This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
9 Theoretical Basis
Pressure Drop
Pipe Pressure Drop Method
Vapor Phase Pressure Drop Methods
Pressure drop can be calculated either from the theoretically derived equation
for isothermal flow of a compressible fluid in a horizontal pipe
2
:
( )
0 2
2
In
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
= 
.

\



.

\

+
÷
+


.

\


.

\

a
G L
f
RT
P P M
P
P
a
G
f

9.1
weight Molecular M
e Temperatur T
length Equivalent L
diameter Internal
factor friction Fanning f
constant gas Universal R
pressure Downstream P
pressure Upstream P
pipe of area sectional Cross a
flow Mass G
where
f
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

2
1
:
158 9 Theoretical Basis
Or from the theoretically derived equation for adiabatic flow of a compressible
fluid in a horizontal pipe
2
:


.

\
 +
÷
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦


.

\

÷
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦

.

\

+ =


.

\

1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
In
Ȗ
1 Ȗ
1
2Ȗ
1  Ȗ
V
V
V
V
G
a
V
P L
Af
f

9.2
heats specific of Ratio
length Equivalent L
diameter Internal
factor friction Fanning f
volume specific Downstream V
volume specific Upstream V
constant gas Universal R
pressure Upstream P
pipe of area sectional Cross a
flow Mass G
where
f
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Ȗ
:
2
1
1

The friction factor is calculated using an equation appropriate for the flow
regime. These equations correlate the friction factor to the pipe diameter,
Reynolds number and roughness of the pipe
4
:
Turbulent Flow (Re > 4000)
The friction factor may be calculated from either the Round equation:
( )
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦
+
=
5 . 6 135 . 0
log 61 . 3
1
e
f
Re
Re
f

9.3
roughness pipe Absolute e
diameter Internal
number Reynolds Re
factor friction Fanning f
where
f
=
=
=
=

:
Or from the Chen
21
equation:
( )
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦


.

\


.

\

+ ÷ ÷ =
8981 . 0
1098 . 1
149 . 7
8257 . 2
/
log
0452 . 5
7065 . 3
/
log 4
1
Re
e
Re
e
f
f
 
9 Theoretical Basis 159
9.4
roughness pipe Absolute e
diameter Internal
number Reynolds Re
factor friction Fanning f
where
f
=
=
=
=

:
Transition Flow (2100 s Re s 4000)
)
`
¹
¹
´
¦


.

\

÷ ÷


.

\

÷


.

\

÷ =
Re
e
Re
e
Re
e
f
f
0 . 13
7 . 3
log
02 . 5
7 . 3
log
02 . 5
7 . 3
log 0 . 4
1
  
9.5
roughness pipe Absolute e
diameter Internal
number Reynolds Re
factor friction Fanning f
where
f
=
=
=
=

:
Laminar Flow (Re < 2100)
Re
f
f
16
=
9.6
number Reynolds Re
factor friction Fanning f
where
f
=
=
:
The Moody friction factor is related to the Fanning friction factor by:
f m
f f  = 4
9.7
factor friction Moody f
factor friction Fanning f
where
m
f
=
=
:
160 9 Theoretical Basis
2Phase Pressure Drop
Although the Beggs and Brill method was not intended for use with vertical
pipes, it is nevertheless commonly used for this purpose, and is therefore
included as an option for vertical pressure drop methods.
Beggs and Brill
The Beggs and Brill
9
method is based on work done with an airwater mixture
at many different conditions, and is applicable for inclined flow. In the Beggs
and Brill correlation, the flow regime is determined using the Froude number
and inlet liquid content. The flow map used is based on horizontal flow and
has four regimes: segregated, intermittent, distributed and transition. Once
the flow regime has been determined, the liquid holdup for a horizontal pipe
is calculated, using the correlation applicable to that regime. A factor is
applied to this holdup to account for pipe inclination. From the holdup, a
twophase friction factor is calculated and the pressure gradient determined.
Fig 9.1
The boundaries between regions are defined in terms of two constants and
the Froude number
10
:
( )
3 2
1
0207 . 0 481 . 0 757 . 3 62 . 4 exp x x x L ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ =
9.8
( )
5 3 2
2
000625 . 0 0179 . 0 609 . 1 602 . 4 061 . 1 exp x x x x L + ÷ ÷ ÷ =
9 Theoretical Basis 161
9.9
( )
( )
flowrate volumetric situ In q
q q q content liquid Input
In x
where
gas liquid liquid
=
+ = =
=
/ Ȝ
Ȝ
:
According to Beggs and Brill:
1 If the Froude number is less than L
1
, the flow pattern is segregated.
2 If the Froude number is greater than both L
1
and L
2
, the flow pattern is
distributed.
3 If the Froude number is greater than L
1
and smaller than L
2
the flow
pattern is intermittent.
Dukler Method
The Dukler
10
method breaks the pressure drop into three components 
Friction, Elevation and Acceleration. The total pressure drop is the sum of the
pressure drop due to these components:
A E F Total
P P P P A + A + A = A
9.10
on accelerati to due pressure in Change P
elevation to due pressure in Change P
friction to due pressure in Change P
pressure in change Total P
where
A
E
F
Total
= A
= A
= A
= A
:
The pressure drop due to friction is:
D g
V L f
P
c
m
m
TP
F
144
ȡ 2
2
= A
9.11
) (
) / 2 . 32 ( g
) / ( ȡ
) / (
) (
) (
:
2
3
ft pipe of diameter Inside D
s lbf ft lbm constant nal Gravitatio
ft lb mixture phase two of Density
s ft velocity
equal assuming pipeline in mixture phase two the of Velocity V
ft pipeline the of length Equivalent L
y empiricall determined factor friction phase Two f
where
c
m
m
TP
=
÷ ÷ =
÷ =
÷ =
=
÷ =
162 9 Theoretical Basis
The pressure drop due to elevation is as follows:
144
ȡ
_
= A
H E
P
L h
E
9.12
changes elevation of Sum H
density Liquid
y empiricall determined factor head Liquid E
where
L
h
=
=
=
_
ȡ
) (
:
The pressure drop due to acceleration is usually very small in oil/gas
distribution systems, but becomes significant in flare systems:
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

