MOC-1 (dX=10m)
m^ 8000 --
-19 7000
6000
--
5000 --
a. 4000 --
3000
--
2000
--
1000
--
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Fig. 33 Pressure at the Intact End for Alberta Petroleum Industry ielsl Is]
APIT3 Comparison with First-order Method of Characteristics
Prediction
252
brokenend,full bore rupturemodeis assumed.The modelis limited to analysisof the flow
following a linebreakin a straight section of pipeline. Various aspectsof the model and
basedon resultsobtained from the computer modelling
the predictedresultsarediscussed,
which is describedin sections6.2.1 to 6.2.4 and previoustrial runs. The symbolsused in
the graphsare definedas follows:
- MOC-1 First-order method of characteristics
- MOC-2 Second-ordermethod of characteristics
- MCC-1 MacCormackmethod using alternative 1
- MCC-2 MacCormackmethod using alternative2
- MCC-3 MacCormackmethod using alternative3
- WKL Warming-Kutler-Lomax method

Two setsof experimentaldatawhich were usedby Tiley (1989), havebeenused in
this study. These are the British Gas test data and [Jones and Gough (1981)] and the
Foothillstest data[FoothillsPipeline(Yukon) Ltd. (1981)]. A better comparisonhasbeen
in
achieved this study with the two setsof data than in the study by Tiley (1989). In the
study by They (1989), the length of the time step, grid size and break conditions were
for
varied eachsimulation,in order to optimize convergencetowards a stablesolution. In
this study, the ratio betweenthe time step and the distancegrid is selectedsuchthat the
stabilitycriterionis satisfied.In this uniform grid spacing,the time
Courant-Friedrichs-Levy
step varies proportionally as the distancegrid varies. For the test data used in this study,
the maximum value of speedof sound and hencethe maximumflow velocity was above
400m/s,but neverit neverreached500m/s. Therefore, in order to ensurethat the stability
criterionis satisfied,a constantratio of ix/At=1000m/s was used. This ratio could handle
situationsin which the flow velocity and wave speedare each500m/s,without failing the
stability criterion. In every calculation step the programme checks to ensurethat the
Courant-Friedrichs-Levy stability criterion is satisfied. If the stability criterion is not
satisfied,the programmestopsautomatically. Under no circumstancedid the programme

stop during the simulationsreported in this study due to failure of the stability criterion.
In most of the simulations,the grid sizesusedat the break boundarywere coarser
thanthosewhich were usedby Tiley. Theyuseda grid size of 0.0254m for the British Gas
testsbut shecould not achievestableresultsfor someof the tests. Tests for which stable
resultscould not be achievedarethosefor which the initial pressurewas high and the initial
flow ratewaszero. No such problemswere encounteredin this study,
even with grid size
253
of up to 0. Im for the British Gastests. The only problem encounteredfor such testswas
that the executionspeedof the programmewas very slow and the boundaryconditions, in
some cases, were not properly modelled. This is
condition explained further in the
discussionof the method of characteristics.
Tiley (1989) also noticed that the theoretical p-t curves tended to begin their
pressure drop too early. This effect was more noticeablethe further the transducerwas
from the break. She attributed this phenomenonto the responsetime of pressure
transducers,which causesa delay in recording the pressuredrop. In this study, only the
transducerswhich are close to the break havebeeninvestigated. The samephenomenon
by
as was observed They was repeated. However, a comparisonof the pressurewave
speedspredictedby the computermodel,with those obtainedfrom the BMI and University
of Calgarytestsshow a good agreement. Sincethere were no p-t curvesprovided for the
latter two test, it was not possibleto comparethe pattern of the p-t curves: Also since
there are no pressurewave curves for the British Gas test which have beenused in this
it
study, was not possibleto comparethe pressurewave speed. However, the fact that the
pressurewavespredictedby the model comparefavourably with experimentalvalues from
the BMI, Universityof CalgaryandFoothillstests indicate that there is a problem with the
British Gas test data. They (1989) did contact the British Gas in order to ascertainthe
accuracyof their data. Shereportedthat they could not ascertainthe accuracyof their data,
but they indicatedthat they were not entirely satisfiedwith it. Although not conclusively
confirmed, they believedthat one of their transducers,PT2, was malfunctioning.

Theynoticedinconsistency
in the final pressurereachedafterthe break. In some
casesthe pressurewas higher and in somecaseslower. She attributed this condition to
inaccuraciesincurred in the calculation of equalizationpressureat the break. No such
problems were encountered in this study due to the accurate model developed for
calculatingequalizationpressure.It shouldbe noted that the data for the curve PTI in the
British gastest BGTI arethoseobtainedfrom predictionsusing the British Gas theoretical
model and not from experiments.

In simulating the Foothills test, They (1989) useda grid spacingof 0.01m at the
break. This spacingis much finer than that which is usedin this study (0.1m to 0.5m, and
it would be expectedto produce better results. However, They usedtime stepsvarying
from 0.65 to 0.75ms (quoted as s in her thesis). This time step is too big for the value of
Ax usedandfails the Courant-Friedrichs-Levystability criterion. The ratio Ax/At usedby
254
Tiley wasbetween13.33and 15.39m/s,which is much lessthan 1000m/swhich is usedin
this study. This gross error in the time step is probably the main reasonfor the instability
by
problemsencountered Tiley. The by
argument Tiley that decreasingthe time step could
havelead to an increasein the accumulativeround-off error in the resultsis not valid.
Simulation results produced in this study using the method of characteristics
compare very well with the experimentaldata, as the p-t curves and the pressurewave
speeds are modelled correctly. They argued that a possible reason for her model's
overestimation of the wave speedswas the second-orderapproximation used near the
break. This argument is not correct becausethe second order approximation has an
oppositeeffecti.e. producinglower wave speedsthan those producedusing the first order

approximation.As wasthe casewith Tiley's simulations,the final pressurescalculatedfor
the Foothill tests were slightly higher than the experimentalvalues. The reasonfor this is
that the theoreticalmodelsdid not account for the crack propagationalong the length of
the pipe. The crack propagation has the effect of moving the point at which the
equalizationwould occuralongthe pipe. In this study,this effect was more severewith test
NABTF7 thanwith testNABTFI becauseof the long crack propagationin the former test
(18.28min NABTF7 comparedwith 4.21m in NABTF 1). The crossingof the p-t curves,
which was attributed to temperaturerelated zero drift during testing [Foothills Pipeline
(Yukon) Ltd. (1981)] does not exist in prediction obtained using the method of
andthe Warming-Kutter-Lomaxmethods. However, this phenomenonwas

characteristics
observed when the MacCormack method, indicating that the method is not suitable for
analysisof transientflow following a break in a high-pressuregas pipelines.
The two other setsof data,namelythe SNGSOand the Alberta PetroleumIndustry
data, were not usedby Tiley. Both setsinvolved relatively long pipesand the data seem
to be consistent and satisfactory. A good agreement was obtained between the
experimentaldata and the prediction results,evenwith the big grid size used. The major
weaknessof the data is that they do not contain sufficient information about the gas used,
some specificationsof the testing systemand accuracyof measurementsrecorded. The
intact end pressurewhich was calculatedusing the Alberta PetroleumIndustry data differ
from the experimentaland their model prediction data considerably. The second-order
methodresultsshowthe biggestdiscrepancy.Also the massflow ratescalculatedusing the

secondorder-methodarehigher. The valuesproducedwith the first-order method compare
muchbetterwith the experimentaldatathan thoseobtainedusing the second-ordermethod.
255
The valuesmassflow ratesproducedby the first-order method of characteristicsare lower
thanthe experimentalvalues. The reasonsfor this discrepancyare errors in calculatingthe°
gas density and the big grid spacingused. The results obtainedfrom this simulationgive
an indicationthat the first-order method of characteristicsis the most suitablein situations
where a big is
grid spacing used.
A comparisonof the model prediction and experimentaldata for the SNGSO test
show a reasonablygood agreement. The pressurestarts to drop at the sametime (Figs.

6.23 and6.24), which indicate that the wave speedspredicted by the computer model are
correct. However,the magnitudesof the pressuredrop and flow velocity predictedby the
computer model are less than experimental values. This discrepancy is caused by
interpolationerror andthe big grid spacingused. Data which was obtainedusing a smaller
grid spacing(Ax=1m) and the second-ordermethod of characteristicscould not be used

for validationbecausethe interpolation error and round-off error of the computeraffected
the resultsvery much. This effect is explainedin detail in the grid size discussion.
THE QUANT SOFTWARE FOR THERMODYNAMIC AND TRANSPORT

PROPERTIES OF FLUIDS
The fluid propertydata,which are usedby the programmes,are calculatedusing the

QUANT Software. Heattransferis calculatedusingthe recovery factor and adiabaticwall
temperaturemethodand therefore the valuesof Pr, thermal conductivity of the fluid and
CARare not required. However, the three valueslisted aboveare usedin other variations
of the computermodel. Three main limitations of the QUANT software are unavailability
of Pr, kf and t at somelow temperatures,unavailability of all output valuesat much lower
temperaturesandtemperaturesbelow 200K and lack of all outputs at high pressures.The
composition of the gas mixture used in this study is given in Table 6.2. The highest
pressurefor which output is available,but only for part of the temperaturerangerequired,
is around7MPa. This limitationhasbeenovercomeby using the fluid
propertieswhich are
availableat the closeststateof the fluid andadditionaldata for the gas mixture which was
provided by the suppliersof the QUANT software on request [Silberring (1995)]. The
additional data was calculated using a later version of QUANT which is still being
developed. The later version of QUANT is expectedto be
able to produce output at
higher pressures,similar to those encounteredin high-pressure
natural gas pipelines.
256
It is observedthat the temperatureof the gas near the break boundary drops to
values below the 200K minimum limit of the QUANT. This situation occurs when the
initial pressureof thegasin the pipelineis sufficientlyhigh and the initial temperatureof the
gasis relativelylow. This meansthat in order for QUANT software to be able to cover all
linebreakeventsin high-pressurenatural gas fully, its rangeof temperaturecoveragehas
to be extendedto temperatureslower than the presentminimum limit of 200K. Silberring

(1993-95) and Flatt (1993-96) arguedthat the temperaturescould never drop below the
200K limit.
The routine FLDPROPV calculates the fluid properties from the data file
FLUID. DAT, using an interpolation procedure. When used with the transient analysis
programmesproblemswere encountereddue to the limited computer memory available.

An alternative procedurein which the closest properties are used, produced satisfactory
results. However the alternative procedure requires that a close spacing of the input
parameterbe used. A spacingof 0.1MPa and 5K was usedfor pressureand temperature
respectively.A comparisonof executiontimes when constantfluid propertieswere used
and when the proceduredescribed abovewas used, revealedthat the biggest proportion
of the executiontime is spentin calculatingthe fluid propertiesfrom the data file generated
by QUANT. As explainedin Section4.5, the procedurewhich is used in this study is the
fastestoption available.
INITIAL CONDITIONS BEFORE THE BREAK
In all the analysesreported in this chapter,calculationof the initial conditions of the gas
is greatly simplified by the fact that the initial flow velocity is zero. Any of the different
steady state analysismodelspresentedin Section 4.2.2 would have produced the same
results. However, the non-adiabaticnon-isothermalsteadystate analysismodel is used.
Also since the flow velocity is zero, transient analysisbefore the break would
producethe sameresultsasthoseproducedby steadystate analysis. An application of the

transientanalysisbefore the break are presentedin section7.4.
CONDITIONS AT THE BREAK BOUNDARY
The methodof characteristics

is usedfor solutionat the boundary nodes,in all the transient
analysis programmes. In the caseofthe break boundary the initial break conditions are
calculatedasdescribedin Section4.2.3. The initial conditions calculated,enabledresults
257
which are numerically stablebe attained. Using this procedure,the pressureat time t=0
drops to its equalisationvalue which is calculated as describedin Section 4.2.3. The
temperaturedrop is small at first but keeps on falling as time passes.Also the density of
the gasdropsduring the decompression process. The speed of sound at the break remains
the sameat t=Os, but drops as the temperature drops. The pressuredrop at the break
boundary, below the equalisationpressureis natural. There is no time dependentcurve

by They (1989) to the pressuredrop at the broken end. The
such as the one used model
time dependentcurve may lead to in incorrect results becausethe exact rate of pressure
drop is not known.
When using the MacCormacksecond-ordermethod, solution at the node next to
the boundary node produced an overshoot in the velocity. This has been controlled by
limiting the magnitudeof flow velocity from exceedingits correspondingspeedof sound.
NUMERICAL METHODS OF SOLUTION
(i) The Method of Characteristics
Tiley (1989)usedthe second-ordermethodbecausethe first-order method did not meetthe
required accuracy and stability criteria. Even with the second-order method, she
encounteredproblemsof numerical instability and accuracyof results. For certain grid
points and initial conditions, the solution became unstableat random points along the
pipeline. She recommended that the problem could be alleviated totally by using an
alternativenumericalmethod. The sameproblemswere encounteredby Picard and bishnoi
(1989). Flatt (1989) encounteredsimilar problemswhich he called singularity. Problems
suchasthoseencounteredby Flatt (1986) and Tiley (1989), do not exist with this model.
A convergence tolerance of ± 5% and ±1% is used for the first and second-order
calculations, respectively. The number of iterations required is very small. In most

calculations,oneor two iterations for eachorder are sufficient. The fluid propertiesused
equations,in the first-order step,
for calculationof the coefficientsof the threesimultaneous
are those at position M in Fig. 4.4. The use of the fluid properties at position M rather
thanthoseat positionsQ, R andS was madein order to reducethe size of the programme.
However,a significanterror could be introduceddue to this simplification, especiallyif the
fluid propertiesvary considerablybetweentwo grid points, such as is the casein ruptured
high-pressurenatural gas pipelines. Sincein this casethe first-order method is usedas a
258
rough estimate for the second-ordercalculation, the error introduced by the first-order
is
calculation correctedby the second-ordermethod. In the casethat only the first-order
is
method used for the complete solution, then valuesof the fluid propertiesat respective
positionsQ, R and S should be used in the first iteration, and their averageswith valuesat
position P for the previous iteration be
should used in the subsequent iterations. For the
second-order method, the fluid properties used to calculate the coefficients of the
simultaneousequationsare averagesbetweenthe newly establishedposition of Q, R and
S and those previously calculatedat position P.
It was observedin this study that in situationswere there are sharpchangesin the
fluid properties, such as during the first few At's in the region around the break, the
second-order step fails numerically. For such cases,the first-order is

method used
throughout the calculation.
When the method of characteristicswas used to model the flow reversal in the
sectionof the pipelinedownstreamof the break, it producedresultswhich tend to lean on

the valuesat the intact end of the pipeline section. This directional bias results in a very
slow pressuredrop in the broken section of the pipeline,including the broken boundary.
The problem of directional bias does not exist either in the programme based on the
MacCormackmethod, nor the one basedon the method of characteristics for the section
of the pipelineupstreamof the break. An investigationinto the problem did not reveal any
error in the calculation procedureor computer coding. In fact the valuescalculated at

variousstagesarecomparablein magnitudewith thosecalculatedby the programmefor the
pipeline section upstream of the break and the characteristic curves are positioned
correctly. The problemof directionalbias with the method of characteristicswas observed
only whenthe second-orderapproximationwas used. Both the upstreamand downstream
modelsproduce comparableresults,when the first-order method is used.
It was observedthat the second-ordermethod of characteristicsis more accurate
than the first-order method, especiallyif the simulationinvolves the areain the vicinity of
the breakandvery small grid size. The second-ordermethod producesoutputs which are
beyondthe rangeof maximumand minimum output around the leadingedgeof the of the
decompressionwave. This causessevereproblemswith the numericalalgorithm. The
situation is controlled by using the first-order approximation. The computer programme

includesa provision to check if the condition is encounteredand calls the programmefor
the first-orderapproximationto correct the situation. It was also observedthat the use of
259
a smaller grid size helps to minimize the problem to some extent. Computation speed of
the first-order method is over twice as fast as that of the second-order method. For some
boundary conditions and initial conditions of the gas, the second-order method becomes
slower. For example, when modelling the British Gas test BGT3 (initial pressure and
temperature are 12.4MPa and 273K respectively and Ax=O.OIm), the second-order method
was ten times slower that the first-order method. Also the second-order method failed to
handle the choking boundary condition well. The first-order method was used in this case
and produced satisfactory results. When a larger grid size (Ax=O. lm) was used, the
problem with the second-order method was minimal and computational speed was the same
as with the other Brirish Gas test data. The problem of modelling the choking condition was
caused by the failure of the numerical procedure to model properly the temperature drop
and therefore increase in density, which follows the initial decompression. The situation
was corrected by tuning in the temperature drop and also increasing the convergence
interval of the second-order method.
The major differencebetweenthe first- and second-ordermethodsis that the

pressuredrops predictedby the second-ordermethodare smallerthan those predictedby
the first-order method. Also the speedof propagation of the pressurewaves is slightly
fasterwith the first-ordermethod. However, both resultscomparewell with experimental
data. The main reasonfor the discrepancyin the first- and second-ordermethodsis the
different convergencecriteria use (1% and 5% for the first- and second-ordermethods
respectively).The two valueswere selected,firstly becausethey are thought to correspond

with relative accuraciesof the two methods,and secondlybecausethe first-order method
is alsousedasa roughapproximationof the second-ordermethod. Ideally, a more accurate
criterion should be used if the first-order method is used on its own to calculatethe final
'solution. However, it is thought that a value which is smallerthan 5% would not too fine
in relative to the overall accuracy of the first-order approximation. Unfortunately, the
pressurewave propagationspeedsof the two methodscould not be comparedat further

positions from the broken boundary and for a longer run time. A comparison of the
predictedmassflow ratesand pressureat the intact end, using the first- and second-order
methodsandthe AlbertaPetroleumIndustry data, showsa better agreementwith the first-
order method than with the second-ordermethod. This result was achievedeven though
a finer grid spacing was used with the secondorder method. An explanation for the
discrepancyis given under the generaldiscussion.
260
(ii) The MacCormack Second-order Method
Beaucheminand Marche (1992) concludedthat the MacCormack method is superior to

the method of characteristicswhen Cn differs appreciablyfrom unity. When C. is much
smaller than unity, the MacCormackmethod producesresultswith a precisionthat could
not be attainedwith anyreasonablenumberof computationnodes,when the method of the
is
characteristic used. They also that
concluded the useof the alternatives 1 and 2 which are
described in Section 3.31, in successionon time steps could introduce significant
oscillationsin the solution, especiallywhere the basicequationsare poorly approximated.

