11 views

Uploaded by gilberto garcia

sdf

- EntryGasdynamicHeating19710021703_1971021703
- Untitled
- Landfill Gas
- P324_06A_MASTER_Syllabus_(Blasingame)
- New Developments in on-line
- America's Energy Savers
- Haskel_Gas_Boosters_36pg_7.pdf
- 1-s2.0-0307904X9090074F-main (1)
- Incheon Regas.pdf
- Untitled
- API Climate Fact Sheet
- Flare Design and Calculations
- NFPA-850 Recommended Practice for Fire Protection for Electric Generating Plants and High
- Wu-Abuaf-1981Study of Nonequilibrium Flashing...v2
- Flow of Industrial Fluids Theory and Equatiion
- Swot&Pestle
- Intelligence Control of Downdraft Biomass Gasifier using Fuzzy Logic Controller
- Apec Energy Balances
- Investors/Analysts Presentation [Company Update]
- PNAS-2013-Allen-1304880110: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

You are on page 1of 8

ISSN: 2278-0181

Vol. 4 Issue 10, October-2015

Natural Gas Networks

Ahmed Gamal

M tech student

Department of Mechanical Power Engineering,

Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.

Assistant Professor of Mechanical Power Engineering Professor of Mechanical Power Engineering

Department of Mechanical Power Engineering, Department of Mechanical Power Engineering,

Cairo University, Giza, Egypt. Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.

Abstract In this work, new friction factor equations were ceramics, and others), and 12% to natural gas processing

developed for the steady state natural gas pipeline network plants to extract gas derivatives and valuable components for

system. Different equations were developed and verified for the petrochemical industry, in addition to using the natural gas

different pressure range. For each case study, the corresponding as a fuel for petroleum refineries. [2]

equation is verified in the specific pressure range to check the

The present work objective is to identify the best equation

achieved enhancement in prediction. The prediction was

compared with the result obtained from Synergee Gas simulator that could be used to predict the pressure drop in natural gas

tool, where different gas flow equation were used. For a specific pipelines, therefore, a hydraulic analysis of the natural gas

pressure range, the predictions were validated using filed data pipelines was carried out and the predictions with different gas

for 3 different study cases in order to determine the equation flow equations as well as the field data were compared, in

that can best predict the pressure in the natural gas pipeline addition, a new gas flow equation of the friction factor was

network. The newly developed equations were compared with development. The new equation gave better predictions

the other flow equations for the 3 case studies to ensure the compared to the existing ones.

affectivity of these newly developed equations. The outlet

pressure was calculated and compared with the experimental II. NATURAL GAS GOVERNING FLOW

data. EQUATIONS IN CIRCULAR PIPES

Keywords Gas pipeline; Natural Gas; Friction Factor; Gas A. Natural Gas Governing Flow Equations

Networks.

The natural gas governing equations consist of: the

I. INTRODUCTION continuity equation, the momentum equation, the conversation

Pipelines network systems consist of a large number of of energy equation, and the Bernoullis equation.

facilities which are used for the conveyance of water, gas, or B. Assumptions to Calculate the Pressure and the Flow Rate

petroleum products. They are generally the safest, the most

The general flow equation can be derived from the total

efficient, and the most economical way to transport these

momentum balance around an element of fluid through a

fluids. These systems vary from the very simple ones to very

differential length of the pipe under the following

large and quite complex ones.

assumptions:

Natural gas pipeline are made of steel or plastic tubes,

Isothermal flow

which are usually buried in the ground. Compressors stations

move the natural through the pipelines. [1] Steady state flow

Since the natural gas major discoveries in Egypt in the Single phase flow

1990s, it importance as a source of energy increased. At 2005, No heat transfer from and to the gas to the surroundings

the estimated reservoir of natural gas in Egypt is 66 trillion No mechanical work done on: or by the fluid.

cubic feet, which is the third largest in Africa. Since 1990s, Newtonian fluid.

natural gas has been discovered in the Western Desert, in the C. The Flow Equations

Nile Delta, and offshore from the Nile Delta.

