-
Predicting the Power Loss of Reciprocating Compressor
Manifolds
NOVA Research: Kamal K. Botros John Geerligs
Beta Machinery: Kelly Eberle Brian Howes Gordon Sun Russ Barss
Bryan Long
TransCanada: Thomas Robinson Peerless Mfg: Dave Breindel
PSC: Martin Hinchliff - chair Rainer Kurz Christine Scrivner
Steve O’toole Clint Lingel
Project Team:
-
2 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Project Motivation
How much power does my
compressor need?
-
3 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Compressor Performance Calculation
Why Estimated Total Load? - Compression (ideal) power -
Mechanical Efficiency - Manifold (bottle) power loss - Orifice
power loss - Other system loss
How do you calculate the unknown power losses?
-
4 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Compressor Performance Calculation
How much, assume 1%, 2%? Is it accurate?
Unknown Power Losses are estimated by the pressure drop
-
5 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Pressure Drop Calculation… easy, right?
OK, but…does this work for my recip compressor?
-
6 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Challenges to Industry
• Manifolds (pulsation bottles) have complicated geometry.
K-factors are not published.
• Recip compressors create high flow fluctuations.
• How to relate pressure drop to power loss?
-
7 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
How important is power loss?
Inaccurate power calculation effects performance and reliability
(3% to 12% error in results)
RED = Unsafe
YELLOW = Conditionally Safe
GREEN = Safe
Suction Pressure (psia)
Disc
harg
e Pr
essu
re (p
sia)
Consequences: Driver size inadequate Unable to meet
contract flow Reliability (rod load,
reversal, and discharge temperature)
Inefficient operation
Design Point move to Unsafe Zone
-
8 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Overall Project Objectives
1. Develop a methodology to predict the mean and pulsating power
losses across Reciprocating Compressor Manifolds (bottles).
2. Validate the methodology via experimental means, either
from:
Measurements of actual recip. compressor in the field, or
Scale-down test rig involving a custom-design bottle and a
Pulse-generator.
3. Ultimate Goal is to:
Recommend a standard methodology to quantify the pulsating flow
power loss.
Come up with adjustment factor(s) to be applied to the mean
pressure drop coefficient (K) in the presence of pulsating
flow.
-
9 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Overall Project Objectives
1. Develop a methodology to predict the mean and pulsating power
losses across Reciprocating Compressor Manifolds (bottles).
2. Validate the methodology via experimental means, either
from:
Measurements of actual recip. compressor in the field, or
Scale-down test rig involving a custom-design bottle and a
Pulse-generator.
3. Ultimate Goal is to:
Recommend a standard methodology to quantify the pulsating power
loss.
Come up with adjustment factor(s) to be applied to the mean
pressure drop coefficient (K) in the presence of pulsating
flow.
Completed 2013
Focus of this presentation
-
10 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Outline
1. Test Program 2. Measurements and Results 3. Key Findings 4.
Next Steps
-
11 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Test Setup at TCPL’s GDTF in Didsbury, Alberta
Pipeline quality gas
Nozzle Bank
-
12 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Pulse Generator
Pulsations will be created by a hydraulically driven rotating
paddle • Not a recip compressor • Operate at 300 to 1200
rpm. • Double acting • Pulse amplitude 1% to 2%
line pressure
-
13 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Test Setup Details
Configuration A: Bottle Upstream, Orifice Downstream
Configuration B: Orifice Upstream, Bottle Downstream
-
14 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Custom Bottle Design (donated by Peerless Mfg.)
