4 -S------- · 2010. 4. 30. · 2.1. Test Matrix Table Ishows the test matrix forthis study. LVT...

_.~ ~ __-~4_JI!I!I!!!!I~~-== -S-------

II

'\

THE EFFECT OF DRAG REDUCING AGENTS ON PRESSURE GRADIENT IN

MULTIPHASE, OILIWATER/GAS VERTICAL FLOW.

BY

C. KANG AND W. P. JEPSON

NSF, IlUCRC, CORROSION IN MULTIPHASE SYSTEMS CENTER

omo UNIVERSITY

ATHENS, OH 45701

IIIIII

j

IjI

l

ABSTRACT.

Experiments have been carried out in a 20 m long, 10 cm diameter vertical multiphase

flow system The oil used was a light condensate type oil with a viscosity of 2 cP and water cuts

of 0 and 50 % were tested. The effect ofDRA addition on the pressure gradient in vertical flows

for liquid and gas superficial velocities of 0.4 to 2 mls and 0.5 to 10 mls was studied at dosages of

0, 10, and 50 ppm.

All the usual flow regimes for vertical flow were observed with chum and bubble flow

being present at gas velocities of 1 mls and lower for all superficial liquid velocities in 100% oil.

At superficial gas velocities between 4 and 7 mis, chum and slug flow existed. For the high gas

velocities, annular was the main flow regime. Similar results were noticed for the 50 %water cut

except that chum flow was encountered at higher gas velocities.

The average pressure drop and peak to peak fluctuations over 1.9 and 3.8 m were

measured and it was found that the average pressure drop increased with increasing superficial

liquid velocity for the same superficial gas velocity. The average pressure drop decreased with

increasing superficial gas velocities for all cases. The increased void fraction in the flow reduced

the density of the flowing mixture and hence the pressure drop due the hydrostatic head.

The addition ofDRA had little or no effect on the average pressure drop but the DRA did

help "smooth" the flow by reducing the levels of pressure fluctuations.

The DRA is more effective in chum and slug flow where a DRA concentration of 50 ppm

produces a much larger decrease in the pressure fluctuations. However, some benefit was seen at

10 ppm ofDRA.

In bubble flows, only are small reductions in the peak to peak fluctuations are noted.

The DRA does not seem effective at the high superficial liquid velocity where the

hydrostatic head is very large. Also the DRA also was not effective at high superficial gas

velocities when annular flow was present.

2

!

Ii

II

II,:!I

l

1. INTRODUCTION.

Previous work has been carried out in horizontal and inclined pipelines to examine the

effect of the addition of drag reducing agents on pressure gradient in both single phase liquid and

multiphase oil/water/gas systems. It was found that the drag reducing agents not only affected the

frictional pressure drop but also could change the nature of the flow and flow regime. This led to

several possible extended uses for DRA's. These results have been submitted in earlier reports.

It has been suggested that DRA's can have little effect in vertical single phase flows since

the majority of the pressure gradient is due to the hydrostatic head of the vertical column of

liquid. From the results of the multiphase flow studies in inclined pipes, it was found that by

changing the flow regime and other flow characteristics such as slug frequency, etc., the DRA

could be effective where it would not normally be expected to do so.

The production from wells involves multiphase flow in vertical pipes and significant

benefits could be gained if the pressure gradient could be reducing in these situations.

It is important to ascertain ifDRA's can provide any benefit.

This work examines the effect ofDRA addition on the pressure gradient in vertical flows

for liquid and gas superficial velocities of 0.4 to 2 mls and 0.5 to 10 mls respectively. A light

condensate type oil was used at water cuts of 0 and 50 %. The tests were carried out in a 10 cm

diameter flow system.

3

,-

2. EXPERIMENT AL SETUP.

The layout of the experimental flow loop is shown in Figure 1. The specified composition

of the oil-water mixture is placed in a 1.2 m3 stainless steel storage tank (A). The tank is

equipped with 6 m (2.5cm ill) stainless steel cooling coils to maintain a constant temperature ..

The oil-water mixture is then pumped into a 10.16 cm ill PVC pipeline using a 76 hp stainless

steeL Moyno progressing cavity pump (C). Carbon dioxide from 25 ton tanks is introduced into

the system and the gas flow rate is measured using a variable area flow meter. The multiphase

mixture then flows through 3.1 m long flexible hose (10.16 cm ill) and into a 20 m ~ong

inclined plexiglass pipeline (10.16cm ill).

The pressure drop along 1.9 and 3.8 m length of the pipeline is measured using the

pressure tappings (F) connected to A-5/882-12 Sensotec pressure transducers. The response is

taken to a 586 PC where the average pressure and pressure fluctuations are determined.

