Energy 45 (2012) 481e488

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Real gas flow simulation in damaged distribution pipelines

Wojciech J. Kostowski*, Janusz Skorek
Institute of Thermal Technology, Silesian University of Technology, Konarskiego 22, PL-44-100 Gliwice, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper discusses chosen issues concerning damaged gas pipelines. Attention is paid to modelling the
Received 29 August 2011 steady-state flow of natural gas in distribution pipelines, and the most commonly applied models of
Received in revised form isothermal and adiabatic flow are evaluated for both the ideal and the real gas properties. A method of
2 January 2012
accounting for a leakage by means of a reference flow equation with a discharge coefficient is presented,
Accepted 29 February 2012
and the dependency of the discharge coefficient on pressure is demonstrated both with literature data
Available online 5 April 2012
and the authors’ experimental results. A relevant computational study of a pipeline failure is presented
for a high- and a medium pressure pipeline. The importance of an appropriate choice of the flow model
Keywords:
Flow simulation
(isothermal or adiabatic flow of real or ideal gas) is demonstrated by the results of the study. It is shown
Real gas that accounting for the variability of the discharge coefficient is required if medium pressure pipelines
Pipeline failure are analysed. However, it is eventually shown that the impact of the discharge coefficient on the pre-
Leakage dicted outflow rate is of lesser importance than that of the applied flow model.
Discharge coefficient Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Gas networks

1. Introduction
Operators of natural gas networks relatively often have to deal
with pipeline failures, leading to various-scale gas leakages. Once
the pipeline integrity is restored, the network operator should also
quantify the gas release, which is essential for economic, environ-
mental and operational reasons. The quantity of the released gas
may also be a subject of a controversy if the operator claims its
compensation from a third party responsable for the failure.
Moreover, in some cases it is required to estimate in advance gas
releases from potential failures, as a part of quantitative risk
assessment procedures [1]. However, the leakage quantification is
generally a complex and frequently ill-defined task. In order to
quantify the leakage, operators may choose various modelling
approaches, depending on the type of network and on the avail-
ability of measurement data. As demonstrated in the paper, the
choice of the flow model as well as the value of the discharge
coefficient are of high relevance to these procedures and, eventu-
ally, to the leakage quantification result.
The leakage quantification problem is specific for the trans-
mission and the distribution networks respectively. For trans-
mission networks, flow measurement data are available at each
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ48 32 237 1661; fax: þ48 32 237 2872.
E-mail address: wojciech.kostowski@polsl.pl (W.J. Kostowski).
entry and exit point, so that the modelled network area may be
limited to a single section of the damaged pipeline. Numerical
models applied for solving the flow problem in a damaged pipe
may use linearization of the governing equations based on the
method of characteristics (MOC, [2,3]) or other numerical schemes
(the Runge-Kutta method, [1]). The cited papers focus on transient
flow simulation in pipeline sections adjacent to the failure and pay
little attention on modelling the flow through the side-wall
opening, which is assumed to be isentropic flow with a mass flow
rate reduced by a discharge coefficient of an arbitrarily chosen,
constant value (e.g. 0.8 [2]; 0.61 for subsonic flow and 1.0 elsewhere
[1]).
The numerical models applied to the transmission pipelines
may acquire plain and accurate real-time measurement data from
SCADA systems, which enhances the overall modelling quality.
Moreover, it is frequently possible to enclose the damaged section
within a control volume contained between a few metring stations.
Modelling leakages in distribution networks encounters some
specific problems. The first issue is the lack of sufficient information
on exit points. The distribution networks have a vast number of exit
points to the domestic sector, supplied with diaphragm gas metres
which fail to provide the operator with any real-time data.
Furthermore, distribution networks have a complex, branched
and/or looped structure without flow metering at splits and junc-
tions. It is therefore generally not possible to limit the flow problem
to a single pipeline and the network has to be modelled as a whole
system.