-
15 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
End Treatments
2” x 3”Diffuser
Taper
Normal (Square)
-
16 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Square End Treatment
-
17 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Diffuser End Treatment
-
18 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Photos of Configuration A Setup
-
19 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Sonic Nozzles Bank
Pulse Generator
-
20 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Static P & T Transducers (Upstream)
Pair of Dynamic P Transducers (1.5 m apart)
Kulite P Transducers
-
21 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Pair of Dynamic P Transducers (1.5 m apart)
Kulite P Transducers
-
22 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Rosemount Differential P Transducer
-
23 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Pair of Dynamic P Transducers (1.5 m apart)
Rosemount Differential P Transducer
-
24 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Pair of Dynamic P Transducers (1.5 m apart)
Kulite P Transducers
Static P & T Transducers (Downstream)
-
25 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Photos of Configuration B Setup
-
26 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
-
27 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
-
28 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Taper Diffuser
Β = 0.5
Β = 0.7
-
29 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Example of Pulsating Pressure Measurements (Across the
Bottle)
-90
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
0 50 100 150 200 250
Pre
ssu
re O
scill
ati
on
(k
Pa
)
PT1
-90
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
0 50 100 150 200 250
Pre
ssu
re O
scill
ati
on
(k
Pa
)
PT2
-90
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
0 50 100 150 200 250
Pre
ssu
re O
scill
ati
on
(k
Pa
)
PT3
-90
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
0 50 100 150 200 250
Pre
ssu
re O
scill
ati
on
(k
Pa
)
Time (ms)
PT4
0
0
0
1
10
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Pre
ssu
re A
mp
litu
de
(k
Pa
)
PT1PT1
0
0
0
1
10
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Pre
ssu
re A
mp
litu
de
(k
Pa
)
PT2
0
0
0
1
10
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Pre
ssu
re A
mp
litu
de
(k
Pa
)
PT3
0
0
0
1
10
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Pre
ssu
re A
mp
litu
de
(k
Pa
)
Frequency (Hz)
PT4
-
30 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Example of 1st Harmonic Mapping (Configuration A)
kk uandP
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.58.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Velo
city
Am
plitu
de (m
/s)
Pres
sure
Am
plitu
de (k
Pa)
Distance From Upstream 8"/4" Reducer (m)
Pressure Amplitude (kPa)Velocity Amplitude (m/s)
Puls
atio
n Bo
ttle
OrificeP. Gen.
Test 27(40.5 Hz,
6 Nozzles, 0.5 Beta)
Acoustic Power= 0.2W
Acoustic Power= 334W
Acoustic Power= 380W
Acoustic Power=229W
-
31 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Example of 1st Harmonic Mapping (Configuration B)
kk uandP
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.58.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Velo
city
Am
plitu
de (m
/s)
Pres
sure
Am
plitu
de (k
Pa)
Distance From Upstream 8"/4" Reducer (m)
Pressure Amplitude (kPa)Velocity Amplitude (m/s)
Puls
atio
n Bo
ttle
Orifice
P. Gen.
Test 209(15.875 Hz,
6 Nozzles, 0.5 Beta)
Acoustic Power= 44W
Acoustic Power= 248W
Acoustic Power= 391W
Acoustic Power=100W
-
32 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Test Results (Configuration A)
-
33 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Configuration A Test Scope
TestNumber of
Sonic NozzlesEnd Treatments Orifice β Hole(s)
1 3 and 6 Square/Square 1 -
1a 3 and 6 Square/Square 0.5 Single
1b 3 and 6 Square/Square 0.5 Multiple
1c 3 and 6 Square/Square 0.7 Single
1d 3 and 6 Square/Square 0.7 Multiple
2 3 and 6 Square/Diffuser 0.5 Single
3 3 and 6 Taper/Diffuser 0.5 Single
4 3 and 6 Taper/Square 0.5 Single
4a High flow Taper/Square O.7 Single
Configuration A Test Scope
For each of the sub-configuration and flow rate, a total of 10
tests were conducted at the following frequencies: 0, 11, 13, 15,
17, 22, 27, 31, 35, and 41 Hz. (Total for Configuration A = 180
Tests).
