0 Up votes0 Down votes

2 views14 pagesOct 10, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

2 views

© All Rights Reserved

- FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID MECHANICS, Cengel Cimbala Solutions Chap01.pdf
- Performance Evaluation Techniques for Paper Machines Vacuum
- Knockout Drum
- KIRK KVID Inlet Diffusers
- 2012 Thermal Mass Flow Controller Scaling Relations
- Erosion Guidelines
- Somoil - Soyo Processing Facilities Debottlenecking - Final
- Cyclones Standard for Reference
- Agar Mpfm300 Spec
- OTK 1.
- Merpro SPE March 2006
- Hevle Enhancing Pipeline Integrity With Early Detection of Internal
- ct prod log
- 978-1-61209-681-0_ch10.pdf
- Guide for Vessel Sizing
- AC-7-15_EN
- Maeg3030 Chp 1
- SGC2017 Universidad de Los Andes Juan BERRIO
- 2
- SEPCODESIGNMANUAL.pdf

You are on page 1of 14

W. A. Chirinos, L. E. Gomez, S. Wang, R. Mohan and O. Shoham, SPE, The University of Tulsa, G. Kouba, SPE,

Chevron Petroleum Technology Company

Introduction

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and A separator is a field vessel used to separate gas, oil and water

Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 36 October 1999.

from a multiphase mixture produced from oil and gas wells.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of

information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as

The petroleum industry has been using vessel-type separators

presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to for this purpose which are large, heavy and expensive to

correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any

position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at purchase and operate. In recent years, the industry has shown

SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of interest in the development and application of alternatives to

Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper

for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is the vessel-type separator. One such alternative is the Gas-

prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300

words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone (GLCC ) Separator. The

GLCC is a simple, compact, low-cost and low weight

acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.

Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract install and operate. Therefore, it is gaining popularity as an

The liquid carry-over phenomenon in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical economically attractive alternative to the vessel-type

Cyclone (GLCC 1) compact separators has been studied conventional separator for many field applications.

experimentally and theoretically. A schematic of the GLCC separator is shown in Figure 1.

Experimental data have been acquired including the It is basically a vertical piece of pipe, with a downward

operational envelope for liquid carry-over and percent liquid inclined tangential inlet and two outlets, one at the bottom for

carry-over beyond the operational envelope. The data show the liquid phase, and the other at the top for the gas phase.

that at low gas and high liquid flow rates, under churn flow

Current applications of the GLCC are for separating gas and

conditions in the upper part of the GLCC , large amount of liquid. The two-phase mixture flows tangentially from the

liquid can be carried over relatively easily. On the other hand,

at high gas and low liquid flow rates, under annular flow inlet into the GLCC forming a vortex. Due to the centrifugal,

conditions, one should exceed the operational envelope gravitational and buoyancy forces, the liquid moves to the

significantly in order to have large amount of liquid carry- wall, downward and exits from the lower part, while the gas

over. moves to the center, upward and exits from the top.

A mechanistic model has been developed for the prediction The GLCC has a wide range of potential applications,

of the percent liquid carry-over beyond the operational varying from only partial separation to a complete phase

envelope, for churn flow conditions. An existing model for the separation. Potential applications include control of gas-liquid

prediction of the operational envelope for liquid carry-over ratio (GLR) for multiphase flow meters, pumps and de-

has been extended to high-pressure conditions, including sanders, portable well test metering, steam quality metering,

improved models for zero-net liquid flow holdup, droplet flare gas scrubbing, primary surface and subsurface

region and blowout and critical velocities. separation, and pre-separation upstream of slug catchers or

Comparisons between the new mechanistic model primary separators.

predictions for percent liquid carry-over with the experimental

The GLCC operation is limited by two physical

data, under churn flow conditions, show a good agreement. phenomena; one is the liquid carry-over (LCO) in the gas

Also, in the lack of experimental data, the predictions of the stream and the other is the gas carry-under (GCU) in the liquid

operational envelope for liquid carry-over at high-pressure stream. LCO can occur in the gas leg in the form of droplets or

conditions show reasonable trends. stratified flow. GCU is the entrainment of gas bubbles into the

exiting liquid stream. Prediction of these two phenomena will

allow proper design and operation of the GLCC for the

1

GLCC - Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone copyright, The industry.

University of Tulsa, 1994

2 W. A. CHIRINOS, L. E. GOMEZ, R. MOHAN, O. SHOHAM SPE 56582

The goal of this project is to investigate experimentally and been created as a result of the gas inlet and outlet

theoretically the flow behavior in the upper part of the configurations.

GLCC and the mechanisms associated with the LCO

phenomena. The specific objectives of this study are given Mechanistic Modeling. Few mechanistic models have been

below: developed recently in order to describe and predict the flow

1. Acquire liquid carry-over data. These include the behavior in the GLCC . A mechanistic model for predicting

operational envelope and percent liquid carry-over separation efficiency based on the analysis of droplet

beyond the operational envelope. trajectories in liquid-liquid, oil/water hydrocyclones was

2. Develop a mechanistic model to predict percent liquid presented by Wolbert et al. (1995). These trajectories were

carry-over. calculated through a differential equation, combining models

3. Extend the mechanistic model to high-pressure for the three bulk velocity distributions, namely, axial, radial

conditions. and tangential. From the critical trajectory characteristics, a

droplet diameter was deduced corresponding to 100%

Literature Review separation efficiency.

Detailed literature review on compact separation technology Arpandi et al. (1996), based on experimental and theoretical

research was given by Arpandi et al. (1996), Mohan et al. studies performed at Tulsa University Separation Technology

(1998) and Gomez et al. (1998). A summary of the state-of- Projects (TUSTP), have developed a mechanistic model,

capable of predicting the general hydrodynamic flow behavior

the-art of GLCC technology has been recently presented by

Shoham and Kouba (1998). The following is an update on in a GLCC . This includes simple velocity distributions, gas-

liquid interface shape, equilibrium liquid level, total pressure

GLCC studies.

drop, and operational envelope. More research is necessary to

Experimental Studies. A resume of the experimental studies predict details of complex flow behavior in the GLCC and

phenomena such as liquid carry-over and gas carry-under.

on the detailed hydrodynamic flow behavior in the GLCC is

presented in this section. An analysis of bubble trajectory for GLCC separators was

Reydon and Gauvin (1981) studied the behavior of confined presented by Marti et al. (1996). The model predicts the gas-

vortex flow in conical cyclones. Their studies show that the liquid interface (vortex) near the inlet as a function of the

magnitude of the inlet velocity does not change the shape of radial distribution of the tangential velocity. The bottom of the

the tangential velocity, axial velocity and the static pressure vortex defines the starting location for the bubble trajectory

profiles. However, an increase in the inlet velocity increases analysis, which enables the determination of separation

the magnitude of all the above quantities. efficiency based on the gas bubble size.

