A Matlab Simulink Library For Transient Flow Simulation of Gas Networks

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace, Industrial, Mechatronic and Manufacturing Engineering Vol:2, No:7, 2008
A MATLAB Simulink Library for Transient

Flow Simulation of Gas Networks
M. Behbahani-Nejad, and A. Bagheri
introduced the concept of inertia multiplier to partially

Abstract—An efficient transient flow simulation for gas account the effect of the inertia term [3]. Osiadacz et al.
pipelines and networks is presented. The proposed transient flow simulated transient gas flow with isothermal assumption
simulation is based on the transfer function models and MATLAB- without neglecting any terms in momentum equation for gas
Simulink. The equivalent transfer functions of the nonlinear
networks [4]. Kiuchi used an implicit method to analyze
International Science Index, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Vol:2, No:7, 2008 waset.org/Publication/10550
governing equations are derived for different types of the boundary

conditions. Next, a MATLAB-Simulink library is developed and unsteady gas networks at isothermal conditions [6]. Also,
proposed considering any boundary condition type. To verify the Dukhovnaya and A. Michael [7], and Zhou and Adewumi [8]
accuracy and the computational efficiency of the proposed did flow simulation with the same assumptions and using
simulation, the results obtained are compared with those of the TVD schemes. Tentis et al. have used an adaptive method of
conventional finite difference schemes (such as TVD, method of lines to simulate the transient gas flow in pipelines [9]. Ke and
lines, and other finite difference implicit and explicit schemes). The
Ti analyzed isothermal transient gas flow in the pipeline
effects of the flow inertia and the pipeline inclination are
incorporated in this simulation. It is shown that the proposed networks using the electrical models for the loops and nodes
simulation has a sufficient accuracy and it is computationally more [10]. Recently and in a new work, Gonzales et al. [11] have
efficient than the other methods. used MATLAB-Simulink and prepared some S-functions to
simulate transient flow in gas networks. At their work, two
Keywords—Gas network, MATLAB-Simulink, transfer simplified models have derived containing Crank-Nicolson
functions, transient flow. algorithm and method of characteristics.
Reddy et al. [12] have proposed an efficient transient flow
I. INTRODUCTION simulation for gas pipelines and networks using the transfer
N ATURAL gas transportation and distribution are

commonly accomplished in many countries through the
gas pipelines and networks. Due to the on-line networks
functions in Laplace domain. They derived the equivalent
transfer functions for the governing equations and then, using
the convolution theorem, they obtained the series form of the
controlling and reasons that are incidental or/and accidental to output in the time domain. In the present study the transient
the operation of gas transmission pipelines or networks, flow transfer functions are employed with another efficient
transient flows do commonly arise. Thus, pipeline operations approach. The object of this paper is to prepare a MATLAB-
are actually transient processes and in fact steady state Simulink library in order to simulate the transient flow in gas
operations are rarity in practice. The governing equations for a pipelines and networks. For this purpose, the transfer
transient subsonic flow analysis of natural gas in pipelines are functions of a single pipeline are derived and applied to
a set of two nonlinear hyperbolic partial differential equations. develop a MATLAB-Simulink library. Next, this library is
Many algorithms and numerical methods such as implicit and used for a gas pipeline transient flow simulation and its
explicit finite differences, method of characteristics and so on, accuracy and efficiency is compared with those results
have been applied by several researchers for transient flow in obtained by an accurate implicit nonlinear finite difference
gas pipelines [1]–[6], but unfortunately, almost all of these scheme. The idea is then extended for a typical network
conventional schemes are time consuming especially for gas simulation. The results obtained show that proposed
network analysis. simulation has a sufficient accuracy and is more efficient than
Some of investigators [1], [2] have neglected inertia term in the other methods.
momentum equation to linearize partial differential set of
equations. However, it will result in loss of accuracy. Yow II. MATHEMATICAL MODEL
The set of partial differential equations describing the
general one-dimensional compressible gas flow dynamics
Manuscript received July 4, 2008. This work was supported in part by the
Khuzestan Gas Company and Shahid Chamran University. through a pipeline under isothermal conditions is obtained by
M. Behbahani-Nejad, Assistant Professor, is with the Mechanical applying the conservation of mass, momentum and an
Engineering Department, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran equation of state relating the pressure, density and the
(corresponding author to provide phone: (+98) 611-333-0011; fax: 611-333-
5398; e-mail: bnmorteza@scu.ac.ir). temperature. For a general pipe as shown in Fig. 1, these
A. Bagheri is with the Mechanical Engineering Department, Shahid hyperbolic partial differential equations are [13]
Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran (e-mail: alibaqeri_j_a@yahoo.com).
International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 2(7) 2008 873 scholar.waset.org/1999.8/10550
∂ρ ∂ (ρu ) III. FINITE DIFFERENCE SCHEME