-
34 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Normalized Pulsating Power Loss (Bottle)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Nor
mal
ized
Puls
atio
n Po
wer
Los
s (W
P/ρc
Aurm
s2)
Normalized Velocity Oscillation at Bottle Flange or Orifice
Plate (urms/U)
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Multiple Holes
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.7, Single Hole
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.7, Multiple Holes
Square/Square No Orifice
Square/Diffuser Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Taper/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Taper/Diffuser Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Configuration A:Bottle
TGP St54 (Original Bottles)
TGP St54 (New Bottles)
-
35 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Normalized Velocity Oscillation urms/U
TGP Station 54: 8350 HP compressor, 6 throw • urms/U=0.7-1.3
Gathering compressor: 1775 HP, 4 throw • urms/U=0.75
Vapour Recovery Compressor: 1200 HP, 6 throw • urms/U=0.4
Test Setup: Hydraulic driven rotating paddle, 2 HP urms/U=0.3
max
Current test setup representative of lower power/throw
applications. Pulse Generator modifications could generate
urms/U=0.6
-
36 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Normalized Pulsating Power Loss (Orifice)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Nor
mal
ized
Puls
atio
n Po
wer
Los
s (W
P/ρ c
Aurm
s2)
Normalized Velocity Oscillation at Bottle Flange or Orifice
Plate (urms/U)
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Multiple Holes
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.7, Single Hole
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.7, Multiple Holes
Square/Diffuser Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Taper/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Taper/Diffuser Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Configuration A:Orifices
Beta = 0.5
Beta = 0.7
-
37 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Mea
n Fl
ow P
ress
ure
Loss
Coe
ffici
ent,
K
Normalized Velocity Oscillation at Bottle Flange or Orifice
Plate (urms/U)
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single HoleSquare/Square
Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Multiple HolesSquare/Square Orifice, Beta =
0.7, Single HoleSquare/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.7, Multiple
HolesSquare/Square No OrificeSquare/Diffuser Orifice, Beta = 0.5,
Single HoleTaper/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single
HoleTaper/Diffuser Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Configuration A:Bottle
Normalized Mean Flow Pressure Loss Coefficient (Bottle) – zoomed
in
-
38 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Theoretical K Factor for the Bottle with Square End
Treatments
K1
K2 K3
K4
K5
NPS 4, ID (d2) 4.026 in
Choke Tube ID (d1) 1.939 in
Vessel ID (D) 14.29 in
Choke tube (L) 26 in
Element Local K-FactorK-Factor
(Ref NPS4)
Entrance to Bottle, K1 0.85 0.85
Emtrance to Choke Tube (square), K2 0.49 9.11
Choke Tube (f=0.014), K3 0.19 3.49
Choke Tube Exit (square), K4 1.00 18.59
Entrance from Bottle to NPS4, K5 0.42 0.42
Sum (Overall K) 32.45
Measured K Factor 25
Bottle Theoretical K Coefficient
K is 21% lower than expected. Why?
-
39 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Thoughts about why the Measured K Factor for the Bottle is Lower
than Theoretical Value
Flow
-
40 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Quasi-Steady Hypothesis of Mean Flow Pressure Drop in the
Presence of Pulsating Flow
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Velo
city
(m/s
)
Pres
sure
Dro
p (k
Pa)
Time (s)
Freq (Hz) 27Omega (rad/s) 169.646T (s) 0.037037U (m/s) 16K
25Density (kg/m3) 40Mean DP, no pulsation (kPa) 128
Freq (Hz) 27Omega (rad/s) 169.646T (s) 0.037037U (m/s) 16K
25Density (kg/m3) 40Mean DP, no pulsation (kPa) 128
-
41 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Quasi-Steady Hypothesis of Mean Flow Pressure Drop in the
Presence of Pulsating Flow
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Velo
city
(m/s
)
Pres
sure
Dro
p (k
Pa)
Time (s)
Freq (Hz) 27Omega (rad/s) 169.646T (s) 0.037037U (m/s) 16K
25Density (kg/m3) 40Mean DP, no pulsation (kPa) 128
Freq (Hz) 27Omega (rad/s) 169.646T (s) 0.037037U (m/s) 16K
25Density (kg/m3) 40Mean DP, no pulsation (kPa) 128
-
42 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Quasi-Steady Hypothesis of Mean Flow Pressure Drop in the
Presence of Pulsating Flow
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Velo
city
(m/s
)
Pres
sure
Dro
p (k
Pa)
Time (s)
Freq (Hz) 27Omega (rad/s) 169.646T (s) 0.037037U (m/s) 16K
25Density (kg/m3) 40Mean DP, no pulsation (kPa) 128