+
÷
÷


.

\

+
÷
= A ș cos
ȡ
1
ȡ
ȡ
1
ȡ
144
1
2
2
2
2
2
US
L
LPL L
L
GPL g
DS
L
LPL L
L
GPL g
c
A
R
Q
R
Q
R
Q
R
Q
A g
P
9.13
bend pipe the of Angle
capacity pipeline of percentage a as pipeline in holdup Liquid R
hr ft pressure and e temperatur pipeline at flowing liquid of Volume Q
hr ft pressure and e temperatur pipeline at flowing gas of Volume Q
density Gas
area sectional Cross A
where
L
LPL
GPL
g
=
=
=
=
=
÷ =
ș
) / (
) / (
ȡ
:
3
3
Orkiszewski Method
The Orkiszewski
11,12
method assumes there are four different flow regimes
existing in vertical twophase flow  bubble, slug, annularslug transition and
annularmist.
The bubble flow regime consists mainly of liquid with a small amount of a
freegas phase. The gas phase consists of small, randomly distributed gas
bubbles with varying diameters. The gas phase has little effect on the
pressure gradient (with the exception of its density).
In the slug flow regime, the gas phase is most pronounced. The gas bubbles
coalesce and form stable bubbles of approximately the same size and shape.
The gas bubbles are separated by slugs of a continuous liquid phase. There is
a film of liquid around the gas bubbles. The gas bubbles move faster than the
liquid phase. At high flow velocities, the liquid can become entrained in the
gas bubbles. The gas and liquid phases may have significant effects on the
pressure gradient.
Transition flow is the regime where the change from a continuous liquid phase
to a continuous gas phase occurs. In this regime, the gas phase becomes
9 Theoretical Basis 163
more dominant, with a significant amount of liquid becoming entrained in the
gas phase. The liquid slug between the gas bubbles virtually disappears in the
transition regime.
In the annularmist regime, the gas phase is continuous and is the controlling
phase. The bulk of the liquid is entrained and carried in the gas phase.
Orkiszewski defined bubble flow, slug flow, mist flow and gas velocity
numbers which are used to determine the appropriate flow regime.
If the ratio of superficial gas velocity to the nonslip velocity is less than the
bubble flow number, then bubble flow exists, for which the pressure drop is:
D g
R
V
f P
c
L
sL
L tp
2
ȡ
2


.

\

= A
9.14
) (
) / 2 . 32 (
) / (
) / ( ȡ
) / (
:
2
3
2
ft diameter Hydraulic D
s lbf ft lbm constant nal Gravitatio g
velocity slip non on dependent factor ess Dimensionl R
s ft velocity liquid l Superficia V
ft lb density Liquid
factor friction phase Two f
length of foot per ft lb drop Pressure P
where
c
L
sL
L
tp
=
÷ ÷ =
÷ =
=
=
÷ =
= A
If the ratio of superficial gas velocity to the nonslip velocity is greater than
the bubble flow number, and the gas velocity number is smaller than the slug
flow number, then slug flow exists. The pressure drop in this case is:
(
¸
(
¸
I +


.

\

+
+


.

\

= A
r ns
r sL
c
ns L tp
V V
V V
D g
V f
P
2
ȡ
2
9.15
Constant
velocity rise Bubble V
velocity slip Non V
where
r
ns
= I
=
÷ =
:
The pressure drop calculation for mist flow is as follows:
( )
D g
V
f P
c
sg
g tp
2
ȡ
2
= A
164 9 Theoretical Basis
9.16
) / ( ȡ
) / (
:
3
ft lb density Gas
s ft velocity gas l Superficia V
where
g
sg
=
=
The pressure drop for transition flow is:
( )
m s
P x P P A ÷ + A = A 1
9.17
numbers velocity gas and flow slug flow mist on dependent factor Weighting x
flow mixed for drop Pressure Pm
flow slug for drop Pressure Ps
where
, , ,
:
=
= A
= A
The pressure drop calculated by the previous equations, are for a onefoot
length of pipe. These are converted to total pressure drop by:
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

