SPE 58976
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/00IPCEM/All-00IPCEM/SPE-58976-MS/1902990/spe-58976-ms.pdf/1 by MOL Pakistan Oil & Gas Co BV, samana ishaq on 05 April 2021
Effect of Drag-Reducing Agents in Multiphase, Oil/Gas Horizontal Flow
C. Kang and W. P. Jepson, SPE/Institute for Corrosion and Multiphase Technology, Ohio University
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE International Petroleum Conference
and Exhibition in Mexico held in Villahermosa, Mexico, 1–3 February 2000.
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
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject 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
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
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
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
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
An experimental study has been carried out in a 36-m long,
10-cm diameter in horizontal multiphase system. Oil with a
viscosity of 2.5 cP was used as the liquid phase and carbon
dioxide was the gas phase. The effect of drag reducing agents
(DRA) on average pressure drop, maximum pressure drop and
slug characteristics for superficial liquid and gas velocities of
0.5 to 1.5 m/s and 2 to 12 m/s, respectively, was studied at
DRA concentrations of 0, 20 and 50 ppm. Temperature was
kept at 25 oC and pressure was maintained at 0.13 MPa.
The DRA was effective in reducing the average pressure
drop significantly for all superficial liquid and gas velocities in
both slug and annular flow. The average pressure drop
reduction of up to 82% for slug flow and 47% for annular flow
was achieved. For slug flow, the effectiveness generally
decreased with increase in superficial liquid velocity. The
maximum pressure drop across the slug also reduced with
addition of DRA. The effectiveness for maximum pressure
drop was over 28% at a superficial liquid velocity of 1.5 m/s
for all gas velocities.
At superficial liquid and gas velocities of 0.5 and 2 m/s,
the flow pattern changed from slug flow to stratified flow by
decreasing the slug frequency to 0 slug/min. when 50 ppm
DRA was added. At higher liquid and gas velocities, the slug
frequency also decreased significantly. The effective height of
the liquid film decreased with addition of DRA.
Introduction
DRA is well known to reduce pressure drop substantially in
turbulent flow when small amount of DRA is injected in the
pipeline. The use of Drag Reducing Agents (DRA) in
multiphase pipeline is of great interest in petroleum industry
due to many benefits such as reduction of operation costs,
increase of production, change of flow pattern, reduction of
corrosion rate, and so on.
The performance of DRA still remains unclear in spite of
the investigation of many researchers since effectiveness of
DRA depends on many parameters such as oil viscosity, pipe
diameter, liquid and gas velocities, composition of oil, pipe
roughness, water cut, pipeline inclination, DRA concentration,
types of DRA, shear degradation of DRA (Kang1).
Temperature and pH may be other factors as well.
Mansour2 has performed experiments to study the effect of
pipe diameter on DRA performance using GEM in a
recirculation system. The system consists of centrifugal pump
and four carbon steel pipelines (2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 cm). He
noted that drag reduction of less than 10% was obtained in 2.5
and 5 cm diameter pipelines. However, drag reduction of 35%
and 50% was achieved in 7.5 and 10 cm diameter pipelines.
He concluded that drag reduction increases with an increase in
pipe diameter. However, Lester3 has mentioned that the
effectiveness of DRA decreases with increasing pipeline
diameter.
A comparison of DRA effectiveness in smooth and
roughened pipes has been performed by Derrule4 and
Bewersdorff5. Derrule mentioned that drag reduction in
roughened pipes was higher than that in smooth pipes with the
addition of polyethelyne oxide. However, Bewersdorff
showed that drag reduction for both smooth and roughened
pipes with polyacrylamide had the same magnitudes.
It has been noted by Kang6 that the effectiveness of DRA
suddenly decreased after DRA was injected into the
recirculation system when centrifugal and gear pumps were
used. Hence, it may be very difficult to obtain reliable
laboratory data using high shear pumps in a recirculation
system. It has been recommended that DRA should be injected
downstream of each pump station in the field.
A degradation study for 200-wppm polyacrylamide has
been performed at several temperatures (7.2 oC, 25 oC and
87.8 oC) in 0.78-cm I. D. single-phase pipelines by Choi and
Kasza7. They found that the polymer degradation strongly
depends on temperature. Dilute polymer solutions degraded
rapidly at 87.8 oC. However, no degradation was found at 7.2
o
C, and more than 50% reduction was achieved for the one-
month duration of circulation.
The definition of drag reduction (or effectiveness) is to
increase in pumpability of a fluid by adding certain polymers
2 C. KANG AND W. P. JEPSON
in turbulent flow (Savins8). The effectiveness of DRA can be
calculated as follows:
∆Pwithout DRA − ∆Pwith DRA
Effectiveness of DRA (%) = × 100
∆Pwithout DRA
A general overview of DRA has been conducted by Hoyt9,
Virk10, Sellins11 and Kulicke12.
Initially, most of oil wells contain only oil and gas. The
multiphase mixture is transported through a single multiphase
pipeline to a separation facility. The reduction of pressure
drop and slug frequency in these pipelines is of great main
interest to the petroleum industry. However, in spite of
industrial demand and its importance, the study of drag
reduction in oil/gas pipelines has not been carried out.
This paper shows the effect of DRA on pressure drop and