Local laser Doppler anemometer (LDA) velocity Movafaghian (1997) presented new experimental data on

measurements in cylindrical cyclone separators were reported the effects of geometry, fluid physical properties and pressure

by Millington and Thew (1987). Their studies revealed that

on the hydrodynamic flow behavior in GLCC separators.

the distance between the inlet and the outlet controlled the gas

The data were utilized to check and refine the GLCC

carry-under rate. The authors suggested the use of twin,

mechanistic model developed previously by Arpandi et al.

diametrically opposite inlets for greater axi-symmetry and gas

(1996). Comparison between the modified model predictions

core filament stability, leading to a much improved gas carry-

and the experimental data showed a very good agreement.

under performance. They made the important observation that

Wang et al. (1998) developed a steady-state and a dynamic

the vortex occurring in the cylindrical cyclone separator is a

forced vortex with a tangential velocity structure. model as framework for the GLCC passive and active

Farchi (1990) conducted tangential velocity measurements control, respectively. The steady-state model was used to

in a cylindrical cyclone with static pitot tubes. His analyze the system sensitivity and the dynamic model was

measurements confirmed that a forced vortex occurs in the used to analyze the system stability by applying linear control

cyclone. However, as the diameter of the cyclone increases, theory. In this investigation, a preliminary control strategy was

the velocity distribution tends to match the free vortex profile. proposed for GLCC active control based on separated gas

Through a study on gas-liquid flow characteristics in a spiral and liquid outlet configuration.

horizontal cyclone with vortex generator, Kurokawa and A set of correlations for the prediction of the velocity field

Ohtaik (1995) confirmed the existence of a complex velocity

in the GLCC (tangential and axial) was presented by

profile by accurate single-phase liquid flow measurements. Mantilla et al. (1999). An improved bubble trajectory model

The study distinguishes a forced vortex, generating a jet was presented, utilizing the developed correlation that showed

region with extremely high swirl velocity around the pipe good agreement with the experimental data.

center, from a second swirl region formed by a free vortex Recently, Gomez et al. (1999) developed a state-of-the-art

near the wall and also an intermediate region of backflow with

high swirl velocity. This complex velocity profile may have computer simulator for GLCC design, in an Excel-Visual

Basic platform, capable of integrating the different modules of

the mechanistic model. Model enhancements include a flow

SPE 56582 LIQUID CARRY-OVER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE COMPACT SEPARATORS 3

pattern dependent nozzle analysis for the GLCC inlet, an

analytical model for the gas-liquid vortex interface shape, a Experimental Facility. The experimental two-phase flow-

unified particle trajectory model for bubbles and droplets, loop consists of a metering section to measure the single-phase

including a tangential velocity decay formulation and a gas and liquid flow rates, and a GLCC test section, where all

the experimental data are acquired. Following is a description

simplified model for the prediction of the GLCC aspect ratio.

of these two sections, as well as the instrumentation and data

CFD Simulations. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) acquisition system.

simulations have been used to support the mechanistic Metering Section. The metering section consists of two

modeling effort, by investigating the detailed hydrodynamics parallel, single-phase feeder-lines for measuring the incoming

single-phase gas and liquid flow rates. Two-phase mixture is

of the flow in the GLCC . Most of the previous CFD studies formed at the mixing tee and delivered to the test section.

with bubble trajectory analysis were limited to single-phase Air is used as the gas phase, which is supplied to a gas tank

flow. Bandyopadhyay et al. (1994) conducted a numerical

by an air compressor with a capacity of 250 cfm at 120 psig.

study to investigate the mechanism of separating gas bubbles

The gas flow rate into the loop is controlled by a regulating

from a bulk liquid in a cyclone separator. The authors first

valve and metered utilizing either a Micromotion mass flow

simulated single-phase liquid flow. The simulated liquid flow

field was then used to compute the trajectories of a single gas meter or a Daniel orifice flow meter.

bubble to determine the residence time of the bubbles in the The liquid phase (water) is supplied from a 400-gallon

storage tank at atmospheric pressure, and pumped to the liquid

separator and gas separation efficiency.

feeder line with a centrifugal pump. Similar to the gas phase,

Erdal et al. (1997) presented CFD simulations utilizing a

the liquid flow rate is controlled by a regulating valve and

commercial code called CFX (CFX 4.1, 1995). The

metered using orifice or mass flow meters. The single-phase

simulations presented details of the flow behavior in the

gas and liquid streams are combined at the mixing tee. Check

GLCC for single-phase and two-phase flow. The results valves, located downstream of each feeder, are provided to

verified that axi-symmetric simulation (2-D with three prevent backflow. The two-phase mixture downstream of the

velocity components) gave similar results as compared to the test section is separated utilizing a conventional separator. The

three-dimensional (3-D) simulations. An expression was gas is vented to the atmosphere and the liquid is returned to

developed for the equivalent inlet tangential velocity for the the storage tank to complete the cycle.

axi-symmetric model. A sensitivity analysis on the effects of

the ratio of the inlet tangential velocity to the average axial GLCC Test Section. The test section consists of a GLCC

separator, as shown in Figure 2. The test section is divided

velocity on the hydrodynamic flow behavior in the GLCC into 6 parts:

was also carried out. 1. The dual inlet section;

More recently, Motta et al. (1997) presented a simplified

model, based on a CFD approach, for rotational two-phase 2. The GLCC body;

3. The gas leg, which includes the liquid carry-over trap;

flow in a GLCC separator. The model assumes an axi- 4. The liquid leg;

symmetric flow with three velocity components, and is 5. The passive control system; and

applicable to steady-state and isothermal conditions. The study 6. The recombination section with the gas carry-under

also presents a comparison of proposed model and predictions trap.

of a commercial CFD code (CFX). As an example for

Dual Inlet. The dual inlet of the GLCC consists of a lower

potential application of the proposed model for GLCC

design, the study combines, for the first time, the gas carry- inlet pipe section, 3 diameter, connected to the GLCC with

under and liquid carry-over envelopes to present the region of an inlet having a sector-slot/plate configuration, with a nozzle

area of 25% of the inlet pipe cross sectional area. The upper

proper operation of the GLCC . inlet is a reduced pipe configuration, 1.5 diameter, with a full

Above overview of the state-of-the-art of the GLCC bore slot into the GLCC . The area of cross-section of the

technology reveals that more studies need to be conducted in upper inlet section is also 25% of that of the 3 inlet pipe. The

order to be able to design and operate the GLCC properly. GLCC can be configured with a single inlet or a dual inlet by

The present study includes a mechanistic model and new using the appropriate inlet valves. Only the lower inlet was

experimental data for liquid carry-over in the GLCC beyond used for experimental investigations in this study.

the operational envelope, and extension of the model for high-

GLCC body, Gas and Liquid Legs and Liquid Trap. The

pressure conditions.

