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

net/publication/330845303

Steady-state optimization operation of the west-east gas pipeline

Article  in  Advances in Mechanical Engineering · January 2019

DOI: 10.1177/1687814018821746

CITATION READS

1 4

5 authors, including:

Enbin Liu
Southwest Petroleum University
38 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

pipe jet noise View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Enbin Liu on 04 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Numerical Simulation and Novel Construction Methods in Oil and Gas Engineering -
Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2019, Vol. 11(1) 1–14
Ó The Author(s) 2019
Steady-state optimization operation of DOI: 10.1177/1687814018821746
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
the west–east gas pipeline

Enbin Liu1,2 , Liuxin Lv2, Qian Ma2, Jianchao Kuang1 and Lu Zhang2

Abstract
A pipeline operation optimization model with minimum energy consumption as the objective function was established
based on the dynamic programming method. The model was applied to a 3840 km gas pipeline whose designed pipeline
capacity was 170 3 108 t/a. There were 40 stations in the line, including 22 compressor stations and 32 compressors.
The solution time was controlled within 60 s to show that the algorithm was fast and effective. The number of starting-
up compressors in the optimized scheme is two more than that in the actual operation scheme, and the total pressure
drop of the pipeline decreased by 3.40 MPa, the average efficiency of the gas turbine units increased by 4.234%, the aver-
age efficiency of the electric drive units increased by 4.875%, and the power decreased by 18,720.38 kW, confirming the
validity and feasibility of the optimization model.

Keywords
Dynamic programming, energy consumption, gas pipeline, operation optimization

Date received: 18 September 2018; accepted: 3 December 2018

Handling Editor: Hongfang Lu

Introduction mathematical models were steady state, taking the low-

The goal of gas transmission pipeline operation optimi-
zation is to minimize the energy consumption and flow
noise of the pipeline system and maximize the pipeline
throughput. However, this is very difficult to achieve,
because more gas requires higher pressure and more
compressor energy consumption and creates greater
flow noise.1,2,3 For a long gas pipeline, the main
expense is the running cost of the compressor stations.
Studies have shown that the energy consumption of the
compressors is more than 50% of the total energy con-
sumption of a pipeline.4,5 However, optimization meth-
ods can be used to direct the operation of compressor
stations so that the economy of this part is improved,
lowering the cost of the entire pipeline system and max-
imizing the gas pipeline filling on the premise of safety.
In the 1960s, the United States and some countries
in Europe began research on optimizing the operation
of gas transmission pipelines. The original
est energy consumption of a compressor as the objec-
tive function, and the optimal operation plan of
compressors was determined through a set of optimiza-
tion calculations. PJ Wong and RE Larson6 started the
use of dynamic programming in 1968 to solve the mod-
eling of gas pipeline operation optimization. Over the
next decades, several studies on pipeline optimization
modeling were done, both in China and in overseas.
1
Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu, China
2
Petroleum Engineering School, Southwest Petroleum University,
Chengdu, China
Corresponding author:
Enbin Liu, Petroleum Engineering School, Southwest Petroleum
University, No. 8, Xindu Road, Xindu District, Chengdu 610500, Sichuan,
China.
Email: sunriselebpsb@163.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
1. Objective function: In pipeline optimization, the
objective function is usually the maximum
throughput,7 the maximum filling of the pipe-
line,8,9 or the lowest pipeline energy consump-
tion.10,13 Of these, the latter is the most common
focus. In this study, the operation conditions of
a gas pipeline were optimized using the lowest
energy consumption as the objective function.
2. Constraint condition: There are usually three
kinds: inequality constraints, equality con-
straints, and compressor constraints. Inequality
constraints are used to limit the flow, pressure,
and temperature of a pipe within a specific
range.11 Equality constraints are governing
equations of gas flow in the pipeline, including
a mass conservation equation, a pressure equa-
tion, and a temperature equation.10 Compressor
constraints were first established based on ideal
compressor assumptions, which ignored the
nonlinear relations between the pressure head,
power, efficiency, compression ratio, and flow
of a compressor. Wu et al.12 and Liu et al.13
built up a set of polynomials including surge
curves and stagnation curves to describe feasible
regions that overcame the shortcomings of
the ideal compressor model. Sanaye and
Mahmoudimehr14 promoted their compressor
constraints by considering correction para-
meters relevant to the ambient temperatures,
component load running, and excess operations
of compressors, which were more likely to rep-
resent actual compressor operation. In addition
to the operation parameters of a compressor,
the operation state (on or off) is also an essen-
tial parameter to be optimized, especially for a
system with a set of compressors.15
3. Optimization variables: Optimization variables
are arguments of an optimization model, which
generally consist of pressure, temperature of
each node, flow rate of each unit (pipe and com-
pressor), and the running state and efficiency of
each compressor. The pressure, temperature,
and efficiency of a compressor are continuous,
whereas the running state of a compressor is
discrete.16–18
Over the past decades, experts have promoted many
algorithms to solve the pipeline optimization problem.
Dynamic programming, generalized reduced gradient,
and linear programming were the most common. But
dynamic programming became the most successful
algorithm for solving this kind of problem because of
its advantages of ensuring global optimization and easy
handling of nonlinear situations.19–23
After years of effort by experts, many algorithms are
now available to create natural gas pipeline
optimization models, but research on and energy
consumption models of gas pipelines with very large
compressors based on dynamic programming is insuffi-
cient. In our research, based on the characteristics of
long distances and multiple compressor stations, an
optimal operating plan was determined that accommo-
dated the actual conditions of a pipeline. By taking a
gas pipeline as an example, we created a relevant
dynamic programming optimization model whose
results have shown its feasibility.
Modeling and method
Modeling
Objective function. Our objective function reflected the
objectives of pipeline operations. In the actual situa-
tion, the lowest energy consumption is taken as the
objective function, and because it consists mainly of the
energy consumption of compressor stations, the objec-
tive function can be the minimum sum of that energy
consumption
m X
X n  
min F = fi kij , Qij , Pdi ð1Þ
i=1 j=1
where F is the total energy consumption of all compres-
sor stations; fi is the energy consumption of the ith com-
pressor station, i = 1, 2, 3,., m; kij is the switch state
of the jth compressor in the ith compressor station,
where kij = 0 means no power on, and kij = 1 means
power on; Qij is the flow rate of the jth compressor in
the ith compressor station in m3/s (it is divided evenly
when the compressor configuration in the station is the
same); and Pdi is the outbound pressure of the ith com-
pressor station in MPa.
Optimization variables. The outbound pressure and the
running state of the compressors are directly related to
the objective function of the optimization model. The
energy consumption of a compressor depends on its
compression ratio, flow rate, and temperature, but
when the inlet condition of the compressor station is
known, the energy consumption can be simplified as a
function of compression ratio and temperature. The
inlet and outlet temperatures of a compressor also
depend on its compression ratio, so the optimization
variables can be set to be the compression ratio that
optimizes the outbound pressure. As a result, we set the
optimization variables of the pipeline optimization
model to be the number of powered-on compressors
and the outbound pressure of a typical compressor
station
 
