You are on page 1of 47

STUDYONEFFECTIVENESSOFCOMMERCIAL ANDRESIDENTIALNATURALGASODORISATION SYSTEMINPENINSULARMALAYSIA

SIMULATIONSTUDY: CFDANDFLACSRESULTS UTMMPRCInstitute forOilandGas (IFOG OG) Universiti Teknologi Malaysia


Tuesday, y 29 9th October,2013 3 STOffice

COMPUTATIONALFLUIDANALYSIS (CFD)RESULTS
SimulationatSelectedPreDeterminedCondition

Figures6.1and6.2belowillustrateasimple horizontalmainpipewithtwosetsofbranchpipe gaslayoutarrangement,i.e.verticalandhorizontal, thathasbeenmodelledtosimulategastransport ofnaturalgas(i.e. (i e methane)andodorantvapour (80wt%TBMand20wt%DMS)mixture.

Figure6.1: AHorizontal BranchGas PipeLayout

Figure6.2: AVertical BranchGas PipeLayout

Table6.1belowsummarisestheaveragemassfractionofTBMand DMSmeasuredatthegasexitpointsofmainpipeandoftwobranch pipegasmodels, models i.e. i e verticalbranchandhorizontalbranch. branch Naturalgasandodorantflowratesweresetat0.25kg/sand0.0025 kg/s,respectively,thussimulating1%ofodorantconcentration(i.e. averagemassfractionof0.0099kgodorant/kggasmixture)in flowinggas.T gasf flowratesatthemainandthebranchweresetat90% heoutletg and10%oftheinletgasflow,respectively. Thesimulationwasperformedassuminghighflowgasconditions withsteadystateflow flow,standardketurbulentmodelanddefaultCFD values.

Table6.1: AverageMassFractionofTBMandDMS*
AverageMassFractionatGasOutlet (k odorant/kg (kg d t/k natural t lgasodorant d tmixture) i t ) Reference Main (Horizontal) Figure6.1 Figure6.2 0.00812 0.00826 0.00510 TBM Branch (Vertical) Main Branch (Horizontal) (Horizontal) 0.00766 0.00203 0.00207 0.00127 DMS Branch (Vertical) Branch (Horizontal) 0.00192

*(SimulatedHighGasFlow;theoutletgasflowratesatthemainandthebranch weresetat90%and10%oftheinletgasflow,respectively)

ComparisonoftheaveragemassfractionofTBMatthemainand branchoutletsforbothpipelayoutsclearlyshowhigherTBM concentrationattheformer,thusindicatingmoreodorantbeing transportedalongahorizontalpipeatahighgasflowrate. Th Theaveragemassf fraction ti of fTBMf forth themain i outlet tl tof fb both thpipe i layoutsisquitesimilar,howeverhigherTBMconcentrationatthe horizontalbranchisdemonstrated.Thisagainshowsthesignificant effectsofhigherTBMspecificgravityandpipeelevationonthe odorantdistributionpattern. Detailedexplanationforthisphenomenonhasbeendiscussedin the h previous i section. i The Th samephenomenon h is i also l demonstrated d d forDMS.

Table6.2belowsummarisestheaveragemassfractionofTBM andDMSmeasuredatthegasexitpointsofmainpipeandof twobranchpipegasmodels,i.e.verticalbranchandhorizontal branch. Naturalgasandodorantflowratesweresetat0.25kg/sand 0 0025k 0.0025 kg/s, / respectively, ti l thus th simulating i l ti 1%of fodorant d t concentration(i.e.averagemassfractionof0.0099kg odorant/kggasmixture)inflowinggas. Theoutletgasflowratesatthemainandthebranchwereset 50%and50%oftheinletgasflow,respectively. Thesimulationwasperformedassuminghighflowgas conditionswithsteadystateflow,standardk turbulent modelanddefaultCFDvalues.