0360-5442/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2012.02.076
482 W.J. Kostowski, J. Skorek / Energy 45 (2012) 481e488

Nomenclature w velocity, m/s

x axial coordinate, m
A cross-sectional area, m2 Z compressibility factor
CD coefficient of discharge
D diameter, m Greek symbols
g gravitational acceleration, m/s2 b pressure ratio
(g) denotes gage pressure q inclination angle, rad
h enthalpy, J/kg k isentropic expansion factor
k pipe wall roughness, m lf Darcy friction factor
K relative compressibility factor m dynamic viscosity coefficient, kg m1s1
Kp dimensionless derivative of K with respect to pressure 9 density, kg/m3
KT dimensionless derivative of K with respect to f nozzle flow correction factor
temperature j reduced nozzle flow rate
L length, m
m_ mass flow rate, kg/s Subscripts and superscripts
Ma Mach number A air
p pressure, Pa atm atmospheric
Qn normalized volumetric flow rate, m3/h (0  C, crit critical (sonic)
101325 Pa) i upstream parameter
R gas constant, J/(kg K) j downstream parameter
Re Reynolds number, ¼ 9wD=m m average parameter
T temperature, K ref reference
U overall heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2 K) t total (stagnation) parameter

Another factor that has to be taken into account while modelling The primary aim of work was to elaborate a computational
the flow in damaged distribution networks is the dependency of methodology to account for the variability of the discharge coeffi-
the discharge coefficient (quantifying the outflow through the cient. Both the known literature resources and commercial network
opening) on the pressure inside the damaged pipeline. This fact simulation packages assume the value of the discharge coefficient is
results primarily from compressible flow contraction phenomena constant.
[4]. Measurements performed by the authors [5] for the medium The secondary aim of work was to compare the most frequently
pressure range, followed by a numerical CFD analysis [6] have applied static flow models, comprising the isothermal flow model
demonstrated that: (which is a base for the majority of commercial flow simulators
applied in the distribution sector) as well as the adiabatic flow
 The discharge coefficient depends on the outlet-to-inlet pres- model. Both models have been elaborated for real gas and ideal gas
sure ratio b, equation of state and properties.
 The discharge coefficient decreases as the ratio approaches 1
(i.e. the pressure inside the pipe decreases to atmospheric),
 Variations of the discharge coefficient within the high pressure 2. Static flow models
range (1.6e10 MPa (g)) are negligible, as this range corresponds
to small variations of the pressure ratio (b ¼ 0.01e0.06), The gas flow is described by the fundamental equations of
 Variations of the discharge coefficient within the medium continuity, momentum and energy. The following steady-state
(0.01e0.5 MPa (g)) and intermediate pressure ranges equations can be derived from transient flow equations given by
(0.5e1.6 MPa (g)) should not be neglected, as these ranges Rist [9].
comprise a wide range of the pressure ratio, in particular for The continuity equation states that for a steady-state the mass
medium pressure (b ¼ 0.16e0.99 and b ¼ 0.06e0.16 flow rate is constant throughout the duct:
respectively).
dð9AwÞ
¼ 0: (1)
A factor facilitating the flow modelling in distribution networks dx
is the applicability of the steady-state assumption. Due to the low The momentum conservation equation states that the driving
accumulation, the system response time to any variations ranges force of differential pressure acts against the friction and the gravity
between a few seconds (low pressure networks) and a few minutes forces as well as increases the fluid momentum:
(medium pressure) [7].
Most of the relevant literature resources e.g. [1,2,3,8,17] concern dp lf 9w2 dw
 ¼ þ 9gsin q þ 9w : (2)
the transmission rather than the distribution sector, as the former dx 2D dx
corresponds to large-scale gas leakages. However, due to a higher
The energy conservation equation states that the sum of the
network length and network density and due to the proximity of
enthalpy and the kinetic and potential energy can only change if the
the urban infrastructure, the failure probability of a distribution
flow is non-adiabatic:
pipeline is higher than that of a transmission one.
The present work deals with selected issues which should be
2
w
taken into account while modelling all classes of damaged dh þ d þ gsin qdx ¼ U pDðT0  TÞdx: (3)
2
networks, with a focus on the distribution ones. The objective of the
work was to verify the impact of the discharge coefficient and of the The flow equations are supplemented by the gas state equation.
flow model on the predicted outflow rate. A generalized form applied in the gas industry is:
 W.J. Kostowski, J. Skorek / Energy 45 (2012) 481e488 483

p ¼ 9ZRT (4) substantial impact of pressure ratio on that coefficient is discussed

in Section 3.
where Z denotes the compressibility factor. A common notation for
real gas flow modelling comprises the relative compressibility
factor K: 2.2. Pipeline flow model

