Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 456

!!

A STUDY OF DRAG REDUCING AGENTS IN MULTIPHASE FLOW IN


LARGE DIAMETER HORIZONTAL PIPELINES

A Dissertation Presented to
The Faculty of the Fritz J. and Dolores H. Russ College of Engineering and Technology

Ohio University

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirement for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

by

Lisa Tullius

June, 2000

OHIO UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY

2000

Lisa Tullius

All Rights Reserved

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author dedicates this dissertation to her husband and parents whose guidance,
support, and encouragement throughout her graduate studies have been an inspiration.
Without the loving support of her family, the completion of this dissertation would have
been increasingly more difficult.
The author would also like to express her gratitude to Professor W. Paul Jepson
for his guidance and patience throughout her graduate studies.

Under Dr. Jepson's

supervision the author has been able to develop her technical and communication skills,
which has helped the author to be better prepared for life after her graduate studies.
The additional guidance of Dr. Madan Gopal is also greatly appreciated. Dr.
Gopal has always been very supportive and helpful. The assistance of Mr. Cheolho Kang
and all the fellow graduate students from the Institute for Corrosion and Multiphase Flow
Technology is gratefully acknowledged for all of the help attained during this study.
The author would like to acknowledge the technical staff at Ohio University of

Mr. Al Schubert and Mr. Bruce Brown for all the time that was spent on maintaining the
experimental setup.
Finally, the author would like to acknowledge Mr. A. D. Pallini for his guidance
on the maintenance of the experimental apparatus during the initial graduate studies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

xxiv

NOMENCLATURE

xliv

1. INTRODUCTION
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

1
10

2.1 Prediction of the Flow Regime without the Presence of Drag Reducing
Agent

10

2.2 Pressure Drop in Multiphase Flow without Drag Reducing Agents


Stratified Flow
Slug Flow
Annular Flow

14
15
19
28

2.3 Pressure Drop in Multiphase flow with Drag Reducing Agents


Effectiveness of the Drag Reducing Agent
Single Phase Flow Mechanisms
Stratified Flow
Plug/Slug Flow
Annular-Mist Flow

30
31
32
33
34

3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

Description of the Flow Loop


Test Sections
Injection of Drag Reducing Agent
Test Matrix
Visual Observations
Pressure Drop Measurements

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Oil/Water Flow
4.1

DRA Effectiveness using Oil Soluble DRA


Full Pipe Flow using 100% 6 cP Oil
The Different Types of Flow Regimes Studied for 100% 6 cP Oil
Smooth Stratified Flow Regime for 100% 6 cP Oil
Wavy Stratified Flow Regime for 100% 6 cP Oil

40

44
44
46
47
50
51
52
55
56
58
58
62
72
74

11

Slug Flow Regime for 100% 6 cP Oil


Pseudo Slug Flow Regime for 100% 6 cP Oil
Transition to Annular Flow Regime for 100% 6 cP Oil
Annular Flow Regime for 100% 6 cP Oil
Annular Flow with Pseudo Slug Flow Regime for 100% 6 cP Oil

75
83
84
86
87

88
4.2 Effect of Water Cut on DRA Performance
Slug Flow with 90% 6 cP Oil, 10% Deionized Water
88
50% 6 cP Oil and 50% Deionized Water
l0l
Slug Flow Regime for 50% 6 cP Oil and 50% Deionized
water
113
Pseudo Slug Flow Regime for 50% 6 cP Oil and 50%
Deionized Water
125
Rolling Wave Flow Regime for 50% 6 cP Oil and 50%
Deionized Water
126
Transition to Annular Flow Regime for 50% 6 cP Oil and 50%
Deionized Water
127
Annular Flow Regime for 50% 6 cP Oil and 50% Deionized
Water
128
Annular wI Pseudo Slug Flow Regime for 50% 6 cP Oil and
50% Deionized Water
129
Comparison of the Effectiveness of DRA in the Acrylic Pipeline to
the Effectiveness ofDRA in the Stainless Steel Pipeline
130
4.3 Comparison between ASTM Salt Water and Deionized Water using Oil
Soluble DRA
132
4.4 Surfactant Addition using Oil Soluble DRA

137

4.5 DRA Effectiveness using Water Soluble DRA


Effect of Water Soluble DRA on pH
Effect of Water Soluble DRA on the Interfacial Tension
Effect of Water Soluble DRA on 100% Deionized Water
Full Pipe Flow using 100% Deionized Water
Slug Flow using 100% Deionized Water

142
143
152
159
159
161

4.6. The Effect of Water Cut on Water Soluble DRA


OillWater Flow for 90% Deionized Water and 100/0 6 cP Oil
Slug Flow for 90% Deionized Water and 10% 6 cP Oil
Oil/Water Flow for 50% Deionized Water and 50% 6 cP Oil
Slug Flow for 50% Deionized Water and 50% 6 cP Oil
OillWater Flow for 100/0 Deionized Water and 90% 6 cP Oil
Slug Flow for 10% Deionized Water and 900/0 6 cP Oil

172
l 73
176
188
190
203
203

III

4.7 A Comparison of the Effectiveness in the Acrylic Pipeline to the


Effectiveness in the Stainless Steel Pipeline

212

4.8 Comparison of Oil and Water Soluble DRA


90% 6 cP Oil and 10% Deionized Water
50% 6 cP Oil and 50% Deionized Water

218
218
224

5. PRESSURE DROP COMPONENTS OF SLUG FLOW


5.1 Calculation of Individual Pressure Components for Oil Soluble DRA
100% 6 cP Oil
90% 6 cP Oil and 100/0 Deionized Water
50% 6 cP Oil and 10% Deionized Water

230
236
236
251
257

5.2 Calculation of Individual Pressure Components for Water Soluble DRA .266
100% Water
266
90% Deionized Water and 10% 6 cP Oil
274
50% Deionized Water and 50% 6 cP Oil
279
10% Deionized Water and 900/06 cP Oil
284
5.3 Comparison of Different Pressure Components for Oil Soluble DRA

284

5.4 Comparison of Different Pressure Components for Water Soluble DRA .284

6. MODELING
Accelerational Pressure Gradient due to Slug Front
Accelerational Pressure Recovery of Slug Tail
The Frictional Pressure Drop of Slug Body
Frictional Pressure Drop of the Liquid Film

297
303
304
305
306

6.1 Correlation of Slug Frequency for Two Phase Flow

306

6.2 Slug Frequency in Three Phase Flow

313

7. CONCLUSIONS
Oil Soluble DRA
Water Soluble DRA
Flow Properties when a Dispersion was not Created
Flow Properties when a Dispersion was Created
Pressure Drop Components of Slug Flow
Modeling

320
320
321
322
323
323
324

IV

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

326

APPENDIX A DATA TABLES

329

APPENDIX B SLUG PROPERTIES

362

APPENDIX C PRESSURE DROP COMPONENTS

391

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.4.1: Test Matrix

51

Table 4.1.1: The effect of DRA on the height of the liquid film when oil soluble DRA
74
was used with superficial liquid velocity of 0.1 mls
Table 4.1.2: The effect of DRA on the velocity of the liquid film when oil soluble DRA
74
was used with superficial liquid velocity of 0.1 mls
Table 4.3.1: Composition of ASTM sea salt

135

Table 4.3.2: Comparison of the average pressure gradient for 50% water cut of ASTM
137
salt water and deionized water at a drag reduction concentration of 50 ppm
Table 4.4.1:
concentration

Surface tension of water before surfactant addition at each DRA


138

Table 4.4.2a: Comparison of the average pressure gradient for slug flow at a 10% water
cut for concentrations of 0 and 10 ppm of surfactant and a drag reduction concentration
of 50 ppm using oil soluble DRA
141
Table 4.4.2b: Comparison of the average pressure gradient for slug flow at a 50% water
cut for concentrations of 0 and 10 ppm of surfactant and a drag reduction concentration
of 50 ppm using oil soluble DRA
142
Table 6.1: Effect of change in slug frequency, liquid film velocity, and Froude number
on the change of total pressure drop reduction for 100% 6 cP oil using 50 ppm of oil
soluble DRA
298
Table 6.2: Effect of change in slug frequency, liquid film velocity, and Froude number
on the change of total pressure drop reduction for 100% water oil using 50 ppm of water
soluble DRA
301
Table 4.1: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
330
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mls in the acrylic pipeline
Table 4.2: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
330
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mls in the stainless steel pipeline
Table 4.3: Effectiveness ofDRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil soluble
33!
DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mls in both pipelines

VI

Table 4.4: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls in the acrylic pipeline
331
Table 4.5: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls in the stainless steel pipeline
332
Table 4.6: Effectiveness ofDRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil soluble
332
DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls in both pipelines
Table 4.7: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls in the acrylic pipeline
333
Table 4.8: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls in the stainless steel pipeline
333
Table 4.9: Effectiveness ofDRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil soluble
334
DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls in both pipelines
Table 4.10: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls in the acrylic pipeline
334
Table 4.11 : Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
334
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls in the stainless steel pipeline
Table 4.12: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls in both pipelines
335
Table 4.13: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mls in the acrylic pipeline
335
Table 4.14: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mls in the stainless steel pipeline
335
Table 4.15: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
336
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mls in both pipelines
Table 4.16: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 1.0 mls in the acrylic pipeline
335
Table 4.17: Average pressure gradient for 1000/0 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 1.0 mls in the stainless steel pipeline
336
Table 4.18: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
336
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 1.0 mls in both pipelines

vii
Table 4.19: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
337
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 1.25 mls in the acrylic pipeline
Table 4.20: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 1.25 mls in the stainless steel pipeline
337
Table 4.21: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 1.25 mls in both pipelines
337
Table 4.22: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
337
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 1.5 mls in the acrylic pipeline
Table 4.23: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
338
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 1.5 mls in the stainless steel pipeline
Table 4.24: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 1.5 mls in both pipelines
338
Table 4.25: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.9 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.1 mls in the acrylic pipeline....338
Table 4.26: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.9 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.1 mls in the stainless steel
pipeline
338
Table 4.27: Effectiveness of DRA for using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.9 mls and superficial water velocity of 0.1 mls in both pipelines
339
Table 4.28: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 1.13 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.13 mls in the acrylic pipeline339
Table 4.29: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 1.13 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.13 mls in the stainless steel
pipeline
339
Table 4.30: Effectiveness of DRA for using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 1.13 mls and superficial water velocity of 0.13 mls in both pipelines
339
Table 4.31 : Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 1.35 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.15 mls in the acrylic pipeline340
Table 4.32: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 1.35 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.15 mls in the stainless steel
pipeline
340

VIII

Table 4.33: Effectiveness ofDRA for using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 1.35 mls and superficial water velocity of 0.15 mls in both pipelines
340
Table 4.34: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.1 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.1 mls in the acrylic pipeline....341
Table 4.35: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.1 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.1 mls in the stainless steel
pipeline
341
Table 4.36: Effectiveness of DRA for using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.1 mls and superficial water velocity of 0.1 mls in both pipelines
342
Table 4.37: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.15 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.15 mls in the acrylic pipeline342
Table 4.38: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.15 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.15 mls in the stainless steel
pipeline
~
343
Table 4.39: Effectiveness of DRA for using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.15 mls and superficial water velocity of 0.15 mls in both pipelines
343
Table 4.40: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.2 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.2 mls in the acrylic pipeline....344
Table 4.41: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.2 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.2 mls in the stainless steel
pipeline
344
Table 4.42: Effectiveness of DRA for using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.2 mls and superficial water velocity of 0.2 mls in both pipelines
344
Table 4.43 : Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.25 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.25 mls in the acrylic
pipeline
345
Table 4.44: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.25 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.25 mls in the stainless steel
pipeline
345
Table 4.45: Effectiveness of DRA for using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.1 mls and superficial water velocity of 0.1 mls in both pipelines
345

IX

Table 4.46: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.5 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.5 mls in the acrylic pipeline....346
Table 4.47: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.5 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.5 mls in the stainless steel
pipeline
346
Table 4.48: Effectiveness of DRA for using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.5 mls and superficial water velocity of 0.5 mls in both pipelines
346
Table 4.49: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.75 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.75 mls in the acrylic
pipeline
346
Table 4.50: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.75 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.75 mls in the stainless steel
pipeline
347
Table 4.51: Effectiveness of DRA for using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0.75 mls and superficial water velocity of 0.75 mls in both pipelines
347
Table 4.52: Average pressure gradient for 100% water with nitrogen using water soluble
DRA at superficial deionized water velocity of 0.5 mls in the acrylic pipeline
348
Table 4.53: Average pressure gradient for 100% water with nitrogen using water soluble
DRA at superficial deionized water velocity of 0.5 mls in the stainless steel pipeline ...348
Table 4.54: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using water
soluble DRA at superficial deionized water of 0.5 mls in both pipelines
348
Table 4.55: Average pressure gradient for 100% water with nitrogen using water soluble
DRA at superficial deionized water velocity of 1.0 mls in the acrylic pipeline
349
Table 4.56: Average pressure gradient for 100% water with nitrogen using water soluble
DRA at superficial deionized water velocity of 1.0 mls in the stainless steel pipeline ...349
Table 4.57: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using water
349
soluble DRA at superficial deionized water of 1.0 mls in both pipelines
Table 4.58: Average pressure gradient for 100% water with nitrogen using water soluble
DRA at superficial deionized water velocity of 1.25 mls in the acrylic pipeline
349
Table 4.59: Average pressure gradient for 100% water with nitrogen using water soluble
DRA at superficial deionized water velocity of 1.25 mls in the stainless steel pipeline .350

x
Table 4.60: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using water
350
soluble DRA at superficial deionized water of 1.25 mls in both pipelines
Table 4.61: Average pressure gradient for 100% water with nitrogen using water soluble
350
DRA at superficial deionized water velocity of 1.5 mls in the acrylic pipeline
Table 4.62: Average pressure gradient for 100% water with nitrogen using water soluble
DRA at superficial deionized water velocity of 1.5 mls in the stainless steel pipeline ...350
Table 4.63: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using water
351
soluble DRA at superficial deionized water of 1.5 mls in both pipelines
Table 4.64: Average pressure gradient for 100% water full pipe flow using water soluble
DRA in the acrylic pipeline
351
Table 4.65: Average pressure gradient for 100% water full pipe flow using water soluble
ORA in the stainless steel pipeline
351
Table 4.66: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% deionized water full pipe flow using water
soluble DRA
351
Table 4.67: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.9 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.1 mls in the
acrylic pipeline
352
Table 4.68: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.9 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.1 mls in the
stainless steel pipeline
352
Table 4.69: Effectiveness of DRA for using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
352
water of 0.9 mls and superficial6cP oil velocity of 0.1 mls in both pipelines
Table 4.70: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 1.13 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.13 mls in the
acrylic pipeline
353
Table 4.71: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 1.13 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.13 mls in the
stainless steel pipeline
353
Table 4.72: Effectiveness of DRA for using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
353
water of 1.13 mls and a superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.13 mls in both pipelines

Xl

Table 4.73: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 1.35 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.15 mls in the
acrylic pipeline
353
Table 4.74: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 1.35 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.15 mls in the
stainless steel pipeline
354
Table 4.75: Effectiveness of DRA for using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
354
.water of 1.35 mls and a superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.15. mls in both pipelines
Table 4.76: Average pressure gradient for 90% water and 10% oil/water flow using water
soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
354
Table 4.77: Average pressure gradient for 90% water and 10% oil/water flow using water
soluble DRA in the stainless steel pipeline
354
Table 4.78: Effectiveness of DRA for 90% water and 10% oil/water flow using water
soluble DRA in both pipelines
355
Table 4.79: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.25 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.25 mls in the
acrylic pipeline
355
Table 4.80: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.25 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.25 mls in the
stainless steel pipeline
355
Table 4.81: Effectiveness of DRA for using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
356
water of 0.25 mls and a superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.25 mls in both pipelines
Table 4.82: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.5 mls in the
acrylic pipeline
356
Table 4.83: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.5 mls in the
stainless steel pipeline
356
Table 4.84: Effectiveness of DRA for using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
water of 0.5 mls and a superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.5 mls in both pipelines
357

XII

Table 4.85: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.75 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.75 mls in the
acrylic pipeline
357
Table 4.86: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.75 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.75 mls in the
stainless steel pipeline
357
Table 4.87: Effectiveness of DRA for using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
357
water of 0.75 mls and a superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.75 mls in both pipelines
Table 4.88: Average pressure gradient for 50% water and 50% oil/water flow using water
soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
358
Table 4.89: Average pressure gradient for 50% water and 50% oil/water flow using water
soluble DRA in the stainless steel pipeline
358
Table 4.90: Effectiveness of DRA for 50% water and 50% oil/water flow using water
soluble DRA in both pipelines
358
Table 4.91: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.9 mls in the
acrylic pipeline
358
Table 4.92: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.9 mls in the
stainless steel pipeline
359
Table 4.93: Effectiveness of DRA for using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
359
water of 0.1 mls and a superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.9 mls in both pipelines
Table 4.94: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.13 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 1.13 mls in the
acrylic pipeline
359
Table 4.95: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.13 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 1.13 mls in the
stainless steel pipeline
359
Table 4.96: Effectiveness of DRA for using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
360
water of 0.13 mls and a superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 1.13 mls in both pipelines

XIII

Table 4.97: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 1.35 mls in the
acrylic pipeline
360
Table 4.98: Average pressure gradient for using water soluble DRA at superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 1.35 mls in the
stainless steel pipeline
360
Table 4.99: Effectiveness of DRA for using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
water of 0.15 mls and a superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 1.35 mls in both pipelines
360
Table 4.100: Average pressure gradient for 10% water and 90% oil/water flow using
water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
361
Table 4.101: Average pressure gradient for 10% water and 90% oil/water flow using
water soluble DRA in the stainless steel pipeline
361
Table 4.102: Effectiveness of DRA for 10% water and 90% oil/water flow using water
soluble DRA in both pipelines
361
Table 4.1.3: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls using oil soluble DRA
363
Table 4.1.4: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls using oil soluble DRA
363
Table 4.1.5: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 3 mls using oil soluble DRA
363
Table 4.1.6: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls using oil soluble DRA
364
Table 4.1.7: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls using oil soluble DRA
364
Table 4.1.8: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and a superficial
364
carbon dioxide velocity of2 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.9: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 3 mls using oil soluble DRA
364
Table 4.1.10: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls using oil soluble DRA
365

XIV

Table 4.1.11: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and a superficial
365
carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.12: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and a superficial
365
carbon dioxide velocity of 8 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.13: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls and a superficial
365
carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.14: Slug Properties for a Superficial Oil Velocity of 0.4 mls and a Superficial
366
carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.15: Slug Properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls and a superficial
366
carbon dioxide velocity of 3 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.16: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls and a superficial
366
carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.17: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls and a superficial
366
carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.18: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls and a superficial
367
carbon dioxide velocity of 8 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.19: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mls and a superficial
367
carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.20: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mls and a superficial
367
carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.21: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mls and a superficial
367
carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.22: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mls and a superficial
368
carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.23: Slug Properties for a Superficial Oil Velocity of 0.5 mls and a Superficial
368
carbon dioxide velocity of 8 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.24: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.0 mls and a superficial
368
carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls using oil soluble DRA
Table 4.1.25: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.0 mls and a superficial
368
carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls using oil soluble DRA

xv

Table 4.1.26: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.0 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls using oil soluble DRA
369
Table 4.1.27: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.25 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls using oil soluble DRA
369
Table 4.1.28: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.25 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls using oil soluble DRA
369
Table 4.1.29: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.25 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls using oil soluble DRA
369
Table 4.1.30: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.5 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of2 mls using oil soluble DRA
370
Table 4.1.31: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.5 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls using oil soluble DRA
370
Table 4.1.32: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.5 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls using oil soluble DRA
370
Table 4.2.1: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.9 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
using oil soluble DRA
371
Table 4.2.2: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.9 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
371
Table 4.2.3: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.9 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
using oil soluble DRA
371
Table 4.2.4: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.13 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.13 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
using oil soluble DRA
372
Table 4.2.5: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.13 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.13 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
372

XVI

Table 4.2.6: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.13 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.13 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
using oil soluble DRA
372
Table 4.2.7: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.35 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
using oil soluble DRA
372
Table 4.2.8: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.35 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
373
Table 4.2.9: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.35 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
using oil soluble DRA
373
4.2.10: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mis, a superficial deionized
water velocity of 0.1 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls using oil
soluble DRA
373
Table 4.2.11: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
using oil soluble DRA
374
Table 4.2.12: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 3 mls
using oil soluble DRA
374
Table 4.2.13: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.15 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls
using oil soluble DRA
374
Table 4.2.14: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.15 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
using oil soluble DRA
374
Table 4.2.15: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.15 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 3 mls
using oil soluble DRA
375
Table 4.2.16: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.15 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
375

XVII

Table 4.2.17: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.20 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.20 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 1 m/s
using oil soluble DRA
375
Table 4.2.18: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.20 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.20 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
using oil soluble DRA
375
Table 4.2.19: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.20 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.20 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 3 mls
using oil soluble DRA
376
Table 4.2.20: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.20 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.20 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
376
Table 4.2.21: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.20 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.20 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
using oil soluble DRA
376
Table 4.2.22: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.25 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.25 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls
using oil soluble DRA
376
Table 4.2.23: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.25 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.25 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 m/s
using oil soluble DRA
377
Table 4.2.24: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.25 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.25 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 m/s
using oil soluble DRA
377
Table 4.2.25: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.25 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.25 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 m/s
using oil soluble DRA
377
Table 4.2.26: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.25 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.25 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 8 m/s
using oil soluble DRA
377
Table 4.2.27: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.5 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 m/s
using oil soluble DRA
378

XVIII

Table 4.2.28: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.5 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble ORA
378
Table 4.2.29: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.5 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
using oil soluble DRA
378
Table 4.2.30: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.75 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.75 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
using oil soluble DRA
378
Table 4.2.31: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.75 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.75 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
379
Table 4.2.32: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.75 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.75 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
using oil soluble DRA
379
Table 4.5.1: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of 1 mls using water soluble DRA
380
Table 4.5.2: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of2 mls using water soluble DRA
380
Table 4.5.3: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble DRA
380
Table 4.5.4: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of6 mls using water soluble ORA
381
Table 4.5.5: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.0 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of 2 mls using water soluble ORA
381
Table 4.5.6: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.0 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble DRA
381
Table 4.5.7: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.0 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble DRA
381
Table 4.5.8: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.25 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of2 mls using water soluble DRA
382

XiX

Table 4.5.9: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.25 mls and superficial
382
nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble DRA
Table 4.5.10: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.25 mls and superficial
382
nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble DRA
Table 4.5.11: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.5 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of2 mls using water soluble DRA
382
Table 4.5.12: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.5 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble DRA
383
Table 4.5.13: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.5 mls and superficial
383
nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble DRA
Table 4.6.1: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.9 m/s, superficial oil
velocity of 0.1 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 2 mls using water soluble
DRA
383
Table 4.6.2: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.9 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.1 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble
DRA
384
Table 4.6.3: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.9 m/s, superficial oil
velocity of 0.1 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble
DRA
384
Table 4.6.4: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.13 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.13 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 2 mls using water soluble
DRA
384
Table 4.6.5: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.13 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.13 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble
DRA
384
Table 4.6.6: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.13 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.13 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble
DRA
385
Table 4.6.7: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.35 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.15 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 2 mls using water soluble
DRA
385

xx

Table 4.6.8: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.35 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.15 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble
DRA
385
Table 4.6.9: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.35 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.15 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble
DRA
385
Table 4.6.10: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.25 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.25 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 1 mls using water soluble
DRA
386
Table 4.6.11: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.25 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.25 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 2 mls using water soluble
DRA
386
Table 4.6.12: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.25 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.25 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble
DRA
386
Table 4.6.13: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.25 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.25 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble
DRA
386
Table 4.6.14: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.5 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 2 mls using water soluble
DRA
387
Table 4.6.15: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.5 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble
DRA
387
Table 4.6.16: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.5 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble
DRA
387
Table 4.6.17: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.75 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.75 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 2 mls using water soluble
DRA
387
Table 4.6.18: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.75 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.75 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble
DRA
388

XXI

Table 4.6.19: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.75 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.75 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble
DRA
388
Table 4.6.20: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.1 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.9 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 2 mls using water soluble
DRA
388
Table 4.6.21: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.1 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.9 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble
DRA
389
Table 4.6.22: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.1 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.9 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble
DRA
389
Table 4.6.23: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.13 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 1.13 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 2 mls using water soluble
DRA
389
Table 4.6.24: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.13 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 1.13 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble
DRA
389
Table 4.6.25: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.13 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 1.13 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble
DRA
390
Table 4.6.26: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.15 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 1.35 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 2 mls using water soluble
DRA
390
Table 4.6.27: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.15 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 1.35 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble
DRA
390
Table 4.6.28: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.15 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 1.35 mls and superficial nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble
DRA
390
Table 5.1.1: Calculation of pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon
dioxide using oil soluble DRA at 0 ppm
392

XXII

Table 5.1.2: Calculation of pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon
dioxide using 20 ppm of oil soluble DRA
393
Table 5.1.3: Calculation of pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon
394
dioxide using 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA
Table 5.1.4: Calculation of pressure drop components for 90% 6 cP oil and 10%
deionized water with carbon dioxide using oil soluble DRA at 0 ppm
395
Table 5.1.5: Calculation of pressure drop components for 90% 6 cP oil and 10%
deionized water with carbon dioxide using oil soluble DRA at 20 ppm
395
Table 5.1.6: Calculation of pressure drop components for 900/0 6 cP oil and 10%
deionized water with carbon dioxide using oil soluble DRA at 50 ppm
396
Table 5.1.7: Calculation of pressure drop components for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
deionized water with carbon dioxide using oil soluble DRA at 0 ppm
397
Table 5.1.8: Calculation of pressure drop components for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
398
deionized water with carbon dioxide using oil soluble DRA at 20 ppm
Table 5.1.9: Calculation of pressure drop components for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
deionized water with carbon dioxide using oil soluble DRA at 50 ppm
399
Table 5.2.1: Calculation of pressure drop components for 100% deionized water with
nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 0 ppm
400
Table 5.2.2: Calculation of pressure drop components for 100% deionized water with
nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 20 ppm
400
Table 5.2.3: Calculation of pressure drop components for 100% deionized water with
nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 50 ppm
401
Table 5.2.4: Calculation of pressure drop components for 100% deionized water with
nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 75 ppm
401
Table 5.2.5: Calculation of pressure drop components for 90% deionized water and 10%
6 cP oil with nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 0 ppm
402
Table 5.2.6: Calculation of pressure drop components for 90% deionized water and 10%
402
6 cP oil with nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 20 ppm
Table 5.2.7: Calculation of pressure drop components for 90% deionized water and 10%
6 cP oil with nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 50 ppm
403

XXIII

Table 5.2.8: Calculation of pressure drop components for 50% deionized water and 50%
403
6 cP oil with nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 0 ppm
Table 5.2.9: Calculation of pressure drop components for 50% deionized water and 50%
404
6 cP oil with nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 20 ppm
Table 5.2.10: Calculation of pressure drop components for 50% deionized water and 50%
6 cP oil with nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 50 ppm
404
Table 5.2.11: Calculation of pressure drop components for 10% deionized water and 90%
405
6 cP oil with nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 0 ppm
Table 5.2.12: Calculation of pressure drop components for 10% deionized water and 90%
6 cP oil with nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 20 ppm
405
Table 5.2.13: Calculation of pressure drop components for 10% deionized water and 90%
406
6 cP oil with nitrogen using water soluble DRA at 50 ppm

XXIV

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: The hypothetical production rate of a hypothetical oil well over time

Figure 1.2: Three phase oil/water/gas horizontal flow

Figure 1.3: Profile of different regions of a slug

Figure 2.1.1: Taitel and Dukler (1976) flow regime map for a pipe inclination of 0, a
13
pipe diameter of 10 em for 6 cP oil and carbon dioxide gas
Figure 2.2.1: Schematic of smooth stratified flow

17

Figure 2.2.2: Schematic of a slug

21

Figure 2.2.3: Schematic of a slug

23

Figure 2.2.4; Schematic of annular flow

29

Figure 2.3.1: Kang et ale (1998b) data for the effect ofDRA on stratified flow

35

Figure 2.3.2: Rosehart (1972) R, drag reduction factor versus DRA concentration

37

Figure 2.3.3: Kang et ale (1998b) flow regime map for 75% oil 0 ppm DRA in horizontal
pipes
39
Figure 2.3.4: Kang et ale (1998b) flow regime map for 75% oil 75 ppm of oil soluble
DRA in horizontal pipes
39
Figure 2.3.5: Kang et ala (2000) data for the effect of DRa on slug flow for 100% 2.5 cP
oil and carbon dioxide at 0.5 mls
41
Figure 2.3.6: Photographic measurements of wave and ripple velocities from Twaites et
41
al. (1976) at a gas rate of25.5 m3/h and liquid rate of 0.017l/s
Figure 2.3.7: Kang et ale (1998b) data for the effect ofDRA on annular flow for 60% oil
and 40% water at superficial liquid velocity of 0.06 mls
43
Figure 3.1.1: Experimental setup

45

Figure 3.3.1: DRA injection system for water soluble DRA

49

xxv

Figure 3.6.1: Pressure trace for 0.2 mls deionized water with 1 mls of carbon dioxide at 0
54

ppm

Figure 4.1: Inversion process for oil-water dispersion flow Acrirachakaran et ale
(1989)
57
Figure 4.1.1: Effectiveness of DRA versus time for full pipe flow for 6 cP oil at a
superficial liquid velocity of 1.0 mls using oil soluble DRA
59
Figure 4.1.2: Layer between oil and water inside storage tank

61

Figure 4.1.3a: Effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.1
mls in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA
63
Figure 4.1.3b: Effectiveness of DRA for different flow patterns for 100% 6 cP oil at
63
Vsl=O.1 mls using oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.1.4a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient with 100% 6 cP oil at
65
Vsl=0.2 mls in the stainless steel pipeline using oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.1.4b: Effectiveness of DRA for different flow patterns for 100% 6 cP oil at
65

V sl=0.2 m/s using oil soluble DRA

Figure 4.1.5a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil at
67
Vsl=0.3 mls in the stainless steel pipeline using oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.1.5b: Effectiveness of DRA for different flow patterns for 100% 6 cP oil at
67
Vsl=0.3 mls using oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.1.6a: The Effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil at
Vsl=0.5 mls in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA
69
Figure 4.1.6b:
Effectiveness of DRA for slug flow for 100% 6 cP oil at
69
Vsl=0.5 mls using oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.1.7a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil at
VsI=1.0 m/s in the stainless steel pipeline using oil soluble DRA
70
Figure 4.1.7b: Effectiveness of DRA on slug flow for 100% 6 cP oil at VsI=I.0 mls
using oil soluble DRA
70
Figure 4.1.8a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil at
VsI=I.5 mls in the stainless steel pipeline using oil soluble DRA
71

XXVI

Figure 4.1.8b: Effectiveness of DRA on slug flow for 100% 6 cP oil at VsI=1.5 mls
using oil soluble DRA
71
Figure 4.1.9a: The effect of DRA on slug frequency for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl= 0.2 mls to
0.5 mls using oil soluble DRA
78
Figure 4.1.9a: The effect ofDRA on slug frequency for 100% 6 cP oil at VsI= 1.0 mls to
1.5 mls using oil soluble DRA
78
Figure 4.1.10: The effect of DRA on slug length for 100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble
DRA
79
Figure 4.1.11: The effect of DRA on film Froude number for 100% 6 cP oil using oil
soluble DRA
79
Figure 4.1.12: The effect of DRA on liquid film velocity for 100% 6 cP oil using oil
soluble DRA
80
Figure 4.1.13: The effect of DRA on translational velocity for 100% 6 cP oil using oil
soluble DRA
80
Figure 4.1.14: The effect ofDRA on height of liquid film for 1000/0 6 cP oil using
soluble DRA

oil
81

Figure 4.2.1: The effect of an increase in water cut to 10% on the average pressure
gradient using oil soluble DRA
89
Figure 4.2.2: The effect of an increase in water cut to 50% on the average pressure
gradient at baseline conditions
89
Figure 4.2.3a: Effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 90% 6 cP oil, 10% water at
VsI=I.0 mls in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA
90
Figure 4.2.3b: Effectiveness of DRA on slug flow for 90% 6 cP oil and 10% deionized
water at VsI = 1.0 mls using oil soluble DRA
90
Figure 4.2.4a: Effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 90% 6 cP oil, 100/0 water at
VsI=I.25 mls in the stainless steel pipeline using oil soluble DRA
91
Figure 4.2.4b: Effectiveness of DRA on slug flow for 90% 6 cP oil and 10% deionized
water at Vsl = 1.25 mls using oil soluble DRA
91
Figure 4.2.5a: Effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 90% 6 cP oil, 10% water at
Vsl=1.5 mls in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA
92

XXVII

Figure 4.2.5b: Effectiveness of DRA on slug flow for 90% 6 cP oil and 10% deionized
water at Vsl = 1.5 mls using oil soluble DRA
92
Figure 4.2.6: The effect of DRA on the slug frequency for 90% 6 cP oil and 10%
deionized water using oil soluble DRA
94
Figure 4.2.7: The effect of DRA on slug length for 90% 6 cP oil and 10% deionized
water using oil soluble DRA
94
Figure 4.2.8: The effect of DRA on film Froude number for 90% 6 cP oil and 10%
deionized water using oil soluble DRA
95
Figure 4.2.9: The effect of DRA on liquid film velocity for 90% 6 cP oil and 10%
deionized water using oil soluble DRA
95
Figure 4.2.10: The effect of DRA on translational velocity for 90% 6 cP oil and 10%
deionized water using oil soluble DRA
96
Figure 4.2.11: The effect of DRA on height of liquid film for 90% 6 cP oil and 10%
deionized water using oil soluble DRA
96
Figure 4.2.12: A comparison of the slug frequency for 10% water cut and 00/0 water cut
using oil soluble DRA
98
Figure 4.2.13: A comparison of the slug length for 10% water cut and 0% water cut
98
using oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.2.14: A comparison of the film Froude number for 10% water cut and 00/0 water
cut using oil soluble DRA
99
Figure 4.2.15: A comparison of the liquid film velocity for 10% water cut and 0% water
cut using oil soluble DRA
99
Figure 4.2.16: A comparison of the translational velocity for 10% water cut and 0%
100
water cut using oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.2.17: A comparison of the height of liquid film for 10% water cut and 0% water
cut using oil soluble DRA
100
Figure 4.2.18: Viscosity versus time for 50% water cut at 50 ppm of an oil soluble
DRA
103
Figure 4.2.19a: Effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 50% 6 cP oil and 500/0
deionized water at Vsl=0.2 mls in the acrylic pipeline at baseline conditions
104

XXVIII

Figure 4.2.19b: Effect of DRA on flow regime patterns for 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water
104
at Vsl=0.2 mls in acrylic pipe at 20 ppm of oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.2.19c: Effect of DRA on flow regime patterns for 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water
at Vsl=0.2 mls in acrylic pipe at 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA
105
Figure 4.2.19d: Effectiveness of DRA of different flow patterns for 50% 6 cP oil and
50% deionized water at Vsl=0.2 mls using oil soluble DRA
105
Figure 4.2.20a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 50% 6 cP oil,50%
deionized water at Vsl=0.3 mls in the stainless steel pipeline using oil soluble DRA ....106
Figure 4.2.20b: Effectiveness of DRA of different flow patterns for 50% 6 cP oil and
50% deionized water at Vsl=0.3 mls using oil soluble DRA
106
Figure 4.2.21a: Effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
107
deionized water at Vsl=0.4 mls in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.2.21b: Effectiveness of DRA of different flow patterns for 50% 6 cP oil and
50% deionized water at VsI=0.4 mls using oil soluble DRA
107
Figure 4.2.22a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
deionized water at Vsl=l.O mls in the stainless steel pipeline using oil soluble DRA.I08
Figure 4.2.22b: Effectiveness of DRA for slug flow using 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
108
deionized water at Vsl=I.0 mls using oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.2.23a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
deionized water at Vsl=1.5 mls in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA
I09
Figure 4.2.23b: Effectiveness of DRA for slug flow using 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
109
deionized water at Vsl=I.5 mls using oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.2.24a: A comparison of the slug frequency for 50% water cut and 0% water cut
114
at Vsl = 0.2 mls to 0.5 mls using oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.2.24b: A comparison of the slug frequency for 50% water cut and 0% water cut
114
at Vsl = 1.0 mls to 1.5 mls using oil soluble DRA
Figure 4.2.25: A comparison of the slug length for 50% water cut and 0% water cut
using oil soluble DRA
115
Figure 4.2.26: A comparison of the film Froude number for 50% water cut and 0% water
cut using oil soluble DRA
115

XXIX

Figure 4.2.27: A comparison of the liquid film velocity for 10% water cut and 0% water
cut using oil soluble DRA
116
Figure 4.2.28: A comparison of the translational velocity for 50% water cut and 0%
water cut using oil soluble DRA
116
Figure 4.2.29: A comparison of the height of liquid film for 50% water cut and 00/0 water
cut using oil soluble DRA
117
Figure 4.2.30a: The effect of DRA on the slug frequency for 50% water cut at Vsl
mls to 0.5 mls using oil soluble DRA

0.2
121

Figure 4.2.30b: The effect ofDRA on the slug frequency for 50% water cut at VsI = 1.0
mls to 1.5 mls using oil soluble DRA
121
Figure 4.2.31: The effect of DRA on slug length for 50% 6 cP oil and 50% deionized
water using oil soluble DRA
122
Figure 4.2.32: The effect of DRA on film Froude number for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
deionized water using oil soluble DRA
122
Figure 4.2.33: The effect of DRA on liquid film velocity for 50% 6 cP oil and 500/0
deionized water using oil soluble DRA
123
Figure 4.2.34: The effect of DRA on translational velocity for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
deionized water using oil soluble DRA
123
Figure 4.2.35: The effect of DRA on height of liquid film for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
deionized water using oil soluble DRA
124
Figure 4.2.36a: A comparison of the effectiveness of DRA in stainless and acrylic for
100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA at 20 ppm
131
Figure 4.2.36b: A comparison of the effectiveness of DRA in stainless and acrylic for
100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA at 50 ppm
131
Figure 4.2.37: A comparison of the effectiveness of DRA in stainless and acrylic for
90% 6 cP oil and 10% water using oil soluble DRA
133
Figure 4.2.38a: A comparison of the effectiveness of DRA in stainless and acrylic for
133
50% 6 cP oil using oil and 50% water using oil soluble DRA at 20 ppm
Figure 4.2.38b: A comparison of the effectiveness of DRA in stainless and acrylic for
50% 6 cP oil using oil and 50% water using oil soluble DRA at 50 ppm
134

xxx

Figure 4.3.1: A comparison of the average pressure gradient using deionized water and
ASTM salt water for 50% water and 50% 6 cP oil with oil soluble DRA
136
Figure 4.4.1: A comparison of the average pressure gradient with 10 ppm of surfactant
and no surfactant for 10% water and 90% 6 cP oil using 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA ...140
Figure 4.4.2: A comparison of the average pressure gradient with 10 ppm of surfactant
and no surfactant for 50% water and 50% 6 cP oil using 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA ...140
Figure 4.5.1: The effect ofDRA on full pipe flow for 100% tap water at 50 ppm water
144
soluble DRA and a velocity of 1.0 mls
Figure 4.5.2: The effect ofDRA on full pipe flow for 100% tap water at 50 ppm of water
soluble DRA and a velocity of 1.0 mls
147
Figure 4.5.3: The effect of DRA on full pipe flow for 100% tap water at 50 ppm water
149
soluble DRA and a velocity of 1.0 mls and a 0.6 em drop
Figure 4.5.4: The effect of DRA on full pipe flow for 100% tap water at 50 ppm of
water soluble DRA
149
Figure 4.5.5: The effect of DRA on full pipe flow for deoxygenated deionized water at
151
50 ppm of water soluble DRA
Figure 4.5.6a: The effect of liquid velocity on average pressure gradient for 90% water
and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline using water soluble DRA
153
Figure 4.5.6b: The effect of liquid velocity on average pressure gradient for 90% water
and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline using water soluble DRA
153
Figure 4.5.7: The effect of liquid velocity on average pressure gradient for 90% water
and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline using water soluble DRA
155
Figure 4.5.8: The effect of DRA on interfacial tension for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
deionized water with water soluble DRA
155
Figure 4.5.9: 0 ppm beaker test after stirring 5 hours and settling for a few seconds .157
Figure 4.5.10: 0 ppm beaker test after stirring 5 hours and settling 1 minute

157

Figure 4.5.11: 20 ppm beaker test after stirring 15 hours and settling 15 minutes

158

Figure 4.5.12: 50 ppm beaker test after stirring 15 hours and settling 15 minutes

158

XXXI

Figure 4.5.13a: The effect of liquid velocity on average pressure gradient for full pipe
deionized water flow in the acrylic pipeline
160
Figure 4.5.13b: Effectiveness ofDRA on full pipe flow for 100% deionized water using
water soluble DRA
160
Figure 4.5.14a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for Vsl
with deionized water in the acrylic pipeline

0.5 mls
163

Figure 4.5.14b: Effectiveness of DRA on slug and pseudo slug flow for Vsl = 0.5 mls
with 100% deionized water
163
Figure 4.5.15a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for Vsl = 1.0 mls
with 100% deionized water in the stainless steel pipeline
164
Figure 4.5.15b: Effectiveness of DRA on slug flow Vsl
water

1.0 mls with 100% deionized


164

Figure 4.5.16a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for Vsl = 1.25 mls
with deionized water in the acrylic pipeline
166
Figure 4.5.16b: Effectiveness of DRA on slug flow for Vsl
deionized water

1.25 mls with 100%


166

Figure 4.5.17a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for Vsl = 1.5 mls
with deionized water in the acrylic pipeline
167
Figure 4.5.17b: Effectiveness of DRA on slug flow for Vsl = 1.5 mls with 100%
deionized water
167
Figure 4.5.18: The effect of DRA on slug frequency for 100% deionized water using
water soluble DRA
169
Figure 4.5.19: The effect ofDRA on slug length for 100% deionized water using water
soluble DRA
169
Figure 4.5.20: The effect ofDRA on film Froude number for 100% deionized water using
water soluble DRA
170
Figure 4.5.21: The effect of DRA on liquid film velocity for 100% deionized water using
water soluble DRA
170

XXXII

Figure 4.5.22: The effect of DRA on translational velocity for 100% deionized water
using water soluble DRA
171
Figure 4.5.23: The effect of DRA on height of liquid film for 100% deionized water
using water soluble DRA
171
Figure 4.6.1: A comparison of the average pressure drop for 50 and 75 ppm of water
soluble DRA for slug flow
174
Figure 4.6.2a: Effect of liquid velocity on average pressure gradient for 90% deionized
water and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
175
Figure 4.6.2b: Effectiveness of DRA on oil/water flow for 90% deionized water and 10%
6 cP oil
175
Figure 4.6.3a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for VsI=I.0 mls for
90% water and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
177
Figure 4.6.3b: Effectiveness of DRa on slug flow for Vsl=I.0 mls using 90% deionized
water and 10% 6 cP oil
177
Figure 4.6.4a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for VsI=I.25 mls
for 900/0 water and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
178
Figure 4.6.4b: Effectiveness of DRa on slug flow for VsI=1.25 mls using 90% deionized
water and 10% 6 cP oil
178
Figure 4.6.5a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for VsI=1.5 mls for
90% water and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
179
Figure 4.6.5h: Effectiveness of DRa on slug flow for VsI=I.5 mls using 90% deionized
water and 10% 6 cP oil
179
Figure 4.6.6: The effect of DRA on slug frequency for 90% deionized water and 10%
6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
182
Figure 4.6.7: The effect ofDRA on slug length for 90% deionized water and 100/0 6 cP
oil using water soluble DRA
182
Figure 4.6.8: The effect of DRA on film Froude number for 90% deionized water and
10% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
183
Figure 4.6.9: The effect of DRA on liquid film velocity for 90% deionized water and
10% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
183

XXXIII

Figure 4.6.10: The effect of DRA on translational velocity for 90% deionized water and
10% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
184
Figure 4.6.11: The effect of DRA on height of liquid film for 90% deionized water and
10% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
184
Figure 4.6.12: A comparison of slug frequency at 90% water cut with slug frequency for
100% water using water soluble DRA
185
Figure 4.6.13: A comparison of slug length at 90% water cut with slug length at 100%
water using water soluble DRA
185
Figure 4.6.14: A comparison of the film Froude number at 90% water cut and 100%
water using water soluble DRA
186
Figure 4.6.15: A comparison of the liquid film velocity at 90% water cut and 100%
water and water soluble DRA
186
Figure 4.6.16: A comparison of the translational velocity at 900/0 water cut and 100%
water cut using water soluble DRA
187
Figure 4.6.17: A comparison of height of liquid film at 90% water cut and 100% water
cut using water soluble DRA
187
Figure 4.6.18a: The effect of liquid velocity on average pressure gradient for 50% water
and 50% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
189
Figure 4.6.18b: Effectiveness of DRA on oil/water flow for 50% deionized water and
50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
189
Figure 4.6.19a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for Vsl=0.5 mls
for 50% water and 50% 6 cP oil in acrylic pipeline using water soluble DRA
191
Figure 4.6.19b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow for VsI=0.5 mls for 50% deionized
water and 50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
191
Figure 4.6.20a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for Vsl=I.0 mls
for 50% water and 50% 6 cP oil in acrylic pipeline using water soluble DRA
192
Figure 4.6.20b: Effectiveness of DRA on slug flow for Vsl= 1.0 mls for 50% deionized
water and 50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
192
Figure 4.6.21a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for Vsl=I.5 mls
for 50% water and 50% 6 cP oil in acrylic pipeline using water soluble DRA
193

XXXIV

Figure 4.6.21b: Effectiveness of DRA on slug flow for VsI=I.5 mls for 50% deionized
water and 50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
193
Figure 4.6.22: The effect of DRA on slug frequency for 50% deionized water and 50% 6
cP oil using water soluble DRA
195
Figure 4.6.23: The effect ofDRA on slug length for 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP
195
oil using water soluble DRA
Figure 4.6.24: The effect of DRA on film Froude number for 50% deionized water and
50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
196
Figure 4.6.25: The effect of DRA on liquid film velocity for 50% deionized water and
50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
196
Figure 4.6.26: The effect of DRA on translational velocity for 50% deionized water and
50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
197
Figure 4.6.27: The effect of DRA on height of liquid film with DRA for 50% deionized
water and 50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
197
Figure 4.6.28a: A comparison of slug frequency at 50% water cut with slug frequency of
100% water using water soluble DRA
199
Figure 4.6.28b: A comparison of slug frequency at 50% water cut with slug frequency of
100% water using water soluble DRA
199
Figure 4.6.29: A comparison of slug length at 50% water cut with slug length using 100%
200
water and water soluble DRA
Figure 4.6.30: A comparison of film Froude number at 50% water cut and 100% water
and water soluble DRA
200
Figure 4.6.31: A comparison of liquid film velocity at 50% water cut and 100% water
using water soluble DRA
201
Figure 4.6.32: A comparison of translational velocity at 50% water cut and at 100% water
using water soluble DRA
201
Figure 4.6.33: A comparison of height of liquid film at 50% water cut and at 100% water
and water soluble DRA
202
Figure 4.6.34a: The effect of liquid velocity on average pressure gradient 10% deionized
water and 90% 6 cP oil in the stainless steel pipeline
204

xxxv

Figure 4.6.34b: Effectiveness of DRA on oil/water flow for 10% deionized water and
90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
204
Figure 4.6.35a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for VsI=l.O mls
for 10% deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline using water soluble
DRA
205
Figure 4.6.35b: Effectiveness ofDRA on the slug flow regime for VsI=1.0 mls using
10% water and 90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
205
Figure 4.6.36a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for VsI=I.25 mls
for 10% deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil in the stainless steel pipeline using water
soluble DRA
206
Figure 4.6.36b: Effectiveness of DRA on the slug flow regime for VsI=I.25 mls using
10% water and 90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
206
Figure 4.6.37a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for VsI=I.5 mls
for 10% deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline using water soluble
DRA
207
Figure 4.6.37b: Effectiveness of DRA on the slug flow regime for VsI=1.5 mls using
10% water and 90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
207
Figure 4.6.38: The effect ofDRA on slug frequency for 10% deionized water and 90% 6
cP oil using water soluble DRA
209
Figure 4.6.39: The effect of DRA on slug length for 10% deionized water and 90% 6 cP
oil using water soluble DRA
209
Figure 4.6.40: The effect of DRA on film Froude number for 10% deionized water and
90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
210
Figure 4.6.41: The effect of DRA on liquid film velocity for 10% deionized water and
90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
210
Figure 4.6.42: The effect of DRA on translational velocity for 10% deionized water and
90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
211
Figure 4.6.43: The effect of DRA on height of liquid film for 10% deionized water and
90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA
211
Figure 4.6.44a: A comparison of slug frequency at 10% water cut with slug frequency
using 100% water and water soluble DRA
213