Table6.2: Average g MassFractionofTBMandDMS*


AverageMassFractionatGasOutlet (kgodorant/kgnaturalgasodorantmixture) Reference Main (Horizontal) Figure6.1 Figure6.2 0.00797 0.00827 0.00813 TBM Branch (Vertical) Main Branch (Horizontal) (Horizontal) 0.00834 0.00199 0.00207 0.00203 DMS Branch (Vertical) Branch (Horizontal) 0.0021

*(SimulatedHighGasFlow;Theoutletgasflowratesatthemainandthe branchweresetat50%and50%oftheinletgasflow,respectively)

ComparisonoftheaveragemassfractionofTBMatthemain andbranchoutletsforbothpipelayoutsclearlyshow approximately i l id identical i lvalues, l thus h indicating i di i uniform if TBM concentrationwerepresentinbothhorizontalandvertical pipes. TheaveragemassfractionofTBMandDMSatthebothbranch outletswashigher,inparticularTBMatverticalbranchoutlet, thanthatascomparedthepredictedvaluesinTable6.1. Thisshowsthataslongasthegasflowratearehighenoughto carrytheodorantalongwithnaturalgas,theeffectsofpipe elevationontheodorantdistributionpatternisinsignificant. Detailedexplanationforthisphenomenonhasbeendiscussed intheprevioussection.

10

Table6.3belowsummarisestheaveragemassfractionofTBM andDMSmeasuredatthegasexitpointsofmainpipeandof twobranch b hpipe i gasmodels, d l i.e. i vertical i lbranch b hand dh horizontal i l branch. Naturalgasandodorantflowratesweresetat0.025kg/sand 0.00025kg/s,respectively,thussimulating1%ofodorant concentration(i.e.averagemassfractionof0.0099kg odorant/kggasmixture)inflowinggas. Theoutletgasflowratesatthemainandthebranchwereset at90%and10%oftheinletgasflow,respectively. Thesimulationwasp performedassuming glowg gasflow conditions,steady stateflow,laminarmodelanddefaultCFD values.

11

ComparisonofcontoursofTBMmassfractioninFigures6.3 6.6show moreuniformodorantconcentrationforhorizontalbranchcomparedto theverticalbranch. Table bl 6.3: AverageMassFractionof fTBMand dDMS*


AverageMassFractionatGasOutlet (kgodorant/kg / naturalgasodorantmixture) Reference Main (Horizontal) Figure6.1 Figure6.2 0.00783 0 00515 0.00515 TBM Branch (Vertical) 2 17e08 2.17e Main Branch (Horizontal) (Horizontal) 0.00365 0.00196 0 00129 0.00129 DMS Branch (Vertical) 5 4e09 5.4e Branch (Horizontal) 0.000912

*(SimulatedLowGasFlow;Theoutletgasflowratesatthemainandthebranch ftheinletg gasflow, f ,respectively) p y) weresetat90%and10%of


12

ComparisonoftheaveragemassfractionofTBMatthemainoutlet forbothpipelayoutsclearlyshowhigherTBMconcentrationatthe former,thusindicatingmoreodorantbeingtransportedalonga horizontalpipeatalowergasflowrate. Themostinterestingresultsfromthesimulationarethemarked differenceinTBMandDMSconcentrationsforthehorizontaland verticalbranchoutlets. SignificantlevelsofTBMandDMSarepredictedtobepresentatthe ,however, ,virtually ynoTBMandDMSis horizontalbranchoutlet, presentattheverticalbranchoutlet. Thisagainshowsthesignificanteffectofhigherodorantspecific gravityandpipeelevationontheodorantdistributionpattern. Detailedexplanationforthisphenomenonhasbeenalsodiscussedin theprevioussection.

13

Table6.4belowsummarisestheaveragemassfractionofTBM andDMSmeasuredatthegasexitpointsofmainpipeandof twobranchpipegasmodels,i.e.verticalbranchandhorizontal branch. Natural a u a gasand a dodorant odo a flow o rates a eswere e eset se at a 0.025 0 0 5kg/s g/sand a d 0.00025kg/s,respectively,thussimulating1%ofodorant concentration(i.e.averagemassfractionof0.0099kg odorant/kg / gg gasmixture) )inflowing ggas. g Theoutletgasflowratesatthemainandthebranchwereset 50%and50%oftheinletgasflow,respectively. Thesimulationwasperformedassuminglowgasflow conditions,steady stateflow,laminarmodelanddefaultCFD values

14

Table6.4: AverageMassFractionofTBMandDMS*
AverageMassFractionatGasOutlet (kgodorant/kgnaturalgasodorantmixture) Reference Main (Horizontal) Figure6.1 Figure6.2 0.0085 0.01357 0.0005 TBM Branch (Vertical) Main Branch (Horizontal) (Horizontal) 0.0081 0.0021 0.0034 0.00014 DMS Branch (Vertical) Branch (Horizontal) 0.002

*(SimulatedLowGasFlow;Theoutletgasflowratesatthemainandthebranch weresetat50%and50%oftheinletgasflow,respectively)

