See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279013508

Pressure Surge Dependence on Valve Operations in a Pipeline Loading System

Article  in  Engineering · July 2015

DOI: 10.4236/eng.2015.76028

CITATIONS READS

2 359

2 authors, including:

Thaddeus Lebele-Alawa
Rivers State University of Science and Technology
45 PUBLICATIONS   116 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gas Turbine Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thaddeus Lebele-Alawa on 27 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Engineering, 2015, 7, 322-330
Published Online June 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/eng
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/eng.2015.76028

Pressure Surge Dependence on Valve

Operations in a Pipeline Loading System
Barinaadaa Thaddeus Lebele-Alawa, Felix Ezekiel Oparadike
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt,
Nigeria
Email: lebele-alawa.thaddeus@ust.edu.ng

Received 19 May 2015; accepted 20 June 2015; published 23 June 2015

Copyright © 2015 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Abstract
This paper discusses the influence of valve operations on pressure surge in a pipeline. The valve is
a protective type which remains open in a pipeline loading system during normal operation but
shut down the system when there is an emergency such as storm. The data for the study were ob-
tained from measurements at Agbada 1 flow station as well as log sheets. Also, calculations were
made using existing and derived formulas to obtain the values of Crude Oil and Pipe parameters
that could not be measured directly or derived from data or log sheets. Surge analysis was carried
out on the pipeline system to ascertain changes in pressure and flow rates along the pipeline fol-
lowing valve shut down at any time using developed pressure and flow equations. The results of
the simulation analysis showed remarkable changes in the fluid pressure and flow rates along the
pipe on shut down at any time. The pipeline recorded the highest pressure of 37.4 bar against ini-
tial pressure of 25 bar at length 6000 m in 1.5 second valve closure. There is also remarkable
pressure drop along the pipe capable of reducing the crude oil pressure below its vapour pressure.
The flow is turbulent even before valve operation with Reynolds number as high as 57024.53. The
model equations compute changes in pressure and flow rates at different points in a pipeline in-
stalled with emergency-relief coupling valve. This enables point of extreme and low pressure to be
detected accurately in a pipeline which guides the engineer while positioning surge suppression
devices which cushion the effects of pressure surge in any pipeline.

Keywords
Pressure Surge, Valve, Pipeline, Crude Oil

1. Introduction
This paper addresses the issue of pressure surge arising from transmission of fluid (crude oil) in pipe following

How to cite this paper: Lebele-Alawa, B.T. and Oparadike, F.E. (2015) Pressure Surge Dependence on Valve Operations in a
Pipeline Loading System. Engineering, 7, 322-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/eng.2015.76028
 B. T. Lebele-Alawa, F. E. Oparadike

the instantaneous closure of an emergency relief coupling valve (ERV) installed in a pipeline system. The pres-
sure changes at different points on the pipe arising from the shutdown of the ERV when transmitting a given
quantity of crude oil in a given pipe diameter over given pipe length is to be determined with the associated clo-
sure time t given. This valve serves as a protection valve and it is always open during normal operations of the
system. It is installed to close when there is an event such as storm that can damage pipe machines which leads
to outbreak of fire or crude oil leakage. When this valve closes instantaneously, that is at t = 0, the initial head
rises to infinity. However, in practice, it is not possible to close this valve instantaneously as it always takes
some time.
Usually, most pipelines have installed surge suppression devices. In this case, surge suppression, to an extent
is taken care of. What if these suppression devices fail or there is an installation failure? It means the whole sys-
tem would have problem if the ERV eventually shut down. But this shut down to safeguard the system, leads to
a fluctuating pressure in the system that threaten the system make up. This pressure changes is computed using
developed model. Also of interest is the hydraulic force developed in the bend as a result of the ERV closure at
time t.
Stone [1] carried out the analysis of avoiding pressure surge in pipeline system. According to the research,
there is one prime requirement to avoid pressure surge damage to piping and pipeline. This has to do with bear-
ing in mind that there is likely to be surge in a pipeline system either by measurement or by engineering analysis.
The research concluded that damages arising from surge events are; catastrophic failure of the pipeline system
or equipment and fatigue failure of the pipeline supports, instrumentation, equipment and components. Hence,
pipe work can be designed to withstand the damaging effects of pressure surges. This becomes necessary where
conventional means of mitigating surge pressures cannot be employed such as when handling radioactive, highly
corrosive or lethal fluids, where no fluid is allowed to escape. The research concluded that increase in pipe wall
thickness, flange rating and pipe supports can be designed to prevent catastrophic failure. In order to prevent an
increase in surge fatigue damage, devices such as variable speed drives for pumps and slow closing valves
should be considered. Also rerouting of pipelines can avoid a profile that is conducive to column separation. For
a particular pipeline, it may be possible to use a thermoplastic or GRP material rather than a ferrous pipe materi-
al. This applies to low head pipelines found in the mining water and waste water industry where high tempera-
tures do not occur. Therefore, the reduced modulus, results in a reduced celerity or wave speed. The modulus is
the prime variable in establishing the celerity.
Pressure surges in fluid systems often lead to pipe damages [2] [3]. They are caused by an abrupt change in
flow speed and can have amplitudes higher than the usual pressure conditions in normal operation. Preventing
pressure surges is an important consideration in the design and reliable operation of pipes. The analysis con-
cluded that changes in pipe system such as an increase in through put quantities or a change of operating mode
can bring about the danger of pressure surges that may excessively stress the system. The research analyzed en-
tire pipe system with regard to pressure surges. On the basis of its findings, the suggestions for solutions include
adjustment of the valve closing times, additional air vessels, and use of bypass valves, ventilation or bleeding
valves, Non-return valves and pump fly wheel mass.
Cla-val [4] carried out research on complex pipelines with undulating terrain where column separation in the
pipe may occur. Hence, the research stated that detail pipeline profile as well as air valve size and placement
when pump stops due to power failure causes down surge wave which travels down the pipe. Low pressure
wave is reflected at the pipe end boundary back to the pump with a resulting high pressure spike generated at the
pump. This high pressure spike damages the piping. A test was carried out using a standard relief valve. The
standard relief valve could not open fast enough to dissipate the excess pressure spike but on testing with cal-val
52-03 surge anticipator valve, it opened on the initial down surge pressure and stays open to dissipate the re-
turning high pressure wave.
Jung, et al. [5] showed in their research that surge modeling is important to safeguard against breaches in dis-
tribution system integrity. Several cases were considered in this research. Hence the surge analysis results of the
pressure-sensitive demand model were compared with those of pressure-insensitive (constant) demand formula-
tions.
This paper reviews the engineering analysis behind pressure surge propagation in a pipeline system. The
analysis is carried out on a 254 mm pipe of length 6 kilometers from the emergency relief-coupling valve (ERV)
installation point. The pipeline carries crude oil whose flow is aided by pumps from a flow station. The pipe
terminates at a loading point. The system is made up of two valves namely the normal-shut off valve (NSV) and

323
B. T. Lebele-Alawa, F. E. Oparadike

the emergency relief coupling valve (ERV). Of interest to this project is the closure time of the ERV at time, t
and the pressure changes which accompanies this closure. The pressure change in the system results to two basic
anomalies namely surge pressure and cavitations or column separation. These two anomalies threaten the opera-
tion of pipeline system especially pipe machines such as pumps, fittings and also leads to spillage.

2. Materials and Methods

Data were collected from direct measurements, log sheets for ten months, and relevant charts and manuals.
Some of the pertinent parameters were: crude oil density, pipeline length, pipe diameter, flow rate, flow pressure,
pipe roughness size, fittings, viscosity of crude oil, Young’s Modulus of the pipe, emergency-relief coupling
valve installed closure or shutdown time.
In laminar flow, frictional forces are due to viscous drag and are independent of pipe conditions but in turbu-
lent flow, viscous shear predominates. Total friction is affected by pipe surface roughness. The pipeline under
investigation undergoes turbulent flow. Therefore, friction and head losses in the pipe are calculated using the
following equations [6]:
= h f + Losses due to fittings (bends)
H (1)

k1v 2 k2 v 2
H=hf + + (2)
2g 2g

l v2
But h f = f m . (3)
d 2g
The following pressure wave equations for pipe flow were used to evaluate pressure changes due to gradual
valve closure by the emergency-relief coupling valve [7]:
Retardation of crude oil (fluid)
v−0 v
= = (4)
t t
Force available for producing retardation = mass × retardation
v
= ρ Al × (5)
t
Force due to pressure wave
= p L× A (6)
Therefore,
v
ρ AL × = PL × A (7)
t
ρ Lv
PL = (8)
t
But
Q
V= (9)
A
d2
A= π (10)
4
Therefore,
4Q
V= (11)
πd 2
Therefore, Equation (8) becomes

324
 B. T. Lebele-Alawa, F. E. Oparadike

4 ρ LQ
PL = (12)
πtd 2
Equation (12) is used to model the pressure change at any point in the pipeline arising from shut down of
pipeline by emergency-relief coupling valve (ERV).
The Reynolds number of the fluid following valve closure at time t is deduced using equation below;
ρ Ld 1
=
Re ⋅ . (13)
µ t
The wave speed of the system is calculated using equation below [6]:
k1
ρ
C= (14)
 kd 
1+  1 
 Eyth 
Unbalanced hydraulic forces are normally created by pressure surge phenomenon and are particularly dan-
gerous. The following equations are used to calculate the magnitude of hydraulic forces propagated [7]:
Force generated in the 45 degrees elbow or bend;
( )
Fx =m V − V1 cos 45° + ( P1 A1 ) − P2 A2 cos 45° (15)

( )
m V − V1 sin 45° − P2 A2 sin 45°
Fy = (16)

Force generated in 90 degrees elbow or bend;

F=
x mv + ( P1 A1 ) (17)

Fy = m ( − V1 ) − P2 A2 (18)

=
F Fx2 + Fy2 (19)

When the valve (ERV) is shut at time, t the crude oil moving with velocity, v, at a temperature, T, is brought
to rest adiabatically, hence reaching a final temperature, TO, when at rest. The flow equation becomes [8] [9]:
V2
C pT + =
C pTo
2
V2
To= T + (20)
2CP
At the valve, the stagnation pressure, Po, would be:
ρV 2
Po= P + (21)
2
Also, the crude oil would have enthalpy:
V2
H o= h + (22)
2

3. Results and Discussions

The results are presented in Tables 1-12.
From the results shown above, the flow velocity is 1.12 m/s but upon shut down of the system in 1.5 seconds,
the velocity of flow is 53.7 m/s which is as a result of the high pressure of 37.23 bar attained as shown in Table
4. But as the valve closure rate decreased, there is a decrease in the pressure rise, the final flow velocity, V1 also
decreased. The remarkable increase in final velocity V1 in the pipe at different closure rate can result to several
changes in fluid parameters. From the result, the pipe recorded the least final velocity V1 of 25.1 m/s when the

325
B. T. Lebele-Alawa, F. E. Oparadike

Table 1. Fluid data.

Fluid density, ρ (Kg/m3) Flow rate Q (m3/s) Pressure P (N/m2) Viscosity of fluid µ (Kg/ms)
847 0.0557 25 × 105 4.15 × 10−3

Table 2. Pipe data.

Pipe length L (m) Pipe diameter d (m) Wall roughness size e (m) k-factor 90˚ elbow k-factor 45˚ elbow
6000 0.254 0.0002 0.9 0.4

Table 3. Result of Reynolds number re of the various fluids in varied valve closure time (s).

Bonny Light Bonny medium Water

Re t (s) Re t (s) Re t (s)
8 8 8
2.1 × 10 1.5 3.5 × 10 1.5 9.0 × 10 1.5
8 8 8
1.2 × 10 2.5 2.5 × 10 2.5 5.3 × 10 2.5
8 8 8
1.0 × 10 3 1.5 × 10 3 4.5 × 10 3
8 8 8
8.0 × 10 4 9.3 × 10 4 3.3 × 10 4
8 8 8
6.4 × 10 5 7.2 × 10 5 2.7 × 10 5

Table 4. Pressure and flow rate changes along the pipe in 1.5 s valve shut down time.
Initial Pressure Pressure Change Pressure Difference Flow Rate Change
Length of Pipe (m)
P (N/m2) PL (N/m2) P-PL (N/m2) QL (m3/s)
25 × 105 1200 744757.644 1755214 2.93E+13
5
25 × 10 2400 1489515.3 1010484.7 1.42E+13
25 × 105 3600 2234272.9 265726.1 3.37E+12
25 × 10 5
4800 2979030.5 −479031.2 −5.65E+12
25 × 10 5
6000 3723788.22 −1223788.2 −1.37E+13

Table 5. Pressure and Flow rate changes along the pipe in 2.5 s valve shut down time.
Initial Pressure Pressure Change Pressure Difference Flow Rate Change
Length of Pipe (m)
P (N/m2) PL (N/m2) P-PL (N/m2) QL (m3/s)
25 × 105 1200 68445.4 2431554.1 2.11E+13
5
25 × 10 2400 1236893.2 1263106.8 1.31E+13
5
25 × 10 3600 1816345.3 683654.7 2.18E+12
5
25 × 10 4800 2039443.2 460556.8 3.16E+12
5
25 × 10 6000 2234053.1 265946.9 1.13E+13

Table 6. Pressure and Flow rate changes along the pipe in 1.5 s valve shut down time.
Initial Pressure Pressure Change Pressure Difference Flow Rate Change
Length of Pipe (m)
P (N/m2) PL (N/m2) P-PL (N/m2) QL (m3/s)
25 × 105 1200 744757.644 1755214 2.93E+13
5
25 × 10 2400 1489515.3 1010484.7 1.42E+13
5
25 × 10 3600 2234272.9 265726.1 3.37E+12
25 × 10 5
4800 2979030.5 −479031.2 −5.65E+12
25 × 10 5
6000 3723788.22 −1223788.2 −1.37E+13

326
 B. T. Lebele-Alawa, F. E. Oparadike

Table 7. Pressure and Flow rate changes along the pipe in 2.5 s valve shut down time.

Initial Pressure Pressure Change Pressure Difference Flow Rate Change

Length of Pipe (m)
P (N/m2) PL (N/m2) P-PL (N/m2) QL (m3/s)
25 × 105 1200 68445.4 2431554.1 2.11E+13
25 × 105 2400 1236893.2 1263106.8 1.31E+13
5
25 × 10 3600 1816345.3 683654.7 2.18E+12
5
25 × 10 4800 2039443.2 460556.8 3.16E+12
5
25 × 10 6000 2234053.1 265946.9 1.13E+13

Table 8. Pressure and Flow rate changes along the pipe in 3 s valve shut down time.

Initial Pressure Pressure Change Pressure Difference Flow Rate Change

Length of Pipe (m)
P (N/m2) PL (N/m2) P-PL (N/m2) QL (m3/s)
25 × 105 1200 522289.8 2447710.2 2.41E+12
5
25 × 10 2400 1144993.5 1355006.5 3.66E+13
5
25 × 10 3600 1511922.4 988077.6 2.00E+12
5
25 × 10 4800 1623344.9 876655.1 2.16E+13
5
25 × 10 6000 1861234.3 688765.7 1.33E+13

Table 9. Pressure and Flow rate changes along the pipe in 4 s valve shut down time.

Initial Pressure Pressure Change Pressure Difference Flow Rate Change

Length of Pipe (m)
P (N/m2) PL (N/m2) P-PL (N/m2) QL (m3/s)
25 × 105 1200 40138.7 2459861.3 1.11E+12
5
25 × 10 2400 924778.1 1575221.9 2.66E+13
5
25 × 10 3600 1023496.3 1496503.7 1.56E+12
5
25 × 10 4800 1122496.4 1377503.6 2.37E+13
5
25 × 10 6000 1396445.3 1103554.7 3.49E+11

Table 10. Pressure and Flow rate changes along the pipe in 5 s valve shut down time.

Initial Pressure Pressure Change Pressure Difference Flow Rate Change

Length of Pipe (m)
P (N/m2) PL (N/m2) P-PL (N/m2) QL (m3/s)
25 × 105 1200 41289.4 2458710.6 2.0E+13
5
25 × 10 2400 712594.6 1787405.4 2.11E+12
25 × 105 3600 946438.7 1553561.3 3.08E+12
25 × 105 4800 1247891.3 1252108.7 3.44E+13
5
25 × 10 6000 1355663.2 1144336.8 1.0E+13

Table 11. Hydraulic force F (KN) result at varied valve closure time t (s).

Valve closure time, t (s) Force, F (45 deg) (KN) Force, F (90 deg (KN) V1 (m/s)
1.5 18291.4 34651 53.7
2.5 6544.1 12552 25.1
3 4276.4 8552.7 38.9
4 2509.9 4670.9 51.2
5 1758.8 2906.5 57.2

327
B. T. Lebele-Alawa, F. E. Oparadike

Table 12. Stagnation values at varied closure time (Bonny light).

Valve closure time, t (s) V (m/s) To (k) PO (m/s) HO (KJ/kg)

1.5 53.7 2174.4 12.2 1515.9
2.5 25.1 834.6 2.7 389.11
3 38.9 1359.6 6.4 830.7
4 51.0 2006.4 11.0 1374.6
5 57.2 2405.2 13.0 1710.0

valve closed in 2.5 seconds as shown in Table 11. This velocity should be adjudged to the best valve closure
rate suitable to maintain forty one thousand barrels per day capacity (0.0557 m/s) of the system.
But on reduction of the flow rate (volume) and the valve maintains 2.5 seconds closure time, the velocity
dropped considerably which indicates that the pipeline operates at high flow rate initially. The modeling shows
that for any volume flow rate, Q m3/s there is a valve closure time suitable for the pipeline in which pressure
changes can be tolerated even at surge suppression device failure. The capacity of the pipeline under investiga-
tion is 41,000 barrels/day (0.0557 m3/s) operating at 25 bar initial pressure and installed emergency relief-
coupling valve closure time of 1.5 seconds, upon the shutdown of the system by the valve in response to an
emergency, the pressure attained at 6000 m length of pipe is 37.23 bar as against 25 bar operating pressure de-
spite the pressure loss in the flow. This pressure attained on closure at 1.5 seconds is very high for the system
and leads the system to surge. Consider the result in Table 11, the flow velocity is 1.12 m/s but upon shut down
of the system in 1.5 seconds, the velocity of flow is 53.7 m/s which is as a result of the high pressure of 37.23
bar attained as shown in Table 4. But as the valve closure rate decreased, there is a decrease in the pressure rise,
the final flow velocity, V1 also decreased. The remarkable increase in final velocity V1 in the pipe at different
closure rate can result to several changes in fluid parameters. From the result, the pipe recorded the least final
velocity V1 of 25.1 m/s when the valve closed in 2.5 seconds as shown in Table 11. This velocity should be ad-
judged to the best valve closure rate suitable to maintain forty one thousand barrels per day capacity (0.0557 m/s)
of the system. At 4.0 seconds, it experienced a gradual fall in the hydraulic force. It can be concluded that hy-
draulic force propagation decreases with an increase in valve closure time. The same trend followed in the 45˚
elbow, though the highest hydraulic force is 18,000 KN when the valve closed in 1.1 seconds whereas the 90˚
elbow has the highest hydraulic force value of 37,000 KN when the valve closed in 1.5 seconds. It can also be
deduced that hydraulic force propagation depends on the type of elbow used in the pipeline. Therefore, the re-
search does not advice against the use of 90˚ elbows since its usage depends on the slope of the soil. Though it is
suggested that instead of using more 90˚ elbow in pipeline transmission, effort should be made to use more 45˚
elbow.
Consider what happens if the inlet flow rate (volume) was increased to 0.06109 m3/s and the valve set to close
in 2.5 seconds. The maximum pressure rise was 24.2 bar and a decrease in flow rate of 0.04752 m3/s, the maxi-
mum pressure rise was 18.8 bar. It shows that at an increased flow rate, at time t, the pressure change would be
increasing capable of surge pressure. But at a decreased flow rate at time t, the pressure change would be de-
creasing capable of falling below vapor pressure of the crude oil. Hence, modeling the closure time t at a given
flow rate is quite necessary for satisfactory result. As stated earlier, there is always a closure time limit for the
valve over which pressure changes can be tolerated owing to level of pressure losses in the system. This is par-
ticularly shown in Table 4 where a flow rate of 0.0557 m3/s of crude oil was maintained at different valve clo-
sure time. Hence, the analysis shows that the limit between 2.5 seconds to 3.0 seconds valve closure rate can be
tolerated. This fact has not been considered previously owing to over-dependence on surge suppression devices
which on its own has shown high failure rate. The failure of these devices has led to adverse environmental
anomalies like spillage, excessive cost of maintenance of pipeline and pipe machines.

4. Conclusion
Results of the analysis identified valve operation as a major cause of surge propagation. Surge is a potentially
damaging flow instability that limits the flow operation of pipe machines. The rate at which the emergency re-
lief-coupling valve (ERV) closes is significant in pressure surge propagation. At faster closure rate, the pressure

328
 B. T. Lebele-Alawa, F. E. Oparadike

of the system rises such that can destroy the pipeline mechanically, while at slower valve closure rate, there is
high tendency of vacuum separation in the system due to a remarkable fall in the pressure of the system. Hence,
there is always a limit of valve closure time suitable for any pipeline at any given flow rate. Hydraulic forces
propagation decreases with increasing emergency relief-coupling valve (ERV) closure time. Leakages from fit-
tings (bends) are mostly due to the propagation of hydraulic forces arising from valve closure. Pressure change
in a pipeline installed with emergency relief-coupling valve increases with, fluid density, flow rate (volume)
pipe length and decreases with pipe diameter and valve closure rate upon shut down. The fluid Reynolds number
decreases with increasing emergency relief-coupling valve closure rate. As a result of the movement of the el-
bow, created by the shutdown of ERV at time t, the joint will become weaker and in extreme cases, they may
come apart, hence enable air to be trapped into the system. An emergency relief-coupling valve (ERV) should be
installed in a system to guard against storm; hence proper design of its operation should be considered before in-
stallation.

References
[1] Stone, G.D. (2013) Avoiding Pressure Surge Damage in Pipeline Systems. SE Asia, Feb Publishers, Australia.
[2] Voith Industrial Services (2014) Pressure Surges: Analysis and Prevention. www.voith.com
[3] Lebele-Alawa, B.T. and Oparadike, F.E. (2011) Analysis of the Effects of Valve Propagated Pressure Surge on Pipe
Flow. Engineering, 3, 1098-1101. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/eng.2011.311137
[4] Cla-Val, A. (2013) Surge Analysis and Control. www.cal-val.com
[5] Jung, B.S., Boulos, P.F. and Don, J.W. (2009) Effect of Pressure-Sensitive Demand on Surge Analysis. Journal of
American Water Works Association, (AWWA), 101, 103-111.
[6] Sunrise Systems Customer Education Training Manual (2008) Modeling Pipeline and Utility Systems Using Pipenet
Vision. www.sunrise-sys.com
[7] Rajput, R.K. (2004) A Textbook of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machines. S. Chand and Company Ltd., New Del-
hi.
[8] Eastop, T.D. and McConkey, A. (1993) Applied Thermodynamics for Engineering Technologists. Prentice Hall, Sin-
gapore.
[9] Lebele-Alawa, B.T. (2007) Effects of Compressor-Blade Profile Change on Gas-Turbine Performance. Ph.D. Thesis,
Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt.

329
 B. T. Lebele-Alawa, F. E. Oparadike

Notations
A Area of pipe, m2
C Shock wave speed, m/s
C1 Pipe distensibility (restrain factor)
Cp Specific heat of fluid at constant pressure, kJ/kgK
d Diameter of pipe, m
Ey Young’s Modulus for the pipe material, N/m2
ERV Emergency relief coupling valve
g Acceleration due to gravity, m/s2
Hf Head loss due to friction, m
K Fluid bulk Modulus, N/m2
L Length of pipe, m
ṁ Mass flow rate, Kg/s
NSV Normal shut-off valve
P Pipe pressure, N/m2
Po Stagnation pressure, N/m2
Re Reynolds number
t Period (time), s
th Pipe thickness, m
T Temperature, K
To Stagnation temperature, K
V Flow velocity, m/s
e Pipe Roughness Size
F Force, N
Fx Force in direction of x, N
Fy Force in direction of y, N
f Pipe Friction Factor
H Total Head Loss m
k Fitting Loss Coefficient
K1 Bulk Modulus of Fluid
Q Volumetric Flow Rate, m3/s
QL Change in Flow Rate, m3/s
RL Pressure ratio
t Time, s
tn Pipe thickness, m

Greek Letters
ρ Density of the Fluid, kg/m3
µ Dynamic Viscosity of Fluid, kg/m/s
τ Wall Shear Stress, N/m2

Suffixes
1. Initial state
2. Final state

330

View publication stats