X = Pdi , kij ð2Þ
Liu et al.
Constraint conditions. To ensure the operation security of
the pipeline and equipment, the process parameters
must be restricted within a certain range that meets the
constraint conditions of the model.
Flow rate constraints. The amount of gas can change in
only a certain range, which is
Qi min ł Qi ł Qi max ði = 1, 2, . . . , Nn Þ
where Qi is the intake (partial) volume of node i in m3/s,
Qi min is the minimum intake (partial) volume allowed by
node i in m3/s, and Qi max is the maximum intake (partial)
volume allowed by node i in m3/s.
Node pressure constraints. The pressure of each natu-
ral gas pipeline node must be limited based on the ter-
minal demands, thus
Pi min ł Pi ł Pi max ði = 1, 2, . . . , Nn Þ
where Pi is the node i pressure in MPa, Pi min is the min-
imum pressure allowed by node i in MPa, and Pi max is
the maximum pressure allowed by node i in MPa.
Pipe stress constraints. When there are Np pipes in the
gas pipeline system, for the sake of pipeline safety, the
pressure in pipe k must be less than the maximum
allowable operating pressure, which is
 
Pk ł Pk max k = 1, 2, . . . , Np
where Pk is the pressure of natural gas in pipeline k in
MPa, and Pk max is the maximum pressure allowed in
pipeline k in MPa.
Flow equilibrium constraints. Because of the conserva-
tion of mass, for each pipe node, the gas mass flow into
and out of the node should be consistent. Generally, for
a gas pipeline system with Nn nodes, the gas flow bal-
ance equation of nodes can be written as
X
Nn
aik Mik + Qi = 0
k2Ci
i=1
where Ci is a collection of components connected to
node i, Mik is the absolute value of the flow in (or out)
from the ith node of the connected component k, Qi is
the flow exchanged between node i and the outside
world (inflow is positive and outflow is negative), and
aik is the coefficient (when the flow from k components
flows into the i node, it is + 1; when it flows out of the
i node, it is 21).
Compressor performance constraints. The compressor
power equation is
3
ð3Þ
Figure 1. Compressor head characteristic curve.
MH
N= ð7Þ
ð4Þ h
where M is the overflow rate of the compressor in kg/s,
H is the polytropic head of the compressor, and h is the
efficiency of the compressor.
The head curve is calculated according to
 H = h1 S 2 + h2 SQ + h3 Q2 ð8Þ
where h1, h2, and h3 are the fitting coefficients of the
head curve, S is the speed of the compressor, and Q is
the actual overflow rate of the compressor in m3/d.
ð5Þ
The efficiency curve is calculated according to
H
= e1 S 2 + e2 SQ ð9Þ
h
where e1 and e2 are the fitting coefficients of the power
curve.
The buzz curve is calculated according to
Qsurge = s1 + s2 H ð10Þ
where Qsurge is the surging flow in m3/d, and s1 and s2
are the fitting coefficients of the buzz curve.
ð6Þ
The stagnation curve is calculated according to
Qstone = s3 + s4 H ð11Þ
where Qstone is the stagnation flow in m3/d, and s3 and
s4 are the fitting coefficients of the stagnation curve.
Equations (7)–(11) are plotted in Figure 1, forming a
closed area. This area is the operating area of the com-
pressor. Using the online test software of the Beijing
Oil & Gas Pipeline Control Center, we obtained the
actual running data of the compressor in real time, and
then corrected and fitted the curve of the compressor to
obtain the actual running of the compressor curve
(Figure 1), which had rarely been considered before.
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 2. Schematic of dynamic programming stage.