Directional bias could be avoided by using exclusively one of the two calculation
alternatives. The directional bias is important only when working with two space
dimensions, in which case it was recommendedthat the average of both methods
(alternative 3) be used. Beaucheminand Marche (1992) claimedthat doing so did seem
to smearthe shock slightly and the computationtime was doubled.
In this study the computer programmeis written in a way that any of the three
be
alternativescould used. This is despitethe fact that it is recommendedin Section3.3.1
that alternativeI be used exclusively. Resultsfrom the three alternativesare presentedin
Fig. 6.12,6.13 and6.14,for British GasBGT2. Due to limited computer memory,only the
first-order calculation of the method of characteristicscould be used at the boundary
points, when using alternative 3. The MacCormack method is extremely simple to

programme, comparedwith the method of characteristics. The execution speedof the
MacCormackmethodis fasterthanthat of the method of characteristics. But in this case,
wherethe time usedto calculatethe fluid propertiesfrom the QUANT software constitutes
the biggestproportionof the CPU time, the two methodshaveexecution speedswhich do
not differ much. The sameargumentappliesfor the differencewhich is to be expected
betweenalternative3 and the other two alternativesof the MacCormack method.
It is statedin Section3.2.2.2that in the presenceof shocks,explicit finite-difference
methodsof higherthanfirst order produceconsiderableovershoot and oscillatory systems.

Resultsobtainedfrom the MacCormackmethod are oscillatory especiallynear the broken
end. The oscillations are more severefor smaller L/D values. Also an overshoot was
observed in the flow velocity, at the node next to the boundary node at the break. The
overshoot was controlled by limiting the magnitudeof the flow velocity to that of the
correspondingspeedof sound. Theseproblemswere not encounteredwith the method of
261
characteristics. With the MacCormack method the problem of directional bias which was
encounteredwith the method of characteristics, in the section of the pipeline down stream
the break, does not exist.
The threealternativesof using the MacCormack method were comparedusing the

British Gas test BGT2 data. Results are presented in Figs. 6.12,6.13 and 6.14.
Alternatives I and 3 producedsimilar results. Alternative 2 producedthe worst results,
with much bigger oscillations and pressuresfalling fastest. The computation speedof
alternative 1 is higher than that of alternative3.
(iii) The Warming -Kutler - Lomax Method
The computer programme for the Warming-Kutler-Lomax method was written and
but it could not run fully becauseof the limited computer memory.
compiledsuccessfully,
Even in the main frame computer, the memory of 20MB which was allocated is not
enough. In order to simplifythe programme,the method of characteristicswas used both

for the boundary node and the node next to the boundary. Bhallamudi and Chaudhry
(1990) recommendedthat the MacCormack second-ordermethod be usedfor solution at
the node next to the boundary node. Even this did not make it possible to run the
programme on a pc. However, by using constant values for the thermodynamicand
transport propertiesof the fluid, it was possibleto run the programmefor the third-order
Warming-Kutler-Lomax methodon a PENTIUM P75 pc.
The methodfailedto producegood resultsin the regionof sharpchangesin fluid
properties. Results in
produced this region included negativevelocities (while all other
velocitieswere positive)andpressureswhich are higher than the initial pressurebefore the
break. The first-order method of characteristicswas used to smoothenthe sharpedgeof
the decompression wave,andalsothe flow velocity andpressurewere limited to abovezero

andwithin the initial pressurebeforethe break. The British Gas test BGT3, whose run time
is 35ms,wasusedto test the Warming-Kutter-Lomaxmethod. The first-order method of
characteristics was used during the first lOms, but this was not enoughto smoothenthe
sharp edge of the pressureprofile so that the Warming-Kutler-Lomax method could be
applied. Finallythe initial 20msof the run time werefound to be sufficient, for "smoothing"
by the methodof characteristicsand the Warming-Kutler-Lomax method was used for the
remaining 15ms. Under this condition, good and stable results were obtained. No
oscillations or overshoot, such as those observedwith the MacCormack method were
262
present. Results produced with the Warming-Kutler-Lomax method are compared with
those produced by the second-order method of characteristics, the MacCormack method
and experimental data. The results are presented in Figs. 6.16 to 6.19.
(iv) Comparison of the Different Numerical Methods
The transient analysismodelsbasedon the method of characteristics,the MacCormack
methodand the Warming-Kutler-Lomaxmethod are compared based on accuracy,stability
of results and computationaleconomy. The main reason for including the MacCormack
and Warming-Kutler-Lomax methodsin this studywas to confirm whether the two methods
are suitable for modelling the transient flow following a break in high-pressuregas
literature during this in
pipelines.The reviewwhich was conducted study and summarized
Chapter 3, indicated that these methods could be more suitable for high-pressuregas
linebreak applicationsthan the method of characteristics. Tiley (1989) used the second-
but
order methodof characteristics, concluded that better resultscould be obtainedby using
an alternativenumericalmethod of solution. In a previous publication [Thorley and They
(1987)], the MacCormack method was recommendedas the most suitable for linebreak
problems.
Based on the comparisonmadein this study, it is concludedthat the method of
characteristics is the best of all the three methodsinvestigate,for linebreak applications.

The criteriausedin comparingthe threemodelis accuracyand stability of results,computer
memoryand CPU time The

requirements. third-order Warming-Kutler-Lomax method, in
combinationwith the methodof characteristics,produced resultswhich are closeto those

produced by the second-order method of characteristics. The computer memory
requirementof the latter methodwas too big. The MacCormack method was found to be
for
unsuitable modelling transient flow following a linebreakin high-pressurenatural gas
It
pipelines. producedoscillating results in the low pressureregion, which resulted in p-t
curvescrossingeachother. It predictsthe wave speedsreasonablywell in the low pressure
region,but it underestimates
it in the high pressureregion. The magnitudeof equalization
pressure is slightly higher than that calculatedwith the method of characteristics. The
computationspeedof the MacCormackmethodis oneanda half time faster than that of the
second-order method of characteristics,when the first or secondalternativesare used.
When the third alternativeis used,the computationspeedof the MacCormack method is
the sameas that of the secondorder-methodof characteristics
263
GRID SIZE
The factor of two which is usedbetweenone grid spacingand the next, and the second-
order polynomial interpolation using the Taylor's theorem, produce good results. A
problemwas encounteredwith the variablegrid method,when modelling the flow in long
pipelines.The round-off error of the computerresultsin somenode points whose next time
level for calculationhasnot beenreached,being includedin the calculations.
The error occursbecauseof the big differencebetweenthe grid spacingat the break
boundaryandnodeswhich are nearerto the intact end. Even when a value of Ax=1m is
usedat the broken for
end, a pipelinewhich is 11.8km long (Ax = 512m at the intact end),
the error still affects the programme. Although this error does not seemto affect the
pressure predictions much, it has a significant negative effect on the flow velocity
predictions. In somecasesnegativevelocities are obtainedat some internal boundaries
betweendifferent grid sizes,while the rest of the velocities are positive. The net effect is
an underestimationof the magnitudes of the flow velocity. An exampleof a casewhere this
the is
error affected predictionresults shown in Fig 6.23. For simulationsinvolving shorter
pipelines,this error doesnot affect the programmeand the variablegrid model produces
good results.
A bigger grid spacing, of Ax=10m at the break, was used for the SNGSO data.
Simulation results are presented in Figs. 6.23 to 6.25. The computer round-off error did
not cause serious problems in the solution. The first-order method of characteristics was
used. The biggest grid size (at the intact end) was ix=320m. Better results than those
produced with the second-order method and Ax=1m, at the break, were obtained. With
the first-order method and the bigger grid spacing, the equalization pressure reached the
ambient value within a few tens of milliseconds, while with the second-order method and
the smaller grid spacing, ambient pressure was not reached during the 25s run time. This
illustrated the significance of the grid size on the predicted decompression behaviour. This
is one of the parameters which were investigated in this study. It was observed that for
tests in which the positions of the transducers were very close to the broken end, such as
the British Gas tests, a finer grid size was required. For tests in which the transducers are
positioned further away from the broken end, such as the Foothills tests a coarser grid size
produced sufficiently accurate results. A grid size of 0.1 m at the broken end was adequate
for the Foothills tests, where most transducers were positioned tens of metres away from
the break. For the British Gas tests, where the transducers were positioned within two
metres away from the broken end, a grid spacing of 0.1m was not adequate. As seen in
264
Fig. 6.21, the wave speeds produced by the grid spacings of 0.01 and 0.1 m are almost the
same. However, Figs. 6.17 to 6.19 show that the time taken for the pressure to start falling
is longer when a smaller grid spacing is used. With test where the results are required
thousands of metres away from the break, Ox values of up to 10m, at the broken end,
produced satisfactory results. This was the case even for the Alberta Petroleum Industry
tests, where the mass flow rate was calculated at a position which is Im away from the
break.
A simplerule of thumb is recommendedfor selectionof grid sizes. If the result is
is
requiredat a position which a few metresaway from the break and/or the length of the
pipesection is less than 100mlong, a value of Ax ranging between 0.01 and 0.1 should be
used. If the is
result required at a position which is tens of metresaway from the break
and/or the pipe is hundredsof metres long, a value of Ax ranging between 0.1 and l. Om
be
should used. For longer pipe sections and/or if the result is required further that 100m
away from the break, valuesof Ax of up to 10m could be used.
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
All the experimentaldata usedto validate the computer model were availablein the form
of printedgraphs.The datawas convertedinto a numericalform in order to enableplotting

of the predictedresultstogether with the experimentaldata on the samegraph. In order
to simplifythe conversionof the dataand also to minimize errors, the graphswere scanned
and the necessarycoordinates required to reproduce the graphs were read using the
Autocadgraphicssoftware. The accuracyof the dataobtainedis just as good as that of the
original graphs.
PRESSURE
Both the method of characteristics and the MacCormack method predict the pressure
following a break reasonablywell. With the MacCormack method predictions, the pressure
flattened faster than with the method of characteristics. This is because of the higher speeds
of sound which are obtained from the MacCormack method predictions. Unlike with the
MacCormack method, the method of characteristics results are not oscillatory and a
consistent pattern is maintained, whereby the pressure decreasesas the broken boundary
is approached and for any particular position in the pipeline it decreaseswith time.
The pressure plateau which was demonstrated by Jones and Gough (1981),
signifying the two-phase region, was not observed. The reason is that the QUANT
265
software data does not produce output for the liquid phaseand for the transition region
from liquid to gas phases.
TEMPERATURE
Temperaturevariationsin a gas undergoingdecompressionfrom a high-pressurepipeline,

is one of the parameterswhich has not been studied much. Experimental data for
for
temperaturevariations very scarceand nonewere obtained validation of the computer
is
model.
It is obviousthat the temperaturedrops after the pipeline breaks. There is a debate
over the which

uncertainty existsregardingthe relativemagnitudeof maximum temperature
dropsresultingfrom high-pressurepipeline breaks. Richardson(1993-96) arguesthat the
temperaturedrop could be as high as 50K at the break. In this study temperaturesfell to

below the 200K minimumlimit of output for the QUANT software (drops of up to 100K)
in the region near the break, when the method of characteristicswas used. With the
MacCormack method, the temperature drops were much lower. Flatt (1993-96) and
Silberring(1993-95)arguethat the temperaturedrop could not be that big and should not
fall below the minimum limit of the QUANT software.
The temperaturedrops predicted using the method of characteristicsare much
higher than those predicted using the MacCormack method. In some cases the
temperaturesfell below 200K when using the method of characteristics,but stayedwell

above 200K when using the MacCormack method. For the sameinitial conditions of the
gas,the temperaturedrop was higher when pipes of smaller Ud were used. Also in some
for the
cases, example Foothillstest NABTF7, the temperatureat the broken boundary fell
below 200K just when the break condition was introduced i.e. t= Os. It was not possible
to know exactly what the temperaturewas, in caseswhere it fell below 200K. For such
the
cases, valueof 200K was usedfor temperatureand the valuesat the 200K temperature
were used for the other fluid properties required from the QUANT software. An error
would be introducedin the calculationespeciallyin the heat transfer. However, the error
introducedis smallbecausethe pressurein such situationsis low and therefore variations
in temperature would cause a small variations in the thermodynamic and transport
propertiesof the gas.
266
FLOW VELOCITY
The flow velocity at the broken end at time t= Osafter the break is equal to the speedof
sound before the break. The flow velocity at the break falls as the speedof sound falls
when flow the is choked (M, 1)

= accordingto the Jul
choking condition = a. When the
pressureat the brokenendfalls to ambientpressure,the choking condition no longer exists
the
and magnitudeof the flow velocity will be lower than the speedof sound. The flow in
this low pressureregime is not investigatedbecauseof the long time required for the
condition to be attainedand the limited time which is availableto test the model.
The flow velocity predicted using the MacCormack method is higher than that
the
predictedusing methodof Also
characteristics. whenusingthe former method, the flow
velocity increases
fasterandspreadsout fasterthan with the latter method. As a result, the
velocity gradient is much less with the MacCormack method than with the method of
characteristics.
FLUID DENSITY
After the break, the density of the fluid falls in a similar manneras the pressurebut by a
lesserproportion. With the MacCormackmethoddensity predictionsare lower than those
predictedusing the method of characteristics.
PRESSURE WAVES PROPAGATION SPEED
The valueof the speedof soundin the fluid (a), at the break, remainsthe sameat t= Osas
it was before the break (Refer to Fig. 4.3). Due to the temperaturedrop which continue
to take placethereafter,the densityof the fluid at the break increasesslightly. The increase
in densityresultsin a drop on the speedof sound,accordingto equation(A-11), and hence
a drop in the flow velocity accordingto the chocking condition Jul= a. Sincethe drop in
pressureis higher in proportion than the drop in density, the speedof sound drops as the
pressuredrops. This patternis transmittedtowards the intact end of the pipe as time goes
and is lessrapid away from the break and as time passes.
The predicted output of "a" differs significantly from the pressurewave speeds
presentedin experimentaldata. However,the predictedoutput valuesof "a" comparewell

with thosepresentedin other datasuchasthe additional dataprovided by Silberring (1995)
and the data presentedby Straty (1974) and Tsumuraand Straty (1977). The reasonfor
267
the discrepancybetweenexperimentalwave speedsand predictedvaluesof "a" is that the
valuesof the speedof soundmeasuredin the experimentsis not surprising. The value given
in experimentaldata is the speedat which a pressurewave propagatesin the fluid i.e. it is
by the
calculated measuring time it takes for a particular pressurewave to travel from one
known position to another known position in the pipe. The values of "a", which are
calculatedusingequation(A-11), refer to the leadingedgeof the pressurewave front. This
will be faster than a meanvalue calculatedfrom the p-t curves. The pressurewave speed
is influencedby both the valuesof a and u as explainedby the theory of characteristicsin
Section4.3.1. The value of the pressurewave propagationspeedcalculatedfrom the p-t
curvesresulting from the computer simulation were comparedwith experimentaldata for

the FoothillsNABTF 1 andNABTF7 tests,the BMI testsandthe University of Calgary test.
The results are presented in Figs. 6.5,6.7,6.20 and 6.21. Only the method of
andthe MacCormackmethodswere used. It could be seenfrom the graphs

characteristics
that apartfrom the Universityof Calgarytest,the methodof characteristicsproducesresults
which are very close to the experimentaldata. The wave speedscalculated using the
second-ordermethod of characteristicsare slightly lower than those calculatedusing the
first-order method. The MacCormack method underestimatesthe wave speedsat higher
pressuresand producesvalueswhich are slightly higher than experimentalvalue at lower

pressures.
Data which was obtainedusing the second-ordermethod of characteristicsfor the
Foothills NABTF7 test could not be used for validation becausea wrong value was used
for the initial density. The wave speeds obtained were very much lower than the
experimentalvalues. A finer grid spacingAx=0.01mwasusedfor the University of Calgary

test,in an attemptto obtaina betteragreementwith experimentaldata. The result obtained
is almostthe sameaswith the grid spacingof Ax--0.1m. It has beenconfirmed that further
reduction of the grid spacingswould not produce more accurateresults. Also sincethe
computer model has produced good results for all the other tests, it is believedthat the
discrepancybetweenthe two sets of data in the University of Calgary test is causedby
experimentalerror.
COMPUTING RESOURCES
The biggestconstraint,asfar asthe computermemoryrequirementand computation speed
are concerned,was introducedwhen non-constantfluid property data were used. Initially,
268
the programmeswere run with constantfluid property data, which were obtainedfrom the
QUANT software. Even though the basic equations are used almost without any
simplifications, the computation was very fast. The introduction of varying fluid data
greatly reducedthe computation speed.
In situations where the initial pressurebefore the break is low and temperature
output is not required, the use of constant fluid property data will greatly increasethe
computation speedwhile maintaininga reasonablygood accuracyof results. When the

programmeswere run in this it
manner, was possibleto use a 486 pc with a RAM memory
of 8MB. When varying fluid property data was used the 486 pc could not cope and a
PENTIUM P75 was sufficient to run all the programmes based on the method of
characteristicand the MacCormack method. The programmesbasedon the third-order

