Maximizing Steam Plant Performance Technical Paper


 What are the different types of steam?

When water is heated beyond its boiling point it vaporizes into the gaseous phase or as we more commonly know it, steam. The properties of steam vary considerably and are greatly dependent on temperature and pressure.

Before we consider why we use steam, lets firstly consider the different types of steam.

Saturated Steam (Dry Steam): This form of steam occurs when water undergoes sensible heating to raise the fluid to its boiling point and then vaporizes with additional latent heating. Heating this steam further, i.e. above the saturation point, produces superheated steam.

Superheated Steam: Steam in this form occurs when saturated or unsaturated steam is heated beyond the saturated steam point. The result is steam at a higher temperature and lower density by comparison to saturated steam at the same pressure.

Unsaturated Steam (Wet Steam): This is probably the most common form of steam which is usually generated by steam boiler plant. It often contains non-vaporized water molecules which are carried over to the steam being transported throughout the piping distribution network. These water molecules can affect the performance of the steam plant and as such, it is for this reason steam systems are fitted with condensate removal equipment.

Why do we use Steam?

In its simplest terms, steam offers an excellent means of transferring a large mass of heat energy, usually via a piping distribution network. In terms of the operation of steam distribution systems, it’s the heat energy, pressure, temperature and flow rate of steam at each demand point which is of importance. This therefore places key emphasis on the design and operating performance of the piping distribution system.

Steam for power plant applications is often required at relatively high pressures and frequently needs to be superheated (dry gas). The presence of superheat improves the thermodynamic efficiency of the turbine operating cycle and also minimises condensation which can lead to erosion, leaking joints and glands. This in turn reduces the overall mechanical efficiency of the power plant. In general terms, a good system design will be based on a steam operating condition which yields the lowest pressure that will provide the heat output required, saturated and as dry as practicably possible.

An effective steam plant system design will produce steam at the desired quality (as dry as possible at the point of demand), will ensure the steam isn’t required to do more work than necessary, will be based on the process plant and equipment having a large enough heating area and ensure that the effective heat transfer from the steam to the process takes place at the highest practicable rate. The overall design can be enhanced further by ensuring that any heat given off from the process itself is harvested and utilised elsewhere on perhaps another application.

Can we Reduce Steam Demand?

Surprisingly, a considerable amount of heat energy is wasted in steam being required to carry out more work than necessary. When reviewing your steam plant, perhaps a useful starting point is to consider all components in the system between the steam generator and the demand point(s) which unnecessarily add to the total system heat demand. In general, when designing new steam systems, a good design approach is to consolidate all equipment with a steam requirement to one area and locate this area as close as possible to the steam main and ideally, steam generation plant.

There are a number of areas which can give rise to a reduction in steam demand. For instance, any steam pipework becoming redundant should be isolated or disconnected from the steam main as having redundant lines is particularly wasteful of heat energy, particularly if the piping is unlagged and/or exhibits signs of leakage. Let’s consider steam pipe sizes. If a steam pipe is oversized given the steam flow rate required, it becomes a continuous point of energy wastage. If the insulation on a steam pipe is in poor condition, has been applied incorrectly or is of a poor quality, the pipe will incur increased radiation losses which essentially means that some of the heat energy inherent in the steam line is simply wasted. A greater volume of condensate will be formed due to the greater heat loss which means wet steam will be delivered to the point of demand. To overcome this, additional steam trapping is required. Oversized lines are also by their nature, more expensive to install owing to the cost of the larger pipe, relatively higher cost of piping supports, fittings valves, insulation, and labour. These larger pipes can also contribute to a lower quality of steam due to the formation of additional condensate in the lines as noted earlier.

If steam piping is undersized, the system will incur higher pressure drops and insufficient steam flow to the demand point(s). There is also a higher risk of water hammer, noise and erosion. The enemy of the steam plant, water hammer, can cause damage to steam pipes, equipment and personnel and thus the likelihood of this phenomenon should be given due consideration and be eradicated from the system.

In older steam system installations, there can be bypass arrangements installed at steam traps. These bypass connections are often unnecessary and left open giving rise to significant heat loss. Furthermore, the correct and strategic installation of steam traps with appropriate air venting can eliminate the requirement for these bypasses and thus, the associated energy wastage.

In general, the lowest permissible operating temperature should be selected for a steam system. This obviously will optimize the amount of fuel required to generate the steam and maintain the design operating temperatures.

Giving due consideration to the points discussed, the overall system heat demand can be optimized to ensure the system is operating as effectively and efficiently as possible and consequently, reduce the overall site steam demand and associated plant fuel costs.

Can the Steam Distribution be Improved?

The dryness and quality of steam delivered to any demand point in a steam system depend heavily on how the steam is generated and of course, distributed throughout the site. In steam systems which are required to generate saturated steam, the steam begins to condense the moment it begins its journey through the distribution pipework. In general, the wetter the steam, the lower the quality for downstream process heating requirements. In such scenarios, steam carrying moisture can create a water film on the inside pipe surface. At this point it’s worth noting that, the water film is a very poor conductor of heat which of course, can inhibit the performance of the installation.

The steam distribution system can be improved by ensuring there is a correctly sized steam trap immediately downstream of the boiler plant. This trap will collect condensate from the lines thus improving the overall quality of the steam and improve efficiency.

Another point for consideration is the level of insulation fitted to the distribution pipework. Poorly insulated steam lines give rise to the formation of condensate in the steam, hence reducing the steam quality. The steam lines and in particular, flange connections and valves should be properly insulated to maximise the steam quality.

When selecting the insulation thickness for distribution pipework, the optimum insulation thickness is the economic thickness. Economic thickness considers the installed cost (material & labour) of the insulation as well as the ongoing value of energy savings over the lifetime of the plant. It is essentially defined as the thickness of insulation that minimizes the total lifecycle cost.

The following graph illustrates the lost energy cost over the lifespan of the system which decreases as the insulation thickness increases. The total cost curve relationship represents the sum of the installed insulation cost and the cost of the lost energy. The total cost curve shows a minimum value at the apex which represents the economic thickness of insulation.


Economic Thickness of Insulation (FluidFlow)

Overall, any water/condensate which develops in the main infrastructure pipework should be collected as early as possible at system low points.

In existing steam installations, it is very often the case that the installed pipework becomes too small or too large owing to changing usage patterns or changing demands imposed on the system which can develop and change over the years since the plant was originally installed. As a rule, pipes which are too small can result in lower than required steam flow at the demand point and also, pipes which are too large cause excessive heat loss due to the larger than necessary surface area/radiation surface.