÷
A
= A
2
4637
1 144
ȡ
p
f total
total
PA
G Q
PL
P
9.18
) (
) (
) (
) (
) / (
) / ( /
) / ( ȡ
:
2
3
3
ft segment line of Length L
above calculated as drop pressure Unit P
psia segment in pressure Average p
ft pipe of area sectional Cross A
s ft rate flow Gas G
s lb gas liquid combined of rate Mass Q
ft lb regime flowing the of Density
where
p
f
total
=
= A
=
÷ =
=
=
=
9 Theoretical Basis 165
Fittings Pressure Change Methods
The correlations used for the calculation of the pressure change across a
fitting are expressed using either the change in static pressure or the change
in total pressure. Static pressure and total pressure are related by the
relationship:
2
ȡ
2
v
P P
s t
+ =
9.19
In this equation and all subsequent equations, the subscript t refers to total
pressure and the subscript s refers to the static pressure.
Enlargers/Contractions
The pressure change across an enlargement or contraction may be calculated
using either incompressible or compressible methods. For two phase systems
a correction factor that takes into account the effect of slip between the
phases may be applied.
Figure A.2 and A.3 define the configurations for enlargements and
contractions. In these figures the subscript 1 always refers to the fitting inlet
and subscript 2 always refers to the fitting outlet.
Fig 9.2
Fig 9.3
166 9 Theoretical Basis
Fitting Friction Loss Coefficient
The friction loss coefficients for Enlargements & Contractions are given by:
Sudden and Gradual Enlargement
For an enlarger, both Crane & HTFS methods use the same the fittings loss
coefficients which are defined by Crane
26
. These methods are based on the
ratio of smaller diameter to larger diameter (ǃ).
If u < 45°
( )
2
2
1
ȕ 1
2
ș
sin 6 . 2 ÷

.

\

= K
9.20
Otherwise
( )
2
2
1
ȕ 1÷ = K
9.21
2
1
ȕ
diameter larger o diameter t smaller oI ratio the is ȕ where,
d
d
=
Sudden and Gradual Contraction
For a contraction the fittings loss coefficient in Crane & HTFS methods are
calculated differently for abrupt sudden contractions. Otherwise the
coefficients are same for Crane & HTFS methods. These calculation methods
are as described below:
Crane
The fitting loss coefficient is calculated as per HTFS
27
. These methods are
based on the ratio of smaller diameter to larger diameter (ǃ).
2 1
ı
c t
C K
K =
9.22
57806 . 0 0.39543ı
ı 5385 . 4 ı 24265 . 14 ı 54038 . 8 ı 2211 . 19
0.5
1.5 2.5 2
+ +
÷ + + ÷ =
t
K
9.23
2
1
2
ı


.

\

=
d
d
where:
9 Theoretical Basis 167
The contraction coefficient, is defined by
( ) ( ) ( )
25 . 0
79028 . 4 ș' 6240 . 9
ș' 1 ș' 03614 . 0 0179 . 0 + + =
÷
le C
c
9.24
o
ș/180 ș'
:
=
where
HTFS
The fittings loss coefficients are defined by HTFS
27
. These methods are same
as the previous Crane method (Equations A.22 – A.24) except for sudden
contractions where the contraction coefficient is calculated differently.
If ș = 180 ° (Abrupt contraction)
( ) ı  1 0.41 1
1
+
=
c
C
9.25
Incompressible Single Phase Flow
The total pressure change across the fitting is given by:
2
ȡ
2
1 1
1
v
K P
t
= A
9.26
Velocity v
density Mass
t coefficien loss Fittings K
change pressure Total p
where
=
=
=
= A
ȡ
:
1
Incompressible Two Phase Flow
Sudden and Gradual Enlargement
The static pressure change across the fitting is given by HTFS
27
2
2
1 2 1
2ȡ
ı
1
1
LO
l
s
m K
P 

.

\

+ ÷
= A
9.27
( )
g
g
g
l
g
g
LO
x x
İ  1
1
ȡ
ȡ
İ
2 2
2
÷
+ = 
168 9 Theoretical Basis
9.28
t coefficien loss Fittings K
fraction mass Phase x
fraction void Phase
density mass Phase
flux Mass m
where
=
=
=
=
=
1
İ
ȡ
:
Sudden and Gradual Contraction
The static pressure change across the fitting is given by HTFS
27
( )
2
2
2
2
2ȡ
ı 1
LO
l
t
s
m K
P 
÷ +
= A
9.29
( )
2 2 2
1
g L LO
x ÷ = 
9.30
2
2
1
1
X X
C
L
+ + = 
9.31
5 . 0
ȡ
ȡ 1


.

\



.

\
 ÷
=
l
g
g
g
x
x
X
9.32
5 . 0
5 . 0
ȡ
ȡ
ȡ
ȡ


.

\

+


.

\

=
l
g
g
l
C
9.33
t coefficien loss Fittings K
fraction mass Phase x
fraction void Phase
density mass Phase
flux Mass m
where
=
=
=
=
=
1
İ
ȡ
:
9 Theoretical Basis 169
Compressible Single Phase Flow
Sudden and Gradual Enlargement
The static pressure change across the fitting is given by HTFS
27


.

\

÷ = A 1
ı ȡ
ȡ
ı ȡ
2
1
1
2
1
m
P
s
9.34
density mass Phase
flux Mass m
where
=
=
ȡ
:
Sudden and Gradual Contraction
The static pressure change across the fitting is calculated using the twophase
method given in Compressible Two Phase Flow below. The singlephase
properties are used in place of the twophase properties.
Compressible Two Phase Flow
Sudden and Gradual Enlargement
The static pressure change across the fitting is given by HTFS
27

.