Within the first half of year 2014, 24.3 billion standard There are several equations available that relate the gas

cubic meters (BSCM) of natural gas were distributed to the flow rate with gas properties, pipe diameter, length and

local market. The transmission capacity has reached 210 upstream and downstream pressures. These equations are [3]:

million standard cubic meters per day (MSCMD) compared to 1. General flow equation

37 MSCMD in 1997. This is due to increasing the length of 2. Colebrook white equation

the grid to 7075 km of trucking lines compared to 2800 km in 3. Modified Colebrook white equation

1997. The distribution of natural gas to the local market by the 4. AGA equation

end of 2014 is: 56% for power generation, 22% for domestic, 5. Weymouth equation

commercial, industrial sectors, and for Compressed Natural 6. Panhandle A equation

Gas (CNG) stations, as a vehicular fuel, 10% for 384 7. Panhandle B equation

industrial factories (iron and steel, fertilizers, cements, 8. IGT equation

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181

Vol. 4 Issue 10, October-2015

10. Mueller equation temperature of the gas.

11. Fritzsche equation - The standard pressure condition is 1 atmosphere which is

equal to 14.73 psia.

D. The Feneral Flow Equations

- The standard temperature condition is 15.56 C (60 F).

The general flow equation is the basic equation relating the - Using modified Benedict- Webb-Rubin equation to

flow rate to the pressure drop. It is also called the calculate the gas compressibility factor.

fundamental flow equation for the steady-state isothermal - The results of the different gas flow equations are calculated

flow in gas pipelines. This equation applies over all pressure by using Synergee Gas program version (4.3.0).

ranges and it is the basis for many of the flow equations used

in the analysis of gas transmission and distribution networks B. First Case

[4], (in SI units): The medium pressure natural gas pipeline is feeding

T P 2 e s P22

0.5 Warak area, Giza, Egypt. It serves about 200,000 customers.

Q 5.747 10 4 F b 1 D

2.5

(1)

The pipeline data: length is 2619 m long, outer diameter

(O.D.) is 355 mm, inner diameter (I.D.) is 290.6 mm, the gas

b

P GT L

f e Z specific gravity is 0.6090, the efficiency is 95%, the pipe

Where, Q is the gas flow rate at standard condition (m3/day) roughness is 0.0152 mm, the pipe elevation is 2 m, the gas

F is the transmission factor (dimensionless) flow range is (7900-9100) standard cubic meters per hour

Pb is the base pressure (kPa) (SCMH), the Reynolds number range is (0.64E6 0.73E6),

Tb is the base temperature (K) the operating year is 2011.

P1 is the upstream pressure (kPa)

P2 is the downstream pressure (kPa) TABLE 1. The Composition of natural gas for first case.

G is the gas gravity (air = 1.00) COMPONENT MOLE % COMPONENT MOLE %

Tf is the average gas flowing temperature (K) C1 91.5610 I-C5 0.0010

Le is the equivalent length of pipe segment (km)

C2 5.0690 N-C5 0.0

Z is the gas compressibility factor at the flowing

temperature, dimensionless C3 0.3090 C6+ 0.0

D is the pipe inside diameter, mm I-C4 0.0100 N2 0.3860

Le 1

S N-C4 0.0100 CO2 2.6540

Le (2)

S TABLE 2. The field data of natural gas pipeline for first case.

Where, S is the dimensionless elevation adjustment INLET OUTLET GAS FLOW

parameter, NO. PRESSURE P1 PRESSURE P2 RATE Tg (K)

E is the pipe roughness (mm), (BARG) (BARG) (SCMH)

L is the pipe length (km) 1 7.05 6.9334 9032.24 295.25

H H1 2 7.05 6.9375 9016 293.35

S 0.0684G 2 (3)

T Z 3 7.05 6.9316 9192.4 292.35

f 4 7.05 6.9285 9368.8 293.65

6 7.05 6.9369 9318.4 292.65

E. Diffuculties to Solve the General Gas Flow Equation

7 7.05 6.9400 9100 292.35

The general gas flow equation is difficult to be solved. The

main difficulties are described as follows: 8 7.05 6.9416 9044 294.45

1- When the flow is unknown; the solution of the equation is 9 7.05 6.9440 8988 294.95

obtained by iterative method.