A particular issue for consideration is elements of the piping system which have sagged due to lack of adequate piping supports. This sagging can result in water lodging at the base of the pipeline at the lowest point. This water can be a source of water hammer in a steam system which can be detrimental to the operation of the plant. Also, the passing steam can collect moisture from the water-logged point which if not removed by steam traps downstream, will be delivered to the demand point and once again, lower the quality of the delivered steam.

Another area of concern is the presence of air in the steam lines. Air gets into the lines when the boiler plant is off. This air should be vented from the distribution mains to improve the transfer of steam through the system. The air can be removed through the use of appropriately positioned thermostatic air vents. As a minimum, these vents should be fitted at terminal ends of various pipe runs.

It was noted earlier that the water film on the surface of the pipe is a poor conductor of heat. The air film however much more drastic. In fact, it is widely documented that air is over 1,500 times more resistant to heat transfer than steel piping material. It stands to reason that both the water and air films should be eliminated from the piping distribution system as rapidly as possible.

Steam Condensate

Another point of notable interest is the condensate and its recovery from the steam system. Condensate is essentially purified/distilled water which usually includes chemical treatment – ideal for use a boiler feed water. Condensate is of high monetary value owing to its inherent heat content and the fact it is of high quality, i.e. purified hot water. It should therefore be harvested at every available opportunity in the steam process. After all, it is much more cost effective to re-heat hot condensate into steam than it is to heat cold make up water into steam. In fact, condensate can be almost one third of the cost of generating steam. Take Note !

When developing or designing a condensate system, it should be borne in mind that condensate is a two-phase fluid and as such, sizing of the condensate lines is a much more complex process. In such cases, the fluid velocity requires careful consideration. Traditionally, condensate lines were sized on the basis they were liquid carrying pipelines. However, as we now know, these lines can carry both liquid and flash steam.

So what can I do with the recovered condensate? Firstly, we have seen that it is perfect as boiler feed water. However, it can also be used for space heating systems. The scenario which suits your site may be dictated based on your specific set of site conditions and requirements.

Giving consideration to the above, the performance and efficiency of a steam system can be radically improved through careful and considered recovery and usage of hot condensate.

CR System


Two-Phase Condensate Recovery System (FluidFlow)



This document attempts to outline some key points to be considered for when reviewing the performance and efficiencies of new and existing steam systems. Ensuring steam plant is consolidated to a specific zone, optimizing the amount of steam required including its temperature and pressure as well as its quality will increase plant efficiencies. Careful selection of pipe diameters will also have a considerable benefit in ensuring the plant operates effectively and efficiently.

A useful approach to take when reviewing the design and operation of any new or existing steam system is to think of the heat energy desperately trying to escape at every available opportunity! What can you do to prevent this phenomenon and develop a more effective and efficient system? Developing such a system will go a long way to reducing the overall fresh water demand, heat demand, associated fuel costs and site emissions.


  1. Steam & Energy Conservation – Spirax Sarco.
  2. The Proper Use of Steam – Spirax Sarco.



Hazen Williams vs Moody Friction Factor Pipeline Pressure Loss


This example case considers the flow of water in a 6 inch Schedule 40 pipeline and compares the results when using the Moody Friction Factor vs the Hazen Williams formula for the same flowing conditions. A hand calculation will initially be carried out to determine the pressure loss for the two scenarios. A model will then be developed to make a comparison with the hand calculation.

Problem Statement:

720 GPM of water at 95 F flows in a 6 inch Sch 40 steel pipe at a velocity of 8 ft/s. The pipeline has a total length of 1000 ft (equivalent length). Determine the friction loss using the Moody Friction Factor and the Hazen Williams formula.


Re = ρvD/μ


ρ               is taken as 62.057 lbm/ft3

μ               is taken as 0.000484 lbm/ft sec.

v                is 8 ft/s.

D               is 6.065 in.

Re = (62.057)(8)(6.065)/(0.000484)

Re = 5.2 x 105

The relative roughness of new steel pipe can be calculated as;

ϵ/D = (0.0002 ft / 6.065 in)(12 in/ft)

ϵ/D = 0.0004

Considering the Re of 5.2 x 105 and relative roughness of 0.0004, we arrive at a friction factor of 0.017 approximately.

The head loss due to friction can be determined as follows;

Hf = f (L/D) (V2 / 2g)

Hf = (0.017) (1000 ft / 6.065 in) (12 in/ft) (8ft/s)2 / (2(32.2 ft/s2)

Hf = 33.4 ft

Modeling this scenario yields the following results.


Figure 1: 6 Inch Pipe – Moody Friction Factor.

The modeled value for friction loss is 32.3 ft fluid which is close to the hand calculation value of 33.4 ft. The difference can be attributed to the simplifications of the hand calculation by comparison to the modeled solution.

Let’s now consider the Hazen Williams approach using the following equation:

H = Cf L Q1.852 / C1.852 D4.87


Cf              is the unit conversion fact (4.72).

L                is the pipe length (1000 ft).

Q               is the volumetric flow rate (8 ft/s)(0.20063 ft2) = 1.605 ft3/s.

C               is the Hazen Williams coefficient, initially considered to be 100 for steel pipe. Note, this is a conservative value and allows for future scaling of the internal pipe surface. The American Iron & Steel Institute’s Committee for Steel Pipe Producers recommends a C value of 140.

H = (4.72) (1000) (1.605)1.852 / (100)1.852 (0.505)4.87

H = 11337 / 181.6

H = 62.4 ft.

Modeling this scenario yields the following results.



Figure 2: 6 Inch Pipe – Hazen Williams (C = 100).

The modeled solution (62.1 ft fluid) compares well with the hand calculation results of 62.4 ft.

Note, if we use a C value of 140 for clean or new steel pipework, we get;

H = 11337 / (140)1.852 (0.505)4.87

H = 33.5 ft.

Modeling this scenario yields the following results.



Figure 3: 6 Inch Pipe – Hazen Williams (C = 140).

The modeled value for friction loss is 33.3 ft fluid which is close to the hand calculation value of 33.5 ft. Again, the difference can be attributed to the simplifications of the hand calculation by comparison to the modeled solution.

We have already calculated a friction loss of 33.4 ft using the Moody Friction Factor. Conversely, if we use a roughness value for corroded steel pipe (0.013 ft), we get;

ϵ/D = (0.013 ft / 6.065 in)(12 in/ft)

ϵ/D = 0.03

From the Moody diagram, the friction factor is approximately 0.0265. This increases the friction loss by a factor of 0.0265 / 0.017 which yields,

H = 33.4 ft (0.0265/0.017)

H = 52.1 ft

Review this scenario in a model yields the following results.



