Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2000
www.che.com
Gas-flow Calculations:
Don't Choke
Assuming incompressible flow simplifies the math,
Trey Walters, P.E.
Applied Flow Technology
F commonplace in chemical-pro-
cess plants. Unfortunately, the
design and analysis of gas-flow
systems are considerably more
complicated than for liquid (incom-
pressible) flow, due mainly to pressure-
induced variations in the gas-stream
will clearly be required. In practice,
many gas systems fall between these
extremes, and it is difficult to assess
the error that will result from using
incompressible methods.
A major purpose of this article is to
offer guidelines for assessing the im-
Equation (1) to gas flow by taking the
average density and velocity. But, be-
cause the variation of each of these
parameters along a pipe is nonlinear,
the arithmetic averages will be incor-
rect. The difficult question — How
seriously incorrect? — is discussed in
density and velocity. Here, we review portance of compressibility effects in a detail later in this article.
practical principles and present some given case. First, however, we set out Individual length of pipe: More strictly
key equations governing gas flow, and relevant equations, and discuss some applicable than Equation 1 to gas flow
assess several assumptions and rules key aspects of gas-flow behavior.1 in a pipe are Equations (2)–(6) [1–3],
of thumb that engineers sometimes developed from fundamental fluid-
apply in order to simplify gas-flow The underlying equations flow principles and generalized from
analysis and calculations. Incompressible flow: An apt start- perfect gas equations [4] to apply to
ing point for discussing gas flow is real gases:
Compressible, incompressible an equation more usually applied to Mass:
In a broad sense, the appropriate term liquids, the Darcy-Weisbach equation
for gas flow is compressible flow. In a (see Nomenclature box, next page):
(2)
stricter sense, however, such flow can
be categorized as either incompress- (1) Momentum:
ible or compressible, depending on the
where f is the Moody friction factor, (3)
amount of pressure change the gas un-
dergoes, as well as on other conditions. generally a function of Reynolds num-
Energy:
Accurately calculating truly com- ber and pipe roughness. This equation
pressible flow in pipe systems, espe- assumes that the density, , is
constant. The density of a liquid is (4)
cially in branching networks, is a for-
midable task. Accordingly, engineers a very weak function of pressure Equation of State:
often apply rules of thumb to a given (hence the substance is virtually (5)
design situation involving gas flow, to incompressible), and density changes
Mach number:
decide whether the use of (simpler) in- due to pressure are ignored in
compressible-flow calculations can be practice. The density varies more
(6)
justified. Such rules of thumb are help- significantly with tem- perature. In
ful, but they can lead one astray when systems involving heat transfer, the Several things should be noted
used without a full understanding of the density can be based on the about Equations (2)–(6):
underlying assumptions. arithmetic average, or, better, the log • They assume that the pipe diameter
Sometimes, the case is clear-cut. For mean temperature. When the ap- is constant
instance, if the engineer is designing propriate density is used, Equation (1) • They are applicable not only to indi-
a near-atmospheric-pressure venti- can be used on a large majority of liq- vidual gases but also to mixtures, so
lation system, with pressure drops uid pipe-flow systems, and for gas flow long as appropriate mixture proper-
measured in inches of water, incom- 1. The quantitative compressible- and incom- ties are used
pressible-flow results in this article were obtained • Equation (1) is a special case of the
pressible-flow methods are perfectly using, respectively, AFT Arrow and AFT Fathom.
suitable. Conversely, for design or Both are commercially available software for pipe momentum equation, Equation (3). If
system modeling. A simplified but highly useful
specification of a pressure-relief sys- utility program, Compressible Flow Estimator the third term on the left-hand side
tem that is certain to experience high (CFE), was developed specifically for this article, of the latter (commonly called the ac-
and was used in several cases.
