Basic Approaches to Fluid Flow

Calculations in Pipes

Prepared By

Garry A. Gregory, P.Eng.

© May 2002

Notes for a Professional Development Course

presented in

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

December 4 - 6, 2002

by

NEOTECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS LTD.

510, 1701 Centre Street N.W.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2E 7Y2
Tel: (403) 277-6688 Fax: (403) 277-6687
Internet: www.neotec.com
 Disclaimer

Although all of the information contained in these Short Course Notes is believed to be accurate at the time it
is prepared, it is presented without representation or warranty of any kind. Neither Neotechnology Consultants
Ltd. nor the author shall assume any liability of any kind whatsoever, either collectively or individually, arising
from the use or application of any of the technology, descriptions, or expressed opinions contained herein.
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Elevation / Drilling Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3. The One-Step Calculation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. The Stepwise Calculation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5. Estimation of “Mid-Point Pressure” for Fluid Property Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . 7

6. General Comments Regarding the Two Calculation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 BASIC APPROACHES FOR FLOW CALCULATIONS

1. Introduction

Two basic procedures can be followed for performing flow calculations in pipes, regardless of
whether they represent a a well or a pipeline system. While they are fundamentally similar, the accuracy
obtained and the required computational effort differ dramatically. These methods can be described as,

(i) The One-Step or Integral calculation procedure

(ii) The Stepwise, Multi-step, or Differential calculation procedure

The following Notes contain a brief discussion of the primary characteristics of the two procedures
and a comparison of their relative advantages and disadvantages.

2. Elevation / Drilling Profile

For either of the two procedures noted above, the actual elevation profile for the system can be very
important design information; this is especially true for multiphase fluid systems. Regardless of the
application (pipeline or well), the profile which defines the flow path can be described in terms of a set of
pairs of X (horizontal displacement), and Z (vertical elevation) coordinates that represent individual
sections of pipe, connected in series, as shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1

Elevation Profile Defined by (X, Z) Coordinates

For each pipe section, the coordinate locations are chosen such that,

(i) the pipe has a constant angle or slope, relative to the horizontal
(ii) the pipe has a constant diameter and relative roughness
(iii) the total mass flow within the pipe is constant
(iv) the nature of the pipe surroundings is unchanged
(v) the mechanical and thermal properties of the pipe are unchanged
Basic Approaches to Flow Calculations in Pipes (Revised 05-02) Page 2

Figure 2.2 shows the elevation profile for a gas pipeline in the Alberta foothills. As a matter of
interest, this profile is defined using a total of 161 coordinates. It has a net drop of about 167 ft (51 m) over
its 30.6 mile (49.2 km) length. However, the total sum of the rises (i.e. uphill flowing sections) is 3,259 ft
(993 m), which results in a average rise of about 107 ft/mile (20.2 m/km).

Figure 2.2

Elevation Profile for a Gas Pipeline in the Alberta Foothills

Figure 2.3 shows the drilling profile (i.e. elevation profile) for a deviated or directionally drilled well
in the Middle East. In the case of wells, it is customary to plot the profile in terms of Depth (increasing
downwards), rather than Elevation (increasing upwards) on the vertical axis. The effect, however, is the
same, in that one obtains a snapshot of the actual profile.

Figure 2.4 shows another profile for a directionally drilled well, this time from a gas field in the Far
East. This particular profile is defined by 97 coordinate points, has a true vertical depth (TVD) of 8,695 ft
(2,650 m), and a measured depth of 8,989 ft (2,740 m). The general shape is rather typical of the increasing
number of “horizontal” wells that are being drilled, although these will often have actual horizontal sections
at the bottom-hole depth that may extend for thousands of feet.

While requirements (ii) through (v) above can usually be met very closely, if not exactly, requirement
(i) is generally only satisfied approximately unless a very large number of pipe sections is considered. In
most cases however, this has a minimal effect on the results of any flow calculations, provided that only
small variations in slope are permitted within a given section. Many multiphase models, for example, have
dependencies which vary only with the magnitude of the rise and the drop, rather than with the actual slope
of the pipe. In fact, some of the simpler models depend only on the sum of the rises. There are however,
some very sophisticated models for multiphase flow that do take into account the actual slope and when such
models are to be used, the elevation profile should be determined as accurately as possible
.
Basic Approaches to Flow Calculations in Pipes (Revised 05-02) Page 3