Freq (Hz) 27Omega (rad/s) 169.646T (s) 0.037037U (m/s) 16K
25Density (kg/m3) 40Mean DP, no pulsation (kPa) 128
op
-
43 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Quasi-Steady Hypothesis of Mean Flow Pressure Drop in the
Presence of Pulsating Flow
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Velo
city
(m/s
)
Pres
sure
Dro
p (k
Pa)
Time (s)
Freq (Hz) 27Omega (rad/s) 169.646T (s) 0.037037U (m/s) 16K
25Density (kg/m3) 40Mean DP, no pulsation (kPa) 128
Mean Pressure DropWith Pulsation)
Freq (Hz) 27Omega (rad/s) 169.646T (s) 0.037037U (m/s) 16K
25Density (kg/m3) 40Mean DP, no pulsation (kPa) 128
-
44 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Quasi-Steady Hypothesis of Mean Flow Pressure Drop in the
Presence of Pulsating Flow
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Velo
city
(m/s
)
Pres
sure
Dro
p (k
Pa)
Time (s)
Freq (Hz) 27Omega (rad/s) 169.646T (s) 0.037037U (m/s) 16K
25Density (kg/m3) 40Mean DP, no pulsation (kPa) 128
Mean Pressure DropWith Pulsation)
Freq (Hz) 27Omega (rad/s) 169.646T (s) 0.037037U (m/s) 16K
25Density (kg/m3) 40Mean DP, no pulsation (kPa) 128
op
y = x2 + 1
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
K effe
ctiv
e/
K no-
puls
atio
n
urms/U
-
45 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
K effe
ctiv
e/
K no-
puls
atio
n
urms/U
Quasi-Steady Pressure Drop Relationship
Square/Square
Square/Diffuser
Taper/Square
Taper/Diffuser
Current Measurements of Mean Flow Pressure Loss Coefficient
(Representative of Suction Bottle)
-
46 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Normalized Mean Flow Pressure Loss Coefficient (Orifice) –
Referenced to NPS4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Mea
n Fl
ow P
ress
ure
Loss
Coe
ffici
ent,
K
Normalized Velocity Oscillation at Bottle Flange or Orifice
Plate (urms/U)
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Multiple Holes
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.7, Single Hole
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.7, Multiple Holes
Square/Diffuser Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Taper/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Taper/Diffuser Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Configuration A:Orifices
Ktheoretical (for β = 0.5) = 29.7
Ktheoretical (for β = 0.7) = 4.3
-
47 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Test Results (Configuration B)
-
48 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Configuration B Test Scope
For each of the sub-configuration and flow rate, a total of 10
tests were conducted at the following frequencies: 0, 11, 13, 15,
17, 22, 27, 31, 35, and 41 Hz. (Total for Configuration B = 160
Tests)
TestNumber of
Sonic NozzlesEnd Treatments Orifice β Hole(s)
1 3 and 6 Square/Square 1 -
1a 3 and 6 Square/Square 0.5 Single
1b 3 and 6 Square/Square 0.5 Multiple
1c 3 and 6 Square/Square 0.7 Single
1d 3 and 6 Square/Square 0.7 Multiple
2 3 and 6 Square/Diffuser 0.5 Single
3 3 and 6 Taper/Diffuser 0.5 Single
4 3 and 6 Taper/Square 0.5 Single
Configuration B Test Scope
-
49 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Normalized Pulsating Power Loss (Bottle)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Nor
mal
ized
Puls
atio
n Po
wer
Los
s (W
P/ρc
Aurm
s2)
Normalized Velocity Oscillation at Bottle Flange or Orifice
Plate (urms/U)
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Multihole
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.7, Single Hole
Square/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.7, Multihole
Square/Diffuser Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Taper/Square Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Taper/Diffuser Orifice, Beta = 0.5, Single Hole
Configuration B:Bottle
TGP St54 (Original Bottles)
TGP St54 (New Bottles)
-
50 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Current Measurements of Mean Flow Pressure Loss Coefficient
(Representative of Discharge Bottle)
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
K effe
ctiv
e/
K no-
puls
atio
n
urms/U
Quasi-Steady Pressure Drop Relationship
Square/Square
Square/Diffuser
Taper/Square
Taper/Diffuser
-
51 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Summary of Site Testing
1. Methodology: Successful in validating the Flow Energy
(acoustic power) methodology developed in Phase I.
2. Bottle: Differences measured between the bottle loss factor
in steady flow and fluctuating flow as compared to published data.
A 21% difference for steady flow, 5% for fluctuating flow in the
test rig.
3. Orifice: Loss factor for single hole vs multi hole agreed
well with published data. Some divergence at maximum test frequency
of 41 Hz. Additional testing to investigate higher frequencies.