XXXVI

Figure 4.6.44b: A comparison of slug frequency at 10% water cut with slug frequency
using 100% water and water soluble DRA
213
Figure 4.6.45: A comparison of slug length at 10% water cut with slug length using 100%
water with water soluble DRA
214
Figure 4.6.46: A comparison of film Froude number at 10% water cut and using 100%
water and water soluble DRA
214
Figure 4.6.47: A comparison of liquid film velocity at 10% water cut and using 100%
water and water soluble DRA
215
Figure 4.6.48: A comparison of translational velocity at 10% water cut and using 100%
water and water soluble DRA
215
Figure 4.6.49: A comparison of height of liquid film at 10% water cut using 1000/0 water
and water soluble DRA
216
Figure 4.7.1: A comparison of the effectiveness of DRA in stainless steel and in acrylic
217
pipelines at 20 ppm of water soluble DRA
Figure 4.7.2: A comparison of the effectiveness of DRA in stainless steel and in acrylic
pipelines at 50 ppm of water soluble DRA
217
Figure 4.8.1: A comparison of the effectiveness of 50 ppm of water and oil soluble DRA
219
for slug flow at 10% deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil
Figure 4.8.2: A comparison of the slug frequency using water and oil soluble DRA for
slug flow at 10% deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil
219
Figure 4.8.3: A comparison of the slug length using water and oil soluble DRA for slug
flow at 10% deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil
221
Figure 4.8.4: A comparison of the Froude number using water and oil soluble DRA for
slug flow at 100/0 deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil
221
Figure 4.8.5: A comparison of the liquid film velocity using water and oil soluble
DRA for slug flow at 10% deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil

222

Figure 4.8.6: A comparison of the translational velocity using water and oil soluble DRA
for slug flow at 10% deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil
222
Figure 4.8.7: A comparison of the height of the liquid film using water and oil soluble
DRA for slug flow at 10% deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil
223

XXXVII

Figure 4.8.8: A comparison of the effectiveness of 50 ppm of water and oil soluble
DRA for slug flow at 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil

225

Figure 4.8.9: A comparison of the slug frequency using water and oil soluble DRA for
slug flow at 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil
225
Figure 4.8.10: A comparison of the slug length using water and oil soluble DRA for slug
flow at 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil
226
Figure 4.8.11: A comparison of the Froude number using water and oil soluble DRA for
slug flow at 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil.
226
Figure 4.8.12: A comparison of the liquid film velocity using water and oil soluble DRA
for slug flow at 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil
227
Figure 4.8.13: A comparison of the translational velocity using water and oi soluble DRA
for slug flow at 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil
227
Figure 4.8.14: A comparison of the height of the liquid film for water and oil soluble
DRA for slug flow at 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil
229
Figure 5.1.1: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 100% 6
cP oil at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
237
Figure 5.1.2: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 100% 6
cP oil at 20 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
237
Figure 5.1.3: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 100% 6
238
cP oil at 50 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.1.4: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil
at VsI = 0.3 mls at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
238
Figure 5.1.5: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil
239
at VsI = 0.3 mls at 20 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.1.6: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil
239
at VsI = 0.3 mls at 50 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.1.7: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil
242
at Vsl = 0.5 mls at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.1.8: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil
at Vsl = 0.5 mls at 20 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
242

XXXVIII

Figure 5.1.9: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil
243
at Vsl = 0.5 mls at 50 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.1.10: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil
243
at Vsl = 1.5 mls at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.1.11: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil
at Vsl = 1.5 mls at 20 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
245
Figure 5.1.12: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil
245
at Vsl = 1.5 mls at 50 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.1.13a: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational pressure drop for 100% 6 cP oil
247
in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA
Figure 5.1.13b: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational pressure drop for 100% 6 cP oil
in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA
247
Figure 5.1.14: The effect of DRA on the frictional pressure drop due to slug body for
100% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA
248
Figure 5.1.I5a: The effect of DRA on accelerational pressure recovery of slug tail for
100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
248
Figure 5.t.I5b: The effect of DRA on accelerational pressure recovery of slug tail for
100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
249
Figure 5.1.16: The effect ofDRA on frictional loss of liquid film for 100% 6 cP oil using
249
oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.1.17: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 90% 6 cP
oil and 10% water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
252
Figure 5.1.18: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 90% 6 cP oil
252
and 100/0 water at Vsl=I.5 mls at 0 ppm of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.1.19: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 90% 6 cP oil
and 10% water at Vsl= 1.5 mls at 20 ppm of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline .....253
Figure 5.1.20: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 90% 6 cP oil
and 10% water at VsI=I.5 mls at 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline .....253
Figure 5.1.21: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational pressure drop for 90% 6 cP oil
255
and 100/0 water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

XXXIX

Figure 5.1.22: The effect of DRA on the frictional pressure drop due to slug body for
90% 6 cP oil and 10% water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
255
Figure 5.1.23: The effect of DRA on accelerational pressure recovery of slug tail for
90% 6 cP oil and 10% water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
256
Figure 5.1.24: The effect of DRA on the frictional loss of liquid film for 90% 6 cP oil
256
and 10% water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.1.25: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 50% 6 cP
oil and 50% water at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
258
Figure 5.1.26: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 50% 6 cP
258
oil and 50% water at 20 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.1.27: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 50% 6 cP
oil and 50% water at 50 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
259
Figure 5.1.28: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 50% 6 cP oil
and 50% water at VsI=0.5 mls at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
259
Figure 5.1.29: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 50% 6 cP oil
and 50% water at VsI=0.5 mls at 20 ppm of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline .....260
Figure 5.1.30: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 50% 6 cP oil
and 50% water at VsI=0.5 mls at 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline .....260
Figure 5.1.31: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 50% 6 cP oil
262
and 50% water at VsI=I.5 mls at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.1.32: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 50% 6 cP oil
and 50% water at VsI=I.5 mls at 20 ppm of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline .....262
Figure 5.1.33: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 50% 6 cP oil
and 50% water at Vsl= 1.5 mls at 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline .....263
Figure 5.1.34: The effect of DRA on the accelerational pressure drop for 50% 6 cP oil
and 50% water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
263
Figure 5.1.35: The effect of DRA on the frictional pressure drop due to slug body for
50% 6 cP oil and 50% water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
264
Figure 5.1.36: The effect of DRA on accelerational pressure recovery of slug tail for
50% 6 cP oil and 50% water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
264

xl
Figure 5.1.37: The effect of DRA on the frictional loss of liquid film for 50% 6 cP oil
and 50% water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
265
Figure 5.2.1: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 100%
water at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
267
Figure 5.2.2: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 100%
267
water using 20 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.2.3: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 100%
water using 50 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
268
Figure 5.2.4: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 100%
water using 75 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
268
Figure 5.2.5: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% water at
Vsl = 0.5 mls at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
270
Figure 5.2.6: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% water at
270
Vsl = 0.5 mls at 20 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.2.7: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% water at
Vsl = 0.5 mls at 50 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
271
Figure 5.2.8: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100% water at
271
Vsl = 0.5 mls at 75 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.2.9: The effect of DRA on the accelerational pressure drop for 100% water in
the acrylic pipeline
272
Figure 5.2.10: The effect of DRA on the frictional pressure drop due to slug body for
100% water using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
272
Figure 5.2.11: The effect of DRA on accelerational pressure recovery of slug tail for
100% water using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
273
Figure 5.2.12: The effect of DRA on the frictional loss of liquid film for 100% water
using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
273
Figure 5.2.13: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 90% water
and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
275
Figure 5.2.14: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 90% water and
10% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.5 mls at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
275

xli
Figure 5.2.15: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 90% water and
10% 6 cP oil at VsI = 1.5 mls at 20 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
276
Figure 5.2.16: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 90% water and
10% 6 cP oil at VsI = 1.5 mls at 50 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
276
Figure 5.2.17: The effect of DRA on the accelerational pressure drop component for
277
90% water and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline using water soluble DRA
Figure 5.2.18: The effect of DRA on the frictional pressure drop due to slug body for
277
90% water and 10% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.2.19: The effect of DRA on accelerational pressure recovery of slug tail for
90% water and 10% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
278
Figure 5.2.20: The effect of DRA on the frictional loss of liquid film for 90% water and
278
10% 6cP oil with water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.2.21: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 50% water
and 0% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
280
Figure 5.2.22: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 50% water and
50% 6 cP oil at VsI = 0.5 mls at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
280
Figure 5.2.23: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 50% water and
281
50% 6 cP oil at VsI = 0.5 mls at 20 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.2.24: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 50% water and
50% 6 cP oil at VsI = 0.5 mls at 50 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
281
Figure 5.2.25: The effect of DRA on the accelerational pressure drop component for
50% water and 50% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline using water soluble DRA
282
Figure 5.2.26: The effect of DRA on the frictional pressure drop due to slug body for
50% water and 50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
282
Figure 5.2.27: The effect of DRA on accelerational pressure recovery of slug tail for
500/0 water and 500/0 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
283
Figure 5.2.28: The effect ofDRA on the frictional loss of liquid film for 50% water and
50% 6cP oil with water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
283
Figure 5.2.29: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop for 10% water
and 90% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
285

xlii
Figure 5.2.30: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 10% water and
90% 6 cP oil at VsI = 1.5 mls at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
285
Figure 5.2.31: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 10% water and
286
90% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.5 mls at 20 ppm in the acrylic pipeline ...
0

Figure 5.2.32: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for 100/0 water and
286
90% 6 cP oil at VsI = 1.5 mls at 50 ppm in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.2.33: The effect of DRA on the accelerational pressure drop component for
10% water and 90% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline using water soluble DRA
287
Figure 5.2.34: The effect of DRA on the frictional pressure drop due to slug body for
10% water and 90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
287
Figure 5.2.35: The effect of DRA on accelerational pressure recovery of slug tail for
288
10% water and 90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.2.36: The effect ofDRA on the frictional loss of liquid film for 10% water and
288
90% 6cP oil with water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline
Figure 5.3.1: A comparison of how the pressure drop components change using 50 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in 100% 6 cP oil
290
Figure 5.3.2: A comparison of how the pressure drop components change using 50 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in 90% 6 cP oil and 10% water
290
Figure 5.3.3: A comparison of how the pressure drop components change using 50 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water
291
Figure 5.4.1: A comparison of how the pressure drop components change using 50 ppm
of water soluble DRA in 100% water
293
Figure 5.4.2: A comparison of how the pressure drop components change using 50 ppm
of water soluble DRA in 90% water and 10% 6 cP oil
293
Figure 5.4.3: A comparison of how the pressure drop components change using 50 ppm
of water soluble DRA in 50% water and 50% 6 cP oil
294
Figure 5.4.4: A comparison of how the pressure drop components change using 50 ppm
of water soluble DRA in 10% water and 90% 6 cP oil
294
Figure 6.1.1: A comparison of the experimental slug frequency and slug frequency by
Jepson and Taylor (1993) for 0 ppm using 100% water
308

xliii
Figure 6.1.2: Correlating slug frequency using two phase flow data

310

Figure 6.1.3: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for 0 ppm
of oil soluble DRA and 100% 6 cP oil
310
Figure 6.1.4: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for 20
311
ppm of oil soluble DRA and 100% 6 cP oil
Figure 6.1.5: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for 50
311
ppm of oil soluble DRA and 100% 6 cP oil
Figure 6.1.6: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for 0 ppm
of water soluble DRA and 100% water
312
Figure 6.1.7: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for 20
~
312
ppm of water soluble DRA and 100% water
Figure 6.1.8: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for 50
314
ppm of water soluble DRA and 100% water
Figure 6.1.9: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for 75
314
ppm of water soluble DRA and 100% water
Figure 6.2.1: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for oil
soluble DRA and 90% 6 cP oil and 10% water
315
Figure 6.2.2: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for 0 ppm
of oil soluble DRA and 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water
315
Figure 6.2.3: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for 20
316
ppm of oil soluble DRA and 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water
Figure 6.2.4: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for 50
316
ppm of oil soluble DRA and 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water
Figure 6.2.5: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for water
soluble DRA and 90% water and 10% 6 cP oil
317
Figure 6.2.6: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for water
soluble DRA and 50% water and 50% 6 cP oil
317
Figure 6.2.7: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug frequency for water
soluble DRA and 10% water and 90% 6 cP oil
318

xliv

NOMENCLATURE
A

Cross sectional area of pipe

A<J

Area due to gas over liquid film over liquid film

Air

Area of liquid film before the slug

Diameter of pipe

dp/dx

Pressure gradient due to stratified flow

DRA

Drag reducing agent

Effectiveness of DRA

Eo

Eotvos number

fg

Friction factor of gas above the liquid film

fi

Interfacial friction factor

fs

Friction factor inside slug

Fr

Film Froude number

Frs

Froude number inside slug

Acceleration due to gravity

Height of liquid film before slug

Ratio of height of liquid film before slug to diameter of pipe

her

Effectiveness height of liquid film before the slug

Hz

Sampling frequency of data measurements

L\L

Length between pressure taps

lrnz

Length of mixing zone

Is

Total length of slug

xlv
lsb

Length of slug body

Ns

Number of slugs between pressure taps at any given time

LW a

Accelerational pressure drop due to slug front

LWf

Frictional pressure drop due to slug body

LWfilm

Frictioanl pressure drop due to film

LWT

Total pressure drop due to the presence of slugs

LWtail

Accelerational pressure recovery due to slug tail

Re

Reynolds number

Res

Reynolds number in slug body

Rtf

Fraction of pipe that the liquid film before the slug occupies

Sa

Si
SL

Wetted perimeter of gas above liquid film


Width of gas-liquid interface

Wetted perimeter of liquid in liquid film

~t

Sampling time for measurements

~tsf

Time it takes for slug front to move between pressure taps

Llt s

Time it takes for one complete slug to move between pressure taps

LltT

Total time is takes for all the slugs sampled to move between pressure taps

til s

Liquid velocity inside slug

Va

Actual velocity of gas above liquid film

Vir

Velocity of liquid film before slug

VM

Mixture velocity (slug body velocity)

V sg

Superficial gas velocity

xlvi

Superficial liquid velocity


Translational velocity of slug

Mass pickup rate of the slug front (or mass shedding rate of slug tail)

Greek Letters

Usb

Gas fraction in slug body

Uncertainty in measurement

fJg

Viscosity of gas

ilL

Viscosity of liquid

pg

Density of gas

PL

Density of liquid

O'g

Surface tension of gas

O'L

Surface tension of liquid

'ti

Interfacial shear stress

Tw

Wall shear stress

'tWG

Wall shear stress due to the gas

TWL

Wall shear stress due to the liquid

Us

Slug frequency

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Subsea oil production is becoming more common since reservoirs inland are
becoming depleted. A typical well will produce at a temperature of 100 - 200 0 e and at a
depth of 2,000 to 4,000 meters. When the hot oil reaches the sea bed, since the sea is
much colder than the reservoir, the sudden drop in temperature causes the viscosity of the
oil to rise and, in some cases, waxes and hydrates form and can be deposited in the
pipeline. The waxes and hydrates may cause blockages in the pipeline.
As the well ages, the pressure in the reservoir decreases and sea water seeps into
the reservoir. To enhance oil recovery, carbon dioxide can be injected into the well to
help maintain the pressure inside the reservoir. The multiphase flow, generally, consists
of a combination of oil, waxes, hydrates, sea water, and gas. At the sea bed, the flow
from many wells is combined into a larger diameter pipeline.

Since it is often not

tractable to separate the oil/water/gas mixture deep on the ocean floor, the multiphase
mixture is transported to a platform where the multiphase mixture is separated into the
individual phases. The oil and gas are pumped onshore and the water returned to the well.
During the transport from the well to the separation station, different types of flow
regimes can occur. The flow regime is generally dependent upon the apparent viscosity
of the mixture, the inclination of the pipeline, and the superficial liquid and gas
velocities.

The multiphase flow regime that generally occurs is slug flow, which is

described in detail later, causes a large decrease in pressure and a large increase in

corrosion rate. The large decrease in pressure creates a need for boosters to be installed
in order to keep the oil flowing. Currently only a few multiphase pumps are available to
transport the multiphase mixture. However, these are expensive and often unreliable.
Consequently, other methods of pressure drop reduction are highly sought after.
To help reduce the high corrosion rate found in slug flow, corrosion inhibitors are
often used. The corrosion inhibitor works by creating a protective layer between the fluid
and metal wall of the pipeline. The slug front has a significant amount of gas entrained,
which is shot toward the bottom of the pipeline where the bubbles will impact and
collapse. The impact and collapse of the bubbles can cause the protective layer of the
corrosion inhibitor to deteriorate. Therefore, the best way to control the corrosion and
maintain high pressure in the pipeline is to reduce the slug frequency.
One method of slug frequency reduction is by using a flow enhancer, commonly
called a drag reducing agent, DRA.

Drag reducing agents are generally long chained

polymers, which are added to flow in small concentrations.

The addition of these

polymers generally creates a reduction in pressure drop for an existing pipeline, which
will help maintain pressure in the pipeline and keep the contents moving. Of, when
designing pipelines, a smaller diameter pipeline combined with drag reducing agents can
result in the same production as a larger diameter pipeline without drag reducing agents.
The smaller diameter pipe will reduce the capital cost of the construction of the pipeline
and the maintenance cost of future repairs.
The large diameter of the pipeline for a typical oil well is needed only for the
maximum phase of production and is generally oversized for the production rate of the

3
well for the majority of the time the well is in production. Figure 1.1 shows a typical
production rate curve for a typical oil well. The well starts at a low production rate and
increases until it reaches maximum production. The well only stays at this maximum
production rate for a short period of time when the production rates slows down until an
equilibrium rate is reached. When sizing the diameter of the pipeline for the oil well, the
pipeline has to be able to handle the maximum production rate; therefore, the diameter is
generally oversized except when at maximum production. When drag reducing agents are
considered during the design of the pipelines, a smaller diameter pipeline can be used for
the same amount of flow.

The flow regime inside the pipeline also needs to be

considered when designing the pipeline.


Figure 1.2 shows the different flow regimes, which occur in a three phase oil,
water and gas flow. The same type of flow regimes occurs in two phase flow, the only
difference being only one liquid phase. Bubble flow occurs when the gas velocity is low
enough where the bubbles following through the liquid cannot coalesce. As the gas
velocity is increased, the bubbles do coalesce and a smooth interface between the liquid
and gas is created. This flow regime is called smooth stratified flow. If the gas velocity
is further increased, waves begin to form at the gas/liquid interface and the wavy
stratified flow regime occurs. When the liquid velocity is increased, the waves begin to
grow and three dimensional rolling waves occur and the rolling wave flow regime occurs.
If instead of increasing the liquid velocity from wavy stratified flow, the gas velocity is
increased, plug flow will be produced. The waves between the liquid/gas interface grow
to bridge the top of the pipe and pockets of gas will be formed in between plugs of liquid.

a.

't:S

CJ

........=

Q.)

..-

Figure 1.1: The hypothetical production rate of


a hypthetical oil well over time

Time

Flow

Bubble Flow

Stratified Flow

Wavy Stratified Flow

Rolling Wave Flow

Plug Flow

Slug Flow
."".

---

---

...

- -

--

.....

..

--.",.

#-

-.

Annular Flow

Figure 1.2: Three phase oil/water/gas horizontal flow

6
When the gas velocity is further increased, slug flow is produced. The front of the slug
overruns the slower moving liquid film and a highly turbulent slug front is created, as
shown in Figure 1.3.

When the gas velocity is further increased, waves begin to form

between the slugs and a pseudo slug flow is formed. The slugs become much more
aerated at this stage and a further increase in gas velocity causes the liquid to lose the gas
and a core of gas flows through a thin film of liquid which circles the pipe. This flow
regime is called annular flow.
The most common type of flow regime found in these multiphase, long distance
pipelines is slug flow because this occurs at moderate to high liquid and gas velocities. If
the liquid flow is low enough to have bubble, stratified flow, wavy stratified, rolling
wave stratified, or plug flow occur, the oil well is generally not producing enough oil to
be economically beneficial. If annular flow occurs, the gas velocity is so high that the
majority of the output is gas and not liquid, therefore, it is again not feasible to operate
the well.
As previously mentioned, since slug flow is the most common type of flow
regime, the additional problems of higher pressure losses higher corrosion rates exist in
the pipeline. The addition of drag reducing agents may reduce the slug frequency or
eliminate slugs entirely depending upon the superficial liquid and gas flow rates. The
reduction or elimination of slugs will help increase the pressure in the pipelines and
reduce the corrosion rates. The next chapter shows the research that has been performed
on multiphase flow with and without DRA. It will show that currently, there is not much

o0

o0

0
0
0

Vt .....-----

o o0

Body

00

0 0 0
00 00

0
o 0 000
0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0
oo 0 0 0 00 00 0

00 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0

Figure 1.3: Profile of dilTerent regions of a slug

VIf

......

Film

Liquid

Gas Pocket

Mixing Zone

0 0

0 0

8
research on how the drag reducing agents affect multiphase flow in large diameter
pipelines.
Chapter Two will also show that numerous studies have been performed in single
phase flow with drag reducing agents. The experiments indicate that in laminar flow the
drag reducing agent has no effect on the pressure drop.

When the flow becomes

turbulent, drag reduction is achieved. As the viscosity of the oil increases the drag
reducing agents generally become less effective. In some oils the pressure drop has even
increased with the addition of drag reducing agents.

The exact mechanism of drag

reducing agents in single phase flow is not completely understood. The common theory
is that the drag reducing agent absorbs energy from the turbulent bursts, which are
generated in the buffer zone of the velocity profile, and slowly releases the energy further
downstream. The energy, which existed in the rotating eddy, is slowly released into the
axial flow and an increase of flow rate is observed.
Most researchers have concentrated on studying single phase flow. The next
chapter will show that only a few researchers have attempted to study the effect of drag
reducing agents on multiphase flow. The majority of these few researchers have used
small diameter pipelines, 5 em or less. Large diameter pipelines (10 to 120 ern) are
generally used in the oil industry.
This study examines the effect of DRAs in a large diameter pipe with two and
three phase flows using an oil with a viscosity of 6 cP. This study is unique because it
these flow conditions and for two different DRAs with different chemistries, including oil
and water soluble DRAs.

9
The calculation of the individual pressure drop components during two and three
phase slug flow with and without DRA has not been previously studied. This calculates
the effect of DRA on the individual pressure drop components and develops a modeling
technique to calculate the pressure drop in slug flow with drag reducing agents being
present in the flow. A correlation for the slug frequency with and without DRA is also
developed.

10

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

To understand the effect of drag reducing agents on multiphase flow, an


understanding of multiphase flow without the presence of drag reducing agents must fIrst
be developed. As previously mentioned several different types of flow regimes can be
observed when gas and liquid are both present in the pipelines. The flow characteristics
are dependent upon many different variables, such as, superficial liquid and gas
velocities, viscosity and density of each phase and the diameter of the pipeline to name a
few. This research will show that the effect of drag reducing agents on the pressure drop
varies strongly depending upon the type of flow regime. Therefore, it is important to first
determine the flow regime inside the pipeline before deciding on the addition of a drag
reducing agent to the pipeline.

2.1 Prediction of the Flow Regime without the Presence of Drag Reducing Agent
The majority of the pipelines in industry are constructed of materials, which do
not permit observation of the flow regime. Therefore, the prediction of the flow regime
can be done by using a pressure trace or by using published flow regime maps. Several
researchers have published flow regimes maps based upon their data. When the fluid
properties or system properties were changed, the flow regime maps also changed,
therefore, the old published flow regime maps did not correlate well with the new
version. For example, Bergelin and Gazley (1949) published a flow regime map based

11
upon air and water flow through a 2.5 em tube using the mass flow rates of the air and
water as the axis on the flow regime map.

Hoogendoom (1959) performed experiments

in 2.4 to 14 em pipeline using water, spindle oil, and gas oil as the liquids and air
pressurized from 1 to 3 atm as the gas phase. His results stated that the flow regime map
of Bergelin and Gazley (1949) was not accurate and the coordinates on the flow regime
map should be the input gas percentage and the superficial mixture velocity. Govier and
Orner (1962) suggested the flow regime map should be plotted using the mass velocity of
the liquid and gas after performing experiments on 2.5 em cellulose acetate butyrate
tubing using water and air as the testing fluids. AI-Sheikh et al. (1970) used a sequence
of graphs, which required 12 different figures with 10 different coordinate systems. His
results were based upon AGA-API Data Bank, which contained 4,475 data points.
Mandhane et al. (1974) used the same data bank, which increased to 5,935 data points at
the time of their study and used the superficial liquid and gas velocity as the axis on the
flow regime map. Out of the 5,935 data pointed used in this study, 71% of the data
points were evaluated on systems with diameters of 5 em or less. Jepson and Taylor
(1993) has shown, that the flow regime changes significantly when comparing large
diameter studies (10 em or larger) with the small diameter studies.
Taitel and Dukler (1976) created the first mechanistic flow regime map. They
divided the flow regime map into 5 sections, which were smooth stratified, wavy
stratified, annular dispersed liquid, intermittent, and dispersed bubble. The intermittent
flow regime included the flow regimes of plug, slug, elongated bubble flow and pseudo
slug flow. The transition between stratified and intermittent occurred when the waves in

12
the liquid film grew large enough to bridge the pipe and form plugs or slugs. The
transition between stratified and annular flow occurred when there is enough gas velocity
present in the system to cause the liquid to form a continuous film around the inner
perimeter of the pipeline. The transition between intermittent and annular flow occurs
when the supply of liquid is not large enough to create a stable slug, therefore, the wave
is spread around the inner perimeter of the pipe and annular flow is created.

The

transition between smooth stratified flow and wavy stratified flow occurs when the
velocity of the gas is increased so that waves are created but the height of the waves is
not great enough to bridge the pipe to create slug flow. The last transition between
intermittent and dispersed bubble regime occurs when the turbulent fluctuations in the
liquid are strong enough to cause the gas to stay at the top of the pipe. An example of the
flow regime map from the model developed by Taitel and Dulder is shown in Figure
2.1.1. This figure was developed using the fluid and system properties used in this study,
i.e. 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide as the gas. Figure 2.1.1 shows that for superficial liquid
velocities above 0.1 mis, the dominant flow regime is intermittent flow.
Jepson and Taylor (1993) have shown that the Taitel and Dukler (1976) model is
not accurate for large diameter pipelines. They produced a flow regime map in a 30 ern
pipeline using air and water and then compared the results to the predicted values
obtained from the Taitel and Dukler (1976) model. Their results indicated that the Taitel
and Dukler (1976) model did not accurately predict the transition from wavy to annular
flow and the transition to slug to annular flow.

00

e,

'-I=-

-.

~
.....

crt

~
-;

.....e

.c..-u

e
"-'"

0.01

0.1

10

so

10

Superfical Gas Velocity (m/s)

100

Annular

SOO

Figure 2.1.1: Taitel and Dukler (1976) flow regime map


for a pipe inclination of 0 0 , a pipe diameter of 10 cm for
6cP oil and carbon dioxide gas

0.1

t-

Smooth
Stratified

<,

Intermittent

Dispersed Flow

VJ

14
Wilkens (1997) also developed a mechanistic model for the stratified to slug
transition and the slug to annular transition. His experiments were performed on a 10 cm
plexiglass pipeline using three phase flow of oil/water/gas. The transition from stratified
to slug flow occurred when stratified and slug flow existed simultaneously in the
pipeline. The slug to annular transition was defmed as the point when the slug and
annular flow occurred simultaneously in the pipeline.

2.2 Pressure Drop in Multiphase Flow without Drag Reducing Agents


The pressure drop in multiphase flow has been extensively studied. The majority
of the published models only modeled the pressure drop in a certain flow regime (i.e.
stratified flow model or slug flow model). Lockhart and Martinelli (1949) attempted to
model two phase flow pressure drop for all flow regimes with one model. Their model
was based upon small diameter pipelines of 0.15 to 2.5 em with various liquids and air as
the gas phase. They used a parameter, X, which was equal to the square root of the ratio
of the pressure drop in the pipe if only the liquid flowed to the pressure drop in the pipe if
only the gas flowed.

From the X parameter, a second parameter, <l> g2, could be

determined from a chart. The second parameter was then multiplied by the pressure drop
in the pipe if only the gas phase was flowing to obtain the two phase flow pressure drop.
Many researchers such as Bergelin and Gazley (1949), Hoogendoorn (1959), Govier and
Orner (1962) and Olujic (1985) have shown that this approach is only valid for a small set
of conditions and errors as high as 100% can be observed. Olujic (1985) used previously
published results to try and split horizontal multiphase flow into 2 categories. The first

15

category, c, occurred when the superficial gas velocity is much higher than the
superficial liquid velocity as in slug and annular flow. The second category,

P, occurs

when the superficial liquid and gas velocities are similar such as bubble and plug flow.
The equations for pressure drop should be unique for each flow regime. For example, in
slug flow an accelerational pressure drop component exists which is not found in annular
flow. Therefore, an additional term is needed when calculating the pressure drop of slug
flow than is needed for annular flow. The following sections will outline some of the
models published specifically for the flow regimes of stratified, slug and annular flows.

Stratified Flow
Stratified flow is one of the easiest multiphase flow regimes to model.

The

velocity profile and height of the liquid film can be determined when a plexiglass
pipeline is installed. Once the height of the liquid film is determined along with the input
superficial gas and liquid velocities, the actual liquid film velocity can be accurately
calculated with a mass balance. As previously mentioned, stratified flow is a flow regime
not generally observed in the production of oil, since at these flow rates the well is not
economically feasible to operate.
Bergelin and Gazley (1949) also modeled the pressure drop in the gas phase of
stratified flow when they developed their flow regime map. Their results indicated that
when the gas phase pressure drop was plotted with the mass flow rate of the gas for
various mass flow rates of the liquid, a laminar and turbulent region was observed similar

16
to single phase flow. A superficial friction factor and Reynolds modulus were used to
determine the transition point from laminar to turbulent.
Hoogendoom (1959) also simultaneously developed a flow regime map with data
for pressure drop in wavy stratified flow. His results correlated the ratio of the pressure
drop in wavy stratified flow to the theoretical single phase pressure drop when the total
mass flow rate was used in the equation to the ratio of the mass flow rate of the gas to the
total mass flow rate. It was found that the correlation constant was more dependent on
the pipe roughness than the diameter and viscosity of the liquid.
Andritsos and Hanratty (1987) performed experiments In a 2.5 and 9.5 em
plexiglass pipeline using water and glycerine solutions of viscosities of 1 to 80 CPa They
calculated the pressure drop in stratified flow by using momentum balances for the
individual phases. Figure 2.2.1 shows a schematic of smooth stratified flow and the
forces, which act upon the flow. The frictional pressure drop, dp/dx, in the gas phase was
determined by performing a momentum balance, as shown in the following equation:
(2.2.1)

where

AG

is the area of the gas,

wetted perimeter of the gas,

ti

';WG

is the wall shear stress due to the gas, PG is the

is the shear stress at the liquid and gas interface, and

Si

is

the width of the interface. To use Equation 2.2.1 the interfacial friction factor must be
known. Their study showed that when waves were present at the gas-liquid interface,
Equation 2.2.1 gave large errors in the pressure drop. Therefore, Andritsos and Hanratty

17

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

p-l

>1

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I

~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

>~I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

r.;:
~
~

....
......

f.;:

l......
r;f.)
..c
......

0
0

E
r;f.)

c..
-l

Q
CJ

....
......
=
e
~

..c

CJ

00

I-

....=
~

18
(1987) used a similar equation for the liquid phase, as shown in Equation 2.2.2, to cancel
the interfacial friction factor.
(2.2.2)

where AL is the area of the liquid and PL is the wetted perimeter of the liquid. When
Equations 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are added together another, the interfacial terms are canceled
out and the resulting equation is:
dp

dx

t'WG

PG +

PL

T WL

(2.2.3)

AG + AL

The denominator becomes the cross section area of the pipe. The wall shear stresses are
calculated using the Blasius equation and by using the hydraulic diameters in the
Reynolds number calculation. Equation 2.2.3 enabled the modeling of the pressure drop
without the knowledge of the interfacial friction factor. Once the pressure drop was
calculated, Equation 2.2.1 or 2.2.2 could be used to determine the interfacial shear stress,
which the interfacial friction factor can be calculated. Andritsos and Hanratty (1987)
performed these calculations and modeled the interfacial friction factor, fi, using the
following set of equations:

fo r Vs G

~(

7:

0.5
)

(5 m/ s)

(2.2.4)

0.5

for V SG ~ (

::

(5 m / s)

(2.2.5)

19
where f g is the gas friction factor, h is the height of the liquid film, Vso is the superficial
velocity of the gas, Poo is the density of the gas at atmospheric conditions, PG is the
density of the gas at current conditions and D is the diameter of the pipe.
Spedding (1997) and Chen et ale (1997) also used momentum balances to
calculate the average pressure drop in smooth and wavy stratified flow. Spedding used
previous published data to develop a new liquid friction factor correlation and a new
interfacial shear stress correlation. Chen et al. (1997) used a 7.8 em pipeline to develop a
interfacial friction factor correlation very similar to Andritsos and Hanratty (1987).

Slug Flow
Slug flow is often characterized by using a dimensionless number called the film
Froude number, Fr. The higher the film Froude number the more turbulent the slug front,
hence the higher the pressure drop and corrosion rate. To calculate the film Froude
number, the following equation is generally used:

Fr

where v, is the translational velocity,


is acceleration due to gravity and

(2.2.6)

=
vir is

the velocity of the liquid film before the slug, g

her is the effective height of the liquid film before the

slug. The equation for the effective height before the slug is show in Equation 2.2.7:
h ef

(2.2.7)

20
where Sj is the width of the gas-liquid interface and the area of the liquid film before the
slug, Alf, can be calculated from the equation given by Taitel and Dukler (1976):
(2.2.8)

where h can be calculated using the following equation:

(2.2.9)

where hlf is the measured height of the liquid film before the slug. The width of the gasliquid interface is calculated using equation 2.2.10.
(2.2.10)
In slug flow, there are three different pressure components to consider when
determining the pressure drop, the frictional, accelerational and gravitational components.
Figure 2.2.2 shows a schematic of the slug. A slug creates two types of accelerational
pressure drop. The first is attributed to the creation of the hydraulic jump, which creates
a large pressure loss because of the force needed to accelerate the liquid in the slower
moving film to that of the slug velocity. This pressure drop is observed throughout the
slug front or mixing zone, lrnz. The second accelerational pressure component occurs at
th.e slug tail, where a pressure recovery is observed since the velocity is going from the
velocity in the slug to a slower moving film velocity. The slug also creates two types of
frictional losses. The majority of the frictional loss is created between the slug body and
the wall.

The liquid film between the slugs can also create a minimal amount of

_t

t
Ifa

~
t

00 0 0 0 I V
00 0 00 ~
000

Irnz
'06&0

~~

Figure 2.2.2: Schematic of a Slug

----

VM

ISb

Is

Flow Direction

1fb

t_

N
~

22
frictional loss. Therefore, the total pressure drop, MlT, in slug flow is calculated by
summing the individual pressure drop components as shown in the following equation:
(2.2.11)
where Ml f is the pressure drop due to friction (slug body plus the liquid film), Ml g is the
pressure drop due to gravity, and

~Pa

is the pressure drop due to the acceleration of the

liquid slug over the slower moving film, and Mltail is the pressure recovery of the tail.

An early correlation by Hoogendoorn (1959) did not take the individual pressure
drop components into account. His results indicated that the pressure drop in the slug
was related to the pressure drop if the gas and liquid flowing in the pipeline were flowing
as the liquid phase. The model also considered the gas density and the pipe roughness.
To accurately model the slug, all of the pressure drop components need to be
considered. Dukler and Hubbard (1975) calculated the accelerational pressure drop in the
slug front by determining the mass pickup rate of the slug front.

Figure 2.2.3 again

shows the schematic of the slug, to show how the mass pickup rate is calculated. The
slug front is moving at a faster velocity than the liquid film, therefore, after a given
amount of time, dt, the slug front will move further than the liquid film. For example, in
a given amount of time the slug front will move from position D to position F. The liquid
film only moves from position D to position E. Therefore, the volume of liquid between
E and F is picked up by the slug front. To calculate the volume picked up, Vir, the length
of D and E must be multiplied by the area of the liquid film before the slug front, Air.
This is calculated from the following equation:

{vtdt-vlfdt}Alf

(2.2.12)

A
,

M
--.....

c
0

000 0 : ~

00 .

.
ao00
00 0ci': v,

Figure 2.2.3: Schematic of a slug

Flow Direction

24
where

Vt

is the translational velocity and

Vir

is the liquid film velocity before the slug

front. The mass pickup rate, x, can then be calculated by multipling the volume of the
liquid film picked up by the density of the liquid film and then dividing by the amount of
time which elapsed. The gas entrainment in the liquid film can be neglected, therefore,
the density of the liquid film is equal to the density of the liquid. The following equation
is then used to calculate the mass pickup rate:
(2.2.13)
where A is the cross sectional area of the pipe and
liquid film prior to the slug.

Rlf

is the fraction occupied by the

The mass pickup is then multiplied by the difference

between the slug velocity and the liquid film velocity and then dividing the difference by
the cross sectional area of the pipe to obtain the accelerational pressure drop, M> a, as
shown in Equation 2.2.14.
(2.2.14)

where V M is the slug velocity which is equal to the mixture velocity. Dukler and Hubbard
(1975) neglects the pressure recovery of the tail, but models the frictional pressure drop
due to the slug body, M>r, by using a modified form of the single phase equation. The
density used in this equation is the mixture density of the gas and liquid as shown in the
following equation:

lis

[PL (l-asb)+ PG aSb]V~


KeD

(Is -Imz)

(2.2.15)

25
where fs is the friction factor for the slug body, PG is the density of the gas, and Is is the
length of the slug. Dukler and Hubbard states that Equation 2.2.9 is only valid when the
liquid holdup inside the slug is greater than 0.70. The friction factor is evaluated at the
following Reynolds number in the slug, Res:

DV PL (J -aSb)+ PG a sb
M J.lL (J -asb)+ J.lG a sb

(2.2.16)

where f.lG is the viscosity of the gas. The friction factor then can be determined using the
common fluid dynamic equation:
(2.2.17)
The pressure drop in the liquid film was not modeled in this study, but, since the liquid
film is stratified flow, the model developed by Andritsos and Hanratty (1987) was used.
Since Dukler and Hubbard (1976) neglected the pressure recovery in the slug tail, their
model can overpredict the pressure drop. The pressure recovery from the slug tail can be
calculated by using the Bernoulli equation as described by Fan et al. (1993), as shown in
the following equation:
(2.2.18)
where ULsb is the liquid velocity in the slug body and is calculated for a stable slug using
the following equation:

(2.2.19)

where asb is the gas fraction in the slug body and can be calculated by using a correlation
developed by Maley (1997). Maley determined that once past the mixing zone, the liquid

26

holdup across the cross section of the slug becomes constant. Therefore, the average
holdup in the slug body can be determined by calculating the liquid holdup at the end of
the mixing zone. The length of the mixing zone, in meters, was also calculated by an
equation developed by Maley (1997), which was:

Imz

0.051 Fr + 0.18

(2.2.20)

The gas fraction in the slug body then can be calculated using Maley's lead/lag process
dynamic model:
-1m;.

(2.2.21)

where Fr, is the slug Froude number, Eo is the Eotvos number, and Re is the Reynolds
number. The following quantity is calculated by:

Frs Eo
Re

(2.2.22)

where JlL is the liquid viscosity, g is accelerational due to gravity, D is the diameter of the
pipe and O"L is the surface tension of the liquid. The Eotvos number is calculated by:
(2.2.23)

Fan et ale (1993) also modeled the accelerational pressure drop in a stable slug by
assuming that the slug is stationary with a moving frame of reference. The equation
developed was very extensive, and when the density of the gas is much less than the
density of the liquid, the equation reduces to:

27

where Ap is the area of the pipe, hlrc is the centroid height of the liquid film, and hsbC is
the centroid height of the slug body.

Since this model is so complex, the model

developed by Dukler and Hubbard (1976) was used in this study.


Fan et al. (1993) also modeled the friction loss in the slug body using the
following equation:

oi;

(2.2.25)

'C 1 ! - -

where the wall shear stress, ';w, can be calculated using the Blasius equation:
- 0.20

0.046 D PL
(

f..LL

PL
)

u~

(2.2.26)

Andruessi et al (1993) developed a mechanistic model based upon mass and


momentum conservation equations. The model was then simplified by the assumptions
that the ratio of the length of slug to the diameter approaches infmity, the liquid film
height is constant. The liquid film height is then assumed to be equal to the liquid film
height observed when the ratio of x to the diameter approaches infinity where x is the
axial position in the pipeline. Andruessi et ale (1993) states that this model is suitable to
be used in the design of long pipelines.
When calculating the pressure drop in slug flow, an important parameter is the
slug frequency. Jepson and Taylor (1993) developed a simple correlation for the slug
frequency by using the same system in which they developed their flow regime map.

28
Their correlation showed that the slug frequency is related to the superficial liquid
velocity, mixture velocity, and diameter of the pipeline, as shown in Equation 2.2.27.

+ 0.01
where

Us

(2.2.27)

is the slug frequency, V SL is the superficial liquid velocity and VM is the

mixture velocity.

Annular
Annular flow occurs when the gas causes the liquid to spread around the inner
perimeter of the pipe while the gas flows through the center of the pipeline. True annular
flow does not occur until a stable liquid film is formed around the entire inner perimeter
of the pipeline. Figure 2.2.4 shows a schematic of annular flow.
Hoogendoom (1959) also developed a correlation for mist-annular flow when he
correlated stratified and slug flow. His results indicated that the pressure drop could be
related to the superficial mass velocity of the gas phase.

This study stated that the

pressure drop was independent of the liquid flow rate if the liquid was flowing faster than
30 kg/m 2 sec.
Laurinat et ale (1984) performed experiments using a 2.54 and 5.08 em plexiglass
pipeline using air and water. A model for the liquid film height was developed using the
Reynolds number in the liquid film. The pressure drop was also modeled with the square
of the superficial gas velocity and a friction factor, which was also based upon the liquid
film Reynolds number. Laurinat, Hanratty, and Jepson (1985) then used the same data as

29

es..=
~

30
Laurinat et al. (1984) to develop a model based upon the x, y, and z momentum balances.
This model is very extensive and is solved by using an iterative method.
Hamersma and Hart (1987) studied annular flow using air and water mixtures
along with air and water/glycol mixture of25 wt% in a 5 cm pipeline. They modeled the
pressure drop by using a two phase friction factor, which is related to the interfacial
friction factor, the single phase friction factor, and the wetted fraction of the tube.
Relationships are given in the paper for the needed variables.

This model contained

parameters in the calculation of the liquid holdup that should be experimentally


determined before using this model, but did give constants that could be used in its place
if data was not available. This paper also stated that this model is only valid for liquid
holdups smaller than 0.04.
Hart et al. (1989) then improved upon Hamersma and Hart's (1987) model by
increasing the validation of the model to include liquid holdups less than or equal to 0.06.
Another improvement was the elimination of the experimentally dependent constants in
the liquid holdup model. This model was established for very low superficial liquid
velocity of 0.00025 mls to 0.0008 mls. The lowest superficial liquid velocity used in this
study was 0.1 mis, therefore, this model was not considered.

2.3 Pressure Drop in Multiphase Flow with Drag Reducing agents


When small concentrations of polymers are added to turbulent flow, the pressure
drop will generally decrease. Toms (1948) was the first to establish the benefits of dilute
polymer solutions.

Since then, many researchers have studied the effect of dilute

31
polymer solutions on single phase flow.

The effect of dilute polymer solutions on

multiphase flow has not been as extensively studied as single phase flow.

The

performance of the drag reducing agent is often measured using the effectiveness, which
is described in the next section.

Effectiveness of the drag reducing agent


To quantitatively determine the performance of the drag reducing agent, many
researchers have used the following effectiveness, E:

(2.3.1)

where Ml wo is the average pressure drop without the presence of ORA and Ml w is the
average pressure drop with the ORA. The drag reducing agent may create an emulsion or
dispersion in the presence of water, thereby, increasing the pressure drop after the
addition of DRA. This increase in pressure drop will cause the effectiveness of the drag
reducing agent to become negative. Also note that if the average pressure gradient is
low, i.e. 50 Palm, to obtain 50% effectiveness the average pressure gradient only has to
decrease by 25 Palm. If the average pressure gradient is high, i.e. 5,000 Palm, to obtain
the same effectiveness, the DRA has to reduce the average pressure gradient by 2,500
Palm. Therefore, to understand the performance of the DRA, the effectiveness and the
average pressure drop at baseline conditions should both be considered.
To determine the accuracy of the effectiveness, the accuracy of the measurements
at baseline conditions needs to be considered with the accuracy of the measurements with

32
the DRA present. One method to accomplish this is to use the relative error outlined by
Bevington (1969).

Bervington states that if the actual errors of the measured values are

known, the error in the calculated value carl be calculated using the partial differential of
the measured values, as shown in the following equation.

(2.3.2)

After performing the calculations, the resulting equation used to calculate the error in the
effectiveness was:

E APw 8APwo - APwo 8L1Pw


(L1Pwo - APw)APwo

(2.3.3)

where b is the uncertainty in the effectiveness.

Single phase flow mechanisms


The mechanism of drag reducing agents has been studied for several years. It has
been widely accepted that the drag reducing agent decreases the turbulence, but the exact
mechanism is not completely clear. Lester (1985) states that the effectiveness of the drag
reducing agent depends upon the oil and the system. He suggests that a general rule for
an oil soluble drag reducing agent is that as the viscosity of the oil increases the
effectiveness of the drag reducing agent decreases and as the Reynolds number increases,
so does the effectiveness of the DRA. Lester also suggests that the effectiveness of the
DRA is related to the solubility of the drag reducing agent in the oil. Lester states that

33
the drag reducing agents work by absorbing the wasted energy from the crossflows and
returning the energy downstream, which is a characteristic of viscoelastic fluids.
Virk (1975) has performed an extensive study on single phase drag reducing flow.
This paper used previous studies along with Virk's studies to obtain a wide variety of
pipe diameters, drag reducing agents, concentrations of drag reducing agents, and
solvents. The mechanism that was demonstrated by Virk was that the polymer interferes
with the turbulent bursts, which occur in the buffer zone of the velocity profile. It was
suggested that the buffer zone keeps growing until it occupies the entire cross section, at
this point maximum drag reduction is achieved.
McMahon et.al (1997) studied how a water soluble drag reducing agents effects
the drag reduction and oxygen corrosion of carbon steel. A 200 feet x 1 inch ID flow
loop was used with brine as the test fluid. Results indicated that drag reduction of up to
48 percent was achieved while the corrosion rate was reduced by up to 39 percent. The
reduction of pressure drop was achieved by reducing the liquid turbulence at the pipe
wall. He suggested that reducing the liquid turbulence at the pipe wall also reduced the
mass transfer of oxygen to the pipe wall, thereby reducing the oxygen corrosion rate.

Stratified flow
Kang et ale (1998b) performed experiments in large diameter pipelines.

He

studied upward flow in a 10 em horizontal and 2 pipeline with a 2 cP oil, deionized


water, and carbon dioxide. The oil concentration ranged from 20 to 100 percent while
the drag reducing agent concentration ranged from 0 to 75 ppm. For horizontal flow

34
Kang showed that a drag reduction of up to 81 percent was achieved. An example of the
results obtained from Kang study is shown in Figure 2.3.1. This figure shows that there
was a significant reduction in pressure drop when 10 ppm of DRA was used. Stratified
flow did not exist in 2 degree upward flow for the range of velocities studied.
Kang et ale (1998a) used the same apparatus to determine how the drag reducing
agents affect the corrosion rate in horizontal flow. It was shown that the drag reducing
agent had no affect on the corrosion rate in stratified flow.

However, the transition

between stratified flow and slug flow moved toward a higher liquid velocity. This shift
will decrease the corrosion rate in the shifted area because it has eliminated the high
corrosion rates of slug flow.

Plug I slug flow


Greskovich et ale (1971) were the first to study gas-liquid flow for drag reducing
polymers. A 50 wppm solution of Polyox was used in an air-water mixture and a 50
wppm solution of Visanex L-200 was used in a mixture of nitrogen-kerosene to study
plug and slug flow in a 3.8 em acrylic pipeline. The results showed that during the airwater plug flow, the percent drag reduction was as high as 50%. During the air-water
slug flow, the percent drag reduction was approximately 40%. For the nitrogen-kerosene
slug flow, only one data point was reported and the drag reduction decreased to 25-29%.
Rosehart et.al. (1972) studied the effects of Polyhall 295, a polyacryamide, on
slug flow in a 2.54 em id horizontal 10.7 m long test loop. The test fluids were water and
air with concentrations of the polymer ranging from 0 to 184 ppm.

A carbon

=
e

Cl

,.-...

0
-

<>

<>

<>

~
0
~

Figure 2.3.1: Kang et al. (1998b) data


for the effect ofDRA on stratified flow

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

123

7S ppm

16 t-<>

12 r

10 ppm

Oppm

20

Vl

36
tetrachloride manometer was used to measure the pressure drop. His results showed that
the slug head velocity and slug frequency was not effected by the presence of the
polymer, and the drag reduction is larger in two-phase flow than is single-phase flow, at
the same superficial liquid Reynolds number.

The results also showed that the single

and two-phase flow can be correlated with the same drag reduction curve.

If a drag

reduction factor, R, is defmed as:

R=~
C

(2.3.4)

where C is the polymer concentration, MJ/L\L is the pressure gradient, with polymer, wp,
and without polymer, np. If R is then plotted against the polymer conditions for a given
flow rate and gas/liquid ratio and the tangents at

C~OO

and

C~O

are drawn.

The

intrinsic concentration, [C], and intrinsic drag reduction, [R], can be determined at the
intersection of the tangents, as shown in Figure 2.3.2.