Figure 4: 6 Inch Pipe – Fixed Friction Factor of 0.0265.

Let’s summarise the results.

Screen Shot 2017-09-19 at 12.01.30

This study demonstrates the following;

  1. There is good agreement between the Darcy-Weisbach and Hazen Williams equations for clean pipework.
  2. The results are sensitive to the roughness and C factor values for corroded or old pipework installations.


  1. Piping Systems Manual (Brian Silowash).

Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) Technical Paper


When considering Net Positive Suction Head, it is useful to differentiate between available net positive suction head (NPSHA) and required net positive suction head (NPSHR).

NPSHA is a characteristic of the system in which a centrifugal pump operates and represents the difference between the absolute suction head and the fluid vapor pressure at the prevailing temperature.

NPSHR is a function of the pump design and represents the minimum required margin between the suction head and fluid vapor pressure.

The way NPSHA is calculated depends on the system configuration. The following Figures help illustrate this point.

Figure 1 outlines how NPSHA is calculated for a given capacity of water at 80 F based on a system with suction lift (15ft).

Figure 1: NPSHA Calculation with Suction Lift.

The hand calculation of NPSHA for this scenario (at sea level) would be:

NPSHA = 2.31 (Ps – Pv) / SG + Z – Hf


Ps         is the pressure above the liquid surface (psia).

Pv         is the vapor pressure of the liquid (psia).

Z          is the static head (ft)

Hf         is the friction losses (ft). The friction losses total 2.38 + 0.46 + 0.16 = 3 ft.


NPSHA = 2.31 (Ps – Pv) / SG + Z – Hf

NPSHA = 2.31 (14.7 – 0.5) / 1.0 – 15 – 3

NPSHA = 14.8 ft.

The hand calculation produces a NPSHA of 14.8 ft which match the modeled result.

Let’s consider a scenario whereby the system inlet features a pump taking its suction from a pressurized tank at an elevation of 10ft. The fluid, in this case, is once again water at 80 F.


Figure 2: NPSHA Calculation with Suction from a pressurized tank.


The hand calculation of NPSHA for this scenario would be:

NPSHA = 2.31 (Ps – Pv) / SG + Z – Hf

NPSHA = 2.31 (14.7 + 5 – 0.5) / 1.0 + 10 – 4.001

NPSHA = 2.31 (14.7 + 5 – 0.5) / 1.0 + 10 – 4.001

NPSHA = 50.4 ft

The hand calculation produces a NPSHA of 50.4 ft which matches the modeled result.

Note, both NPSHA and NPSHR vary with capacity. With a given static pressure or elevation difference at the suction side of a centrifugal pump, NPSHA is reduced at larger flow rates by the friction losses in the suction piping and fittings. On the other hand, NPSHR being a function of the velocities in the pump suction passages and at the inlet of the impeller, increases basically as the square of the capacity. The NPSHR for a given pump is provided by a pump vendor. Many factors affect the estimation of NPSHR such as eye diameter, number of impeller vanes, suction area of the impeller, shape of the vanes, shaft and impeller hub diameter, impeller specific speed, shape of suction passages, etc. it is therefore not recommended that a designer estimates a value of NPSHR for a pump but obtain this specific data from the pump vendor.

The NPSHR describes the amount of pressure required at the inlet of a pump to prevent air bubbles from forming inside the pump unit. If a scenario arises whereby the NPSHA is lower than the NPSHR by the pump, air bubbles are allowed to form. These bubbles can implode violently inside the pump causing significant damage. This effect is known as cavitation.

Pump cavitation becomes evident when there is one or more of the following conditions present in a system; noise, vibration, drop in pump head-capacity and efficiency curves and with time, damage to the impeller by pitting and erosion.

A useful point to note is that NPSHR curves provided by pump manufacturer’s are usually based on using cold water for the pump test conditions. Thus, it might be assumed that the NPSHR by a centrifugal pump for satisfactory operation is independent of liquid vapor pressure at the pumping temperature and of course, this is not true. The NPSHR for a given capacity can vary appreciably for different fluids over a range of temperatures. In its simplest form, even when pumping water the NPSHR decreases when the water temperature increases.

What options are available to me to increase the NPSHA:

  1. Reduce the resistance in the suction side of the system and hence the associated pressure losses.
  2. Raise the height of the supply tank in open systems.
  3. Raise the liquid level in the supply tank.
  4. Lower the pump installation height.
  5. Increase the surface pressure of the liquid in a closed system.
  6. Monitor and control the fluid temperature.
  7. Lower the pump operating speed.
  8. Use a larger impeller eye area.
  9. Use several smaller pumps in parallel.

Item 9 above may initially appear to be a costly solution however, in many cases, three half capacity pumps of which one may be a spare, are often no more expensive than one full capacity pump plus its spare. In many cases, just two half-capacity pumps can be installed without a spare since part-load can still be carried if one pump has failed and is temporarily out of service. In addition, if the demand varies widely, operating a single pump during light-load conditions will save energy.

This technical paper attempts to briefly describe NPSH, outline some of problems which can arise when the NPSHA is lower than the NPSHR and what measures can be considered to remedy such conditions. In the end, careful design together with liaising with the pump vendor regarding the NPSH requirements for a proposed pump model will go a long way to eliminating any potential operational problems.


  1. CIBSE Guide B1 2016.

Petrojarl 1 FPSO (Marine Systems, Floating Production, Storage and Offloading Unit)


Back in November 2014, Nevesbu and Iv-Oil & Gas joined forces and started the Pre-Contract Engineering for the contract to modify and upgrade the Petrojarl 1 FPSO. It was anticipated that the upgrade will take around a year to complete. On completion of the project, the FPSO will be used as an early production system (EPS) unit on the Atlanta field located around 185 kilometres offshore from the Brazil coast. This project presented many challenges and was also unique in that an EPC redeployment upgrade contract had not been carried out in Europe before.

Teekay Offshore awarded Damen Shiprepair Rotterdam (DSR) the complete EPC contract for the modification and upgrade of the Petrojarl 1 FPSO. DSR in turn contracted Nevesbu to take care of the Marine Systems, Structural (design and engineering) and Naval Architecture for all modifications. Iv-Oil & Gas was then requested by Nevesbu to execute the Process, Mechanical, Electrical, Instrumentation, Structural, Piping Design and Piping Engineering. Frames Process Systems (FPS) was also selected for its expertise in the field of separation. They provided a large amount of the skid mounted package units (skids) and worked closely together with Nevesbu and Iv-Oil & Gas for integration of the skids with the vessel.