10 7.05 6.9551 8775.2 292.35

2- The smooth pipe equation is also a non-explicit

relationship between the Reynolds number and the friction 11 7.05 6.9543 8764 293.45

factor. Therefore, further iterations are needed. 12 7.05 6.9466 8713.6 295.25

To solve this problem: several equations as Blasius-type 13 7.05 6.9508 8640.8 298.45

equation (Blasius, Muller, Fritch, Polyflow, Panhandle, etc),

are introduced to get a more simple form to calculate the 14 7.05 6.9503 8400 299.15

friction factor. [4] 15 7.05 6.9618 7980 301.05

III. ANALYSIS

C. Second Case

A. Assumptions

The low pressure natural gas pipeline is feeding Medicine

- The gas viscosity is constant where (CP = 0.01107). Factory, Giza, Egypt. The pipeline data: length is 113 m long,

- Elevation change between upstream and downstream of gas O.D. is 90 mm, I.D. is 80 mm, the gas specific gravity is

pipeline calculated through (GPS, Google Earth or elevation 0.6090, the efficiency is 95%, the pipe roughness is 0.0152

file from United States geological survey by using global mm, the pipe elevation is -1 m, the gas flow range is (5-80)

mapper or GIS program).

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181

Vol. 4 Issue 10, October-2015

SCMH, the Reynolds number range is (1400 25000), the IV. RESULTS

operating year is 2014. The natural gas composition is the

A. First Case

same as first case.

60

TABLE 3. The field data of natural gas pipeline for second case.

Absolute Deviation

50

Average

INLET OUTLET 40

GAS FLOW

NO. PRESSURE P1 PRESSURE P2 Tg (K) 30

RATE (SCMH)

(MBARG) (MBARG) 20

10

1 298 297.68 21 304.15

0

2 303 302.22 13.2 304.15

3 301 300.02 16.8 304.15

4 316 315 3.6 304.15 Gas Flow Equations

5 295 285.45 75 304.15 Fig. 1. Comparison between average absolute deviations for

different flow equations for first case.

6 294 291.24 42 304.15

Absolute Deviation %

0.70

8 290 282.08 90 304.15 0.60

Average

0.50

9 290 285.21 78 304.15

0.40

0.20

0.10

D. Third Case 0.00

The high pressure natural gas pipeline is feeding the

power station, Giza, Egypt. The pipeline data: 5000 m long,

711.2 mm O.D., 682.651 mm I.D., 0.5806 gas specific gravity,

Gas Flow Equations

90% efficiency, 0.0254mm pipe roughness, the gas flow range

Fig. 2. Comparison between average absolute deviation percentages for

is (3.5-8) million metric standard cubic meters per hour different flow equations for first case.

(MMSCMH), the Reynolds number range is (5.3E6

11.5E6), the operating year is 1985. 60

50

TABLE 4. The Composition of natural gas for third case. 40

RMSD

10

C2 2.569 N-C5 0.014

0

C3 0.477 C6+ 0.03

I-C4 0.128 N2 0.075

N-C4 0.075 CO2 0.451

Gas Flow Equations

TABLE 5. The field data of natural gas pipeline for third case. Fig. 3. Comparison between Root Mean Square Deviation for different flow

equations for first case.

INLET OUTLET GAS FLOW

NO. PRESSURE PRESSURE P2 RATE Tg (K)

P1 (BARG) (BARG) (SCMH) The Spitzglass HP gives the Minimum Average Deviation

1 32.28 32.12 154.47 299.68 Percentage between the calculated and reading pressures

(0.25%), and Root Mean Squared Deviation (18.21)

2 32.63 32.49 160.96 292.47

comparing to the other equations. Spitzglass HP followed by

3 32.46 32.29 162.99 292.82 Weymouth gives the best results followed by Shacham, Chen

4 32.55 32.35 177.08 292.7 and Colebrook in ordered. Spitzglass LP give the worst results

followed by Panhandle B, AGA and Mueller.

5 32.01 31.82 186.93 295.41

6 32.1 31.79 206.89 298.5 B. Second Case

3.0

7 32.08 31.77 230.48 299.34

Absolute Deviation

2.5

8 32.32 31.99 236.69 292.88

Average

2.0

1.5

9 32.7 32.35 241.11 290.55

1.0

10 31.42 30.91 249.79 299.05 0.5

13 32.39 31.75 302.94 289.67

Gas Flow Equations

14 30.72 29.97 312.02 299.07 Fig. 4. Comparison between average absolute deviations for different flow

equations for second case.