The flow then returns into the storage tank where the liquid is recycled and the gas vented

to atmosphere.

Initially, experiments were carried out with no drag reducing agent present. These

provided the baseline values for the pressure and fluctuations. Then, 10 ppm of drag reducing

agent was added and the experiments repeated. Finally, 50 ppm ofDRA was used.

Two oil/water compositions were tested. These were 0 and 50 % water cut. The test

matrix is given below.

At the beginning of each DRA addition, the change in pressure with time was noted. This

was to ascertain if the DRA was being degraded by the pump or system There was no change in

the pressure results with time which did indicate that the DRA was not degraded substantially.

Videos of all the experiments were taken to visually examine the flow regime and the flow

characteristics. An edited version is enclosed with this report.

4

2. 1. Test Matrix

Table I shows the test matrix for this study. LVT 200 with a viscosity of2 centipoise and a

density of 800 kg/m3 is used as the oil. Carbon dioxide is used as the gas.

Inclination 90 Degree Upward

Drag Reducing Agent CDR Liquid Power

DRA Concentration, ppm 0, 10, 50

Pressure, MPa 0.13

Oil Tested Conoco LVT 200

Water cut % 0, 50

Gas Flow Velocity, m/s 0.5, 1.0,4.0, 7.0, 10

Liquid Flow Velocity, m/s 0.4, 1.0, 1.5,2.0

Table 1 Test Matrix for the Study

3. RESULTS.

For all the experiments, theuature of the flow and the corresponding characteristics were

monitored. The flow regimes are described below.

3.1 Flow Regime.

It should be noted that the flow regimes in vertical pipes are very different from those in

horizontal and slightly inclined pipelines. Dispersed flow in the form of bubble flow is present over

a wide range of liquid flows at low gas velocities. Further, the intermittent regimes are very common

at intermediate gas velocities. These include both churn and slug flows. The former involves the

5

pulsations of liquid moving up and then down the pipe with gas being entrained. The latter has gas

pockets which help carry the liquid slugs upward and the only backflow occurs in the liquid film at

the pipe wall when the gas pocket passes. Both of these flow regimes has associated high values of

pressure gradient caused by these fluctuations. Much of this pressure loss cannot be recovered. At

high gas velocities, annular flow is present and this is very similar to that in horizontal flows.

From examination of the videos, the flow regimes were determined at each condition. The

results are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

For 100% LVT oil, Table 2 shows that at low superficial liquid and gas velocities of 0.4 mls

and 0.5 mls respectively, bubble flow together with an intermittent chum flow was observed for DRA

compositions of 0, 10, and 50 ppm Similar results ere noticed for a superficial gas velocity of 1.0 mls

at 0 and 10 ppmDRA. However, with 50 ppm ofDRA bubble flow disappeared leaving only chum

flow.

At the higher superficial gas velocities, bubble flow was not observed for all concentrations

of DRA and chum flow was dominant. At a superficial gas velocity of 10 mis, the flow regime

changed from chum to annular for all concentrations ofDRA.

As the superficial liquid velocity was increased to 1.0 mis, similar observations were obtained

at the low superficial gas velocities of 0.5 mls and 1.0 mls. Increasing the superficial gas velocity to

4.0 mis, slug flow was noticed for 0 ppm and 10 ppm DRA However, at a higher DRA concentration

of 50 ppm, no slug flow was observed and only chum flow was noticed. Chum flow persisted with

increasing superficial gas velocity to 7.0 mls for 0 ppm and 10 ppm DRA. At 50 ppm DRA, the flow

regime was changed from churn to annular. Annular flow was observed for all conditions ofDRA at

the high superficial gas velocity of 10.0 mls.

At a superficial liquid velocity of 1.5 mls and a low superficial gas velocity of 0.5 mis, bubble

and chum flow was observed for all concentrations ofDRA At 1.0 mls superficial gas velocity, chum

flow was observed for 0 ppm DRA This was accompanied by slug flow for 10 ppm DRA and bubble

flow for 50 ppm DRA. At a superficial gas velocity of 4.0 mis, slug flow was observed for all DRA

concentrations. Higher gas flow rates of 7.0 mls and 10.0 mls saw the appearance of annular flow

for all cases.

6

At the highest superficial liquid velocity of2.0 mis, bubble flow dominated for all conditions

ofDRA for low superficial gas velocities of 0.5 mls and 1.0 mls. Higher superficial gas velocity of

4.0 mls gave slug flow for 0 ppm and 10 ppm DRA while annular flow was seen for 50 ppm DRA.

Annular flow became dominant for all other superficial gas velocities and DRA concentrations.