Figure 2.3

Directionally Drilled Profile for a Mid-East Well

Figure 2.4

Directionally Drilled Profile for a Far East Gas Well

Very often, a detailed route survey profile is not available for a pipeline and elevations must be
estimated from a topographical map. If there are significant elevation changes, it is good practice to add
15% to 20% to both hills and valleys to account for changes that are too small to read from the map. For
relatively short pipelines, ignoring minor changes will have little effect. For longer pipelines however, the
cumulative effect of even small elevation changes can still be very significant.
Basic Approaches to Flow Calculations in Pipes (Revised 05-02) Page 4

For example, Figure 2.5 shows the elevation profile that was originally supplied for a study of a
254.6 mile (409.7 km) long offshore pipeline that was described as traversing “relatively flat, smooth, sea-
bottom”. This profile was defined by 15 profile coordinates, has a net elevation change of 213 ft (64.9 m),
and the sum of the uphill elevation changes is 223 ft (68.0 m). After comparing some preliminary
calculations with measured data, it was apparent (for reasons that will be made clearer in later discussions
of multiphase flow basics) that the elevation effect on pressure losses had to be very significant, but could
not be explained by the profile that was being used. Consequently, a more detailed elevation profile was
requested from the client. Figure 2.6 shows the revised elevation profile that was obtained from the large
set of detailed drawings that was subsequently provided. This profile is defined by 441 coordinate points,
has a net elevation change of 200 ft (61.0 m), but the sum of the uphill elevation changes is 1,387 ft (422.8
m), or an average of 5.5 ft/mile (1.03 m/km). Calculated pressure losses were in significantly better
agreement with the measured values when the revised profile was used.

Figure 2.5

Original Elevation Profile Provided for a Subsea Pipeline

Figure 2.6

Revised Elevation Profile Obtained for the Subsea Pipeline

Basic Approaches to Flow Calculations in Pipes (Revised 05-02) Page 5

When not even a topographical map is available, it is recommended that you still arbitrarily introduce
some terrain effect into the profile that is to be used for a multiphase system. This will make it possible to
at least examine the sensitivity of the overall pressure loss to elevation changes (the basis for doing this is
discussed in some detail in the Notes dealing with the Basics of Multiphase Flow). In the absence of any
other information, the provisions listed in Table 2.1 are suggested as guidelines.

Table 2.1

Typical Average Elevation Rises for Various Types of Terrain

Terrain Description (ft/mile) (m/km)

“Flat” (e.g. prairies) 8 - 12 1.5 - 2.3

Rolling 15 - 25 2.8 - 4.8
Hilly (e.g. foothills) 60 - 120 11 - 23
Severe 150 + 46 +
“Smooth” sea bottom 5 - 10 0.9 - 1.9

In summary, for use in computer simulations, the profile is defined as an array of (X, Z) coordinate
points, where, as noted above, X represents the horizontal displacement from the upstream end of the
pipeline, and Z represents the vertical elevation. In most cases, we are only interested in elevation changes,
and thus the profile can always be defined in terms of some arbitrary datum. If an elevation profile point is
defined at any location where there is a significant change in slope, a change in pipe diameter or mass flow
rate, each section of pipe between two adjacent coordinates will satisfy the requirements discussed earlier.
Of course, elevation profile points can also be used to define the location of pipeline facilities such as pumps,
compressors, heaters, valves, and so on.

For wells, the procedure is the same, except that it is customary to define the Z coordinate as the
true vertical depth (i.e. TVD), relative to the surface or the wellhead datum. The depth thus increases
opposite to the direction of flow for producing wells, and in the same direction as the flow for injection
wells. For purely vertical wells, the horizontal displacement coordinate is always zero. In deviated wells
however, it is used to define the actual displacement from the wellhead at any depth.

3. The One-Step Calculation Procedure

In spite of its name, this type of analysis almost always involves an iterative calculation procedure.
The name is derived from the fact that the entire pipeline or well is considered at one time. Iterations are
required because the pressure loss calculations are based on fluid properties evaluated at the average
conditions in the system, which, of course, are not known until the pressure drop is known.

For reasons that will be apparent shortly, this procedure is used almost exclusively for pipelines,
rather than wells. This discussion below is thus based on a pipeline system, although it is in fact a general
procedure that can be used with wells if appropriate.

The basic procedure can be outlined as follows:

Basic Approaches to Flow Calculations in Pipes (Revised 05-02) Page 6

(a) Compute the total length of the pipeline from the known elevation profile points.

(b) If the pipeline carries a multiphase fluid system, compute E )Z+ , (i.e. the sum of all the elevation
changes for which the flow is uphill).

(c) Estimate the overall pressure drop in the pipeline, and thus the average (i.e. midpoint) pressure. It
is assumed that the average temperature can similarly be estimated with reasonable accuracy.