15 31.04 30.21 332.77 298.72

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181

Vol. 4 Issue 10, October-2015

0.9 0.40

Absolute Deviation %

0.8 0.35

0.7 0.30

Average

0.6

0.25

RMSD

0.5

0.20

0.4

0.15

0.3

0.2 0.10

0.1 0.05

0.0 0.00

Fig. 5. Comparison between average absolute deviation percentages for Fig. 9. Comparison between Root Mean Square Deviation for different flow

different flow equations for first case. equations for third case.

3.0

Percentage between the calculated and reading pressures

2.5

(0.25%), and Root Mean Squared Deviation (0.1) comparing

RMSD

2.0

1.5 to the other equations. Weymouth gives the best results

1.0 followed by Colebrook, Chen, Shacham, AGA and Group

0.5

0.0

European in ordered. Spitzglass HP gives the worst results

followed by Mueller and Panhandle B.

D. The Development of a New Gas Flow Equation

Gas Flow Equations Most of the friction factor equations for the gas flow

Fig. 6. Comparison between Root Mean Square Deviation for different flow equation have the Blasius form or power law relationships and

equations for second case.

can be expressed as the following:

1

The Spitzglass LP gives the Minimum Average Deviation A Re B (4)

Percentage between the calculated and reading pressures f

(0.588%), the minimum Average Deviation between the For all the previous three cases studies, since most of the

calculated and reading pressures (1.714), and Root Mean

friction factor equations gives good results with some

Squared Deviation (2.184) comparing to the other equations.

deviation between the calculated and the experimental reading

Spitzglass LP gives the best results followed by Smooth Pipes,

pressures. Therefore, the development of a new friction factor

Mueller, Shacham, AGA and Colebrook in ordered.

equation is essentially to get better match and decrease the

Panhandle B gives the worst results followed by Chen,

deviation between the calculated and the experimental reading

Panhandle A and Weymouth in ordered. pressures for minimizing the errors.

C. Third Case MATLAB program was used to develop the new friction

0.40 equations for each case study.

Absolute Deviation

0.30

as A of 0.6314, and B of 0.1832. With the root mean square of

Average

0.25

0.20 the errors of 0.0431. So the first new equation can be

0.15

0.10

expressed as the following:

0.05 1

0.00 0.6314 Re 0.1832 (5)

f

The equation is valid for medium pressure range, for

Gas Flow Equations {0.64E6<Re<0.73E6}.

Fig. 7. Comparison between average absolute deviations for different flow - For second model, the equations constants were found to

equations for third case.

be as A of 0.05134, and B is 0.4151. With the root mean

1.2

square of the errors of 0.1775. So the third new equation can

Absolute Deviation %

1.0

be expressed as the following:

1

Average

0.05134 Re 0.4151

0.8

0.6

(6)

0.4

f

0.2 The equation is valid for low pressure range, for {1400 <

0.0 Re < 25000}.

- For third model, the equations constants were found to

be as A=1.311, and B is 0.1165. With the root mean square of

Gas Flow Equations the errors = 0.08836. So the Fourth new equation can be

Fig. 8. Comparison between average absolute deviation percentages for expressed as the following:

different flow equations for third case.

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181

Vol. 4 Issue 10, October-2015

0.70

1

1.311 Re 0.1165 (7) 0.60

Absolute Deviation %

f 0.50

0.40

Average

The equation is valid for high pressure range, for {5.3E6

0.30

< Re < 11.5E6}.

0.20

Spitzglass HP New Equation

Gas Flow Equations

20

Fig. 14. Comparison between average absolute deviation percentage for

18

16

Spitzglass LP and new equation for second case.