The concentration and drag

reduction can then be normalized to get universal drag reduction parameters:

c
r=[C]

and

8=!![R]

(2.3.5)

These parameters were previously shown by Arunanchalam (1969) to be:


1

8 ~1.2-,

l+r

(r ~ 0.2); 8 ~1, (0 s r ~ 0.2)

(2.3.6)

To obtain a good curve several drag reducing agent concentrations need to be


studied at a constant gaslliquid ratio. Since this model was developed by using the small

I.

,-.....

'-

~~

rJ~

......

.-=

r:-..

rJ

Q
......

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.12

0.15

10

_____

20

40

50

DRA concentration (ppm)

30

60

70

80

Figure 2.3.2: Rosehart (1972) R, drag reduction factor


versus DRA concentration

~J

-.....J

38
diameter of 2.54 cm and since this study only used a few DRA concentrations, this model
was not taken into consideration in this dissertation.
Kale (1987) used previous studies from various researchers to show that a
parameter can be used to compare the percent drag reduction of single phase flow to that
of gas-liquid flow. The parameter,

U*TP,

is almost the same as the friction velocity of

single phase flow, except, the pressure drop term, MlTP, is the pressure drop for a given
gas-liquid flow rate without the polymer. This parameter was defined as:

UTP=

~DAPTP
4LpL

(2.3.7)

Where D is diameter, L is the length of pipe, and PL is the density of the liquid. The data
from this report used bubble, plug and slug flow, and used three different polymers for
the drag reducing agent.

This study showed that when the drag reduction is plotted

against the parameter of two phase flow or the friction velocity of full pipe flow, the data
fall upon the same line. The data that used to develop this model was collected in small
diameter pipelines, therefore, this model was not used in this dissertation.
Kang et al. (1998b) also studied the effect drag reducing agents have on the slug
flow regime. In a +2, 10 em plexiglass pipeline it was shown that at 50 ppm of drag
reducing agent the drag reduction can be as high as 38 percent. Even though Kang did
not show any data for slug flow in a horizontal pipeline, he did show that the transition
between slug and stratified flow shifted toward a higher liquid velocity (i.e, stratified
flow existed longer). These flow regime maps are shown in Figure 2.3.3 and 2.3.4. Kang

39

..-...
C'I}

........

...

.~

~
~

::!

=
=-

-;
u
cs.
~

e,

8~

Slug

.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

Stratified

Vi

0.1
1

8 9

to

Su perficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 2.3.3: Kang et al (1998b) flow regime map for 75% oil
oppm DRA in horizontal pipes

2
..-...
fI}

........

u...e

>
"C
.;

=-

::3

=
c

.y

f.

c..

8~.8

Slug

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

0.3
Stratified

0.2

Vi

O.t
1

8 9

to

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 2.3.4: Kang et al (1998b) flow regime map for 75% oil
75 ppm of oil soluble DRA in horizontal pipes

40

et ale (1998a) also showed that when the plexiglass pipeline was horizontal, the drag
reducing agent at 50 ppm decreased the corrosion rate in slug flow by almost 50 percent.
Kang and Jepson (2000) did show the effect of DRA on slug flow in horizontal
pipelines using the same oil, DRA and experimental setup as described above. Their
results showed that the average pressure gradient decreased as much as 820/0 for slug
flow. Figure 2.3.5 shows an example of their results. They also suggest that the slug
frequency decreased with DRA and a flow regime shift to stratified flow was also noted.
The results also indicated that the liquid film height decreased with increasing DRA.

Annular-mist flow
Sylvester and Brill (1976) studied air and water horizontal flow in a 1.27 em id
stainless steel pipe at a system pressure of 68.95 kPa. Polyethylene oxide, Polyox-FRA,
was used at a concentration of 100 wppm with liquid to gas ratios ranging from 56.2 to
5620 m 3 of liquid per million standard cubic meter of gas. This study suggested that the
pressure gradient is significantly reduced by the polymer by up to 37%, and the pressure
gradient reduction increased with increasing liquid flow rate, at a fixed gas rate.
Thwaites et ale (1976) used a 31.8 mm tube using air and water to see how a drag
reducing agent, Separan AP30, affects the liquid film properties of downward annular
flow.

It was shown that there are two mechanisms of wave production, which is

dependent upon the gas flow rate. At low gas flow rates, a ripple regime is observed
where the amplitude of the waves is small. At higher gas flow rates, the amplitude of the
waves grow and a disturbance wave regime was formed. Figure 2.3.6 shows that there is

41

2000

..-..
(II
=-......,c.
Q

.Oppm

1800

lOppm

1600

SOppm

1400

J.

1200

J.

:s

1000

f'-2
fI)
~

J.

!
!

!
!

800

a.
~

CI
(II

J.

600

400

-e

...

i
!

200

!
!

10

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 2.3.5: Kang et al. (2000) data for the effect ofDRA on slug flow
for 100% 2.5 cP oil and carbon dioxide at 0.5 m/s

16

....
fI)

=
e
~

12

J.

::I
fI}

(II
~

"-

..Q

E
::I

o
0.30

0.70

1.10

1.50

1.90

2.30

Wave or ripple velocity (m/s)

Figure 2.3.6: Photographic measurements ofwave


and ripple velocities From Thwaites et.al, (1976)
At a gas rate of 25.5 m 3 /h and a liquid rate of 0.017 lIs

42

a distinct region between these two wave regimes. The ripple regime occurs at low wave
velocities of 0.5 to 1.1 mis, while the next wave velocity jumps to 1.5 mls where
disturbance waves begin. However, Thwaites noted that the transition is not always that
clear.
At low gas flow rates, or in the ripple wave regime, the frequency of the waves
within the liquid film is not affected by the drag reducing agent. In the disturbance wave
regime, at higher gas velocities, the liquid film became stabilized and a significant
reduction in the wave frequency and pressure drop occurred. The wave velocity and base
film thickness increased slightly.
Sylvester et ale (1980) then studied natural gas-hexane annular-mist flow. The
effect of pipe diameter, gas flow rate, liquid flow rate, and polymer, Dowell APE,
concentration were studied in a horizontal 100 ft long test section.

They showed that a

drag reduction of approximately 35% can be achieved for the annular-mist flow regime.
From these studies, it was concluded that at a given liquid rate the drag reduction
increases as the gas flow rate decreases, the drag reduction decreased with increasing
friction velocity and with decreasing liquid ratio, at a specific friction velocity, and the
drag reduction significantly decreased as the liquid ratio approached zero.
Kang et. ale (1998b) studied annular flow in a 10 em plexiglass pipeline. The
results showed that the drag reduction reached 35 percent. An example of the data taken
by Kang is shown in Figure 2.3.7. However, when Kang et.al. (1998a) studied how the
drag reducing agent affected the corrosion, he found that it had no effect.

20

40

60

80

100

Oppm

5-

c
75 ppm

2Sppm

lOppm

t-D 5ppm

D
0

12

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

10

14

Ii

16

Figure 2.3.7: Kang et al (1998b) data for the effect ofDRA on annular flow
for 60% oil and 40% water at superficial liquid velocity of 0.06 m/s

a-

l jfj
ljfj

a-

a=

.'t:S=
.-

.....

=
=..
"'--'"

.........

120

140

.f;;:.

44

CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Experiments reported in this dissertation were performed to study the effect of


drag reducing agents on the average pressure drop and flow characteristics. The effect of
water cut on the performance of DRA was also studied. All experiments in this study
were performed on the same horizontal apparatus described in the following sections.

3.1 Description of Flow Loop


The experimental layout is shown in Figure 3.1.1. The oil and water were stored
in a 3.5m 3 aluminum storage tank. The light oil is immiscible in the water and was
pumped from the top portion of the tank by a progressing cavity, low shear, multiphase
pump. The water was pumped through the system from the lower portion of the tank by
using a similar pump. The flow rate of both pumps was controlled by a Cutler-Hammer
IS 905 adjustable frequency drive. The gas volumetric flow rate was measure'd using an
Omega flow meter.
The water and oil were then pumped into separate 10.1 em id PVC pipelines, and
then were combined and passed into a stainless steel mixing tank where the gas was
introduced. The gas could be injected into the top or bottom of the stainless steel mixing
tank. For the experiments performed, the gas was always introduced into the bottom of
the mixing tank to allow for better mixing of the phases.

E: Gas Inlet
F: DRA injection port
G: Acrylic section
H: 3161316L stainless steeel section

Figure 3.1.1: Experimental setup

A: Storage tank
B: Oilpmnp
C: Water pump
D: Mixing tank

at

=::

Vl

46
The resulting mixture was then moved into a 10.1 em, 20 m long acrylic pipeline.
The flow was then diverted by 180 degrees and was sent through a second 20 m long
acrylic pipeline. The flow again changed direction by 180 degrees and flowed through a
10.1 em 316/316L schedule 40 stainless steel section that was also 20 m long.
After the mixture flowed through the 3 sections, it was returned to the storage
tank where the drag reducing agent, water, and oil were recycled and the gas was vented
to the atmosphere. The temperature of the flowing mixture was not controlled, therefore,
it was at room temperature, which varied from 18-27C. The storage tank was open to
atmosphere.

3.2 Test Sections


As shown

in

Figure 3.1.1, there were three different test sections in the

experimental apparatus. The total length of each test section was 20 m with the pressure
drop being measured at a distance of 10.7 m. The first two test sections were constructed
of acrylic pipeline. The initial acrylic pipeline allowed the multiphase flow to become
stabilized before entering the second acrylic section. Slug flow measurements in both
pipelines showed that the slugs were almost fully developed in the first acrylic section,
but to ensure fully developed slugs, the results in this report for the acrylic pipeline were
measured in the second acrylic test section.
The third test section was constructed of 316/316L stainless steel. This allowed a
second type of pipeline to be studied at the same conditions. If we examine the friction
factor difference between the acrylic and new stainless steel pipelines, it can be shown

47
that the friction factor is essentially the same at the flow rates used in this study.
Therefore, there was little difference noticed in the pressure drop measurements between
the acrylic and stainless steel sections.

3.3 Injection of Drag Reducing Agent


Several different methods of injection of the drag reducing agent were studied.
When the oil soluble DRA was used, the drag reducing agent was premixed in a 5 gallon
bucket using the oil studied and then poured into the system. The diluted DRA mixture
was added to the system in several ways. The diluted DRA mixture was first added to the
system through a port on top of the aluminum storage tank. The mixture was also poured
directly into the pipeline while the system was off and while it was running. There was
no change in the performance of the drag reducing agent with the different types of
injection. Therefore, the simplest method was used, the pouring of the diluted DRA
mixture into the storage tank.
When the water soluble DRA was used, these methods were also employed. The
addition of the water soluble DRA using the previous methods resulted in the DRA not
being properly mixed with the water in the system, therefore, causing no reduction of
pressure drop. It was then determined that the water soluble DRA was stored as an oil
soluble emulsion and had to be inverted into a water continuous emulsion using a high
shear 8" diameter mixer. Once the DRA was inverted, the previous methods of injection
were again employed and the water soluble DRA then showed a reduction of pressure
drop.

The water soluble DRA was also determined to be oxygen and pH sensitive,

48

therefore, an apparatus that is shown in Figure 3.3.1 was then used to inject the water
soluble DRA. It will be shown later that when the pH of the water is lower than 6.5, the
effectiveness of the DRA decreases with time at full pipe flow conditions. The lower the
pH the faster the rate of decrease in the effectiveness of the DRA. Therefore, carbon
dioxide cannot be used with the water soluble DRA since it creates carbonic acid in the
presence of water, which reduces the pH of the water. Nitrogen was then used as the gas
phase when water soluble DRA was used.
Once the water soluble DRA was inverted, the resulting mixture was then poured
into the DRA injection system, constructed from 10.1 ern id acrylic pipeline.

The

nitrogen cylinder was then connected to the bottom of the DRA injection system with a
flexible hose the DRA was sparged with nitrogen to deoxygenate the mixture. Once the
deoxygenation was performed, the nitrogen was then connected to the top of the DRA
injection system with the same flexible hose. Another flexible hose was then used to
connect the bottom of the DRA injection system to the pipeline. The nitrogen was then
used to pressurize the DRA injection system and the injection valves were then opened to
allow the DRA to enter the pipeline while water was flowing through the pipeline at full
pipe flow conditions using a velocity of 1 mls. The time it took for the DRA to be
injected ranged from 10 minutes to 25 minutes, depending upon DRA concentration. The
more concentrated the drag reducing agent, the more viscous the prediluted mixture, the
more time it took to inject the DRA.

A: Nitrogen Cylinder
B: Nitrogen Regulator
C: Fle:rible Hose

D: DRA injection system


E: Injection Valve
F: Pipeline

Figure 3.3.1: DRA injection system for water soluble DRA

\0

50

3.4 Test Matrix


The test matrix for this study was constructed at ambient temperature and
pressure. The test matrix was designed so that at baseline conditions the flow regimes of
full, stratified, slug, pseudo slug and annular flow would be observed. To obtain these
flow regimes patterns, a wide range of velocities was employed.

The liquid velocities

ranged from 0.1 to 2 mls while the gas velocities ranged from 1 to 17 mls.
The drag reducing agent added to the flow was initially oil soluble DRA. After
experimental fmdings showed that the oil soluble DRA created a dispersion at a 50%
water and 50% oil, a water soluble DRA was also used with the same fluids to examine if
the dispersion would again form. The concentration of the drag reducing agent ranged
from 0 to 75 ppm.
The oil soluble DRA was added to a 6 cP oil, which consisted of 76% by volume
of Conoeo L VT 200 and 24% of Britol 50T. The resulting oil had a density of 818 kg/rrr',
a viscosity of 6 cP at room temperature and a surface tension of 31.7 dyne/em. Conoco
LVT 200 has a density of 810 kg/nr', a viscosity of 2.5 cP at 25C, and a surfaee tension
of 29.5 dyne/em. Britol 50 T has a density of 875 kg/rrr', a viscosity of 96 cP at 40C,
and a surface tension of34 dyne/em. To study the effect of water cut, water was used in
the form of deionized water, tap water, or ASTM salt water. The different types of water
were used to determine the effect of water type on the performance of the drag reducing
agent.
Carbon dioxide was initially used as the gaseous phase.

When water soluble

DRA was added to the system, it was determined that the effectiveness of the drag

51
reducing agent decreased with time in the presence of the carbon dioxide, which was
attributed to the low pH of the water. Therefore, when the water soluble DRA was added
to the flow, nitrogen was used instead of carbon dioxide.

The following table

summarizes the fluids and the conditions studied.

Table 3.4.1 Test Matrix


Oil

6 cP oil

Water

Deionized, tap, and ASTM salt water

Gases

Carbon dioxide and nitrogen

DRA

Oil and water soluble

Oil soluble DRA concentration

0, 20, and 50 ppm

Water soluble DRA concentration

0, 20, 50, and 75 ppm

Superficial liquid velocities

0.1 to 2.0 mls

Superficial gas velocities

oto

Pressure

Open to atmosphere

17 mls

3.5 Visual Observations


A video camera was used at a speed of 60 images a second for help in
determining the flow regime. For example, the video was used in annular flow to help
determine if a true annular film was fanned on the inner perimeter of the pipeline. It also
helped in determining when the slug flow regime shifted to the pseudo slug flow regime.

52
The video was also used to help to distinguish between the different types of stratified
flow (e.g. smooth stratified, wavy stratified, or rolling wave).
The video was also studied image by image to determine flow characteristics. For
stratified flow, the video allowed the measurement of the liquid film circumference,
which was con.verted into a liquid film height. Then by using a mass balance, a liquid
film velocity could be calculated.
For slug flow, the viewing of the video allowed the determination of slug
velocity, liquid film height, and slug frequency. The slug velocity was determined by
counting the number of frames it took for the slug to cross an entire section of acrylic
pipe, which is 1.8 m long. The velocity could then be calculated by multiplying the
frequency of the camera, 60 images a second by the length of the acrylic pipe, 1.8 m, and
dividing by the number of frames.

The liquid film height ahead of the slug was

determined by the same method used for stratified flow.

The slug frequency was

determined by counting the number of slugs that occurred in one minute time frame. The
slug frequency was also confirmed by counting the number of slugs on the pressure trace.
The velocity of the liquid film was then determined by performing a mass balance.

3.6 Pressure Drop Measurements


Pressure tappings were placed 10.7 m apart on the three different test sections.
The size of the pressure transducer, which was connected to the test section would
depend upon the flow regime and the liquid and gas flow rates. For example when
stratified flow was present in the pipeline, the low differential pressure Sensotec

53
transducers, which had a range from 0 to 13.8 kPa, were connected on the test sections.
When the flow regime changed and the pressure drop increased to over 13.8 kl'a, high
differential pressure Sensotec transducers would be connected to the test sections with a
range from 0 to 34.5 kPa on the acrylic pipeline and 0 to 69.0 kPa on the stainless steel
pipeline. The higher differential pressure transducer was only used on the stainless steel
pipeline because another 0 to 34.5 kPa transducer was not available.
The data from the transducers were logged to a Pentium 60 computer using
Labtech Notebook Pro version 10.1. During full pipe flow or oil/water flow was flowing
through the pipeline the data was collected at 100 Hz for 10 seconds. When multiphase
flow was present in the pipeline, the flow was sampled at 30 Hz for 60 seconds. Data was
taken three different times while the gas and liquid flow rates were held constant. The
average pressure drop was then calculated for each run and by using all three runs
combined. The average for all three runs was then plotted with error bars. The error bars
were calculated by using the maximum and minimum average of the three individual runs
along with the uncertainty of the pressure transducer.

The uncertainty for the low

pressure drop transducer was 4 Palm and the uncertainty for the high pressure drop
transducer was 16 Palm.. The pressure trace was also used to help in determining flow
properties i.e. the number of slugs sampled or slug frequency. An example of a pressure
trace for slug flow conditions is shown in Figure 3.6.1. This figure shows that at the low
water velocity of 0.2 mls and carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls there was only one slug
present in the 30 second time frame.

ell
ell

a..

C.

=
-

~
'-'"

3
6

15

18

Time (sec)

12

21

24

27

30

Figure 3.6.1: Pressure trace for 0.2 m/s of deionized water


with 1 m/s of carbon dioxide at 0 ppm

-200

-100

100

200

300

400

VI

55

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All experiments reported in this dissertation were performed on a 6 cP oil, which


was a mixture consisting of approximately 24% by volume of Britol (96 cP oil at 40C)
and 76% Conoco LVT200 (2 cP oil at 40C). The density was measured at 818 kg/rrr'
and the surface tension was measured to be 31.7 dyne/em. The effect of water cut was
studied by using water cuts of 10% and 50% with an oil soluble DRA. The effect of
water type was also studied by adding ASTM salt water to the storage tank and repeating
the experiments.
The system was then cleaned and a charge of fresh 6 cP oil and water was
returned to the aluminum storage tank and a select number of experiments were repeated
with a water soluble DRA. The amount of drag reducing agent added to the system was
based upon the volume of the fluid in which the DRA was soluble, i.e. the amount of
water soluble DRA was only based upon the volume of water in the storage tank. Water
cuts of 10, 50, 90% and 100% were used so that the results could be compared to the
results from the oil soluble DRA. All of the results, Tables 4.1 to 4.102, are presented in
table format in the appendix. Tables 4.1 to 4.51 show the results from the oil soluble
DRA and Tables 4.52 to 4.102 show the results from the water soluble DRA experiments.
Samples of the results are described in detail below.

56

OillWater Flow
When water and oil were both present in the flow, the apparent viscosity of the
mixture could increase to a value higher than the viscosity of the individual phases. The
apparent viscosity of the oil/water mixture is dependent upon the viscosity of the oil and
the water concentration.

The apparent viscosity would increase until it passed the

inversion point and the water became the continuous phase and a large drop in the
apparent viscosity was observed. Arirachakaran et al. (1989) explained how the phase
inversion process takes place by using a figure similar to that of Figure 4.1. This figure
shows that as the water droplets become more concentrated and start to coalesce, the
water becomes the continuous phase and the inversion point occurs, which is at the
maximum viscosity. Once past the inversion point, a significant drop in viscosity occurs
due to the water becoming the continuous phase. As the viscosity of the oil emulsion
increases, the oil tends to entrain more water droplets at a lower water cut, therefore,
Arirachakaran (1989) showed that as the oil emulsion viscosity increases the amount of
water needed to cause the mixture to invert reduces.
The apparent viscosity of the oil/water mixture is also related to the size of the
droplets entrained in the continuous phase. Pal (1996) has studied the effect of droplet
size on the apparent viscosity of water-in-oil emulsion and oil-in-water emulsions. His
results show that as droplet size entrained in the continuous phase decreases as the
apparent viscosity increases. Pal suggested that the increase is viscosity with the smaller
droplet size could be attributed to the smaller distance between the individual droplets;
the concentration of the dispersed phase is more effectively distributed throughout the

==

CJ

Pure Oil

Pure Water

Pure water

"Oil- in - Water"
Dispersion

~il droplets

I dispersed In
thewaoter

Waterdroplets
begin coalsecing
entrapping the
oil into droplets

Figure 4.1: Inversion process for oil-water dispersion flow


Arirachakaran et al, (1989)

Watereut

Inversion point

.
~ dispersed lD the oil

Water
droplets
more
concentrated

III

~ Water droplets

~ Pure oil

=
a...

r'.1

....=

>

r'.1

CJ

r'.1

.c...

"Water - in - Oil"
Dispersion

-...J

Ul

58

continuous phase, and when the concentration of the dispersed phase is high and the
width of the particle size distribution decreases, this will normally result in a higher
apparent viscosity. Therefore, if a component of the drag reducing agent (i.e. surfactant)
in the drag reducing agent affects the droplet size, an increase in viscosity or decrease in
viscosity should be observed.

4.1 DRA Effectiveness using Oil Soluble DRA


An oil soluble drag reducing agent was added to several different types of flow

regimes for water cuts of 0, 10, and 50%. The flow regimes studied ranged from smooth
stratified flow to annular flow. It was observed that at the low water cuts, 0 and 10%, the
drag reducing agent decreased the average pressure drop.

There was also an

improvement in the flow characteristics, i.e. the slug frequency decreased with increasing
DRA concentration. At the higher water cut of 50%, an increase in average pressure drop
occurred with a shift in the flow regime map to that of a lower superficial gas velocity.
The data shows that a dispersion was created at the higher water cut and slug flow
dominated the flow regime map.

Full Pipe Flow using 100% 6cP Oil


After the addition of the DRA, it seemed that the DRA concentration decreased
with time as shown in Figure 4.1.1. The effectiveness of DRA would reach a maximum
at approximately 30 minutes after addition, and then gradually return to baseline. Figure
4.1.1 shows that when 10 ppm of drag reducing agent was added to 1.0 mls full pipe

~
~

CJ

.....

rIJ
rIJ

Q
'Q

~
Q

-10

\l

: +

40

90

10 ppm Acrylic
10 ppm Stainless
20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless

Time (min)

140

190

240

290

Figure 4.1.1: The effect of oil soluble DRA on full pipe flow
for 100% 6 cP oil at a superficial oil velocity of 1.0 m/s

-10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

\0

v.

60
flow, a maximum of 30% was obtained at 35 minutes for the acrylic pipeline and a
maximum of 34% after 30 minutes for the stainless steel pipeline. After 4 hours, the
effectiveness had reduced almost linearly to 6.2% and 8.6% for the acrylic and stainless
steel pipelines, respectively. This corresponds to an average decrease of about 6.2% of
DRAper hour for both pipelines.
When 20 ppm DRA was then added to the system, the same trend was observed.
A maximum reduction of 48% was observed at 30 minutes for the acrylic pipeline and
49% was found at 25 minutes for the stainless steel pipeline. The effectiveness then
decreased to about 38% after 35 minutes of reaching maximum effectiveness. After this,
the decrease was reduced to about 10% an hour for the remaining three hours. Four
hours later, the acrylic was reduced to 17% and the stainless reduced to 18%. The
average decrease for 20 ppm was close to that of 10 ppm and was 7.8% ofDRA per hour.
When the oil and water were removed from the storage tank, a white layer was
seen at the oil and water interface. This white layer is believed to be the drag reducing
agent, which had fallen out of the flow during the experiments. The density of the drag
reducing agent is about 900 kg/rrr' and is in between that of the oil and water.
Consequently, if the DRA does not completely dissolve in the oil, flakes of drag reducing
agent can fallout of the oil and accumulate at the oil and water interface. Figure 4.1.2
shows the white layer between the oil and water inside the storage tank. From some
limited analysis at University of Central Florida, it was confirmed that the material in this
layer was polymer.

61

Figure 4.1.2 Layer between oil and water inside storage tank

It is believed that with this type of oil, the drag reducing agent gradually falls out
of the solution over time. Kang (1998b) performed experiments using the same 2 cP oil,
which is used in these experiments, and did not experience the gradual decrease in
effectiveness over time or the polymer layer between the oil and water interface. When a
mixture of the 2 cP oil and 96 cP oil was used, these problems were apparent. Solubility
tests in beakers were then performed using 100% of 2cP oil, the 6 cP oil mixture used in
this study, a second mixture of the 2 and 96 cP oil which had the viscosity of 20 cP and
100% 96 cP oiL It was found that when a 2 cP oil was placed in the beaker there was no

62
evidence of DRA fallout when the beaker was allowed to stand 72 hours.

A layer

developed at the oil and water interface in the 6 and 20 cP oil beaker, with a thicker layer
at the 20 cP oil interface. The DRA would not dissolve in the 96 cP.

The Different Types of Flow Regimes Studied for 100% 6cP Oil
Multiphase flow was examined with superficial oil and gas velocities ranging
from 0.1 to 1.5 mls and 1 to 17 mis, respectively. This section will compare the different
flow regimes for several superficial liquid velocities. Later, the effect of DRA on the
individual flow patterns will be described. As before, the experiments were carried out in
the region where the effectiveness did not change much.
The effectiveness of the DRA is influenced by both superficial liquid and gas
velocities. This is attributed to the type of flow pattern and the nature of the liquid
flowing in these regimes. At a low superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mis, 4 different flow
regimes were observed for superficial gas velocities from 1 to 17 mis, as shown in Figure
4.1.3a for the acrylic pipeline. Here the flow regimes are smooth stratified, wavy
stratified, transition to annular and annular. Transition to annular flow occurred between
stratified and annular flow.

Here, the film tried to spread itself around the inner

perimeter of the pipe, but the gas velocity is not quite high enough to spread the film all
around the pipe. There was insufficient liquid to form slugs at this low liquid velocity.
At a gas velocity of 1 mis, Figure 4.1.3b shows an effectiveness of 30-40% was
observed at both 20 and 50 ppm of DRA.

At gas velocities of 2 and 3 mls the

effectiveness increased and was as high as 46% and 63%, respectively, at 50 ppm of

2133

200
Transition to
Annular

180
,-.

.......

ellS
Q..

....

=
:0
~

ellS

I-

-=
~

"J

Q.

63

2347

220

1920
1707

160
140
120
100

Smooth
Stratified

Wavy
Stratified

80

:;

40

c.

I-

1493

Q
I-

"J
"J

,<
~

Q..

853

<=

60

ellS
~

1280
1067

a.

,-.

640

427

20

OJ)

ellS
~

213

10

12

14

16

18

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.1.3a: Effect orgas velocity on pressure gradient for 100% 6cP oil
at Vsl = 0.1 m/s in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA

100
,-.

Smooth
Stratified

80

!
~

e~

.......

~
Q

60

""'Q"

40

T
o
1

Transition to
Annular
Wavy
Stratified

..L

"J

=
~

20

.~

....
(J

--r

""'~"

o i--

'2' ~T . 1 .. 1i..L.l..

-20

..L V 20 ppm
0 20 ppm
Y SO ppm
SO ppm

i.
Acrylic
Stainless
Acrylic
Stainless

-40
0

10

12

14

16

18

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.1.3b: Effectiveness ofDRA for different flow patterns


for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.1 m/s using oil soluble DRA

64
DRA. At a concentration of 20 ppm, the DRA was not as effective as at these velocities.
The relative error for the effectiveness of the DRA seems quite large for the low pressure
drop experiments. For example, in stratified flow the average pressure gradient is very
low, e.g. 16 Palm 4 Palm, which is a 25% error. When this 25% error is taken into
account for baseline conditions and DRA conditions, the calculated error for the
effectiveness of DRA is generally large for the lower pressure gradients. The equation
used to calculate the error bars on the effectiveness is shown in Chapter 2 in Section 2.3.
At the gas velocities studied, the smooth stratified liquid film thickness was about
4 em. As the gas velocity was increased to 6 mls and greater, the film began to spread
around the pipe and tries to become annular flow. There is not enough liquid in the
pipeline to create a complete liquid film around the inner perimeter of the pipeline. The
pressure drop in annular flow is higher than that of wavy stratified flow, therefore, a
negative effectiveness was observed for these cases, 6 and 8 mis, as shown in Figure
4.1.3b. Similar results were shown for the stainless steel pipeline.
When the superficial oil velocity was increased to 0.2 mis, the liquid film height
increased and the following flow regimes were present: slug, pseudo slug, transition to
annular and annular. There was no stratified flow at the conditions studied, because
enough liquid was present in the pipeline to create waves that bridged the top of the pipe
to create slugs instead of stratified flow.

Figure 4.1.4a shows the average pressure

gradient for the stainless steel pipeline. This figure shows that slug flow was present for
gas velocities up to about 6 mls. Two negative values and large error bars are observed
on the effectiveness plot in Figure 4.1.4b. The large error bars are again due to the low

.......

2347

200

2133
.......
1920 Q.=
'-'
1707 Qc..

180

E
........

160

Q.

140

'-'

.....
c

.~

-==
a-

Pseudo Slug

Slug

120
100
80

J.

60

J.

40

fI'.}
llI)
~

=-

65

220

..,...
T

V
T
-L.
0

20
0
0

,
..L

~
4

I
~
.s

Annular

1280
1067

853
640

=
.= -;=
=
=
f~
~
CllI

';i

427

r-

I-

1493

IllI)
llI)

I-

=~

=
J.
-e
~

213
0

10

14

12

16

18

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.1.4a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient with


100% 6cP oil at Vsl = 0.2 mls in stainless steel pipe using oil soluble DRA

100
.......

80

Slug

~
0

'-"

<

60

....~

40

=
Q

fI'.}
fI'.}

1.1
T

20

.~
.....

CJ

....~

~ TI+

Pseudo Slug

....Q

=~

.~..!

=:=

~=

==
f~

r-

..,...

Annular

.. .......... 1 .
Ji
11111

\l 20 ppm Acrylic

20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
50 ppm Stainless

-20
-40
0

to

12

14

16

18

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.1.4b: Effectiveness ofDRA for different flow patterns


for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.2 mls using oil soluble DRA

66
pressure drop observed at this superficial liquid velocity. Even though the flow regime is
slug flow, the pressure drop is still low because of the low slug frequency; also the type
of slugs at this low liquid velocity is not consistent. The slug length varies much more
than at the liquid velocities of 0.5 mls and higher when the slugs flow through the
pipeline at regular frequency. At the gas velocity of 2 mls the pressure drop increased
from baseline conditions of 33 Palm to 42 Palm, which is not a significant increase in
pressure drop but in tenns of effectiveness, it is a significant decrease.

If the slug

properties are examined for these flow rates, it can be seen in Table 4.1.4 shown in the
Appendix, that the Froude number slightly increased from 5.0 to 5.7 which will take into
account the slight increase in pressure gradient.
There was significant reduction of pressure drop for the lower gas flow rates up to

8 mls. At the higher gas velocities when the liquid film began to spread around the inner
perimeter of the pipe to form annular flow, the effectiveness of the DRA decreased
dramatically to below 10%, as shown in Figure 4.1.4b. For example at a gas velocity of 8

mis, the effectiveness of the drag reducing agent in the acrylic pipeline was 18% for 20
ppm and only increased to 19% at 50 ppm. When the gas velocity was increased to 10

mis, the effectiveness decreased to less than 10% for both 20 and 50 ppm of DRA. The
decrease of effectiveness from 20 ppm to 50 ppm shows that the spreading of the liquid
film increased as the DRA concentration was increased.
At a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mis, slug flow existed between gas velocities of
1 and 8 mis, as shown in Figure 4.1.5a in the stainless steel pipe. At 10 m/s, the slugs
changed to pseudo slugs.

When the gas velocity was increased to 12 mis, enough

400

+
o

360
".....

e
.........

=
....
=
:a
Q.

320

En=
u
=
0

280
240

=-

200
160

J..

120

J..

=-

f
+

3413

II'-)

Slug

".....

"C

l;I'J
G'}

3840

J..

67

4267
Oppm
20ppm
50ppm

2987 eJ..

.L

2560

Annular
w!Pseudo Slug

..L

40

J..

2133

1707

=-

1280

853

>

l;I'J
l;I'J
~

J..

01
J..

80

=-=
c.

427

10

14

12

16

18

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.1.5a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure graident for


100% 6cP oil at Vsl = 0.3 m/s in stainless steel pipe using oil soluble DRA

100

V 20 ppm Aerylic

80

20 ppm Stainles

SO ppm Stainles

Y SO ppm Acrylic

60

40

if

20

.L

!
i
T

Annular
wI Pseudo Slug

1,-1-

-20
-40

10

12

14

16

18

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.1.5b: Effectiveness ofDRA for different flow patterns


for 1000/0 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.3 m/s using oil soluble DRA

68
gas was present in the pipe to create an annular film, but the liquid film height was also
high enough to create pseudo slugs. Therefore, Figure 4.1.5b shows that the range of
effectiveness increased. There was a slight increase in the effectiveness of the DRA at
the high gas velocities when compared to 0.2 mls. For example, at a superficial oil
velocity of 0.2 mis, the effectiveness of the DRA at 50 ppm in the stainless steel pipeline
was 8% at the gas velocity of 8 mls and almost zero at a gas velocity of 10 mls to 15 mls.
When the superficial oil velocity increased to 0.3 mis, the effectiveness of the DRA was
the same at a gas velocity of 8 mis, and had the value of 7 percent. At this gas velocity,
the flow regime shifted from slug flow at 0 and 20 ppm to pseudo slug at 50 ppm. When
the gas velocity increased to 10 mis, the effectiveness increased to 17%, and at a gas
velocity of 15 mis, the effectiveness increased to about 4%. Again, there is better
performance at 50 ppm ofDRA.
The next superficial liquid velocities studied were 0.4, 0.5, 1.0, 1.25, and 1.5 mls.
At these velocities the only flow regime which was observed was slug flow. As the
superficial liquid velocity increased, the slug frequency increased, and this caused
problems with the storage tank. At high liquid and gas velocities, the gas/liquid mixture
would not separate in the tank and would try and exit through the vent. Consequently,
only gas velocities of up to 8 mls could be studied. Similar results were shown in the
acrylic and stainless steel pipelines for these velocities. Figures 4.1.6a, 4.1.7a, and 4.1.8a
show the average pressure gradient results for superficial velocities of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5
m/s, respectively. Figures 4.1.6b, 4.1.7b, and 4.1.8b show the effectiveness of the DRA

400

4267

360

3840

320

..-..

Slug

280

.........
CIS

=-...

'-"

=
.~

-===s-

240
200

~
~

...,..

80

a..
C.

2987

.J-

40

2560
2133

f'J
f'J

=
~

1707

a..

=-

1280 ==a..

..L

s-

Q
~
a..

-L.

120

CIS

=-c.

'-"

s-

3413

160

T
V

69

853

>

427
0

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.1.6a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for


cP oil at Vsl = 0.5 m/s in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA

100o~ 6

100
..-..

80

Slug

':Ie
0

'-"

~
Q

...
0

60

40

f'J
f'J

=
~

...
...

20

.~

Cj

... .1. ....

.J-

'V 20 ppm Acrylic

o 20 ppm Stainless

-20

SOppm Acrylic
SOppm Stainless

-40
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.1.6b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow


for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.5 m/s using oil soluble DRA

"

900
..-...

e
........

=
...
=
:a
=
c

800

0 ppm
20 ppm
50ppm

9600
8533

700

7467

600

6400

'I

400

4267

=-

3200

=
~

'I

200

2133

100

1067

=-

5333

=
~
~

500
300

I-

=-e,=

I-

..-...

'-'

Slug

Q.

'-'

70

10667

1000

~
~

~
~
~

c.c

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.1.7a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for


100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.0 m/s in stainless steel pipe using oil soluble DRA

100
..-...

80

Slug

~
<:>

'-'

60

e.-

40

i
8

~
~

=
~

...

20

.~

CJ

~
e.-

0
'I 20 ppm Acrylic

-20

20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
50 ppm Stainless

-40
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.1.7b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow


for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.0 m/s using oil soluble DRA

1000

+ 20ppm

900
~

e
.......
=-....=

'-'

=
~
=
a
~

800

71

10667

'\J 0 ppm

9600
~

50ppm

8533
Slug

700
600

sz

7467

6400

500

=-c.=

'-'

'\J

5333

l-

Q
~

I-

=
rIJ

400

300

200

2133 -e-..

100

1067

s-

fI}

=-

s-

4267

=-

3200

=
s-

s-

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.1.8a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for


100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.5 m/s in stainless steel pipe using oil soluble DRA

100
80

Slug

":!e.

=
' -'
~

60

'Q

40

C'I)
C'I)

=
~

20

.~

....CJ

~
'-

0
V 20 ppm Acrylic

-20

20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
50 ppm Stainless

-40
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.1.8b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow


for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.5 m/s using oil soluble DRA

72
at these velocities. These results show that the average pressure gradient increased with
increasing superficial liquid velocity.
frequency.

This was attributed to the increase in slug

The effectiveness of the drag reducing agent generally decreased slightly

when the liquid velocity was increased and the gas velocity was held constant.

For

example, in the acrylic pipeline at a liquid velocity of 0.5 mls and a gas velocity of 4 mls
the effectiveness was 30% at 50 ppm, as shown in Figure 4.1.6b.

When the liquid

velocity was increased to 1.0 mis, the effectiveness decreased to 28%, as shown in Figure
4.1.7b, and further decreased to 22% when the liquid velocity was increased to 1.5 mis,
as shown in Figure 4.1.8b.

Smooth Stratified Flow Regime for 100% 6 cP Oil


For the conditions studied, smooth stratified flow occurred at a superficial oil
velocity of 0.1 mls. Smooth stratified flow was observed for a range of superficial gas
velocities from 1 to 4 mls.

The flow characteristics were changed and the average

pressure gradient decreased with the addition of the drag reducing agent. Table 4.1.1
shows that the height of the liquid film would slightly increase with increasing drag
reducing agent concentration for gas velocities of 1 to 3 mls. For example, at a gas
velocity of 2 mis, the height of the liquid film increased from 3.6 ern at baseline
conditions to 4.0 em at 20 ppm and 4.6 em at 50 ppm. The height of the liquid film was
measured in the acrylic section.
The velocity of the liquid film decreased only slightly with increasing
concentration, as indicated in Table 4.1.2. For the same conditions, the velocity of the

73
Table 4.1.1: The effect of DRA on the height of the liquid film when oil soluble DRA
0 fO 1 mI s
w as use d with
WI
superfiICIial liiquid ve I
ocity
Liquid Film Height (em)
Gas Velocity (mls)
OppmO.1 em
20 ppm 0.1 em
50 ppm 0.1 ern
1
4.6
4.5
4.9
2
3.6
4.0
4.6
3
3.2
3.4
3.5
4
3.4
3.2
3.1

Table 4.1.2: The effect of DRA on the velocity of the liquid film when oil soluble DRA
w as use d WI
with superfiicia
I liiquiid veIOCIity 0 fO 1 mI s
Liquid Film Velocity (mls)
Gas Velocity (mls) oppm 0.05 mls 20 ppm 0.05 mls 50 ppm 0.05 mls
1
0.23
0.24
0.21
2
0.31
0.28
0.23
3
0.37
0.35
0.32
4
0.34
0.37
0.39

liquid film decreased from 0.31 mls to 0.28 mls at 20 ppm and further decreased to 0.23
mls at 50 ppm. Figure 4.1.3b shows the effectiveness of the DRA at these conditions. At
gas velocity of 2 mis, the average pressure gradient decreased from 24 Palm without
DRA to 16 Palm when 20 ppm of DRA was used, an effectiveness of 34%. When 50
ppm of DRA was added to the flow, no appreciable change was noticed. Similar results
were shown in the stainless steel pipeline. At a gas velocity of 3 mis, 50 ppm of DRA
was more effective with values as high as 44%.

The large effectiveness in smooth

stratified flow has also been shown by Kang et ale (1998b).

Kang has shown

effectiveness as high as 81%. The viscosity of the oil in this study is higher than the 2 cP
oil Kang used, therefore, a lower effectiveness was expected.

74
When the gas velocity increased to 4 mis, the smooth stratified flow changed to
wavy stratified in the presence of the DRA.

The drag reducing agent caused the liquid

film to try and spread itself around the inner perimeter of the pipeline. However, there
was not enough liquid to create a continuous liquid film, therefore, a crescent shaped
liquid film was created. This spreading of the liquid film reduced the height of the liquid
film and increased the velocity. The height of the liquid film at this velocity decreased
from 3.4 em at 0 ppm to 3.2 em at 20 ppm and to 3.1 em at 50 ppm. Since the pressure
drop in wavy stratified flow is higher than smooth stratified flow, an increase in the
average pressure gradient was observed for this velocity.

Wavy Stratified Flow Regime for 1000/0 6 cP Oil


Wavy stratified flow occurred with a superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mls and
superficial gas velocities of 6 and 8 mls. The height of the liquid film decreased when the
drag reducing agent was added. The decrease in the height of the liquid film is because
the liquid film tried to spread itself around the inner perimeter of the pipe. The film did
not completely surround the inner perimeter. At a gas velocity of 6 mis, the height of the
liquid film was 3.0 cm at baseline conditions, reduced to 2.8 em at 20 ppm and further
reduced to 2.7 em at 50 ppm.
As the gas velocity was increased, the film became thinner and spread further
around the pipe. For example, when the gas velocity was increased to 8 mis, the height of
the liquid film decreased to 2.6 em at 0 ppm, 2.5 em at 20 ppm and 2.3 em at 50 ppm.

75
This led to a decrease in the effectiveness of the DRA. Values of less than 10% were
noticed.

Slug Flow Regime for 1000/0 6 cP Oil


Slug flow was observed for a range of liquid superficial velocities of 0.2 to 1.5

mls and superficial gas velocities of 1 to 8 mls. Generally, when the drag reducing agent
was present the slug frequency would generally decrease as the concentration of the drag
reducing agent was increased. At low gas velocities of 1 and 2 mls the slugs would be
shifted closer to the plug/slug transition with the addition of DRA.

The plug/slug

transition was never obtained with the experimental conditions studied. When a Froude
number is calculated for a plug, it is generally around the value of 2 or less. Therefore, as
the Froude number decreases with the addition of the drag reducing agent, the closer the
slug moves toward the plug/slug transition. At the higher superficial gas velocities, the
slug flow would tend to move toward the slug/pseudo slug transition.

Figure 4.1.5a

shows that at the low superficial liquid velocity of 0.3 mls and high superficial gas
velocity of 8 mis, the slug flow changed to pseudo slug flow at 50 ppm of DRA. This
figure also shows that the average pressure drop did not change significantly from 0 to 20
to 50 ppm. This is because at 0 and 20 ppm a few highly turbulent slugs were formed.
When the DRA concentration increased to 50 ppm, several short pseudo slugs were
formed, The change in flow regime from slug to pseudo slug has also been shown in the
research by Kang (1998b).

The research by Kang showed that the DRA had a more

76
significant effect on the flow regime map, however, this was expected since the oil that
was used in his research had a lower viscosity.
The average pressure gradient decreased with increasing DRA concentration for
the slug flow regime. In general the decrease in pressure gradient can he attributed to the
decrease in slug frequency. If the number of highly turbulent slugs is reduced, then the
average pressure gradient will naturally decrease since the pipeline will consist of less
slugs and more stratified flow, which exists between the slugs.
Figure 4.1.6a shows that in the acrylic pipeline the average pressure gradient
decreased for all superficial gas velocities studied for the superficial oil velocity of 0.5

mls. At a gas velocity of 4 mis, the average pressure gradient decreased from baseline
conditions of 182 Palm to 170 Palm at 20 ppm and further reduced to 127 Palm at 50
ppm. These values represent an effectiveness of 7% and 30%, as shown in Figure 4.1.6b.
As the superficial liquid velocity was increased, the DRA still decreased average pressure
gradient.

At a superficial velocity of 1.5 mls and a superficial gas velocity of 4 mis,

Figure 4.1.8a shows that the average pressure gradient was 559 Palm at 0 ppm, 516 Palm
at 20 ppm and 437 Palm at 50 ppm.
The results show that when the superficial gas velocity was held constant and the
superficial oil velocity was increased, the effectiveness of the drag reducing agent would
generally decrease.

As the liquid velocity is increased and the gas velocity is held

constant, slug frequency increases. Therefore, the effectiveness decreases, because the
same amount of DRA is trying to reduce the pressure drop on a greater number of slugs.
For example, Figure 4.1.7b shows that at a superficial oil velocity of 1.0 mis, the

77
effectiveness in the acrylic pipeline was 18% for 2 m/s, 16% at 4 mls and 150/0 at 6 mls at
20 ppm. When the DRA concentration increased to 50 ppm, these values increased to
26% at 2 m/s, 28% at 4 mls and 27% at 6 mls. For the higher superficial oil velocity of
1.5 m/s, the effectiveness of the DRA in the acrylic pipeline for a DRA concentration of

20 ppm was 5% for 2 m/s, 8% for 4 mls and 6% for 6 m/s, as shown in Figure 4.1.8b.
When the DRA concentration was increased to 50 ppm, the effectiveness increased to
19%, 22%, and 20% for the superficial gas velocities of2, 4, and 6 m/s, respectively.
The values mentioned above also show that when there was little difference in the
DRA effectiveness when the superficial liquid velocity was held constant and the
superficial gas velocity was increased. This is because the slug frequency does not
significantly change when the gas velocity is increased. For example, Tables 4.1.24 to
4.1.26 show that for a liquid velocity of 1.0 mls at baseline conditions, the slug frequency
was 30 slugs/min at 2 m/s, 25 slugs/min at 4 mis, and 24 slugs/min at 6 mls. When the
DRA concentration was increased to 20 ppm, the slug frequencies were 28, 25, and 24
slugs/min at gas velocities of2, 4, and 6 m/s, respectively.
The slug characteristics are attached in the appendix and are shown in Tables
4.1.3 to 4.1.32 for all velocities studied. Figures 4.1.9 through 4.1.14 show how the slug
properties change with the presence of the drag reducing agent.

To help clarify the

graph, the slug frequency was split into two figures. The first figure, Figure 4.1.9a plots
the slug frequency with DRA against the slug frequency at baseline conditions for the
low superficial liquid velocities of 0.2 to 0.5 mls. This figure shows that there is no
significant change in slug frequency at 20 ppm, but when the DRA concentration

-S=

78

20
18

........

CI2

OJ)

'7;i

'-"

<

16
14

12

ei

10

.c
....
~

CJ

=
=
~

C'"

'V

V.V

&.

'-OJ)
r;j

'V

'fl .

V .:V
V.V

V .

+ .v

+
+

.V

.+.
+

+
+

++

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Slug Frequency at 0 ppm (slugs/min)

Figure 4.1.9a: The effect ofDRA on slug frequency for 100% 6 cP oil
at Vsl = 0.2 m/s to 0.5 m/s using oil soluble DRA

-5=

60
56

........
~

OJ)

";j

'-"

~~
-=...
-i

CJ

=
~

52
48

r.-.

28

36

32

...

.V

40

=
C'"

....

44

+
.V
V
.V

OJ)

=
Ci5

24

v+
V

20
20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52

56

60

Slug Frequency at 0 ppm (slugs/min)

Figure 4.1.9b: The effect ofDRA on slug frequency for 100% 6 cP oil
at Vsl = 1.0 m/s to 1.5 m/s using oil soluble DRA

79

5
'V 20 ppm

+ SO ppm

,--..

-....;

<

=
....
Q

+.vt

i
.c
....

=
.J
~

(i3

....
.::1 tv
~

...

.~vt

. ~~

If

1
1

Slug Length at 0 ppm (m)

Figure 4.1.10: The effect ofDRA on slug length


for 100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA

20

~
Q

18

-i

14

-=.....

I~

.&J

e
=
Z
~

V't .+
.V

10

I-

'-

.,~

12
8

+ 50 ppm

16

-c

=
e

V 20 ppm

.,*4

... ~.

+"'V
.Vo +s,

2
0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Film Froude Number at 0 ppm

Figure 4.1.11: The effect ofDRA on film Fronde number for


for 100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA

80

3.00
'V 20 ppm

+ 50 ppm

2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

0.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Liquid Film Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.1.12: The effect ofDRA on liquid film velocity


for 100o~ 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA

,-...

........

~
Q
-=....
ei
a
y
Q

>
-;

.~

....
=
...

oc+
+= "-t+
~

.0

~.. I~

_.i-

CllS

-;j
CllS

.V

~._i
CV

il.-\

E-

Translational Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.1.13: The effect ofDRA on translational velocity


for 100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA

81

V 20ppm

SO ppm

2
2

Height of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (em)

Figure 4.1.14: The effect ofDRA on height of liquid film


for 100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA

82
increased to 50 ppm, there was a reduction in slug frequency. If Figures 4.l.4a, 4.1.5a
and 4.l.6a are examined more closely, it can be seen that for a given superficial gas
velocity as the superficial liquid velocity increases, so does the average pressure gradient.
For example at a superficial gas velocity of 4 mis, the average pressure gradient at
baseline conditions was 56 Palm at a superficial liquid velocity of 0.2 mls. The pressure
gradient then increased to 86 and 182 Palm for superficial liquid velocities of 0.3 and 0.5
mls. The slug frequencies for these velocities were 2 slugs/min at 0.2 mis, 6 slugs/min at

0.3 mls and 9 slugs/min at 0.5 mls. As the frequency of turbulent slugs increases in the
pipeline, so does the average pressure gradient.