Compressor power constraints. The power of every
compressor (station) was limited to the characteristics
of the compressor
Nj min ł Nj ł Nj max ðj = 1, 2, . . . , Nc Þ
where Nj is the power of the jth compressor (station) in
W, Nj min is the minimum power of the jth compressor
(station) allowed in W, and Nj max is the maximum
power of the jth compressor (station) allowed in W.
the phase) was the outbound pressure (Pd, k1 ) (k  2)
of station k – 1, and the stage effect Vk was the energy
consumption of station k. Taking the total energy con-
sumption of the pipeline as the optimization objective,
ð12Þ the dynamic programming model for the operation
optimization of each compressor station of the pipeline
can be established:
Stage variables
xk = Pd, k1 , k = 2;m + 1 ð14Þ

Outlet temperature constraints. The outlet temperature Decision variables

of every compressor was restricted
dk = ek , k = 1;m ð15Þ
Td ł Td max ð13Þ
Stage evolution equation
where Td max is the maximum outbound temperature of
compressor station (K). xk + 1 = Tk ðxk , dk Þ, k = 1;m ð16Þ
Stage effect
Method for modeling based on dynamic
programming Vk = Ck ðxk + 1 , dk Þ, k = 1;m ð17Þ

Dynamic programming is one of the most important Objective function

solutions to pipeline optimization. It developed quickly
with improvements in computer science. In this study, X
k
V1, k ½xk + 1 , P1, k ðxk + 1 Þ = Ci ðxi + 1 , di Þ, k = 1;m
dynamic programming was innovatively applied to i=1
long-distance natural gas transmission pipeline opera-
ð18Þ
tion optimization, which had not been done in previous
studies. Optimal objective function

Dynamic programming. When the distribution branch f k ðx k + 1 Þ = min V1, k ½xk + 1 , P1, k ðxk + 1 Þ, k = 1;m
P1, k ðxk + 1 Þ
pipes along a gas pipeline are simplified to discharge
ð19Þ
nodes, the operation of the pipeline can be regarded as
a multistage process; hence, dynamic programming is Function recurrence equation
eligible for optimizing compressor stations along the
pipeline, as shown in Figure 2. fk ðxk + 1 Þ= min ffk1 ðxk Þ+Ck ðxk + 1 , dk Þg, k = 1;m
dk 2Dgk ðxk + 1 Þ
We established the dynamic programming model of
the optimal configuration of each compressor station ð20Þ
in the pipeline as equations (14)–(22) after setting the
Initial conditions
number of compressors as m and considering the gas
transmission process between the compressor station x1 = Pd, 0 ðSupply pressure of gas sourceÞ ð21Þ
k – 1 and station k as stage k of the problem. In that
problem, the state variable xk (for the starting state of and
Liu et al.
Figure 3. Flowchart of the pipeline operation optimization dynamic programming algorithm.
f 0 ðx 1 Þ = 0
where Pd, k is the outbound pressure at the kth station
and Dgk ðxk + 1 Þ is the kth phase corresponding to the
allowed decision set of its endpoint state xk + 1.
Solution. The solution to dynamic programming applied
to the pipeline optimization model comprises four main
parts: (1) state space determination, (2) recurrence
5
ð22Þ between stations, (3) recurrence within stations, and (4)
a backtracking algorithm, as shown in Figure 3.
Case study
Operation program optimization
The total length of the west–east gas pipeline we stud-
ied was 3840 km. The designed pipeline capacity was
170 3 108 t/a and the pipe diameter was 1016 mm. The
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 4. Length of pipe between each compressor station and number of compressors in each station.