+ =0 (1)
∂t ∂x The implicit Steger-Warming flux vector splitting method
(FSM) in delta formulation has been used as the numerical
∂ (ρu ) ∂ (ρu + P )
2
ρu u
+ =− f − ρg sin α (2) scheme. This method is chosen, because it doesn't have the
∂t ∂x 2D
problem of numerical instability [14]. The finite difference
P = ρZRgT form of the governing equations is
(3)
Δt + ⎧ Δt ⎫
− A ΔUi −1 + ⎪⎨I +
Δx i −1 ⎩⎪⎪
A+ − A−
Δx i
⎪
i − Δt Bi ⎬
⎪
⎪
ΔUi( )
where ρ is the gas density, P is the pressure, u is the gas axial ⎭
velocity, g is the gravitational acceleration, α is the pipe Δt −
+ Ai +1ΔUi +1 = (9)
inclination, f is the friction coefficient, Z is the gas Δx
Δt
compressibility factor, and D is the pipeline diameter. −
Δx
Fi+ − Fi+ {( − −
)
−1 + (Fi +1 − Fi ) + Δt Ri }
where
ΔU = Un +1 − Un (10)
and subscript i indicates the spatial grid point, superscript n

indicates the time level, and moreover
⎛ c2 − u2 u + c ⎞⎟
⎜⎜ ⎟
+ ⎜⎜ 2c 2c ⎟⎟⎟
A =⎜ ⎟,
⎜⎜⎜ (u + c) (c − u) (u + c) ⎟⎟⎟
2 2
⎜⎝ 2c 2c ⎠⎟⎟
⎛ u 2
− c 2
c − u ⎞⎟
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
− ⎜⎜ 2c 2 c ⎟⎟
A =⎜ 2⎟ (11)
⎜⎜ (u + c)(c − u )2 (c − u ) ⎟⎟
⎜⎜⎝ − ⎟
2c 2c ⎠⎟⎟
⎛ ρ(u + c) ⎞⎟ ⎛ ρ(u - c) ⎞⎟
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
+ ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟ − ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟
F =⎜ ⎟, F =
⎜⎜ ρ(u + c)2 ⎟⎟⎟ ⎜⎜⎜ ρ(u - c)2 ⎟⎟⎟
Fig. 1 A control volume in a general gas pipeline ⎜⎜⎝ 2 ⎠⎟⎟⎟ ⎝⎜⎜ 2
⎟⎟⎠
⎟
where c is the speed of acoustic wave in the gas flow. When
The governing equations in matrix form are (9) is applied to each grid point, a block tridiagonal system of
∂U ∂F algebraic equations will be obtained. This equations system
+ =R (4) can be solved at each time step using Thomas algorithm,
∂t ∂x
which results in ΔU. Next, U at the advanced time level can
where be calculated using (10).
⎡ ρu ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
F = ⎢⎢ 2 ⎥, R = ⎢ ρu u ⎥ (5) IV. FLOW TRANSFER FUNCTIONS
ρu + P ⎥⎥ ⎢− f − ρg sin α ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦ ⎢⎣ 2D ⎥⎦
To obtain the flow transfer functions, P0, T0, A0, and ρ0 are
Another form of the relations (1) and (2) versus the gas considered as the reference values and the nonlinear partial
pressure and the mass flow rate can be written as [13] differential equations (6) and (7) are linearized about them.
⎛ ⎞⎟ Moreover, these reference values are also considered to define
∂ ⎜⎜ P ⎟⎟ + 1 ∂m = 0
⎜⎜ (6)
ˆ ) RT ⎟⎟⎟ A ∂x
∂t ⎜⎜⎝(1 + kP the corresponding dimensionless variables expressed as
⎠⎟ x
ξ=
∂P 1 ∂m ∂ ⎛⎜1 + kP
ˆ ⎞ L
=− − RT ⎜⎜ 2 m 2 ⎟⎟⎟ tc
∂x A ∂t ∂x ⎝⎜ A P ⎠⎟ *
t =
(7) L
f m m Δ
ˆ ) RT − g h P
−
2DA2 P
(1 + kP L (1 + kP
ˆ ) RT P * = ρ* =
P
(12)
Po
where m shows the mass flow rate and kˆ is an experimental m * = mc
/ PoAo
parameter which is used to compute the compressibility factor,
u
i.e. u* = o
c
ˆ where uo is the average gas velocity in the pipe and is
Z = 1 + kP (8)
calculated as [13]
(m in + m out )Z 0RT0 1