Warming-Kutler-Lomax method was successfullycompiled but could not run on the
PENTIUM pc becauseof insufficient memory.
The problemof insufficient memory could be solved by either using a bigger pc or
a mainframecomputer. The UNIX basedC++ compilers run the programmeswhich are

usingpc basedBorlandC++ (in this caseVersion 2.1) compilerswith very few alterations,
namely adding an "include file" stdlib.h and changing the commandsin the "system()"
statementsto correspondwith those usedby the UNIX operating system.
A user memory of 20MB on the mainframecomputer could only perform as well
asthe 486 pc. Evenby usingthe "temporary" directory in the mainframecomputer, which
shouldhavemorecapacityavailable,did not improve the situation. The remainingoptions
are therefore to use either a more powerful pc than PENTIUM P75 or the mainframe
computerwith morememoryallocationthan the present20MB. Computation speedof the
pc could be increasedby installinga chip similar to the Microway-i860 which is being used
at presenton a 286 pc, at the Imperial College [Richardson(1993-96)].
DISCUSSION OF ERRORS
Three main categoriesof error in validating computer modelsfor linebreakanalysis,with

experimentaldata were discussedby Tiley (1989). The three categoriesare
(i) Calibration,measurement data.
andrecordingof experimental
(ii) Assumptionsand simplificationsmadein the basictheoretical equations.
-
(iii) Errors inherentin the numericalmodelling procedure.
269
The error in experimentaldata also includesthe error in converting graphicaldata
into numerical data. Regarding the error in preforming the experiments and recording
experimental data, the best one could do is obtain an estimate of the error so that it could
be accounted for in the simulation No error estimate was provided with the experimental
data. Even the rupture time was not provided and in some casesnot all parameters required
by the computer model e.g. gas composition, pipe materia etc were provided. Through
private communication with British Gas, Tiley (1989) was informed that the pressure
measuring system as a whole, in the British Gas tests was believed to be within 5%. The
error in converting experimental data which is provided in graphical form into numerical
data has been reduced significantly by employing the scanning techniques and Autocad.
With this procedure, the accuracy of the results is as good as those of the computer
software used, which is much better than using a manual technique such as the one which
was used by Tiley. Tiley (1989) quoted an accuracy of±0.01 and 5m/s for pressure ratio
and wave speed respectively.
The error dueto assumptionsandsimplificationsin the theoreticalmodel hasgreatly
been minimized in this model, compared with Tiley's. This model still contains some
simplificationssuchas one-dimensionalflow, single-phaseflow, non-elasticpipe, no fluid

structureinteractionand neglectingminor losses. However, the error introduced by these
assumptions should be minimal since in this study, only straight horizontal pipes with
constant cross-sectionarea have beenused. The error due to inaccuratefluid properties
hasalsobeenminimizedby using the QUANT software for thermodynamicand transport
properties of fluids. There still remains some possible error in calculating the fluid
propertiesdueto the limitationsof the QUANT software. Thesehavebeendiscussedunder
the discussionof the QUANT software. The error is significant in simulationswhere the
initial gaspressureexceeds5 to 6MPa andtemperaturesafter the break fall below the 200K
minimum limit of QUANT. The errors in estimatingthe friction factor and heat transfer
havebeenminimizedby usingflow dependentvalues,which are specificfor eachcalculation
step. They assumedthat the friction factor and Stanton number(used to calculateheat
transfer) were constantalong the length of the pipe.
The errors inherentin the numericalmodelling procedureinclude smearing,when
a fixed grid is used; round-off error incaseof iterative methods;and computer round-off
error. Tiley (1989)arguedthat the smearingerror is minimizedby using a smallergrid size,
while the round-off error is increasedby reducing the grid size. There seemsto be a
contradictionin this argumentand the whole idea of using a fine grid spacing. The round-
off error of iterativemethodsdependson a predeterminedaccuracycriteria (as long as the
270
solution converges) rather than the grid size. In the model developed in this study, an
accuracy of 5% and 1% was specified for the first- and second-order methods of
characteristics.,It has been observed in this study that interpolation error is not necessarily
reduced by using higher-order approximations. In actual fact, approximations of higher
order than one produce wrong results for rapidly varying flows. first-order approximation
hasprovedto bethemostpopularin modellingtransientflow followinglinebreakin high-
pressure Tiley's
gaspipelines. modelcontainedan additionalerror because of the method
to
used obtain the final result at the required positions along the length of the pipe. The
methodusedby Tiley wasto approximatethe result to the valuesat the nearestgrid point.
Such approximation could introduce a very big error in the solution, especially if the
positionconcernedis close to the broken boundary and in the early time regimewhere the
fluid propertiesvary rapidly. The approximation could also introduce significant error at
positionsfar from the breakbecauseof the biggergrid size. In the model developedduring
this study,linearinterpolation is used to calculatethe final result at the required positions.
It is not possibleto establishthe magnitudeof the accuracyof the computer model
developedin this study,with certainty,becauseof the poor quality of the experimentaldata
which has been used for validation. However, in most casesthe predicted results are in
good agreementwith the experimentaldata used.
271
CHAPTER 7
CASE STUDY:
THE SONGO SONGO-DAR ES SALAAM
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
7.1 A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF TANZANIA'S ENERGY SECTOR
The United Republic of Tanzaniais located on the EasternCoast of Africa, just south of
the Equator. The country hasa total area of 945000 squarekilometres, 6% of which is
by
covered water. Nearly half of the land is covered by forest reserves,which explainsthe
great overdependenceof Tanzania on woodfuel as a source of energy. The present

populationof Tanzaniais about29 million, with a population growth of 2.55% per annum.
Dar es Salaamis the capital of Tanzania and its population is about 5% of the total
population. The economy of Tanzaniais predominantly agricultural. Other economic

activities include manufacturingand processingindustries, mining and tourism. Most of
the industriesare concentratedin urban centresand in particular Dar es Salaam.
Tanzania'sindigenousenergyresourcesare large and diverse,although they have
not yet beenexploited to an appreciableextent. At present,the major energysourcesare

woodfuel, imported petroleum, hydroelectricity and indigenous coal. Tanzania's
hydroelectricpower potentialis in excessof 4700MW of installedcapacity,but only about
10%of it hasactually beendeveloped. Coal reservesare estimatedat about 1900 million
tonnes, of which 304 million tonnes are consideredproven. Exploration activities for
petroleumbasedfuels havetaken placein Tanzaniafor severaldecades,with the resulting

discovery of natural gas. No oil discoverieshave been madeyet and exploration is still
underway, with prospectsof findingmorenaturalgas and possiblyoil. The proven natural

gasresourceis 20.7 million tonnesoil equivalent(toe), but it is estimatedto increaseto 47
million toe.
The total energyconsumptionin Tanzaniain 1990wasjust over 17 million tonnes
of oil equivalent (toe) which came from woodfuel (88.5%), biomass (6%), electricity
(0.6%), imported crude oil and refined petroleum products (5%) and coal (0.1%). More
than 70% of Tanzania'selectricity is generatedfrom hydropower. In the past six years,

Tanzania'selectricity demandhas beengrowing at an averageof 12% per annum. The
presentelectricitydemandis estimatedat 400MW, but the demandis suppresseddue to the

shortageof generationcapacity. The demandis estimatedto double by the turn of this
272
h
P. ý
ýD"
CM
vt-n S.O.....
e
J ýur. oy
Fig. 7.1 Map of Africa Showing the Location of Tanzania
i
I=
KENYA
r_ ty ., r
ý'ýf""ý
ZAINF
ý-l `ý\
ZA ,'M 61A
"" M OWA AJI BIQUE
raw ...... ý,
Fig. 7.2 Map of TanzaniaIndicatingthe Location of the SongoSongo

GasDevelopmentProject
273
century. A twenty five year (1985-2010) investment and development programme was set.
The programme is aimed at reducing dependenceon hydropower and cutting the oil import
bill that consumesabout 60% of the country's foreign currency earnings each year. During
the early years of the 1990's,Tanzaniasuffered serious power problems,as a result of

prolonged drought which reduced water levels in the reservoirs of hydropower plants.
Power rationinghadto be imposedand as a result industrial production fell drastically and
people had to changetheir lifestylesto adjust to the situation.

The Tanzaniangovernmentis implementingan EmergencyPower Project (EPP).
A 40MW dieselpoweredplant hasbeencommissionedin Dar es Salaam. Electricity from
the plant, which could also use natural gas as a fuel, is linked to the national power grid
thereby boosting its output. On the longer term, there are other projects including the
constructionof a 200MW hydropower plant at Kihansi, developmentof the coal resource .
andthe Songo Songo Natural Gas DevelopmentProject, which is the focus of this study.
The project is describedin detail in Section 7.2.
7.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SONGO SONGO GAS DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT
7.2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Naturalgaswas discoveredat SongoSongo,which is a tiny island off the Tanzaniancoast,

in the Indian oceansouth of Dar es Salaam,in 1974. Apart from the Songo Songo gas
there
reserve, are other smaller including
reserves, one at Mnazi Bay. The discovery was
followed by proving between 1976 and 1983 and subsequentpre-feasibilityand feasibility
studies. Severaloptions for developingthe resourcewere considered,including export of

the gasto earnforeignexchange,productionof ammoniaand urea fertilizer and usesin the
domesticmarkets. The latter option includespower generation;pipeline to local markets;
and fertilizer, methanol and compressednatural gas facilities. It was consideredthat,

althoughthe gas pool was large, it was not large enoughto warrant the developmentof a
major compressed natural gas export facility. The remaining options are being
implemented and in addition, there are plans to export some of the gas to neighbouring
Kenya.
The SongoSongoGas DevelopmentProject featuresdevelopmentof five existing
gas wells, of which three are offshore and two are onshore;tying thesewells to a central
274
gas processingplant in Songo Songo island; constructing a pipeline (25km marine and
207km onshore)to transport the gas to Dar es Salaam;building a 60MW power plant in
Dar esSalaamto generateelectricity,andsupplyinggasto the 40MW dual fuel power plant

describedin Section 7.1, which is alreadyoperational in Dar es Salaamand also to other
users. Another, but different, project is being implementedfor the Mnazi Bay reserve.
The Songo Songo project is being implemented jointly by the Ministry of Water
Energy and Minerals, which plays a coordinating role for all stake holders in the project;
Ocelot Tanzania Inc.; and TransCanada Pipelines Limited. The Tanzania Petroleum
Development Corporation (TPDC)is a partner in the project and the Tanzania Electric
Supply Company (TANESCO) will be the major consumer of the gas. The project is
anticipated to be in service in 1997.
7.2.2 GAS PROPERTIES
Natural gas is found naturally in rock reservoirs below the ground. In its pure state
(methane)it is a non-toxic,colourlessand odourlessgas. Methaneis lighter than air. The
Songo Songo gas is almost pure natural gas, containing no sulphur compoundsand only
smallamountsof heavyhydrocarbons.
Only is
minimalprocessing required to make the gas
for
suitable pipelinetransport
and by
application
subsequent the endusers.
The Songo Songogas field underliesSongo Songo island. The proximity of the
field Fig. 7.3 to the islandis very convenientin that the shorebasedfacilities can be located
on the island the

and wells drilled in
onshoreor very shallow water. Three wells have been
drilledonshoreand a further six havebeendrilled in the shallow waters around the island.
The ninewells arenamedasSS1 to SS9. Five of the wells have proven reservesin various
partsof the field structure. Of the remainingfour wells, three have provided disappointing
resultsin satellitestructuresand one did not reachthe main reservoir objective as a result
of blowout and fire.
The main areaof the field hasbeenappraisedby the five wells which have proven
the gas volumesin the main block i. e. wells SS3, SS4, SS5, SS7 and SS9. The reservoir
fluid propertieswere determinedin a study by Scientific Software-Intercomp(1990), for
simulationpurposes. The data includesthe relevantphysicalpropertiesof gas and water.

A total of2l analysesof samplesobtainedfrom wells SS5, SS7 and SS9 were conducted.
The sampleswere very consistentin composition, exhibiting a high methanecontent of
275
ýDýA
E9 SAIAAM
b4u1-^pl
0 10 20 30 40 60 K
a-W (k+1
Ip
Wmiwon
MAFJ&
ISLAND
hot e"s -
Nye
"""
Scm.
n9s
s«pos«wo
@(Hnio
ýý c ati. w. o.o
i
Fig. 7.3 Kilwa Kivinje-Dar es Salaam Gas Pipeline Location Map
Fig. 7.4 Pipeline Route from Songo Songo Island to Dar es Salaam
276
about 97% and a low fraction of condensate and heavy hydrocarbons. The average
compositions of the gas is shown in Table 7.1.

The initial reservoir pressureand temperature were specified in order to process the
fluid propertiesdata. Given the averagegas composition data in Table 7.1 and reservoir
pressureof 2755psi (19MPa) and temperatureof 203°F (368K), the gas propertieswere
determined. In calculatingthe gas properties Scientific Software-Intercomp(1990) used
their own equation of state. The gas properties which are relevant to this study are
presentedin Table7.2 andcomparedwith valuescalculatedusing the QUANT software for
thermodynamicand transport properties,which is usedin this study.
7.2.3 PRELIMINARY PIPELINE DESIGN
The pipelinesystemincludesthe transmissionpipelinefrom Songo Songo to Dar es Salaam

and the distribution network in Dar es Salaam. However, it should be noted that the
pipelinedesigndescribedin this sectionis basedon the preliminary designdone by Hardy
BBT Ltd. (1989). The gasdistribution systemconsistsof a pipeline network which would
deliver gas from the city gate station to each individual consumer. The design is in
accordancewith CanadianStandardCSA Z184.M Code. Three demandscenariosnamely

low, medium and high were considered. The three scenariosare basedon a 20 year life
time of the project and projections for power generationby TANESCO. The 20 year life
time is based on the design of a fertilizer plant at Kilwa Masoko (refer to Fig. 7.3).
Accordingto the design,the proven gas reserveof 20.53bcm(726bcf) was to be drawn at
a rate of 0.56bcm/year(19.75bcf/year), by the fertilizer plant, so that its allocation of
11.18bcm(395bco is consumedin 20 years. The operation of the gas gathering facilities,
dehydrationplant and marine pipeline to Kilwa Kivinje was to be under one management
to supplygasto the fertilizerplant andthe Dar esSalaampipeline. Therefore, sincethe Dar
es Salaam pipeline was to be dependenton the fertilizer plant operating, all design and
economicstudieswerebasedon a 20 yearsof operation only. However, in the likely event
that the proven reserveswere to be enlargedas production proceeded,the pipeline was
sizedbasedon growth through the year 2016.
The designbasedconditionswere a pressureof 101kPa(14.65psig), a temperature
of 15°C anda specificgravity of 0.60. The maximumallowable operating pressureswere
set at 7.93MPa for the low demandscenarioand 9.65MPa for both the mediumand high
demandscenarios.The maximumallowablegas temperatureis 49°C, while the maximum
designgas temperaturewas set at 38°C. The designgas volume took into
consideration
277
the averageandthe peakflow requirementsto the year 2016. The projected gas demands
under the three scenariosfor the years 2011 and 2016 are presentedin Table 7.3.
GAS SS9 SS5 SS7 MEAN ISM NO. S VAR

2 0.860 0.68 0.600 0.713 0.000 0.000
02 0.47 0.350 0.290 0.370 0.000 0.000
H4 96.820 97.193 97.440 97.151 0.000 0.000
2H6 1.050 1.100 0.940 1.030 0.000 0.000
3H8 0.320 0.300 0.310 0.310 0.000 0.000
-C4H IO 0.070 0.070 0.073 0.070 1.000 0.000
-C4HIO 0.090 0.089 0.088 0.089 2.000 0.000
-C51112 0.030 0.025 0.028 0.027 1.000 0.000
-C5H12 0.030 0.026 0.030 0.029 2.000 0.000
6H14 0.040 0.030 0.025 0.032 1.000 0.000
7H16 0.150 0.075 0.100 0.109 1.000 0.000
8H18 0.060 0.044 0.053 0.052 1.000 0.000
91-120 0.010 0.018 0.023 0.017 1.000 0.000
OTAL 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000
Sourceof GasCompositionData: Scientific Software-Intercomp[1990]