GLCC body is 3 in diameter and 8 tall. It has several ports

for conducting local measurements, such as die injections and

Experimental Program pitot tube velocity measurements. The gas leg is 2 in

The details of the experimental facility, the GLCC diameter, and includes a gas vortex shedding meter (VSM)

configuration and the experimental data are presented in this and the liquid trap. A schematic of the liquid trap is shown in

part. Figure 3. The liquid trap is a 6 pipe section expansion with a

4 W. A. CHIRINOS, L. E. GOMEZ, R. MOHAN, O. SHOHAM SPE 56582

2 pipe connection to the gas leg. In the lower part, the trap the locus of the liquid and gas flow rates at which LCO is

allows accumulation and measurement of liquid carry-over for initiated provides the operational envelope for liquid carry-

conditions beyond the operational envelope. A mesh is over, as illustrated by the solid line in Figure 4.

installed at the exit of the liquid trap in order to trap fine liquid The area below the envelope is the region of normal

droplets in the gas stream. On the other hand, the liquid leg operating condition. In this region there is no liquid carry-over

consists of a combination of 2 and 1.5 diameter pipe from the separator. The region above the operational envelope

sections. It has a Micromotion mass flow meter (MM) to represents the flow conditions for continuous LCO. Point (a)

measure the liquid flow rate. in the Figure represents normal operating conditions in the

Passive Control System. The passive control system, shown

GLCC . Point (b) marks the initiation of the LCO

schematically in Figure 2, consists of a float chamber and a phenomenon. This point represents the minimum gas flow rate

float assembly. The passive control of the GLCC liquid level required to initiate LCO, for a given liquid flow rate. For

was achieved by means of a dual edge float with throttles, for higher gas flow rates at point (c), the liquid is carried over into

controlling the gas and the liquid outlet flow. This system was the gas stream continuously.

not utilized in the present study.

Percent Liquid Carry-over. Proper GLCC operation is

Recombination section. Prior to recombination of the gas limited by liquid carry-over in the gas stream. The

and liquid streams, the liquid phase passes through a barrel. mechanisms responsible for liquid carry-over are churn flow

This 6 pipe section is provided in order to quantify the

and annular flow occurring in the upper part of the GLCC .

amount of gas carry-under into the liquid stream. In the

At relatively high liquid and low gas flow rates, the liquid

present study no gas carry-under measurements were

conducted. churns up and down in the upper part of the GLCC . Under

Instrumentation and Data Acquisition System. The this condition, liquid is carried over into the gas leg in the

form of stratified flow. This phenomenon is presented in

GLCC is equipped with a level indicator (sight gauge)

Figure 5.

installed parallel to the body of the separator, and a differential

On the other hand, at relatively high gas and low liquid flow

pressure transducer, which gives a measure of the liquid level.

The separated gas and liquid phases are metered by means of a rates, the flow pattern in the upper part of the GLCC is

gas vortex shedding meter (located in the gas leg) and a annular flow. Under this condition liquid is carried over into

Micromotion mass flow meter (in the liquid leg). The the gas stream and through the gas leg in the form of droplets,

as shown in Figure 5.

average pressure of the GLCC is measured by an absolute A combined plot of these two flow phenomena for liquid

pressure transducer located in the gas leg. The temperature carry-over is presented in Figure 6, including the annular and

and density of the liquid phase are also measured by the churn flow regions, which are separated by the transition

Micromotion meter. region.

All output signals from the sensors, transducers and

metering devices are terminated at a central panel, which in Experimental Results. This section presents the experimental

turn is connected to the computer through an A/D converter. A

data acquisition system setup is built in the computer using results on the GLCC performance, including the operational

envelope and the percent liquid carry-over.

LABTECH-pro software to acquire data from the

Operational Envelope for Liquid Carry-over. Figure 7

instrumentation. This setup is capable of fixing the sampling

presents the experimental results for liquid carry-over. The

frequency at specific rates, as desired. The sampling frequency

was set at 2 Hz for the flow meters and all the devices, except GLCC was operating with the lower inlet and mesh installed

the differential pressure transducer, which was set at 50 Hz. in the liquid trap. The operating pressure was atmospheric, and

Once the steady-state condition is established, an arithmetic air and water were used as working fluids.

average of data collected for 2 minutes duration is computed

In general, at relatively low Vsg, the GLCC can tolerate

as the final value of the quantity measured. high liquid flow rates. However, as Vsg increases the

operational envelope decreases. The operational envelope is

Physical Phenomena. In order to get a better understanding characterized by three regions, namely churn, transition and

of the experimental results, which will be presented next, a annular flow. In the churn region, characterized by low gas

discussion of the fundamental two-phase flow phenomena and high liquid flow rate (Vsg < 10 ft/s), the liquid level in the

related to the operational envelope and liquid carry-over

GLCC is above the inlet and the liquid is churning up and

beyond the operational envelope in the GLCC is provided in

down in the upper part of the GLCC . In the annular region,

this section. characterized by high gas and low liquid flow rate (Vsg > 20

Operational Envelope for Liquid Carry-over. The ft/s), the liquid level is below the inlet and there is a liquid

operational envelope for liquid carry-over represents the

initiation of liquid entrainment into the discharged gas stream, film flow around the GLCC wall below the inlet up to the

gas/liquid interface. In this region, the liquid flow rate for the

at the top of the GLCC . It occurs under extreme operating onset of liquid carry-over has a linear trend with the gas

conditions of high gas and/or high liquid flow rates. Plotting

SPE 56582 LIQUID CARRY-OVER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE COMPACT SEPARATORS 5

stream. Between the churn and annular regions is the neither churn flow nor fully developed annular flow occurs in

transition region (10 ft/s < Vsg < 20 ft/s), in which the liquid

the upper part of the GLCC . As a result, the LCO is very

level is around the inlet. In this region, there is no churn flow small, less than 0.5%, for conditions far beyond the

in the upper part of the GLCC and at the same time the gas operational envelope.

flow rate is not high enough to produce annular flow.