u0 = (13) FP (s ) = k1 (21)
out ,Pin 1 + a1s + a2s 2
(Pin + Pout ) A0
When the governing equations (6) and (7) are linearized
c1s + c2s 2
and the nondimensional variabales are used, with some FM (s ) = (22)
in ,Pin 1 + aˆ1s + aˆ2s 2
mathematical manipulations one obtains [13]
∂Δm * ∂ΔP * 1 + b1s + b2s 2
=− (14) FP (s ) = k (23)
∂ξ ∂t * out ,Mout 2
1 + aˆ1s + aˆ2s 2
*
⎡ * 2 ⎤ ∂ΔP ∂Δm * ∂ΔP *
⎢1 − u ⎥ =− + 2u * − 1
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ∂ξ ∂t *
∂t * FM (s ) = (24)
in ,Mout 1 + d1s + d2s 2
⎧⎪ fL* (15)
g Δh ⎫⎪
u * fL*Δm * + + ⎪⎨ u * u * − 2 ⎪⎬ ΔP * The coefficients of the above expansions are also presented
⎪⎪ 2 c ⎪⎪⎭
⎩
in appendix A. For other types of the boundary conditions,
where
similar relations can be obtained.

ΔP * = P * − Po *
(16) V. MATLAB SIMULINK MODEL
Δm * = m * − m o*
When the flow transfer functions are obtained, they can be
Since for the practical
subsonic transient flows used to make a MATLAB-Simulink model for transient
2
u * = u 0 / c 1 , one can omits u* at the left hand side of analysis. Fig. 2 shows a Simulink model for a single pipe when
the gas pressure at the inlet and the mass flow rate at the outlet
(15). Taking the Laplace transform of (14) and (15), yields the
are known. For other boundary conditions, similar models can
following two coupled linear ordinary differential equations
be made.
∂Δm * (s )
= −s ΔP * (s ) (17)
∂ξ
∂ΔP * (s )
= − ⎡⎢ u * fL* + s ⎤⎥ Δm * (s ) +
∂ξ ⎣ ⎦
⎧ fL * ⎫ (18)
⎪
⎪ g Δh ⎪
⎨ u * u * − 2 + 2u *s ⎪ *
⎬ ΔP (s )
⎪
⎪ 2 c ⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎭
After imposing the boundary conditions, the above system
of ODE can be solved. For example, if the gas pressure at the
inlet and the mass flow rate at the pipe outlet are specified as
functions of time, the above system of ODE results in
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪ΔPout * (s ) = e γ / 2 2b
⎪ ΔPin * (s ) +
⎪
⎪ 2b cosh (b ) − γ sinh (b ) Fig. 2 A simulink model when the pipeline inlet pressure and the
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2α sinh (b ) outlet gas flow rate are known
⎪
⎪ − ΔMout * (s )
⎪
⎪ 2b cosh (b ) − γ sinh (b )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪
(19) At the present work, a Simulink library for each type of the
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2β sinh (b ) boundary conditions is made in the MATLAB-Simulink
⎪
⎪ΔM in * (s ) = ΔPin * (s ) +
⎪
⎪ 2 b cosh (b ) − γ sinh ( b ) browser that is called as shown in Fig. 3. In this library each
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2b
⎪
⎪ + e−γ / 2 ΔMout * (s ) block has two inputs which are known from the boundary
⎪
⎪
⎩ 2 b cosh ( b ) − γ sinh (b ) conditions, and two outputs as the results of the transient
⎪
where α, β, b and γ are defined in appendix A. After Taylor- simulation. Then, the proposed approach is extended to
expansion of the hyperbolic terms in (19), the simplified simulate a gas network. A typical network which has been
transfer functions are studied by Ke and Ti [10] is considered and simulated with
⎧ the proposed approach. Fig. 4 shows a schematic of this
⎪
⎪ΔP * (s ) = FP ,P ΔPin * (s ) + FM ,P ΔMout * (s )
⎪ out out in out out network and its Simulink model is illustrated in Fig. 5. The
⎨ (20)
⎪Δ *( )
= Δ *( )
+ * accuracy of the obtained results and the computational
⎪
⎪
⎩
M in s FMin ,Pin Pin s FM in ,Mout ΔMout (s )
efficiency of the proposed simulation are discussed in the next
where section.
Fig. 4 The gas pipeline network
The pipeline transports natural gas of 0.675 specific gravity at