15

CFDConclusion
ThemostinterestingresultsfromthesimulationisthemarkedincreaseinTBM andDMSconcentrationsforthehorizontalandinparticularverticalbranch outletsascomparedtothevaluesinTable6.3. Thisagainshowsthesignificanteffectofgasflowconditionontheodorant distributionpattern.Detailedexplanationforthisphenomenonhasbeenalso discussedintheprevioussection. TheanalysisofCFDsimulationdatasignificantlysupportstheodorant measurementduringthesitevisitinJulyandSeptember2012. Twoveryimportantfactors,i.e.gasconsumptionrateandpipegaselevation, whichcontributetosignificantodorantfadeespeciallyinpipegassupplylineat highrisebuildingssuchasatHampshirePark(Ampang)andHarmonyPutra Flats(PutraJaya)havebeenidentifiedexperimentallyandcomputationally. Nevertheless, h l the h CFDsimulation l indicate d that h gasconsumptionrateplay l a moreimportantroleascomparedtopipeelevation,i.e.aslongasgas consumptionrateishighenough,adequateodorantconcentrationlevelscan beachievedeventhoughathighelevationpointofconsumption. consumption
16

FLAMEACCELERATIONSIMULATOR (FLACS) ( )RESULTS Case1:GlenmarieHorizontalDispersion


SimulationatSelectedPreDeterminedCondition

17

Figure7.1:TheOverallPipingConfigurationfromGlenmarie odorizationStationtoHampshireParkResidence

18

Figure7.2:TheOverall MonitorPointsfortheCase StudyAdopted

19

Figure7.4:Pressure,PandMoleconcentration FMOLEprofileonTimeStep
20

21

22

FLAMEACCELERATIONSIMULATOR (FLACS)RESULTS Case2:HighRiseBuildingDispersion


SimulationatSelectedPreDeterminedCondition

23

Figure7.7:MonitorPointsofPipeConfiguration
24

Figure7.8 7 8:Fuel, Fuel PressureandVVEC ProfileinaStepTimeatt=0s


25

Figure7.9,PressureandVVECProfileinaStep Timeatt=4.985s
26

Figure7.10: Monitorpointsfor15mHeightBuilding

27

Figure7.11a:Fuel,PressureandVVECProfileina StepTimeatt=0sfor15mheightbuilding
28

Figure7.11b:Fuel,PressureandVVECProfileinaStepTimeat t=5.034sfor15mHeightBuilding
29

Comparisonbetween15and45mheightbuilding

SolutionforOdorFadeSystem Thevariousfactorswhichaffectodorantlossesfromgasstreamsinsteel pipeincludetemperature,pressure,gasflowrateandironoxide concentration. concentration Generally,thelowerthetemperature,thegreatertheodorantloss.This isexplicablesincetherateofadsorptionofgaseousmoleculesisinversely proportionaltotemperature[6] [6]. Adsorptionisdirectlyproportionaltopressureatconstanttemperature. Thus,higherlinepressuresresultinadditionaladsorptionofodorant molecules. l l Athigherflowratesthediffusionofodorantmoleculestoapipesurface islessprobable,resultingindecreasedadsorptionandpossible subsequentoxidationoftheodorantmoleculesatactivesites. Theironoxideconcentrationisafunctionofthecleanlinessofpipe.The cleanerthepipethesmallertheironoxideconcentration.
31

Inordertojustifythehypothesisgiveninliterature,simulations wereconductedbyvaryingpressureandflowasfollows: For15mheightbuilding;

For F 45mheight h i h b building; ildi

32

Figure7.14a:PressureVariationat MassFlowrateof144m3/hrat15m height P=0.344bar

P=0.138bar Figure7.14b:PressureVariationat MassFlowrateof144m3/hrat15m height

33

Figure7.14c:PressureVariationatMassFlowrateof144m3/hrat15m height

34

Figure7.12:MassFlowRate Variationat0.36m3/hrat15m height

Figure7.13a:MassFlowRateVariationat10.8 m3/hr / at15mheight

35

Figure7.13b:MassFlowRateVariationat3.6m3/hrat45mheight

Figure7.13c:MassFlowRateVariationat10.8m3/hr at45mheight

36

Figure7.13d:MassFlowRateVariationat144m3/hrsat45m height

37

FLACSC Conclusion l i
Simulationexercisehasbeenconductedoncasesconcerningtheodor fadeinnaturalgaspipelinedistributionsystemwithinLembahKelang regionalarea. Threecaseswereinvestigatedinvolvingthewideareacoveragetoinclude thedistributionsystemforGlenmarieandSerdangodorizationStations; andcaseinvolvinghighrisebuilding. Agood dagreement t b between t predicted di t dresults lt and din i situ it measurement tof f dispersionprofileofodorantingaspipelinewasobtained. yincreasing gtheg gasflowrateinupward p sloping p g p pipes, p anincreasingly g y By finebalancebetweenthefrictionalandgravitationalcontributionstothe lossofmomentum.