Percent Liquid Carry-over. The experimental measurement Mechanistic Model

of the percent liquid carry-over lines was carried out with the This chapter is divided into three parts. The first part presents

following procedure: the TUSTP mechanistic model for predicting the operational

1. Set the gas for the least possible flow. envelope. The second part presents the new model developed

2. Set the liquid flow very small and increase until in this study for percent LCO prediction. The last part

initiation of liquid carry-over is observed. describes an extension of the operational envelope and liquid

3. Increase the gas flow rate to get liquid carry-over flow carry-over, to high-pressure conditions. Note that all new

conditions. developments (percent LCO and high-pressure conditions) are

4. Set the data acquisition program upon determination of carried out only for the churn flow region.

steady-state condition. The model to predict the operational envelope for zero

5. Measure the time and the height of liquid in the lower percent LCO was presented previously by Arpandi et al.

pipe section of the liquid trap. This would be one point (1996). The objective of this study is to extend this model to

corresponding to a percentage of liquid carry-over line. conditions beyond the operational envelope. The main

6. Increase the gas flow rate in small increments and difference between these two physical models is that for LCO

repeat steps 2, 3 and 5 to obtain additional data points. conditions, two-phase flow occurs in the gas leg instead of

The equations to compute the percent liquid carry over single-phase flow. As a result, the pressure drop calculations

(PLCO) are: for this part were modified for two-phase flow conditions. The

new model for percent liquid carry-over is described below.

q Liq co

PLCO = * 100 (1) The GLCC nomenclature for the mechanistic model is given

q in Figure 9.

Liq in

Zero-Net Liquid Flow Holdup. Based on high-pressure

data presented by Duncan and Scott (1998) a pressure

Vol Liq co

q Liq co = (2) correction factor, FP , was developed, to extend the zero-net

Time liquid flow holdup, presented by Arpandi et al. (1996), to high

pressures.

where The zero-net liquid flow holdup, Hlo, for liquid carry-over

qLiq-in = Inlet volumetric flow rate of liquid (ft3/s) conditions, taking into account the percent liquid carry-over

qLiq-co = Carry-over volumetric flow rate of liquid (ft3/s) and a pressure correction factor is given by:

VLiq-co = Trapped liquid volume (ft3)

Time = Time interval (s). Vsg Ld

H 'lo = 1 1 F 1 + (3)

V L P

The experimental results for liquid carry-over beyond the

operational envelope are shown in Figure 8. The percent liquid go g1 100

carry-over is the percentage of the inlet liquid volumetric flow

rate, which is carried over with the gas stream. In the churn where, Ld, the droplet region length is given by:

region, at high Vsl and low Vsg, large quantities of liquid can be

carried over, relatively easily. Here, the lines look very close 1 (4)

to each other. In this region, slight increase in the operating Ld =

conditions beyond the operational envelope may result in as

2g Cd

( gV sg )2 3

high as 3% LCO. Data for this region were acquired up to 5% Vsg

2

2 32 lg c

LCO. Higher percent LCO could be achieved by further

increasing the flow conditions. In the annular region, at high and Vgo, is the modified Taylor bubble rise velocity, namely:

Vsg and low Vsl, it is more difficult to have large amount of

liquid carry-over beyond the operational envelope, and the l g

lines look more separated, in comparison to the churn flow V go = CoVsg + 0.35 g d s

(5)

region. As can be seen, the flow conditions must be increased l

significantly beyond the operational envelope in order to get

even a 0.6% liquid carry-over. where Co = 1.15 .

An interesting phenomenon is observed in the transition

region, namely, the percent liquid carry-over is very small for The modification for the zero-net liquid flow holdup was

the entire region. The main reason for this is that at the based on experimental data presented by Duncan and Scott

transition region the liquid level is around the inlet, and (1998), who measured the zero-net liquid flow holdup under

6 W. A. CHIRINOS, L. E. GOMEZ, R. MOHAN, O. SHOHAM SPE 56582

high-pressure conditions in a 25-ft tall, 4.897-in diameter droplet region up to the blow out velocity, which is consistent

cylindrical cyclone. Experiments were performed using with the physical phenomena.

methane and water at pressures ranging from 100 to 500 psia. The critical velocity is the velocity required to initiate liquid

Based on the difference between the zero-net liquid flow carry-over in the form of fine droplets (Kouba et al., 1995),

holdup computed by the model and the experimental data, a namely,

pressure correction factor, Fp, was developed using the least

squares method in order to predict the zero-net liquid flow 0.25

l g

holdup at high-pressure conditions. The root mean square Vcrit = 0.6812 We (11)

error between the experimental data and the predictions of the 2

g

zero-net liquid flow holdup using the pressure correction

factor was 5.8%.

where We is the Weber number (8.0).

The developed expressions for the pressure correction factor

A comparison between the critical and blowout velocities

are:

reveals that at low pressures Vcrit > Vbo, but at high pressures

Vcrit < Vbo. Hence, for the mechanistic model at high pressures,

FP = 3.7176 P 0.2633 (for P > 146.5 psig) (6) the critical velocity is set to be equal to the blowout velocity.

Figure 11 shows the trend of Vbo, Vcrit and Vdiscont for

FP = 1 (for P 146.5 psig). (7) different pressure conditions.

Pressure Drop in the Gas Leg. The corresponding equation

The prediction of the zero-net liquid flow holdup for high to compute the pressure drop under liquid carry-over

pressures, given by Equation (3), is valid for Hlo > 0.2. conditions is:

Therefore for 0 < Hlo <0.2 the zero-net liquid flow holdup is

based on the interpolation between 0.2 and 0, using the f go gVgo2 (Lg1 Ld ) f g gVsg2 Ld

corresponding superficial gas velocities, as follows: P 'Gas = (12)

2d go 2 Ds

H lo = (0 < Hlo< 0.2) (8)

(Vsg [

0.2 ] Vbo )

The gravitational and frictional pressure drops in the upper

where Vbo, the blowout velocity is the velocity for which the part of the GLCC include the effect of the presence of the

length of the droplet region, Ld, is equal to the total height of liquid phase at zero-net liquid flow conditions. Determination

of the frictional pressure drop in Equation (12) is carried out

the GLCC above the inlet Lg1 (see Figure 9), and Hlo is 0. by taking into consideration the reduced area of flow of the

Vsg[0.2], is the corresponding velocity when Hlo is 0.2. gas phase due to the presence of liquid. The reduced diameter