10oC. The gas viscosity is 1.1831x10-5 N.sec/m2, while the
pipeline wall roughness is 0.617 mm and isothermal sound
speed equals 367.9 m/s. At the pipeline’s inlet, the gas
pressure is kept constant at 4.205 MPa, whereas the pipe’s
mass flow rate at the outlet varies with a 24-hour cycle,
corresponding to changes in consumer demand within a day as
Fig. 3 The present MATLAB-Simulink is depicted in Fig. 6.
Fig. 5 Simulink model of the gas pipeline network
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Fig. 7 illustrates the present results of FSM for pressure time
The results of the proposed transient simulation are changes at the pipe outlet, along with those of the others [8],
compared with those of the implicit FSM as an accurate [9], [15] and the experiments. There are some differences
nonlinear finite difference scheme. In order to verify the between the present nonlinear FSM results with those
accuracy of the present implicit FSM, a 72259.5 m long obtained by the others. However, when they are compared
pipeline of 0.2 m diameter was considered as a test case. The with the experiments, it seems that all of the numerical
test case which its experimental results are available, has been methods have the nearly similar differences with experiments.
studied by Taylor et al. [15], Zhou and Adewumi [8], and also The interesting point is the accuracy of the results of the
by Tentis et al. [9]. proposed transfer function model. As it is seen in Fig. 7, the
present transfer function model can predict the transient

40
behavior of the outlet pressure as nearly accurate as the
nonlinear finite difference models. 35
Gas Flow Rate (kg/sec)

30
2.2E+04
25
2.1E+04
20
15
Flow Rate (S-m3/Hr)
2.0E+04
10
1.9E+04
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (min)
1.8E+04 Fig. 8 A periodic demand imposed at the pipe outlet

1.7E+04
Implicit FSM
present Transfer Function modeling
7
1.6E+04
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 6.5
Time (Hr)
6
Fig. 6 A 24-hour irregular flow imposed at the pipe outlet
5.5
outlet pressure (bar)
5
30
AML (Tentis 2003) 4.5
28 Taylor et al. (1962)
TVD (Zhou Adewumi 1995) 4
26 Implicit FSM
Experimental data 3.5
24 present Transfer Function modeling
3
22
outlet pressure (bar)
2.5
20 2
0 20 40 60 80 100
18 time (min.)
16 Fig. 9 The gas outlet pressure predicted by the present simulation

and implicit FSM
14
12
Finally, a typical network as shown in Fig. 4 was considered
10 to confirm the results of the present gas network simulation.
8
The geometrical data of the network is introduced in Table I
and the gas demand at the nodes 2 and 3 are illustrated in Fig.
6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 10. The pressure source in the network is node 1 which is
time (Hour) maintained at a constant pressure of 50 bar. The gas specific
Fig. 7 Comparison of pressure time history at the outlet gravity is approximately 0.6, the operational temperature is
278 K, and the friction factor is considered to be constant and
A harmonic demand as shown in Fig. 8 was imposed at the equal to 0.003. The present simulation results are compared
pipe outlet as another test case. From Fig. 9, it is observed that with those obtained by Ke and Ti [10] in Figs. 11 and 12. As
the present transfer function model can well follow the results is shown in the figures a good agreement is observed although
of the implicit FSM after a few minutes. The relatively large some differences exist at the sharp points. This behavior
errors at the initial times are expected because at these times implies that the transfer function model results in the sharp
the outlet pressure does not achieve its purely harmonic changes in the outlet pressure if the demand at the outlet is
behavior. sharp.
60 TABLE I
Demand from node 2 SPEED COMPARISON BETWEEN USED METHODS
55
Demand from node 3
50 method CPU time (s)
45
transfer function
1.18
Flow Rate (S-m3/sec)
40
(current study)
35
30
implicit method 34.52
25
20 VII. CONCLUSION
15 The proposed simulation can be applied to analyze the
10 transient flow of natural gas in pipelines and networks with a
5
sufficient accuracy. Since the proposed simulation is used the
transfer functions of the transient gas flows, it is more
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 computationally efficient than the other finite difference
time (Hour) methods. On the other hand, it is an easy task to analyze the
Fig. 10 Demands versus time for nodes 2 and 3 of the simulated transient flows with any boundary condition types using the
network proposed MATLAB-Simulink library. Moreover, one can
assemble the transfer functions of all the network pipes to
TABLE I simulate the dynamic behavior of a gas network. The present
PIPE GEOMETRICAL DATA FOR THE RELATED NETWORK
study is shown that the proposed simulation extremely reduces
Gas Duct ID
From To Diameter Length the computational time comparing the other numerical
node node (m) (km) schemes. However, because the present simulation is based on
1 1 3 0.6 80
the flow transfer functions it only gives the endpoints results
2 1 2 0.6 90 and not those distributions along the pipelines.
3 2 3 0.6 100
The computational efficiency of the proposed simulation is 51.2