The effect of increasing water cut to 50 % on flow regime is given in Table 3. The results are

very similar to those described above. However, slug flow was more noticeable at the higher

superficial liquid velocity of2 mls.

Clearly form these Tables, the addition of 10 ppm ofDRA does not affect the flow regime.

However, 50 ppm ofDRA can change the flow regime from churn to annular and slug to annular.

This has a great benefit since the pressure gradient and corresponding fluctuations are usually much

lower in annular flow than the intermittent churn and slug flows.

3.2 Pressure Drop.

The pressure drop over both 1.9 and 3.8 mlong sections of the pipeline was measured at each

flowing condition. Typical responses of the pressure drop across the 3.8 m long section are presented

in Figures 2 to 28. Similar results were obtained for both the 1.9 and 3.8 m sections.

In each case, there are fluctuations in the pressure around an average value due to the passage

of bubbles in bubble flow, the upward and downward pulsations of the liquid in churn flow, the

intermittent gas pockets in slug flow, and the presence of waves in annular flow.

Each response is analyzed to obtain the average pressure drop and the magnitude of the

fluctuations in the pressure.

3.2.1. Average Pressure Drop.

The average pressure drop for 100% LVT oil and for a water cut of 50 % are given in Tables

4 and 5. It is noted that for each liquid velocity, the pressure drop decreases with an increase in the

gas velocity. For example, for 100 % oil at a liquid superficial velocity of 1.0 mis, Table 4 shows the

7

average pressure drop over 3.8 m decreases from 21800 to 7600 Pa as the gas velocity is increased

from 0.5 to 10 mls. This occurs for several reasons. Firstly, increasing the gas velocity leads to a

higher insitu void fraction and a subsequent decrease in the average density of the multiphase flow.

The pressure drop due to the hydrostatic head is therefore reduced. Secondly, the flow regime

changes from bubble to churn and then annular flow with increase in gas velocity. The more

intermittent type flows, slug and chum, do have a higher associated pressure drop than that in annular

flow.

When DRA is added to the flow, there seems little change in the average pressure drop. For

DRA concentrations of 0 ppm, 10 ppm, and 50 ppm at superficial liquid and superficial gas velocities

of 0.4 mls and 4 mls respectively, the pressure drops are 6400, 6450, and 6300 Pa respectively. At

superficial liquid and superficial gas velocities of 1.5 mls and 7 mis, values of 10100, 10000, and

10100 Pa are measured for 0, 10, and 50 ppm DRA.

At 50 % water cut, Table 5 indicates similar results. Here, since the water has a higher

density, the pressure drop in each case is higher than for 100 % oil. Comparing Tables 4 and 5 shows

that for a superficial gas velocity of 0.5 mis, the average pressure drop increases from 19100 Pa to

25800 Pa by increasing the superficial liquid velocity from 0.4 to 2.0 mls. For the 50% water cut, the

average pressure drop increases from 22900 to 28400 Pa for the respective liquid velocities.

3.2.2. Pressure Fluctuations.

It was shown above that the DRAdid not have much effect on the average pressure drop.

However, the DRA was effective in reducing the fluctuations in the pressure. This indicates that the

DRA is acting to change the nature of the flow by smoothing out the pulsations and waves present

in the different flow regimes.

Figures 2 to 28 provide the information on the magnitude and frequency of the pressure

fluctuations.

Figures 2 plots the fluctuation for 100 % oil at 0 ppm DRA at superficial liquid and gas

velocities of 0.4 and 4 mls respectively. It can be seen that the fluctuation in the pressure varies from

8

3200 to 9400 Pa. There are localized values as low as 1500 and as high as 10800 Pa. The average

peak to peak fluctuation is approximately 6200 Pa. The peaks correspond to the pulsations in the

flow. Table 1 indicates that chum flow exists at these conditions. Here, the liquid does have a net

flow upward but there are pulses of liquid that initially move up followed by a backward motion. The

frequency of these pulses is about 1.6 pulses per second (16 over a ten second period).

When 10 ppm ofDRA is added, Figure 3 indicates that the peak to peak fluctuation decreases

from 6200 to 5200 Pa showing that the flow is "smoother". The frequency of the pulses still remains

the same at 1.5 per second.

A more dramatic change is noted when 50 ppm of ORA is added. Figure 4 shows the

fluctuations have decreased from 6200 to 4600 Pa. It is also noticed that the pulsations are all of

the same magnitude. There are no longer cases where very large fluctuations occur. The percentage

fluctuation reduction with 10 and 50 ppm is 16 and 26 % respectively.