Table 7.1 Average [Mol. %] Compositionof Songo Songo Gas
Pipe sizesand flow capacity of the pipelinewere determinedusing the Panhandle

formula, which considers gas pressure, temperature and velocity. Steel, plastic and
aluminium were all consideredas possible materials for construction of the pipeline.
However,it was laterdecidedthat only a steelpipe would be able to carry the volumesand
pressuresrequired for the transmissionline. The gas velocities in the pipeline, for each
scenario and pipe size, were estimatedas shown in Table 7.4. The pipe sizes allow
fluctuationswhich mayoccurbetweenthe peak day demandand the averageflow, and the
expected velocities are well below the target velocity for the pipeline design. In this
particular case flow velocities of 457m/min and 610m/min were given as target and
maximumvelocities respectively.
Initial Pressure [psia] 2755

Reservoir Temperature [°F] [K] 203
Molecular weight 16.746
Specific Gravity 0.579
Density (Reservoir) [Ib/ft3] [Kg/m3] 7.1007
Density (Surface) [Ib/ft3] [Kg/m3] 0.0441
Viscosity (reservoir) [cp] 0.018
-1 4
Source:Scientific Software-Intercomp(1990)
Table 7.2 SongosongoGasProperties
278
Pipe sizes were chosen for the three scenarios,basedon the initial pressureof
4.80MPa availableat Kilwa Kivinje and a minimum terminal pressure of 2.07MPa (300psig)
in Dar Salaam. For both the medium and high demand scenarios,
at the city gate station es
compression must be added at Kilwa Kivinje. The selected pipe sizes, compressor and
resulting capacityare summarizedin Table 7.5.
DEMAND
YEAR201 2016 YEAR 2011 YEAR 2016
LOW 0.56 0.68 0.7 0.85
MEDIUM 1.21 1.33 2.37 2.49
HIGH 2-31- *243 3-47 5-59
Source:Hardy BBT Ltd (1989)

Table 7.3 Projectedgas demandfor three scenariosfor year 2011 and 2016
Predictedpressureprofiles for the line for all the three scenariosare presentedin
Figs. 7.5,7.6 and 7.7. For each scenario there are three curves representing maximum
sustainable flow consistentwith a dischargepressureof 2.07MPa (300psig), designflow
to
rate similar maximumaverage daily demandsfor the three scenariosand flow rate of
70% of the abovedesignflow rate. The distribution systemis comparativelysmall so that
it to
while serves smoothout local variationsin it
demand, can not be consideredas a major
componentof storage.The major storagein this is by
case provided on-line storagein the
transmissionpipeline.
SCENARIO VELOCITY NOMINAL PIPF SIZF

[mix/min] [fi/min] [M4 [ial
LOW 198 650 254 10
MEDIUM 235 770 254 10
IHIGH 256. 840,305 . 12.
Source:Hardy BBT Ltd (1989)
Table 7.4: EstimatedGas Velocities and Pipe Sizes
Threeblock valvelocationswere proposedin the preliminarypipelinedesign. These
would permit eachsection of the transmissionline betweenthe valves to be isolatedand

blown down during repair, maintenanceor in an emergencysituation. Operation of the
block valves would be in the manual mode. Automatic linebreak control was not
consideredin the preliminarydesign. It was suggestedthat additional block valves could

be added to the systemduring the final stage of the project dependingon operational
considerations. The three block valve locations are presentedin Fig. 7.7. The
279
sectionalizingblock will be full-bore valves in order to facilitate pigging of the line. The
blowdown valveswill be sizedto depletethe line section in lessthan 4 hours. The block
valve parameters and blowdown time for each of the three demand scenarios are
summarizedin Table 7.6. However, it was not specifiedto which of the pipeline sections
in Fig. 7.7 or demandscenariosthe blowdown times in Table 7.6 refer.
DemandScenario Pipe size PressureCompressorSize CapacityFlow

Actual sizexWall thickness
mm MP M IMC M/da
Low 273.1x4.78 - - 0.78
Medium 273.1x5.20 9.65 2.16 1.83
323-9x6-35 9-65 3-39 285
-High
Source: Hardy BBT Ltd (1989)
Table 7.5 Pipe Parameters
The original designof the pipeline, as presentedby Hardy BBT Ltd. (1989), was
for the pipeline to passthrough Kilwa Kivinje and also to be tied to the project for the
fertilizer plantat Kilwa Masoko. Recentinformation,including a brochure publishedby the
Ministry of Water, Energy and Minerals and the two Canadiancompaniesinvolved in the
implementation of the project, indicate that a new pipeline route is being followed. The
new route is shown in Fig. 7.4. According to the new route, the pipeline is from Songo
Songodirectlyto Dar esSalaam,throughSomangaFungaand not Kilwa Kivinje. The new
pipelineroutedoesnot seemto be tied to anyotherprojectapartfrom the powerstation

and other usersin Dar es Salaam. Although it is expectedthat designdetails for the new
route havebeenfinalised,it was not possibleto get them for this study. However, sincethe
pipelinelengthdoesnot differ muchfrom the in
one the proposedold route, and assuming
thatthegasdemand in Dar esSalaamremainthe same,the samedatawhichwas
scenarios
proposedfor the old pipeline designis used.
DEMAND SCENARIO Block Valve Size Blowdown Stack Blowdown Time
LOW 254 102 3.5
MEDIUM 254 102 4.0
305 152 13
IHIGH
Source:Hardy BBT Ltd (198
Table 7.6 Block Valves
280
7.3 COMPUTER SIMULATION OF A LINEBREAK IN THE
SONGO SONGO DAR ES SALAAM GAS PIPELINE
In this section,the information and data presentedin the precedingsectionsof this report
and the computer model developedin this study are used to simulate a linebreak in the
SongoSongoDar esSalaamnaturalgaspipeline. It is known that a more recent study was
conducted by Hardy BBT Limited in 1994, to assessthe environmental impact of the

pipeline. However, the study report could not be madeavailablefor this study. Also as
pointed out in the previous section, no further details on the new pipeline route could be
obtained. Due to theseconstraints,it was decidedthat the data given in the preliminary
pipelinedesignby Hardy BBT Ltd. (1989), which are presentedin Section 7.2.3, be used
for this simulationexercise.
The main reasonsfor this analysisare firstly, to simulate the flow following a
linebreakin the Songo SongoDar es Salaampipeline and secondlyto test if the computer
programme is capableof handling such a long pipeline as the pipe sectionsbetweenthe

block valvelocationshownin Fig. 7.7 (73.2km). Pipelinesare equippedwith block valves
at different locations along their lengths. The valves enableparts of the pipeline to be
isolatedfor maintenanceand in the event of a leak, blowdown or accidentalrupture. The
valvelocationsserveas boundarypoints when performing the computer analysis. Even in

situations where such valvesare not provided and the pipeline is considerablylong, it is
convenient to imposeboundary conditions in such a way that the length of the pipeline
betweenthe boundary points could be handledwith the computer programme.
Two main parametersare of interest,namelythe time it takes for a pressurewave
to be transmitted from the break point to the nearestblock valve location and the time
takenfor the sectionof the pipelinebetweenthe two valveson eachside of the break to be
emptied. The former parameter determines how quickly the valve operation would be
initiated. The limited time available for this study does not permit simulation of the flow
until all the gas has escapedfrom the pipeline, because of the very long CPU time required
to carry out the simulation. The simulation is performed only for the early time regime.
Referring to Fig. 7.7, it is assumed that a rupture occurs at Marendego, just next to the
block valve, on the side of Kilwa Kivinje. The interest is to determine how long it takes for
the initial pressure wave to reach Kilwa Kivinje, which is 68.0km away, and initiate the
operation of a block valve situated at the exit of the compressor station. The high demand
scenario and maximum sustainable flow (the bottom curve in Fig. 7.8) are used.
281
, V-
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
IV^
W 0.9
u ,y
y 0.8
ýo
a
-Uýq 0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.1
0
0 40 00 120 160 200 210
distance from source km

flow Rntc fý1MCFD 0 10.13 + 25.90 0 27.99
Source:Hardy BBT Ltd. (1989)
Fig. 7.5 Line PressureProfile for Low Scenario
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.2.
1.1
1
b^
äG 0.9
v b
0.8
Ho
ILI 0.7
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 40 00 120 160 200 240
distance from source km

Flow Rate NINICFD O + 50.00 0
35.00 04.73
Source:Hardy BBT Ltd. (1989)
Fig. 7.6 Line PressureProfile for Medium Scenario
282
The averagecompositionof the SongoSongo gas, which is presentedin Table 7.1,
is usedasinput datato the QUANT software. A data file to be usedby the CFD model is
generatedfrom the QUANT software. The initial pressureand massflow rate of the gas
at Kilwa Kivinje are as presentedin Fig. 7.8 i.e. 141Opsi(9.65MPa) and 100.79MMCFD
(25kg/s). The maximumoperating temperatureof the gas is 311K. The rest of the gas
properties at the initial conditions at Kilwa Kivinje are calculated using the QUANT
software. A minimumgrid spacingof Ax= 10mand At= 0.01s at the broken end and the
variablegrid modelareused. This rathercoarsegrid spacingis chosenin order to minimise
the CPU time required for the simulation and also to minimisethe effect of the computer
round off error, which is explainedin Section 6.3, when applying the variablegrid model
on long pipelines. Resultsfrom the computer simulation are presentedin Figs. 7.9 and
7.10.
Ki1wa Mar4-- radego Buingo

681cm Mbezi Dar ea Salasm
1C1v111, A 141.2km
199.8km
0 krra
Fig. 7.7 Block Valve Location
The Hardy BBT prediction data which is presentedin Figs. 7.8 are used for
comparisonwith the data calculatedusing the non-isothermalnon-adiabaticsteady state

analysismodelpresentedin Section4.2.2 and also the transientanalysis,before the break,
using the method of characteristics. The prediction resultsobtainedare included in Figs.
7.8. All the rupturetestswhosedataareused,in Chapter6, to validate the linebreakmodel
were carriedout usingpipelinesin which the gaswas initially stationary. As a result of this
situation, transientanalysisbefore the break was not necessary.In the caseof the Songo
Songo-Dar es Salaampipeline, the initial flow velocity before the break is not zero.
Transientanalysisbeforethe break was performedin order to establishthe initial unsteady
flow condition. Resultsare presentedin Fig. 7.8. In both the steadystate and transient
analysesbefore the rupture, the variable grid spacing programmesare used. The heat
transfer model which was used is that for buried pipeline.
283
O
ü
C
c p
p
c ýQ
CL
E
0
:.)
O
a tu
c
d
Co
Z
8
I-
ö 8 0
a
ci
N
NI a
oo° 93 c3 U
o o
98
gý8 88
_ LL
8
TTýýý
I- O
2 Of Co 1- (0 U) lt V) fV . -0
[edw] amssaJd
284
10--
7--
CL 6 -100.79MMCFD SSA
--111--100.79MMCFD TA MOC-1 (dX=10m)
-ýk-100.79MMCFD BREAK MOC-1 (dX=10m)
2 4--
a
3
0 -I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance tkm]
Fig. 7.9 Line Pressure Profile for Simulated Break in the Proposed
Songo Songo-Dar es Salaam Pipeline
2500--
2000-
1500..
ö
yN 1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s]
Fig. 7.10 Mass Flow Rate for Simulated Break in the Proposed Songo
Songo Dar es Salaam Natural Gas Pipeline
285
7.4 DISCUSSION OF SIMULATION RESULTS
Simulationresultsfor the pressureprofile usingthe steadystateanalysis(SSA) and transient

analysis(TA) modelsbefore the break are presentedin Fig. 7.8, together with the original
data provided by Hardy BBT Ltd. (1989). The pressureprofiles for steadystate analysis
and transient analysisbefore the break are also presentedin Fig. 7.9, together with the
pressureprofile 60s after the break. The massflow rate variation is presentedin Fig.7.10.
In calculatingthe pressureprofile using the steadystate analysismodel problems
were encounteredwhen the pipe diameter of 0.305m, which was, specified was used.
Usingthis pipediameterandgasflow rate of 25kg/s, which were given, resultedin a much
bigger pressuredrop in the pipeline. The pressurepredicted at Marendego (68km from
Kilwa Kivinje) was around 4MPa, which is less than a half of the pressurepresentedby
Hardy BBT Ltd. Transientanalysisusing the second-ordermethod of characteristicswas
performed, in order to confirm whether the problem was with the steady state analysis
model or the design data provided by Hardy BBT Ltd. When a boundary condition
correspondingwith the pressurepresentedin the Hardy BBT curves(8.2MPa) was imposed
negativevelocitieswereobtainedat the low pressureend. The negativevelocities indicate
that the pressureimposed at the boundary was higher than the actual pressurefor the
parametersgiven. The massflow ratewas reducedby a half in order to seeif the pressure
drop would decreaseto the required value, but the pressuredrop remainedhigher. When
the pipe diameterwas increasedto 0.5m, the samepressureprofile as that presentedby
Hardy BBT wasobtained. Transientanalysiswas then performed and producedthe same
pressureprofile asthe steadystateanalysis. However, after the transientanalysis,the flow
velocity was slightly higher than that obtainedusing the steadystate analysismodel, but
within the limit specifiedby Hardy BBT. This result indicatesthat the pipe diameter of
0.305m which was specifiedis too small. The first-order method of characteristicsfailed
to produce good results in the transient analysisbefore the break. Consequently,the
second-ordermethodwas used.
There was no output from the QUANT software for Pr, p and kr for all the range
of pressureandtemperatureused. Of the threemissingproperties,only p is required by the
computer programme. A constantvalue was used throughout the range of pressureand
temperatureencountered. In the fluid data usedfor validation of the model in Chapter 6,
a maximumvariationin p was 36.5%within the rangeof p and T used. The constantvalue
was chosen such that it is in the middle of the range, therefore reducing the error in
estimatingp to a maximumof 18.25%. The error introduced is not significant.
286
The first-order methodof characteristicswas used in order to minimize on CPU
time. The pressure profile after the break, which is shown in Fig. 7.9, indicates that the
leading edge of the pressurewave had not reached the compressor station at Kilwa Kivinje
60s after the break. It had reached a position which is 43.52km from Kilwa Kivinje
(24.48km from the break). Due to the limited time available for this study, no further
simulations could be performed. The mass flow rate variation is presented in Fig. 7.10.
The initial mass flow rate at time tos after the break is less than the peak flow rate. The
increase in mass flow rate is caused by increase in the gas density, which occurs after the
break because of drop in temperature. During the period of 60s which the flow was
simulated, most of the rapid variations in gas outflow took place. The mass flow rate
would continue to decay exponentially. The flow rate of around 300kg/s, which was
reached after the 60s is comparable in magnitude with the initial flow rate in Alberta
Petroleum Industry test APIT3. Assuming that the time taken for the pipe to be emptied
is directly proportional to the length of the pipeline and that the flow rate would continue
to fall at the same rate as in test APIT3, the time required for the section of the pipe to be
emptied is 2.6hours. However, sincethe flow rate of 300kg/s, in this case is reached when
the decay rate is much smaller than in the initial flow after the break in test APIT3, a
blowdown time which is longer than 2.6hours is expected. Therefore the 3.3hours
blowdown time presented by Hardy BBT Ltd is probably correct.
287
CHAPTER 8
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK

In the previous study by Tiley (1989), further work was recommended in four areas namely
investigation of the wave speed error, further testing of the model, improvement of the
stability of solution and further refinement of the model. Through the different approach
which has been used in this model, all the four areasof investigation recommended by Tiley
(1989), have been successfully covered. The method of characteristics model which has
been developed in this study is sufficiently accurate and reliable for simulating linebreak
situations in full-scale pipelines. The only weakness of the model is the directional bias
which occurs when modelling the flow reversal in the section of the pipe downstream of
the break. This is the only area recommended for further investigation in the model based
on the method characteristics. In the meantime, the programme for analysing the flow in
the section of the pipeline upstream of the rupture, could be used for the downstream
section after the necessary adjustment of the input data. Alternatively, either the
programmesbasedon the MacCormack or Warming-Kutler-Lomax methods could be used.
which is the only
Two numericalmodelsin additionto the methodof characteristics,
one covered by Tiley(1989), havebeenused in this study. Both the MacCormack and
Warming-Kutler-Lomaxmodels,havesuccessfullybeendeveloped. What remainsto be
doneis to test further the models. Specifically,the problemsof overshootand oscillating
results, which are associatedwith the MacCormack numerical method, need to be
investigated.
Another numericalproblemwhich needsto be solved,is that of round-off error,
when modelling flow in long pipelinesusing the variablegrid spacingmethodand with
very small Ax at the broken end.
The QUANT software, in its present version and with all its limitations, provides
a sufficiently accurate and optimum means of incorporating real gas properties into the
model. However, better results are expected if the current limitation of the software is
overcome. The limitations are lack of output for some values of input parameters and for
some gases and lack of output at high pressure and temperatures lower than 200K. The
former limitation of lack of output at high pressures has already been overcome [Silberring
(1993-95)]. But the version of the updated software is not yet available commercially.
It is important to follow up on further updates of the software, which would improve the
performance of the model.
288
A great deal of time was devoted to exploring, acquiring and developing an
optimum method of incorporating the data produced by the software into the numerical
programmes. The method adopted in this study [refer to Section 4.5] provides a
compromise as far as accuracy and economy in computational resources are concerned.