Figure 4.1.9b shows the same

information for superficial liquid velocities of 1.0 to 1.5 mls. This figure also shows that
there was no significant change in slug frequency at 20 ppm, but there was a reduction in
slug frequency at 50 ppm. Similar results can be seen at the higher superficial liquid
velocities. Figure 4.1.7a shows that at a gas velocity of 4 mls the average pressure
gradient is 289 Palm at a superficial liquid velocity of 1.0 mls. As the superficial liquid
velocity is increased to 1.5 mis, the average pressure gradient also increased to 437 Palm,
as shown in Figure 4.1.8a. The slug frequency at these velocities was 25 slugs/min at the
lower superficial liquid velocity and increased to 43 slugs/min when the superficial liquid
velocity was increased to 1.5 mls. This also shows that the average pressure drop is
directly related to the slug frequency. Therefore, if the DRA will reduce the number of
slugs, the average pressure drop should also decrease. When a dispersion is created and
the apparent viscosity increases, the slug frequency will increase which will increase the
average pressure gradient.

83

Figure 4.1.10 shows how the slug length changed with the presence of the drag
reducing agent. This plot shows that for the majority of the cases, a reduction in slug
length was observed. The film Froude number did not significantly change with the
addition of 20 ppm of DRA, as shown in Figure 4.1.11. At 50 ppm, this figure shows
that there may be a slight decrease in the film Froude number. The liquid film velocity
did increase with increasing drag reducing agent concentration as shown in Figure 4.1.12.
The last two slug properties, the translational velocity and height of the liquid film are
shown in Figures 4.1.13 and 4.1.14, respectively. These plots show that there was no
significant change when DRA was added to the flow.

Pseudo Slug Flow Regime for 1000/0 6 cP Oil


Pseudo slug flow was observed for oil superficial velocities from 0.2 to 0.3 mls
and at superficial gas velocities between 8 and 10 mls. Pseudo slugs occur at higher gas
velocities than slug flow, therefore, they are more aerated than slugs causing a lower
frictional pressure drop and a higher accelerational pressure drop. This flow regime
showed a reduction in average pressure gradient when the DRA was added to the system,
as shown in Figures 4.1.4a and 4.1.5a. As the concentration of the DRA was increased
the stability of the pseudo slugs decreased, causing less pseudo slugs to be formed.
The closer to the transition from slug to pseudo slug,

a higher effectiveness was

noted, as shown in Figure 4.1.4b. The results from this study have shown a higher
effectiveness for slug flow than for annular flow. When the flow changes to annular
flow, the film because very thin and the turbulence within the film is greatly reduced,

84
causing a decrease in effectiveness. Therefore, as the gas velocity is increased in the
pseudo slug flow regime, the pseudo slugs become less like slugs and more like annular
waves, therefore, reducing the effectiveness of the DRA. For example, Figure 4.1.4a
shows that at a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial gas velocity of 8 mis,
the average pressure gradient decreased from 105 Palm to 86 Palm at 20 ppm and slightly
decreased to 85 Palm at 50 ppm in the acrylic pipeline. The effectiveness was 18% at 20
ppm and 19% at 50 ppm, as shown in Figure 4.1.4b. When the gas velocity increased to
10 mis, the effectiveness in the acrylic pipeline decreased to 8% for 20 ppm and less than
1% at 50 ppm. The effectiveness in the stainless steel pipeline was not as high as the

acrylic pipeline. The effectiveness at a gas velocity of 8 mls was 1% at 20 ppm and 8%
at 50 ppm.
When the liquid flow rate is increased 0.3 mls and at a gas velocity of 10 mis, the
effectiveness of the DRA increased, as shown in Figure 4.1.5b. At this higher liquid
flowrate the pseudo slug consists of more liquid, therefore, the frictional pressure drop is
increased. The DRA now had a better chance of reducing the overall pressure drop. The
effectiveness of the DRA in the acrylic pipeline increased to 10% at 20 ppm and
increased to 22% at 50 ppm. The effectiveness in the stainless steel was lower than the
acrylic pipeline, as shown in Figure 4.1.5b. The effectiveness at 20 ppm decreased to 2%
and at 50 ppm, the effectiveness was 17%.

Transition to Annular Flow Regime for lOOA 6 cP Oil


This flow regime occurs for superficial oil velocities up to 0.2 mls.

The

superficial gas velocities range from 10 to 15 mls. This flow regime is described as a

85
flow regime in which the liquid film can only spread partly around the inner perimeter of
the pipe and does not reach the top of the pipe. At the higher gas velocities of 12 and 15

mis, the film would spread around the pipe due to the sloshing of the waves. The film
around the inner perimeter did not stabilize and the liquid would drain down the sides of
the pipe and the liquid film until the next wave came. Figures 4.1.3b and 4.1.4b show
that the drag reducing agent had little effect on the average pressure gradient. Once the
liquid film became thin and crescent shaped the effectiveness of the drag reducing agent
decreased dramatically. For example, Figure 4.1.3a shows that for a superficial liquid
velocity of 0.1 mls and a gas velocity of 15 mis, the average pressure gradient in the
acrylic pipeline was 96 Palm at 0 ppm, 98 Palm at 20 ppm, and 90 Palm at 50 ppm.
Figure 4.1.3b shows that the effectiveness of the DRA is generally 5% and below. The
stainless steel pipeline showed similar results for this velocity. The gas velocities of 10
and 12 mls also behaved similarly in both pipelines. It is noted that when the DRA
concentration was increased to 50 ppm, the average pressure gradient slightly decreased.
The effectiveness of the DRA at the above example was negligible for 20 ppm but
increased to 7% when the DRA concentration was increased to 50 ppm.
When the oil velocity was increased to 0.2 mis, the average pressure gradient in
the stainless steel pipeline was 121 Palm at 0 ppm, 124 Palm at 20 ppm, and 116 Palm at
50 ppm, as shown in Figure 4.1.4a. Figure 4.1.4b shows that the effectiveness of the
DRA was the same as the superficial liquid velocity of 0.1 mis, the value ranged from 5%
and below. Therefore it can be shown that the effectiveness of the drag reducing agent

86

dramatically decreases for the transition to annular flow regime regardless of increasing
gas or liquid velocity, for the range of flow rates studied.

Annular Flow Regime for

100o~

6 cP Oil

For this study, annular flow was observed at superficial oil velocities up to 0.2

mls and superficial gas velocities above 15 mls. For these low liquid velocities, the
presence of drag reducing agents had little effect in the annular flow regime.

Kang

(1998b) results showed that the drag reducing agent did reduce the average pressure
gradient as much as 35% for annular flow. Since his results were based upon a lower
viscosity oil, 2 cP, the Reynolds number in the annular film would be higher than the 6
cP oil.

Therefore, the annular film is less turbulent and as stated previously the

effectiveness of the drag reducing agent is directly related to the turbulence; so the lower
effectiveness of the DRA for this higher viscosity oil was expected.
As with the transition to annular flow regime, the liquid film is very thin and the
DRA's effectiveness is limited. For example, at a superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mls and
superficial gas velocity of 17 mis, Figure 4.1.3a shows that the average pressure gradient
in the acrylic was 121 Palm at 0 ppm, 117 Palm at 20 ppm, and 117 Palm at 50 ppm.
Similar results were shown in the stainless steel pipeline. The highest effectiveness of
the drag reducing agent for this velocity was 6%, as shown in Figure 4.I.3b.
When the superficial oil velocity was increased to 0.2 mis, the liquid film was a
little thicker and annular flow occurred at gas velocities above 15 mls. The effectiveness
of the drag reducing agent for the gas velocities studied was below 4% in both pipelines,

87
as shown in Figure 4.1.4b. Therefore, it can also be concluded that like the transition to
annular flow regime, the drag reducing agent has little effect on the annular flow regime
for the liquid and gas velocities studied. This flow regime was not shown at higher liquid
flow rates.

In the next section, it will be shown that as the superficial liquid velocity is
increased, so does the effectiveness of the DRA.

When there is an increase in the liquid

velocity, the waves in the annular film begin to grow and bridge the pipe, causing pseudo
slug or slug flow. The DRA now can also decrease the pressure drop by decreasing the
additional pressure drop created by the pseudo slugs or slugs.

Annular Flow with Pseudo Slug Flow Regime for 100% 6 cP Oil
At a higher superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and superficial gas velocities of 12,
15, and 17 mis, annular flow was observed with intermittent pseudo slugs. Here, an
annular film was present in the pipelines, but the height of the liquid film was high
enough to cause pseudo slugs to be formed causing large pressure spikes. The presence
of DRA did have some effect on this flow regime, as shown in Figure 4.I.5b. Since the
pseudo slugs were present in this flow regime, the DRA now could also reduce the total
pressure drop by reducing the accelerational pressure drop due to the presence of the
pseudo slugs. The highest effectiveness of the DRA shown for this flow regime was at
50 ppm and was 11%, which was higher than the value for the transition to annular and
annular flow regime.

88
4.2 Effect of Water Cut on DRA Performance
Experiments were performed using water cuts of 10 and 50% to see how the
increasing water cut affects the performance of the DRA. The results show that at 10%
water cut the average pressure gradient increased slightly at baseline conditions and when
DRA was added to the system then when compared to two phase flow, as shown in
Figure 4.2.1. This increase in average pressure gradient showed that a slight increase in
the viscosity occurs at low water cuts. When the water cut was increased to 50%, the
average pressure gradient decreased slightly at baseline conditions, indicating that the
apparent viscosity was now lower than that found for 6 cP oil, as shown in Figure 4.2.2.
When a DRA was present for the water cut of 50%, it will be shown later that a
dispersion was formed and the average pressure gradient increased dramatically.

Slug Flow with 90% 6 cP Oil, 10% Deionized Water


Since the minimum superficial velocity for the water was 0.1 mis, the
corresponding oil flow was 0.9 mls for this water cut.

Consequently, the superficial

liquid mixture velocities studied were 1.0, 1.25, and 1.5 mls. At each of these velocities,
superficial gas velocities from 2 to 6 mls were studied, which produced slug flow.
Figures 4.2.3 through 4.2.5 show the results for the 10% water cut. These figures show
that the average pressure gradient decreased with increased DRA concentration for all
experiments performed at this water cut. The decrease in average pressure gradient can
again be related to the decrease in slug frequency. Since the number of highly turbulent
slugs decreased in frequency, and the length of the stratified film between the slugs

900

=-....

800

"CIS

'-'"

::I

700

U
IU

....

600

500

CIS

......
=
0~

=
:;
u

<>

89
Oppm
20ppm
SOppm

-i..+"

s:

400

300

y ..-i>O'

200

.()

I-

::I
fI')

J>.." ..
Y~~

CIS

I-

100

fIJ

I-

C.
u

0
0

OJ)

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

CIS

I-

Average Pressure Gradient Two Phase (Palm)

>

<
Figure 4.2.1: The effect of an increase in water cut to 10% on the
average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA

".....,.

"CIS

=-....

900

800

'-'

:a

+.'

I-

....
~

CIS

700

0~

600

=
....
V)

=
:;

+ .'

500

CIS
l-

e
u

400

..r

.-f-

300

J.

::I

fIJ
fI2

200

J.

=-

100

CIS

CJ)

J.

>

<

100

200

300

400

SOO

600

700

800

900

Average Pressure Gradient Two Phase (Palm)

Figure 4.2.2: The effect of an increase in water cut to 500/0 on the


average pressure gradient at baseline conditions

1000

+ 20ppm

900

800

9600

50ppm

8533

e
""ell

e.
.....,.

...

=
:a
~

I-

Slug

700
500

I-

:s

300

fj

200

c.
Q

l-

5333

4267

I~

3200

I-

I-

:s
~
~

=F

.-..
~
.....,.

...fJ
+
+

c.

6400

-&...

\J

~
~

7467

600

400

I-

90

10667

\J 0 ppm

t:)J)

=
~

2133 -e~
1067

100

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.3a: Effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient 90% 6 cP oil,


10% water at Vsl = 1.0 m/s in acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA

100
.-..
'e;;!e.
.....,.

<
=:

...
Q

80

Slug

60
40

{I)
~

=
.::...
~

CJ

...
~

20
0
\J 20 ppm Acrylic

-20

20 ppm Stainless
SO ppm Acrylic
SO ppm Stainless

-40

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.3b: Effectiveness ofDRA for slug flow for 90J'c 6 cP oil
and 100/0 deionized water at Vsl = 1.0 m/s using oil soluble DRA

1000
900
~

e
=-....=
=

""-

'-'
~

800

9600

SOppm

8533
Slug

C-'

400

C'I}
C'I}

r..

=-

300

6400

5333

r..

r..

=
~
~

7467

+
..L
~

=-=
c.
'-'

600
500

r..

700

:cCIS

r..

+ 20 ppm

91

10667

'V 0 ppm

4267
3200

r..

=~

I:,)i)

ellS

r..
~

200

2133

100

1067

>

-e

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.4a: Effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient 90% 6 cP oil,


10% water at Vsl = 1.25 m/s in stainless steel pipeline using oil soluble DRA

100
80

Slug

e~

'-'

60

'Q

40

~
Q

C'I}

C'I}

=
.::
~

20

....

u
~
~

\l 20 ppm Acrylic

-20

20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
50 ppm Stainless

-40
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.4b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow for 90% 6 cP oil


and 10% deionized water at Vsl = 1.25 m/s using oil soluble DRA

1000

900

800

9600

20ppm
50ppm

=-....=

"-'

:c

=
a..

..-...
8533 ~
......,
Q
7467 c.

fi

".......

E
.........

92

10667

'V 0 ppm

Slug

700
600

500

6400
5333
4267

~
~

fI.)
fI.)

~
~

=-

400

a..

300

3200

200

2133 <~
1067

fI.)
fI.)

J.

=-

CJ)

I~

100
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.5a: Effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient 900~ 6 cP oil,


10% water at Vsl = 1.5 m/s in acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA

100
80

Slug

".......

0~

"-'

~
Q

c...

60

40

fI.)
CI)

20

.~

....
(oJ

~
"-

............. O

_._

~._

'V 20 ppm Acrylic

-20

20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
50 ppm Stainless

-40
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.5b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow for 90% 6cP oil
and 10% deionized water at Vsl = 1.5 m/s using oil soluble DRA

93

increased, the average pressure drop should decrease with the decrease in slug frequency.
Similar to the two phase flow data, these results showed that when the superficial gas
velocity was held constant and the superficial liquid velocity was increased, the
effectiveness decreased. For example at a velocity of 4 mis, Figure 4.2.3b shows the
effectiveness to be 40% in the acrylic pipeline. When the superficial liquid velocity was
increased to 1.25 mis, Figure 4.2.4b shows that the effectiveness decreased to 24%.
Figure 4.2.5b shows that when the superficial liquid velocity was further increased to 1.5

mis, the effectiveness again decreased to 19%.


The average pressure gradient results from 10% water cut are very similar to that
for slug flow when using 100% 6cP oil and carbon dioxide. Figure 4.2.3a shows that at a
superficial liquid mixture velocity of 1 mls using a water cut of 10% and a gas velocity of
4 mls the average pressure gradient in the acrylic was 414, 340 and 250 Palm at 0, 20 and

50 ppm, respectively. At the same flow rates the average pressure gradients for two phase
flow were 382 Palm at 0 ppm, 321 Palm at 20 ppm, and 275 Palm at 50 ppm. The
average pressure gradient for baseline and 20 ppm conditions was slightly higher for the
10% water cut, However, at 50 ppm, the average pressure gradient was slightly lower
than that of the two phase value.
Similar results were also shown with the slug properties, as seen by comparing
Tables 4.2.1 through 4.2.9 with Tables 4.1.24 through 4.1.32, which are in the Appendix.
The slug properties are graphed in Figures 4.2.6 to 4.2.11. The slug frequency is plotted
in Figure 4.2.6. This figure shows 20 ppm of DRA had little effect on slug frequency,
but at 50 ppm, the DRA caused a decrease in the slug frequency. The same is true for the

..-..

94

60

=
5
........

55

C)J)

50

\I..

r;I)

-;
.....,

<

40

35

>.

30

.c
.....

<J

=
er

25

t.

'-

20

15

(i5

...."1

45
.. ' V
.. ' V

V
.i +

+
'''1

to
10

15

30

25

20

35

40

45

50

55

60

Slug Frequency at 0 ppm (slugs/min)

Figure 4.2.6: The effect ofDRA on the slug frequency for


90% 6 cP oil and 10% deionized water using oil soluble DRA

V 20 ppm

..-..
E
~

<

+ SO ppm
4

=
.....
Q

.c

.c
.....

VV

=
~

(;5

++

..t' .~

..J

.... '1
V

....+

Slug Length at 0 ppm (m)

Figure 4.2.7: The effect ofDRA on slug length for


90% 6 cP oil and 10% deionized water using oil soluble DRA

95

20

<
~

.c
....

-i
I~

e
z=
-cs
=
e
~

18
16
14

10

V ..

8
6

.5

!
l

12

l-

t.

"l 20 ppm
+ 50 ppm

"l .'

s;

....++

.: +

2
0
2

10

12

14

16

18

20

Film Froude Number at 0 ppm

Figure 4.2.8: The effect ofDRA on the Film Froude number


for 90% 6 cP oil and 10% deionized water using oil soluble DRA

3.00
"l20 ppm

fI}

'"'"E

~
Q
..=
....
-i
....
-y

2.50

+ 50 ppm
+

2.00

1.50

>
.5
r:r
~

' " "l


"l

.,. +

-e
-;

t .' ... '''l

V'

1.00

"l

0.50

,.

"l

, ' ' "l


"l

0.00
0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Liquid Film Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.2.9: The effect ofDRA on the liquid film velocity for
90% 6 cP oil and 10% deionized water using oil soluble DRA

96

r;I,)

"'"
e

'-'

<
~

.c
....,

-i

~
....,

.y

~ ..

>

+,..

-;

=
.g
....,
CIS
-;;

..=
CIS

.V
3

E-

2
3

Translational Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.2.10: The effect ofDRA on the translational velocity for


90% 6 cP oil and 10% deionized water using oil soluble DRA

~
Q

.c
....,

i
.5
~

:E

c-

....

_+ 50 ppm

c.J

"-"

_\I 20 ppm

Q
....,

+ ..

\I.V

+ +

~ .. .'1

++ .. '\J

\I. 'V

.c01)
-~

==

2
2

Height of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (em)

Figure 4.2.11: The effect ofDRA on the height of liquid film for
90% 6 cP oil and 10% deionized water using oil soluble DRA

97

slug length as shown in Figure 4.2.7. The DRA had little effect on the film Froude
number at 20 ppm as shown in Figure 4.2.8. At 50 ppm, this figure shows that there may
be a slight decrease in the film Froude number. The effect of DRA on the liquid film
velocity is shown in Figure 4.2.9. This figure shows that there is a significant amount of
scatter for the liquid film velocity at 20 ppm.

When the DRA concentration was

increased to 50 ppm, this figure shows that the liquid film velocity increased for the
majority of the velocities studied. The translational velocity did not change with the
addition of the drag reducing agent as shown in Figure 4.2.10. Figure 4.2.11 shows that
at 20 ppm there was little effect on the height of the liquid film, but at 50 ppm, there may
be a slight increase in the liquid film height.
The slug properties for the 10% water cut are compared to the slug properties for
0% water cut in Figures 4.2.12 through 4.2.17. The slug frequency is compared in Figure
4.2.12. This figure shows that at low slug frequency, or low superficial liquid velocities,
the slug frequency is slightly lower for the 10% water cut than for the two phase flow.
However, at the higher slug frequencies, or the higher superficial liquid velocities, the
slug frequency for the 10% water cut is higher than the two phase flow. One reason for
this may be at the higher superficial liquid velocities, there is better mixing between the
oil and water, which may cause the effective viscosity to increase slightly, which is
consistent with the observed increase in slug frequency. The slug length and liquid film
velocity are compared in Figures 4.2.13 and 4.2.15, respectively. These figures show that
there is little affect on the slug properties. The film Froude number, translational velocity
and height of liquid film are shown respectively in Figures 4.2.14, 4.2.16, and

5=

98

60

........
fIJ

Ci)

55

...

50

=
-;;

'-'

U=

45

....0:

40

VV
V

".... v

~
'0::Ie

.=
.....
=
=
=
~

c,J

0"

25
20

10

V3

.. ~'V
"Sj'VI'V

30

15

'Ci)

V
.V

35

a.

V.
. .,\;V

ri

....~ 'V 'V

V
10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Slug Frequency at 0% Water Cut (slugs/min)

Figure 4.2.12: A comparison of the slug frequency for 10% water cut
and 0% water cut using oil soluble DRA

5
~

....

'-'

a.

....

~
':!e
0

=
...

.....

-=...
=

~
~

V
'V 'V ~.. tj
.\1
V

"V.

V
.'V
V~
.
'\J
V '\J
V

v'V

'V
'V

[;5

1
1

Slug Length at 0% Water Cut (m)

Figure 4.2.13: A comparison of the slug length for 10% water cut
and 00/0 water cut using oil soluble DRA

....:s

99

20
18

J.

....0:
~

~
C>

.......
=
0:
J.

.c

Z=
~

16
14
12
10

8
6

"'0

:s
0

'-

ti:

J.

10

12

14

16

18

20

Film Froude Number at OA. Water Cut

Figure 4.2.14: A comparison of the film Fronde number for


10/0 water cut and 010 water cut using oil soluble DRA

,.-..
{IJ

.......

....:s

3.00

'-"

2.50

J.

....0:
~

2.00

~
C>

=
....
,..,.c

....=

Cj
0

-;

V
1.50
~

1.00

"'0
.;

cr
~

\l
\l
V

.:

"

.,~~.

'7." "

>

\l
V\l

Vy:J'-

0.50

'\l

"V

0.00
0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Liquid Film Velocity at 0'" Water Cut (m/s)

Figure 4.2.15: A comparison of the liquid film velocity for


10% water cut and 010 water cut using oil soluble DRA

,-..
~

'"'-

...
=
...
...=

100

'-'

~
C>

......
=
...=
~

.y

.'

#~.

. ''V

# .

\l

>

.~.

-;

...==

.~

-;;

=
=
...

E-

Translational Velocity at 0% Water Cut (m/s)

Figure 4.2.16: A comparison of the translational velocity for


10% water cut and 0% water cut using oil soluble DRA

,-..

s=
'"'~

=
";i
.....
=
U

'-'

'l

J.
~

.....

\l

~ .. ~VV

~
C>

........
=
=
!
~

V
\I
3

...vS

-=
.;

VV

vVV

\I. rio\]

.. ty

\l

c::r

....~
Q

.....

.c

.~

:c

Height of Liquid Film at 0% Water Cut (slugs/min)

Figure 4.2.17: A comparison of the height of liquid film


for 10% water cut and 0% water cut using oil soluble DRA

101
4.2.17.

These figures show that there is no significant difference between the slug

properties at 10% water cut and the values shown at 0% water cut.

50% 6 cP Oil and 50.4 Deionized Water


At an increased water cut of 50%, the average pressure drop increased when the
drag reducing agent was added to the flow. At a drag reducing agent concentration of 50
ppm, the average pressure gradient was higher than baseline conditions at all velocities
studied. The drag reducing agent used in this study contained a surfactant, which was
supposed to disperse in the water, if present.

The surfactant reduced the interfacial

tension between the oil and water layer and a dispersion was created. At 20 ppm the
interfacial shear stress reduced to approximately 20 dyne/em and reduced to
approximately 7 dyne/em at 50 ppm. The higher the DRA concentration, the lower the
interfacial tension between the oil and water, therefore, at 20 ppm a slight dispersion was
created. At 50 ppm, the increased amount of surfactant created an even lower interfacial
tension, which created a better quality dispersion, i.e. the apparent viscosity increased
over the apparent viscosity observed at 20 ppm.

As shown previously, the apparent

viscosity of an oil/water mixture is dependent upon the amount of water entrained in the
oil. This explains why when the DRA was added to the 50% water cut the apparent
viscosity kept increasing with increasing DRA concentration. At 20 ppm, more water
drops were entrained than at 0 ppm due to the lower interfacial shear stress between the
oil and water, which increased the viscosity. At 50 ppm, with the interfacial shear stress
reduced even further, more water droplets were entrained than at 20 ppm, so the viscosity

102
increased again. There were not enough water droplets entrained to cause the water
droplets to coalesce and cause the water phase to become the continuous phase, which
would have resulted in an apparent viscosity lower than 20 ppm.
The increase in apparent viscosity was verified from rotary viscometer
measurements, which were initially at its maximum value of 30 cP, then gradually
decreased over time, as shown in Figure 4.2.18. The decrease in viscosity over time is
only due to the limitations of the rotary viscometer. The viscometer maximum speed was
600 rpm, which is not enough to keep the oil/water mixture from separating. Therefore,
the decrease in viscosity occurs as the oil and water phases separate. In the pipeline
where the oil and water is well mixed, the viscosity is 30 cP or above as shown in the
initial viscometer reading when the sample was still well mixed. During the slug flow
regime, the height of the liquid film and slug frequency generally increased when the
DRA concentration increased. The liquid film velocity would decrease in the presence of
DRA. These results also suggest a higher apparent viscosity.

Tronconi (1990) shows

that the slug frequency does increase with increasing viscosity of the liquid. His study
shows that a large jump in slug frequency occurs when the viscosity is increased so that
the turbulent stratified layer in front of the slug changes from turbulent to a laminar
stratified layer.
The results for the 50% water cut are shown in Figures 4.2.19 through 4.2.23. At a
superficial liquid mixture velocity of 0.2 mis, Figure 4.2.19a shows that the different flow
regimes at baseline conditions. Slug flow existed from 1 to 3 mis, pseudo slug at 4 mis,
rolling wave at 6 mis, transition to annular from 8 to 12 mis, then annular flow at 15 and

,-......

;>

rIl

CJ

rIl

.C
,..

o
5

10

15

25

30

Time (min)

20

~
~

35

40

45

50

Figure 4.2.18: Viscosity versus time for 50At water cut at 50 ppm
of an oil soluble DRA

10

15

20

25

...-

ow

400
360
~

.........

....

"-'

=
~

=6

=
e
So.

320
280

240

{;5

rI)
rI)

So.

"'0

-==:
+

Slug

CI2

160

=-

120

.....
0
.....

.J..

80

40

+ ~

"V

.J..

0
..L

"V

T
+

Cf)

I-

ell

..,..
0

..J...

+
"V

3413

0-1-

Cf)

3840

a;

'"T"'

Transition toAnnular

200

104

4267

"V 0 ppm
+ 20ppm
o 50ppm

2987
2560

"V
T

"V

cr:s

"-'
Q.
Q

I-

I-

2133

fI)
fI)

1707

l~

1280

cr:s

..L

QI

I~

fj

853

Annular

>

41(

427

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.19a: Effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for


50% 6 cP oil and 500~ deionized water at Vsl = 0.2 m/s
in the acrylic pipeline at baseline conditions

400

360
~

.........

=-=
....

'-'

=
~

:a

=
0
I-

4267

'V 0 ppm

320

20ppm
SOppm

=
fI)
fI)

I-

=-

Slug

200
'"T"'

160

.....

120

0
.J..

80

40

+
0

+ ~

.J..

0..L
V

0
..J...

2987

l-

2133

-l..

1707

=-

"V

-=

2560

=-c.=
"-'

240

3413

0..J...

280

I-

'"T"'

Pseudo Slug

3840

a;

fI)
fI)

I~

+
V

+
fj

1280

Annular
wlPseudo Slug

CJ)

==
I~

853

>

41(

427
0

10

12

14

16

18

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.19b: Effect ofDRA on flow regime patterns using 500/0 6 cP oil
and 50% water at Vsl = 0.2 m/s in acrylic pipe at 20 ppm of oil soluble DRA

400

360
~

e
.........

320

=
....

280

.!

200

~
'-'"

=
s=
e
"C

I-

160

s-

80

rI'J
~

C.

40

.,..
0
-L.,..
-L-

-I..

'V

2987
2560

2133

sQ
~
s-

rI'J
rI'J
~

s-

..L

1707 c.
~

+ ~

..L.

T
+

=-=
c.

'-'"

-r

3413

0
-L.

Slug

d)

-r

240

120

fI)

3840

20ppm
50ppm

105

4267

'V 0 ppm

+
V

Annular
wlSlug

1280

s-

853

<

427

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.19c: Effect ofDRA on flow regime patterns using 50% 6 cP oil
and 50% water at VsI = 0.2 m/s in acrylic pipe at 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA

Annular
wI Pseudo Slug

40

o
~

-40

-80

'Q

~
~

=
~

.~

-120

....

-160

-200

l.

Annular
wlSlug

. .L

(,J

V 20 ppm Acrylic

-240

o 20 ppm Stainless

Slug

SO ppm Acrylic
50 ppm Stainless

-280

10

12

14

16

18

Superficial Gas Velocity (rots)

Figure 4.2.19d: Effectiveness ofDRA of different flow patterns for 50%


6 cP oil and 50% deionized water at Vsl = 0.2 m/s using oil soluble DRA

500
450
~

e
.......

=
....
=
:0
=
'e
Q.

'-"
~

::I

fI')
fI')

Q.

4800

w/Slug

400

4267

Q..
'-"

350
300

3733

Slug

250

0-'-

150

100
50

0
0 ..L

2667

fIJ
fIJ

2133

Q..

'::s
~

1600

Annular
wlPseudo Slug

'-

3200

l.

200

c.

J..

-r

0
..L

'-

106

5333

'-

'-

1067

Pseudo Slug

-e

533

10

14

12

16

18

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.20a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient


50% 6 cP oil and 50% deionized water at Vsl = 0.3 m/s
in the stainless steel pipeline using oil soluble DRA

Annular
wlPseudo Slug

Pseudo Slug

40
".."....

~
e
'-'"

~
Q

c...

-40

V T

T i
.1 T
T 1
l.
I

-80

.l..

fI')
fI')

-120

.::....=

-160

~
c...

-200

..~ ........~._

-240

;
T

\J

1:

.. ~.

I
Annular
w/Slug

\J 20 ppm Acrylic

o 20 ppm Stainless

Slug

so ppm Acrylic

50 ppm Stainless

-280
0

10

12

14

16

18

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.20b: Effectiveness ofDRA on different flow patterns for 50%


6 cP oil and 500/0 deionized water at Vsl = 0.3 m/s using oil soluble DRA

500

+
o

450
,,-....

400

........

350

e
eo

..=

e.

200

Slug

e.

3733
3200
T

..,...
0

..L.

Cit)
Cit}

,,-....

4267

300
250

4800

20ppm
50ppm

Q..
~

:ceo

-=
-

107

5333

'1 0 ppm

150

100

50

(5
-'-

c.

l-

Q
~

I-

2667

Cit}
Cit}

2133

Q..

'1
...L.

1600

...L.
I

Pseudo Slug

'1

I~

I~

1067

-e

533
0

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.21a: Effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient


50% 6 cP oil and 50% deionized water at Vsl = 0.4 m/s
in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA

40

~T

0
,,-....
0~

'-"

-40

-80

Q
'Q
Cit}
Cit}

-160

u
~
'-

-200

I.1.

Pseudo Slug

-120

=
.~

..

..........

-240

Slug

'1 20 ppm Acrylic

o 20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
50 ppm Stainless

-L

-280
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.21 b: Effectiveness ofDRA for different flow patterns for 500/0
6 cP oil and 500~ deionized water at Vsl = 0.4 m/s using oil soluble DRA

1000

+ 20 ppm

900
~

........

=-...
--=
:.a
~

=
e
I-

800

I-

Slug

400
200

6400

500

=-

7467

600

I-

8533 c..ell

700

300

fIJ
fIJ

9600

50ppm

5333

'\l

108

10667

'V 0 ppm

Q
l-

Q
~

I-

fIJ
fIJ

I-

4267 c..

---c.

3200

l:)IJ

=
<
I~

'l

2133

100

1067
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.22a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient


50% 6 cP oil and 50% deionized water at Vsl = 1.0 m/s
in the stainless steel pipeline using oil soluble DRA

40
... - - - _

-. -. _ V

-"1-

':!e
0

---<

-40

==
Q

...

-80

fIJ
fIJ

-120

_.. - -

\J _. _..

...

-160

~
c-.

-200

.~

Slug

(J

'V 20 ppm Acrylic

-240

20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
50 ppm Stainless

-280
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.22b: Effectiveness ofDRA for slug flow using 50%


6 cP oil and 50 GA. deionized water at Vsl = 1.0 m/s using oil soluble DRA

1000

'V 0 ppm

+ 20 ppm

900

800

....

600

-0

500

=
.!

7467

'\J

6400

c.
0

l-

Q
~

l-

5333 CI2CI2='

'\J

CIIS

'-

8533 e..==

'V

700

e..=

9600

50 ppm

E
.......

109

10667

I-

400

4267 e..

'-

300

3200

::I

CI2
CI2
~

'-

Q,.

2133

100

1067

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.23a: The effect of gas velocity on pressure gradient for


50% 6 cP oil and 50% deionized water at Vsl = 1.5 m/s
in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA

40
.................. - ................................

0
~

~
C>

'-'

-40

-80

Q
c..

CI2
CI2
~

=
~

.~

....

-120
-160

Slug

CJ

~
'~

-200

V 20 ppm Acrylic

-240

'Y 50 ppm Acrylic

20 ppm Stainless

50 ppm Stainless

-280
0

I~

Slug

200

OJ)

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.2.23b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow for 50% 6 cP oil


and 50% deionized water at Vsl = 1.5 m/s using oil soluble DRA

-e

110
17 mls. At 20 ppm the flow patterns shifted to a lower superficial gas velocity, as shown

in Figure 4.2.19b. Slug flow now existed from a superficial gas velocity of 1 to 6 mls
with the slugs changing to pseudo slugs at a superficial gas velocity of 8, 10 and 12 mls.
At a gas velocity of 15 mls and 17 mis, there was enough gas to create an annular film,
but pseudo slugs were still present in the pipeline. When 50 ppm of DRA was used, the
flow regime map was dominated by slug flow, which occurred from 1 to 12 mls and
annular flow with slug flow occurred at 15 and 17 mls. The shifting of the flow regimes
to a higher gas velocities also aided in the increase of pressure drop along with the higher
apparent viscosity. Figure 4.2.19d shows that the average pressure drop increased as
much as 262% when 50 ppm of DRA was added to the flow. This large increase in
average pressure gradient is due to the large increase in slug frequency or the appearance
of slugs. Lee (1993) prepared flow regime maps for three phase flow using oil/water/gas.
The first oil was a 2 cP oil and the second oil had a viscosity of 15 cP at 25C. When the
flow regime maps are compared, it can be seen that the slug/annular transition shifts to a
higher velocity and slug flow exists longer for the higher viscosity oil. Therefore, the
flow regime map from this study shifting to a higher gas velocity is consistent with an
increase in apparent viscosity.
When the superficial liquid mixture velocity was increased to 0.3 mis, slug flow
existed from gas velocities of 1 to 4 mis, pseudo slug existed from 6 to 10 mis, and
annular with pseudo slug from 12 to 15 mis, as shown in Figure 4.2.20a. At 20 ppm the
flow regimes shifted to slug flow to superficial gas velocities from 1 to 8 mis, pseudo
slug at 10 mls and annular with pseudo slug at 12 to 15 mls. Figure 4.2.20b shows that

111
for gas velocities between 10 and 17 mis, the effect that the drag reducing agent had on
the pressure drop was negligible. Figure 4.2.20a shows that for these gas flow rates, the
flow regime did not change from baseline conditions. When 50 ppm of DRA was used,
the pseudo slugs changed to slugs, which created an increase in pressure drop of
approximately 70% as shown in Figure 4.2.20b. At a DRA concentration of 50 ppm, the
flow regime was again dominated by slug flow from gas velocities of 1 to 10 mls and
annular with slug flow occurred at 12 to 15 mls. Figure 4.2.20b shows the effectiveness
of the DRA for both pipelines plotted against the superficial gas velocity. It is noted that
at 20 ppm of DRA, the effectiveness ranged from 0 to -80%. At 50 ppm, the average
pressure gradient increased by as much as 80% to a value as high as 226%.
The next superficial liquid mixture velocity of 0.4 mls created 2 flow regimes for
the gas velocities studied. The first flow regime was slug flow which existed between 1
and 6 mls. The next flow regime was pseudo slug, which existed at 8 mls. The pseudo
slug flow shifted to the slug flow regime in the presence of 20 and 50 ppm of DRA. The
average pressure gradient is plotted against the superficial gas velocities in Figure 4.2.21a
for the acrylic pipeline. The average pressure gradient increased in the presence of the
drag reducing agent. Figure 4.2.21b shows that the average pressure gradient increased
as much as 228%. The remaining superficial liquid velocities studied, 0.5 to 1.5 mis,
were all in the slug flow regime for all DRA concentrations studied. The superficial
liquid mixture velocity of 0.5 mls generated slug flow for 1 through 8 mls.

The

superficial liquid mixture velocities of 1.0 and 1.5 mls showed slug flow for the gas
velocities of 2, 4, and 6 mls.

The results are shown for superficial liquid mixture

112
velocities of 1.0 and 1.5 mls in Figures 4.2.22 through 4.2.23. These figures show that
the average pressure gradient generally increased with increasing drag reducing agent
concentration.
If the results from the 50% water cut are compared to two phase flow in Figures
4.1.4 through 4.1.8, it can be seen that the flow regimes were effected. For example,
Figure 4.1.4a shows that at a superficial liquid velocity of 0.2 mis, slug flow conditions
existed for gas velocities of 1 to 6 mls for two phase flow. For 50% water cut, Figure
4.2.19a shows that slug flow only occurred between gas velocities of 1 to 3 mis, at
baseline conditions. This is consistent with the lower mixture viscosity. These results are
consistent for the range of velocities studied at baseline conditions.
When the drag reducing agent was added to the flow, the flow regime would tend
to shift toward a higher gas velocity for 50% water cut, but shifted toward a lower gas
velocity for two phase flow.

For example, Figure 4.1.5a shows that for a superficial

liquid velocity of 0.3 mis, the flow regime from superficial liquid velocity of 1 to 8 mls
was slug flow for all DRA concentrations. Figure 4.2.20a shows that after 50 ppm of
drag reducing agent was added to the flow, the flow regime was slug flow from gas
velocities 1 to 10 mls. Therefore, it can be seen that as the DRA concentration increases
(surfactant concentration), the apparent viscosity increases, which causes the pressure
drop to increase and the flow regimes to shift to a more turbulent flow regime. This
increase in apparent viscosity is due to the surfactant decreasing the interfacial tension
between the oil and water layer, which creates better mixing between the two phases and
a higher apparent viscosity.

113

Slug Flow Regime for 50% 6 cP Oil and 500/0 Deionized Water
Slug flow was observed for superficial liquid mixture velocities from 0.2 to 1.5

mls. The superficial gas velocities ranged from 1 to 12 mls.

The height of the liquid

film and slug frequency generally increased in the presence of the drag reducing agent
while the liquid film velocity would generally decrease.

The data will show that the

addition of the DRA increases the Froude number, therefore, stronger more turbulent
slugs are formed, which caused an increase in the average pressure gradient in most
cases.

The slug characteristics are shown in Tables 4.2.10 through 4.2.32 in the

Appendix.
The slug properties for 50% water cut are compared to the 0% water cut in
Figures 4.2.24 through 4.2.29. Figures 4.2.24a and 4.2.24b show that the slug frequency
was slightly less for 50% water cut when compared to 0% water cut for 0 ppm, which is
consistent with the 50% water cut having a lower effective viscosity at baseline
conditions. At 20 ppm, the effective viscosity of the 50% water cut increased slightly,
therefore, there is little difference in the slug frequency when 50% water cut is compared
to 0% water cut. When the DRA concentration was increased to 50 ppm, the effective
viscosity for 50% water cut increased, therefore, the slug frequency for 50% water cut is
higher than the slug frequency at 0% water cut. The slug length at 0 ppm was lower for
the 50% water cut than the 0% water cut as shown in Figure 4.2.25. This figure also
shows that at 20 and 50 ppm the slug length did not significantly change between the two
water cuts.

The film Froude number did not significantly change at the lower film

Froude numbers , as shown in Figure

4.2.26.

However, at the higher film Froude

114

18

16

14
12

10

+
++ 0

o
.V
. g 0

.00

.0

+
OV
o
+ + .ev
v
o o.v a
v u v v

+
+
+
+

10

12

16

14

18

Slug Frequency at 0% water cut (slugs/min)

Figure 4.2.24a: A comparison of slug frequency for 500/0 water cut


and 0% water cut at Vsl = 0.2 m/s to 0.5 m/s using oil soluble DRA

-S=
........

60

:s
-;;

54

C'IJ
~

'-tI

.....

:s

.....
CII

Oppm
20 ppm
50ppm

48

~
0~

42

'IJ

36

=
.....

.0

=
=
C'

Vv

..-i-

CII

. .\1

30

a..

24

+ ...

..

av

Vj

18
18

24

30

36

42

48

54

60

Slug Frequency at 0% water cut (slugs/min)

Figure 4.2.24b: A comparison ofslug frequency for 50% water cut


and OOk water cut at Vsl = 1.0 m/s to 1.5 m/s using oil soluble DRA

115

V Oppm
020 ppm
+SOppm

VOOO.... o
..

+).
M
Cb

'0<+

. .' +

0,

0, . . ~re5(

iJ-~+

V~'l
'l

UQ

v+
v+

+.=I-.u
+ 'V ....

'l

'l
'l

V 'l
1

Slug Length at 0% water cut (m)

Figure 4.2.25: A comparison of slug length for 50% water cut


and 0% water cut using oil soluble DRA

.....

I.

.....

20

~
'0:!e

16

.....

12

=>
I()

'l 0 ppm

o 20 ppm
+ SOppm

18

= to
.c
e
= 8
2:
6
e=
4

I.
~

t/iJ.'

I.

ct

+.... a
Q.'

'il'il

+)

'6~ ..~

"C

',5

+
+'0
O

14

Q.'

'il

'il'il 'il

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Film Froude Number at 0% Water Cut

Figure 4.2.26: A comparison of film Froude number for 50%


water cut and 0% water cut using oil soluble DRA

..-..

116

3.00

W.)

........

tV Oppm

....
=

o 20 ppm
+ SO ppm

"-"

2.50

...

....GIl

V
0

tV

2.00

.0

;;!!.

=
....

1.50

GIl

uC

1.00

";

>
.5

0.50

fi;

"C
.;

0.00

a"

0.00

::J

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.50

2.00

3.00

Liquid Film Velocity at 0% Water Cut (m/s)

Figure 4.2.27: A comparison of liquid film velocity for


water cut and 0% water cut using oil soluble DRA

500~

..-..
f#j

........

....
=
U
"-"

~
~

....GIl

=
....

"&~~
.
V

0~

'I)

~ ......

GIl

uQ

>
-;

~~+.J.

I:

GIl

:\0

~.

-;

.s:....

Q.-

-;;
I:

...=
E-

2
2

Translational Velocity at 0% Water Cut (m/s)

Figure 4.2.28: A comparison of translational velocity for 50%


water cut and 0% water cut using oil soluble DRA

eu

117

5
V Oppm

'-'"

.....

u=
r.

20ppm

SOppm

++
+ ..., r+J .... ..
+++

.....

J.

CI

=
.....
' I)

cP"

OV~ .+..

V
V

+~

CI

"'0
e;
c::r

......

tr..tj.va

001'+ ....

+~ O~

"1e
0

o~

.0'

::s
....e
.....

.cbI)

e;

==

2
2

Height of Liquid Film at OOk Water Cut (em)

Figure 4.2.29: A comparison of height of liquid film for 50%


water cut and 0% water cut using oil soluble DRA

118
numbers it can be seen that at 0 ppm the film Froude number was slightly lower for the
50 % water cut. At the DRA concentration of 50 ppm, the film Froude number was
slightly higher for the 50 % water cut. Figure 4.2.27 shows that the liquid film velocity
was higher for the 50% water cut for 0 ppm and lower for the 50% water cut at 50 ppm.
When the drag reducing agent concentration was 20 ppm, there was no significant
difference between the water cuts. Figures 4.2.28 and 4.2.29 compares the translational
velocity and height of liquid film for the two water cuts, respectively. The translational
velocity did not significantly change with the additional amount of water. The height of
the liquid film was higher for the 50% water cut for all DRA concentrations studied.
This change in slug properties caused the average pressure drop to increase as
much as 262%. The increase is mainly due to the increase in slug frequency.

The

average pressure gradient generally increased with the increasing concentration of DRA.
For example, Figure 4.2.21a shows that at a superficial liquid mixture velocity of 0.4 mls
and a superficial gas velocity of 4 m/s, the average pressure gradient in the acrylic
pipeline increased from 113 Palm at 0 ppm, to 182 Palm at 20 ppm to 228 Palm at 50
ppm. Figure 4.2.21 b shows that the effectiveness for this example was -61 % at 20 ppm
and -102% at 50 ppm. The slug frequency for this example is shown in the Appendix in
Table 4.2.20. It shows an increase from 5 slugs/min to 9 slugs/min at 20 ppm and 10
slugs/min at 50 ppm.

The apparent viscosity at 20 ppm was estimated to be

approximately 8 cP, a 33% increase of baseline conditions. At 50 ppm the viscosity was
estimated to be above 30 cP, which is an increase from baseline conditions of 5000/0.
This large increase in viscosity from 0 to 20 to 50 ppm also explains the large pressure

119
drop increase of 61% to 102% at 20 and 50 ppm. The increase in viscosity also explains
the increase in slug frequency. As mentioned previously, Tronconi (1990) has shown
that as the slug frequency increases as the viscosity of the mixture increases.
The same was observed at the higher superficial liquid mixture velocities. For
example, as shown in Figure 4.2.23a, the average pressure gradient in slug flow in the
acrylic pipeline at a superficial liquid mixture velocity of 1.5 mls and a superficial gas
velocity of 2 m/s, was 414 Palm at 0 ppm and increased to 543 Palm at 20 ppm and
further increased to 556 Palm at 50 ppm. The effectiveness is shown in Figure 4.2.23b to
be -21 % at 20 ppm and -22% at 50 ppm.

The slug frequencies for these DRA

concentrations were shown in the Appendix in Table 4.2.30 to be 43, 47, and 52
slugs/min at 0, 20 and 50 ppm, respectively.

Therefore, this shows that as the slug

frequency increases, the average pressure drop will also increase.


When the superficial liquid velocity was held constant and the superficial gas
velocity was increased, the effectiveness of the drag reducing agent would increase, but
generally would still be negative. For example, Figure 4.2.21b shows that at a superficial
liquid velocity of 0.4 mis, the effectiveness of the DRA at a concentration of 50 ppm in
the acrylic pipeline was -204%, -99%, -28%, -102%, -48% and -53% at superficial gas
velocities of 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 mls. Similar results were shown in the stainless steel
pipeline.
When the gas velocity was held constant and the liquid velocity increased, the
effectiveness of the drag reducing agent increased, but the effectiveness was still
negative. For example, Figure 4.2.23b shows that the effectiveness for a superficial

120
liquid mixture velocity of 1.5 mls in the acrylic pipeline and at a DRA concentration of
50 ppm was -28% at 2 mis, -21% at 4 mls and -22% at 6 mls.
To show how the slug characteristics are changing with increasing drag reducing
agent concentration, the slug properties are also shown graphically in Figures 4.2.30
through 4.2.35.

To help clarify the figure, the slug frequency was plotted in two

different graphs. Figure 4.2.30a shows that for the low superficial liquid velocities
between 0.2 and 0.5 m/s, a slight increase in slug frequency was observed at 20 ppm and
a larger increase was shown at 50 ppm. Figure 4.2.30b shows similar results for the high
superficial liquid mixture velocities. The increase in slug frequency is also consistent
with the increase in apparent viscosity. Figure 4.2.31 shows the slug length for the
different concentrations of drag reducing agent.

This figure shows that there is

essentially no change in the slug length. There are a few points that show significant
deviation from the baseline conditions, but for the majority of the experiments, there was
little change in the slug length. Figure 4.2.32 shows how the film Froude number is
affected by the presence of the drag reducing agent. This figure shows that at low film
Froude numbers the presence of the DRA did not significantly change the film Froude
number. As the film Froude number increased, so did the effect the DRA had on the film
Froude number. Figure 4.2.32 shows that at the higher film Froude numbers, above 6,
the presence of the DRA caused the film Froude number to increase. Figure 4.2.33
shows that at 20 ppm of DRA the liquid film velocity did not significantly change, there
may be a slight decrease but at 50 ppm, the liquid film velocity significantly decreased.
The translational velocity was not significantly affected by the presence of DRA, as

=
-8
........

121

18
16

{I)

C;;

'-'"

12

.c

10

..

-;
~

14

c.;

=
=
="
~

-=
~

'~
00

+
+ +

\I
\I

\I

+
+ +

+ +

\I
\I .:'

.\1 \I

\I
V.'
\I V.

6
4

\I

~.

2
0
2

10

12

14

16

18

Slug Frequency at 0 ppm (slugs/min)

Figure 4.2.30a: The effect ofDRA on slug frequency for 50%


water cut at Vsl = 0.2 m/s to 0.5 m/s using oil soluble DRA

-8=
........
~

60

\120 ppm

+ SO ppm

54

CD

";j

'-'"

<
~

..
-i
Q
.c

c.;

48

\I

42

\l\l

36

.+

=
="

-=

30

CJ)

24

Ci3

...