As the superficial liquid velocity is increased to 1mls with a superficial gas velocity of 4 mls

Figure 5 shows that for 0 ppm ORA, the fluctuations are much larger. This is partly due to the

presence of slug flow at these conditions. The fluctuations now range between 7200 and 15100 Pa.

The peak to peak fluctuation being approximately 7900 Pa. Again, there are much larger localized

values. The flow is still chum flow and the frequency has increased to approximately 2 per second.

Figures 6 and 7 indicate that the addition of 10 and 50 ppm DRA again reduces the magnitude

of the fluctuations with the 50 ppm dose having the greatest effect. The slug flow has been removed

and chum flow exists. The reductions are from 7900 to 6900 Pa and from 7900 to 6000 Pa for the

10 and 50 ppm DRA respectively corresponding to 13 and 25%.

Similar results are presented in Figures 8, 9, and 10 for a superficial liquid velocity of 1.5 mls

and superficial gas velocity of 4 mls. The flow regime for 0 and 10 ppm DRA was slug and chum

flow with the corresponding large fluctuations of approximately 9000 Pa. At 50 ppm of DRA, no slug

flow was observed and a significant reduction in the fluctuations were noted. At 10 and 50 ppm, the

fluctuations are reduced from 8700 to 8100 Pa and from 8700 to 5600 Pa respectively. The

fluctuation reduction with 50 ppm DRA is above 35%.

As the gas velocity is increased to 10 mls at the liquid velocity of 1.5 mis, annular flow is

present. Figures 11, 12 and 13 show that the peak to peak fluctuations were about 10700 Pa. At this

9

high liquid flowrate, there are probably large waves or pseudo-slugs propagating on the liquid film

next to the pipe wall. The frequency of these is approximately 2.4 per second. The addition ofDRA

at both 10 and 50 ppm has little or no affect on the flow and the fluctuations.

For the highest liquid velocity of2 mls and a superficial gas velocity of 1mis, a mixture of

bubble, churn, and slug flow was observed. The pressure fluctuations are presented in Figures 14,

15, and 16. The frequency of the bubbles, pulsations, waves, etc. are now much higher at 3.5 per

second. The fluctuations are again reduced from 3300 to 2750 Pa and from 3300 to 2200 Pa with the

addition of 10 and 50 ppm DRA respectively. The fluctuation reduction with 50 ppm is 33%.

Figures 17 to 28 give the corresponding plots of pressure for the 50 % water cut. Results

similar to that of the 100 % oil were obtained except that the average pressure and the corresponding

fluctuations were greater for the 50 % water cut than the oil alone.

For 0 ppm DRA, comparing Figures 2 and 17 show that for superficial liquid and gas

velocities of 0.4 and 4 mis, the peak to peak fluctuations for the 50 % water cut were 8900 Pa but

only 6200 Pa for the 100 % oil. Further, the frequency of the pulsations was higher for the 50 %

water cut at about 2.6 per second.

Figures 18 and 19 give the fluctuations with 10 and 50 ppm DRA. It is seen that a small

reduction from 8900 to 8300 Pa at 10 ppm DRA whilst for 50 ppm, a reduction from 8900 to 7100

Pa is noted.

Figures 20 to 28 are provided for completeness but are not discussed in detail here.

A fuller picture can be obtained by examining Figures 29 to 36. These show the effect of the

DRA addition on the peak to peak pressure fluctuations with increasing gas velocity.

For 100 % oil at a liquid velocity of 0.4 mis, Figure 29 indicates that the pressure fluctuations

can be reduced by the addition ofDRA for gas velocities up to about 7 mls. At the low gas velocities

of 0.5 and 1mlswhere bubble flow occurs, adding DRA leads small reductions of about 300 and 500

Pa at 10 and 50 ppm respectively. At a gas velocity of 4 mls where churn flow exists, the reductions

are much greater with about 1000 and 1500 Pa being achieved at 10 and 50 ppm DRA. Above a ga

velocity of7 mis, annular flow is present. Here, little or no benefit is achieved from the DRA.

10

Similar results are seen in Figures 31 and 32 for superficial liquid velocities of 1 and 1.5 mls.

The exceptions being at a liquid velocity of 1mls and t a gas velocity of7 mis, the DRA does reduce

the fluctuations substantially. Here, chum flow still exists and annular flow has not been reached

except at 50 ppm DRA Further, at a liquid velocity of 1.5 mls and a gas velocity of 1 mls where slug

flow is present, the fluctuations are again reduced significantly.

At the highest liquid velocity of2 mis, the DRA was only effective in reducing the fluctuations

at low gas velocities where bubble and chum flows were present.