Absolute Deviation

14

Average

12 2.5

10

8 2.0

6

RMSD

4 1.5

2

0 1.0

Spitzglass HP New Equation

Gas Flow Equations 0.5

Fig. 10. Comparison between average absolute deviation for Spitzglass HP 0.0

and new equation for first case. Spitzglass HP New Equation

Gas Flow Equations

0.30 Fig. 15. Comparison between the root mean square deviation For Spitzglass

0.25 LP and new equation for second case.

Absolute Deviation %

0.20

- Third case

Average

0.15

0.10

0.09

0.05 0.08

Absolute Deviation

0.07

0.00

Spitzglass HP New Equation 0.06

Average

0.04

Fig. 11. Comparison between average absolute deviation percentage for

0.03

Spitzglass HP and new equation for first case.

0.02

0.01

20

0.00

18

Spitzglass HP New Equation

16

Gas Flow Equations

14

RMSD

12 Fig. 16. Comparison between average absolute deviation for Weymouth and

10 new equation for third case.

8

6

0.30

4

2 0.25

Absolute Deviation %

0

Spitzglass HP New Equation 0.20

Average

0.15

Fig. 12. Comparison between the root mean square deviation For Spitzglass 0.10

HP and new equation for first case.

0.05

Spitzglass HP New Equation

Gas Flow Equations

1.8

Fig. 17. Comparison between average absolute deviation percentage for

1.6

Weymouth and new equation for third case.

Absolute Deviation

1.4

1.2

Average

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Spitzglass HP New Equation

Gas Flow Equations

and new equation for second case.

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181

Vol. 4 Issue 10, October-2015

0.10 The Medium pressure natural gas pipeline is feeding Bolaq

0.08

area, Giza, Egypt. It serves about 170,000 customers. The

RMSD

0.06

290.6 mm, the gas specific gravity is 0.6090, the efficiency is

0.04

95%, the pipe roughness is 0.0152 mm, the pipe elevation is

0.02 5m, the gas flow range is (4600-5700) SCMH, the Reynolds

0.00 number range is (0.37E6 0.46E6), the operating year is

Spitzglass HP New Equation

Gas Flow Equations

2011. The natural gas composition is the same as first case.

Fig. 18. Comparison between the root mean square deviation for

Weymouth and new equation for third case. The new developed equation gives the Minimum Average

Deviation Percentage (0.058%), Average Absolute Deviation

F. Discussions of the Results (4.103) and Root Mean Squared Deviation (4.980) comparing

From the results of the three cases, the new equations to the other equations. The new equation gives the best

gives the best results with the minimum value of absolute results followed by Spitzglass HP, Weymouth, Shacham,

average deviation, absolute average deviation percentage, and Chen and Colebrook in ordered. Spitzglass LP gives the

root mean square deviation. worst results followed by Panhandle B, AGA and Mueller in

A very small deviation between the calculated pressures by ordered.

using the new equations with the reading pressures from field.

From the previous comparisons between the new equations 25

Absolute Deviation

and the other flow equations for the three case studies, 20

Average

- New equation (Equation 5) is recommended for Reynolds 15

number in the range of 0.64E6 to 0.73E6 for pipe

10

diameter 355 mm for medium pressure range.

- New equation (Equation 6) is recommended for Reynolds 5

90 mm for low pressure range.

- New equation (Equation 7) is recommended for Reynolds

number in the range of 5.3E6 to 11.5E6 for pipe diameter

711.2 mm for high pressure range. Gas Flow Equations

G. Comparing and Checking the Validation of the New Gas flow equations for fourth case.

Flow Equation

0.35

Absolute Deviation %

0.30

TABLE 6. The field data of natural gas pipeline for forth case.

0.25

Average

0.20

INLET OUTLET GAS FLOW

0.15

NO. PRESSURE PRESSURE RATE Tg (K)

0.10

P1 (BARG) P2 (BARG) (SCMH)

0.05

0.00

1 7.05 7.0058 5649.16 300.65

2 7.05 7.0061 5627.6 300.25

3 7.05 7.0067 5455.56 303.35 Gas Flow Equations

4 7.05 7.0059 5609.12 301.25 Fig. 20. Comparison between average absolute deviations percentages

for different flow equations for fourth case.

5 7.05 7.0171 5149.32 296.35

25

6 7.05 7.0198 5126 297.95

20

7 7.06 7.0193 5120.72 296.75

RMSD

15

8 7.06 7.0250 5102.24 295.95 10

12 7.07 7.0293 4898.52 298.75

Gas Flow Equations

13 7.07 7.0333 4628.36 298.95 Fig. 21. Comparison between Root Mean Square Deviation For different

14 7.08 7.0385 4646.4 296.45 flow equations for fourth case.