38

OVERALLCONCLUSION
Theoverallconclusionderivedonthef factualf findings g viasite measurement,CFDandFLACSanalyses

39

Thefollowingconclusionsarededucedfromdetailedfindings yconducted andfactualoutcomesobtainedfromthestudy from1st May,2012till31st December,2012: Theodorantconcentrationwasfoundsufficientatodoriser stations t ti (Gl (Glenmaries i and dSerdangs S d location) l ti )and dprovide id adequatesufficiencyuptoservicestations. Twoimportantfactorswereidentifiedtohavedirecteffect towardsodorantlossnamelyrateofgasconsumptionand altitudelevel.However,therateofgasconsumptionis consideredasdominanceincontributinghighestlossesof odorant.

40

Atalowergasflowratethelossofodorantismostsignificantat highelevationconsumptionpointespeciallyathighrise residentialbuilding. Fromsurveyconducted,themajorityofhighriseresidentialgas customersareunderutilisethegasfacilitiesthatcontribute towardslowergasconsumptionrate. rate Thefindingsindicatethatthepresentodorantconcentrationat 80%TBMand20%DMSprovidesadequatenaturalgas odorization. TheCFDresultsqualitativelyindicategoodagreementwiththe sitemeasurementdata. Theeffectofaltitudechangestowardsodorantlosseswas demonstratedclearlybymeansofFLACSsimulationresults.

41

High g floworactiveg gaslines(e.g. g SS, ,RSorAS)experience p lower%odorantloss.Inaddition,themagnitudesof odorantlossbetweengasstationsarequitesignificant. Odorantlossismoreprevalentinresidentialareaswhere gasconsumptionratesarerelativelylowercomparedto commercialareas. Comparisonof%odorantlossatdifferentlevelsof medium(DMC)andhighriseflat(PHF)orcondominium (SHC)showsthecombinedeffectsoflowgasconsumption andhighaltitudecontributetoevenhigherodorantloss.

42

RECOMMENDATION
Theoverallconclusionderivedonthef factualf findings g viasite measurement,CFDandFLACSanalyses

43

Sincethegaslowerconsumptionratesareexperiencedbythe majorityofthehighrisebuildingresidentialcustomers,itis hi hl recommended highly d dth that teach hresidential id ti lcustomers t unit itb be installedwithnaturalgasleakdetectionsystem. yneedtobeconductedby y Itisrecommendedthatfurtherstudy thegasutilitycompany(GMB)tolookuponpossibilityof installingBackCheckedValvealongthepiperouteinhighrise buildingtoprovidebetterretentionofodorantathigherlevel altitude. Extrainjectionbeintroducedatlevelhigherthan15storey, perhapslocatedattheroofsideofthebuilding.

44

I Itis i recommended d dthat h the h future f piping i i systemshould h ldbe b designed d i d withnodeadendconnectivityassuchthegaswillbetrappedand remainsstagnantshouldtherebenosignificantconsumption.By havingcontinuouspipeconnectionwithmoreactivecustomers furtherdownstream,thegasisexpectedtoinducesufficientsteadily amountofodorantinthepipeflowregime. Tointegratescheduledmonitoringofodorantlevelsespeciallyat highrisebuildingresidentialcustomers. Toincreasethelevelofusageamonghighrisebuildingresidence occupantsthroughcontinuouspromotionofnaturalgasintegrated safetyanditscontinuousbenefit. TheuseofCFDandFLACSsoftwarecouldprovideadditionalnichein determininginlineodorantdispersionandlossesatcriticalregion.

45

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS C O G S
ThegroupisextendingitssinceregratitudetotheEnergyCommission (EC)forprovidinggreatmanagementandfinancialassistance,the staffofGasMalaysiaBerhad(GMB)fortheircommitment, gdatasharing, g,thestaff ffandp project j coordinationandenabling membersofGASTEGfortheirfulldedication,enthusiasm,hard working,disciplineandeffortsthathadenabledthecompletionof theproject.

46

THANKYOU