Zðp; TÞ The flow of gas in a pipeline is usually analysed using one of the
Kðp; TÞ ¼ (5)
Zð101325Pa; 273:15KÞ two reference models: the adiabatic flow (the Fanno flow)
assuming no external heat transfer, and the isothermal flow,
and the dimensionless partial derivatives of K with respect to assuming the heat flux received from the soil maintains a constant
pressure and temperature: gas temperature over the pipeline length. Both models can be
formulated for ideal or real gas behaviour.
vK p
Kp ¼ ; (6) The isothermal flow model may be applied for moderate velocity,
vp K
when changes in the kinetic energy may be neglected and the
temperature may be assumed constant:
vK T
KT ¼ : (7)
vT K _ 2ij RT lm Lij
4m
p2i  p2j ¼ ; (12)
The subsequent subsections present integrated forms of equa- pD2ij Dij
tions both for an opening and for a pipeline section.
where lm denotes the average Darcy friction factor in the section
ij.
2.1. Opening in a pipe wall e the short channel model For real gas, the isothermal flow Equation (12) has to be adjusted
for the average compressibility factor Zm:
The outflow of gas through a side-wall opening in a pipe may
be related to the isentropic flow through a convergent nozzle _ 2ij Zm RT lm Lij
4m
(the Bendemann’s nozzle). The mass flow rate through the p2i  p2j ¼ : (13)
Bendemann’s nozzle calculated for ideal gas is thus a refer-
pD2ij Dij
ence for calculating the flow through irregular openings. The
Both for ideal and real gas, the isothermal flow model
reference flow is limited by the sonic velocity in the exit section;
consists of a single, explicit equation and does not require the
this condition yields the following equations valid for ideal gas
calculation of the stagnation parameters. The isothermal flow
[10]:
equation is a base for several practical equations validated and
pt applied in the gas industry, which typically include a friction
_ ref ¼ Ae js pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m ; (8) factor approximation (e.g. Panhandle, Weymouth, AGA equations
RTt
[12]). It should be stressed the applicability of these equations is
where Ae is the exit section area, the subscript t denotes the stag- limited to normal operating conditions, i.e. to moderate flow
nation parameters upstream of the opening, and the factor js is velocity.
defined as follows: The model of the adiabatic flow (Fanno flow) is suitable for
8 analysing the flow with substantial changes in kinetic energy. If
> rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
>
> 2k  2k kþ1
 external heat transfer may be neglected, the enthalpy of gas
< k1 b b
> if b>bcrit ;
k
throughout the duct decreases. For ideal gas, the model consists of
js ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

kkþ1 (9) the following equations:
>
> 2 1
>
> k if b  bcrit ;
>
: kþ1 0 1
! k1 2
lm Lij 1 1 1 k þ 1 BMa2i 1 þ 2 $Maj C
¼  þ $ln@ 2 $ A
where k is the isentropic expansion factor, b is the actual ratio of Dij k Ma2i Ma2j 2k Maj k1 2
1þ $Mai
outlet-to-inlet stagnation pressure, and bcrit is the critical pressure 2
ratio calculated as: (14)

 k
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 k1
u
bcrit ¼
kþ1
: (10) u1 þ k  1$Ma2
pj Mai u
u 2 i
¼ t (15)
The reference flux of real gas differs from that of the ideal gas by pi Maj k  1
1þ $Ma2j
a factor f, accounting for the change in density, in the sonic speed 2
and in the property calculation methods (10).
Due to the flow contraction and the impact of friction, the actual k1
Tj 1þ $Ma2i
mass flow rate through an irregular opening in a pipe wall is lower ¼ 2 (16)
than the reference flow of real gas. A generalized equation for the Ti k1
1þ $Ma2j
flow rate through an opening may be written as: 2

_
mðp; TÞt ¼ fðp; TÞt $CD ðbÞ$m
_ ref ðp; TÞt (11) w
Ma ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi: (17)
where f accounts for real gas effects, and CD is the discharge
kRT
coefficient accounting for the reduction of flow rate due to The real gas adiabatic flow model accounts for the depen-
contraction and the decelerating impact of friction (viscosity). As dency of gas properties and functions on its state
assumed in (11), the effect of temperature on the discharge coef- parameters. Equations (14)e(17) transform to the following
ficient is negligible [6] in the analysed temperature range, while the expressions [9]:
484 W.J. Kostowski, J. Skorek / Energy 45 (2012) 481e488

