Experiments With Various Drag Reducing Additives in Turbulent Flow in Dense Phase Gas Pipelines

PSIG 03B3
Experiments with various Drag Reducing Additives in Turbulent Flow in Dense

Phase Gas Pipelines
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PSIGAM/proceedings-pdf/PSIG03/All-PSIG03/PSIG-03B3/1879748/psig-03b3.pdf/1 by MOL Pakistan Oil & Gas Co BV, samana ishaq on 05 April 2021
Sigurd Gaard, Statoil ASA, Natural Gas and Supply, Odd Tore Isaksen, Statoil ASA, K-lab
Copyright 2003, Pipeline Simulation Interest Group

cricondenbar, will behave more similar to liquids, and there is
This paper was prepared for presentation at the PSIG Annual Meeting held in Bern, no sharp phase transition between gas and liquid. The main
Switzerland, 15 October – 17 October 2003.
difference is expected to be the density, which is lower than
This paper was selected for presentation by the PSIG Board of Directors following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The material, as presented,
for the lightest hydrocarbon liquids. It has in this context been
does not necessarily reflect any position of the Pipeline Simulation Interest Group, its officers, questioned whether injection of DRA in rich gas in dense
or members. Papers presented at PSIG meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial
Committees of the Pipeline Simulation Interest Group. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or phase may have an effect or not.
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of PSIG
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 Statoil operated in autumn 2001, 3 long distance pipelines
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, Pipeline
Simulation Interest Group, P.O. Box 22625, Houston, TX 77227, U.S.A., fax 01-713-586-5955.
transporting rich gas with a total capacity of about 66
BCM/year (2.3 Tcf/year), Figure 1, including 2 long distance
pipelines carrying wet gas. The total distance was about 1300
km (800 mile). Additionally; Statoil operated pipelines
ABSTRACT transporting processed gas in dense phase to Europe, with a
capacity of about 81 BCM/year (2.9 Tcf/year) and a total
Experiments with various drag reducing additives in natural length of about 3700 km (2300 mile), although this length also
gas dense phase flow have been carried out in a 40 m (131 includes some pipelines that are not landed in central Europe.
feet) 1-inch flow loop at Statoils Metering and Technology In 2002 the operator ship for the gas transmission network was
laboratory (K-lab). The main objective of the study was to transferred from Statoil to Gassco.
examine if commercially available drag reducers for
hydrocarbon liquids might have a potential for use in long Statoil started some years ago an R&D programme on flow
distance dense phase gas transmission pipelines, in terms of improver applications. The programme was in the start
reducing pressure drop and hence increase flow capacity. focusing on oil pipelines and several test facilities were built
Additionally, some chemicals specially made for these testing for testing purposes. One of the tasks in the R&D project was,
purposes were tested. Another objective was to investigate the however, to evaluate effects of drag reducer agents in rich gas
mechanism behind a possible drag reduction. Published field dense phase flow. The scope was to investigate the feasibility
tests have shown that drag reducing additives (DRA) and of obtaining reduction in the frictional pressure loss in
corrosion inhibitors may have an effect on the pressure loss in pipelines transporting rich gas in dense phase, by injection of
gas pipelines. This has basically been explained by a commercially available DRA. Statoil did not consider
smoothening of the pipeline wall surface when additives developing drag reducer agents, but was co-operating with
deposit on the wall surface. several manufacturers who also were participating in the
project.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Various possible outcomes from the tests reported here were
Drag Reducing Agents, DRA, have for several decades been in advance considered to be:
used in the petroleum industry for increasing capacity or
reducing the pressure friction loss. Tests have shown that • Reduced pressure loss due to reduction of turbulent
drag-reducing additives may give a reduction in the pressure production as for DRA in liquid systems.
friction loss by up to 80-85 % in turbulent single-phase liquid
flow systems. DRA in liquids works to reduce frictional • Reduced pressure loss due to smoothening of the wall
pressure loss. It works in turbulent flows only and is surface.
influencing the structure of the turbulent boundary layer. Field
• Reduced pressure loss due to moving liquid film
tests have shown that DRA in oil transmission lines tend to
have better efficiency the lower the density, or the viscosity.
• No effect
Gas in dense phase, i.e. the pressure is higher than the
2 SIGURD GAARD, ODD TORE ISAKSEN PSIG 03B3
• Increased pressure loss pumped. The injection nozzle diameter was, together with
injection rate, dimensioned to get similar injection velocity as
The drag reducing efficiency is expressed by: the gas bulk velocity.
DR (% ) = (1 − ∆Pwith DRA ∆Pwithout DRA )⋅100 (1)

Rich Gas Composition
The pressure loss for the mixture is ∆Pwith DRA and the pressure The fluid composition was measured by the gas
loss for the rich gas without DRA is denoted by ∆Pwithout DRA. chromatograph for Statpipe, located downstream slug catcher
at Kårstø. The measured composition is given in Table 1, and
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION the phase envelope for measured composition mixed with
injected naphtha, is shown in Figure 3.
The principle sketch of the test facilities, Figure 2, shows that
the rich gas was supplied from the Statpipe rich gas delivery TESTS METHODOLOGY
pipeline at Kårstø gas processing plant located on the west
coast of Norway. The rich gas is routed through a 40 m (131 Tests were performed to investigate the effect of various DRA
feet) pipe without any pressure regulation. The Statpipe from 5 manufacturers. The different DRA are called DRA1,
delivery pressure at Kårstø is usually about 115-130 barg DRA2, DRA3, DRA4 and DRA5, with extension #1, #2, #3
(1668 –1885 psig). The DRA was pre-dissolved in naphtha in etc., when several DRA from the same manufacturer are
order to obtain an immediate effect, and injected shortly tested.
upstream the flow loop.
DRA1, DRA3 and DRA4 were commercially available drag
The absolute pressure and the temperature were measured at reducing agents, while DRA2 was specially made for this
the inlet, and the differential pressure was measured across the testing purpose. DRA5 was not a drag reducing agent but
following legs and bend. The first leg was in stainless steel rather a chemical made for lubrication purposes.
with low roughness and the second leg in carbon steel with
higher roughness. The bend was also carbon steel. The legs The tests were carried out in accordance with the operational
were interchangeable to investigate possible different effects procedures. The main points are:
for different wall roughness. A transparent section of
polyacrylamid was originally installed for observations of the • Start flow loop and run till stable conditions
flow, but it had to be removed before these tests due to cracks.
Downstream the second leg a separator and a filtering device • Log base Line 1
was installed to avoid DRA entering downstream test
facilities. The downstream flow control valve controls the • Pour naphtha without DRA in the tank connected to
flow rate. The gas composition was measured by the gas the pump suction side
chromatograph downstream the Statpipe slug catcher, using
• Start of pump
the online SCADA system. The Statpipe slug catcher is
upstream the test section.
• Injection of naphtha without DRA
Injection System • Data logging as soon as stable conditions are

obtained, (Q, P, T)
The drag reducing agents were pre-dissolved in naphtha. The
injection system is usually considered to be a part of the DRA • Log base Line 2
delivery from manufacturers, but the injection system was for
these tests provided by Statoil. The premixed chemical • Pour premixed naphtha and DRA in tank
solution was injected by use of a single acting piston pump.
The length of the stroke of the piston pump is not adjustable • Injection of DRA- naphtha mixture
and flow rate is controlled by pump speed only. The DRA
concentration can be varied by either adjusting the pump • The tests are stopped when there is no more of the
speed or by using different concentration in the premixed premixed dissolution or when new stable conditions
solution. The latter was preferred when running at constant are reached
gas flow rate to keep the mixture gas composition unchanged.
The pump speed was varied when changing the gas flow rate Before each test the DRA was pre-dissolved in naphtha. A
to keep a constant gas-gas ratio and thereby have an master blend was prepared before further dilution to a
unchanged mixture composition. The injection rate was specified concentration. The order of magnitude of the
controlled by time and volume in upstream transparent tank. Reynolds number was about 106, the gas bulk velocity was
The piston pump was somewhat influenced by the fluid being varied from about 3 to 7.5 m/s (10 to 25 fps) and the
PSIG 03xx3 Experiments with various Drag Reducing Additives in Turbulent Flow in Dense Phase Gas Pipelines 3
concentration of slurry between 7.5 ppm(wt) and about 300 DRA 2

ppm (wt). Slurry means the active polymers and the solvent
and does not include any naphtha. The slurries were provided This chemical was also a commercially available DRA. The
by the manufacturers. The concentration of active polymers in measurements were carried out for three different flow rates:
the slurries, were varying from about 10% to about 25% by 820, 1080 and 1750 kg/h (1810, 2380 and 3860 lb/h).
weight.
Various effects were observed dependent on flow rate and
concentration. Some test points showed an increase in the
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
differential pressure but this could be due to history effects as
well as an actual increase in pressure loss. History effect
DRA 1 means that the pipe wall surface has not been completely clean
before the test points were carried out and the injection
DRA1 was a commercially available DRA. Measurements influenced possible remaining DRA on the pipe wall surface
were carried out for three different flow rates: 850, 1750 and
2000 kg/h (1870, 3860 and 4400 lb/h). The common feature in However, for a mass flow rate equal to 1750 kg/h (3860 lb/h)
the results was that there were no signs of ordinary drag and a slurry concentration of 150 ppm, a significant effect on
reduction. Actually, the majority of the tests gave a slight the pressure loss was measured, Figure 5. For this flow rate it
increase in the pressure loss. The increase was assumed to takes about 6.5 seconds for gas to flow through the test loop.
arise from the decrease of the pipe diameter due to DRA
sticking to the wall and/or increased roughness due to From time 0 to approximately time 850 seconds only naphtha
deposition of DRA on the pipe wall surface. was injected into the rich gas. This period was run to obtain
steady conditions before starting the injection of the drag
Figure 4 shows that pressure pulsation appeared in the pipe for reducer. At time E injection of the DRA-naphtha mixture was
a flow rate equal to 1750 kg/h (3860 lb/h) and a concentration started. The injection was stopped at time G, and afterwards
equal to 300 ppm(wt). The pressure pulsations appeared when naphtha only was injected. The most important features in
the injection of naphtha stopped and the injection of DRA- Figure 5 are:
naphtha mixture started. The pink line shows the differential
pressure over the smoothest pipe, the yellow line is the a. The drag reduction was measured to be about 19 % in
differential pressure over the bend, and the blue line is the the pipe with the roughest surface.
differential pressure over the roughest pipe. The time of flow
b. It took about 550 seconds before 19% pressure loss
was for this flow rate about 6.5 seconds. The time between
reduction was obtained.
two peaks is about 13 seconds. Pressure pulsations also
occurred for lower concentrations but not as regular as shown c. The injection of premixed DRA and naphtha was
in Figure 4. The disappearance of the pressure pulsations stopped at time G, followed by injection of naphtha.
indicate the time when stopping injection of DRA mixture.
Only naphtha was injected before and after the injection of the d. In the low roughness pipe, the reduction in pressure
DRA-naphtha mixture. It was not observed any oscillation for loss was about 10 %.
lower flow rates independently of the concentration.
e. After about 300 seconds of injection the maximum
Several reasons have been suggested in order to explain the reduction in pressure loss was obtained in the low
oscillations, for instance that the DRA forms a two-phase flow roughness pipe.
regime with the gas, and because of that creates this kind of
oscillation. Another theory was that DRA accumulates in the f. The negative gradient for the differential pressure in
piping connected to the pressure transmitters although the the roughest pipeline was steeper, when the
pressure taps are located on top of the pipe. The differential differential pressure for the upstream pipe with low
pressure over the bend was also oscillating but not in the same surface roughness flattens.
way, i.e. the oscillation was more random. The reason for the
oscillating behaviour in the downstream pipe may also have g. A reduction in pressure loss of about 3.5 % was
been due to accumulation of DRA in lumps in the upstream measured in the bend.
pipe and bend, with a following entrainment of the lumps at a
specific size. The frequencies of the pressure pulsations were h. The maximum reduction of the pressure loss in the
not found to be any harmonic of the pump frequency, or the roughest pipe was limited by the injection time,
pipe characteristic. The oscillating behaviour only appeared stopped at time G. This indicates that the maximum
when the concentration of DRA was high, 100 ppm (wt)+. reduction in pressure loss was not identified for this
The reason for the pressure pulsations was, however, not pipe.
concluded.
The above points describing the flow behaviour indicate that
the surfaces were smoothened. This can be based on the DRA 3

following:
Four different chemicals were tested from this manufacturer.
There was no immediate effect when starting the injection. If The chemicals were specially made for these testing purposes
only the turbulence were affected, a full effect of reduction in and the different chemicals were characterized by different
pressure loss would have been expected to occur after 3 mole weight, density and concentration of active polymers in
seconds in the first pipe and 6-7 seconds in the last pipe. The the slurry. Measurements were carried out for three different
reduction of the pressure loss was a longer process in this test. flow rates: 820, 1080 and 1750 kg/h (1810, 2380 and 3850
lb/h), and the concentration of slurry between 10 ppm and 150
When the reduction in pressure loss stabilises in the low ppm.
roughness upstream pipe, the reduction in the rougher
downstream pipe was more rapid. The reason for this might be
DRA3#1
that the wall surface in the low roughness pipe becomes in a
way saturated, and the downstream rougher pipe was thereby An effect on the pressure loss was measured during tests with
fed with higher concentrations than in the first phase of a flow rate equal to 1750 kg/h (3860 lb/h) for the first
injection. chemical from this manufacturer, DRA3#1. There was a
reduction in the pressure loss for both, the roughest and
If it was an effect in the turbulence, the pressure loss should smoothest pipes. The measured reduction in the pressure loss
return to original level after the injection of DRA mixture was was about 7 %. This polymer did, however, not show a clear
ended. In these tests it takes several hours to obtain original trend in reducing the pressure loss. An increase in the pressure
conditions. This should be a strong indication concerning loss was also observed. This may be due to history effect, e.g.
smoothening of the wall surface. the pressure loss was lower than the original base line when
starting the injection and the injected polymers are then not
Polymers were anyway transported through the system until sufficient for maintaining the reduction in the pressure loss.
the injection was stopped and all possible detached polymers
were entrained and transported out of the system. An effect in DRA3#1 was also tested for a concentration of 2.5% active
the turbulence cannot yet be excluded as long as there was a polymers, or a concentration of slurry equal to 10 ppm for a
transport of polymers. It can, therefore, not be fully concluded flow rate equal to 1080 kg/hr (2380 lb/hr), Figure 7. A
at this stage that it was only a smoothening of the wall surface reduction in pressure loss was measured shortly after the
that causes the reduction in pressure loss. injection was started, approximately at time 85 seconds. The
measured reduction in pressure loss was about 3.5% for both
Neither can the high concentration required be firmly stated the straight legs and a little bit less for the bend. This may
because uncertainty related to possible degradation of indicate that the injected chemicals were directly influencing
polymers through injection pump, injection system and during the flow. On the contrary, when the injection was stopped, the
the evaporation process of naphtha. pressure did not return to the level as before the injection with
the same order of time as the flow through time. This indicates
In Figure 6 the measured data was converted to DR% by that the chemicals are transported slower than the gas and that
Equation 1. The drag reduction efficiency was not the same there might have been a deposition and entrainment on pipe
level in the bend, DP2, as in the straight leg, DP3, both of wall surface or alternatively there might have been a moving
ordinary carbon steel. This is most likely due to the additional film of chemicals at the pipe wall surface.
flow losses related to the 2 sharp bends. Only smoothening of
the pipe wall surface reduces the frictional pressure loss. DRA3#2, #3 and #4
Through the transparent inspection section it was observed The remaining polymers, #2, #3 and #4, were tested for flow
that particles or "snow flake" were passing by the inspection rates of about 820, 1080 and 1750 kg/h (1810, 2380 and 3860
glass. The concentration of the particles seemed to increase lb/h). None of the polymers showed any significant reduction
with increased concentration of the DRA. This indicates that in the pressure loss. On the contrary, an increase in the
at least parts of the polymers did not dissolve in the dense gas pressure loss was observed for several of the polymers.
phase. The flow behaviour might, however, also have been
influenced by the injection method, i.e. pre-dissolving the For DRA3#2, a small effect was measured for an injection of
polymers in naphtha. The polymers are then stretched and 1.0 ppm active polymers ppm and an amount of slurry was 10
stable before entering the gas, but when the naphtha ppm, Figure 8. The reduction of pressure loss was similar as
evaporates in the gas, less force will keep the polymers for DRA3#1 and was measured to be was about 3 DR% for
stretched and polymers might then be curled up. the straight legs and bend. This chemical has in common with
the above DRA3#1 a lower molecular weight than the others.
These two, specially made chemicals, showed a faster
response time, which was in the order of magnitude equal to
the flow through time of the flow loop. The measurements did,
however, not show a sequential response in the flow. A measurements.

sequential response means that the effect should have been
measured in the first leg before it with a time delay would
Further Work
have appeared in the second leg. The lack of sequential
feature was assumed to be an argument for not working in the The injection system should be studied further and may be
turbulence. The faster response time might have been due to considered modified. Although an immediate effect is
lower mole weight and is consequently following the bulk obtained in liquid systems when premixing, it may not be
flow better with less deposition. These measurements were not
identical for a rich gas flow system.
repeatable which introduces uncertainty of these
measurements. Chemicals reducing the pressure loss by smoothening the
pipeline wall surface may be applied in uncoated pipelines and
It was observed that particles or "snow flake" were passing by it might be possible to reduce the pressure loss to the level of a
the inspection glass. The concentration of the particles seemed hydraulically smooth pipeline. Most of the gas transmission
to increase with an increase concentration of the DRA as pipelines on the Norwegian Continental Shelf are, however,
observed for the DRA2. coated and, consequently, most of the pipelines are more or
less hydraulically smooth. Only one of the pipelines, Statpipe
DRA 4 rich gas, is not coated and has a potential for drag reduction by
smoothening the pipeline wall surface. An important issue to
Different chemicals were tested from this manufacturer. The be clarified is, however, the influence and consequences of
chemicals were of the polymer type and the molecular weights DRA on downstream equipment and product quality.
were assumed to be in the range 20-40 million grams per
mole. No effect was measured when starting or when stopping
injection of this DRA.
CONCLUSIONS
One of the commercially available drag reducing agents had a
The transparent observation section was not available for these
significant effect when being injected at high concentration,
tests and consequently no visual observation of the flow
i.e. 150 ppm wt. The tests showed a drag reduction efficiency
pattern was possible.
of about 19 % in the pipe with highest wall surface roughness
and a drag reduction efficiency of about 10 % in the low
DRA 5 roughness pipeline. Similar behaviour was measured for two
of the lubricants.
Four different chemicals were tested and all the chemicals
were originally of the lubricant type. The products are The flow behaviour indicated that the pressure loss reduction
traditionally used for mould release, paper coatings, lubricants was due to smoothening of the pipe wall surface. This theory
(not metal-to-metal) and antifoam additives. Two of the was also supported by inspection of the pipes after completed
chemicals had an effect on the pressure loss. Maximum tests. It is believed that new "tailor made" additives are
measured drag reduction efficiency was about 18% in the pipe required to obtain reduction in frictional pressure loss caused
with highest roughness and 9% in the smoothest pipe, Figures by change in the structure of the turbulent boundary layer.
9 and 10. The results were dependent on gas velocity.
It is possible to obtain reduction in the pressure loss by
An interesting feature was the difference between onsets of smoothening the pipe wall surface in uncoated pipelines. It
drag reduction in the roughest pipe compared to the smoothest was experienced through these tests that the various chemicals
for the two cases. The onset of drag reduction for the roughest behaved differently. It is important to distinguished between
pipe which was downstream the smoothest pipe, was chemicals developed for drag reduction by influencing the
simultaneous with the onset for the smoothest pipe for turbulence in the boundary layer and chemicals for
chemical DRA5#4, Figure 10. For chemical DRA5#1, Figure smoothening the pipe wall surface.
9, the drag reduction in the roughest pipe was delayed
compared to the smoothest pipe. A reason for this could be
that DRA5#4 did not segregate as much as DRA5#1 and was
REFERENCES
thereby following the bulk flow better. For both cases the drag 1. Li Chen, H. J et al., Oil & Gas Journal, June 5 (2000)
reduction was assumed to be caused by smoothening of the
pipe wall surface. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The lubricants were easier to dissolve than the drag reducing Statoil acknowledged for permission to publish this paper.
agents, and they seemed to have less influence on the Statoil appreciate the support from Gassco for this R&D
downstream equipment. The pressure wave at about 14.5 activity.
minutes for the first chemical was nothing but a response due
to opening of a valve and not relevant for the flow
TABLES
Table 1 – Statpipe Rich gas Composition, mol%
Component Concentration [mol%]
N2 1.03
CO2 0.88
C1 77.59
C2 10.69
C3 6.9
iC4 0.75
nC4 1.61
iC5 0.22
nC5 0.22
C6+ 0.11
H2O 27 ppm (vol)
H2S 1.8 ppm (vol)
Table 2 – Test loop characteristics

Diameter 1 inch 25.4 mm
Inner diameter 0.815 inch 20.7 mm
-5
Internal roughness, approximately 7.9-181 10 inch 2-46 µm
Length, approximately 131 ft 40 m
Pipeline insulation No
Design pressure 2495 psig 172 barg
Design temperature -50-122 °F -46/ 50 °C
Normal temperature 41-59 °F 5-15 °C
3
Normal density approx. 10.6 lbs/ft 170 kg/m³
Normal operating pressure higher than cricondenbar, typically 1668 psig 115 barg
Max. mass flow rate (approximately) 4400 lb/hr 2000 kg/hour
Max. gas velocity (approximately) 24.6 fps 7.5 m/s
Reynolds number, Re, Order of magnitude 106

FIGURES
Haltenpipe
Åsgard-Kårstø
Statpipe RG
Kårstø
St. Fergus
Figure 1 – Statoil Operated Gas Transmission Network, Autumn 2001
Statpipe, Inlet pipe

to K-lab, Rich gas ESD
2"
2"
Drum
Inlet for nitrogen

flushing
Injection of DRA 2" Drain
Transparent 1"
Steamjacket
1" plexi glass

PT
T Flanges
p
T
Separator
∆p-Measurement
Varmeveksler
∆p-Measurement
Maks. 35 l/t
∆p3 ∆p1 T
Maks. 8 l/t
to flare
P
P
18 m.
2 ∆p
∆p-Measurement
1"
Drain
Figure 2 –Principle Sketch of Flow Loop, Test Section within dotted line
2000 operational range, test rig
1500
Pressure [psi]
1000
500
Rich Gas
Rich Gas and Naptha Mixture

0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Temperature [oF]
Figure 3 – Phase Envelope and Operating Range
1.2
DP1
DP3 DP2
1
Normalised Differential Pressure
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
DP1
DP2
DP3
0
0 100 200 300 400
Time [seconds]
Figure 4 – DRA1, Test result 1750 kg/h (3860 lb/h), Gas velocity 6.5 m/s (21.3 fps) Concentration of slurry 300 ppm.
E F G
1.0 A
B
Normalised Differential Pressure
0.8
0.6
C
D
0.4
0.2
DP1
DP3 Diff. pressure
DP2 DP1 Diff. pressure
DP3
DP2 Diff. pressure
0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Time [s]
Figure 5 – DRA2, Test result 1750 kg/hr (3860 lb/h), Gas velocity 6.5 m/s (21.3 fps) Concentration of slurry 150 ppm
25.00
DP1
DP2
DP3
20.00
15.00
DR %
10.00
5.00
0.00
DR% DP3
DR% DP1
DR% DP2
-5.00
850.00 950.00 1050.00 1150.00 1250.00 1350.00 1450.00 1550.00 1650.00
Time [s]
Figure 6 – DRA2, Drag Reduction Efficiency, Mass flow rate 1750 kg/hr (3860 lb/h), Gas velocity 6.5 m/s (21.3 fps)
Concentration of slurry 150 ppm
4.5
Smooth pipe
4 Bend
Rough Pipe
3.5
2.5
DR%
1.5
0.5
-0.5
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250
Time [s]
Figure 7 – DRA3#1, Drag Reduction Efficiency, Flow Rate 1080 kg/hr (2380 lb/h), Gas velocity 4.1 m/s (13.5 fps)
Concentration of slurry 10 ppm and active polymer 2.5 ppm.
4
DR%
1
DR% Smooth
DR% bend
DR% Rough
0
400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560
Time [seconds]
Figure 8 – DRA3#2, Drag Reduction Efficiency, Flow Rate 1080 kg/hr (2380 lb/hr), Gas velocity 4.1 m/s (13.5 fps),
Concentration of slurry 10 ppm and active polymer 1.0 ppm.
20
15
10
DR%
Smooth pipe
Bend
Rough Pipe
-5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Time [seconds]
Figure 9 – DRA5#1, Flow Rate 850 kg/hr (1870 lb/hr), Gas velocity 3.2 m/s (10.5 fps). Concentration active
chemicals 75 ppm
20
15
10
DR%
0
Smooth pipe
Bend
Rough pipe
-5
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time [seconds]
Figure 10 – DRA5#4, Flow rate 1080 kg/hr (2380 lb/hr), Gas velocity 4.1 m/s (13.5 fps). Concentration active
chemicals 30 ppm
Appendix A – Biographies
Sigurd Gaard received a M.Sc. degree in Mechanical
Engineering from Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU) in 1987. His work tasks has mainly been
within fluid dynamics issues in the oil & gas industry and
hydro power industry, at Sintef Fluid Machinery, Rogaland
Research and Kværner Energy, respectively. Gaard received
his Doctoral degree from the Department of Mechanical
Engineering at the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology in 1992. He joined Statoil in 1998 and has been
working on issues related to pipebased oil and gas transport.
He is currently department manager for Transport optimisation
and System Design.
Odd Tore Isaksen started as an apprentice in 1991 at Statoil

Kårstø gas treatment plant. He later turned to the university
and received a M.Sc. degree in Chemical Engineering from
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in
1999. In the beginning of his career he worked mostly with
process optimisation in Statoil where he later started working
with research at Statoil, K-lab.

Experiments With Various Drag Reducing Additives in Turbulent Flow in Dense Phase Gas Pipelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experiments With Various Drag Reducing Additives in Turbulent Flow in Dense Phase Gas Pipelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSIG 03B3

Experiments with various Drag Reducing Additives in Turbulent Flow in Dense

Copyright 2003, Pipeline Simulation Interest Group

DR (% ) = (1 − ∆Pwith DRA ∆Pwithout DRA )⋅100 (1)

Injection System • Data logging as soon as stable conditions are

concentration of slurry between 7.5 ppm(wt) and about 300 DRA 2

the surfaces were smoothened. This can be based on the DRA 3

however, not show a sequential response in the flow. A measurements.

Table 2 – Test loop characteristics

Reynolds number, Re, Order of magnitude 106

Figure 1 – Statoil Operated Gas Transmission Network, Autumn 2001

Statpipe, Inlet pipe

Inlet for nitrogen

Injection of DRA 2" Drain

1" plexi glass

2000 operational range, test rig

Rich Gas and Naptha Mixture

Figure 3 – Phase Envelope and Operating Range

Odd Tore Isaksen started as an apprentice in 1991 at Statoil

You might also like