- Fifth case

The low pressure natural gas pipeline is feeding medicine

factory, Giza, Egypt.It has the same data as case (2).

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181

Vol. 4 Issue 10, October-2015

TABLE 7. The field data of natural gas pipeline for fifth case. - Sixth case

The High pressure natural gas pipeline is feeding fertilizer

INLET OUTLET GAS FLOW factory, Giza, Egypt. It serves about 170,000 customers. The

NO. PRESSURE P1 PRESSURE P2 RATE Tg (K) pipeline data: length is 5800 m long, O.D. is 406.4 mm, I.D.

(MBARG) (MBARG) (SCMH)

is 384.15 mm, the gas specific gravity is 0.5848, the

1 308 306.41 5.4 304.15 efficiency is 92%, the pipe roughness is 0.02032 mm, the gas

flow range is (2.3-3.9) SCMH, the Reynolds number range is

2 294 289.93 44.4 304.15

(6.1E6 9.1E6), the operating year is 1997. The natural gas

3 304 303.15 12 304.15 composition is the following:

4 298 294.92 28.8 304.15

5 300 299.1 18 304.15 TABLE 8. The field data of natural gas pipeline for six case.

COMPONENT MOLE % COMPONENT MOLE %

6 292 288.04 72 304.15

C1 97.351 I-C5 0.047

7 292 286.08 74 304.15

C2 2.103 N-C5 0.011

The new developed equation gives the Minimum Average C3 0.137 C6+ 0.026

Deviation Percentage (0.353%), Average Absolute Deviation I-C4 0.041 N2 0.07

(1.032) and Root Mean Squared Deviation (1.407) comparing N-C4 0.021 CO2 0.0193

to the other equations. The new equation gives the best

results followed by Spitzglass LP, Smooth pipe, Mueller, TABLE 9. The field data of natural gas pipeline for six case.

Chen, Shacham, and Colebrook, in ordered. Panhandle B

INLET OUTLET

gives the worst results followed by AGA and Panhandle A in NO. PRESSURE P1 PRESSURE

GAS FLOW RATE Tg

ordered. (KSCMH) (K)

(BARG) P2 (BARG)

3.0

1 44.29 43.06 100.76 313

Absolute Deviation

2.5

2 44.29 43.01 105.43 313

Average

2.0

1.0 4 44.19 42.8 113.36 313

0.5 5 44.24 42.74 116.98 313

0.0 6 44.34 42.32 138.35 313

7 44.23 42.37 133.35 313

8 44.29 43.16 95.35 313

Gas Flow Equations

Fig. 22. Comparison between average absolute deviations for different flow The new developed equation gives the Minimum Average

equations for fifth case. Deviation Percentage (0.373%), Average Absolute Deviation

(0.159) and Root Mean Squared Deviation (0.177) comparing

1.0

Absolute Deviation %

0.9 to the other equations. The new equation gives the best

0.8

results followed by Weymouth, Colebrook, AGA, Shacham,

Average

0.7

0.6

0.5

Chen and Group European in ordered. Mueller gives the

0.4

0.3

worst results followed by Spitzglass HP, Panhandle B and

0.2 Panhandle A in ordered.

0.1

0.0

0.9

Absolute Deviation

0.8

0.7

Average

0.5

Fig. 23. Comparison between average absolute deviation percentages for 0.4

different flow equations for fifth case. 0.3

0.2

0.1

3.5

0.0

3.0

2.5

RMSD

2.0

1.5

1.0

Gas Flow Equations

0.5

0.0 Fig. 25. Comparison between average absolute deviations for different flow

equations for six case.

Fig. 24. Comparison between Root Mean Square Deviation For different flow

equations for fifth case.