\

÷ = A
1
2
2
1
ı ı
E
E
s
v
v m
P
9.35
by given volume specific Equivalent v
where
E
=
:
( ) ( )
( )
( )
(
(
(
(
(
¸
(
¸
¦
¦
)
¦
¦
`
¹
¦
¦
¹
¦
¦
´
¦
÷


.

\

÷
+
÷
+ ÷ + =
1
1
1
1
1
5 . 0
2
l
g
R
R
g
g l g R g g E
v
v
u
u
x
x v x u v x v
9.36
5 . 0


.

\

=
l
H
R
v
v
u
9.37
( )
l g g g H
v x v x v ÷ + = 1
170 9 Theoretical Basis
9.38
fraction mass Phase x
density mass Phase
flux Mass m
where
=
=
=
ȡ
:
Sudden and Gradual Contraction
The pressure loss comprises two components. These are the contraction of
the fluid as is passed from the inlet to the vena contracta plus the expansion
of the fluid as it passes from the vena contracta to the outlet. In the following
equations the subscript t refers to the condition at the vena contracta.
For the flow from the inlet to the vena conracta, the pressure change is
modeled in accordance with HTFS
27
by:
( )
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦


.

\

÷ =
} 2
2
1 1
1
2
1
ȗ
1
1
ı
1
1
2
ȗ
c
E
Et E
E
E
C
v
v
P
v m
d
v
v
9.39
1
ȗ
P
P
=
9.40
For the flow from the vena contracta to the outlet the pressure change is
modeled used the methods for Sudden and Gradual Expansion given above.
Tees
Tees can be modeled either by using a flow independent loss coefficient for
each flow path or by using variable loss coefficients that are a function of the
volumetric flow and area for each flow path as well as the branch angle. The
following numbering scheme is used to reference the flow paths.
Fig 9.4
Constant Loss Coefficients
The following static pressure loss coefficients values are suggested by the
API
23
:
9 Theoretical Basis 171
ș
13
K
23
K
12
K
31
K
32
K
21
K
<90o 0.76 0.50 1.37 0.76 0.50 1.37
90o 1.37 0.38 1.37 1.37 0.38 1.37
The selection of the coefficient value is dependent on the angle and the
direction of flow through the tee.
For flow into the run, the loss coefficient for tee is:
ș
13
K
12
K
90o 0.38 1.37
<>90o 0.50 1.37
For flow into the branch, the loss coefficient for tee is:
ș
21
K
23
K
90o 1.37 1.37
<>90o 1.37 0.76
For flow into the tail, the loss coefficient for tee is:
ș
31
K
23
K
90o 0.38 1.37
<>90o 0.50 0.76
4 . 3 2 , 1 : A Figure in shown as assigned are and numbers Reference where
The static pressure change across the fitting is given by:
2
ȡ
2
v
K P
s
= A
9.41
Variable Loss Coefficients
The loss coefficients are a function of the branch angle, branch area to total
flow area ratio and branch volumetric flow to total volumetric flow ratio.
These coefficients can be determined either from graphical representation by
Miller
25
or from the Gardel
28
equations. Using these methods, static pressure
changes can be calculated from:
Combining Flow
2
ȡ
2
ȡ
2
ȡ
2
2 3
3
2
3 3
1
2
1 1
13
v
P
v
P
v
K
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

+ ÷


.

\

+
=
172 9 Theoretical Basis
9.42
2
ȡ
2
ȡ
2
ȡ
2
2 3
3
2
3 3
2
2
2 2
23
v
P
v
P
v
K
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

+ ÷


.

\

+
=
9.43
Dividing Flow
2
ȡ
2
ȡ
2
ȡ
2
2 3
1
2
1 1
3
2
3 3
31
v
P
v
P
v
K
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

+ ÷


.

\

+
=
9.44
2
ȡ
2
ȡ
2
ȡ
2
2 3
2
2
2 2
3
2
3 3
32
v
P
v
P
v
K
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

+ ÷


.

\

+
=
9.45
Miller Method
A typical Miller chart for
23
K in combining flow is shown.
Fig 9.5
Gardel Method
9 Theoretical Basis 173
These coefficients can also be calculated analytically from the Gardel
28
Equations given below:
 Combining flow:
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
r r
r r
q q
q q K
÷ ÷ +
(
¸
(
¸
÷ ÷


.

\

÷ +


.

\

÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ =
1 2
cos
1
1
1 8 . 0 1
cos
2 . 1 1 92 . 0
2
2
2
13
¢
¢
u
¢
¢ ¢
o
µ
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
r r
r r
q q
q q K
÷ ÷ +
(
¸
(
¸
÷ ÷


.

\

÷ ÷ + ÷ ÷ =
1 2
1 38 . 0 1
cos
62 . 1 1 1 03 . 0
2 2
23
¢
¢
¢
u
µ
9.46
 Dividing Flow
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
r r
r r
q q
q q K
÷


.

\

+ +
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

÷


.