compared with the implicit FSM through the results presented
present Transfer Function library
in Table II. It is observed that the proposed simulation is 50.4 Ke and Ti (1999)
extremely efficient than the conventional finite difference
methods. 49.6
Pressure (bar)
48.8
50.4
48
50 present Transfer Function library
Ke and Ti (1999)
49.6 47.2
Pressure (bar)
49.2 46.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Hour)
48.8
Fig. 12 Outlet pressure results for nodes 3
48.4
48 APPENDIX A
47.6
In this appendix, the algebraic expressions of the
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 parameters used in (19) and (21)-(24) are presented. α, β, γ
Time (Hour)
and b which are used in (19) are stated as [13]
Fig. 11 Outlet pressure results for nodes 2
α (s ) = α1 + α2s 1 2 1
d2 = aˆ2 + γ2 + γ2aˆ1
(A-
β (s ) = β1s 8 2 14)
γ (s ) = γ1 + γ2s (A-1)
b (s ) = γ 2 + 4αβ / 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
where Khuzestan Gas Company and Shahid Chamran University
are acknowledged for providing technical, administrative, and
α1 = u * fL*, α2 = L / c , β1 = L / c , financial assistance.
fL* * * g Δh (A-2)
γ1 = u u − 2 , γ2 = 2u *L / c REFERENCES
2 c [1] E. B. Wylie, M. A. Stoner, and V. L. Streeter, “Network Transient
Calculation by Implicit methods”, Soc. Pet Eng. J., 1971, 356-362.
The other parameters which have been used in (21)-(24) are [2] C. A. Luongo, “An Efficient Program for Transient Flow Simulation in
[16] Natural Gas Pipelines”, 15th Annual Meeting Pipeline Simulation
Interest Group (PSIG), New Orleans, October 1986.
⎡1 [3] W. Yow, “Analysis and Control of Transient Flow in Natural Gas