The equivalent results for 50 % water cut are presented in Figures 33 to 37. Very similar

observations were made except that the DRA was effective in reducing the fluctuations at higher gas

velocities. Here, chum and slug flow were more apparent for the 50 % water cut than the 100% oil.

4. CONCLUSIONS

All the usual flow regimes for vertical flow were observed.

Chum and bubble flow were present at gas velocities of 1 mls and lower for all superficial

liquid velocities in 100% LVT oil. At superficial gas velocities between 4 and 7 mis, chum and slug

flow existed. For the high gas velocities, annular was the main flow regime. -

For the 50 % water cut, chum flow was encountered at higher gas velocities.

From the pressure responses both the average pressure drop and peak to peak fluctuations

over 1.9 and 3.8 m were measured. The following was found.

The average pressure drop increased with increasing superficial liquid velocity for the same

superficial gas velocity. This is due to the increase in the volume of the liquid in pipe as the superficial

liquid velocity increases.

11

The average pressure drop decreased with increasing superficial gas velocities for all cases.

The increased void fraction in the flow reduced the density of the flowing mixture and hence the

pressure drop due the hydrostatic head.

The addition ofDRA had little or no effect on the average pressure drop.

DRA did help "smooth" the flow by reducing the levels of pressure fluctuations.

The DRA is more effective in chum and slug flow where a DRA concentration of 50 ppm

produces a much larger decrease in the pressure fluctuations. However, some benefit was seen at 10

ppmofDRA.

There are small reductions in bubble flows.

The DRA does not seem effective at the high superficial liquid velocity where the hydrostatic

head is very large.

The DRA also was not effective at high superficial gas velocities when annular flow was

present.

12

Table 2. Flow Regime vs. % ofDRA in 100% LVT Oil in 90 Degree Inclination

Val. v.G. Flow Regime

m/s m/s o ppm 10 ppm 50 ppm

0.4 0.5 bubble + churn bubble + churn bubble + churn

0.4 1 bubble + churn bubble + churn churn

0.4 4 churn churn churn

0.4 7 churn churn churn

0.5 10 annular annular annular


1.0 1 bubble + churn bubble + churn bubble + churn

1.0 4 churn + slug churn + slug churn

1.0 7 churn churn annular



1.5 1 churn churn + slug churn + bubble

1.5 4 slug slug churn + slug



2.0 0.5 bubble bubble bubble

2.0 1 bubble bubble bubble + churn

2.0 4 slug slug annular



Table 3. Flow Regime vs. % ofDRA in 50% LVT Oil-50% Water in 90 Degree Inclination

Val. v.G. Flow Regime

m/s m/s o ppm 10 ppm 50 ppm

0.4 0.5 bubble + chum bubble + chum bubble + chum

0.4 1 bubble + chum bubble + chum bubble + chum

0.4 4 chum chum chum

0.4 7 chum chum chum



1.0 1 bubble + chum bubble + chum bubble + chum

1.0 4 chum + slug chum chum

1.0 7 chum chum annular



1.5 1 chum + bu + slug chum + bu + slug bubble + chum

1.5 4 chum + slug chum + slug slug



2.0 0.5 chum + bu + slug bubble bubble

2.0 1 chum + bu + slug chum + bu + slug chum + bu + slug

2.0 4 chum + slug annular annular



Table 4. Average PressureDrop vs.% ofDRA in 100% LVT Oil in90 Degree Inclination

Val. VG . ..Average PressureDrop

..

o ppm 10 ppm 50 ppmm/s m/s Pa Pa Pa0.4 0.5 19100 19300 194000.4 1 16100 15900 164000.4 4 6400 6450 63000.4 7 3900 3850 39000.4 10 3250 3350 33501.0 0.5 21800 21600 219001.0 1 18100 18200 181501.0 4 11000 10900 108501.0 7 7800 7900 79001.0 10 7600 7600 77001.5 0.5 22600 22900 227001.5 1 21800 21800 21900

.1.5 4 13300 13300 134001.5 7 10100 10000 101001.5 10 10200 10200 101002.0 0.5 25800 15600 259002.0 1 25200 25250 251502.0 4 15700 15500 157002.0 7 12800 12700 129002.0 10 12300 12300 12300

Table 5. Average PressureDrop vs.% ofDRA in50% LVT Oil-50% Water in90 DegreeInclination

Val. v.G. Average PressureDropo ppm 10 ppm 50 ppm

m/s m/s Pa Pa Pa0.4 0.5 22900 22700 231000.4 1 18500 18550 187000.4 4 7300 7200 75000.4 7 5050 4950 52000.4 10 4270 4300 43501.0 0.5 25300 25100 256001.0 1 21700 21600 219001.0 4 12250 12000 120001.0 7 9100 9200 92001.0 10 8600 8600 87501.5 0.5 26900 26800 271001.5 1 24600 24700 249001.5 4 16400 16250 165001.5 7 11900 11800 119001.5 10 11500 11750 118002.0 0.5 28400 28400 287002.0 1 26950 26750 27100