Table 1. Compressor characteristic curve coefficients.

Station number h1 h2 h3 e1 e2 s1 s2 s3 s4

13 20.000458 20.000341 0.000067 20.001470 0.000150 5630 0.387 10,100 1.36

15 20.001190 0.000161 0.000042 20.001450 0.000317 3610 0.149 4640 0.554
16 20.000458 20.000341 0.000067 20.001470 0.000150 5630 0.387 10,100 1.36
17 20.000597 0.000079 0.000008 20.000701 0.000119 5050 0.481 8510 1.59
19 20.000529 20.000362 0.000129 20.001260 0.000213 3340 0.265 6020 0.84

In this study, the curves for pressure head, pressure

Figure 5. Multipoint injection volume and distribution volume.
pipe length between each compressor station and the
number of compressors in each station are shown in
Figure 4.
head/efficiency, surge flow, stagnation flow, speed, and
flows of centrifugal compressors were fitted with actual
field operation data. The centrifugal compressors of
stations 13, 15, 16, 17, and 19 were selected for fitting
calculation. The coefficient values in equations (8)–(11)
are shown in Table 1.
The daily operation report of a pipeline is the practi-
cal operation plan that can be acquired from the pro-
duction daily report. Basing our work on the daily
operation report of the west–east gas pipeline, to evalu-
ate the effectiveness of the model, we generated the
optimum operation programs and compared them with
the appointed programs in the daily report. The trans-
porting conditions and the injection and distribution
volume of each station were demonstrated. As shown
in Figure 5, there were 5 stations with gas injection and
20 stations distributing gas from the main stream to
branches. The first station’s pitted temperature was
15°C and pitted pressure was 6.5 MPa.
Liu et al. 7

Table 2. Daily operation report of each compressor station in the case.

Station Number of Pitted Outbound Pitted Outbound Driving type Unit Power
number starting-up pressure pressure temperature temperature efficiency (kW)
compressors (MPa) (MPa) (°C) (°C) (%)

1 2 6.50 9.60 15.00 50.00 Gas turbine 18.5 22,085.62

2 1 7.40 9.60 8.25 46.40 Gas turbine 20.9 12,154.72
3 1 8.01 9.60 11.19 36.02 Gas turbine 20.3 6227.12
4 1 7.79 9.60 7.32 47.71 Gas turbine 20.5 9640.90
5 1 7.44 9.60 8.75 39.66 Gas turbine 17.7 13,732.41
6 1 8.30 9.60 10.20 32.82 Gas turbine 19.8 4867.49
7 1 7.37 9.60 8.53 32.86 Gas turbine 20.0 12,602.96
8 1 8.04 9.60 8.13 37.22 Gas turbine 20.3 8068.03
9 1 7.56 9.60 8.71 31.16 Gas turbine 17.5 6431.34
Motor 55.0
10 1 7.74 9.54 6.70 45.68 Gas turbine 20.7 9360.03
11 1 7.57 9.60 10.48 35.05 Gas turbine 19.6 11,469.92
12 0 8.54 8.54 11.91 11.91 Gas turbine 0 0
13 1 7.03 9.60 6.20 28.52 Gas turbine 23.7 12,407.30
15 1 8.38 9.50 7.28 36.59 Gas turbine 22.3 4778.48
16 2 6.17 9.61 8.48 38.31 Gas turbine 23.5 22,190.25
17 1 7.67 9.69 13.25 36.34 Gas turbine 23.5 11,277.80
19 1 7.52 9.62 11.27 38.88 Gas turbine 23.5 11,666.51
20 1 7.34 9.10 12.53 36.29 Motor 59.3 12,855.52
22 1 6.36 9.23 10.85 36.27 Gas turbine 23.9 17,920.78
24 1 6.84 9.42 10.46 46.94 Motor 72.9 14,806.21
26 1 7.20 9.29 9.70 29.65 Motor 75.1 9299.43
29 1 5.93 8.23 5.42 24.38 Gas turbine 23.5 11,652.61

