Simple method predicts gas-line blowdown times A method for accurately predicting gas-pipeline lowdown times has been developed. It involves application of appropriate correc- tion factors to a simple calculation that regards the pipeline as a volume. The correction factors apply to a wide range of lengthvdiameter values and the ratio of the main pipe area to the minimum effective stack area. Blowdown-riser design. The blowdown of substantial lengths of gas pipelines may require a long time if the blowdown stack is under-sized. “Thus, it is important to design the blowdawn riser such that a reasonable blowdown time is achieved. In order to estimate the blowdown time for a given stack geometry, a physical model and an ensuing mathematical description is, necessary. The blowdown stack, valve size, mainline diame- ter and length, and the gas composition, pressure, and temperature must be known. Blowdown of natural gas from high pressure within a pipe section to atmospheric pressure takes piace in two distinct stages: sonic followed by subsonic discharge. Sonic discharge refers to the initial stage uring which the flow at the point of minimum effective stack area (usually the valve throat) is, choked and the Mach number is necessarily unity. In other words, the ratio of pressure in the pipe to atmospheric pressure is greater than the Critical pressure ratio and thus flow is sonic. For high-pressure lowdown, sonic discharge ac- Counts for most of the biowdown time. During blowdown the pressure in the pipe M.-H. Weiss K. K. Botros W. M. Jungowski NOVA Husky Research Corp. Calgary decreases and the flow at the minimum effective stack area remains choked until the pressure accounts for the greatest portion of the total blowdown time. During blowdown, the pressure in the pipe decreases and the flow at the minimum effective stack area remains choked until the pressure ratio, becomes less than critical. Then the flow is no longer choked and remains subsonic until the pressure in the pipe reaches atmospheric, at whieh point blowdown is complete. The schematic in Fig. 1 depicts a typical lowdown riser at the end of a pipeline section. Internal flow during sonic discharge from the stack occurs with low velocity in the main pipe, moder ate velocity in the riser, and sonic velocity in the valve throat and at the exit. The exit cross-sectional area of the ser is typically much smaller than that of the main pipe. Consequently, the gas velocity in the mainline is, about 10-50 msec during sonic discharge and the flow may be regarded as quasi-steady. The effect of friction in the mainline and in the stack can have pronounced effects on the blowdown time? However, literature related to blowdown time prediction is rather scarce! ? contrasted to many publications dealing with slow or fast transients in gas-pipeline systems. Therefore, taking into ac~ ‘count the previous descriptions of the blowdown phenomena, a study was initiated to determine a method for the accurate prediction of blowdown ime and assess the significance of various para~ meters which influence it. TECHNOLOGY Dee 12, 1988.05 § Casloural 5SThe authors, Pr Boteor amin H, Wes a eae tee logit withthe fd eymaris oup of OWA Hay Roseaven Corp. Ud okt 2'8Sen mechameal engineer rom te iene of Calgary snd a ember of ‘reer he ben Aasoeston of NOVA Husky Research Corp. Prior 0 "senor apaineenaiecr hy Peach cal ine ands sean | re Une of Cagary pecan in| from the Unverste of Cakary ands a | Ragieed Potessonal Eee In Abeta | Wiktor Mj gowsl 3 research "Sons th Seay oF Alberta mn edinontan and at the Max Planck In cn FRC and poe sw nstute of Technol | SiSe and DSC desrees in ibe Wis incu ot | The sound speed and the isentropic ‘ponent should be averaged over the range oi pressures involved in the lowdown |i... from initial fine pres sure to atmosoheric) and at the tem- perature in question. For the results of the study, the sound speed and isen- tropic exponent were determined di- rectly from a state equation, If derived functions irom a state equation are not available, the isentropic exponent can bbe estimated irom charts.” ‘The sound speed can be calculated from either of the formulas