fluid flow projects

McDouugall Schhool of Peetroleum Engineeering

Fluiid Floww Projects

EEightie Board

Pre

eth Se d Mee esenta

A

emi-A eting B ation S

April 17

Annual Brochu Slide C

2013

l Advi ure an Copy

isory nd

Tulsa University Fluid Flow Projects Eightieth Semi-Annual Advisory Board Meeting

April 16 - 17 2013

Agenda

Tuesday April 16 2013 1200 pm TUFFP Workshop Luncheon

H A Chapman Stadium ndash OneOK Club 3112 East 8th Street Tulsa Oklahoma 74104

100 TUFFP Workshop H A Chapman Stadium ndash OneOK Club 3112 East 8th Street Tulsa Oklahoma 74104

330 TUFFP Facility Tour University of Tulsa North Campus 2450 East Marshall Tulsa Oklahoma 74110

600 TUFFP Reception H A Chapman Stadium ndash OneOK Club 3112 East 8th Street Tulsa Oklahoma 74104

Wednesday April 17 2013 TUFFP Advisory Board Meeting

Venue H A Chapman Stadium ndash OneOK Club 3112 East 8th Street Tulsa Oklahoma

800 am Breakfast

830 Introduction Cem Sarica

845 Progress Report Low Liquid Loading Three-Phase Flow Kiran Gawas

Effects of MEG on Multiphase Flow Behavior Hamid Karami

Update of 6rdquo High Pressure Facility Duc Vuong

1015 Coffee Break

1030 Progress Reports Modeling of Hydrodynamics of Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow using Energy Eduardo Pereyra Minimization Concept

Liquid Loading of Gas Wells with Deviations from 0 to 45deg Mujgan Guner

i

Liquid Loading of Gas Wells with Deviations from 45 to 90deg Yasser Alsaadi

1200 pm Lunch

115 Progress Report TUFFP Unified Model Software Improvement amp Database Development

Carlos Torres

TUFFP Experimental Database Jinho Choi

Experimental Determination of Drift Velocity in Medium Oil Viscosities for Horizontal and Upward Inclined Pipes

Jose Moreiras

Revisit of Pipe Inclination on Flow Characteristics of High Viscosity Oil-Gas Two-Phase Flow

Jaejun Kim

245 Coffee Break

300 Progress Reports Effect of High Oil Viscosity on Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Vertical and Highly Deviated Pipes

Feras Alruhamani

Onset of Liquid Accumulation in Oil and Gas Pipelines Eduardo Pereyra and

TUHOP Facility Incorporation Cem Sarica

415 Business Report Cem Sarica

430 General Discussion

500 Adjourn

530 TUFFPTUPDP Reception Venue H A Chapman Stadium ndash OneOK Club 3112 East 8th Street Tulsa Oklahoma

ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introductory Presentation 5

TUFFP Progress Reports Low Liquid Loading Gas-Oil-Water Flow in Horizontal and Near-Horizontal Pipes ndash Kiran Gawas Presentation 13 Executive Summary 37

Low Liquid Loading Three-Phase Flow and Effects of MEG on Flow Behavior ndash Hamidreza Karami Presentation 41 Executive Summary 61

Update on 6 in ID High Pressure Facility Activities ndash Duc Vuong Presentation 65 Executive Summary 75

Modeling of Hydrodynamics of Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow using Energy Minimization Concept Presentation 79 Executive Summary 89

Liquid Loading of Gas Wells with Deviations from 0deg to 45deg - Mujgan Guner Presentation 93 Executive Summary 117

Liquid Loading in Deviated Pipes From 45deg to 90deg - Yasser Alsaadi Presentation 121 Executive Summary 135

Unified Model Computer Code Update ndash Carlos Torres Presentation 137 Executive Summary 145

TUFFP Experimental Database ndash Jinho Choi Presentation 147 Executive Summary 157

Unified Drift Velocity Closure Relationship for Large Bubbles Rising in Viscous Fluids ndash Jose Moreiras Presentation 161 Executive Summary 173

Characteristics of Downward Flow of High Viscosity Oil and Gas Two-Phase ndash Jaejun Kim Presentation 177 Executive Summary 187

Effect of High Oil Viscosity on Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Vertical and High Deviated Pipes ndash Feras Alruhaimani Presentation 191

iii

Executive Summary 201

Onset of Liquid Accumulation in Oil and Gas Pipelines ndash Eduardo Pereyra Cem Sarica Presentation 203 Executive Summary 211

TUHOP Incorporation ndash Cem Sarica Eduardo Pereyra Presentation 213

TUFFP Business Report Presentation 219 Business Section 227

Appendices Appendix A ndash Personnel Contact Information 245 Appendix B ndash 2013 Fluid Flow Projects Advisory Board Representatives 247 Appendix C ndash History of Fluid Flow Projects Membership 255 Appendix D ndash Fluid Flow Projects Deliverables 261

iv

Executive Summary

Progress updates on each research project are given later in this Advisory Board Brochure A brief summary of the activities is given below

ldquoInvestigation of Gas-Oil-Water Flowrdquo Three-phase gas-oil-water flow is a common occurrence in the petroleum industry One of objectives of TUFFP for gas-oil-water research is to improve the closure relationships required for multiphase flow models such as the TUFFP unified model This objective is addressed in various projects

ldquoOil Viscosity Effects on Two-phase Flow Behaviorrdquo Earlier TUFFP studies showed that the performances of existing models are not sufficiently accurate for high viscosity oils with a viscosity range of 200 ndash 1000 cp

Our recent efforts resulted in the development of new translational velocity slug liquid holdup and slug length closure relationships Moreover the TUFFP unified model was modified for high viscosity oil two-phase flow based on the experimental findings This project continues on multiple fronts

1 Inclination Angle Effects The objective is to conduct a study for inclination angles of -2deg and +2deg A complete study was conducted by Jeyachandra (2011) Further performance analysis of the used capacitance sensors indicated that some of the holdup data of Jeyachandra needs to be retaken In addition to inclined flow data 3 in horizontal flow data will be acquired through the return line of the facility SNU scholars Mr Kim and Mr Chu are the research assistants for this project The facility was reconfigured from horizontal to inclined position Capacitance sensors have been calibrated and testing has recently started

2 Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Vertical and Highly Deviated Pipes The objective of this study is to investigate high viscosity oil-gas flow in vertical and deviated wells for a viscosity range of 180 ndash 587 cp Mr Feras Al-Ruhaimani a PhD student is assigned to this project TUFFPrsquos 2 in ID three-phase flow facility is currently being modified for this project The capacitance sensors have been calibrated statically A signal processing macro is being developed using MATLAB Facility will be ready and testing will begin in May 2013

3 Medium Viscosity Oil Study Only a few experimental studies for medium oil viscosity

(20cPltmicroOlt200cP) have been published in the literature Furthermore current two-phase flow models are based on experimental data with low and high viscosity liquids Thus there is a need of experimental and modeling investigation for medium viscosities in order to characterize the two-phase flow behavior for the entire range of possible viscosities

Brito (2012) recently completed an experimental study for horizontal pipe flow The results were presented at Fall 2012 ABM After the completion of high viscosity inclined flow tests the medium viscosity tests will resume for inclination angles of 2deg and +2deg

Since the last ABM drift velocity experiments were completed for horizontal and upward inclined pipes Moreover a unified drift velocity closure relationship has been developed for the range of inclination angles and viscosities ranging from 1 cp to 600 cp A detailed presentation is given in this brochure by Jose Moreiras an undergraduate student in petroleum engineering

ldquoApplication of Minimum Energy Dissipation (MED) Concept in Multiphase Flow in Pipesrdquo The approach is based on the minimum energy dissipation concept postulating that a system stabilizes to its minimum total energy loss Application of this concept has been found in thermodynamics and simulation of the flow in river systems (open channel flow) Moreover the concept has recently been applied in the prediction of two-phase flow splitting in parallel pipes The application of the concept to stratified gas-liquid flow has been successfully demonstrated by Mr Hoyoung Lee during this reporting period The concept is planned to be expanded to other multiphase flow configurations and applications

ldquoUp-scaling Studiesrdquo One of the most important issues that we face in multiphase flow technology development is scaling up of small diameter and low pressure results to large diameter and high pressure conditions Studies with a large diameter facility operated at high pressures would significantly improve our understanding of flow characteristics in actual field conditions Our main objective in this study is to investigate the effect of pipe diameter and pressures on flow behavior using a larger diameter flow loop

This project is one of the main activities of TUFFP and a significant portion of the TUFFP budget is allocated to the construction of a 6 in ID high pressure flow loop The first TUFFP study to be conducted utilizing the new facility is ldquoEffect of Pressure on Liquid Loadingrdquo

1

Since the last advisory Board meeting the facility has been successfully commissioned Single phase gas tests have been completed to determine the loop characteristics Testing of wire mesh for high pressure was successfully completed by HZDR We ordered two wire meshes to be used in 6 in ID high pressure loop as one of the measurement instruments It will be delivered early Fall 2013 The Canty High Pressure Visualization Device has been tested under static conditions Mr Duc Vuong a PhD student has been assigned to the first study The testing will start in fall 2013

ldquoLow Liquid Loading Gas-Oil-Water Flow in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Pipesrdquo Low liquid loading exists widely in wet gas pipelines These pipelines often contain water and hydrocarbon condensates Small amounts of liquids can lead to a significant increase in pressure loss along a pipeline Moreover existence of water can significantly contribute to the problem of corrosion and hydrate formation problems

The main objectives of this study are to acquire detailed experimental data of low liquid loading gas-oil-water flow in horizontal and near horizontal pipes using representative fluids to check the suitability of available models for low liquid loading three phase flow and to suggest improvements if needed

The bulk of the experimental campaign was completed as reported last time Additional data were taken during this period and the data analyses have been completed to characterize the wave and droplet fields for stratified flow A simple correlation approach is suggested for entrainment of oil and water into the gas phase for stratified-atomization flow pattern which is the predominant flow pattern for low liquid loading flow conditions Mr Kiran Gawas a PhD candidate successfully defended his dissertation in March

ldquoEffect of MEG on Multiphase Flow Behaviorrdquo A 6 in ID low pressure facility is now being utilized for this project Currently Mr Hamid Karami a PhD student is conducting baseline tests with no MEG

The entrainment rate measurements were conducted using isokinetic probes for water cuts of 60 80 and 100 and superficial gas velocities of 17 19 21 23 ms The data will be used along with data from Gawas (2013) for water cuts of 40 and less to analyze the effects

of different parameters on the entrainment behavior of oil and water droplets

After completion of the tests without glycol the next phase of experiments will be conducted for different concentrations of glycol will be added to the aqueous phase and the same test matrix will be completed with glycol under steady state flowing conditions

ldquoLiquid Loading of Gas Wellsrdquo Liquid loading in the wellbore has been recognized as one of the most severe problems in gas production At early times in the production natural gas carries liquid in the form of mist since the reservoir pressure is sufficiently high As the gas well matures the reservoir pressure decreases reducing gas velocity The gas velocity may go below a critical value resulting in liquid accumulation in the well The liquid accumulation increases the bottom-hole pressure and significantly reduces the gas production rate

Although considerable effort has been made to predict the liquid loading of gas wells experimental data are very limited The objective of this project is to better understand the mechanisms causing the loading

Ms Mujgan Guner has recently completed an experimental study for the deviation angle range between 0deg and 45deg The important conclusions of the study can be briefly summarized as follows

bull Well deviation is an important variable that affects onset of liquid loading

bull The critical gas velocity increases as the well deviates from vertical

bull Well deviation promotes intermittent flow bull Available models are not in good agreement with

the experimental results especially for deviated wells

Mr Yasser Al-Saadi has started his experimental study to investigate the liquid loading for the deviation angle range between 45deg and 90deg Since the last Advisory Board meeting the literature review has been completed Moreover the facility has been prepared for the testing campaign and testing program has started

ldquoOnset of Liquid Accumulation in Oil and Gas Pipelinesrdquo Accumulation of liquid oil andor water at the bottom of an inclined pipe is known to be the source of many industrial problems such as corrosion and terrain slugging Accurate quantification of the required gas velocities to efficiently sweep the water out and prevent accumulation and accurate prediction of oil and water holdup are of great importance Currently minimum gas velocity or critical angle requirements which are often found to be very conservative are being

2

implemented with various success rates to prevent corrosion in multiphase pipelines

An experimental and theoretical modeling project has already been initiated to better quantify the accumulated liquid volumes and the critical gas velocityinclination angle During this period a research plan has been prepared to be discussed at this Advisory Board meeting and the literature review has started

During the next period the literature review will continue and facility design will be finalized with the required instrumentation to achieve the objectives of the project TUFFPrsquos 3 in ID three-phase flow facility will be used for the experimental portion of this study after the completion of the liquid loading project

ldquoUnified Mechanistic Modelrdquo TUFFP has been maintaining and continuously improving the TUFFP unified model TUFFP has decided to rewrite the unified model software with an emphasis on modularity and computation efficiency Significant progress is made in making the software modular A detailed presentation outlining the progress is given in this brochure

ldquoTUFFP Experimental Database Developmentrdquo TUFFP has 46 gas-liquid data sets including steady-state and transient experiments More than 10000 steady-state data records exist for gas-liquid flow For oil-water experiments 11 data sets with about 2800 data records have been acquired Finally 5 data sets with about 500 data records have been obtained from gas-oilshywater experiments

The main objective of this project is to construct a comprehensive multiphase flow database of TUFFP experimental data sets

Schlumberger already developed a steady-state multiphase database software using Microsoft Access which has been donated to TUFFP This software will be further developed to accommodate the diverse nature of TUFFP data

The current TUFFP membership stands at 17 Due to the sale of SPT Group to Schlumberger SPT Group terminated their membership for 2013 Moreover JOGMEC terminated their membership due to changes in their research and technology development portfolio On the other hand NTP Truboprovod Piping Systems Research amp Engineering joined as the newest member of TUFFP Efforts continue to further increase the TUFFP membership level We anticipate having one or two additional new members for 2013 A detailed report on membership and financial matters is provided in this report

Several related projects are underway The related projects involve sharing of facilities and personnel with TUFFP The Paraffin Deposition consortium TUPDP is completing its fourth three-year phase A new phase has already been started with a new three-year plan

Tulsa University High Viscosity Oil Projects (TUHOP) Joint Industry Projects has been completed An insufficient number of members displayed interest in the continuation of TUHOP at this time Therefore it is proposed to merge TUHOP into TUFFP to pursue the high viscosity oil multiphase flow research more vigorously The TUHOP deliverables generated during its existence will not be available to TUFFP members

The newly formed consortium called ldquoTulsa University Horizontal Well Artificial Lift Projectsrdquo (TUHWALP) is addressing the artificial lift needs of horizontal wells drilled into gas and oil shales TUHWALP started its activities in July 2012 The membership has grown from 11 to 16 members during this reporting period We anticipate reaching 20 members by the end of 2013 The membership fee is $50000

3

4

Fluid Flow Projects

80th Fluid Flow Projects Advisory Board Meeting

Welcome

Advisory Board Meeting April 17 2013

Safety Moment

Emergency Exits Assembly Point Tornado Shelter Emergency Call 911

Restrooms

Fluid Flow Projects Advisory Board Meeting April 17 2013

5

Introductory Remarks

80th Semi-Annual Advisory Board Meeting

Handout Combined Brochure and Slide Copy

Sign-Up List Please Leave Business Card at

Registration Table


Team

Research Associates Cem Sarica (Director)

Eduardo Pereyra (Associate Director)

Carlos Torres (Research Associate)

Jinho Choi (Research Associate)

Abdel Al-Sarkhi (KFPMU ndash Visiting Research Professor)

Eissa Al-Safran (KU ndash Collaborator)


6

Team hellip

Project Coordinator Linda Jones

Project Engineer Scott Graham

Research Technicians Craig Waldron Norman Stegall Don Harris Franklin Birt

Web Master Lori Watts


Team hellip

TUFFP Research Assistants Feras Alruhaimani (PhD) ndash Kuwait

Yasser Alsaadi (MS) ndash Saudi Arabia

Selcuk Fidan (PhD) ndash Turkey

Kiran Gawas (PhD) ndash India

Mujgan Guner (MS) ndash Turkey

Hamid Karami (PhD) ndash Iran

Duc Vuong (PhD) ndash Vietnam


7

Team hellip

Visiting Research Scholars Maher Shariff Saudi Aramco

SNU Visiting Research Assistants Mignon Chu

Jaejun Kim

Hoyoung Lee


Guests

Nicolas Jauseau Kongsberg Oil amp Gas

Travis Gray Range Resources

Ken Walsh Range Resources

Steve Coleman

DSME Representative

Tod Canty JM Canty


8

Agenda

830 Introductory Remarks 845 Progress Reports Low Liquid Loading in GasOilWater Pipe

Flow Effects of MEG on Multiphase Flow

Behavior

Update on 6 in High Pressure Facility

Activities

1015 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip

1030 Progress Reports

Modeling of Hydrodynamics of Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow using Energy Minimization Concept

Liquid Loading of Gas Wells with Deviations from 0 to 45 Degrees



9

Agenda hellip

1200 Lunch

115 Progress Reports TUFFP Unified Model Software Improvement amp

Database Development

TUFFP Experimental Database



245 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip


Effect of High Oil Viscosity on Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Vertical and Highly Deviated Pipes

Onset of Liquid Accumulation in Oil and Gas Pipelines

TUHOP Incorporation


10

Agenda hellip

415 TUFFP Business Report

430 Open Discussion

500 Adjourn

530 TUFFPTUPDP Reception


Other Activities

April 16 2013 TUFFP Workshop Excellent Presentations

Facility Tour I TUFFP Reception

April 18 2013 TUPDP Meeting Facility Tour II TUHWALP Reception

April 19 2013 TUHWALP Meeting


11

12

t

Fluid Flow Projects

Low Liquid Loading Gas-Oil-Water Flow In Horizontal and Near-

Horizontal Pipes

Kiran Gawas


Outline

6 Objectives

6 I t i6 Introdduction

6 Experimental Study

6 Results and Discussion

6 Correlation Comparison

6 Conclusions

6 Recommendations


13

Objectives

6 Acquire Experimental Data of Low Liquid L di G Oil W t Fl iLoading Gas-Oil-Water Flow in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Pipes Using Representative Fluids

6 Check Suitability of Available Models for Low Liquid Loading Three Phase Flow and Suggest Improvements If Needed and Suggest Improvements If Needed


Introduction

6 Low Liquid Loading Flows Correspond to Liquid to Gas Ratio le 1100 m3MMsm3 Liquid to Gas Ratio le 1100 m MMsm 6 Small Amounts of Liquid Influences

Pressure Distribution ndash Hydrate Formation PiggingFrequency Downstream Equipment Design etc 66 TTransportt of Additivesf Additi 6 Very Few Experiments for Large Diameter

Pipes 6 Up-scaling of Available Models


14

15

Experimental Facility


Test Section

46m 46m 8 2m 82m 9 1m 91m 9 1m 91m 7 1m 71m

P P DP DP

DP T

DP

QCV QCV

QCV QCV

DP T DP

QCV

DP DP P P

71m 91m 91m 82m

564m


16

ndash

Test Fluids

6 Test Fluid

frac34G Aifrac34Gas ndash Air

frac34Water ndash Tap Water

ρ = 1000 kgm3

μ = 1 cP

γair = 72 dynescm 60deg F

frac34Oil ndash Isopar Lfrac34Oil Isopar L

ρ = 760 kgm3

μ = 135 cP



Measurement Techniques

Glycerin

Pipe

High Speed Visualization

DAQ Light Light

Source

High Speed Camera Acrylic Box

Setup

Flow Direction

6 15

ProbeFlow Meter Meter

Pressure Gauze

Separator

Capacitance Probe Isokinetic Sampling


Results and Discussion

6 Flow Pattern

6Wave Characteristics frac34Presented by Mr Mirazizi

6 Droplet Size

6 Droplet Flux

6 E t i t F ti 6 Entrainment Fraction


Flow Pattern Studies


17

18

Flow Pattern Studies hellip

Dong (2007)

Current Study



6 Gas-liquid flow pattern Stratified-atomization flowflow

6 Oil-water flow pattern ndash Separated flow Semi-dispersed flow and complete dispersion of water in oil

6 Oil-water interface convex but no breakthrough of the water channel at the ggas-liqquid interface

6 Negligible effect of water cut on initiation of atomization


Droplet Size Studies


Droplet Size Studies hellip

25 100

5

10

15

20

25

f v (d

P ) (

)

Bottom

Middle

Top

20

40

60

80

100

F v (

d P )

()

Bottom

Middle

Top


0

0 200 400 600 800

dp (microns)

0

0 200 400 600 800 dp (microns)

19

20

f v (

)

f v (d

P)

()


25 100

90

20 80 Bottom

Bottom 70 Middle

Middle 15 Top

10 Fv (d

P)

()

Top 60

50

40

30

20 5

10

0 0 0 200 400 600 800

0 200 400 600 800 dp (microns) dp (microns)



10020

Experimental data 18 Experimental data

Log normal 16 Log normal 80

Upper limit log normal Upper limit log normal 14

12

10

Fv

() 60

8 40

66

4 20

2

0 0

0 100 200 300 400

dp (microns)

500 600 0 100 200 300 dp (microns)

400 500


Azzopardi et al (1985) Azzopardi et al (1985) adjusted 1

10 15 20 25 30

vSG (ms)

⎡ 2 minus058 ⎤ 05 036⎛ ρ v λ ⎞ ⎛ W ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ σ ⎞L G A LE σd32 = λA ⎢154⎜ ⎟ + 35⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ λA = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ λA = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎜ ⎟⎢ σ ρ v ⎥ ρ ρ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ L G ⎠ ⎝ L g ⎠ ⎝ Lg ⎠⎣ ⎦


1000d 3

2 (m

icro

ns)

100

10

1

Bottom Middle

Top Entire pipe cross-section

Kocamustafaogullari et al (1994) Al Sarkhi et al (2002)

Azzopardi et al (1985)

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

vSG (ms)



1000

100

d 32

(mic

ron

s)

Bottom Middle


Azzopardi et al (1985) Azzopardi et al (1985) adjusted

10


21


dmax= 29155 d32

900

Rsup2 = 07358

300

500

700

d max

(mic

ron

s)


100

100 150 200 250

d32(microns)


16

4

6

8

10

12

14

f v (d

P ) (

)


0

2

4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

dp (microns)

22


6 Upper Limit Log Normal Distribution Used to Fit Droplet Size DistributionDroplet Size Distribution

6 Volume PDF and CDFs Shift to Lower Drop Size with Increasing Distance from Bottom of the Pipe - Influences Concentration Distribution of Entrained Drops

6 Characteristic Drop Size Decreases with Distance from Bottom from Bottom

6 Available Correlation Need to Be Modified to Accurately Predict the Effect of Surface Tension

6 Volume PDF for Three Phase Flow Shows Bishymodal Distribution


Droplet Flux Studies hellip

Flow

Saltation Region

Flow Direction

Turbulence Gravity

dC


)( yaCudy

dC T =+ε

Turbulent Diffusion Gravity Settling

SourceSink

(Paras SV and Karabelas A J Int J Multiphase Flow 17 455-468 1991)

23

24


vSL = 001 ms θ = -2deg air-oil flow



1

VSG = 23 ms vSg=

08 Pan and Hanratty (2002)

Skartlien et al (2011) 06

Eq (449) yD 04

02

0

001 01 1 10Ex (kgm2s)


25


1 01 vSL = 002 msVSL = 002 ms vSG = 23 ms -2deg VSG = 23 ms -2 vSL = 0015 msVSG = 0015 ms vSG = 19 ms -2deg VSG = 19 ms -2 00808 vSL = 001 msVSL = 001 ms vSG = 167 ms -2degVSG = 167 ms -2 vSL = 0005 msVSL = 0005 ms

06

yD 04 W

LE

(kg

s)

006

004

02 002

00 0

001 01

Ex (kgm2s) 1 10 0 0005 001 0015

vSL (ms) 002 0025

vSG = 19 ms θ = -2deg air-oil flow θ = -2deg air-oil flow








26

27


vSG = 19 ms vSL = 002 ms 2deg

11 WC = 01 Water

WC = 01 Oil 08

WC = 02 Water

WC = 02 Oil 06

WC = 04 Water

yD WC = 04 Oil 04

02

0

001 01 1 10 Ex (kgm2s)



1 1

WC = 1 WC = 1

08 08 WC = 01 Water

WC = 02 Water

06 WC = 04 Water 06

yD yD04 04

WC = 0

WC = 01 02 02

WC = 02

WC = 04

0 00 0

001 01 1 001 01 1 (Ex) (Ex0 )water(kgm2s)(Ex) (Ex0 )oil(kgm2s)

Oil droplet flux profile Water droplet flux profile for vSG = 23 ms vSL = 001 ms for vSG = 23 ms vSL = 001 ms


28


1

WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

yD 04

0 202

0

0 005 01 015 02 025

fw



6 Droplet Flux Profile Along Vertical Axis M dMeasured

6 Accurate Prediction of Concentration Profile Needs Accounting for Exact Distribution of Drop Sizes

6 Entrainment of Liquid Most Sensitive to G Fl RGas Flow Rattes

6 Effect of Inclination Diminishes with Increase in Gas Flow Rate


VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2

VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2


6 Entrainment Controlled by the CConti tinuous Oil PhaseOil Ph

6 Enhancement in Entrainment of Water in Three Phase Flow

6 No Interaction Between Entrained Oil and Water Drops

6 Fraction of Water in the Entrained Phase Decreases with Distance from the Bottom of the Pipe


Entrainment Fraction Correlation

( )LELFLELLE WWWWWE +==

0 4

06

08

1

E

- = - V = -

= V =

vSG = 23 ms -2deg

vSG = 23 ms 2deg

vSG = 165 ms -2deg

vSG = 165 ms 2deg

vSG = 19 ms -2deg

vSG = 19 ms 2deg


0

02

04

0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 vSL (ms)

29

LFCLFGLGA

θθ Ck

Entrainment Fraction Correlation hellip

Da RR =

⎞⎛502 )( Wvk ρρ ⎟⎞

⎜⎛ minusWWvk

Ra LFCLFGLGA ρρ 502 )( ⎟ ⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎝ ⎛ Γminus= )(

C LFGLGA

P

WvkRa

σ ρρ ⎟

⎠ ⎜ ⎝

= P

Ra σ

P = SIP = πD

2

0211 ⎟ ⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎝ ⎛ minusminus=

D

hDS I


θC θC

Si

Two-fluid model


)()( θθ WDD CkR = B

W DD C

CkR

)()(

θθ= )()( WDD B

B DD C

CkR )(θ

02

03

04

Cor

rela

tion


0

01

0 01 02 03 04

E C

ERigorous

30

31


11 ExperimentsExperiments Pan and Hanratty (2002)Pan and Hanratty (2002) 08 Mantilla (2008)08 Mantilla (2008) Current Current

0606

E E

0404

0202

00 0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 0030 0005 001 0015 002 0025 003 vSL (ms) vSL (ms)

vSG = 19 ms air-oil flow vSG = 23 ms air-oil flow



( ) = WC b (R ) (Ra ) = (1 minusWCRa a b )(Ra )water Oil

2 0 5k v ( ρ ρ ) ⎛ W minus W ⎞A G m G LF LFCRa = ⎜ ⎟σ ⎝ P ⎠

1 WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

WC = 11WC

yD 04

02

vSG = 19 ms vSL = 002 ms 0deg 0

001 01 1 10 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)


CC CWCW= C = CRD kD RD k DB waer B oilwater oilCB C Bwater oil


( ) ( )G

mwaterL Twab vDS

WCEW uRWC

24π = ( ) ( )G

oilmL Toab vDS

EWCW uRWC

24

)1()1(

π minus

=minus

)1()1(

)1(m

W

O m

m b

WC E

EWC

WCWC

minus minus

minus +

= ⎥ ⎦

⎤ ⎢ ⎣

⎡ minus +minus=

m

o womLLF WC

EEEWCWW

)1()(



1 Vsg = 23 ms Vsl = 002 ms - Correlation V 19 V l 0 02 C l ti

001

01

(WL

E )

Wate

r [k

gs]

Vsg = 19 ms Vsl = 002 ms - Correlation Vsg = 167 ms Vsl = 001 ms - Correaltion Vsg = 23 ms Vsl = 002 ms Vsg = 19 ms Vsl = 002 ms Vsg = 167 ms Vsl = 001 ms

00001

0001

0 005 01 015 02 025 03 035 04 045 WC [-]


32

33


06 WC = 01

WC = 02

WC = 04 04

yD

02

0

001 01 1 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)




06 vsg = 167 ms Experiment

Vsg = 19 ms Experiments 05

Vsg = 23 ms Experiments

vsg = 167 ms Correlation 04 Vsg = 19 ms Correlation

Vsg = 23 ms Correlation 03

02

01

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 WCm

WC

b


Conclusions

6 Correlation Approach Accounting for Asymmetry of Liquid Filmof Liquid Film

6 Better Prediction of Functional Relationship of Entrainment Fraction on Liquid Velocity

6 Correlation for Entrainment Fraction in Three Phase Flow Assuming Uniform Distribution of Water in the Liquid Film

6 Close Match With Data for Amount of Water Entrained Except for Lowest Gas Velocity Studied


Recommendations

6 Measurement of Axial Gas Velocity Profile

6 M t f D l t Fl t Diff t R di l 6 Measurement of Droplet Flux at Different Radial Locations

6 Measurement of Distribution of Water in the Liquid Phase

6 Visualization System to Distinguish Between Oil and Water Drops

6 Experiments in Three Phase Flow at Higher Pressure


34

Recommendations hellip

6 Incorporating Wave Characteristics Studied to Improve Model for AtomizationImprove Model for Atomization

6 Model for Distribution of Water in the Liquid Phase

6 Accounting for Effect of Variation of Turbulent Diffusivity Across the Pipe Cross-section ndash Secondary Flow

6 Model That Accounts for Curvature Effect for Better Prediction of Interfacial Perimeter

6 Transition to Annular Flow Based on Droplet Deposition


Thank You


35

36

Low Liquid Loading in Gas-Oil-Water Pipe Flow Kiran Gawas

Project Completion Dates Final Report April 2013

Objectives The main objectives of this study are

Acquire experimental data of low liquid loading gas-oil-water flow in horizontal and near horizontal pipes using representative fluids

Check suitability of available models for low liquid loading three-phase flow and suggest improvements if needed

Introduction Low liquid loading gas-oil-water flow is widely encountered in wet gas pipelines Even though the pipeline is fed with single phase gas the condensation of the gas along with traces of water results in three-phase flow The presence of these liquids can result in significant changes in pressure distribution Hydrate formation pigging frequency and downstream facility design which are strongly dependent on pressure and holdup distribution in the pipeline will also be thus affected Several authors have published papers on flow pattern identification and modeling of three-phase flow However most of them do not cover the range of low liquid loading flow which is the main focus of this study The experimental program is conducted in a 6 in ID flow loop The main focus of this study is measurement of droplet flux droplet size distribution and wave characteristics for horizontal and near-horizontal pipes Additionally oil-water flow pattern in the liquid phase are studied for different liquid loading levels and waters cuts

Activities Summary Experimental Study

Experimental Program Preliminary experiments were conducted with representative fluids in order to investigate the flow patterns existing in case of gasoilwater pipe flows Droplet flux studies were conducted for superficial gas velocity in the range of 165 ms to 23 ms superficial liquid velocity in the range of 0005 ms and 002 ms inclinations +2 -2 and 0deg from horizontal and water cut of 0 10 20 40 and 100 Isokinetic sampling system was used to measure flux of oil and water drops at different locations along the vertical axis of the pipe cross-section

Characteristics of waves at gas-liquid interface for the case of air-oil two phase flow was studied for superficial gas velocity in the range of 12 ms to 22 ms superficial liquid velocity in the range of 0005 to 002 ms and inclinations of +2 -2 and 0deg from the horizontal A new capacitance probe system was developed for this purpose which provides insights into the interfacial behavior To our knowledge no wave characteristics data for air-oil flow exists in literature Most of the work on interfacial waves is for air-water two phase flows

Since the transport of entrained liquid drops is influenced by their size a high speed visualization system was developed to measure droplet size distribution Droplet sizes were measured for three different gas flow rates for air-oil flow and airoilwater flow at 40 water cut Measurements were done at three different locations from bottom of the pipe

Finally a simple correlation approach is suggested for entrainment of oil and water into the gas phase for stratified-atomization flow pattern which is the predominant flow pattern for low liquid loading flow conditions

Experimental Results Flow pattern studies

The predominant gas-liquid flow pattern in low-liquid loading flows is stratified-atomization flow Although the inception of atomization starts at superficial gas velocity of 10 ms the entrained drops do not reach top of the pipe until superficial gas velocity reaches 15 ms for air-oil flow and 20 ms for air-water flow respectively No appreciable change was observed in the gas velocity for inception with increasing water cut in the case of airoilwater three-phase flow

The oil-water interface showed a distinct convex curvature in case of airoilwater three phase flow However breakthrough of the water channel to the gas-liquid interface as reported by Dong (2007) could not be ascertained for the test fluids used in this study

The water drops appear to be completely dispersed in the continuous oil phase for vSG gt 19 ms up to 40 water cut However for vSG lt 19 ms a small continuous water film is observed at the bottom

37

of the pipe which indicates a non-uniform dispersion of water drops in the liquid film

Wave characteristic studies The different characteristics of interfacial waves such as wave celerity wave amplitude and wave frequency were correlated to X which represents ratio of Froude numbers of the liquid and gas phase respectively The correlation was tested for a comprehensive data set based on wave data available in literature over a range of liquid film thickness

The correlation was also compared with model predictions for wave celerity using mechanistic model proposed by Watson (1989) Similarity of results obtained using both the model predictions and the correlation implies that X combines all the important parameters that determine wave behavior

Droplet size studies Upper-limit lognormal (ULLN) and lognormal distributions were used to represent the measured droplet size distribution data ULLN showed better overall fit than lognormal distribution especially for larger drop sizes The difference between the two is however small

The characteristic drop size decreases from bottom of the pipe to the top The spatial variation of size however decreases with increase in gas velocity The available correlations for characteristic droplet sizes do not match with the current data set since these correlations rely on experiments conducted for air-water flow which is high surface tension system

The method used in this study cannot distinguish between oil and water drops However droplet size distribution for three-phase flow case shows a bimodal distribution function Since careful examination of the recorded images does not indicate presence of complex drops the two modes observed in the distribution function can be attributed to individual oil and water drops

Droplet flux studies Measurements at different locations along the vertical axis of the pipe cross-section show that the droplet flux decreases almost exponentially with increasing distance from bottom of the pipe Modeling of concentration profile of droplets based on a balance between turbulent diffusion forces and gravity (Paras and Karabelas 1990 Pan and Hanratty 2002) predict behavior close to the gas-liquid interface but deviates from the observed behavior towards top of the pipe The entrainment fraction is highly sensitive to gas flow rate and varies as (vSG)5 The effect of liquid flow rate and inclination is less significant Although entrainment fraction tends to increase as the inclination changes from -2 to +2deg the effect

diminishes as gas flow rate increases The entrainment fraction tends to decrease with increasing liquid flow rate and this effect is more prominent for the higher gas flow rate and at lower liquid flow rates

Measurement of droplet flux of oil and water for the case of airoilwater three-phase flow indicates that entrainment of water which is the dispersed phase is enhanced by the presence of oil which is the continuous phase This leads to higher flux of water than in the case of air-water two-phase flow

The slope of the droplet flux profiles indicates that the water and oil drops are distributed across the pipe cross-section independent of each other Thus changing water cut changes only the rate at which oil and water is atomized with no interaction between the two thereafter The fraction of water in the entrained liquid decreases with increasing distance from bottom of the pipe due to higher settling velocity of water compared to that of oil

Correlation for entrainment of water and oil in gasoilwater three-phase flow The correlations used for estimation of entrainment fraction in horizontal flow are based on annular flow data Annular flow conditions would rarely be attained for low-liquid loading flows The asymmetry of liquid film should therefore be accounted for in determination of entrainment fraction The approach suggested in current study fairs better than the available correlations in describing the functional dependence of entrainment fraction on superficial liquid velocity

This approach is extended to three-phase flow by assuming that the deposition of the entrained water and oil drops takes place independent of each other Uniform distribution of water in oil is assumed to predict rate of atomization of water and oil at the gas-liquid interface These assumptions match experimental observations except at lower gas velocity For low gas flow rate investigated in this study the proposed correlation over predicts amount of water entrained in the gas phase

Recommendations Experimental determination of concentration

distribution of water drops in the liquid film Visualization system to distinguish between

entrained water and oil drops Measurement of axial gas velocity along the

vertical axis of the pipe to accurately predict the concentration of entrained drops and for better estimation of drop diffusivity

Incorporating the wave characteristics studied to improve modeling of rate of atomization

38

Incorporating the effect of entrained liquid experimental data on entrainment is for low drops on turbulent diffusivity in the gas pressure phase Variation of diffusivity across the Model that accounts for curvature of the pipe cross-section also needs to be gas-liquid film is required for prediction of considered interfacial perimeter and film thickness

Effect of secondary flow on droplet Better prediction for transition from distribution needs to be considered to stratified-atomization flow to annular flow improve the prediction of droplet transport based on droplet deposition is required towards the top and sides of the pipe Experiments at higher pressure are needed to

Comparison of the predictions of current investigate the effect of pressure on approach with experimental data at high entrainment of oil and water pressure is needed Most of the available

References Dong H-K ldquoLow Liquid Loading Gas-Oil-Water Flow in Horizontal Pipesrdquo U of Tulsa OK 2007 Pan L Hanratty TJ ldquoCorrelation of entrainment for annular flow in horizontal pipesrdquo Int J Multiphase Flow

28 385-408 2002 Paras SV Karabelas AJ ldquoDroplet entrainment and deposition in horizontal annular flowrdquo Int J Multiphase

Flow 17 455-468 1991 Watson M ldquoWavy stratified flow and the transition to slug flowrdquo Proceedings of the 4th International Conference

in Multi-phase Flows Nice France 1989

39

40

Fluid Flow Projects

Low Liquid Loading Three-Phase Flow and Effects of

MEG on Flow Behavior

Hamidreza Karami


Outline

6 Introduction

6 Objectives

6 Experimental Work

6 Preliminary Experimental Results frac34Wave Characteristics

frac34E t i t R frac34Entrainment Ratte

6 Future Activities


41

Introduction

6 Low Liquid Loading Flow Influences Different Flow CharacteristicsFlow Characteristics

6 Very Few Experiments For Large Diameter Pipes

6 MEG is Injected Continuously as Hydrate Inhibitor in Offshore Systems

6 Its Impact on Flow Pattern Holdup Pressure6 Its Impact on Flow Pattern Holdup Pressure Drop Predictions is not Well Understood

6 Need to Generate Experimental Data and Improve Model Predictions


Objectives

6 Collect Flow Pattern Holdup Wave Characteristics and Entrainment Data Using TUFFPrsquos 6 in ID Low Pressure Test Facility With and Without MEG under Different Flow Conditions

6 Benchmark Existing Models Document Di iDiscrepancies

6 Propose Improvements If Needed


42


6-in ID Low Liquid Loading Facility


Experimental Program hellip

6 Low Liquid Loading Facility Used (6 in ID)

6 Testing Fluids IsoPar-L Oil Tap Water Air Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG)

6 Initial Tests Under Steady State Conditions

6 Aqueous Phase ρ μ σ hellip to Be Investigated for Different Temperatures and MEG


43

Measurement Techniques hellip

6 Pressure and Temperature PTs DPs and TTTTs

6 Holdup Quick Closing Valves and Pigging System

6 Entrainment Rate Iso-kinetic Sampling

6 Droplet Size Distribution

6 Capacitance Sensor

6 Portable Densitometer


6 Densito 30PX

Density Calibration hellip


44



Preliminary Test Matrix hellip

6 Proposed Tests

Parameter Different Cases Number

MEG (wt) 0 10 25 50 4

Inclination (deg) 0 2 -2 3

Water Cut () 10 20 40 60 80 100 6

Mixing Condition Mixing Condition Steady StateSteady State 11

Vsl (cms) 1 2 2

Vsg (ms) 15 17 19 21 23 5

Total 720


45


6 Horizontal Cases First

6 Cases without Glycol First

6 50 Glycol Concentration

6 Properties to Be Investigated frac34 Entrainment Rate

frac34 Liquid Holdup

frac34Wave Characteristics

frac34 Droplet Size Distribution

frac34 Dispersion of Liquid Phases


Testing Range

Temperature Range


46

6 Isokinetic Probes

6

Flow Direction

03 15

7

Pressure Gauge

Separator


47

Entrainment Rate hellip


Probe Position P9 h1 = 1primeprime h2 = 125 primeprime

P8 h3 = 15 primeprime h4 = 175 primeprime

P7 h5 = 2primeprime

P6 h6 = 225primeprime

P5 hh7 = 33primeprime 7 P4

P3 h8 = 45primeprime P2

P1 h9 = 6primeprime


Holdups QCVs amp Pigging System


Wave Characteristics hellip

6 Insulated Probes Used for WaterAir

6 Effects of Glycol on Wave Characteristics

6 Tests Will Be Tried for High Water Cut 3shyPhase Flow

6 Characteristics frac34 Length

frac34 Celerity

frac34 Frequency

frac34 Amplitude

0deg 2 D

60deg

30deg

90deg


48

Preliminary Experimental Results

6 Wave Characteristics frac34GasOil 2-Phase Low Liquid Loading Flow

frac34Combine Effort between Previous Project (Kiran Gawas) and Current Study (Hamidreza Karami)

6 Entrainment Rate W C i Th Ph Fl frac34Water Continuous Three Phase Flow

frac34Results Obtained for 2 Gas Rates (17 and 19 ms)


Wave Characteristics

h0 = 17802(V) - 16739

30

35

40

45

mm

)


h0 = 17636(V) - 34508

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 15 2 25 3 35 4

Fil

m T

hic

knes

s (m

Voltage (V)

Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

49

11

06

07

08

09

1

VV

max

[]

Vsg 145 m s Vsl 0 01 m s WC 0

VV

ma

x [

]

0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t [s]

t [s]


11

-

= = =

06

07

08

09

1

-

Vsg = 145 ms Vsl = 001 ms WC = 0

VV

max


0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t (s)


6 Wave Celerity Cross-Correlation

rela

tion

coe

ffic

ient


Δt C = Δ xΔt

Time Lag (ms)

Cro

ss-c

orr

50

ρ V FrρG mamp L L SL SLX = = = ρ mamp ρ V FV FrL G G SG SG


Author (Year)

Test Fluids Pipe

Diameter

Liquid Viscosity

(Pas)

Liquid Surface Tension (Nm)

Superficial Gas Velocity

Range

Superficial Liquid Velocity Range

Andritsos (1986)

Air -Water 00508 00953

0001 - 008 0072 6 - 19 ms 001 - 006

ms

Paras (1991 1994)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 10 - 66 ms 002 - 02 ms

Mantilla (2008)

Ai W tAir -Water 0 0508 0 152 00508 0152 0001 -00071

0 072 0 035 0072 - 0035 5 80 5 - 80 ms 00035 - 01

ms Magrini (2009)

Air -Water 0076 0001 0072 40 - 80 ms 00035 - 004

ms Mantilla (2012)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 5 - 20 ms 0001 - 001

ms Johnson (2005)

SF6 - Water 01 0001 0072 05 - 45 ms 01 - 1 ms

Current Study Air-Oil 0152 000135 0024 0005 - 002

ms 10 - 20 ms



10000 Andritsos et al (1992)

Paras et al (1991)

Mantilla (2008) - D = 00508 m

100

1000

CvSL

( )

Current Study

Johnson (2005)

Mantilla (2008) - Surface Tension = 0035 Nm

Mantilla (2008) - Viscosity = 71 cP

Mantilla et al (2012)

Al Sarkhi et al (2011)

Proposed Correlation


1

10

00001 0001 001 01 1X

51


6 Non-linear Roll-wave Solution (Dressler 1949 W t 1989)1949 Watson 1989)

β




Disturbance Waves

Disturbance Waves


52


1000

(CVsl)model

10

100

CvSL

(CVsl)model

Correlation


1

00001 0001 001 01 1X

Thick film ndash Transition to slug flow


6 Wave Frequency frac34 Power Spectrum frac34 Power Spectrum

frac34 Physical Counting of Waves ndash Mean plusmn σ

er

Fluid Flow Projects Advisory Board Meeting April 17 2013 f (Hz)

Pow

e

53

54


St

6 Wave Frequency (St=fDvsl) 10000

1000

100

10 Paras et al (1991 1994) Johnson et al (2005) Magrini (2008) Magrini (2008) Mantilla (2008) - 0152 m Mantilla (2008) - 00508 m Mantilla (2008) - ST = 035 Nm Mantilla (2008) - Viscosity = 71 cP

1

01 Mantilla et al (2012) Current Al Sarkhi et al (2011)

001

00001 0001 001 X

01 1



6 Wave Amplitude hellip Δhw = 2 2σ

1 Andritsos (1992) Paras et al (1991)Paras et al (1994) Magrini (2008) Mantilla (2008) - D = 0152 m Mantilla (2008) - D = 00508 m Mantilla (2008) - ST = 0035 Nm Mantilla (2008) - Viscosity = 71 cP Johnson (2005) 01

ΔhwD

001

00001

00001 0001 001 01 1 h0D


0001

55

Δh

wD

Δ

hwD


03 Paras et al (1991) Paras et al (1994) Paras et al (1994) Magrini (2008) Mantilla (2008) - D = 0152 m Mantilla (2008) - D = 00508 m