Two areasare recommended for further work in the application of the QUANT software.
The first area is in relation to the routine DFGEN for generating the fluid property data
file FLUID. DAT. A programme for automatic execution of the QDB programme of the
QUANT software is required, in order to make the process simpler and less time
consuming. A detailed explanation of this procedure is given in Section 6.3. The second
area, which is also described in section 6.3, concerns the retrieval of data from the file
FLUID. DAT. An interpolation procedure has proved to be impossible due to the limited
computer memory, when running the transient analysis programmes. The alternative
method i. e. generating fluid property data in which the input parameters (p & T) are so
close such that the values which are closest to the parameters for which fluid data is
required are used. The latter method is lesspractical with the presently available computing
resources. In this study a spacing of 0. IMPa in pressureand 5K in temperature was used.

A finer spacing could be used if the domain for the particular analysis is smaller. Further
investigation of the possibility of using interpolation procedures is required especially if
bigger computing resources are available.
The biggest challenge in developing and also applying the computer programmes
in this study, has been that of limited computing resources available. It
was decided from
the beginning(refer to Section 4.6) that the computer codes developed in this study should
be capable of being run on personal computers. The best computer which could be used
was the best that was availableat the time. But even this requirement could not be met due
to limited financial resources which were available for acquiring such computers and also
the high speed at which computer technology advances. At first it was thought that a
486DX personal computer would be sufficient. This was true even for the transient
analysis including the variable grid method before varying fluid property data was
introduced. A PENTIUM P75 is sufficient to run the complete
programmes for transient
analysis at a speed which is much faster than the one which could be achieved using the
486DX personalcomputer for the simpler version for the transient analysis programme i.
e.
with constantfluid property data. Better performance is expected if a more powerful pc
such as a PENTIUM P166, is used. It is also thought that such a powerful pc's could
1
289
handle a larger number of grid points on one section of pipeline being modelled, than the
presentmaximum number of grid points of around 120. This could eliminate the problem
of round-ofd' error experienced when modelling long pipelines with the variable grid
programmes.It is therefore recommendedthat a more powerful pc than the PENTIUM P75

be used to test the programmes. Also the possibility of incorporating a chip similar to the
Microway-i860 [refer to Section 4.6], into the present series of personal computers in
order to increase their computational speed is worth exploring.

A detailed presentationof experimentaldata which exist for validating linebreak
modelsis given in ChapterS. Sufficient experimentaldata,which covers both short and

long pipelinessectionswereacquiredandused in this study. However, it was not possible
to get datawhicharerecentandconsequentlyrather old data were used. The data which
areusedin this studyweregathered using testswhich were conducted during the past 16
to 20 years. It is expectedthat in such a long time, there would be a considerable
improvementin instrumentationand experimentaltechniqueswhich could result in more
accurate experimentaldata. Someof the tests reported in Chapter5, were carried out
within the pasttwo years.Data from suchtestsarethereforeexpectedto be more accurate
than the one usedin this study and should if possiblebe used. Unfortunately,it was not
possibleto haveaccessto this data becauseof commercialsensitivity.
The model developedin this study assumesthat the fluid is a homogeneousgas
mixture and that the flow is one-dimensional. These assumptions are adequate for practical
linebreak modelling. Better results could be obtained if the simplifications of homogenous
and one-dimensionalflow are not used. In terms of priority, investigation into these aspects
should come as the last step. In order of preference multiphase effects including frictional
,
forces are probably the most significant, and should be investigated first. The gamdeleps
method [Flatt and Trichet (1995)] which is briefly describedin section 2.7, is recommended.
290
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSIONS
After a critical review of the previousstudy by Tiley (1989), a theoreticalmodel hasbeen
developedfor analysisof the transientflow following linebreakin high-pressurenaturalgas
pipelines. An has
improvement been in
made manyaspectsof the model which was used
by Tiley (1989). Theseincludederivation of the basicequationsof flow and subsequent
simplifications;calculationof frictional force, thermodynamicand transport propertiesof

the fluid, heattransferto the fluid and numericalmethodof solution. The basicequations
of flow arebasedon the gammadelta methodwhich was developedby Flatt (1989). The
threepartialdifferentialequationsof flow are derived for unsteadyquasi-one-dimensional
flow of a realgasthrougha non-rigid non-constantcross-sectionalareapipe. Two further
simplifications are made on the basic equations of flow before applying them in the
developmentof the computermodel for analysisof the flow following a linebreak. The
QUANT software for thermodynamicand transport propertiesof the fluids is used. The
flow dependentexplicitequationwhichwasdevelopedby Chen(1979) is used to calculate
frictional force. The heattransferthrough the pipe is calculatedusing a formula which is
basedon the adiabaticwall temperatureand recoveryfactor. The heattransferis also flow
dependent;and the calculationprocedureincludesboth pipesexposedto the atmosphere
andburiedpipes. An improvedandmoreaccurateequationfor calculatingthe initial break

conditions at the break is used. This improved equation avoids the problem of
underestimatingthe flow velocity at the outlet end and overestimatingthe temperature
drop at the break.
A non-uniform grid spacingwhich is very similar to that usedby Tiley (1989) is
used, in order to be able to handle long pipelines, to produce stable results and to also
adequately model the physical behaviour of the gas, following a rupture. This method
involves the use of a fine grid spacing in the vicinity of the break and a coarser spacing as
one moves away from the break. A possibility of modelling the flow reversal in the section
of the pipeline downstream of the break, similar to the one developed by Tiley (1989) is
provided. Four different models for calculating the initial steady-state conditions, before
the break have beendeveloped. The four models, all of which are viscous flow models are
based on the assumptions of incompressible flow and compressible isothermal, adiabatic
or non-isothermal non-adiabaticflow. Three different numerical methods for solution of
291
the theoretical models have beendeveloped. The three numerical methods are a first-order
backward method, a first-order forward method and a second-ordermethod. The numerical
and theoretical models have beencomparedwith predictions made for the proposed Songo
Songo Dar es Salaam Natural Gas Pipeline [Hardy BBT Ltd. (1989)].
The theoreticaltransientanalysismodelis developedinto a pc basedcomputercode
usingthe C programminglanguageandthree different numericalmethodsof solution. The

three numerical methodsare the method of characteristics,which was used by Tiley
(1989); the two-step second-orderexplicit finite-differencemethodof MacCormack;and
explicitfinite-differencemethod. Predictionsusing
the third-orderWarming-Kutler-Lomax
the three numericalmethodsof solution havebeencomparedwith data obtainedthrough
both full-scalepipelineand laboratoryexperiments.The test sectionsvary from 6.1m to
11.8kmin lengthand 0.1 to 1.4min diameter.
The transient analysismodels,basedon the method of characteristics, produce
results which are in agreementwith experimentaldata. Also the steady-stateanalysis

modelspredictionare in good agreementwith the predictionsmadefor the SongoSongo
Dar es Salaampipeline. A PENTIUM P75 is just adequateto run the transientanalysis
programmeswhich are basedon the method of characteristicsand the second-order

MacCormackmethod.The programmes
basedon the third-order Warming-Kutler-Lomax
methodrequirea computerwith a greatercapacity. They could be run on the PENTIUM
P75pc available,when constantfluid propertieswere used. The Warming-Kutler-Lomax
method producedgood results, when it was used in cooperationwith the method of

characteristicsin order to smoothenthe rapid variationsthe flow. The predictionswhich
are madeusingthe MacCormackmethodare not satisfactory(refer to section6.3).
The QUANT software for thermodynamic and transport properties of fluids
containsenough substancesto cover all natural gas mixtures at pressure of up to around

6MPa and temperatures of 200K and above. In most high-pressure natural gas pipelines
the pressuresare much higher than 6MPa and during a linebreak the temperature of the gas
near the break falls below the 200K lower limit of QUANT. Additional data were
provided at high pressures,for the particular natural gas mixture used for validation. The
present version of QUANT together with the additional data have successfully been
incorporatedwith the numericalprogrammes. An updated version of the QUANT
which
covers the high-pressure zone was not available in time for this study. The optimum way
of incorporating the QUANT software into the numerical programmes is by producing
292
data files for each particular gas mixture and range of parameter and using an interpolation
procedure to obtain the fluid properties at each required state of the gas. Due to limitations
in computer memory the interpolation procedure could not be used and instead the nearest
data are used.
Sufficient and suitableexperimentaldata were securedand used to validate the
model. Both full-scalepipelineexperimentaldata and data obtainedfrom experimentson

shortpipelinesectionsof up to 243mhavebeenused. All the data usedwere obtainedfrom
experimentscarried out within the past 16 to 26 years. There is plenty of more recent
experimentaldata but its availability for application in this study has proved to be too
difficult.
It was stated in Section 1.3 that one of the objectives of this study was to
investigatefurther the linebreakphenomenon,especiallyat the brokenboundary in order
to understand it better. The other objective was to develop a computer model for
analysisof linebreakin high-pressurenatural gas pipeline,basedon the previousmodel
which was developedby Tiley (1989). Both these objectiveshave been implemented
satisfactorily. The theoreticaldecompressiona-p curve Fig 4.3 at the brokenboundary,
hasbeenconfirmedby computerthe predictions.
The computer model, which is based on the numerical method of characteristics,
is very stablenumerically,unlike the Tiley (1989) and Picard and Bishnoi (1989) model and
also does not suffer singularity problems such as those experienced by Flatt (1986).
Predictions from this model compare better with experimental results than the Tiley's
model and the wave speedsare correctly estimated. The model developed in this study
contains the additional feature of being able to model heat transfer for caseswhere the
pipeline is buried under water, ground or any other medium whose thermal conductivity,
and also the depth of the pipe in the medium are known. In addition to the method of
characteristicsmodel, computer models based on two other numerical methods have been
developed. These two methods were not used by Tiley (1989). The model based
on the
MacCormack method does not seemto be suitablefor high-pressure linebreak applications.
The Warming-Kutter-Lomax method produces results which are comparable with the
method of characteristicsprediction. However, the former methods dependstoo much on

the latter method, in order to be able to produces those results. Further testing of the
models is necessary before making a definite judgement on the suitability and merits of
each of these models.
293
It has been confirmed in this study that for typical high-pressure gas pipeline
ruptures, the lowest gas temperature at the break could sometimes drop below the 200K
minimum limit of the QUANT software. This is contrary to the argument by Silberring
(1993-95) and Flatt (1993-96) that the temperature can never drop to such low values. The
model based on the MacCormack method predicts lower temperature drops than the
method of characteristicsmodel. The former model also predicts higher flow velocities than
the latter.
The comparisonwhichwasmadebetweenthe first-order methods and the second-
order methodfor solutionof the steady-stateflow equationsrevealsthat the second-order
methodproducesresultswhich aresignificantlydifferent and more accuratethan the first-
order methods. In this study the steady-state analysisresults are usedjust as initial
estimates,and are later improved by a transient analysis. Therefore the first-order
backwardmethodis sufficient.In caseswhere more accuratesteady-stateanalysisresults
methodshouldbe used. Comparisonbetweenthe first-order

arerequired,the second-order
and the second-ordermethod of characteristicsresults indicate that the second-order
methodis significantlymoreaccuratethanthe first-ordermethod,only when the flow in the
vicinity of thebreakis considered.However, the second-order methodfails to handlethe
rapidvariationsof fluid propertiesat the initial At's nearthe break. In suchsituationsthe
first-order methodis used.
A major weakness,which is yet to be explained, was discovered when the method
of characteristics was used to model the flow reversal on the downstream section of the
broken pipeline (negativeflow velocity and x increasing away from the break). The model
calculates accurately the fluid properties and the positions on the t-x plane for the
intersections of the characteristics curves with the time level t line (Refer to Fig. 4.4).
However it producesresults which always tend to be biased to the values at the intact end.
This directional bias has the overall effect of predicting a decompression process which
is extremelyslow. No such problems were experienced with the other numerical methods.
The computer models for transient analysis have been validated with experimental
data involving linebreak of pipelines which are as long as 11.8km. It has also been used
to simulate the flow following a rupture in a pipeline which is 68km long. Due to the big
differencebetweenthe grid spacingsat the broken and the intact ends, the round off error
of the computer resultsin a failure of the variable grid method to function properly. This
error does not result in failure of the programme to run. But the model produces results
which are wrong at some grid points. The net effect is to underestimate the flow
velocity. For shorter pipe sections, such a problem does not exist.
294
Sincethe methodof characteristicsis iterative while the explicit finite-difference
method are not, it is expectedthat the computation time of the methodof characteristics
would be much longer than those of the explicit finite-differencemethods. In this study
and explicit finite-difference have computationspeedswhich
the methodof characteristic
do not differ much.The reasonsfor this situation are the extremelyquick convergenceof
the method of characteristicsmodel and comparatively long time taken to retrieve the
variable thermodynamicand transport fluid data from the data file produced using the
QUANT software.
The main sourcesof error in the model prediction and validation results include
round off error of the computer and its related errors especiallythose causedon the
variablegrid method, whichwere explainedearlier. More errors result from interpolation
and also conversion of experimentaldata from graphicalinto numericalform. The latter
error hasbeen minimisedby usingthe scanningtechniqueand graphicsAutocad software.
The other errors are causedby the use of estimatedfluid properties,and some other
parameterssuchasgas composition,initial temperatureetc. Estimatedvalueswere used

becauseof lack of output from the QUANT software and also becausesomeparameters
necessaryfor the computermodel are not provided with experimentaldata.

The previous model by They (1989) had two major weaknesses,namely
the wavespeedsandinstabilityif the solution. Both theseweaknesses
overestimating have
beeneliminatedin this study. The methodof characteristics,which was also usedby Tiley
has proved to be the most suitablenumericalof solution for analysisof transient flow
following linebreakin high-pressuregas pipelines. The first- and second-ordermethods
produce results that are very close together, with the second-ordermethod producing
slightlylowerwavespeedsthanthe first-ordermethod. The first-order methodis over two
times fasterthan the second-ordermethod in computation speedand in somecasesthe
formermethodhandlestheboundaryconditionsbetterthanthe latter method. At
positions
which are further away from the break, the first order method seemsto producebetter
resultsthanthe second-ordermethod. The first order methodis thereforepreferredif the
resultsare requiredfor positionswhich are further away from the break, and the analysis
involveslongpipelines.The first-orderapproximationhasprovedto a very important tool
in modellingof transientflow following linebreakin high-pressuregaspipelines. It is the
only numericalmethod,out of thosestudied,which can handleall the initial gas conditions,

flow variation andgrid sizesbest. It producessufficientlyaccurateresults,with the least
295
computational resources. It therefore provides a practical method for simulating the flow
in long pipelines. Except for the problem of directional bias in the second-order method of
characteristics when modelling the flow in the section of the pipeline downstream of the
break, this study has produced an accurate computer programme, based on the method of
characteristics, for analysis of the flow following a break in high-pressure gas pipelines.
The MacCormack second-ordermethod was previously thought of as being
potentiallybetterfor linebreakproblemsthanthe methodof characteristics.In contrast,this

studyhasconfirmedthat the MacCormackmethodis completelyunsuitablefor modelling
of the flow following linebreakin high-pressuregaspipelines. The third-order Warming-
Kutler-Lomaxmethodproducesresultswhich are comparablewith those producedby the
secondordermethodof characteristics.However, it dependstoo much on the methodof
characteristics,to smoothenthe rapid flow following a break. This makesone wonder
whetherthe resultsareproducedby the Warming-Kutler-Lomaxmethodor the methodof
characteristics.Due to this over-dependence
on the methodof characteristics,it was not
possibleto determinethe execution speedof the Warming-Kutler-Lomax method. It
requiresa lot more computermemorythan the second-ordermethodof characteristics.
296
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adkins, C. J. (1983), "Equilibrium Thermodynamics", 3`d Edition, Cambridge University
Press.
Alberta PetroleumIndustry GovernmentEnvironmentalCommittee (1979), "Hydrogen

SulphideIsopleth Prediction-PhaseII: Pipe Burst Study".
Alberta PetroleumIndustry GovernmentEnvironmentalCommittee (1978), "Hydrogen

SulphideIsopleth Prediction-PhaseI: Model SensitivityStudy".
Allaire,P. E. (1985),"Basicsof the FiniteElementMethod: SolidMechanics,Heat Transfer

and Fluid Mechanics",Wm. C. Brown Publishers,Dubuque,Iowa.
Ames, W. F. (1977), "Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations", Second

Edition, Academic Press, New York.
Ansari, J. S. (1972), "Influence of Including Radial Flow on the Solution of Unsteady Pipe
Flow Equations", Transactions of the ASME, Paper No. 72-FE-28.
Arrison, N. L., Hancox, W. T., Sulatisky, M. T. (1977), "Blowdown of a Recirculating

Loop With Heat Addition", IMECHE, C202/77, pp. 77-82.
Bannister,F. K. and Mucklow, G. F. (1948), "Wave Action Following SuddenReleaseof

CompressedGasfro a Cylinder", Proc. IMECHE, 159,pp. 269.
Batchelor, G. K. (1992), "An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics", Cambridge University Press.
Beauchemin,P. and Marche, C. (1992), "Transients in Complex Closed-Conduit Systems:

Second-Order Explicit Finite Difference Schemes", in Bettess, R. and Watts, J. (Ed. ),
"Unsteady Flow and Fluid Transients", A. A. Balkema, Roterdam, pp. 31-39.
Bhallamudi,M. S. and Chaudhry,M. H. (1990), "Analysisof Transientsin Homogeneous

Gas-LiquidMixtures", in Thorley, A. R. D. (Ed.), "PressureSurges: Proceedingsof the
6"' InternationalConference",BHRA, pp. 343-348.
Bisgaard, C. Sorensen, H. H. and Spangenberg, S. (1987), "A Finite Element Method for
Transient Compressible Flow in Pipelines", Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids, 7,
pp. 291-303.
Bornstein, R. and Roth, W. A. (1920), "Landolt-Bornstein Physikalisch-Chemische