\
 ÷
+ ÷ + ÷ =
1
2
tan
1
1 4 . 0
9 . 0 1
1 . 0 4 . 0
3 . 0
2
tan 3 . 1 1 95 . 0
2
2
2
31
u
¢
¢
µ
¢
¢
u
( ) ( )
r r r r
q q q q K ÷ ÷ + ÷ = 1 2 . 0 35 . 0 1 03 . 0
2 2
32
9.47
Where,
q
r
= Ratio of volumetric flow rate in branch to total volumetric flow rate
ĭ = Area ratio of pipe connected with the branch to the pipe carrying the
total flow
Ǐ = Ratio of the fillet radius of the branch to the radius of the pipe connected
with the branch
Ǉ = Angle between branch and main flow as shown in Fig 9.4
Orifice Plates
Orifice plates can be modeled either as a sudden contraction from the inlet
pipe size to the orifice diameter followed by a sudden expansion from the
orifice diameter to the outlet pipe size or by using the HTFS equation for a
thin orifice plate.
( )
1
2
1
ȕ 5082 . 1
2
4
ȡ 2
ȕ 1
ȕ
2.825
0.08956
m
P
s
÷ = A
9.48
See Incompressible Single Phase Flow on Page 263 for a definition of the
symbols.
174 9 Theoretical Basis
Vertical Separators
The Pressure change across the separator comprises the following
components:
Expansion of the multiphase inlet from the inlet diameter, d
1
, to the body
diameter d
body
.
Contraction of vapor phase outlet from the body diameter, d
body
, to the outlet
diameter, d
2
Friction losses are ignored.
Fig 9.6
Horizontal Separators
The Pressure change across the separator comprises the following
components calculated using the methods described in Incompressible Single
Phase Flow on Page 263:
Expansion of the multiphase inlet from the inlet diameter, d
1
, to the vapor
space characterized by equivalent diameter of the vapor area.
Contraction of vapor phase outlet from the vapor space characterized by the
equivalent diameter of the vapor area, to the outlet diameter, d
2
Friction losses are ignored.
Fig 9.7
9 Theoretical Basis 175
VaporLiquid Equilibrium
Compressible Gas
The PVT relationship is expressed as:
ZRT PV =
9.49
e Temperatur T
constant Gas R
factor ility Compressib Z
Volume V
Pressure P
where
=
=
=
=
=
:
The compressibility factor Z is a function of reduced temperature and
pressure. The overall critical temperature and pressure are determined using
applicable mixing rules.
Vapor Pressure
The following equations are used for estimating the vapor pressure, given the
component critical properties
3
:
( )
( )
( )
( ) 1
*
0
* *
In Ȧ In In r r r p p p + =
9.50
( )
( )
6
0
*
169347 . 0 In 28862 . 1
09648 . 6
92714 . 5 In
r r
r
r T T
T
p + ÷ ÷ =
176 9 Theoretical Basis
9.51
( )
( )
6
1
*
43577 . 0 In 4721 . 13
6875 . 16
2518 . 15 In
r r
r
r T T
T
p + ÷ ÷ =
9.52
) (
) (
) / (
Ȧ
) (
) (
) / (
:
*
* *
R e temperatur Critical T
R e Temperatur T
T T e temperatur Reduced T
factor Acentric
abs psi pressure Critical p
abs psi pressure Vapour p
p p pressure vapour Reduced p
where
o
c
o
c r
c
c r
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
This equation is restricted to reduced temperatures greater than 0.30, and
should not be used below the freezing point. Its use was intended for
hydrocarbons, but it generally works well with water.
Soave Redlich Kwong
It was noted by Wilson (1965, 1966) that the main drawback of the Redlich
Kwong equation of state was its inability of accurately reproducing the vapor
pressures of pure component constituents of a given mixture. He proposed a
modification to the RK equation of state using the acentricity as a correlating
parameter, but this approach was widely ignored until 1972, when Soave
(1972) proposed a modification of the SRK equation of this form:
( )
( ) b V V
T T a
b V
RT
P
c
+
÷
÷
=
Ȧ , ,
9.53
The a term was fitted in such a way as to reproduce the vapor pressure of
hydrocarbons using the acentric factor as a correlating parameter. This led to
the following development:
( ) b V V
a
b V
RT
P
c
+
÷
÷
=
Į
9.54
( ) RK
2 2
as same the
P
T R
a
a
c
c
a c
O O =
9 Theoretical Basis 177
9.55
( )
5 . 0
1 1 Į
r
T S ÷ + =
9.56
2
0.176Ȧ  Ȧ 574 . 1 480 . 0 + = S
9.57
The reduced form is:
( ) 2599 . 0
3.8473Į
2559 . 0
3
+
÷
÷
=
r r r
r
r
V V V
T
P
9.58
The SRK equation of state can represent with good accuracy the behavior of
hydrocarbon systems for separation operations, and since it is readily
converted into computer code, its usage has been extensive in the last twenty
years. Other derived thermodynamic properties, like enthalpies and entropies,
are reasonably accurate for engineering work, and the SRK equation enjoys
wide acceptance in the engineering community today.
Peng Robinson
Peng and Robinson (1976) noted that although the SRK was an improvement
over the RK equation for VLE calculations, the densities for the liquid phase
were still in considerable disagreement with experimental values due to a
universal critical compressibility factor of 0.3333, which was still too high.
They proposed a modification to the RK equation which reduced the critical
compressibility to about 0.307, and which would also represent the VLE of
natural gas systems accurately. This improved equation is represented by:
( ) ( ) b V b b V V
a
b V
RT
P
c
÷ + +
÷
÷
=
Į
9.59
c
c
c
P
T R
a
2 2
45724 . 0 =
9.60
c
c
P
RT
b 07780 . 0 =
9.61
They used the same functional dependency for the o term as Soave:
178 9 Theoretical Basis
( )
5 . 0
1 1 Į
r
T S ÷ + =
9.62
2
0.26992Ȧ  Ȧ 5422 . 1 37464 . 0 + = S
9.63
0642 . 0 5068 . 0
4.8514Į
2534 . 0
2573 . 3
2
÷ +
÷
÷
=
r r r
r
r
V V V
T
P
9.64
The accuracy of the SRK and PR equations of state are roughly the same
(except for density calculations).
Physical Properties
Vapor Density
Vapor density is calculated using the compressibility factor calculated from
the Berthalot equation
5
. This equation correlates the compressibility factor to
the pseudo reduced pressure and pseudo reduced temperature.
)
`
¹
¹
´
¦