, 2.0 4 17800 17850 165002.0 7 14800 14750 150002.0 10 14800 14800 14850

E

)I>< jf F1o ••rneter ••

17mInclinedSection

3.1m

H

F

F

G

3.8m

Outlet Gas

G

A.TankB. HeaterC. PumpD. By-Pass ValveE. Gas CylinderF. PressureTappingsG. Flexible HoseH. Mixing Tee

~

Figure 1 : Experimental layout of the flow loop

B

Figure 2. 100% LVT, 0 ppm, Vsl = 0.4 mIs, Vsg = 4 m/s

12000

11000

10000

9000

8000=~~ 7000 ~i~1 6000 IIt'll U I Inil IIII J I ~~ 5000"'"~

4000

3000

2000

1000

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time, sec

Figure 3. 100% LVT, 10 ppm, VsI = 0.4 mIs, Vsg = 4 m/s

12000

11000

10000

9000 I 1\ flU II I I I ft 1\ n 11 . II .1 1\ • I 1\ 1\ II " ~ ~I II • II 1111 II II II II II I I II II II II II II III. II I II II' II II II . I I8000~

~ ~ \~~~,II~lj\I~

J\ I ~ \H III 11\111\1 ~I~c:i. 7000

~

!Q

""Q 6000~

~""=<Il 5000 .<Il~""~

4000 I _ _ _ ___I II I If L_'IJ ' II U , II I I I I If I I I III , UU_ .JL .. I

3000

2000

1000

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time, sec

Figure 4. 100% LVT, 50 ppm, Vsl = 0.4 mis, Vsg = 4 m/s

12000

11000

10000

9000I L n 1\ II j h

8000

~~~iI ~ I ~ r, "C':

~r:i. 70000••~ 6000Q,l••= \I \I II Inl I (II I I II \I I I Villi 1111II III U II ij IILJfI)fI) 5000Q,l••~

4000• ~' 1 ~ V

3000

2000

1000

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time, sec

Figure 5. 100cyo LVT, 0 ppm, Vsl = 1 mis, Vsg = 4 m/s

180001700016000150001400013000 III

,,_I_J_~~~ _I_~IIII'II~

12000~~ 11000~"0

10000900080007000 -600050004000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time, sec

Figure 6. 100% LVT, 10 ppm, Vsl = 1 mIs, Vsg = 4 nIls

180001700016000150001400013000

l~~fiji II Iii 1I111'1111gll,11111I~12000~~ 11000"0

100009000 -8000

LI --U-II-- -7000600050004000

0 5 10 15Time, sec

20

~

25 30

Figure 7. 100% LVT, 50 ppm, Vsl = 1 mis, Vsg = 4 mls

1800017000160001500014000

&': 13000~

~ 12000 ~!/11 ~\~ ~~ 11000 Il..

~ 10000~~ 9000

80007000600050004000

0 5

l~ ~1I11~

10 15

Time, sec

~

20

~

25

~

30

Figure 8. tOO(Yo LVT, 0 ppm, Vsl = 1.5 mis, Vsg = 4 mls20000

19000

18000

17000

16000t':~c: 150000~Q 14000~~~ 13000~~~ 12000OJ)t':~ 11000-<

10000 -

9000 r-8000 -

7000

60000 5 10 15

Time, sec

~

20 25 30

Figure 9. 100% LVT, 10 ppm, Vsl = 1.5 mIs, Vsg = 4 m/s

200001900018000

30

~I

2520

~

1510

--- - ~----____l_- _

~

5

1700016000~

~cr. 15000oJ",

~ 14000J",

~ 13000f:~ 12000b1)~~ 11000~-< 10000

9000800070006000 Iii : I

oTime, sec

Figure 10. 100% LVT, 50 ppm, Vsl = 1.5 mis, Vsg = 4 mls

20000190001800017000

~ 16000~

~ 15000 j~~~~ 14000~ 13000 ... ..111' 'IPI~~l.

~ 12000bJ)~t 11000 L- ----j>

-< 10000

9000800070006000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time, sec

Figure 11. 100% LVT, 0 ppm, VsI = 1.5 mIs, Vsg = 10 m/s

30252015105

2000019000180001700016000150001400013000

til~ 12000~ 11000~ 10000

J",~ 9000",~ 8000

7000600050004000300020001000

o , i Io

Time, sec

Figurel2. 100% LVT 10 ppm, Vsl =1.5 mIs, Vsg = 10 mls

30252015105

20000 I I

19000180001700016000150001400013000

co:~ 12000~ 11000~ 10000l.

Sl 9000"l~ 8000

700060005000 -"-4000300020001000

o I I Io

Time, sec


30252015

M

105

I -

~

20000 I I I

19000180001700016000150001400013000

to:

~~ 12000~ 11000~ 10000l..S; 9000f1'}~ 8000~ 7000

600050004000300020001000 I

o I I I

oTime, sec

Figure 14.100% LVT, 0 ppm, Vsl = 2 mis, Vsg = 1 mls28000

27000

26000~~0..e~ 25000~l.=rnrn~~

24000

111111

1l~1

111111

lUI I-----~-. ~-

23000

3025201510522000 Iii I

oTime, sec

28000

27000

Figure 15. 100% LVT, 10 ppm, Vsl = 2 mIs, Vsg = 1 m/s

26000I:':~Cl.0~~ 25000~::s'"'"Clj~~

24000 _0

23000

22000o 5 10 15

Time, sec

20 25 30

28000

27000

26000

Figure 16. 100% LVT,SO ppm, Vsl = 2 mIs, Vsg = 1 m/s

~~c.o:..~ 25000Q;I:..::s'"'"Q;I:..~

24000 -

23000

22000o 5 10 15

Time, sec

20 25 30

Figure 17.50% LVT, 0 ppm, Vsl = 0.4 mis, Vsg = 4 m/s

150001400013000120001100010000