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

ISSN: 2278-0181

Vol. 4 Issue 10, October-2015

Absolute Deviation %

1.8

1.6 when used in the general flow equation, it gives the best

Average

1.4

1.2 results for low pressure network comparing to the other gas

1.0

0.8 flow equations, the equation is recommended for Reynolds

0.6

0.4

number in the range of 1400 to 25000 for pipe diameter 90

0.2

0.0

mm.

when used in the general flow equation, it gives the best

Gas Flow Equations

results for high pressure network comparing to the other gas

Fig. 26. Comparison between average absolute deviation percentages for

flow equations, the equation is recommended for Reynolds

different flow equations for six case.

number in the range of (5.3E6 to 11.5E6 for pipe diameter

0.9 711.2 mm) and in the range of (6.1E6 to 9.1E6 for pipe

0.8

0.7

diameter 406.4 mm).

0.6

RMSD

0.5

0.4

The newly developed equations can be used in the design of

0.3 natural gas pipelines for predicting the pressure drop in the

0.2

0.1 Reynolds number range specified that will allow the

0.0

appropriate choice of the correct pipeline diameter for a given

length.

Fig. 27. Comparison between Root Mean Square Deviation for different flow This paper was only possible largely by the valuable counsel,

equations for six case. persistence support and sincere guidance of my academic

advisor Prof. Dr. Abdallah Hanafi to whom I am so much

V. CONCLUSIONS grateful.

The newly developed friction equation (Equation 5) REFERENCES

when used in the general flow equation, it gives the best

[1] United States Energy Information Administration/Office of Oil

results for medium pressure network comparing to the other and Gas/Natural Gas/Analysis Publications, (2007-2008).

gas flow equations, the equation is recommended for [2] GASCO Annual Report/Natural gas transmission and

Reynolds number in the range of 0.37E6 to 0.73E6 for pipe distribution, Egypt, (2014).

diameter 355 mm. [3] Shashi Menon, E., Gas Pipeline Hydraulics, CRC Press,

Taylor and Francis, (2005).

[4] G. G. Nasr, N.E. Connor Natural Gas Engineering and Safety

Challenges, Downstream Process, Analysis, Utilization and

Safety, Springer International Publishing, (2014).

(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

- EntryGasdynamicHeating19710021703_1971021703Uploaded byChristopher Stelter
- UntitledUploaded byeurolex
- Landfill GasUploaded byAhmad Munandar Prio S
- P324_06A_MASTER_Syllabus_(Blasingame)Uploaded byAmoah-kyei Ebenezer
- New Developments in on-lineUploaded byvinodh
- America's Energy SaversUploaded byEnergy Tomorrow
- Haskel_Gas_Boosters_36pg_7.pdfUploaded byskjjy41
- 1-s2.0-0307904X9090074F-main (1)Uploaded byAbhijeet
- Incheon Regas.pdfUploaded bydhanta_1412
- UntitledUploaded byeurolex
- API Climate Fact SheetUploaded bylmogablog
- Flare Design and CalculationsUploaded bythugpandit
- NFPA-850 Recommended Practice for Fire Protection for Electric Generating Plants and HighUploaded byHiram Hernandez
- Wu-Abuaf-1981Study of Nonequilibrium Flashing...v2Uploaded byhamed
- Flow of Industrial Fluids Theory and EquatiionUploaded byZohaib Ahmed
- Swot&PestleUploaded byCarlo Moivre
- Intelligence Control of Downdraft Biomass Gasifier using Fuzzy Logic ControllerUploaded byIJSTE
- Apec Energy BalancesUploaded byJZ Juzai
- Investors/Analysts Presentation [Company Update]Uploaded byShyam Sunder
- PNAS-2013-Allen-1304880110: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.Uploaded byMatthew Leonard
- OverPressureUploaded byLuis Alberto Rodriguez Rodriguez
- FM PEUploaded byਸੁਖਜੀਤ ਸਿੰਘ
- ME10- Heat and Flow 1 - Module DescUploaded bySridhar Tholasingam
- ChE+3116 Syllabus+Fuid+MechanicsUploaded byEric Martinez
- f720Uploaded byBogdan Praščević
- Philippine Natural Gas IndustryUploaded byFrancis Cheng
- TROY Oil&Gas References - PDF FileUploaded byDeniz Src
- hw4_solUploaded byAnindhito Taufan
- Environmental Implications of Electricity Trading Main Paper FinalUploaded byMartin Anikwe
- CBM China MarketUploaded byGaurav Aggarwal