given in Equation 5 which require the density for compressibility factor, the specific gravity. and the isentropic exponent. ‘Alternately, the method outlined by Jaeschke and Hinze” can be used which requires the density, specific gravity, and heating value of the gas to Calculate the sound speed, SOL sy nil Dee 12,1988 TECHNOLOGY Sample calculation. Following is a practical exampie which illustrates the Use of the correction-factor approach to estimate biowdown time. Problem: Estimate the total blow- down time for 25 km (15.5 miles) of 1.0-m (39-in,) 1D pipeline which con- tains natural gas (specific gravity 0.6) at 6,000 kPa (absolute) and 102 C. Assume the vaive has a discharge Coefficient of 0.85 and a throat area of 0.1 sq m and atmospheric pressure 100 kPa. Take into account stack and entrance losses. "Determine the time constant (): = 404 misec, k= 1.3, V = 19,635 cum. With Equation 3! 8 = 830.5 sec 7 2. Compute the dimensionless son- ic Blowdown time «) P. = 6,000 kPa, P, = 100 KPa) with Equation 1! ig = 3.49 3. Find the dimensionless subsonic blowdown time tt irom Table Tf, = 0.7033 4. Eximate cortection factor (C): (= 001 fo 6.Add 5% for stack and entrance losses, 9 x 1.05 = 4,472 sec More complicated model. This method for accurately predicting blowdown times involves applying appropriate correction factors 10 4 simple calculation which regards the pipeline as a volume. The correction factors apply to a range of fL/D values 10-3,000) and Ay(Ay-C,) ratios (ae 16) commonly found in practice. Ii-a detailed pressure-time trace is required, a more complicated numeri cal pipe mode! shouid be used, Acknowledgment The work presented here is part of a research project sponsored by NOVA, Corp. of Alberta and the permission to Publish is hereby acknowledged NGhpdle” Al. “Design of Gig Plptine Slow ‘downs teeny Pcemang Canada, 3.1529, ‘anus. Febnaty T36 2huntowsits WAR, tion, KG, apd. Weis, Te Sinlato of arte london,” iology Conirence ASME, an steer, the Oyama Theo ete, careeegae ow so le aE et one tet Steams Ser gah te enti dt arene soit: Wel 22 np, 87.110, 1976. ° Handbook, MeCraw fill Book Co. 1083. Lube-oil > ‘Ritoume Oy 216 fegre S323 Processes for producing base lube ol stocks have undergone’ significant changes since the 1970s, These Changes were implemented to cope wri generally lover lube il10-gas. Tne ratios in refineries, move divers Calton in the efude ol charged 16 relineries, and increasingly tighter specifications on the base lube oil product sel. Many of the crude oils used for base lube oils were not even considered lube-oil crudes before 1973. Process fs, therefore, have been. improved through the application of several de- velopments such as the multidilution technique of dewaxing, hydroprocass- ing, and other processes to improve the’ viseosity index of nonlube oil The combination of these improvec processes and conventional lube 6 processing technology has lead to ‘wide variety of processing schemes produce improved-qulty base h Hydroprocessing of feedstocks lube oi! production includes all oft processes using. hydrogen, in wh more or less deep and/or selec: chemical reactions ‘ake place heavy petroleum ‘actions. For lh oil production, the processes are c sified into several large catagories « Cording to the ultimate goal of process, and not according t0 reactions involved. Hydrotinishing. Hydrofinishine been utilized in lube oil product since 1954, Its main goal is to ss lize and decolorize base oils Operating temperatures andy sures are milder than for hydroron J processes, and the cracking function Of the catalysts is limited as much as possible. The process has all bui com pletely superceded clay treating, and has advantages over clay teati hal include: simplicity, better. ‘in'shed product quality, ‘higher product Vields, and the absence at solid wase disposal for the current technology, the pro cess removes only sulfur and metals, through complex reactions. Yields al constant viscosity are in the range ofEquations 6 = a, ajonsdfUO} +oteeutLON « aulopettion? o f Bn BEA EAE ea Bemba t baEA as bbe Cen OURS Seba t Dak eA me — Dest baa — bun = paler bis = 0084749 bus ~ 9.0087901, ta = ~9.00018202 Seares, IT