+ .'

'!\I .

18
18

24

30

36

42

48

54

60

Slug Frequency at 0 ppm (slugs/min)

Figure 4.2.30b: The effect ofDRA on slug frequency for 50%


water cut at Vsl = 0.5 mls to 1.5 m/s using oil soluble DRA

122

5
'V 20 ppm

+ 50 ppm

+
1
1

Slug Length at 0 ppm (m)

Figure 4.2.31: The effect ofDRA on slug length with DRA for 50o~
6 cP oil and 50% deionized water using oil soluble DRA

20

-<

18

16

-i

14

=
.....
.c:
J.
~

"l:J

10

.
'i:

J.
~

+ 50 ppm
+
V~

~ ........

12

=
z;
=

"CS

'V 20 ppm

'

~ . 1~

.~

2
0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Film Froude Number at 0 ppm

Figure 4.2.32: The effect ofDRA on film Froude number for


50% 6 cP oil and 50% deionized water using oil soluble DRA

123

3.00
'120 ppm

(I)

........

e
......,

+ 50 ppm

2.50

<
=:

'\]

Q
.c
....

2.00

i
u....e

'\l.'

V.

1.50

>

1.00

.5

V .

.. ".

"'0

";

V V

....

'\]

'I

'\]~+

,\/.'/- ++
"* + ++

0.50

C"

::s

++

++

0.00
0.00

0.50

1.50

1.00

2.00

2.50

3.00

Liquid Film Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.2.33: The effect ofDRA on liquid film velocity


for 50% 6 cP oil and 50% deionized water using oil soluble DRA

(I)

........

e
......,
~

III 'I
.
~ ..

Q
.c
....

....

>

....=

yt

i
~

uQ
-;

.~

t!f" '111

-;;
c

a..
=

,'

~ ..+:

...

v+~ .... ,.

~.Y*

E-

2
2

Translational Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.2.34: The effect ofDRA on translational velocity for


50% 6 cP oil and 500/0 deionized water using oil soluble DRA

.......

-e

==
Q

..
-i
.::

'V

+'

+:++ ;~.:~"'"

_+ SO ppm

'-'

_ ~ 20 ppm

.s~

VV

..

~~~+.V'V

'V

+
~ ...
+~ ~vv

-;

0"

:3

..
.. V

"0

c..

...e
.::

124

-~

::
I

2
2

Height of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (em)

Figure 4.2.35: The effect ofDRA on height of liquid film


for 50% 6 cP oil and 50A deionized water using oil soluble DRA

125
shown in Figure 4.2.34.

However, the liquid film height increased at a DRA

concentration of 50 ppm, as shown in Figure 4.2.35.

Pseudo Slug Flow Regime for 500/0 6cP Oil and 500/0 Deionized Water
Pseudo slug occurred at superficial oil velocities of 0.2 to 0.4 mls with the
superficial gas velocity range of 4 to 10 mls. Pseudo slug generally changed to slug flow
since the drag reducing agent created a higher apparent viscosity. Lee (1993) shows that
the pseudo slug flow regime becomes smaller due to the pseudo slugs changing to slugs
as the liquid viscosity increases. Slug flow normally creates a larger pressure drop than
pseudo slug, therefore, a large increase in pressure was generally observed when the flow
regime shifted.
Pseudo slug only occurred at a gas velocity of 4 mls when the superficial liquid
mixture velocity was 0.2 mls. The pseudo slugs changed to slug flow at 20 and 50 ppm
conditions.

Figure 4.2.19a shows that the average pressure gradient in the acrylic

pipeline increased from 52 Palm at 0 ppm to 78 Palm at 20 ppm and 112 Palm at 50 ppm.
The effectiveness of the DRA was -48% at 20 ppm and -114% at 50 ppm, as shown in
Figure 4.2.19d. Similar results are shown in the stainless steel pipeline.
Pseudo slug occurred at a superficial liquid mixture velocity of 0.3 mls and a
range of superficial gas velocities of 6 to 10 mls.

Similar results were shown for

superficial gas velocities of 6 to 8 mis, the pseudo slug flow changed to slug flow for
both 20 and 50 ppm conditions which increased the average pressure gradient with
increasing DRA concentration. At a superficial gas velocity of 10 mls and a DRA

126
concentration of 20 ppm, the pseudo slugs did not change to slug flow, therefore, the
average pressure gradient did not significantly increase, as shown in Figure 4.2.20b.
When the DRA concentration was increased to 50 ppm, the pseudo slugs were changed to
slugs and an increase in the pressure gradient was observed. In the stainless steel pipeline
for this velocity, the average pressure gradient was 155 Palm at 0 ppm and slightly
increased to 157 Palm at 20 ppm and then almost doubled to 304 Palm at 50 ppm
conditions, as shown in Figure 4.2.20a.
The last pseudo slug studied was at a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mis, a
superficial water velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial gas velocity of 8 mls. Similar
results were shown at this velocity, the flow regime changed to slug flow when the drag
reducing agent was present in the system. As shown in Figure 4.2.21a the average
pressure gradient in the acrylic pipeline increased from 215 Palm at 0 ppm to 304 Palm at
20 ppm and increased to 329 Palm at 50 ppm.

Figure 4.2.21b shows that the

corresponding effectiveness were -41 % at 20 ppm and -53% at 50 ppm.

Rolling Wave Flow Regime for 50% 6cP Oil and 50% Deionized Water
This flow regime occurred at one set of velocities, a superficial liquid mixture
velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial gas velocity of 6 mls. Figures 4.2.19a through
4.2.19c show that this flow regime only occurred at baseline conditions. When the drag
reducing agent was added to the flow, the flow regime changed to slug flow conditions.
In the stainless steel pipeline, the average pressure gradient increased from baseline
conditions of 56 Palm to 116 Palm at 20 ppm conditions, Figure 4.2.19d shows a -108%

127
effectiveness. The average pressure gradient slightly increased to 121 Palm when the
concentration was increased to 50 ppm, a -115% effectiveness. Similar results were
shown in the acrylic pipeline.
The large pressure increase for this flow regime is mainly due to the creation of
slugs. The slugs introduce a high level of turbulence, which is not found in the rolling
wave flow regime. The high level of turbulence is created in the slug front where an
accelerational pressure drop occurs. In the rolling wave flow regime, frictional pressure
drop is the only pressure drop component. The slugs also create an additional frictional
loss due to the highly aerated slug body. The next chapter, the data will show that at high
superficial gas velocities of 6 mls and higher, the majority of the pressure drop is due to
the accelerational pressure drop in the slug front. Therefore, the majority of the pressure
increase of this flow regime is attributed to the creation of the highly turbulent slug front.

Transition to Annular Flow Regime for 50% 6cP Oil and 50% Deionized
Water
Transitions to annular only occurred at a superficial liquid mixture velocity of 0.2
mls with gas velocities of 8, 10, and 12 mls. This flow regime changed to pseudo slug

for superficial gas velocities of8 to 12 mls when 20 ppm ofDRA was added to the flow.
However, at 50 ppm the pseudo slugs were then changed to slug flow. Figure 4.2.19a
shows that at baseline conditions the average pressure gradients in the acrylic pipeline
were 76 Palm for 8 mis, 80 Palm for 10 mls and 117 Palm for 12 mls. Similar average
pressure gradients were found in the stainless steel pipeline.

The average pressure

gradients at 20 ppm increased to 95 Palm for 8 mis, 104 Palm at 10 mls and 194 Palm at

128
12 mls. The flow regime shifted to pseudo slug as shown in Figure 4.2.19b, and the

corresponding effectiveness of DRA were -24%, -30% and -66%, as shown in Figure
4.2.19d.

When the DRA concentration was increased to 50 ppm, the pseudo slugs

observed at 20 ppm changed to slug flow, as shown in Figure 4.2.19c. This figure also
shows the average pressure gradient in the acrylic pipeline then increased to 163 Palm at
8 mis, 164 Palm at 10 mls and 243 Palm at 12 mls. The DRA effectiveness for this
pipeline, as shown in Figure 4.2.19d, was -114%, at 8 mls -104% at 10 mls and -108% at
12 mls. Similar results were shown in the stainless steel pipeline. Notice a larger jump in

the average pressure gradient from 20 to 50 ppm when compared to the jump from 0 to
20 ppm. This is because the average pressure gradient for transition to annular flow and
pseudo slug flow is similar. The average pressure drop for slug flow is significantly
higher than that of pseudo slug.
As previously mentioned, at superficial gas velocities as high as 6 mls and above,
the dominant factor in the pressure drop is the accelerational pressure drop due to the slug
front. This accelerational pressure drop occurred at 50 ppm, when slug flow was created,
which explains why the average pressure gradient increased by over 104% for each of the
velocities.

Annular Flow Regime for 50J'c 6 cP Oil and 500/0 Deionized Water
A similar trend was shown for annular flow regime when compared to rolling
wave and transition to annular flow regime. At baseline conditions no accelerational

129
pressure drop occurred. When DRA was added to the flow and pseudo slugs and slugs
were created a large increase in pressure drop occurred.
Annular flow occurred at superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mis, superficial deionized
water velocity of 0.1 mls and superficial gas velocities of 15 and 17 mls. True annular
flow only existed at baseline conditions. When the drag reducing agent was used, pseudo
slugs were generated in the flow along with the annular film at 20 ppm and the pseudo
slugs changed to slugs at 50 ppm. Figure 4.2.19a shows the average pressure gradient for
a gas velocity of 15 mls increased from baseline conditions of 179 Palm to 266 Palm at
20 ppm and further increased to 296 Palm at 50 ppm in the acrylic pipeline. The stainless
steel pipeline followed the same pattern.
Similar results were shown for a gas velocity of 17 mls. The average pressure
gradient at baseline conditions was 216 Palm in the stainless steel. The average pressure
gradient at 20 ppm conditions increased to 256 Palm, a -19% effectiveness. At a DRA
concentration of 50 ppm, the average pressure gradient increased to 277 Palm.

The

effectiveness of the drag reducing agent at this concentration was -28%, as shown in
Figure 4.2.19d. A similar trend was shown in the acrylic pipeline.

Annular wlPseudo Slug Regime for 50% 6 cP Oil and 50 % Deionized Water
Annular with pseudo slug occurred at baseline and 20 ppm conditions for the
superficial oil velocity of 0.15 mis, superficial deionized water velocity of 0.15 mls and
superficial gas velocities of 15 and 17 mls. When the drag reducing agent concentration
was increased to 50 ppm, the pseudo slugs changed to slugs. At a gas velocity of 15 mis,

130
Figure 4.2.20a shows the average pressure gradient in the stainless steel pipeline slightly
decreased from baseline conditions of 254 Palm to 232 Palm, a 9% effectiveness. When
the slugs were present at a DRA concentration of 50 ppm, the average pressure gradient
increased to 413 Palm, a -63% effectiveness, shown in Figure 4.2.20b. Similar results
were shown in the acrylic pipeline. The slugs introduce a highly turbulent slug front that
is not created in pseudo slugs. The slug body is generally longer which will create
additional frictional losses. As stated before, at this high of gas velocity, the dominant
pressure component is the accelerational pressure drop. Therefore, the majority of the
pressure increase is attributed to the highly turbulent slug front.
Pseudo slugs also changed to slugs at a superficial gas velocity of 17 mls and a
DRA concentration of 50 ppm. Figure 4.2.20a shows that in the stainless steel pipeline
the average pressure gradients were 287 Palm at Oppm, 250 Palm at 20 ppm and 424
Palm at 50 ppm. Figure 4.2.20b shows the effectiveness of the DRA was 13% at 20 ppm

and -45% at 50 ppm. The acrylic pipeline followed the same trend.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of DRA in the Acrylic Pipeline to the


Effectiveness of DRA in the Stainless Steel Pipeline
In this section the effectiveness of the drag reducing agent in the acrylic and

stainless steel pipeline will be compared.

Figures 4.2.36a and 4.2.36b compares the

effectiveness of DRA in the stainless steel pipeline with the effectiveness of DRA in the
acrylic pipeline for 20 and 50 ppm, respectively using 100% 6 cP oil. These figures show
that there is little difference between the effectiveness except at a few points, where the
stainless steel pipeline showed a higher effectiveness than the acrylic. One cause of the

131

100
80

60
40

20

o
-20
-40
-40

-20

40

20

60

80

100

Effectiveness ofDRA in Acrylic (%)

Figure 4.2.36a: A comparison of the effectiveness ofDRA in stainless


and acrylic for 100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA at 20 ppm

,,-.....
0~

100

-;
.....
~

VJ

80

fIj
fIj

.;
-=.....

60

.:
<
=:

40

VJ

~
~

20

~.

'fIj
fIj

...

;,L."~

N'.vv

.. V\l

'V

.~

.....
CJ

-20

-40

~
'-

.. tj

-40

-20

20

40

60

80

100

Effectiveness of DRA in Acrylic (%)

Figure 4.2.36b: A comparison of the effectiveness ofDRA in stainless


and acrylic for 100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA at 50 ppm

132
increased effectiveness could be different flow regimes are occurring each pipeline. For
example, a few of these points occurred at the wavy stratified flow regime, which
occurred at baseline conditions at superficial carbon dioxide velocities of 6 and 8 mls and
superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mls. If the gas velocity is not high enough to maintain the
waves throughout the both pipelines; in the stainless steel pipeline the flow regime may
more resemble smooth stratified flow than wavy stratified. For the cases above, the
effectiveness of DRA at 20 ppm in the acrylic pipeline was -46% at 6 mls and -2% at 8
m/s. These values increased to -2% at 6 mls and 7% at 8 mls in the stainless steel
pipeline. Figure 4.2.36b shows that at 50 ppm, the difference between the acrylic and
stainless steel pipeline decreased.
At a water cut of 10%, Figure 4.2.37 shows that there is no significant difference
between the effectiveness of DRA in the stainless steel pipeline and acrylic pipeline. At
this water cut, the only flow regime studied was slug flow, therefore, since the flow
regime was stable in both pipelines, the effectiveness did not change. Figures 4.2.38a
and 4.2.38b show the results for a 50% water cut at 20 and 50 ppm, respectively. These
figures show that there is a little scatter, but basically there is no significant difference
between the acrylic and stainless steel pipelines.

4.3 Comparison between ASTM Salt Water and Deionized Water using Oil Soluble
DRA
It was thought that the type of water may be affecting the DRA. Experiments
performed initially using deionized water with 6 cP oil and carbon dioxide were repeated
with ASTM salt water solution.

The salt water solution was prepared by dissolving

"..,....

~
'=
-'
~

....
~

133

100
80

rI:l
~
~

60

.;
-=

....
.:
~
Q

rI1

40

20

.V"t

c...

~
~

to..

.~

....

-20

Cj

c!
c...

IJJ

-40
-40

-20

40

20

60

80

100

Effectiveness ofDRA in Acrylic (%)

Figure 4.2.37: A comparison of the effectiveness ofDRA in stainless


and acrylic for 90% 6 cP oil and 10% water using oil soluble DRA

"..,....

~
e
'-'
~

...
~

40
0

00

.;
-=

-40

...

-80

.:
~
Q

-120

00

e.-

'V

-160

{I'J
~

-200

...

-240

~
IJJ

-280

~
~

.~

Cj

-280

-240

-200

-160

-120

-80

-40

40

Effectiveness ofDRA in Acrylic (%)

Figure 4.2.38a: A comparison of the effectiveness ofDRA in stainless and


acrylic for 500/0 6 cP oil and 500/0 water using oil soluble DRA at 20 ppm

.-..
e'1e

134

40

'-'"

....
~

VV

00

fI)
fI)

.;
-=

....
.:
~
Q
00

'-

\Iv!v..~
V

\I

-40

\I.'

~"V'V\I
\].
t] V

-80
V

-120

.. " V 'V
\IV

\]

-160

fI)
fI)

=
.~

-200

....
(oJ

-240

~
c-.
~

-280
-280

-240

-200

-160

-120

-80

-40

40

Effectiveness ofDRA in Acrylic (%)

Figure 4.2.38b: A comparison of effectiveness ofDRA in stainless and


acrylic for 50 % 6 cP oil and 50% water using oil soluble DRA at 50 ppm

135
41.953 grams of the sea salt in each liter of water. The resulting specific gravity was
1.025 at 15C. The composition of ASTM sea salt is listed below in Table 4.3.1.

Table 4.3.1: Composition of ASTM sea salt


Component
NaCI
MgCI 6 H2O
Na2S04
CaCl2
KCI
NaHC03
KBr
H2B0 3
SrC12 6 H2O
NaF

Composition (%)
58.490
26.460
9.750
2.765
1.645
0.477
0.238
0.071
0.095
0.007

ASTM salt was used to see if the salts present in the ASTM salt water, but absent
from deionized water, will change viscosity of the dispersion created. If the viscosity did
change, so would the average pressure drop. ASTM salt water was also selected because
in the field the water which seeps into the pipeline is not deionized, but sea water.
Therefore, select experiments were carried out using a 50% water cut and a drag reducing
agent concentration of 50 ppm. As before, the addition of DRA led to an increase in the
average pressure gradient. This was attributed to the possible formation of a dispersion
with an apparent viscosity greater than that of the oil. Table 4.3.2 shows the values
obtained for the average pressure gradient in the acrylic and stainless steel pipeline.
Figure 4.3.1 compares the average pressure gradient in both acrylic and stainless steel
pipelines by plotting these values with a 45 degree line.

<

>

a.
=

...

~
~

...

...

=
..IIT:J=

a
"""""'-

......

200

300

400

500

600

700

Average Pressure Gradient (Palm) - ASTM Salt Water

100

800

Figure 4.3.1: A comparison of the average pressure gradient


using deionized water and ASTM salt water for 50%
water and 50% 6 cP oil with oil soluble DRA

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1-6

W
0\

137
Table 4.3.2: Comparison of the average pressure gradient for 50% water cut of ASTM
d water at a DRA concentratiIon 0 f50 ppm
sa It wa t er an d dei
eiomze
Flow
Average Pressure Gradient (palm)
V SL
Regime
VSG
Acrylic Pipeline
Stainless Steel Pipeline
(mls) (mls)
Base
Salt
Base
DI
DI
Salt
line
Water
Water
Water
line
Water
Annular 17921 29615 27734 19237 25023 26620
0.2
15
0.3
Slug
1
348
1108
12818
508
1015
11119
0.3
P. Slug
6
9510
19834 19918 1158 20124 18825
0.4
Slug
1
1366
14219
405
13011 13030
455
Slug
0.4
6
16421 24223 25037 14843 23617 25318
0.5
Slug
1
18120
1748
847
1477
16718
846
0.5
Slug
4
1234 23223 23325
1464 23518 23616
4
Slug
1.0
37419 48035 45619 37117 45824 44916
1.5
4
Slug
60125 72420 71116 59223 73623 73017

These results show that the pressure drop did not change with the different water
type, therefore, the type of dispersion did not change, the apparent viscosity of the
mixture stayed the same.

4.4 Surfactant Addition using Oil Soluble DRA


With the drag reducing agent present in the system, the surface tension of the
water decreased to 48 dyne/em. To investigate what would happen if the surface tension
of the water decreased lower than 48 dyne/em, a water soluble surfactant was added to
the flow.

Before the addition of the surfactant the surface tension of the water at each

DRA concentration studied is listed in Table 4.4.1, the surface tension of the oil stayed
constant at 31.7 dyne/em.

138
Table 4.4.1:
concentration

Surface tension of water before surfactant addition at each DRA

DRA Concentration (ppm)

Surface Tension of Water (dyne/em)

72

20

60

50

48

A water soluble surfactant was then added directly to the system at a

concentration of 10 ppm, based on the water volume. After the addition, a 50% mixture
of water and oil were circulated at a superficial mixture velocity of 1.0 mls until the
pressure drop stabilized. The surface tension of the water then decreased to less than 33
dyne/em. Since the surface tension of the water is almost the same of that of the oil, 31.7
dyne/em, the interfacial tension is almost negligible. Therefore, better mixing between
the two phases occurred than when the surface tension of the water 48 dyne/em at 50 ppm
ofDRA before the surfactant was added.
After performing the 10% and 50% water cut tests, the water was pumped through
the system at 0.75 mls and the oil was also pumped through the system at the same
velocity. The water and oil layers could visually be seen mixing together until a white
milky fluid was created within a few minutes. Once the pressure drop stabilized, a
sample was withdrawn and the viscosity was measured with a rotational viscometer at the
highest speed, 600 rpm, which was not fast enough to keep the mixture from separating.
Initial readings from the viscometer suggested a viscosity 5 times the viscosity of the 6
cP oil. This figure was shown earlier, Figure 4.2.18, and shows how the viscosity

139
changed with time. Initially the viscometer reading was at the maximum reading of 30
cP, and within a few seconds, the reading decreased to 22 cP. The sample was kept in the
viscometer for a total of 50 minutes. Within 5 minutes the viscosity had decreased to 13
cP, then gradually was reduced to 8 cP over the next 45 minutes.

As previously

mentioned, the decrease in viscosity is only attributed to the viscometer not being able to
keep the sample well mixed. The viscosity of the water/oil mixture was measured prior
to adding the surfactant, and the water and oil separated too quickly to obtain an accurate
measurement.
Multiphase experiments were then performed using 10% and 50% water cuts to
see if the better mixing between the oil and water phase will create a larger viscosity,
which will further increase the average pressure drop.

Experiments in the slug flow

regime, using a water cut of 10% were performed with a DRA concentration of 50 ppm.
The slug flow regime was selected because it ensures that the oil and water phase will be
well mixed. Figure 4.4.1 shows that the average pressure gradient did not significantly
change when the surfactant was added. The average pressure gradient for 10% water with
the surfactant and without the surfactant is shown in Table 4.4.2a.

....
=
....=

140

800

(J

700

:s

r.I'i

ec.
c.
=
....
e
.......
=-

600

500

400

300

l'IJ
fIJ

200

=-

tOO

"-"
~

:s

01

>

<

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Average Pressure Gradient (palm) - 0 ppm Surfactant

Figure 4.4.1: A comparison of the average pressure gradient with


10 ppm of surfactant and no surfactant for 10% water and
900/0 6 cP oil and using 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA

.....
.....=
c:!

800

(J

-=e

00

c.
c.

700

600
500

=
....
e
.......
I

400

=-=
...
:s
...

300

"-"
~

200

fIJ
l'IJ
~

-=

100

Ci)
~

-e>

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Average Pressure Gradient (palm) - 0 ppm Surfactant

Figure 4.4.2: A comparison ofthe average pressure gradient with


10 ppm of surfactant and no surfactant for 500/0 water and
500/0 6 cP oil and using 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA

141
Table 4.4.2a: Comparison of the average pressure gradient for slug flow at a 10% water
cut for concentrations of 0 and 10 ppm of surfactant and a DRA concentration of 50 ppm
011 so1ubl e DRA
using
Average Pressure Gradient (palm)
V SG
V SL
Acrylic Pipeline
Stainless Steel Pipeline
(mls)
(mls)
oppm 10 ppm Base
Base
oppm 10 ppm
Surf.
Surf.
Surf.
line
line
Surf.
1.0
2
27028
19827
17916
25724
18417
16016
1.0
4
25027
41419
27437
43021
27420
26619
1.0
6
40717
54724
41028
54830
39818
40618
1.25
2
30021
27817
35019
34921
29922
26223
1.25
4
51625
38921
39316
52419
40125
39430
1.25
6
52026
64533
52218
70428
53422
55738
1.5
2
42217
36918
39618
42525
36918
38417
1.5
4
50428
48622
60233
53021
63040
50829
1.5
6
78229
64527
63717
85724
70640
67321

These results indicate that even at the lower interfacial tension, the oil could not
entrain any more water droplets, therefore, the viscosity and pressure drop remained the
same when compared to the data at 50 ppm without surfactant. Similar results are shown
at a water cut of 50% using the water soluble surfactant at a drag reduction concentration
of 50 ppm. The results show in Figure 4.4.2 that the average pressure gradient was not
significantly effected by the presence of the surfactant.

A direct comparison of the

average pressure gradient with 0 and 10 ppm surfactant is shown in the table below.

142
Table 4.4.2b: Comparison of the average pressure gradient for slug flow at a 50% water
cut for concentrations of 0 and 10 ppm of surfactant and a DRA concentration of 50 ppm
011 so IubIe DRA
usmg
Average Pressure Gradient (palm)
V SL
V SG
Flow
Stainless Steel Pipeline
Acrylic Pipeline
(mls)
Regime
(mls)
Base
oppm 10ppm Base oppm 10ppm
Surfacta
Surf.
Surf.
Surf.
line
line
0.2
15
Annular 17921 29615 29238 19237 25023 25965
0.3
2
Slug
8019
12519
1047
614
1148
416
6
0.3
Pseudo 9510 19834 20538 1158 20124 20235
0.4
1
Slug
15230
455
1366
405
13011 14021
0.4
6
Slug
16421 24223 25325 14843 23617 23617
1
0.5
Slug
15727
1748
16220
847
846
1477
4
0.5
Slug
1464 23518 25440 1234 23223 24233
4
1.0
Slug
37419 48035 43525 37117 45824 45721
1.5
4
Slug
60125 72420 68020 59223 73623 67818

4.5 DRA Effectiveness using Water Soluble DRA


It has been indicated earlier that the oil soluble DRA had a surfactant in its
package to help it disperse into the aqueous phase. When water was present, this
surfactant reduced the interfacial tension and this lead to the formation of a dispersion
with a higher apparent viscosity of the oil phase. To overcome this, a water soluble DRA

(a polyacrylamide) supplied by SNF was used to examine the performance at different


water cuts. The oil used was the same oil used with the oil soluble DRA, a mixture
consisting of approximately 24% by volume of Britol (96 cP oil at 40C) and 76%
Conoco LVT200 (2 cP oil at 40C). The density was measured at 818 kg/rrr' and the
surface tension was measured to be 31.7 dyne/em.

143
Effect of Water Soluble DRA on pH
Initially, the DRA was dissolved in water and added to the storage tanklseparator
of the system at ambient conditions. This is with the liquid level being 0.6 m below the
incoming pipe inlet. The performance of the DRA decreased with time in a similar way to
that of the oil soluble DRA with water present. When the samples taken from the system
together with static samples placed in a beaker were examined, there was little or no
evidence of the DRA falling out of the liquid phase.
To see if the injection method was causing the problem, a continuous input was
used. Here, the drag reducing agent was previously mixed with water to form a water
continuous emulsion. The emulsion was then added to a small container, which was
pressurized to 10 psi and then passed into the flow. The drag reducing agent was added
over a period of 10 to 25 minutes depending upon the volume of liquid in the system.
The more volume in the system, the more DRA needed to create the same concentration,
therefore, the viscosity of the emulsion would increase causing longer injection times.
When the experiments were carried out at a liquid velocity of 1 mls and 50 ppm
of the DRA, it was noted from Figure 4.5.1 that the effectiveness of the DRA increased
with time for about 15 minutes as the liquid was passed through the system and the
concentration increased. After 15 minutes, the DRA's effectiveness began to steadily
decrease with time until the baseline pressure gradient was attained.
With this height of 0.6 m below the pipe inlet, the effectiveness of the drag
reducing agent reached a maximum at 51% at 20 minutes.

Forty minutes later, the

effectiveness decreased to 40%, which had a rate of decrease of 16.50/0 per hour. This

....~

.......

=
>

Wj
Wj

'--'"

...-....
~

15

30

45

0 00

75

00

90

000

Time (min)

60

000

105

000

120

150

00

135

00000

~~~+++++++++++++++++++++

.1+
+0

Figure 4.5.1: The effect of DRA on full pipe flow for 100A.
tap water at 50 ppm water soluble DRA and a velocity of 1.0 m/s

35
30
25
20
15
10
5

40

45

55
50

60

~
~

145
rate decreased to a constant value of about 12% per hour over the next 2 hours. After
performing this test, the system was cleaned out and fresh water was placed in the storage
tank to run the next experiment.
At this time, a representative from SNF visited the laboratory and suggested that
the presence of oxygen or metal ions may be chemically reacting with the
polyacrylamide.
To test to see if the drag reducing agent was reacting with the oxygen in the
water, the system was deoxygenated to less than 15 ppb. To accomplish this low oxygen
rate, carbon dioxide was bubbled through the pipeline while the water was flowing at 0.5
mfs. This was done for over 5 hours before the oxygen in the water was reduced to the
proper level. The experiment was then repeated using the same DRA concentration of 50
ppm. Figure 4.5.1 shows that the maximum effectiveness only reached a value of 34% 8
minutes after the start of injecting the DRA for a 0.6 m drop, which was deoxygenated.
The effectiveness then decreased to 22% after 12 more minutes, a rate of decrease of 60%
per hour. The rate slightly decreased to 50% per hour over the next 15 minutes when the
effectiveness had a value of 9.4% per hour. The rate then reduced to 22% per hour as the
pressure drop returned to baseline conditions.
It was then decided to remove the oxygen from the tank above the liquid level by
completely filling the tank with water.

Now, the flowing water inside the pipeline,

directly flowed into the water inside the storage tank.


When the water level was over the inlet to the tank, more DRA needed to be
added to the system in order to maintain the DRA concentration of 50 ppm. The DRA

146
emulsion, which was mixed was more viscous which caused the injection time to increase
to 25 minutes. The maximum effectiveness for this test was 48%, which occurred 19
minutes after the start of the DRA injection.

The results show that the DRA's

effectiveness remains at a constant value for the two hours which it was tested. After the
end of the test the DRA effectiveness had only decreased to 45.6%.
A second test was then carried out to examine the effect of the height of liquid in

the tank. During this test, the tank again was entirely filled with water and the water level
was gradually reduced and the results are shown in Figure 4.5.2. After running the test
with the flow from the pipeline being injected in the liquid inside the storage tank for 95
minutes, the effectiveness only reduced from the maximum value of 48% to 47%, a
decrease of 1% per hour. The level in the storage tank was then decreased to the
centerline of the incoming pipeline.

The effectiveness of the DRA only decreased

marginally from 47% to 46% in 30 minutes. The level in the tank was then dropped so
that the flow coming from the pipeline was directly above the water surface in the storage
tank. The effectiveness at this height decreased from 46% to 45% in 30 minutes, the
same decrease as before. The system was then turned off for 1 and half hour. The water
level was reduced so that the flow from the pipeline would have to fall 6 cm before
reaching the water level inside the storage tank.
through the system for 5 minutes.

Carbon dioxide was also bubbled

The pressure drop was then measured and the

effectiveness had decreased from 45% to 38%.

At this height, the effectiveness

decreased to 34% in only 25 minutes, a 10% decrease rate per hour. Carbon dioxide was
then bubbled through the system for 10 more minutes and the pressure drop was

CJ

+
+
+

40

80

120

160

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I

rI-

1<
I
I
I
I
I

I
I

240
Ran CO 2 for 10 min

I
I

+t;,...~I

I-..........

IN...

I
I

Time (min)

I
I

*-

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.... 1111111..... 111+Mtt+1111
"i"1111+fjI

=
a.

'C

t:e

>

.='-

CJ)

....

-=

Turned offl 1/2 hours

--~,

Reduced Water Level

Figure 4.5.2: The effect ofDRA on full pipe flow for 100%
tap water at 50 ppm of water soluble DRA and a velocity of 1.0 m/s

10

15

~
~

20

40
35
30
25

50
4S

......=

...

'-"

~
e

60
55

'-J

148
measured 5 minutes after the carbon dioxide was turned off, to allow the system to come
to steady state. The effectiveness of the drag reducing agent decreased from 34% to 31 %
in 15 minutes, a decrease of 12% per hour. The system was then turned off for the day,
and the next morning the effectiveness had decreased to almost baseline conditions.
After the system returned to baseline conditions, another 50 ppm of ORA was
added to the system. The liquid inside the pipeline had to fall 6 em to the level in the
storage tank. Figure 4.5.3 shows that a maximum drag reduction, 44%, was shown at 13
minutes after the injection of the ORA. The effectiveness then decreased to 38%, 47
minutes after reaching the maximum drag reduction. A degradation rate of 7.7% per
hour. The system was then turned off for 2 hours and the effectiveness decreased from
38% to 28%, a 5% decrease per hour. The system was ran for 30 more minutes when the
effectiveness decreased from 28% to 25%. Carbon dioxide was then bubbled through the
system for 10 minutes and the pressure drop reading was taken 5 minutes after turning
the carbon dioxide off.

The effectiveness then decreased from 25% to 22% in 15

minutes, which is a degradation rate of 12% per hour. The system was then ran for 20
more minutes when the effectiveness on decreased from 22% to 20%, a degradation rate
of6%.
These results indicate that the degradation of the drag reducing agent is not
system related, i.e. shearing from the pump, but possibly is a result of chemical reaction
or molecular degradation.

The results also indicate that in the presence of carbon

dioxide, the degradation rate is accelerated.

149

60

S5

......
~
0

SO

-...,,;

4S

40

...
Q

C'I.2

fI2

=
~

.~
......
u
~

...
~

35
30
25
20
15
10

S
0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105 120 135 150

Time (min)

Figure 4.5.3: The effect ofDRA on full pipe flow for 100% tap water at
50 ppm water soluble DRA and a velocity of 1.0 m/s and a 0.6 em drop

Bubble Carbon Dioxide Through System

6.50

60

5S

......

;;!!.
0

-...,,;

45

~
Q

40

...e
rIl

fI2

=
~

.~
......
u
~

....
~

6.30

50

6.10

35
30
2S
20
15
10
5
0

5.90

+
.++....

5.70

-...t++ +

..... ++ +

5.50
5.30

33

66

99

132 165 198 231 264 297 330


Time (min)

Figure 4.5.4: The effect ofDRA on full pipe flow for 1000k
tap water at 50 ppm of water soluble DRA

=
C.

150
It was then suggested that the polyacrylamide may be affected by the pH of the
system. Carbon dioxide was bubbled through the system with 50 ppm DRA and the pH
and effectiveness were measured. The results are presented in Figure 4.5.4. It is clearly
seen that the effectiveness was much lower at the lower pH, more acidic, conditions.
This figure shows that the rate of decrease in the effectiveness increases as the pH
decreases. For example, when the pH was 6.4 at the beginning of the experiment, the
maximum effectiveness was at 48.5% at 19 minutes and only reduced to 47.2% after 60
minutes. Carbon dioxide was then bubbled through the system to reduce the pH down to
6.0. After the carbon dioxide was turned off and the system was aloud to go back to
steady state conditions, the effectiveness had jumped down to 46.5% in 15 minutes. The
system was then allowed to run for an additional 50 minutes when the effectiveness
decreased to 44.0%, a rate of 3% per hour. Carbon dioxide was then bubbled through to
further reduce the pH to 5.8 and after running the system for an additional 45 minutes the
effectiveness decreased from 44.0% to 41.6%, a rate of3.2% per hour. At the lowest pH
of 5.4, the effectiveness decreased from 34.3 to 31.0% in 35 minutes.

The rate of

decrease in the effectiveness had increased to 5.7% per hour.


Nitrogen was then connected to the experimental apparatus and used to
deoxygenate the water and remove all carbon dioxide from the system. Once the oxygen
level was below 20 ppb, the pH was measured and was at neutral conditions. Figure
4.5.5 shows that the effectiveness becomes stabilized once the oxygen and carbon dioxide
is removed from the system.

CJ

=
>

fIJ
fIJ

....~e

It
10

20

30

50

Time (min)

40

60

70

80

+++++++++++

90

Figure 4.5.5: The effect ofDRA on full pipe flow for deoxygenated
deionized water at 50 ppm of water soluble DRA

15
10

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Vl

.....

152

Effect of Water Soluble DRA on the Interfacial Tension


Water soluble DRA did not have any effect on the surface tension of the water
when pure water was present in the system. When a mixture of oil and water was present
in the system, the presence of the water soluble DRA decreased the surface tension of the
water, but did not affect the surface tension of the oil. Therefore, the interfacial tension
between the oil and water decreased, causing better mixing between the oil and water.
When 20 ppm of DRA was first added to the system oil/water tests were performed. The
results showed that the 20 ppm had a positive effectiveness for the DRA in most cases, as
shown in Figure 4.5.6a. After running oil/water flow for 3 Y2 hours, the pressure drop
started to increase steadily, and after 1 Y2 hours the pressure drop fmally stabilized, and a
negative effectiveness was observed for the oil/water flow. The previous tests were
repeated and Figure 4.5.6b shows that a negative effectiveness was then observed. A
sample was then withdrawn from the system and the surface tension of the water was
determined to be 40.2 dyne/em, which is smaller than that when 50 ppm of the oil soluble
DRA was used, 48 dyne/em. This surface tension is equivalent to an interfacial tension
of 8.5 dyne/em.

As previously mentioned, the viscosity of an oil/water mixture is

dependent upon the quantity of water droplets entrained in the oil. Therefore, during the
5 hours of running the system, the oil is probably gradually entraining water droplets
until the oil became saturated with water droplets, thus the average pressure fmally
stabilizing. At this stabilized pressure drop, since the oil entrained water droplets, the
apparent viscosity had slightly increased over baseline conditions, creating a slight
negative effectiveness.

153

500
I::t.Oppm

.........

=-=
~

.....

400

20 ppm - before

I::t.

.~
"0

=
"-

300

I::t.

"=

fI}
fI}

200

I-

100

I::t.

=-

=
~

<
0
0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Superficial Liquid Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.6a: The effect of liquid velocity on average pressure


gradient for 900/0 water and 100~ 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
using water soluble DRA

500
~Oppm

".....

.........

g.

.....

"-'"

400

20 ppm - before

<> 20 ppm - after

I::t.

:0

300

I::t.

C'

-=
-

200

I-

100

fI}
fI}

g.

t)I)

=
<
~

0
0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Superficial Liquid Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.6b: The effect of liquid velocity on average pressure


gradient for 90% water and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
using water soluble DRA

154
Experiments in the slug flow regime was then performed. These experiments also
showed a negative value for DRA effectiveness, as will show in the next section. An
additional 30 ppm of drag reducing agent was then added to the system, for a total
concentration of 50 ppm. These results showed that the average pressure drop increased
again when compared to 20 ppm conditions. After running the system on and off for
about 10 ~ hours, the effectiveness of the DRA suddenly turned from negative to positive
for both oil/water flow and slug flow. An example is shown in Figure 4.5.7. The surface
tension of the water had increased to 47.9 dyne/em, which is an interfacial tension 16.2
dyne/em. During the 10

hours of running it is again hypothesized that the oil gradually

entrained water droplets until suddenly the water droplets started coalescing to form a
continuous phase and a phase inversion occurred. Since the water was suddenly turned
into the continuous phase, the apparent viscosity decreased substantially which will
substantially decrease the pressure gradient.
The previous results at 50 ppm conditions were repeated and the average pressure
drop decreased significantly from the previous 50 ppm experiments. The oil/water flow
still showed a negative effectiveness for the DRA, but for most cases, the slug flow
regime showed a positive effectiveness of up to 55%.

To better understand this

phenomenon, beaker tests were then performed and the interfacial tension was measured
periodically. A magnetic stirrer at 350 rpm was used to mix the oil and water to ensure
that the DRA was not sheared during the tests.
Figure 4.5.8 shows the measured interfacial tension values from the beaker test
for 0, 20 and 50 ppm conditions. From this figure one can see that the interfacial tension

155

500
~Oppm

SO ppm - before

400

-0 SO ppm - after

300

200

-0

100

o
0.00

0.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

2.50

Superficial Liquid Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.7: The effect of liq uid velocity on average pressure


gradient for 90% water and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
using water soluble DRA

,-...

a
u

---=
>a
~

-=

=
=
E-

0
.;;
~

-;

.y
:!
.....

.
~

...=

60
55
50
45
40

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

8
0
0

,
0

100

200

300

400

500

Time (min)

600
Turned off overnight

Figure 4.5.8: The effect ofDRA on interfacial tension for


50% 6cP oil and 500/0 deionized water with water soluble DRA

156
between the oil and water did not change when the drag reducing agent was not present in
the water after over 8 hours of mixing. At 20 ppm the interfacial tension continuously
decreased until it stabilized after 10 hours at a value of approximately 10 dyne/ern, The
experimentally measured interfacial tension was about 8.5 dyne/ern, This figure shows at
50 ppm, that the interfacial tension instantaneously decreased to about 3 dyne/em where
it stayed for almost 12 hours when it suddenly increased to about 20 dyne/ern, which is
close to the experimentally determined value of 16.2 dyne/ern.
Photographs were also taken while performing the beaker tests.

For baseline

conditions, the oil and water rapidly separated. Figure 4.5.9 shows that a few seconds
after the stirrer was turned off, the water layer is already free from oil, but the oil layer
contains water droplets.

Less than one minute later, the oil and water were almost

completely separated, as shown in Figure 4.5.10. These photographs were taken after 5
hours of mixing, the same results were also observed after completion of the test with
over 8 hours of mixing. Figure 4.5.11 shows a photograph of20 ppm conditions after 15
hours of mixing and after the stirrer was turned off for 15 minutes. This figure shows
that the water does not contain oil droplets, the oil is still holding a significant amount of
water. When the 50 ppm beaker test was performed, the oil and water separated more
quickly than the 20 ppm conditions. Figure 4.5.12 shows that after 15 hours of mixing
and turning off the stirrer for 15 minutes, there is a lot less water contained in the oil
phase than at 20 ppm conditions.

One explanation of why the interfacial tension

increased after running the experimental apparatus may be that the surfactant found in the
water soluble DRA gradually increased the oil droplet size contained in the water

157

Figure 4.5.9: 0 ppm beaker test after stirring 5 hours and settling for a few seconds

Figure 4.5.10: 0 ppm beaker test after stirring 5 hours and settling 1 minute

158

Figure 4.5.11: 20 ppm beaker test after stirring 15 hours and settling 15 minutes

Figure 4.5.12: 50 ppm beaker test after stirring 15 hours and settling 15 minutes

159
continuous phase. As stated previously, the apparent viscosity of an oil/water mixture is
directly related to the size of the droplets contained in the continuous phase.

If the

surfactant gradually increased the oil droplet size until a maximum droplet size was
obtained, the apparent viscosity may have been reduced and the time it takes for the water
and oil to separate would also reduce.

Effect of Water Soluble DRA on 100,4 Deionized Water


The effect of water soluble DRA on pure deionized water was examined by using
full pipe flow and slug flow conditions. Four DRA concentrations of 0, 20, 50 and 75
ppm were studied.

Positive effectiveness of the DRA was exhibited at all DRA

concentrations. The interfacial tension and viscosity were not affected by the presence of
the drag reducing agent.

Full Pipe Flow using lOO!'c Deionized Water


At full pipe flow conditions, the acrylic and stainless steel pipelines both showed
a decreasing average pressure gradient with increasing DRA concentration for up to 50
ppm for superficial liquid velocities of 0.5 to 2 mfs. For a DRA concentration of 75 ppm,
the average pressure gradient did not decrease further when compared to 50 ppm
conditions.

The results are shown in Figure 4.5.13a for the acrylic pipeline.

The

effectiveness of the DRA is shown in Figure 4.5.13b for both pipelines. These results
show that at a superficial liquid velocity of 1.25 mfs, the average pressure gradient in the
acrylic pipeline was 139 Palm at 0 ppm, 118 Palm at 20 ppm and further decreased to 87

160

400

..-..

........

Y 20 ppm

=-...=
=
'-"

300

=--

=
C
~

<> 50 ppm

:c

o ppm

75 ppm

200

~
~

eJ)

::I

100

>

<

0
0.00

1.00

0.50

2.00

1.50

2.50

Superficial Liquid Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.13a: The effect of liquid velocity on average pressure


gradient for full pipe deionized water flow in the acrylic pipeline

100
..-..

~ 20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless
o 50 ppm Acrylic
A 50 ppm Stainless
'I 75 ppm Acrylic
75 ppm Stainless

80

e~

'-"

<
~

...

60

~
~

40

=
~

...

.~
u

20

~
ee.
~

........

~ ~ ~

-20
0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Superficial Liquid Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.13b: Effectiveness ofDRA on full pipe flow


for 100% deionized water using water soluble DRA

161
87 Palm at 50 ppm and stayed at 86 Palm for 75 ppm. The corresponding effectiveness is
15, 38, 38% at 20, 50 and 75 ppm respectively.

Similar results were shown for all

superficial liquid velocities studied and in the stainless steel pipeline.

Slug flow using 100 % Deionized Water


Slug flow was then studied using superficial liquid velocities of 0.5 to 1.5 mls.
Due to the limited supply of nitrogen, the only superficial gas velocities studied were
from 1 to 6 mls. The effectiveness of the DRA increased with increasing drag reducing
agent concentration. The decrease in average pressure drop can again be attributed to the
decrease in slug frequency. The more slugs that are eliminated the more stratified flow
that is created in between the slugs, therefore, since stratified flow has a lower pressure
drop than slug flow, the pressure drop will decrease. Unlike full pipe flow, the average
pressure drop further decreased when 75 ppm of DRA was used, when compared to 50
ppm conditions. At maximum effectiveness of full pipe flow, the reduction of friction at
the wall is at the maximum. This also may be true of slug flow, the reduction of friction
between the slug body and wall may also be at the maximum.

There are more

possibilities to reduce the average pressure gradient in slug flow than in full pipe flow.
For example, if after the maximum reduction between the wall and slug body is met, the
DRA could reduce the average pressure gradient by reducing the turbulence in the slug
front, reducing slug length or by reducing the slug frequency. Therefore, slug flow can
exhibit a higher maximum effectiveness than full pipe, because there are more
possibilities to reduce the average pressure gradient.

162
Figure 4.5.14a shows that at a superficial liquid velocity of 0.5 mis, the average
pressure gradient was not significantly affected for the low superficial gas velocity of 1

mls or the high superficial gas velocity of 6 mls at 20 ppm. At 50 ppm, the flow regime
changed to pseudo slug for the gas velocity of 6 mls. At 75 ppm, the pseudo slug flow
regime also included the gas velocity of 4 mls. This change in flow regime also helped
reduce the average pressure gradient. For example, in the acrylic pipeline at a superficial
gas velocity of 6 mis, the average pressure gradient was 222 Palm at 0 ppm, 223 Palm at
20 ppm, 172 Palm at 50 ppm, and 98 Palm at 75 ppm. Figure 4.5.14b shows that these
values correspond to a DRA effectiveness of23% at 50 ppm and 56% at 75 ppm. Similar
results were shown in the stainless steel pipeline. Since the viscosity was lower when
compared to the 100% 6 cP oil slug flow experiments, the slug flow shifted to pseudo
slug at an earlier superficial liquid velocity.

For example, the only slug that was

transformed into pseudo slug flow was at the low superficial liquid velocity of 0.3 mls
and the high gas velocity of 8 mls at an oil soluble DRA concentration of 50 ppm.
However, At this lower viscosity of 1 cP, the slug flow changed to pseudo slug flow at
the water soluble DRA concentration of 50 ppm at this higher superficial liquid velocity
of 0.5 mls.
When the liquid velocity was increased to 1.0 mis, slug flow changed to pseudo
slug at a superficial gas velocity of 6 mls and a DRA concentration of 75 ppm. This
caused for a large reduction in average pressure gradient. The average pressure gradient
in the stainless steel pipeline, as shown in Figure 4.5.15a, was reduced from 500 Palm at

o ppm

to 394 Palm at 20 ppm to 284 Palm at 50 ppm to 156 Palm at 75 ppm. The

400
l::t. o ppm

.........

20 ppm

=
"-"
....

e,

=
-e

,..,....

c 50 ppm

300

c..=

Slug

3200

.75ppm

.~

=
c
~

""=

Q.
Q

"-

J.

s..

163

4267

,..,....

"-

200

2133

=
rIJ
rIJ
~

c.."-

""J.
~

bJ)

=
J.

100

<

1067

=
"-

<

Pseudo Slug

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.14a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient


for Vsl = 0.5 m/s with deionized water in the acrylic pipeline

100
,..,....

l::t. 20 ppm Acrylic


20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
A 50 ppm Stainless
'V 75 ppm Acrylic
75 ppm Stainless

e~

'-'"

<
=:

60

Q
e.-

""""
~

=
.~

40

20

~
"~

....CJ

Pseudo Slug

80

i
Slug

6.

!:J.

..........................................!!!..... ,

..L

-20
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.14b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug and pseudo slug flow


for Vsl = 0.5 m/s with 1000/0 deionized water

164

1000

10667

900

9600

,,-..

Q.

800

8533

'-'

700

a.
=

600

Q
7467 ae
6400 ~
a-

500

,-.....
.........

....

"-'

.~

-c

Slug
T

a.

~
~

a.

Q.

400

300

200

rIJ

a-

4267

=-

3200

=
a-

2133

100

=
~

=
a.
<

5333

..L

=-=
c.

1067

el)
~

>

<

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.15a: The effect of gas velocity on the verage pressure gradient
for Vsl = 1.0 m/s with 100% deionzed water in the stainless steel pipeline

100
,-....

6. 20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless
o 50 ppm Acrylic
50 ppm Stainless
o 75 ppm Acrylic
75 ppm Stainles!.

80

0~

'-'"

~Q

60

'e
~

=
.::....
CJ

'~

..J..

.L

20

40

~
~

Pseudo Slug

i
~

o
-20

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.15b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug and pseudo slug flow


for Vsl = 1.0 m/s with 100% deionized water

165
effectiveness of the DRA, as shown in Figure 4.5.15b, ranged from 20% at 20 ppm to
61% at 75 ppm. Similar results were shown in the acrylic pipeline. The large reduction
in average pressure drop is related to the large decrease in slug frequency.

For the

example above, Table 4.5.7, in the Appendix, shows that the slug frequency decreased
from 17 slugs/min at baseline conditions to 16 slugs/min at 20 ppm and further decreased
to 13 slugs/min at 50 ppm then changed to pseudo slug at 75 ppm.
At superficial liquid velocities of 1.25 and 1.5 mis, the flow regime did not
change with the addition of DRA.

As shown in Figures 4.5.16b and 4.5.17b the

effectiveness of the DRA can reach up to 54% for the superficial liquid velocity of 1.25

mls and 60% for the superficial liquid velocity of 1.5 mls. Figure 4.5.16a shows how the
average pressure gradient was affected by the superficial gas velocity in the acrylic
pipeline for the superficial liquid velocity of 1.25 mls. For a superficial gas velocity of 4
mis, the average pressure gradient decreased from 552 Palm to 470 Palm to 395 Palm to
276 Palm for the DRA concentrations of 0, 20, 50, and 75 ppm, respectively.

Figure

4.5.16b shows that the effectiveness for this condition was 150/0 at 20 ppm, 29% at 50
ppm, and 41% at 75 ppm. When the superficial liquid velocity was increased to 1.5 mis,
Figure 4.5.17a shows that in the stainless steel pipeline, the average pressure gradient
increased to 643 Palm at 0 ppm with 4 mls of gas. The average pressure gradient then
decreased to 517 Palm at 20 ppm and further decrease to 427 Palm and 263 Palm at 50
and 75 ppm, respectively. The effectiveness for the DRA at 4 mls gas velocity was 20%
at 20 ppm, 34% at 50 ppm and 49% at 75 ppm.

1000
,..-..,

........
CIS

Q.

...=

"-'

900

9600

800

8533

700

..=
~

SOO

rIj
rIj

400

7467

600

CIS

=-""
""
~

-e

6400

ti.

CIS

Q.

f!1

,..

-'-

rIj
rIj

4267

Q.

3200

CIS

t=.Il

""
~

2133

100

..""=
..
~

200

c.

300

5333

CIS

.-..
'-'

:a

""
C-'

166

10667

<

1067
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.16a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient


for Vsl = 1.25 m/s with 100A. deionized water in the acrylic pipeline

100
~

20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless
SOppm Acrylic
50 ppm Stainless
75 ppm Acrylic
~ 7S ppm Stainless

80

60

-,

40

20

-L

,
~

o
-20

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.16b: Effectiveness ofDRA for slug flow


for Vsl = 1.25 m/s with 100% deionized water

1000
~

900

9600

Q..

800

8533

.........

=
....
=
=
C-'
'-'

.~

700

Q.)

....

~
~

Q.)

600
400

tJ.

I.

Q.)

>

<

300

Q.)

6400

500

I.

Q..

7467

"C

I.

167

10667

200

100

=-=
c.
'-"

a.
Q
Qj
a.

5333

4267

Q..

3200

=
I-

2133

>

1067

,.........

rIJ
rIJ
Qj

a.

Qj
~
Qj

-<

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.17a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient


for Vsl = 1.5 m/s with 100% deionized water in the stainless steel pipeline

100
~

80

e~

'-'

<
=:

....e
~
~

Q.)

=
.~

I!I
40

c:J

20

A
0

~
ee-

Q.)

....

60

o
-20

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.5.17b: Effectiveness ofDRA for slug flow


for Vsl = 1.5 m/s with 100% deionized water

168
Similar results were shown with the water soluble DRA when compared to the oil
soluble DRA. If the liquid velocity is held constant and the gas velocity is increased, the
effectiveness of the DRA does not significantly change. For example at a liquid velocity
of 1.25 mis, the effectiveness of the DRA in the acrylic pipeline at 75 ppm was 47%,
41%, and 48% for superficial gas velocities of 2, 4, and 6 mis, respectively.

The

decrease in effectiveness as the gas velocity was held constant and the liquid velocity was
increased was not as apparent as for the oil soluble DRA. At a superficial gas velocity of
4 mis, the effectiveness in the stainless steel pipeline for 50 ppm was 38% at 0.5 mis,

33% at 1.0 mis, 30% at 1.25 mis, and 34% at 1.5 mls.
To understand how the water soluble DRA affects the slug properties, the
properties were graphed in Figures 4.5.18 through 4.5.23. The slug properties are also
shown in Tables 4.5.1 through 4.5.13 in the Appendix for all flow rates studied. At the
low superficial liquid velocity of 0.5 mis, the slug properties were not significantly
affected until at least 50 ppm of DRA was injected into the system. At the higher liquid
velocities, the slug frequency generally decreased with increasing DRA concentration.
The slug length, liquid film height and translational velocity generally were not affected
by the presence of the DRA. The liquid film velocity increased and the film Froude
number decreased.
Figure 4.5.18 shows that the slug frequency kept decreasing with increasing DRA
concentration.

The decrease in slug frequency helps to reduce the average pressure

gradient, since less turbulent slugs are flowing down the pipeline, there will be less
pressure spikes. At a superficial liquid velocity of 1.25 mls and a superficial gas velocity

,....,

-8=

-..

50

45

(I)

t)J)

40

-e

35

";i

"'-'"

=
Q

-=....
-i

169

'\l 20ppm

so ppm
75 ppm

\J\l

25

CJ

=
~

=
=r
~

z-

(;5

'\l

30
'\l

20
15

~
.:-.r ' +

.-

10
5
5

+
0

10

15

20

'\l

+
+

25

30

35

40

45

50

Slug Frequency at 0 ppm (slugs/min)

Figure 4.5.18: The effect ofDRA on slug frequency


for 100h.deionized water using water soluble DRA

5
'\l 20 ppm

+ 50 ppm

,....,

'-'"

~
Q
-=....
-~

.c
......

075 ppm

=
00=
~

il

+
.:
~
..
~ .... ~

t .... ,

1
t

Slug Length at 0 ppm (m)

Figure 4.5.19: The effect ofDRA on slug length


for 100 % deionized water using water soluble DRA

170

20

<

18

Q
.c

16

14

=
~

s-

.c

e:s

Z
~
-e

...

.5

.... ~,
0

.... ~.4: ~

..'\l

10
6

'-

+ 50 ppm

o 75 ppm

12

:s
s0

\J 20 ppm

.. li CO

2
0
0

12

10

14

16

18

20

Film Froude Number at 0 ppm

Figure 4.5.20: The effect of DRA on film Froude number


for 100% deionized water using water soluble DRA

,,-.....
~
.........

5
\J 20 ppm

<
g::

00

+50 ppm
075 ppm

E
'-'"
4

0 ++

Q
.c
......

++

+~

~
......

u0
~
~

-c
.;

t.

\J

o:J;."l.'+ .

.5
~

.:

~ ..'1 .'J

O~

~1I.

0"

:5

0
0

.~

Liquid Film Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.5.21: The effect ofDRA on liquid film velocity


for lOOA. deionized water using water soluble DRA

171

""
a

"'-"

-<

=
Q

-=...
ei

....
ec;j

.~,

>
-;

eE=

...

.~~ ..
..~

Cii

=
s=
.

2
2

Translational Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.5.22: The effect ofDRA on translational velocity


for 100% deionized water using water soluble DRA

5
~

"'V 20 ppm

CJ
"'-"

+ SO ppm

~
..c:
....
ei

o 75 ppm

s~

.5
'i:
-=
e;
0-

:.:s
"""'e

..

~ ?,+

'il

~~:.,

.i
+

...
..c:

e~

==

2
2

Height of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (em)

Figure 4.5.23: The effect ofDRA on height of liquid film


for 100A. deionized water using water soluble DRA

172
of 2 mis, in the Appendix, Table 4.5.8 shows that the slug frequency decreased from
baseline conditions of 31 slugs/min to 28 slugs/min at 20 ppm, to 22 slugs/min at 50 ppm
and to 15 slugs/min at 75 ppm. The effectiveness of the DRA increased from 20% to
34% to 47% at 20, 50 and 75 ppm respectively in the acrylic pipeline.
The effect of DRA on the slug length is shown in Figure 4.5.19. This figure
shows that there is no significant change in the slug length for all DRA concentrations
studied. Figure 4.5.20 shows that the film Froude number was lower than baseline
conditions for almost all DRA concentrations. The lowest film Froude numbers were at
the highest DRA concentration of75 ppm. Figure 4.5.21 shows that as the drag reducing
agent concentration increases so does the liquid film velocity. Since the liquid film
height does not change, as shown in Figure 4.5.23, and the slug frequency decreases, the
liquid film velocity has to increase. The translational velocity was also not affected by
the DRA, as shown in Figure 4.5.22.

4.6 The effect of Water Cut on Water Soluble DRA


Three different water cuts were tested with fresh 6 cP oil, which had the same
composition and fluid properties as the oil tested with the oil soluble DRA. The water
cuts studied were 10, 50 and 90%. For the water cuts of 10 and 90%, due to limitations
of the pump, the lowest superficial mixture liquid velocity studied was 1.0 mls. The
liquid mixture velocity then was increased to 1.25 and 1.5 mls with superficial gas
velocities of 2, 4, and 6 mls.

At a water cut of 50%, the superficial liquid mixture

velocities studied was 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 mis, with the same gas velocities previously used.

173

Unlike 100% water, the DRA did not exhibit any more drag reduction when 75 ppm was
used when compared to 50 ppm for the slug flow regime and all water cuts studied. Due
to the limited amount of nitrogen available, select slug flow experiments were performed
at 75 ppm for all the water cuts studied and the results are plotted in Figure 4.6.1. This
figure shows that there is no significant difference between 50 and 75 ppm.
Similar results were shown at the oil soluble DRA of 20 ppm, when the DRA
concentration was increased to 50 ppm, where the oil soluble DRA created a higher
apparent viscosity and a higher pressure drop, the water soluble DRA created a lower
pressure drop.

OillWater Flow for 90% Deionized Water and

100~

6 cP Oil

Oil/water flow was studied for superficial liquid velocities of 1.0 to 2.0 mls.
These results show that the DRA allowed better mixing between the oil and water,
therefore, generally causing a higher apparent viscosity and a higher average pressure
gradient at a DRA concentration of 20 ppm. Figure 4.6.2a shows that in the acrylic
pipeline, the average pressure drop increased at 20 ppm, then decreased at 50 and 75
ppm. The effectiveness also increases as the liquid mixture velocity increases. At the
low liquid mixture velocities of 1.0 and 1.25 mis, an oil layer is still present, therefore, no
water soluble DRA can go toward the top of the pipe to help reduce the friction. At the
higher superficial liquid velocities, the flow becomes well mixed and the water soluble
DRA can now help reduce the friction on the entire inner perimeter of the pipeline.

...
>
<

bf)

~
~

..

...=-e
Q

.........

t---

II)

c.

e
c.

0
150

200

250

300

350

400

Average Pressure Drop (Palm) - 50 ppm

100

Stainless

50

Acrylic

450

500

Figure 4.6.1: A comparison of the average pressure drop


for 50 and 75 ppm at 50 ppm of water soluble DRA for slug flow

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

-....J

500

"CIS

=-....

"-'"

=
:a
=
c

.20ppm

c 50 ppm

400

.75ppm

I.

175

6. 0 ppm

300

I.

=
fI}
fI}

6.

200

I.

=-

6-

CIS

I.
~

100

<
0
0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Superficial Liquid Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.2a: Effect of liquid velocity on average pressure gradient


for 90% deionized water and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline

60
40
,--..

e'1e.

20

"-'"

..

...........!o

c.-r

fI}
fI}

-20

_._ .. __ ._
~

_._

!!

.:=
....u

-40

6. 20 ppm Acrylic

't-

-60

-80

~
~

20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
A 50 ppm Stainless
75 ppm Acrylic
7 p m tai les

-100
0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Superficial Liquid Velocity (rots)

Figure 4.6.2b: Effectiveness ofDRA on oil/water flow for


90% deionized water and 10% 6cP oil

176

For example, Figure 4.6.2b shows that at a superficial liquid mixture velocity of
1.0 mis, the DRA effectiveness was negligible at 75 ppm. When the superficial liquid

mixture velocity increased to 1.5 and 2.0 mis, the effectiveness increased to 19 and 25%,
respectively.

Slug Flow for 90.4 Deionized Water and 10% 6 cP Oil


Slug flow was then studied by using superficial liquid velocities of 1.0, 1.25 and
1.5 mls with superficial gas velocities of 2, 4, and 6 mls.

The results from these

experiments are shown in Figures 4.6.3 through 4.6.5 for superficial liquid velocities of
1.0,1.25, and 1.5 mis, respectively. These figures show that at 20 ppm the average
pressure gradient increased slightly from baseline conditions. The amount that the
average pressure gradient increased, increased with increasing superficial liquid velocity,
hence, a higher velocity creates better mixing between the oil and water, therefore, the oil
becomes more concentrated with water droplets and the viscosity increases.

For

example, Figure 4.6.3b shows that the effectiveness in the acrylic pipeline for a
superficial liquid mixture velocity of 1.0 mls was -7%, -4% and 3% at gas velocities of2,
4, and 6 mis, respectively. When the superficial mixture liquid velocity was increased to
1.25 mis, the corresponding effectiveness for the DRA, as shown in Figure 4.6.4b, was -

5%, -19%, and -10%. When the superficial liquid mixture velocity was further increased
to 1.5 mis, the effectiveness decreased to -9%, -23%, and -25% for the same gas
velocities, as shown in Figure 4.6.5b. Similar results were shown in the stainless steel
pipeline.

1000
~

900

Q.

....
=
.~

800

600

500

.........

'-'

-0
J.

J.

m
m

400

=-

300

J.

200

-e>

100

a-

c SO ppm

8533

=-=

'-'

7467
6400

5333

Q.

aQ
~
a-

=
rIJ
rIJ

4267

a-

Q.
~

4.}

Ci
~

9600

20 ppm

700

4.}

177

10667
/),. Oppm

3200

'a-"
~

2133 -e>
1067

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.3a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient


for Vsl = 1.0 m/s for 90% water and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline

100
~

20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless
o SOppm Acrylic
A so ppm Stainless

80
60

40

20

i
~

-20

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.3b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow for


Vsl = 1.0 m/s using 90% deionized water and 10% 6 cP oil

1000
..-...
e
-....

=
Q.
.....,
.....

.-0=
~
=
J.

900

9600

20 ppm

800

8533

50 ppm

700

600

::s
rI)

c..

7467 es.

6400

t:,.

500

J.

..-...
Q.

'-'

-r

178

10667
6. 0 ppm

5333

......

J.

::s
rI)
rI)

...

400

rI)

J.

Q.
~

=
a.
~

<>

300

4267

3200

.J...

a.
=

200

2133

100

1067

;>

<

Q.

;>

<

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.4a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for
Vsl = 1.25 m/s for 90 % water and 10 % 6 cP oil in the stainless steel pipeline

100
6. 20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless

..-...

o so ppm Acrylic

80

0~

50 ppm Stainless

'-"

60

c..

{II)

fI'.l
~

-r

40

.....

.~

....
(,J

20

"'~""'

o
-20

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.4b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow for


Vsl = 1.25 m/s using 90% deionized water and 10% 6 cP oil

1000
~

900

Q..
'-"

800

700

........

.....
~

:a

..=
e
..=
..
~

CI)
CI)

Q..

.=

Oppm

9600

20 ppm

c 50 ppm

8533

500
400

6400
0

<

"-"

c.

600

Q.

7467 esQ

s-

5333

4267

sQ.

rI)
c:I}

300

3200

200

2133

100

1067

C)J)

179

10667
~

bf)

=
s~

<

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.5a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient for
Vsl = 1.5 m/s for 90A. water and toA. 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline

100
f:1 20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless

80

o SO ppm Acrylic
A

60

SO ppm Stainless

40
20

o
-20
-40

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.5b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow for


Vsl = 1.5 m/s using 90% deionized water and 10% 6 cP oil

180
At 50 ppm, the average pressure gradient significantly decreased from baseline
conditions. The effectiveness of the DRA reached up to 48%.

For example, Figure

4.6.4a shows the results in the stainless steel pipeline at a superficial liquid mixture
velocity of I .25 mls. This figure shows that at a superficial nitrogen velocity of 4 mis,
the average pressure gradient was 515 Palm at 0 ppm then increased to 622 Palm at 20
ppm then reduced to 307 Palm at 50 ppm. Figure 4.6.4b shows that these values created
an effectiveness of -21 % at 20 ppm and 40% at 50 ppm. The large decrease in average
pressure gradient at 50 ppm is related to the large decrease in slug frequency. Table 4.6.5
in the Appendix, shows that the slug frequency decreased from 32 slugs/min at baseline
conditions to 14 slugs/min at 50 ppm. The acrylic pipeline and all other slugs studied
showed a similar pattern.
The slug properties are shown in Tables 4.6.1 through 4.6.9 in the Appendix. The
slug frequency, slug length and film Froude number decreased with 50 ppm while the
velocity of the liquid film increased. The other slug properties were not significantly
affected. Table 4.6.9 shows these trends for a superficial liquid mixture velocity of 1.5

mls and a superficial nitrogen velocity of 6 mls.

At baseline conditions the slug

frequency was 39 slugs/min, the slug length was 2.8 m, the film Froude number was 12.4
and the liquid film velocity was 1.78 mls.

At 20 ppm the slug frequency was 38

slugs/min, the slug length decreased slightly to 2.2 m, the film Froude number decreased
slightly to 10.7, and the liquid film velocity increased slightly to 2.42 mls. When 50 ppm
of DRA was used, the slug frequency decreased to 18 slugs/min, the slug length

181
decreased slightly to 2.0 m, the film Froude number decreased to 8.1, and the liquid film
velocity increased to 4.03 mls.
The slug properties are also shown graphically in Figures 4.6.6 through 4.6.11.
Figure 4.6.6 shows that the slug frequency decreased slightly at 20 ppm, but decreased
substantially at 50 ppm. Figures 4.6.7 and 4.6.8 show that the slug length and film
Froude number was not significantly effected at 20 ppm, however, at 50 ppm, there is a
slight decrease. The liquid film velocity increased with increasing DRA concentration as
shown in Figure 4.6.9. The translational velocity and height of the liquid film plotted in
Figures 4.6.10 and 4.6.11, did not change with the addition of the drag reducing agent.
The slug properties for this water cut were then compared to the slug properties at
100% water in Figures 4.6.12 through 4.6.17. These figures show that 10% of6 cP oil
added to the flow did not significantly change the slug characteristics. Figure 4.6.13
shows that there is a slight increase in the slug length and Figure 4.6.16 shows that there
is a slight decrease in the translational velocity. These slight changes could be due to the
additional viscosity added to the flow by the 10% 6 cP oil.

As previously stated,

Tronconi (1990) showed that the slug frequency only changes significantly when the
turbulence in the stratified film in front of the slug front changes from turbulent to
laminar. Since the film in front of the slug does not change with a slight increase in
viscosity either will the height of the liquid film or liquid film velocity change. The
additional viscosity will help increase the slug length and will also inhibit the gas from
pushing the liquid slug down the pipeline, i.e. the slug will travel slower.

182

50

35

.....~

30
25

20
15

10

+
+

10

15

20

30

25

35

40

45

50

Slug Frequency at 0 ppm (slugs/min)

Figure 4.6.6: The effect ofDRA on slug frequency for 90%


deionized water and 10A. 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

5
V

20 ppm

+ 50 ppm
~

'-"

<

-=
ei....

.c:
....

'V

CJ)

=
.J
~

CJ)

~.~'

.. +

~.,

.... +

.... t

Ci5

'V

ttl-

1
1

Slug Length at 0 ppm (m)

Figure 4.6.7: The effect ofDRA on slug length for 90%


deionized water and 10% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

183

20

<

18

16

.c
....

-i

\J 20 ppm

+ 50 ppm

14

s.

12

.Q

e
:I

10

.V V

+'\1

s.

"C
::I
0

'.

.:

.W
++
+

,~

...

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Film Froude Number at 0 ppm

Figure 4.6.8: The effect ofDRA on film Fronde number for 90%
deionized water and 10% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

.-...

5
\J 20 ppm
+50ppm

rI'J
........

'-'

-e

=
-=....

+
+

ei

....
e(j

;...

0
~

>

t#

+
+

+v

.5
~

"C
e;

\J '\1
~

...

... '\J

i.
1

C'"

:s

0
0

Liquid Film Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.6.9: The effect ofDRA on liquid film velocity for 900/0
deionized water and 100~ 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

184

fIJ
........

"-'"

<

=
..
i
u..
Q

.c

++ ..
t

.W
7

tot

-;

.s..=

>
-;

=
.=
..

~V

.i++

E-

2
2

Translational Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.6.10: The effect ofDRA on translational velocity for 900/0


deionized water and 100/0 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

5
~

V 20 ppm

+ 50 ppm

(j

'-'"

..

.c

i
.5

.+.
\l .\1
y~ +

-0
.;

0"

::s
'-

..

\l

"

.l

.... ~

.cf:)J)
.~

:c
2
2

Height of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (em)

Figure 4.6.11: The effect of DRA on height of liq uid film for 90%
deionized water and 10% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

ee=
""
CI

4S

";i

40

{I)

=
=
u

"'-'"

.....

a-

185

so
V
'\l

3S

.....

'V V'l
V

CIS

30

0~

2S

..c
.....

20

'V
V'V .V
V
~.. ...
'V

15

=
0\
ei
u

=
c=
::r
~

YJ.

'V

'V

'\l\I
V

..... ~

10

'\l\I
'V

a-

01

10

V5

20

15

30

2S

35

40

45

50

Slug Frequency at 100% water (slugs/min)

Figure 4.6.12: A comparison of slug frequency at 900/0 water cut with


slug frequency for 1000/0 water using water soluble DRA

5
..--..

"'-'"

.....

u
a-

.....
~

CIS

0~

0
0'\

...

~V

CIS

..c
.....

=
=
;;)
~

~~ ..'I:i V

bJ)

VVV ...

bJ)

~v
'SJ

1
1

Slug Length at 100% water (m)

Figure 4.6.13: A comparison of slug length at 90% water cut with


slug length at 1000/0 water using water soluble DRA

....

20

I-

18

U=

....
=
Q.}

16

=
=
....

14

0\

=
I-

Q.}

.Cl

=
e=

;Z

Q.}

"l '\l.V
V
.. -"1
"l'V.'?V v

10
8
6

I-

~.,

12

'-

186

10

.:'

.: ~ .. VV

fjl

12

14

16

18

20

Film Froude Number using 100% Water

Figure 4.6.14: A comparison of the film Froude number at


90A water cut and 100A water using water soluble DRA

CI)

""
e

I-

...
U=
'-"

....

Q.}

sr:

VJ

e~

=
.....

~~ ...

0\

.\J '\j

.....~
.c:;
Q

y.tj

>
.5
~

vv

WI

-;

V
"1'\J

"'C
.;
C"

::s

0
0

Liquid Film Velocity at 1000/0Water (m/s)

Figure 4.6.15: A comparison of the liquid film velocity at


90% water cut and 100 % water and water soluble DRA

187

(I)

.........

....

....."

.... ~

'~

....

(lIS

.~

0~

=
....
~

(lIS

u...

;,

.r '

"'is

~~

=:

.2
....
ell

fii

ell
l-

E-

Translational Velocity at 100% Water (m/s)

Figure 4.6.16: A comparison of the translational velocity at


90% water cut and at 100% water cut using water soluble DRA

,....
E
<.l
......
=
U

'-"

'~
......

'I
'I...

ell

0~

~.V'l

=
......
~

V v.-VV V
vy.v tl

-=
.;

'V.\l

ell

'I

"

..

c::r

tl

'Q

....

..c
ot)

.;:;

Height of Liquid Film using 100% Watert (em)

Figure 4.6.17: A comparison of height of liquid film at 90%


water cut and 100A. water cut using water soluble DRA

188

OillWater Flow with

50o~

Deionized Water and

50o~

6cP Oil

Oil/water flow was studied at this water cut with superficial liquid mixture
velocities from 0.5 to 2.0 mls. With the addition of the drag reducing agent the water and
oil more easily mixed, therefore, for oil/water flow, a negative effectiveness of the DRA
was observed in most of the cases, as shown in Figures 4.6.18b.

For example at a

superficial liquid mixture velocity of 0.5 mis, at baseline conditions the oil and water
exhibit a stratified flow regime with little or no mixing layer between them. With the
addition of the drag reducing agent the size of the mixing layer grew and the average
pressure gradient increased. In the acrylic pipeline for this flow rate, Figure 4.6.18a
shows the average pressure gradient was 33 Palm at 0 ppm and increased to 47 Palm at
20 ppm, which is an effectiveness of -45%. When 50 ppm ofDRA was used, the mixing
layer did not significantly change, therefore, the average pressure gradient was 37 Palm,
smaller than the 20 ppm condition, but larger than the baseline condition. The average
pressure gradient decreased below baseline conditions at 75 ppm to 29 Palm. Generally,
once the flow regime becomes stabilized after the addition of the DRA, the DRA then
could start working to reduce the pressure gradient.
At 1.0 and 1.25 mis, the 50 ppm showed a lower average pressure gradient than
the 75 ppm, which showed a lower pressure gradient than 20 ppm.

This can be

explained, because at 20 ppm a dispersion is formed and the flow regime was well mixed.
Once water became the continuous phase at 50 ppm, the flow regime was not quite well
mixed. At 75 ppm, the flow regime again changed to well mixed, but with the water
being the continuous phase, thereby increasing the average pressure gradient when

500
~

"'"
=
Q..

....

'-'"

=
.~
-==
e
l-

400

189
6- 0 ppm
Y 20 ppm

o 50 ppm

6-

.7Sppm

300

l-

f I}
fI}

200

I-

Q..

CIJ

=
l-

& I

6-

100

>

<

I
0
0.00

0.50

1.50

1.00

2.00

2.50

Superficial Liq uid Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.18a: The effect of liquid velocity on average pressure


gradient for 50% water and 50% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline

60
40

e~

'-'"

20

I~!
6- 0 0~ i ~

'to-

fI}
fI}

=
.::
~

....

-20
-40

(,J

....
~

-60

6- 20 ppm Acrylic

20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
A so ppm Stainless
75 ppm Acrylic
7 ppm Stainless

-80
-100
0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Superficial Liquid Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.18b: Effectiveness ofDRA on oil/water flow for


500/0 deionized water and 500/0 6cP oil using water soluble DRA

190
compared to 50 ppm, but it is lower than 20 ppm, since the continuous phase at 20 ppm
was the oil. For a liquid velocity of 1.5 m/s, the flow regime did not change to well
mixed until 20 ppm of DRA was used.

Therefore, the average pressure gradient

increased at 20 ppm, then decreased at 50 and 75 ppm.


When the superficial liquid mixture velocities were 1.75 and 2.0 mis, the flow
regime for all concentrations of DRA was well mixed. At these flow rates the only
increase in average pressure gradient occurred at 20 ppm when a dispersion was formed.
In the stainless steel pipeline at a superficial liquid mixture velocity of 2.0 mis, the
average pressure gradient was 350 Palm at 0 ppm, 357 Palm at 20 ppm, 238 Palm at 50
ppm and 249 Palm at 75 ppm. The large decrease in average pressure drop shows the
conversion between the oil continuous phase and the water continuous phase.

Slug Flow with 50% Deionized Water and 50 0k 6cP Oil


Similar results were shown for this water cut when compared to 90%. At the
DRA concentration of 20 ppm, the amount the average pressure gradient increased over
baseline conditions increased with increasing superficial liquid mixture velocity.

The

higher the flow rate, the better the mixing, the more water droplets being entrained by the
oil and the higher the viscosity created by the flow.

For example, Figures 4.6.19b

through 4.6.21b show in the stainless steel pipeline for a superficial nitrogen velocity of 6
mls at 20 ppm, the effectiveness of the DRA was -10% at a liquid velocity 0.5 mis, -15%
at 1.0 mls and-18% at 1.5 mls.

400
~

E
........

=-=
=
.~

..

'-"

Oppm

20 ppm

,-.

o 50 ppm

300

3200

=
l~

I-

200

l-

2133

d:

=-

I-

Q.
~

Ci)

fI)
fI)

I-

fI)
fI)

=-=
c.

'-"
Q
I-

-c

191

4267

,-.

100

Ci)

1067

..L

I~

1-

>

<

>

<
0

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.19a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient


for Vsl = 0.5 m/s for 50% water and 50% 6 cP oil in acrylic pipeline
using water soluble DRA

100
~ 20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless
o 50 ppm Acrylic
50 ppm Stainless

80
60
40

..L

20

............. -:r:

-20

I::J..

..J..

-40

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.19b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow for Vsl = 0.5 m/s
for 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

1000
..-...

900

=---....
=

800

.......

600

500

I-

l-

fI.)
fI.)

6. 0 ppm

9600

20 ppm

8533

o 50 ppm

700

:a

192

10667

7467
6400

5333

II

..-...

=-........c.=

-=
-=
Q

f/)
f/)

400

4267 c.

=-

300

3200

=
'-

200

'-

-e

CJ)
~

2133 -e~
1067

100
0

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.20a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient


for VsI = 1.0 m/s for 50% deionized water and 50 % 6 cP oil
in the stainless steel pipeline using water soluble DRA

100
~ 20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless
o SOppm Acrylic

80

50 ppm Stainless

60

I
0

40

20
._

..

_.~.

__

-20

-40

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.20b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow for Vsl = 1.0 m/s
for 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

1000
~

900

E
""'eo"

..=

=-

800

700

:a0:

400

c..

300

CI1
CI1

20 ppm
050ppm

9600

8533
6400

500

5333

.,-

>

<

c.
Q
:.

-=
=-~

CI1
CI1
~

4267

0
..1-

3200

0:

..-.
Q.
"-"

7467

600

-=
~

193

10667
6. 0 ppm

200

2133

100

1067

>

<

0
1

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.21a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient


for Vsl = 1.5 m/s for 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil
in the acrylic pipeline using water soluble DRA

100
l::1 20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
A 50 ppm Stainless

80

60

40
20

o
-20
-40

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.21b: Effectiveness ofDRA on slug flow for Vsl = 1.5 m/s
for 50% deionized water and 50A 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

194
At 50 ppm, the average pressure gradient significantly decreased when compared
to baseline conditions and showed effectiveness of up to 58%. At a superficial liquid
mixture velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial gas velocity of 6 mls the flow regime shifted
from slug flow to pseudo slug at 50 ppm.

The shift in flow regime created a large

effectiveness of the DRA of 58% in the acrylic and 45% in the stainless, as shown in
Figure 4.6.19b. Figure 4.6.20a shows for a superficial liquid velocity of 1.0 m/s, the
average pressure gradient in the acrylic pipeline was 259 Palm at baseline conditions and
at a gas velocity of 2 mls.

When 20 ppm of DRA was used, the average pressure

gradient increased to 278 Palm, then decreased to 147 Palm at 50 ppm. Similar results
were shown in the stainless steel pipeline. Figure 4.6.21a shows similar results for a
superficial liquid mixture velocity of 1.5 mls in the acrylic pipeline.

The average

pressure gradient at a superficial gas velocity of 4 mls was 688 Palm for 0 ppm then
increased to 823 Palm at 20 ppm then decreased to 400 Palm at 50 ppm.
The slug properties were generally not significantly affected by the presence of 20
ppm at the low superficial velocity of 0.5 mls.

When the superficial liquid mixture

velocity was increased to 1.0 and 1.5 mis, the slug frequency would slightly increase.
Figure 4.6.22 shows the slug frequency and Figure 4.6.24 shows the film Froude number.
These figures show that at 50 ppm, the values generally decreased while the velocity of
the liquid film would increase, as shown in Figure 4.6.25. The remaining slug properties
were not significantly altered, as Figures 4.6.23, 4.6.26 and 4.6.27 show.
An example is at the superficial liquid mixture velocity of 0.5 mls and a
superficial gas velocity of 4 mls. In the Appendix, Table 4.6.12 shows that the slug

.-...

-8=

195

50

45

""'rI'}
C!)

40

-e
a:

35

..c
.....

30

'";i

'-"

".'

,V

-i

'

'l

25

Cj

=
=
a~

I.

r;..

C.I)

Cii=

20

V
51'

15
10

++

5
5

20

15

10

30

25

35

40

45

50

Slug Frequency at 0 ppm (slugs/min)

Figure 4.6.22: The effect ofDRA on slug frequency for 50%


deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

\l 20 ppm

+ 50 ppm

.-...

-e
Q
==

..c
...,

-i
.c
.....

=
.J

'l

C.I)

=
fi3

'l. V'

J: ...+~

-t + +
i,' - v+

1
1

Slug Length at 0 ppm (m)

Figure 4.6.23: The effect of DRA on slug length for 50%


deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

196

20
'V 20 ppm

18

16

14

.c

12

z:=

10

-=...

e
~

+ 50 ppm

.V
'V.:'
.'VV

vv : .-.
..' .'+ +

-==
0

"-

'~

'tr ..
"."~

.."+

....

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Film Froude Number at 0 ppm

Figure 4.6.24: The effect ofDRA on film Froude number for 50%
deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

5
'V 20 ppm
+SOppm

rI'.l

"""e

+
+
+

'-"

<

i
....

.c
.....

~
~

>

.5
~

"'0

.;

.rP

'

e:r

'V

~V
. V

+."

.v

...

:3

0
0

Liquid Film Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.6.25: The effect ofDRA on liquid film velocity for 50%
deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

,-...

197

fI.)

.......

e
...,
~
Q
..CI

.....

.....~
.y

>

=
=
=
E-

-;

.~

.....

'";j

2
2

Translational Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.6.26: The effect ofDRA on translational velocity for 50%


deionized water and 500/0 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

,-...

5
V 20 ppm

e
...,

+ 50 ppm

CJ

..c
.....

.5

V\1
If .

...

:3

.. ' V
.:

~t + +

-0
.;

c::r

.,.-+

+..'

.+

.....

..cl

.~

:::
2

Height of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (cm)

Figure 4.6.27: The effect ofDRA on height of liquid film with DRA
for 50% deionized water and 50 % 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

198
frequency was 8, 7, and 4 slugs/min at 0, 20, and 50 ppm respectively. The liquid film
velocity increased from baseline conditions of 1.12 mls to 1.29 mls at 20 ppm to 1.46 mls
at 50 ppm. The corresponding values for the film Froude number were 11.2, 10.9 and
9.6. When the superficial liquid velocity was increased to 1.5 m/s, Table 4.6.18, in the
Appendix, shows that the slug frequency slightly increase from 33 slugs/min at 0 ppm to
35 slugs/min at 20 ppm then reduced to 17 slugs/min at 50 ppm. The liquid film velocity
decreased from baseline conditions of 2.23 mls to 1.80 mls at 20 ppm, then increased to
3.84 when 50 ppm ofDRA was present. The film Froude number was 8.4 at 0 ppm, 9.3
at 20 ppm and 5.1 at 50 ppm.
The slug characteristics at 50% water cut are compared to the slug characteristics
at 100% water in Figures 4.6.28 through 4.6.33. The slug frequency is compared in
Figure 4.6.28a. This figure seems like there is significant scatter in the data, however, if
the results are separated into concentrations of drag reducing agent as in Figure 4.6.28b,
then a pattern can be seen. At 0 ppm, the slug frequency was not significantly affected.
At 20 ppm, there was a slight increase and at 50 ppm, there was a slight decrease. The
slug length, film Froude number and liquid film velocity are plotted in Figures 4.6.29
through 4.6.31, respectively, and no significant difference is noticed between the water
cuts. Figure 4.6.32 shows that there is a slight reduction in translational velocity due to
the presence of the oil, the more viscous the more difficult the gas has moving the liquid
down the pipeline. The last slug property is shown in Figure 4.6.33 and there seems to be
no apparent change in the height of the liquid film at the lower water cut.

50

.........
fI)
CAl

45

-;;

40

s=
=
U=
r.
....

"-"

....
~

35
V

30

'0:S!.

25

=
....
I tj

=
u
=
=
~

199

V
V

20

V
VV

y.VV

15

C"

V
-V

V-

10

r.

'-OJ)

=
~

5
5

10

20

15

30

25

Slug Frequency at 100

35

40

45

50

Water (slugs/min)

Figure 4.6.28a: A comparison ofslug frequency at 500/0 water cut with


slug frequency of 100% water using water soluble DRA

..-...
e

.........

SO

Cf)

=
fij
"-"

.....

=
r.

45

Oppm

+ 20 ppm

40

50 ppm

.....

35

=
~

30

=
....

25

~
0

Itj

=
=
=
~

20

+
:h -co

15

C"
~

r.

10

en=

'-Cf)

0-

10

A&
&

e5

(j
~

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

SO

Slug Frequency at 100% Water (slugs/min)

Figure 4.6.28b: A comparison ofslug frequency at 500/0 water cut with


slug frequency of 100% water using water soluble DRA

200

e...
"-'

...
I-

=
...
It')

-=...=
~

..J

Cf)

c;j

1
4

Slug Length at 100% Water (m)

Figure 4.6.29: A comparison of slug length at 500/0 water cut with


slug length using 100% water and water soluble DRA

...
=
...

20

I-

18

16

=
...

14

~
=
I t')

I~

.t:J

z=
~

-0

=
0

'-

,5
~

"'i/.'

.9

12

YV'~'VfI

10

'fJ

'\IV .. '\I
.. '\l

.-v

8
6
.:

,~'

"l

. _. -;V'\l'\l

2
0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Film Froude Number 100% Water Cut

Figure 4.6.30: A comparison of film Froude number


at 500~ water cut and 1000k water and water soluble DRA

201

-...
fIj

....::I

'-"

l-

....as
~

0~

=
....as

';1.

' I')

u....

..

2
V

>

# ..

fi:

~
.;

a-

.V~

V"

YJ-tj.~

-;

.5

.'\1

Liquid Film Velocity 100% Water (m/s)

Figure 4.6.31: A comparison of liquid film velocity


at 50 % water cut and 100% water using water soluble DRA

-...
E
'-"

rI.)

....::I
I-

....CIS
~

=
....CIS
II")

uC

....~

0~

-;

>
-;

I:

.~

....CIS

-;;
I:
as
lE-

3
2

Translational Velocity at 100% Water (m/s)

Figure 4.6.32: A comparison of translational velocity


at 50% water cut and at 100% water using water soluble DRA

202

'IV
... V
4

V .
~.V

~ ... ~

v .: .:

'V~~.
.v

Height of Liquid Film at 100 % Water (em)

Figure 4.6.33: A comparison of height of liquid film


at 500/0 water cut and at 1000~ water and water soluble DRA

203
OillWater Flow for 10% Deionized Water and 90 0k 6cP Oil

Oil/water flow was studied at this water cut for superficial liquid mixture
velocities ranging from 1.0 to 2.0 mls. Figure 4.6.34a show that there was little effect on
the average pressure gradient at 20 ppm, Figure 4.6.34b shows that the effectiveness of
the DRA ranged from -9% to 7%. This was expected, since the majority of the flow is
oil, therefore, the water soluble DRA did not have a chance to reach the pipe wall to
reduce friction. At 50 ppm, a large decrease in average pressure gradient was observed
with effectiveness of up to 38%, as shown in Figure 4.6.34b. This figure also shows that
the addition of 75 ppm had little effect on the average pressure gradient when compared
to 50 ppm conditions. For example, Figure 4.6.34a shows that at a superficial liquid
mixture velocity of 1.5 mis, the average pressure gradient in the stainless steel pipeline
was 195, 191, 125, and 127 Palm at the drag reducing agent concentrations of 0,20, 50
and 75 ppm respectively.

Slug Flow for lOA. Deionized Water and 90 0k 6cP Oil

Similar results were shown in the slug flow regime, as shown in Figures 4.6.35
through 4.6.37. At a drag reducing agent concentration of 20 ppm the effectiveness of
the DRA ranged from -9% to 13%. At 50 ppm, a large effectiveness for the DRA was
observed and ranged from 29 to 57%. These figures also show that at 20 ppm, a slightly
positive effectiveness was observed and a slightly negative effectiveness was observed in
the stainless steel. Figure 4.6.35b shows for a superficial liquid mixture velocity of 1.0

mis, the effectiveness in the stainless steel at 20 ppm is -3, -2 and -8% at superficial

,-....

500

.20 ppm

"-

=
C.

......
"""""

204

6. 0 ppm

400

050 ppm

.75 ppm

.~

-C

=
r.
e

300


*
t

f:,.

r.

=
f I)
fI)

200

r.

C.
~

0.()

s.

100

>

<
0
0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Superficial Liquid Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.34a: The effect of liquid velocity on average pressure gradient


10% deionized water and 900~ 6 cP oil in the stainless steel pipeline

60
40

..-..
c~

'-'

20

~Q

................'-

fI)
~

-20


tJ.

Ix

.~
.....

-40

f:,. 20 ppm Acrylic

Cj

~
e.-.
~

20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
A 50 ppm Stainless
o 75 ppm Acrylic
s~ m tainless

-60

-80
-100
0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Superficial Liquid Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.34b: Effectiveness ofDRA on oil/water flow


for 100/0 deionized water and 90 % 6cP oil using water soluble DRA

1000
.-..

900

"'"
=
~
......,

800

700

.....
~

:a
=
'-

.=

500

~
rI}

400

300

'-

200

>

<

6400

CJ)
~

.-..

=
8533 ......,
c.
7467 0c.

050 ppm

5333

Q
~

'-

='

rI}
rI}

'4267 c.
~

'-

'-

9600

Y20ppm

600

205

10667
~Oppm

3200

<>

<>

2133

CJ)

'~
~

-e

1067

100

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.35a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient


for Vsl = 1.0 m/s for 10A. deionized water and 900/0 6 cP oil
in the acrylic pipeline using water soluble DRA

100
~

80

o
A

60

20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
so ppm Stainless

40

~
20
~

.................................................

-20
-40

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.35b: Effectiveness ofDRA on the slug flow regime for


Vsl = 1.0 mls using 10% water and 90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

1000
--..

900

Q.

800

.........

=
....
=
:a
=
e
"-"
~

J.

-=

500
400

050 ppm

i
6

300

200

J.

-<

7467
6400

J.

=~

8533

600

9600

Y20ppm

700

t:IJ
t:IJ

206

10667
~Oppm

....."

c.

Q
I-

Q
~

I-

5333

4267

Q.

f'J
f'J

I~

0
...L.

Q.

3200
2133

100

,=
I~

-e

1067

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.36a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient


for Vsl = 1.25 m/s for 10% deionized water and 90 0k 6 cP oil
in the stainless steel pipeline using water soluble DRA

100
~

20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
A 50 ppm Stainless

80

60

40

20

.................................................

o
-20
-40

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.36b: Effectiveness ofDRA on the slug flow regime for


Vsl = 1.25 m/s using 10% water and 90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

1000
~

900

--c.

800

700

..."
=
:a
'-'"

"
c

Y20ppm

9600

8533 c..=:

OSOppm

..1..

7467

I-

600

6400

500

5333

I-

::s

..
~
~

>

-e

I.

fI}
fI}

4267 "~

3200

Ci)

I.

I.

300

c.

I.

400

"-

207

10667
t!t.Oppm

Cf)

s-

200

2133

100

1067

-e>

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.37a: The effect of gas velocity on average pressure gradient


for Vsl = 1.5 m/s for 10% deionized water and 90 % 6 cP oil
in the acrylic pipeline using water soluble DRA

100
~

80

60

20 ppm Acrylic
20 ppm Stainless
50 ppm Acrylic
SO ppm Stainless

20

40

t!t.

&

.................................................

-20
-40

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.6.37b: Effectiveness ofDRA on the slug flow regime for


Vsl = 1.5 m/s using 10tlc. water and 90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

208
nitrogen velocities of 2, 4, and 6 mis, respectively.

In the acrylic pipeline, the

corresponding effectiveness of the DRA increased to 13, 9, and 11%. The effectiveness
in the acrylic pipeline corresponds to a reduction of the baseline average pressure drop of
293 Palm to 254 Palm at 2 mis, as shown in Figure 4.6.35a. However, when 50 ppm of
DRA was used, the average pressure drop decreased to 166 Palm.
Similar results were also shown at superficial liquid mixture velocity of 1.25 mls.
The average pressure gradient in the stainless steel pipeline increased from 515 Palm to
622 Palm at 20 ppm then decreased to 307 Palm at 50 ppm for the superficial gas velocity
of 4 mis, as shown in Figure 4.6.36a. Figure 4.6.36b shows that for a superficial liquid
mixture velocity of 1.25 mis, the effectiveness ranged from 7 to 13% at 20 ppm in the
acrylic pipeline and ranged from 1 to -9% in the stainless steel pipeline. At 50 ppm the
effectiveness increased to 41, 55%, and 51% at superficial nitrogen velocities of 2, 4, and
6 mis, respectively. In the stainless steel pipeline, the values were 29, 47 and 50%.

Figures 4.6.37a and 4.6.37b show that the higher superficial liquid mixture velocity
studied of 1.5 mls also showed similar results.
The slug properties were not significantly affected at the 20 ppm conditions. At
the 50 ppm conditions, the slug frequency and film Froude number decreased and the
liquid film velocity increased with increasing DRA concentration.

These trends are

shown in Figures, 4.6.38, 4.6.40 and 4.6.41, respectively. An example is shown in the
Appendix in Table 4.6.26 for the superficial liquid mixture velocity of 1.5 mls and
superficial nitrogen velocity of2 mls. The slug frequency was 44 slugs/min at 0 ppm and
45 slugs/min at 20 ppm then reduced to 28 slugs/min at 50 ppm. The Froude number was

209

50

35

.....~

30

25
20

... ~

15

10

5
5

20

15

10

25

30

35

40

45

50

Slug Frequency at 0 ppm (slugs/min)

Figure 4.6.38: The effect ofDRA on slug frequency for 10%


deionized water and 900~ 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

5
\J 20 ppm

+ SO ppm
~

<
=:

Q
.c
......

.c
......

3
V

=
Ci5=

V~

...... +

....

..' +
~

1-

Slug Length at 0 ppm (m)

Figure 4.6.39: The effect ofDRA on slug length for 10,4


deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

210

20
~

18

~
Q
.c
....

20 ppm
50 ppm

16

14

-i
J.

..Q

"C

-e
Q

'-

&:

12

...... ~
.Vv
+

10

+~

... ~

4
2

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Film Froude Number at 0 ppm

Figure 4.6.40: the effect ofDRA on film Fronde number for 10%
deionized water and 90A. 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

5
~

~20ppm

+SOppm

{IJ
.......

'-"

~
Q
-=....
-i
.c

t#

-~
Q

>

+~

.5

"C

-;

~'7
~

....

.""V

~ ....

c:r

0
0

Liquid Film Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.6.41: The effect ofDRA on liquid film velocity for 10%
deionized water and 90h. 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

211

~
.........

----e
Q
==

...
i
....

.c:
~

. :t.
~

.'

. t'

>

-;
c

.s...

r:}V

=
=
r.
=
E~

...++

3
2
2

Translational Velocity at 0 ppm (m/s)

Figure 4.6.42: The effect ofDRA on translational velocity for 10%


deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

5
~

'\l 20 ppm

E
(J

+ so ppm

--~

...

.c:

.+' t

" .,V

fi:

,!.~'

'"CS

e;
c::r

"'+'

"

....~

'-

...e
..c

bI3

e~

==

2
2

Height of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (em)

Figure 4.6.43: The effect ofDRA on height of liquid film for 10%
deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil using water soluble DRA

212
5.4, 5.3, and reduced to 3.3 at 0, 20, and 50 ppm, respectively. The liquid film velocity
increased from 1.16 mls at 0 ppm to 1.23 mls at 20 ppm then increased to 1.99 mls at 50
ppm. The remaining slug properties were not significantly affected, as shown in Figures
4.6.39, 4.6.42 and 4.6.43.
The slug properties were again compared to the slug properties of pure water in
Figures 4.6.44 through 4.6.49. The slug frequency again showed significant scatter in
Figure 4.6.44a. If 4.6.44b is examined, the slug frequency shows a pattern of being
higher than pure water at 0 and 20 ppm, but lower at 50 ppm. The higher slug frequency
was expected at 0 and 20 ppm, due to the higher viscosity of the mixture. At 50 ppm, it
was not expected to see lower slug frequencies at 10% water cut.

One possible

hypothesis is that a component in the water soluble DRA is also soluble in the oil soluble
DRA. Figure 4.6.45 shows the slug length was longer in the 10% water cut, which was
expected, the higher the viscosity the longer the slug. The remaining figures show that
the film Froude number, liquid film velocity, translational velocity and liquid film height
were not significantly affected.

4.7 A Comparison of the Effectiveness in the Acrylic Pipeline to the Effectiveness


in the Stainless Steel Pipeline
A comparison between the acrylic and stainless steel pipelines is shown in Figure
4.7.1 for 20 ppm and Figure 4.7.2 for 50 ppm. From these figures it can be seen that at
20 and 50 ppm the effectiveness of the DRA in the acrylic and the stainless steel pipeline
are about the same.

-S=
........
fI)

ce

213

50

45

V Oppm
'V 20 ppm

40

SO ppm

:I

-;;

...
=
...

"-"

35

:!e

25

Coi

V
'V VV
'V

GIS

.=
......
0

30

Coi

=
c:r

Vv .. t;j

20

"1"1.....

15

...

10

'-~
fi3

YJ.

&:

VV

V
vV

'V

VV

.VV

10

20

15

25

30

35

45

40

SO

Slug Frequency at 100% Water (slugs/min)

Figure 4.6.44a: A comparison of slug frequency at 10% water cut with


slug frequency using 100% water and water soluble DRA

&:

-S
........
fit.)

=
{;j
"-"
...=

50

o Oppm

45

+ 20 ppm

40

SO ppm

1' ..

Coi

...

35

30

Q.}

.
..
0

0~

.......
=

25

20

=
=
c:r

15

r-.

10

(J

Q.)

-=
~

++

++~ .:

.-

.......