- 2011SS-Federal_Regulations.pdfUploaded bygilberto garcia
- NRF-305-PEMEX-2013.pdfUploaded bygilberto garcia
- Nom 001 Secre 2010 VentasUploaded bygilberto garcia
- CENAGAS Pemex Sistema Nacional de Gasoductos Informe Mensual Marzo 2018Uploaded bygilberto garcia
- 133745505-GPA-Standard-2172.pdfUploaded bygilberto garcia
- _VIM3aTRA2009[1]Uploaded byMargot Valencia Mena
- 1 - Guidance Manual for Operators of Small Natural Gas Systems-2002.pdfUploaded bygilberto garcia
- DOF - Diario Oficial de La Federación CENAGASUploaded bygilberto garcia
- Iron_Plug_2012_1Uploaded bygilberto garcia
- 2011SS Federal RegulationsUploaded bySharon Freeman
- -CAPITULO V S I.pdfUploaded bygilberto garcia
- 329793549-NMX-CC-10012-IMNC-2004-pdf.pdfUploaded bygilberto garcia
- 511.DGGNP.dpp.201.16.OT.02 Diagrama de Flujo - Sistrangas.Uploaded bygilberto garcia
- PiggingUploaded byJulio Cesar Galarza Lobo
- Liquid Nitrogen Medipure Gas n2 Safety Data Sheet Sds p4630Uploaded bygilberto garcia
- Standing Katz ChartUploaded bytutranminh
- Blowdown TimeUploaded bymatteo2009
- pipe FlowUploaded bymnazzal17
- Factores_de_Conversi_n-Gas_Natural.pdfUploaded byEdixson Granados
- Gas Natural PemexUploaded byAlan
- gramo_nitrogenoUploaded bygilberto garcia
- Introducción a Las Herramientas de Limpieza de DuctosUploaded byCarlos Casados
- Flujo en Tubos a PresionUploaded byjmvm56
- CENAM MMM PT 003[1]Sistema InteracionalUploaded byaguiladezcalza69

- Chapter 11 ASK Mod RevisiUploaded byRizal Aji Istantowi
- 1 - The Link Between Perceptions of Negative Workplace Relationships and Organisational OutcomeUploaded bysangor2000
- upndu320Uploaded byliew99
- Analysis of StructuresUploaded byJhen Nehj
- bdx34Uploaded byGiapy Phuc Tran
- Discrete Cosine Transform .pdfUploaded byMohammad Rofii
- Electropolymerization of N-vinylcarbazoleUploaded byPedro Roquero
- Continuum Mechanics and Tensor AlgebraUploaded byroysiddarth
- A Brief Review on Advance Acoustic Control System Process of Automotive MufflerUploaded byInternational Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)
- InstallationUploaded byElcio Fontanesi Rossi
- LSPDE5Uploaded byKevin Dany
- 3G alarm and Reson NOKIA.pdfUploaded bySARVESH
- How to Test and repairan IcemakerUploaded byJohn Kline
- HW3_solUploaded bymary_nailyn
- 6502 User ManualUploaded byOmar Khayyam
- Excel Lesson for EngineersUploaded bygvarth
- Chemical Thermodynamics IIT Part 1Uploaded bySantosh Singh
- 1569584201Uploaded bypranavsap82
- Import MathUploaded bydanial
- Energy of Activation for Clock Reaction[1]Uploaded byLero Lero
- 304831138-Class-8-Nco-5-Years-eBook.pdfUploaded byrekha_1234
- Honeywell - Energy Analytics Projects in US : Saket AgrawalUploaded bySaket Agrawal
- Philips BJ3.0E LAUploaded byΓιωργος
- tmp56B3.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- e_6aUploaded byDamanveer
- 2013 MetrobankUploaded byChrisseMarthaGillesania
- BP_RP26-1HeatExchangeEquipment.pdfUploaded byMohd Khairul
- Materials in Oil & Gas - SimplifiedUploaded bybesant varghees
- Vector Mechanics by JohnsonUploaded bySushil Aryan
- Preparation-of-a-Naltrexone-HCl-Potentiometric-Sensor-and-1.pdfUploaded byNila