oases BAT ROGER. bs = “genes “pase BE = ~Ccumeoi7 B= gocwaes Bhs = Sositeese oistees «3 = Tolusesse” SI = Sloblava EL! = — 00886 Ccomeaton tater, Allin cy aa Findings. Based on the observation that the ‘numerical pipe model best approximates actual blawdown, the effects of {L/D and the pige-to-throat area ratio were investigated. A com- parison of the prediction irom the simple volume calculation with those (of the numerical pipe model showed a systematic under-estimation using the volume model. An attempt was made formulate correction factors which could be applied to the volume model calculations in order to provide better blowdowa-time predictions The result was 2 polynomial expres- sion in iV/D and pipe-to-throat area fatio, AylAn-C), which is given in Equation 4. Here Cy is the discharge Coefficient for the stack valve Fig. 3 shows the results of the poly nomial fitting of the correction factor calculated (square points) for a range of UD values and for four different area ratios. Slack losses were not ac= Nomenclature Rao Yatcitchargecoetiint Bee oe eenmetes ee See Prue OP? Pecan Sei a 2 ES = Eames tr 2 Fn Pua wappwecesoope pp counted for in this comparison, The range of {1/0 values (10-3,000) and area ratios (4-16) reflect values typically found in practice. Curves generated irom the polynomial ex- Pression are also included in Fig. 3 Stack losses. The simplified volume approach neglects losses in the stack, In reality, the entrance to the stack, particularly if it is sharp-edged, and the stack itself ojfer resistance to the Slow. It was tound that a sharp-edged entrance increases the blowdown time by about 5%, while friction in the stack prolongs blowdown time by up to 1.5%." Additionally, the Cy factor for the blowdown vaive usually “dilters from unity and thus prolongs lowdown time. The blowdown time increases inversely with the C, factor, approximately. Estimating time. A brief summary of the steps involved in estimating the blowdown time is given below: TI. Determine the average sound speed and isentropic exponent for the lowdown and calculate the time Consiant (,) from Equation 3. 2. Calculate the dimensionless son- ic blowdiown time (E), Equation 1 3. Determine the "dimensionless subsonic blowdown time (ty. Table 1. 4. Estimate the correction factor, (C) from Fig. 3 or calculate it from Equation 4 with the fl/D values and the AylAwCa) factor for the system. 5. Addthe nondimensional blow- down times (ic and't) and muitiply by the time consiant (x,) and the correc- tion factor (Gj. 6. To account for entrance and stack losses add 5% to the time ob- tained in Step 5, The prediction obtained should be accurate to within 5%. TECHNOLOGY oe 12, 1968, O14 Casha 57‘able T Calculation values © fe fag ‘7371 135 Beas 130 7883 138 Baoss 19 pare ras. Bsase 150 oeror 13s Beis 180 osize Computational models, For blow- down simulation, the pipeline section an he regarded ether a6 2 voume ‘wth stagnation conditions inside ras pipe with gas veloc creasing towards the ext The various assumotions result in mathematical descriptions of varying degrees of Comptes Volume model, The volume moe the simplest physical desciption of the blowdown phenomena, tne fects the effects of flow and fiction Btong the main pipe and hence teats the entre pipe ay @ volume in Which Sagnation prevails ven further to simplify the model, its assumed thot: the gas within the main pipe (volume) expands inter mally flow through the sack Ife onise and occurs without heat ans fer, and the gas behaves idealy Conservation of moss requies that the reas flow rate OF gas exiting the pipe at any instant be egal to tne rate of change of mass within the pipe. Baring sonic discharge the flow at the valve throat tren at the port of minimum eective” stack are) s Choked, tad the ext mass low rate = Giecly proportional tothe pressure in the pipe’ wile for subsonic dis charge it is'2 nonlinear function of pressure. Assuring ideal gas behavior End inwocucing atime constant (0), a normalized ordinay near diferertal tquation can be writen for sont di charge, Integrating ns equation fom the ital mainline pressure ratio tothe crtical pressure rao, which term nates" sonic