Tabellen", Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin.
Botros, K. K., Jungowski, W. M. and Weiss, M. H. (1989), "Models

and Methods of
Simulating Gas Pipeline Blowdown", Can. J. Chem. Eng., 67,
pp. 529-539.
Boulos, P. F., Wood, D. J. and Funk, J. E. (1990), "A Comparison Numerical

of and Exact
Solution of Pressure Surge Analysis", in Thorley, A. R. D., (Ed. ), "Pressure Surges-
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference", BHRA,
pp. 149-159.
297
Bratland, 0. and Jensen,P. (1990), "Simulation Models of Pressure-Steps in Very Long
Hoses or Pipes With Visco-Elastic Walls", in Thorley, A. R. D. (Ed. ), "Pressure Surges:
Proceedings of the 6" International Conference, BHRA, pp. 59-68.
Brown, F. T. (1969)"A QuasiMethod of CharacteristicsWith Application to Fluid Lines

With Frequency-DependentWall ShearandHeatTransfer",Journalof Basic of Engineering
Transactionsof the ASME SeriesD, 91(2), pp. 217-227.
Budny,D. D., Wiggert,D. C. andHatfield,F. J. (1990),"Energy Dissipationin the Axially-

Coupled Model for Transient Flow", in Thorley, A. R. D. (Ed.), "PressureSurges-
Proceedingsof the 6' InternationalConference",BHRA, pp. 15-26.
Chen, N. H. (1979), "An Explicit Equation for Friction Factor in Pipe", Ind. Eng. Chem.
Fund. 18(3), pp. 296-297.
Chen, J. R., Richardson,S. M. and Saville, G. (1992), "Numerical Simulation of Full-Bore

Ruptures of Pipelines Containing Perfect Gases", Trans. IChemE, 70(B), pp. 59-69.
Chen, J. R., Richardson,S. M. and Saville, G. (1993), "A Simplified Numerical Method for
Two-Phase Pipe Flow", Trans. IChemE, 71(A), pp. 304-306.
Cheng, L. C. and Bowyer, J. M. (1978), "Tube-TransientCompressibleFlow Code", in

Papadakis, C. and Scarton, H. (Eds.), "Fluid Transientsand Acoustics in the Power
Industry", Proceedingsof the Winter Annual Meeting of the American Society of
MechanicalEngineers,pp. 31-35.
Courant, R. Isaacson,E. and Rees, M. (1952), "Communs. Pure Appl. Maths., 5, pp. 243.
Courant, R. and Friedrichs, K. 0. (1948), "Supersonic Flow and Shock-Waves",

Interscience Publishers.
Cronje, J. S., Bishnoi, P. R. and Svrcek, W. K. (1980), "The Application

of the
CharacteristicMethod to Shock Tube Data that Simulate a Gas Pipeline Rupture", Can. J.
Chem. Eng., 58, pp. 289-294.
De Bakker, A. G. (1993), GASUNIE, The Netherlands, "Private Communication".
Dzung, L. S. (1944), "Beitrage zur Thermodynamik Realer Gase", Schweiz, Archiv Bd. 10,
No. 11, pp. 305-313 (German).
Earnshaw,S. (1860), "On the MathematicalTheory of Sound", Phil. Trans., Royal Society,
150, pp. 133.
Eichinger, P. and Lein, G. (1992), "The Influence of Friction

on Unsteady Pipe Flow", in
Bettess,J. and Watts, J., "Unsteady Flow and Fluid Transients", Balkema, Roterdam,
pp.
41-50.
Fan,D. andTijsseling,A. (1990),"Fluid StructureInteractionWith Cavitationin Transient

PipeFlow", ASME J. Fl. Eng., 114(2),pp. 268-274.
298
Fannelop,T. K. and Ryhming, I. L. (1982), "Massive Releaseof Gas From Long Pipelines",
Journal of Energy, 6(2), pp. 132-140.
Fashbaugh,R. H. and Widawsky, A. (1972), "On the Difference Methods for Shock Wave
Propagation in Variable Ducts Including Wall Friction", Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory, Port Heneme, California/ASME.
Feuer,A. (1982),'The PuzzleBook: Puzzlesfor the C ProgrammingLanguage",Prentice-

Hall.
Flatt,R (1985a),"A Singly-IterativeSecondOrderMethod of Characteristicsfor Unsteady

Compressible One-DimensionalFlows", Communicationsin Applied NumericalMethods,
1, pp. 269-274.
Flatt, R. (1985b), "On the Application of Numerical Methods of Fluid Mechanics to the
Dynamics of Real Gases", Forschung im Ingenieurwesen, 51(2), pp. 41-52, in German
(English translation: British Gas Translation No. T07823/BG/LRS/LRST817/86).
Flatt, R. (1986), "Unsteady Compressible Flow in Long Pipelines Following a Rupture",

Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids, 6, pp. 83-100.
Flatt, R. (1989), "Unified Approach of Calculation - of Monophase and

Biphase/Homogeneous Flows of Condensable Pure Fluids", Entropie, '149, pp. 48-55
(French).
Flats, R. (1993a), "Derivation of the ConservationEquationsfor UnsteadyQuasi-One-

DimensionalFlow of Real GasesThrough Non-Rigid Non-Constant-AreaDucts", Swiss
FederalInstitute of Technology,Lausanne(unpublished).
Flatt, R. (I993b), "The Basic Relation of the yS Method", SwissFederalInstitute of

Technology,Lausanne(unpublished).
Flatt, R. (1993-1996), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, "Private

Communication".
Flatt, R. and Trichet, J. C. (1995), "CFD Oriented Thermodynamics for Single and 2-
Phase/EquilibriumFlows of Real Gases",EUROMECH Colloquium 331: Flow With Phase
Transition, Gottingen.
Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon)Ltd (1981), "Final Report on the Test Program at the Northern
Alberta Burst Test Facility", Report No. 18031.
Gathmann,IL J., Hebeker, F. K. and Schöffel, S. (1991), "On the Numerical Simulation
of
Shock Waves in an Annular Crevice and its Implementation on the IBM ES/3090
with
Vector Facility", in Brebbia, C. A., Howard, D. and Peters, A. (Eds.), "Application of
Supercomputers in Engineering II", Computational Mechanics Publications and Elsevier
Applied Science, London, pp. 319-330.
299
Glaister, P. (1994), "An Efficient Shock-CapturingAlgorithm for CompressibleFlows in
a Duct of Variable Cross-Section",Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids, Vol. 18, pp. 107-122.
Glass,I. I. (1958),"ShockTubes-PartI: Theory andPerformanceof Simple Shock Tubes".

UTIA Review, 2(I).
Goldwater M. H. and Fincham, A. E (1981), "Modelling of Gas Supply Systems" in

Nicholson,H. (Ed.), "Modelling of Dynamical Systems,Vol. 2", IEE-Control Engineering
Series13.
Govier, G. W. and Aziz, K. (1972), "Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes", van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Gradle, R. J. (1984) "Design of GasPipelineBlowdowns", Energy Processing,Jan-Feb.
Groves, T. K., Bishnoi, P. R. and Wallbridge, J. E. (1978), "Decompression Wave

Velocities in Natural Gasesin Pipelines",Can. J. Chem. Eng., 56, pp. 664-668.
Groves, T. K. (1976), "MeasuredVelocity of DecompressionWaves in Natural Gas in

Pipelines",Foothills Pipelines(Yukon) Ltd.
Guy, J. J. (1967), "Computation of Unsteady Gas Flow in Pipe Networks", IChemE

SymposiumSeries,23, pp. 139-145.
Hall, J. G. (1958),"ShockTubes-PartII: Production of Strong Shock Waves; Shock Tube

Applications,Design and Instrumentation",UTIA Review, 2(11).
Haque, M. A., Richardson,S. M., Saville, G., Chamberlain,G. and Shirvill, L. (1992),
"Slowdown of PressureVessels:H. ExperimentalValidationof Computer Model and Case
Studies",Trans. IChemE, 70(B), pp. 10-17.
Haque, M. A., Richardson, S. M. and Saville, G. (1992), "Blowdown of Pressure Vessels:

1. Computer Model", Trans. IChemE, Vol. 70(B), pp. 3-9.
Haque, M. A., Richardson, S. M., Saville, G. and Chamberlain, G. (1990), "Rapid

Depressurizationof PressureVessels",J. Loss Prev. ProcessInd., Vol. 3, pp. 4-7.
Hardy BBT Ltd. (1989), "Kilwa Kivinje-Dar es SalaamGas Pipeline Feasibility Study",
TanzaniaPetroleumDevelopmentCorporation, Project No. CG10305 (R).
Hartree, D. R. (1964), "Numerical Analysis", SecondEdition, Oxford University Press.
Hirose,M. (1971),"Frequency-Dependent Wall Shearin Transient Fluid Flow: Simulation

of UnsteadyTurbulent Flow", MSc. Dissertation,MassachusettsInstitute of Technology.
Hoffmann, K. A. (1989), "Computational Fluid Dynamics for Engineers", Engineering

Education Systems(EES), Texas.
Holman, J. P. (1980), "Thermodynamic",Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
300
Holt, M. (1984), "Numerical Methods in Fluid Dynamics", 2ndEdition, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Huang, W. and Sloan, D. M. (1993), "A New PseudospectralMethod With Upwind

Features",IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 13, pp. 413-430.
Ilic, V. (1987), "Two-Phase Blowdown Through a Short Tube", in Dodge, F. T. and

Moody, F. J., "Fluid Transientsin Fluid-StructureInteraction-1987", FED, 56, ASME, pp.
87-92.
IPS (1995.a), Dar es Salaam,20'hJuly.
IPS (1995.b), Dar es Salaam,27thSept.
UnsteadyCompressibleFlow With Friction and Heat

Issa,R. I. (1970), "One-Dimensional
Transfer", MSc Dissertation,Imperial College of Scienceand Technology, University of
London.
Jones,D. G. andGough,D. W. (1981),"Rich GasDecompressionBehaviour in Pipelines",

AGA-EPRG Linepipe ResearchSeminarIV, Duisburg, British Gas, Report No. ERS E
293.
Kagawa, T., et al. (1983) " High Speedand Accurate Computing Method of Frequency-
DependentFriction in LaminarPipeFlow for CharacteristicsMethod", JSME, 49(447), pp.
26- 38 (Japanese).
Kawabe, R. (1982), "An Analytical Method for Thermal-Hydraulic Transientsin Piping

Networks", Nucl. Eng. and Design, 73, pp. 441-446.
Kay, W. B. (1936), "Densityof HydrocarbonGasesand Vapours", Ind. Eng. Chem.,28(9),

pp. 1014-1019.
Kernighan,B. W. and Ritche, D. (1978), "The C ProgrammingLanguage",Prentice-Hall.
Kernighan,B. W. and Pike, R. (1984), "The Unix ProgrammingEnvironment", Prentice-

Hall.
Kimambo,C. Z. M. (1987),"Energyin Tanzania",PaperPresentedat a SeminarOrganised

by DevelopmentEducation Centre,Energy for All Project, Cumbria, Feb. 1987.
Kimambo,C. Z. M. andThorley,A. (1995), "Computer Modelling of TransientsRuptured

High PressureNatural GasPipelines:A Review of Experimentaland Numerical Studies",
C502/003, IMECHE.
Kiuchi, T. (1993), "An Implicit Method for Transient Flow in Pipe Networks", Paper
Submittedfor Publication.
301
Knox, H. W., Atwell, L. D., Angle, R., Willoughby, R. and Dielwart, J. (1980), "Field
Verification of Assumptions for Modelling Sour Gas Pipelines and Well Blowouts".
PetroleumSociety of CIM, PaperNo. 80-31-46.
Kunsch, J. P., Sjoen, K. and Fannelop,T. K. (1991), "Loss Control by Subsea Barrier Valve
for Offshore Gas Pipeline", 23'dAnnual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
OTC 6616.
Kunsch, J. P., Sjoen, K. and Fannelop, T. K. (1995), "Simulation of Unsteady Flow,

Massive Releasesand Blowdown of Long, High-PressurePipelines", 1995 International
Gas ResearchConference,Cannes,France.
Kuo, S. S. (1972), "Computer Applications of Numerical Methods", Addison-Wesley,

Reading.
Lang, E. and Fannelop, T. K. (1987), "Efficient Computation of the Pipeline Break

Problem", in Dodge, F. T. and Moody, F. J. (Eds.), "Fluid Transient in Fluid-Structure
Interaction", FED 56, ASME, pp. 115-123.
Lang, E. (1991), "Gas Flow in Pipelines Following a Rupture Computed by a Spectral

Method", J. Appl. Maths. and Physics (ZAMP), 42, pp. 183-197.
Lapidus,L. andPinder,G. F. (1982), "Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations

in Scienceand Engineering",John Wiley and Sons,New York.
Lavooij, C. S. W and Tijsseling, A. S. (1990), "Fluid Structure Interaction in Compliant

Piping Systems", in Thorley, A. R. D. (Ed), "Pressure Surges-Proceedingsof the 6"
International Conference,BHRA, pp.85-100.
Lax, P. and Wendroff, B. (1960), "Systemsof ConservationLaws", Comm. Pure Appl.

Math., 13, pp. 217-237.
Lister,M. (1960),"The NumericalSolutionof Hyperbolic Partial Differential Equationsby

the Method of Characteristics",in Ralston, A. and Wilf, H. S. (Eds.), "Mathematical
Methods for Digital Computers",John Wiley & Sons,pp. 165-179.
Lyczkowski,R W., Grimesey,R A. andSolbrig,C. W. (1978), "Pipe Blowdown Analyses

Using Explicit Numerical Schemes",AICHE SymposiumSeries,74 (14),
pp. 129-140.
MacCormack,R. (1971), "Numerical Solution of the Interaction of a Shock Wave
with a
LaminarBoundary Layer", in Holt, M. (Ed.), Lecture Notes in Physics;Vol. 8, Springer-
Verlag, New York, pp. 151-163.
MacCormick,S. F. [Ed.] (1987), "Multigrid Methods: Frontiers in Applied Mathematics",

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.
Mallinson, J. (1996), British Gas, Gas Research Centre, Loughborough, "Private

Communication".
302
Martin, D. J. (1967), "Equations of State", Ind. Eng. Chem., 59(12), pp. 34-52.
Mathers, W. G., Zuzak, W. W., McDonald, B. H. and Hancox, W. T. (1976), "On Finite
Difference Solutions to the TransientFlow-Boiling Equations", Committee on Safety of
NuclearInstallationsSpecialistsMeetingon Transient Two-PhaseFlow, Toronto, Ontario,
PergamonPress,pp. 278-315.
Meissner, L. P. and Organick, E. I. (1980), "FORTRAN 77: Featuring Structured

Programming",Addison-WesleyPublishingCompany,Reading.
Ministry of Water Energy and Minerals, Ocelot TanzaniaInc. and TransCanadaPipelines

Ltd. (1994), "Songo Songo Gas DevelopmentProject", Brochure.
Ministry of WaterEnergy and Minerals (1990), "Energy Balance:Tanzania, 1990" Dar es

Salaam.
Moe, R and Bendiksen, K. H. (1993), "Transient Simulation of 2D and 3D Stratified and

Intermittent Two-Phase Flows. PART I: Theory", Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids, 16, pp. 461-
487.
Monro, D. M. (1985), "FORTRAN 77", Edward Arnold Ltd, London.
Morrow, T. (1996), Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas, "Private

Communication".
Münster, A. (1969), "Statistical Thermodynamics: Volume I", Springer-Verlag,Berlin.
Niessner, H. (1980), "Comparisonof Different Numerical Methods for Calculating One

Dimensional Unsteady Flows", Lecture Series 1980-1, Lecture No. 16, von Karman
Institute for Fluid Dynamics,Sweden.
Ohmi, M., Kyomen, S., and Usui, T. (1985), "Numerical Analysisof TransientTurbulent
Flow in a Liquid Line", Bulletin of JSME, Vol. 28, No. 239, pp. 799-806.
Oliemans, R. V. A. (1987), "Modelling of Two-Phase Flow of Gas and Condensatein

Horizontal and Inclined Pipes", Paper for Presentationat the 6d ASME Annual Pipeline
EngineeringSymposium,Dallas.
Olorunmaiye,J. A. andImide,N. E. (1993), "Computationof Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture

ProblemsUsing the Method of Characteristics",J. HazardousMaterials, 34, pp. 81-98.
Osiadacz,A. J. andYedroudj,M. (1989), "A Comparisonof a Finite ElementMethod and

a Finite Difference Method for Transient Simulation of a Gas Pipeline", Appl. Math.
Modelling, 13, pp 79-85.
Osiadacz,A. J (1987), "Simulation of Analysisof GasNetworks", Spon, London.
Otwell, R. S., Wiggert,D. C. andHatfield, F. J. (1985), "The Effect of Elbow Restraint on

PressureTransients",Journal of Fluids Engineering,Vol. 107, No. 3, ASME.
303
Padmanabhan,M., Ames, W. F. and Martin, C. S. (1978), "Numerical Analysis of Pressure
Transients in Bubbly Two-Phase Mixtures by Explicit-Implicit Methods", J. Eng. Maths.,
12(1), pp. 83-93.
Picard, D. J. and Bishnoi, P. R. (1988), "The Importance of Real-Fluid Behaviour and