On completion of the initial demolition works, in April 2015, the Petrojarl 1 was moved into DSR’s dry dock, where the refurbishment, modification, and upgrade of the ship was carried out.

Fast-forward to August 18, 2017, Damen Shiprepair Rotterdam (DSR) successfully delivered the FPSO Petrojarl 1 to Teekay Offshore following a complete redeployment project which took place over the past 2 ½ years.




Scope of work 
The self-propelled FPSO spent 14 months in Dock No. 8 (300 x 50m) undergoing refurbishment of its marine systems, underwater hull, seawater system, crane booms, heating coils in the cargo tanks and specialised steelworks in the upper and lower turret areas, which needed to be completely revised and adapted to suit the 1500 metre deep mooring location. Simultaneously, new designed high quality, prefabricated equipment skids containing heating, cooling, separation, compression, boilers, centrifuges as well as a new E-house with electrical equipment were placed on board. Interconnecting piping and cabling was subsequently installed to complete the topsides and connect it to the remaining facilities.

The process installation consisted of the following:

  • Crude oil, produced water and associated gas separation;
  • Crude oil dehydration and desalting;
  • Produced water treatment;
  • Associated gas treatment and fuel gas distribution;
  • Fresh water washing system to meet the maximum allowable salt content in the stabilised crude oil;
  • Upgrade of existing seawater (cooling) system;
  • Steam system to heat the produced crude oil and generate fresh water from seawater;
  • Upgrade of chemical injection systems;
  • Upgrade of existing metering systems to comply with Brasilian requirements;
  • Pigging facilities to enable the launching/receiving of pigs from pigging operations;
  • Modify the existing piping arrangement on the manifold deck;
  • Upgrade of existing subsea controls;
  • Well services/diesel flush system to allow for diesel to be used for flushing crude oil from production, service risers or flowlines on shutdown, for preservation and also for heating prior to startup;
  • Upgrade of well kill system to reduce drilling rig workover time and to reduce produced crude oil handling in the rig using brine.

According to DSR, the project involved more than 450,000 engineering hours and more than 50% of the process equipment was removed and replaced by new and additional equipment.

Teekay had operated the Petrojarl 1 for 28 years in the North Sea, but it is now destined for the Atlanta field offshore Brazil.

Located in block BS-4 in the Santos basin, Atlanta is a postsalt oil field, 185 km (115 mi) offshore Rio de Janeiro in a water depth of 1,500 m (4,921 ft). First oil is expected in 1Q 2018.

Queiroz Galvão Exploração e Produção S.A. is the operator of the block with a 30% ownership along with consortium members OGX Petróleo e Gás S.A. (40%) and Barra Energia do Brasil Petróleo e Gás Ltda. (30%).

We are proud that FluidFlow software was used to design and model the upgraded seawater cooling for topsides and diesel transfer system of the Petrojarl 1 FPSO vessel together with checks on other piping systems required for the successful operation of the FPSO.



FluidFlow v3.43

General Release summary: The thermodynamic capabilities have been extended for single phase fluids. FluidFlow can now accurately cover all phase regions and enthalpy paths through and from supercritical phase region. Calculations within supercritical region are now valid. This release also contains some minor bug fixes.

General Release info:

* Extended the thermodynamic capabilities so that the product can accurately cover all regions and enthalpy paths through supercritical phase region. Calculations within the supercritical region are also available.

* Supercritical phase state now fully detected and shown in results.

* Added marine fuel oils to fluids database.

Valve Authority – Technical Paper

Control Valve Authority

Control Valve Authority – Technical Paper

Valve Authority is a term used to describe the basis on which a control valve is selected. Quality in design represents the correct consideration of many engineering decisions and sizing control valves based on authority is an important factor. If the control valve is oversized, the performance, life span and reliability of the valve and other equipment items will be reduced. If we undersize then we may have the authority but cannot achieve the design capacity. Additionally, designs should consider energy optimization but this often leads to poor authority.

The Valve Authority (N) is generally defined as the ratio of the pressure drop across the fully open valve compared to the pressure drop across the entire circuit (including the valve) at design flow conditions. Valve Authority is expressed using the following equation:

N =ΔPvalve /ΔPtotal


N              is the Valve Authority.

ΔPvalve    is the pressure drop across the valve in the fully open position.

ΔPtotal     is the total pressure drop across the circuit.

In order to develop good control, it is recommended that a control valve is selected to achieve a valve authority of 0.5 or greater. An authority below 0.25 gives unstable control; 0.25 – 0.5 gives fair to good control whereas 0.5 -1.0 gives excellent control. The higher the authority, the greater the energy wastage.

Let’s consider a simple water circuit example where the available pump pressure is 13 kPa at maximum flow conditions, i.e. the valve is in the fully open position. This 13 kPa represents the total frictional resistance of the circuit including the control valve which has a pressure drop of 6 kPa in the fully open position.

Valve Authority


Considering the pressure drop across the control valve, the pressure drop across the remainder of the circuit will be 13 – 6 = 7 kPa. The valve authority can therefore be calculated as follows;

N = 6 / 6 + 7

N = 0.46

Let’s consider a design example to explore the phenomenon of valve authority a little further.

Problem Statement:

It is intended to model a section of pipework downstream of a heat exchanger transporting Methyl Diethanolamine (MDEA) going to a column. The system pressure shall be controlled by a pressure reducing control valve with a design valve authority of approximately 0.5. The engineer is also required to ensure that the pipelines in the system are to be sized such that the gas superficial velocity (vapor velocity) exiting the system is between 10 & 15 m/s.

Design Data:

Temperature of MDEA at system inlet: 106.5 °C.

Vessel Surface Pressure: 5 bar a.

Elevation to Vessel Base: 3 m.

Outlet Elevation: 31.27 m.

Pressure at outlet: 1.8 bar a.

Design Flow at system outlet: 367,000 kg/h.

Fluid Vapor Quality Approx. 0.06.

Solution Approach:

Let’s develop this outline scheme design such that the pressure drop across the control valve is minimised which is consistent with good control. Good control of course means that the design valve authority should be around 0.5 and in all circumstances, must be above 0.2.