flow the dimensionless fime of sonic venting Gs obtained {Gauation 0, For subtonic discharge, Shormalized ‘ordinary diferontal equation resus and ihe dimension: iets subconie lowdown time fis obtained by interation from the cit Cal pressure rate (othe final pressure rato fequation 2}. tn theory, an in nite time fs required for sebsontc cise Charge to atmospheric pressure ond thuse for practical purpoves, the final pressure taken © be sigly above Etmospheric tie 1%). Table t pe- sents values off fora range ofisenvo- pic exponents. Adding ine dimension Fess sorte and. subsonic cscharge 360% 6 Gas ual Ose 12, 48 TECHNOLOGY Blowdown section Fat 2000 times and multiplying by the time , constant ((,) results in the total blow- town time predicted with this model Pipe model. Although the volume model isthe simplest approach, it falls short in predicting the blowdown time for situations in which flow friction along the main pipe is a contributing factor. Various other computational models have been investigated and are discussed in detail by Jungowski who found, trom a comparison with field measurements, that the numeri- cal solution of a rigorous pipe model results in accurate prediction of not only the blowsown time but also the Pressure-time history.? The pipe model covers flow and friction losses along the main section being evacuated. AS with the volume model, the gas in the main pine is assumed to expand isothermally, and flow through the stack is isentropic. Combining the continuity and mo- mentum equations of one-dimension- al unsteady gas flow with an appropri ate state equation results in a set of nonlinear hyperbolic partial differen- tial equations. This set of equations 2 Anya volume moe, Numer! pe moe! ‘Soc 000” 5050 ‘rina, soo ‘was solved with the general implicit finite-difference scheme ot Beam and Warming.* Fig. 2 is a comparison of the volume and numerical pipe mod: els previously described with actual field measurements of a blowdown, It is evident that the numerical pipe model is in close agreement with the field measurements and accurately predicts the initial sharp drop in pres- sure. The volume model, on the other hhand, does not predict this sharp drop in pressure which occuts for large fU D values (in this case (UD = 1,085, where f refers to the Darcy friction factor for the mainpipe section). Rath- er it indicates that the pressure drop in the main pipe occurs exponentially during ail of sonic discharge. For small {UD ratios, however, the pressure does not initially drop as rapidly and the sonic-pressure decay does indeed tend to be exponential Simply stated, the volume model can only predict a reasonably accu rate pressute-time trace for very small fUD ratios (/D<10). tn yeneral. if an accurate pressuretime trace is cesiced a numerical pipe mode! is required. |through the siem or the valve sea. By. implementing the resulls and recommendations trom a Hazop anal- ysis, alkylation process safety can be enhanced, and the consequences and effects of hazardous incidents at these Units can be minimized However, the Hazop technique is purely-a qualitative tool for identiying hazards and operability problems. Of ten the Issues resulting from a Hazop cannot be simply resolved according to goverment regulations, national codes and standards, company poli- ies, oF industry practices, To resolve such issues, managers may need the results from a quantita. tive risk assessment as input to their decision making.® Even $0, the Hazop offor is not wasted because it focuses the more sophisticated quantitative analysis on a few specific issues In general, Hazop has proven to be a cost effective hazards management technique that can enhance the safety of many process systems, The Hazop technique is one ofthe recommended A clarification. . . ‘methods for performing a process haz- ards analysis on process facilities to satisfy current or proposed guidelines being considered by both industry anc ‘government.”