4. Pulse Generator: could create sufficient pressure
fluctuations (2% of line) but flow fluctuations were lower than
high power compressor cylinder (urms/U
-
52 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
2014 Project Plan
Task Status
Field Test - Design test rig - Fabricate and Install - Execute
Test Plan - Data Analysis
Testing completed July 25 Data review and analysis 95%
completed.
Report Complete by end of 2014
Optional Scope: Testing on reciprocating compressor facility
Need a site: TGP Stn 54, lots of information from Phase 1. Other
site possible. Design test: - Fluctuation flow measurement -
Compressor performance (P-V curves) and
power measurements (torque, motor power)
-
53 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Suggestions for Future Work
Addition testing proposed at the TCPL site. Redesign of pulse
generator or test rig required to create high flow fluctuations.
CFD analysis of components.
4 possible journal publications resulting from the work
completed.
-
54 GMC Nashville Oct 5-8, 2014
Thank You and Acknowledgements
GMRC for Funding the Research Program PSC Oversight committee
Peerless Mfg. (Dave Breindel) for fabricating and donating the
Custom Bottle Design used in the present testing program. TCPL
(Thomas Robinson) for the in-kind contribution of the use
of the GDTF in Didsbury, Canada. The following individuals for
assisting in conducting the tests
and data analysis: ₋ Matthew Kindree, Alex Mantey (NRTC) ₋ Bill
Eckert, Mark DuBois, Mehdi Arjmand (Beta)
-
Predicting the Power Loss of Reciprocating Compressor
Manifolds
NOVA Research: Kamal K. Botros John Geerligs
Beta Machinery: Kelly Eberle Brian Howes Gordon Sun Russ Barss
Bryan Long
TransCanada: Thomas Robinson Peerless Mfg: Dave Breindel
PSC: Martin Hinchliff - chair Rainer Kurz Christine Scrivner
Steve O’toole Clint Lingel
Project Team:
Predicting the Power Loss of Reciprocating Compressor Manifolds
Project MotivationCompressor Performance CalculationCompressor
Performance CalculationPressure Drop Calculation… easy,
right?Challenges to IndustryHow important is power loss?Overall
Project ObjectivesOverall Project ObjectivesOutlineTest Setup at
TCPL’s GDTF in Didsbury, AlbertaPulse GeneratorTest Setup
DetailsCustom Bottle Design (donated by Peerless Mfg.)End
TreatmentsSlide Number 16Slide Number 17Photos of Configuration A
SetupSlide Number 19Slide Number 20Slide Number 21Slide Number
22Slide Number 23Slide Number 24Photos of Configuration B
SetupSlide Number 26Slide Number 27Slide Number 28Example of
Pulsating Pressure Measurements (Across the Bottle)Example of 1st
Harmonic Mapping�(Configuration A)Example of 1st Harmonic
Mapping�(Configuration B)Test Results�(Configuration
A)Configuration A Test ScopeNormalized Pulsating Power Loss
(Bottle)Normalized Velocity Oscillation urms/UNormalized Pulsating
Power Loss (Orifice)Normalized Mean Flow Pressure Loss Coefficient
(Bottle) – zoomed inTheoretical K Factor for the Bottle with Square
End TreatmentsThoughts about why the Measured K Factor for the
Bottle is Lower than Theoretical ValueQuasi-Steady Hypothesis of
Mean Flow Pressure Drop in the Presence of Pulsating
FlowQuasi-Steady Hypothesis of Mean Flow Pressure Drop in the
Presence of Pulsating FlowQuasi-Steady Hypothesis of Mean Flow
Pressure Drop in the Presence of Pulsating FlowQuasi-Steady
Hypothesis of Mean Flow Pressure Drop in the Presence of Pulsating
FlowQuasi-Steady Hypothesis of Mean Flow Pressure Drop in the
Presence of Pulsating FlowCurrent Measurements of Mean Flow
Pressure Loss Coefficient (Representative of Suction
Bottle)Normalized Mean Flow Pressure Loss Coefficient (Orifice) –
Referenced to NPS4Test Results�(Configuration B)Configuration B
Test ScopeNormalized Pulsating Power Loss (Bottle)Current
Measurements of Mean Flow Pressure Loss Coefficient (Representative
of Discharge Bottle)Summary of Site Testing2014 Project
PlanSuggestions for Future WorkThank You and
AcknowledgementsPredicting the Power Loss of Reciprocating
Compressor Manifolds