slug frequency in oil/gas flow in large diameter horizontal
pipes.
Experimental Layout and Conditions
The experiments have been carried out in 10 cm ID, 18 m long
flow loop as shown in Figure 1. Volume of oil is stored in a
1.2 m3 stainless steel storage tank. The tank is equipped with a
heater and cooling coils to maintain the defined temperature in
the system. A low-shear progressing cavity pump where the
liquid flow rate is controlled by varying the speed of pump is
used to avoid shear degradation of polymer.
Carbon dioxide gas is stored in a 20,000 kg storage tank and
fed to the system at an inlet pressure of 2 MPa. The carbon
dioxide gas is then regulated and the gas flow rate is metered
using a variable area flow meter.
The oil/gas is mixed at a tee junction and then flows into
an 18 m long Plexiglass pipeline where pressure drop, flow
pattern and slug characteristics are monitored. The pressure
drop is measured along a 4.7 m length of the pipeline using
pressure transducer. A high-speed camera connected to a
digital VCR and high resolution monitor is used to record flow
images for the determination of slug flow characteristics. The
oil/gas mixture then returns to the storage tank and gas is
vented through oil/gas separator to the atmosphere.
The experiments were conducted in horizontal pipes at a
system pressure of 0.13 MPa and at temperature of 25 oC. Oil
with a viscosity of 2.5 cP was used as the liquid phase whereas
carbon dioxide was the gas phase. Superficial liquid velocities
from 0.5 to 1.5 m/s and superficial gas velocities from 2 to 12
m/s were studied. This range of superficial liquid and gas
velocities includes three flow patterns such as slug flow,
pseudo-slug flow and annular flow. The DRA effectiveness
was tested for 0 ppm, 20 ppm and 50 ppm concentrations.
Results and Discussions
Figures 2~9 show the result of pressure drop reduction for
slug flow and annular flow with the presence of DRA. For
slug flow, maximum and average pressure drops are
introduced in the paper. The maximum pressure drop is
defined as the pressure drop across the slug. The average
SPE 58976
pressure drop refers to the pressure drop including liquid film
and slug units.
Figure 2 presents a plot of the average pressure drop
versus superficial gas velocity with DRA concentrations at a
superficial liquid velocity of 0.5 m/s. The corresponding
effectiveness is shown in Figure 3. At superficial gas
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/00IPCEM/All-00IPCEM/SPE-58976-MS/1902990/spe-58976-ms.pdf/1 by MOL Pakistan Oil & Gas Co BV, samana ishaq on 05 April 2021
velocities of less than 10 m/s, slug and pseudo-slug flows were
noticed. At superficial gas velocities of 2 and 6 m/s, the
average pressure drop decreased from 1015 to 354 Pa and
from 1648 to 1279 Pa respectively when 20 ppm DRA was
added. It can be seen from Figure 3 that these correspond to
an effectiveness of 65% and 22% respectively.
At superficial gas velocities of greater than 10 m/s, annular
flow was observed. At superficial gas velocities of 10 and 12
m/s and the same DRA concentration, the average pressure
drop for annular flow decreased from 1206 to 908 Pa and from
1384 to 1122 Pa respectively. The effectiveness at these
velocities was 25% and 19% respectively.
It can be seen that the DRA concentration of 50 ppm was
more effective than 20 ppm for all cases. At superficial gas
velocities of 2 and 6 m/s, the average pressure drop for slug
flow decreased from 1015 to 249 Pa and from 1648 to 1112 Pa
respectively. The effectiveness at these velocities was 75%
and 33% respectively. At superficial gas velocities of 10 and
12 m/s, the average pressure drop for annular flow decreased
from 1206 to 634 Pa and from 1384 to 815 Pa. In this regime,
the effectiveness of DRA was over 40%.
The average pressure drop decreases because the liquid
film is spread around the pipe wall with addition of DRA,
which leads to decrease in the height of the liquid film and the
slug frequency. The decrease in the maximum pressure drop
of slug with DRA also leads to decrease in the average
pressure drop.
Figures 4 and 5 show equivalent plots for a superficial
liquid velocity of 1.0 m/s. It can be seen from Figures 2 and 4
that an increase in superficial liquid velocity was accompanied
by an increase in the average pressure drop at each superficial
gas velocity. This is due to the fact that the height of the liquid
film increased with increasing superficial liquid velocity.
Also, this led to higher slug frequency.
The slug flow regime was noticed at superficial gas
velocities up to and including 10 m/s. It can be also seen that
DRA was effective at all superficial gas velocities with
addition of 20 ppm DRA. At superficial gas velocities of
greater than 6 m/s, the effectiveness of the DRA was less than
20%. Further increasing DRA concentration to 50 ppm was
accompanied with more reduction in the average pressure drop
under the all conditions. At superficial gas velocities of 2 and
4 m/s, the corresponding values of DRA effectiveness were
82% and 51% respectively. At higher superficial gas
velocities, the effectiveness for both slug and annular flow
was around 28%. It can be seen from Figures 3 and 5 that for
slug flow, the average pressure drop reduction generally
decreased with increasing superficial gas velocity.
The DRA was effective in reducing the maximum pressure
drop at all conditions studied as shown in Figures 6~9. For a
superficial liquid velocity of 0.5 m/s, the maximum pressure
SPE 58976 EFFECT OF DRAG-REDUCING AGENTS IN MULTIPHASE, OIL/GAS HORIZONTAL FLOW
drop with DRA concentrations is shown in Figure 6 and the
corresponding effectiveness is given in Figure 7. It can be seen
from Figure 6 that with no DRA, the maximum pressure drop
increased from 6,800 Pa at a superficial gas velocity of 2 m/s
to 11,900 Pa at 6 m/s and then decreased to 7,500 Pa at a
superficial gas velocity of 8 m/s. This is due to the change in
flow pattern from slug to pseudo-slug.
At superficial gas velocities of 4 and 8 m/s, the maximum
pressure drop decrease from 9,900 to 6,700 Pa and from 7,500
to 5,400 Pa with addition of 20 ppm DRA. These correspond
to an effectiveness of 32% and 28%. The maximum pressure
drop reduction increased with further addition of DRA. For a
concentration of 50 ppm DRA, the effectiveness was 100%
and 44% at superficial gas velocities of 2 and 8 m/s. At a
superficial gas velocity of 2 m/s, the slugs disappeared with 50
ppm DRA.
Figures 8 and 9 show equivalent plots for superficial liquid
velocity of 1.5 m/s. Similar results were observed. At a
superficial gas velocity of 8 m/s, pseudo-slug was observed.
The maximum pressure drop reduced with addition of DRA
concentrations. The results for a concentration of 50 ppm
DRA for the same velocities were better than those with 20
ppm DRA. At superficial gas velocities of 2 and 4 m/s, the
maximum pressure drop reduction was 44% and 36%
respectively. At higher superficial gas velocities, the
effectiveness was around 30%.
DRA with high molecular weight polymers is known for
many years to reduce only frictional pressure loss in turbulent
flow. However, DRA can reduce accelerational pressure loss
since for slug flow, accelerational component dominates in
total pressure drop.
Figure 10 shows the effect of DRA on slug frequency at a
superficial liquid velocity of 0.5 m/s. It can be seen that the
slug frequency decreased with both 20 and 50 ppm DRA
concentrations. It should be noted that at superficial gas
velocity of 2 m/s, the flow pattern changed from slug flow to
wavy stratified flow regime by decreasing the slug frequency
from 8 to 0 slugs/minute when 50 ppm DRA was added. This
is due to the fact that the liquid is easily spread around the
pipe wall with addition of DRA. It has been found from
previous research at the Institute that adding DRA shifts the
transition from stratified flow to the slug flow regime to
higher superficial liquid velocities. It is seen that the slug
frequency at 50 ppm DRA decreased more than that at 20 ppm
DRA. For example, at superficial gas velocity of 4 m/s, the
slug frequency decreased from 8 to 6 slugs/minute and from 8
to 4 slugs/minute as 20 and 50 ppm DRA were added.
Similar results were noticed at a superficial liquid velocity
of 1.0 m/s as shown in Figure 11. It can be seen that the slug
frequency decreased significantly with DRA concentrations.
Decreasing the slug frequency leads to a decrease in the
average pressure gradient leading to an increase of DRA
effectiveness. It is seen from Figures 10 and 11 that increasing
DRA concentration from 20 ppm to 50 ppm leads to increased
reduction in slug frequency. It can be also seen that at low
superficial gas velocity, DRA has better effect in decreasing
the slug frequency.
3
Figure 12 presents the effect of DRA on effective height of
the film at a superficial liquid velocity of 1.0 m/s. It can be
seen that the effective height of the film decreased from 3.8 to
3.2 cm with increase in superficial gas velocity from 2 to 6
m/s. The effective height of the film decreased slightly when
20 ppm DRA was added. It can be seen that the effective
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/00IPCEM/All-00IPCEM/SPE-58976-MS/1902990/spe-58976-ms.pdf/1 by MOL Pakistan Oil & Gas Co BV, samana ishaq on 05 April 2021
height of the film decreased more with addition of 50 ppm
DRA, which led to a decrease in the average pressure drop and
slug frequency. This is because the liquid film spreads around
the pipe wall with addition of DRA. For example, at a
superficial gas velocity of 6 m/s, the effective height of the
film decreased from 3.2 to 2.8 cm when 20 and 50 ppm DRA
were added.
Conclusions
Experiments have been carried out to examine the
effectiveness of DRA in a large diameter pipelines. For slug
flow, maximum and average pressure drops are introduced in
the paper. The DRA concentration of 50 ppm was more
effective than 20 ppm DRA for all conditions studied.
The average pressure drop decreased significantly with
addition of DRA. The average pressure drop reduction of up to
82% for slug flow and 47% for annular flow was achieved.
For slug flow, the average pressure drop reduction generally
decreased with increase in superficial gas velocity. The
average pressure drop decreases with a decrease in the height
of the liquid film, slug frequency and maximum pressure drop.
The DRA was effective in reducing the maximum pressure
drop at all liquid and gas velocities. At a superficial liquid
velocity of 1.5 m/s and all gas velocities, the reduction in
maximum pressure drop was over 28%. For slug flow, DRA
can reduce accelerational pressure loss.
The slug frequency decreased significantly with addition
of DRA. At superficial liquid and gas velocities of 0.5 and 2
m/s, the flow pattern changed from slug flow to wavy
stratified flow regime. At low superficial gas velocity, DRA
has a better effect in decreasing the slug frequency.
The effective height of the film decreased with DRA
concentrations, which led to a decrease in the average pressure
drop and slug frequency. This is because the liquid film
spreads around the pipe wall with addition of DRA.
Nomenclature
∆P = pressure drop, Pa
ID = inside diameter, m
DRA = Drag reducing agents
ppm = parts per million
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the flow improvement
center at Ohio University and the companies involved with it
for giving permission to present this work.
References
1. Kang, C. and Jepson, W. P., “Multiphase Flow Conditioning
Using Drag-Reducing Agents”, SPE Annular Technical
4 C. KANG AND W. P. JEPSON SPE 58976

Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Paper No. 56569,
1999.
2. Mansour, A. R. and Aswad, Z. A. R., “A Method to Minimize
Costs or maximize Flow Rate of Pumping Crude Oil Inside
Pipelines using a new Drag Reducing Additive”, J. of Pipelines,
7, 301-305, 1989.
7. Choi, U. S. and Kasza, K. E.,“Long-Term Degradation of Dilute
Polyacrylamide Solutions in Turbulent Pipe Flow”, Drag
Reduction in Fluid Flows, Ellis Horwood Limited, 163-169,
1989.
8. Savins, J. G., “Drag Reduction Characteristics of Solution of
Macromolecules in Turbulent Pipe Flow”, Soc. Petrol. Eng. J.,

3. Lester, C. B., “The Basics of Drag Reduction”, Oil and gas J.,
51-56, Feb. 1985.
4. Derrule, P. M. and Sabersky, R. H., “Heat Transfer and Friction
Cofficients in Smooth and Rough Tubes with Dilute Polymer
Solutions”, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 17, 529-540, 1974.
5. Bewersdorff, H. and Berman, N. S., “Effect of Roughness on
Drag Reduction for Commercially Smooth Pipes”, J. of Non-
Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 24, 365-370, 1987.
6. Kang, C., “Effect of Viscosity on DRA performance”, Advisory
Board Meeting, Center for Flow Improvement, Institute for
Corrosion and Multiphase Technology, Ohio University, Dec.
1998.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/00IPCEM/All-00IPCEM/SPE-58976-MS/1902990/spe-58976-ms.pdf/1 by MOL Pakistan Oil & Gas Co BV, samana ishaq on 05 April 2021
4, 203, 1964.
9. Hoyt, J. W., “The Effect of Additives on Fluid Friction”, J. of
basic engineering, 258-285, June 1972.
10. Virk, P. S., “Drag Reduction Fundamentals”, AIChE J., 21, pp.
625-656, July, 1975.
11. Sellins, R. H. J., “The Effect of Drag-Reducing Additives on
Fluids and Their Industrial Applications”, J. of Hydraulic
Research, 20 (1), 29-68, 1982
12. Kulicke, W. M. and Kotter, M., “Drag Reduction Phenomena
with Special Emphasis on Homogeneous polymer Solutions”,
Advance in Polymer Science, 89, 1~67, 1989.