  2
! Given:.
1 1 1 þ km 1 þ Kp;m Ma2i 1 þ yMaj START
 þ $ln $ ¼ pi T i m
Ma2i Ma2j 2 Ma2j 1 þ yMa2i
Calculate i wi ci Mai pt,i Tt,i


lm Lij KT;m 1 þ km Ma2m
¼ km 1  $y$ þ (18)
Dij 1 þ KT;m 1 þ yMa2m Calculate Re
  !
1  1 þ km $Kp;m $Ma2m ki Calculate Maj pj Tj for perfect gas
þ   $ln ;
1 þ yMa2m $Ma2m kj
Calculate average K Kp KT between i and j
" !n1 !n2 #n3
pt;j ki Ma 1þ yt Ma2j
¼ $ i$ ; (19) Calculate Maj for real gas
pt;i kj Maj 1 þ yt Ma2i
Update pt,j Tt,j based on Maj
! 2yt ,KT;t;m
2
Tt;j pt;2 ð
kt;m , 1þKT;t;m Þ Update properties: K Kp KT
¼ ; (20)
Tt;i pt;1
Update pt,j Tt,j
where:
  Calculate pj Tj
km 1  Kp;m  1
y ¼ ; (21)
2 no
Errof of Maj < ?
  yes
kt;m 1  Kp;t;m  1 END
Results:
yt ¼ ; (22) pj Tj Maj
2
Fig. 1. Solving real gas adiabatic flow equations in an iterative procedure.
Ma2i þ Ma2j
Ma2m ¼ ; (23)
2
the average values of the expansion factor k, the relative
  compressibility factor K and its dimensionless derivatives Kp and KT
1  1 þ kt;m Kp;t;m $Ma2m
n1 ¼   ; (24) are calculated from the real gas equation of state. Based on the
2$ 1 þ yt Ma2m
average properties, the downstream parameters are determined
  from (18e20). The properties are updated within a loop until
kt;m $ 1 þ Kp;t;m þ 1 relative changes of the downstream Mach number Maj between the
n2 ¼ ; (25)
4yt consecutive iterations are below the chosen accuracy criterion.
Note that (19e20) relate the stagnation parameters in a pipeline

1 section rather than the static ones. The static parameters have to be
KT;t;m 1 þ kt;m Ma2m
n3 ¼ 1 $yt $ : (26) determined from additional Equation [9]:
1 þ KT;t;m 1 þ yt Ma2m
The Mach number for a real gas should be calculated from the a) Ideal gas:
equation:

w
Ma ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi: (27)
k k
kðp; TÞp=9 pt k1 1
¼ 1þ $Ma2 ; (29)
p 2
The system of Equations (18)e(20) has to be solved iteratively,
based on the ideal gas solution (14e16) used for the first iteration.
Tt k1
The iteration procedure is explained in Fig. 1. ¼ 1þ $Ma2 : (30)
As boundary conditions, given are the upstream parameters pi T 2
and Ti and the flow rate m. _ In the first step, gas density 9i is
calculated from the real gas equation of state, velocity is calculated
from the continuity Equation (1) and the Mach number Mai is b) Real gas:
calculated from (27). Then the stagnation parameters pt,i and Tt,i are
calculated from (31,32). In the following step, the turbulent flow
condition is checked (Re > 4000) and the Darcy friction factor is

  k km
k2km
determined from the Colebrook-White equation: pt k$K km 1  Kp;m  1 m1 Kt m 1
¼ 1þ $   $Ma2 $ ; (31)

 p km Km 2$ 1 þ KT;m K
1 2:51 k
pffiffiffi ¼ 2 log pffiffiffi þ ; (28)
l Re l 3:71D  
Tt k$K km 1  Kp;m  1
In order to determine the downstream parameters, several ¼ 1þ $   $Ma2 : (32)
T km Km 2$ 1 þ KT;m
iterations are required in order to account for the variability of gas
properties with pressure and temperature. As a first approximation, Equations (31) and (32) have to be solved iteratively, initializing
the downstream parameters are determined from the ideal gas from the ideal gas solution (29e30).
flow model (14e16), where a constant isentropic expansion factor Due to its explicit form, the real gas isothermal flow Equation
(k ¼ 1:30 for natural gas) is set. In the iterative procedure (Fig. 1), (13) or, more frequently, its derived industrial forms, are widely
 W.J. Kostowski, J. Skorek / Energy 45 (2012) 481e488 485

compressed air installation pressure regulating and flow metering line

Fig. 2. The experimental test rig used for determination of the discharge coefficient: 1 e compressor, 2 e separator, 3 e buffer tank, 4, 10 e valves, 5, 11 e manometers, 6 e filter, 7 e
pressure regulator, 8 e turbine flow meter, 9 e flow computer, 12 e opening with discharge to atmosphere, 13 e end cap, 14 e portable PC; AeB e section of a polyethylene pipe
63.0  5.8 mm.