Daily operation report (the practical operation
program). We obtained the process parameters of each
station in the case from the practical operation report,
as shown in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, in the actual operation scheme,
the total number of starting stations of the compressors
was 23—at least one for every station listed, except for
compressor station 12. All the other compressor sta-
tions were in the starting state, of which only stations 1
and 16 opened two compressors. For a compressor sta-
tion driven by a gas turbine, unit efficiency refers to the
combined efficiency of the gas turbine and the com-
pressor. For a compressor station driven by a motor,
unit efficiency refers to the combined efficiency of the
electric drive and the compressor. The average effi-
ciency of a gas turbine unit was 21.09%, the average
efficiency of a motor-driven unit was 65.58%, the total
pressure drop was 44.67 MPa, and the total power was
245,495.4 kW. In actual operation, the energy con-
sumption was high, the pressure drop was large, the
unit efficiency was low, and there was still much room
for optimization.
Optimized operation program. After calculations, we
obtained the optimum operation program shown in
Table 3. In the optimum program, stations 4, 8, and 12
were powered off; for stations 3, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17,
19, and 20, a total of nine stations, outbound pressures
were all 9.8 MPa, which was the design pressure of the
pipeline.
Number of starting-up compressors, Power of com-
pressor units, pitted and outbound pressure of each sta-
tion, pressure drop along the pipeline, average
efficiency of the driving device are compared in the
daily operation report and the optimized operation
scheme, as shown in Figures 6–10.
In the actual operation scheme, there were 23
starting-up compressors. In the optimization operation
scheme, there were 25 starting-up compressors: one
compressor was added to stations 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10,
and one compressor was removed from stations 1, 4,
and 8.
According to the daily operation report, the total
power used was 245,495.4 kW, and the total power
used in the optimization scheme was 226,775.1 kW.
The optimization scheme reduced the power used by
18,720.3 kW, or 7.6%. The power used by stations 1, 4,
8, 13, 16, 22, 24, and 29 decreased substantially, and
the optimization results were obvious.
After optimization, the outbound pressures of sta-
tions 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 13 fell. In stations 4, 8, 11, 12, 13,
16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, and 29, the pressures increased
(the pitted pressure was low in station 5 because of a
pressure crossing), thereby reducing the energy con-
sumption of the compressors.
In the daily operation report, the total pressure drop
of the pipeline was 46.46 MPa, whereas in the
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 3. Optimized operation scheme of the case.

Station Number of Pitted Outbound Pitted Outbound Driving Unit Power

number starting-up pressure pressure temperature temperature type efficiency (kW)
compressors (MPa) (MPa) (°C) (°C) (%)

1 1 6.50 9.08 15.00 43.92 Gas turbine 23.7 15,356.19

2 2 6.72 9.43 7.72 36.25 Gas turbine 23.5 15,144.34
3 1 7.86 9.80 9.69 28.14 Gas turbine 23.9 9291.68
4 0 8.14 8.14 6.78 6.78 Gas turbine – –
5 2 5.68 9.41 5.15 48.17 Gas turbine 23.7 23,151.83
6 1 8.07 9.46 11.12 24.34 Gas turbine 23.5 6782.50
7 2 7.29 9.80 7.40 32.21 Gas turbine 23.5 12,900.89
8 0 8.37 8.37 8.00 8.00 Gas turbine – –
9 2 6.17 9.15 5.32 38.56 Gas turbine 23.5 8852.01
Motor 74.0
10 2 7.19 9.80 6.91 32.84 Gas turbine 23.6 13,620.97
11 1 8.00 9.80 8.78 25.73 Gas turbine 18.9 10,749.27
12 0 8.87 8.87 9.76 9.76 Gas turbine – –
13 1 7.45 9.32 5.81 24.31 Gas turbine 23.6 9438.34
15 1 8.15 9.80 6.73 21.95 Gas turbine 23.2 9310.21
16 2 6.94 9.80 6.91 35.96 Gas turbine 23.5 18,081.05
17 1 8.07 9.80 12.50 28.93 Gas turbine 23.2 10,192.83
19 1 7.92 9.80 9.68 27.47 Gas turbine 23.4 10,817.19
20 1 7.83 9.80 9.94 28.73 Motor 61.9 13,790.17
22 1 7.63 9.59 9.48 28.71 Gas turbine 23.7 11,545.28
24 1 7.71 9.43 9.11 25.88 Motor 70.8 10,087.37
26 1 7.58 9.49 7.26 25.90 Motor 75.1 8934.04
29 1 6.67 8.34 5.31 23.72 Gas turbine 23.1 8728.89

