Aspen Hydraulics Dynamics Reference

Aspen Dynamic
Pipeline Solver
Reference Guide

Who Should Read this Guide 2
Who Should Read this Guide
This guide is intended as a reference aid for using Aspen Hydraulics
functionality within the HYSYS 3.4 Oil & Gas Option and in particular the
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver used within Aspen Hydraulics.

Contents 3
Contents
INTRODUCING THE ASPEN DYNAMIC PIPELINE SOLVER................................. 4
ASPEN DYNAMIC PIPELINE SOLVER REFERENCE............................................. 5
Solution Procedure................................................................................................... 5
Numerical Stability and the Courant Limit ............................................................... 6
Semi-implicit Methods.......................................................................................... 6
The SETS Method................................................................................................ 6
Linearisation of the Finite Difference Equations...................................................... 10
Physical Properties ................................................................................................. 15
Required Properties ........................................................................................... 15
Closure Laws and Models ................................................................................... 17
Interfacial Friction............................................................................................. 19
Wall Friction ..................................................................................................... 23
Heat Transfer Coefficients .................................................................................. 29
Cylindrical Wall Heat Conduction ......................................................................... 33
Interfacial Mass Transfer .................................................................................... 36
GENERAL INFORMATION............................................................................... 41
Copyright.............................................................................................................. 41
TECHNICAL SUPPORT.................................................................................... 43
Online Technical Support Center .............................................................................. 43
Phone and E-mail ................................................................................................... 44

Introducing the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver 4
Introducing the Aspen
Dynamic Pipeline Solver
The Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver is a code for modelling transient
multiphase hydrocarbon flows in wells, pipelines and components. The Aspen
Dynamic Pipeline Solver solves mass, momentum and energy equations for
each phase using a one-dimensional finite difference scheme. Appropriate
flow pattern maps and constitutive relationships are provided for wall and
interfacial friction and heat transfer, and a model for multi-component phase-
change is included.
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference 5
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline
Solver Reference
The Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver is a transient multiphase flow model
for oil and natural gas pipelines. The code is a six-equation, semi-implicit,
finite difference computational fluid dynamics model. In order to close the
equation set and obtain solutions, the code requires physical property data for
the fluids, models for wall friction and interfacial friction based on mechanistic
flow regime prediction, thermodynamic modelling of interfacial mass transfer,
relationships for heat transfer between the fluids and the pipe walls and a
model for two-phase critical flow.

Solution Procedure
The finite difference method is very popular for numerically solving systems
of partial differential equations, such as occur in single and multiphase flows.
Its main feature is the replacement of the derivatives by finite differences of
function values, ending up with equations, which have function evaluations at
discrete values of the function variables (time and up to three space
dimensions, in the case of fluid flow). This manual will not give an
introduction to these methods, and familiarity with basic concepts such as
implicit and explicit differencing is assumed. You should refer to standard
texts such as Roache (1976). The most appropriate method for discretising a
given set of fluid flow equations by finite difference methods will depend on
various factors, including:
Numerical stability - some ways of discretising the equations are
numerically unstable: errors, however small, grow and the solution
diverges. Numerical instability may be conditional, in which case the
scheme may be used, but subject to certain restrictions (see Courant
limit below) or unconditional, in which case the scheme cannot be used.
Computer time - the ideal is to find a scheme that will give accurate,
stable results in the minimum of computer time.
Accurate representation of the continuous partial differential
equations - for instance, some methods of Discretization may result in a
finite difference equation, which tends, in the limit of, to a differential
equation which is different to the original equation.
The methods used in many practical codes, therefore, are usually
compromises between these various factors and, as such, can be expected to
have ranges of invalidity, though these may be not too constraining.
Numerical Stability and the Courant
Limit
The question of numerical stability is a very important one and is closely
connected with the type of differencing employed. The fully explicit methods,
whilst easy to solve, are subject to strict limits on the size of the mesh used.
If this condition is violated, the solution will become unstable. There is, in
general, a condition, known as the Courant limit, such that (in a one-
dimensional system):

1
x
t V

(1)
The Courant limit was first identified by Courant, Friedrichs and Lewy (1928),
who discussed the propagation of information in fluid flow simulations.
Essentially, they realized that if the velocity of the fluid was fast enough, then
information about momentum and other properties could be transported out
of the current cell before the current timestep had finished, and this led to
numerical instabilities. The Courant limit means practically that, given a
system which has been discretized in space, there is thus a limit on the
maximum size of the timestep. This means that any program using such a
scheme to difference the flow equations may take a very long time to run.
Semi-implicit Methods
In order to overcome the limitations of explicit methods, whilst retaining their
computational simplicity, a class of finite difference methods has arisen
known as the semi-implicit methods. These treat some of the terms in the
differential equations explicitly and others, specifically those involved in the
Information Propagation discussed above, implicitly. By doing this the idea
is to eliminate, or at least relax, the Courant limit so that a larger timestep
may be used, but without having the computational overhead of a fully
implicit system each time. The SETS (Stability-Enhancing Two-Step) method,
used in the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver, is a semi-implicit method
which treats the terms, and implicitly.
The SETS Method
SETS is a two-step method, consisting of a basic step and a stabilizing step.
The basic step is a semi-implicit equation set, and it provides information
about pressure wave propagation. It treats the convective terms implicitly
and this helps to relax the Courant limit on mesh size. However, studies by
Mahaffy (1979, 1982) showed that in some circumstances numerical
instabilities can arise and so the method is stability enhancing rather than
totally stable. The second step is thus added as a stabilizing step, and it
provides information about the propagation of density, energy and
momentum across cell boundaries.
A Simple Example - Single Phase Flow
In order to illustrate the use of the SETS method, its application to one-
dimensional single-phase flow in a pipe will be considered, following Mahaffy.
The equations he used for mass energy and momentum conservation
respectively in single-phase flow were:

V V V V
V
V V
V
K p
t
T T h p e
t
e
t
w
= +
+ = +
= +
1
) (

(2)
In these equations, K is a wall friction factor, h is a heat transfer coefficient
for the heat-transfer area, and Tw is the temperature of the pipe wall. The
pipeline is divided into discrete cells for the finite difference solution, and a
staggered mesh is used for the discretized flow variables - that is, the
velocities are defined on the cell edges and the bulk properties, such as
density, energy, etc., are defined in the cell centers.
In order to define values for cell-centered properties at the cell edges, the
SETS method uses donor cell weighting. For any group of state variables Y,
defined at the cell centers:

0 ,
0 ,
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
< =
=
+ + +
+ + +
j j j
j j j j
V if V Y
V if V Y YV

(3)
Essentially, this ensures that the value used for any bulk fluid property is that
from the cell which is providing the material: if the velocity on the right hand
cell edge is positive, then the flow is out of this cell in the direction of
increasing j, and the current cell's fluid properties are used. If the velocity is
negative, then fluid is flowing in from the next `higher' cell (j+1), and the
density, energy etc. of that cell's fluid are used instead. This helps stability
and is also more physically realistic. The one-dimensional equations, when
discretized by the SETS method, are as follows:

Stabilizer Momentum Equation

( ) 0 V V V
~
2 ) (
1
V
~
) V V
~
( V
~
V
)
V
V
~
(
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1 1
1
= +
+
+ +
+ +
+
+ + +
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
K p p
x
t

(4)
Basic Mass Equation

0 ) V (
)
~
(
1 1
1
= +
+ +
+
n n
j
n
j
n
j
t

(5)
Basic Momentum Equation

0 V ) V V 2 ( )
~ ~
(
1
V
~
) V (V V
~
V
) V V
~
(
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1 1 1
1
1
1 1
1
= +
+
+ +
+ +
+
+ +
+ +
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
K p p
x
t

(6)
Basic Energy Equation

0 )
~
(
) (V
~
) V (
)
~
~
(
1
,
1 1 1 1 1
1 1
=
+ +

+
+ + + + +
+ +
n
j
n
j w
n
j
n
j
n
j
n n n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
T T h
p e
t
e e

(7)
Stabilizer Mass Equation

0 ) V (
) (
1 1
1
= +
+
+ +
+
n n
j
n
j
n
j
t

(8)
Stabilizer Energy Equation

0 )
~
(
) (V
~
) V (
) (
1
,
1 1 1 1 1
1 1
=
+ +

+
+ + + + +
+ +
n
j
n
j w
n
j
n
j
n
j
n n n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
T T h
p e
t
e e

(9)
The operators in these equations are defined, using the donor-cell notation,
as follows:

j
j
j
j
j
j
vol
YV A YV A
YV
) (
) (
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
+
+

=
(10)
and

0 ,
) (
0 ,
) (
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
<

=
+
+
+ + +
+
+
+ +
+ +
j
j
j j j
j
j
j j j
j j
V if
x
V V V
V if
x
V V V
V V

(11)
Also

0
~
1
0
~
0
2
1
2
1
> =
< =
+
+
n
j
n
j
V if
V if

(12)
These equations may be solved in any order, although Mahaffy found superior
stability properties if they are solved in the above order, i.e. the stabilizer
momentum equations are solved first, followed by a set of basic equations
and finally the stabilizer mass and energy equations.
The stabilizer momentum equation is tridiagonal in
1 + n
V and is solved by
standard methods. The basic equations are a nonlinear, coupled set of
equations which are solved by an iterative method, as described below.
Finally, once
1 + n
V is known, the stabilizer mass and energy systems can be
solved as they are reduced to tridiagonal systems in the variables (mass
equation) and e (energy equation).
Linearisation of the Finite Difference
Equations
The basic set of finite difference equations is non-linear and hence to solve
them at each timestep it is necessary to use an iterative method, based on
Newtons method. Starting with some estimated values for the independent
variables at the new timestep, the derivatives of the equations with respect to
those variables are used to give the next best estimates - based on linear
extrapolation from the last value - continuing until the latest estimates are
equal (within prescribed tolerance) to the previous ones. The following is an
extension of the summary given in Appendix C of Liles et al (1984). At a
timestep n+1, given an initial guess of the independent variables (in this case
p and T), the values on the next iteration (variables without primes) are
assumed to be related to those at the last (with primes) by the relations:

p p p
n
j
n
j
'
1 1
+ =
+ +

(13)
T T T
n
j
n
j
'
1 1
+ =
+ +

(14)
Since the finite-difference equations are functions of T and p, a Taylor
expansion about the last iterations value, retaining only the terms linear in
dpj and dTj gives:

terms order higher T
p
f
p
p
f
T p f
T T p p f T p f
T T p p
+
+ =
+ + =
= =
) ' , ' (
) ' , ' ( ) , (
' '

(15)
In practice, an expansion is performed only on the mass and energy
equations, and the momentum equation is treated differently. First, it is
rearranged to yield as a function of the pressures in the current and adjacent
cells. This gives:

)
~
2 ( 1
~ ~
)
~
~
(
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1 1
1
n
j j
n
j
n
j
j
n
j
n
j
n
j n
j
n
j
n
j
n n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
V V K t
x
p p
V V K V V V t V
V
+ + + +
+
+
+
+
+ + +
+
+ + +
+
+
+ +
(
(
(
+
=
(16)
From this equation it can be seen that:

1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
p
V
p
V

(17)
Also from Equation (16), by replacing the index j with j - 1:

1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
+
+
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
p
V
p
V

(18)
Performing the differentiations indicated in Equation (15), using the mass
equation as an example, leads to:

+
=
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ + +
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
'

'
) '
~
, '
~
( )
~
,
~
(
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j j n
j
n
j
n
j j j
n
j
n
j
n
j j n
j
n
j
n
j j j
n
j
n
j
n
j j n
j
n
j
n
j j
n
j
j
T
T
p
V
A t
p
V
A t p
p
V
A t
p
V
A t p
p
V
A t
p
V
A t
p
p
T p f t T p f t

(19)
The
n
j
2
1
+
and
n
j
2
1

terms are the donor-cell weighted averages of the density
at the right and left cell boundaries, respectively.
Derivatives of velocity with respect to pressure occur in these equations, and
Equations (17) and Equation (18) above may now be used to eliminate the
1
1
1
2
1
+
+
+
+
n
j
n
j
p
V
and
1
1
1
2
1
+
n
j
n
j
p
V
terms.
From Equation (16), the following derivatives are zero:

1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
,
+
+
+
+
+
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
p
V
p
V

(20)
Rearranging Equation (19) gives:

) ( '
) (
) (
'
'
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
+ +
+
+

+
+
+
+ + +
+
+
=
(
(
(
(
n n
j
n
j
n
j
j j
n
j
n
j
j
n
j j
j j
n
j
n
j
j
n
j j
j
n
j
n
j
V t
p p
p
V
vol
t A
p p
p
V
vol
t A
p
p
T
T

(21)
A similar procedure is applied to the energy equation, resulting in:

| | ) ' ( '
' '
) (
2
'
) (
2
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
1
,
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
+ + +
+ +
+
+

