1 / 50

Inception of Liquid Loading Foam Flow

Inception of Liquid Loading Foam Flow. Ayantayo Ajani The University of Tulsa. Outline. Introduction Large Scale Facility Equipment and Data Collection Results Foam Flow Liquid Loading Preliminary Conclusions. Introduction.

portia-gill
Download Presentation

Inception of Liquid Loading Foam Flow

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Inception of Liquid LoadingFoam Flow Ayantayo Ajani The University of Tulsa

  2. Outline • Introduction • Large Scale Facility • Equipment and Data Collection • Results • Foam Flow Liquid Loading • Preliminary Conclusions

  3. Introduction • Recall from air water flow that when residual pressure drop reaches zero value, liquid loading is initiated in the pipe. • The concept above will be investigated for foam flow in a 40 ft, 2-in and 4-in vertical pipe.

  4. Large Scale Facility: Flow Diagram

  5. Large Scale Facility: Structure

  6. Large Scale Facility: Mixing Section

  7. Test Section • 3 Trapping Sections • 2 Quick Closing Valves • 2 Pressure Transducers • Visualization Box

  8. Facility Design

  9. Test Matrix – Large Scale Facility

  10. Uncertainty Analysis

  11. Outline • Introduction • Large Scale Facility • Equipment and Data Collection • Results • Foam Flow Liquid Loading • Preliminary Conclusions

  12. Results: Pressure Gradient:Air-Water, 2-in Pipe 16 m/s 16 m/s

  13. Results: Pressure Gradient:Air-Water, 4-in Pipe 19 m/s 20 m/s

  14. Results: Liquid Holdup for Air-Water in 2-in and 4-in Pipes

  15. Observations • The inception of liquid loading is not very sensitive to liquid velocity. We can assume a constant value over the range of investigation • Liquid film thickness, based on material balance, is bigger in 4” pipe than in 2” pipe

  16. Outline • Introduction • Large Scale Facility • Equipment and Data Collection • Results • Foam Flow Liquid Loading • Preliminary Conclusions

  17. Results: S-2158, 400 ppm, 2 inch 6 m/s 3.2 m/s

  18. Results: S-2158, 800 ppm, 2 inch 4.3 m/s 2 m/s

  19. Results: S-2158, 1200 ppm, 2 inch 3.2 m/s 2 m/s

  20. Results: S-2158, 1600 ppm, 2 inch 1.4 m/s 1.5 m/s

  21. Results: S-2158, 3000 ppm, 2 inch 2.8 m/s

  22. Results: S-2158, 400 ppm, 4 inch 15 m/s 16 m/s

  23. Results: S-2158, 800 ppm, 4 inch 16 m/s 14 m/s

  24. Results: S-2158, 1200 ppm, 4 inch 8 m/s 3 m/s

  25. Results: S-2158, 1600 ppm, 4 inch 4 m/s 2 m/s

  26. Results: S-2158, 3000 ppm, 4 inch 6 m/s

  27. Results: Liquid Holdup for S-2158 in 2-in and 4-in Pipes

  28. Results: Critical Velocity for S-2158 Avgof VsgC for Vsl = 0.01 & 0.03 m/s

  29. Results: S-2557, 200 ppm, 2 inch 15 m/s 10 m/s

  30. Results: S-2557, 400 ppm, 2 inch 8.5 m/s 11 m/s

  31. Results: S-2557, 600 ppm, 2 inch 4 m/s 9 m/s

  32. Results: S-2557, 1000 ppm, 2 inch 3.4 m/s 5 m/s

  33. Results: S-2557, 200 ppm, 4 inch 15 m/s 19 m/s

  34. Results: S-2557, 400 ppm, 4 inch 14 m/s 16.5 m/s

  35. Results: S-2557, 600 ppm, 4 inch 17 m/s 9 m/s

  36. Results: S-2557, 1000 ppm, 4 inch 14.5 m/s 13 m/s

  37. Results: Liquid Holdup for S-2557 in 2-in and 4-in Pipes

  38. Results: Critical Velocity for S-2557Avg of VsgC for Vsl = 0.01 & 0.03 m/s

  39. Results: Liquid Holdup for S-3311 in 2-in and 4-in Pipes

  40. Results: Critical Velocity for S-3311Avg of VsgC for Vsl = 0.01 & 0.03 m/s

  41. Results: Critical velocity versus Mass unloaded, (%): (Using Concentration at Half Life); 2 inch

  42. Results: Critical velocity versus Mass unloaded, (%): (Using Concentration at Half Life); 4 inch

  43. Pressure Gradients

  44. Results: Pressure Gradient:S-2158, Vsl = 0.01 m/s

  45. Results: Pressure Gradient:S-2557, Vsl = 0.01 m/s

  46. Results: Pressure Gradient:S-3311, Vsl = 0.01 m/s

  47. Outline • Introduction • Large Scale Facility • Equipment and Data Collection • Results • Foam Flow Liquid Loading • Preliminary Conclusions

  48. Preliminary Conclusions • In the presence of foam, for both 2” and 4” pipes, the inception of liquid loading is postponed • The impact of foam in 2” pipe is much more significant than in 4” pipe. This is most likely caused by hold up behavior • We believe that entrained liquid in gas core increases as the pipeline diameter decreases

  49. Preliminary Conclusions • Holdup in 2” pipe is smaller than holdup in 4” pipe at low gas velocities for a given concentration of surfactant • It is possible to predict the behavior of foam efficacy based on small scale experiments • The pressure drop, for a given surfactant concentration, is much greater in 2” pipe than in 4” pipe compared to air-water

  50. Inception of Liquid LoadingFoam Flow Questions? Recommendations

More Related