(d) Use appropriate P-V-T behaviour and transport property model(s) to determine all require fluid
properties at the assumed average conditions in the pipeline.

(e) Use an appropriate fluid flow model to compute the overall pressure drop, based on the P-V-T
behaviour and fluid transport properties that were estimated in (d).

(f) Compare the pressure drop computed in (e) with that assumed in (c). If the two agree to within an
acceptable tolerance, the procedure can be terminated and be assumed to have converged..
Otherwise, use the calculated pressure drop as a new estimate, and repeat (c) to (f) as required.

In practice, this procedure tends to converge relatively quickly, and seldom takes more than four to
six iterations.

4. The Stepwise Calculation Procedure

This is simply a logical extension of the One-Step calculation procedure. In this case, however, the
steps outlined in Section 3 are applied to a small length of the piping system (i.e. calculation segment) rather
than to the entire system.

Assume, for example, that the pressure and temperature are known at the upstream end of the system.
A length of pipe is selected as the calculation segment such that,

(i) the pressure and temperature are known at one end of the segment

(ii) the slope of the calculation segment is constant

(iii) the pipe diameter roughness and wall thickness are constant over the segment

(iv) the total mass flow rate is constant throughout the segment

(v) all heat transfer characteristics (e.g. surroundings, insulation type and thickness, etc) are
constant over the segment

(vi) all mechanical (e.g. yield stress) and thermal (e.g. thermal conductivity) properties of the pipe
are constant over the segment

The iterative procedure described in Section 3 is then applied to the calculation segment. The
downstream pressure and temperature that are calculated for the given segment then represent the upstream
conditions for the next calculation segment. The iterative procedure is then repeated for that segment, and
the calculations continue in this way until the entire piping system has been traversed. In practice, the
number of steps or calculation segments required can range from fewer than 10 (for short pipelines and
shallow wells) to hundreds, or even thousands, for long pipelines. Clearly, this is a procedure that had to
Basic Approaches to Flow Calculations in Pipes (Revised 05-02) Page 7

wait until we routinely had access to high speed computing facilities!

The selection of an appropriate step size or calculation segment length is an important part of
maximizing the benefits of using the Stepwise calculation procedure. A recommended practice is as follows:

(a) Compute the total length of the pipe section between two adjacent elevation profile coordinates.

(b) Compute the length of the calculation segment as the greater of some specified fraction (e.g. 10%)
of the pipe section length computed in (a), or some fixed minimum permitted value (e.g. 100 ft).

(c) Perform the flow calculations as outlined above, and compare the calculated pressure change with
some maximum allowable value (e.g. 10 psia, or 70 kPa). If the calculated pressure drop exceeds
the allowable value, reduce the step size by some arbitrary factor and repeat the calculations.

The above discussion has focussed on the calculation of the pressure changes in the system, but it
is a simple and straightforward extension to include the calculation of temperature and/or enthalpy changes.

If the elevation profile coordinates have been assigned properly, Step (a) ensure that conditions (ii)
through (vi), as defined above, will be sufficiently satisfied. Step (b) minimizes the number of calculation
segments that will be used if the distance between adjacent elevation profile points is relatively small, as
happens, for example, in very hilly or highly variable terrain. By setting the maximum allowable pressure
loss to some relatively small value in Step (c), you can ensure that changes in the fluid P-V-T behaviour and
transport properties are relatively small within the calculation segment. Provided that the changes are small,
it is reasonable to base the calculations within that segment on an average value of any given property.

Provided that all the above requirements are satisfied, the calculated pressure loss will truly be based
on properties and conditions, all of which can reasonably be said to apply within the segment.

5. Estimation of “Mid-Point Pressure” for Fluid Property Calculations

In both of the procedures described above, one of the steps is to estimate the “mid-point pressure”
as the basis for evaluating the fluid properties that will be used in the calculations. In actual fact, it is not
necessarily important to get the exact “mid-point” pressure; what is important is to determine the pressure
for which the fluid properties will be a good estimate of the actual average properties in the calculation
segment.

The effect of pressure on the properties of liquids tends to be small unless the pressure changes are
extremely large. When changes over a control element (e.g. a calculation segment) are small, they tend to
be at least locally linear, and it is reasonable to approximate an average condition as a simple arithmetic
average. In most cases, unless we look at very long segments, the pressure change across the system tends
to be approximately linear, and we can thus estimate the mid-point pressure Pm as the simple arithmetic
average value, i.e.