Figure 10 presents the predictions of the current model for for gas flow is given by:

the pressure range of 800 2500 psig, for which no

experimental data are available at the present time.

d go = d s 1 H lo (13)

Equation (4) exhibits a discontinuity when the denominator

is equal to zero. Therefore, taking the denominator of

Equation (4) and equating it to zero gives: The increased gas velocity Vgo can be solved from Equation

(5). The Reynolds number is therefore:

2 g Cd

(g Vsg )2 3 = 0 . (9)

gVgo d go

Vsg

2

2 32 l g c Rego = (14)

g

The superficial gas velocity solved from Equation (9),

namely the discontinuity velocity, is given by: The interface roughness is assumed to be equal to an

equivalent annular film thickness, , resulting in a friction

128 g l g c factor of the form:

Vdiscont = 4 (10)

3Cd g2

f go = f go Re go , (15)

d go

When the droplet length is equal to Lg1, Equation (4) can be

solved numerically in order to get the blowout velocity Vbo. It

was found out that Vdiscont > Vbo always, even for high where the equivalent film thickness is given by

pressures. Thus, since the droplet region is used only in the

churn flow region up to the blow out velocity, the d s d go

discontinuity may be avoided by restricting the use of the = (16)

2

SPE 56582 LIQUID CARRY-OVER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE COMPACT SEPARATORS 7

V sl

mo = l H lo + g (1 H lo ) (17) l = (25)

V M 100

In Equation (12), g is the frictional pressure loss in the gas Calculation Procedure. The model procedure to predict the

section, given by: percent liquid carry-over lines ( %) for churn flow, as shown

in Figure 6, is the following:

M n f Mi LiV Mi2 n 1. Set the superficial gas velocity, namely, VsgOE, on the

'g =

i= 2 + K iV Mi2

(18)

operational envelope.

2 di i = 1

2. Assume a percent liquid carry-over, .

The first term in the parentheses of Equation (18) represents 3. Select a superficial liquid velocity in the liquid leg, Vsl.

the frictional losses in the different pipe segments of the loop 4. Determine the inlet superficial liquid velocity, Vsl.

and the second term represents the losses in the different pipe (Equation 22).

fittings. These terms are based on the mixture velocity and 5. Calculate the mixture velocity and density in the gas

density, utilizing the no slip homogeneous model. leg, under two-phase flow conditions, namely, VM and

Equilibrium Liquid level. Under liquid carry-over M, respectively. (Equations 23, 24, and 25).

conditions, for churn flow, liquid is presented in the upper part 6. Determine the maximum liquid holdup that can be

of the GLCC in the form of zero-net liquid flow. For these tolerated in the upper part of the GLCC above the

conditions the equation for the equilibrium liquid level is, as inlet, Hlo, for LCO conditions (Equation 3).

follows: 7. Calculate the pressure drop in the gas leg PGas, under

two-phase flow conditions (Equation 12), using the

L'eq = Lin + H 'lo (Lg1 Ld ) (for Ld < Lg1). (19) homogeneous model, for Lg2 and Lg3.

8. Determine the equilibrium liquid level (Leq) in the

Pressure Drop in the Liquid Leg. The equation to compute GLCC for LCO conditions. (Equation 19).

the pressure drop in the liquid leg for liquid carry-over 9. Calculate the pressure drop in the liquid leg, PLiq,

conditions is: under single-phase liquid flow conditions, with Vsl

(Equation 20).

P 'Liq = l g (L'eq Ll 3 )+ g g (Lin L'eq ) 'l (20) 10. The pressure losses in the gas and liquid legs must be

the same. Check PGas = PLiq for convergence.

11. Repeat steps 3 to 10 with a new value of Vsl until

where convergence is reached. This results in a pair of

superficial gas velocity, VsgOE, and superficial liquid

l m fi LiV 'sli2 m velocity, Vsl, on the percent of liquid carry-over line

'l =

+ KiV ' sli2

(21)

2 i =1 di i =1 for %.

12. Repeat steps 1 to 11 for different values of superficial

and Vsl is superficial liquid velocity in the liquid leg. gas velocities on the operational envelope to get the

The superficial liquid velocity at the inlet for the percent entire percent liquid carry-over line for %.

liquid carry-over is: 13. Repeat the whole procedure (step 1 to step 12) for

different values of percent liquid carry-over, , to get

V 'sl (22) other curves of percent LCO.

Vsl =

1 Results and Discussion

100

Zero-Net Liquid Flow. The comparison of the model given

by Equations (3), (6), (7) and (8), with the Arpandi et al.

and the mixture velocity and density in the gas leg are given,

(1996) data for atmospheric conditions and the experimental

respectively, by:

data of Duncan and Scott (1998) for high pressures, is shown

in Figures 12, 13 and 14.

V M = V sg OE + V sl (23)

100 Operational Envelope. The comparison between the

experimental result of the operational envelope for zero

M = l l + g (1 l ) (24) percent LCO and the model predictions is given in Figure 15.

The experimental results are presented as squared points. The

mechanistic model predictions are shown as a solid line. The

The no slip holdup is based on the percent liquid carry-over,

mechanistic model for the operational envelope for zero

and is given by:

8 W. A. CHIRINOS, L. E. GOMEZ, R. MOHAN, O. SHOHAM SPE 56582

percent liquid carry-over is a revised version of the model of liquid carry-over. In the transition region (10

presented by Arpandi et al. (1996). For the churn region, the ft/s<Vsg<20 ft/s) less than 0.5% of liquid carry-over was

agreement between the model prediction and the data is very obtained even for flow rates significantly beyond the

good. The predictions for the annular region needs to be operational envelope.

addressed in future work. 2. A physical model to predict the percent liquid carry-

over under churn flow conditions was developed. The

Percent Liquid Carry-Over. Comparison between the new model provides an extension of the Arpandi et al.

experimental data and the model predictions is shown in (1996) operational envelope model to conditions

Figure 16 for churn flow conditions. The model prediction of beyond the zero percent liquid carry-over. The main

the LCO lines has a good agreement with data. Similar to the difference between these two physical models is that for

experimental data, the model also predicts that under churn LCO conditions, two-phase flow occurs in the gas leg

flow conditions, large amounts of liquid can be carried over instead of single-phase flow. As a result, the pressure

relatively easily. drop calculations for this part were modified

accordingly.