+
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

=
(
(

(
(
(
(

(
(
+
(
(
+
(
(
n
j
n
j w
n
j
n n n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
j j
n
j
n
j
j
j
n
j
n
j n
j
j j
n
j
n
j
j
j
n
j
n
j n
j
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
n
j
T T h V e t
e e
p p
p
V
vol
t A
e
p p
p
V
vol
t A
e
p V t
Tp
e
p
e
T h t
T
e
T
e

(22)
These two equations can be arranged into the form:

) ( ) (
1 1 +
+ =
(
j j j j j j j
j
j
j
p p p p
T
p
d c b B
(23)
Bj is a 2 x 2 matrix containing the coefficients of dpj and dTj from Equations
(21) and Equations (22). If this equation is now multiplied by B-1, two
equations result giving dpj and dTj in terms of the variations in pressure:

) ( ' ) ( ' '
1 1 1 1 1 +
+ + =
j j j j j
p p d p p c b p
(24)
and

) ( ' ) ( ' '
1 2 1 2 2 +
+ =
j j j j j
p p d p p c b T
(25)
where:

b B b
1
2
1
'
'
'

=
(
=
b
b

(26)
c B c
1
2
1
'
'
'

=
(
=
c
c

(27)
and

d B d
1
2
1
'
'
'

=
(
=
d
d

(28)
The first of these equations has pressure only as an unknown, and is a
tridiagonal system which can easily be solved for the dpjs. Once these are
known, the dTjs can be calculated from the second equation. This gives the
current iterations new p and T, and once these are known, the densities and
energies can be found (from the thermodynamics) and the velocities
calculated. Finally, the solution at this iteration is compared to the solution at
the last to see whether it has converged within the prescribed tolerance. If
not, the new p and T values from this iteration are taken to be the old ones for
next iteration. This cycle continues until either a solution is reached or a
maximum number of iterations have taken place, in which case no solution
can be found.
Extension of SETS to Two-phase Flow
It is relatively straightforward to extend the above analysis to two-phase flow,
for which the governing equations, as implemented in the Aspen Dynamic
Pipeline Solver, are:

Gas Mass Conservation

= +
) (

g g
g g
V
t

(29)
Liquid Mass Conservation

= +

) ) 1 ((
) 1 (
l l
l
V
t

(30)
Gas Momentum Conservation

sin
) (
) (

1
g V V
c
V V
V V V V
c
p V V
t
V
g g
g
wg
l g
g
l g l g
g
i
g
g g
g
+
= +
+

(31)
Liquid Momentum Conservation

sin
) 1 (
) (
) 1 (
) (
) 1 (
1
w
g V V
c
V V
V V V V
c
p V V
t
V
l l
l
l
l g
l
l g l g
l
i
l
l l
l
+
+ = +

(32)
Total Energy Conservation

| |
| |
| |
wg wl g l
g g g l l l
g g l l
q q V V p
V e V e
t
e e
+ + + =
+ +
+
) 1 (
) 1 (
) 1 (

(33)
Gas Energy Conservation

sg ig wg
g g g g
g g
h q q
V p
t
p V e
t
e
+ + +

= +
) (
) (
) (

(34)
A total energy equation is used instead of a liquid energy equation because
this gives the opportunity to force thermal equilibrium by using one equation
rather than two; this implementation is easier if a total energy equation is
included from the start. In the case of more complex piping, terms must also
be added to deal with tee junctions. Mass, momentum and energy source
terms need to be added to these equations at the tee. Another modification
found to be beneficial to stability is the addition of a pair of explicit momentum
equations (one per phase) to predict the initial new timestep velocity on the
first iteration when solving the basic equation set. The SETS equations for this
model, are as implemented in the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver, but
assuming no tee components, are given in Sets equations for two-phase flow.
For each timestep: First, the stabilizer Momentum equations are solved,
yielding values for
1 + n
j
V .
The main iteration begins, solving the basic equations. An outer loop controls
the iterations as follows:
1 On the first iteration only, the explicit predictor momentum equations are
solved to provide a good initial estimate for the new timestep velocities.
2 Then the whole set of basic equations are solved. As for the single-phase
case, an iterative solution must be used, linearising the equations at each
stage.
Finally, the stabilizer mass and energy equations are solved, giving the final
solution for this timestep.
Physical Properties
Required Properties
Certain physical properties are required. These include:
Vapor mass fraction
Liquid density
Vapor density
Liquid viscosity
Vapor viscosity
Liquid internal energy
Vapor internal energy
Surface tension
The following derivatives are also required:

p
g
T
g
p
l
T
l
p
g
T
g
p
l
T
l
T
e
p
e
T
e
p
e
T p
T p
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
,
,

(35)
These derivatives are required at constant composition of the appropriate
phase for correct application in the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver. The
derivatives are, therefore, different to those at constant overall composition.
Interpolation of Property Data
Physical properties at a given pressure and temperature are interpolated. In
previous distributed versions of the software, two interpolation methods were
provided, linear and bicubic. In the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver only
linear interpolation of property data is available. Previous experience has
shown that the bicubic interpolation did not greatly enhance the performance
of the software when compared to the linear interpolation.
Linear Interpolation
The pressure, p, lies between p1 and p2; the temperature T, between T1 and T2.
A physical property for each of the four points surrounding (p, T) is:

) , (
) , (
) , (
) , (
2 2 22
1 2 21
2 1 12
1 1 11
T p
T p
T p
T p

=
=
=
=

(36)
By interpolating in the pressure and temperature planes, we obtain:

) (
) ( ) ( ) , (
21 12 11 22
1 2
1
1 2
1
11 12
1 2
1
11 21
1 2
1
11

+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
p p
p p
T T
T T
T T
T T
p p
p p
T p

(37)
Closure Laws and Models
The Solution Procedure section show in detail the six equation set used in the
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver. In order to close this set of equations and
provide all of the necessary information for them to be solved, a set of
additional models are required. These closure models are required for wall
and interfacial friction, wall and interfacial heat transfer and interfacial mass
transfer. In addition to these models the software also includes models for
choking flow and for pigging of a pipeline. These are also discussed in this
section.
Flow Regimes
The Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solverhas different flow regime maps for
vertical and horizontal flow. These are needed because the friction behavior
for two-phase flow is dependent on the orientation of the flow. The flow
regime is predicted for each cell edge based on the velocities of each phase,
void fraction and other parameters. The vertical flow pattern map is used if
the angle of inclination is above 10 and the horizontal flow pattern map at
inclinations below 10.
Vertical Flow Regimes
The flow regime boundaries in vertical flow are mainly based on void fraction.
There is, however, an additional transition from slug flow to bubble flow for a
mass flux above 2000 kg/m2s. This flow regime map was developed by the
authors of the TRAC code. They based this on physical intuition and it has
been found over many years of use in TRAC, PLAC and ProFES Transient, to
work well for a wide variety of transients.

