Open Access

ARTICLE

Analysis of In-Station Pressure Drops in Shale Gas Gathering Systems Using CFD and Network Modeling

Kunyi Wu¹, Bo Lei¹, Yanhua Qiu¹, Hui Li², Shize Wei¹, Feng Wang¹, Yu Wu^1,*, Liming Zhang^2,*

1 Gathering and Transportation Engineering Technology Research Institute, China National Petroleum Corporation Southwest Oil and Gas Field Branch, Chengdu, China
2 Oil and Gas Development Engineering Institute, School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Qingdao, China

* Corresponding Authors: Yu Wu. Email: ; Liming Zhang. Email:

Fluid Dynamics & Materials Processing 2026, 22(2), 8 https://doi.org/10.32604/fdmp.2026.076662

Received 24 November 2025; Accepted 13 February 2026; Issue published 04 March 2026

Abstract

This study investigates in-station pressure drop mechanisms in a shale gas gathering system, providing a quantitative basis for flow system optimization. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, based on field-measured parameters related to a representative case (a shale gas platform located in Sichuan, China) are conducted to analyze the flow characteristics of specific fittings and manifolds, and to quantify fitting resistance coefficients and manifold inlet interference. The resulting coefficients are integrated into a full-station gathering network model in PipeSim, which, combined with production data, enables evaluation of pressure losses and identification of equivalent pipeline blockages. The results indicate that the resistance coefficients, valid only for fittings under the studied field-specific geometries, are 0.21 for 90° elbows in the fully open position, 0.16 for gate valve passages in the fully open position, and 2.3 for globe valve passages. Manifold interference decreases with lower high-pressure inlet values, whereas inlets farther from the high-pressure side experience stronger disturbances. Interestingly, significant discrepancies between simulated and measured pressure drops reveal partial blockages, corresponding to effective diameter reductions of 65 mm, 38 mm, 44 mm, 38 mm, and 28 mm for Wells 1#, 3#, 5#, and 6#, respectively.

---

Keywords

---