-10

0+
~

t)f)

r;5

5
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Slug Frequency at 1000/0 Water (slugs/min)

Figure 4.6.44b: A comparison of slug frequency at 10 % water cut with


slug frequency using 100% water and water soluble DRA

214

e
....
"-"

....

QI

=
~

';ft.

.=
.......
-=....=

t:)f)

=
=
r;j
QI

.J

V V7

~~
2

V7

t:)f)

000

v.:
.V7

W~~V
V
VI

1
1

Slug Length at 100% Water Cut (m)

Figure 4.6.45: A comparison of slug length at 10% water cut


with slug length using 1000/0 water with water soluble DRA

....

20

"QI

18

16

~
e

14

....
~

=
........
=
...
e

v~

12

10

V.
V7 tJ.'V..tJ

=
=
"-

'V

.5

QI
~

QI

-0
0

.0

... ~
.0V'V

Y-v
V

V7

.,~'

w'l

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Film Froude Number using 1005 Water

Figure 4.6.46: A comparison of film Froude number at


10% water cut and using 1000~ water and water soluble DRA

tI'}

.......

215

.....

I-

....CIS
~

';!e
~

=
.....

CIS

~
.....

-;

>
.5

'0
.;

c-

::3

Liquid Film Velocity using 100% Water (m/s)

Figure 4.6.47: A comparison of liquid film velocity at


10% water cut and using 1000/0 water and water soluble DRA

~
.......

e
=
U
~

.....

I-

=
.....

uC

~
.....

..YJt

';!e
e
~

. . <'

";

>

=
=
=
E-

-;
=
.2
.....
";i

l-

2
2

Translational Velocity using 100% Water (m/s)

Figure 4.6.48: A comparison of translational velocity at


10% water cut and using 1000/0 water and water soluble DRA

216

'-'

.....

u=
"~

.....(I
~
"ie
0
=>
W)

"V"

y:.~" W

.
~

"

"v.v

.....(I

r-

VV"

-=
.;

cr'

::s
"Q

.....

..=

-;~

2
2

Height of Liquid Film using 100% Water (em)

Figure 4.6.49: A comparison of height of liquid film at


10% water cut and using lOOA. water and water soluble DRA

,.-..
0~
"'-'

40

....

30

~
~

217
6 100% Water cut

+ 90%

Water cut
50% Water cut
10% 'Vater cut

CI':J
(I)
(I)

.5
0$

....

r:IJ

<

=
Q

'Q

20
10
0

-10

fIj
fIj

=
.::....

-20

-40

u
~

...

-30

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

40

Effectiveness ofDRA in Acrylic (0A.)

Figure 4.7.1: A comparison of the effectiveness ofDRA


in stainless steel and in acrylic pipelines at 20 ppm of water soluble DRA

100

80
60

100% Water cut

+ 90%
o 50

Water cut
Water cut
A 10Ofo Water cut
%

40

20

o
-20
-40

-40

-20

20

40

60

80

100

Effectiveness ofDRA in Acrylic (0A.)

Figure 4.7.2: A comparison of the effectiveness ofDRA


in stainless steel and in acrylic pipelines at 50 ppm of water soluble DRA

218
4.8 Comparison of Oil and Water Soluble DRA
Experiments using two water cuts of 10 and 50% were performed with both the
oil and water soluble DRAs for the slug flow regime. As mentioned earlier, nitrogen was
used as the gas phase for the water soluble DRA experiments because the nitrogen did
not lower the pH of the liquid. This section will show that the water soluble DRA
generally had a higher effectiveness than the oil soluble DRA. The main cause of the
higher effectiveness for the water soluble DRA is that the oil soluble DRA created a
dispersion with a higher viscosity where the water soluble DRA did not.

900/0 6 cP Oil and 10% Deionized Water

At a higher drag reducing agent concentration of 50 ppm, Figure 4.8.1 shows that
the water soluble DRA showed a higher effectiveness than the oil soluble DRA for the
majority of the experiments. A comparison of the slug properties show why the water
soluble DRA had a higher effectiveness than the oil soluble DRA.
Figure 4.8.2 shows that even at baseline conditions the slug frequency was
slightly lower for the water soluble experiments. This is because nitrogen was used when
the water soluble experiments were performed and carbon dioxide was used for the oil
soluble experiments. Carbon dioxide has a slightly higher density than the nitrogen
therefore, it can more easily create waves on the stratified film and then can grow and
form slugs.
When 20 ppm of DRA was added to the flow, Figure 4.8.2 shows that the slug
frequency did not change much but was still slightly lower for the water soluble DRA

...-..
~

219

60

=
""-'

50

:c

40

00
I-

....
=
~
....
~

{I}
{I}

30

20

=
~

-~
....
C.J

10

~
c...
~

0
0

10

20

30

40

60

50

Effectiveness of oil solu ble DRA (0A)

Figure 4.8.1: A comparison of the effectiveness of 50 ppm of water and oil


soluble DRA for slug flow at 100~ deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil

...-..

=
-5
........
tul
=
~

60

50

+ Oppm

""-'

1::1 20 ppm

50 ppm

.fA

:c

"0

40

... ~

30

~+

00

I-

....
=
~

..~
+.
+
.:

tul

-;j

=
=

20

...~+

C.J
~

=
0-

0 0

10

6. +0

!:J.

+0

oCO

I-

'-t)J)

(i3

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Slug Frequency using Oil Soluble DRA (slug/min)

Figure 4.8.2: A comparison of the slug frequency using water and oil
soluble DRA for slug flow at 100~ deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil

220
than the oil soluble DRA. It can be seen that the difference between the slug frequencies
is approximately the same for 0 and 20 ppm. At the higher DRA concentration of 50
ppm, the slug frequency decreased more when the water soluble DRA was used than the
oil soluble DRA. This larger decrease in the slug frequency give a subsequent decrease
in the accelerational pressure drop and causes the higher effectiveness of the water
soluble DRA.
A comparison of the slug length between the oil soluble and water soluble DRA is

shown in Figure 4.8.3. This figure shows that the slug length was shorter when the water
soluble DRA was used than when the oil soluble DRA was used at all DRA
concentrations. The smaller slug length also contributes to a lower frictional pressure
drop in the slug body and hence to a higher effectiveness for the water soluble DRA.
Figure 4.8.4 shows that there is no significant difference for the Froude number when the
oil and water soluble DRA was present. The velocity of the liquid film was higher when
the water soluble DRA was used as shown in Figure 4.8.5. The higher liquid film
velocity is due to the lower slug frequency and shorter slug lengths. The translational
velocity for the water soluble DRA is slightly higher than the oil soluble DRA
experiments as shown in Figure 4.8.6. The height of the liquid film is not significantly
different between the two different DRAs, as shown in Figure 4.8.7. Therefore, since
there is a lower slug frequency and slug length for the water soluble DRA experiments
there is more liquid under the same height of liquid film, causing a higher velocity.

221

+ Oppm
6 20 ppm

50 ppm

Slug Length using Oil Soluble DRA (m)

Figure 4.8.3: A comparison of the slug length using water and oil
soluble DRA for slug flow at 100/0 deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil

<
=

12

11

10

:c
Q

"-

=
"=
-

~
......
=:

CI)

e;

..c

Z=
=
"-

6
0
6.

fJj

* ...

&

.:

0
~.

.,

+..

. -b,

t..

3
3

10

11

12

Fronde Number using Oil Soluble DRA

Figure 4.8.4: A comparison of the Froude number using water and oil
soluble DRA for slug flow at 10% deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil

..-...

rI)
.......

222

E
"-"

+ Oppm

IX

o so ppm

-e

:is

20 ppm

:s

en

...
"~

all

~+
2

~
~

u...

4--

a
a

6+

rf08

'bt

~.,

fj. .'

..~

>
.5
ri:

-=
.;

0
0

c::r

Liquid Film Velocity using Oil Soluble DRA (m/s)

Figure 4.8.5: A comparison of the liquid film velocity using water and oil
soluble DRA for slug flow at 10% deionized water and 90A. 6 cP oil

..-..
fI}

.......

e
~
Q
::c:s

'0

00

...

~o

"~

all

o~

CI

c:
.;;

+4......

uQ

>

.'

C;

...

.g
=I

";i

C
=I

-.

+
t::.

Oppm
20 ppm
SOppm

Translational Velocity using Oil Soluble DRA (m/s)

Figure 4.8.6: A comparison of the translational velocity using water and oil
soluble DRA for slug flow at 100/0 deionized water and 90% 6 cP oil

223

+ o ppm
6. 20 ppm

o SO ppm

en~"
+ l:i .0
o 00
.+..
0

4
lJ,.

~
-A

/). c/'J"

+ .0
+..

0
0

2
2

Height oftbe Liquid Film using Oil Soluble DRA (em)

Figure 4.8.7: A comparison of the height of the liquid film


using water and oil soluble DRA for slug flow
at 10% deionized water and 90 % 6 cP oil

224
50% 6 cP Oil and 50A Deionized Water
At 20 ppm of water soluble DRA the effectiveness was low. At 50 ppm, the
effectiveness was significantly higher for the water soluble DRA than the oil soluble
DRA, as shown in Figure 4.8.8. The low effectiveness at 20 ppm was attributed to the
slug frequency being approximately the same at 0 and 20 ppm, as shown in Figure 4.8.9.
At 50 ppm the slug frequency, when using the oil soluble DRA increased, while the slug
frequency when using the water soluble DRA decreased. Again, this decrease in slug
frequency, which lowered the accelerational pressure drop, is the major contribution to
the higher effectiveness for the water soluble DRA. Figure 4.8.10 shows that there is no
clear distinction between the slug lengths for the two different DRAs. Figure 4.8.11
shows that at 0 ppm the Froude number was slightly higher for the water soluble DRA.
This was attributed to the use of nitrogen as the gas for the water soluble DRA. When
the DRA concentration was increased to 20 ppm, this figure shows little difference
between the two cases. When the DRA concentration was further increased to 50 ppm,
the Froude number for the water soluble DRA experiments were lower than the Froude
number for the oil soluble DRA experiments. This is attributed to the change in film
height and velocity shown below.

Figure 4.8.12 indicates that there is little difference

between the liquid filmvelocity at baseline conditions and at 20 ppm of DRA. When the
slug frequency increased from the use of the oil soluble DRA at 50 ppm, the liquid film
velocity decreased where the liquid film velocity increased in the water soluble DRA
experiments, which is due to the decrease in slug frequency. Therefore, Figure 4.8.12
shows that the liquid film velocity is significantly higher for the water soluble

225

60
40

20

o
-20
-40
-60

-80
-100
-120
-120

-100

-80

-60

-20

-40

40

20

60

Effectiveness of oil soluble DRA (%)

Figure 4.8.8: A comparison of the effectiveness of 50 ppm of water and oil


soluble DRA for slug flow at 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil

60

+ Oppm
~

50

20 ppm
50 ppm

~
~

..

..

40
30

.4f

+..
20

." "!!I-

J"

10

""./5. 0

00

00

o
o

10

20

30

40

50

60

Slug Frequency using Oil Soluble DRA (slug/min)

Figure 4.8.9: A comparison of the slug frequency using water and oil
soluble DRA for slug flow at 500~ deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil

226

+ Oppm
8. 20 ppm

o SO ppm
3

o
o

Slug Length using Oil Soluble DRA (m)

Figure 4.8.10: A comparison of the slug length using water and oil
soluble DRA for slug flow at 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil

16

:E

14

v:

-.

12

10

Q=

....

++

fIJ

=
-.

..

AA
.0
+ '-U
..
+
...

.:

~ ... ~

..c

z=
-.=
"0

-tt..+ +t::,.
.

....6.

'-

0 0

2
2

10

12

14

16

Froude Number using Oil Soluble DRA

Figure 4.8.11: A comparison of the Froude number using water and oil
soluble DRA for slug flow at 50% deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil

"'"
e

227

'-'"

=:

:c

e=

..

{I;J

0
3

....
c

GIl

.c
u
e

>
.5
~

"CS
.;

.~.

.-

~~..

6.1-

+..li
0
1

="

:s

Liquid Film Velocity using Oil Soluble DRA (m/s)

Figure 4.8.12: A comparison of the liquid film velocity using water and oil
soluble DRA for slug flow at 500/0 deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil

...--.

rI.2
.......

'-'"

:E

erLJ=

..

....

0+

~+ ~~

GiS

ffJ&.
o .:

l)J)

.<::

.;j

=
.c
e

>
-;

..=

.s=
~

....=
GIl

E-

~+

..

~.o

.+J6.
3
3

Translational Velocity using Oil Soluble DRA (m/s)

Figure 4.8.13: A comparison of the translational velocity


using water and oil soluble DRA for slug flow
at 500/0 deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil

228
experiments. Figure 4.8.13 shows how little the change is in the translational velocity,
but the height of the liquid film does show a significant difference between the two
DRAs at 50 ppm in Figure 4.8.14. The large difference was attributed to the 6 fold
increase in the viscosity for the oil soluble DRA. This causes the liquid film become
thicker.

229

+ oppm
6. 20 ppm

+...

o SO ppm

.....

+ ....,4
et..+ +J}J
~
a
A

+u ..

..
~

.
a

0
0

2
2

Height of the Liquid Film using Oil Soluble DRA (em)

Figure 4.8.14: A comparison of the height of the liquid film


water and oil soluble DRA for slug flow at
50o~ deionized water and 50% 6 cP oil

230

CHAPTERS
PRESSURE DROP COMPONENTS OF SLUG FLOW

To calculate the pressure drop accurately in slug flow, the accelerational,


frictional, and gravitational pressure components need to be determined.

The

experimental apparatus used in this study was horizontal so the gravitational pressure
component was zero. The accelerational pressure drop occurs in the slug front and an
accelerational pressure recovery occurs in the slug tail. The frictional pressure drop
exists between the slug body and wall and a small portion exists due to the stratified film
between slugs. Dukler and Hubbard (1975) used the mass pickup rate of the slug front to
determine the accelerational pressure drop as shown in Equation 2.14 in the literature
review,

(2.14)
The pressure drop in Equation 2.14 needed to be converted to a value, which
could be related to the pressure trace from the experiments. The average of a pressure
trace was calculated by summing all the pressure drop values and dividing by the total
number of points collected. The total number of points collected was calculated by
multiplying the sampling time,

~t,

by the sampling frequency, Hz. It was assumed that

while the slug front was in between the taps, the pressure drop caused by the slug front
was a constant value equal to the value obtained in Equation 2.14, then the average
pressure drop of the slug front was calculated.

This average was calculated by

231
multiplying the average pressure loss due to the slug front, M>a, by the number of points
on the pressure trace that was created due to the presence of the slug front divided by the
total number of points on the pressure trace. To determine the number of points on the
pressure trace that was created by the slug front, the time it takes for the slug front to
move in between the pressure taps,

~tsf,

must first be calculated by the following

equation:
L1t sf

where

~L

(5.1)

is the length between the pressure taps,

slug and lmz is the length of the mixing zone.

Vt

is the translational velocity of the

Therefore, for one slug, the average

pressure drop due to the slug front on the pressure trace, can be determined by:

LlPa ((L1L +:~ )Hz)


(APa )

Hz LIt

(5.2)

This equation must then be multiplied by the number of slugs sampled to obtain an
overall average pressure drop due to all of the slug fronts. The number of slugs sampled
was detennined by multiplying the sampling time by the slug frequency, us. Once these
quantities were multiplied and the equation was reduced, the following equation was the
result:

(5.3)

This equation is only valid if the number of slugs in between the pressure taps was one at
any given moment. If more than one slug was present, the time it takes for the slug to

232
move from one tap to another was shared with the other slugs present between the
pressure taps.

Therefore, the time it takes for the slugs to move between the taps

(Equation 5.1) must be divided by the number of slugs present in between the taps, N;
Equation 5.3 now becomes:
(5.4)

To determine if more than one slug was present in between the taps, the time it takes for
one slug to completely move from one pressure tap to the other,

~ts

needs to be

calculated. This was calculated by adding the time it takes for the slug front to move
from one pressure tap to the second pressure tap to the time it takes for the slug body to
move over the second pressure tap, as shown in equation 5.5.

(5.5)
The time needed to sample all the slugs,

~tT,

then was calculated by multiplying Equation

5.5 by the number of slugs sampled, as shown in the next equation.

(5.6)
If

~tT

is greater than the sampling time,

~t,

then more than one slug was present in

between the taps. The number of slugs present was then the ratio of the total time,

~tT,

to

the sampling time.


A second accelerational component occurs at the slug tail. A pressure recovery is
observed when the velocity changes from the fast moving slug to the slower moving slug

233
tail. As shown in the literature review, by using the Bernoulli equation, Fan et ale (1993)
has shown that the pressure recovery in the slug tail, L\PtaiI, can be calculated by:
(2.18)
The value obtained from Equation 2.18 also needs to be converted to the average
pressure drop in a pressure trace by using a similar equation to Equation 5.4.

(5.7)

Dukler and Hubbard (1975) models the frictional pressure drop due to the slug
body, L\Pr, by using a modified form of the single phase equation for pressure drop when
the liquid holdup inside the slug is greater than 0.70, as shown in the literature review.
The density used in this equation is the mixture density of the gas and liquid as shown in
the following equation:

(2.15)
Equation 2.15 is only valid when the liquid holdup in the slug is greater than 0.70.
Therefore, also shown the literature review, when the slug becomes more aerated, the
following equation can be used as shown by Fan et ale (1993):
=

ot;

1l-W

(2.25)

The average pressure loss obtained in equation 2.15 or 2.25, then needs to be
converted into an average pressure drop that can be related to the pressure trace. This can
be accomplished by using an equation similar to equation 5.4. The only difference is that

234
the slug body is traveling at a different velocity, V M, than the slug front.

The resulting

equation is:

(5.8)

The frictional loss due to the liquid film between the slugs was calculated using
stratified flow equations. As discussed in the literature review, Andritsos et.al (1987)
calculates the average pressure gradient by using momentum balances as shown in
Equation 2.3.
dp
=
dx

(2.3)

Equation 2.3 then needs to be converted into a pressure drop, which can be related to a
pressure trace. The first step is to determine how time on the pressure trace is due to the
stratified film.

Equation 5.6 calculates the time that slug flow exists between the

pressure taps, therefore, if Equation 5.6 is subtracted from the sampling time, the time in
which stratified flow exists is the result.

The time that stratified flow exists then must

be multiplied by the sampling frequency to obtain the total number of points on the
pressure trace which is due to the stratified film. Then to calculate the effect of the
stratified flow on the average pressure gradient, the number of points due to stratified
film must then be divided by the total number of points.

After simplification and

multiplying by the length of the pressure taps to convert the pressure gradient into a
pressure drop, the following equation resulted:

(5.9)

235
Equation 5.9 shows that if the slug frequency is zero

(~tT =

0) and only stratified flow

exists, this equation reduces back to the average pressure gradient for stratified flow. If
more than one slug is present in between the pressure taps, Equation 5.9 becomes
negative, i.e.

~tT>L\t.

The length of stratified film between the taps can be calculated by

subtracting the length of slug multiplied by the number of slugs present between the taps
and subtracting from the length between the taps. Then to calculate the time it takes for
this length to travel over the pressure tap, the length of the film must be divided by the
velocity of the film. Since the pressure drop due to the stratified flow does not occur over
the entire length between the pressure taps, the length that Equation 2.3 needs to be
multiplied by is the length of the film. If the same procedure is followed to determine the
number of points on the pressure trace is due to the liquid film, the following equation is
the result.

(5.10)

Again, if there is no slugs present (N, = 0), this equation reduces back down to the
equation for stratified flow. Therefore, after the accelerational pressure drop due to the
slug front, the accelerational pressure recovery due to the slug tail, the frictional loss due
to the slug body and the frictional loss due to the liquid film between slugs are calculated,
the total pressure drop for the slug flow can be calculated using the following equation:

(5.11)

236

5.1 Calculation of Individual Pressure Components for Oil Soluble DRA

The model previously described was used to calculate the different pressure
components for the experimental results in the acrylic pipeline.

The stainless steel

pipeline used in this study was new, therefore, for the test matrix used, there was not a
significant difference in the friction factor of the two pipelines causing similar average
pressure drops. The average pressure drop of the pipelines was generally within the error
bars of the average, therefore, the following results are calculated for the acrylic pipeline.

lOO%A. 6 cP Oil

The results are shown in Figures 5.1.1 through 5.1.3 for DRA concentrations of 0,
20 and 50 ppm, respectively. The results are also given in the Appendix in Tables 5.1.1
through 5.1.3 for the same DRA concentrations. A sample of the results is described in
detail in this section.
Figures 5.1.1 to 5.1.3 show that there is generally good agreement between the
model and experimental values. The higher pressure drops are at the higher superficial
gas velocities. Here the liquid holdup in the slug decreases and Equation 2.18 may not
very accurate. At high gas velocities, the slug tail entrains a significant amount of gas,
therefore, to make Equation 2.18 more accurate, the mixture density of the tail probably
should be used. To date there is no method of determining the mixture density of the tail.
For a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls the average pressure drop for each
pressure component is shown in Figures 5.1.4 to 5.1.6 for DRA concentrations of 0,20
and 50 ppm, respectively. At this oil flowrate, there was only one slug between the taps

237

12000
~

c. 10000

"-"

c..
Q
t.

8000

'"=

~
~

v. ...
\J .. V
'V

6000

t.

C.

-;
.~
.....

4000

'"

VZ~

.c

f-

2000

.. V \J
\J

0
0

4000

2000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.1.1: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental


pressure drop for 100% 6 cP oil 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

12000
~

=-=
c..

10000

'-'

-'"
Q

8000

'V

=
=--;'"
~
~

'Y .:

6000

\J

.~

.....
~

-=
f-

4000

v:

Wlfl

2000

..\j
\J

.'1
\J

\J

0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (pa)

Figure 5.1.2: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop


for 100 % 6 cP oil using 20 ppm of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

238

12000
..-..

=-=C.

10000

I-

8000

Q
~

I-

fIJ
fIJ

6000

l-

=-

";
.~

....

4000

I-

.c

E-

2000
O

2000

4000

6000

10000

8000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.1.3: A comparison of theoretical and experimental


pressure drop for 100% 6 cP oil using 50 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

2000

..-..

=-=
~

c.

Measured

+ Theoretical

1800

~ SlugFront
Tail
o SlugBody
Y Film

1600
1400

I-

Q
~

I-

=
fIJ
fIJ

I-

=-

800

600

400

0
V

I~

>

-<

1200
1000

200

D
'V

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.4: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for
1000/0 6 cP oil at VsI = 0.3 m/s at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

2000

239

Measured
Tbeoretical
V SlugFront
Tail
o SlugBody
Y Film

+
1600
1400

1200

1000
800

600

400

200

\l

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.5: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.3 m/s at 20 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

2000

Measured

1800

+ Theoretical

1600

1400

V SlugFront

Tail
SlugBody
Film

1200

+
o

1000
800

600

+
o

400
200

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.6: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.3 m/s at 50 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

240
at anyone time. At 0 ppm, Figure 5.1.4 shows that at low superficial velocities of 1 to 3

mis, the frictional pressure drop in the slug body is the largest component in the average
pressure drop. As the superficial gas velocity is increased, the accelerational pressure
drop becomes the dominant component at about 4 mls. Notice that as the superficial gas
velocity is increased from 4 to 6 to 8 mis, the difference between the pressure drop due to
the slug front and the other pressure drop components increases. This was expected. The
amount of gas entrained in the slug front increases with increasing superficial gas
velocity. Therefore, at low superficial gas velocities, when the gas entrainment is low,
the turbulence in the slug front is also low and the largest pressure drop component is due
to the loss of friction between the slug body and wall. As the gas velocity is increased,
the turbulence in the slug front is increased and the accelerational pressure drop due to
the slug front becomes higher than the frictional pressure drop due to the slug body.
Figure 5.1.4 also shows that the pressure recovery for the slug tail is lower in magnitude
than both the accelerational pressure drop from the slug front and frictional pressure drop
due to the slug body. The pressure component with the least impact was the pressure
drop due to the liquid film, as expected. It can be seen from Figure 5.1.5 that when the
DRA concentration was 20 ppm, the accelerational pressure drop becomes the dominant
pressure drop component at 2 mis, where as at 0 ppm, it did not become the largest
component until the superficial gas velocity was 4 mls. This was also expected since the
drag reducing agent reduces the frictional component but has little effect on the
turbulence in the slug front. Similar results were shown in Figure 5.1.6 for the DRA
concentration of 50 ppm. The accelerational pressure loss due to the slug front is slightly

241
higher than the frictional loss of the slug body at superficial gas velocities of 2 and 3 mis,
but a significant difference is observed at 4 and 6 mls.

When the gas velocity was

increased to 8 mis, the flow regime changed to slug flow. This figure also shows that the
theoretical pressure drop is higher than the actual pressure drop for all cases studied.
Since this occurs at the high DRA concentration of 50 ppm, a modified friction factor
may be needed to take into account the DRA interaction between the wall and fluid.
When the superficial liquid velocity was increased to 0.5 mis, similar results were
shown in Figures 5.1.7 through 5.1.9. Figure 5.1.7 shows that at baseline conditions, the
frictional pressure drop due to the slug body is slightly higher than the accelerational
pressure drop due to the slug front at 1 mls.

At a superficial gas velocity of 2 mis, the

difference between the frictional and accelerational pressure drop is negligible. At a


superficial gas velocity of 4 mis, the accelerational pressure drop due to the slug front
becomes slightly higher than the pressure drop due to the slug body. The difference
between these two quantities increases with increasing gas velocity. This graph also
shows that the pressure recovery of the slug tail is less than the accelerational pressure
drop due to slug front and frictional pressure drop due to the slug body. The pressure
drop due to the liquid film is again the smallest contributor to the average pressure drop.
For drag reducing agent concentrations of 20 and 50 ppm, the results are shown in
Figures 5.1.8 and 5.1.9, respectively.

At 20 ppm, the difference between the

accelerational pressure drop and the frictional pressure drop is negligible at gas velocities
of 1 and 2 mls.

At 4 mis, the accelerational pressure drop due to the slug front

4000
~

Q..

"-"

c..
Q

a.
Q
~
a.

fI.)
fI.)

a.

Q..

Measured
+ Theoretical
f:J Slug Front
Tail
o SlugBody
Y Film

3600
3200
2800

2400

2000

1600

a.
=
~

1200

<

800

Cf)

242

f:J

'l

<>

400

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.7: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for
100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.5 m/s at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

4000

Measured

3600

+ Theoretical

3200

c..
Q

2800

'V Slug Front

Q..

a.

2400

2000

a..
fI.)
fI.)

Tail

o SlugBody

"-"

Y Film

'l

a.

=-

1600

a.
=

1200

eI)

<

800
0
0

400

\l

'V

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.8: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.5 m/s at 20 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

4000

Measured
Theoretical
'V Slug Front
Tail
o SlugBody
Film

3600
~

=
c..

3200

-=
-=

2800

2400

~
~

2000

c..

1600

'-"

Q.

243

CJ)

1200

;>

<

800

'\I

400
0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.9: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.5 mls at 50 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

11000
~

C.

o Measured

+ Theoretical

10000
9000

V Slug Front
Tail
o SlugBody
Film

-e

8000

7000

Q.

='
fI.)

'\I
d}

6000

fI.)

=~

CJ)

=
~

;>

5000

'fI

4000
3000

+
V

< 2000

<>

1000
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.10: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for
1000~ 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.5 m/s at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

244

becomes the largest component and becomes more dominant as the gas velocity is
increased to 6 and 8 mls. Figure 5.1.9 shows that when the DRA concentration increased
to 50 ppm, better agreement between the theoretical and experimental pressure drop was
observed when compared to the 0.3 mls data.

This was expected, since the slug

frequency increased from 0.3 to 0.5 mis, the pressure drop is more related to the
accelerational pressure drop instead of the frictional pressure drop. Therefore, the need
or a modified friction factor is reduced.
The last superficial oil velocity that is described in detail is 1.5 mls. The results
are shown in Figures 5.1.10 through 5.1.12, for 0, 20, and 50 ppm, respectively. Notice
that the average pressure drop is much greater at the higher superficial liquid velocity.
This is attributed to the multiple slugs being present between the taps. These graphs
show that at a superficial gas velocity of2 mis, the accelerational pressure drop is slightly
higher than the frictional pressure drop due to the slug body.

As the superficial gas

velocity is increased, the difference between these two points again increases.

The

accelerational pressure recovery for the slug tail is generally lower than the frictional loss
due to the slug body and accelerational pressure drop due to the slug front. As previously
mentioned, the pressure drop due to the liquid film is the lowest pressure drop component
at all velocities studied. These figures show that the agreement between the theoretical
and experimental pressure drop is not as good as the lower superficial liquid velocities of
0.3 and 0.5 mls. The equations used in these models are directly related to the slug
frequency, therefore, a small error in the measurement of the slug properties will create a

11000
.-..

Q.

'-'

e,

8000
7000

::s

~
~

=-

4000

Q.J

3000

SlugBody
Tail
<>

Film

6000
5000

t)J)

=
<

V SlugFront

9000

+ Theoretical

10000

"-

245

o Measured

0
0

+
'\J

2000

1000
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.11: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.5 mls at 20 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

11000

o Measured
+ Theoretical

10000
.-..
9000

=-=
c..

'-'

-=
e

::s

V SlugFront

8000
7000

<>

Tail
SlugBody

Film

6000

CI}

t)J)
~

-e

5000

4000

3000

'\J

2000
1000
0

<>

8
1

<>

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.12: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 100% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.5 m/s at 50 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

246

larger error at the higher superficial liquid velocities, since the small error is multiplied
by a much larger slug frequency.
Figures 5.1.13 through 5.1.16 show how the presence of the drag reducing agent
effects each of the pressure components. To clarify the figure, the effect of DRA on the
accelerational pressure drop due to the slug front was separated into two figures, Figures
5.1.13a and 5.1.13b. These figures show that at the low accelerational pressure drops,
<700

P~

when only one slug was between the taps there was little difference in the

accelerational pressure drop. As the average accelerational pressure drop increased, so


did the effect of DRA on the accelerational pressure gradient.

The accelerational

pressure gradient increases with increasing slug frequency. As previously shown the
addition of the DRA decreases the slug frequency. At the low slug frequencies (low
accelerational pressure drops) a 50% reduction in slug frequency will result in
approximately 200 Pa reduction in accelerational pressure gradient.

As the slug

frequency increases (high accelerational pressure drops) a 20% reduction in slug


frequency can result in a reduction of accelerational pressure drop of over 1,500 Pa. For
example, at a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial gas velocity of2 mis, the
accelerational pressure drop decreased by 182 Pa at an oil soluble DRA concentration of
50 ppm, even though the slug frequency decreased 50% from 4 to 2 slugs/min. At the
higher superficial liquid velocity of 1.0 mls and a superficial gas velocity of 6 mis, the
slug frequency decreased from 25 slugs/min to 19 slugs/min. The accelerational pressure
drop for this higher slug frequency, decreased by 1,651 Pa when using 50 ppm of the oil
soluble DRA.

all

c..

....."

~
Q
,.c
....
-i
c.

...
...::I
0

2100
1800

fI2
fI2

1200

c;

=
...

-2
....
all

CJ
CJ

SO ppm

2400

1500

V 20 ppm

2700

...
c..

247

3000

vyjv

900
600

.v

-.
V

300
0

-e

300

600

900

1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

Accelerational Pressure Drop at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.1.13a: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational pressure drop


for 1000;0 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA

=-=

....."

10000
V 20ppm

9000

SOppm

,.c

....

-i
c.

8000

J.

...
=
~

fI2

fI2
~

7000

6000

J.
~

'";

=
-~
....
=
...
~

5000
4000

-;
CJ
CJ

-e

3000
3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Accelerational Pressure Drop at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.1.13b: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational pressure drop


for 1000/0 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA

ail

c.
'-'

~
Q

.........

"'CI

3600

2000

...
=
...
c.
~

l I}
fIj

-;
=
.2
.....

Y(J

2800

ri3

c.
...e

50 ppm

3200

=
....e

Y(J 20 ppm

2400

01
::::I

248

4000

,,

_. v. ..
.V

....

1600
1200
800
400
0
0

800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000

400

Frictional Pressure Drop due to Slug Body at 0 ppm (pa)

'-

Figure 5.1.14: The effect ofDRA on the frictional pressure drop due to
slug body for 1000/0 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline using oil soluble DRA

..-..
ail

C.

'-"

1000
Y(J 20 ppm

.c
.....

-i

SO ppm

800

.;
fbJ)

...
Ci5

600

>
e

400

v:

-;

200

.s
.....
-;'"'

u
u

<

~ ...

: ...pi'

--

ail
~

. ..
0

200

~V

.v
.... i

....

"

400

600

800

1000

Accelerations) Recovery of Slug Tail at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.1.15a: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational pressure recovery


of slug tail for 100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

249

3400
V 20 ppm
SOppm

3000

2600

2200
1800
1400

i
1000

1000

1400

2200

1800

2600

3000

3400

Accelerational Recovery of Slug Tail at 0 ppm (Pa)

Figure 5.1.15b: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational pressure recovery


of slug tail for 100 % 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

,.-.,...
CIS

=-....,

2100

1800

1500

-=...

.5
~

.;

1200

"C

C'"

::s
c..

900

f'Ij
f'Ij

600

Q
~

-;

.s....=
u

C
~

300
0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

Frictional Loss of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.1.16: The effect ofDRA 00 frictional loss of liquid film


for 100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

250

Figure 5.1.14 shows the opposite effect on the frictional pressure loss due to the
slug body. At low pressure drops, there is a significant decrease in the frictional loss, as
the average pressure drop increases, the effect of DRA become negligible. This was also
expected. The turbulence in the slug body was changed at the low pressure drops where
the Froude number is low. The addition of the DRA causes the slugs to move toward the
plug/slug transition. Therefore, there is a significant difference in the slug body at the
low Froude numbers, since they more resemble plugs than slugs. At the higher Froude
numbers, the slugs still resemble slugs when the DRA is present. The turbulence in the
slug body did not significantly changed. The frictional losses are mainly due to the
turbulence in the slug body, therefore, there is little effect on the frictional pressure loss.
Figure 5.1.15a and 5.1.15b show how the pressure recovery of the slug tail was
affected by the presence of the DRA. This figure shows that at the low pressure drop
there was a sight decrease in the recovery of the slug tail when the DRA was present. At
the higher pressure drops, there was a higher reduction in the recovery of the slug tail.
As previously shown, the higher the slug frequency the more of a reduction observed in
the slug frequency.

Therefore, at the higher pressure drops, the slug frequency is

reduced more and the reduction in the pressure drop recovery due to the slug tail is due to
the reduction of the slug frequency.
The effect of DRA on the frictional liquid film pressure drop is shown in Figure
5.1.16. This shows that this component of the pressure drop increased with increasing
DRA concentration.

Here, the slug length and slug frequency decreased with the

presence of the drag reducing agent and hence the length and velocity of film increased

251
causing this increase in this component of pressure drop. The pressure increase in the
stratified film is much smaller than the pressure decrease of the other pressure drop
components, therefore, a pressure reduction was still shown.

900/0 6 cP Oil and

100~

Deionized Water

Three superficial liquid velocities of 1.0, 1.25 and 1.5 mls with three superficial
gas velocities of 2, 4, and 6 mls were studied at this water cut. The measured average
pressure gradient is compared to the total theoretical pressure gradient in Figure 5.1.17
for all velocities and DRA concentrations studied.

This figure shows that there is

generally good agreement between the theoretical and experimental values.

The

experimental results are also summarized in Tables 5.1.4 through 5.1.6 in the Appendix.
Examples of the individual pressure drop components are shown in Figure 5.1.18
through 5.1.20 for the superficial liquid velocity of 1.5 mls. The individual pressure drop
components for baseline conditions are shown in Figure 5.1.18.

This figure shows

similar results to the 100% 6 cP oil data. The dominant pressure drop component is the
accelerational pressure drop at all the gas velocities studied. This is due to the multiple
slugs being present between the taps at the higher superficial liquid velocities.

The

difference between the accelerational pressure drop and the remaining pressure drop
components increase as the gas velocity is increased. Similar results were shown when
DRA was present in the system, as shown in Figures 5.1.19 and 5.1.20.

The

accelerational pressure drop in both figures is again the dominant pressure drop

252

12000

-=
~

OOppm
20 ppm
'V 50 ppm

+
10000

c.

oJ.
Q

8000

J.

=
~
~

6000

J.
~

-;
.....

.~

4000

J.

~
E-

2000

4000

2000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.1.17: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure drop


for 90% 6 cP oil and 10% water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

11000

Measured

+ Theoretical

10000
"........

=-e,

'V Slug Front


Tail
o SlugBody

9000

8000

7000

J.
~

J.

=
~

J.

=~

=
J.

+
'V

6000
5000

4000

3000

<

2000

1000

>

Film

0
1

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.18: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 90% 6 cP oil and 10 % water at Vsl = 1.5 m/s at 0 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

11000
,-...
0:
Q..
'-'

c.

'Q
~

'-

Of)

0:

3000

<

2000

Film

+
0

4000

'~
~

7000
5000

SlugBody
Tail
<>

8000
6000

'-

V SlugFroot

9000

=-

+ Theoretical

10000

C'-)
C'-)

253

o Measured

<>

1000
0
1

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.19: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 90% 6 cP oil and 10% water at Vsl = 1.5 m/s at 20 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

11000

o Measured

+ Theoretical

10000

V SlugFroot

,-...
0:

=--

'-'

c.

'-

'-

9000
8000

7000

6000

5000

C'-)

o SlugBody
Tail
Film

CI}

'-

4000

3000

<

2000

<>

1000

.=>.

Of)

<>

'\J

0
1

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.20: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 900/0 6 cP oil and 10% water at Vsl = 1.5 m/s at 50 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

254
component at all gas velocities studied. The pressure drop due to the stratified film was
the lowest contributor to the pressure drop, as shown in Figure 5.1.18 through 5.1.20.
These figures also show that the agreement between the theoretical and experimental
pressure drop are not as good as the low superficial liquid velocities of 0.3 and 0.5 mls
for two phase flow. The same explanation for two phase flow can be applied to this
example. At the high superficial liquid velocities, the slug frequency is high, therefore, a
small error in the measurement of slug properties will create a larger error in the
calculated pressure drop for this higher superficial liquid velocities.
The effect of the drag reducing agent on the individual pressure drop components
is plotted in Figures 5.1.21 through 5.1.24. Figure 5.1.21 shows that at 20 ppm there was
little effect on the accelerational pressure drop.

When the drag reducing agent

concentration increased to 50 ppm, the accelerational pressure drop decreased. This was
due to the decrease in slug frequency. For example, at a superficial oil velocity of 1.0
mls and a gas velocity of 6 mis, the slug frequency was 24 slugs/min at 0 and 20 ppm and
decreased to 19 slugs/min at 50 ppm. The calculated accelerational pressure drop for this
example was 3,922 Pa at 0 ppm, 3,402 Pa at 20 ppm and 2,271 Pa at 50 ppm. Figure
5.1.22 shows that there was also little effect on the frictional component due to the slug
body. At 50 ppm, there is also little effect on the frictional component. The points that
show a significant decrease are at the higher gas velocities of 4 and 6 mls. Figure 5.1.23
shows that at the low DRA concentration of 20 ppm, there was little effect on the
pressure recovery of the tail.

At the higher DRA concentration of 50 ppm, this figure

shows that the majority of the experiments had a lower pressure recovery.

The opposite

CIlI

=-

255

7000

V 20ppm

<
=:

6000

-=.....

5000

SOppm

Q
I.

... 'v

4000

~
~
fI)

3000

=
.g
....
ellS

~.

2000
1000

.... ei

1000

2000

I.
~

u
u

.'.

Vi .

I.

=..
-;

I.

:s

.. tj

c.

-<

4000

3000

5000

6000

7000

Accelerational Pressure Drop at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.1.21: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational pressure drop for
900/0 6 cP oil and 10% water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

=-=
'-'

5000

4500

-i

4000

-=.....

>.

"=
Q

=
t)J)

:s

{i5
~

:s

"=
c.
Q
I.

I.

:s
fI)
fI)

I.

e.
-;
=
.2
.....
u

-t:

)1.:

v
e

3500
3000

... V

V.:

2500

2000

1500
1000

500

0
0

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Frictional Pressure Drop due to Slug Body at 0 ppm (Pa)

'-

Figure 5.1.22: The effect ofDRA on the frictional pressure drop due
to slug body for 900/06 cP oil and look water
using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

256

2000
V 20 ppm

SO ppm

1600

1200

.
.-

800

v:

400

.-- V

400

800

1200

1600

2000

Accelerational Recovery of Slug Tail at 0 ppm (Pa)

Figure 5.1.23: The effect ofDRA on accelerational pressure recovery


of slug tail for 90% 6 cP oil and 10% water
using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

1100

1000
900
800

700

600
500

400
300

200
100

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Frictional Loss of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (Pa)

Figure 5.1.24: The effect ofDRA on the frictional loss of liquid film for
90% 6 cP oil and 10% water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

257
is true of the frictional loss due to the liquid film as show in Figure 5.1.24. As previously
stated, as the DRA concentration increases, the slug frequency decreases, therefore,
causing more distance between the slugs and a higher liquid film velocity which
increases the frictional pressure drop due to the liquid film. Since this pressure drop is so
small at baseline conditions, the increase in pressure drop value will not greatly effect the
total pressure drop.

50% 6 cP Oil and 50% Deionized Water


At the higher water cut of 50%, a dispersion was created when the DRA was
present in the flow. Therefore, the pressure drop increased due to the higher apparent
viscosity. During the calculations for the average pressure gradient, a higher apparent
viscosity was used in the calculations. At 20 ppm, a viscosity of 8 cP was used and at a
DRA concentration of 50 ppm, the viscosity used was 30 cP. The calculations are shown
in the Appendix in Tables 5.1.7 to 5.1.9.
Figures 5.1.25 through 5.1.27 show the accuracy of the theoretical pressure drop
for the DRA concentrations of 0, 20 , and 50 ppm, respectively. These figures show that
there is generally good agreement between the theoretical and experimental values. At
the higher pressure drops (>5,000 Pa) the theoretical pressure drop is not as accurate as
the lower pressure drops. The higher pressure drop occurs at the higher slug frequencies,
therefore, a small error in slug characteristics will cause a significant error in the
theoretical pressure drop. A sample of the individual pressure drop components is shown
in Figures 5.1.28 through 5.2.30 for superficial liquid mixture velocity of 0.5 mls. These

258

12000
..-...

= 10000

Q.

Co.

es-

-=

8000

fI.l
fI.l

=-;
.~

6000

.0

s-

0 b

.0

2000

.c

r-

4000

oW

Eb

0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.1.25: A comparison oftheoretical and experimental pressure


drop for 500~ 6 cP oil and 50% water at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

12000
..-...

=-=
c..

10000

eI-

-=

8000

CI}
CI}

s-

=";
.~

6000

o
0
.0

4000

oW
~

.c

2000
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.1.26: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure


drop for 50 % 6 cP oil and 50% water at 20 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

259

12000
...-..

=
=-c..

10000

8000

~
~

=
f I)
fI)

~
~

=-;

...

.~

6000

.6

o
o

4000

~
~

.::
E-

2000
O

2000

8000

6000

4000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.1.27: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure


drop for 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water at 50 ppm
of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

6600

V Slug Front

c..
Q
~

~
~

=
fI)
fI)

~
~

=
~
~

<

Measured

+ Theoretical

...-.. 6000
~
5400

Tail

Film

o SlugBody

4800
4200
3600

3000

2400

'i)

1800

'V

1200
600

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.28: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for
50% 6 cP oil and 50 0hl water at Vsl = 0.5 m/s at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

6600
~

Q.

---c.
Q

l-

Measured
Theoretical
~ Slug Front

6000

5400
4800
4200

<> SlugBody
Tail

e
l= 3600
~

260

Film

(Ij

3000

I-

=-

t)i)

I~

>

<

2400
1800

1200
600
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.29: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water at Vsl = 0.5 m/s at
20 ppm of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

6600
~

c.

---c.
0

l-

I-

~
~

l-

e.
~

t)i)

=
l-

>

-e

Measured

+ Theoretical

6000
5400

~ SlugFront

Tail
o SlugBody

4800
4200
3600
3000
2400
1800

Film

~
v

+
V

1200

<>

600

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.30: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water at Vsl = 0.5 m/s at
50 ppm of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

261

figures show that the accelerational pressure drop is again the dominant pressure drop
component and the pressure drop due to the liquid film is the pressure drop component
with the least effect. When the superficial velocity was increased to 1.5 m/s, similar
results were shown in Figures 5.1.31 through 5.1.33.
Due to the large increase in mixture viscosity when the drag reducing agent was
present, a large increase in the accelerational pressure drop was observed as shown in
Figure 5.1.34. This figure shows that the accelerational pressure drop increased as much
as 520% at 50 ppm with an average increase of 271%. This large increase was due to the
large increase in slug frequency. For example, a superficial liquid mixture velocity of 0.5

mls and a gas velocity of 8 mis, the slug frequency increased from 9 slugs/min to 13
slugs/min at 20 ppm and further increased to 16 slugs/min at 50 ppm. The calculated
accelerational pressure drops for these conditions were 2,120, 3,271, 6,073 Pa at 0, 20,
and 500 ppm, respectively. The frictional pressure drop due to the slug body did not
significantly change at 20 ppm, as shown in Figure 5.1.35, but increased significantly at
50 ppm. The average pressure increase at 50 ppm for the slug body was 238%. The
accelerational pressure recovery for the slug tail also increased with increasing DRA
concentration as shown in Figure 5.1.36. At 50 ppm, the average pressure recovery
increased on average at a value of 199%.

The average pressure drop decreased for the

liquid film as shown in figure 5.1.37. These changes were expected. Since the effective
mixture viscosity increased, the slug frequency increased by as much as 9 slugs/min. The
increase in slug frequency will cause the all the pressure drop component to increase
except the liquid film velocity. The accelerational pressure drop, frictional pressure drop

14000

'=

+ Theoretical

'V Slug Front


Tail
o Slug Body
Film

12000

Q..
'-'

ge
l-

262

~Ieasured

10000

8000

I-

f I)
fI)

I-

6000

Q..
~

CJ)

=
<

4000

I~

'V

2000

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.31: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for
50o~ 6 cP oil and 50o~ water at Vsl = 1.5 m/s at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

14000

l\teasured

=
=-

+ Tbeoretical
'V Slug Front
Tail
o SlugBody
Film

12000

'-'

g.

I-

10000

Q
~

I-

8000

'V

f I)
fI)

I-

=-

6000

CJ)

I~

4000

>

<

'V

2000

<>

0
1

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.32: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water at Vsl = 1.5 m/s at
20 ppm of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

14000

12000

Q.
'-'

g-

s.
Q
~
s.

263

Measured
Theoretical
V Slug Front
Tail
o- SlugBody

10000

Film

\]

8000

:=

4)

fI)

fI2
~

s.

c..

6000

4000

+
\]

2000

s.
=
~

>

-<

0
1

<>

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.1.33: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 50% 6 cP oil and 50 % water at Vsl = 1.5 m/s at
50 ppm of oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

..-..

Q.
'-'

~Q
.c
....
i

c..

Q
~
s.

9600
8400
7200
6000

:=

4800

...

=-

3600

....=

2400

s.

1200

fI)
fI)

";
.~

'"
~

. - <y....
....'1

": .VI.V

CJ
CJ

<

0
0

1200

2400

3600

4800

6000

7200

8400

9600

Accelerational Pressure Drop at 0 ppm (Pa)

Figure 5.1.34: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational pressure drop for
50% 6 cP oil and 50% water using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

,-...
CIS

264

5000

Q..

<

4500

==
e

4000

>.

3500

"0

3000

~
'e

2500

c.

2000

Q
I.
~

I.

rI.)
rI.)

I.

=";

...=
u

."

1500

'i/...

...

1000
500
0

_::

-:

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Frictional Pressure Drop due to Slug Body at 0 ppm (Pa)

Figure 5.1.35: The effect ofDRA on the frictional pressure drop due
to slug body for 500/0 6 cP oil and 50% water
using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

Q.

2500

-i

2000

\] 20ppm

-=...

--;

50ppm

=
{;3

1500

.v

,.
.
r:

'-

C
~

1000

=:

s:...=
=
I.
~

-;
u

(J

<

.tl~li

500

\] ...\]

";

V'VV

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Accelerational Recovery of Slug Tail at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.1.36: The effect ofDRA on accelerational pressure recovery


of slug tail for 500/0 6 cP oil and 50 % water
using oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

...-...

1400

---

1200

CllI
~

265
.9-.

...

..c

i
!
~

"0
.;

1000

er

600

400

::se.{I}
{I}

"

800

V
V

.J

-;

200

.s
...=
C

'-

~i
200

400

'V

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Frictional Loss of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.1.37: The effect ofDRA on the frictional loss of liquid film
for 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water using
oil soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

266

due to the slug body and pressure recovery of the slug tail are all directly related to the
slug frequency as shown in Equations 5.4, 5.8 and 5.7, respectively. Since more slugs
were generated, the length of the film decreased, and as shown earlier, the liquid film
velocity decreased, which caused a lower pressure drop due to the liquid film.

5.2 Calculation of Pressure Drop Components for Water Soluble DRA


Experiments using fresh deionized water and 6 cP oil were repeated at water cuts
of 10, 50, 90 and 100%. The model previously described was again used to calculate the
individual pressure drop components and the total theoretical pressure drop.

These

results will show that as the mixture velocity decreases, the model tends to slightly
underpredict the pressure drop, which was expected.