Horizontal Flow Regimes
The horizontal flow map was similarly developed by the TRAC developers.
This includes a stratified flow model, the basis for which is a model by Taitel
and Dukler (1976) based on a modified Kelvin-Helmholz model for a circular
pipe.

The model defines a critical gas velocity, Ucrit, above which stratification is
impossible.

2
1
/
cos ) (
1
1
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
l l g
g g
l
crit
dh dA
A g
D
h
U
(38)
where:

2
1
) ) 2 ( (
2 2
D h D
dh
dA
l
l
l
=
(39)
is the angle formed by the pipe axis with the horizontal and hl is the liquid
height. Stratified flow is only possible if hl > D/1000. For gas velocities between
Ucrit and 2Ucrit the flow regime is assumed to be in transition between stratified
and other horizontal flow patterns. The transitions between slug flow and
annular flow are based simply on void fraction. A transition region is assumed
between these two regimes.
Interfacial Friction
Models for interfacial friction are used for each of the vertical and horizontal
flow regimes. There is a relaxation between the previous timestep friction
factor and the new friction factor for stability. The transitions between flow
regimes are also relaxed.
Interfacial Friction for Vertical Flow
Bubble Flow
The interfacial friction is calculated by predicting the bubble size and shear
coefficient. The bubble diameter is calculated as follows:

2
r l
b
b
V
We
D

=
(40)
where D
b
is the bubble diameter and We
b
is the Weber number, assumed to be
7.5 from Crowley et al (1977). The bubble diameter must lie between the cell
hydraulic diameter and 10
-4
meters. The interfacial shear coefficient is
provided by a standard set of formulae for a sphere, from Govier and Aziz
(1972):

b
l b
i
D
c
c
4
3
=
(41)
where the shear coefficient is based on the bubble Reynolds number as
follows:

Re
b
C
b

< 0.1 180
0.1 < = Re
b
<= 989 (18/Re
b
) (1 + 0.15 Re
0.687
)
> 989 0.33

Plug Flow
The plug flow regime is treated in the same manner as bubble flow. The plug
diameter is calculated by interpolation between the bubble size calculated
above and the pipe diameter, based on the void fraction. A similar
interpolation is done between 2000 and 2700 kg/m2s.

Annular Flow
The entrainment fraction is calculated based on Kataoka and Ishii (1982) as
follows:

| | ) ( 23 . 0 exp 1
E g
V V E =
(42)
where:

4
1
2
) (
33 . 2
(

=
l
d g l
E
We
V

(43)
The remainder of the liquid is in a film or sheet. The interfacial shear is a
volume average of the film and droplet relations in the annular-mist regime.
The wetted surface area of the cell is determined from the portion of the
geometric flow area that is blocked. The total interfacial surface area is
determined by the sum of the areas contained in the wetted film and droplets.
A critical Weber number, equal to 4 for the drops, is used with a calculation
procedure similar to that for bubbly flow. This value of the Weber number is
appropriate for accelerating drops.
The interfacial drag coefficient for the annular-droplet regime combines the
droplet drag (see above) and the Wallis (1969), correlation for annular flow:

)) 1 )( 1 ( 0 . 75 0 . 1 (
01 . 0
E
D
C
h
g
i
+ =
(44)
where E is given by Equation (42). To avoid a singularity in the liquid
acceleration, a void fraction,
cut
, is calculated that corresponds to the
minimum allowed film thickness. Above this void fraction value, the above
equation is multiplied by (1 - )/(1 -
cut
). To obtain the interfacial drag
coefficient, droplet drag is weighted by the liquid fraction that is entrained,
and Wallis annular flow is weighted by the fraction remaining as a film.
Churn Flow
For the regime between the bubbly/slug flow and annular flow, a cubic spline
interpolation in the void fraction is made between the conditions that would
exist if the void fraction were 0.75, in the annular or annular-mist regime,
and the conditions that would exist if the void fraction were 0.5, in the
bubbly/slug regime. If 0.5 < a < 0.75, then a weight factor, W, is calculated
from:

) 8 7 ( ) 2 4 (
2
= W
(45)
This interpolation assures that the correlation for the interfacial friction is a
continuous function of the void fraction, the relative velocity, the mass flux
and the various fluid thermodynamic and transport properties.
Interfacial Friction for Horizontal Flow
Interfacial friction is calculated for each flow regime and relaxed over the
timestep. Smoothing occurs between slug flow and annular flow, based on
void fraction, for 0.4 < a < 0.6.

) 10 7 ( ) 2 5 (
2
= W
(46)
and between stratified flow and other horizontal flow regimes, based on the
ratio of gas velocity to the critical velocity from Equation (38), for Ucrit < Vg
< 2Ucrit :

2
2 2 2 3
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
crit
g
crit
g
U
V
U
V
W
(47)
Stratified Flow
The interfacial friction in stratified flow is assumed to be a multiple of the gas
wall friction factor. This multiple is obtained using the Sinai (1983) model or
alternatively may be set to a constant value by the user in the input to the
Solver. The Sinai model is summarized by the following equations. The
interfacial friction factor is calculated from the ratio of the friction velocity to
the gas velocity, thus:

2
2
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
g
i
U
U
f

(48)
where:

73 . 4
2
log 75 . 5
10
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
i
g g
D
U
U

(49)
and

) (

180
2
g l
g
i g
i
i
g
U
S S
S
+
=

(50)
The interfacial friction factor is limited to a maximum of 6 times the gas
phase wall friction factor. This is to give realistic values for interfacial friction
factor in high pressure, large diameter pipelines, based on results of studies
by Kawaji et al (1987), Oliemans (1987), Crowley and Rothe (1988) and
Spedding and Hand (1990). The drag coefficient is then given by:

FA
S
f c
i
g i i
5 . 0 =
(51)
where Si is the width of the interface.
Slug Flow
The horizontal slug flow model is identical to the vertical plug flow model,
except that the slug size is assumed to equal the pipe diameter.
Annular Flow
The droplet entrainment fraction, E, is calculated in the same manner as for
vertical annular flow. The drag coefficient is based on Whalley (1987). The
droplet core void fraction is calculated from:

|
|
.
|
\
|
= E
V
V
g
l
c
1 ) 1 (
(52)
The film radius is calculated from:

c film
D r 5 . 0 =
(53)
and the film thickness from:

film f
r D d = 5 . 0
(54)
The ratio of interfacial friction factor to gas-wall friction factor is then
calculated from:

D
d
f
f
f
wg
i
360 1+ =
(55)
The interfacial drag coefficient is then given by:

FA
P
f c
g i i
) 1 ( 5 . 0 =
(56)
where the length of the interface is:

film
r P 2 =
(57)
Wall Friction
The total pressure gradient calculated in the momentum equations is
expressed as the sum of the fractional dissipation, acceleration head and
potential head terms. The Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver calculates
coefficients for the frictional dissipation terms and for losses associated with
abrupt area changes. Under single-phase flow conditions, pressure drops
associated with frictional losses are correlated as functions of fluid velocity,
fluid density, fluid viscosity, channel hydraulic diameter and surface
roughness of the channel wall. When a two-phase mixture is flowing in a
channel, a correction to the single-phase frictional loss is necessary to
account for added dissipation between phases and interactions with the
channel walls. This correction factor is the two-phase flow multiplier. The wall
shear coefficients cwg and cwl are defined as:

h
fg
g wg
D
c
c =
(58)
and

h
fl
wl
D
c
c
l
) 1 ( =
(59)
where cfg and cfl are the gas and liquid friction factors. The options available to
calculate the wall friction are:
1 Constant friction factor (user input).
2 Homogeneous model for smooth pipe walls.
3 Homogeneous model for rough pipe walls.
4 Annular flow model.
5 Smooth + form loss.
6 Rough + form loss.
7 Rough + annular flow model + form loss.
8 Form loss only.
The first option allows you to specify a two-phase friction factor in order to
model pressure drop data. Since this is a two-phase friction factor, a value of
0.01 generally gives similar results to using the homogeneous friction factor
(for smooth pipes). Roughness for the third option is specified as a relative
roughness (absolute roughness height/pipe internal diameter). For the fourth
option then, if annular flow is detected, the homogeneous friction factor (for
rough pipe) will be replaced by one calculated from an annular flow model.
Options 5, 6 and 7 are the same as 1, 2 and 3, with the addition of an
automatic calculation of an appropriate form loss coefficient, if there are
abrupt area changes. The final option just calculates form loss coefficients.
Homogeneous Model
The homogeneous friction factor model alters the single phase value by using
a two-phase viscosity defined in terms of the flow quality (x) (Collier (1972):

1
) 1 (

1 x x
g
+ =
(60)
The homogeneous friction factor (Rohsenow and Choi (1971), is then given
by:

032 . 0 , 500 = f Re
(61)
) 500 ( 10 25 . 5 032 . 0 , 5000 500
6
=

Re f Re
(62)
2
10
715 . 3
/ 15
log
0625 . 0
, 5000
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
D
Re
f Re

(63)
where:
m m h
V G GD Re and / = = .

The three equations above (Equations (61), Equations (62), Equations
(63)) represent a constant friction factor for Re <= 500, a linear
interpolation between 500 < Re < 5000, to the value given by Equation
(63). The coefficient of friction for the liquid is then given by:

2
2
lo fl
f c =
(64)
where, for < 0.9:

) 1 (

) 1 (
2 . 0
1 2
2
|
|
.
|
\
|
x
lo

(65)
and, for > 0.9:

2 . 0
2 2 2
2
) 20 21 ( ) 9 10 (
) 1 (
) 1 (

|
|
.
|
\
|
(
(
=
l
g
l
lo
x x

(66)
If the void fraction is greater than 0.9, the coefficient of friction for the gas
phase is:

fl fg
c c ) 20 21 ( ) 9 10 (
2
=
(67)
The purpose of this function is to ensure a smooth transition from zero gas
wall friction at = 0.9 to the single phase gas value at = 1.0.
Stratified Flow Model
If the flow regime is stratified, then the homogeneous friction factors are
replaced by those for stratified flow, which are based on the wall area with
which each phase is in contact. Given the void fraction, the liquid height is
determined from the following relationship:

sin
2
1
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
D
h
l

(68)
together with:

|
.
|
\
|
=

D
h
l
2
1 cos
1

(69)
Then the following geometric parameters are evaluated:

i l
l
hl
i g
g
hg
l g
i
l
g
S S
A
D
S S
A
D
A A A A
D A
D S
D S
D S
+
=
+
=
= =
=
=
=
=
4
4
) 1 (
4
sin
) (
2

(70)
The Reynolds numbers for the gas and liquid phases are then calculated as:

g
g g g
g
D V
Re
=
(71)
and

l
l l l
l
D V
Re
=
(72)

Note: The hydraulic diameter for the liquid phase is calculated
using the sum of the liquid and interfacial lengths (S
l
+ S
i
). This
has the effect of decreasing the hydraulic diameter compared to
the usual definition involving only S
i
and thereby increasing the
friction factor. The physical justification for such a change of
definition is that the interface is usually rough and the interfacial
shear stress is comparable to the liquid wall shear stress. Thus
the interface acts more as a rough wall than a free surface. This
modification has been tested against experimental data and
shown to give better reproduction of the data.

The friction factors fwg and fwl are then calculated using the relationship cited
under the homogeneous friction factor section:

2
10
715 . 3
/ 15
log
0625 . 0
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
D
Re
f

(73)
Drag coefficients are then calculated as:

l
l h
wl fl
g
g h
wg fg
A
S D
f c
A
S D
f c
2
1
;
2
1
= =
(74)
Form Losses
The finite-difference equations yield the correct pressure loss for an abrupt
expansion. However, this is not true for an abrupt contraction or an orifice.
For one-dimensional components, a form loss option (see above) should be
specified for the input friction at the location of any abrupt area change. An
appropriate loss correction is calculated by including an extra term in the
Bernoulli equation of the form:

2
2
V k
p =
(75)
where k is a form loss coefficient. For an abrupt expansion or zero length
orifice:

2
2
1
1
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
A
A
k
(76)
and for an abrupt contraction:

2
2
1
2
1
2 . 0 7 . 0 5 . 0
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
A
A
A
A
k
(77)
where A1 and A2 are the smaller and the larger flow areas, respectively. The
above equation is a curve that was fitted to the values reported in Massey
(1968).
Annular Flow
If the user selects the annular flow option for wall friction (see above) then, if
the flow regime is annular, the homogeneous wall friction factors are replaced
by wall friction factors calculated on the basis of an annular flow model.
Since, in annular flow, the gas phase flows in the core surrounded by a liquid
film on the walls, there is no gas in contact with the pipe wall and hence the
gas-wall friction factor is set to zero. The liquid-wall friction factor is
calculated as follows:

) /( 16 , 200 Re f Re =
(78)
5 . 4
) ( 38 . 143 001069 . 0 , 8000 200

+ = Re ln f Re
(79)
2
10
715 . 3
/ 15
log
0625 . 0
, 8000
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
D
Re
f Re

(80)
where the thickness of the liquid annulus is taken as the characteristic
diameter in the Reynolds number.
Heat Transfer Coefficients
The heat fluxes per unit volume required for the basic equations may be
obtained from the heat transfer coefficients:

vol
T T
A h q
l g
i i i

=
(

(81)
vol
T T
A h q
g w
wg wg wg
) (
=
(82)
and

vol
T T
A h q
l w
wl wl wl
) (
=
(83)
Simple correlations are used to predict the heat transfer coefficients as
discussed below.
Interfacial Heat Transfer
Currently, if the default 2 energy equations are selected, the interfacial heat
transfer coefficient, hi, is fixed such that:

K W A h
i i
/ 10
7
=
(84)
with the result that the liquid and gas temperatures are almost always equal.
The user can force the liquid and gas temperatures to vary independently by
selecting the option to have separate energy equations with no interfacial
heat transfer.
Fluids to Wall Heat Transfer
The heat transfer coefficients between the liquid or gas phases and the pipe
wall are calculated according to flow pattern. The determination of flow
patterns and the interpolation between them is identical to that used for
calculation of friction factors. Values of the product of heat transfer coefficient
and contact area are determined by flow regime as follows.
Bubbly Flow
There is assumed to be contact only between the liquid and the wall. For
calculation of the liquid to wall heat transfer coefficient, the velocity is the
mean fluid velocity, the viscosity is the homogeneous viscosity and the
diameter is the hydraulic diameter of the channel. The gas to wall heat
transfer coefficient is taken to be zero.
Stratified Flow
The hydraulic diameters appropriate to the gas and liquid layers in stratified
flow are calculated as discussed earlier for calculation of stratified flow wall
friction factors. The liquid and gas to wall heat transfer coefficients are then
calculated separately using the velocities and physical properties for the gas
and liquid phases. These heat transfer coefficients are then weighted by the
wetted perimeters of the two phases.
Slug Flow
Here, the liquid velocity is taken as the slug velocity and the diameter is the
hydraulic diameter of the pipe. The liquid and gas to wall heat transfer
coefficients are then calculated separately and weighted by the volume
fraction of each phase in the pipe.
Annular Flow
In annular flow, it is assumed that there is heat transfer only between the
liquid film and the wall. Hence the liquid film velocity and film thickness are
used in the determination of liquid to wall heat transfer coefficient. The film is
assumed to be uniform circumferentially.
Single Phase
For single-phase gas or liquid flow, the heat transfer coefficient is calculated
based on velocity and physical properties of the phase and the channel
hydraulic diameter. For void fraction greater than 0.98, single phase gas is
assumed for calculation of heat transfer coefficient.
Gas to Wall Heat Transfer
The gas to wall heat transfer coefficient is taken as the maximum of the
turbulent natural convection equation (McAdams (1954):

3
1 3
1
2
2
13 . 0
g
g
g w g
g nc
Pr
T
T T g
k h
|
|
.
|
\
|

=
(85)
and the turbulent Dittus-Boelter equation:

n
g g
g
g
turb
Pr Re
D
k
h
8 . 0
023 . 0 =
(86)
where the gas Reynolds number is:

g
g g g
g
D V
Re
=
(87)
and the gas Prandtl number is:

g
p
g
k
c
Pr
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

(88)
The Prandtl number exponent, n, is 0.3 for cooling (heat transfer from fluids
to pipe wall) and 0.4 for heating (heat transfer from pipe wall to fluids).
Liquid to Wall Heat Transfer
The liquid-wall heat transfer coefficient is taken as the maximum of the
laminar heat transfer coefficient:

l
l
lam
D
k
h 0 . 4 =
(89)
and the Dittus-Boelter equation for turbulent flow:

n
l l
l
l
l
Pr Re
D
k
h
8 . 0
023 . 0 =
(90)
where the liquid Reynolds number is:

l
l l l
l
D V
Re
=
(91)
and the liquid Prandtl number is:

l
p
l
k
c
Pr
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

(92)
The Prandtl number exponent, n, is 0.3 for cooling (heat transfer from fluids
to pipe wall) and 0.4 for heating (heat transfer from pipe wall to fluids).
Enhancement Due to Roughness
The above calculations for liquid or gas to wall heat transfer coefficients are
based on flow in a smooth pipe. For turbulent flow in a rough pipe, the heat
transfer coefficient is enhanced in the same way as the friction factor. The
friction factor is calculated using the relationship:

2
10
715 . 3
/ 15
log
0625 . 0
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
D
Re
f

(93)
and hence the heat transfer coefficient enhancement factor, from the ratio of
friction factor for a rough pipe to that for a smooth pipe, is given by:

2
10
10
715 . 3
/ 15
log
15
log
(
(
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
=
D
Re
Re
E

(94)
Cylindrical Wall Heat Conduction
The Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver solves the radial conduction equation
(below) through the pipe wall to update the wall temperatures radially:

(
|
.
|
\
|
r
T
rk
r r t
T
c
p
1

(95)
The wall temperatures are updated after all the fluid mechanics calculations
are completed for that timestep. The wall is split into elemental volumes, as
shown below:

The conduction equation is re-cast in finite difference form, with boundary
conditions applied at the inner and outer walls (i=1,N) such that:

) ( ) (
1
wl g g wl l l
i
T T h T T h
r
T
k + =
=

(96)
and

) (
wN out out
N i
T T h
r
T
k =
=

(97)
The heat transfer coefficient from the last node to the surrounding heat sink,
hout, and the ambient temperature, Tout, must be specified by the user. If
warm up of the pipe wall is not important, for example if the material has a
low thermal inertia (such as steel) or is uninsulated and exposed, the number
of heat transfer nodes can be set to 1. In this case, the heat conduction is
based on the fluid temperature, the external temperature and the overall heat
transfer coefficient, hout. For thermal transient calculations, such as pipeline
warm up, the surrounding media (such as the soil) should be simulated as
additional layers of insulation material. The number of nodes is one more than
the number of material layers. If correct warm up of a single material layer is
required, nodes = 2 (for example). Where thick insulation layers are present,
these need to be subdivided in order to accurately represent the heat transfer
through them. In previous versions, this had to be done by the user, it is now
automatic. The method used is as follows:
Each sub-layer has an inner radius, Ri, and outer radius, Si, where i is the
number of the sub-layer. The ratio of the sub-layer thickness dRi is a
maximum fraction x of the inner radius, Ri.