After optimization, the efficiency of each station’s

Figure 6. Comparison of the numbers of starting-up
compressors.
optimization plan, the total pressure drop of the pipe-
line was 43.06 MPa; the optimized scheme reduced the
total pressure drop by 3.4MPa compared with the
actual scheme. The pressure drops of pipeline sections
3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 + 18, 19, 20 + 21, 22 + 23,
24 + 25, and 26 + 27 + 28 decreased markedly.
units was substantially improved. Except for station 11,
the average efficiency of the gas-driven units was over
23%, and the average efficiency of the motor-driven
units was over 70%. The average efficiency of the gas-
driven units increased by 4.234% and that of the
motor-driven units increased by 4.875%, which sub-
stantially reduced energy consumption.
As illustrated in the comparison charts above, the
optimization program optimized the number of
starting-up compressors at some compressor stations,
the inlet and outlet pressures of stations, and so forth.
The average pressure between stations was higher, and
the pressure drop of most pipeline section was less. The
total pressure drop in the actual operation scheme is
46.46MPa, and the total pressure drop in the optimized
scheme is 43.06MPa. The total pressure drop in the
optimized scheme is significantly lower than that in the
actual operation scheme, which proves the feasibility
and validity of the model and the solution method.
Estimation and comparison of optimum energy
consumption
To compare and analyze the energy consumption of the
pipeline, equations (23) and (24) were adopted to calcu-
late its energy and gas consumption, and equation (25)
was adopted to convert that consumption into standard
coal consumption. The results are shown in Figures 11
and 12.13
Liu et al. 9

Figure 7. Power comparison between actual operation and optimized operation.

Figure 8. Comparison of inlet and outlet pressures.

10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 9. Comparison of pressure drops between daily operation report and optimized operation scheme.
Note: section number ‘‘13 + 14’’ refers to pipelines 13 and 14 between the two compressor stations.

Based on the Chinese National Standard GB 52589-

2008, the energy consumption of a pipeline is estimated
by the indicators, such as gas consumption, power con-
sumption, production consumption and gas unit con-
sumption, power unit consumption, production unit
consumption.
Gas consumption13 and power consumption are cal-
culated by equations (23) and (24)

X
n
Ni ti
Wg = ge ð23Þ
i=1
hgi

X
n
Ni ti
We = ð24Þ
i=1
hei

where We is the power consumption in kWh, Wg is the

gas consumption in m3, n is the number of compressors,
Ni is the shaft power of the ith compressor in kW, ti is
the running time of the ith compressor in h, hei is the
drive motor efficiency of the ith compressor, is the tur- Figure 10. Comparison of average efficiency between daily
operation report and optimization operation scheme.
bine efficiency of the ith compressor, and ge is the gas
loss rate of the gas turbine in N m3/(kWh).
Hence, the total energy consumption is
where F is the production unit consumption of the
Wg v 1 + We v 2 pipeline in kgce/(107 N m3 km), v1 is the gas coal con-
F= ð25Þ version coefficient based on the Chinese National
Tur
Liu et al.
Figure 11. Comparison of total energy consumption.
Standard GB 2589-81 of 1.33 kgce/m3, v2 is the electric
coal conversion coefficient based on GB 2589-81 of
0.1229 kgce/(kWh), and Tur is the turnover in
107 N m3 km.
Figures 11 and 12 directly reflect that every energy
consumption index was decreased after optimization,
which confirms the feasibility and validity of the opti-
mization model. Compared with the daily operation
report, the optimization scheme reduced total gas con-
sumption by 527.45 (104 N m3), total electricity con-
sumption by 406.69 (104 kWh), total production energy
consumption by 7515.25 tce, and total energy consump-
tion by 8.65%. Therefore, the optimized operation plan
can save much energy.
Compared with the daily operation report, the optimi-
zation scheme reduced gas consumption by 11.39 (N m3/
(107 N m3km), electricity consumption by 8.78 (kWh/
(107 N m3km), and production consumption by
16.24 (kgce/(107 N m3km)). The length of the west–east
gas pipeline, the number of stations, the volume of trans-
mission, and the number of compressors are large. The
proposed optimization program can reduce much energy
consumption and have great economic benefits.
Discussion
Table 4 shows that PJ Wong started to use dynamic
programming to solve the gas pipeline operation
11
optimization problem for small gas pipelines in 1968.
As can be seen in the table, for many years, more and
more experts began to use dynamic programming to
optimize the energy consumption of gas pipelines.
However, one limitation was that the pipelines studied
were too small (few compressor stations and few com-
pressors). Also, some scholars had different views on
the actual operation of a compressor.
Basing our work on our predecessors, in this study,
we used the dynamic programming method to optimize
the energy consumption of a large gas pipeline. The
description of the compressors was in line with engi-
neering practice. (The total length of the pipeline was
3840 km. There were 40 stations in the line, including
22 compressor stations and 32 compressors.) Such a
large-scale, long-distance pipeline model can be solved
in 60 s (a small increase in size can add tens of times
more work and computation). The algorithm was fast
and effective. Moreover, the compressor description
combined with the field data measured by the online
testing software of the Beijing Oil & Gas Control
Center was used to correct the fitting curve, making it
consistent with the actual operation of the compressor.
This had a more advanced and practical value com-
pared with previous treatments of the compressor,
which used only a simple curve equation and ignored
the actual operation. This also distinguishes our study
from previous work.
12 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 12. Comparison of unit energy consumption.