~~~ 90000.

~ 8000~ 7000VJVJ~ 6000~

50004000300020001000

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time, sec

Figure 18. 50% LVT, 10 ppm ,Vsl = 0.4 mis, Vsg = 4 m/s

/

~

15000

14000

13000

12000

11000

10000eo:~ 9000c..~ 8000~; 7000""'""'~ 6000~

50001 ~ \I ~

4000

3000 -

2000

1000

0

0 5

._...••._. -_.- --~ ...,.

10 15

Time, sec

20 25 30

Figure 19. 50% LVT, 50 ppm, Vsl = 0.4 mis, Vsg = 4 m/s

30

~

2520

--1---11U II 11_1__ 11_ -I-----..!..-

1510

r-.-----uv-U-.-- ..~--

15000

14000

13000

12000

11000

10000eo:~ 9000c.~ 8000Q)

;; 7000 1111~rlll~enen~ 6000~

5000

4000 T-' _..- -- ....-.-3000

2000

1000 ..

00 5

Time, sec

Figure 20. 50% LVT, 0 ppm, Vsl = 1 mis, Vsg = 4 mls

18000

17000

16000

15000

14000

~ 13000

~ 12000 1\ ~ " IH i 1~i~,); 11000r,t}r,t}

~ 100009000

8000 I , I',

I I I' J Il I , I ,7000

6000

50000 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time, sec

Figure 21. 50% LVT, 10 ppm, Vsl = 1 mis, Vsg = 4 m/s

200001900018000170001600015000

~~ 14000Q.,

~ 13000~ 12000"l"l~ 11000~

1000090008000700060005000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time, sec

Figure 22. 50% LVT, 50 ppm, Vsf = 1 mIs, Vsg = 4 mls

200001900018000170001600015000

~~ 14000c.~ 13000~;; 12000"J"J~ 11000~

10000 11111' i'~~111111~11111~"~1!lrJ'~lmll~'11111r l"f1Ii~ 'II U III/ ~90008000700060005000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time, sec

Figure 23.50% LVT, 0 ppm, Vsl = 1.5 mIs, Vsg = 4 m/s

30252015

J

105

25000 I I. ,24000230002200021000200001900018000~

~ 17000e 16000 I~~N~ 15000~ 14000~ 13000~ 12000

110001000090008000700060005000 I I

oTime, sec

Figure 24. 50°A. LVT, 10 ppm, Vsl = 1.5 mis, Vsg = 4 m/s

3025

I~

2015

11ft 1111

105

2500024000230002200021000200001900018000to:

~ 17000~16000~ 15000~ 14000.."~ 13000~ 12000

110001000090008000700060005000 I i I

oTime, sec


30252015

I~II""

105

11111

IIIIJIII

2500024000230002200021000200001900018000C':

~~ 17000E 16000~ 15000l.~ 14000<Il~ 13000~ 12000

110001000090008000700060005000 I I

oTime, sec

Figure 26.50% LVT, 0 ppm, VsI = 1.5 mis, Vsg = 10 m/s

24000

22000

20000

18000

16000C':l~Q:. 140000l.