used in gas engineering, while the application of the Fanno model is increment DV, the inlet static pressure p1 and temperature T1 and
limited to particular cases when the increase in velocity is an issue, the ambient (atmospheric) pressure patm. Basing on the measure-
e.g. a pipeline rupture with a full-bore opening. It should be ments the inlet stagnation pressure pt, the outlet-to-inlet stagna-
stressed both models provide only an approximation to the actual tion pressure ratio b ¼ patm/pt and the mass flow rate through the
flow, which is actually neither adiabatic nor isothermal [13]. opening m _ were calculated. By repeating the measurements for
different values of the inlet pressure the flow characteristic curves
m_ ¼ mð_ bÞ were determined for several series of openings.
3. Flow characteristic curve of the opening
Furthermore, for regular openings the cross section area was
determined in order to derive the dimensionless flow characteris-
Each irregular opening is characterized by a unique flow char-
tics: CD ¼ CD(b). Two methods of area measurement were applied:
acteristic curve, describing the relation between the mass flow rate
a comparable (measuring the tool used to generate the opening)
and the outlet-to-inlet pressure ratio. According to (11), the actual
and a planimetric one (based on a scaled digital photograph).
flow rate may be related to that of the reference isentropic nozzle
The plain results of the research are presented in [5]. Table 1
model. It is therefore possible to formulate two equivalent nota-
presents results for a sample opening, supplemented by the
tions for the flow characteristic curve:
values of the discharge coefficient calculated from (8)e(11). The
_ bÞ; or
_ ¼ mð
m (33) values of fA have been calculated from the data published in [11].
The measured values of the discharge coefficient have been
compared with theoretic predictions of the contraction coefficient
CD ¼ CD ðbÞ: (34)
([14,15]) as well as with the published values of the discharge
The authors have performed a series of experiments to deter- coefficient determined on both experimental [9] and numerical
mine the flow characteristic curves for side-wall openings in [15] basis. A comparison of results is shown in Fig. 3.
polyethylene pipes used for natural gas distribution. For this The figure relates the discharge/contraction coefficient to the
purpose a test rig was assembled as shown in Fig. 2. outlet-to-inlet pressure ratio. As can be seen in the figure, differ-
During the experiments the following parameters were varied: ences between the values of CD published in the relevant literature
pressure, the opening size and shape, the pipe wall thickness, the are significant, which is primarily bound to different assumptions
inclination of the opening axis towards the pipe axis, the ratio of
the outflow stream to the main gas stream in the pipe. A single
demonstration series of measurements was also performed for the
gas outflow through a layer of soil. The range of parameters was
limited by the set range and the flow capacity of the main devices
(the compressor, the pressure regulator, the gas flow meter). For
safety reasons the experiments were performed using atmospheric
air.
For each point of the flow characteristic curve the following
parameters were measured: the time increment Ds, the gas volume

Table 1
Chosen experimental results for the outflow of air from a polyethylene pipe
(63  5.8 mm) through a circular, side-wall opening (D ¼ 15.0 mm).