We know the vessel surface pressure is 5 bar a and the design outlet pressure is 1.8 bar a. The total system pressure loss between the inlet and outlet of the circuit can be established as 3.2 bar. This means that, based on a design valve authority of 0.5, we can estimate the valve pressure loss at the design flow rate of 367,000 kg/h to be around 1.6 bar (3.2 bar x 0.5 = 1.6 bar). This data can be used as the basis of a preliminary design as outlined in Step 1.

Step 1

A preliminary design of the system has been developed based on the design flow rate provided. A Flow Coefficient (Kv component) can be used in the first instance to represent a pressure reducing valve as at this stage, we simply wish to define a fixed pressure drop of 1.6 bar across the component. Figure 2 provides an illustration of the system.


MDEA Circuit

Figure 2: MDEA Circuit – Control Valve represented by a Flow Coefficient (Kv).

When this initial design is calculated, the MDEA in the system is detected as being a two-phase fluid with a vapor quality of approximately 6.7%. For two-phase systems, a useful rule of thumb is to keep the gas superficial velocity around 15 m/s at this vapor quality.

At this point, it’s often useful to know what flow regime is encountered in the system. In this particular design case, the flow in the lines is in the annular mist regime which is preferable to slug flow which of course should be avoided. This undesirable slug flow regime can be avoided by keeping the gas superficial velocity relatively high.

Annular Mist Flow Pattern Map

Figure 3: Annular Mist Flow Pattern Map.

Various pipe diameters can be applied to this system in an attempt to achieve a flowing velocity which is as near as possible to the design velocity of 10 to 15 m/s. This preliminary design case has been solved using 300mm pipes which generates an initial velocity of 14 m/s. It is worth noting at this point that as the fluid flows along the pipelines, the frictional resistance of the various pipes and fittings results in an increase in the vapor quality and hence, gas volumetric flow rate and flowing gas velocity. This phenomenon would at this early stage indicate that it may be prudent to increase the pipe diameters in the system – perhaps downstream of the pressure reducing valve. Indeed, a check on the velocity at the system outlet indicates the velocity increases to 112 m/s. This velocity is clearly much too high and should be reduced as the design evolves.

Step 2

The outline design completed in Step 1 can now be developed further. The Kv component can be changed to a PRV (pressure reducing valve) and this valve can be automatically sized. When sizing the valve, the outlet pressure in the MDEA system can be set to 1.8 bar a (based on the design data provided). The design setpoint pressure of the PRV can then be adjusted until the design flow rate of 367,000 kg/h is achieved in the system.


MDEA Circuit with Pressure Reducing Valve

Figure 4: MDEA Circuit with Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV).

Step 3

At this point, it is worth considering different pipe diameters downstream of the PRV. The PRV setpoints pressure can also be adjusted until we obtain the required design flow for each pipe diameter considered. The calculated results are outlined in Table 1.


valve authority PRV figures

Table 1: Review of Valve Authority for different Line Sizes & PRV Set-points.

We can see that the preliminary line sizes of 450 – 500 mm produces a sufficiently high valve authority (N = 0.525 & 0.56).

The next stage is to select the correct line size whilst giving consideration to the limiting velocity criteria of 15 m/s for the vapor phase. The most suitable pipe diameter is therefore the 500 mm pipe. Smaller pipe will also work, however we need to avoid choked flow in the system. We therefore need to keep the gas velocity below a max of 50 m/s. If capital cost was the main design criteria, you could consider using a smaller pipe size.

Figure 5 provides an illustration of the system at this stage of development.


guide to Valve Authority

Figure 5: MDEA Circuit – Pipe Sizes Optimised.

So far, the calculations have produced the valve Cv along with fluid physical properties. This data can be provided to the valve supplier so that they can make the final valve selection for their range of equipment.

Step 4
Finally, in this step the automatically sized pressure reducer can be swapped for the actual vendor control valve (Figure 6). In this final case, the pressure loss across the valve is calculated to be 1.5 bar which produces a valve authority of 0.47 (1.5/3.2 = 0.47).

Valve Authority

Figure 6: MDEA Circuit – Vendor Control Valve.

This example helps us consider the application of valve authority in a real system design whilst giving due consideration to other aspects of the system such as fluid physical properties, valve Cv, design flow rates, pressures etc.

FluidFlow v3.42

Fixed a bug that occured when selecting “mm Water g” OR “m Water g” units.This was originally fixed in V3.39 but regressed in V3.41. New procedures in place to eliminate code regressions.

FluidFlow v3.41

General Release info:

Improved pipe heat loss calculation with the addition of new correlation for estimating outside film heat transfer coefficient. Bug fixes.


* Crane Tee Junction TP410 pre 2009 relationships. New recommendation is to use for existing/legacy calculations ONLY. Input editor text now reflects this.

The relationships are just too simplistic to realistically predict the pressure losses over all possible operating conditions and totally ignore any pressure recovery effects.

* All Heat Transfer Coefficients in pipe results were shown as W/m C where units shown are W/m2 C. Coefficient values now normalised to W/m2C by multiplying original value by the log mean radius.

This is more in line with most literature sources. Change was made not because answers or calculations are incorrect but because it is now easier compare values directly with common literature sources.

* Following a suggestion from some of our German customers, we incorporated a new improved method for estimating the outside coefficient in pipe heat loss/gain calculations.

The literature source for the improved method is the Springer publication “VDI Heat Atlas (VDI Wärmeatlas)”.

Previously FluidFlow used ASTM Standard C680. It is still possible to use the original ASTM Standard C680 relationship, selected from the Options -> Calculations Dialog -> Global Settings tab.

* Co2 gas density and specific heat definitions have been adjusted to provide more accurate results over a wider temperature and pressure range.


* Diffusers at choked conditions show the inlet results as outlet results.

* In networks containing centrifugal pumps and more than one fluids with viscosities of > 800 cP, sometimes Pump viscosity corrections were made when this should not be the case.

* Outside heat loss convection was overestimated in rare cases for gas flow along medium/long pipes.

* Improved convergence testing to prevent the solver converging too soon. For gas calculations this sometimes resulted in incorrect downstream temperatures.

* Reservoir No Flow – Bug in creation of accumulator for solver.

* Pump derating and speed changes were not working when both effects occurred together.

FluidFlow v3.40

General Release info:

Control Valves: Improved consistency of calculated valve position and valve coefficient over the complete operating range.

Polyethylene pipes, new pipe sizes added.

Petroleum fraction properties, NBP050 to NPB450 range added to fluids database.


