Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SPARKS
Assistant Director,
Department of A p p l i e d Physics,
Southwest Research Institute,
San Antonio, Texas
D. E. UNDGREN
Senior Research Engineer,
Tennessee Gas Pipeline C o m p a n y ,
Houston, Texas
Introduction
UNE OF the most severe pipeline noise problems insofar as sound intensity is concerned is that associated with highpressure blowoff S3'stems. Within the wide network of domestic
pipeline installations, blowdown valve locations range from
areas of almost complete isolation to locations where residential
areas have expanded to within a few hundred feet of the blowdown valve. The problems associated with blowdown noise
have increased steadily as rural areas adjacent to the right-ofway have become heavily populated. In order to avoid noise
annoyance problems arising from these blowdowns, the industry
has taken many steps ranging from moving blowoff valves outside populated areas to notifying residents well in advance of
planned blowdowns. In the latter case, residents at distances
up to one-half mile are notified and residents often leave home
until the blowdown is completed. Others, particularly those
who are unprepared for the noise, readily voice their annoyance
and objection.
In order to minimize community annoyance resulting from
blowdown noise, major pipeline companies have turned to the
development of blowoff silencers to predictably control generated
noise levels. Much of the work in this area was based upon research performed for the American Gas Association by Southwest Research Institute, and silencers were built and tested for
a wide range of applications within the industry.
One of the primaiy areas of concern was the development of a
portable blowoff silencer whose design could be generalized to
extend its applicability to the wide range of planned blowoff
applications. As such, it was desirable to obtain maximum noise
attenuation, but within the size and weight limitations of normally available field equipment to move the silencer from location
to location and place it on the blowdown valve. This paper
presents the theory of blowoff noise suppression, describes the
ENGINEERS.
Paper
MAY 1 97 1 / 695
Table 1
haust has been defined largely by observation. These observations are sufficient, however, to permit a definition of the dependency of generated noise on the controlling fluid parameters.
The source of acoustic energy in a flow stream is, of course, the
kinetic energy of the stream which may be defined as (U2/2)pUA, where (V-/2) is the kinetic energy per unit mass and
pUA is the mass flow rate of the stream. The efficiency of
conversion of this kinetic energy flux to sound power has been
shown to be proportional to the fifth power of Mach. number
CM6) and (when the jet is discharging into the atmosphere)
to the ratio of (p/po), where p is the flowing gas density and
po is ambient air density. Thus the total acoustic power of a
high velocity jet discharging into the atmosphere follows the
equation
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
300
400
528
339
213
152
107
53.7
27.2
(1)
Poc5
= 10 log Id ~
dB re lO" 1 2 watts
(2)
Poc"
Ft from Source
#2
42500
6780
2130
1070
p2Usd2
PWL
p*UaA
Poc6
dB re 0.0002 dyne/cm 2
fd
(3)
Table 1
DESCRIPTION
DETAIL
PREDICTED
FIELD
TEST
10 F T . S I L E N C E R
WITH
ORANGE
PEEL
DIFFUSER
17
25
10 F T . S I L E N C E R
WITH
ELLIPTICAL
WELD
CAP
DIFFUSER
17
18
6 FT. S I L E N C E R
ORANGE
PEEL
WITH
DIFFUSER
i . 3'. i
14
\n
696 / MAY
10 F T . S I L E N C E R
HEMISPHERICAL
CAP
DIFFUSER
WITH
WELD
HEMISPHERICAL
CAP
DIFFUSER
WELD
ONLY
17
23
10
197 1
Transactions of the AS ME
HIGH SHEAR
REGION,
SEVERE HIGH FREQUENCY
MIXING
MIXING L E N G T H '
5 - 2 0 DIAMETERS
^Sj( V ^ S H E A R
QUADRAPOLE
/\-s
"
QUADRAPOLE
PROPAGATION
PATTERN
Fig. 1
LARGE S C A L E
LOW
FREQUENCY
TURBULENCE
Blowoff Silencing
Since most blowoff noise predominates in the high frequency
portion of the spectrum, a logical approach to silencing it is
through the use of an absorbing section or lined duct as is sometimes used to suppress regulator noise. However, since the mixing region extends up to 25 pipe dia downstream, absorbing material should be applied along the entire mixing region,
and a rather cumbersome design would result. On the other
hand, if this jet is broken up into a series of smaller jets, or is
otherwise altered to produce full mixing in a shorter region, the
design and size requirements for an effective sound absorber are
considerably reduced. An effective silencer might then consist
of a jet diffuser at the inlet of the silencer in a relatively short
section, followed by an absorbing section immediately downstream to further attenuate the noise of the inlet jet and that
regenerated by the diffuser. In essence, this latter section of
the silencer is a sound stream absorber for the more stabilized,
lower velocity flow, and acoustical material is thereby more
effectively utilized than it would be without a diffuser (i.e., under
conditions of full inlet nozzle flow).