Nonisentripic Effects in Modelling DecompressionCharacteristicsof Pipeline Fluids for
Application in Ductile FracturePropagationAnalysis", Can. J. Chem. Eng., 66, pp. 3-12.
Picard,D. J. andBishnoi,P. R (1987);"Calculationof the ThermodynamicSound Velocity

in Two-PhaseMulticomponent Fluids", Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 13(3), pp. 295-308.
Picard, D. J. and Bishnoi, P. R. (1989), "The Importance of Real-Fluid Behaviour in

PredictingReleaseRatesResultingFrom High-PressureSour-GasPipelineRuptures", Can.
J. ChemEng., 67, pp. 3-9.
Press,W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T. and Flannery,B. P. (1992), "Numerical

Recipesin C: The Art of Scientific Computing", CambridgeUniversity Press,2ndEdition.
Rachford,H. H. Jr. and Dupont, T. (1974), "A Fast Highly Accurate Meansof Modelling
TransientFlow in GasPipelineSystemsby Variational Methods", Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 14, pp.
165-178.
Rachford,H. H. Jr. (1972),"TransientPipelineCalculationsImprove Design", Oil and Gas

J., 70(44), pp. 54-57.
Rachid, F. B. F. and Stuckenbruck, S. (1990), "Transients in Liquid and Structure in

Viscoelastic Pipes", in Thorley, A. R. D. (Ed.), "PressureSurges:Proceedingsof the 61
InternationalConference,BHRA, pp. 69-84.
Ralston,A. and Wilf, H. S. [Ed.] (1964), "MathematicalMethods for Digital computers",

John Wiley & Sons,Inc., New York.
Richardson,S. M. andSaville,G. (1991), "Blowdown of Pipelines",Society of Petroleum

Engineers,SPE23070,pp. 369-377.
Richardson, S. M. (1993-1996), Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical

Technology,Imperial College,London, "Private Communication".
Richtmyer, R. D. (1957), "Difference Methods for Initial-Value Problems", Interscience

Tracts in Pure and Applied Mathematics,Number 4, IntersciencePublishers,Inc., New
York, ChapterX.
Rowlinson,J. S. andWatson, I. D. (1969), "The Prediction of ThermodynamicProperties

of FluidsandFluid mixtures-I: The Principle of CorrespondingStatesand its Extensions",
Chem.Eng. Sc., 24, pp. 1565-1574.
Ryhming I. L. (1987), "On the Expansion Wave Problem in a Long Pipe with Wall
Friction", ZAMP, 38.
304
Saad, M. A., (1985) "Compressible Fluid Flow", Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Saville, G. and Szczepanski,R. (1982), "Methane-Based Equations of State for a

CorrespondingStatesReferenceSubstance",Chem. Eng. Sc., 37(5), pp. 719-725.
Schildt, H. (1989), "ANSI C Made Easy", McGraw-Hill.
Schmidt, F. W., Henderson, R. E. and Wolgemuth, C. H. (1984), "Introduction to Thermal

Sciences: Thermodynamics, Fluid Dynamics, Heat Transfer", John Wiley & Sons.
Scientific Software-Intercomp (1990), "Songo Songo Reservoir Study", Tanzania

Petroleum Development Corporation.
Sens, M., Jouve, P. and Pelletier, R. (1970), "Detection of a Break in a Gas Line", 110'
International Gas Conference,Moscow, Paper No. IGU/C37-70, in French, (English
Translation:British Gas, TranslationNo. BG. TRANS 4910).
Shin, Y. W. (1978), "Two-Dimensional Fluid Transient Analysis by the Method of

in PapadakisC. and ScartonH. (Ed.), "Fluid Transientsand Acoustics in
Characteristics",
the Power Industry", ASME, New York, pp. 179-185.
Silberring, L. (1990), "Thermodynamicand Transport Propertiesof Gasesfor Computer

Aided Engineering", Paper Presentedat the 21" International CODATA Conference,
Columbus,Ohio.
Silberring,L. (1991), "A TemperatureFunction for the Virial Coefficients", Entropie, No.
164/165,pp. 139-140.
Silberring, L. (1991), "A Computer Program Systemfor Thermodynamicand Transport

Propertiesof Real Gases",SilberringEngineeringLtd., Zurich.
Silberring,L. (1993-1996),SilberringEngineeringLtd., Zurich, "Private Communication".
Silberring,L. (1995), "Thermodynamicand Transport Property Data for a Typical Natural

GasMixture at High Pressures",Suppliedin a Diskette on Request(Unpublished).
Silvester,P. P. (1984), "The Unix SystemGuidebook: An Introductory Guide for Serious

Users", Springer-Verlag.
Stittgen,M. andZielke,W. (1990), "Fluid Structure Interaction in Flexible Curved Pipes",

in Thorley, A. K D. (Ed.), "Pressure Surges-Proceedingsof the 6' International
Conference,BHRA, pp. 101-120.
Straty,G. C. (1974), "Velocity of Soundin DenseFluid Methane", Cryogenics,July 1974.
Suwan, K. and Anderson, A. (1992), "Method of Lines Applied to Hyperbolic Fluid

TransientEquations", Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., 33, pp. 1501-1511.
305
Swaffield, J. A. (1967), "A Study of the Influence of Bends on Fluid Transients in
Pipelines",MPhil Thesis,City University, London.
Swaffield, J. A. (1968-69), "The Influence of Bends on Fluid Transients Propagated in

IncompressiblePipe Flow", Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs., Vol. 183, Part 1, No. 29, pp. 603-614.
Swamee,P. K. and Jain, A. K. (1976), "Explicit Equations for Pipe-Flow Problems", ASCE
J. Hydr. Div., pp. 657-664.
Taylor, D. L. (1992), "Computer-Aided Design", Addinson-WesleyPublishingCompany,

Reading.
The Guardian(1995), TanzanianNewspaper, 13thOct
Thorley, A. R. D. (1991), "Fluid Transientsin PipelineSystems",D. & L. GeorgeLtd.
Thorley,A. R. D. andTiley, C. H. (1987), "Unsteadyand TransientFlow of Compressible

Fluids in Pipelines:A Review of Theoretical and Some ExperimentalStudies", Int. J. of
Heat and Fluid Flow, 8(1), pp. 3-15.
Tijsseling, A. S. and Lavooij, C. S. W (1990), "Fluid Structure Interaction and Column

Separation in a Straight Elastic Pipe", in Thorley, A. R. D. (Ed.), "PressureSurges:
Proceedingsof the 6" InternationalConference",BHRA, pp. 27-42.
Tijsseling, A. S. (1993), "Fluid-Structure Interaction in the Caseof WaterhammerWith

Cavitation", Communicationson Hydraulic and GeotechnicalEngineeringof the Faculty
of Civil Engineering,University of Dundee,Report No. 93-6, ISSN. 0169-6548.
Tiley, C. H. (1989), "PressureTransientsin a Ruptured Gas Pipeline With Friction and

Thermal Effects Included", PhD Thesis,City University, London.
Trikha, A. K. (1975), "An EfficcientMethod for SimulatingFrequencyDependentFriction

in TransientLiquid Flow", Tranc. ASME, J. Fluid Eng., 977, pp. 97-105.
Tsumura,R andStraty,G. C. (1977),"Speedof Soundin Saturatedand CompressedFluid

Ethane", Cryogenics,April 1977.
Van Reet, J. D. and Skogman, K. D. (1987), "The Effect of Measurement Uncertainty on

Real Time Pipeline Modelling Applications", 1987 ASME Pipeline Engineering
Symposium-ETCE, Dallas, Tx.
Van Deen, J. K. and Reintsema, S. R. (1983), "Modelling of High-Pressure Gas

Transmission Lines", Appl. Math. Modelling, 7, pp. 268-273.
Vardy, A. E.(1993), Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Dundee, "Private

Communication".
Vardy, A. E., Hwang, K. L. and Brown, J. M. B. (1993) "AWeighting Function Model

of TransientTurbulent Pipe Friction", J. Hyd. Res., 31(4), pp. 533-548.
306
Vardy, A (1992) Approximating Unsteady Friction at High Reynolds Numbers", in
,"
Bettess, R. and Watts, J. (Eds. ), "Unsteady Flow and Fluid Transients", Balkema,
Roterdam, pp. 21-29.
Vardy, A. E. and Fan, D. (1990), "Flexural Waves in a Closed Tube", in Thorley, A. R. D.

(Ed. ), "PressureSurges: Proceedings of the 6" International Conference", BHRA, pp. 43-
58.
Vetterling, W. T., Teukosky, S. A., Press,W. H. and Flannery,B. P. (1992), "Numerical

Recipes:ExampleBook (C)", 2"aEdition CambridgeUniversity Press.
Warming,R F., Kutler, P. and Lomax, H. (1973), "Second-andThird-Order Noncentered

DifferenceSchemesfor NonlinearHyperbolicEquations", AIAA Journal, 11, pp. 189-196.
Weber SystemsInc. Staff (1984), "C Users' Handbook", Addison-Wesley,Reading.
Weimann,A. (1978),"GasDistribution Network Dynamic Modelling and Simulationwith

Respectto Network Control and Monitoring", Thesis,Technical University of Munich, in
German(English Translation:British Gas Translation No. LRS T 435).
Welty, J. R (1978), "EngineeringHeat Transfer", John Wiley & Sons.
White F. M. (1988), "Fluid Mechanics",SecondEdition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Wilson,D. J. (1981), "Expansionand Plume Rise of Gas Jets from High PressurePipeline
Ruptures", Alberta Environment, Pollution Control Division.
Wood, D. J., Dorsch, R. G. and Lightner, C. (1966), "Wave-Plan Analysis of Unsteady

Flow in ClosedConduits", ASCE-Journalof Hydraulics Division, 92(HY2), pp. 83-92.
Wood, D. J., Funk, J. E. and Boulos, P. F. (1990), "Pipe Network Transients-Distributed

and Lumped Parameter Modelling", in Thorley, A. R. D. (Ed.), "Pressure
Surges-Proceedings of the 6th International Conference", BHRA, pp. 131-142.
Wortman,L. A. and Sidebottom,T. 0. (1984), "The C ProgrammingTutor", Prentice-Hall.
Wu, H. L., Pots, B. F. M., Hollenberg, J. F. and Meerhoff, R. (1987), "Two-Phase,

Gas/CondensateFlow at High Pressure in an 8-Inch Horizontal Pipe", Paper for
Presentationat the 3rdInternationalConferenceon Multiphase Flow, The Hague.
Wylie, E. B. and Streeter,V. L. (1978), "Fluid Transients",McGraw-Hill.
Wylie, E. B. (1982), "Fluid Transient in Two Spatial Dimensions", Paper for Presentation
at the 1982 Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, ASME, Orlando, Florida.
Yigang,C. andTing-Chao,S. (1990), "An Efficient Approximate Expressionfor Transient

Flow of High Viscous Fluid in Hydraulic Pipelines",in Thorley, A. R. D. (Ed.) "Pressure
Surges-Proceedingsof the 6`hInternationalConference",BHRA, pp. 15-26.
307
Zemansky, M. W. and Dittman, R. H. (1983), "Heat and Thermodynamics",G"'Edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York, Chapter 13.
Zha, G. C. andBilgen,E. (1993), "NumericalSolution of Euler Equationsby Using a New

Flux Vector Splitting Scheme",Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids, 17, pp. 115-144.
Zielke, W. (1968), "Frequency-DependentFriction in Pipe Flow", Journal of Basic

Engineering,March, pp. 109-115.
Zigrang, D. J. and Sylvester, N. D. (1985), "A Review of Explicit Friction Factor

Equations",J. Energy ResourcesTechnology, Trans. ASME, 107(2), pp. 280-283.
Zucrow, M. J. and Hoffman, J. D. (1977), "Gas Dynamics:Multidimensional Flow, Vol.

2 ", John Wiley & Sons,Chapter 19, pp. 295-399.
308
APPENDICES
A GENERAL EQUATIONS
Cross-sectionareaof the pipe:

Ad (A-I)
Flow velocity of fluid:

A
(A-2)
pA
Friction factor calculatedusing the Chen's explicit equation:

1" c-5.0452 IE1.1098 5.8506
lo g lo g(2.82577 )D + (A -3 )
-2.0
fD 3.7065 d Re Re 0.8911
Frictional force per unit length of the pipe:

AdP u2
fo (A-4)
Reynold's number:
Re - Pud (A-5)
µ
Heat transfer acrossthe pipe calculatedby the Stantonnumbermethod:

0= nd pu CpSt(T,v- T) (A-6)
Stantonnumber:
Nu h
St . (A-7)
Pr Re puCp
St - f(Pr Re) (A-8)

,
Staticpressure:
p= Zips (A-9)
Speedof sound/wavespeedfor a perfect gas:
apKKZRT (A-10)
P
andfor a realgas:
P Y,
a"y, ZR T (A-11)
P
309
Prandtl number
Pr - (A-12)
k
Nussetl number:
Nit "hd k (A-13)
Grasshoffnumber:
Gr P2 d3 &T (A-14)
.ßg
µ2
Mach number:
Ma -u (A-15)
a
B EXPRESSIONS FOR EQUATION OF STATE
The equationof state for a perfect gas is

p" pRT (B-1)
The general equation of state for a real-gas is

P- ZpRT (B-2)
Van Der Waal equation of state (1873)
NRT NSA
p (B-3)
V-NB V2
Where N Is the number of molts
Dietrici equationof state (1899)

RT (-. A
CXP (B-4)
jr V-B RTV
Berthelotequationof state (1903)

RT
P -A (B-5)
V-B yy ý
where A and B in equation(B-3) to (B-5) are constants.
Redlich-Kwong equation of state (1949)

TA 0.42748
PR 0 _ (B-6)
ZC(VR-0.08664 /Z, ) TR .$Z. 2 VR(VR. 0.08664 /Zý2
310
Soave-Redlich-Kwong(SRK) equation of state (1972)
RT Jr
p. (B-7)
ä-b v"(v".b )
where RT
b"0.08664
PC
ä(T) " a(T,,)ä(Trw)
R 2Tc 2
J(T) - 0.4247747
PC
s)]2
ä(T,. w) " [1"rn(1-T;
m-0.480 1.574W-0.176W2
Peng-Robinson(PR) equationof state (1976)

RT ä(T)
f, (B-g)
- _ b). b(v'-b)
v-, v"(v".
where
RT
b"0.077780 c
PC
J(7) - ä(Tc)&(Tr.w)
R2T2
ä(TC) " 0.45724 r
PC
ä(T,, w) " [1. n(1-Ti's)]
ni " 0.377464 . 1.54226w-0.26992 w2
Martin equationof state(1949)
RT A2'B2T. C2eý A3'B3T'C3e A4"B4T"C4e

p. ...
v-b (v-b)2 (v-b)3 (v-b)4
As'b5T.Cse-xr A6.B6T.C6e-kr A7.B7T.C7e.kr

(B-9)
(v-b)s e ov e -2ov
where a, b, K, A, to A,, B, to B7 and Cl to C7are constants.
The two parameter thermal equation of state of Martin based on the principle of
correspondingstatesis
T, 9(4-T)
Pf "
Z, ' v, 0.085 64(Z, v, 0.04)2
311
where
PQ
P, .LT, "T VP " Ze " 0.28366
pc T` p
Note Z. is the pseudo-criticalreal gas factor
The Martin equation solved explicitly with respect to T, is

]
(Z, * v, - 0.085)[36#64(Z." v, 0.04)2P,
Tr - (B-11)
9(Z, * v, 0.085). 64(ZcO yr 0.04)2
Van Reet-Skogmanequation of state (1987)

1- P
1r- (B-12)
z rY
where y Is a constant .
Clausiusequationof state (1930)

p(v-b) - RT (B-13)
Benedict-Webb-Rubin equation of state

CO
RTB ö Aö
RT T2 RD as C to
P- -a (1" )e (B-14)
0 ;3 ;6 ; 3'. 2 ;2
where Aa, B0, Co, a, b, c. a, ca are empirical constants
Redlich-Kwong equationof state

RT
P (B-15)
v-b -a
v(v. b)TO*5
where
(48R Tc512 (64 RTC)
a"0.427 b"0.086
PC PC
Beattie-Bridgemanequation of state (1928)

(-)
p- RT (v. ) -v (B-16)
A" Ao(1-a), B" Bo(1-b),

where c"C
vv vT3
Thevaluesof the five constantsA a, Bo,b, arein literaturefor somegases.
Kamerlingh-Onnesequationof state (1902), in the virial form:

C........
pv -NRT (1 "B. ) (B-17)
v v2
in termsof powersof the pressuremaybeusedasshownbelow;

An expression
NRT Bp Gip2 (B..18)
pv " " . ".........)
312
Saville-Szczepanskimethane-basedequationsof state
p- pRT . p24 1T . A2T'12 . A3 . AIT . ASIT2)
. p3(f6T. A7T"n. As: AylT2)
. p4(A10T. All " A121T)
' pSA13 " p6 ,1T. A15/T2). p7A1JT
' p'cif , /T . AI=/T2)
(A2jT2
" P9A19IT2 . P3 e'YP2[ " A211T3)
" P2(A2JT2 . A2IT4). p442/T2. AdT3)
A2/T 4) /T2
" P642/T2 . " Pe42, " A2dT3)
" P1003dT2 . A21/T3 . A3JT4)1 (A2.19)
p- pRT. p2(61T. B2Tin. B3. B41T. BSIT2
B7IT 3) BVT B101T3)