025

Mantilla (2008) - ST = 0035 Nm Mantilla (2008) - Viscosity = 71 cP Correlation

02

015

01 )071 ΔhW DD = 067(h 0 DΔh = 0 67(h D) 005

0

0 005 01 015 02 025 h0D



06

05

)053ΔhW D = 058(X 04

03 Paras et al (1992 1994)

Mantilla (2008)02

Mantilla (2008) 0 0508 m Mantilla (2008) - 00508 m

Manitlla (2008) - ST = 0035 Nm 01


Correlation

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

X



6 Capacitance Probe for Measurement of WWave ChCh aracteriistics iin Air-oil T il Two-phaset ti Ai h Flow

6 Wave Celerity Wave Amplitude Wave Frequency Correlated with X

6 Correlation Compared for Air-water Data S t A il bl i Lit tSet Available in Literature

6 Comparison with Mechanistic Model for Roll-waves Proposed by Watson (1989)


Entrainment Rate Results hellip

6 Oil Entrainment Rate Vsg=168 ms


56


6 Oil Entrainment Rate Vsl= 1 cms



6 Water Entrainment Rate Vsg=188 ms


57


6 Water Entrainment Rate Vsl = 2 cms



6 Water Ratio in Entrained Droplets Vsl =1 cms


58




Near Future Activities

6 Literature Review (Ongoing)

6 Modeling Efforts (Starting at Summer 2013)

6 Holdup Measurements (Spring 2013)

6 Wave Characteristics Measurements (Summer 2013)

6 Expperiments with Glyycol ((Fall 2013))


59

Research Schedule

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014

O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Literature Review

Facility Training

Facility Preparation

Test Matrix

Main Tests

Additional Tests

Data Analysis

Modeling Study

PhD Proposal

Dissertation Preparing

Defense


Questions and Comments


60

Three-Phase Low Liquid Loading Flow and Effects of MEG on Flow Behavior

Hamidreza Karami Mirazizi

Project Completion Dates Literature Review Ongoing PhD Proposal Defense October 2013 Data Acquisition January 2014 Data Analysis February 2014 Model Comparison and Development October 2014

Objectives The objectives of this study are Acquire flow pattern holdup wave

characteristics and entrainment data using a 6ndash in ID pipe with and without mono-ethylene glycol MEG under different flow conditions

Benchmark existing models document discrepancies

Propose improvements if needed

Introduction One of the most common phenomena in wet gas pipelines is the low liquid loading three-phase flow of gas-oil and water Presence of these liquids in the pipeline although in very small amounts can influence different flow characteristics such as pressure distribution

Mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) is used continuously in deep water gas production systems as a hydrate inhibitor It is injected at the subsea tree upstream of the choke Some work has been done at The University of Tulsa Hydrates Flow Performance and Southwest Research Institute on settling and effectiveness of MEG injection under quiescent conditions However MEG mixing in multiphase flow and its effect on flow parameters such as liquid holdup flow pattern pressure gradient and entrainment rate are not well understood

Considering the significance of liquid inventory and hydrate management on these large gas tie-backs there is a need to generate datasets for open literature that can be used by model developers

In this study experiments are conducted in a 6 in ID flow loop The targeted flow characteristics are the entrainment rate liquid holdup wave characteristics and droplet size distribution Adopting Gawas (2013) test matrix tests are conducted firstly without Glycol and then repeated by adding MEG to the aqueous phase New experimental data considering MEG effect in multiphase flow behavior will increase the efficacy of production management systems

Experimental Facility The flow loop consists of two parallel sections with 6 in (015 m) ID pipes Each section is 564 m long Acrylic visualization sections about 8 m long are provided at the end of each section The inclination angle can change from 0deg horizontal case to plusmn2deg in inclined case

IsoPar-L which poses similar properties as wet gas pipelines (low viscosity and specific gravity) is selected as the oil phase The oil density viscosity and surface tension at standard conditions are 760 kgm3 00013 Pamiddots and 0024 Nm respectively In addition tap water and mono ethylene glycol are forming the aqueous phase and air is flowing into the test section as the gas phase through two different compressors

Aqueous phase properties are function of MEG concentration The phase density increases slightly with the increase in MEG concentration However the change in viscosity is more drastic and makes the viscosity of the denser phase (aqueous) larger than the oil phase This may result in different flow characteristics such as the droplet entrainment rate A portable densitometer Densito 30PX will be used to confirm glycol concentration in the aqueous phase during the tests The instrument can measure the density of the aqueous mixture and temperature in an easy and fast manner For this purpose the mixture density for different temperature values and different glycol concentrations was measured and recorded in a calibration plot This plot will be used every day to back estimate the glycol concentration in the tank

Gas flow rate is measured using the micro motion flow meter CMF300 while CMF100 and CMF050 are used to measure oil and water flow rates An isokinetic sampling system is used to determine droplet flux entrained in the gas phase The system consists of an isokinetic probe a separator and air flow meter It can be traversed vertically across the pipe cross section and entrainment rate at different positions can be recorded Two isokinetic systems one foot apart are used to increase measurement speed Vertical

61

sampling positions include 9 different spots ranging from 1 in away from the bottom to the top of the section

Five quick-closing valves (QCV) are used to bypass the flow and at the same time trap the liquid in the test sections The reaction time of the QCV is less than 1 second The liquid trapped in the QCV is pigged out with a specially designed pigging system and is drained into graduated cylinders to measure the oil and water volumes The system is installed in the testing section with a launching position and a receiving position at each end of the QCV section An air line with a maximum pressure of 25 psig and adjustable air flow rate is used to push the pig through The pigging efficiency tests will be carried out to determine the uncertainties

New capacitance system including multiple insulated capacitance probes around the pipe periphery will be used to measure wave characteristics Film thickness wave length celerity frequency and amplitude will be reported for all experimental conditions These probes are in the design phase

Preliminary Experimental Results Preliminary results in entrainment rate and wave characteristics are presented in this section

Wave Characteristics Analysis This work was conducted as a common effort between previous project (Gawas 2013) and this study Pairs of capacitance probes set about 4 inches apart were used to analyze wave characteristics in oilair two-phase flow Static and dynamic calibration of the probes was conducted prior to main experiments Wave characteristics for horizontal downward (-2deg) and upward (+2deg) flow were determined from the capacitance sensorrsquos time series The voltage signal from the capacitance probe is measured at 200 Hz for 10 ndash 20 seconds The signal was filtered by using a low-pass filter with cutoff frequency of 25 Hz

Wave celerity is calculated using cross-correlation between signals recorded simultaneously by the two capacitance probes placed a known distance apart Based on the experimental results wave celerity seems to increase almost linearly with gas velocity and it also increases slightly with liquid velocity Al-Sarkhi et al (2011) found that entrainment fraction and wave celerity were strong functions of the modified Lockhart-Martinelli parameter X or the Froude number ratio based on the superficial liquid and gas velocities and pipe inclination angle Therefore X can be used to correlate wave celerity for separated flow patterns (stratified and annular flows) The correlation

developed by Al-Sarkhi et al (2011) was compared with a set of experimental results for wave celerity including works of several different authors Although the correlation gives good agreement over a wide range of flow conditions it over-predicts for low X values and under-predicts for higher values of X X is ratio of only inertial forces between liquid and gas phase For thinner liquid films wall effect would also be a contributing factor which is not accounted for in X Two distinct trends of CvSL

with X were observed and a new correlation was proposed based on X

A mathematical model for roll wave in two-phase flow pipelines has been proposed by Watson (1989) He assumes that any disturbance wave travels at the same constant velocity (C) which is determined as part of the solution He suggested a solution procedure through non-linear analysis of governing transient momentum equations and used the conclusion from Dressler who had shown that a continuous solution for this system is not possible Thus we can assume that a continuous solution is obtained by fitting together piecewise continuous solutions The model shows a fair performance with the experimental data An under-prediction is observed for downward inclined pipes while it tends to over-predict in upward inclined flow Discrepancy can be attributed to two sources the constant friction factor assumption and the liquid entrainment which has been neglected in the Watson (1989) formulation Wave celerity data using the model were compared with correlation It can be seen that wave celerity predicted by the model also tends to follow similar trend as by the correlation with respect to X

Frequency of interfacial waves can be determined by window crossing method (actual counting of waves) or using power spectrum of the time series signal In the case of power spectrum the frequency of the wave is equal to the value of the most dominant frequency For counting of wave frequency standard deviation of the time trace is considered as the threshold Signal above the threshold is considered as crest of the wave while signal below this threshold is counted as trough of the wave In the subsequent analysis the frequency obtained by window crossing technique is used

Azzopardi et al (2008) suggested using the Strouhal number to correlate wave frequency with X where Strouhal Number is defined as St=fDvSL The variation of Strouhal number with X for different experimental conditions was analyzed and compared to the correlation developed by Al-Sarkhi et al (2011) There is considerable uncertainty associated with measurement of wave frequency Different methods have been used by different

62

authors for determination of wave frequency from wave signal data

Different methods have been used for the determination of wave amplitude For the experimental conditions used in the current study the wave amplitude was found to be almost independent of the superficial liquid velocity and was found to increase with an increase in gas velocity Moreover the effect of inclination on wave amplitude was found to be negligible

Wave amplitude is a strong function of the film thickness When normalized wave amplitude is plotted against normalized measured film thickness two distinct behaviors can be observed For the higher gas velocities in stratified-atomization and annular flow region where the gas-liquid interface is dominated by large disturbance waves a linear trend is observed However considerable deviation is observed for the experiments restricted to lower gas and higher liquid flow rates with long 2D waves at the gas-liquid interface Neglecting these data points a correlation was developed to predict the normalized wave amplitude by means of the normalized film thickness For cases in which disturbance waves exist (stratified-atomization and annular flow) a correlation was also developed predicting the wave amplitude normalized by pipe diameter with respect to X A fairly good match was observed with the experimental data

Entrainment Rate The entrainment rate measurements were conducted with isokinetic probes from January to April 2013 The measurements are obtained for water cuts of 60 80 and 100 (not included in Gawas 2013 study) and superficial gas velocities of 17 19 21 23 ms These data can be used along with data from Gawas (2013) for water cuts of 40 and less to analyze the effects of different parameters on the entrainment behavior of oil and water droplets

After initial analysis of the tests conducted with vsg of 17 and 19 ms it can be observed that both vsl

and vsg have direct influence on the entrainment rate The highest entrainment rate of water at a fixed

value of vsl was observed at water cut of 80 where apparently there is still a continuous oil phase at the surface dragging water droplets and increasing the entrainment rate The ratio of water entrainment rate to the total value is very low even for the case of 80 water cut and has a peak value of about 042 for vsg=19 ms vsl=2 cms and WC=80

Future Work First phase of the experiments are conducted without glycol and over similar test matrix as in Gawas (2013) This includes low liquid loading three-phase experiments Four independent variables are considered for the test matrix namely liquid and gas superficial velocities inclination angle and water cut Primarily all the experiments will be conducted in horizontal conditions Two different superficial liquid velocities (1 and 2 cms) five superficial gas velocities (15 17 19 21 and 23 ms) and six different water cuts (10 20 40 60 80 and 100) are going to be considered

After completion of entrainment rate measurements from May to July 2013 liquid holdup measurements will be taken by QCVs and pigging system The measurements will be obtained for the whole test matrix with water cuts ranging from 0 to 100

Finally the newly acquired insulated capacitance probes will be utilized to measure the wave characteristics These measurements are initially targeted for waterair experiments and they will be used later with glycol in the aqueous phase This will help estimate the effects of change in viscosity of the liquid phase via glycol in wave characteristics In addition capacitance probe measurements will be tried for 3-phase oilwaterair flow experiments

After completion of all the tests without glycol the next phase of experiments is going to be conducted from September 2013 to January 2014 At this stage different concentrations of glycol will be added to the aqueous phase and the same test matrix will be completed only in the presence of glycol All the tests are conducted under steady state conditions

References Al Sarkhi A Sarica C and Magrini K ldquoInclination Effects on Wave Characteristics in Annular Gas-liquid

Flowsrdquo AIChE J 58 1018-1029 2011 Azzopardi B J ldquoGas-Liquid Flowsrdquo New York Begell House Inc 2006 Dong H-K ldquoLow Liquid Loading Gas-Oil-Water Flow in Horizontal Pipesrdquo MS Thesis U Tulsa Tulsa OK

2007 Gawas K ldquoLow Liquid Loading in Gas-Oil-Water Pipe Flowrdquo PhD Dissertation The University of Tulsa 2013 Watson M ldquoWavy Stratified Flow and the Transition to Slug Flowrdquo Multi-Phase Flow Proceedings of the 4th

International Conference BHRA 1989 Bedford UK pp 495ndash512

63

64

Fluid Flow Projects

Update on 6 in ID High Pressure Facility Activities

Duc Vuong


Outline

Objectives

Facility

Instrumentation Basic

Special

Single Phase Tests

Two Phase Tests

Future Work


65

Objectives

Scale-up of Small Diameter and Low Pressure Results to the Large Diameter and High Pressure Conditions


Facility

Test section need special instruments for flow characteristic measurements

= Not available


66

Facility hellip



Facility hellip

67


Facility hellip

Basic Instrumentation


68

Special Instrumentation

Canty Tubular System

Holdup Measurement QCVs

Wire Mesh Sensor

Iso-kinetic Sampling



High Speed Camera

Still Picture Camera

Light


69

Canty Tubular System hellip


High Speed Camera


Lights



70


Calibration Methodology is Currently Under Development

భభ మ ൌ యሺభାሻ

PT1

PT2TT2

TT1

Nitrogen

QCV QCV

V1

V2

భ మ య+

ଶെ ொ ൌ ݑݍܮ ܪݑ

ொx100


Capacitance Sensors

Wire Mesh Sensor Ordered from HDZR Pressure Rated up to over 1000 psi Plans to Evaluate the System on Fall 2013 Wave Characterization


71



Flow

Gas Control Valve 1

2

4

Liquid Flow Meter

3

Collecting Flask

Supporting block

Swivel Joint

Gas Flow Meter

Multiple Probe Design Will be Constructed and Tested in Fall 2013

Single Phase Tests

Estimate Pipe Roughness

Instrument Validation


72

Two Phase Tests

Test matrices Fan (2005) Future Study v (ms)sg 75 - 21 75 - 21 vso (ms) 0005-005 0005-005

Angle -2o 0o 2o Horizontal Pressure (psi) Atmospheric pressure 2 Pressure

NOTE upper and lower limit will depend on facility limitations


Future Work

Completion Dates HAZOP Modifications Completed

Basic Instrumentation Completed

Gas single phase test May 2013

Holdup Measurement System June 2013

Wire Mesh Sensor Sept 2013

Preliminary Testing Oct 2013

Iso-kinetic Sampling Nov 2013

Two-phase flow tests Nov 2013


73


QuestionsComments

74

Update on 6rdquo High Pressure Facility Activities Duc Vuong

Project Completion Dates HAZOP modification Completed Basic Instrumentations Completed Special Instrumentations May - Nov 2013 Preliminary Test September 2013

Objective The main objective of TUFFP in utilization of the 6 in ID high pressure facility is to conduct up-scaling studies of multiphase flow in pipes The first study to be conducted in this facility is the investigation of pressure up-scaling of two-phase gas-liquid flow under low liquid loading conditions

Introduction Gas-liquid pipe flow characteristics such as flow patterns pressure drop and liquid holdup have been mostly investigated with small diameter pipes (2 or 3 in) and low pressure conditions (lower than 100 psig) Two-phase flow behavior at high pressure and large pipe diameters may differ from that of at low pressure and small pipe diameters Thus validation and improvement for high pressure conditions is required

TUFFP has been constructing a new high pressure and large pipe diameter facility Experimental results from this facility will be used to evaluate and improve the available models and correlation

This report presents the progress made in construction of the facility since the last Advisory Board meeting as well as the plans for the first experimental study in this facility

Facility Description The facility is designed for gas-oil-water three-phase flow Mineral oil (Isopar L) and distilled water are the liquid phases The facility is designed to operate with either natural gas (provided by Oklahoma Natural Gas) or nitrogen Initially nitrogen is planned to be used due to its relatively low safety risk Later the gas phase will be switched to natural gas This requires the modification of the existing north campus flare system to accommodate the larger gas volumes of the new facility This will be addressed when natural gas is considered as the gas phase Several quick closing valves will be used to isolate the sections of the facility in case of an emergency or leakage in some part of the flow loop

The facility is composed of gas oil and water systems separation systems and the test section In gas water and oil systems two progressive cavity

pumps and a turbine compressor boost the pressure of the single phases which flows through the metering system before they mix at the inlet of the flow loop After flowing through the test section the fluid mixture is separated through the separation system and the phases are returned to corresponding vessels

The stainless steel Schedule 40 test section has a length of 523 ft and internal diameter of 6-in The last section can be inclined 3deg downward For upward flow studies the direction of the flow will be reversed Thus the fluid can circulate clockwise and counter-clockwise

The inclinable section length is 279 ft (558xD) In the counter-clockwise direction the developing region is 410xD the test section is 52xD long followed by a 65xD long section before the first sharp bend In the clockwise direction the developing region is 351xD the test section 52xD followed by a 74xD long section before the first bend These distances are expected to facilitate fully developed flow at the test section

The maximum operating pressure is 500 psi The loop operates at ambient temperature The compressor nominal flow rate discharge and suction pressures are 18 MMSCFD 500 psig and 400 psig respectively The pumps are able to deliver 200 GPM with the same discharge and suction pressures (500 psig and 400 psig) Temperature and pressure transducers are installed to operate under the given conditions Coriollis flow meters are used for gas and liquid flow rate measurements

Currently the facility is completed for the oil and gas systems as well as the separation systems The test section needs instrumentations for characteristic studies of the flow in order to conduct liquid-gas two-phase experiments A water system will be added later for three-phase flow studies

Specialty Instrumentation This facility was initially designed for low-liquid loading studies Special instrumentation required to analyze the multiphase flow behavior under these conditions is presented in this section

75

Quick Closing Valves Two quick closing valves are used to trap the gas and liquid flows to measure the average holdup For low liquid loading flows in comparison to the size of the section the liquid inventory is small Thus calculation of the gas-liquid ratio by draining the liquid may result in great uncertainty Therefore the measurement technique used by Kora (2010) is suggested for this application This approach is based on equalizing pressure with a known reservoir When the sample is trapped the pressure and temperature of the section is recorded A valve connected to a nitrogen recipient (with known volume pressure and temperature) is opened The gas-liquid ratio is obtained by measuring the final pressure and temperature and comparing it with a calibration curve For three-phase flow a two-wire capacitance will be utilized to measure the oil-water interface and the oil-water fractions will be calculated from geometrical relationships This system requires prior calibration and verification to ensure low uncertainty in the gas-liquid ratio measurements

Visual Observation A custom-made visualization system with no disturbance to the flow was designed and constructed by JMCanty Company An acrylic section is fused with two steel pipe pieces A chamber surrounds the acrylic section and is welded to the steel pipe pieces The chamber is pressurized keeping the stress over the acrylic section below a critical value Lights and cameras are located around the circumference of the pipe The two light sources (HYL 250 Watt) are located at a 90deg angle from each other A JMCanty still picture process camera is located at 90deg from the lights The system is equipped with a side window located at 90deg from the camera where the high-speed video system (Ultima 120kc) can be connected

Capacitance Sensor Wire mesh sensor is proposed to measure wave characteristics and phase distribution in the cross-sectional area

The wire mesh sensor consists of a grid of wire electrodes stretched across a flow cross section For a wire mesh sensor operated in a pipe the wire grid is mounted on a pressure-tight circular frame which is inserted between two flanges Typical wire separation is 23 mm in-plane and 15 mm between planes Fast electronics interrogate the electrical properties of the medium in the cross section at all wire crossings Electrical conductivity or relative electrical permittivity can be measured Both of these are phase indicators for multiphase flow The sensor securely discriminates gas from oil gas from water and oil from water

Wire mesh sensors have been successfully employed in pipe flows especially fast flows between 1 and 10 ms mixture velocity They are well suited to discriminate liquids from gases and liquids with different electrical permittivity Operating two consecutively placed sensors can be useful to measure phase velocities

Isokinetic Sampling The droplet entrainment can be measured using the isokinetic probe The isokinetic condition can be reached by controlling the gas flow rate using a control valve mounted at the gas outlet Isokinetic sampling nozzles from Jones Inc have a pressure rating up to 5000 psig and temperature up to 1200 degF No traverse mechanism to change the position of the sampling point is considered For safety and time concerns four sampling nozzles will be welded at different heights in the pipe The sampling station will be mounted between two stainless high pressure swivel joints By rotating the sampling section most of the cross-sectional area can be covered ensureing more accurate entrainment data

A high efficiency separator is needed a stainless steel high pressure filter (Walker Filtration) is proposed A gas flow meter is required to assure the isokinetic conditions The liquid can be collected in a bottle The liquid flow rate at a given position is determined by measuring the collecting time

Experimental Program Single Phase Tests Gas single-phase tests are necessary to estimate the pipe roughness It is crucial to perform the gas single-phase tests before the pipe is wetted by experimental oil

Oil single-phase tests will be conducted after all instrumentations are ready for the preliminary tests The results are used to reconfirm the DP measurement and oil viscosity and density

Two Phase Tests Fan (2005) conducted an experimental study on low liquid loading gas-liquid two-phase flow in the 6-in flow loop at low pressure conditions The superficial gas velocity ranged from 75 to 21 ms the superficial liquid velocity ranged from 0005 to 005 ms

In order to study the effect of high pressure and large scale pipe diameter on low liquid loading gas-liquid two-phase horizontal flow the same sets of gas and liquid superficial velocities as Fan (2005) are proposed The tests will be conducted at three different system pressure conditions specifically 300 400 and 500 psi

76

Future Work Basic instrumentations and HOZOP modification were completed in spring 2013 Installation and calibration of special instrumentations will be carried

References

out through May to September 2013 and preliminary tests are expected by October 2013 Two-phase tests are anticipated to start by November 2013 after the installation of the isokinetic sampling system

Kora C Effects of High Oil Viscosity on Slug Liquid Holdup in Horizontal Pipes Master Thesis The University of Tulsa 2010

Fan Y An Investigation of Low Liquid Loading Gas- Liquid Stratified Flow in Near-Horizontal Pipes PhD Dissertation The University of Tulsa 2005

77

78

Fluid Flow Projects

Modeling of Hydrodynamics of Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow using

Energy Minimization Concept

Lee H Al-Sarkhi A Pereyra E Sarica C


Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Modeling

Model Validation

Future Tasks


79

Objective

Develop a Stratified Gas-liquid Flow Model Using Energy Minimization Concept


Introduction

Theorem of Minimum Entropy Production (Prigogine 1961)

Stationary Non-Equilibrium State

System not in Thermodynamic Equilibrium (Entropy Production Different than Zero)

System Settles Down to the State of ldquoLeast Dissipationrdquo


80

Introduction hellip

Quemada (1977)

Rheological Model for a Dispersed System Using the Minimum Energy Dissipation Principle

All Entropy Production Comes from Viscous Dissipation


Introduction hellip

Xu and Li (1998) and Liu et al (2001)

Multi Scale Minimum Energy Consumption Model in Two Phase Gas-solid Two Phase Flow


81

Introduction hellip

Taitel et al (2003)

Infinite Steady State Solutions Splitting Ratios

One Seen in Practice Corresponds to Minimum Pressure Drop

Dabirian (2012)

Applied Minimum Energy Dissipation to Predict Splitting Ratio in Parallel Pipelines

Fair Agreement with Experimental Results


Introduction hellip

Rinaldo et al (1998)

Explained the Organization of River Networks as ldquoLeast Energy Structuresrdquo


82

Introduction hellip

Yang and Song (1998)

Alluvial Channels Adjust Its Velocity Slope Depth and Roughness in Such Manner That Minimum Energy is Used to Transport the Water and Sediments


Modeling

Energy Dissipated Two-Fluid Model

dPE v A D L L dx

dP v A G G dxL

G Assuming Same Pressure Drop for Both

Phases dP

ED AP vSG vSL dx

Minimum Energy Correspond to The Minimum Pressure Drop


83

Modeling hellip

Gas and Liquid Momentum Equation dp

A S S 0G WG G i idx

dp A S S 0L WL L i idx

Adding the Two Equations

dp 1 S SG WL L WGdx AP


Modeling hellip

Liquid Level of the System Satisfies the Minimum Dissipated Rate as Follows

dp d 1 dx d AP WL SL WG SG 0d h d hL L

Wall Shear Stress and Geometrical Relationships are Calculated Similarly to Taitel and Dukler (1976)


84

Model Validation

1000000 Energy Minimum Point

D 00254m100000 1000 kg m3

L

G 118kg m3

(Pa

m) 10000

L 00001Pa s

1000

dL

G 00000184Pa s

vSL 0017m

dP

s

100 vSG 245m s

10

1 0 02 04 06 08 1

hLD (-)



Model Validation hellip

Andritsos (1986) Pressure Gradient Experimental Data for Stratified-smooth Flow

0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)

dPdL Experimental (Pam)

Energy Minimization Model TUFFP Unified Model STR TUFFP Unified Model INT

85

Model Validationhellip

Andritsos (1986) Pressure Gradient Experimental Data for Stratified-wavy Flow

200

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)

160

120

80

40

0

Energy Minimization Model TUTU

FFP Unified MFFP Unified M

odel STR odel INT

0 40 80 120 160 200 dPdL Experimental (Pam)



Andritsos (1986) Holdup Experimental Data for Stratified-smooth Flow

07

06

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

05

04

03

L 02

H

Energy Minimization Model 01 TUFFP Unified Model STR

TUFFP Unified Model INT 0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 HL Experimental (-)


86


Anditsos (1986) Holdup Experimental Data for Stratified-wavy Flow

HL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

08

06

04

02

0

Energy MiniTUFFP UnifTUFFP Unif

mization Model ied Model STR ied Model INT

0 02 04 06 08 HL Experimental (-)


Conclusions

New Stratified Model Using the Minimum Entropy Production Approach is Proposed in This Study

New Model does not Need Interfacial Friction Factor Closure Relationship

Friction is Assumed to Be the Only Source of Entropy Production

The Model is Validated Against Experimental Data of Andritsos (1986)


87

Future Work

Apply Dissipated Energy Minimization Approach to Different Flow Patterns Identify Energy Equation

Identify Constrains

Combine All Flow Pattern Model to Propose a New Unified Model Based on Energy Minimization



Questions

88



Project Completion Dates Literature Review Completed Model Development Completed

Model Validation Completed Report Completed

Objective The main objective of this study is to develop a novel stratified gas-liquid flow model using energy minimization concept

Introduction Two-phase gas-liquid flow in pipes is encountered in many industries particularly in petroleum production Accurate predictions of gas-liquid flow characteristics such as flow patterns liquid holdup gas void fraction and pressure gradient are important in engineering applications A large number of experimental and theoretical gas-liquid flow investigations have been conducted However the physics of the phenomena have not been completely understood and existing models are usually quite complex Gas-liquid pipe flow has been studied since the 1970s Predictive models have evolved over several decades from empirical correlations to comprehensive mechanistic models and finally to unified mechanistic models Taitel and Dukler (1976) constructed a traditional model for stratified flow in horizontal and slightly inclined pipes based on equilibrium stratified flow Barnea (1987) developed a unified model for all inclination angles Xiao (1990) developed a comprehensive mechanistic model for near-horizontal pipes Gomez (2000) proposed a unified mechanistic model for all inclination angles Zhang et al (2003) developed a unified mechanistic model based on slug dynamics Unified models are applicable for all inclination angles and flow patterns In general these widely used models consider mass and momentum equations which require auxiliary relationships to fully close the models

Only a few attempts have been made to include energy equations in the available mechanistic models Brauner et al (1996) predicted interface curvature in stratified two-phase system considering potential and surface energy Chakrabarti et al (2005) developed a liquid-liquid horizontal flow model for segregate flow patterns using the minimum energy concept and combined momentum equation This model predicts pressure gradients for stratified smooth (SS) and

stratified wavy (SW) flow patterns The model prediction was validated with their own kerosene-water experimental results and Lovick amp Angeli (2004) data Sharma et al (2011) developed a comprehensive model for the oil-water two-phase flow using energy minimization concept Trallero et al (1997) described a model that predicts all flow patterns very well as well as liquid holdup and pressure gradient The model calculates total energy for all flow patterns selecting the flow pattern corresponding to the minimum energy However energy minimization models listed above satisfied not only the energy minimization concept but also the combined momentum equation

Quemada (1977) proposed a rheological model for a dispersed system using the minimum energy dissipation principle The author considered that all entropy production came from viscous dissipation Xu and Li (1998) and Liu et al (2001) applied a multi-scale minimum energy consumption model to predict the heterogeneous structures in gas-solid two-phase flow Rinaldo et al (1998) employed thermodynamics to explain the organization of river networks as least energy structures Yang and Song (1985) postulated that alluvial channels accommodate its velocity slope depth and roughness in such a way that a minimum energy dissipation rate is spent to transport water and sediments The authors successfully applied this theory to laboratory and actual river data reporting a correlation coefficient between measured and calculated values of 0997

The gas-liquid stratified flow in a pipe can be considered as a dissipative process in an open non-equilibrium thermodynamic system Based on the minimum entropy production theorem (Prigogine and Nicolis 1977) the structure of gas-liquid stratified flow must be the one that minimizes the dissipated energy within a given control volume of a pipe The entropy production can be estimated by frictional pressure losses in the given control volume This study presents a novel modeling approach for gas-liquid stratified flow based on minimum entropy production The proposed model has been validated against the available models and experimental data

89

Based on the validation results it is concluded that the minimum entropy production concept can easily be applied in modeling of other multiphase flows in pipes

Taitel et al (2003) presented a study of gas-liquid flow in parallel pipes Their theoretical calculations showed that there are infinite steady state solutions to the splitting ratios but the observed one is the one that gives a minimum pressure drop Recently Dabirian (2012) successfully applied the minimum energy dissipation to predict the splitting ration in parallel pipelines The proposed model was compared with experimental data from a new facility equipped with compact separators to measure the splitting fraction

Modeling For single phase flow the energy dissipated in a pipe is given by the product between pipe cross-sectional area fluid velocity and pressure gradient Considering the two-fluid model the dissipated energy of two-phase pipe flow is given by addition of the single phase gas and liquid dissipated energy This approach neglects energy dissipated by the momentum transfer between the gas and the liquid Further inspection of the dissipated equation demonstrated that the minimum dissipated energy corresponds to the minimum pressure gradient in a pipe section

The addition of this new equation (minimum energy dissipation) allows the computation of the liquid level in stratified flow without the use of a closure relationship for the interfacial friction factor Gas and liquid momentum equations are combined canceling the interfacial shear stress providing the pressure gradient equation The liquid level which makes the pressure gradient minimum is the solution of the system Wall shear stress and geometrical relationships are calculated similarly to Taitel and Dukler (1976)

Model Validation The main objective of this model is to predict pressure gradient and liquid holdup in stratified flow Model predictions are compared with the experimental data from Andritsos (1986) which include 56 data points for stratified-smooth and 92 data points of stratified-wavy The average absolute error between Andritsos (1986) and the proposed model is 1994 for stratified smooth and 2843 for stratified wavy Energy minimization model overestimates the measured liquid holdup but follows the experimental data trend The reason for the larger discrepancy in holdup predictions can be related with a proper definition of the wall shear stresses (τWL τWG) or the efficiency of the energy transfer between the phases An extension of the methodology sugested by Vlachos (2003) to determine the shear stresses in stratified flow is recommended to improve the accuracy of the proposed model

Conclusions A new stratified model using the minimum entropy production approach is proposed in this study Friction is assumed to be the only source of entropy production Owing to the addition of a new equation (minimum energy) the interfacial friction factor closure relationship is not required in the new model The model is validated against the experimental data of Andritsos (1986) showing fair agreement

Future Work Minimum energy dissipation approach can be further applied to gas-liquid flow problems This approach can be applied to different flow patterns by identifying the energy equation and constrains Finally all flow pattern models can be combined to propose a new unified model base

References Andritsos N 1986 ldquoEffect of Pipe Diameter and Liquid Velocity on Horizontal Stratified Flowrdquo PhD Dissertation

Dept of Chem Engng U of Illinois Urbana Barnea D 1987 ldquoA Unified Model for Predicting Flow-Pattern Transitions for the Whole Range of Pipe

Inclinationsrdquo International J Multiphase Flow 13 pp1-12 Brauner N Rovinsky J and Moalem Maron D 1996 ldquoDetermination of the interface Curvature in Stratified

Two-Phase Systems by Energy Considerationsrdquo International Journal of Multiphase Flow 22(6) pp 1167-1185

Chakrabarti DP Das G and Ray S 2005 ldquoPressure Drop in Liquid-Liquid Two Phase Horizontal Flow Experiment and Predictionrdquo Chem Eng amp Tech 28 pp 1003-1009

Dabirian R 2012 ldquoPrediction of Two-Phase Flow Splitting in Looped Lines Based on Energy Minimizationrdquo MS Thesis U of Tulsa Tulsa OK

90

Gomez LE Shoham O and Schmidt Z 2000 ldquoUnified Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two Phase Flow Horizontal to Vertical upward Flowrdquo SPE Journal 5(3) pp 339-350

Liu M Li J Kwauk M 2001 ldquoApplication of the Energy-Minimization Multi-Scale Method to GasndashLiquidndash Solid Fluidized Bedsrdquo Chemical Engineering Science 56(24) pp 6807-6812

Lovick P and Angeli P 2004 ldquoExperimental Studies on the Dual continuous Flow Pattern in Oil-Water Flowsrdquo International Journal of Multiphase Flow 30 pp 139-157

Prigogine I and Nicolis G 1977 Self-Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems Wiley ISBN 0-471-02401-5 Quemada D 1977 ldquoRheology of Concentrated Disperse Systems and Minimum Energy Dissipation Principlerdquo

Rheologica Acta 16(1) pp 82-94 Rinaldo A Rodriguez-Iturbe I and Rigon R 1998 ldquoChannel Networksrdquo Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 26 pp

289ndash327 Sharma A Al-Sarkhi A Sarica C and Zhang H Q 2011 ldquoModeling of Oil-Water Flow using Energy

Minimization Conceptrdquo International Journal of Multiphase Flow 37 pp 326-335 Taitel Y and Dukler A E 1976 ldquoA Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transitions in Horizontal and near

Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flowrdquo AIChE J 22 pp 47-55 Trallero JL Sarica C and Brill J 1997 ldquoA Study of OilWater Flow Patterns in Horizontal Pipesrdquo SPE

Production amp Facilities 12(3) pp 165-172 Xiao J J 1990 ldquoA Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase Flow in Pipelinesrdquo MS Thesis U of

Tulsa Tulsa OK Xu G and Li J 1998 ldquoAnalytical Solution of the Energy-Minimization Multi-Scale Model for GasndashSolid Two-

Phase Flowrdquo Chemical Engineering Science 53(7) pp 1349ndash1366 Zhang H-Q Wang Q Sarica C and Brill J P 2003 ldquoUnified Model for Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow via Slug

Dynamics ndash Part I Model Developmentrdquo ASME J Energy Res Tech 125(12) pp 266-273 Fan Y An Investigation of Low Liquid Loading Gas- Liquid Stratified Flow in Near-Horizontal Pipes PhD

Dissertation U of Tulsa 2005 Vlachos N 2003 Studies of Wavy Stratified and StratifiedAtomization Gas-Liquid Flowrdquo ASME J Energy Res

Tech 125(2) pp 131-137 Yang C and Song C 1985 Theory of Minimum Energy and Energy Dissipation Rate Encyclopedia of Fluid

Mechanics v 1 Chapter 11 Edited by Cheremisinoff Gulf Publishing Company Taitel Y Pustylnik L Tshuva M and Barnea D 2003 ldquoFlow Distribution of Gas and Liquid in Parallel Pipesrdquo

International Journal of Multiphase Flow 29 1193ndash1202

91

92

Fluid Flow Projects

Liquid Loading of Gas Wells with Deviations from 0deg to 45deg

Mujgan Guner


Outline

Introduction

Experimental Program

Experimental Results

Model Comparison

Model Analysis

CFD Simulations

Conclusions


93

Introduction

GAS

Decreasing Gas Flow Rate


Introduction

Liquid Loading Symptoms (Lea et al 2003)

Presence of Orifice Pressure Spikes

Erratic Production

Tubing Pressure Decreases as Casing Pressure Increases

Distinct Change in Pressure Gradient

Annular Heading

Liquid Production Ceases


94



Test Section


Testing Fluids Air and Tap Water

Test Configuration 0deg 15deg 30deg and 45deg Deviation Angles

Experimental Parameters Pressure Temperature Pressure Gradient

Average Liquid Holdup Visual Observation with High Speed Camera and Surveillance Cameras


95


0001

001

01

1

10

1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

Taitel Model

Barnea Model

Unified Model

Test Points Annular


Testing Range (Vertical)

Intermittent



Pressure Gradient and Flow Patterns Vertical

96

Experimental Results hellip

High Speed Videos vSL=001 ms Vertical

3000 P

ress

ure

Gra

die

nt (

Pa

m)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

vSL

vSL =001 ms (No Film Reversal)

=001 ms (Film Reversal)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)



Pressure Gradient Fluctuations vSL=01ms Vertical

Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

2500

2300

2100

1900

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

700

500

Slug Flow

Annular Flow

Annular Flow with Film Reversal

=367 ms

=1601 ms

=406 ms

vSG

vSG

vSG

00 05 10 15

Time (min)


97

Liquid Holdup Vertical



000

005

010

015

020

025

030

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Liq

uid

Hol

dup

(-)

vSG (ms)

=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms

Onset of Film Reversal

Complete Film Reversal

Slug Flow Transition

vSL

vSL

vSL



Pressure Gradient and Flow Patterns 45deg Deviated

98


Pressure Gradient All Deviation Angles vSL=01 ms

Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Vertical

15deg Deviated

30deg Deviated

45deg Deviated



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)



High Speed Videos vSL=01 ms vSG=18-175 ms

0deg Pipe 15deg Pipe



99



Critical Gas Velocity Complete Film Reversal

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)

Deviation Angles (deg)

=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms

vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Comparison

Experimental Results are Compared with Model Predictions TUFFP Unified Model (2011 v1)

Beggs and Brill

OLGA (v72)

Critical Gas Velocities are Compared with TUFFP Unified Model and Modified Turner Criterion


100

Model Comparison hellip

Vertical vSL=01 ms

Pre

ssur

e G

rad

ient

(P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=01 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


101


Vertical vSL=001 ms P

ress

ure

Gra

dien

t (P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=001 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


102


45deg Deviated vSL=01 ms P

ress

ure

Gra

die

nt

(Pa

m)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)



45deg Deviated vSL=01 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

045

040

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


103



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

) 1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


104



Critical Gas Velocity

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)


Modified Turner Crit

TUFFP Unified Model

=01 ms (Complete Film Reversal)



vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Analysis

Assumptions Gas Phase Flows in the Center of the Pipe with

Liquid Entrainment

Pipe Periphery is Only Wetted by Liquid Film

Pressure Gradients of the Gas Core and Liquid Film are the Same at a Given Cross Section of the Pipe

Film Thickness is Symmetric Around Circumference


105

Model Analysis hellip

Back Calculations Governing Equations

dp (1) A S S A g sin( ) 0F WF F I I F FdL F

dp (2) AC I SI C AC g sin( ) 0

dL C

Adding Equations (1) and (2)

dp WF SF (3) 1 H H 0g sin θC L L LdL A



Solving Equation (3) for Wall Shear Stress

dp H 1 H g sinL L G LdLWF

4 d

Friction Factor Calculated with Wall Shear Stress

2WFf L 2 vL F


106


Solving Equation (2) for Interfacial Shear Stress

A dp I C C g sin SI dL

Friction Factor Calculated with Interfacial Shear Stress

2 I If

C vC vF 2



Forward Model Subtracting Equations (1) and (2)

SF 1 1 WF I SI F C g sin( ) 0

A A AF F C

Wall and Interfacial Shear Stresses

2 L v F C vC vF 2

WF f L 2 I f I 2


107


Wall Friction Factor Correlation (fL) Blasius Equation

ൌ ܨ ܥ



Most Common Interfacial Friction Factor Correlations

Author Correlation

Wallis (1969)

dfcfi

L3001

Henstock and Hanratty (1976)

fc d

fifcfi

L2121

Asali et al (1985)

40451 0 2

fc d

fiReRefcfi L

C

C

Fore (2000)

0 0015

1750013001

dRe

fcfi L

C


108





Pressure Gradient and Interfacial Shear Stress Predictions and Comparison with Back Calculations Vertical Pipe

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

τ I (P

a)

vSG (ms)

Data (Back Calculation =001 ms)


Forward Model ( =001 ms)


vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

dpd

l (P

a m

)

vSG (ms)


Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)

vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

109

Annular Flow

ComFil

Reve

plete m rsal

y v F

Slug Flow

y v

F

y v F

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

40



Liquid Holdup Comparison Vertical Pipe

0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

H L

(-)

vSG (ms)

Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)


vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL


Wall Shear Stress Comparison Vertical Pipe

35

τ W

F (P

a)

vSG (ms) Data (Back Calculation vSL =01 ms) Forward Model ( vSL =01 ms) Data (Back Calculation vSL =001 ms) Forward Model ( vSL =001 ms)


110

CFD Simulations

Geometry Construction 2D Axisymmetric Geometry

Created in Gambit



CFD Simulations hellip

Mesh Generation Performed in Gambit

96000 Control Volumes

111


Fluent Setup Axial Velocity and Volumetric Phase

Distribution

Vertical Pipe Gravity Direction is Defined Opposite of Flow Direction

vSL=01 ms vSG=20 ms

vSG=18 ms

vSG=9 ms



Fluent Setup Transient Flow

VOF Model with First Order Implicit Time Scheme

HRIC to Capture Gas Liquid Interface

k-ε Turbulent Model with Enhanced Wall Treatment

Convection Terms were Discretized by Second Order Upwind and Diffusion Terms by Second Order Scheme

PISO for Pressure Momentum Coupling and PRESTO for Pressure Equation Discretization


112



Axial Velocity Distribution (vSL=01 ms vSG=20 ms)



Volumetric Distribution (vSL=01 ms vSG=20 ms)

113




Conclusions

Critical Gas Velocity Increases as Well Deviation Increases

Pressure Gradient Fluctuations Increase From Annular to Slug Flow

Liquid Holdup Rate of Change Increases on the Left of Complete Film Reversal Transition


114

Conclusions hellip

Slug and Churn Flow are Promoted in Deviated Wells Due to Thicker Film Thickness at the Bottom of the Pipe

Model Predictions can be Improved by Correct Flow Pattern Predictions

CFD Simulations are Able to Capture Characteristics of Annular Flow Qualitatively



Questions amp Comments

115

116

Liquid Loading of Gas Wells with Deviations from 0deg to 45deg Mujgan Guner

Project Completion Dates Literature Review Completed Instrumentation Completed Experimentation Completed CFD Modeling Completed Data Analysis and Model Comparison Completed

Final Report Completed

Objectives The main objective of this study is to investigate mechanisms controlling onset of liquid loading in vertical and deviated pipe wells

Introduction Liquid loading of a gas well is the inability of the gas to remove the liquids from the well Liquid loading in gas wells have been recognized one of the most important problems in gas production Natural gas condensate and water are often produced simultaneously in gas wells In the early stages of a gas well the gas flow rate is high enough to carry the liquid phase to the surface As the gas well matures the gas flow rate reduces and the liquid carrying capability of gas decreases As a result liquid begins accumulating in the well and eventually the accumulated liquid blocks further production

Prediction of liquid loading is very important from operational stand point Since available models cannot predict liquid loading initiation accurately in deviated wells further investigation of mechanisms which control liquid loading is very crucial in order to improve current models or develop new ones

In this study liquid loading mechanisms were investigated experimentally and experimental results were compared with the available models in the literature

Activities Summary The activities carried out during this period are experimental testing in deviated pipes data analysis model comparison and CFD simulations The final report of the study was submitted The summary of each particular activity are presented below

Experiments The experimental study was conducted to investigate effects of deviation angles on the onset of liquid loading in 3-in ID pipes For each data point pressure gradient liquid holdup and high speed videos were acquired A total of 156 test points were collected at the well deviations of 0deg 15deg 30deg and 45deg from vertical

Test Results for Vertical Pipe Liquid loading has been studied by considering three different superficial liquid velocities 001 005 and 01 ms For each superficial liquid velocity 13 superficial gas velocities starting from 40 ms to 18 ms were tested

Analysis of the experimental data showed that pressure gradient decreases as the gas flow rate decreases to a minimum at a certain superficial gas velocity vSG(MIN) Further decrease of gas flow rate increases the pressure gradient Pressure gradient fluctuations are considered as liquid loading symptoms As gas flow rate decreases pressure gradient fluctuations increase

Flow pattern and the local film behavior were observed with high speed and low speed videos In annular flow region decrease in gas flow rate initiates liquid film reversal Further decrease of the gas flow rate promotes waviness and oscillations in the flow When the waves get larger the liquid phase block the pipe cross section and it is called churn flow At the lowest gas velocity of the test matrix slug flow is observed In the churn flow region liquid discharge at the outlet of the pipe is oscillatory and very low compared to annular flow Therefore churn flow can be strongly related to the onset of liquid loading

Liquid holdup investigations showed that as the gas flow rate is decreased liquid holdup increases

Test Results for 15deg Deviated Pipe The same gas and liquid flow rates were tested for 15deg deviated pipe Similar shape in pressure gradient was observed For 15deg deviation angle the minimum pressure gradient occurs at higher superficial gas velocities than for vertical pipes Pressure gradient fluctuations increase as the gas flow rate decreases

The liquid film at the bottom of the pipe gets thicker because of the deviation from the vertical Comparison with the vertical case shows that for 15deg deviated pipes churn and slug flow patterns occur in a broader range of superficial gas velocities while annular flow covers a narrower range

Liquid holdup shows similar trend as the vertical pipe

117

Test Results for 30deg Deviated Pipe Increase in the deviation in the pipe increases the liquid film thickness at the bottom of the pipe further The minimum pressure gradient occurs at higher superficial gas velocities than for the vertical and 15deg deviated cases

Observation of flow patterns in 30deg deviated pipes shows that churn and slug flow patterns cover a larger range than vertical and 15deg deviated cases In annular flow region 30deg deviated pipe has a wavier gas-liquid interface as compared to vertical and 15deg deviated cases The waviness at the interface and the oscillatory behavior of the flow causes more pressure gradient fluctuations as compared to vertical and 15deg deviated cases

Test Results for 45deg Deviated Pipe Experiments and analysis have been conducted to investigate liquid loading for 45deg pipe As the deviation increases the gravitational pressure drop is less dominant as compared to the vertical 15deg and 30deg deviated cases Therefore the pressure gradient does not increase sharply as the gas velocity decreases

In the range of test matrix the flow is dominated by intermittent flow patterns namely churn and slug flow

Well Deviation Effect on Liquid Loading In this study flow patterns and the liquid film behavior were investigated based on videos and observations The transitions in the flow characteristics are named as onset of film reversal complete film reversal wavy annular flow and slug flow transitions

The onset of film reversal is where the first bubble entrained in the liquid film starts changing its direction of flow It is a local reversal indication in the liquid film the liquid film still flows upwards In the complete film reversal region the visual observation indicates that liquid film completely flows downwards At the outlet of the pipe liquid flows intermittently In this region gas-liquid interface is very wavy and when the liquid inventory is enough the waves completely block the pipe cross section at some instances Further decrease in the gas flow rate results in slug flow

In this study analysis showed that the onset of liquid loading is likely to match with the complete film reversal transition boundary Experiments showed that as the well deviation increases the critical gas velocity to initiate liquid loading increases

Model Comparisons and Analyses Experimental results were compared with the model predictions The Beggs and Brill correlation TUFFP

Unified Model and OLGA v72 models were evaluated Critical gas velocities were compared with the modified Turner criterion and the TUFFP unified model flow pattern transition

Analyses showed that the models and the experimental data are not in good agreement Still model comparisons are closer with the experimental data for lower liquid rates As the liquid rate increases the discrepancies in model predictions increase

The critical gas velocities are over predicted by the TUFFP unified model transition criterion and under predicted by the modified Turner model For the vertical and 15deg deviated case the modified Turner criterion predicts the critical velocity better

The discrepancies in the model and the experimental data led to further investigations The wall and interfacial shear stresses were back calculated from the experimental results The calculations showed that for deviated cases symmetry assumption should be removed and the closure relationships should be modified accordingly

CFD Modeling CFD modeling can be utilized to estimate the velocity profile and phase distributions in unloading conditions The Volume of Fluid (VOF) model implemented in Fluent is utilized to simulate two phase air-water flow in vertical pipes The geometry was constructed based on the test section The mesh size gets finer close to the pipe wall (liquid region) while coarser in through the center of the pipe This particular geometry has 96000 control volumes after meshing

Exploratory CFD simulations were tested for vertical case where the superficial gas velocities were 20 18 and 9 ms for superficial liquid velocity 01 ms

The simulations were able to capture qualitatively the major mechanisms associated with annular flow including generation of instabilities at the gas-liquid interface

Conclusions The important conclusions of the study can be briefly summarized as follows Well deviation is an important variable that

affects onset of liquid loading The critical gas velocity increases as the well

deviates from vertical Well deviation promotes intermittent flow Available models are not in good agreement with


118

References Guner M ldquoLiquid Loading of Gas Wells with Deviations from 0deg to 45degrdquo MS Thesis The University of Tulsa

(2012)

119

120

Fluid Flow Projects

Liquid Loading In Deviated Pipes From 45deg to 90deg

Yasser Alsaadi


Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Literature Review


Model Comparison and Development

Project Schedule


121

Objectives

Study the Onset of Liquid Loading in Deviated Pipes from 45deg to 90deg

Investigate the Effect of Highly Deviated Angles on Liquid Loading

Compare Experiment Results with Existing Models

Improve or Develop a Model to Include the Effect of Deviation Angle


Introduction

Liquid Loading ndash Accumulation of Liquid in Wells Owing to Insufficient Gas Rate to Carry the Liquid

Mechanism of Liquid Loading Flow Reversal of Droplets

Flow Reversal of Liquid Film


122

Introduction hellip

In Deviated Wells Other Mechanisms are Important Thicker Liquid Film at the Bottom of the

Pipe Wall

Secondary Gas Flow in the Cross-Section


Literature Review

Belfroid et al (2008) Turner (1969) Model is only for Vertical

Wells

Fiedler (2004) Model Accounts for Deviation Angle

Proposed TNO-Shell Model ndash Modified Turner (1965) Model Using Fiedler (2004) Angle Correction Term


123

Literature Review hellip

Westende (2008) Critical Gas Velocity as a Function of

Deviation Angle



Yuan (2011) Well Deviations 0ordm 15ordm 30ordm Pressure Gradient Holdup and High

Speed Video Recordings Liquid Loading is Due to Film Reversal Minimum Pressure Gradient at Onset of

Liquid Loading Critical Gas Velocity Increases with

Deviation for the Same vSL

TNO-Shell Model has Good Agreementwith Experimental Data


124


Guner (2012) Well Deviations from 0deg to 45deg

Pressure Gradient Holdup and High Speed Video Recording Observations

Onset of Liquid Loading is Due to Reversal Flow of Liquid Film




Experimental Matrix

Test Facility

Test Fluids

Instrumentation

Data Processing


125

Experimental Matrix

Well Deviation Angle

45deg 70deg 80deg 85deg and 88deg


2 to 40 ms

Superficial Liquid Velocity

001 002 005 and 01 ms

Total of 240 Test Points



Experimental Matrix hellip

45deg Deviation

126



70deg Deviation



80deg Deviation

127



85deg Deviation



88deg Deviation

128


Test Facility

Test Section Design

3 in x 175 m

Test Fluids

Gas ndash Compressed Air

Density ndash Pressure amp Temperature

Viscosity ndash 18E-5 Pamiddots

Liquid ndash Tulsa Tap Water

Density ndash 998 Kgm3

Viscosity ndash 0001 Pamiddots

Surface Tension ndash 0073 Nm


129

Instrumentation

Instruments Flow Meters with PID Controllers

Pressure and Temperature Transducers Pressure and Temperature

Two Trap Sections with Quick Closing Valves Holdup

Conductivity Sensors Wave Characteristics


Instrumentation hellip

Visual Observation High Speed Camera Liquid Film Flow Direction

Surveillance Cameras Flow Pattern

Boroscope Flow Pattern

Transition to Slug Flow


130

Holdup Measurement

Holdup Calculation Ta Pa Te Pe

Air Cylinder (Va)

Pipe Trap Section (Vt)

Tt Pt

Air Cylinder (Va)


Te Pe



Holdup Calibration

131

Boroscope

Identification of ldquoLiquid Bridgingrdquo at the Onset of Liquid Loading

Will be Used With Selected Test Points

Useable at Near Horizontal


Data Processing

Input Three Different Raw Data Files Pressure Temperature and Flow Rates

Holdup


Output Average Results and Uncertainties for All Variables

Provide Quick Tools for Calculating and Checking Test Results


132

Data Processing hellip

Experiment Results Summary

Pressure and Temperature

Data Processing Using Excel

PampT

Raw Data

Holdup


Trap Section

Raw Data


Data Processing Using Matlab

ConductivitySensor Raw Data

Results for Each Test Point

Test Point



Compare Data with Predictions from Existing Models Pressure Gradient

Flow Pattern Prediction


Improve or Develop a Model to Include Deviation Angle Effect


133

Project Schedule

Literature Review Completed

Experimental Testing May 2013

Data Analysis June 2013

Model Comparison and July 2013 Development

Final Report August 2013


Questions amp

Comments


134

Liquid Loading in Deviated Pipes From 45deg to 90deg

Yasser Alsaadi

Project Completion Dates Literature Review Completed

Experimental Testing May 2013 Data Analysis June 2013 Model Comparison July 2013 Final Report August 2013

Objective The main objective of this study is to investigate the mechanism of liquid loading in highly deviated wells and pipes from 45deg to 90deg

Introduction Liquid loading is a common production problem that occurs in matured gas wells It starts when the gas flow rate becomes insufficient to lift the liquid to the surface and results in accumulation of liquid at the bottom of the wellbore The buildup of liquid column in the well creates a back pressure which further reduces the well production and eventually kills the well

The onset of liquid loading can be identified when the gas reaches a critical velocity at which the liquid falls back When the gas velocity drops below this critical value liquid loading is initiated Two mechanisms have been proposed to explain the liquid falls back The first mechanism was proposed by Turner (1969) and states that liquid loading is due to the fallen of liquid droplet This happens when the gravity force on the droplet is greater than the drag force exerted on the droplet by the gas The second mechanism was proposed later and it is based on the reversal flow of the liquid film Turner (1969) model is still widely used in the industry and proven to give good prediction for vertical wells

The liquid loading mechanism can be different in deviated and vertical wells The gravity effect on the droplet decreases with deviation and a thicker liquid film exists at the bottom of the pipe In addition secondary gas flow in the cross section of the pipe affects the film distribution and droplets entrainment

Activities Summary A summary of the most relevant activities during this period is presented in this section

Literature Review Turner et al (1969) developed a model to predict the critical gas velocity in vertical wells The model is derived on the basis that liquid loading occur when

the gravity force on the liquid droplet is more than the drag force by the gas The Turner expression is widely used in the industry and found to give good prediction for vertical wells However there is no angle dependent term in this model The TNO-Shell correlation developed by Belfroid et al (2008) modified Turner et al (1969) model to include angle effect They studied the deviation effect on the liquid loading onset for deviated wells Field data were used to test several proposed models for critical gas velocity A modified Turner model that accounts for angle effect was proposed and found to give better prediction than existing models

Yuan (2011) explored the mechanism of the factor controlling the onset of liquid loading and the effect of deviation angle from 0deg to 30deg The pressure gradient and holdup were measured and the critical gas velocity of the onset of liquid film was observed by high speed videos His observations supported the film reversal mechanism controls the liquid loading initiation For a constant liquid flow rate the minimum pressure gradient was found to occur at the critical gas velocity Higher critical velocities were observed as the pipe deviation increases

In highly deviated pipes rolling waves and multiple solution region are observed Rolling waves are coherent structures which can affect erosion rates solid transport and pipe fatigue The multiple solution region corresponds to an area where the models provide three possible solutions The selection of the correct solution is still debated In this study rolling waves and multiple solution region will be considered

Experimental Facility The 762-mm (3-in) diameter multiphase flow facility of the Tulsa University Fluid Flow Projects (TUFFP) will be utilized for this project The facility is capable of being inclined from horizontal to vertical Pressure and temperature transducers are placed near the test section to obtain fluid properties and other flowing characteristics Compressed air

135

and Tulsa city tap water will be used as working fluids

Instrumentation The facility is equipped with state of the art instrumentations

Trapping sections with quick closing valves are used to measure the average liquid holdup Each trap section is connected to pressurized air tank equipped with pressure and temperature transducers The amount of water volume in the trap section is calculated by equating the total air mass in the trap and air cylinders In addition two pressure and temperature transducers and one pressure differential device are used to record the pressure and temperature of the flowing fluid Moreover capacitance sensors are installed to capture the wave characteristics and average film thickness

A high speed video camera is used to observe the flow direction at the test section of the pipe Additionally six observation cameras will record the flow behavior at the entrance and test sections A Boroscope will also be used to capture the flow behavior from inside the pipe

Experimental Program The experiments will be conducted at different flow rate conditions and deviation angles The superficial air velocities will range from 5 to 40 ms The superficial water velocity will be 0005 001 005 and 01 ms The pipe deviation angles of interest are 45deg 70deg 80deg 85deg and 88deg from vertical The test range should cover the onset of liquid loading area For each test run liquid flow rate will be kept constant and gas flow rates will be decreased by steps

The process of the data analysis will be optimized by using computer processing programs The programs are able to process the raw data from the instruments providing average results with uncertainties This will accelerate the speed of the data analysis and provide a quick tool to identify errors in the experimental campaign

Project Schedule Future activities with culmination dates are presented in this section

Experimental Testing ndash May 2013 Experiment testing range will be conducted Data will be recorded and documented for each test run

Data Analysis ndash June 2013 The raw data from instruments will be process using the computer programs Test results with odd trends will be repeated in the experiment to ensure the reproducibility of the results The recorded observation videos will be used to identify the flow direction of the liquid film and the flow regime of the test conditions Selected test conditions near the onset of liquid loading will be chosen for Boroscope video recording

Model Comparison ndash July 2013 Test results will be compared against different models such as Turnerrsquos model TUFFP Unified Model Barnearsquos model and OLGA simulation

Final Report ndash July 2013 Final report will be submitted and thesis will be defended

References Belfroid SPC Schiferli W Alberts GJN Veeken CAM and Biezen E ldquoPrediction Onset and Dynamic

Behavior of Liquid Loading Gas Wellsrdquo SPE paper 115567 presented at 2008 SPE ATCE Denver CO 21-24 September 2008

Belt RJ ldquoOn the Liquid Film in Inclined Annular Flowrdquo PhD Dissertation TU Delft 2008 Guner M ldquoLiquid Loading Of Gas Wells With Deviations From 0deg To 45degrdquo MSc Thesis University of Tulsa

2012 Coleman SB Clay HB McCurdy DG and Lee Norris H III ldquoA New Look at Predicting Gas-Well Load

Uprdquo J Pet Tech pp 329-333 March 1991 Turner RG Hubbard MG and Dukler AE ldquoAnalysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for the

Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wellsrdquo J Pet Tech pp 1475-1482 Nov 1969 Westenende J Vanlsquot ldquoDroplets in Annular-Dispersed Gas-Liquid Pipe Flowsrdquo PhD Dissertation TU Delft 2008 Yuan G Liquid Loading of Gas Wells MSc Thesis University of Tulsa 2011

136

Fluid Flow Projects

Unified Model Computer Code Update

Carlos F Torres


Outline

Status Unified Model ndash Solution Technique Slug to StratifiedAnnular Flow Transition

ndash Actual Approach Slug to StratifiedAnnular Flow Transition

ndash New Approach Example Slug to StratifiedAnnular Flow Future Tasks Recommendations


137

Status

Information Gathering Completed

New Code Layout Completed

Layout Test Completed

Unified Flow Pattern On going

Unified Flow Pressure Gradient On going

Testing August 2013


Unified Model Solution Technique

Sequential Process Characteristics Calculate Transition

Superficial Liquid Velocity for In-situ Superficial Gas Velocity by Solving the Proper Model

Compare the Transition Liquid Superficial Velocity With the In-situ Liquid Superficial Velocity


138

Slug to StratifiedAnnular Flow Transition ndash Actual Approach

Solves a Set of Three Non-linear Equations Momentum Equation for the Gas and the Liquid

Kinematic Condition for the Slug Stability Fix

dp I SI CSC vsg C g sindz (1 H LF ) A Unknowns

Hlf dp dz vsldp S SI I F F g sindz H A L Closures Relationships

LF

Fe Hls f f f i c f

(H (v v ) v )(v v F ) v v FLS T S SL SG SL E T SL EH LF v vT SG


Slug to StratifiedAnnular Flow Transition ndash Original Approach

Transition is Solved by Fixing the Gas Superficial Velocity

Implementing a Fix-point Iterative Technique

Sequential Substitution for CME Closure Relations and the Kinematic Condition

Guessing for Transition Liquid Superficial Velocity and Slug Liquid Holdup

Iterating Until Convergence is Achieved

Comparing Transition Liquid Superficial Velocity With In-situ Liquid Superficial Velocity

Details in Zhang (2009) TUFFP Report


139

Slug to StratifiedAnnular Flow Transition ndash New Approach

Transition is Predicted by Implementing Robust Technique for Solving

CME with Its Closure Relationships Calculate Hydrodynamics Variables Calculate Slug Liquid Holdup and the

Transition Liquid Holdup Using the Kinematic Condition

Compare Transition Liquid Holdup and the Liquid Holdup Obtained from CME

Analogous Process to Taitel and Dukler(1976) Stability Model for Stratified Flow


Example Slug to Stratified Flow

Air and Water

Inclination Angle 0 deg

Liquid Density 998 kgm3

Gas Density 1225 kgm3

Liquid Viscosity 1 cp

Gas Viscosity 0000018 Pa s

Surface Tension 72 dynescm

Diameter 2 in

Roughness 0002 mm


140


Example Slug to Stratified Flow hellip

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)


Solve Combined Momentum Equation

S S 1 1 F F C C I S I ( L C )g sin 0H A (1 H )A H A (1 H )A LF LF LF LF

Closure Relationships Used Oliemans et al (1986) for Entrainment Fraction Andritsos amp Hanraty (1987) for Interfacial

Friction Factor Churchill (1977) for Friction Factor Grolman (1994) for Wettability


141


Transition Liquid Film Holdup


Additional Models Zhang et al (2003) for Slug Liquid Holdup




0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

Vsg=02ms Vsl = 00915ms Hlf=08651 Hlft=008651


Vsg=02ms Vsl = 01ms Hlf= 08738 Hlft= 08657

142

Future Tasks

Finish Basic Coding

Select and Test the Available Closure Relationship

Testing With Database


Recommendations

Research is Required to the AnnularStratified Model

Seamless Transition from Stratified to Annular

Unified Interfacial Friction Factor and Liquid Film Distribution Circumferential Variations

Droplet Entrainment


143

Comments and Suggestions


144

r

f

Unified MModel Coomputer CCode - Uppdate Carlos F Torres

Project CCompletion DDates

Objectivee The objecctive of this project is to develop andd implementt a new codinng structure foor the Unifiedd Model

Introducttion Several iimprovements in unifiedd mechanisticc modeling and closure relationshipss have beenn incorporateed in the Unifiied Model Commputer Code too extend andd increase its prediction cappabilities Thee code structture has been uupgraded allowwing advancedd users to mmodify write orr include new correlations orr closure rellationships AAdditionally a new approachh to solve tthe Unified MModel is propposed and thee results aree compared wwith the previoous technique This new approach cou ld increase thhe computationn speed and simplify the uunderstanding of the Unifiedd Model for Gas-Liquid

Unified MModel ndash Soluttion Techniqque Zhang et aal (2003) prop osed a techniqque to solve thee Unified MModel as a seqquential processs presented inn Fig 1

Figure 1 Soolution algorithhm

Information Gatheering Completed Neew Code Layout Completed Laayout Test Completed Unified Model - Floow Pattern Ongoing Unified Model - Floow Pressure Graadient OngoingFinal Testing August 2013

The mmain characterristics of this seequential proceess are as follows 1 TThe transitionnal superficiall liquid veloccity is

ccalculated for the in-situ supperficial gas veelocity ffor the actual flow pattern teested (see Fig 1) by ssolving the prroper model sset of equationns per ttransition bounndary

2 CCompares thhe predicted transition liquid ssuperficial vellocity in step 1 with the in-situ lliquid superficcial velocity If the criterrion is ssatisfied all thee final hydrodyynamicsrsquo parammeters aare calculated for the predictted flow patterrn On tthe other handd if the criterioon is not satis fied a nnew flow patteern is tested (sttep 1)

3 TThis criterion is applied for all the flow paatterns eexcept bubble flow Instead of superficial liquid vvelocity superrficial gas veloocity is used ffor the ccomparison

4 TThe last transiition tested in Fig 1 is the sslug to sstratifiedannullar flow transi tion This trannsition rrequires the soolution of a se t of three non -linear eequations onee momentum eequation for thhe gas oone momentumm equation forr the liquid annd one kkinematic conddition for the stability of thee slug AAll of the equations and their cclosure rrelationships depend on pressure graadient hholdup and thee superficial veelocities

5 TThe non-linearr system of eqquations is solvved by ffixing the supperficial veloccity of the gaas and iimplementing a fix-point iterrative techniquue over aa sequential substitution of the non-linear eequations Thiis solution techhnique is reliabble but sslow and requiires a guessed starting point ffor the lliquid superficcial velocity annd slug holdupp The mmechanistic mmodel used ffor the slug liquid hholdup is solveed in the same iterative loop

Slugg to StratifieddAnnular Floow Transitioon ndash Neww Solution Teechnique The superficial veelocity comparrison criterion given by Zhhang et al (20003) can be avvoided for the sslug to stratiifiedannular fllow transition The new soolution technnique for the Unified Mod el is carried oout as followws

145

f

1 Solve the set of two non-linnear equationss Figurre 2 shows an example of thiis technique wwith the (mome by the to pre numer

entum equatio e traditional co dict the liquid rical technique

n for the gas a mbined mome holdup by a r

e such as the B

and the liquid) entum equation robust and fast

Brent or Muumlller

) n t r

label super holdu cond

ls that presen rficial veloci ups and the tr

ditions All the

nt the values ities and co ransition liqui e points have

of gas and orresponding d holdups for the same supe

liquid liquid

r those erficial

methoods gas vvelocity The bblack dot in thee flow pattern mmap is 2 Using the liquid ho ldup from stepp 1 determinee the transition point betwween slug and

the fi holdup

ilm velocity p (iteration r

core velocity equired if th

y slug liquid he mechanistic

d c

strati liquid

ifiedannular fl d superficial th

low The gre han the transiti

een dot has a ion and the gr

higher rey dot

modell is used) aand finally calculate thee has aa smaller liquuid superficial than the trannsition transittion holdup by the kinematic condition As ccan be observeed the holdup is higher and lower

3 Comp are the transittion holdup wiith the holdup than the transitionn holdup for the green andd gray If the the flo

transition hold ow is stratified

dup is higher th d if it is smal

han the holdup ler the flow is

s

pointts respectivelyy

slug fllow If they arre equal the trransition line iss prediccted

Figurre 2 Example oof the new soluution techniquee

Referencces Zhang HQQ Wang Q CC Sarica C aand Brill JP ldquoUnified Moddel for Gas-Liqquid Pipe Floww via Slug Dynnamics

Paart IrdquoASME JJ of Energy RRes Tech Vol 125 4 pp 2666-273 2003 Zhang HQQ Wang Q CC Sarica C aand Brill JP ldquoUnified Moddel for Gas-Liqquid Pipe Floww via Slug Dynnamics

Paart IIrdquoASME J of Energy RRes Tech Voll 125 4 pp 2774-283 2003

146

Fluid Flow Projects


Jinho Choi


Outline

Objective Purpose Introduction TUFFP Experimental Data Gas-Liquid Oil-Water Gas-Oil-Water

MS Access Database Description Issues

Future Work


147

Objective

Development of Multiphase Flow Database 2-Phase Gas-Liquid Liquid-Liquid

3-Phase Gas-Liquid-Liquid

Steady-State Flow Data

Transient Flow Data


Purpose

Validate Developed Models for Multiphase Pipe Flow

Export Data into a Required Format for Testing

Import New and Undefined Data Sets

Usability Applicability Extensibility


148

Introduction

Experimental Database Time-averaged Measurements of Pressure Pressure

Gradients Volume Fractions Shear Stresses Entrainment Fractions and System Parameters Associated With Each Run

For Some Cases Additional Data Such As Individual Flow Pattern Characteristics


TUFFP Experimental Data

Gas-Liquid Experimental Data 46 Experimental Data Sets by Various Authors Steady-State

Transient Hilly Terrain

About 10500 Steady-State Data Ready to Read Data File ndash txt xls etc

Reports Including Data as Appendix ndash pdf


149

TUFFP Experimental Data hellip

Oil-Water Experimental Data 11 Experimental Data Sets


Report including Data as Appendix ndash pdf

Gas-Oil-Water Experimental Data 5 Experimental Data Sets

About 400 Data Ready to Read Data File ndash txt xls etc



MS Access Database

Steady-State Multiphase Database by Schlumberger Limitations of Excel Database Too Fragile to Keep the Data Easy to Delete Data

Easy to Inject Unit Errors

Hard to Maintain a Consistent Format New as yet Undefined Data Fields

Presence of ldquoData Holesrdquo

Problematic When Exporting Data into a Required Format for Testing


150

MS Access Database hellip

Steady-State Multiphase Database by Schlumberger

Data Import

Formatted Excel File

Raw Table

Raw Archive Table (Unit Conversion)

Database Master Table

Data Export

Excel in PipeSim OpenLink

Format

Excel in General Format



Current Data Sets included in Database No Author No of Record Year Phase

1 Khor 412 1998 Gas-Oil-Water

2 Mukherjee 1400 1979 Gas-Liquid

3 Minami 111 1987 Gas-Liquid

4 Abdul 88 1994 Gas-Liquid

5 Eaton 238 1966 Gas-Liquid

6 Beggs 58 1973 Gas-Liquid

7 Atmaca 296 1973 Oil-Water

8 Dong 156 2007 Gas-Oil-Water

9 Gokcal 173 2008 Gas-Liquid

10 Magrini 140 2009 Gas-Liquid

11 Johnson 984 2005 Gas-Liquid

12 Yuan 153 2011 Gas-Liquid

13 Andritsos 535 1986 Gas-Liquid


15 Cheremisinoff 174 1977 Gas-Liquid

16 Kokal 140 1987 Gas-Liquid

17 Roth 39 1986 Gas-Liquid

18 Fan 351 2005 Gas-Liquid


Data Sets Included in SLB DB Version 10

March 2013

bull 19 Data Sets

bull 5819 Data Records

Added TUFFP Data Sets Until March 2013


151


Current Status and Update Schedule

Activities of This Period bull List-up of TUFFP

Projects bull List-up of Available

Data Sets bull Update of Database



Difficulties to Import Experimental Data

Diversity of Data Formats Units Names of Variables Data File Formats

Data given as PDF Tables Specially Old Data Hard to Read

Variables that can be Found ONLY in text ie Pipe Diameter Length etc

Same Variable Names but Different Values ie Pressure Inlet Pressure Separator Pressure Pressure at

Test Sections etc


152



Difficulties


Fan (2005) Data


Difficulties


Formatted Excel File for Raw Table of Database

56 Columns


153



Difficulties Data given as PDF Tables Specially Old Data Hard to Read

Roumazeilles (1994)



Difficulties Variables that can be Found ONLY in text ie Pipe Diameter Length etc

Magrini (2009)

154


Difficulties


Test Sections etc


Future Work

Collecting and Re-Formatting of Experimental Data

Extracting Data from PDF Tables

Re-Formatting Collected Data to Import File Format

Updating of MS Access DB User Interface


155

Thank you for listening


156


Project Completion Dates TUFFP Experimental Data List Up Complete

Collecting and Reformatting Data Sets for DB October 2013 Final Report December 2013

Objectives The main objective of this project is to construct a multiphase flow database of TUFFP experimental data sets

Introduction TUFFP experimental database will contain the measurements of pressure pressure gradients volume fractions shear stresses entrainment fractions and the system parameters associated with each run In some instances additional data like individual flow pattern characteristics are also included

Usually experimental data sets have their own specific formats Moreover they are sometimes provided as tables in pdf format which need to be digitized Having all of the experimental data sets in a unified format makes the experimental data more usable and applicable In other words the database can be easily used to validate newly developed models for multiphase flow by exporting data into required formats for testing

TUFFP Experimental Data Multiphase flow experimental data sets are divided into three categories Gas-liquid Oil-water (liquid-liquid) and Gas-oil-water The lists of experimental data sets are given by Tables 1-3

TUFFP has 46 gas-liquid data sets including steady-state and transient experiments More than 10000 steady-state data records have been provided for gas-liquid flow For oil-water experiments 11 data sets with about 2800 data records have been acquired Finally 5 data sets with about 500 data records have been obtained from gas-oil-water experiments

Some of the data sets are given in MS Excel files (xls) or text files (txt dat etc) which can be directly copied and imported into database However others are provided by tables in pdf documents For those digitization or manual typing is necessary

Microsoft Access Database Schlumberger had developed the steady-state multiphase database using Microsoft Access which has been donated to TUFFP MS Access is selected to replace MS Excel database MS Excel is easy to use and easy to access but it has limitations for database It is too fragile to keep the data too easy to delete data too easy to inject unit errors and hard to maintain a consistent format New or undefined data fields may destroy the existing format and lead to lsquodata holesrsquo Furthermore it can be problematic when exporting data into required formats for testing

Schlumberger multiphase steady-state database can import experimental data records with a specific format Data records are initially imported into lsquoRaw Tablersquo from the formatted excel file The data records of lsquoRaw Tablersquo move to final lsquoDatabase Tablersquo after unit conversions through lsquoRaw Archive Tablersquo The database can export data records to excel files in PipeSim OpenLink format or in general format

Future Work All the available data records will be imported into MS Access Database And the user interface of database will be improved to be more useable and convenient

157

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Table 1 List of TUFFP Gas-Liquid Experimental Data Sets No Project Author Year

2 Charles Martin Palmer 1975 3 George Andrew Payne 1975 4 Zelimer Schmidt 1976 5 Sirisak Juprasert 1976 12 Myles Wilson Scoggins Jr 1977 13 Zelimir Schmidt 1977 14 N D Sylvester R Dowling H Paz-y-Mino and J P Brill 1977 16 Hemanta Mukherjee 1979 21 Imoh Boniface Akpan 1980 29 Orlando E Fernandez 1982

33 Santanu Barua 1982 36 Kazuioshi Minami 1983 44 Kunal Dutta-Roy 1984

45 Elisio Caetano Filho 1984 52 Elisio Filho Caetano 1985 63 Stuart L Scott 1989

64 Guohua Zheng 1989 67 Carlos Alfredo Daza 1990

72 Masaru Ihara 1991 73 Guohua Zheng 1991

74 Ibere Nascentes Alves 1991 75 Kazuioshi Minami 1991 77 Hector Felizola 1992

80 Rafael Jose Paz Gonzalez 1993 81 Philippe Roumazeilles 1994 82 Fabrice Vigneron 1995

86 James P Brill X Tom Chen Jose Flores and Robert Marcano 1995 89 Jiede Yang 1996 90 Robert Marcano 1996 95 Weihong Meng 1999 96 Eissa Mohammed Al-Safran 1999 NA Jarl Tengesdal 2002 101 Qian Wang 2003 102 Eissa Mohammed Al-Safran 2003 103 Yongqian Fan 2005

104 Pipeline Databank 104 Wellbore Databank

106 Bahadir Gokcal 2005 110 Bahadir Gokcal 2008

111 TingTing Yu 2009 113 Kyle Magrini 2009 115 Ceyda Kora 2010

116 Benin Chelinsky Jeyachandra 2011 117 Ge Yuan 2011 119 Rosmer Brito 2012 120 Mujgan Guner 2012

158

Table 2 List of TUFFP Oil-Water Experimental Data Sets No Project Author Year 1 1 Mark Steven Malinowski 1975 2 9 George Clarence Laflin and Kenneth Doyle Oglesby 1976 3 11 Hemanta Mukhopadhyay 1977 4 17 Kenneth D Oglesby 1979 5 37 Srihasak Arirachakaran 1983 6 51 Alberto E Martinez 1985 7 88 Jose Luis Trallero 1995 8 91 Jose Gonzalo Flores 1997 9 97 Banu Alkaya 2000 10 107 Maria Andreina Vielma Paredes 2007 11 108 Serdar Atmaca 2007

Table 3 List of TUFFP Gas-Oil-Water Experimental Data Sets No Project Author Year 1 1 Mark Steven Malinowski 1975 2 9 George Clarence Laflin and Kenneth Doyle Oglesby 1976 3 104 Carlos Beltran 2005 4 109 Hongkun Dong 2007 5 114 Gizem Ersoy Gokcal 2010

159

160

Fluid Flow Projects

Unified Drift Velocity Closure Relationship for Large Bubbles

Rising in Viscous Fluids

Jose Moreiras


Outline

Objective

Introduction

Experimental Study

Modeling Approach

Conclusions


161

Objective

Analyze Drift Velocity for Medium Viscosity Oils (39 cP lt microO lt 166 cP) Inclination Angle from 0ordm to 90ordm

Pipe Diameter 2-in

Develop a Unified Drift Velocity Correlation which Considers Viscosity Effects

Inclination Angle Effects

Pipe Diameter Effects


Introduction

TUFFP Oil Viscosity Effect Effort

High Viscosity (180 cP lt microO lt 576 cP) Gokcal (2005)

Gokcal (2008)

Kora (2010)

Jeyachandra (2011)

Medium Viscosity (39 cP lt microO lt 166 cP) Brito (2012)


162

Introduction hellip

Expression for Translational Velocity and Drift Velocity

Nicklin et al (1962)

v = C v +vt o M d


Introduction hellip

Potential Flow Analysis for Drift Velocity

Vertical Flow ndash Dumitrescu (1943) Davies and Taylor (1950)

vd 0351 gD

Horizontal Flow ndash Benjamin (1968)

vd 0542 gD


163

Introduction hellip

Dimensionless Numbers Froude Number

05 05Fr v g D ( )d L L G

Eotvos Number

2 1N g D ( )Eo L G

Viscosity Number 053N g D ( ) L G L


Experimental Study

Test Liquid DN-20 Mineral Oil Gravity 305 degAPI

Density 873 kgm3 60 degF


Test Gas Air

High Speed Video Recording


164


Experimental Study hellip

Experimental Facility Layout

High Speed Camera


Pipe Diameter 2-in

Viscosities 39 66 108 166 cP

Inclinations 0o10o 20o 30ohellip90deg

Uncertainty Analysis ASME Uncertainty Model

Five Repetitions per Condition


165


Experimental Result

0deg 2-in ID microO=39 cP 0deg 2-in ID microO=166 cP


01

02

03

04

05

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Vd

[ms

]

θ [ordm] Bendiksen (1984) 166 cp 66 cp 39 cp Gokcal (2008)-1cp Gokcal (2008)-185cp Gokcal (2008)-1287cp

Experimental Result hellip

Inclined (2-in Pipe) )cos(gD)sin(gD 54203510

166

Modeling Approach

Extended Database Author Fluid Properties Pipe Geometry

Zukoski (1966) ρL=1000 kgm3

microL=0001 Pa s σ=0072 Nm

θ= 0 to 90ordm D=0055 and 0178-m

Webber et al (1986) ρL=1280 to 1410 kgm3

microL=00511 to 612 Pa s σ=0078 to 0087 Nm

θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00373-m

Gokcal (2008) ρL=889 kgm3

microL=0104 to 0692 Pa s σ=0029 Nm

θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m

Jeyachandra et al (2012) ρL=889 kgm3


θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00762-m

This Study ρL=870 kgm3


θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m


Modeling Approach hellip

Minimum Eotvos Number (NEo) = 220

Wallis (1969) Surface Tension Effects are Negligible for NEo gt100

Universal Correlation is Subdivided Horizontal Flow

Vertical Flow

Inclined Flow


167


Horizontal Flow


Nba

NFr

540

00350

1a

014430

250886

89602

b

r


Vertical Flow Potential flow solution for cap shaped

bubbles extended to long bubbles (Taylor Bubbles) by Davis and Taylor (1950)

Viscous potential flow solution for cap shaped bubbles by Joseph (2003) is extended to long bubbles in this study

Davis and Taylor (1950)


168



Vertical Flow

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [m

s]

vd Experimental [ms]

2

2

9

64

9

2

3

8

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d

Original Cap Shaped Bubble Long Taylor Bubble

Dg

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d

350

3

2

9

64

9

2

3

8 2

2

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [

ms

]



Inclined Flow

Fr Fr cos( )a Fr sin( )b QH V

0 FrV FrH 0

Q dc Fr Fr sin( ) (1 sin( )) Fr Fr 0 V H V H

Parameter Value 95 Confidence Interval a 12391 00872 b 12315 01150 c 21589 14764 d 070412 02926


169

2 in Oil


1st Step-Horizontal Flow FrH 054 N

a b N

2nd Step-Vertical Flow 8 L 2 64 L

2 2 vd g D 2 035 g D 3 D 9 9 D 3L L

05 05Fr v g D ( )V d L L G

a b 3rd Step-Inclined Flow Fr Fr cos( ) Fr sin( ) QH V

4th Step-Drift Velocity Fr d 05 05v

g D ( )L L G



- Air- System


170

Conclusions

Increase in Liquid Viscosity Reduces the Drift Velocity

A New Correlation is Proposed

Valid for Dgt003-m and from 0deg to 90deg Inclination Angles

Additional Experimental Data is Required for 10-4ltNlt10-3



Questions

171

172

Unified Drift Velocity Closure Relationship for Large Bubbles Rising in Viscous Fluids

Jose Moreiras

Project Completion Dates Data Acquisition Completed Data Analysis Completed Unified Correlation Completed Final Report May 2013

Objective The main objective of the study is

To Analyze Drift Velocity for Medium Viscosity Oils (39 cP lt microO lt 166 cP)

o Inclination Angle from 0ordm to 90ordm o Pipe Diameter 2-in

Develop a Universal Drift Velocity Correlation which Considers

o Viscosity Effects o Inclination Angle Effects o Pipe Diameter Effects

Introduction Nearly 70 of the available oil reserves correspond to heavy oils which possess high density and viscosity Depletion of lighter hydrocarbon resources has increased the importance of high viscosity oils A thorough knowledge on the flow behavior of high viscosity oils is required to design and optimize production facilities The existing multiphase flow models were developed using data collected for low viscosity oils Hence these models inherently neglect the effect of viscosity on flow characteristics of multiphase flow

TUFFP initiated a research campaign to further understand the gas-liquid behavior in 2003 Gokcal (2005) experimentally studied the effects of high viscosity on two phase oil-gas flow He observed a marked difference between the experimental results and the model predictions Intermittent slug and elongated bubble flow were observed to be the dominant flow pattern Later Gokcal (2008) conducted experiments and developed correlations for two phase slug flow characteristics taking into account the effects of viscosity The parameters studied were pressure gradient drift velocity transitional velocity and slug length and frequency All tests were conducted for horizontal flow and oil viscosities range from 121 cp to 1000 cP Kora (2010) conducted experiments and developed correlations for slug liquid holdup in horizontal high viscosity oil-gas flow Jeyachandra (2011) studied the effect of the inclination angle for horizontal and near horizontal flow

In general all the previous studies in high viscosity oils (180 cP lt microO lt 587 cP) demonstrated big difference in two-phase flow behavior as compared to low viscosity oils Brito (2012) carried out an experimental study to analyze the medium viscosity oil (39 cP lt microO lt 166 cP) effect on two-phase flow behavior She analyzed the change in pressure drop flow pattern liquid holdup and flow characteristics in a 2-in ID horizontal pipe Drift velocity corresponds to an important parameter for slug characterization which has not been measured before in the viscosity range considered by Brito (2012) The current study is part of the TUFFP effort to understand the medium oil viscosity effect in two-phase flow investigating the drift velocity under this viscosity range for horizontal and inclined flow

Experimental StudyThe experimental study is composed of the experimental facility our test fluid and an experimental matrix

Facility The experimental facility consists of an oil storage tank a 20 HP screw pump a 305-m (10 ft) long acrylic pipe with 1524-mm (6 in) ID heating and cooling loops transfer hoses and instrumentation Additional experiments will be conducted by replacing the 6 in with 2 in ID pipe The acrylic pipe is located close to the storage tank The inclination of the pipe can be varied using a pulley arrangement The pipe inclination can be changed from 0deg to 90deg The heating and cooling loops are used to maintain the desired temperature and thereby control the viscosity of the oil

The oil pump supplies the pipe with oil Then the main inlet valve and the auxiliary inlet valve are closed The drainage valve is opened to drain the residual oil captured and thus create a gas pocket Next the drainage valve is closed and the main inlet valve is opened to release the gas bubble into the stagnant oil column The drift velocity is measured by high speed video recordings A modification was carried out for the horizontal case The pipe end was removed and it was replaced with plug The removal

173

of the plug after the pipe is filled drains the oil out and a gas bubble penetrates into the pipe enabling the measurement of drift velocity in a horizontal pipe

Test Fluids Compressed air has been considered for the gas phase and typical properties of the DN-20 mineral oil used in these tests are given as follows

Gravity 305 degAPI

Viscosity 0166 Pamiddots 211degC

Density 873 kgm3 156degC

Surface tension 00275 Nm 40degC

Experimental Matrix Drift velocity will be acquired for the following conditions

Pipe diameter 2-in Inclination angle 0deg 10deg 20deg 30deg 40deg 50deg

60deg 70deg 80deg and 90deg Oil Viscosity 39 cP 66 cP 108 cP and 166

cP For a given pipe diameter inclination angle and

oil viscosity the average drift velocity is collected after five repetitions Uncertainty is estimated by the ASME model where the bias term is neglected and the random component is estimated based on five repetitions

Modeling ApproachDrift velocity in inclined pipes described a convex curve as function of inclination angle The shape of this curve is defined by the values of the drift velocity in horizontal and vertical flow Drift velocity correlations for horizontal and vertical flow are proposed and extended to inclined flow The experimental data collected in this study is combined with literature data Only pipe diameters larger than 003-m has been considered form the following Authors

1 Zukoski (1966) 2 Webber et al (1986) 3 Gokcal (2008) 4 Jeycandra (2011)

Horizontal Flow In the extended experimental data base presented the Eotvos number varies from 220 to 800 The minimum Eo is at least two times larger than the critical value proposed by Wallis (1969) to define the region where surface tension effects can be neglected (Eogt100) Based on Zukoski (1966) observations this critical value is even smaller (Eogt40) thus in this study the surface tension effect is neglected

A correlation for the Froude number as function of Viscosity number has been developed As the Viscosity number tends to zero the Froude number tend to the potential flow solution On the other hand as the Viscosity number increases the drift velocity tends asymptotically to zero Thus this correlation can be utilized for low and high liquid viscosities

Vertical Flow Joseph (2003) extended Davis and Taylor (1950) analysis in cap bubbles using viscous potential flow analysis The proposed model is function of viscosity density and pipe diameter For long bubble (Taylor bubble type) Joseph (2003) shows a systematic bias with respect to experimental data in vertical flow As the viscosity tends to zero Joseph (2003) solution tends to Davis and Taylor (1950) solution (constant Froude number) who also proposed an extension of cap model to long bubbles The extension results in a modification of the final Froude number This difference in the potential flow solution from cap to long bubble can explain the bias presented by Joseph (2003) where the discrepancy can be corrected in similar way than Davis and Taylor (1950) by subtracting the difference of potential solution

Inclined Flow The Froude number in any inclination can be predicted by a combined effect of horizontal and vertical Froude A correlation for Froude number as function of inclination angle horizontal and vertical Froude numbers are estimated using the two previous correlations

Conclusion This study presents new drift velocity experimental data for medium oil viscosities (39 lt microLlt166 cP) and all inclination angles The new set of data has been combined with other data available in the literature to develop a universal correlation for drift velocity The correlation is subdivided into three parts as function of inclination angle namely horizontal vertical and inclined In general the minimum Eotvos number is 220 thus all data points are laid in a region where surface tension effect can be neglected (Wallis 1969) The proposed horizontal correlation for Froude number is a unique function of viscosity number and as the viscosity tends to zero the solution tends to potential flow For the verical case Joseph (2003) solution for caps bubbles has been modified to long bubbles following a similar procedure as Davis and Taylor (1950) Finally a general correlation for Froude number in inclined pipes is proposed which

174

depends on the estimated Froude number for horizontal and vertical flow

References Brito R Effect of Medium Oil Viscosity on Two-Phase Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Horizontal Pipes MS Thesis

The University of Tulsa Tulsa OK (2012) Davies R M and Taylor G I ldquoThe Mechanics of Large Bubbles Rising Through Liquids in Tubesrdquo Proc Royal

Soc London A 200 pp 375-390 (1950) Gokcal B ldquoAn Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Slug Flow for High Oil Viscosity in Horizontal

Pipesrdquo PhD Dissertation The University of Tulsa Tulsa OK (2008) Gokcal B ldquoEffects of High Oil Viscosity on Two-Phase Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Horizontal Pipesrdquo MS Thesis

The University of Tulsa Tulsa OK (2005) Jeyachandra B ldquoEffect of Pipe Inclination on Flow Characteristics of High Viscosity Oil-Gas Two-Phase Flow

MS Thesis The University of Tulsa Tulsa OK (2011) Joseph D D ldquoRise velocity of a Spherical Cap Bubblerdquo J Fluid Mech Vol 488 pp 213-223 (2003) Kora Effects of high oil viscosity on slug liquid holdup in horizontal pipes MS Thesis The University of Tulsa

2010 Weber ME Alarie A and Ryan M E ldquoVelocities of Extended Bubbles in Inclined Tubesrdquo Chem Eng Sci

Vol 41 pp 2235-2240 (1986) Zukoski E E ldquoInfluence of Viscosity Surface Tension and Inclination Angle on Motion of Long Bubbles in

Closed Tubesrdquo J Fluid Mech Vol 25 pp 821-837 (1966) Gokcal B Al-Sarkhi A and Sarica C Effects of High Oil Viscosity on Drift Velocity for Horizontal Pipes

Presented at BHR Conference of Multiphase Production Technology Banff June 4-6 (2008) Kora Y Effects of high oil viscosity on slug liquid holdup in horizontal pipes MS Thesis The University of

Tulsa Tulsa OK (2010) Benjamin TB ldquoGravity Currents and Related Phenomenardquo J Fluid Mech (1968) 31 (2) 209-248

175

176

Fluid Flow Projects

Characteristics of Downward Flow of High Viscosity Oil and

Gas Two-Phase

Jaejun Kim


Outline

Objective

Introduction


Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

Future Work


177

Objective

Acquire Experimental Data on Flow Characteristics for High Viscosity Oil-Gas Two-Phase Flow in Downward Inclined Pipes Viscosity Effects

Validate ModelsCorrelation with Experimental Results


Introduction

Increase in High Viscosity Oil Offshore Discoveries Current Multiphase Flow Models

Developed for Low Viscosity Oils Multiphase Flows May Exhibit

Significantly Different Behavior for Higher Viscosity Oils Horizontal Flow Experiments ndash Gokcal

(2005 2008) and Kora (2010)


178

179

Introduction hellip

Jeyachandra (2011) Carried Out Experiments for plusmn2deg Repeatability has not been Verified by

Jeyachandra (2011)

Repeat Tests are Necessary to Improve the Confidence on the Collected Data

Facility Instrumentation and Uncertainty Analysis has been Upgraded by Brito (2012)



CPU

Air

12345

Ma x

Mi n Z er o C onf ig E nt e r

Air Valves Laser Capacitance

Probe Probe


Experimental Matrix

Superficial Liquid Velocity 01 ndash 08 ms

Superficial Gas Velocity 01 ndash 35 ms

Temperatures 70 ndash 100 degF (211 ndash 378 degC ) 585 ndash 181 cP

Inclination -2deg from Horizontal



Downward Inclined Flow vs TUFFP Model Prediction

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Dispersed

Intermittent

Stratified Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Stratified

Dispersed Bubble

Intermittent

Stratified

Annular

585 cP 181 cP

180


Downward Inclined Flow vs Barnea Model Prediction

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug Flow

STRATIFIED

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

585 cP 181 cP

Two Phase Flow Characteristics

Flow Pattern Pressure Gradient Average Liquid Holdup Slug Characteristics Slug Length Slug Frequency Slug Liquid Holdup Translational Velocity Drift Velocity


181


Capacitance Sensor

Two-wire

Capacitance Sensor

Capacitance Sensors Location

0030 DIA

025

200


Capacitance Sensor Static Calibration hellip

Static Calibration

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

0 02 04 06 08 1

Cap 2

Cap 3

H L

V

182


Static Calibration at 70 degF and 90 degF

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H LS

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H L

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

Cap 2 Cap 3 Cap 4

Cap 5 Cap 6 Cap 7


Dynamic Calibration

Quick Closing valve

183

Future Work

Data Collection May 2013

Data Analysis May 2013

Model Comparison June 2013

Report June 2013


Thanks hellip


184

Questions


185

186

Characteristics of Downward Flow of High Viscosity Oil and Gas Jaejun Kim

Project Completion Dates Static Calibration February 2013 Dynamic Calibration March 2013 Data Collection April 2013 Data Analysis May 2013 Modeling Comparison May 2013 Report June 2013

Objectives The objective of this study is to investigate the flow characteristics of downward flow of high-viscosity oil and gas A complete study was conducted by Jeyachandra (2011) The repeat tests are needed to verify Jeyachandra results

Introduction One of the most important phenomena in the petroleum industry is gas-liquid two phase flow in pipes which commonly occurs during production and transportation Various arrangements of two phases flowing in the pipe are called lsquoflow patternsrsquo The type of the flow pattern depends on the flow rate of gas and liquid diameter of the pipe inclination angle of the pipe and properties of fluid such as viscosities densities of gas and liquid and surface tension Typical flow patterns for downward flow are stratified stratified wavy slug elongated bubble annular and dispersed bubble flow Since flow patterns have an influence on design parameters and operations it is vital to understand their behavior

The slug flow is the most common flow pattern in high viscosity oil gas-liquid two phase flow (Gokcal et al 2005) The slug flow is divided into slug (liquid) liquid film (bubble) regions There is a great difference between liquid holdup of film and slug regions Thus the liquid holdup of the slug flow is classified as HLslug (liquid holdup of slug region) and HLfilm (liquid holdup of film region) For the measurement of the liquid holdup of slug flow capacitance sensors which are based on the difference in the dielectric constants of the two phases can be used By using this difference capacitance sensors can detect the liquid fraction in a gas-liquid two phase flow in pipes

The experiments will be performed for the inclination angle of -2deg and oil viscosities from 0585 Pamiddots to 0181 Pamiddots

Experimental Study Facility The indoor high viscosity oil-gas facility is being modified to perform experiments to study the

inclination effects The capacity of the oil storage tank is 303m3 A 20 HP screw pump is used to push the liquid through the loop Air is delivered through a dry rotary screw type compressor The oil and the air mix in a tee junction before proceeding to the test section

The facility is comprised of a metering section a test section a heating system and a cooling system The test section is 189 m (62 ft) long 508 mm (2 in) ID pipe Nearly half of the pipe is made of a clear PVC pipe section and the rest is transparent acrylic pipe section

A 915-m (30 ft) long transparent acrylic pipe section is used to observe the flow behavior visually A flexible hose connects the test section with the 762 mm (3 in) ID return pipe An oil transfer tank (132 m3) is located at the end of return pipe Return pipe is connected to this tank with a flexible hose 3-hp progressing cavity pump is used to pump the oil from the new tank back to the main tank through the riser The oil flow rates are measured at the inlet of the facility using Micro Motion mass flow meters (CMF025 CMF100 and CMF300) The air is measured at the inlet of the facility using Micro Motion mass flow meters (CMF025 and CMF050)

Separation is accomplished by gravity segregation of air and oil The separated air is removed through the ventilation system The test section is supported on stands and the inclination of the test section can be set from -2deg to 2deg from horizontal by adjusting the heights of the stands

The viscosity of the oil is controlled by controlling the temperature of oil at the tank A 20 KW Chromalox heater capable of heating the heavy oil from 70degF to 140degF is used The heating and the cooling section thus play a major part in the experiment to control the viscosities Resistance Temperature Detector (RTD) transducers measure the temperatures during experiments Pressure transducers and differential pressure transducers are located at different places to measure pressure and pressure drop in the loop

187

Test Fluids The high viscosity oil of this study is CITGO Sentry 220 The gas phase used is compressed air Following are the typical properties of the oil Gravity 276 degAPI Viscosity 0220 Pamiddots 40 degC Density 889 kgm3 156 degC Surface tension 003 Nm 40 degC

Instrumentation and Measurement Flow Patterns

TUFFP high speed video system is used to identify the flow patterns

Differential Pressure (DP) There are 4 differential pressure transducers on the flow loop DP1 and DP2 are located at the PVC section of the loop and are used for monitoring the development of flow DP3 and DP4 located at the acrylic section are used for measuring the differential pressure

Slug Length Slug Frequency and Translational Velocity

The acrylic section has provision for 2 laser sensors which when coupled with data acquisition system provide the data for slug length slug frequency and translational velocity

Liquid Holdup The most challenging part of this study is to measure gas void fraction in liquid slugs For the measurement of slug liquid holdup capacitance sensor has been used A summary of the capacitance sensor and the static calibration that was conducted is given below

Capacitance Sensor The two-wire capacitance sensor is used in this study This sensor consists of two parallel copper wires positioned perpendicular to the flow at a distance of 025 in This sensor requires an electronic circuit to filter amplify and convert the measured capacitance to a voltage The MS3110 Universal Capacitive Readout IC has been utilized to convert the capacitance of the mixture to a 0 to 5 volt signal It is equipped with a low pass filter providing an ultra-low noise and high resolution capacitive readout

Static Calibration Static calibration of CS was accomplished by placing different amounts of liquid volumes in an acrylic pipe tester with the CS in the middle and measuring the height of the fluid in the pipe then recording the corresponding sensor output voltage The actual

voltage reading was then converted to a dimensionless voltage

The corresponding liquid holdup was calculated as the ratio of the volume of the liquid injected and the total volume of the tester A graph of dimensionless voltage vs liquid holdup was plotted and the resulting curve is the static calibration curve The shape of the curve is S-shaped and is expected because of the shape effect of the pipe During the initial phase and final phase of injection oil wets the perimeter of the pipe quickly compared to the middle phase where the wetting is almost linear

Effect of the Oil Temperature on the Output Signal

In addition to the conventional static calibration procedure the effect on the oil temperature on the capacitance sensor output signal has to be evaluated For this several oil volumes at different temperatures are placed in an acrylic pipe connected to the capacitance sensor As a result it was observed that output voltage has no relation with oil temperature This justifies that there is no necessity to read the each fluid temperature in order to predict and accurate liquid holdup

Dynamic Calibration Dynamic calibration of CS will be conducted using existing quick-closing valve system (QCV) CS QCV and high speed video camera should be synchronized CS will be placed 15 ft before the quick-closing valve system Shortly before capturing the slug body with QCV data collection process with CS will be started High speed video camera is used to verify the trapped part of the slug body for the analysis of the CS reading The dynamic calibration plot should be generated by plotting the actual liquid holdup data (QCV measurement) versus the calculated liquid holdup data (capacitance sensor output) at different test conditions Finally in order to calculate the liquid holdup in the slug body numerical integration is used to estimate the area under the curve and it is divided by the area as if the liquid slug is pure oil

Data Processing An excel macro was develop by Brito (2012) to process the raw data and verify its quality through an uncertainty analysis This excel macro calculates the average standard deviation and uncertainty of the all measured and estimated parameters The considered parameters are pressure gradient absolute pressure liquid temperature mass flow rate fluid properties (density and viscosity) superficial velocities mixture velocity mixture Reynolds number and average liquid holdup In addition if the slug flow is

188

observed additional parameters are calculated namely average liquid holdup in the film region average liquid holdup in the slug region number of slugs slug frequency translational velocity slug length and slug length distribution

Future Work The static and dynamic calibration has already been completed Data collection will be carried out during April Data analysis and modeling comparison will be finalized in May

References Dieck R Measurement Uncertainty Method and Applications Fourth Edition (2007) Hernandez V Gas-liquid Two-phase Flow in Inclined Pipes The University of Nottingham School of Chemical

Environmental and Mining Engineering (2007) Al-safran E An Experimental Study of Two-Phase Flow in a Hilly-Terrain Pipeline MS Thesis The University

of Tulsa (1999) Gokcal B Al-Sarkhi A S Sarica C and Al-Safran M E Prediction of Slug Frequency for High-Viscosity

Oils in Horizontal Pipes SPE Projects Facilities amp Construction Vol 5 (2010)

189

190

Fluid Flow Projects

Effect of High Oil Viscosity on Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Vertical and

Highly Deviated Pipes

Feras Alruhaimani


Outline

Objectives

Facility

Test Fluid

Test Matrix

Data Gathering amp Processing

Future Activities


191

Objectives

Conduct Experimental and Modeling Study on High Oil Viscosity (gt180 cP) Two-phase Flow in Vertical and Highly Deviated Pipes

Improve Existing Closure Relationships Used in Available Mechanistic Models



Three-phase Flow Facility

192


Three-phase Flow Facility hellip

Test Section Two (2 in ID) 212-m (693-ft) Long Pipes

Connected with U-shaped Bend


Test Section

QCV System

Visua lizatio n Box


193


Return Pipe



Test Fluids

Lubsoil ND 50 (ISO 220)

194

Test Matrix

Viscosity 181 ndash 587 cP

Inclination Vertical Highly Deviated (90deg to 75deg)





Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 90o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition

195


Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 75o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition


Low Speed Data

(1 to 10 Hz)

Pressure

Pressure Gradient

Temperature

Mass Flow-rates

Densities

Viscosities

Superficial Velocities

High Speed Data

(1000 Hz) ldquoCapacitance Sensorsrdquo

Translation Velocity

Average Slug Length

Slug Length Distribution

Slug Frequency

Slug Liquid Holdup

Film Liquid Holdup

Average Liquid Holdup

Videos

Digital

High Speed


196

Low Speed Data

A Matlab Macro has been Created to Calculate Average and Uncertainty for All The Low Speed Raw Data

Uncertainty is Calculated Using ISO Uncertainty Model


High Speed Data

High Speed Data is Required for Slug Characterization

Capacitance Sensor Must be Properly Calibrated Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

A Matlab Macro is being Created to Process Capacitance Sensor Signals


197


High Speed Signal Processing

2 Capacitance Sensors

distance L

CS1CS2


High Speed Signal Processing hellip

Slug Region Identification Threshold

Derivative

198

Static Calibration

Performed Static Calibration on 10 Capacitance Sensors

To Find Best Repeatable Sensors to Be Used in Test Section



Static Calibrationhellip

199

Future Activities

Completion Dates

Literature Review Ongoing

Sensor Calibration Ongoing

Signal Processing Macros Ongoing

Facility Modifications April 2013

Experimental Program May 2014

Final Report December 2014


Questions amp

Comments


200

Effect of High Oil Viscosity on Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Vertical and Highly Deviated Pipes Feras Alruhaimani

Project Completion Dates Literature Review Ongoing Sensor Calibration Ongoing Signal Processing Macros Ongoing Facility Modification April 2013 Experimental Program May 2014 Final Report December 2014

Objective The objective of this study is to conduct experimental and modeling study on oil-gas two-phase flow using high oil viscosity (180 cPlt microOlt 587 cP) in vertical and highly deviated pipes Acquired data will be used to verify and improve the closure relationships used for the existing mechanistic models

Introduction With the continuous need of hydrocarbon resources and decline in light oil reserves heavy oils became a very important source of hydrocarbons Most two-phase flow models in literature were based on experimental data using low viscosity oils (microO lt 20 cP) Therefore studies on the effect of high oil viscosity on two-phase flow parameters are necessary to verify the performance of available mechanistic models for high viscosity oils

TUFFP conducted experimental studies on two-phase gas-liquid flow using high oil viscosity (microO gt 180 cP) for horizontal and slightly inclined pipes (plusmn2o) These studies investigated the effect of oil viscosity on two-phase flow parameters such as flow pattern pressure drop liquid holdup and slug characteristics The results from these studies were used to improve existing mechanistic models for high oil viscosity multiphase flow

Other studies on high oil viscosity were conducted by TUHOP for two-phase gas-oil flow in vertical pipes (Akhiyarov 2010) and three-phase gasshyoil-water flow in horizontal and upward vertical pipes (Wang 2012) In the experimental work of these studies pressure drop and average liquid holdup were measured but no slug characteristics were acquired

This study is part of the high oil viscosity efforts initiated by TUFFP and is focused on the effect of high liquid viscosity on vertical and highly deviated gas-liquid two-phase flow In addition to pressure drop flow pattern and liquid holdup slug characteristics are studied

Experimental Work Experimental work is subdivided into experimental facility test fluids and experimental program as follows

Experimental Facility The experimental work will be carried out in the TUFFP 2 in ID three-phase flow facility The facility consists of a closed circuit loop with storage tanks separator progressive cavity pumps heat exchangers metering and test sections The metering sections are equipped with Micro Motiontrade Corriolis flow meters to measure mass flow rates and densities of the fluids and with temperature transducers for monitoring temperatures The test section is attached to an inclinable boom that can be raised to upward vertical position

The new test section is designed as a 508-mm (2-in) ID 211-m (693-ft) long pipe consisting of a transparent polycarbonate pipe section to visually observe flow behavior It is connected to a 211-m (693-ft) long 508-mm (2-in) ID return pipe which is set parallel to the test section at the same height The instrumentations are mounted on the pipe section for detailed measurements of the flow characteristics

Test Fluids The fluids used in the experiments are mineral oil and compressed air Lubsoil ND-50 is selected due to its high viscosity and Newtonian behavior in the testing range The physical properties of the oil are given below

API gravity 285deg Pour and flash point temperatures -15 degC (5

degF) and 265 degC (510 degF) respectively Surface tension 3575 dynescm at 198 degC

(68 degF) and atmospheric pressure Density 8844 kgm3 standard condition

Experimental Program The experiments will be conducted using air and oil in vertical and highly deviated pipe (90o to 75o) The

201

oil viscosity will vary from 181 to 587 cP The ranges of superficial liquid and gas velocities are 005 to 2 ms and 05 to 3 ms respectively

Experiments will be conducted to acquire flow pattern measure pressure drop liquid holdup and slug characteristics The experimental results will be used to validate the performance of existing models New closure relationships will be developed as needed

Instrumentation The test section is equipped with two differential pressure transducers for pressure gradient measurements Additionally four quick closing valves are installed for holdup measurement and bypassing Two of these quick closing valves are utilized to capture either the slug body or bubble region Two optical sensors are used to distinguish between the two regions Slug characteristics are obtained from the two wire type capacitance sensors Moreover high speed video camera and surveillance cameras will be used to observe the slug flow development and monitor the oil and air mixing status

The return pipe has one differential pressure transducer two quick closing valves and two wire type capacitance sensors

Capacitance Sensor Seven capacitance sensors will be installed in the test section two at the entrance two in the middle two toward the end and one at the end of the test section They are used to analyze the evolution of the slug characteristics as well as the average liquid holdup

Two additional capacitance sensors will be placed in the return pipe to study also the downward flow

Data Gathering and Processing The generated data can be divided as follows low speed high speed and video recording

Low speed data include pressure pressure gradient temperature mass flow rates densities viscosities and superficial velocities High speed data are voltage readings from the capacitance sensors To ensure the accuracy of the high speed data capacitance sensors must be properly calibrated

Static calibration has been conducted on ten capacitance sensors to determine best sensors to be used in the test section The best sensors are the ones in which the signals are stable and repeatable Dynamic calibration will also be conducted on the capacitance sensors to obtain a relation between the voltage signal and liquid holdup for each sensor

Data management is a major challenge for this study due to the large amount of data acquired Therefore the data processing has to be automated Two MATLAB macros have been developed the first one is to calculate the average and uncertainty of all the low speed data and the second one is for the determination of slug characteristic

In case of slug flow the high speed MATLAB macro will be used to calculate the slug characteristics translation velocity average slug length slug length distribution slug frequency slug liquid holdup film liquid holdup and average liquid holdup

Near Future Work bull Finish Signal processing macro in

MATLAB bull Dynamic Calibration of capacitance sensors bull Quick-closing valve system calibration bull Write facility operating procedure

References Gokcal B Effect of High Oil Viscosity on Two-Phase Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Horizontal Pipes MS Thesis The University of Tulsa Tulsa OK 2005 Gokcal B An Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Slug Flow for High Oil Viscosity in Horizontal

Pipes PhD Dissertation The University of Tulsa Tulsa OK 2008 Kora C Effect of High Oil Viscosity on Slug Liquid Holdup in Horizontal Pipes MS Thesis The University

of Tulsa Tulsa OK 2010 Jeyachandra B Effect of Pipe Inclination on Flow Characteristics of High Viscosity Oil-Gas Two-Phase Flow

MS Thesis The University of Tulsa Tulsa OK 2011 Brito R Effect of Medium Oil Viscosity on Two-Phase Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Horizontal Pipes MS

Thesis The University of Tulsa Tulsa OK 2012 Akhiyarov D High-Viscosity OilGas Flow in Vertical Pipe MS Thesis The University of Tulsa Tulsa OK

2010 Wang S High-Viscosity OilWaterGas Flow in Horizontal and Upward Vertical Pipes Slug Liquid Holdup

Modeling PhD Dissertation The University of Tulsa Tulsa OK (2012)

202

Fluid Flow Projects


Eduardo Pereyra Cem Sarica


Outline

Motivation

Objectives

Literature Review

Project Scope

Near Future Tasks


203


Motivation

Liquid Accumulation in Inclined Pipes is Source of Corrosion and Terrain Slugging

Accumulation Occurs Below Critical Gas Rates

Critical Gas Rate Depends on Inclination Angle

Oil and Water Flow Rates

Liquid Properties

Motivation hellip

Role Waves Near Liquid Accumulation Region

Flow Simulators Do Not Consider This Type of Flow

Solid Transport

Pipeline Fatigue


Regular Slug

Rolling Wave

204

Objectives

Literature Study of Available Data for Onset of Liquid Accumulation and Velocity Profiles

2 and3-phase Experimental Study in Available Flow Loop to Quantify Onset of Liquid Accumulation

Comparison With the Available Models That can Predict the Onset of Liquid Accumulation and Develop New Models If Necessary


Literature Review

Internal Corrosion Transmission Pipelines

Susceptible Areas No Flow Regions

Water andor Solid Accumulation

Corrosion Management Methodologies Flow Simulators to Predict Water

Accumulation

Uses Langsholt and Holm (2007) Results for Water Accumulation Regions Determination


205


Langsholt and Holm (2007) Study for Slightly Upward Inclined Pipes

Experimentally Determined the Region Where Liquid Holdup Increases Like a Discontinuity with Decreasing Gas Flow




Langsholt and Holm (2007) Results

(ρG=226 kgm3)

206



Holdup Discontinuity is Related With Multiple Solution Region

0

02

04

06

08

1

0 2 4 6 8

h L d

[‐]

vSG [ms]

Low Holdup Solution High Holdup Solution

Taitel amp Dukler (1976) ρG=226 kgm3

vSL=0001 ms θ=24deg

Project Scope

Experimentally Study Phase 1 Straight Pipe Pipe Diameter 3-in and 6-in (Only for 2deg)

Water Cuts from 0 to 100

Inclinations of 1deg 25deg 5deg 10deg 15deg and 20deg

Liquid Superficial Velocities of 001 005 and 01 ms

Shear Stress and Velocity Profile Measurements


207

Project Scope hellip

Phase 2 Interaction of Multiple Sections with Different Inclinations Study the Interaction and Its Effect on Critical

Gas Rate

θ1

θ2

θ1 θ2



Phase 3 Pressure Effect Effect of Pressure on Critical Gas Velocity

New 6-in High Pressure Facility Will Be Used


208

Near Future Tasks

Literature Review on Liquid Accumulation

Review of Velocity Profile Measurement Techniques

Facility Design



Questions

209

210

Onset of Liquid Accumulation in Oil and Gas Pipelines Eduardo Pereyra and Cem Sarica

Project Completion Dates Literature Review Ongoing Review of Velocity Profile Measurement Techniques Nov 2013

Facility Design Nov 2013

Objective The main objectives of the study are

Literature study of available data for onset of liquid accumulation and velocity profiles

Two- and three-phase experimental study in the available flow loop to quantify onset of liquid accumulation

Comparison with the available models that can predict the onset of liquid accumulation and develop new models if necessary

Motivation Accumulation of liquid oil andor water at the bottom of an inclined pipe is known to be the source of many industrial problems such as corrosion and terrain slugging The accumulation of liquid takes place when the momentum transfer from the gas is too low to overcome the typical opposing forces of the gravity of the liquid and to some extent friction and is thus a function of several parameters Accurate quantification of the required gas velocities to efficiently sweep the water out and prevent accumulation is of great importance as is also accurate prediction of oil and water holdup Parameters believed to impact the required gas velocity are in particular inclination angle oil and water flow rates gas densities (pressure) and liquid properties (density viscosity surface tension)

Currently minimum gas velocity or critical angle requirements are being implemented with various success rates to prevent corrosion in multiphase pipelines Those criteria are often found to be very conservative

An experimental and theoretical modeling project is proposed to better quantify the accumulated liquid volumes and the critical gas velocityinclination angle especially in large diameter pipelines

Literature Review The most susceptible areas for internal corrosion in pipelines correspond to no-flow and water andor solid accumulation regions All the methods proposed for internal corrosion management require the use of flow simulators to predict the water

accumulation regions (Mogohissi et al 2002 Carimalo et al 2008 Lagad et al 2004 Moghissi et al 2007 and Hauguel et al 2008)

For wet gas systems liquid holdup strongly depends on inclination angle and gas velocity For low flow rates the liquid holdup can increase by two orders of magnitude either with a small change in inclination angle or gas velocity This region can only be predicted by mechanistic models thus flow simulators equipped with mechanistic models are required for internal corrosion evaluation

Langsholt and Holm (2007) presented an experimental study to determine the critical gas velocity where the holdup change occurs Their experimental results have been used to evaluate and tune the critical gas velocity prediction by flow simulators The tests were carried out in 01-m ID pipe diameter and four pipe inclinations between 05 and 5deg The experimental matrix consists of several water cuts (WC) covering the entire range from 0shy100 WC keeping the liquid superficial velocity at 0001 ms Two different gas densities were considered namely 226 and 469 kgm3

Some of the study cases related with internal corrosion reported in the literature consider inclination angles up to 20deg (see Mogohissi et al 2002) Langsholt and Holmrsquos (2007) experimental data are limited to inclination angles less than 5deg thus further experimental analysis is required for larger inclination angles

The critical gas flow rate where the holdup suddenly changes is related to the existence of multiple roots in the two fluid model stratified flow solution Three different solutions can be found in this region the lowest and highest both being stable Which of these two stable solutions should be selected is still being debated and further experimental results are required to determine the correct one

Project Scope The project is divided into three phases as follows

211

Phase 1 (Straight Pipe) In this phase the straight pipe experiments as reported by Langsholt and Holm (2007) will be signifcantly expanded The 3 GasOilWater Flow Loop will be used for this effort Three different superficial liquid velocities (001 005 and 01 ms) will be consiered In adition six inclination angles (1deg 25deg 5deg 10deg 15deg and 20deg) in combination with five different water cuts will be included in the experimental matrix Pressure drop average liquid holdup and wave characteristics will be acquired Velocity profile andor wall shear stress measurement devices are still under consideration Flow charcateristics will be recorded using high speed and high definition cameras

Phase 2 (Slopes Interaction) The objective of this phase is to analyze the interaction between two or more consecutive section with different pipe inclinations Geometries and experimental matrix for this phase still need to be determined

Phase 3 (Pressure Effect) The new 6-in high pressure facility will be used for this effort Three inclination angles will be considered (1deg 2deg and 5deg) in combination with three pressure levels Start date of this phase will depend on facility availability

Modeling Approach Experimental data from 3-in straight pipe experiments will be used to calibrate the interfacial and wall shear stresses in the two fluid model Final model will be validated with 6-in straight pipe and Langsholt and Holm (2007) experimental data

Near Future Tasks During the next period the literature review will continue as well as a review of all posible techniques for velocity profile and wall shear stress measurements A preliminary facility design will be carried out with the required instrumentation to achieve the objectives of the project

References Carimalo F Foucheacute I Hauguel R Campaignolle X Chreacutetien T and Meyer M Flow Modeling to Optimize

Wet Gas Pipeline Water Management Paper No 08137 Corrosion 2008 March 16 - 20 2008 New Orleans LA

Hauguel R Lajoie A Carimalo F Campaignolle X Chreacutetien T and Meyer M Water Accumulation Assessment In Wet Gas Pipelines Paper No 08138 Corrosion 2008 March 16 - 20 2008 New Orleans LA

Lagad V Srinivasan S and Kane R Software System for Automating Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment of Pipelines Paper No 04197 Corrosion 2004 March 28 - April 1 2004 New Orleans LA

Langsholt M and Holm H Liquid Accumulation in Gas-Condensate Pipelines ndash An Experimental Study International Conference on Multiphase Production Technology 13 Edinburgh 2007

Moghissi O Norris L Dusek P and Cookingham B Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment of Gas Transmission Pipelines Paper No 02087 Corrosion02 Denver Colorado April 2002

Moghissi O Sun W Mendez C and Vera J Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology for Liquid Petroleum Pipelines Paper No 07169 Corrosion 2007 March 11 - 15 2007 Nashville Tennessee

212

Fluid Flow Projects

TUHOP Incorporation

Cem Sarica

Eduardo Pereyra


TUHOP Review

TUHOP was Established in 2007 as 5shyyear JIP to Investigate High Viscosity Oil Multiphase Flow Behavior in Pipes

JIP was Completed in 2012

Needed 5 Members to Fully Fund as a Stand Alone JIP

Only 2 Members of TUHOP Indicated to Continue


213

TUHOP Review hellip

Significant Investment Made TowardsConstruction of a New 3 in ID High Pressure High Viscosity Oil Facility $1000000 in Construction amp Equipment Man Time not Included

Completion of the Facility Requires $500000 There is $300000 Available as Balance

from TUHOP Need to Invest Additional $200000 to

Complete the Facility


Proposal to TUFFP Membership

Incorporation of TUHOP into TUFFP Complete the Construction of the 3 in

ID High Pressure-High Viscosity Oil Facility

Investigate Oilwater Flow as the First Project

Significant Value to TUFFP Will Enhance TUFFP Efforts in High

Viscosity Oil Multiphase Flow


214

Terms of the Incorporation

Existing TUHOP Deliverables will not Be Made Available to TUFFP Members

TUFFP members will have the Rights to the Deliverables Generated with the New Facility


Status

TU Administration has Given Permission to Propose This Incorporation


215

Way Forward

Membership Voting on Proposal by a Ballot through e-mail

Over 50 Majority of the Votes Will be Used as the Group Decision


Way Forward hellip

If Advisory Board Approves the Proposal Facility Construction will Be Completed

by the End of 2013

Testing will Start in Spring 2014


216

Proposed Project Oil-Water Flow

Highly Viscous Oil-Water Flow Objective Experimental Study of Highly Viscous

Oil-Water 3-in pipe (microO = 180 260 and 380cP) Effect of Inclination Angle (0+2deg and shy

2deg) Mechanistic Model Development for

Highly Viscous Oil-Water Flow


Oil-Water Flow

Few Experimental Points in Previous Studies

vS

W (m

s)

10

1

01

001

SOW

SOW-DOW

SOW-DOW-OF

CAOF

001 01 1 10 vSO (ms)

Shridhar (2011) Experimental Flow Pattern Maps for Horizontal Pipe μο = 021 Pamiddots


217


Oil-Water Flow

Poor Visualization for High Pressure Conditions

Oil-Water Flow

Parameters to Be Measured Flow Pattern (Better Visualization)

Film Thickness and Profile

Pressure Drop

Water Fraction

Film Thickness Meter


218

Fluid Flow Projects

Business Report

Cem Sarica


Membership and Collaboration Status

Current Membership Status 2013 Membership Declines by One

SchlumbergerSPT Merger

JOGMEC Termination

NTP Truboprovod Piping Systems Research amp Engineering Company of Russia Joins

16 Industrial Members and BSEE

Efforts Continue to Increase TUFFP Membership Interest from Several Companies

DragOilUNAM Group

DSME of South Korea

Kongsberg

Repsol

PDVSA

SNU Collaboration Continues


219

Publications and Papers

Choi J Pereyra P Sarica C Park C and Kang J M An Efficient Drift-Flux Closure Relationship to Estimate Liquid Holdups of Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Pipes Scheduled for a future issue of the Journal Energies

Choi J Pereyra P Sarica C Lee H Jang I S and Kang J M Development of a Fast Transient Simulator for Gas-Liquid Two-phase Flow in Pipes Scheduled for a future issue of Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

Yuan G Pereyra E Sarica C and Sutton R P An Experimental Study on Liquid Loading of Vertical and Deviated Gas Wells SPE 164516-MS Presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City Oklahoma USA 23-26 March 2013


Next Advisory Board Meetings

Tentative Schedule September 24 2013 TUPDP Meeting TUFFP Workshop Facility Tour I TUPDPTUFFP Reception

September 25 2013 TUFFP Meeting TUFFPTUHWALP Reception

September 26 2013 TUHWALP Reception Facility Tour II

Venue to be Determined


220


Fall Meeting Date Tally

September 24 ‐ 27 October 8 ‐ 11

Aspen Tech Baker Hughes ‐ Shawn Wang 1 BP ‐ Yongqian Fan 1 Chevron ‐ Hari Subramani 1 ConocoPhillips 1

Steve Appleyard 0 (At this point ‐ either date might work) Bahadir Gokcal 0 Tom Danielson 0

ExxonMobil ‐ Nader Berchane 1 GE ‐ Rogier Blom 1 KOC ‐ Eissa Alsafran 1 Marathon ‐ Rob Sutton 1 Pemex

Tomas Eduardo Perez 1 Eduardo War 1

Petrobras Piping Systems Research Saudi Aramco Schumberger ‐William Bailey 1 Shell ‐ Rusty Lacy 1 Total

Sum 7 5

Financial Report

Year 2012 Closing TUFFP Industrial Account

TUFFP BSEE Account

Year 2013 Update TUFFP Industrial Account

TUFFP BSEE Account


221

2012 Industrial Account Summary (Prepared March 22 2013)

Reserve Fund Balance on January 1 2012 $211154 Income for 2012

2012 Membership Fees (17 $55000 - exludes MMS) 935000 Facility Utilization Fee (SNU) 55000

Total Budget $ 1201154

BudgetExpenditures for 2012

Projected Revised Revised Budget Budget Budget 2012 100111 April 2012 October 2012 Expenditures

90101 - 90103 Faculty Salaries 3071247 1662114 1662818 90600 - 90609 Professional Salaries 11719822 5350100 4626032 5882664 90700 - 90703 Staff Salaries 3459760 1291400 3977003 4266491

90800 Part-timeTemporary 2400000 2000000 2116880 91000 Student Salaries - Monthly 5405000 3535000 4100000 4027500 91100 Student Salaries - Hourly 1500000 1500000 641760 874060 91800 Fringe Benefits 6387790 2324500 3540817 4082205 92102 Fringe Benefits (Students) 282800 328000 322200 81801 Tuition amp Student Fees 1868610 735000 1048700 985300 93100 General Supplies 300000 300000 330000 366654 93101 Research Supplies 12000000 15000000 27000000 26340099 93102 CopierPrinter Supplies 75000 75000 15000 11088 93103 Component Parts 220000 93104 Computer Software 400000 400000 35050 50222 93106 Office Supplies 200000 200000 300000 350801 93150 Computers ($1000 - $4999) 680845 903986 93200 Postage and Shipping 50000 50000 30000 135463 93300 Printing and Duplicating 300000 300000 300000 232629 93400 Telecommunications 250000 250000 100000 127456 93500 Membership 100000 100000 50000 80600 93601 Travel - Domestic 1000000 1000000 1500000 1060094 93602 Travel - Foreign 1000000 1000000 559929 929826 93700 Entertainment 1600000 2000000 2000000 2473468 94803 Consultant 1000000 115000 115000 94813 Outside Services 2000000 2000000 4000000 4675321 95103 Equipment Rental 2000000 158900 158900 95200 FampA (556) 14439255 7376100 9190300 10145816 98901 Employee Recruiting 300000 300000 272765 272765 99001 Equipment 30000000 30000000 813373 813373 99002 Computers 800000 800000 -99300 Bank Charges 4000 4000 3000 3000

Total Expenditures 98230484 81573900 69378588 73686680

Reserve as of 123112 46428732 $

2012 BSEE Account Summary

(Prepared March 22 2013)

Reserve Balance as of 123111 237635 2012 Budget 4800000

Total Budget 5037635

Projected BudgetExpenditures for 2012

2012 Budget Expenditures

91000 Students - Monthly 2812500 2940000 91202 Student Fringe Benefits 225000 235200 95200 FampA 1563750 1634640

Total Anticipated Expenditures as of 123111 4601250 4809840

Total Anticipated Reserve Fund Balance as of 123112 227795


222

2013 Industrial Account Budget (Prepared April 6 2013)

Reserve Fund Balance on January 1 2012 46428732 Income for 2013

2013 Membership Fees (16 $55000 - excludes BSEE) 88000000 2013 Anticipated Memership (1 $55000) 5500000 Facility Utilization Fee (SNU) 5500000

Total Income 145428732

Projected 2013 Revised

2013 Anticipated Expenditures Budget Expenditures Budget 31313

10152012 33113 90101-90103 Faculty Salaries 2182931 873892 423500 90600-90609 Professional Salaries 4611687 8484081 2809012 90700-90703 Staff Salaries 5667308 9031600 1106084

90800 Part-timeTemporary Staff 2500000 2500000 -91000 Graduate Students 3960000 3147500 875000 91100 Undergraduate Students 1500000 1500000 30000 91800 Fringe Benefits (36) 4361674 6620247 1518503 92102 Fringe Benefits Students (8) 316800 251800 56000 81801 TuitionStudent Fees 4009500 2991600 1015500 93100 General Supplies 300000 300000 -93101 Research Supplies 25000000 25000000 1697709 93102 CopierPrinter Supplies 50000 50000 -93104 Computer Software 200000 200000 49500 93106 Office Supplies 300000 300000 155994 93150 Computers Under $5000 1000000 1000000 463702 93200 PostageShipping 50000 50000 9281 93300 PrintingDuplicating 300000 300000 1389 93400 Telecommunications 100000 100000 -93500 MembershipsSubscriptions 50000 50000 -93601 Travel - Domestic 1000000 1000000 20282 93602 Travel - Foreign 1000000 1000000 -93700 Entertainment (Advisory Board Meetings) 2000000 2000000 100836 94803 Consultants 200000 200000 -94813 Outside Services 4000000 4000000 1776761 95103 Equipment Rental 2000000 2000000 328405 95200 Indirect Costs (524) 10701089 13381427 2287746 98901 Employee Recruiting 300000 300000 -99001 Equipment 30000000 30000000 -99300 Bank Charges 4000 4000 -

Total Expenditures 107664989 116636147 14725204

Anticipated Reserve Fund Balance on December 31 2013 28792585

2013 BSEE Account Budget


Account Balance - January 1 2013 $227795 Income for 2013

2013 Membership Fee $5500000

Total Income for 2013 $5727795

2009 Anticipated Expenditures Projected Budget 90101-90103 Faculty Salaries -90600-90609 Professional Salaries -90700-90703 Staff Salaries -

91000 Graduate Students 2887500 92102 Student Fringe Benefits (8) 231000 95200 Indirect Costs (556) 1605450

Total Expenditures $4723950

Anticipated Reserve Fund Balance on December 31 2013 $1003845


223

Oil

Pr

ce

$

History ndash Membership

i

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

OIl

Pri

ce

$

Nu

mb

er

of

Me

mb

ers

Year

Members Oil Price



History ndash Membership Fees

224


History - Expenditures

Membership Fees

2012 Membership Dues All Paid

Thanks

2013 Membership Dues 13 Paid

4 Unpaid


225

226

Introduction

This semi-annual report is submitted to Tulsa University Fluid Flow Projects (TUFFP) members to summarize activities since the October 16 2012 Advisory Board meeting and to assist in planning for the next six months It also serves as a basis for reporting progress and generating discussion at the 80th semi-annual Advisory Board meeting to be held in OneOK Club of H A Chapman Stadium of the University of Tulsa Main Campus 3112 East 8th Street Tulsa Oklahoma on Wednesday April 17 2013

The activities will start with TUFFP workshop on April 16 2013 between 100 pm and 300 pm in OneOK Club Several presentations will be made by TUFFP member companies Between 330 and 530 there will be a facility tour Several facilities will be operating during the tour Following the tour there will be a TUFFP reception between 600 pm and 930 pm in OneOK Club

TUFFP Advisory Board meeting will convene at 800 am on April 17 in OneOK Club of H A Chapman

Stadium and will adjourn at approximately 530 pm Following the meeting there will be a joint TUFFPTUPDP reception between 600 and 900 pm in OneOK Club

The Tulsa University Paraffin Deposition Projects (TUPDP) Advisory Board meeting will be held on April 18 in OneOK Club between 830 am and 230 pm Following the meeting between 300 and 500 pm there will be a facility tour Activities on April 18 will end with the reception of Tulsa University Horizontal Well Artificial Lift Projects (TUHWALP) between 600 and 900 pm in OneOK Club

TUHWALP meeting will convene at 830 am on April 19 in OneOK Club and will adjourn at approximately 300 pm

The following dates have tentatively been established for Fall 2013 Advisory Board meetings The venue for Fall 2013 Advisory Board meetings has not yet been determined

2013 Fall Meetings September 24 2013 TUPDP Advisory Board Meeting

Facility Tour ndash I TUFFP Workshop TUPDPTUFFP Reception

September 25 2013 TUFFP Advisory Board Meeting TUFFPTUHWALP Reception

September 26 2013 TUHWALP Advisory Board Meeting Facility Tour - II

227

228

Personnel

Dr Cem Sarica Professor of Petroleum Engineering continues as the Director of TUFFP TUPDP and TUHWALP

Dr Eduardo Pereyra continues to serve as the Associate Director of TUFFP Dr Pereyra will start serving as Assistant Professor of McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering effective fall 2013

Dr Brill continues to be involved as the director emeritus on a voluntary basis

Dr Carlos F Torres continues as Post-Doctoral Research Associate of TUFFP and TUHWALP consortia

Dr Jinho Choi has joined the staff as post-doctoral research associate effective Jan 2 2013 He is assigned to work on model development and software improvement for both TUFFP and TUPDP

Dr Abdel Al-Sarkhi of King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals serves as Research Associate Professor

Mr Scott Graham continues to serve as Project Engineer Scott oversees all of the facility operations and continues to be the senior electronics technician

Mr Craig Waldron continues as Research Technician addressing our needs in mechanical areas He also serves as a flow loop operator for TUPDP and Health Safety and Environment (HSE) officer

Mr Norman Stegall continues as the electro-mechanical technician

Mr Don Harris continues as the electronic research technician Don has been with TU for 23 years working for the College of Engineering and Natural Sciences as instrumentation technician

Mr Franklin Birt continues as the electronic research technician Franklin worked for Hydrates group for three years before joining our group

Ms Linda Jones continues as Project Coordinator She keeps the project accounts in addition to other responsibilities such as external communications providing computer support for graduate students publishing and distributing all research reports and deliverables

Ms Sherri Alexander has resigned from her position of Assistant to Project Coordinator effective February 7th

2013 due to health reasons

Ms Lori Watts of Petroleum Engineering is the web master for consortia websites

Table 1 updates the current status of all graduate students conducting research on TUFFP projects for the last six months

Mr Kiran Gawas from India has successfully completed his PhD degree requirements in Petroleum Engineering He studied Low Liquid Loading Three-phase Flow He has already started to work for Halliburton ndash MultiChem

Ms Mujgan Guner has successfully completed her MS degree requirements in Petroleum Engineering Mujgan studied Liquid Loading in Gas Wells She has started to work for Schlumberger - SPT after the completion of her studies

Mr Feras Al-Ruhaimani from Kuwait is pursuing a PhD Degree in Petroleum Engineering Mr Al-Ruhaimani has BS and MS degrees in Petroleum Engineering from Kuwait University He has also worked as petroleum engineer for Kuwait Oil Company for six years He is studying High Viscosity Oil Multiphase Flow

Mr Hamid Karami from Iran is pursuing his PhD degree in Petroleum Engineering Hamid has an MS degree in Petroleum Engineering from The University of Tulsa He is investigating the Effects of MEG on Multiphase Flow as part of his PhD study

Mr Yasser Al-Saadi from Saudi Arabia continues as a research assistant pursuing an MS degree in Petroleum Engineering He has worked for Saudi Aramco as a petroleum engineer prior to starting his MS degree program at the University of Tulsa He is studying Liquid Loading in Highly Deviated Gas Wells

Mr Hoyoung Lee has completed his studies in TUFFP by investigating minimum energy dissipation concept in modeling of two-phase stratified flow This was a part of the research collaboration between Seoul National University (SNU) and TUFFP Mr Lee has successfully completed PhD degree requirements of the department of Energy Resources Engineering at SNU

Two new SNU researchers Mr Jaejun Kim an MS student of SNU and Mr Mingon Chu a PhD student joined the team in August 2012 and December 2012

229

respectively They are assigned to High Viscosity Oil and Gas Flow in Inclined Pipes

Mr Selcuk Fidan of Turkey a PhD student is assigned to the High Viscosity Oil Research Currently he is focusing on his course work

Mr Duc Vuong rejoined the team as a PhD student at the beginning of Spring 2013 semester Duc has already BS and MS degrees from the University of

Tulsa His MS thesis work was completed under auspices of TUHOP studying high viscosity oil and water Duc is assigned to the project titled ldquoPressure Effects on Low Liquid Loading Two-phase Oil-Gas Flowrdquo This project requires the utilization of the new 6 in ID high pressure facility

A list of all telephone numbers and e-mail addresses for TUFFP personnel are given in Appendix A

230

Table 1

2013 Spring Research Assistant Status Name Origin Stipend Tuition Degree

Pursued TUFFP Project Completion

Date Alruhaimani Feras Kuwait Kuwait

University Kuwait

University PhD PE High Viscosity Oil

Multiphase Flow Spring 2014

Alsaadi Yasser Saudi Arabia

Saudi Aramco

Saudi Aramco

MS ndash PE Liquid Loading in Highly Deviated Gas Wells

Fall 2013

Chu Mingon South Korea

SNU SNU PhD ndash PE High Viscosity Oil Multiphase Flow

Fall 2014

Fidan Selcuk Turkey TU TU PhD ndash PE High Viscosity Oil Multiphase Flow

Spring 2016

Gawas Kiran India Yes ndash TUFFP

Waived (TU)

PhD ndash PE Three-phase Gas-Oil-Water Low Liquid Loading

Completed

Guner Mujgan Turkey Yes ndash TUFFP

Waived ndash (BSEE)

PhD ndash PE Liquid Loading of Gas Wells

Completed

Karami Hamid Iran Yes

TUFFP

Yes

TUFFP

PhD PE Effects of MEG on Multiphase Flow

Fall 2014

Kim Jaejun South Korea

SNU NA MS (SNU) High Viscosity Oil Multiphase Flow

Fall 2013

Lee Hoyoung South Korea

SNU NA PhD (SNU) Two-phase Gas-Liquid Flow Modeling Using Minimization Energy Dissipation Concept

Completed

Vuong Duc Vietnam TUFFP TUFFP PhD ndash PE Pressure Effects on Low Liquid Loading Two-phase Oil-Gas Flow

Fall 2016

231

232

Membership

The current membership of TUFFP is down from 18 to 17 for 2013 16 industrial members and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) We have lost two members SPT due to the sale of SPT Group to Schlumberger and JOGMEC due to changes in their research and technology development portfolio Our efforts to increase the TUFFP membership level will continue NTP Truboprovod Piping Systems Research amp Engineering Co of Russia has recently joined TUFFP DragOilUNAM Group DSME of South Korea Kongsberg and Repsol have shown interest in becoming a member

Table 2

Table 2 lists all the current 2013 TUFFP members A list of all Advisory Board representatives for these members with pertinent contact information appears in Appendix B A detailed history of TUFFP membership is given in Appendix C

The collaboration with Seoul National University is underway We are in year three of a three-year period We will work towards extending the collaboration for two more years Through the collaboration TUFFP receives about $55000year and visiting research scholars

2013 Fluid Flow Projects Membership

Aspen Tech Marathon Oil Company

Baker Atlas PEMEX

BSEE Petrobras

BP Piping Systems Research amp Engineering Co (NTP Truboprovod)

Chevron Saudi Aramco

ConocoPhillips Schlumberger

Exxon Mobil Shell Global Solutions

General Electric Total

KOC

233

234

Equipment and Facilities Status

Test Facilities

The 6 in ID High Pressure Facility has already been commissioned The Canty Visualization Device has been tested A high pressure wire mesh device has been ordered to be custom built

Three-phase 2 in ID facility test section is being modified for to study high viscosity oil multiphase flow in vertical and deviated pipe studies

The 2 in ID oil-gas facility has been changed from horizontal to inclined three-phase flow facility to continue to be used in high viscosity oil-gas research

A new clamp on capacitance sensor development is successfully completed and started to be used in our facilities

Detailed descriptions of these modification efforts appear in progress presentations given in this brochure A site plan showing the location of the various TUFFP and TUPDP test facilities on the North Campus is given in Fig 1

235

236

TO L

EWIS

AVE

M

ARSH

ALL

STR

EET

Spe

cial

Pro

ject

s Bui

ldin

g

N

TUD

CP

TUSTP

TUD

RP-

PEACTS

JIP

-PE

PARKIN

GTU

PDP-

PETU

ECP-

ME

TUSM

P-M

E

PE Lab Trailer

TUSTP Control Room

Bld

g Pr

oces

sTU

FFP-

PE

CO

LLEG

E O

F

TUH

FP-P

EChE

TEST

WEL

L

TUSTP

-PE

ME

MU

LTIP

HASE

ALP

INE

PERFO

RM

AN

CE

OF

Bui

ldin

gTU

DCP-

ChE

Hydrate Loop

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

AN

D N

ATU

RAL

SCIE

NCES

ES

Ps

LOO

P

TUALP

-PE

PETR

OLE

UM

NATU

RAL

SEP

ARATI

ON

RES

EARCH

CAM

PUS

LOO

P

2450

E

MARSH

ALL

HIL

LY T

ERRAIN

LO

OP

GAS L

IFT

VALV

E TE

STFA

CIL

ITY

SMALL SCALE FLOW LOOP

ME

H

YBRID

TU

ECRC

ELEC

TRIC

CARS

TUSM

P

PARKING

DRILL BUILDING

DRILL LAB

PARAFF

IN

MU

LTIP

HASE

LOO

P

TUPD

PFL

OW

ASSU

RAN

CE

LAB

LOW

LIQ

UID

LO

AD

ING

PARAFF

INM

E

LOO

PBU

ILD

ING

G

ASO

ILW

ATE

R L

OO

P

TUM

SP

PARAFF

IN S

ING

LE P

HASE

LOO

P

SEVERE SLUGGING LOOP

BP 6 - INCH FLOW LOOP

LOW

PRES

SU

RE

LOO

P

ARC

O B

UIL

DIN

G

ACTS

JIP

HIG

H P

RES

SU

RE

LOO

P TU

FFP

SH

OP

MACH

INE

SH

OP

STO

RAG

E

Figure

1 ‐Site

Plan

for the North

Cam

pus Research

Facilties

Financial Status

TUFFP maintains separate accounts for industrial and US government members Thus separate accounts are maintained for BSEE funds

Table 3 presents a financial analysis of income and expenditures for the 2012 Industrial member account as of March 22 2013 Also shown are previous 2012 budgets that have been reported to the members The total industry expenditures for 2012 are $736867 This results in a carryover of $464287 to 2013 fiscal year

Table 4 presents a financial analysis of expenditures and income for the BSEE Account for 2012 This account is used primarily for graduate student stipends A balance of $2278 is carried over to 2013 The University of Tulsa waives up to 19 hours

of tuition for each graduate student that is paid a stipend from the United States government BSEE funds

Tables 5 and 6 present the budgets and income for the Industrial and BSEE accounts for 2013 The 2013 TUFFP industrial budged is based on 17 members This provides $93500000 of industrial membership income for 2013 In addition TUFFP will receive facility utilization fee from SNU totaling $5500000 The total of the 2013 income and the reserve account is projected to be $1454287 The expenses for the industrial member account are proposed to be $1166361 leaving a carryover balance of $287926 to 2014 The BSEE account is expected to have a carryover of $10038 to 2014

237

Table 3 2012 Industrial Budget Summary

(Prepared March 22 2013) Reserve Fund Balance on January 1 2012 $211154 Income for 2012








Reserve as of 123112 $ 46428732

238

Table 4 2012 BSEE Budget Summary


Reserve Balance as of 123111 2012 Budget

237635 4800000



91000 Students - Monthly 91202 Student Fringe Benefits 95200 FampA

Budget 2812500 225000

1563750

2012 Expenditures

2940000 235200

1634640



239

Table 5 2013 Industrial Budget

(Prepared April 6 2013)










240

Table 6 2013 BSEE Budget









241

242

Miscellaneous Information

Fluid Flow Projects Short Course

The 38th TUFFP ldquoTwo-Phase Flow in Pipesrdquo short course will be taught April 29 ndash May 3 2013 There are currently 15 enrollees

Dr Abdel Al-Sarkhi Returns to TUFFP

Once again Dr Abdel Al-Sarkhi will be spending his summer with TUFFP research associates and research assistants helping them in their research projects

Jim Brill Receives OTC 2013 Heritage Award

Along with Dendy Sloan Professor Emeritus of Colorado School of Mines Jim Brill has been selected as a recipient of the 2013 Heritage Award of Offshore Technology Conference (OTC)

The Heritage Award recognizes long-term continuous distinguished service by an individual in one or more of the following areas of offshore technology (1) exploration (2) development and production (3) management and leadership and (4) research and development

We congratulate Jim on this well-deserved recognition We are proud to be part of his legacy

BHR Group Conference on Multiphase Technology

Since 1991 TUFFP has participated as a co-supporter of BHR Group Conferences on Multiphase Production TUFFP personnel participate in reviewing papers serving as session chairs and advertising the conference to our members This conference is one of the premier international event providing delegates with opportunities to discuss new research and developments to consider innovative solutions in multiphase production area

16th International Conference on Multiphase Technology supported by IFP IFE NEOTEC and TUFFP will be held 12-14 of June 2013 in Cannes France The conference will benefit anyone engaged in the application development and research of multiphase technology for the oil and gas industry Applications in the oil and gas industry will also be of interest to engineers from other industries for which multiphase technology offers a novel solution to their problems The conference will also be of particular value to designers facility and operations

engineers consultants and researchers from operating contracting consultancy and technology companies The conference brings together experts from across the American Continents and Worldwide The detailed information about the conference can be found in BHRgrsquos (wwwbrhgroupcom)

Two papers from the past TUFFP research are accepted to be presented at the conference

Publications amp Presentations

Since the last Advisory Board meeting the following publications and presentations are made

1) Choi J Pereyra P Sarica C Park C and Kang J M An Efficient Drift-Flux Closure Relationship to Estimate Liquid Holdups of Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Pipes Scheduled for publication in a future issue of the Journal Energies

2) Choi J Pereyra P Sarica C Lee H Jang I S and Kang J M Development of a Fast Transient Simulator for Gas-Liquid Two-phase Flow in Pipes Scheduled for publication in a future issue of Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

3) Yuan G Pereyra E Sarica C and Sutton R P An Experimental Study on Liquid Loading of Vertical and Deviated Gas Wells SPE 164516-MS Presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City Oklahoma USA 23-26 March 2013

Tulsa University Paraffin Deposition Projects (TUPDP)

The forth three year phase of TUPDP has recently been completed and the fifth three-year phase has been started effective April 1 2013 The new phase studies concentrate on the paraffin deposition characterization of single-phase turbulent flow with new oils gas-oil-water paraffin deposition and field verification

Tulsa University Heavy Oil Projects (TUHOP)

Tulsa University High Viscosity Oil Projects (TUHOP) Joint Industry Projects has been completed Not enough members have shown interest in continuation of TUHOP at this time Therefore it is proposed to merge TUHOP into TUFFP to pursue the high viscosity oil multiphase flow research more vigorously The TUHOP

243

deliverables generated during its existence will not be available to TUFFP members

Tulsa University Foam Flow Conditions (TUFFCP) Joint Industry Project (JIP)

This JIP investigates unloading of vertical gas wells using surfactants for a period of three years The JIP is funded by Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) which is an organization managing DOE funds and various oil and gas operating and service companies Current industrial members of the JIP are Chevron ConocoPhillips Marathon Shell Nalco and Multichem

Tulsa University Horizontal Well Artificial Lift Projects (TUHWALP)

TUHWALP consortium has been founded on July 1 2012 TUHWALP primarily addresses the artificial lift needs of horizontal wells drilled into gas and oil shales The membership fee is $50000 Current

members are ALDRC Anadarko (pending) BP Chesapeake Chevron ConocoPhillips Devon EnCana GE Marathon Norris Production Solutions Range Resources Shell SWN Weatherford and XTO

TUHWALPrsquos mission is to Advance the knowledge and effectiveness of

people who design and operate horizontal wells Develop recommended practices for artificial lift

of horizontal wells Make recommendations to improve the design

and operability of artificial lift for horizontal wells

Make recommendations to improve the selection deployment operation monitoring control and maintenance of artificial lift equipment and

Recommend artificial lift practices to optimize recovery of natural gas and associated liquids from horizontal wells

244

Appendix A

Personnel Contact Information Director Cem Sarica (918) 631-5154 cem-saricautulsaedu Associate Director Eduardo Pereyra (918) 631-5114 eduardo-pereyrautulsaedu Research Associate Jinho Choi (918) 631-5119 jinho-choiutulsaedu

Carlos Torres (918) 631-2152 cftutulsaedu Visiting Research Associate Abdel Al-Sarkhi alsarkhikfupmedusa

Director Emeritus James P Brill (918) 631-5114 brillutulsaedu Project Coordinator Linda M Jones (918) 631-5110 jonesutulsaedu Project Engineer Scott Graham (918) 631-5147 sdgrahamutulsaedu Research Technicians Franklin Birt (918) 631-5140 franklin-birtutulsaedu

Donald Harris (918) 631-2350 donald-harrisutulsaedu

Norman Stegall (918) 631-5133 norman-stegallutulsaedu

Craig Waldron (918) 631-5131 craig-waldronutulsaedu Research Assistants Feras Alruhaimani (918) 631-5119 feras-alruhaimaniutulsaedu

Yasser Alsaaid (918) 631-5115 yasser-alsaadiutulsaedu

Selcuk Fidan (918) 631-5157 sef008utulsaedu

Kiran Gawas (918) 631-5138 kiran-gawasutulsaedu

245

Mujgan Guner

Hamidreza Karami

Wei Zheng

Visiting Research Assistants Mingon Chu

Jaejun Kim

Maher Shariff

Huyoung Lee

Web Administrator Lori Watts

Fax Number Web Sites

(918) 631-5117 mujgan-gunerutulsaedu

(918) 631-5107 hk274utulsaedu

(918) 631-5124 wei-zhengutulsaedu

(918) 631-5115 mgc693utulsaedu

(918) 631-5124 jak330utulsaedu

(918) 631-2152 maher-shariffutulsaedu

(918) 631-5115 huyoung-leeutulsaedu

(918) 631-2979 lori-wattsutulsaedu

(918) 631-5112 wwwtuffputulsaedu

246

Appendix B

2013 Fluid Flow Projects Advisory Board Representatives

Aspen Tech Glenn Dissinger Benjamin Fischer Aspen Technology Inc Sr Principal Engineer 200 Wheeler Road Aspen Technology Inc Burlington MA 01803 200 Wheeler Road Phone (781) 221-5294 Burlington MA 01803 Fax (781) 221-5242 Phone (781) 221-4311 Email GlennDissingeraspentechcom Email BenjaminFischeraspentechcom

Baker Hughes Michael R Wells Director of Research Baker Hughes Phone (281) 363-6769 Fax (281) 363-6099 Email MikeWellsbakerhughescom

Shawn Wang Senior Applications EngineerAdvisor Baker Hughes 14990 Yorktown Plaza Drive Houston Texas 77040-4046 Phone (713) 934-4143 Fax (281) 231-1059 Email shawnwangbakerhughescom

Jeff Li Senior Project Engineer Coiled Tubing Research amp Engineering Baker Hughes 6620 36th Street SE Calgary Canada T2C 2G4 Phone 1 (403) 531-5481 Fax 1 (403) 531-6751 Email jlibjservicesca

Datong Sun Baker Hughes 2001 Rankin Road Houston Texas 77073 Phone (713) 879-2515 Email DatongSunbakerhughescom

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Julian Pham Sharon Buffington COR Petroleum Engineer BSEE US Department of Interior 381 Elden Street Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Mail Stop 2500 15109 Heathrow Forest Parkway Suite 200 Herndon VA 20170-4817 Houston Texas 77032-3887 Phone (703) 787-1147 Phone (281) 987-6815 Fax (703) 787-1555 Email JulianPhambseegov Email sharonbuffingtonbseegov

247

BP Official Representative amp UK Contact Alternate UK Contact Tim Lockett Andrew Hall Flow Assurance Engineer BP EPT Subsea and Floating Systems Pipeline Transportation Team EPT BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd 1H-54 Dyce Chertsey Road Sunbury-on-Thames Aberdeen AB21 7PB Middlesex TW16 7LN United Kingdom United Kingdom Phone (44 1224) 8335807 Phone 44 1932 771885 Fax Fax 44 1932 760466 Email halla9bpcom Email timlockettukbpcom

Alternate UK Contact US Contact Trevor Hill Taras Makogon BP BP EampP Engineering Technical Authority ndash Flow 501 Westlake Park Blvd Assurance Houston Texas 77079 Chertsey Road Phone (281) 366-8638 Sunbury on Thames Middlesex TW16 7BP Fax United Kingdom Email tarasmakogonbpcom Phone (44) 7879 486974 Fax Email trevorhillukbpcom

US Contact US Contact Yongqian Fan Oris Hernandez BP America Inc Flow Assurance Engineer Flow Assurance Engineer BP Upstream Engineering Center 501 Westlake Park Blvd 501 Westlake Park Blvd Houston Texas 77079 Houston Texas 77079 Phone (281) 366-5649 Phone (281) 504-9585 Fax Email yongqianfanbpcom Email orishernandezbpcom

Chevron Hariprasad Subramani Chevron Flow Assurance 1400 Smith Street Room 23192 Houston Texas 77002 Phone (713) 372-2657 Fax (713) 372-5991 Email hjsubramanichevroncom

Lee Rhyne Chevron Flow Assurance Team 1400 Smith Street Room 23188 Houston Texas 77002 Phone (713) 372-2674 Fax (713) 372-5991 Email leerhynechevroncom

248

ConocoPhillips Tom Danielson ConocoPhillips Inc 600 N Dairy Ashford 1036 Offshore Building Houston Texas 77079 Phone (281) 293-6120 Fax (281) 293-6504 Email tomjdanielsonconocophillipscom

Bahadir Gokcal ConocoPhillips Inc Senior Flow Assurance Engineer Global Production Engineering 600 N Dairy Ashford DU-1070 Houston Texas 77079 Phone (281) 293-3471 Fax (281) 293-2318 Email bahadirgokcalconocophillipscom

Hyun Lee ConocoPhillips Inc Production Assurance Technology Bartlesville Technology Center Bartlesville OK 74004 Phone (918) 661-5203 Email hyunsuleeconocophillipscom

Steve Appleyard ConocoPhillips Inc 238 GB Bartlesville Technology Center Highway 60 amp 123 Bartlesville OK 74004 Phone 918-661-7282 Fax 918-661-1320 Email SteveAppleyardconocophillipscom

Don Shatto ExxonMobil P O Box 2189 Houston Texas 77252-2189 Phone (713) 431-6911 Fax (713) 431-6387 Email donpshattoexxonmobilcom

Nader Berchane ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company Gas amp Facilities Division P O Box 2189 Houston Texas 77252-2189 Phone (713) 431-6059 Fax (713) 431-6322 Email naderberchaneexxonmobilcom

ExxonMobil Jiyong Cai ExxonMobil P O Box 2189 Houston Texas 77252-2189 Phone (713) 431-7608 Fax (713) 431-6387 Email jiyongcaiexxonmobilcom

249

General Electric Nick Ellson GE Oil amp Gas 2 High Street Nailsea Bristol BS48 1BS United Kingdom Phone (44) 1275 811 645 Email nickellsongecom

John Dan Friedemann Chief Engineer Subsea Processing and Flow Assurance GE Oil and Gas Eyvind Lyches vei 10 1338 Sandvika Norway Phone 4766985375 Email johnfriedemanngecom

Rogier Blom GE Global Research Phone Fax Email blomgecom

Eissa Alsafran Kuwait University College of Engineering and Petroleum Petroleum Engineering Department P O Box 5969 Safat ndash 13060 ndash Kuwait Phone (965) 4987699 Fax (965) 4849558 Email eisakunivedukw dr_ealsafranyahoocom

Bader S Al-Matar Snr Reservoir Engineer R amp T Subsurface Team Kuwait Oil Company P O Box 9758 Ahmadi ndash Kuwait 61008 Phone (965) 398-9111 ext 67708 Email bmatarkockwcom

Kuwait Oil Company Ahmad K Al-Jasmi Team Leader R amp T (Surface) Research and Technology Group Industrial Area Kuwait Oil Company P O Box 9758 Ahmadi ndash Kuwait 61008 Phone (965) 3984126 (965) 3866771 Fax (965) 3989414 Email ajasmikockwcom

Mariam Zerai Kuwait Oil Company Petroleum Engineer Research and Technology P O Box 9758 Ahmadi Kuwait 61008 Phone (965) 238 72095 Email MZeraikockwcom

250

Rob Sutton Marathon Oil Company P O Box 3128 Room 3343 Houston Texas 77253 Phone (713) 296-3360 Fax (713) 296-4259 Email rpsuttonmarathonoilcom

Marathon Oil Company

PEMEX Tomas Eduardo Perez Official Representatives Pending Marina Nacional 329 Torre Ejecutiva Piso 41 Colonia Petroacuteleos Mexicanos Meacutexico DF CP 11311

Petrobras Renan Martins Baptista Petrobras Cidade Universitaria ndash Quadra 7 ndash Ilha do Fundao CENPESPDEPTEEA Rio de Janeiro 21949-900 Brazil Phone (5521) 2162 6711 Fax Email renanbaptistapetrobrascombr

Marcelo Goncalves Petrobras Cidade Universitaria ndash Quadra 7 ndash Ilha do Fundao CENPESPDEPTEEA Rio de Janeiro 21949-900 Brazil Phone (5521) 38656712 Fax (5521) 38656796 Email marcelogpetrobrascombr

251

Piping Systems Research amp Engineering Co (NTP Truboprovod) Leonid Korelstein Piping Systems Research amp Engineering Company Plehanova str 7 Bld 1 111141 Moscow Russia Phone +7-495-2259431 Email Korelsteintruboprovodru

Tatyana V Kuznecova Piping Systems Research amp Engineering Company Plehanova str 7 Bld 1 111141 Moscow Russia Phone +7-495-3063461 Email Kuznecovatruboprovodru

Alexey Babenko Piping Systems Research amp Engineering Company Plehanova str 7 Bld 1 111141 Moscow Russia Phone +7-495-3063461 Email Babenkotruboprovodru

Elena Yudovina Piping Systems Research amp Engineering Company Plehanova str 7 Bld 1 111141 Moscow Russia Phone +7-495-2259431 Email Yudovinatruboprovodru

Sergey Lisin Piping Systems Research amp Engineering Company Plehanova str 7 Bld 1 111141 Moscow Russia Phone +7-495-3063461 Email Lisintruboprovodru

Saudi Aramco Mikal Espedal Satya Putra Saudi Arabian Oil Company Saudi Arabian Oil Company Petroleum Eng Specialist Flow Assurance Email satyaputraaramcocom Petroleum Engineering Support Division Production amp Facilities Development Dept P O Box 6535 Dhahran 31311 Saudi Arabia Phone (966 3) 873-9497 Fax (966 3) 873-3357 Email mikalespedalaramcocom

252

Schlumberger Mack Shippen Schlumberger 5599 San Felipe Suite 1700 Houston Texas 77056 Phone (713) 513-2532 Fax (713) 513-2042 Email mshippenslbcom

Pablo Adames Principal Consultant 750 635 8th Avenue SW Calgary CA Phone (403) 277-6688 Email PAdamesexchangeslbcom

Richard Shea SPTSchlumberger 11490 Westheimer Suite 720 Houston Texas 77077 Phone (281) 496-9898 ext 11 Fax (281) 496-9950 Email richardsheasptgroupcom

Maria Vielma Production Engineer Schlumberger Information Solutions 1625 Broadway Suite 1300 Denver Colorado 80202 Phone (303) 389-4438 Fax (303) 595-00667 Email mvielmadenveroilfieldslbcom

William Bailey Principal Schlumberger ndash Doll Research 1 Hampshire Street MD-B213 Cambridge MA 02139 Phone (617) 768-2075 Fax Email wbaileyslbcom

Lee Norris SPTSchlumberger 11490 Westheimer Suite 720 Houston Texas 77077 Phone (281) 496-9898 ext 14 Fax (281) 496-9950 Email hlnsptgroupcom

Rusty Lacy Fluid Flow (OGUF) Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc Westhollow Technology Center 3333 Hwy 6 South Houston Texas 77082-3101 Phone (281) 544-7309 Fax (281) 544-8427 Email rustylacyshellcom

Leonid Dykhno Sr Staff Research Engineer Team Leader ndash Flow Assurance Shell Global Solutions 3333 Highway 6 South Houston Texas 77082-3101 Phone (281) 544-8909 Email leoniddykhnoshellcom

Shell Global Solutions Ulf Andresen Fluid Flow Engineer Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc Westhollow Technology Center 3333 Hwy 6 South Houston Texas 77082 Phone (281) 544-6424 Fax Email ulfandresenshellcom

253

TOTAL Pravin Subramanian Flow Assurance Research Engineer Engineering and Technology TOTAL E amp P USA 1201 Louisiana Street Suite 1800 Houston Texas 77002 Phone (713) 647-3411 Email pravinsubramaniantotalcom

Thierry Palermo TOTAL Email thierrypalermototalcom

Fabien Papot TOTAL Exploration amp Production DGEPSCREDECP 2 place Jean Millier ndash La Defense 6 92078 Paris la Defense Cedex - France Phone (33) 1 47 44 82 78 Email fabienpapottotalcom

Florent Fournier Flow Assurance Engineer Total EampP Research amp Technology USA 1201 Louisiana Suite 1800 Houston Texas 77002 Phone (713) 647 3603

254

Appendix C

History of Fluid Flow Projects Membership

1973 1 TRW Reda Pump 12 Jun 72 T 21 Oct 77

2 Pemex 15 Jun 72 T 30 Sept rsquo96 R Dec rsquo97 T 2010 R 2012 Current

3 Getty Oil Co 19 Jun 72 T 11 Oct 84 with sale to Texaco

4 Union Oil Co of California 7 Jul 72 T for 2001

5 Intevep 3 Aug 72 TR from CVP in 77 T 21 Jan rsquo05 for 2006

6 Marathon Oil Co 3 Aug 72 T 17 May lsquo85 R 25 June 90 T 14 Sept lsquo94 R 3 June lsquo97 Current

7 Arco Oil and Gas Co 7 Aug 72 T 08 Dec lsquo97

8 AGIP 6 Sep 72 T 18 Dec 74

9 Otis Engineering Corp 4 Oct 72 T 15 Oct 82

10 ConocoPhillips Inc 5 Oct 72 T Aug 85 R 5 Dec 86 Current

11 Mobil Research and Development Corp 13 Oct 72 T 27 Sep 2000

12 Camco Inc 23 Oct 72 T 15 Jan 76 R 14 Mar 79 T 5 Jan 84

13 Crest Engineering Inc 27 Oct 72 T 14 Nov 78 R 19 Nov 79 T 1 Jun 84

14 Chevron 3 Nov 72 Current

15 Aminoil 9 Nov 72 T 1 Feb 77

255

16 Compagnie Francaise des Petroles 6 Dec 72 T 22 Mar 85 (TOTAL) R 23 Oct 90

T 18 Sep rsquo01 for 2002 R 18 Nov lsquo02 Current

17 Oil Service Co of Iran 19 Dec 72 T 20 Dec 79

18 Sun Exploration and Production Co 4 Jan 73 T 25 Oct 79 R 13 Apr 82 T 6 Sep 85

19 Amoco Production Co 18 May 73 (now as BP Amoco)

20 Williams Brothers Engrg Co 25 May 73 T 24 Jan 83

1974 21 Gulf Research and Development Co 20 Nov 73 T Nov 84

with sale to Chevron

22 El Paso Natural Gas Co 17 Dec 73 T 28 Oct 77

23 Arabian Gulf Exploration Co 27 Mar 74 T 24 Oct 82

24 ExxonMobil Upstream Research 27 Mar 74 T 16 Sep 86 R 1 Jan 88 T 27 Sep 2000 R 2007 Current

25 Bechtel Inc 29 May 74 T 14 Dec 76 R 7 Dec 78 T 17 Dec 84

26 Saudi Arabian Oil Co 11 Jun 74 T for 1999 R for 2003 T for 2007 R for 2012 Current

27 Petrobras 6 Aug 74 T for 2000 R for 2005 Current

1975 28 ELF Exploration Production 24 Jul 74 T 24 Feb 76

(now as TotalFina Elf) Tr from Aquitaine Co of Canada 19 Mar 81 T 29 Jan 87 R 17 Dec lsquo91

29 Cities Service Oil and Gas Corp 21 Oct 74 T 25 Oct 82 R 27 Jun 84

256

T 22 Sep 86

30 Texas Eastern Transmission Corp 19 Nov 74 T 23 Aug 82

31 Aquitaine Co of Canada Ltd 12 Dec 74 T 6 Nov 80

32 Texas Gas Transmission Corp 4 Mar 75 T 7 Dec 89

1976 33 Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co 15 Oct 75 T 7 Aug 85

34 Phillips Petroleum Co 10 May 76 T Aug 94 R Mar 98 T 2002

1977 35 N V Nederlandse Gasunie 11 Aug 76 T 26 Aug 85

36 Columbia Gas System Service Corp 6 Oct 76 T 15 Oct 85

37 Consumers Power Co 11 Apr 77 T 14 Dec 83

38 ANR Pipeline Co 13 Apr 77 TR from Michigan- Wisconsin Pipeline Co in 1984 T 26 Sep 84

39 Scientific Software-Intercomp 28 Apr 77 TR to Kaneb from Intercomp 16 Nov 77 TR to SSI in June 83 T 23 Sep 86

40 FlopetrolJohnston-Schlumberger 5 May 77 T 8 Aug 86

1978 41 Norsk Hydro as 13 Dec 77 T 5 Nov 82

R 1 Aug 84 T 8 May lsquo96

42 Dresser Industries Inc 7 Jun 78 T 5 Nov 82

1979 43 Sohio Petroleum Co 17 Nov 78 T 1 Oct 86

44 Esso Standard Libya 27 Nov 78 T 2 Jun 82

45 Shell Internationale Petroleum MIJ BV 30 Jan 79 T Sept 98 for 1999 (SIPM)

1980 46 Fluor Ocean Services Inc 23 Oct 79 T 16 Sep 82

47 Texaco 30 Apr 80 T 20 Sep rsquo01 for 2002

257

48 BG Technology (Advantica) 15 Sep 80 T 2003

49 Det Norske Veritas 1981 15 Aug 80 T 16 Nov 82

1982 50 Arabian Oil Co Ltd 11 May 82 T Octrsquo01 for 2002

51 Petro Canada 25 May 82 T28 Oct 86

52 Chiyoda 3 Jun 82 T 4 Apr lsquo94

53 BP 7 Oct 81 Current

1983 54 Pertamina 10 Jan 83 T for 2000

R March 2006

1984 55 Nippon Kokan K K 28 Jun 83 T 5 Sept lsquo94

56 Britoil 20 Sep 83 T 1 Oct 88

57 TransCanada Pipelines 17 Nov 83 T30 Sep 85

58 Natural Gas Pipeline Co of America 13 Feb 84 T16 Sep 87 (Midcon Corp)

59 JGC Corp 12 Mar 84 T 22 Aug lsquo94

60 STATOIL 1985 23 Oct 85 T16 Mar 89

61 JOGMEC (formerly Japan National Oil Corp)

1986 3 Oct 86 T 2003

R 2007 T 5 Sept lsquo12

1988 62 China National Oil and Gas Exploration 29 Aug 87 T17 Jul 89

and Development Corporation

63 Kerr McGee Corp 8 Jul 88 T17 Sept 92

1989 64 Simulation Sciences Inc 19 Dec 88 T for 2001

1991 65 Advanced Multiphase Technology 7 Nov 90 T28 Dec lsquo92

258

66 Petronas 1 Apr lsquo91 T 02 Mar 98 R 1 Jan 2001 T Nov 2008 for 2009

1992 67 Instituto Colombiano Del Petroleo 19 July lsquo91 T 3 Sep rsquo01 for 2002

68 Institut Francais Du Petrole 16 July 91 T 8 June 2000

69 Oil amp Natural Gas Commission of India 27 Feb 92 T Sept 97 for 1998

1994 70 Baker Jardine amp Associates Dec lsquo93 T 22 Sept lsquo95 for 1996

1998 71 Baker Hughes Dec 97 Current

72 Bureau of Safety and Environmental May 98 Current Enforcement (BSEE)

2002 73 Schlumberger Overseas SA Aug 02 Current

74 Saudi Aramco Mar 03 T for 2007

2004 75 YUKOS Dec lsquo03 T 2005

76 Landmark Graphics Oct lsquo04 T 2008

2005 77 Rosneft July lsquo05 T 2010

2006 78 Tenaris T Sept 2008 ndash for 2009

79 Shell Global Current

80 Kuwait Oil Company Current

2009 81 SPT T 2013 (Merger)

2011 82 General Electric Current

83 Aspen Technology Inc Current

2013 84 Piping Systems Research amp Engineering Current

Co (NTP Truboprovod)

259

Note T = Terminated R = Rejoined and TR = Transferred

260

Appendix D

Fluid Flow Projects Deliverables1

1 An Experimental Study of Oil-Water Flowing Mixtures in Horizontal Pipes by M S Malinowsky (1975)

2 Evaluation of Inclined Pipe Two-Phase Liquid Holdup Correlations Using Experimental Data by C M Palmer (1975)

3 Experimental Evaluation of Two-Phase Pressure Loss Correlations for Inclined Pipe by G A Payne (1975)

4 Experimental Study of Gas-Liquid Flow in a Pipeline-Riser Pipe System by Z Schmidt (1976)

5 Two-Phase Flow in an Inclined Pipeline-Riser Pipe System by S Juprasert (1976)

6 Orifice Coefficients for Two-Phase Flow Through Velocity Controlled Subsurface Safety Valves by J P Brill H D Beggs and N D Sylvester (Final Report to American Petroleum Institute Offshore Safety and Anti-Pollution Research Committee OASPR Project No 1 September 1976)

7 Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction by M E Vasquez A (1976)

8 An Empirical Method of Predicting Temperatures in Flowing Wells by K J Shiu (1976)

9 An Experimental Study on the Effects of Flow Rate Water Fraction and Gas-Liquid Ratio on Air-Oil-Water Flow in Horizontal Pipes by G C Laflin and K D Oglesby (1976)

10 Study of Pressure Drop and Closure Forces in Velocity- Type Subsurface Safety Valves by H D Beggs and J P Brill (Final Report to American Petroleum Institute Offshore Safety and Anti-Pollution Research Committee OSAPR Project No 5 July 1977)

11 An Experimental Study of Two-Phase Oil-Water Flow in Inclined Pipes by H Mukhopadhyay (September 1 1977)

12 A Numerical Simulation Model for Transient Two-Phase Flow in a Pipeline by M W Scoggins Jr (October 3 1977)

13 Experimental Study of Two-Phase Slug Flow in a Pipeline-Riser Pipe System by Z Schmidt (1977)

14 Drag Reduction in Two-Phase Gas-Liquid Flow (Final Report to American Gas Association Pipeline Research Committee 1977)

15 Comparison and Evaluation of Instrumentation for Measuring Multiphase Flow Variables in Pipelines Final Report to Atlantic Richfield Co by J P Brill and Z Schmidt (January 1978)

16 An Experimental Study of Inclined Two-Phase Flow by H Mukherjee (December 30 1979)

1 Completed TUFFP Projects ndash each project consists of three deliverables ndash report data and software Please see the TUFFP website

261

17 An Experimental Study on the Effects of Oil Viscosity Mixture Velocity and Water Fraction on Horizontal Oil-Water Flow by K D Oglesby (1979)

18 Experimental Study of Gas-Liquid Flow in a Pipe Tee by S E Johansen (1979)

19 Two Phase Flow in Piping Components by P Sookprasong (1980)

20 Evaluation of Orifice Meter Recorder Measurement Errors in Lower and Upper Capacity Ranges by J Fujita (1980)

21 Two-Phase Metering by I B Akpan (1980)

22 Development of Methods to Predict Pressure Drop and Closure Conditions for Velocity-Type Subsurface Safety Valves by H D Beggs and J P Brill (Final Report to American Petroleum Institute Offshore Safety and Anti-Pollution Research Committee OSAPR Project No 10 February 1980)

23 Experimental Study of Subcritical Two-Phase Flow Through Wellhead Chokes by A A Pilehvari (April 20 1981)

24 Investigation of the Performance of Pressure Loss Correlations for High Capacity Wells by L Rossland (1981)

25 Design Manual Mukherjee and Brill Inclined Two-Phase Flow Correlations (April 1981)

26 Experimental Study of Critical Two-Phase Flow through Wellhead Chokes by A A Pilehvari (June 1981)

27 Experimental Study of Pressure Wave Propagation in Two-Phase Mixtures by S Vongvuthipornchai (March 16 1982)

28 Determination of Optimum Combination of Pressure Loss and PVT Property Correlations for Predicting Pressure Gradients in Upward Two-Phase Flow by L G Thompson (April 16 1982)

29 Hydrodynamic Model for Intermittent Gas Lifting of Viscous Oils by O E Fernandez (April 16 1982)

30 A Study of Compositional Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines by H Furukawa (May 26 1982)

31 Supplementary Data Calculated Results and Calculation Programs for TUFFP Well Data Bank by L G Thompson (May 25 1982)

32 Measurement of Local Void Fraction and Velocity Profiles for Horizontal Slug Flow by P B Lukong (May 26 1982)

33 An Experimental Verification and Modification of the McDonald-Baker Pigging Model for Horizontal Flow by S Barua (June 2 1982)

34 An Investigation of Transient Phenomena in Two-Phase Flow by K Dutta-Roy (October 29 1982)

35 A Study of the Heading Phenomenon in Flowing Oil Wells by A J Torre (March 18 1983)

36 Liquid Holdup in Wet-Gas Pipelines by K Minami (March 15 1983)

37 An Experimental Study of Two-Phase Oil-Water Flow in Horizontal Pipes by S Arirachakaran (March 31 1983)

262

38 Simulation of Gas-Oil Separator Behavior Under Slug Flow Conditions by W F Giozza (March 31 1983)

39 Modeling Transient Two-Phase Flow in Stratified Flow Pattern by Y Sharma (July 1983)

40 Performance and Calibration of a Constant Temperature Anemometer by F Sadeghzadeh (August 25 1983)

41 A Study of Plunger Lift Dynamics by L Rosina (October 7 1983)

42 Evaluation of Two-Phase Flow Pressure Gradient Correlations Using the AGA Gas-Liquid Pipeline Data Bank by E Caetano F (February 1 1984)

43 Two-Phase Flow Splitting in a Horizontal Pipe Tee by O Shoham (May 2 1984)

44 Transient Phenomena in Two-Phase Horizontal Flowlines for the Homogeneous Stratified and Annular Flow Patterns by K Dutta-Roy (May 31 1984)

45 Two-Phase Flow in a Vertical Annulus by E Caetano F (July 31 1984)

46 Two-Phase Flow in Chokes by R Sachdeva (March 15 1985)

47 Analysis of Computational Procedures for Multi-Component Flow in Pipelines by J Goyon (June 18 1985)

48 An Investigation of Two-Phase Flow Through Willis MOV Wellhead Chokes by D W Surbey (August 6 1985)

49 Dynamic Simulation of Slug Catcher Behavior by H Genceli (November 6 1985)

50 Modeling Transient Two-Phase Slug Flow by Y Sharma (December 10 1985)

51 The Flow of Oil-Water Mixtures in Horizontal Pipes by A E Martinez (April 11 1986)

52 Upward Vertical Two-Phase Flow Through An Annulus by E Caetano F (April 28 1986)

53 Two-Phase Flow Splitting in a Horizontal Reduced Pipe Tee by O Shoham (July 17 1986)

54 Horizontal Slug Flow Modeling and Metering by G E Kouba (September 11 1986)

55 Modeling Slug Growth in Pipelines by S L Scott (October 30 1987)

56 RECENT PUBLICATIONS - A collection of articles based on previous TUFFP research reports that have been published or are under review for various technical journals (October 31 1986)

57 TUFFP CORE Software Users Manual Version 20 by Lorri Jefferson Florence Kung and Arthur L Corcoran III (March 1989)

58 Simplified Modeling and Simulation of Transient Two Phase Flow in Pipelines by Y Taitel (April 29 1988)

59 RECENT PUBLICATIONS - A collection of articles based on previous TUFFP research reports that have been published or are under review for various technical journals (April 19 1988)

263

60 Severe Slugging in a Pipeline-Riser System Experiments and Modeling by S J Vierkandt (November 1988)

61 A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-Phase Flow by A Ansari (December 1988)

62 Modeling Slug Growth in Pipelines Software Users Manual by S L Scott (June 1989)

63 Prudhoe Bay Large Diameter Slug Flow Experiments and Data Base System Users Manual by S L Scott (July 1989)

64 Two-Phase Slug Flow in Upward Inclined Pipes by G Zheng (Dec 1989)

65 Elimination of Severe Slugging in a Pipeline-Riser System by F E Jansen (May 1990)

66 A Mechanistic Model for Predicting Annulus Bottomhole Pressures for Zero Net Liquid Flow in Pumping Wells by D Papadimitriou (May 1990)

67 Evaluation of Slug Flow Models in Horizontal Pipes by C A Daza (May 1990)

68 A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines by J J Xiao (Aug 1990)

69 Two-Phase Flow in Low Velocity Hilly Terrain Pipelines by C Sarica (Aug 1990)

70 ldquoTwo-Phase Slug Flow Splitting Phenomenon at a Regular Horizontal Side-Arm Teerdquo by S Arirachakaran (Dec 1990)

71 RECENT PUBLICATIONS - A collection of articles based on previous TUFFP research reports that have been published or are under review for various technical journals (May 1991)

72 Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal Wells by M Ihara (October 1991)

73 Two-Phase Slug Flow in Hilly Terrain Pipelines by G Zheng (October 1991)

74 Slug Flow Phenomena in Inclined Pipes by I Alves (October 1991)

75 Transient Flow and Pigging Dynamics in Two-Phase Pipelines by K Minami (October 1991)

76 Transient Drift Flux Model for Wellbores by O Metin Gokdemir (November 1992)

77 Slug Flow in Extended Reach Directional Wells by Heacutector Felizola (November 1992)

78 Two-Phase Flow Splitting at a Tee Junction with an Upward Inclined Side Arm by Peter Ashton (November 1992)

79 Two-Phase Flow Splitting at a Tee Junction with a Downward Inclined Branch Arm by Viswanatha Raju Penmatcha (November 1992)

80 Annular Flow in Extended Reach Directional Wells by Rafael Jose Paz Gonzalez (May 1994)

81 An Experimental Study of Downward Slug Flow in Inclined Pipes by Philippe Roumazeilles (November 1994)

82 An Analysis of Imposed Two-Phase Flow Transients in Horizontal Pipelines Part-1 Experimental Results by Fabrice Vigneron (March 1995)

264

83 Investigation of Single Phase Liquid Flow Behavior in a Single Perforation Horizontal Well by Hong Yuan (March 1995)

84 ldquo1995 Data Documentation Userrsquos Manualrdquo (October 1995)

85 ldquoRecent Publicationsrdquo A collection of articles based on previous TUFFP research reports that have been published or are under review for various technical journals (February 1996)

86 ldquo1995 Final Report - Transportation of Liquids in Multiphase Pipelines Under Low Liquid Loading Conditionsrdquo Final report submitted to Penn State University for subcontract on GRI Project

87 ldquoA Unified Model for Stratified-Wavy Two-Phase Flow Splitting at a Reduced Tee Junction with an Inclined Branch Armrdquo by Srinagesh K Marti (February 1996)

88 ldquoOil-Water Flow Patterns in Horizontal Pipesrdquo by Joseacute Luis Trallero (February 1996)

89 ldquoA Study of Intermittent Flow in Downward Inclined Pipesrdquo by Jiede Yang (June 1996)

90 ldquoSlug Characteristics for Two-Phase Horizontal Flowrdquo by Robert Marcano (November 1996)

91 ldquoOil-Water Flow in Vertical and Deviated Wellsrdquo by Joseacute Gonzalo Flores (October 1997)

92 ldquo1997 Data Documentation and Software Userrsquos Manualrdquo by Avni S Kaya Gerad Gibson and Cem Sarica (November 1997)

93 ldquoInvestigation of Single Phase Liquid Flow Behavior in Horizontal Wellsrdquo by Hong Yuan (March 1998)

94 ldquoComprehensive Mechanistic Modeling of Two-Phase Flow in Deviated Wellsrdquo by Avni Serdar Kaya (December 1998)

95 ldquoLow Liquid Loading Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Near-Horizontal Pipesrdquo by Weihong Meng (August 1999)

96 ldquoAn Experimental Study of Two-Phase Flow in a Hilly-Terrain Pipelinerdquo by Eissa Mohammed Al-Safran (August 1999)

97 ldquoOil-Water Flow Patterns and Pressure Gradients in Slightly Inclined Pipesrdquo by Banu Alkaya (May 2000)

98 ldquoSlug Dissipation in Downward Flow ndash Final Reportrdquo by Hong-Quan Zhang Jasmine Yuan and James P Brill (October 2000)

99 ldquoUnified Model for Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow ndash Model Development and Validationrdquo by Hong-Quan Zhang (January 2002)

100 ldquoA Comprehensive Mechanistic Heat Transfer Model for Two-Phase Flow with High-Pressure Flow Pattern Validationrdquo PhD Dissertation by Ryo Manabe (December 2001)

101 ldquoRevised Heat Transfer Model for Two-Phase Flowrdquo Final Report by Qian Wang (March 2003)

102 ldquoAn Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Slug Flow Characteristics in the Valley of a Hilly-Terrain Pipelinerdquo PhD Dissertation by Eissa Mohammed Al-safran (May 2003)

103 ldquoAn Investigation of Low Liquid Loading Gas-Liquid Stratified Flow in Near-Horizontal Pipesrdquo PhD Dissertation by Yongqian Fan

265

104 ldquoSevere Slugging Prediction for Gas-Oil-Water Flow in Pipeline-Riser Systemsrdquo MS Thesis by Carlos Andreacutes Beltraacuten Romero (2005)

105 ldquoDroplet-Homophase Interaction Study (Development of an Entrainment Fraction Model) ndash Final Reportrdquo Xianghui Chen (2005)

106 ldquoEffects of High Oil Viscosity on Two-Phase Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Horizontal Pipesrdquo MS Thesis by Bahadir Gokcal (2005)

107 ldquoCharacterization of Oil-Water Flows in Horizontal Pipesrdquo MS Thesis by Maria Andreina Vielma Paredes (2006)

108 ldquoCharacterization of Oil-Water Flows in Inclined Pipesrdquo MS Thesis by Serdar Atmaca (2007)

109 ldquoAn Experimental Study of Low Liquid Loading Gas-Oil-Water Flow in Horizontal Pipesrdquo MS Thesis by Hongkun Dong (2007)

110 ldquoAn Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Slug Flow for High Oil Viscosity in Horizontal Pipesrdquo PhD Dissertation by Bahadir Gokcal (2008)

111 ldquoModeling of Gas-Liquid Flow in Upward Vertical Annulirdquo MS Thesis by Tingting Yu (2009)

112 ldquoModeling of Hydrodynamics of Oil-Water Pipe Flow using Energy Minimization Conceptrdquo MS Thesis by Anoop Kumar Sharma (2009)

113 ldquoLiquid Entrainment in Annular Gas-Liquid Flow in Inclined Pipesrdquo MS Thesis by Kyle L Magrini (2009)

114 ldquoSlug Flow Evolution in Three-Phase Gas-Oil-Water Flow in Hilly-Terrain Pipelinesrdquo PhD Dissertation by Gizem Ersoy Gokcal

115 Effects of High Oil Viscosity on Slug Liquid Holdup in Horizontal Pipes MS Thesis by Ceyda Kora (2010)

116 Effect of Pipe Inclination on Flow Characteristics of High Viscosity Oil-Gas Two-Phase Flow MS Thesis by Benin Chelinsky Jeyachandra (2011)

117 ldquoLiquid Loading of Gas Wellsrdquo MS Thesis by Ge Yuan (2011)

118 ldquoDevelopment of a Transient Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow Model Using Drift-Flux Approachrdquo PhD Dissertation by Jinho Choi (July 2012)

119 ldquoEffect of Medium Oil Viscosity on Two-Phase Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Horizontal Pipesrdquo MS Thesis by Rosmer Brito (September 2012)

120 ldquoUnified Heat Transfer Model of Gas-Oil-Water Pipe Flowrdquo MS Thesis by Wei Zheng (December 2012)

121 ldquoLiquid Loading of Gas Wells with Deviations from 0deg to 45degrdquo MS Thesis by Mujgan Guner (December 2012)

122 Low-Liquid Loading Studies in Horizontal and Near-Horizontal GasOilWater Three-Phase Pipe Flow PhD Dissertation by Kiran Gawas (March 2013)

266

Structure Bookmarks

1

bull

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

frac34

6

6

6

0 02 04 06 08

SL =01 ms)

SL =001 ms)

1

bull

o Inclination Angle from 0ordm to 90ordm

o Viscosity Effects

1 Zukoski (1966)

bull

30

35

38

T 26 Sep 84

39

T 23 Sep 86

41

42

50

55

1

17

83

Tulsa University Fluid Flow Projects Eightieth Semi-Annual Advisory Board Meeting

April 16 - 17 2013

Agenda

Tuesday April 16 2013 1200 pm TUFFP Workshop Luncheon

H A Chapman Stadium ndash OneOK Club 3112 East 8th Street Tulsa Oklahoma 74104

100 TUFFP Workshop H A Chapman Stadium ndash OneOK Club 3112 East 8th Street Tulsa Oklahoma 74104

330 TUFFP Facility Tour University of Tulsa North Campus 2450 East Marshall Tulsa Oklahoma 74110

600 TUFFP Reception H A Chapman Stadium ndash OneOK Club 3112 East 8th Street Tulsa Oklahoma 74104

Wednesday April 17 2013 TUFFP Advisory Board Meeting

Venue H A Chapman Stadium ndash OneOK Club 3112 East 8th Street Tulsa Oklahoma

800 am Breakfast

830 Introduction Cem Sarica

845 Progress Report Low Liquid Loading Three-Phase Flow Kiran Gawas

Effects of MEG on Multiphase Flow Behavior Hamid Karami

Update of 6rdquo High Pressure Facility Duc Vuong

1015 Coffee Break

1030 Progress Reports Modeling of Hydrodynamics of Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow using Energy Eduardo Pereyra Minimization Concept

Liquid Loading of Gas Wells with Deviations from 0 to 45deg Mujgan Guner

i


1200 pm Lunch


Carlos Torres



Jose Moreiras


Jaejun Kim

245 Coffee Break


Feras Alruhamani





500 Adjourn


ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1













iii






iv

Executive Summary














1


















2












3

4

Fluid Flow Projects


Welcome


Safety Moment


Restrooms


5





Registration Table


Team








6

Team hellip






Team hellip









7

Team hellip



Jaejun Kim

Hoyoung Lee


Guests




Steve Coleman

DSME Representative

Tod Canty JM Canty


8

Agenda



Behavior


Activities

1015 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip






9

Agenda hellip

1200 Lunch






245 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip




TUHOP Incorporation


10

Agenda hellip


430 Open Discussion

500 Adjourn



Other Activities






11

12

t

Fluid Flow Projects


Horizontal Pipes

Kiran Gawas


Outline

6 Objectives





6 Conclusions

6 Recommendations


13

Objectives




Introduction





14

15



Test Section

46m 46m 8 2m 82m 9 1m 91m 9 1m 91m 7 1m 71m

P P DP DP

DP T

DP

QCV QCV

QCV QCV

DP T DP

QCV

DP DP P P

71m 91m 91m 82m

564m


16

ndash

Test Fluids

6 Test Fluid



ρ = 1000 kgm3

μ = 1 cP



ρ = 760 kgm3

μ = 135 cP




Glycerin

Pipe


DAQ Light Light

Source


Setup

Flow Direction

6 15


Pressure Gauze

Separator




6 Flow Pattern


6 Droplet Size

6 Droplet Flux





17

18


Dong (2007)

Current Study











25 100

5

10

15

20

25

f v (d

P ) (

)

Bottom

Middle

Top

20

40

60

80

100

F v (

d P )

()

Bottom

Middle

Top


0

0 200 400 600 800

dp (microns)

0

0 200 400 600 800 dp (microns)

19

20

f v (

)

f v (d

P)

()


25 100

90

20 80 Bottom

Bottom 70 Middle

Middle 15 Top

10 Fv (d

P)

()

Top 60

50

40

30

20 5

10

0 0 0 200 400 600 800




10020




12

10

Fv

() 60

8 40

66

4 20

2

0 0

0 100 200 300 400

dp (microns)

500 600 0 100 200 300 dp (microns)

400 500



10 15 20 25 30

vSG (ms)



1000d 3

2 (m

icro

ns)

100

10

1

Bottom Middle




10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

vSG (ms)



1000

100

d 32

(mic

ron

s)

Bottom Middle



10


21


dmax= 29155 d32

900

Rsup2 = 07358

300

500

700

d max

(mic

ron

s)


100

100 150 200 250

d32(microns)


16

4

6

8

10

12

14

f v (d

P ) (

)


0

2

4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

dp (microns)

22









Flow

Saltation Region

Flow Direction

Turbulence Gravity

dC


)( yaCudy

dC T =+ε


SourceSink


23

24





1

VSG = 23 ms vSg=



Eq (449) yD 04

02

0

001 01 1 10Ex (kgm2s)


25



06

yD 04 W

LE

(kg

s)

006

004

02 002

00 0

001 01

Ex (kgm2s) 1 10 0 0005 001 0015

vSL (ms) 002 0025









26

27



11 WC = 01 Water

WC = 01 Oil 08

WC = 02 Water

WC = 02 Oil 06

WC = 04 Water

yD WC = 04 Oil 04

02

0

001 01 1 10 Ex (kgm2s)



1 1

WC = 1 WC = 1

08 08 WC = 01 Water

WC = 02 Water

06 WC = 04 Water 06

yD yD04 04

WC = 0

WC = 01 02 02

WC = 02

WC = 04

0 00 0




28


1

WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

yD 04

0 202

0

0 005 01 015 02 025

fw








VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2

VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2









0 4

06

08

1

E

- = - V = -

= V =

vSG = 23 ms -2deg

vSG = 23 ms 2deg

vSG = 165 ms -2deg

vSG = 165 ms 2deg

vSG = 19 ms -2deg

vSG = 19 ms 2deg


0

02

04

0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 vSL (ms)

29

LFCLFGLGA

θθ Ck


Da RR =

⎞⎛502 )( Wvk ρρ ⎟⎞

⎜⎛ minusWWvk


⎜ ⎝ ⎛ Γminus= )(

C LFGLGA

P

WvkRa

σ ρρ ⎟

⎠ ⎜ ⎝

= P

Ra σ

P = SIP = πD

2

0211 ⎟ ⎠ ⎞


D

hDS I


θC θC

Si

Two-fluid model



W DD C

CkR

)()(

θθ= )()( WDD B

B DD C

CkR )(θ

02

03

04

Cor

rela

tion


0

01

0 01 02 03 04

E C

ERigorous

30

31



0606

E E

0404

0202

00 0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 0030 0005 001 0015 002 0025 003 vSL (ms) vSL (ms)






1 WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

WC = 11WC

yD 04

02


001 01 1 10 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)




( ) ( )G

mwaterL Twab vDS

WCEW uRWC

24π = ( ) ( )G

oilmL Toab vDS

EWCW uRWC

24

)1()1(

π minus

=minus

)1()1(

)1(m

W

O m

m b

WC E

EWC

WCWC

minus minus

minus +

= ⎥ ⎦

⎤ ⎢ ⎣

⎡ minus +minus=

m

o womLLF WC

EEEWCWW

)1()(




001

01

(WL

E )

Wate

r [k

gs]


00001

0001

0 005 01 015 02 025 03 035 04 045 WC [-]


32

33


06 WC = 01

WC = 02

WC = 04 04

yD

02

0

001 01 1 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)









02

01

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 WCm

WC

b


Conclusions






Recommendations







34








Thank You


35

36
















37


















38








39

40

Fluid Flow Projects



Hamidreza Karami


Outline

6 Introduction

6 Objectives

6 Experimental Work



6 Future Activities


41

Introduction







Objectives





42










43









6 Densito 30PX



44




6 Proposed Tests


MEG (wt) 0 10 25 50 4


Water Cut () 10 20 40 60 80 100 6


Vsl (cms) 1 2 2

Vsg (ms) 15 17 19 21 23 5

Total 720


45











Testing Range

Temperature Range


46

6 Isokinetic Probes

6

Flow Direction

03 15

7

Pressure Gauge

Separator


47





P7 h5 = 2primeprime




P1 h9 = 6primeprime









frac34 Celerity

frac34 Frequency

frac34 Amplitude

0deg 2 D

60deg

30deg

90deg


48








h0 = 17802(V) - 16739

30

35

40

45

mm

)


h0 = 17636(V) - 34508

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 15 2 25 3 35 4

Fil

m T

hic

knes

s (m

Voltage (V)

Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

49

11

06

07

08

09

1

VV

max

[]


VV

ma

x [

]

0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t [s]

t [s]


11

-

= = =

06

07

08

09

1

-

Vsg = 145 ms Vsl = 001 ms WC = 0

VV

max


0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t (s)



rela

tion

coe

ffic

ient


Δt C = Δ xΔt

Time Lag (ms)

Cro

ss-c

orr

50



Author (Year)

Test Fluids Pipe

Diameter

Liquid Viscosity

(Pas)



Range


Andritsos (1986)

Air -Water 00508 00953

0001 - 008 0072 6 - 19 ms 001 - 006

ms

Paras (1991 1994)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 10 - 66 ms 002 - 02 ms

Mantilla (2008)

Ai W tAir -Water 0 0508 0 152 00508 0152 0001 -00071

0 072 0 035 0072 - 0035 5 80 5 - 80 ms 00035 - 01

ms Magrini (2009)

Air -Water 0076 0001 0072 40 - 80 ms 00035 - 004

ms Mantilla (2012)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 5 - 20 ms 0001 - 001

ms Johnson (2005)

SF6 - Water 01 0001 0072 05 - 45 ms 01 - 1 ms


ms 10 - 20 ms




Paras et al (1991)

Mantilla (2008) - D = 00508 m

100

1000

CvSL

( )

Current Study

Johnson (2005)







1

10

00001 0001 001 01 1X

51



β




Disturbance Waves

Disturbance Waves


52


1000

(CVsl)model

10

100

CvSL

(CVsl)model

Correlation


1

00001 0001 001 01 1X





er


Pow

e

53

54


St


1000

100


1


001

00001 0001 001 X

01 1





ΔhwD

001

00001

00001 0001 001 01 1 h0D


0001

55

Δh

wD

Δ

hwD



025


02

015

01 )071 ΔhW DD = 067(h 0 DΔh = 0 67(h D) 005

0

0 005 01 015 02 025 h0D



06

05

)053ΔhW D = 058(X 04

03 Paras et al (1992 1994)

Mantilla (2008)02


Manitlla (2008) - ST = 0035 Nm 01


Correlation

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

X











56







57







58











59

Research Schedule

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014


Literature Review

Facility Training


Test Matrix

Main Tests

Additional Tests

Data Analysis

Modeling Study

PhD Proposal


Defense




60
















61












62
















63

64

Fluid Flow Projects


Duc Vuong


Outline

Objectives

Facility


Special

Single Phase Tests

Two Phase Tests

Future Work


65

Objectives



Facility


= Not available


66

Facility hellip



Facility hellip

67


Facility hellip



68




Wire Mesh Sensor




High Speed Camera


Light


69



High Speed Camera


Lights



70




PT1

PT2TT2

TT1

Nitrogen

QCV QCV

V1

V2

భ మ య+


ொx100


Capacitance Sensors



71



Flow

Gas Control Valve 1

2

4

Liquid Flow Meter

3

Collecting Flask

Supporting block

Swivel Joint

Gas Flow Meter


Single Phase Tests




72

Two Phase Tests





Future Work










73


QuestionsComments

74















75












76


References




77

78

Fluid Flow Projects





Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Modeling

Model Validation

Future Tasks


79

Objective



Introduction






80

Introduction hellip

Quemada (1977)




Introduction hellip




81

Introduction hellip

Taitel et al (2003)



Dabirian (2012)




Introduction hellip




82

Introduction hellip




Modeling


dPE v A D L L dx

dP v A G G dxL


Phases dP

ED AP vSG vSL dx



83

Modeling hellip


A S S 0G WG G i idx





Modeling hellip





84

Model Validation


D 00254m100000 1000 kg m3

L

G 118kg m3

(Pa

m) 10000

L 00001Pa s

1000

dL

G 00000184Pa s

vSL 0017m

dP

s

100 vSG 245m s

10

1 0 02 04 06 08 1

hLD (-)





0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)



85



200

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)

160

120

80

40

0



odel STR odel INT





07

06

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

05

04

03

L 02

H



0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 HL Experimental (-)


86



HL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

08

06

04

02

0





Conclusions






87

Future Work


Identify Constrains




Questions

88











89














90

















91

92

Fluid Flow Projects


Mujgan Guner


Outline

Introduction



Model Comparison

Model Analysis

CFD Simulations

Conclusions


93

Introduction

GAS



Introduction



Erratic Production



Annular Heading



94



Test Section







95


0001

001

01

1

10

1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

Taitel Model

Barnea Model

Unified Model

Test Points Annular



Intermittent




96



3000 P

ress

ure

Gra

die

nt (

Pa

m)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

vSL



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)




Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

2500

2300

2100

1900

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

700

500

Slug Flow

Annular Flow


=367 ms

=1601 ms

=406 ms

vSG

vSG

vSG

00 05 10 15

Time (min)


97




000

005

010

015

020

025

030

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Liq

uid

Hol

dup

(-)

vSG (ms)

=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms




vSL

vSL

vSL




98



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Vertical

15deg Deviated

30deg Deviated

45deg Deviated



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)







99




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)


=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms

vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Comparison


Beggs and Brill

OLGA (v72)



100


Vertical vSL=01 ms

Pre

ssur

e G

rad

ient

(P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=01 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


101



ress

ure

Gra

dien

t (P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=001 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


102



ress

ure

Gra

die

nt

(Pa

m)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

045

040

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


103



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

) 1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


104




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)



TUFFP Unified Model




vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Analysis


Liquid Entrainment





105





dL C







4 d


2WFf L 2 vL F


106





2 I If

C vC vF 2





A A AF F C


2 L v F C vC vF 2

WF f L 2 I f I 2


107



ൌ ܨ ܥ




Author Correlation

Wallis (1969)

dfcfi

L3001


fc d

fifcfi

L2121

Asali et al (1985)

40451 0 2

fc d

fiReRefcfi L

C

C

Fore (2000)

0 0015

1750013001

dRe

fcfi L

C


108






0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

τ I (P

a)

vSG (ms)





vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

dpd

l (P

a m

)

vSG (ms)


Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)

vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

109

Annular Flow

ComFil

Reve

plete m rsal

y v F

Slug Flow

y v

F

y v F

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

40




0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

H L

(-)

vSG (ms)

Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)


vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL



35

τ W

F (P

a)



110

CFD Simulations


Created in Gambit






111



Distribution


vSL=01 ms vSG=20 ms

vSG=18 ms

vSG=9 ms










112







113




Conclusions





114

Conclusions hellip







115

116

















117




















118


(2012)

119

120

Fluid Flow Projects


Yasser Alsaadi


Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Literature Review



Project Schedule


121

Objectives






Introduction





122

Introduction hellip


Pipe Wall



Literature Review


Wells




123



Deviation Angle









124








Experimental Matrix

Test Facility

Test Fluids

Instrumentation

Data Processing


125

Experimental Matrix




2 to 40 ms


001 002 005 and 01 ms





45deg Deviation

126



70deg Deviation



80deg Deviation

127



85deg Deviation



88deg Deviation

128


Test Facility

Test Section Design

3 in x 175 m

Test Fluids









129

Instrumentation












130

Holdup Measurement


Air Cylinder (Va)


Tt Pt

Air Cylinder (Va)


Te Pe



Holdup Calibration

131

Boroscope





Data Processing


Holdup





132





PampT

Raw Data

Holdup


Trap Section

Raw Data





Test Point








133

Project Schedule







Questions amp

Comments


134


Yasser Alsaadi













135


















136

Fluid Flow Projects


Carlos F Torres


Outline





137

Status






Testing August 2013







138






LF

Fe Hls f f f i c f












139









Air and Water







Diameter 2 in

Roughness 0002 mm


140



0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)







141








0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)




142

Future Tasks

Finish Basic Coding




Recommendations




Droplet Entrainment


143



144

r

f















145

f




e such as the B


Brent or Muumlller

) n t r



ditions All the



liquid liquid

r those erficial


the fi holdup




d c

strati liquid




higher rey dot






s







146

Fluid Flow Projects


Jinho Choi


Outline



Future Work


147

Objective




Transient Flow Data


Purpose






148

Introduction











149









MS Access Database







150



Data Import


Raw Table



Data Export


Format

























March 2013

bull 19 Data Sets




151













Test Sections etc


152



Difficulties


Fan (2005) Data


Difficulties



56 Columns


153




Roumazeilles (1994)




Magrini (2009)

154


Difficulties


Test Sections etc


Future Work






155



156













157

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46














158



159

160

Fluid Flow Projects



Jose Moreiras


Outline

Objective

Introduction

Experimental Study

Modeling Approach

Conclusions


161

Objective


Pipe Diameter 2-in





Introduction



Gokcal (2008)

Kora (2010)

Jeyachandra (2011)



162

Introduction hellip



v = C v +vt o M d


Introduction hellip



vd 0351 gD


vd 0542 gD


163

Introduction hellip


05 05Fr v g D ( )d L L G

Eotvos Number

2 1N g D ( )Eo L G



Experimental Study




Test Gas Air



164




High Speed Camera


Pipe Diameter 2-in






165


Experimental Result



01

02

03

04

05

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Vd

[ms

]




166

Modeling Approach




θ= 0 to 90ordm D=0055 and 0178-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00373-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00762-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m






Vertical Flow

Inclined Flow


167


Horizontal Flow


Nba

NFr

540

00350

1a

014430

250886

89602

b

r







168



Vertical Flow

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [m

s]


2

2

9

64

9

2

3

8

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d


Dg

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d

350

3

2

9

64

9

2

3

8 2

2

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [

ms

]



Inclined Flow


0 FrV FrH 0




169

2 in Oil



a b N


2 2 vd g D 2 035 g D 3 D 9 9 D 3L L

05 05Fr v g D ( )V d L L G



g D ( )L L G



- Air- System


170

Conclusions







Questions

171

172


Jose Moreiras













173



Gravity 305 degAPI
















174













175

176

Fluid Flow Projects


Gas Two-Phase

Jaejun Kim


Outline

Objective

Introduction


Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

Future Work


177

Objective




Introduction




(2005 2008) and Kora (2010)


178

179

Introduction hellip


Jeyachandra (2011)





CPU

Air

12345

Ma x



Probe Probe


Experimental Matrix








0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Dispersed

Intermittent

Stratified Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Stratified

Dispersed Bubble

Intermittent

Stratified

Annular

585 cP 181 cP

180



0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug Flow

STRATIFIED

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

585 cP 181 cP




181


Capacitance Sensor

Two-wire

Capacitance Sensor


0030 DIA

025

200



Static Calibration

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

0 02 04 06 08 1

Cap 2

Cap 3

H L

V

182



0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H LS

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H L

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

Cap 2 Cap 3 Cap 4

Cap 5 Cap 6 Cap 7


Dynamic Calibration

Quick Closing valve

183

Future Work




Report June 2013


Thanks hellip


184

Questions


185

186













187
















188







189

190

Fluid Flow Projects



Feras Alruhaimani


Outline

Objectives

Facility

Test Fluid

Test Matrix


Future Activities


191

Objectives






192






Test Section

QCV System

Visua lizatio n Box


193


Return Pipe



Test Fluids


194

Test Matrix







Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 90o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition

195


Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 75o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition


Low Speed Data

(1 to 10 Hz)

Pressure

Pressure Gradient

Temperature

Mass Flow-rates

Densities

Viscosities


High Speed Data



Average Slug Length


Slug Frequency

Slug Liquid Holdup

Film Liquid Holdup


Videos

Digital

High Speed


196

Low Speed Data




High Speed Data



Dynamic Calibration



197




distance L

CS1CS2




Derivative

198

Static Calibration






199

Future Activities

Completion Dates








Questions amp

Comments


200
















201





















202

Fluid Flow Projects




Outline

Motivation

Objectives

Literature Review

Project Scope

Near Future Tasks


203


Motivation





Liquid Properties

Motivation hellip



Solid Transport

Pipeline Fatigue


Regular Slug

Rolling Wave

204

Objectives





Literature Review





Accumulation



205








(ρG=226 kgm3)

206




0

02

04

06

08

1

0 2 4 6 8

h L d

[‐]

vSG [ms]




Project Scope







207



Gas Rate

θ1

θ2

θ1 θ2






208

Near Future Tasks



Facility Design



Questions

209

210


















211













212

Fluid Flow Projects

TUHOP Incorporation

Cem Sarica

Eduardo Pereyra


TUHOP Review






213

TUHOP Review hellip













214





Status



215

Way Forward




Way Forward hellip


by the End of 2013



216







Oil-Water Flow


vS

W (m

s)

10

1

01

001

SOW

SOW-DOW

SOW-DOW-OF

CAOF

001 01 1 10 vSO (ms)



217


Oil-Water Flow


Oil-Water Flow



Pressure Drop

Water Fraction



218

Fluid Flow Projects

Business Report

Cem Sarica





JOGMEC Termination




DragOilUNAM Group

DSME of South Korea

Kongsberg

Repsol

PDVSA



219












220









Sum 7 5

Financial Report


TUFFP BSEE Account


TUFFP BSEE Account


221










Reserve as of 123112 46428732 $











222





















223

Oil

Pr

ce

$


i

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

OIl

Pri

ce

$

Nu

mb

er

of

Me

mb

ers

Year

Members Oil Price




224



Membership Fees


Thanks


4 Unpaid


225

226

Introduction












227

228

Personnel
























229






230

Table 1




University Kuwait




Saudi Aramco

Saudi Aramco


Fall 2013



Fall 2014


Spring 2016


Waived (TU)


Completed


Waived ndash (BSEE)


Completed


TUFFP

Yes

TUFFP


Fall 2014



Fall 2013



Completed


Fall 2016

231

232

Membership


Table 2





Baker Atlas PEMEX

BSEE Petrobras






KOC

233

234


Test Facilities






235

236

TO L

EWIS

AVE

M

ARSH

ALL

STR

EET

Spe

cial

Pro

ject

s Bui

ldin

g

N

TUD

CP

TUSTP

TUD

RP-

PEACTS

JIP

-PE

PARKIN

GTU

PDP-

PETU

ECP-

ME

TUSM

P-M

E

PE Lab Trailer

TUSTP Control Room

Bld

g Pr

oces

sTU

FFP-

PE

CO

LLEG

E O

F

TUH

FP-P

EChE

TEST

WEL

L

TUSTP

-PE

ME

MU

LTIP

HASE

ALP

INE

PERFO

RM

AN

CE

OF

Bui

ldin

gTU

DCP-

ChE

Hydrate Loop

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

AN

D N

ATU

RAL

SCIE

NCES

ES

Ps

LOO

P

TUALP

-PE

PETR

OLE

UM

NATU

RAL

SEP

ARATI

ON

RES

EARCH

CAM

PUS

LOO

P

2450

E

MARSH

ALL

HIL

LY T

ERRAIN

LO

OP

GAS L

IFT

VALV

E TE

STFA

CIL

ITY


ME

H

YBRID

TU

ECRC

ELEC

TRIC

CARS

TUSM

P

PARKING

DRILL BUILDING

DRILL LAB

PARAFF

IN

MU

LTIP

HASE

LOO

P

TUPD

PFL

OW

ASSU

RAN

CE

LAB

LOW

LIQ

UID

LO

AD

ING

PARAFF

INM

E

LOO

PBU

ILD

ING

G

ASO

ILW

ATE

R L

OO

P

TUM

SP

PARAFF

IN S

ING

LE P

HASE

LOO

P



LOW

PRES

SU

RE

LOO

P

ARC

O B

UIL

DIN

G

ACTS

JIP

HIG

H P

RES

SU

RE

LOO

P TU

FFP

SH

OP

MACH

INE

SH

OP

STO

RAG

E

Figure

1 ‐Site

Plan

for the North

Cam

pus Research

Facilties

Financial Status






237










Reserve as of 123112 $ 46428732

238




237635 4800000




Budget 2812500 225000

1563750

2012 Expenditures

2940000 235200

1634640



239












240










241

242
























243













244

Appendix A










245

Mujgan Guner

Hamidreza Karami

Wei Zheng


Jaejun Kim

Maher Shariff

Huyoung Lee




(918) 631-5107 hk274utulsaedu








246

Appendix B








247






248








249








250






251







252










253





254

Appendix C

















255


















256

T 22 Sep 86




















257








R March 2006






60 STATOIL 1985 23 Oct 85 T16 Mar 89


1986 3 Oct 86 T 2003







258
















2009 81 SPT T 2013 (Merger)





259


260

Appendix D



















261






















262























263
























264






















265




















266

Structure Bookmarks

1

bull

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

frac34

6

6

6

0 02 04 06 08

SL =01 ms)

SL =001 ms)

1

bull


o Viscosity Effects

1 Zukoski (1966)

bull

30

35

38

T 26 Sep 84

39

T 23 Sep 86

41

42

50

55

1

17

83


1200 pm Lunch


Carlos Torres



Jose Moreiras


Jaejun Kim

245 Coffee Break


Feras Alruhamani





500 Adjourn


ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1













iii






iv

Executive Summary














1


















2












3

4

Fluid Flow Projects


Welcome


Safety Moment


Restrooms


5





Registration Table


Team








6

Team hellip






Team hellip









7

Team hellip



Jaejun Kim

Hoyoung Lee


Guests




Steve Coleman

DSME Representative

Tod Canty JM Canty


8

Agenda



Behavior


Activities

1015 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip






9

Agenda hellip

1200 Lunch






245 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip




TUHOP Incorporation


10

Agenda hellip


430 Open Discussion

500 Adjourn



Other Activities






11

12

t

Fluid Flow Projects


Horizontal Pipes

Kiran Gawas


Outline

6 Objectives





6 Conclusions

6 Recommendations


13

Objectives




Introduction





14

15



Test Section

46m 46m 8 2m 82m 9 1m 91m 9 1m 91m 7 1m 71m

P P DP DP

DP T

DP

QCV QCV

QCV QCV

DP T DP

QCV

DP DP P P

71m 91m 91m 82m

564m


16

ndash

Test Fluids

6 Test Fluid



ρ = 1000 kgm3

μ = 1 cP



ρ = 760 kgm3

μ = 135 cP




Glycerin

Pipe


DAQ Light Light

Source


Setup

Flow Direction

6 15


Pressure Gauze

Separator




6 Flow Pattern


6 Droplet Size

6 Droplet Flux





17

18


Dong (2007)

Current Study











25 100

5

10

15

20

25

f v (d

P ) (

)

Bottom

Middle

Top

20

40

60

80

100

F v (

d P )

()

Bottom

Middle

Top


0

0 200 400 600 800

dp (microns)

0

0 200 400 600 800 dp (microns)

19

20

f v (

)

f v (d

P)

()


25 100

90

20 80 Bottom

Bottom 70 Middle

Middle 15 Top

10 Fv (d

P)

()

Top 60

50

40

30

20 5

10

0 0 0 200 400 600 800




10020




12

10

Fv

() 60

8 40

66

4 20

2

0 0

0 100 200 300 400

dp (microns)

500 600 0 100 200 300 dp (microns)

400 500



10 15 20 25 30

vSG (ms)



1000d 3

2 (m

icro

ns)

100

10

1

Bottom Middle




10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

vSG (ms)



1000

100

d 32

(mic

ron

s)

Bottom Middle



10


21


dmax= 29155 d32

900

Rsup2 = 07358

300

500

700

d max

(mic

ron

s)


100

100 150 200 250

d32(microns)


16

4

6

8

10

12

14

f v (d

P ) (

)


0

2

4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

dp (microns)

22









Flow

Saltation Region

Flow Direction

Turbulence Gravity

dC


)( yaCudy

dC T =+ε


SourceSink


23

24





1

VSG = 23 ms vSg=



Eq (449) yD 04

02

0

001 01 1 10Ex (kgm2s)


25



06

yD 04 W

LE

(kg

s)

006

004

02 002

00 0

001 01

Ex (kgm2s) 1 10 0 0005 001 0015

vSL (ms) 002 0025









26

27



11 WC = 01 Water

WC = 01 Oil 08

WC = 02 Water

WC = 02 Oil 06

WC = 04 Water

yD WC = 04 Oil 04

02

0

001 01 1 10 Ex (kgm2s)



1 1

WC = 1 WC = 1

08 08 WC = 01 Water

WC = 02 Water

06 WC = 04 Water 06

yD yD04 04

WC = 0

WC = 01 02 02

WC = 02

WC = 04

0 00 0




28


1

WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

yD 04

0 202

0

0 005 01 015 02 025

fw








VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2

VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2









0 4

06

08

1

E

- = - V = -

= V =

vSG = 23 ms -2deg

vSG = 23 ms 2deg

vSG = 165 ms -2deg

vSG = 165 ms 2deg

vSG = 19 ms -2deg

vSG = 19 ms 2deg


0

02

04

0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 vSL (ms)

29

LFCLFGLGA

θθ Ck


Da RR =

⎞⎛502 )( Wvk ρρ ⎟⎞

⎜⎛ minusWWvk


⎜ ⎝ ⎛ Γminus= )(

C LFGLGA

P

WvkRa

σ ρρ ⎟

⎠ ⎜ ⎝

= P

Ra σ

P = SIP = πD

2

0211 ⎟ ⎠ ⎞


D

hDS I


θC θC

Si

Two-fluid model



W DD C

CkR

)()(

θθ= )()( WDD B

B DD C

CkR )(θ

02

03

04

Cor

rela

tion


0

01

0 01 02 03 04

E C

ERigorous

30

31



0606

E E

0404

0202

00 0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 0030 0005 001 0015 002 0025 003 vSL (ms) vSL (ms)






1 WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

WC = 11WC

yD 04

02


001 01 1 10 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)




( ) ( )G

mwaterL Twab vDS

WCEW uRWC

24π = ( ) ( )G

oilmL Toab vDS

EWCW uRWC

24

)1()1(

π minus

=minus

)1()1(

)1(m

W

O m

m b

WC E

EWC

WCWC

minus minus

minus +

= ⎥ ⎦

⎤ ⎢ ⎣

⎡ minus +minus=

m

o womLLF WC

EEEWCWW

)1()(




001

01

(WL

E )

Wate

r [k

gs]


00001

0001

0 005 01 015 02 025 03 035 04 045 WC [-]


32

33


06 WC = 01

WC = 02

WC = 04 04

yD

02

0

001 01 1 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)









02

01

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 WCm

WC

b


Conclusions






Recommendations







34








Thank You


35

36
















37


















38








39

40

Fluid Flow Projects



Hamidreza Karami


Outline

6 Introduction

6 Objectives

6 Experimental Work



6 Future Activities


41

Introduction







Objectives





42










43









6 Densito 30PX



44




6 Proposed Tests


MEG (wt) 0 10 25 50 4


Water Cut () 10 20 40 60 80 100 6


Vsl (cms) 1 2 2

Vsg (ms) 15 17 19 21 23 5

Total 720


45











Testing Range

Temperature Range


46

6 Isokinetic Probes

6

Flow Direction

03 15

7

Pressure Gauge

Separator


47





P7 h5 = 2primeprime




P1 h9 = 6primeprime









frac34 Celerity

frac34 Frequency

frac34 Amplitude

0deg 2 D

60deg

30deg

90deg


48








h0 = 17802(V) - 16739

30

35

40

45

mm

)


h0 = 17636(V) - 34508

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 15 2 25 3 35 4

Fil

m T

hic

knes

s (m

Voltage (V)

Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

49

11

06

07

08

09

1

VV

max

[]


VV

ma

x [

]

0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t [s]

t [s]


11

-

= = =

06

07

08

09

1

-

Vsg = 145 ms Vsl = 001 ms WC = 0

VV

max


0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t (s)



rela

tion

coe

ffic

ient


Δt C = Δ xΔt

Time Lag (ms)

Cro

ss-c

orr

50



Author (Year)

Test Fluids Pipe

Diameter

Liquid Viscosity

(Pas)



Range


Andritsos (1986)

Air -Water 00508 00953

0001 - 008 0072 6 - 19 ms 001 - 006

ms

Paras (1991 1994)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 10 - 66 ms 002 - 02 ms

Mantilla (2008)

Ai W tAir -Water 0 0508 0 152 00508 0152 0001 -00071

0 072 0 035 0072 - 0035 5 80 5 - 80 ms 00035 - 01

ms Magrini (2009)

Air -Water 0076 0001 0072 40 - 80 ms 00035 - 004

ms Mantilla (2012)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 5 - 20 ms 0001 - 001

ms Johnson (2005)

SF6 - Water 01 0001 0072 05 - 45 ms 01 - 1 ms


ms 10 - 20 ms




Paras et al (1991)

Mantilla (2008) - D = 00508 m

100

1000

CvSL

( )

Current Study

Johnson (2005)







1

10

00001 0001 001 01 1X

51



β




Disturbance Waves

Disturbance Waves


52


1000

(CVsl)model

10

100

CvSL

(CVsl)model

Correlation


1

00001 0001 001 01 1X





er


Pow

e

53

54


St


1000

100


1


001

00001 0001 001 X

01 1





ΔhwD

001

00001

00001 0001 001 01 1 h0D


0001

55

Δh

wD

Δ

hwD



025


02

015

01 )071 ΔhW DD = 067(h 0 DΔh = 0 67(h D) 005

0

0 005 01 015 02 025 h0D



06

05

)053ΔhW D = 058(X 04

03 Paras et al (1992 1994)

Mantilla (2008)02


Manitlla (2008) - ST = 0035 Nm 01


Correlation

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

X











56







57







58











59

Research Schedule

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014


Literature Review

Facility Training


Test Matrix

Main Tests

Additional Tests

Data Analysis

Modeling Study

PhD Proposal


Defense




60
















61












62
















63

64

Fluid Flow Projects


Duc Vuong


Outline

Objectives

Facility


Special

Single Phase Tests

Two Phase Tests

Future Work


65

Objectives



Facility


= Not available


66

Facility hellip



Facility hellip

67


Facility hellip



68




Wire Mesh Sensor




High Speed Camera


Light


69



High Speed Camera


Lights



70




PT1

PT2TT2

TT1

Nitrogen

QCV QCV

V1

V2

భ మ య+


ொx100


Capacitance Sensors



71



Flow

Gas Control Valve 1

2

4

Liquid Flow Meter

3

Collecting Flask

Supporting block

Swivel Joint

Gas Flow Meter


Single Phase Tests




72

Two Phase Tests





Future Work










73


QuestionsComments

74















75












76


References




77

78

Fluid Flow Projects





Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Modeling

Model Validation

Future Tasks


79

Objective



Introduction






80

Introduction hellip

Quemada (1977)




Introduction hellip




81

Introduction hellip

Taitel et al (2003)



Dabirian (2012)




Introduction hellip




82

Introduction hellip




Modeling


dPE v A D L L dx

dP v A G G dxL


Phases dP

ED AP vSG vSL dx



83

Modeling hellip


A S S 0G WG G i idx





Modeling hellip





84

Model Validation


D 00254m100000 1000 kg m3

L

G 118kg m3

(Pa

m) 10000

L 00001Pa s

1000

dL

G 00000184Pa s

vSL 0017m

dP

s

100 vSG 245m s

10

1 0 02 04 06 08 1

hLD (-)





0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)



85



200

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)

160

120

80

40

0



odel STR odel INT





07

06

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

05

04

03

L 02

H



0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 HL Experimental (-)


86



HL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

08

06

04

02

0





Conclusions






87

Future Work


Identify Constrains




Questions

88











89














90

















91

92

Fluid Flow Projects


Mujgan Guner


Outline

Introduction



Model Comparison

Model Analysis

CFD Simulations

Conclusions


93

Introduction

GAS



Introduction



Erratic Production



Annular Heading



94



Test Section







95


0001

001

01

1

10

1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

Taitel Model

Barnea Model

Unified Model

Test Points Annular



Intermittent




96



3000 P

ress

ure

Gra

die

nt (

Pa

m)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

vSL



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)




Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

2500

2300

2100

1900

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

700

500

Slug Flow

Annular Flow


=367 ms

=1601 ms

=406 ms

vSG

vSG

vSG

00 05 10 15

Time (min)


97




000

005

010

015

020

025

030

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Liq

uid

Hol

dup

(-)

vSG (ms)

=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms




vSL

vSL

vSL




98



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Vertical

15deg Deviated

30deg Deviated

45deg Deviated



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)







99




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)


=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms

vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Comparison


Beggs and Brill

OLGA (v72)



100


Vertical vSL=01 ms

Pre

ssur

e G

rad

ient

(P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=01 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


101



ress

ure

Gra

dien

t (P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=001 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


102



ress

ure

Gra

die

nt

(Pa

m)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

045

040

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


103



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

) 1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


104




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)



TUFFP Unified Model




vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Analysis


Liquid Entrainment





105





dL C







4 d


2WFf L 2 vL F


106





2 I If

C vC vF 2





A A AF F C


2 L v F C vC vF 2

WF f L 2 I f I 2


107



ൌ ܨ ܥ




Author Correlation

Wallis (1969)

dfcfi

L3001


fc d

fifcfi

L2121

Asali et al (1985)

40451 0 2

fc d

fiReRefcfi L

C

C

Fore (2000)

0 0015

1750013001

dRe

fcfi L

C


108






0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

τ I (P

a)

vSG (ms)





vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

dpd

l (P

a m

)

vSG (ms)


Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)

vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

109

Annular Flow

ComFil

Reve

plete m rsal

y v F

Slug Flow

y v

F

y v F

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

40




0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

H L

(-)

vSG (ms)

Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)


vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL



35

τ W

F (P

a)



110

CFD Simulations


Created in Gambit






111



Distribution


vSL=01 ms vSG=20 ms

vSG=18 ms

vSG=9 ms










112







113




Conclusions





114

Conclusions hellip







115

116

















117




















118


(2012)

119

120

Fluid Flow Projects


Yasser Alsaadi


Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Literature Review



Project Schedule


121

Objectives






Introduction





122

Introduction hellip


Pipe Wall



Literature Review


Wells




123



Deviation Angle









124








Experimental Matrix

Test Facility

Test Fluids

Instrumentation

Data Processing


125

Experimental Matrix




2 to 40 ms


001 002 005 and 01 ms





45deg Deviation

126



70deg Deviation



80deg Deviation

127



85deg Deviation



88deg Deviation

128


Test Facility

Test Section Design

3 in x 175 m

Test Fluids









129

Instrumentation












130

Holdup Measurement


Air Cylinder (Va)


Tt Pt

Air Cylinder (Va)


Te Pe



Holdup Calibration

131

Boroscope





Data Processing


Holdup





132





PampT

Raw Data

Holdup


Trap Section

Raw Data





Test Point








133

Project Schedule







Questions amp

Comments


134


Yasser Alsaadi













135


















136

Fluid Flow Projects


Carlos F Torres


Outline





137

Status






Testing August 2013







138






LF

Fe Hls f f f i c f












139









Air and Water







Diameter 2 in

Roughness 0002 mm


140



0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)







141








0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)




142

Future Tasks

Finish Basic Coding




Recommendations




Droplet Entrainment


143



144

r

f















145

f




e such as the B


Brent or Muumlller

) n t r



ditions All the



liquid liquid

r those erficial


the fi holdup




d c

strati liquid




higher rey dot






s







146

Fluid Flow Projects


Jinho Choi


Outline



Future Work


147

Objective




Transient Flow Data


Purpose






148

Introduction











149









MS Access Database







150



Data Import


Raw Table



Data Export


Format

























March 2013

bull 19 Data Sets




151













Test Sections etc


152



Difficulties


Fan (2005) Data


Difficulties



56 Columns


153




Roumazeilles (1994)




Magrini (2009)

154


Difficulties


Test Sections etc


Future Work






155



156













157

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46














158



159

160

Fluid Flow Projects



Jose Moreiras


Outline

Objective

Introduction

Experimental Study

Modeling Approach

Conclusions


161

Objective


Pipe Diameter 2-in





Introduction



Gokcal (2008)

Kora (2010)

Jeyachandra (2011)



162

Introduction hellip



v = C v +vt o M d


Introduction hellip



vd 0351 gD


vd 0542 gD


163

Introduction hellip


05 05Fr v g D ( )d L L G

Eotvos Number

2 1N g D ( )Eo L G



Experimental Study




Test Gas Air



164




High Speed Camera


Pipe Diameter 2-in






165


Experimental Result



01

02

03

04

05

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Vd

[ms

]




166

Modeling Approach




θ= 0 to 90ordm D=0055 and 0178-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00373-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00762-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m






Vertical Flow

Inclined Flow


167


Horizontal Flow


Nba

NFr

540

00350

1a

014430

250886

89602

b

r







168



Vertical Flow

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [m

s]


2

2

9

64

9

2

3

8

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d


Dg

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d

350

3

2

9

64

9

2

3

8 2

2

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [

ms

]



Inclined Flow


0 FrV FrH 0




169

2 in Oil



a b N


2 2 vd g D 2 035 g D 3 D 9 9 D 3L L

05 05Fr v g D ( )V d L L G



g D ( )L L G



- Air- System


170

Conclusions







Questions

171

172


Jose Moreiras













173



Gravity 305 degAPI
















174













175

176

Fluid Flow Projects


Gas Two-Phase

Jaejun Kim


Outline

Objective

Introduction


Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

Future Work


177

Objective




Introduction




(2005 2008) and Kora (2010)


178

179

Introduction hellip


Jeyachandra (2011)





CPU

Air

12345

Ma x



Probe Probe


Experimental Matrix








0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Dispersed

Intermittent

Stratified Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Stratified

Dispersed Bubble

Intermittent

Stratified

Annular

585 cP 181 cP

180



0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug Flow

STRATIFIED

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

585 cP 181 cP




181


Capacitance Sensor

Two-wire

Capacitance Sensor


0030 DIA

025

200



Static Calibration

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

0 02 04 06 08 1

Cap 2

Cap 3

H L

V

182



0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H LS

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H L

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

Cap 2 Cap 3 Cap 4

Cap 5 Cap 6 Cap 7


Dynamic Calibration

Quick Closing valve

183

Future Work




Report June 2013


Thanks hellip


184

Questions


185

186













187
















188







189

190

Fluid Flow Projects



Feras Alruhaimani


Outline

Objectives

Facility

Test Fluid

Test Matrix


Future Activities


191

Objectives






192






Test Section

QCV System

Visua lizatio n Box


193


Return Pipe



Test Fluids


194

Test Matrix







Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 90o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition

195


Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 75o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition


Low Speed Data

(1 to 10 Hz)

Pressure

Pressure Gradient

Temperature

Mass Flow-rates

Densities

Viscosities


High Speed Data



Average Slug Length


Slug Frequency

Slug Liquid Holdup

Film Liquid Holdup


Videos

Digital

High Speed


196

Low Speed Data




High Speed Data



Dynamic Calibration



197




distance L

CS1CS2




Derivative

198

Static Calibration






199

Future Activities

Completion Dates








Questions amp

Comments


200
















201





















202

Fluid Flow Projects




Outline

Motivation

Objectives

Literature Review

Project Scope

Near Future Tasks


203


Motivation





Liquid Properties

Motivation hellip



Solid Transport

Pipeline Fatigue


Regular Slug

Rolling Wave

204

Objectives





Literature Review





Accumulation



205








(ρG=226 kgm3)

206




0

02

04

06

08

1

0 2 4 6 8

h L d

[‐]

vSG [ms]




Project Scope







207



Gas Rate

θ1

θ2

θ1 θ2






208

Near Future Tasks



Facility Design



Questions

209

210


















211













212

Fluid Flow Projects

TUHOP Incorporation

Cem Sarica

Eduardo Pereyra


TUHOP Review






213

TUHOP Review hellip













214





Status



215

Way Forward




Way Forward hellip


by the End of 2013



216







Oil-Water Flow


vS

W (m

s)

10

1

01

001

SOW

SOW-DOW

SOW-DOW-OF

CAOF

001 01 1 10 vSO (ms)



217


Oil-Water Flow


Oil-Water Flow



Pressure Drop

Water Fraction



218

Fluid Flow Projects

Business Report

Cem Sarica





JOGMEC Termination




DragOilUNAM Group

DSME of South Korea

Kongsberg

Repsol

PDVSA



219












220









Sum 7 5

Financial Report


TUFFP BSEE Account


TUFFP BSEE Account


221










Reserve as of 123112 46428732 $











222





















223

Oil

Pr

ce

$


i

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

OIl

Pri

ce

$

Nu

mb

er

of

Me

mb

ers

Year

Members Oil Price




224



Membership Fees


Thanks


4 Unpaid


225

226

Introduction












227

228

Personnel
























229






230

Table 1




University Kuwait




Saudi Aramco

Saudi Aramco


Fall 2013



Fall 2014


Spring 2016


Waived (TU)


Completed


Waived ndash (BSEE)


Completed


TUFFP

Yes

TUFFP


Fall 2014



Fall 2013



Completed


Fall 2016

231

232

Membership


Table 2





Baker Atlas PEMEX

BSEE Petrobras






KOC

233

234


Test Facilities






235

236

TO L

EWIS

AVE

M

ARSH

ALL

STR

EET

Spe

cial

Pro

ject

s Bui

ldin

g

N

TUD

CP

TUSTP

TUD

RP-

PEACTS

JIP

-PE

PARKIN

GTU

PDP-

PETU

ECP-

ME

TUSM

P-M

E

PE Lab Trailer

TUSTP Control Room

Bld

g Pr

oces

sTU

FFP-

PE

CO

LLEG

E O

F

TUH

FP-P

EChE

TEST

WEL

L

TUSTP

-PE

ME

MU

LTIP

HASE

ALP

INE

PERFO

RM

AN

CE

OF

Bui

ldin

gTU

DCP-

ChE

Hydrate Loop

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

AN

D N

ATU

RAL

SCIE

NCES

ES

Ps

LOO

P

TUALP

-PE

PETR

OLE

UM

NATU

RAL

SEP

ARATI

ON

RES

EARCH

CAM

PUS

LOO

P

2450

E

MARSH

ALL

HIL

LY T

ERRAIN

LO

OP

GAS L

IFT

VALV

E TE

STFA

CIL

ITY


ME

H

YBRID

TU

ECRC

ELEC

TRIC

CARS

TUSM

P

PARKING

DRILL BUILDING

DRILL LAB

PARAFF

IN

MU

LTIP

HASE

LOO

P

TUPD

PFL

OW

ASSU

RAN

CE

LAB

LOW

LIQ

UID

LO

AD

ING

PARAFF

INM

E

LOO

PBU

ILD

ING

G

ASO

ILW

ATE

R L

OO

P

TUM

SP

PARAFF

IN S

ING

LE P

HASE

LOO

P



LOW

PRES

SU

RE

LOO

P

ARC

O B

UIL

DIN

G

ACTS

JIP

HIG

H P

RES

SU

RE

LOO

P TU

FFP

SH

OP

MACH

INE

SH

OP

STO

RAG

E

Figure

1 ‐Site

Plan

for the North

Cam

pus Research

Facilties

Financial Status






237










Reserve as of 123112 $ 46428732

238




237635 4800000




Budget 2812500 225000

1563750

2012 Expenditures

2940000 235200

1634640



239












240










241

242
























243













244

Appendix A










245

Mujgan Guner

Hamidreza Karami

Wei Zheng


Jaejun Kim

Maher Shariff

Huyoung Lee




(918) 631-5107 hk274utulsaedu








246

Appendix B








247






248








249








250






251







252










253





254

Appendix C

















255


















256

T 22 Sep 86




















257








R March 2006






60 STATOIL 1985 23 Oct 85 T16 Mar 89


1986 3 Oct 86 T 2003







258
















2009 81 SPT T 2013 (Merger)





259


260

Appendix D



















261






















262























263
























264






















265




















266

Structure Bookmarks

1

bull

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

frac34

6

6

6

0 02 04 06 08

SL =01 ms)

SL =001 ms)

1

bull


o Viscosity Effects

1 Zukoski (1966)

bull

30

35

38

T 26 Sep 84

39

T 23 Sep 86

41

42

50

55

1

17

83

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1













iii






iv

Executive Summary














1


















2












3

4

Fluid Flow Projects


Welcome


Safety Moment


Restrooms


5





Registration Table


Team








6

Team hellip






Team hellip









7

Team hellip



Jaejun Kim

Hoyoung Lee


Guests




Steve Coleman

DSME Representative

Tod Canty JM Canty


8

Agenda



Behavior


Activities

1015 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip






9

Agenda hellip

1200 Lunch






245 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip




TUHOP Incorporation


10

Agenda hellip


430 Open Discussion

500 Adjourn



Other Activities






11

12

t

Fluid Flow Projects


Horizontal Pipes

Kiran Gawas


Outline

6 Objectives





6 Conclusions

6 Recommendations


13

Objectives




Introduction





14

15



Test Section

46m 46m 8 2m 82m 9 1m 91m 9 1m 91m 7 1m 71m

P P DP DP

DP T

DP

QCV QCV

QCV QCV

DP T DP

QCV

DP DP P P

71m 91m 91m 82m

564m


16

ndash

Test Fluids

6 Test Fluid



ρ = 1000 kgm3

μ = 1 cP



ρ = 760 kgm3

μ = 135 cP




Glycerin

Pipe


DAQ Light Light

Source


Setup

Flow Direction

6 15


Pressure Gauze

Separator




6 Flow Pattern


6 Droplet Size

6 Droplet Flux





17

18


Dong (2007)

Current Study











25 100

5

10

15

20

25

f v (d

P ) (

)

Bottom

Middle

Top

20

40

60

80

100

F v (

d P )

()

Bottom

Middle

Top


0

0 200 400 600 800

dp (microns)

0

0 200 400 600 800 dp (microns)

19

20

f v (

)

f v (d

P)

()


25 100

90

20 80 Bottom

Bottom 70 Middle

Middle 15 Top

10 Fv (d

P)

()

Top 60

50

40

30

20 5

10

0 0 0 200 400 600 800




10020




12

10

Fv

() 60

8 40

66

4 20

2

0 0

0 100 200 300 400

dp (microns)

500 600 0 100 200 300 dp (microns)

400 500



10 15 20 25 30

vSG (ms)



1000d 3

2 (m

icro

ns)

100

10

1

Bottom Middle




10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

vSG (ms)



1000

100

d 32

(mic

ron

s)

Bottom Middle



10


21


dmax= 29155 d32

900

Rsup2 = 07358

300

500

700

d max

(mic

ron

s)


100

100 150 200 250

d32(microns)


16

4

6

8

10

12

14

f v (d

P ) (

)


0

2

4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

dp (microns)

22









Flow

Saltation Region

Flow Direction

Turbulence Gravity

dC


)( yaCudy

dC T =+ε


SourceSink


23

24





1

VSG = 23 ms vSg=



Eq (449) yD 04

02

0

001 01 1 10Ex (kgm2s)


25



06

yD 04 W

LE

(kg

s)

006

004

02 002

00 0

001 01

Ex (kgm2s) 1 10 0 0005 001 0015

vSL (ms) 002 0025









26

27



11 WC = 01 Water

WC = 01 Oil 08

WC = 02 Water

WC = 02 Oil 06

WC = 04 Water

yD WC = 04 Oil 04

02

0

001 01 1 10 Ex (kgm2s)



1 1

WC = 1 WC = 1

08 08 WC = 01 Water

WC = 02 Water

06 WC = 04 Water 06

yD yD04 04

WC = 0

WC = 01 02 02

WC = 02

WC = 04

0 00 0




28


1

WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

yD 04

0 202

0

0 005 01 015 02 025

fw








VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2

VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2









0 4

06

08

1

E

- = - V = -

= V =

vSG = 23 ms -2deg

vSG = 23 ms 2deg

vSG = 165 ms -2deg

vSG = 165 ms 2deg

vSG = 19 ms -2deg

vSG = 19 ms 2deg


0

02

04

0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 vSL (ms)

29

LFCLFGLGA

θθ Ck


Da RR =

⎞⎛502 )( Wvk ρρ ⎟⎞

⎜⎛ minusWWvk


⎜ ⎝ ⎛ Γminus= )(

C LFGLGA

P

WvkRa

σ ρρ ⎟

⎠ ⎜ ⎝

= P

Ra σ

P = SIP = πD

2

0211 ⎟ ⎠ ⎞


D

hDS I


θC θC

Si

Two-fluid model



W DD C

CkR

)()(

θθ= )()( WDD B

B DD C

CkR )(θ

02

03

04

Cor

rela

tion


0

01

0 01 02 03 04

E C

ERigorous

30

31



0606

E E

0404

0202

00 0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 0030 0005 001 0015 002 0025 003 vSL (ms) vSL (ms)






1 WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

WC = 11WC

yD 04

02


001 01 1 10 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)




( ) ( )G

mwaterL Twab vDS

WCEW uRWC

24π = ( ) ( )G

oilmL Toab vDS

EWCW uRWC

24

)1()1(

π minus

=minus

)1()1(

)1(m

W

O m

m b

WC E

EWC

WCWC

minus minus

minus +

= ⎥ ⎦

⎤ ⎢ ⎣

⎡ minus +minus=

m

o womLLF WC

EEEWCWW

)1()(




001

01

(WL

E )

Wate

r [k

gs]


00001

0001

0 005 01 015 02 025 03 035 04 045 WC [-]


32

33


06 WC = 01

WC = 02

WC = 04 04

yD

02

0

001 01 1 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)









02

01

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 WCm

WC

b


Conclusions






Recommendations







34








Thank You


35

36
















37


















38








39

40

Fluid Flow Projects



Hamidreza Karami


Outline

6 Introduction

6 Objectives

6 Experimental Work



6 Future Activities


41

Introduction







Objectives





42










43









6 Densito 30PX



44




6 Proposed Tests


MEG (wt) 0 10 25 50 4


Water Cut () 10 20 40 60 80 100 6


Vsl (cms) 1 2 2

Vsg (ms) 15 17 19 21 23 5

Total 720


45











Testing Range

Temperature Range


46

6 Isokinetic Probes

6

Flow Direction

03 15

7

Pressure Gauge

Separator


47





P7 h5 = 2primeprime




P1 h9 = 6primeprime









frac34 Celerity

frac34 Frequency

frac34 Amplitude

0deg 2 D

60deg

30deg

90deg


48








h0 = 17802(V) - 16739

30

35

40

45

mm

)


h0 = 17636(V) - 34508

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 15 2 25 3 35 4

Fil

m T

hic

knes

s (m

Voltage (V)

Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

49

11

06

07

08

09

1

VV

max

[]


VV

ma

x [

]

0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t [s]

t [s]


11

-

= = =

06

07

08

09

1

-

Vsg = 145 ms Vsl = 001 ms WC = 0

VV

max


0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t (s)



rela

tion

coe

ffic

ient


Δt C = Δ xΔt

Time Lag (ms)

Cro

ss-c

orr

50



Author (Year)

Test Fluids Pipe

Diameter

Liquid Viscosity

(Pas)



Range


Andritsos (1986)

Air -Water 00508 00953

0001 - 008 0072 6 - 19 ms 001 - 006

ms

Paras (1991 1994)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 10 - 66 ms 002 - 02 ms

Mantilla (2008)

Ai W tAir -Water 0 0508 0 152 00508 0152 0001 -00071

0 072 0 035 0072 - 0035 5 80 5 - 80 ms 00035 - 01

ms Magrini (2009)

Air -Water 0076 0001 0072 40 - 80 ms 00035 - 004

ms Mantilla (2012)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 5 - 20 ms 0001 - 001

ms Johnson (2005)

SF6 - Water 01 0001 0072 05 - 45 ms 01 - 1 ms


ms 10 - 20 ms




Paras et al (1991)

Mantilla (2008) - D = 00508 m

100

1000

CvSL

( )

Current Study

Johnson (2005)







1

10

00001 0001 001 01 1X

51



β




Disturbance Waves

Disturbance Waves


52


1000

(CVsl)model

10

100

CvSL

(CVsl)model

Correlation


1

00001 0001 001 01 1X





er


Pow

e

53

54


St


1000

100


1


001

00001 0001 001 X

01 1





ΔhwD

001

00001

00001 0001 001 01 1 h0D


0001

55

Δh

wD

Δ

hwD



025


02

015

01 )071 ΔhW DD = 067(h 0 DΔh = 0 67(h D) 005

0

0 005 01 015 02 025 h0D



06

05

)053ΔhW D = 058(X 04

03 Paras et al (1992 1994)

Mantilla (2008)02


Manitlla (2008) - ST = 0035 Nm 01


Correlation

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

X











56







57







58











59

Research Schedule

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014


Literature Review

Facility Training


Test Matrix

Main Tests

Additional Tests

Data Analysis

Modeling Study

PhD Proposal


Defense




60
















61












62
















63

64

Fluid Flow Projects


Duc Vuong


Outline

Objectives

Facility


Special

Single Phase Tests

Two Phase Tests

Future Work


65

Objectives



Facility


= Not available


66

Facility hellip



Facility hellip

67


Facility hellip



68




Wire Mesh Sensor




High Speed Camera


Light


69



High Speed Camera


Lights



70




PT1

PT2TT2

TT1

Nitrogen

QCV QCV

V1

V2

భ మ య+


ொx100


Capacitance Sensors



71



Flow

Gas Control Valve 1

2

4

Liquid Flow Meter

3

Collecting Flask

Supporting block

Swivel Joint

Gas Flow Meter


Single Phase Tests




72

Two Phase Tests





Future Work










73


QuestionsComments

74















75












76


References




77

78

Fluid Flow Projects





Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Modeling

Model Validation

Future Tasks


79

Objective



Introduction






80

Introduction hellip

Quemada (1977)




Introduction hellip




81

Introduction hellip

Taitel et al (2003)



Dabirian (2012)




Introduction hellip




82

Introduction hellip




Modeling


dPE v A D L L dx

dP v A G G dxL


Phases dP

ED AP vSG vSL dx



83

Modeling hellip


A S S 0G WG G i idx





Modeling hellip





84

Model Validation


D 00254m100000 1000 kg m3

L

G 118kg m3

(Pa

m) 10000

L 00001Pa s

1000

dL

G 00000184Pa s

vSL 0017m

dP

s

100 vSG 245m s

10

1 0 02 04 06 08 1

hLD (-)





0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)



85



200

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)

160

120

80

40

0



odel STR odel INT





07

06

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

05

04

03

L 02

H



0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 HL Experimental (-)


86



HL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

08

06

04

02

0





Conclusions






87

Future Work


Identify Constrains




Questions

88











89














90

















91

92

Fluid Flow Projects


Mujgan Guner


Outline

Introduction



Model Comparison

Model Analysis

CFD Simulations

Conclusions


93

Introduction

GAS



Introduction



Erratic Production



Annular Heading



94



Test Section







95


0001

001

01

1

10

1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

Taitel Model

Barnea Model

Unified Model

Test Points Annular



Intermittent




96



3000 P

ress

ure

Gra

die

nt (

Pa

m)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

vSL



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)




Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

2500

2300

2100

1900

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

700

500

Slug Flow

Annular Flow


=367 ms

=1601 ms

=406 ms

vSG

vSG

vSG

00 05 10 15

Time (min)


97




000

005

010

015

020

025

030

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Liq

uid

Hol

dup

(-)

vSG (ms)

=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms




vSL

vSL

vSL




98



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Vertical

15deg Deviated

30deg Deviated

45deg Deviated



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)







99




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)


=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms

vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Comparison


Beggs and Brill

OLGA (v72)



100


Vertical vSL=01 ms

Pre

ssur

e G

rad

ient

(P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=01 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


101



ress

ure

Gra

dien

t (P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=001 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


102



ress

ure

Gra

die

nt

(Pa

m)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

045

040

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


103



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

) 1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


104




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)



TUFFP Unified Model




vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Analysis


Liquid Entrainment





105





dL C







4 d


2WFf L 2 vL F


106





2 I If

C vC vF 2





A A AF F C


2 L v F C vC vF 2

WF f L 2 I f I 2


107



ൌ ܨ ܥ




Author Correlation

Wallis (1969)

dfcfi

L3001


fc d

fifcfi

L2121

Asali et al (1985)

40451 0 2

fc d

fiReRefcfi L

C

C

Fore (2000)

0 0015

1750013001

dRe

fcfi L

C


108






0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

τ I (P

a)

vSG (ms)





vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

dpd

l (P

a m

)

vSG (ms)


Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)

vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

109

Annular Flow

ComFil

Reve

plete m rsal

y v F

Slug Flow

y v

F

y v F

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

40




0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

H L

(-)

vSG (ms)

Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)


vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL



35

τ W

F (P

a)



110

CFD Simulations


Created in Gambit






111



Distribution


vSL=01 ms vSG=20 ms

vSG=18 ms

vSG=9 ms










112







113




Conclusions





114

Conclusions hellip







115

116

















117




















118


(2012)

119

120

Fluid Flow Projects


Yasser Alsaadi


Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Literature Review



Project Schedule


121

Objectives






Introduction





122

Introduction hellip


Pipe Wall



Literature Review


Wells




123



Deviation Angle









124








Experimental Matrix

Test Facility

Test Fluids

Instrumentation

Data Processing


125

Experimental Matrix




2 to 40 ms


001 002 005 and 01 ms





45deg Deviation

126



70deg Deviation



80deg Deviation

127



85deg Deviation



88deg Deviation

128


Test Facility

Test Section Design

3 in x 175 m

Test Fluids









129

Instrumentation












130

Holdup Measurement


Air Cylinder (Va)


Tt Pt

Air Cylinder (Va)


Te Pe



Holdup Calibration

131

Boroscope





Data Processing


Holdup





132





PampT

Raw Data

Holdup


Trap Section

Raw Data





Test Point








133

Project Schedule







Questions amp

Comments


134


Yasser Alsaadi













135


















136

Fluid Flow Projects


Carlos F Torres


Outline





137

Status






Testing August 2013







138






LF

Fe Hls f f f i c f












139









Air and Water







Diameter 2 in

Roughness 0002 mm


140



0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)







141








0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)




142

Future Tasks

Finish Basic Coding




Recommendations




Droplet Entrainment


143



144

r

f















145

f




e such as the B


Brent or Muumlller

) n t r



ditions All the



liquid liquid

r those erficial


the fi holdup




d c

strati liquid




higher rey dot






s







146

Fluid Flow Projects


Jinho Choi


Outline



Future Work


147

Objective




Transient Flow Data


Purpose






148

Introduction











149









MS Access Database







150



Data Import


Raw Table



Data Export


Format

























March 2013

bull 19 Data Sets




151













Test Sections etc


152



Difficulties


Fan (2005) Data


Difficulties



56 Columns


153




Roumazeilles (1994)




Magrini (2009)

154


Difficulties


Test Sections etc


Future Work






155



156













157

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46














158



159

160

Fluid Flow Projects



Jose Moreiras


Outline

Objective

Introduction

Experimental Study

Modeling Approach

Conclusions


161

Objective


Pipe Diameter 2-in





Introduction



Gokcal (2008)

Kora (2010)

Jeyachandra (2011)



162

Introduction hellip



v = C v +vt o M d


Introduction hellip



vd 0351 gD


vd 0542 gD


163

Introduction hellip


05 05Fr v g D ( )d L L G

Eotvos Number

2 1N g D ( )Eo L G



Experimental Study




Test Gas Air



164




High Speed Camera


Pipe Diameter 2-in






165


Experimental Result



01

02

03

04

05

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Vd

[ms

]




166

Modeling Approach




θ= 0 to 90ordm D=0055 and 0178-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00373-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00762-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m






Vertical Flow

Inclined Flow


167


Horizontal Flow


Nba

NFr

540

00350

1a

014430

250886

89602

b

r







168



Vertical Flow

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [m

s]


2

2

9

64

9

2

3

8

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d


Dg

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d

350

3

2

9

64

9

2

3

8 2

2

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [

ms

]



Inclined Flow


0 FrV FrH 0




169

2 in Oil



a b N


2 2 vd g D 2 035 g D 3 D 9 9 D 3L L

05 05Fr v g D ( )V d L L G



g D ( )L L G



- Air- System


170

Conclusions







Questions

171

172


Jose Moreiras













173



Gravity 305 degAPI
















174













175

176

Fluid Flow Projects


Gas Two-Phase

Jaejun Kim


Outline

Objective

Introduction


Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

Future Work


177

Objective




Introduction




(2005 2008) and Kora (2010)


178

179

Introduction hellip


Jeyachandra (2011)





CPU

Air

12345

Ma x



Probe Probe


Experimental Matrix








0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Dispersed

Intermittent

Stratified Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Stratified

Dispersed Bubble

Intermittent

Stratified

Annular

585 cP 181 cP

180



0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug Flow

STRATIFIED

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

585 cP 181 cP




181


Capacitance Sensor

Two-wire

Capacitance Sensor


0030 DIA

025

200



Static Calibration

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

0 02 04 06 08 1

Cap 2

Cap 3

H L

V

182



0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H LS

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H L

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

Cap 2 Cap 3 Cap 4

Cap 5 Cap 6 Cap 7


Dynamic Calibration

Quick Closing valve

183

Future Work




Report June 2013


Thanks hellip


184

Questions


185

186













187
















188







189

190

Fluid Flow Projects



Feras Alruhaimani


Outline

Objectives

Facility

Test Fluid

Test Matrix


Future Activities


191

Objectives






192






Test Section

QCV System

Visua lizatio n Box


193


Return Pipe



Test Fluids


194

Test Matrix







Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 90o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition

195


Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 75o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition


Low Speed Data

(1 to 10 Hz)

Pressure

Pressure Gradient

Temperature

Mass Flow-rates

Densities

Viscosities


High Speed Data



Average Slug Length


Slug Frequency

Slug Liquid Holdup

Film Liquid Holdup


Videos

Digital

High Speed


196

Low Speed Data




High Speed Data



Dynamic Calibration



197




distance L

CS1CS2




Derivative

198

Static Calibration






199

Future Activities

Completion Dates








Questions amp

Comments


200
















201





















202

Fluid Flow Projects




Outline

Motivation

Objectives

Literature Review

Project Scope

Near Future Tasks


203


Motivation





Liquid Properties

Motivation hellip



Solid Transport

Pipeline Fatigue


Regular Slug

Rolling Wave

204

Objectives





Literature Review





Accumulation



205








(ρG=226 kgm3)

206




0

02

04

06

08

1

0 2 4 6 8

h L d

[‐]

vSG [ms]




Project Scope







207



Gas Rate

θ1

θ2

θ1 θ2






208

Near Future Tasks



Facility Design



Questions

209

210


















211













212

Fluid Flow Projects

TUHOP Incorporation

Cem Sarica

Eduardo Pereyra


TUHOP Review






213

TUHOP Review hellip













214





Status



215

Way Forward




Way Forward hellip


by the End of 2013



216







Oil-Water Flow


vS

W (m

s)

10

1

01

001

SOW

SOW-DOW

SOW-DOW-OF

CAOF

001 01 1 10 vSO (ms)



217


Oil-Water Flow


Oil-Water Flow



Pressure Drop

Water Fraction



218

Fluid Flow Projects

Business Report

Cem Sarica





JOGMEC Termination




DragOilUNAM Group

DSME of South Korea

Kongsberg

Repsol

PDVSA



219












220









Sum 7 5

Financial Report


TUFFP BSEE Account


TUFFP BSEE Account


221










Reserve as of 123112 46428732 $











222





















223

Oil

Pr

ce

$


i

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

OIl

Pri

ce

$

Nu

mb

er

of

Me

mb

ers

Year

Members Oil Price




224



Membership Fees


Thanks


4 Unpaid


225

226

Introduction












227

228

Personnel
























229






230

Table 1




University Kuwait




Saudi Aramco

Saudi Aramco


Fall 2013



Fall 2014


Spring 2016


Waived (TU)


Completed


Waived ndash (BSEE)


Completed


TUFFP

Yes

TUFFP


Fall 2014



Fall 2013



Completed


Fall 2016

231

232

Membership


Table 2





Baker Atlas PEMEX

BSEE Petrobras






KOC

233

234


Test Facilities






235

236

TO L

EWIS

AVE

M

ARSH

ALL

STR

EET

Spe

cial

Pro

ject

s Bui

ldin

g

N

TUD

CP

TUSTP

TUD

RP-

PEACTS

JIP

-PE

PARKIN

GTU

PDP-

PETU

ECP-

ME

TUSM

P-M

E

PE Lab Trailer

TUSTP Control Room

Bld

g Pr

oces

sTU

FFP-

PE

CO

LLEG

E O

F

TUH

FP-P

EChE

TEST

WEL

L

TUSTP

-PE

ME

MU

LTIP

HASE

ALP

INE

PERFO

RM

AN

CE

OF

Bui

ldin

gTU

DCP-

ChE

Hydrate Loop

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

AN

D N

ATU

RAL

SCIE

NCES

ES

Ps

LOO

P

TUALP

-PE

PETR

OLE

UM

NATU

RAL

SEP

ARATI

ON

RES

EARCH

CAM

PUS

LOO

P

2450

E

MARSH

ALL

HIL

LY T

ERRAIN

LO

OP

GAS L

IFT

VALV

E TE

STFA

CIL

ITY


ME

H

YBRID

TU

ECRC

ELEC

TRIC

CARS

TUSM

P

PARKING

DRILL BUILDING

DRILL LAB

PARAFF

IN

MU

LTIP

HASE

LOO

P

TUPD

PFL

OW

ASSU

RAN

CE

LAB

LOW

LIQ

UID

LO

AD

ING

PARAFF

INM

E

LOO

PBU

ILD

ING

G

ASO

ILW

ATE

R L

OO

P

TUM

SP

PARAFF

IN S

ING

LE P

HASE

LOO

P



LOW

PRES

SU

RE

LOO

P

ARC

O B

UIL

DIN

G

ACTS

JIP

HIG

H P

RES

SU

RE

LOO

P TU

FFP

SH

OP

MACH

INE

SH

OP

STO

RAG

E

Figure

1 ‐Site

Plan

for the North

Cam

pus Research

Facilties

Financial Status






237










Reserve as of 123112 $ 46428732

238




237635 4800000




Budget 2812500 225000

1563750

2012 Expenditures

2940000 235200

1634640



239












240










241

242
























243













244

Appendix A










245

Mujgan Guner

Hamidreza Karami

Wei Zheng


Jaejun Kim

Maher Shariff

Huyoung Lee




(918) 631-5107 hk274utulsaedu








246

Appendix B








247






248








249








250






251







252










253





254

Appendix C

















255


















256

T 22 Sep 86




















257








R March 2006






60 STATOIL 1985 23 Oct 85 T16 Mar 89


1986 3 Oct 86 T 2003







258
















2009 81 SPT T 2013 (Merger)





259


260

Appendix D



















261






















262























263
























264






















265




















266

Structure Bookmarks

1

bull

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

frac34

6

6

6

0 02 04 06 08

SL =01 ms)

SL =001 ms)

1

bull


o Viscosity Effects

1 Zukoski (1966)

bull

30

35

38

T 26 Sep 84

39

T 23 Sep 86

41

42

50

55

1

17

83






iv

Executive Summary














1


















2












3

4

Fluid Flow Projects


Welcome


Safety Moment


Restrooms


5





Registration Table


Team








6

Team hellip






Team hellip









7

Team hellip



Jaejun Kim

Hoyoung Lee


Guests




Steve Coleman

DSME Representative

Tod Canty JM Canty


8

Agenda



Behavior


Activities

1015 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip






9

Agenda hellip

1200 Lunch






245 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip




TUHOP Incorporation


10

Agenda hellip


430 Open Discussion

500 Adjourn



Other Activities






11

12

t

Fluid Flow Projects


Horizontal Pipes

Kiran Gawas


Outline

6 Objectives





6 Conclusions

6 Recommendations


13

Objectives




Introduction





14

15



Test Section

46m 46m 8 2m 82m 9 1m 91m 9 1m 91m 7 1m 71m

P P DP DP

DP T

DP

QCV QCV

QCV QCV

DP T DP

QCV

DP DP P P

71m 91m 91m 82m

564m


16

ndash

Test Fluids

6 Test Fluid



ρ = 1000 kgm3

μ = 1 cP



ρ = 760 kgm3

μ = 135 cP




Glycerin

Pipe


DAQ Light Light

Source


Setup

Flow Direction

6 15


Pressure Gauze

Separator




6 Flow Pattern


6 Droplet Size

6 Droplet Flux





17

18


Dong (2007)

Current Study











25 100

5

10

15

20

25

f v (d

P ) (

)

Bottom

Middle

Top

20

40

60

80

100

F v (

d P )

()

Bottom

Middle

Top


0

0 200 400 600 800

dp (microns)

0

0 200 400 600 800 dp (microns)

19

20

f v (

)

f v (d

P)

()


25 100

90

20 80 Bottom

Bottom 70 Middle

Middle 15 Top

10 Fv (d

P)

()

Top 60

50

40

30

20 5

10

0 0 0 200 400 600 800




10020




12

10

Fv

() 60

8 40

66

4 20

2

0 0

0 100 200 300 400

dp (microns)

500 600 0 100 200 300 dp (microns)

400 500



10 15 20 25 30

vSG (ms)



1000d 3

2 (m

icro

ns)

100

10

1

Bottom Middle




10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

vSG (ms)



1000

100

d 32

(mic

ron

s)

Bottom Middle



10


21


dmax= 29155 d32

900

Rsup2 = 07358

300

500

700

d max

(mic

ron

s)


100

100 150 200 250

d32(microns)


16

4

6

8

10

12

14

f v (d

P ) (

)


0

2

4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

dp (microns)

22









Flow

Saltation Region

Flow Direction

Turbulence Gravity

dC


)( yaCudy

dC T =+ε


SourceSink


23

24





1

VSG = 23 ms vSg=



Eq (449) yD 04

02

0

001 01 1 10Ex (kgm2s)


25



06

yD 04 W

LE

(kg

s)

006

004

02 002

00 0

001 01

Ex (kgm2s) 1 10 0 0005 001 0015

vSL (ms) 002 0025









26

27



11 WC = 01 Water

WC = 01 Oil 08

WC = 02 Water

WC = 02 Oil 06

WC = 04 Water

yD WC = 04 Oil 04

02

0

001 01 1 10 Ex (kgm2s)



1 1

WC = 1 WC = 1

08 08 WC = 01 Water

WC = 02 Water

06 WC = 04 Water 06

yD yD04 04

WC = 0

WC = 01 02 02

WC = 02

WC = 04

0 00 0




28


1

WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

yD 04

0 202

0

0 005 01 015 02 025

fw








VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2

VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2









0 4

06

08

1

E

- = - V = -

= V =

vSG = 23 ms -2deg

vSG = 23 ms 2deg

vSG = 165 ms -2deg

vSG = 165 ms 2deg

vSG = 19 ms -2deg

vSG = 19 ms 2deg


0

02

04

0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 vSL (ms)

29

LFCLFGLGA

θθ Ck


Da RR =

⎞⎛502 )( Wvk ρρ ⎟⎞

⎜⎛ minusWWvk


⎜ ⎝ ⎛ Γminus= )(

C LFGLGA

P

WvkRa

σ ρρ ⎟

⎠ ⎜ ⎝

= P

Ra σ

P = SIP = πD

2

0211 ⎟ ⎠ ⎞


D

hDS I


θC θC

Si

Two-fluid model



W DD C

CkR

)()(

θθ= )()( WDD B

B DD C

CkR )(θ

02

03

04

Cor

rela

tion


0

01

0 01 02 03 04

E C

ERigorous

30

31



0606

E E

0404

0202

00 0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 0030 0005 001 0015 002 0025 003 vSL (ms) vSL (ms)






1 WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

WC = 11WC

yD 04

02


001 01 1 10 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)




( ) ( )G

mwaterL Twab vDS

WCEW uRWC

24π = ( ) ( )G

oilmL Toab vDS

EWCW uRWC

24

)1()1(

π minus

=minus

)1()1(

)1(m

W

O m

m b

WC E

EWC

WCWC

minus minus

minus +

= ⎥ ⎦

⎤ ⎢ ⎣

⎡ minus +minus=

m

o womLLF WC

EEEWCWW

)1()(




001

01

(WL

E )

Wate

r [k

gs]


00001

0001

0 005 01 015 02 025 03 035 04 045 WC [-]


32

33


06 WC = 01

WC = 02

WC = 04 04

yD

02

0

001 01 1 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)









02

01

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 WCm

WC

b


Conclusions






Recommendations







34








Thank You


35

36
















37


















38








39

40

Fluid Flow Projects



Hamidreza Karami


Outline

6 Introduction

6 Objectives

6 Experimental Work



6 Future Activities


41

Introduction







Objectives





42










43









6 Densito 30PX



44




6 Proposed Tests


MEG (wt) 0 10 25 50 4


Water Cut () 10 20 40 60 80 100 6


Vsl (cms) 1 2 2

Vsg (ms) 15 17 19 21 23 5

Total 720


45











Testing Range

Temperature Range


46

6 Isokinetic Probes

6

Flow Direction

03 15

7

Pressure Gauge

Separator


47





P7 h5 = 2primeprime




P1 h9 = 6primeprime









frac34 Celerity

frac34 Frequency

frac34 Amplitude

0deg 2 D

60deg

30deg

90deg


48








h0 = 17802(V) - 16739

30

35

40

45

mm

)


h0 = 17636(V) - 34508

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 15 2 25 3 35 4

Fil

m T

hic

knes

s (m

Voltage (V)

Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

49

11

06

07

08

09

1

VV

max

[]


VV

ma

x [

]

0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t [s]

t [s]


11

-

= = =

06

07

08

09

1

-

Vsg = 145 ms Vsl = 001 ms WC = 0

VV

max


0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t (s)



rela

tion

coe

ffic

ient


Δt C = Δ xΔt

Time Lag (ms)

Cro

ss-c

orr

50



Author (Year)

Test Fluids Pipe

Diameter

Liquid Viscosity

(Pas)



Range


Andritsos (1986)

Air -Water 00508 00953

0001 - 008 0072 6 - 19 ms 001 - 006

ms

Paras (1991 1994)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 10 - 66 ms 002 - 02 ms

Mantilla (2008)

Ai W tAir -Water 0 0508 0 152 00508 0152 0001 -00071

0 072 0 035 0072 - 0035 5 80 5 - 80 ms 00035 - 01

ms Magrini (2009)

Air -Water 0076 0001 0072 40 - 80 ms 00035 - 004

ms Mantilla (2012)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 5 - 20 ms 0001 - 001

ms Johnson (2005)

SF6 - Water 01 0001 0072 05 - 45 ms 01 - 1 ms


ms 10 - 20 ms




Paras et al (1991)

Mantilla (2008) - D = 00508 m

100

1000

CvSL

( )

Current Study

Johnson (2005)







1

10

00001 0001 001 01 1X

51



β




Disturbance Waves

Disturbance Waves


52


1000

(CVsl)model

10

100

CvSL

(CVsl)model

Correlation


1

00001 0001 001 01 1X





er


Pow

e

53

54


St


1000

100


1


001

00001 0001 001 X

01 1





ΔhwD

001

00001

00001 0001 001 01 1 h0D


0001

55

Δh

wD

Δ

hwD



025


02

015

01 )071 ΔhW DD = 067(h 0 DΔh = 0 67(h D) 005

0

0 005 01 015 02 025 h0D



06

05

)053ΔhW D = 058(X 04

03 Paras et al (1992 1994)

Mantilla (2008)02


Manitlla (2008) - ST = 0035 Nm 01


Correlation

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

X











56







57







58











59

Research Schedule

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014


Literature Review

Facility Training


Test Matrix

Main Tests

Additional Tests

Data Analysis

Modeling Study

PhD Proposal


Defense




60
















61












62
















63

64

Fluid Flow Projects


Duc Vuong


Outline

Objectives

Facility


Special

Single Phase Tests

Two Phase Tests

Future Work


65

Objectives



Facility


= Not available


66

Facility hellip



Facility hellip

67


Facility hellip



68




Wire Mesh Sensor




High Speed Camera


Light


69



High Speed Camera


Lights



70




PT1

PT2TT2

TT1

Nitrogen

QCV QCV

V1

V2

భ మ య+


ொx100


Capacitance Sensors



71



Flow

Gas Control Valve 1

2

4

Liquid Flow Meter

3

Collecting Flask

Supporting block

Swivel Joint

Gas Flow Meter


Single Phase Tests




72

Two Phase Tests





Future Work










73


QuestionsComments

74















75












76


References




77

78

Fluid Flow Projects





Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Modeling

Model Validation

Future Tasks


79

Objective



Introduction






80

Introduction hellip

Quemada (1977)




Introduction hellip




81

Introduction hellip

Taitel et al (2003)



Dabirian (2012)




Introduction hellip




82

Introduction hellip




Modeling


dPE v A D L L dx

dP v A G G dxL


Phases dP

ED AP vSG vSL dx



83

Modeling hellip


A S S 0G WG G i idx





Modeling hellip





84

Model Validation


D 00254m100000 1000 kg m3

L

G 118kg m3

(Pa

m) 10000

L 00001Pa s

1000

dL

G 00000184Pa s

vSL 0017m

dP

s

100 vSG 245m s

10

1 0 02 04 06 08 1

hLD (-)





0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)



85



200

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)

160

120

80

40

0



odel STR odel INT





07

06

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

05

04

03

L 02

H



0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 HL Experimental (-)


86



HL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

08

06

04

02

0





Conclusions






87

Future Work


Identify Constrains




Questions

88











89














90

















91

92

Fluid Flow Projects


Mujgan Guner


Outline

Introduction



Model Comparison

Model Analysis

CFD Simulations

Conclusions


93

Introduction

GAS



Introduction



Erratic Production



Annular Heading



94



Test Section







95


0001

001

01

1

10

1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

Taitel Model

Barnea Model

Unified Model

Test Points Annular



Intermittent




96



3000 P

ress

ure

Gra

die

nt (

Pa

m)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

vSL



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)




Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

2500

2300

2100

1900

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

700

500

Slug Flow

Annular Flow


=367 ms

=1601 ms

=406 ms

vSG

vSG

vSG

00 05 10 15

Time (min)


97




000

005

010

015

020

025

030

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Liq

uid

Hol

dup

(-)

vSG (ms)

=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms




vSL

vSL

vSL




98



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Vertical

15deg Deviated

30deg Deviated

45deg Deviated



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)







99




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)


=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms

vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Comparison


Beggs and Brill

OLGA (v72)



100


Vertical vSL=01 ms

Pre

ssur

e G

rad

ient

(P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=01 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


101



ress

ure

Gra

dien

t (P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=001 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


102



ress

ure

Gra

die

nt

(Pa

m)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

045

040

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


103



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

) 1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


104




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)



TUFFP Unified Model




vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Analysis


Liquid Entrainment





105





dL C







4 d


2WFf L 2 vL F


106





2 I If

C vC vF 2





A A AF F C


2 L v F C vC vF 2

WF f L 2 I f I 2


107



ൌ ܨ ܥ




Author Correlation

Wallis (1969)

dfcfi

L3001


fc d

fifcfi

L2121

Asali et al (1985)

40451 0 2

fc d

fiReRefcfi L

C

C

Fore (2000)

0 0015

1750013001

dRe

fcfi L

C


108






0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

τ I (P

a)

vSG (ms)





vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

dpd

l (P

a m

)

vSG (ms)


Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)

vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

109

Annular Flow

ComFil

Reve

plete m rsal

y v F

Slug Flow

y v

F

y v F

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

40




0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

H L

(-)

vSG (ms)

Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)


vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL



35

τ W

F (P

a)



110

CFD Simulations


Created in Gambit






111



Distribution


vSL=01 ms vSG=20 ms

vSG=18 ms

vSG=9 ms










112







113




Conclusions





114

Conclusions hellip







115

116

















117




















118


(2012)

119

120

Fluid Flow Projects


Yasser Alsaadi


Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Literature Review



Project Schedule


121

Objectives






Introduction





122

Introduction hellip


Pipe Wall



Literature Review


Wells




123



Deviation Angle









124








Experimental Matrix

Test Facility

Test Fluids

Instrumentation

Data Processing


125

Experimental Matrix




2 to 40 ms


001 002 005 and 01 ms





45deg Deviation

126



70deg Deviation



80deg Deviation

127



85deg Deviation



88deg Deviation

128


Test Facility

Test Section Design

3 in x 175 m

Test Fluids









129

Instrumentation












130

Holdup Measurement


Air Cylinder (Va)


Tt Pt

Air Cylinder (Va)


Te Pe



Holdup Calibration

131

Boroscope





Data Processing


Holdup





132





PampT

Raw Data

Holdup


Trap Section

Raw Data





Test Point








133

Project Schedule







Questions amp

Comments


134


Yasser Alsaadi













135


















136

Fluid Flow Projects


Carlos F Torres


Outline





137

Status






Testing August 2013







138






LF

Fe Hls f f f i c f












139









Air and Water







Diameter 2 in

Roughness 0002 mm


140



0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)







141








0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)




142

Future Tasks

Finish Basic Coding




Recommendations




Droplet Entrainment


143



144

r

f















145

f




e such as the B


Brent or Muumlller

) n t r



ditions All the



liquid liquid

r those erficial


the fi holdup




d c

strati liquid




higher rey dot






s







146

Fluid Flow Projects


Jinho Choi


Outline



Future Work


147

Objective




Transient Flow Data


Purpose






148

Introduction











149









MS Access Database







150



Data Import


Raw Table



Data Export


Format

























March 2013

bull 19 Data Sets




151













Test Sections etc


152



Difficulties


Fan (2005) Data


Difficulties



56 Columns


153




Roumazeilles (1994)




Magrini (2009)

154


Difficulties


Test Sections etc


Future Work






155



156













157

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46














158



159

160

Fluid Flow Projects



Jose Moreiras


Outline

Objective

Introduction

Experimental Study

Modeling Approach

Conclusions


161

Objective


Pipe Diameter 2-in





Introduction



Gokcal (2008)

Kora (2010)

Jeyachandra (2011)



162

Introduction hellip



v = C v +vt o M d


Introduction hellip



vd 0351 gD


vd 0542 gD


163

Introduction hellip


05 05Fr v g D ( )d L L G

Eotvos Number

2 1N g D ( )Eo L G



Experimental Study




Test Gas Air



164




High Speed Camera


Pipe Diameter 2-in






165


Experimental Result



01

02

03

04

05

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Vd

[ms

]




166

Modeling Approach




θ= 0 to 90ordm D=0055 and 0178-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00373-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00762-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m






Vertical Flow

Inclined Flow


167


Horizontal Flow


Nba

NFr

540

00350

1a

014430

250886

89602

b

r







168



Vertical Flow

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [m

s]


2

2

9

64

9

2

3

8

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d


Dg

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d

350

3

2

9

64

9

2

3

8 2

2

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [

ms

]



Inclined Flow


0 FrV FrH 0




169

2 in Oil



a b N


2 2 vd g D 2 035 g D 3 D 9 9 D 3L L

05 05Fr v g D ( )V d L L G



g D ( )L L G



- Air- System


170

Conclusions







Questions

171

172


Jose Moreiras













173



Gravity 305 degAPI
















174













175

176

Fluid Flow Projects


Gas Two-Phase

Jaejun Kim


Outline

Objective

Introduction


Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

Future Work


177

Objective




Introduction




(2005 2008) and Kora (2010)


178

179

Introduction hellip


Jeyachandra (2011)





CPU

Air

12345

Ma x



Probe Probe


Experimental Matrix








0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Dispersed

Intermittent

Stratified Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Stratified

Dispersed Bubble

Intermittent

Stratified

Annular

585 cP 181 cP

180



0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug Flow

STRATIFIED

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

585 cP 181 cP




181


Capacitance Sensor

Two-wire

Capacitance Sensor


0030 DIA

025

200



Static Calibration

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

0 02 04 06 08 1

Cap 2

Cap 3

H L

V

182



0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H LS

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H L

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

Cap 2 Cap 3 Cap 4

Cap 5 Cap 6 Cap 7


Dynamic Calibration

Quick Closing valve

183

Future Work




Report June 2013


Thanks hellip


184

Questions


185

186













187
















188







189

190

Fluid Flow Projects



Feras Alruhaimani


Outline

Objectives

Facility

Test Fluid

Test Matrix


Future Activities


191

Objectives






192






Test Section

QCV System

Visua lizatio n Box


193


Return Pipe



Test Fluids


194

Test Matrix







Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 90o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition

195


Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 75o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition


Low Speed Data

(1 to 10 Hz)

Pressure

Pressure Gradient

Temperature

Mass Flow-rates

Densities

Viscosities


High Speed Data



Average Slug Length


Slug Frequency

Slug Liquid Holdup

Film Liquid Holdup


Videos

Digital

High Speed


196

Low Speed Data




High Speed Data



Dynamic Calibration



197




distance L

CS1CS2




Derivative

198

Static Calibration






199

Future Activities

Completion Dates








Questions amp

Comments


200
















201





















202

Fluid Flow Projects




Outline

Motivation

Objectives

Literature Review

Project Scope

Near Future Tasks


203


Motivation





Liquid Properties

Motivation hellip



Solid Transport

Pipeline Fatigue


Regular Slug

Rolling Wave

204

Objectives





Literature Review





Accumulation



205








(ρG=226 kgm3)

206




0

02

04

06

08

1

0 2 4 6 8

h L d

[‐]

vSG [ms]




Project Scope







207



Gas Rate

θ1

θ2

θ1 θ2






208

Near Future Tasks



Facility Design



Questions

209

210


















211













212

Fluid Flow Projects

TUHOP Incorporation

Cem Sarica

Eduardo Pereyra


TUHOP Review






213

TUHOP Review hellip













214





Status



215

Way Forward




Way Forward hellip


by the End of 2013



216







Oil-Water Flow


vS

W (m

s)

10

1

01

001

SOW

SOW-DOW

SOW-DOW-OF

CAOF

001 01 1 10 vSO (ms)



217


Oil-Water Flow


Oil-Water Flow



Pressure Drop

Water Fraction



218

Fluid Flow Projects

Business Report

Cem Sarica





JOGMEC Termination




DragOilUNAM Group

DSME of South Korea

Kongsberg

Repsol

PDVSA



219












220









Sum 7 5

Financial Report


TUFFP BSEE Account


TUFFP BSEE Account


221










Reserve as of 123112 46428732 $











222





















223

Oil

Pr

ce

$


i

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

OIl

Pri

ce

$

Nu

mb

er

of

Me

mb

ers

Year

Members Oil Price




224



Membership Fees


Thanks


4 Unpaid


225

226

Introduction












227

228

Personnel
























229






230

Table 1




University Kuwait




Saudi Aramco

Saudi Aramco


Fall 2013



Fall 2014


Spring 2016


Waived (TU)


Completed


Waived ndash (BSEE)


Completed


TUFFP

Yes

TUFFP


Fall 2014



Fall 2013



Completed


Fall 2016

231

232

Membership


Table 2





Baker Atlas PEMEX

BSEE Petrobras






KOC

233

234


Test Facilities






235

236

TO L

EWIS

AVE

M

ARSH

ALL

STR

EET

Spe

cial

Pro

ject

s Bui

ldin

g

N

TUD

CP

TUSTP

TUD

RP-

PEACTS

JIP

-PE

PARKIN

GTU

PDP-

PETU

ECP-

ME

TUSM

P-M

E

PE Lab Trailer

TUSTP Control Room

Bld

g Pr

oces

sTU

FFP-

PE

CO

LLEG

E O

F

TUH

FP-P

EChE

TEST

WEL

L

TUSTP

-PE

ME

MU

LTIP

HASE

ALP

INE

PERFO

RM

AN

CE

OF

Bui

ldin

gTU

DCP-

ChE

Hydrate Loop

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

AN

D N

ATU

RAL

SCIE

NCES

ES

Ps

LOO

P

TUALP

-PE

PETR

OLE

UM

NATU

RAL

SEP

ARATI

ON

RES

EARCH

CAM

PUS

LOO

P

2450

E

MARSH

ALL

HIL

LY T

ERRAIN

LO

OP

GAS L

IFT

VALV

E TE

STFA

CIL

ITY


ME

H

YBRID

TU

ECRC

ELEC

TRIC

CARS

TUSM

P

PARKING

DRILL BUILDING

DRILL LAB

PARAFF

IN

MU

LTIP

HASE

LOO

P

TUPD

PFL

OW

ASSU

RAN

CE

LAB

LOW

LIQ

UID

LO

AD

ING

PARAFF

INM

E

LOO

PBU

ILD

ING

G

ASO

ILW

ATE

R L

OO

P

TUM

SP

PARAFF

IN S

ING

LE P

HASE

LOO

P



LOW

PRES

SU

RE

LOO

P

ARC

O B

UIL

DIN

G

ACTS

JIP

HIG

H P

RES

SU

RE

LOO

P TU

FFP

SH

OP

MACH

INE

SH

OP

STO

RAG

E

Figure

1 ‐Site

Plan

for the North

Cam

pus Research

Facilties

Financial Status






237










Reserve as of 123112 $ 46428732

238




237635 4800000




Budget 2812500 225000

1563750

2012 Expenditures

2940000 235200

1634640



239












240










241

242
























243













244

Appendix A










245

Mujgan Guner

Hamidreza Karami

Wei Zheng


Jaejun Kim

Maher Shariff

Huyoung Lee




(918) 631-5107 hk274utulsaedu








246

Appendix B








247






248








249








250






251







252










253





254

Appendix C

















255


















256

T 22 Sep 86




















257








R March 2006






60 STATOIL 1985 23 Oct 85 T16 Mar 89


1986 3 Oct 86 T 2003







258
















2009 81 SPT T 2013 (Merger)





259


260

Appendix D



















261






















262























263
























264






















265




















266

Structure Bookmarks

1

bull

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

frac34

6

6

6

0 02 04 06 08

SL =01 ms)

SL =001 ms)

1

bull


o Viscosity Effects

1 Zukoski (1966)

bull

30

35

38

T 26 Sep 84

39

T 23 Sep 86

41

42

50

55

1

17

83

Executive Summary














1


















2












3

4

Fluid Flow Projects


Welcome


Safety Moment


Restrooms


5





Registration Table


Team








6

Team hellip






Team hellip









7

Team hellip



Jaejun Kim

Hoyoung Lee


Guests




Steve Coleman

DSME Representative

Tod Canty JM Canty


8

Agenda



Behavior


Activities

1015 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip






9

Agenda hellip

1200 Lunch






245 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip




TUHOP Incorporation


10

Agenda hellip


430 Open Discussion

500 Adjourn



Other Activities






11

12

t

Fluid Flow Projects


Horizontal Pipes

Kiran Gawas


Outline

6 Objectives





6 Conclusions

6 Recommendations


13

Objectives




Introduction





14

15



Test Section

46m 46m 8 2m 82m 9 1m 91m 9 1m 91m 7 1m 71m

P P DP DP

DP T

DP

QCV QCV

QCV QCV

DP T DP

QCV

DP DP P P

71m 91m 91m 82m

564m


16

ndash

Test Fluids

6 Test Fluid



ρ = 1000 kgm3

μ = 1 cP



ρ = 760 kgm3

μ = 135 cP




Glycerin

Pipe


DAQ Light Light

Source


Setup

Flow Direction

6 15


Pressure Gauze

Separator




6 Flow Pattern


6 Droplet Size

6 Droplet Flux





17

18


Dong (2007)

Current Study











25 100

5

10

15

20

25

f v (d

P ) (

)

Bottom

Middle

Top

20

40

60

80

100

F v (

d P )

()

Bottom

Middle

Top


0

0 200 400 600 800

dp (microns)

0

0 200 400 600 800 dp (microns)

19

20

f v (

)

f v (d

P)

()


25 100

90

20 80 Bottom

Bottom 70 Middle

Middle 15 Top

10 Fv (d

P)

()

Top 60

50

40

30

20 5

10

0 0 0 200 400 600 800




10020




12

10

Fv

() 60

8 40

66

4 20

2

0 0

0 100 200 300 400

dp (microns)

500 600 0 100 200 300 dp (microns)

400 500



10 15 20 25 30

vSG (ms)



1000d 3

2 (m

icro

ns)

100

10

1

Bottom Middle




10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

vSG (ms)



1000

100

d 32

(mic

ron

s)

Bottom Middle



10


21


dmax= 29155 d32

900

Rsup2 = 07358

300

500

700

d max

(mic

ron

s)


100

100 150 200 250

d32(microns)


16

4

6

8

10

12

14

f v (d

P ) (

)


0

2

4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

dp (microns)

22









Flow

Saltation Region

Flow Direction

Turbulence Gravity

dC


)( yaCudy

dC T =+ε


SourceSink


23

24





1

VSG = 23 ms vSg=



Eq (449) yD 04

02

0

001 01 1 10Ex (kgm2s)


25



06

yD 04 W

LE

(kg

s)

006

004

02 002

00 0

001 01

Ex (kgm2s) 1 10 0 0005 001 0015

vSL (ms) 002 0025









26

27



11 WC = 01 Water

WC = 01 Oil 08

WC = 02 Water

WC = 02 Oil 06

WC = 04 Water

yD WC = 04 Oil 04

02

0

001 01 1 10 Ex (kgm2s)



1 1

WC = 1 WC = 1

08 08 WC = 01 Water

WC = 02 Water

06 WC = 04 Water 06

yD yD04 04

WC = 0

WC = 01 02 02

WC = 02

WC = 04

0 00 0




28


1

WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

yD 04

0 202

0

0 005 01 015 02 025

fw








VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2

VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2









0 4

06

08

1

E

- = - V = -

= V =

vSG = 23 ms -2deg

vSG = 23 ms 2deg

vSG = 165 ms -2deg

vSG = 165 ms 2deg

vSG = 19 ms -2deg

vSG = 19 ms 2deg


0

02

04

0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 vSL (ms)

29

LFCLFGLGA

θθ Ck


Da RR =

⎞⎛502 )( Wvk ρρ ⎟⎞

⎜⎛ minusWWvk


⎜ ⎝ ⎛ Γminus= )(

C LFGLGA

P

WvkRa

σ ρρ ⎟

⎠ ⎜ ⎝

= P

Ra σ

P = SIP = πD

2

0211 ⎟ ⎠ ⎞


D

hDS I


θC θC

Si

Two-fluid model



W DD C

CkR

)()(

θθ= )()( WDD B

B DD C

CkR )(θ

02

03

04

Cor

rela

tion


0

01

0 01 02 03 04

E C

ERigorous

30

31



0606

E E

0404

0202

00 0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 0030 0005 001 0015 002 0025 003 vSL (ms) vSL (ms)






1 WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

WC = 11WC

yD 04

02


001 01 1 10 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)




( ) ( )G

mwaterL Twab vDS

WCEW uRWC

24π = ( ) ( )G

oilmL Toab vDS

EWCW uRWC

24

)1()1(

π minus

=minus

)1()1(

)1(m

W

O m

m b

WC E

EWC

WCWC

minus minus

minus +

= ⎥ ⎦

⎤ ⎢ ⎣

⎡ minus +minus=

m

o womLLF WC

EEEWCWW

)1()(




001

01

(WL

E )

Wate

r [k

gs]


00001

0001

0 005 01 015 02 025 03 035 04 045 WC [-]


32

33


06 WC = 01

WC = 02

WC = 04 04

yD

02

0

001 01 1 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)









02

01

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 WCm

WC

b


Conclusions






Recommendations







34








Thank You


35

36
















37


















38








39

40

Fluid Flow Projects



Hamidreza Karami


Outline

6 Introduction

6 Objectives

6 Experimental Work



6 Future Activities


41

Introduction







Objectives





42










43









6 Densito 30PX



44




6 Proposed Tests


MEG (wt) 0 10 25 50 4


Water Cut () 10 20 40 60 80 100 6


Vsl (cms) 1 2 2

Vsg (ms) 15 17 19 21 23 5

Total 720


45











Testing Range

Temperature Range


46

6 Isokinetic Probes

6

Flow Direction

03 15

7

Pressure Gauge

Separator


47





P7 h5 = 2primeprime




P1 h9 = 6primeprime









frac34 Celerity

frac34 Frequency

frac34 Amplitude

0deg 2 D

60deg

30deg

90deg


48








h0 = 17802(V) - 16739

30

35

40

45

mm

)


h0 = 17636(V) - 34508

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 15 2 25 3 35 4

Fil

m T

hic

knes

s (m

Voltage (V)

Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

49

11

06

07

08

09

1

VV

max

[]


VV

ma

x [

]

0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t [s]

t [s]


11

-

= = =

06

07

08

09

1

-

Vsg = 145 ms Vsl = 001 ms WC = 0

VV

max


0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t (s)



rela

tion

coe

ffic

ient


Δt C = Δ xΔt

Time Lag (ms)

Cro

ss-c

orr

50



Author (Year)

Test Fluids Pipe

Diameter

Liquid Viscosity

(Pas)



Range


Andritsos (1986)

Air -Water 00508 00953

0001 - 008 0072 6 - 19 ms 001 - 006

ms

Paras (1991 1994)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 10 - 66 ms 002 - 02 ms

Mantilla (2008)

Ai W tAir -Water 0 0508 0 152 00508 0152 0001 -00071

0 072 0 035 0072 - 0035 5 80 5 - 80 ms 00035 - 01

ms Magrini (2009)

Air -Water 0076 0001 0072 40 - 80 ms 00035 - 004

ms Mantilla (2012)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 5 - 20 ms 0001 - 001

ms Johnson (2005)

SF6 - Water 01 0001 0072 05 - 45 ms 01 - 1 ms


ms 10 - 20 ms




Paras et al (1991)

Mantilla (2008) - D = 00508 m

100

1000

CvSL

( )

Current Study

Johnson (2005)







1

10

00001 0001 001 01 1X

51



β




Disturbance Waves

Disturbance Waves


52


1000

(CVsl)model

10

100

CvSL

(CVsl)model

Correlation


1

00001 0001 001 01 1X





er


Pow

e

53

54


St


1000

100


1


001

00001 0001 001 X

01 1





ΔhwD

001

00001

00001 0001 001 01 1 h0D


0001

55

Δh

wD

Δ

hwD



025


02

015

01 )071 ΔhW DD = 067(h 0 DΔh = 0 67(h D) 005

0

0 005 01 015 02 025 h0D



06

05

)053ΔhW D = 058(X 04

03 Paras et al (1992 1994)

Mantilla (2008)02


Manitlla (2008) - ST = 0035 Nm 01


Correlation

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

X











56







57







58











59

Research Schedule

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014


Literature Review

Facility Training


Test Matrix

Main Tests

Additional Tests

Data Analysis

Modeling Study

PhD Proposal


Defense




60
















61












62
















63

64

Fluid Flow Projects


Duc Vuong


Outline

Objectives

Facility


Special

Single Phase Tests

Two Phase Tests

Future Work


65

Objectives



Facility


= Not available


66

Facility hellip



Facility hellip

67


Facility hellip



68




Wire Mesh Sensor




High Speed Camera


Light


69



High Speed Camera


Lights



70




PT1

PT2TT2

TT1

Nitrogen

QCV QCV

V1

V2

భ మ య+


ொx100


Capacitance Sensors



71



Flow

Gas Control Valve 1

2

4

Liquid Flow Meter

3

Collecting Flask

Supporting block

Swivel Joint

Gas Flow Meter


Single Phase Tests




72

Two Phase Tests





Future Work










73


QuestionsComments

74















75












76


References




77

78

Fluid Flow Projects





Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Modeling

Model Validation

Future Tasks


79

Objective



Introduction






80

Introduction hellip

Quemada (1977)




Introduction hellip




81

Introduction hellip

Taitel et al (2003)



Dabirian (2012)




Introduction hellip




82

Introduction hellip




Modeling


dPE v A D L L dx

dP v A G G dxL


Phases dP

ED AP vSG vSL dx



83

Modeling hellip


A S S 0G WG G i idx





Modeling hellip





84

Model Validation


D 00254m100000 1000 kg m3

L

G 118kg m3

(Pa

m) 10000

L 00001Pa s

1000

dL

G 00000184Pa s

vSL 0017m

dP

s

100 vSG 245m s

10

1 0 02 04 06 08 1

hLD (-)





0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)



85



200

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)

160

120

80

40

0



odel STR odel INT





07

06

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

05

04

03

L 02

H



0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 HL Experimental (-)


86



HL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

08

06

04

02

0





Conclusions






87

Future Work


Identify Constrains




Questions

88











89














90

















91

92

Fluid Flow Projects


Mujgan Guner


Outline

Introduction



Model Comparison

Model Analysis

CFD Simulations

Conclusions


93

Introduction

GAS



Introduction



Erratic Production



Annular Heading



94



Test Section







95


0001

001

01

1

10

1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

Taitel Model

Barnea Model

Unified Model

Test Points Annular



Intermittent




96



3000 P

ress

ure

Gra

die

nt (

Pa

m)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

vSL



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)




Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

2500

2300

2100

1900

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

700

500

Slug Flow

Annular Flow


=367 ms

=1601 ms

=406 ms

vSG

vSG

vSG

00 05 10 15

Time (min)


97




000

005

010

015

020

025

030

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Liq

uid

Hol

dup

(-)

vSG (ms)

=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms




vSL

vSL

vSL




98



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Vertical

15deg Deviated

30deg Deviated

45deg Deviated



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)







99




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)


=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms

vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Comparison


Beggs and Brill

OLGA (v72)



100


Vertical vSL=01 ms

Pre

ssur

e G

rad

ient

(P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=01 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


101



ress

ure

Gra

dien

t (P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=001 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


102



ress

ure

Gra

die

nt

(Pa

m)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

045

040

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


103



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

) 1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


104




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)



TUFFP Unified Model




vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Analysis


Liquid Entrainment





105





dL C







4 d


2WFf L 2 vL F


106





2 I If

C vC vF 2





A A AF F C


2 L v F C vC vF 2

WF f L 2 I f I 2


107



ൌ ܨ ܥ




Author Correlation

Wallis (1969)

dfcfi

L3001


fc d

fifcfi

L2121

Asali et al (1985)

40451 0 2

fc d

fiReRefcfi L

C

C

Fore (2000)

0 0015

1750013001

dRe

fcfi L

C


108






0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

τ I (P

a)

vSG (ms)





vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

dpd

l (P

a m

)

vSG (ms)


Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)

vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

109

Annular Flow

ComFil

Reve

plete m rsal

y v F

Slug Flow

y v

F

y v F

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

40




0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

H L

(-)

vSG (ms)

Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)


vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL



35

τ W

F (P

a)



110

CFD Simulations


Created in Gambit






111



Distribution


vSL=01 ms vSG=20 ms

vSG=18 ms

vSG=9 ms










112







113




Conclusions





114

Conclusions hellip







115

116

















117




















118


(2012)

119

120

Fluid Flow Projects


Yasser Alsaadi


Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Literature Review



Project Schedule


121

Objectives






Introduction





122

Introduction hellip


Pipe Wall



Literature Review


Wells




123



Deviation Angle









124








Experimental Matrix

Test Facility

Test Fluids

Instrumentation

Data Processing


125

Experimental Matrix




2 to 40 ms


001 002 005 and 01 ms





45deg Deviation

126



70deg Deviation



80deg Deviation

127



85deg Deviation



88deg Deviation

128


Test Facility

Test Section Design

3 in x 175 m

Test Fluids









129

Instrumentation












130

Holdup Measurement


Air Cylinder (Va)


Tt Pt

Air Cylinder (Va)


Te Pe



Holdup Calibration

131

Boroscope





Data Processing


Holdup





132





PampT

Raw Data

Holdup


Trap Section

Raw Data





Test Point








133

Project Schedule







Questions amp

Comments


134


Yasser Alsaadi













135


















136

Fluid Flow Projects


Carlos F Torres


Outline





137

Status






Testing August 2013







138






LF

Fe Hls f f f i c f












139









Air and Water







Diameter 2 in

Roughness 0002 mm


140



0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)







141








0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)




142

Future Tasks

Finish Basic Coding




Recommendations




Droplet Entrainment


143



144

r

f















145

f




e such as the B


Brent or Muumlller

) n t r



ditions All the



liquid liquid

r those erficial


the fi holdup




d c

strati liquid




higher rey dot






s







146

Fluid Flow Projects


Jinho Choi


Outline



Future Work


147

Objective




Transient Flow Data


Purpose






148

Introduction











149









MS Access Database







150



Data Import


Raw Table



Data Export


Format

























March 2013

bull 19 Data Sets




151













Test Sections etc


152



Difficulties


Fan (2005) Data


Difficulties



56 Columns


153




Roumazeilles (1994)




Magrini (2009)

154


Difficulties


Test Sections etc


Future Work






155



156













157

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46














158



159

160

Fluid Flow Projects



Jose Moreiras


Outline

Objective

Introduction

Experimental Study

Modeling Approach

Conclusions


161

Objective


Pipe Diameter 2-in





Introduction



Gokcal (2008)

Kora (2010)

Jeyachandra (2011)



162

Introduction hellip



v = C v +vt o M d


Introduction hellip



vd 0351 gD


vd 0542 gD


163

Introduction hellip


05 05Fr v g D ( )d L L G

Eotvos Number

2 1N g D ( )Eo L G



Experimental Study




Test Gas Air



164




High Speed Camera


Pipe Diameter 2-in






165


Experimental Result



01

02

03

04

05

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Vd

[ms

]




166

Modeling Approach




θ= 0 to 90ordm D=0055 and 0178-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00373-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00762-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m






Vertical Flow

Inclined Flow


167


Horizontal Flow


Nba

NFr

540

00350

1a

014430

250886

89602

b

r







168



Vertical Flow

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [m

s]


2

2

9

64

9

2

3

8

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d


Dg

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d

350

3

2

9

64

9

2

3

8 2

2

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [

ms

]



Inclined Flow


0 FrV FrH 0




169

2 in Oil



a b N


2 2 vd g D 2 035 g D 3 D 9 9 D 3L L

05 05Fr v g D ( )V d L L G



g D ( )L L G



- Air- System


170

Conclusions







Questions

171

172


Jose Moreiras













173



Gravity 305 degAPI
















174













175

176

Fluid Flow Projects


Gas Two-Phase

Jaejun Kim


Outline

Objective

Introduction


Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

Future Work


177

Objective




Introduction




(2005 2008) and Kora (2010)


178

179

Introduction hellip


Jeyachandra (2011)





CPU

Air

12345

Ma x



Probe Probe


Experimental Matrix








0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Dispersed

Intermittent

Stratified Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Stratified

Dispersed Bubble

Intermittent

Stratified

Annular

585 cP 181 cP

180



0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug Flow

STRATIFIED

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

585 cP 181 cP




181


Capacitance Sensor

Two-wire

Capacitance Sensor


0030 DIA

025

200



Static Calibration

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

0 02 04 06 08 1

Cap 2

Cap 3

H L

V

182



0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H LS

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H L

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

Cap 2 Cap 3 Cap 4

Cap 5 Cap 6 Cap 7


Dynamic Calibration

Quick Closing valve

183

Future Work




Report June 2013


Thanks hellip


184

Questions


185

186













187
















188







189

190

Fluid Flow Projects



Feras Alruhaimani


Outline

Objectives

Facility

Test Fluid

Test Matrix


Future Activities


191

Objectives






192






Test Section

QCV System

Visua lizatio n Box


193


Return Pipe



Test Fluids


194

Test Matrix







Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 90o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition

195


Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 75o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition


Low Speed Data

(1 to 10 Hz)

Pressure

Pressure Gradient

Temperature

Mass Flow-rates

Densities

Viscosities


High Speed Data



Average Slug Length


Slug Frequency

Slug Liquid Holdup

Film Liquid Holdup


Videos

Digital

High Speed


196

Low Speed Data




High Speed Data



Dynamic Calibration



197




distance L

CS1CS2




Derivative

198

Static Calibration






199

Future Activities

Completion Dates








Questions amp

Comments


200
















201





















202

Fluid Flow Projects




Outline

Motivation

Objectives

Literature Review

Project Scope

Near Future Tasks


203


Motivation





Liquid Properties

Motivation hellip



Solid Transport

Pipeline Fatigue


Regular Slug

Rolling Wave

204

Objectives





Literature Review





Accumulation



205








(ρG=226 kgm3)

206




0

02

04

06

08

1

0 2 4 6 8

h L d

[‐]

vSG [ms]




Project Scope







207



Gas Rate

θ1

θ2

θ1 θ2






208

Near Future Tasks



Facility Design



Questions

209

210


















211













212

Fluid Flow Projects

TUHOP Incorporation

Cem Sarica

Eduardo Pereyra


TUHOP Review






213

TUHOP Review hellip













214





Status



215

Way Forward




Way Forward hellip


by the End of 2013



216







Oil-Water Flow


vS

W (m

s)

10

1

01

001

SOW

SOW-DOW

SOW-DOW-OF

CAOF

001 01 1 10 vSO (ms)



217


Oil-Water Flow


Oil-Water Flow



Pressure Drop

Water Fraction



218

Fluid Flow Projects

Business Report

Cem Sarica





JOGMEC Termination




DragOilUNAM Group

DSME of South Korea

Kongsberg

Repsol

PDVSA



219












220









Sum 7 5

Financial Report


TUFFP BSEE Account


TUFFP BSEE Account


221










Reserve as of 123112 46428732 $











222





















223

Oil

Pr

ce

$


i

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

OIl

Pri

ce

$

Nu

mb

er

of

Me

mb

ers

Year

Members Oil Price




224



Membership Fees


Thanks


4 Unpaid


225

226

Introduction












227

228

Personnel
























229






230

Table 1




University Kuwait




Saudi Aramco

Saudi Aramco


Fall 2013



Fall 2014


Spring 2016


Waived (TU)


Completed


Waived ndash (BSEE)


Completed


TUFFP

Yes

TUFFP


Fall 2014



Fall 2013



Completed


Fall 2016

231

232

Membership


Table 2





Baker Atlas PEMEX

BSEE Petrobras






KOC

233

234


Test Facilities






235

236

TO L

EWIS

AVE

M

ARSH

ALL

STR

EET

Spe

cial

Pro

ject

s Bui

ldin

g

N

TUD

CP

TUSTP

TUD

RP-

PEACTS

JIP

-PE

PARKIN

GTU

PDP-

PETU

ECP-

ME

TUSM

P-M

E

PE Lab Trailer

TUSTP Control Room

Bld

g Pr

oces

sTU

FFP-

PE

CO

LLEG

E O

F

TUH

FP-P

EChE

TEST

WEL

L

TUSTP

-PE

ME

MU

LTIP

HASE

ALP

INE

PERFO

RM

AN

CE

OF

Bui

ldin

gTU

DCP-

ChE

Hydrate Loop

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

AN

D N

ATU

RAL

SCIE

NCES

ES

Ps

LOO

P

TUALP

-PE

PETR

OLE

UM

NATU

RAL

SEP

ARATI

ON

RES

EARCH

CAM

PUS

LOO

P

2450

E

MARSH

ALL

HIL

LY T

ERRAIN

LO

OP

GAS L

IFT

VALV

E TE

STFA

CIL

ITY


ME

H

YBRID

TU

ECRC

ELEC

TRIC

CARS

TUSM

P

PARKING

DRILL BUILDING

DRILL LAB

PARAFF

IN

MU

LTIP

HASE

LOO

P

TUPD

PFL

OW

ASSU

RAN

CE

LAB

LOW

LIQ

UID

LO

AD

ING

PARAFF

INM

E

LOO

PBU

ILD

ING

G

ASO

ILW

ATE

R L

OO

P

TUM

SP

PARAFF

IN S

ING

LE P

HASE

LOO

P



LOW

PRES

SU

RE

LOO

P

ARC

O B

UIL

DIN

G

ACTS

JIP

HIG

H P

RES

SU

RE

LOO

P TU

FFP

SH

OP

MACH

INE

SH

OP

STO

RAG

E

Figure

1 ‐Site

Plan

for the North

Cam

pus Research

Facilties

Financial Status






237










Reserve as of 123112 $ 46428732

238




237635 4800000




Budget 2812500 225000

1563750

2012 Expenditures

2940000 235200

1634640



239












240










241

242
























243













244

Appendix A










245

Mujgan Guner

Hamidreza Karami

Wei Zheng


Jaejun Kim

Maher Shariff

Huyoung Lee




(918) 631-5107 hk274utulsaedu








246

Appendix B








247






248








249








250






251







252










253





254

Appendix C

















255


















256

T 22 Sep 86




















257








R March 2006






60 STATOIL 1985 23 Oct 85 T16 Mar 89


1986 3 Oct 86 T 2003







258
















2009 81 SPT T 2013 (Merger)





259


260

Appendix D



















261






















262























263
























264






















265




















266

Structure Bookmarks

1

bull

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

frac34

6

6

6

0 02 04 06 08

SL =01 ms)

SL =001 ms)

1

bull


o Viscosity Effects

1 Zukoski (1966)

bull

30

35

38

T 26 Sep 84

39

T 23 Sep 86

41

42

50

55

1

17

83


















2












3

4

Fluid Flow Projects


Welcome


Safety Moment


Restrooms


5





Registration Table


Team








6

Team hellip






Team hellip









7

Team hellip



Jaejun Kim

Hoyoung Lee


Guests




Steve Coleman

DSME Representative

Tod Canty JM Canty


8

Agenda



Behavior


Activities

1015 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip






9

Agenda hellip

1200 Lunch






245 Coffee Break


Agenda hellip




TUHOP Incorporation


10

Agenda hellip


430 Open Discussion

500 Adjourn



Other Activities






11

12

t

Fluid Flow Projects


Horizontal Pipes

Kiran Gawas


Outline

6 Objectives





6 Conclusions

6 Recommendations


13

Objectives




Introduction





14

15



Test Section

46m 46m 8 2m 82m 9 1m 91m 9 1m 91m 7 1m 71m

P P DP DP

DP T

DP

QCV QCV

QCV QCV

DP T DP

QCV

DP DP P P

71m 91m 91m 82m

564m


16

ndash

Test Fluids

6 Test Fluid



ρ = 1000 kgm3

μ = 1 cP



ρ = 760 kgm3

μ = 135 cP




Glycerin

Pipe


DAQ Light Light

Source


Setup

Flow Direction

6 15


Pressure Gauze

Separator




6 Flow Pattern


6 Droplet Size

6 Droplet Flux





17

18


Dong (2007)

Current Study











25 100

5

10

15

20

25

f v (d

P ) (

)

Bottom

Middle

Top

20

40

60

80

100

F v (

d P )

()

Bottom

Middle

Top


0

0 200 400 600 800

dp (microns)

0

0 200 400 600 800 dp (microns)

19

20

f v (

)

f v (d

P)

()


25 100

90

20 80 Bottom

Bottom 70 Middle

Middle 15 Top

10 Fv (d

P)

()

Top 60

50

40

30

20 5

10

0 0 0 200 400 600 800




10020




12

10

Fv

() 60

8 40

66

4 20

2

0 0

0 100 200 300 400

dp (microns)

500 600 0 100 200 300 dp (microns)

400 500



10 15 20 25 30

vSG (ms)



1000d 3

2 (m

icro

ns)

100

10

1

Bottom Middle




10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

vSG (ms)



1000

100

d 32

(mic

ron

s)

Bottom Middle



10


21


dmax= 29155 d32

900

Rsup2 = 07358

300

500

700

d max

(mic

ron

s)


100

100 150 200 250

d32(microns)


16

4

6

8

10

12

14

f v (d

P ) (

)


0

2

4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

dp (microns)

22









Flow

Saltation Region

Flow Direction

Turbulence Gravity

dC


)( yaCudy

dC T =+ε


SourceSink


23

24





1

VSG = 23 ms vSg=



Eq (449) yD 04

02

0

001 01 1 10Ex (kgm2s)


25



06

yD 04 W

LE

(kg

s)

006

004

02 002

00 0

001 01

Ex (kgm2s) 1 10 0 0005 001 0015

vSL (ms) 002 0025









26

27



11 WC = 01 Water

WC = 01 Oil 08

WC = 02 Water

WC = 02 Oil 06

WC = 04 Water

yD WC = 04 Oil 04

02

0

001 01 1 10 Ex (kgm2s)



1 1

WC = 1 WC = 1

08 08 WC = 01 Water

WC = 02 Water

06 WC = 04 Water 06

yD yD04 04

WC = 0

WC = 01 02 02

WC = 02

WC = 04

0 00 0




28


1

WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

yD 04

0 202

0

0 005 01 015 02 025

fw








VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2

VSG = 23 ms 2 VSG 19 ms 2 SG 165 ms 2









0 4

06

08

1

E

- = - V = -

= V =

vSG = 23 ms -2deg

vSG = 23 ms 2deg

vSG = 165 ms -2deg

vSG = 165 ms 2deg

vSG = 19 ms -2deg

vSG = 19 ms 2deg


0

02

04

0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 vSL (ms)

29

LFCLFGLGA

θθ Ck


Da RR =

⎞⎛502 )( Wvk ρρ ⎟⎞

⎜⎛ minusWWvk


⎜ ⎝ ⎛ Γminus= )(

C LFGLGA

P

WvkRa

σ ρρ ⎟

⎠ ⎜ ⎝

= P

Ra σ

P = SIP = πD

2

0211 ⎟ ⎠ ⎞


D

hDS I


θC θC

Si

Two-fluid model



W DD C

CkR

)()(

θθ= )()( WDD B

B DD C

CkR )(θ

02

03

04

Cor

rela

tion


0

01

0 01 02 03 04

E C

ERigorous

30

31



0606

E E

0404

0202

00 0 0005 001 0015 002 0025 0030 0005 001 0015 002 0025 003 vSL (ms) vSL (ms)






1 WC = 01

08 WC = 02

WC = 04 06

WC = 11WC

yD 04

02


001 01 1 10 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)




( ) ( )G

mwaterL Twab vDS

WCEW uRWC

24π = ( ) ( )G

oilmL Toab vDS

EWCW uRWC

24

)1()1(

π minus

=minus

)1()1(

)1(m

W

O m

m b

WC E

EWC

WCWC

minus minus

minus +

= ⎥ ⎦

⎤ ⎢ ⎣

⎡ minus +minus=

m

o womLLF WC

EEEWCWW

)1()(




001

01

(WL

E )

Wate

r [k

gs]


00001

0001

0 005 01 015 02 025 03 035 04 045 WC [-]


32

33


06 WC = 01

WC = 02

WC = 04 04

yD

02

0

001 01 1 (Ex) WCm (kgm2s)









02

01

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 WCm

WC

b


Conclusions






Recommendations







34








Thank You


35

36
















37


















38








39

40

Fluid Flow Projects



Hamidreza Karami


Outline

6 Introduction

6 Objectives

6 Experimental Work



6 Future Activities


41

Introduction







Objectives





42










43









6 Densito 30PX



44




6 Proposed Tests


MEG (wt) 0 10 25 50 4


Water Cut () 10 20 40 60 80 100 6


Vsl (cms) 1 2 2

Vsg (ms) 15 17 19 21 23 5

Total 720


45











Testing Range

Temperature Range


46

6 Isokinetic Probes

6

Flow Direction

03 15

7

Pressure Gauge

Separator


47





P7 h5 = 2primeprime




P1 h9 = 6primeprime









frac34 Celerity

frac34 Frequency

frac34 Amplitude

0deg 2 D

60deg

30deg

90deg


48








h0 = 17802(V) - 16739

30

35

40

45

mm

)


h0 = 17636(V) - 34508

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 15 2 25 3 35 4

Fil

m T

hic

knes

s (m

Voltage (V)

Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

49

11

06

07

08

09

1

VV

max

[]


VV

ma

x [

]

0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t [s]

t [s]


11

-

= = =

06

07

08

09

1

-

Vsg = 145 ms Vsl = 001 ms WC = 0

VV

max


0 02 04 06 08 1 12 14 16 18 204

05

t (s)



rela

tion

coe

ffic

ient


Δt C = Δ xΔt

Time Lag (ms)

Cro

ss-c

orr

50



Author (Year)

Test Fluids Pipe

Diameter

Liquid Viscosity

(Pas)



Range


Andritsos (1986)

Air -Water 00508 00953

0001 - 008 0072 6 - 19 ms 001 - 006

ms

Paras (1991 1994)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 10 - 66 ms 002 - 02 ms

Mantilla (2008)

Ai W tAir -Water 0 0508 0 152 00508 0152 0001 -00071

0 072 0 035 0072 - 0035 5 80 5 - 80 ms 00035 - 01

ms Magrini (2009)

Air -Water 0076 0001 0072 40 - 80 ms 00035 - 004

ms Mantilla (2012)

Air -Water 00508 0001 0072 5 - 20 ms 0001 - 001

ms Johnson (2005)

SF6 - Water 01 0001 0072 05 - 45 ms 01 - 1 ms


ms 10 - 20 ms




Paras et al (1991)

Mantilla (2008) - D = 00508 m

100

1000

CvSL

( )

Current Study

Johnson (2005)







1

10

00001 0001 001 01 1X

51



β




Disturbance Waves

Disturbance Waves


52


1000

(CVsl)model

10

100

CvSL

(CVsl)model

Correlation


1

00001 0001 001 01 1X





er


Pow

e

53

54


St


1000

100


1


001

00001 0001 001 X

01 1





ΔhwD

001

00001

00001 0001 001 01 1 h0D


0001

55

Δh

wD

Δ

hwD



025


02

015

01 )071 ΔhW DD = 067(h 0 DΔh = 0 67(h D) 005

0

0 005 01 015 02 025 h0D



06

05

)053ΔhW D = 058(X 04

03 Paras et al (1992 1994)

Mantilla (2008)02


Manitlla (2008) - ST = 0035 Nm 01


Correlation

0

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

X











56







57







58











59

Research Schedule

Activity 2011 2012 2013 2014


Literature Review

Facility Training


Test Matrix

Main Tests

Additional Tests

Data Analysis

Modeling Study

PhD Proposal


Defense




60
















61












62
















63

64

Fluid Flow Projects


Duc Vuong


Outline

Objectives

Facility


Special

Single Phase Tests

Two Phase Tests

Future Work


65

Objectives



Facility


= Not available


66

Facility hellip



Facility hellip

67


Facility hellip



68




Wire Mesh Sensor




High Speed Camera


Light


69



High Speed Camera


Lights



70




PT1

PT2TT2

TT1

Nitrogen

QCV QCV

V1

V2

భ మ య+


ொx100


Capacitance Sensors



71



Flow

Gas Control Valve 1

2

4

Liquid Flow Meter

3

Collecting Flask

Supporting block

Swivel Joint

Gas Flow Meter


Single Phase Tests




72

Two Phase Tests





Future Work










73


QuestionsComments

74















75












76


References




77

78

Fluid Flow Projects





Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Modeling

Model Validation

Future Tasks


79

Objective



Introduction






80

Introduction hellip

Quemada (1977)




Introduction hellip




81

Introduction hellip

Taitel et al (2003)



Dabirian (2012)




Introduction hellip




82

Introduction hellip




Modeling


dPE v A D L L dx

dP v A G G dxL


Phases dP

ED AP vSG vSL dx



83

Modeling hellip


A S S 0G WG G i idx





Modeling hellip





84

Model Validation


D 00254m100000 1000 kg m3

L

G 118kg m3

(Pa

m) 10000

L 00001Pa s

1000

dL

G 00000184Pa s

vSL 0017m

dP

s

100 vSG 245m s

10

1 0 02 04 06 08 1

hLD (-)





0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)



85



200

dP

dL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

Pa

m)

160

120

80

40

0



odel STR odel INT





07

06

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

05

04

03

L 02

H



0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 HL Experimental (-)


86



HL

Pre

dic

tio

n (

-)

08

06

04

02

0





Conclusions






87

Future Work


Identify Constrains




Questions

88











89














90

















91

92

Fluid Flow Projects


Mujgan Guner


Outline

Introduction



Model Comparison

Model Analysis

CFD Simulations

Conclusions


93

Introduction

GAS



Introduction



Erratic Production



Annular Heading



94



Test Section







95


0001

001

01

1

10

1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

Taitel Model

Barnea Model

Unified Model

Test Points Annular



Intermittent




96



3000 P

ress

ure

Gra

die

nt (

Pa

m)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

vSL



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)




Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

2500

2300

2100

1900

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

700

500

Slug Flow

Annular Flow


=367 ms

=1601 ms

=406 ms

vSG

vSG

vSG

00 05 10 15

Time (min)


97




000

005

010

015

020

025

030

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Liq

uid

Hol

dup

(-)

vSG (ms)

=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms




vSL

vSL

vSL




98



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

)

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Vertical

15deg Deviated

30deg Deviated

45deg Deviated



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)







99




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)


=01 ms

=005 ms

=001 ms

vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Comparison


Beggs and Brill

OLGA (v72)



100


Vertical vSL=01 ms

Pre

ssur

e G

rad

ient

(P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=01 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


101



ress

ure

Gra

dien

t (P

am

) 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)



Vertical vSL=001 ms

Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


102



ress

ure

Gra

die

nt

(Pa

m)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

045

040

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

vSG (ms)


103



Pre

ssu

re G

rad

ien

t (P

am

) 1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)




Liq

uid

Hol

du

p (

-)

035

030

025

020

015

010

005

000

Experimental Data

TUFFP Unified Model

BeggsampBrill

OLGA v72

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

vSG (ms)


104




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Cri

tica

l Sup

erfi

cial

Gas

Vel

ocit

y (m

s)



TUFFP Unified Model




vSL

vSL

vSL

Model Analysis


Liquid Entrainment





105





dL C







4 d


2WFf L 2 vL F


106





2 I If

C vC vF 2





A A AF F C


2 L v F C vC vF 2

WF f L 2 I f I 2


107



ൌ ܨ ܥ




Author Correlation

Wallis (1969)

dfcfi

L3001


fc d

fifcfi

L2121

Asali et al (1985)

40451 0 2

fc d

fiReRefcfi L

C

C

Fore (2000)

0 0015

1750013001

dRe

fcfi L

C


108






0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

τ I (P

a)

vSG (ms)





vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

dpd

l (P

a m

)

vSG (ms)


Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)

vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL

109

Annular Flow

ComFil

Reve

plete m rsal

y v F

Slug Flow

y v

F

y v F

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

40




0000

0100

0200

0300

0400

0500

0600

0700

0800

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

H L

(-)

vSG (ms)

Data ( =01 ms)


Data ( =001 ms)


vSL

vSL

vSL

vSL



35

τ W

F (P

a)



110

CFD Simulations


Created in Gambit






111



Distribution


vSL=01 ms vSG=20 ms

vSG=18 ms

vSG=9 ms










112







113




Conclusions





114

Conclusions hellip







115

116

















117




















118


(2012)

119

120

Fluid Flow Projects


Yasser Alsaadi


Outline

Objectives

Introduction

Literature Review



Project Schedule


121

Objectives






Introduction





122

Introduction hellip


Pipe Wall



Literature Review


Wells




123



Deviation Angle









124








Experimental Matrix

Test Facility

Test Fluids

Instrumentation

Data Processing


125

Experimental Matrix




2 to 40 ms


001 002 005 and 01 ms





45deg Deviation

126



70deg Deviation



80deg Deviation

127



85deg Deviation



88deg Deviation

128


Test Facility

Test Section Design

3 in x 175 m

Test Fluids









129

Instrumentation












130

Holdup Measurement


Air Cylinder (Va)


Tt Pt

Air Cylinder (Va)


Te Pe



Holdup Calibration

131

Boroscope





Data Processing


Holdup





132





PampT

Raw Data

Holdup


Trap Section

Raw Data





Test Point








133

Project Schedule







Questions amp

Comments


134


Yasser Alsaadi













135


















136

Fluid Flow Projects


Carlos F Torres


Outline





137

Status






Testing August 2013







138






LF

Fe Hls f f f i c f












139









Air and Water







Diameter 2 in

Roughness 0002 mm


140



0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)







141








0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)




142

Future Tasks

Finish Basic Coding




Recommendations




Droplet Entrainment


143



144

r

f















145

f




e such as the B


Brent or Muumlller

) n t r



ditions All the



liquid liquid

r those erficial


the fi holdup




d c

strati liquid




higher rey dot






s







146

Fluid Flow Projects


Jinho Choi


Outline



Future Work


147

Objective




Transient Flow Data


Purpose






148

Introduction











149









MS Access Database







150



Data Import


Raw Table



Data Export


Format

























March 2013

bull 19 Data Sets




151













Test Sections etc


152



Difficulties


Fan (2005) Data


Difficulties



56 Columns


153




Roumazeilles (1994)




Magrini (2009)

154


Difficulties


Test Sections etc


Future Work






155



156













157

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46














158



159

160

Fluid Flow Projects



Jose Moreiras


Outline

Objective

Introduction

Experimental Study

Modeling Approach

Conclusions


161

Objective


Pipe Diameter 2-in





Introduction



Gokcal (2008)

Kora (2010)

Jeyachandra (2011)



162

Introduction hellip



v = C v +vt o M d


Introduction hellip



vd 0351 gD


vd 0542 gD


163

Introduction hellip


05 05Fr v g D ( )d L L G

Eotvos Number

2 1N g D ( )Eo L G



Experimental Study




Test Gas Air



164




High Speed Camera


Pipe Diameter 2-in






165


Experimental Result



01

02

03

04

05

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Vd

[ms

]




166

Modeling Approach




θ= 0 to 90ordm D=0055 and 0178-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00373-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00762-m



θ= 0 to 90ordm D=00508-m






Vertical Flow

Inclined Flow


167


Horizontal Flow


Nba

NFr

540

00350

1a

014430

250886

89602

b

r







168



Vertical Flow

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [m

s]


2

2

9

64

9

2

3

8

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d


Dg

D Dg

Dv

L

L

L

L d

350

3

2

9

64

9

2

3

8 2

2

0

02

04

06

08

0 02 04 06 08

v d C

alcu

late

d [

ms

]



Inclined Flow


0 FrV FrH 0




169

2 in Oil



a b N


2 2 vd g D 2 035 g D 3 D 9 9 D 3L L

05 05Fr v g D ( )V d L L G



g D ( )L L G



- Air- System


170

Conclusions







Questions

171

172


Jose Moreiras













173



Gravity 305 degAPI
















174













175

176

Fluid Flow Projects


Gas Two-Phase

Jaejun Kim


Outline

Objective

Introduction


Static Calibration

Dynamic Calibration

Future Work


177

Objective




Introduction




(2005 2008) and Kora (2010)


178

179

Introduction hellip


Jeyachandra (2011)





CPU

Air

12345

Ma x



Probe Probe


Experimental Matrix








0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Dispersed

Intermittent

Stratified Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Elongated Bubble

Slug Flow

Stratified

Dispersed Bubble

Intermittent

Stratified

Annular

585 cP 181 cP

180



0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(m

s)

vSG (ms)

Slug Flow

STRATIFIED

Elongated Bubble

Dispersed Bubble

Elongated Bubble

Stratified

Slug

Annular

585 cP 181 cP




181


Capacitance Sensor

Two-wire

Capacitance Sensor


0030 DIA

025

200



Static Calibration

0

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

1

0 02 04 06 08 1

Cap 2

Cap 3

H L

V

182



0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H LS

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 05 1

H L

V 90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

0 02 04 06 08

1

0 1

H L

V

90F 70F

Cap 2 Cap 3 Cap 4

Cap 5 Cap 6 Cap 7


Dynamic Calibration

Quick Closing valve

183

Future Work




Report June 2013


Thanks hellip


184

Questions


185

186













187
















188







189

190

Fluid Flow Projects



Feras Alruhaimani


Outline

Objectives

Facility

Test Fluid

Test Matrix


Future Activities


191

Objectives






192






Test Section

QCV System

Visua lizatio n Box


193


Return Pipe



Test Fluids


194

Test Matrix







Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 90o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition

195


Flow Pattern

= 378 cp = 75o

0001

001

01

1

10

001 01 1 10 100

v SL

(ms

)

vSG (ms)

INTANN

INTD-B

INTBUB

Inlet Condition


Low Speed Data

(1 to 10 Hz)

Pressure

Pressure Gradient

Temperature

Mass Flow-rates

Densities

Viscosities


High Speed Data



Average Slug Length


Slug Frequency

Slug Liquid Holdup

Film Liquid Holdup


Videos

Digital

High Speed


196

Low Speed Data




High Speed Data



Dynamic Calibration



197




distance L

CS1CS2




Derivative

198

Static Calibration






199

Future Activities

Completion Dates








Questions amp

Comments


200
















201





















202

Fluid Flow Projects




Outline

Motivation

Objectives

Literature Review

Project Scope

Near Future Tasks


203


Motivation





Liquid Properties

Motivation hellip



Solid Transport

Pipeline Fatigue


Regular Slug

Rolling Wave

204

Objectives





Literature Review





Accumulation



205








(ρG=226 kgm3)

206




0

02

04

06

08

1

0 2 4 6 8

h L d

[‐]

vSG [ms]




Project Scope







207



Gas Rate

θ1

θ2

θ1 θ2






208

Near Future Tasks



Facility Design



Questions

209

210


















211













212

Fluid Flow Projects

TUHOP Incorporation

Cem Sarica

Eduardo Pereyra


TUHOP Review






213

TUHOP Review hellip













214





Status



215

Way Forward




Way Forward hellip


by the End of 2013



216







Oil-Water Flow


vS

W (m

s)

10

1

01

001

SOW

SOW-DOW

SOW-DOW-OF

CAOF

001 01 1 10 vSO (ms)



217


Oil-Water Flow


Oil-Water Flow



Pressure Drop

Water Fraction



218

Fluid Flow Projects

Business Report

Cem Sarica





JOGMEC Termination




DragOilUNAM Group

DSME of South Korea

Kongsberg

Repsol

PDVSA



219












220









Sum 7 5

Financial Report


TUFFP BSEE Account


TUFFP BSEE Account


221










Reserve as of 123112 46428732 $











222





















223

Oil

Pr

ce

$


i

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

OIl

Pri

ce

$

Nu

mb

er

of

Me

mb

ers

Year

Members Oil Price




224



Membership Fees


Thanks


4 Unpaid


225

226

Introduction












227

228

Personnel
























229






230

Table 1




University Kuwait




Saudi Aramco

Saudi Aramco


Fall 2013



Fall 2014


Spring 2016


Waived (TU)


Completed


Waived ndash (BSEE)


Completed


TUFFP

Yes

TUFFP


Fall 2014



Fall 2013



Completed


Fall 2016

231

232

Membership


Table 2





Baker Atlas PEMEX

BSEE Petrobras






KOC

233

234


Test Facilities






235

236

TO L

EWIS

AVE

M

ARSH

ALL

STR

EET

Spe

cial

Pro

ject

s Bui

ldin

g

N

TUD

CP

TUSTP

TUD

RP-

PEACTS

JIP

-PE

PARKIN

GTU

PDP-

PETU

ECP-

ME

TUSM

P-M

E

PE Lab Trailer

TUSTP Control Room

Bld

g Pr

oces

sTU

FFP-

PE

CO

LLEG

E O

F

TUH

FP-P

EChE

TEST

WEL

L

TUSTP

-PE

ME

MU

LTIP

HASE

ALP

INE

PERFO

RM

AN

CE

OF

Bui

ldin

gTU

DCP-

ChE

Hydrate Loop

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

AN

D N

ATU

RAL

SCIE

NCES

ES

Ps

LOO

P

TUALP

-PE

PETR

OLE

UM

NATU

RAL

SEP

ARATI

ON

RES

EARCH

CAM

PUS

LOO

P

2450

E

MARSH

ALL

HIL

LY T

ERRAIN

LO

OP

GAS L

IFT

VALV

E TE

STFA

CIL

ITY


ME

H

YBRID

TU

ECRC

ELEC

TRIC

CARS

TUSM

P

PARKING

DRILL BUILDING

DRILL LAB

PARAFF

IN

MU

LTIP

HASE

LOO

P

TUPD

PFL

OW

ASSU

RAN

CE

LAB

LOW

LIQ

UID

LO

AD

ING

PARAFF

INM

E

LOO

PBU

ILD

ING

G

ASO

ILW

ATE

R L

OO

P

TUM

SP

PARAFF

IN S

ING

LE P

HASE

LOO

P



LOW

PRES

SU

RE

LOO

P

ARC

O B

UIL

DIN

G

ACTS

JIP

HIG

H P

RES

SU

RE

LOO

P TU

FFP

SH

OP

MACH

INE

SH

OP

STO

RAG

E

Figure

1 ‐Site

Plan

for the North

Cam

pus Research

Facilties

Financial Status






237










Reserve as of 123112 $ 46428732

238




237635 4800000




Budget 2812500 225000

1563750

2012 Expenditures

2940000 235200

1634640



239












240










241

242
























243













244

Appendix A










245

Mujgan Guner

Hamidreza Karami

Wei Zheng


Jaejun Kim

Maher Shariff

Huyoung Lee




(918) 631-5107 hk274utulsaedu








246

Appendix B








247






248








249








250






251







252










253





254

Appendix C

















255


















256

T 22 Sep 86




















257








R March 2006






60 STATOIL 1985 23 Oct 85 T16 Mar 89


1986 3 Oct 86 T 2003







258
















2009 81 SPT T 2013 (Merger)





259


260

Appendix D



















261






















262























263
























264






















265




















266

Structure Bookmarks

1

bull

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

frac34

6

6

6

0 02 04 06 08

SL =01 ms)

SL =001 ms)

1

bull


o Viscosity Effects

1 Zukoski (1966)

bull

30

35

38

T 26 Sep 84

39

T 23 Sep 86

41

42

50

55

1

17

83

fluid flow projects

Documents