A. Storage Tank
B. Pump
C. Mixing Tee
D. Gas Tank E
E. Pressure Tappings 18 m Inclined Section
F. Flexible Hose

E
D

F F
Flow meter Outlet Gas

A
B

Figure 1. Experimental Layout of the Flow Loop

 SPE 58976 EFFECT OF DRAG-REDUCING AGENTS IN MULTIPHASE, OIL/GAS HORIZONTAL FLOW 5

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/00IPCEM/All-00IPCEM/SPE-58976-MS/1902990/spe-58976-ms.pdf/1 by MOL Pakistan Oil & Gas Co BV, samana ishaq on 05 April 2021
2000 100
0 ppm DRA 90 20 ppm DRA
1800
20 ppm DRA 80 50 ppm DRA
1600
50 ppm DRA 70
1400
Slug Annular
1200 60
Flow Flow
Effectiveness of DRA, %
1000 50
Average Pressure Drop, Pa
800 40

600 30

400 20
Slug Annular
200 Flow 10
Flow
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Superficial Gas Velocity, Superficial Gas Velocity,

m/s
m/s Figure 3. Effectiveness of DRA on Average
Figure 2. Average Pressure Drop vs. Superficial
Pressure Drop
Vsl = 0.5 m/s, 100% Oil-Carbon
Gas Velocity
Vsl = 0.5 m/s, 100% Oil-Carbon Dioxide
Dioxide