NomENClATurE Flow chokes at exit into
atmosphere or tank
A cross-sectional flow area of a pipe s entropy
D diameter of a pipe T temperature, static
e pipe wall roughness T0 temperature, stagnation
f friction factor V velocity Flow chokes at
expansion in pipe area
Ff, g, γ, T0 parameters in Equation (14) x length
–
F arithmetical average of F over z elevation
computing section
Z compressibility factor
g acceleration (usually gravita-
γ specific heat ratio Flow chokes at
tional)
h enthalpy, static θ angle from horizontal resriction in pipe
Mach/number
Mach/number
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
The third case, which may be called 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
restriction choking, occurs when the 0 0 0
0
gas flows through a restriction in the 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/L x/L
pipe, such as an orifice or valve. In
such a case, the flow area of the gas Figure 2. These stagnation-pressure and Mach-number profiles are for (left) ex-
is reduced, causing a local increase in pansion choking, involving a 2-in. pipe expanding to 3 in., and (right) restriction chok-
velocity, which may reach the sonic ing at a 0.6-area-ratio orifice in a 2-in. pipe
velocity. A shock wave forms at the re- 5 4
Temperature, ˚F
Case here, 100-psia, 111°F air
flow (lb/s)
is fed into a 1-in. pipe 20 ft
90 Cooled 0.9197 long. Outlet pressure is 60
Adiabatic 0.8994 psia. Cooled flow has 30°F
70 Isothermal 0.8903 ambient temperature;
Heated 0.8776
heated flow, 220°F. The
50 heat-transfer coefficients
smax s are 100 Btu/(h)(ft )(°F)
Distance, ft.
Mach number
0.8 0.8 0.7
Cover
CoverStory
Story
T/T inlet
0.7 0.6
0.6
0.5 Tambient/Tinlet = 0.4
0.6 Tambient /Tinlet= 0.4 0.6
0.4
0.5 0.3 0.8
1.0
the goal is to find those at Location 2 0.4 0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
that satisfy the equations. There are x/L x/L
multiple unknowns at Location 2, and
much iteration is required. 1.1 1
1 0.9
In addition, some expression for the
Error, %
20 Methane 10 0.8
1.5
15 20 0 1.2
fL/D=3
10 5 -10
L/D = 1000
10 10 1.5
5 15 30 -20
50 -30
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
dPstag/Pstag, inlet dPstag/Pstag, inlet dPstag/Pstag, inlet
FIGURE 8. The pipe pressure-drop ratio FIGURE 9. This map shows the error Figure 10. When a pipe is treated as adia-
and the ratio of pipe length to diameter (overprediction) in flowrate prediction for batic but actually has heat transfer, the flow-
are appropriate parameters for general- a single pipe due to using incompress- rate prediction error can be sizable, even with-
izing about the error that is introduced ible-flow assumptions rather than an out an incompressible-flow assumption. The
when assuming incompressible flow adiabatic compressible-flow calculation case here is for 100-psia, 70F air entering an
uninsulated steel pipe with L/D ratio of 200
incompressible-flow-assumption error the size of the incompressible-flow-as- (4), or using more-convenient forms
against this parameter makes it possi- sumption error. However, some insight of these equations, such as Equations
ble to summarize the information on a can be gained from comparing rel- (13) or (14). Realistically, this requires
single curve for each fL/D value, which evant compressible-flow calculations appropriate software.