Layer R
1

dR
1
S
1

1 R xR (R+xR=(1+x)R
2 (1+x)R x(1+x)R (1+x)R+x(1+x)R=(1+x)
2
R
I (1+x)
i-1
R x(1+x)
i-1
R (1+x)
i
R

The total thickness of n sub-layers is (1+x)
n
R-R = ((1+x)
n
-1)R.
Thus, for a given layer:

| |R x dR
n
1 ) 1 ( + =
(98)
Rearranging then leads to the following expression for the number of sub-
layers:
) 1 log(
1 log
x
R
dR
n
+
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
(99)
where must be rounded up to the next integer. The actual value of x to use
for the local sub-layer is then given by:

1
1 log
log
1
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=

N
R
dR
x
(100)
where N is the integer number of sub-layers.
Burial Calculations
Another feature of the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver, is the automatic
calculation of the equivalent soil layer thickness for a buried pipe (BD), i.e.
the distance from the top of the pipe (plus any insulation layers) to the soil
surface. Define:

2
D
BD z + =
(101)
where D is the outer diameter of the pipe (including insulation). Making
dimensionless:

2
1
' + = =
D
BD
D
z
z
(102)
The dimensionless equivalent outer diameter is then given by:

2
3
' : )) 1 ' 2 ( exp(cosh '
1
< =

z z D
o

(103)
and

2
3
' : ' 4 ' = z z D
o

(104)
and the thickness of the soil layer by:

.
2
1 '
2
'
D
D D D D
soil
o o
|
.
|
\
|
=
=
(105)
Interfacial Mass Transfer
Interfacial mass transfer occurs in multi-component hydrocarbon pipelines
due to evaporation or condensation. This arises due to changing pressure and
temperature along the pipe (convective phase change), or with time
(transient phase change). The rate of evaporation of the liquid phase is given
by:

) (

l g
p
T
p
T
m m
t
x
x
T
T t
x
x
p
p t
T
T t
p
p
+
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
(106)
where: = Mass of liquid evaporated in cell per unit time
= Equilibrium liquid mass fraction

l g
m m , = Mass of gas, liquid in cell

The equilibrium liquid fraction is a function of the pressure and temperature:

) , ( T p =
(107)
and so the differential change in equilibrium liquid fraction is given by:

dt
T
dp
p
d
p
T
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

(108)
Hence the derivatives of with respect to time and to distance are:

t
T
T t
p
p t
p
T

|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|

(109)
and

x
T
T x
p
p x
p
T

|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|

(110)
Substituting Equations (109) and Equations (110) into Equation (106)
gives:

(
+ +
=
+
(
=
) (
) (
) (

l g l g
l g
m m
t
x
x
m m
t
m m
t
x
x t

(111)
The first term on the right hand side of represents the transient contribution
to the phase change and can be expressed in finite difference form as:

(
(
+ = +

t
m m m m
t
n
j
n
j
l g l g
1

) ( ) (

(112)
The second term on the right hand side of Equation (111) represents the
convective contribution to the phase change. To express in finite difference
form, it is first assumed that the rate of convection into and out of the cell is
much greater than the rate of change of total mass in the cell, i.e.,

| | ) ( ) (
l g l g
m m x
t
m m
t
x
+

(113)
Hence the convective phase change component may be expressed as:

(
(
+ = +

t
x A V x V m m
t
x
x
n
j
n
j
l l g g l g
1

) ) 1 ( ( ) (

(114)
In the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver the conservation equations are
multiplied by the timestep, thus giving, for the phase change from Equations
(111), Equations (112) and Equations (114):

) ( ) ) 1 ( ( ) )( (
1
1 n
j
n
j l l g g
n
j
n
j l g
t V V A m m t + + + =

(115)
In the above equations, the subscript j refers to the cell position, and the
superscript n to the time. Equation (115) is implemented in the Aspen
Dynamic Pipeline Solver, subject to the following:
The transient and convective components are separated and may be
suppressed if required for stability.
The convective component is aligned with the direction of flow. If the flow
is from cell j+1 to cell j then the difference is used.
The transient term is approximated using a backward-time difference, as
shown in Equation (112). This may lead to numerical instability, and
the transient component is therefore multiplied by an under-relaxation
factor.
The under-relaxation factor also serves as a limited control over the rate
of transient phase change during rapid depressurization. In these cases,
the equilibrium liquid mass fraction can change significantly between
timesteps, but thermodynamic equilibrium is not attained over the
timestep.
This rather crude method allows the simulation of blow down, but it is
recognised that a more formal calculation method to allow for non-
equilibrium effects is required. This work is under development.
The amount of phase change in a cell at the current timestep is modified by a
factor dependent on the amount of liquid in the cell, PGRAT. If the liquid
fraction is less than 0.9, then PGRAT=1.0; if the liquid fraction is greater than
0.95 then PGRAT=0.0; if the liquid fraction lies between these limits then
PGRAT is linearly interpolated. This has the effect of smoothly reducing the
amount of phase change to zero as a cell fills with liquid.
Choked Flow Model
Critical flow can occur either at area restrictions in the pipe, such as valves,
or at boundaries. The conditions in the fluid change very rapidly close to the
choke plane, and hence it is not possible to predict critical flow directly.
Special models have been written which calculate the velocities at the choke
plane based on the conditions immediately upstream.
Single Phase Choking
No model has been implemented for pure liquid flow, since this condition is
unlikely to occur. The critical velocity for pure gas flow is calculated using the
standard formula below:

g
RT q =
(116)
where R is the gas constant, is the ratio of specific heats and q is the critical
velocity; and R are calculated from the physical property data provided. If the
velocity calculated at the new timestep is above the critical velocity, the new
velocity is reduced to the critical velocity over several timesteps.
Two-phase Choking
The two-phase choked flow model is based on the work by Henry and Fauske
(1971). In this paper the critical mass flux for a general two-phase choked
system is derived as:
dp
dk
k
v
kv x x
dp
dv
k x k x k
dp
dx
x k x
kv k x v
dp
dv
x k x
k
G
g
l
l
l g
g
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+ + +
+ + + + =
|
|
.
|
\
|