.

\

÷ + =
2
0 . 6
0 . 1 0703 . 0 0 . 1
r r
r
T T
P
Z
9.65
ZRT
PM
= ȡ
9.66
Liquid Density
Saturated liquid volumes are obtained using a corresponding states equation
developed by R. W. Hankinson and G. H. Thompson
14
which explicitly relates
the liquid volume of a pure component to its reduced temperature and a
second parameter termed the characteristic volume. This method has been
adopted as an API standard. The pure compound parameters needed in the
corresponding states liquid density (COSTALD) calculations are taken from
the original tables published by Hankinson and Thompson, and the API data
book for components contained in Aspen Flare System Analyzer's library. The
parameters for hypothetical components are based on the API gravity and the
generalized Lu equation. Although the COSTALD method was developed for
saturated liquid densities, it can be applied to subcooled liquid densities, i.e.,
9 Theoretical Basis 179
at pressures greater than the vapor pressure, using the Chueh and Prausnitz
correction factor for compressed fluids. The COSTALD model was modified to
improve its accuracy to predict the density for all systems whose pseudo
reduced temperature is below 1.0. Above this temperature, the equation of
state compressibility factor is used to calculate the liquid density.
Vapor Viscosity
Vapor viscosity is calculated from the Golubev
3
method. These equations
correlate the vapor viscosity to molecular weight, temperature and the
pseudo critical properties.
Tr > 1.0
167 . 0
) / 29 . 0 71 . 0 ( 667 . 0 5 . 0
0 . 10000
5 . 3
ȝ
c
T
r c
T
T P M
r
+
=
9.67
7U
167 . 0
) 965 . 0 ( 667 . 0 5 . 0
0 . 10000
5 . 3
ȝ
c
r c
T
T P M
=
9.68
Liquid Viscosity
Aspen Flare System Analyzer will automatically select the model best suited
for predicting the phase viscosities of the system under study. The model
selected will be from one of the three available in Aspen Flare System
Analyzer: a modification of the NBS method (Ely and Hanley), Twu's model,
and a modification of the LetsouStiel correlation. Aspen Flare System
Analyzer will select the appropriate model using the following criteria:
Chemical System Liquid Phase Methodology
Lt Hydrocarbons (NBP < 155 F) Mod Ely & Hanley
Hvy Hydrocarbons (NBP > 155 F) Twu
NonIdeal Chemicals Mod LetsouStiel
All the models are based on corresponding states principles and have been
modified for more reliable application. These models were selected since they
were found from internal validation to yield the most reliable results for the
chemical systems shown. Viscosity predictions for light hydrocarbon liquid
phases and vapor phases were found to be handled more reliably by an in
house modification of the original Ely and Hanley model, heavier hydrocarbon
liquids were more effectively handled by Twu's model, and chemical systems
were more accurately handled by an inhouse modification of the original
LetsouStiel model.
180 9 Theoretical Basis
A complete description of the original corresponding states (NBS) model used
for viscosity predictions is presented by Ely and Hanley in their NBS
publication
16
. The original model has been modified to eliminate the iterative
procedure for calculating the system shape factors. The generalized Leech
Leland shape factor models have been replaced by component specific
models. Aspen Flare System Analyzer constructs a PVT map for each
component and regresses the shape factor constants such that the PVT map
can be reproduced using the reference fluid.
Note: The PVT map is constructed using the COSTALD for the liquid region.
The shape factor constants for all the library components have already been
regressed and are stored with the pure component properties.
Pseudo component shape factor constants are regressed when the physical
properties are supplied. Kinematic or dynamic viscosity versus temperature
curves may be supplied to replace Aspen Flare System Analyzer's internal
pure component viscosity correlations. Aspen Flare System Analyzer uses the
viscosity curves, whether supplied or internally calculated, with the physical
properties to generate a PVT map and regress the shape factor constants.
Pure component data is not required, but if it is available it will increase the
accuracy of the calculation.
The general model employs methane as a reference fluid and is applicable to
the entire range of nonpolar fluid mixtures in the hydrocarbon industry.
Accuracy for highly aromatic or naphthenic oil will be increased by supplying
viscosity curves when available, since the pure component property
generators were developed for average crude oils. The model also handles
water and acid gases as well as quantum gases.
Although the modified NBS model handles these systems very well, the Twu
method was found to do a better job of predicting the viscosities of heavier
hydrocarbon liquids. The Twu model1
8
is also based on corresponding states
principles, but has implemented a viscosity correlation for nalkanes as its
reference fluid instead of methane. A complete description of this model is
given in the paper
18
titled "Internally Consistent Correlation for Predicting
Liquid Viscosities of Petroleum Fractions".
For chemical systems the modified NBS model of Ely and Hanley is used for
predicting vapor phase viscosities, whereas a modified form of the Letsou
Stiel model
15
is used for predicting the liquid viscosities. This method is also
based on corresponding states principles and was found to perform
satisfactorily for the components tested.
The parameters supplied for all Aspen Flare System Analyzer pure library
components have been fit to match existing viscosity data over a broad
operating range. Although this will yield good viscosity predictions as an
average over the entire range, improved accuracy over a more narrow
operating range can be achieved by supplying viscosity curves for any given
component. This may be achieved either by modifying an existing library
component through Aspen Flare System Analyzer's component librarian or by
entering the desired component as a hypothetical and supplying its viscosity
curve.
9 Theoretical Basis 181
Liquid Phase Mixing Rules for Viscosity
The estimates of the apparent liquid phase viscosity of immiscible
Hydrocarbon Liquid  Aqueous mixtures are calculated using the following
"mixing rules":
If the volume fraction of the hydrocarbon phase is greater than or equal to
0.33, the following equation is used
19
:
( )
oil
v
oil eff
e
÷
=
1 6 . 3
ȝ ȝ
9.69
phase n Hydrocarbo fraction Volume v
phase n Hydrocarbo of Viscosity
viscosity Apparent
where
oil
oil
eff
=
=
=
ȝ
ȝ
:
If the volume fraction of the hydrocarbon phase is less than 0.33, the
following equation is used
20
:
O H
O H oil
O H oil
oil eff
v
2
2
2
ȝ
ȝ ȝ
ȝ 4 . 0 ȝ
5 . 2 1 ȝ
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