Table 4. Research progress of dynamic programming.

Year Author Scale of gas pipeline Compressor description

1968 PJ Wong and 26 km gas pipeline, 10 compressor stations Compressor energy head equation
RE Larson6
1990 HS Lall and – The way to characterize the performance of a
PB Percell24 compressor is polytropic head and polytropic efficiency
2002 SZ Gao25 1000 km gas pipeline, 7 compressor The working condition was calculated according to
stations, 14 compressors the characteristic curve of centrifugal compressor
2011 D Danilovic26 71.4 km gas pipeline, no compressor station –
2015 X Zhang et al.19 1800 km gas pipeline, 8 compressor Defined by its maximum speed, minimum speed,
stations, 27 compressors, surge line, and stone line
2 sources, and 4 delivery points
2016 J Zhang27 150 km gas pipeline, 10 compressor stations Compressor constraints were mainly feasible domain
constraints and pressure, temperature, and flow of
the nonlinear function of the relation
2017 HA Behrooz28 420 km gas pipeline, 3 compressor stations, Surge line, choke line, maximum allowable speed, and
9 compressors minimum required speed were the four constraints
imposed by the compressor wheel map
2018 PE Du29 1631 km gas pipeline, 7 compressor stations, The characteristic curve of the original compressor
27 compressors factory was numeralized by the variable speed
quadratic fitting technology based on the least squares
principle
2018 E Liu et al. 3840 km gas pipeline, 22 compressor stations, The curve of the compressor was corrected and fitted
(this paper) 32 compressors, according to the online test software of the Beijing
5 injection stations, and 20 distribution stations Oil & Gas Control Center. The compressor’s operating
area is shown in Figure 1
Liu et al.
Conclusion
An energy consumption optimization model of a gas
pipeline is proposed. The model was applied to a gas
pipeline of 3840 km whose designed pipeline capacity
was 170 3 108 t/a. There were 40 stations in the line,
including 22 compressor stations and 32 compressors.
The object was to optimize the pipeline’s energy con-
sumption. An optimum operation plan was obtained
with specific pipeline throughput, and the solution time
was controlled to within 60 s to show that the algorithm
was fast and effective. The pipe pressures and operation
energy consumption of the model and the real pipeline
were compared, and the results can be summarized as
follows: For the optimized operation plan, the pipe
pressure drop was 3.4 MPa less, the average efficiency
of the gas-driven units increased by 4.234%, the aver-
age efficiency of the motor-driven units increased by
4.875%, the power decreased by 18,720.38 kW, and the
production energy consumption decreased by 8.65%.
The effectiveness of the optimization method proposed
in this article shows that it can be applied in engineering
practice.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This work was supported by the special fund of Key
Technology Project of Safety Production of Major Accident
Prevention and Control (sichuan-0002-2016AQ, sichuan-
0013-2016AQ), Open Fund Project of Sichuan Key
Laboratory of Oil and Gas Fire Fighting (YQXF201603 and
YQXF201604) and Applied Basic Research Project of
Sichuan Province (19YYJC1078).
ORCID iD
Enbin Liu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8624-836X
References
1. Liu E, Peng S and Yang T. Noise-silencing technology
for upright venting pipe jet noise. Adv Mech Eng 2018;
10: 1–15.
2. Liu EB, Yan SK and Peng SB. Noise silencing technol-
ogy for manifold flow noise based on ANSYS fluent. J
Nat Gas Sci Eng 2016; 29: 322–328.
3. Liu EB, Yan SK, Peng SB, et al. Large eddy simulation
and FW-H acoustic analogy of flow-induced noise in
elbow pipe. J Comput Theor Nanosci 2016; 12: 2866–2873.
4. Luongo C, Gilmour B and Schroeder D. Optimization in
natural gas transmission networks: a tool to improve
13
operational efficiency. In: Proceedings of the 3rd SIAM
conference, Boston, USA, 1989.
5. Peng S, Liu E, Xian W, et al. Dynamic simulation of an