A. Measurement results B. Flow rate and the discharge coefficient

_
m pt Tt patm b js _ ref
m fA CD

kg/s kPa C kPa e e kg/s e e
0.12482 350.4 303.3 99.9 0.2851 0.6847 0.14369 1.0015 0.8674
0.09649 273.5 303.6 99.9 0.3653 0.6847 0.11210 1.0011 0.8598
0.07219 211.8 303.4 99.8 0.4712 0.6847 0.08685 1.0009 0.8305
0.06283 189.4 303.3 99.8 0.5270 0.6847 0.07764 1.0008 0.8086
0.05580 173.3 302.5 100.0 0.5769 0.6812 0.07080 1.0007 0.7877
0.04706 154.1 301.8 100.1 0.6494 0.6621 0.06127 1.0007 0.7676
0.03759 136.4 300.8 100.1 0.7339 0.6170 0.05060 1.0006 0.7424
0.02545 118.2 299.9 100.1 0.8468 0.5061 0.03603 1.0005 0.7060
0.01878 110.2 299.1 100.1 0.9081 0.4071 0.02707 1.0005 0.6935 Fig. 3. Measured values of the discharge coefficient for a side-wall opening D ¼ 15 mm
in a f 63.0  5.8 mm polyethylene pipe, compared to selected published results.
486 W.J. Kostowski, J. Skorek / Energy 45 (2012) 481e488
concerning the analysed geometry: side-wall opening (authors’
results), orifice ([9,14]), a complex geometry [15]. Despite of the
discrepancy between the presented sources, it may be observed as
a general rule that both coefficients decrease significantly (by
10e40%) with the increasing pressure ratio. It should be noted that
for a given geometry, differences between the values of CD for air
and methane/natural gas are less than 1.2% ([6,15]) and can be
neglected for practical applications.
Assuming the values of CD do not depend on the gas type, the
mass flow rate for natural gas can be predicted from (11) based on
experimental results obtained for air, extrapolated beyond the
measured pressure range.
The measured values of the discharge coefficient (the opening of
D ¼ 15 mm) have been approximated by the following function:
2 3
CD ¼ a0 þ a1 b þ a2 b þ a3 b if b > 0:3024
0:8674 if b  0:3024;
where a0 ¼ 0.8236, a1 ¼ 0.4927, a2 ¼ 1.375, a3 ¼ 0.7443. The
constant value of CD for low pressure ratios corresponds to the
maximum value obtained in the measurements.
The predicted mass flow rate, calculated from (11) and trans-
formed to the normalized volumetric flow rate can be used to
generate a boundary condition for the simulation of a damaged
network section. This is described in the following section.
4. Flow simulation in a damaged pipeline section
This section aims to evaluate the isothermal and the adiabatic
flow model for a damaged pipeline. Moreover, the impact of the
most common simplifications, i.e. assuming ideal gas properties
and assuming a constant discharge coefficient has been quantified
as well. A relevant numerical study has been carried out for a model
case presented in Fig. 4.
The model pipeline system consists of a pipeline section con-
tained between two exit points corresponding to pressure reduc-
tion stations (PRS’s). The PRS 2 constitutes the end point of the
system. The pipeline has been damaged at a point x. It is assumed
that the opening in the pipe wall corresponds to that measured in
the authors’ experiments presented in Table 1. The function of the
discharge coefficient in terms of the pressure ratio is given by (35).
The following further assumptions have been done to the model
case:
1. The parameters p1 and T1 measured at the inlet to PRS 1 can be
applied as upstream parameters for the damaged section;
2. The upstream parameters p1 and T1 are assumed constant;
3. The gas consumption Qn,2 generated by consumers situated
downstream of the damage site temporarily equals zero;
4. The capacity of the section between x and PRS 2 is negligible
hence the reversed flow from PRS 2 to x is not analysed.
Fig. 4. A model of a damaged pipeline system used for the comparison of flow models.
PRS e pressure reduction station.
In order to calculate the outflow to the atmosphere at point x it
is necessary to find the total pressure in the pipeline at that point.
Both for the isothermal and the adiabatic model this requires
solving a system of equations comprising the pipeline flow
equations (according to the chosen model) and the nozzle Equa-
tion (11).
Note that the assumption No. 3 allows one to determine the
upper limit of the outflow rate. If the gas consumption Qn,2 is non-
zero, the flow in the section 1ex increases, hence the pressure px
decreases and eventually the outflow rate decreases as well.
In order to evaluate the flow models, numerical calculations
have been performed for two cases:
1. A high pressure (HP) pipeline with upstream pressure set at
p1 ¼ 5.0 MPa;
(35) 2. A medium pressure (MP) pipeline with upstream pressure set
at p1 ¼ 0.38 MPa.
In both cases the same model geometry has been assumed:
 The length of the section 1ex equals 5.0 km;
 The inner pipe diameter is 51.3 mm;
 The upstream temperature is 10  C;
 The puncture at the point x has 15 mm diameter and is char-
acterized by the discharge coefficient curve (35).
The adiabatic, real gas flow model has been solved using the
authors’ code implemented in Microsoft Visual Basic. The code was
designed to iteratively find the total pressure at the failure point pt,x
and the normalized volumetric rate of outflow Qn,x. Real gas
properties have been calculated from the BenedicteWebbeRubin
equation of state [16]. The adiabatic flow of ideal gas as well as
the isothermal flow models have been resolved using Engineering
Equation Solver.
Gas composition was chosen based on a sample measurement in
the Upper Silesia region (molar fractions: CH4 ¼ 96.84%,
C2H6 ¼ 1.00%, C3H8 ¼ 0.32%, C4þ¼ 0.87%, N2 ¼ 0.92%, CO ¼ 0.05%,
normal density 0.7652 kg/m).
For the HP pipeline case study (Table 2) the discharged coeffi-
cient has been assumed at a constant value of 0.8674, corre-
sponding to low pressure ratios according to (35). For the MP
pipeline case study (Table 3) the analysis has been done for two
variants:
 Pressure-dependent discharge coefficient according to (35);
 A simplified model with a constant discharge coefficient of
0.8674.
As a result, the total flow parameters in the pipeline at the
failure point pt,x and Tt,x as well as the outflow rate to the atmo-
sphere (expressed as the normalized volumetric flow rate Qn) have
been calculated for all considered models. The main results of
calculations are presented in Table 2 (HP pipeline case) and Table 3
(MP pipeline).
Table 2
High pressure pipeline failure study. Selected results: total pressure px and
temperature Tx at the failure point, the discharge coefficient CD, the outflow rate Qn
and the outflow rate prediction error E, calculated from various flow models.
Gas flow model pt,x, MPa Tt,x,  C CD Qn, m3n /h E, %
Adiabatic, real gas 1.96 6.0 0.8674 2721 0.0%
Adiabatic, ideal gas 1.94 9.9 0.8674 2535 6.8%
Isothermal, real gas 2.42 10.0 0.8674 3217 þ18.2%
Isothermal, ideal gas 2.36 10.0 0.8674 3084 þ13.3%
 W.J. Kostowski, J. Skorek / Energy 45 (2012) 481e488 487