Extension to High Pressure Conditions. The prediction of 3. The mechanistic model has been extended for high-

the operational envelope for high-pressure conditions is given pressure conditions to predict the operational envelope

in Figure 17. First the experimental results for the operational for zero percent liquid carry-over and beyond. The

modifications include zero-net liquid flow holdup,

envelope of the GLCC without the mesh are presented as

circled points. The mechanistic model predictions for this droplet region and blowout and critical velocities.

condition are shown as a solid line. The model prediction lines 4. The zero-net modification was based on experimental

for the operational envelope at high pressures are presented for data taken by Duncan and Scott (1998). They measured

pressures ranging from 100 to 2500 psig. The plot shows that the liquid flow holdup under high-pressure conditions.

Based on the difference between the zero-net liquid

as the pressure increases (above 500 psig), the GLCC flow holdup data and the mechanistic model, a pressure

operational envelope shifts upward marginally. Since at high correction factor, Fp, is developed to predict the zero-

pressures the density of the gas is higher, the GLCC can net liquid flow holdup at high-pressure conditions.

tolerate higher liquid flow rate for a given gas flow rate. The 5. The equation for droplet region has a discontinuity

predictions of the operational envelope lines at high-pressure problem when the denominator is equal to zero. Since

conditions are terminated at the blowout velocity. At this Vdiscont > Vbo, the discontinuity can be avoided by

velocity the zero-net liquid flow holdup is equal to zero and restricting the use of the droplet region up to the blow

the onset of annular flow occurs. The hydrodynamic behavior out velocity.

for annular flow conditions under high-pressure conditions is 6. A comparison between the critical and blowout

unknown due to the absence of supporting experimental data. velocities reveals that at low pressures Vcrit > Vbo, but at

Therefore the operational envelope lines are shown only for high pressures Vcrit < Vbo. Hence, for the mechanistic

churn flow conditions. model at high pressures, the critical velocity will be

The prediction of the percent liquid carry-over at high equated to the blowout velocity.

pressures is presented in Figure 18. Lines corresponding to 5% 7. Comparison between the new mechanistic model

and 10% LCO are shown for 100 and 2500 psig flow predictions of liquid carry-over for churn flow

conditions. The predictions of the percent liquid carry-over at conditions and the experimental data shows a good

high pressures show a reasonable trend, matching intuitive agreement. Also the predictions of the operational

expectations. envelope at high pressures match intuitive expectations.

Conclusions Nomenclature

The hydrodynamics of liquid carry-over beyond the

operational envelope in Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Cd = drag coefficient

compact separators have been studied theoretically and Co = flow coefficient

experimentally. The conclusions based on this study are given d = diameter (ft)

as follows: f = friction factor

1. A set of experimental data was acquired up to 5% liquid Fp = pressure correction factor

carry-over. The data show that at low gas and high H = liquid flow holdup

liquid flow rates (churn flow in the upper part of the g = acceleration due to gravity (ft/s)

GLCC , Vsg<10 ft/s), large amounts of liquid can be gc = units conversion constant (32.2 lbm ft/lbf s2)

carried over relatively easily. Otherwise at high gas and K = fitting resistance coefficient

low liquid flow rates (annular flow conditions, Vsg>20 L = length (ft)

ft/s) one should exceed the operational envelope n = number of pipe segments in liquid leg

significantly in order to have comparably large amount n = number of pipe segments in gas leg

P = pressure (psi)

SPE 56582 LIQUID CARRY-OVER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE COMPACT SEPARATORS 9

q = volumetric flow rate (ft3/s) 4. Duncan, R. W. and Scott, S.L.: Vertical Zero-Net

Re = Reynolds number Liquid Flow: Effects of High-pressure on Holdup, 1st

V = velocity (ft/s) BHR Group North American Conference Multiphase

We = Weber number Technology, Banff, Canada, June 10-11, 1998, pp. 43-

60.

Greek Letter 5. Erdal, F., Shirazi, S., Shoham, O. and Kouba, G.: CFD

= film thickness (ft) Simulation of Single-Phase and Two-Phase in Gas-

= no-slip holdup Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, SPE 36645,

= incremental deviation presented at the the SPE 71st Annual Meeting, Denver,

= frictional losses (psi) October 6-9, (1996), SPEJ, vol. 2, ( December, 1997),

= viscosity (cp) 436-446.

= density (lbm/ft3) 6. Farchi, D. A study of Mixers and Separators for Two-

phase flow in M.H.D. Energy Conversion Systems,

= surface tension (lbf/ft)

M.S. Thesis (in Hebrew), Ben-Gurion University, Israel,

= percent liquid carry-over (%)

1990.

7. Gomez, L., Mohan, R., Shoham, O., Marrelli, J., and

Subscripts

Kouba, G.: State-of-the-art Simulator and Field

bo = blow-out

Applications of Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone

crit = critical

Separators, SPE 56581, presented at the SPE 74th

co = carry-over

Annual Meeting, Houston, October 3-6, 1999.

d = droplet, data

8. Gomez, L., Mohan, R., Shoham, O. and Kouba, G.:

discont = discontinuity

Enhanced Mechanistic Model and Field Application

eq = equilibrium

Design of Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separator,

g = gas rd

SPE 49174, presented at the SPE 73 Annual Meeting,

in = inclined inlet

New Orleans, September 27 -30, 1998.

l = liquid

9. Kouba, G.E., Shoham, O. and Shirazi, S.: Design and

Liq = Liquid

Performance of Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone

mo = two-phase mixture under zero-net liquid

Separators, Proceedings of the BHR Group 7th

flow

International Meeting on Multiphase Flow, Cannes,

M = mixture

France, June 7-9, 1995, pp. 307-327.

o = zero-net liquid flow

10. Kurokawa, J. and Ohtaik, T.: Gas-Liquid Flow

OE = operational envelope

Characteristics and Gas-Separation Efficiency in a

s = GLCC separator, superficial Cyclone Separator, ASME FED-Vol. 225, Gas Liquid

Flows, 1995, pp. 51-57.

Superscripts 11. Mantilla, I., Shirazi, S. and Shoham, O.: Flow Field

= conditions of liquid carry-over

Prediction and Bubble Trajectory Model in GLCC

Separators, presented at the ASME Energy Resources

Abbreviations Technology Conference and Exhibition, ETCE, Houston,

GCU = gas carry-under

TX, Feb. 1-2, 1999, ASME J. Energy Resources

GLCC = gas-liquid cylindrical cyclone Technology, v. 121, (March 1999), 9-14.