~ 12000l.

=~ 10000l.~

8000

6000

4000

2000

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time, sec

Figure 27.50% LVT, 10 ppm, Vsl = 1.5 mIs, Vsg = 10 m/s24000

22000

20000

18000

16000~~ 14000c..ol.

C) 12000Q)l.::::IVl

~ 10000l.~

8000

6000

4000

2000

30252015105o I :', I

i IoTime, sec

Figure 28.500/0 LVT, 50 ppm, Vsl = 1.5 mis, Vsg = 10 mls24000

22000

20000

18000

16000~~14000ol.

~ 12000l.=III~ 10000l.~

8000

6000

4000

2000

30252015105o 0;-1 ----;---:--~---+-----.----~I

Time, sec

Figure 30. dP, Fluctuation vs. VsgVsl = 1.0 mis, 90 Degree, 1000/0 Oil

10000

9000I

I•8000 I-•• •

c: 7000 I •~•......•II.....•= 6000 I •0.-.•..c::=.•..

5000(J:=~

4000 I •~ •"0 ••• .0 ppm30001 •• 10 ppm

2000 I.50 ppm

I1000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Superficial Gas Velocity, m/s

\'

Figure 29. dP, Fluctuation vs. VsgVsI = 0.4 mis, 90 Degree, 100% Oil

8000 -I I

7000•I

•6000 I •••&': 5000 J •......II ••.....•c •0....~ 4000 • •=' • •.•..CJ •=''=p; 3000 -.

"0

2000 I .0 ppm

• 10 ppm1000 I

.50 ppmI .- --_ .. -

0


'.

Figure 31. dP, Fluctuation vs. VsgVsl = 1.5 mis, 90 Degree, 1000/0Oil

'~.

,~

I

••

12000

11000

10000

9000 I •= •~ 8000......

I &II•.....•= 70000........== 6000....~==~ 5000"0

a4000 l &

3000

2000 -.-

10000 2

&

4 6 8

•

.Oppm

• 10 ppm

& 50 ppm

10 12Superficial Gas Velocity, m/s

Figure 32. dP, Fluctuation vs. VsgVsl = 2.0 mis, 90 Degree, 100% Oil

•

12000

11000

10000

9000I:Cl~ 8000......II•......= 70000...•..•..I:Cl

= 6000..•..CJ

==~ 5000"'0

4000

3000 I •• ••2000 I

A A

10000 2

I

4 6 8

•

.0 ppm

• 10 ppm

A 50 ppm

10 12

Superficial Gas Velocity, mls

Figure 33. dP, Fluctuation vs. VsgVsl = 0.4 mis, 90 Degree, 50% Oil

14000 ..

13000

12000I

II

11000•

~ 10000 •~•.....• AII 9000 ••....•Cl0 •.-••• 8000~=•..~ 7000 J= A=~"0 6000 •• •5000 I A • .0 ppm

A

4000 -I- .10 ppm

3000 - A 50 ppm I2000,


rt

Figure 34. dP, Fluctuation vs. VsgVsl = 1.0 mIs, 90 Degree, 500/0 Oil

h

A

•

••

12

••

10

A 50 ppm

.0 ppm

• 10 ppm

86

A

4

•

1600015000140001300012000

~ 11000,......,II-; 100000....~ 9000~::s~'" 8000::s'=~ 7000 I •"'0 • •

6000 I • AA

5000400030002000


Figure 35. dP, Fluctuation vs. VsgVsl = 1.5 mIs, 90 Degree, 50% Oil

f

,'>

••

••

1600015000140001300012000

~ 11000•.....•II-; 100000

9000 I •.....•..~ •=.•.. •CJ= 8000'=~ 7000"'0

6000 I ••5000 I •400030002000

0 2

•

4 6 8

III

.Oppm

• 10 ppm

.50 ppm

10 12

Superficial Gas Velocity, m/s

Figure 36. dP, Fluctuation vs. VsgVsl = 2.0 mIs, 90 Degree, 50% Oil

.~,.

.\

•

16000 -

15000

14000

13000

12000 -ell~ 11000 ..--,II-; 10000 ..~.•.. 9000 -ell::l.•..c:.J 8000 -::l~~ 7000 .."'0

6000

5000 -I ••4000 I •• ~

3000 I ~

2000

0 2

••~

4 6 8

•

.0 ppm

• 10 ppm

~ 50 ppm


4 -S------- · 2010. 4. 30. · 2.1. Test Matrix Table Ishows the test matrix forthis study. LVT...

Documents

Transcript of 4 -S------- · 2010. 4. 30. · 2.1. Test Matrix Table Ishows the test matrix forthis study. LVT...