+
+
+ =
9.70
phase n Hydrocarbo fraction Volume v
phase Aqueous of Viscosity
phase n Hydrocarbo of Viscosity
viscosity Apparent
where
oil
O H
oil
eff
=
=
=
=
2
ȝ
ȝ
ȝ
:
The remaining properties of the pseudo phase are calculated as follows:
_
= ) ( weight molecular mw x mw
i i eff
9.71
( ) ( ) ) ( / / 1 ȡ density mixture p x
i i eff _
=
9.72
_
= ) ( heat specific misture Cp x Cp
i i eff
182 9 Theoretical Basis
9.73
Thermal Conductivity
As in viscosity predictions, a number of different models and component
specific correlations are implemented for prediction of liquid and vapor phase
thermal conductivities. The text by Reid, Prausnitz and Polings
15
was used as
a general guideline in determining which model was best suited for each class
of components. For hydrocarbon systems the corresponding states method
proposed by Ely and Hanley
16
is generally used. The method requires
molecular weight, acentric factor and ideal heat capacity for each component.
These parameters are tabulated for all library components and may either be
input or calculated for hypothetical components. It is recommended that all of
these parameters be supplied for nonhydrocarbon hypotheticals to ensure
reliable thermal conductivity coefficients and enthalpy departures.
The modifications to the method are identical to those for the viscosity
calculations. Shape factors calculated in the viscosity routines are used
directly in the thermal conductivity equations. The accuracy of the method
will depend on the consistency of the original PVT map.
The SatoReidel method
15
is used for liquid phase thermal conductivity
predictions of glycols and acids, the Latini et al. Method
15
is used for esters,
alcohols and light hydrocarbons in the range of C3  C7, and the Missenard
and Reidel method
15
is used for the remaining components.
For vapor phase thermal conductivity predictions, the Misic and Thodos, and
Chung et al.
15
methods are used. The effect of higher pressure on thermal
conductivities is taken into account by the Chung et al. method.
As in viscosity, the thermal conductivity for two liquid phases is approximated
by using empirical mixing rules for generating a single pseudo liquid phase
property.
Enthalpy
Ideal Gas
The ideal gas enthalpy is calculated from the following equation:
4 3 2
T E T D T C T B A H
i i i i i
ideal
+ + + + =
9.74
terms capacity heat gas Ideal E D C B A
e Temperatur T
enthalpy Ideal H
where
=
=
=
, , , ,
:
9 Theoretical Basis 183
LeeKesler
The LeeKesler enthalpy method corrects the ideal gas enthalpy for
temperature and pressure.
dep ideal
H H H + =
9.75
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦


.

\

÷


.

\

+


.

\

=


.

\

s
c
dep
r
c
dep
r
s
c
dep
c
dep
RT
H
RT
H
RT
H
RT
H
Ȧ
Ȧ
9.76
¦
¦
)
¦
¦
`
¹
¦
¦
¹
¦
¦
´
¦
+ +


.

\

÷
÷


.

\

+


.

\

÷
÷ ÷ ÷ =


.

\

E
V T
d
V T
T
c
c
V T
T
b
T
b
b
Z T
RT
H
r r
k
r r
r
k
k
r r
t
k
r
k
k
k
r
k
c
dep
3
5 2
3 3 2
0 . 1
5
2
2
2
3
2 2
4 3
2
9.77
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦


.