LCO = liquid carry-over 12. Marti, S., Erdal, F., Shoham, O., Shirazi, S. and Kouba,

PLCO = percent liquid carry-over G.: Analysis of Gas Carry-Under in Gas-Liquid

Cylindrical Cyclones, presented at the Hydrocyclones

References 1996 International Meeting, St. John College,

1. Arpandi I.A., Joshi A.R., Shoham, O., Shirazi, S. and Cambridge, England, April 2-4, 1996.

Kouba, G.E.: Hydrodynamics of Two-Phase Flow in 13. Millington, B.C. and Thew, M.T.: LDA Study of

Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, SPE 30683, Component Velocities in Air-Water Models of Steam-

presented at SPE 70th Annual Meeting, Dallas, October Water Cyclone Separators, Proceeding of the 3rd

22-26, 1995, SPEJ, December 1996, pp. 427-436. International Conference on Multiphase Flow, The

2. Bandyopadhyay, P.R., Pacifico, G.C. and Gad-el-Hak, Hague, The Netherlands, May 18, 1987, pp. 115-125.

M.: Sensitivity of a Gas-Core Vortex in a Cyclone- 14. Mohan, R., Wang, S., Shoham, O. and Kouba, G.:

Type Gas-Liquid Separator, Advanced Technology and Design and Performance of Passive Control System for

Prototyping Division, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, ASME J.

Division, Newport, Rhode Island, 1994. Energy Resources Technology, v. 120(1), (March 1998),

3. CFX 4.1, CFX 4.1 Flow Solve User Guide, AEA 49-55.

Technology, Oxfordshire, UK, 1995.

10 W. A. CHIRINOS, L. E. GOMEZ, R. MOHAN, O. SHOHAM SPE 56582

15. Motta, B., R., F., Erdal, F. M., Shirazi, S., A., Shoham,

O. and Rhyne, L., D.: Simulation of Single-phase and 23

Separators, Proceedings of the ASME Summer INLET OUTLET

Meerting, Fluid Eng. Division, Vancouver, Canada, June 6

22-26, (1997).

16. Movafaghian, S.: The Effects of Geometry, Fluid Mesh

Properties and Pressure on the Flow Hydrodynamics in

Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, M.S.

Measuring 2

Thesis, The University of Tulsa, 1997. Column

17. Reydon, R.F. and Gauvin, W.H.: Theoretical and

Experimental Studies of Confined Vortex Flow, The

Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol.59,

February 1981, pp. 14-23.

18. Shoham, O. and Kouba, G.: The State-of-the-Art of

Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone Separators

Technology, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 50, Figure 3- Schematic of Liquid Trap

No. 7, July 1998, pp 58-65.

19. Wang, S., Mohan, R., Shoham, O. and Kouba, G.:

Dynamic Simulation and Control System Design of

Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone

rd

Separators, SPE 49175,

presented at the SPE 73 Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Ql or

September 27 -30, 1998. Vsl LCO REGION

Efficiency Estimation of Liquid-Liquid Hydrocyclones a b c

No.6, June 1995, pp. 1395-1402. NO LCO REGION

Qg or Vsg

ft 3.048* E 01 = m

ft 2 9.290 304* E 02 = m 2

ft 3 2.831 685 E 02 = m 3

Figure 4- Liquid Carry-over Operational Envelope

in. 2.54* E + 00 = cm

psi 6.894* 757 E + 00 = kPa 102.5

8.5 23 16.5

5 8 8

2 6

6

25.5

VSM

26 24 2

21

3

20 2

60

1.5

24

3 8

27 3

10

2.5

21

1.5

#1

3 6 20

6

Nozzle 3 30 #2

tangential

48 1

inlet

4 24

8

24 1.5 6

12

0.75 24

3 2 MM

Flat plate tangent 26 9

5 2

3

61 9 30.5 16 23 24 3

Figure 1- Schematic of GLCC Separator Figure 2- Schematic of GLCC Test Section

SPE 56582 LIQUID CARRY-OVER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE COMPACT SEPARATORS 11

TWO-PHASE TWO-PHASE

INLET INLET

LIQUID LIQUID

1.6

Vsl

CHURN

0.6%

1.4

ANNULAR

1.7%

Vsl

PERCENT 2.7%

Vsl (ft/s)

LCO LINES 1.2

0.5 0.3 3.7%

Vsl OE

Churn 0.1 4.8%

0.03

0.1

1.0

Transition

Operational Envelope

OPERATIONAL 0.8

ENVELOPE Transition

Annular

0.6

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36

Vsg OE Vbo Vcrit

Vsg Vsg (ft/s)

Lg2

1.6 10

D3

1.4 9 Gas

Gas flow Meter

Operational Envelope 8

1.2

Liquid Level (ft)

7 Lg1

D1

1.0

Vsl (ft/s)

6

0.8

5

0.6 OUTFLOW

4 Lin

3 INLET FLOW

Liquid flow Meter

0.2

2

D2

Liquid

0.0 1

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 Ll2

Vsg (ft/s)

Figure 7- Operational Envelope and Liquid Level Figure 9- GLCC Nomenclature for Mechanistic

Model

12 W. A. CHIRINOS, L. E. GOMEZ, R. MOHAN, O. SHOHAM SPE 56582

0.40

0.50

0.35

Data Model

800 psig 0.40

1000 psig

0.30

1500 psig

2000 psig 0.30

0.25 L

2500 psig

HO

0.20

HLO

0.20

0.15 0.10

0.10 0.00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0.05

Vsg (ft/s)

0.00

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 Figure 13- Comparison of Zero-net Liquid Flow

Vsg (ft/s)

Holdup at 300 psig

Figure 10- Prediction of Zero-Net Liquid Flow

Holdup at High Pressures

0.5

45

Data Model

0.4

40

35

0.3

Vbo

HLO

Velocity (ft/s)

30 Vcrit

Vdiscont 0.2

25

20 0.1

15

0.0

10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

5

Vsg (ft/s)

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Figure 14- Comparison of Zero-net Liquid Flow

Pressure (psig) Holdup at 500 psig

Velocities

2.0

0.5 1.8

1.4

Vsl (ft/s)

1.2

0.3

HLO

1.0

0.8

0.2

0.6

0.1 0.4

0.2

0.0 0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Vsg (ft/s)

Vsg (ft/s)

Figure 12- Comparison of Zero-net Liquid Flow Holdup at 0 Figure 15- Operational Envelope Comparison

psig

SPE 56582 LIQUID CARRY-OVER IN GAS-LIQUID CYLINDRICAL CYCLONE COMPACT SEPARATORS 13

2.5

OPEN Experiment

2.3 0.6% Experiment

1.7% Experiment

2.1 2.7% Experiment

4.8% Experiment

1.9 Model 0% LCO

Model 1.5% LCO

1.7 Model 2.5% LCO

Vsl (ft/s)