Table 3 variability of the discharge coefficient. Relevant functions may

Medium pressure pipeline failure study. Selected results: total pressure px and be derived from literature data. Moreover, it is technically
temperature Tx at the failure point, the discharge coefficient CD, the outflow rate Qn
and the outflow rate prediction error E, calculated from various flow models.
possible to quantify the discharge coefficient of a specific
rupture/puncture ex post by subjecting the damaged pipe
Gas flow model pt,x, MPa Tt,x,  C CD Qn, m3n /h E, % section to experimental tests with air. Such an approach could
A. Pressure-dependent discharge coefficient be economically justifiable for large-scale and/or long-term
Adiabatic, real gas 0.159 8.8 0.7747 183.3 0.0%
failures.
Adiabatic, ideal gas 0.159 9.9 0.7747 183.3 0.0%
Isothermal, real gas 0.187 10.0 0.8077 225.3 22.9% The computational studies have also shown the importance of
Isothermal, ideal gas 0.187 10.0 0.8077 224.9 22.7% the gas flow model. Most of the commercial gas simulation pack-
B. Constant discharge coefficient ages are based on the isothermal flow equation or one of its derived
Adiabatic, real gas 0.148 8.7 0.8674 186.3 1.6% forms. Even if the commercially applied models account for the
Adiabatic, ideal gas 0.148 9.9 0.8674 186.0 1.5%
Isothermal, real gas 0.177 10.0 0.8674 229.0 24.9%
heat exchange with the surrounding soil, they fail to account for gas
Isothermal, ideal gas 0.177 10.0 0.8674 228.7 24.8% expansion phenomena, described by the Fanno equation of adia-
batic flow. As shown in the current study, the adiabatic and the
isothermal flow models differ in predicting the downstream pres-
sure, while the difference in the downstream temperature is of
Results presented in both tables also include the discharge
lesser importance.
coefficient CD and the computational error of the outflow rate,
An appropriate choice of the flow model and of the discharge
defined with respect to the adiabatic real gas flow:
coefficient allows one to reduce the uncertainty of the estimated
adiabatic;real gas leakage. Reducing this uncertainty is of high interest for pipeline
Qn  Qn
E ¼ adiabatic;real gas
: (36) operators. The presented case studies concern natural gas
Qn networks, however, the conclusions may be extended to other
branches of industry where the flow of pressurised gases is an
For the MP pipeline case study, this error has been calculated
issue.
with respect to the adiabatic real gas flow with the pressure-
dependent discharge coefficient.
Results presented in Tables 2 and 3 show a substantial difference Acknowledgements
between the isothermal and the adiabatic flow model. It can be
observed that the isothermal flow model leads to an over- The financial support of the National Centre for Research and
estimation of the downstream pressure, and, as a consequence, to Development within the Project PBR-11/RIE-6/2010 is gratefully
an overestimated outflow rate. acknowledged.
A comparison of results obtained within the same model for the A part of this work has been financed by the Polish Transmission
constant and for the variable discharge coefficient shows the Pipeline Operator Gaz-System S.A. The authors express their grat-
existence of a negative feedback between the assumed discharge itude towards the company, in particular to its R&D Division rep-
coefficient and the outflow rate. As an example, for the real gas resented by Dr Eliza Dyakowska and Mr Pawe1 Szuflen  ski who
adiabatic flow model, the assumption of a constant discharge supervised the project.
coefficient yields 13.1% error in that coefficient, but only 1.6% error
in the outflow rate. This negative feedback can be explained by the
following reasoning: if the discharge coefficient is overestimated, References
than the outflow rate calculated in the first iteration is over-
[1] Yuhu D, Huilin G, Jing’en Z, Yaorong F. Mathematical modeling of gas release
estimated as well, while the pressure in the pipe at the failure point through holes in pipelines. Chem Eng J 2003;92:237e41.
is underestimated, so that the predicted outflow rate decreases in [2] Oke A, Mahgerefteh H, Economou I, Rykov Y. A transient outflow model for
further iterations. pipeline puncture. Chem Eng Sci 2003;58:4591e604.
[3] Mahgerefteh H, Abbasi MU. Modeling blowdown of pipelines under fire
Conclusions from a comparison between the real and the ideal attack. AICHE J 2007;53(9):2443e50.
gas flow models correspond to a generally accepted rule e the [4] Benedict RP. Generalized contraction coefficient of an orifice for subsonic and
difference between these models is negligible at the medium supercritical flows. ASME J Basic Eng; 1971:99e118. 70-W A/FM-3.
[5] Kostowski WJ, Skorek J. Application of experimental flow characteristics of
pressure level, and should be taken into account for high pressure pipeline ruptures in gas network simulation. Inz Chem Procesowa 2006;27(2):
pipelines. 579e96 [in Polish].
[6] Kostowski WJ, Skorek J. Experimental and numerical determination of the gas
flow rate from the damaged gas networks. In: Proceedings of the 16th
5. Conclusions international conference ‘Application of experimental and numerical methods
in liquid mechanics’. Terchová, Slovakia: EDIS e Printing House of the