l)fc/(l-fc)j
lb/ft
(4)
,2
Fig. 2
Avpo
RT0
2/(A--ir
\k + lj\k
lb/sec
+ 1/
(5)
MAY
1 97 1 / 697
PIPELINE
PRESSURE, p . p s i c i
Fig. 3 Difference in open stack noise and that regenerated at silencer exhaust by turbulent
mixing of the discharge gas
a:
u m
a = 0.9
35
a=o.8
a =0.7
30
15 Q
oa o
25
8*
20
/ '
^j
~--T.L
= &i- 4 . 2 6
a
T
d2 '
3 a:
a: CQ
o n
J Q
1-'
SILENCER
LENGTH
TO
DIAMETER
RATIO f - f )
x
d2'
Fig. 4 Transmission loss due to diffuser and absorbing section for high-pressure cylindrical
silencer as shown in Fig. 1
Patm
)( k + 1
(6)
Transactions of the AS ME
).5F
i(sec)
Z0T0J
(7)
\Patm
where
V = pressurized volume, ft 3
A = constriction area (valve throat area X flow coefficient), ft 2
SO = specific gravity
Zo = supercompressibility factor (at pressure)
To = initial temperature, deg R
po = initial line pressure, psia
Patm = atmospheric pressure, psia
m
UJ
2:00
IN
2:30
453
3
HOURS
HOLES
/4"
C -
'-V' D I A .
AT
C.
Fig. 5 Approximate blowdown time for 30-in-OD pipeline with two 8in. blowoff valves
I8"0.D.
ORANGE
PEEL
453
45MIN.
20"O.D.
ELLIPTICAL
Blowdown Time
- W " DIA. H O L E S
AT
3 / 4 " O . C . IN A D J A C I E N T
ROWS
STAGGERED
WELD
CAP
12 H O R I Z O N T A L
!/4DIA. H O L E S
AND
3/4" APART
I8"0.D.
HEMISPHERICAL
Fig. 7
WELD
R O W S OF
@ 3/4 " C - C
(453)
CAP
130
120
BLO'W- >FF
Wl r H O U T
S1L ; N C E R -
>
UJ 1 0 0
a:
D
(/)
m
~
'*
,
90
f
'^]
80
E L L I >TICAL
. WEL ICAP
D I F F U : ER
*-*v
ORANG E
PEE L
D I F F U >ER
>v
'.
\
V
70
31.5
63
125
250
FREQUENCY
500
IN
CYCLES
PER
8000
16000
SECOND
ALL
PASS
Fig. 6 Noise levels comparing weldcap diffuser and a special fabricated orange peel
diffuser
MAY 1 97 1 / 699
130
_
-0
iao
BLOW-CFF
WITHOUT
SILENCER
..