underground gas storage injection-production network. J
Environ Biol 2015; 36: 799–806.
6. Wong PJ and Larson RE. Optimization of natural-gas
pipeline systems via dynamic programming. IEEE T
Autom Control 1968; 13: 475–481.
7. Alinia Kashani AH and Molaei R. Techno-economical
and environmental optimization of natural gas network
operation. Chem Eng Res Des 2014; 92: 2106–2122.
8. Sun CK, Uraikul V, Chan CW, et al. Integrated expert
system/operations research approach for the optimiza-
tion of natural gas pipeline operations. Eng Appl Artif
Intell 2000; 13: 465–475.
9. Üster H and Dilaveroğlu S x. Optimization for design and
operation of natural gas transmission networks. Appl
Energ 2014; 133: 56–69.
10. Tabkhi F, Pibouleau L, Hernandez-Rodriguez G, et al.
Improving the performance of natural gas pipeline net-
works fuel consumption minimization problems. AIChE
J 2010; 56: 946–964.
11. Mokhatab S and Poe WA. Handbook of natural gas trans-
mission and processing. Burlington, USA: Gulf Profes-
sional Publishing, 2006.
12. Wu S, Rı́os-Mercado RZ, Boyd EA, et al. Model relaxa-
tions for the fuel cost minimization of steady-state gas
pipeline networks. Math Comput Model 2000; 31:
197–220.
13. Liu E, Li C and Yang Y. Optimal energy consumption
analysis of natural gas pipeline. Sci World J 2014; 2014:
506138.
14. Sanaye S and Mahmoudimehr J. Minimization of fuel
consumption in cyclic and non-cyclic natural gas trans-
mission networks: assessment of genetic algorithm opti-
mization method as an alternative to non-sequential
dynamic programming. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2012;
43: 904–917.
15. Liu EB, Li CJ and Yang LT. Research on the optimal
energy consumption of oil pipeline. J Environ Biol 2016;
36: 703–711.
16. Rı́os-Mercado RZ and Borraz-Sánchez C. Optimization
problems in natural gas transportation systems: a state-
of-the-art review. Appl Energ 2015; 147: 536–555.
17. Peng S, Liao W and Tan H. Performance optimization of
ultrasonic flow meter based on computational fluid
dynamics. Adv Mech Eng 2018; 10: 1–9.
18. Liu E, Wen D, Peng S, et al. A study of the numerical
simulation of water hammer with column separation and
cavity collapse in pipelines. Adv Mech Eng 2017; 9: 1–13.
19. Zhang X, Wu C and Zuo L. Minimizing fuel consump-
tion of a gas pipeline in transient states by dynamic pro-
gramming. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2015; 28: 193–203.
20. Gao X, Liu T, Yuan Q, et al. A novel optimization
approach for oil and gas production process considering
model parameters uncertainties. Can J Chem Eng 2016;
94: 1710–1722.
21. Behrooz HA and Boozarjomehry RBB. Dynamic optimi-
zation of natural gas networks under customer demand
uncertainties. Energy 2017; 134: 968–983.
14
22. Fyk I, Oliynyk M, Kovalchuk Y, et al. Theoretical and
applied aspects of using a thermal pump effect in gas
pipeline systems. East Eur J Enterpr Technol 2018; 1:
39–48.
23. Liu EB, Peng SB, Zhang H, et al. Blockages detection
technology for oil pipeline. J Balkan Tribol Assoc 2016;
22: 1045–1057.
24. Lall HS and Percell PB. A dynamic programming based
gas pipeline optimizer. Anal Optim Syst 1990; 144:
123–132.
25. Gao SZ. Study on optimal operation of compressor station
in gas transmission line. Master’s Thesis, Southwest Petro-
leum University, Chengdu, China, 2002.
View publication stats
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
26. Danilovic D. Determination of optimal parameters of dis-
tributive gas pipeline by dynamic programming method.
Petrol Sci Technol 2011; 29: 924–932.
27. Zhang J. Study on the adaptability of gas pipeline opera-
tion optimization algorithm. Comput Simul 2016; 33:
369–372.
28. Behrooz HA. Dynamic optimization of natural gas net-
works under customer demand uncertainties. Energy
2017; 134: 968–983.
29. Du PE. Steady-state operation optimization of pipeline
network based on dynamic programming and improved
genetic algorithm. Oil Gas Storage Transp 2018; 37:
285–290.