University of Zilina; 2008 Apr 23e25. p. 205e10.
Numerical studies presented in Section 4 have shown that the [7] Nagy S, Olajossy A, Siemek J. Analysis of usefulness of some algorithms for
predicted mass flow rate (or the normalized volumetric flow steady state simulation in the loop gas networks. Arch Mining Sci 2004;49(2):
151e74.
rate) is not strongly sensitive to the assumed discharge coeffi- [8] EGIG e The European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group. 7th EGIG Report
cient as a negative feedback between the flow rate and the 1970e2007, Doc. No. EGIG 08.TV-B. 0502. Available at: http://www.egig.nl
downstream pressure reduces the overall computational error. A [accessed 24.03.2011].
[9] Rist D. Dynamik realer Gase e Grundlagen, Berechnungen und Daten für
similar conclusion may also be drawn for the cross-sectional area Thermogasdynamik, Strömungstechnik und Gastechnik. Berlin-Heidelberg:
of the opening, as it has the same linear impact on the outflow Springer-Verlag; 1996.
rate through the opening. Both conclusions are optimistic from [10] Szargut J. Termodynamika techniczna. Gliwice: Wydawnictwo Politechniki

Slaskiej; 2005 [in Polish].
the point of view of a pipeline operator who has to quantify
[11] Johnson RC. Real-gas effects in flow metering. Symposium of flow e its
a particular leakage even though the available data on the measurement and control in science and industry; 1971. Pittsburgh,
discharge coefficient and the cross-sectional area are of low Pensylvania.
accuracy. [12] Menon S. Gas pipeline hydraulics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis
Group; 2005.
However, for an analysis of a distribution network at the [13] Osiadacz AJ, Chaczykowski M. Comparison of isothermal and non-isothermal
medium or low pressure level it is advisable to account for the pipeline gas flow models. Chem Eng J 2001;81:41e51.
488 W.J. Kostowski, J. Skorek / Energy 45 (2012) 481e488

[14] Brower Jr WB, Eisler E, Filkorn EJ, Gonenc J, Plati C, Stagnitti J. On the
compressible flow through an orifice. Trans J Fluids Eng, Trans ASME 1993;
115(4):660e4.
[15] Szente V, Vad J. A semi-empirical model for characterisation of flow coeffi-
cient for pneumatic solenoid valves. Periodica Polytechnica, Mech Eng 2004;
47(2):131e42.
[16] Benedict M, Webb GB, Rubin LC. An empirical equation for thermodynamic
properties of light hydrocarbons and their mixtures. J Chem Phys 1940;8:
334e45.
[17] Damavandi MY, Kiaei I, Sheikh-El-Eslami MK, Seifi H. New
approach to gas network modeling in unit commitment. Energy 2011;
36:6243e50.