__
J
no
S'
100
90
D1FFUSER
D
in
ONLY
\
\\
z
D
O
10
70
125
31.5
250
500
FREQUENCY
Fig. 8
IN
1000
2000
CYCLES
4000
PER
8000
16000
SECOND
ALL
PASS
120
B L O W - )FF W THOUT
SIL : N C E R -
110
a:
100
^ ^ f c ^
(/)
en
90
^c;
^ ,
,y
ITH
6F T. S I L I NCER
IN
PLACi
\
\>
80
70
31.5
63
125
250
FREQUENCY
Fig. 9
500
IN
2000
4000
PER
SECOND
8000
16000
ALL
PASS
Field Tests
A series of field tests were conducted in order to optimize
silencer design for the particular pipeline conditions under which
it was to be used. Prime requirements were lowest possible
weight and compactness as well as applicability to a wide range
of line pressures. Of particular interest in the tests, conducted
under typical field conditions, were predictability of noise reduction, optimizing transmission loss and regeneration loss,
shell wall thickness and diffuser design for maximum noise reduction without flow choking. Another goal of these tests was
a decision on the amount of noise attenuation actually needed.
This amount would vary at each valve location due to masking
noise, nearness of residents, etc. Results of these tests are
shown beginning with Fig. 6. A summary of measured and predicted noise reductions for these tests are given in Table 1 together with illustrations of basic configurations used.
Most previous silencer models fabricated according to the design techniques outlined herein utilized a perforated capped pipe
diffuser and field results show a 7 to 9 dB reduction from the
diffuser itself. During the present field tests three other dif700 / M A Y
1000
CYCLES
19 7 1
3 6 " O. D.
FT
-LIFTING
MAX . OPERATING
PRESSURE 750PSI
W/42 % M A X I M U M
OPENING 8"VALVE
LUG
- 3 6 " O . D . X.375"W.T.
GR. " B u PIPE
r*
-EXPANDED
METAL
-INSULATION
MATERIAL
8 " - 6 0 0 * R.F.W.N.
FLANGE
3"ADJUSTABLE
PIPE
LEG
Fig. 10
130
120
B L O W - IFF
W THOUT
SIL :NCER-
"7
x
y no
too
^i
m
m
S 90
'
, ^
s
a
z
ONE
01 14
FABRIC. M E D
\\
^ -
80
SI .ENCER S
10
SPE . I F I C A T ONS
D
O
CO
\\
\>
70
31.5
63
125
250
FREQUENCY
Fig. 11
500
IN
CYCLES
PER
8000
SECOND
16000
ALL
PASS
t = thickness, in.
/ = center frequency of band for which TL is defined.
Fig. 9 shows data for a silencer of similar design except that
total length was reduced from 10 ft to 6 ft. Under field conditions, measured noise reduction was 14 dB, compared to a predicted 14 dB. While agreement with theory is good, reduction
afforded by the 6-ft model is substantially below the 10-ft version
MAY 1 9 7 1 / 701
A further series of tests were conducted on one of these to define its noise and flow characteristics. Noise test data are given
in Fig. 11, showing a total overall attenuation of 23 dB. Flow
parameters are shown superimposed on Fig. 10 and measured
velocity profile is shown in Fig. 12. I t seems apparent that regenerated level could be dropped further by changing diffuser
hole pattern or hole orientation to better equalize flow profile
across the cross section.
\
\
1
/
w^
0
Fig. 12
10
/
1
Conclusions
Major conclusions from the studies are as follows:
r^'
15
INCHES
20
25
30
References
1 Damewood, Glenn, Sparks, Cecil R., et al., "Blowoff Noise
Suppression and Regulator Valve Noise Generation," Noise Abatement at Gas Pipeline Installations, Vol. I l l , American Gas Association,
Catalog No. 39/PR, Nov. 1961.
2 Sparks, Cecil R., "Design of High-Pressure Blowoff Silencers,"
JASA, Vol. 34, No. 5, May 1962.
Transactions of the AS ME