  • Added back a directional definition for all flow control valves. This requires the user to specify the flow direction through the valve and is necessary to reduce interaction between flow control valves in large networks
  • Removed Text Import and Export menu options because format is now out of date and is not supported in the future.


  • Multiple flow controllers in a network could occasionally cause convergence BEFORE the network has actually converged. See changes above.
  • Liquid line with heat transfer in buried pipes, sometimes calculated out phase state as two-phase when phase state should be liquid.
  • Pipe scaling was not read in properly from old files (pre V3.30).

FluidFlow v3.39

General Release info:

Calculation procedures for viscosity correction method for centrifugal pumps has been updated to HI 2015 guidelines

Bug Fix:

Units m Water g and mm Water g went missing in V3.38. Now reinstated.

FluidFlow v3.38

Contains fixes for all reported bugs up to end of September 2016.

General Release info:
No new enhancements, bug fix maintenance release only

None in this release

* Fixed a rounding error (<2%) that occurred when converting to m Water and m Water gauge.
* Improved the chart visibility of slug region in two-phase flow pattern maps, previously part of the area was overwritten by elongated bubble regime.
* Fixed a bug in outlet velocity calculation when phase change occurs within a pipe.
* Fixed a bug that caused phase change within a pipe when Heat Loss Model = “Ignore Heat Loss/Gain”, without taking into account heat of vaporization.
* Fixed a bug that caused flow reversal at known flow nodes out of a network at very high specified flows i.e. many times greater than sonic flow.
* Fortis Only – Overcome the instability caused by the discontinuities in the Universal Gas Sizing Equation for control valves.
* Fixed a bug which shows gauge pressure results incorrectly if atmospheric pressure is changed.

Two-Phase Flow


Gas-liquid two-phase pipe flow is of significant importance in a wide range of engineering industries such as steam generators, chemical process plant, distillation processes and heat transfer systems. The design of these systems is often a complex phenomenon

Using suitable engineering simulation software can help the engineer design efficient and effective systems, understand plant performance and quickly evaluate alternative design scenarios.

In two-phase flow, the vapor mass fraction is often not constant and there is mass transfer between the fluid phases. FluidFlow takes this into account in your model solution. In fact, you can see the results for inlet and outlet vapor quality for all pipes and elements in your system. Flow pattern maps are generated automatically for all pipe in the system, helping you identify flow regimes and any undesirable operating conditions.

FluidFlow is used successfully by engineers to calculate pressure losses and flow distribution in two-phase pipe flow systems. The simulation software will automatically track fluid phase-state throughout the piping distribution system and the software is provided with a comprehensive database of two-phase fluids, boosters and associated piping equipment. Automatic control valve and equipment sizing is included helping you to accelerate the design process.

FluidFlow is easy to use and new users are provided with a Designer Handbook meaning you can tackle those design projects instantly.

For more information on Two-Phase Flow click here

Compressible Flow Systems

compressible flow

FluidFlow customers use the software to design and optimize a wide range of compressible pipe flow systems including; natural gas transmission pipelines, steam distribution systems and compressed air systems.

For compressible fluid flow in pipes, the pressure and temperature conditions continuously change as a gas or vapor flows along a pipeline. This means that the physical properties of density, viscosity, heat capacity, thermal conductivity, velocity etc, change with pipe length.

FluidFlow uses a number of compressible flow equations, and incorporates the Joule Thomson effect to obtain a rigorous solution which is accurate for both low and high velocity flow systems.

By using FluidFlow, engineers can accurately calculate compressible flow through an orifice plate, control valve, relief device, nozzles, valves and all common piping components. You can also automatically sizing pipes, pumps, ducts, fans, compressors, control valves, relief devices (ISO & API), orifice plates and nozzles.

The software can also calculate heat loss/gain from pipes and model buried pipe heat transfer. The software is provided with a library of insulation materials as standard and engineers can select the desired insulation thickness. Convection, conduction and radiation losses are calculated. This means you can use FluidFlow to optimize energy use by selecting the economic insulation thickness.

For more information on Compressible Flow click here

FluidFlow Pressure Drop Calculator

FluidFlow is a pipe flow calculator which is used to perform fluid flow analysis in piping systems featuring heat exchangers, orifice plates, control valves, pumps, venturi flow meters and equipment items.

The software is easy to use and supported by an experienced team of engineers which are always willing to lend a helping hand.


FluidFlow is a modular pipe flow calculator

Available calculation modules include

  • Liquid
  • Gas
  • Two-Phase
  • Non Newtonian and Settling Slurry
  • Scripting (Dynamic Analysis)


FluidFlow Liquid Module

The FluidFlow Liquid Module is a water flow calculator which allows you to define vendor equipment to a database such as pumps, control valves, pumps, venturi flow meters etc. When defining pumps, you can enter your vendor-specific pump curves to the database which will be stored for all your modeling projects. You can then model the performance of the pump in your system.


The software enables designers to complete fluid flow simulation studies in an instant and automatically size equipment, taking the pain out of your design projects.


Flow Measurement In Piping Systems

FluidFlow is a flow calculator which allows you to understand flow measurement in your piping systems. You can input data obtained from a site pressure test to a model and understand exactly how your piping system is performing.


FluidFlow solves the continuity of mass, energy and momentum equations. You can clearly view result for flow rate, pressure, pressure loss, velocity, density, viscosity, temperature, Reynolds number and friction factor.

FluidFlow Overview

FluidFlow is primarily a maintenance release addressing reported bugs and adding new features requested by our users. It is recommended that all users upgrade to this release. We have updated our control valve calculation code to reflect the very latest Instrumentation Society America ISA-75 Guidelines, this includes choking detection for both liquids and gases.


  • Large networks containing many tee junctions now converge quicker. Note, it is still important to place the branch orientation (red dot) correctly.
  • Improvements made to equipment sizing consistency.
  • All Control Valve Equations now updated from ISA 1985 to ISA 2007 guide. For choked valves a warning is now provided. Added calculation of Cv at liquid choked flow conditions.
  • Added network data caching to improve performance of network version.
  • Added the ability to use visual elements on script forms (labels, list boxes, combo boxes, tabs, grids, etc.).


  • Open pipe exit pressure reverted back to pre 3.31 where stagnation pressure is assumed to be atmospheric.
  • Removed mouse wheel support for the input editor to prevent clashes with flowsheet occurring. Flowsheet now works better using mouse wheel.

FluidFlow v3.37

Primarily a release for Fortis, including all requested logging and database enhancements, bug fixes regarding gas reducers, and series choking.

General Release info:


  • Added the ability to automatically adjust atmospheric pressure for altitude.
    Options -> Calculation-> Global Settings.


  • Fixed an overwrite of value 101325 Pa a, for atmospheric pressure that sometimes occurred when resetting defaults.
  • Improved network convergence for multiple flow controllers.
  • New warning advising when a pump is acting as a turbine.
  • PD Pump auto-sizing bug fixed.
  • Fixed a bug which caused a program crash when changing to French language.

FluidFlow v3.33

Version 3.33 is primarily a maintenance release addressing reported bugs and adding new features requested by our users. It is recommended that all users upgrade to this release.

We have added the ability to make buried pipe heat loss calculations. To support this calculation, different pipe coatings, soil, and backfill types have been added to the Insulation database. In addition, the thermal conductivity as a function of temperature relationship for all insulation materials and soils has been improved.

For gases flowing at or near the saturation point in pipes with heat loss on, we have added an option to include condensate traps. If this option is “on”, the flow will stay in the gas phase at the saturation point and the software will report the mass of condensate to be removed. By default, this option is “off”, and so some of the gas will condense and become two-phase as it flows down the pipe. This means the vapor quality decreases along the flowpath because the condensate is not removed.


  • Added the ability to make a buried pipe calculation. Added different pipe coating, soil, and backfill types to the insulation database.
  • Added phosphine gas to physical property database.
  • Improved insulation thermal conductivity as a function of temperature relationship and added more data for insulation materials.
  • Added the ability to assume steam traps are present for a condensing gas. This option (‘Options | Calculation…’ menu item; Gas page) prevents gasflow from developing into 2-phase flow when heat loss is included.
  • Bill of Materials now subdivides pipes into schedules.
  • Added ability to model expansion loops in one component, instead of drawing out each individual expansion loop.
  • Added more calculation examples to QA tests and updated help file.


  • For Open Pipes and Open Boundaries with a resistance, the exit static pressure is now assumed to be atmospheric pressure. In earlier releases, the exit stagnation pressure was assumed to be atmospheric.
  • Restricted tee junction K values to maximum and minimum values: Max = 90 and Min = -15. This aids convergence without limiting practical values.
  • Added the ability to include Joule Thomson Coefficient in “Do Heat Loss Calculation”, via the ‘Options | Calculation…’ menu item; Gas page.

FluidFlow v3.31

With version 3.31, we have really focused on empowering you to build your models faster. We’ve implemented unique, cutting edge tools that will not only reduce the time it takes you to build your model on the flowsheet – we’ll also do the design for you!

Automatic Pipe Sizing: In addition to the economic pipe sizing feature, designers can now specify a desired pressure gradient or nominal velocity for each pipe element in the model. FluidFlow will then calculate the pipe diameter required to achieve that design constraint

Automatic Equipment Sizing: We already have auto-sizing in place for safety relief valves and burst disks to both API & ISO standards for liquid, gas, steam and two-phase flow systems. Now FluidFlow can auto-size all your key equipment items. Pumps, compressors, fans, orifice plates, nozzles, venturi tubes, pressure and flow controllers can now all be sized automatically, saving you time and effort.

Automatic Flow Balancing with Orifice Plates: Orifice plates can now be sized based on design pressure loss or flow rates. No more iteration in your design as you adjust orifice diameter to achieve your desired flowrate – FluidFlow will do it all for you.

Flowsheet Improvements: Getting your flowsheet built quicker is key to efficient modelling. So we’ve changed our directional components. No more “red dot” to define the flow direction of a controller. Just drop the pump or controller on the flowsheet and FluidFlow will work it all out for you. You can now also hold down the CTRL key when adding a template to continue adding multiples of the same template.

Reporting Upgrades You can now view your flowsheet data report from directly within FluidFlow. No need to export to excel to look at the raw data. The report has its own dialog box, so you can put it on a separate screen, or have it side by side with your flowsheet. We’ve improved the print quality of our exports too, so your .pdf exports are now crystal clear.


  • Ability to autosize the following equipment items: Pipes, Centrifugal Pumps, Compressors, Fans, PD Pumps, Pressure Reducers, Pressure Sustainers, Differential Pressure Controllers, Flow Controllers, Orifice Plates, Inline Nozzles, Venturi Tubes, Safety Relief Valves, and Bursting Disks.
  • Added 2 additional pipe sizing criteria options: Pressure Gradient and a user-entered Velocity.
  • No longer necessary to define the flow direction of pressure controllers.
  • No longer necessary to define the flow direction of flow controllers.
  • Hold down CTRL when Inserting a Template to continue insertion. Same logic applied to Paste.
  • Components Bar (‘View | Components Bar’)
  • New Data Report. Flowsheet Data/Data Report. (‘View | Flowsheet Data’)
  • Improved Print and Export Quality.
  • Integrated Joule-Thomson derivative into existing Equations of State and compressible flow calculations.
  • Added JT Coefficient, slurry volume fractions for each component (4 component and Liu models) to results table, printouts, etc.
  • Increased accuracy of calculation of Control Valve Cv and %Opening for gas systems.
  • Added 2-phase loss correlations for control valves. Not covered by ISA guide. Used Parcol method.
  • Default Folders for License, Data, Preferences, and Templates moved to “C:\Users\Public\Documents\Flite\FluidFlow” for NEW installations.

FluidFlow v3.23

  • Added Flowsheet Undo facility.
  • Added ability to plot two-phase flow pattern charts for ALL pipe inclinations.
  • Added ability to plot composite charts for boosters in parallel and series. Access via New flowsheet toolbar button.
  • Added ability to plot HGL and EGL charts.
  • Updated Pipe Sizing Data.
  • DATABASE ADDITIONS – Over 50 new fluids added, 40+ Pumps and valves + many more fluid equipment items.
  • CHANGE: Density results shown for all phase states are now static density. Previously Stagnation Density was shown.

FluidFlow v3.22 Build 6

  • The calculated K value is now an available result (in export, excel, tables, etc.) for the following elements: GenericK, Inline Filters, Cyclones, Expansion Bends, Known Resistance Exits, Bends, & Mitre Bends.
  • Buried Pipe Calculation now uses an iterative solution process, which results in a more accurate solution. Log Mean temperature is calculated more accurately.
  • Now possible to “Check for Updates” from the Help menu.
  • NPSHa now shown for auto boosters and PD pumps.
  • Improved heat transfer in two-phase flow.
  • Heat Loss from Pipes – Instead of R values (heat transfer resistances) being displayed, individual transfer coefficients (Inside Film, Pipe Wall, Insulation, Outside Film) are now displayed. This change was requested by several users.