Model 5% LCO

Model 10% LCO

1.5 (no data)

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.7

0.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Vsg (ft/s)

2.0

1.8

OPEN Experiment

OPEN Model

1.6

Model 100 psig

1.4 Model 500 psig

Model 1000 psig

Vsl (ft/s)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Vsg (ft/s)

14 W. A. CHIRINOS, L. E. GOMEZ, R. MOHAN, O. SHOHAM SPE 56582

2.6

Model 5% LCO at 100 psig

1.8

Model 10% LCO at 100 psig

1.6

Vsl (ft/s)

1.4

Model 5% LCO at 2500 psig

1.2

Model 10% LCO at 2500 psig

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Vsg (ft/s)

- FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID MECHANICS, Cengel Cimbala Solutions Chap01.pdfUploaded byLuis Varela
- Performance Evaluation Techniques for Paper Machines VacuumUploaded byManan Vadher
- Knockout DrumUploaded bygautam_96948069
- KIRK KVID Inlet DiffusersUploaded bySHI
- 2012 Thermal Mass Flow Controller Scaling RelationsUploaded byccwang
- Erosion GuidelinesUploaded byachmaddach
- Somoil - Soyo Processing Facilities Debottlenecking - FinalUploaded byHedi Ben Mohamed
- Cyclones Standard for ReferenceUploaded byabumoza
- Agar Mpfm300 SpecUploaded byCristhian Torres
- OTK 1.Uploaded bykradsrevolc
- Merpro SPE March 2006Uploaded bydayrog
- Hevle Enhancing Pipeline Integrity With Early Detection of InternalUploaded byAbdul Munir
- ct prod logUploaded byRamanamurthy Palli
- 978-1-61209-681-0_ch10.pdfUploaded byBruno Navarro
- Guide for Vessel SizingUploaded byAhmad
- AC-7-15_ENUploaded bySan Svake Taste
- Maeg3030 Chp 1Uploaded byBen Chan
- SGC2017 Universidad de Los Andes Juan BERRIOUploaded byDuy Hai
- 2Uploaded byasathishmct
- SEPCODESIGNMANUAL.pdfUploaded byAnonymous v5uipH
- 2_SafetyRiskAnalysis-GasPlantItalyUploaded bySDP02
- 10.1016@j.seppur.2017.09.040Uploaded bySasthi Hens
- Compressor KD5508WUploaded byjorge
- mpeb-vt_0-25-10_enUploaded bySezer Deniz Zağlı
- Flow MetersUploaded byharis
- SLUDGE SEPARATOR.pdfUploaded byaswar
- LS-043+HTX+Spec+SheetUploaded bySanto E
- Topic 5 Fundamentals of Fluid FlowUploaded byJohn Rey Galendez Laviña
- ArenaUploaded byDanielSantos
- 2. Ex. No. 6 Head Losses in Pipe SystemUploaded byIbrahimDewali

- Energy 19Uploaded bytiger2kl
- An Operator's View of the Power SectorUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- OAG-LACT-Application-Data-Sheet.pdfUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- f1f9 Capex eBookUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- FSOUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- Tiguan-December-2010.pdfUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- Energy 19Uploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- 2016 Oil Gas Industry Annual ReportUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- Turbine-Tech-Magazine.pdfUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- LNG Pipeline SystemUploaded byfanhad
- Barton Chart Recorders 202e User ManualUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- envirocell.pdfUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- VEIRSEP_LR.pdfUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- Wemco1+1 brochure.pdfUploaded byviktribe
- SASOL GTL.docxUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- GTL Process - By a.hoekUploaded byDebye101
- lpgUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- solid dessicant.pdfUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- SS Processing Poster 022117 D5 APPUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- OE January, 2017Uploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- farr-pumpUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- Gould Pump CatalogueUploaded byOlusegun Oyebanji
- Pump BasicUploaded byNatesan Nair

- 54225323 Recommended Hot Spot Analysis Procedure for Structural Details of FPSOsUploaded byugobalda
- StrainGauges_E1007AUploaded byChristian Milenius Tambunan
- Analysis and Design of Shear Wall.pptUploaded byteguh widayat
- Avoid Cavitation in Centrifugal PumpsUploaded byMatiaseflores
- Strain Hardening and AnnealingUploaded byAnonymous 1VhXp1
- IIT physics -- Magnatism formula sheetUploaded byParas Thakur
- Sound Waves Lecture Ppt (Wave Motion Part 2)Uploaded byLeilani Manalaysay
- Reverse EngineerUploaded byJay Hidup
- 86 Measuring a Discharge Coefficient of an Orifice for an Unsteady Compressible Flow (1)Uploaded byKayla Dollente
- fluid dynamics.docUploaded bySampath Kumar
- INFLUENCE OF HYSTERESIS ON THE DYNAMICS OF CRYOGENIC LNG COMPOSITE HOSESUploaded bynjm001
- Physics Grade 7Uploaded byhiscore
- REFERENCES_2.pdfUploaded byHanafiahHamzah
- FEM-Chapter-7.pdfUploaded byWasin Waiyasusri
- FULLTCTEDUploaded bySaiRam
- SM1 Physics Practical Hydrostatics 12 13Uploaded bymathieu_coco
- Additional Info Stability & Determinacy AddUploaded byOec Eng
- Design and Construction of Journal Bearing Demonstration RigUploaded byRikrdo Ramirez
- Strength of Materials1234Uploaded byBipul Prince Barman
- IB 03change Axes(8 10)Uploaded byeamcetmaterials
- A Simple Equation for Rapid Estimation of H_ BARTZUploaded byOsvaldo Benitez
- 2010 ISFOG Perth_Setup of Suction Piles_Colliat ColliardUploaded byjasonwu1115
- Electromagnetic Cloaking With MetamaterialsUploaded byAdnan Ahmed
- Henrik Rusche Phd 2002Uploaded by007kruno
- Análisis dimensional - Mecánica de FluidosUploaded byDiego Guillen Garcia
- Thermal Conductivity of Aluminium 6082-T6Uploaded byKenneth Lee
- Trunion LugUploaded byoinostro
- Application of Raman Spectroscopy in Carbon Nanotube-based Polymer CompositesUploaded byppmaster
- Pol Chin Ski 1991Uploaded bypmcarmorg
- TorqueUploaded byYamNerak Liramam

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.