" p3(B6T . . p4(8g . "
ps(11T2 . B12/T2 ` p6B131T2
` p8B141T ' p9B15/T ' p11B1a/T2
4)
p3C. YP2E(17/T2 ' B11/T . p2B19/T4
4B20/T2. 6B21/T2"p oý22/T2. B, /T 4)J (A2.20)

'p p
313
C EXPRESSIONS FOR FRICTION FACTOR
C-1 LAMINAR FLOW: Re < 2100
Hagen-Poiseuilleequation
64 (C-1)
ID - Re
C-2 TRANSITION ZONE
C-2.1 Implicit Equations
Colebrooke equation(1938)
d
Valid up E"0.01
(Re f)
1"2.0 E+2.5226
log (C-2)
fD 3.7065 d Re ID
Oliemansexpressionfor two-phaseflow (1976)

1" 2c 18.7
-2.0 log * . 1.74 (C-3)
FD deff Reff
p
Re is a two-phase Reynolds number and doffis the effective diameter for the two, - phase
mixture.
(1938-39)or Prandtl-Colebrooke
Colebrooke-White equation
1- 2.53
-2.0 log (C-4)
FD 3.7d Re lv
1"2 E. (I . 9.35d)
log 1.14 -2 log
fD d
eRe fD
C-2.2 Explicit Equations
Chen equation(1979 : All valuesof Re and e/d

1e_5.0452 E 1.1098 5.8506
fD - -2.0 log log (C-5)
3.7065d Re 2.82577 D Re0.2911
Churchill equation (1977) : For all Re and e/d

/1 12 11 12
AD-8 (C-6)
1Rel 3
(A. B) 2
314
where
16 r 37530 1 16
1
A- 2.4547 In B- J
C ) 0.9 r Re
0.277 Id
Re
Wood equation (1966): Re > 10,000and 105< e/d < 0.04

AD -a. bRe' (C-7)
0.225 0.44 (.
E+0.53 £ b- 88.0 Ec-1.62 1)0.134
where a-0.094
dddd
Swamee-Jain equation (1976): 5000 s Re s 10' and 10-6s e/d s 10'2

1=2 e 5.74
log . (C-8)
fD 3.7d Re0.9
1.325
AD .
2
e 5.74
In
37d ReO9
Generalised Haaland equation (1983): n=3 recommended for gas transmission lines
1.1.8 9RfE1.11N
lo -6 C. 9)
fD ng Re d
3.7d
Shachamequation(1980)
1" e 14.5
-2.0 log (C-10)
ID 3.7d Ra
Simple Zigrang-Sylverster equatior (1982)

1" e 13
-2.0 log (C-11)
ID 3.7d Re
Moody equation(1976)
6
() Rc 3
fD " 0.0055 1.20.000 . (C-12)
Jain equation (1947)
1-1.14 E, 11,25
-2 log (C-13 )
Fd o.
Re 9
D
Simpleequation of Chen(1979)
IE1.11 7.15 0.9
" -2.0 log (C-14 )

ID 2.549d Re
315
Simple equationof Serghides(1984)
t- c. 12
log (C-15)
fD
-2.0 3.7d Re
I
IntermediateZigrang-Sylversterequation(1982)
1-2.0 e-5.02 c. 13
log log (C-16)
jD 3.7d Re 3.7d Re
IntermediateZigrang-Sylversterequations(1985)
1)
1 e-2.51 e 21.25
log 1.14 - 21og (C-17)
-2.0 3.7d d o"9
fD Re Re
1. 6_9 11p
1_5__r.
lo E-4.518 lo8 iC"18)
-2.0 g
FD 3.7d Re Re 3.7d
Zigrang-Sylversterequationof highestprecision(1982)
1 5.02 C 5.02 13
Olog e_ log e loge (C-19)
-"- -2.
ID 3.7d Re 3.7d Re 3.7d Re
Serghidesequationsof highestprecision(1984)
1 (3.7d 1.02 5.02 13
log __E_1.02 log E log E (C-20)
-2. Olog _L_. -
XD Re 3.7d Re 3.7d Re 3.7d Re
Zigrang-Sylverster equation of highest precision (1985)

(CA)2
fD "A- (C-21)
C-2B. A
and
(A - 4.781)2 .z
AD " 4.781 - (C-22)
B- 2A . 4.781
where
12)
A" -2 log .R (C-22a)
3.7d e
A1
B" -2 log IE*2.51 (C-22 b)
J
` 3.7d Re
2.51 Bl )
C" log E (C-22c)
-2
3.7d Re
316
C-2.3 PARTIALLY DEVELOPED TURBULENCE
Chaudhryequation (1979) : IR,> 2000

JD - 0.046 Re -0.2 (C-23)
Panhandle'A' equation
1-3.39
Re0.0773
E (C-24)
ID
where E is the efficiencyof the systemand is an adjustableparameterwhich allows for the

effects of the minor losses in
and variation pipe roughness.
Uhl equation(1965)
1" fD
-2 F log 4 (C-25)
fD Re
Where F is the drag factor to account for the effect of bendsand fittings.
Smith equation(1956)
1"2 2D
log Re " 0.3 (C-26)
lD
Blasius equation(1911) : Re> 10'

fD - 0.3160 Re ,0'25 (C-27)
C-2.4 FULLY DEVELOPED TURBULENCE
Smith equation(1956)
1"2 3.7d
log 2.2773 (C-28)
FD .
E
Nikuradse equation(1932) : Smooth pipe and 3000 < Re < 3.4x 106
1-2.0
tog(RelD . 0.8 (C-29)
AD
Von Karman equation (1932): Rough pipe and (d/e)/(Ref1) > 0.01
1-2 E.
logt 1.74 (C-30)
lo `
317
D LIST OF PROGRAMMES AND SUB-ROUTINES
BREAK driver routine for transientanalysisafter the break

BRINC driver routine for initiating the break and calculatinginitial fluid properties
at the break
BRINCU routine for calculating initial break conditions in both upstream and
downstreamsectionswith uniform grid size.
BRINCV routine for calculating initial break conditions in both upstream and
downstream
sectionswith variablegrid size.
BRMCCAUD transientanalysisdownstreamafter the breakwith uniform grid size and pipe
exposedto the atmosphere

BRMCCAUU transientanalysisupstreamafter the break with uniform grid size and pipe

BRMCCAVD transientanalysisdownstreamafter the breakwith variablegrid size and pipe

BRMCCAVU transientanalysisupstreamafter the break with variablegrid size and pipe

downstream
BRMOCAUDtransientanalysis afterthebreakwith uniformgrid sizeandpipe
BRMOCAUU transientanalysisupstreamafter the break with uniform grid size and pipe

BRMOCAVD transientanalysisdownstreamafter the breakwith variablegrid size and pipe

BRMOCAVUtransientanalysisupstreamafterthe breakwith variablegrid sizeandpipe
BRWKLAUD transientanalysisdownstreamafter the breakwith uniform grid size and pipe

BRWKLAUU transientanalysisupstreamafter the break with uniform grid size and pipe

BRWKLAVD transientanalysisdownstreamafter the breakwith variablegrid size and pipe

BRWKLAVU transientanalysisupstreamafter the break with variablegrid size and pipe
318
CALCQDB execution of MS-DOS commands for automatic execution of QDB
in
programme the QUANT software
CLEARSCR clearing the screen
CTWORK promptingthe userto indicatewhetheror not he wishesto continue running
the programme
DFGEN Creating ASCII data books from the QUANT programmefor the domain
of fluid parameter
FLDPARAS writing input parametersin binary randomaccessfile paras.
usr for running
the QUANT programme
FLDPROPB Readingoutput datafrom binary random accessfile props.dat producedby
the QUANT programme
FLDPROPS Readingoutput data from ASCII file producedby the FLDPROPB
FLDPROPV Reading output data from ASCII data book produced by the subroutine
and interpolating for the required input parameters

GRIDGEN sub-programmefor grid generation
HEATATM Calculation of heat transferthrough a pipe exposedto the atmosphere
HEATGR Calculationof heat transferthrough a buried pipe
INIQDB execution of MS-DOS commandsto call the programme QDB in the
QUANT software, for manual inputting of the input parametersand
executionof calculation
INITIAL initiating the executionof the main programme
MCC sub-programmefor second-orderanalysisusing the MacCormack method
MOCD sub-programme for second-order method of characteristics analysis
downstreamthe break
MOCU sub-programme for second-order method of characteristics analysis
upstreamthe break
MTRANS main/driver routine
SBMOCAU1 first-order calculationof new dependentparameters p, u and p using the
method of characteristics,with uniform grid size and pipe exposedto the

atmosphere
SBMOCAU2 second-ordercalculationof new dependentparametersp, u and p using the
method of characteristicsand with uniform grid size
319
SBMOCAV 1 first-order calculation of new dependentparameters p, u and p using the
method of characteristics, with variable grid size and pipe exposedto the
atmosphere
SBMOCAV2 second-ordercalculationof new dependentparametersp, u and p using the
method of with
characteristics, variable grid size and pipe exposedto the
atmosphere
SBMOCGUI first-ordercalculationof newdependentparametersp, u and p usingthe
method of characteristics,with uniform grid size and buried pipe
SBMOCGU2 second-ordercalculationof new dependentparametersp, u and p using the
method of characteristics,with uniform grid size and buried pipe

SBMOCGV 1 first-order calculation of new dependentparameters p, u and p using the
method of characteristics,with variablegrid size and buried pipe

SBMOCGV2 second-ordercalculationof new dependentparametersp, u and p using the
with variablegrid
methodof characteristics, sizeandburiedpipe
SBMOCVUI first-order calculation of new dependentparameters p, u and p using the
method of characteristicsand with variablegrid size and without

interpolation
SDMOCAV2 second-ordercalculation of new dependentparametersp, u and p for the
downstream
section,usingthe methodof characteristics,
with variablegrid
sizeandpipeexposedto the atmosphere
SDMOCGV2 second-order
calculationof newdependent p,
parameters u and p for the
downstreamsection,usingthe methodof characteristics,with variable grid
size and pipe exposedto the atmosphere

STADIBUD adiabatic
compressible with backwarddifrerencinganduniform
downstream
grid size
STADIBUU adiabatic compressibleupstreamwith backward dif%rencing and uniform
grid size
STADIBVD downstreamwith backwarddifferencingand variable
adiabaticcompressible
grid size
STADIBVU adiabaticcompressibleupstreamwith backward differencingand variable
grid size
STADIFUD adiabatic downstream
compressible with forwarddifFerencing
anduniform
grid size
320
STADIFUU adiabatic compressibleupstream with forward dilTerencing and uniform grid
size
STAD 1FVD downstream
compressible
adiabatic with forward differencing and variable
grid size
STAD 1FVU upstream
adiabaticcompressible with forward difTerencing
and variable grid
size
STAD2UD adiabatic compressibledownstream with second-order difi'erencing and
uniform grid size

STAD2UU upstream
adiabaticcompressible with difTerencing
second-order and uniform
grid size
STAD2VD adiabatic compressibledownstream with second-order ditTerencingand
variablegrid size
STAD2VU compressible
adiabatic upstreamwith dif
second-order erencingand variable
grid size
STEAD driver routine for steadystateanalysisroutines
STINADUD adiabaticincompressibledownstreamof the break with uniform grid size
STINADUU adiabaticincompressible
upstreamof the break with uniform grid size
STINADVD adiabaticincompressibledownstreamof the break with variablegrid size
STINADVU adiabaticincompressible
upstreamthe break with variable grid size
STINISUD isothermalincompressibledownstreamof the break with uniform grid size
STINISUU isothermalincompressibleupstreamof the break with uniform grid size
STINISVD isothermalincompressibledownstreamof the break with variablegrid size
STINISVU isothermalincompressibleupstreamthe break with variablegrid size
STISOUD isothermalcompressibledownstreamwith uniform grid size
STISOUU isothermalcompressibleupstreamwith uniform grid size
STISOVD isothermalcompressibledownstreamwith variable grid size
STISOVU isothermalcompressibleupstreamwith variablegrid size
STNONAUD non-adiabaticnon-isothermalcompressibledownstreamwith uniform grid

STNONAUU non-adiabaticnon-isothermalcompressibleupstreamwith uniform grid size
and pipe exposedto the atmosphere

STNONAVD non-adiabaticnon-isothermalcompressibledownstreamwith variable grid
321
STNONAVU non-adiabatic non-isothermal compressible upstream with variable grid size
and pipe exposed to the atmosphere

SUBHTA Calculation of frictional force and heat transferthrough a pipe exposedto
the atmosphere
SUBHTG Calculation of frictional force and heat transfer through a buried pipe
SYSDATA inputting generalsystemand gas data
TRANS driver routine for transientanalysisbefore the break
WKL for
sub-programme third-order analysisusing the Warming-Kutter-Lomax
method
XSVBKSB driver routine for solution of linear simultaneousequations
XZRHQR4 driver routine for solution of fourth-order polynomial.
YESNO prompting the user to answerYES (Y) or NO (N)
NOTE:
(i) The namesof the subroutinesusedfor first- andsecond-orderapproximationsin the
for
method of characteristics, transient analysisbefore the break are obtained by
replacingthe first two letters of those used after the break, i. e. SB with letters SN.
(ii) The namesof routinesusedfor transientanalysisare obtainedby replacingthe first
two letters of those usedafter the break, i.e. BR with letters TR.
(iii) The namesof sub-routinesand routines used in the case of buried pipeline are
obtainedby replacingthe letter A in the namesof thoseused for pipeline which are
exposedto the by
atmosphere, the letter G.
322

Modelling of Linebreak in High-Pressure Gas Pipes. Kimambo.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modelling of Linebreak in High-Pressure Gas Pipes. Kimambo.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

City Research Online

City, University of London Institutional Repository

Citation: Kimambo, C. (1996). Modelling of linebreak in high-pressure gas pipes.

This is the accepted version of the paper.

Permanent repository link: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/7934/

Link to published version:

Copyright and reuse: City Research Online aims to make research

City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk

1.1 TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN PIPELINES 16

1.4 PREVIOUS WORK AT CITY UNIVERSITY 22

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASIC

2.6 HEAT TRANSFER 71

2.7 OTHER APPROACHESTO THE BASIC EQUATIONS 79

CHAPTER 3: METHODS FOR SOLUTION OF THE BASIC EQUATIONS 82

3.2 NUMERICAL METHODS OF SOLUTION 83

3.4 DISCUSSION OF NUMERICAL METHODS 118

CHAPTER 4: THE COMPUTER MODEL FOR LINEBREAK ANALYSIS 122

4.1 SIMPLIFICATION OF THE BASIC EQUATIONS OF FLOW 122

4.3 NUMERICAL SOLUTION OF THE BASIC EQUATIONS FOR

4.3.1 Introduction 146

4.4 VARIABLE GRID SIZE 184

4.6 COMPUTER CODES 192

CHAPTER 5: A REVIEW OF SOME EXPERIMENTAL AND

CHAPTER 6: VALIDATION OF THE COMPUTER MODEL 226

7.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SONGO SONGO GAS DEVELOPMENT

7.3 COMPUTER SIMULATION OF A LINEBREAK IN THE

CHAPTER 8: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK 288

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSIONS 291

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 297

Table 6.1 Foothills Tests GeneralData

Figure 2.1 Flow Pattern for Air-water Mixture Flowing in a Pipe

Figure 4.7 Finite-differenceGrid Illustrating the MacCormackMethod Solution

Figure 6.5 PressureWave PropagationSpeedfor Foothills Test NABTF 1 East

Figure 6.9 p-t Curvesfor British GasTest BGTI Comparisonwith First-order

Figure 6.19 p-t Curvesfor British GasTest BGT3 Comparisonwith Second-

Figure 6.25 Velocity Head Curvesfor SNGSOTest Comparisonwith First-order

organizationswho contributedto the successfulcompletionof this study.

criticisms; and support, evenin mattersbeyondacademiclife.

It is not possibleto mention every individual and organizationwho assistedbut I

amvery muchindebtedto Mr. ReneFlatt of the SwissFederalInstitute of Lausanne,whose

Dar es Salaam natural gas pipeline.

I grant powers of discretion to the University Librarian to allow the thesisto be

a Wave speed m/s

c Pipe wall thickness in

Cv Specificheat of gasat constantvolume J/kgK

e Specificinternal energyof gas J/kg

hBL Heattransfercoefficientthroughtheboundarylayer WATR

k Thermal conductivity W/UK

p Static pressure of gas Pa

r Radial distanceof the pipe m

u Flow velocity of gas mIs

x Horizontal distancealong the pipe m

v Kinematic viscosity m2/s

v Specificvolume of gas m3/kg

wo Outer pipe wall

wi Inner pipe wall

1.1 TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN PIPELINES

potential. In Tanzania, a 200km pipeline is under construction for transportation of natural

and implementpreventivemeasuresand to plan corrective action for such hazards.

poor or lack of maintenance,

anddamageof pipelinesby falling objectsfrom platforms, shipsand icebergs. Within the

corrosion. After the Russianpipelinerupture, flamescould be seenup to 25000ft high and

modelswhich havebeenvalidatedwith the best availableexperimentaldata. A review of

assumptionsandsimplifications,suchasassumingsomeparametersto be constantfor some