Effectiveness of
Average Pressure DRA, %
Drop, Pa
3400 100
3200 0 ppm DRA 20 ppm DRA
90
3000
2800 20 ppm DRA 80 50 ppm DRA
2600
50 ppm DRA 70
2400
2200
60 Slug Annula
2000
Flow r
1800 50
1600
1400 40
1200
30
1000
800 Slug Annular 20
600 Flow Flow
400 10
200
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Superficial Gas Velocity, Superficial Gas Velocity,

m/s m/s
Figure 4. Average Pressure Drop vs. Superficial Figure 5. Effectiveness of DRA on Average
Gas Velocity Pressure Drop
Vsl = 1.0 m/s, 100% Oil-Carbon
Vsl = 1.0 m/s, 100% Oil-Carbon
Dioxide
Dioxide
 6 C. KANG AND W. P. JEPSON SPE 58976

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/00IPCEM/All-00IPCEM/SPE-58976-MS/1902990/spe-58976-ms.pdf/1 by MOL Pakistan Oil & Gas Co BV, samana ishaq on 05 April 2021
Effectiveness of DRA, %
Maximum Pressure Drop, Pa
14 100

13 0 ppm DRA 90 20 ppm DRA

12
20 ppm DRA 80 50 ppm DRA
11
10 50 ppm DRA 70
Thousands
9
60
8
7 50

6 40
5
30
4
3 20
2
10
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

Superficial Gas Velocity, Superficial Gas Velocity,

m/s m/s
Figure 7. Effectiveness of DRA on Maximum
Figure 6. Maximum Pressure Drop Reduction For
Pressure Drop
Vsl = 0.5 m/s, 100% Oil, Horizontal
Slug Flow Vsl = 0.5 m/s, 100% Oil, Horizontal
Pipes Pipes

Effectiveness of DRA, %
Maximum Pressure Drop, Pa
60
20
19 20 ppm DRA
0 ppm DRA
18 50
17 20 ppm DRA 50 ppm DRA
16
15
50 ppm DRA 40
14
13
12
Thousands
11 30
10
9
8
7 20
6
5
4 10
3
2
1
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Superficial Gas Velocity, Superficial Gas Velocity,
m/s m/s
Figure 8. Maximum Pressure Drop Reduction For Figure 9. Effectiveness of DRA on Maximum Pressure Drop
Slug Flow Vsl = 1.5 m/s, 100% Oil, Horizontal
Vsl = 1.5 m/s, 100% Oil, Horizontal Pipes
Pipes
 SPE 58976 EFFECT OF DRAG-REDUCING AGENTS IN MULTIPHASE, OIL/GAS HORIZONTAL FLOW 7

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/00IPCEM/All-00IPCEM/SPE-58976-MS/1902990/spe-58976-ms.pdf/1 by MOL Pakistan Oil & Gas Co BV, samana ishaq on 05 April 2021
Slug Frequency, slugs/min. Slug Frequency, slugs/min.
20 40
0 ppm DRA 0 ppm DRA
35
20 ppm DRA 20 ppm DRA

15 30
50 ppm DRA 50 ppm DRA

25

10 20

15

5 10

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Superficial Gas Velocity, Superficial Gas Velocity,
Figure 10. Slugm/s
Frequency vs. Superficial
Gas Figure 11. m/s
Slug Frequency vs. Superficial
Gas
Velocity Vsl = 0.5 m/s, 100% Oil- Carbon Velocity
Vsl = 1.0 m/s, 100% Oil- Carbon
Dioxide Dioxide

Effective Height of the Film, cm

5.00

0 ppm DRA
4.50
20 ppm DRA

4.00 50 ppm DRA

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00
0 2 4 6 8
Superficial Gas Velocity,
m/s
Figure 12. Effect of DRA on the Effective Height of
the Film Vsl = 1.0 m/s, 100% Oil-Carbon
Dioxide