(5-1)

where P1 and P2 are the pressures at the upstream and downstream ends of the pipe section of interest
respectively.
Basic Approaches to Flow Calculations in Pipes (Revised 05-02) Page 8

For gas pipelines, the fluid density is a non-linear function of pressure, although for small pressure
changes, it can be viewed as approximately linear. However, when the One-step calculation procedure is
used, the pressure drop being computed can be a significant fraction of the overall available pressure,
especially in a longer pipeline and the non-linearity effect can be substantial. In a study carried out for the
American Gas Association by the Institute of Gas Technology, it was recommended that the effective mid-
point pressure for gas pipelines be computed from the expression,

(5-2)

Equation (5-2) was derived by assuming that the Z-factor for the gas behaved locally linearly with
pressure, even for relatively large pressure changes.

Figure 5.1 shows a comparison of the mid-point pressures computed by the two equations, as a function of
the pressure drop in the calculation segment, relative to the upstream pressure.

Figure 5.1

Comparison of Mid-Point Pressure Calculations

It is apparent from Figure 5.1 that the two equations can give very different results when the pressure
drop becomes a large fraction of the available pressure. However, when the pressure drop is only a small
fraction of the available pressure, the two equations are almost indistinguishable. In fact, provided that the
pressure drop is less than 30% of the available pressure (i.e. P1 ), the difference in the Pm values calculated
by the two equations differs by less than 1% .
Basic Approaches to Flow Calculations in Pipes (Revised 05-02) Page 9

In the Stepwise calculation procedure, we always try to control the step size such that the pressure
changes are small enough to ensure that the mid-point fluid properties will be representative of those
everywhere in the calculation segment. We are thus ensuring that the criterion for Equation (5-1) are
satisfied, not only for liquids, but also, as it turns out, for gases. This is demonstrated in some detail in the
Notes dealing with the flow of single phase fluids.. We will thus not ever bother with using Equation (5-2).

6. General Comments Regarding the Two Calculation Procedures

Prior to the early 1970's, it was common practice in the oil and gas industry to apply generous safety
factors when sizing production equipment and facilities. Access to high speed computing facilities and
suitable software were also either non-existent or very limited. As a consequence, almost all flow
calculations were performed, if at all, using the One-step procedure. Often as not, however, pressure loss
estimates were made simply on the basis of nomographs and other graphical procedures; temperature effects
were either ignored altogether or simply estimated from experience.

Since those days, the magnitude of the average multiphase pipeline project (and hence, its cost) has
generally increased enormously. Not only have the generous safety factors all but disappeared, but it has
also become apparent that, at least for multiphase flow, bigger is not always better! The net result is that
there is a much greater demand now for accuracy in these calculations. Furthermore, it is not sufficient to
simply consider the limiting design case, but also the full range of potential operating conditions to anticipate
operating problems.

In terms of the potential for increased accuracy, there are many reasons to prefer the Stepwise
procedure over the One-step method. A few of these are summarized below:

! The local pressure and temperature in the pipeline are strongly coupled to the phase
behaviour of the fluid(s). The Stepwise procedure tracks this relationship consistently.

! Transport properties of fluids depend on the compositions of the fluids as well as the
pressure and temperature. Since all of these are tracked in small increments, the flow
calculations are always based on local transport property values, rather than on approximate
or overall average values.

! Flow patterns can be quite different in uphill flow than in downhill or horizontal flow.
Because the phase behaviour is tracked continuously, all interactions between the fluids and
the elevation profile are properly taken into account.

! The Stepwise procedure results in detailed estimates of the pressure and temperature
profiles, rather than just the endpoint values. This can reveal possible operating problems
because of high or low pressure regions at critical locations in the system.

! Because the system is being traversed, it is a simple matter to include the effects of in-line
facilities (e.g. pumps, compressors, heaters, etc), changes in the pipe dimensions, entering
side streams, changes in the surroundings, etc.

Finally, from a purely practical view point, current computer technology permits these complex
procedures to be made available to the average engineer in forms that are relatively easy to use.
Basic Approaches to Flow Calculations in Pipes (Revised 05-02) Page 10

In summary, although several One-step procedures are described in more detail elsewhere in these
Notes, they are included primarily for historical interest. There is almost no justification for using them for
normal design or analytical purposes. All such calculations should always be performed using the more
accurate Stepwise procedure. With suitable choices of step sizes and convergence criteria, the algorithm
itself will not contribute any significant error to the calculated results.

7. References

Institute of Gas Technology

Steady Flow in Gas Pipelines, IGT Report No. 10,
American Gas Assoc., New York, NY (1965)