⎞⎤ γ
γ1
⎛ 1 1 1 3
aˆ1 = e 2 ⎢ α1β1 ⎜⎜1 − γ1 + γ12 − γ1 +"⎟⎟⎟⎥ − 2 (A-3) Piping System”, Ph.D. dissertation, U. of Michigan, Ann Harbor, 1971.
⎢⎣ 2 ⎝⎜ 6 24 240 ⎠⎥⎦ 2 [4] A. J. Osiadacz, “Simulation and Analysis of Gas Networks”, E. & F.N.
Spon, London, 1987.
γ1 [5] S. O. Ibraheem and M. A. Adewumi, “Higher-Resolution Numerical
⎡ 1 2 2⎛ 1 ⎞ Solution for 2-D Transient Natural Gas Pipeline Flows”,Soc. of
aˆ2 =e 2 ⎢ α1 β1 ⎜⎜1 − γ1 ⎟⎟⎟ + Petroleum Eng., SPE 35626, 1996, pp. 473.482.
⎢⎣ 24 ⎝ 10 ⎠
[6] T. Kiuchi, “An Implicit Method for Transient Gas Flow in Pipe
1 ⎛ 1 1 1 ⎞ Networks”, Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 15, No. 5, 1994, pp. 378-
α2β1 ⎜⎜1 − γ1 + γ12 + − γ13 + "⎟⎟⎟ − (A-4)
2 ⎝ 6 24 240 ⎠ 383.
[7] Y. Dukhovnaya and A. Michael, “Simulation of non-isothermal
1 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤ 1 transient in gas/condensate pipelines using TVD schemes”, Petroleum
α1β1γ2 ⎜⎜1 − γ1 − γ12 − "⎟⎟⎟⎥ + γ22
12 ⎝⎜ 2 16 ⎠⎥⎦ 8 and Natural Gas Eng., The Pennsylvania State University, USA., 2000.
[8] J. Zhou and M. A. Adewumi, “Simulation of Transient Flow in Natural
γ1 Gas Pipelines”, the Pennsylvania State University, Petroleum and
k1 = e (A-5) Natural Gas Engineering, GRI-PA 16802, 1996.
[9] E. Tentis, D. Margaris, and D. Papanikas, “Transient gas flow
1 simulation using an Adaptive Method of Lines”, U. of Patras, C. R.
a1 = aˆ1 − γ2 (A-6) Mechanics J., 2003, pp. 481–487.
2 [10] S. L. Ke and H. C. Ti, “Transient analysis of isothermal gas flow in
pipeline network”, chemical eng. J., 1999, 169-177.
1 2 1 [11] A. H. Gonzales, J. M. De La Cruz, B. D. Andres-Toro, and J. L. Risco-
a2 = aˆ2 + γ2 − γ2aˆ1 (A-7)
8 2 Martin, “Modeling and simulation of a gas distribution pipeline
network”, Applied Mathematical Modeling J., article in press, 2008.
γ1 [12] H. P. Reddy, S. Narasimhan, and S. M. Bhallamudi, “Simulation and
⎛ 1 1 ⎞
k2 = e 2 α1 ⎜⎜1 + γ12 + γ14 ⎟⎟⎟ (A-8) State Estimation of Transient Flow in Gas Pipeline Networks Using a
⎝ 24 1920 ⎠
Transfer Function Model”, Department of Chemical Engineering and
⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ 1 2 ⎟⎞ Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Inst. of Technology, Madras,
⎜α β + γ γ ⎟⎟⎟⎜1 + γ1 ⎟⎟
α ⎝⎜ 1 1 12 1 2 ⎠⎝ ⎜ 40 ⎠ Chennai-600036, India, 2006.
b1 = 2 + (A-9) [13] J. Kralik, P. Stiegler, Z. Vostry, J. Zavorka, “Dynamic modeling of large
α1 1 2 1 4
1 + γ1 + γ1 scale networks with application to gas distribution”, 1st ed., Inst. of
4 320
Information Thory and Automation of the Czechoslovak Academy of
1
b2 = × Sciences Prague, Czechoslovakia, ELSEVIER Amesterdam-Axford,
1 2 1
1+ γ1 + γ14 1998.
24 1920 [14] A. K. Hoffman and S. T. Chiang, “Computational Fluid Dynamics for
⎧⎪⎪ α2 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎛ 1 2 ⎞⎟ Engineers”, Wichita, Kansas, 2000.
⎨ ⎜⎜ α1β1 + γ1γ2 ⎟⎟⎟ ⎜⎜1 + γ1 ⎟⎟ + (A- [15] T. D. Taylor, N. E. Wood, and J. E. Power, “A Computer Simulation of
⎪⎪⎩ α1 ⎝ 6 12 ⎠⎝ 40 ⎠
Gas Flow in Long Pipelines”, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Trans. AIME, 225,
1 1 ⎛ 1 2 ⎞⎟ 1 10)
+ α12β12 + α2β1 ⎜⎜1 + γ1 ⎟⎟ + αβγγ + 1962, 1962, pp. 297-302.
120 6 ⎝ 40 ⎠ 120 1 1 1 2 [16] A. Bagheri, “Evaluation of Various Numerical Algorithms for Transient
1 ⎛1 ⎫
1 2 ⎞⎟⎪ Flow Computation in Natural Gas Networks and Dynamic Analysis of a
+ γ22 ⎜⎜ + γ ⎟⎟⎬ Typical Case”, M. Sc. Thesis, Mech. Eng. Dept., Shahid Chamran
4 ⎝ 6 80 1 ⎠⎪⎪
⎭ University, Ahvaz, Iran, (in preparation).
γ
1
⎛ 1 1 ⎞ (A-
c1 = e 2 β1 ⎜⎜1 + γ12 + γ14 ⎟⎟⎟
⎝ 24 1920 ⎠ 11)
γ
1
⎛1 1 ⎞⎛ 1 ⎞ (A-
c2 = e 2 β1 ⎜⎜ α1β1 + γ1γ2 ⎟⎟⎟⎜⎜1 + γ12 ⎟⎟⎟
⎝6 12 ⎠⎝ 40 ⎠ 12)
1 (A-
d1 = aˆ1 + γ2
2 13)

A Matlab Simulink Library For Transient Flow Simulation of Gas Networks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

A Matlab Simulink Library For Transient Flow Simulation of Gas Networks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology