Research Papers: Design and Analysis

Measurements of the Stack Metal Temperature During a Natural Gas Blowdown Event Through a Full-Bore Blowdown Valve

[+] Author and Article Information
C. Hartloper

NOVA Centre for Applied Research,
Calgary, AB T2E 7K7, Canada
e-mail: colin.hartloper@novachem.com

K. K. Botros

NOVA Centre for Applied Research,
Calgary, AB T2E 7K7, Canada

J. de Vries

TransCanada Pipelines Ltd.,
Calgary, AB T2P 5H1, Canada

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received April 7, 2015; final manuscript received September 16, 2015; published online November 18, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Allen C. Smith.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 138(2), 021205 (Nov 18, 2015) (7 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1057; doi: 10.1115/1.4031722 History: Received April 07, 2015; Revised September 16, 2015

Experiments were used in conjunction with a compressible flow model to investigate the temperature recovery phenomenon along a blowdown stack during a high-pressure natural gas pipeline blowdown. The test rig involved instrumented 2 in. blowdown stacks mounted on a full-bore valve. Stacks with two wall thicknesses and stagnation pressures of approximately 3000 kPa-a and 5600 kPa-g were tested, giving a total of four test cases. Using the compressible flow model, which was calibrated using static pressure measurements, the stack-gas temperature was calculated to range from −38 °C to −18 °C for the four test cases. The respective stack wall temperatures were measured to range between −13 °C and 0 °C; thus, the temperature recovery ranged between 18 °C and 26 °C. Empirical correlations available in the literature, which were developed for aeronautical applications, were tested against the experimental results. Poor agreement was found between the measured temperature recovery factor and that predicted by five empirical correlations: the coefficient of determination (R2) between the measured and correlation-calculated recovery factor was found to be negative for all five correlations.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2012, CSA Z662-11: Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, CSA Group, Toronto.
Ackermann, G. , 1942, “ Plattenthermometer in Stroemung mit grosser Geschwindigkeit und turbulenter Grenzschicht,” Forsch. Ingenieurwes., 13(6), pp. 226–234. [CrossRef]
Seban, R. A. , 1948, “ Analysis for the Heat Transfer to Turbulent Boundary Layer in High Velocity Flow,” Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Shirokow, M. , 1936, “ The Influence of the Laminar Boundary Layer Upon Heat Transfer at High Velocities,” Tech. Phys. USSR, 3(12), p. 1020.
Squire, H. B. , 1942, “ Heat-Transfer Calculations for Aerofoils,” British Air Ministry, Technical Report No. 1986.
Tucker, M. , and Maslen, S. H. , 1951, “ Turbulent Boundary-Layer Temperature Recovery Factor in Two-Dimensional Supersonic Flow,” NACA, Technical Report No. 2296.
Kunz, O. , and Wagner, W. , 2012, “ The GERG-2008 Wide-Range Equation of State for Natural Gases and Other Mixtures: An Expansion of GERG-2004,” J. Chem. Eng. Data, 57(11), pp. 3032–3091. [CrossRef]
Lemmon, E. W. , Huber, M. L. , and McLinden, M. O. , 2010, “ NIST Standard Reference Database 23: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties-REFPROP, Version 9.0,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Data Program, Gaithersburg.
White, F. M. , 2008, Fluid Mechanics, 6th ed., McGraw Hill, New York. [PubMed] [PubMed]
Kays, W. M. , and Crawford, M. E. , 1993, Convective Heat and Mass Transfer, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, New York.
Batchelor, B. S. , 1967, An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Idelchik, I. E. , 1994, Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, 3rd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Circumferential orientation of temperature and pressure measurements. (b) Drawing of blowdown assembly, refer to the text for dimensions. Note that L1 and L2 indicate the axial position of measurement location's 1 and 2, respectively. (c) Picture of the blowdown assembly.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Illustration of the stagnation, stack-inlet, and stack-outlet gas properties. Note that the interface between the pipeline and the stack is modeled as a converging nozzle.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Time history of temperature for test case 2. Note that T1,ow, T1,iw, T2,ow, and T2,iw were calibrated up to 15 °C and therefore did not give a reading for the initial seconds, while the stack temperature was above 15 °C. (b) Time history of pressure for test case 2.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Calculated flow property profiles for test case 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Calculated gas temperature, (b) measured inner-wall temperatures, and (c) temperature recovery. Note that each test case has two data points corresponding to the two measurement locations: the lower and higher Mach number clusters correspond to measurement locations 2 and 1, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Calculated recovery factor. The Ackermann correlation (– – –) is plotted for reference.



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In