Calculation of pressure variation due to fluid discharge

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the orifice size required to achieve a controlled pressure reduction of 0.5 bar per minute in a steel pipeline filled with seawater, pressurized to 150 bar. The input parameters include a pipeline diameter of 0.1524 meters, wall thickness of 0.012 meters, and a length of 100 meters at a depth of 300 meters. Key equations for mass flow rate and volumetric expansion are provided, emphasizing the need to account for pressure variations and fluid dynamics, especially in longer pipelines. The conversation highlights the complexity of calculations for long pipelines, where pressure uniformity cannot be assumed.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of fluid dynamics and pressure calculations
  • Familiarity with orifice flow equations and mass flow rate calculations
  • Knowledge of volumetric expansion principles in fluids
  • Proficiency in Microsoft Excel for creating calculation templates
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "orifice flow equations" for precise calculations of flow rates
  • Study "volumetric expansion of liquids" under varying pressure conditions
  • Learn about "pressure wave propagation" in long pipelines
  • Explore "Excel templates for fluid dynamics calculations" to automate the process
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, pipeline designers, and fluid dynamics specialists involved in pressure management and safety in pipeline systems will benefit from this discussion.

  • #31
JBA said:
I can accept the initial step decline and depressurization wave upon the opening of of the of the pipe discharge to due an instantaneous flow change from the opening of the venting valve; but, I have doubts about there being following successive similar stepwise pressure declines. I have been involved in many liquid flow and blowdown tests for measuring and certifying the performance of both modulating and snap open relief valves using highly sensitive pressure transducers and at no time have I observed on any test indications of pressure stepdown type discontinuities recorded or by visual and audible observation of discharge flow rates that would be inherent with any discontinuous pressure drop(s) during the blowdown periods.
This is a very valid point. The model I described above is, of course, highly idealized, and there are many kinds of physical mechanisms unaccounted for which can sooth the response. One obvious example is viscous dissipation. Even in gas shock waves, viscous dissipation is an important contributor.

Still, at short times (up to a few minutes), I would expect the idealized model to do a pretty good job near the orifice. However, after that, when the reflected wave returns, I would say a subsequent step change would be either extremely modulated or entirely unlikely.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
Thank You all for help, especially Chestermiller.

If no one else has anything to add, I consider this topic closed.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
11K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K