\

+ + ÷ + =
2
Ȗ
2 3
4
Ȗ
1 ȕ 0 . 1 ȕ
Ȗ 2
r
k
V
r
k
k k
k
r
k
e
V T
c
E
9.78
enthalpy departure gas Ideal H
terms Kesler Lee d c b
enthalpy Ideal H
fluid Simple s
fluid Reference r
factor Acentric
enthalpy Specific H
e temperatur Critical T
where
dep
ideal
c
=
÷ =
=
=
=
=
=
=
Ȗ ȕ, , , ,
Ȧ
:
Equations of State
The Enthalpy and Entropy calculations are performed rigorously using the
following exact thermodynamic relations:
dV P
T
P
T
RT
Z
RT
H H
V
V
ID
}
·
(
¸
(
¸
÷ 
.

\

c
c
+ ÷ =
÷ 1
1
184 9 Theoretical Basis
9.79
dV
V T
P
R P
P
Z
R
S S
V
V
o
ID
o
}
·
(
¸
(
¸
÷ 
.

\

c
c
+ ÷ =
÷ 1 1
In In
9.80
For the Peng Robinson Equation of State, we have:
( )
( )


.

\

÷ +
+ +
(
¸
(
¸
÷ ÷ ÷ =
÷
b V
b V
dt
da
T a
bRT
Z
RT
H H
ID
1 2
1 2
In
2
1
1
5 . 0
5 . 0
5 . 1
9.81
( )
( )
( )
(
¸
(
¸
÷ ÷
+ +

.

\

+ ÷ ÷ =
÷
B Z
B Z
adT
Tda
B
A
P
P
B Z
R
S S
o
ID
o
1 2
1 2
In
2
In In
5 . 0
5 . 0
5 . 1
9.82
( ) ( )
ij j i
N
i
N
j
j i
k a a x x a
where
÷ =
__
= =
1
:
5 . 0
1 1
9.83
For the SRK Equation of State:

.

\

+
(
¸
(
¸
÷ ÷ ÷ =
÷
V
b
dt
da
T a
bRT
Z
RT
H H
ID
1 In
1
1
9.84
( )

.

\

+

.

\

+ ÷ ÷ =
÷
Z
B
adT
Tda
B
A
P
P
B Z
R
S S
o
ID
o
1 In In In
9.85
A and B term definitions are provided below:
Term PengRobinson SoaveRedlichKwong
i
b
ci
ci
P
RT
077796 . 0
ci
ci
P
RT
08664 . 0
i
a
i ci
a Į
i ci
a Į
9 Theoretical Basis 185
Term PengRobinson SoaveRedlichKwong
ci
a
( )
ci
ci
P
RT
2
457235 . 0
( )
ci
ci
P
RT
2
42748 . 0
i
Į ( )
5 . 0
1 1
ri i
T m ÷ + ( )
5 . 0
1 1
ri i
T m ÷ +
i
m
2
Ȧ 26992 . 0 Ȧ 54226 . 1 37646 . 0
i i
÷ +
2
Ȧ 176 . 0 Ȧ 57 . 1 48 . 0
i i
÷ +
( ) ( )
ij j i
N
i
N
j
j i
k a a x x a
where
÷ =
__
= =
1
:
5 . 0
1 1
9.86
_
=
=
N
i
i i
b x b
and
1
9.87
Entropy S
Enthalpy H
constant gas Ideal R
state Reference
gas Ideal ID
o
=
=
=
=
=
186 9 Theoretical Basis
Noise
The sound pressure level at a given distance from the pipe is calculated from
the following equations. In these equations the noise producing mechanism is
assumed to be solely due to the pressure drop due to friction.


.

\


.

\
 A
=
4
ʌ
36 . 1
2

L
P
W
m
v
9.88
t
r
L W
SPL
m
r
÷


.

\

=
2
13
ʌ 4
Ș 10
log 10
9.89
velocity fluid Average v
loss on transmissi wall Pipe t
pressure in Change P
efficiency Acoustic
diameter Internal
pipe from Distance r
level pressure Sound SPL
length Equivalent L
where
=
=
= A
=
=
=
=
=
Ș
:

9 Theoretical Basis 187
Fig 9.8
The transmission loss due to the pipe wall is calculated from:
0 . 36
5 . 0
0 . 17 ÷


.

\

=

mv
t
9.90
velocity fluid Average v
diameter Internal
area unit per mass wall Pipe m
where
=
=
=

:
The acoustical efficiency is calculated from the equation below.
( ) 5388 . 9 ln * 9986 . 4 exp ÷ = M P
r
q
9.91
where
Pr = Ratio of higher absolute Pr over lower absolute Pr between two ends of
the pipe (i.e. if upstream pr.> downstream pr., Pr = upstream
pr./downstream pr. Else if upstream pr.< downstream pr., Pr = downstream
pr./upstream pr.)
M = Mach No.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. 8 1.0
Mach Num ber
10
 11
10
 10
10
 9
10
 8
10
 7
10
 6
10
5
10
 4
10
 3
A
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
pt = 10.0
pt = 1.0
pt = 0. 1
188 9 Theoretical Basis