FluidFlow v3.32

With version 3.32, we have improved our physical property predictions and have introduced the ability to model petroleum fractions from ASTM D86 or True Boiling Point Curve data.

We have improved the accuracy of our two-phase flash calculations, added pressure recovery effects and generally improved the two-phase solution algorithms.

Our pre-release Quality Assurance tests have been expanded (we now test over 700 worked examples, covering all phase states).

For slurry calculations a new deposition calculation method “Oroskar and Turian” has been added.

The flowsheet results presentation has been improved and this is also reflected in the generated reports.

We continue to work hard on our upcoming Version 4 product which is due to be released later this year.


  • Added ability to model Petroleum Fractions to the Physical Property Estimator and the property database.
  • Added pressure recovery into 2-phase flash calculations. The effect of this becomes apparent with liquids at their boiling point.
  • Added new correlation for estimating Settling Slurry Critical/Deposition Velocity. Oroskar and Turian.
  • Added ability for a pump to handle low two-phase quality mixtures at suction.
  • Improved Two-Phase flow calculations by tracking enthalpy along pipe; this allows for more accurate flash calculations.
  • Added ability to show control valve charts from the flowsheet.
  • Improved flowsheet text and fly-by formatting.
  • Added ability to activate over a network.
  • Addition of an automatic backup to the DATA folder. Occurs every 30 days by default.
  • Added more QA examples. We now have over 700 examples that are fully checked before each new release: 85 Two-Phase, 176 Compressible, 79 Equipment Sizing, 251 Incompressible, 79 Non Newtonian, 11 Petroleum Fraction, 8 Saturated gas and Two-Phase and 22 script examples.


  • Velocities and Pressure for ALL size change elements are now based on the actual size of the element.
  • Added additional checks for out of range atmospheric pressure changes made by the user via the ‘Calculation Options’ dialog.
  • Removed ability to customize the Components Palette.

FluidFlow v3.30

  • Added NEW settling slurry calculation method. 4-Component model based on a 2007 paper by Sellgren and Wilson.
  • Added NEW settling slurry calculation method. Liu Dezhong method.
  • For settling slurries, size distribution charts can now be viewed at the Supply Node(s).
  • Added the ability to Size Relief Valves and Bursting Discs to API520 or ISO4126
  • Flowsheet – Added the ability to drag an OpenPipe node to make a connection to any other node (provided node can accept another pipe connection) OR to drag an OpenPipe into an existing pipe.
  • Flowsheet – Added the ability to rotate any node, in 90° increments for ortho mode and in 30° increments for iso mode.
  • Flowsheet – Added the ability to store a flowsheet as a template. Templates can be inserted into existing networks and connected via drag connect.
  • Added a resources window, that connects back to website for examples and videos.
  • Improved the temperature and pressure range and the accuracy of the internal relationships used to predict air physical properties.
  • Expanded the pipe heat loss calculation method, to enable direct entry of U values. Full calculation of U value is also available.
  • Added Specific Heat Capacity, Flow Cross Sectional Area and Out Flow Cross Sectional Area to results table, flowsheet properties, fly-bys etc.
  • Data added for PE100 Polyethylene Pipes, Non Newtonian fluids (phosphate clays, red muds, fly ash, sugar processing fluids and various foodstuffs).
  • Created a Licence Manager that also gets installed with the software, allowing greater licence flexibility.

FluidFlow v3.22 Build 5

  • Added ability to calculate heat loss in buried pipes.
  • Improved calculation consistency for non-Newtonian Casson and Hershel Bulkley fluids.
  • Input Inspector now highlights properties that have been edited (i.e., changed from default values).
  • All calculation modules are now available for each calculation, but user has a restricted view of results if a calculation module is missing.
  • Improved gas mixture physical property prediction. You can now use mole or volume fraction to define a mixture.
  • Improved gas calculations with heat transfer. Better integration of heat transfer equations into loss calculations and improve consistency of results.
  • New warning added to slurry module if user attempts to input a solids concentration greater than the packed bed voidage.

FluidFlow v3.22 Build 4

  • Added back the ability to decide on the Vsm calculation method for settling slurries.
  • Added results to text output.
  • Expanded scripting section of the help file.
  • Added some new PP and PPF Pipes and some new PP diaphragm valves into databases.
  • Stopped an “Out of Resources” error occurring in the scripting window if margins were shown.
  • Fixed a heat transfer bug that occured when 2 exchangers were used in series, with the Heat Transfer Option set to “heat transfer into network”.
  • Fixed a bug that occured if a dialog box was shown off screen.

FluidFlow v3.22 Build 3

  • Networks can now be imported and exported via text files.
  • Added ability to size pipes automatically – Beta Release.
  • Over 50 new fluids added bringing total of fluids in the database to over 1050.
  • Settling Slurry Calculations – Method extended to included inclined pipes.
  • Added ability to run help files locally from the network release.
  • Database mixtures can now have a fixed phase state, this is useful for users who do not have the 2 phase module.

FluidFlow v3.22 Build 2

  • The V3.22 upgrade now supports Paper/Pulp Stock calculations as a standard part of the Slurry and non-Newtonian module.
  • ASME and ISO 4126 calculation methods for predicting flow across safety Relief Valves are also available across all modules.
  • This release also provides the ability to export and import network designs via text files, meaning it is now possible to interface FluidFlow to other applications.
  • The dynamic analysis and scripting module has undergone a major internal reorganisation to speed improvements and additional functionality. Users can now write scripts in Basic as well as Pascal, for instance, users can easily call Excel directly from script with methods available to set and get Excel data and charts.
  • In response to user requests, the V3.22.2 release has improved UI speeds and additional abilities such as the specification of stagnation or static pressure at boundaries.

FluidFlow v3.22 Build 2

  • The V3.22 upgrade now supports Paper/Pulp Stock calculations as a standard part of the Slurry and non-Newtonian module.
  • ASME and ISO 4126 calculation methods for predicting flow across safety Relief Valves are also available across all modules.
  • This release also provides the ability to export and import network designs via text files, meaning it is now possible to interface FluidFlow to other applications.
  • The dynamic analysis and scripting module has undergone a major internal reorganisation to speed improvements and additional functionality. Users can now write scripts in Basic as well as Pascal, for instance, users can easily call Excel directly from script with methods available to set and get Excel data and charts.
  • In response to user requests, the V3.22.2 release has improved UI speeds and additional abilities such as the specification of stagnation or static pressure at boundaries.