applies for all pipe diameters. (setting aside for a moment our pre-
Such an error map appears in Fig- occupation with the incompressible- Network complications
ure 9. It is based on an iterative pro- flow-assumption error). Computer When applying the concepts in this ar-
gram, Compressible Flow Estimator models were constructed to determine ticle, and in particular the use of the
(CFE), developed by the author and the difference in flowrate for air at dif- CFE program that underlies Figure
being made available as a free down- ferent ambient temperatures. 9, to a pipe network, the number of
load at http://www.aft.com/cfe.htm. The difference in flowrate for air variables increases and the difficulty
The results shown in Figure 9 are with different ambient temperatures in assessing the potential error like-
of general applicability. Various spe- as compared to the compressible adia- wise increases. To investigate possible
cific heat ratios, , and batic case appears in Figure 10. It can error-estimating methods, we have
compressibility factors, Z, have been be seen that cooling a gas may result constructed simple flow models, one
entered into the CFE, and the results in a greatly increased flowrate. In for incompressible flow and the other
always fall along the lines shown in contrast, heating a gas can cause the for compressible flow, of a manifolding
Figure 9. This error map is also flowrate to decrease significantly. pipe system. For simplicity, the com-
consistent with real-sys- tem Accordingly, if an engineer is trying pressible-flow model assumed that all
predictions based on more-sophis- to design for a minimum flowrate, a gas flows are adiabatic. The basis is a 110-
ticated calculation methods. Accord- stream that is cooling works in his or psia air system that enters a header
ingly, Figure 9 is recommended to the her favor by causing an underpredic- and flows to three pipes at successive
engineer for general use as a guide in tion of the flowrate when using adia- points along the header, terminating
assessing compressibility in pipes. batic flow methods. When this error is in a known pressure of 90 psia.
Keep in mind, though, that Figure combined with that of an incompress- For each pipe in the system, the
9 assumes adiabatic flow. Additional ible-flow assumption, which overpre- predicted fL/D and pressure-drop
error can result from flows involving dicts the flow, these two errors work in ratio have been determined from the
heat transfer. The relative importance opposite directions, in part cancelling incompressible-flow model. The re-
of heat transfer is addressed in the each other out. Conversely, a gas being sulting data have been entered into
next section. heated adds further error on top of the the CFE program for each pipe, and
Finally, note that the direction of incompressible-flow-assumption error, an approximate error generated for
the incompressible-flow-assumption causing even more overprediction of each. Then, starting from the supply,
error is to overpredict the flowrate. Or, the flowrate. a path has been traced to each termi-
stated differently, for a given flowrate, In many gas-pipe-system designs, nating boundary (of which there are
it will underpredict the pressure drop. the delivery temperature is as impor- three). The error for each pipe in the
Unfortunately for typical pipe-system tant as the delivery flowrate and pres- path has been summed, and then di-
applications, neither of these conclu- sure. In those cases, the heat-transfer vided by the number of pipes in the
sions is consistent with conservative characteristics of the pipe system take path, giving an average error. This
design. on the highest importance, and nei- average has been compared to the
The sequence of steps that underlie ther adiabatic nor isothermal methods actual difference between the results
the CFE program are available from —let alone incompressible-flow as- of the incompressible- and compress-
the author. Also available from him are sumptions — can give accurate predic- ible-flow models.
modified sequences, for handling situ- tions. Unless the gas flow is very low Overall the comparison has proved
ations in which (1) the endpoint static and can be adequately calculated with favorable. However, applying CFE to
pressure rather than the stagnation incompressible methods, the designer this networked system underpredicts
pressure are known, or (2) the temper- is left with no choice but to perform the actual error from the detailed mod-
ature and flowrate are known but the a full compressible flow calculation. els by up to 20%. The first pipe in the
endpoint stagnation pressure is not. This means solving Equations (2)–(6) header shows the largest error, and the
Effect of heat transfer: The author with a suitable relationship for the last pipe the smallest. As in the single-
knows of no general relationship heat transfer to be used in Equation pipe calculations, the incompressible
showing the effect of heat transfer on
Cover Story
method overpredicts the flowrate. However, Equation (15) breaks ible-flow methods and estimation equa-
In short, extra care should be taken down for pipe-system analysis when tions in this article to such systems.
when interpreting the meaning of in- pipe friction becomes a factor. The The methods discussed in this article
compressible-flow methods applied to reason is that the stagnation pressure can help the engineer assess endpoint
gas pipe networks. in the equation is the pressure at the sonic choking, but restriction and ex-
upstream side of the shock wave. If pansion choking are somewhat more
Rethinking the rules of thumb there is any pressure drop in the pipe complicated. Accordingly, the estima-
The information presented up to now from the supply pressure to the shock tion methods in this article may not be
provides a basis for critiquing a num- wave, then the supply pressure cannot applied to all choking situations.