* References T Sen Ning. Dengan Properties of last ‘teil, sich edtion, Van Nostrand Reinhold Cau Nn, Yor, 1960 2.urvon "WE Edo, 100 Lange Lowes: A Thy hea Review of ropeny Osmage Coste Inve Fihdrocrbon Chemeal Indies Tith tbo, Nikha Prtechon Comslann Chicas ia S.knotion, fli, An Inection to Hazard trl GpeailtySuehene The Guise Word prose Chemis Iematona 2, eke for Vancouner B.C. 1988 pres Sey Mangement, Chemica! Manus: ‘they Atsocanon® Washington D.C. say 138s S.Citelins for Qualitative, Hazard Ealvton Procedu‘s, Amani nse of Chemical seers, Neve ork. 1205 6.Afondt Se ao. Managers Guide 10 “Quansnie Wisk Acero of Cerieat Poe os Tociteg BEAT TOS, SF Rsocimes ine, knowl, Tenn January 369 7."Citnes for anajement ‘of Process Hae Ss Dra Recommend Practice Amer iin selean ste Wishten, Bic, B."Proees Haran Management of Substances ‘wih Calateophc Powe Drs Send ‘Orpsication eure Counselors ae anh Fran DC 1988) Authors of “Simple method predicts gas-line blowdown times” (OG), Dec. 12, 1988, p. 55) report some confusion about the method outlined there. The problem is with the polynomial (Equation 4) which is a curvesit expression for the data in Fig. 3. ‘As mentioned in the article, the polynomial is only valid for a range of pipe-to-effective throat-area ratios (A,) of 4-16. Because of the nature of the curvesit, use of this polynomial outside this range will lead to meaningless results. This range of pipe-to-effective throat-area ratios (4-16) adequately represents values found in practice. For unique situations in which A, can be greater than 16, the following change is proposed: Equation 4 retains its form; only the coefficients are altered: C= aj + aslogio(f/D) + asllogio(fL/D)I? + asllogio(fl/D)}* where: ai = bia bi/A) + bi sCVAQ? + buAC/AD? a2 = bay + be2(W/A) + ba s(/Ad? + baal /A)* a3 = by + by2(VA) + bya(V/A)? + by g(1/A)* ay = bar + By2CVA) + bysQVA)? + baal/A)* A, = AWA Cod and: big = 1.0019 bya = —5.2735 bia = -38.409 bai = 0.26994 by» = 17.304 bea = 14477 buy = 02475 bya = ~ 12.637 bye = = 88.351 br = =0.054856 by: = 26258 b= ~89503 by = 12.139 This polynomial is valid for 3 < A, < 30 and should not be used outside this range. For A, < 3, however, one is approaching open pipe flow (ie., pipe rupture with very high velocities and shock-wave phenomena) and this prediction method cannot be applied. + AUGUST SPECIAL ISSUES AUGUST 7, 1989 ANNUAL PPeLINE RePORTIREADER Seevice Cano issue inonaing Snpesten te nat psp inn 2 Clg est far ‘Bipene operavons we squceng pine a Tepe ap on {57s pipeline operation aed dese chess tran arn ore a ag idance Ths me tho ons # res Sc cnd wep geo oe ia icchmoreworide pein cn rs Sige de a a Sadr ce ‘eseing Ces ay 1,190 AUGUST 14, 1909 REGULAR WEEKLY ISSUE Ever iso the oul pac Kl of tiny ews, technology and sates cover 3 tiny ese exporton, iin ood ton” eansponauen and proce Cons iat nrg ty ton ures someting of ttre or eveyone i Be tind. Pfeil te nd mien Fic asthe only intermona ‘ast pubieton mits 300% pd cncuntin Iyou want o reach more eortomers ae ‘ect, sendin your space exes ay? ‘ndwesng hoes Jay 24 86, AUGUST 21, 1989 (OFFSHORE NORTHERN EUROPE READER SERVICE CARD ISSUE Ine ony Se moet oe ft, ee mares for sophsbestea ptm eps Sint senucon Newly developed Tow ca" ‘roaches cl develops have hsp a [pojecevsle even cue rs planted ‘ot eisnaton pons ll Seg at Recent months have son operators contonted se pg a get len tnsting the ster of personel eonment She eapmen What steps ae being taken 10 ‘ensure salty aod hat ay be eed ‘are wl be an tp’ part's po. COrihore persing petonnelevenwher kak tole pon 10'Ge howe companies In hs Cea ar are coping th hhc ahd owe Prices sa report of gh infreat to 2 foes Finge of rae response for urchng a ‘apes of ofehoe ges at series! This eue wil als race exits bores tb jon atthe Ofshoreturope Funan nd Ca ference in Aberdesn, Seu. A reader tonice at a nce 89 hap ‘generate ses I yu want sell more pdt oF semices 2 tn vast tiahore market reserve space man? ‘Advertsing clses fly 3, 30 AUGUST 28, 1988 REGULAR WEEKLY ISSUE hey te onl phe feet ‘fst Sista” exploration, drag oe tion, anaportin’ aad proceso Cones hensive coven of eve ncn tn Sen something of net Sor eveyone the of indusoy The found val othe indus i evidenced lapihe lc that tite coy thers oa Indust pbanon wih 100% pd ereloton Iya want reach mere canter: and pro ‘pete, Sond in your space ese tse TECHNOLOGY jut 10,909,018 Casha! 104