) 1 (
)) 1 ( ) 2 ( 1 ( )) 2 1 ( ) 1 (
) 1 ( 2 1 ( ( )) 1 ( 1 (
2
2
1
2

(117)
where k is the slip ratio, Vg/Vl ; x is the quality (gas mass fraction); vg and vl are
the specific volumes of the gas and liquid (1/density).
Homogeneous Frozen Model
The homogeneous frozen model, which you can select from the input
interface, is derived from Equation (117) by making the assumptions:
Quality, , is constant at the choked plane.
The flow is homogeneous at the choked plane, i.e., g = l and k = 1.
The quality is evaluated from the void fraction, using:

l g
g
x
) 1 (

+
=
(118)
Then the critical mass flux is calculated by:

|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|

+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
s
l
l
s
g
g
l g
p p
G
) 1 (
) 1 (

(119)
Once the total mass flux across the choke plane increases above the critical
value, the phase velocities are set to the homogeneous critical velocity over
several timesteps. There is likely to be some slip between the phases as the
mass flux approaches the critical value. Hence, the gas velocity will initially
increase beyond the critical velocity before it is reduced, and conversely for
the liquid velocity. Care must be taken in evaluating the derivatives at
constant entropy required in Equation (119). The derivatives available from
the PVT package MULTIFLASH are at constant pressure or constant
temperature. The required derivatives are given by the relationship:

2
2

p p T s
T c
T
p p
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|

(120)
and where the heat capacity at constant pressure, cp, is given by:

p p
p
T
p
T
U
c |
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
2

(121)
Homogeneous Equilibrium Model
In the homogeneous equilibrium model, which the user can also select from
the input interface, the quality at the choke plane is assumed to be the
thermodynamic equilibrium quality, which is related to the equilibrium liquid
fraction by . The liquid and gas velocities are still assumed to be
equal at the choked plane. This leads to the following expression for the
critical mass flux:

(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
s
l
l
s
g
m l g
s
g
g
p p p
G
) 1 (
1
2 2

(122)
After the choked mass flux is calculated, implementation is similar to the
homogeneous frozen model.

General Information 41
General Information
This section provides Copyright details and lists any other documentation
related to this release.
Copyright
Version Number: HYSYS 3.4
March 2004
Copyright 1981 - 2004 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.
HYSYS, HYSYS Optimizer, ACM Model Export, HYSYS Amines, HYSYS
Crude Module, HYSYS Data Rec, HYSYS DMC+ Link, HYSYS Dynamics,
HYSYS Electrolytes, HYSYS Lumper, HYSYS Neural Net, HYSYS Olga
Transient, HYSYS OLGAS 3-Phase, HYSYS OLGAS, HYSYS PIPESIM
Link, HYSYS Pipesim Net, HYSYS PIPESYS, HYSYS RTO, HYSYS
Sizing, HYSYS Synetix Reactor Models, HYSYS Tacite, HYSYS
Upstream, HYSYS for Ammonia Plants, MUSE, PIPE, Polymers Plus,
Process Manuals, Process Tools, ProFES 2P Tran, ProFES 2P Wax,
ProFES 3P Tran, ProFES Tranflo, STX, TASC-Thermal, TASC-
Mechanical, Aspen Plus, ACOL, ACX, APLE, Aspen Adsim, Aspen
Aerotran, Aspen CatRef, Aspen Chromatography, Aspen Custom
Modeler, Aspen Decision Analyzer, Aspen Dynamics, Aspen Enterprise
Engineering, Aspen FCC, Aspen Hetran, Aspen Hydrocracker, Aspen
Hydrotreater, Aspen Icarus Process Evaluator, Aspen Icarus Project
Manager, Aspen Kbase, Aspen Plus HTRI, Aspen OLI, Aspen
OnLine, Aspen PEP Process Library, Aspen Plus BatchFrac, Aspen Plus
Optimizer, Aspen Plus RateFrac, Aspen Plus SPYRO, Aspen Plus
TSWEET, Aspen Split, Aspen WebModels, Aspen Pinch, Aspen
Properties, Aspen SEM, Aspen Teams, Aspen Utilities, Aspen Water,
Aspen Zyqad, COMThermo, COMThermo TRC Database, DISTIL,
DISTIL Complex Columns Module, FIHR, FLARENET, FRAN, HX-Net,
HX-Net Assisted Design Module, Hyprotech Server, the aspen leaf logo
and Enterprise Optimization are trademarks or registered trademarks of
Aspen Technology, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
All other brand and product names are trademarks or registered trademarks
of their respective companies.
General Information 42
This document is intended as a guide to using AspenTech's software. This
documentation contains AspenTech proprietary and confidential information
and may not be disclosed, used, or copied without the prior consent of
AspenTech or as set forth in the applicable license agreement. Users are
solely responsible for the proper use of the software and the application of the
results obtained.
Although AspenTech has tested the software and reviewed the
documentation, the sole warranty for the software may be found in the
applicable license agreement between AspenTech and the user. ASPENTECH
MAKES NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EITHER EXPRESSED OR
IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THIS DOCUMENTATION, ITS QUALITY,
PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
Corporate
Aspen Technology, Inc.
Ten Canal Park
Cambridge, MA 02141-2201
USA
Phone: (1) (617) 949-1000
Toll Free: (1) (888) 996-7001
Fax: (1) (617) 949-1030
URL: http://www.aspentech.com/
Technical Support 43
Technical Support
Online Technical Support
Center
AspenTech customers with a valid license and software maintenance
agreement can register to access the Online Technical Support Center at:
http://support.aspentech.com
You use the Online Technical Support Center to:
Access current product documentation.
Search for technical tips, solutions, and frequently asked questions
(FAQs).
Search for and download application examples.
Search for and download service packs and product updates.
Submit and track technical issues.
Search for and review known limitations.
Send suggestions.
Registered users can also subscribe to our Technical Support
e-Bulletins. These e-Bulletins proactively alert you to important technical
support information such as:
Technical advisories.
Product updates.
Service Pack announcements.
Product release announcements.

Technical Support 44
Phone and E-mail
Customer support is also available by phone, fax, and e-mail for customers
who have a current support contract for their product(s). Toll-free charges are
listed where available; otherwise local and international rates apply.
For the most up-to-date phone listings, please see the Online Technical
Support Center at:
http://support.aspentech.com

Support Centers Operating Hours
North America 8:00 20:00 Eastern time
South America 9:00 17:00 Local time
Europe 8:30 18:00 Central European time
Asia and Pacific Region 9:00 17:30 Local time

Aspen Hydraulics Dynamics Reference

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Aspen Hydraulics Dynamics Reference

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aspen Dynamic

You might also like