ber of rules of thumb upon which en- be used in Equation (15). Instead, the For new designs that require a lot of
gineers often depend when dealing local stagnation pressure at the shock pipe, the engineer should consider the
with gas flow. wave must be used — but this is not potential costs savings if smaller pipe
Adiabatic and isothermal flow: known, unless the pressure drop is sizes can be used. If significant cost
One rule of thumb is the myth that calculated using other means. savings prove to be possible, it may be
adiabatic and isothermal flow bracket In short, Equation (15) cannot be prudent to invest in developing a de-
all flowrates. They do not, as has al- used to predict the supply and dis- tailed model that can more accurately
ready been noted. charge pressures necessary for sonic determine the system capability over
40%-pressure-drop rule: A common choking unless the piping has negli- a range of pipe sizes. A detailed model
belief is what can be called the 40%- gible friction loss. may also help assess the wisdom of
pressure-drop rule. Presented in a va- Other simplified compressible-flow making modifications proposed for an
riety of handbooks, it states that if the methods: A variety of simplified gas- existing system. ■
pipe pressure drop in a compressible- flow equations, often based on assuming Edited by Nicholas P. Chopey
flow system is less than 40% of the isothermal flow, crop up in the practical
References:
inlet pressure, then incompressible- engineering literature. These typically 1. Winters, B.A., and Walters, T.W., X-34 High
flow calculation methods can be safely have several drawbacks that are not al- Pressure Nitrogen Reaction Control System
Design and Analysis, NASA Thermal Fluid
employed, with the average density ways acknowledged or recognized: Analysis Workshop, Houston, Tex., 1997.
along the pipe used in the equations. • Most gas flows are not isothermal. 2. Walters, T.W., and Olsen, J.A., Modeling
In the handbooks, it is not made In such cases, one cannot know how Highly Compressible Flows in Pipe Net-
works Using a Graphical User Interface,
clear whether the pressure drop ratio much error is introduced by the as- ASME International Joint Power Generation
is to be based on the stagnation or the sumption of constant temperature. Conference, Denver, Colo., 1997.
3. “AFT Arrow 2.0 User’s Guide,” Applied Flow
static pressures. (In the author’s expe- Related to this is the general issue of Technology, Woodland Park, Colo., 1999.
rience, engineers apply the rule more the importance of heat transfer on the 4. Saad, M.A., “Compressible Fluid Flow,” 2nd
frequently using stagnation-pressure gas flow, already mentioned Ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993.
ratios.) In any case, Figures 8 and 9 • Simplified equations typically do 5. Carroll, J.J., Working with Fluids that Warm
Upon Expansion, Chem. Eng., pp. 108–114,
make it clear that the 40%-pressure- not address sonic-choking issues September 1999.
drop rule has no validity unless as- • These equations are of no help when 6. Anderson, J.D., Jr., “Modern Compressible
Flow: With Historical Perspective,” McGraw-
sociated with a specific L/D ratio. Ac- the delivery temperature is important Hill, New York, N.Y., 1982.
cordingly, this rule of thumb is highly • The simplified equations break 7. Shapiro, A.H., “The Dynamics and Thermo-
misleading, and should be discarded down at high Mach numbers dynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow,” 2
vols., Ronald, New York, N.Y., 1953.
by the engineering community. • Unrealistically, the entire pipe is 8. Barry, John, Calculate Physical Properties for
Choked air flow at 50% pressure solved in one lumped calculation, Real Gases, Chem. Eng., pp. 110–114, April
1999.
drop: An equation sometimes used rather than using a marching solu-
9. Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and
as a rule of thumb to assess the likeli- tion Pipe, Technical Paper No. 410, Crane Co., Jo-
hood of sonic choking is as follows (see, • It is difficult to extend the equations liet, Ill., 1988.
Reprinted from the January 2000 issue of Chemical Engineering. © 2006 Access Intelligence, LLC.