The model from Dukler and

Hubbard (1975) generally predicted the pressure drop well for low mixture viscosities
and low mixture velocities when the liquid holdup was close to 1. It overpredicted the
values at the higher mixture velocities, which was due to the liquid holdup decreasing in
the slug. The results from the calculations are shown in Tables 5.2.1 to 5.2.13 in the
Appendix.

1000/0 Water
At this low viscosity of 1 cP, the model slightly underpredicted the experimental
values for DRA concentrations from 0 to 50 ppm, as shown in Figures 5.2.1 through
5.2.3.

At the higher drag reducing agent concentration of 75 ppm, the model

267

12000
..-..

= 10000

Q.

'-"

c..

'-

8000

'-

~
~

'I

6000

'-

Q.

'I

-;

4000

.~
...,

'1'1

'-

'!. V

2000

.c
E-

VI

'I

'fJ.V V

o
o

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.2.1 : A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure


drop for 100% water at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

12000

..-..

= 10000

Q.

'-"

c..
Q

'Q

8000

I-

=
~
~

6000

I-

-;

.~

...,

\l

4000

\?v

'-

.c
E-

2000

.. VI

VV
V

.. V

'fJ.V
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.2.2 : A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure


drop for 100o~ water using 20 ppm
of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

268

12000

..-..

= 10000

e,
.....,

C.
Q

I-

8000

Q
~

l-

='

CI)
CI)

6000

..\1

I~

-=
.~

.....

V
4000

l-

2000

..c

0'9 \J

.V
V

..\1

"

~ .. fJ

0
0

4000

2000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.2.3 : A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure


drop for 100% water using 50 ppm
of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

12000

..-..
= 10000
~
.....,
C.

I-

8000

Q
~

a...

CI)
CI)

6000

a...

=-;
.~

.....

4000

.....

Q.)

a...

Q.)

.c
E-

2000
O

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.2.4 : A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure


drop for 100% water using 75 ppm
ofwater soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

269
slightly over predicted the experimental values as shown in Figure 5.2.4.

The

underprediction of the experimental pressure drop was expected. As previously stated,


the Dukler and Hubbard (1976) model predicted the average pressure drop well for low
viscosity fluids such as water. This model takes into account the pressure recovery from
the slug tail, therefore, since Dukler and Hubbard neglected the pressure recovery, the
same model should slightly underpredict the experimental value when the pressure
recovery of the tail is considered. Examples of the individual pressure drop components
are shown in Figures 5.2.5 through 5.2.8 for the superficial liquid velocity of 0.5 mls.
These figures show similar results to that of the oil soluble DRA; the dominant pressure
drop component is the accelerational pressure drop due to the slug front. The trend of the
pressure drop components is also similar to that of oil soluble DRA. Figure 5.2.9 and
5.2.11 show that at 20 ppm, there was little effect on the accelerational pressure drop due
to the slug front and the accelerational pressure recovery due to the slug tail. However, at
the higher drag reducing agent concentrations of 50 and 75 ppm, there was a significant
decrease in both values. The frictional pressure drop due to the slug body also decreases
with increasing DRA concentration, as shown in Figure 5.2.10. The frictional loss due to

the liquid film increased with increasing DRA concentrations, as shown in Figure 5.2.12.
This increase is also due to the decrease in slug frequency, since the liquid film gets
longer and the velocity of the liquid film increases. For example, at a water velocity of
1.0 mls and a gas velocity of2.0 mis, the slug frequency was 27, 18, 20, and 9 slugs/min

at 0, 20, 50, and 75 ppm, respectively. The frictional pressure drop from the film for
these examples were 48, 55, 58, and 669 Pa.

4000
.-.. 3600

~ Slug Front

=:

Q.
'-'

3200

2800

2400

c.
Q

::I
(I'J
(I'J

Q.
~

=:

Tail Body
<> Slug

Film

2000

1600

1200

<

800

>

270

o ~Ieasured
+ Theoretical

400

<>

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.2.5: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for
100% water at Vsl = 0.5 m/s at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

4000

Q.
"-'

3200

2800

c.

Q
::I
~

(I'J
(I'J

Q.

Measured

"V

Slug Front

+ Theoretical

.-.. 3600

Tail
c SlugBody
Y Film

2400

2000

1600

1200

-e

800

~
~

>

+
~

400
0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.2.6: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 100% water at Vsl = 0.5 m/s using
20 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

4000
~

3200

ea.

2800

+ Theoretical

3600

=-=

tl Slug Front
Tail
O SlugBody

C-

a.

(I)
(I)

a.

=-

Film
~

a.
=

1200

r;j

"C

l:'-)

=-

;>

-e

=
=

2000
1600

2400

271

o Measured

800

400
0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.2.7: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 100% water at Vsl = 0.5 m/s using
50 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

4000
~

c.
0

a.
Q
~
a.

=
(I)
(I)

o Measured
+ Theoretical

3600

"V Slug Front

3200

o SlugBody
Tail

2800

Film

2400

J.
~

1200

<

800

400

eJl

=
>

=
e
=

OIJ

2000

(;j

r;j

"C

"C

1600

l:'-)

l:'-)

=-

=-

0
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.2.8: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components


for 100% water at Vsl = 0.5 m/s using
75 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

ellS
~

4500

4000

3500

3000

.c
....

c.
a.

l-

~
~

l-

272

5000

.V
V

2500

2000
1500

...

-;
= 1000
.2
....
ellS

I-

-;
u
u

II

SOO

-e

SOO 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Accelerationsl Pressure Drop at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.2.9: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational


pressure drop for 100% water in the acrylic pipeline

CIS"
"""'
Q..
~

~
Q

-=...

-i
~

"'Q=

==

5000
4500
4000
3500

t )I)

{ij
~

c..
0

I-

Q
~

I-

~
fI}

3000

2500

2000
1500

..~.,
.-0

1000

I-

-;
=
_2
....
u

-:
~

500

.- V
V

0.0
0

SOO 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Frictional Pressure Drop due to Slug Body at 0 ppm (Pa)

Figure 5.2.10: The effect ofDRA on the frictional pressure drop


due to slug body for 1000/0 water
using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

';'

e:,

273

2500
V 20 ppm

2000

50ppm

<>

75 ppm

.v

1500

..v
1000

.. .

500

..

.., . <>

... ~

.i

500

1500

1000

2000

2500

Aecelerational Recovery of Slug Tail at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.2.11: The effect ofDRA on accelerational pressure


recovery of slug tail for 100% water and
water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

<>

<>

s:
:
<>

V.
V

800

1600

2400

3200

4000

4800

Frictional Loss of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.2.12: The effect ofDRA on the frictional loss of liquid


film (or 100% water using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

274
90h Deionized Water and 10% 6 cP Oil
The model slightly underpredicted the experimental pressure drop for baseline
and 20 ppm conditions, which is similar to the 100% water results. The underprediction
of the pressure drop is again related to the pressure recovery of the tail being included in
Dukler and Hubbard's (1976) model.

Their model predicted the average pressure

gradient well for low viscosity, since the pressure recovery of the tail is taken into
account in this model, it may slightly underpredict the experimental value. Figure 5.2.13
shows that at 50 ppm, the model became more accurate. The pressure drop components
are graphed for DRA concentrations of 0, 20, and 50 ppm in Figures 5.2.14 through
5.2.16, respectively.

These figures again show that the dominant pressure drop

component is the accelerational pressure drop and the component with the least effect on
the total pressure drop is the frictional pressure drop due to the liquid film.
The same trends were also observed with the effect of the DRA on the individual
pressure drop components. Examples of how the DRA affects the individual pressure
drop components are shown for the superficial liquid mixture velocity of 1.5 mls. Figure
5.2.17 shows the effect of DRA on the accelerational pressure drop due to the liquid film.
Figure 5.2.18 shows how the frictional pressure drop was effected by the DRA. The
effect of DRA on the accelerational pressure recovery of the slug tail and the frictional
pressure drop of the liquid film is shown in Figures 5.2.19 and 5.2.20, respectively.
These figures show that there is little effect on the values at 20 ppm, but a significant
decrease was observed for all the pressure drop components, except for the frictional
pressure drop due to the liquid film, which increased.

275

12000
"

0 ppm

..-..

20 ppm

Q.

+ SO ppm

= 10000

"'-'

c..

-=

8000

rI}
rI}

c.
-;
.~

.....
~

...0
-=
E~

'J

6000
4000
...

A
+...
V
+ ...
+ ....+ A~ ~
+.+

.+..+\6

2000

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.2.13: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure


drop for 90% water and 10% 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline

11000
..-..
Q.

9000

Q.
0

8000

"'-'

-...
=
-<=
Q

r I}
rI}

Q.

Tail

o SlugBody

Y Film

7000

5000
4000

3000

>

+ Theoretical

'J Slug Front

6000

OJ)

o Measured

10000

<>

2000

1000
0

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.2.14: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for
90% water and 100/0 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.5 m/s at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

11000
.-..

9000
8000

"-

"-

6000
5000

OJ)

4000

3000

"Q.

=
"~

-e

o SlugBody
Tail

7000

fI.)
fI.)

Measured
Theoretical
\l Slug Front

10000

Q.

Q.

"-'

276

Film

2000

1000

0
2

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.2.15: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop


components for 90% water and 10% 6 cP oil
at Vsl = 1.5 mls at 20 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

11000
.-..

Q.

9000

8000

"-'
Q.

"-

"=
fI.)
rI.)

"-

Q.

Film

5000

3000

>-

Tail
o SlugBody

6000
4000

cr:
~

\l Slug Front

7000

t)J)

o Measured

+ Theoretical

10000

< 2000

1000

0
1

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.2.16: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop


components for 90% water and 10 % 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.5 mls
at 50 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

..-...

5000

"'-"

4500

as

<
cr:

3500

c.
Q

3000

2500

r.

r.

:s
C'I'J

C'I)

V
V _.-

4000

Q
..c:
....

277

... 9

2000

V.-'V

.-v

r.

1500

=-;
= 1000
.2
....
as
r.

500

-;
u
u

0
0

<

SOO 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Accelerational Pressure Drop at 0 ppm (Pa)

Figure 5.2.17: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational pressure


drop for 90 % water and 10 % 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
using water soluble DRA

..-...
as

=-

'-"

5000

4500

4000

3500

-"Q

==CI.) 3000

{;j

2500

c...
Q

c.

2000

r.

Q
~

r.

:s

...

1000

C'I'J

C'I)

r.

=--;

=
.~
....u

C
~

_-V
V

,.w ,

1500

500
0

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Frictional Pressure Drop due to Slug Body at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.2.18: The effect ofDRA on the frictional pressure drop


due to slug body for 900/0 water and 10% 6 cP oil
using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

....-.-.
CIS

278

2500
V 20ppm

C.

<

50ppm

2000

e;
~

1500

:s

ri.i

'Q

~
~
>
Q

1000
... V

..'\17

Q.)

=:

-;

500

=
Q

;:

CIS

";
u
u

1000

500

<

1500

2000

2500

Accelerational Recovery of Slog Tail at 0 ppm (Pa)

Figure 5.2.19: The effect ofDRA on accelerational pressure recovery


of slug tail for 900/0 water and 10% 6 cP oil
using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

....-.-.
CIS

3000

2700

~
Q

-=...

ei

~
~

e;

2400

2100
1800

1500

C"

::sc..
Q

G'}
fI.)

1200
900

.J

-;

eS=
ecU

...

.V
)I.

600
300
0
0

300

600

900

1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

Frictional Loss of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (Pa)

Figure 5.2.20: The effect ofDRA on the frictional loss of liquid


film for 90% water and 10% 6 cP oil using
water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

279

50 % Deionized Water and 500/0 6 cP Oil


The model also slightly underpredicted the experimental values at this water cut
for 0 and 20 ppm as shown in figure 5.2.21. When the drag reducing agent concentration
increased to 50 ppm, the accuracy of the model increased. For a superficial liquid
mixture velocity of 0.5 mis, the effect of DRA on the individual pressure drop
components are plotted in Figures 5.2.22 through 5.2.24. These figures show at the low
superficial gas velocities there is little difference between the individual pressure drop
components. As the gas velocity increases, the distance between the individual pressure
drop increases, and the dominant pressure drop component is the accelerational pressure
drop due to the slug front.
Figures 5.2.25 through 5.2.28 show how the individual pressure drop components
are affected by the presence of the drag reducing agent. These figures also show that at
20 ppm there is little effect on the pressure drop components. At 50 ppm, Figures 5.2.25

through 5.2.27 show that there was a significant decrease in the accelerational pressure
drop due to the slug front, the frictional pressure drop due to the slug body, and the
accelerational pressure recovery due to the slug tail, respectively. Figure 5.2.28 shows
that the pressure drop due to the liquid film increases at 50 ppm. This decrease can also
be related to the decrease in slug frequency. For example the accelerational pressure
drop for a superficial liquid mixture velocity of 1.0 mls and a superficial gas velocity of 4

mis, was 1,514 Pa at 0 ppm, 1,568 Pa at 20 ppm and decreased to 566 Pa at 50 ppm. The
slug frequency was 16 slugs/min at 0 and 20 ppm and decreased to 9 slugs/min at 50
ppm.

12000

280

Oppm

20 ppm

+ SO ppm

ellS
c.. 10000

-=-=
C-

8000

:fI):s
fI)

....

.~
~

..=
~

.+.

+
+...

4000

I..

e~

6000

...

2000

+..

)I:t-

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.2.21: A comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure


drop for 50,4 water and 50% 6 cP oil
using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

4000

o Measured
+ Theoretical

3200

Tail

Film

V SlugFront

o SlugBody

2800

2400

2000

1600

1200

800

400

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.2.22: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop


components for 50% water and 50% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.5 m/s
at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

4000

281

Measured
Theoretical
" Slug Front
Tail
<> Slug Body
Y Film

3200
2800

2400

2000
1600

+
+

1200

800

<>

400

o
o

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.2.23: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop


components for 504 water and 50% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.5 m/s
at 20 ppm ofwater soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

Figure 5.2.24: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop


components for50% water and 50% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 0.5 m/s
at 50 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

Figure 5.2.25: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational pressure


drop for 50% water and 500/0 6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
using water soluble DRA

5000

.=
....

4500

4000

i
"C

==01)

=
=
"C

ri3

e,

J.

J.

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500

fI.l

1000

J.
~

500

fI}

.......j

....

-;

.s....=
u

C
~

... ~

0
0

SOO

"rI.

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Frictional Pressure Drop due to Slug Body at 0 ppm (Pa)

Figure 5.2.26: The effect of DRA on the frictional pressure


drop due to slug body for 500/0 water and 500/0 6 cP oil
using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

all

283

2500

=-

'-"

2000

"-

.;
~

OJ)

f;]

1500

::s

Ci5

'V ...

'Q

~
~
>
Q

1000

f;]

V-"

=
-;

500

.Yt;j

.s
....all
I-

500

u
u

.VV

1000

1500

2000

2500

Accelerational Recovery of Slug Tail at 0 ppm (Pa)

<

Figure 5.2.27: The effect ofDRA on accelerational pressure


recovery ofslug tail for 500/0 water and 500k 6 cP oil
using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

all

=-

4000

'-"

3600

.c:
.....

3200

i
.5
ri:
~

.:;

2800
2400

2000

0-

'Q
CIJ
W)

1600
1200

';

800

=
.s
.....

400

ei:

'-

400

800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000


Frictional Loss of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.2.28: The effect ofDRA on the frictional loss of


liquid film for 50% water and 50% 6 cP oil
using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

284

10% Deionized Water and 90A. 6 cP Oil


The last water cut to be studied using water soluble DRA was 10%. At this water
cut the theoretical pressure drop was again under estimated at 0 and 20 ppm conditions.
Figure 5.2.29 shows that the accuracy improved when the DRA concentration increased
to 50 ppm. The individual pressure drop components are plotted for baseline conditions,
20 ppm, and 50 ppm in Figures 5.2.30 through 5.2.32 for the superficial liquid mixture
velocity of 1.5 mls. These figures show that for that for the majority of the points, the
accelerational pressure drop was the dominant component, while the pressure drop due to
the liquid film had the least effect on the total pressure drop.
Figure 5.2.33 shows that there was a slight decrease in the accelerational pressure
drop due to the slug front at 20 ppm, but a significant decrease occurred at 50 ppm. The
same was also true for the accelerational pressure recovery of the slug tail as shown in
Figure 5.2.35. The pressure drop due to the slug body was not significantly effected at 20
ppm, as shown in Figure 5.2.34, but decreased when the DRA concentration increased to
50 ppm.

The pressure drop due to the liquid film increased with increasing DRA

concentration as shown in Figure 5.2.36.

5.3 A Comparison of Different Pressure Drop Components for Oil Soluble DRA
It has been established that the pressure drop of slug flow consists of four
different components, the accelerational pressure drop due to the slug front, the frictional
pressure drop of the slug body, the frictional pressure drop due to the liquid film and the
pressure recovery of the slug tail. It has also been shown that when a dispersion is not

285

12000

tl
A

c..= 10000
'-'"

20 ppm

+ 50 ppm

e,

es.

0 ppm

8000

tl

s.

fI.)
fI.)

6000

s.

c..
-;

+++

4000

s.

.0

\1

A ~
A

AV

.f.' +.. \1 A A

2000

.:
E-

+
+
+

VA

\1

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Experimental Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5.2.29: A comparison oftheoretical and experimental pressure


drop for 10% water and 90 ohl6 cP oil in the acrylic pipeline
using water soluble DRA

11000

Measured

+ Theoretical

10000

g-

9000
8000

7000

'-'"

s.

\1 Slug Front
Tail
<> SlugBody

:.

Film

\1

6000

5000

4000

tl

>

3000
2000

<>

fI.)
fI.)

c..

=
~
<

<>

1000

o
1

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.2.30: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop components for
10% water and 90% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.5 m/s at 0 ppm in the acrylic pipeline

11000

286

~Ieasured

+ Theoretical

10000

'V Slug Front


Tail
o SlugBody
Y Film

:. 9000
"-"
- 8000
a..
Q
7000

6000

5000

fIj
fIj

c..

ellS

>

.-(

'V

4000
3000
2000

+
o

1000

o
1

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.2.31: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop


components for 10% water and 90% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.5 m/s
at 20 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

11000

Measured

+ Theoretical

10000
c.. 9000
"-"
c. 8000
e

V SlugFront
Tail
o SlugBody

=
a..

-=
~

f Ij
fIj

a..

c..
~

t).I)

=
a..
~

>

.-(

Y Film

7000

6000
5000
4000
3000

2000
1000

0
1

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

Figure 5.2.32: The effect of gas velocity on pressure drop


components for 10 % water and 90% 6 cP oil at Vsl = 1.5 m/s
at 50 ppm of water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

CIS

=-

'"-'

5400

.c

4800

...

V 20 ppm

6000

~
Q

-i

287

6600

SO ppm

c.. 4200

I-

I-

fI)
fI)

3600
3000

2400

=-;

1800

1200

GIS

600

l-

-;
u
u

v. ..
.V Vv

'V

-e

600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600
Accelerational Pressure Drop at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.2.33: The effect ofDRA on the accelerational


pressure drop for 100/0 water and 90% 6 cP oil
using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

as

=-

5000

4500

'"-'

...
-i

.c

-=e

=
Of)

=
{;j
=
"C
~

c.

e
IQ
~

I-

f I)
fI}

4000

3000

2000
1500

=-;

...
u

-c

.i~

1000
500

c::
-S

V.eV

2500

l-

'V .:

3500

.: fy

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Frictional Pressure Drop due to Slug Body at 0 ppm (pa)

Figure 5.2.34: The effect ofDRA on the frictional pressure drop


due to slug body for 100/0 water and 90% 6 cP oil
using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

,.-.

as

288

3000

V 20 ppm

~
Q

2500

SO ppm

'V

.......
~

.;

2000

E-

01

{ij

1500

'Q

C
~

>

tV

1000

=:
-;

.s
...=ClII
...

'l ..

500

SOO

-;
u
u

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Accelerational Recovery of Slug Tail at 0 ppm (pa)

<

Figure 5.2.35: The effect ofDRA on accelerational pressure


recovery of slug tail for 10% water and 90% 6 cP oil
using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

,.-.
ell

=-

4000

3600

..c

3200

...
i
!

~
.;

2800
2400
2000

cr

...

:.:J
Q

W}
W}

1600
1200

800

1:1

400

-;

...

.~
u

400

800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000


Frictional Loss of Liquid Film at 0 ppm (Pa)

Figure 5.2.36: The effect of DRA on the frictional loss of


liquid film for 100/0 water and 90 0k 6 cP oil
using water soluble DRA in the acrylic pipeline

289
created these individual pressure drop components decrease in magnitude with increasing
DRA concentration, except for the frictional loss of the liquid film. The magnitude of
reduction for each individual' pressure drop component when DRA is present has not
been determined.

Figures 5.3.1 to 5.3.3 show the reduction of each pressure drop

component against the overall pressure reduction (LlPo ppm - LlP so ppm) when using 50 ppm
ofDRA for each water cut used in the oil soluble DRA experiments.
Figure 5.3.1 shows that when the total pressure drop does not show a significant
reduction 300 Pa) there is little difference between the individual pressure drop
components.

At moderate levels of pressure drop reduction (300 to 900 Pa) the

difference between the individual pressure drop components starts to become noticeable.
The accelerational pressure drop due to the slug front and the frictional pressure drop due
to the slug body are very similar. The frictional loss due to the liquid film has the lowest
magnitude of the four components. The accelerational pressure recovery of the slug tail
shows little change. When the pressure reduction is high (>900 Pa), the accelerational
pressure drop due to the slug front is the pressure drop component which has the greatest
reduction in pressure drop. The magnitude of the reduction in pressure drop components
is related to the reduction of slug frequency. When the slug frequency is low, such as, at
a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial gas velocity of 2 mis, the magnitude
of reduction is low. The accelerational pressure drop decreased by 182 Pa at an oil
soluble DRA concentration of 50 ppm at these conditions.

At the higher slug

frequencies, such as at a superficial liquid velocity of 1.0 mls and a superficial gas
velocity of 6 mis, the accelerational pressure drop for this higher slug frequency,

CIa

3000

...
Gf'J

2500

2000

290

"'-"
~

c.
E

1500

1000

c..

...=

.~
t:j

V'~

"'CS
~

a:

-500

...

-1000

...

-1500

Gf'J

-2000

c.
Q

-V

9v

=
l:I)

...
~

200

400

600

+
o .+

0
0

*
?i
'f:

500

0
0

**

++

V V' ~

V
V

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Total Measured Pressure Drop Reduction (pa)

Figure 5.3.1: A comparison of how the pressure drop components


change using 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA in 1000/0 6 cP oil

3000

o Slug Front

2500

SlugBody

V Film

2000

+ SlugTaii

1500

o
+

1000
500

o
-500
-1000

+0

+
V

-1500
-2000

200

400

600

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Total Measured Pressure Drop Reduction (pa)

Figure 5.3.2: A comparison of how the pressure drop components


change using 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA in 90 0k 6 cP oil and look water

=-=

..-..

1000

...

-1000

291

"-'
rIJ

I:

c.

ee
U
....e

.~
...=
Cj

-==
~

=:

c.

e
I.
~

=
rIJ
rIJ

I.

=-

-3000

o
o

-4000
-5000

Q
I.

-2000

vvv~

~t+:
0

~I ~
0

~O
0

0 Slug Front

Slug Body

SlugTail

V Film

-6000
-2000 -1800 -1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200

Total Measured Pressure Drop Reduction (Pa)

Figure 5.3.3: A comparison of how the pressure drop components


change using 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA in 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water

292
decreased by 1,651 Pa when using 50 ppm of the oil soluble DRA. Therefore, these
results show that when a large pressure drop reduction is observed, the main cause of the
reduction is the reduction in accelerational pressure drop (i.e. the reduction of slug
frequency).
When a 10% water cut was used with the same oil soluble DRA, Figure 5.3.2
shows that for the majority of the experiments, the accelerational pressure drop due to the
slug front was the pressure drop component which had the greatest reduction. The
accelerational pressure recovery of the slug tail also a showed significant reduction. The
pressure drop due to the slug body did not show significant change until at the higher
pressure drop reductions of 1300 Pa and above. The pressure drop of the liquid film did
not show any significant difference.
When a dispersion was created at a 50% water cut, Figure 5.3.3 shows that the
main cause of the pressure drop increase was the increase of accelerational pressure drop
due to the slug front (i.e. increase in slug frequency). The remaining three pressure drop
components did not show as a significant change when compared to the accelerational
pressure drop of the slug front.

5.4 A Comparison of Different Pressure Drop Components for Water Soluble DRA
A similar comparison to that of the oil soluble DRA experiments was performed
for the water soluble DRA experiments. The results are shown in Figures 5.4.1 to 5.4.4
for the four different water cuts studied.

...-...
=I

=-

...=

2500

c.

1500

'-'
fIJ

=
e

e
e

1000

e
c

500

CJ

....

'"0

a::

-500

-1000

c.

s..

-1500

-2000

s..
fIJ
rIl

Slug Front
Slug Body
'V Film
Slug Tail

2000

.~

293

3000

, Iv*

=-

+.

V
V

s..

300

600

900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

Total Measured Pressure Drop Reduction (Pa)

Figure 5.4.1: A comparison of how the pressure drop components


change using 50 ppm of water soluble DRA in 100A. water

,-...

~
'-'

....c

3000
0 Slug FrODt

fIJ

c
e

c.

2000

1500

ee

2500

Slug Body
'V Film
Slug Tail

0
0

1000

.....~
CJ

500

'"0

c.
e
s..

-=

-500

~
++

s..

=-

,.... *
0

-1000

fIJ
fIJ

-1500
-2000
0

300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000
Total Measured Pressure Drop Reduction (pa)

Figure 5.4.2: A comparison of how the pressure drop components


change using 50 ppm of water soluble DRA in 90% water and 100/0 6 cP oil

(lIS

=-

...

'-'

5000

fIJ

4000

=
=
c.

3000

"0

.E
...u=
=
-0
~

294

SlugFront
SlugBody
V Film
SlugTail

2000

"

0
-1000

'IV

-2000

a.

a.

fIJ
fIJ

~~

c.

.:

1000

-3000

-4000

a.

400

800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000

Total Measured Pressure Drop Reduction (pa)

Figure 5.4.3: A comparison of how the pressure drop components


change using 50 ppm of water soluble DRA in 50% water and 50% 6 cP oil

~
'-'

...

6000

fIJ

=
=
c.
~

e0

"0

=
.E
.....
u

=
=:

5000

SlugFront
SlugBody
Film
SlugTaii

3000

c.

-2000

*+

1000

-1000

2000

4000

-0

Qr)

\
V

a.

-3000

fIJ

a.

-4000
0

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

Total Measured Pressure Drop Reduction (Pa)

Figure 5.4.4: A comparison of how the pressure drop components


change using 50 ppm of water soluble DRA in 100/0 water and 90% 6 cP oil

295
When the slug consisted of pure water, Figure 5.4.1 shows similar results to that
of pure oil slugs.

At the lower pressure drop reductions 300 Pa) there is little

difference between the pressure drop components.

At the moderate pressure drops at

300 to 900 Pa, the difference between the pressure drop components start to appear. At
the higher pressure drop reduction of above 900 Pa, the pressure drop component with
the higher reduction is generally the accelerational pressure drop of the slug front. The
frictional pressure drop of the slug body and the accelerational pressure recovery of the
slug tail show similar values. The pressure increase of the liquid film velocity is
significant. As previously stated, this high pressure reduction of the slug front is due to
the reduction of slug frequency. For the previous example of a water velocity of 1.0 mls
and a gas velocity of2.0 mis, the slug frequency was 27, 18, 20, and 9 slugs/min at 0, 20,
50, and 75 ppm, respectively. The reduction of accelerational pressure drop was 211 Pa
at 50 ppm and 1,403 Pa at 75 ppm. Therefore, it again can be seen that when a large
decrease in pressure drop occurs, it is mainly due to the decrease in accelerational
pressure drop of the slug front.
At a water cut of 90%, Figure 5.4.2 shows similar results. The pressure drop
component that has the largest reduction is the accelerational pressure drop of the slug
front. The pressure drop reduction of the frictional pressure drop of the slug body and the
accelerational pressure recovery of the slug tail are similar. The pressure increase of the
liquid film is also significant when a higher pressure drop reduction occurs.
Figure 5.4.3 shows that at a 50% water cut there is little difference between the
pressure drop components when the reduction in pressure drop is low. When there is a

296

significant reduction in pressure drop, the pressure drop component with the highest
reduction is again the accelerational pressure drop of the slug front.
The last water cut of 10% shows in Figure 5.4.4 that the pressure drop component

with the largest decrease is the accelerational pressure drop of the slug front for all
experiments. The frictional pressure drop of the slug body and accelerational pressure
recovery of the slug tail again show similar magnitudes.

The increase in frictional

pressure drop of the liquid film also becomes more significant as the total reduction of
pressure drop is increased.

297

CHAPTER 6
MODELING

It has been shown that the two slug properties which are most affected by drag
reducing agents are the slug frequency and liquid film velocity. The film Froude number
also changes, which is a function of translational velocity, liquid film height prior to the
slug and the velocity of the liquid film prior to the slug. This study has shown that the
translational velocity and liquid film height normally does not significantly change when
drag reducing agents are added to the flow. Once the translational velocity and film
height are determined at baseline conditions, the film Froude number can be calculated, if
the effect ofDRA on the liquid film velocity is known. Therefore, the change in pressure
drop when DRA is added to the flow should be primarily a function of the change in slug
frequency and the change in liquid film velocity. The data from this study has shown that
when the pressure drop decreases, the slug frequency generally decreases while the liquid
film velocity increases.
To help better understand how the change in slug frequency and liquid film
velocity affects the change in pressure drop, a comparison of the pressure reduction in the
measured pressure drop, the reduction in slug frequency and the increase in liquid film
velocity is shown in Table 6.1 for the data obtained at 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA using
100% 6 cP oil and carbon dioxide.

298
Table 6.1: Effect of change in slug frequency, liquid film velocity, and Froude number
50 ppm a f oil
01 so 1ubie DRA
or 100%0 6 c P usmg
0 f tot al pressure dr op B
VSL
Reduction of
Increase of
Reduction of Reduction in Total
VS L
(mls)
Froude number
Pressure (Pa)
(mls)
Us (slug/min)
L\vlf (mls)

on tee
h hange

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.5
1.5
1.5

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
8
1
2
3
4
6
8
1
2
4
6
8

0
2
-1
1
0
0
0
4
2

0.07
0.18
-0.05
0.16
-0.03
0.08
0.21
0.27
0.18

0
0
1

6
5
5
6
7
5
-1
5
10

0.08
0.02
0.17
0.33
0.77
0.38
-0.15
0.03
0.38
0.34
0.74
0.20
0.85
0.91
-0.40
0.65
1.19
0.47
0.45
0.43

4
6
2
4

6
2
4
6

4
4
1
4
3
3
8

-0.3
0.3
0.2
-0.7
0.5
0.8
-0.6
0.9
-0.4
Pseudo Slug
0.6
0.5
0.9
2.6
2.8
0.6
-0.6
-0.2
0.3
1.8
1.1
0.6
2.1
1.7
-0.7
1.7
2.5
1.1
0.7
-1.6

9
122
67
100
180
195
258
662
695
113
252
545
327
528
630
68
226
589
591
1,106
674
1,147
1,465
860
1,411
1,552
801
1,311
1,527

This table shows that at the low superficial liquid velocity of 0.2 mls and a
superficial gas velocity of 1 mis, the slug frequency did not change and the liquid film
velocity increased less than 0.1 mls. This table also shows that the reduction in the total

299
pressure drop was only 9 Pa. When the reduction of slug frequency increased to 2
slugs/min and the liquid film velocity increased by 0.18 mls a larger reduction in pressure
drop of 122 Pa was observed. When the superficial liquid velocity was increased to 1.0

mis, similar results are shown. At a superficial gas velocity of 2 mls the slug frequency
was reduced by 6 slugs/min and the liquid film velocity was increased by 0.20 mls.
When the gas velocity was increased to 4 and 6 mis, the frequency of the slugs were
reduced by 5 slugs/min. The liquid film velocity increased by 0.85 mls at 4 mls of gas
and increased by 0.91 mls at 6 mls of gas. These values created a reduction in pressure
drop of 674 Pa at 2 mis, 1,147 Pa at 4 mls and 1,465 Pa at 6 mls. Even though the slug
frequency was reduced by more slugs at 2 mls than at the higher superficial gas
velocities, the higher gas velocities showed a higher pressure reduction.

The larger

pressure reduction can be attributed to the higher increase in liquid film velocity, which
caused a greater reduction in the Froude number. The reduction in pressure drop at the
higher gas velocities also is a result of a less turbulent slug front. Therefore, the amount
in which the pressure drop changes is related to the changes in both the slug frequency
and liquid film velocity.
This table also shows that the reduction in slug frequency generally increases with
increasing superficial liquid velocity and generally is constant when the gas velocity is
changed.

Therefore, in an existing pipeline, if the slug length, slug frequency,

translational velocity, height of liquid film and velocity of the liquid film can be
determined, the effectiveness of the DRA can be estimated. These slug properties at
baseline conditions are generally measured in the pipeline or calculated by using an

300
iterative solution generally found in software such as OLGA.

If a reduction of slug

frequency is assumed, by using mass balances the liquid film velocity can be calculated
since the length of the slug, translational velocity, and height of the liquid film does not
change with the addition of DRA. Using the new values of slug frequency and liquid
film velocity, the film Froude number and the different pressure drop components can be
calculated using the equations outlined in Chapter 5. For example, at a liquid velocities
of 0.4 and below a slug frequency reduction should be 1 slug/min.

At the higher

superficial liquid velocity of 0.5 mis, the average slug frequency reduction is 3 slugs/min
except at the higher gas velocity of 8 mls. This higher frequency reduction at these
velocities is because the slugs are on the verge of becoming pseudo slugs. As the liquid
velocity is increased to 1.0 mls and 1.25 mis, the reduction of slug frequency increased to
5 and 6 slugs/min respectively. At the highest superficial liquid velocity of 1.5 mis, the
reduction in slug frequency ranged from -1 to 10 slugs/min. The large range for the slug
reduction for this velocity is because at the low superficial velocity of 2 mls a lot of
smaller less' turbulent slugs were formed. At the highest gas velocity of 6 mis, the slugs
seemed to coalesce to form larger and less frequency slugs.
The same analysis can be performed for the 100% water using 50 ppm of water
soluble DRA. Table 6.2 shows how the change in slug frequency, liquid film velocity
and Froude number is related to the reduction in total pressure drop.

301
Table 6.2: Effect of change in slug frequency, liquid film velocity, and Froude number
on th e ch ange 0 f to tal pressure dr op f or 100~o wat er usmg 50 ppm 0 f wa t er so Iubl e DRA
V SL
Reduction of
Increase of
Reduction of
Reduction in Total
VSG
Pressure (Pa)
Froude
number
(mls) (mls) Us (slug/min)
~Vlf (mls)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.5
1.5
1.5

1
2
4

0
1
3

0.14
-0.04
0.17

7
4
4

0.16
0.65
0.21
0.66
0.71
0.96
0.05
0.96
0.7

6
2
4

6
2
4
6
2
4

9
8
6
16
10
8

0.5
-0.1
1.6
Pseudo Slug
0.2
1.7
0.7
0.7

0.4
0.2
0.2
1.9
1.3

138
370
451
827
1,146
1,724
1,157
1,683
1,548
1,476
1,995
2,480

This tables shows that at the low superficial liquid velocity of 0.5 mis, the change
ill

liquid film velocity is approximately constant, however, the reduction in slug

frequency increases with gas velocity. The data also shows that as the reduction in slug
frequency increases the reduction in pressure drop also increases.

At the higher

superficial liquid velocity of 1.0 m/s to 1.5, the reduction of pressure drop generally
increased with increasing gas velocity, even though there was a higher reduction in slug
frequency at the lowest gas velocity. At 2 m/s, reducing the frequency of low turbulent
slow flow by a greater amount may not give a larger reduction in pressure drop when the
frequency of a higher turbulent slugs (i.e. at 4 and 6 mls) is reduced by a smaller amount.
The reduction of slug frequency is similar when 100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble
DRA is compared to 100% water using water soluble DRA. For example, at the liquid
velocity of 0.5 mis, the slug frequency was reduced on average by 1-4 slugs/min for the

302
gas velocity range of 1 to 4 mls. The water soluble DRA showed a reduction from 0 to 3
slugs/min at a range of gas velocities of 1 to 4 mls.

When the liquid velocity was

increased to 1.0 mis, the reduction of slug frequency was approximately 5 slugs/min for
100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA and 4 slugs/min for 100% water using water soluble
DRA. At 1.25 mis, the slug frequency reduction was between 5-7 slugs/min for the
100% 6 cP oil using oil soluble DRA and 6-9 slugs/min using the water soluble ORA
with 100% water.

The last superficial liquid velocity of 1.5 mls showed a slight more

deviation. For 100% 6 cP oil the reduction in slug frequency ranged from -1 to 10
slugs/min. When 100% water was used with water soluble DRA the reduction in slug
frequency was 8 to 16 slugs/min.

Therefore, this data shows that an approximate

reduction of slug frequency can be assumed regardless if oil or water soluble DRA is
used, except at high superficial liquid velocity of 1.5 mls. At this high liquid velocity the
length of stratified film is very short between slugs. Therefore, when DRA is added to
the flow, the slugs can coalesce to cause a significant decrease in slug frequency but a
large increase in slug length or the slugs may be broken into several shorter slugs causing
the frequency to increase. Therefore, it may be more difficult to determine the reduction
of slug frequency at these high superficial liquid velocities. As stated previously, once
the reduction in slug frequency is assumed, the film velocity can be calculated using a
mass balance, if the slug length, translational velocity and height of liquid film is known
before the addition of the DRA. Using the new slug frequency and the film velocity with
the original values of the slug length, translational velocity and height of the liquid film,
the effectiveness of the DRA can be calculated using the equations outlined in Chapter 5.

303

This analysis is only completed for the two phase flow data because in order predict the
change in slug frequency for three phase flow data, the effect of the DRA on the water
and oil must first be determined. For example, it first must be determined if the presence
of the drag reducing agent will cause a dispersion to be created and cause the slug
frequency to increase.
To better understand why small changes in the slug frequency and liquid film
velocity affect the total pressure drop, the effect of these two slug properties on each
pressure drop component must first be analyzed.

Accelerational Pressure Gradient due to Slug Front


As shown in the previous chapter, the accelerational pressure drop due to the slug
front is calculated by:
(6.1)

This equation shows that the accelerational pressure drop due to the slug front is
directly proportional to the slug frequency. Therefore, if the slug frequency is cut in half
the accelerational pressure drop is also cut in half. If the slug frequency would double,
such as when the apparent viscosity increases, the accelerational pressure drop would
also double. Therefore, this equation shows how important the accurate determination of
slug frequency can be.
There was an additional decrease in the accelerational pressure drop also occurred
when the liquid film velocity increased.

If the liquid film velocity decreased, the

304
accelerational pressure drop would increase. The data has shown that the translational
velocity is not affected by the drag reducing agent and since the mixture velocity will
also not change both quantities that involve the liquid film velocity in Equation 6.1 will
decrease with increasing liquid film velocity. An additional decrease in Equation 6.1 will
also occur due to the decrease in Froude number.

Since the liquid film velocity is

increasing and the height of the liquid film and the translational velocity are generally not
affected by the DRA, the Froude number also decreases. Chapter 2 has shown that the
mixing zone length is directly proportional to the Froude number.

Therefore, as the

liquid film velocity increases, the Froude number decreases, thereby, decreasing the
length of the mixing zone and Equation 6.1. The reduction in Froude number also causes
the turbulence in the slug front to decrease, thereby also decreasing the pressure drop in
the slug front.

Accelerational Pressure Recovery of the Slug Tail


The accelerational pressure recovery of the slug tail has been shown in Chapter 5
to be calculated using the following equation:

(6.2)

Equation 6.2 also shows that the pressure recovery of the slug tail is directly proportional
to the slug frequency. In Chapter 2, it was shown that the liquid velocity in the slug body
is related to the difference between translational velocity and liquid film velocity.
Therefore, since the translational velocity remains constant, if the liquid film velocity

305
increases the pressure recovery of the slug tail will decrease. If the liquid film velocity
decreases, the pressure recovery of the slug tail will increase.

The Frictional Pressure Drop of the Slug Body


The frictional pressure drop of the slug body is also related to both slug frequency
and liquid film velocity as shown in Equation 6.3.

= 2 f s [PL (1- a Sb)+ PG asb ]v~ (Is


D

-lm.J(LtL + Is -Imz J

Us

VMN s

(6.3)

This equation again shows that the frictional pressure drop of the slug body is directly
related to the slug frequency. It is also related to the change in liquid film. As previously
stated, as the liquid film velocity increases, the Froude number and length of the mixing
zone decreases. Therefore, since the length of the slug and the distance between the taps
do not change, an increase in liquid film velocity will cause an increase in Equation 6.3.
A decrease in the Froude number will also cause a decrease in the void fraction of the
slug body, thereby increasing the frictional pressure drop. This was expected, since the
slug body becomes less aerated and the pressure drop of a liquid is greater than the
pressure drop of gas. The reduction of slug frequency generally will reduce Equation 6.3
more than the increase in film velocity will increase Equation 6.3. It has been shown in
the previous chapter that the frictional pressure drop of the slug body does decrease with
increasing DRA concentration.

306

Frictional Pressure Drop of the Liquid Film


The last pressure drop component is the frictional pressure drop component of the
liquid film, which is calculated by using the following equation:
(6.4)

This equation shows that the frictional pressure drop of the liquid film is inversely
proportional to the slug frequency. As the slug frequency decreases, the time in which
slug flow exists between the taps decreases, thereby, increasing the difference between
the sampling time and the time in which slug flow exists. If the slug frequency would
increase, this difference would decrease causing a decrease in the pressure drop. As
previously shown, when the slug frequency decreases, the liquid film velocity generally
increased. The increase in liquid film velocity will cause the wall shear stress between
the liquid and wall to increase causing an increase in pressure drop.

When the slug

frequency increased, the liquid film velocity generally decreased which would cause the
wall shear stress between the liquid and wall to decrease.
Equations 6.1 to 6.4 have shown the importance of an accurate slug frequency
measurement. To date, there is no accurate slug frequency correlation to predict the slug
frequency when DRA is present.

6.1 Correlation of Slug Frequency for Two Phase Flow


It has been shown that when calculating the pressure drop of slug flow the slug
frequency is an important parameter. Jepson and Taylor (1993) suggest that the slug

307
frequency is related to the pipe diameter, superficial liquid velocity and superficial
mixture velocity. The correlation developed was shown in the literature review as:

7.59 X 10-3 V M + 0.01

(2.2.27)

Figure 6.1.1 shows that when this correlation was compared to the experimental data for
100% water and no DRA there is significant scatter. Equation 2.2.27 calculates the same
slug frequency for a given superficial gas and mixture velocity with or without DRA
present. This study had already shown that at a given superficial liquid and gas velocity,
the slug frequency decreases when DRA is present, if a dispersion is not formed.
Therefore, a new correlation is needed for the slug frequency which can also be used
when DRA is present.
This study has shown that when a drag reducing agent is added to slug flow, the
DRA has the greatest effect on the slug frequency and liquid film velocity. The slug
frequency decreases with increasing DRA concentration when a dispersion is not created.
Due to the lower number of slugs, the length of the liquid film and the velocity of the
liquid film both increase with increasing DRA concentration, when a dispersion is not
created. Therefore, since the velocity of the liquid film is increasing, it may be more
difficult for the gas to create waves in the liquid film. Since less waves are being formed
the number of waves which form slugs are also being decreased, thereby, decreasing the
slug frequency. Therefore, when correlating the slug frequency the difference between
actual gas velocity above the liquid film and the liquid film velocity before the slug
should be considered.

Two other important parameters to be considered are the

12

18

24

30

36

42

48 C

54

60

12

18

+ +
24

30

36

42

48

54

Jepson and Taylor (1993) slug frequency (slug/min)

~.+.

60

Figure 6.1.1: A comparison of the experimental slug frequency and


slug frequency by Jepson and Taylor (1993) for 0 ppm using 1000/0 water

'~
e,

=
e

....

b1)

=
=0

....
=
00
......

~
CJ

'-"

......
fI.2

fI.2"
""'b1)

....=
e

00

309
superficial liquid and gas velocities. This study has shown that as the superficial liquid
velocity increases, so does the slug frequency. As the gas velocity is increased, the slug
frequency will gradually decrease until the gas velocity is high enough to cause the gas to
blow through the slug and form an annular core from the liquid.

Therefore, the slug

frequency for 100% 6 cP oil and 100% water slug flow experiments at all DRA
concentrations was plotted in Figure 6.1.2 against the following quantity:
(6.1.1)

where Ys is the actual velocity of the gas above the liquid film. Figure 6.1.2 shows that
there is generally a good correlation between the slug frequency and Equation 6.1.1.
This figure also shows that the correlation is independent of type of DRA used and the
fluid properties. The correlation that was developed from Figure 6.1.2 is:
(6.1.2)
This correlation was then tested against the experimental data in Figure 6.1.3 to 6.1.9.
Figure 6.1.3 shows the comparison of theoretical and experimental slug frequency for
100% 6 cP oil at baseline conditions. This figure shows that there is generally good
agreement between the experimental and theoretical values. When 20 and 50 ppm of
DRA was present in the flow, Figures 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 show that there is also good
agreement between the experimental and theoretical values. The slug flow experiments
for 100% water also showed good agreement between the theoretical and experimental
values at all DRA concentrations.

Figure 6.1.6 shows at baseline conditions the

310

1.00
0.90

+
+ +

0.80
0.70

0.60
0.50
0.40

.pa

++ ....

+.+

.+ +

~. +
t~'''''
*.
.:tJ.+ +

++
+

+ .....-. +

0.30

....+* +

0.20

0.10
0.00

10

(VsiNsg)

12

14

16

18

20

* (vsg-vsl) I D

Figure 6.1.2: Correlating slug frequency using two phase flow data

1.00

f:I'l
........

0.90

0.80

0.70

";j

........
u

=
~

0.60

I.

0.50

c~

'-~

0.40

';

0.30

00
.~

....
~

I.

+ ..+

.+.,+
+

..+'+

0.20

Q
~

-=E-

0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Experimental Slug Frequency (slug/sec)

Figure 6.1.3: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental


slug frequency for 0 ppm of oil soluble DRA and 100% 6 cP oil

311

1.00
0.90
0.80

0.70

0.60
0.50
0.40

+ .:'

...+

:'-.
+.

0.30
0.20

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Experimental Slug Frequency (slug/sec)

Figure 6.1.4: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental


slug frequency for 20 ppm of oil soluble DRA and 100% 6 cP oil

1.00
0.90
0.80

0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30

.+
:+.....

.. if.
+

.::'++

0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Experimental Slug Frequency (slug/sec)

Figure 6.1.5: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental


slug frequency for 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA and 100% 6 cP oil

312

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
.,

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20

+ ..' +
....:t=

+ .'
+'

~ ...

0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Experimental Slug Frequency (slugs/sec)

Figure 6.1.6: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental


slug frequency for 0 ppm of water soluble DRA and 100% water

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70

0.60
0.50

++
+
:1--"
+ ...

0.40
0.30
0.20

.;

.+.~

....

0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Experimental Slug Frequency (slugs/sec)

Figu re 6.1.7: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental


slug frequency for 20 ppm of water soluble DRA and 100% water

313
correlation predicted the experimental values well.

When the water soluble DRA

concentration was at 20 ppm, Figure 6.1.7 shows that the correlation slightly over
predicted the values, but there is still good agreement between the predicted and actual
values.

At the high concentration of 50 ppm, Figure 6.1.8 shows good agreement. The

last DRA concentration studied using water soluble DRA was 75 ppm.

At this

concentration Figure 6.1.9 shows that the correlation generally under predicted the
experimental values. At this high concentration, more parameters may be needed in
order to accurately predict the slug frequency. For all two phase flow experiments, this
correlation showed that it predicted the slug frequency well.

6.2 Slug Frequency in Three Phase Flow


The correlation developed using two phase flow data was tested against the three
phase flow data in Figures 6.2.1 to 6.2.7.

Figure 6.2.1 shows how Equation 6.1.2

predicted the slug frequency for 90% 6 cP oil and 10% water. This figure shows that at
all oil soluble DRA concentrations studied, there was generally good agreement with the
experimental and theoretical values.
When the water cut was increased to 50%, the correlation predicted the slug
frequency well for 0 and 20 ppm as shown in Figures 6.2.2 and 6.2.3, respectively. At an
oil soluble DRA concentration of 50 ppm, Figure 6.2.4 shows that at high slug
frequencies, this correlation over predicted the experimental values.

As previously

stated, at this water cut and DRA concentration, a dispersion was created. Therefore, this
correlation may not be as accurate.

(,J
~

ell
........

ell
t)I)

0.90

0.80

0.70

-;;

314

1.00

(,J

=
=
~

0.60

.'+

0"

'-

t)I)

0.50

0.40

-;

0.30

r;j
.~

.....
~
'-

0.20

..c
-

0.10

+
+
+ .... +
.+
+
+

.::'*

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Experimental Slug Frequency (slugs/sec)

Figure 6.1.8: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental


slug frequency for 50 ppm of water soluble DRA and 100% water

1.00

(,J

ell
........

ell
t)I)

0.90

0.80

0.70

-;;

(,J

=
~

0.60

'-

0.50

0~

Of)

00
-;
.~
.....
~

'-

0.40
0.30
0.20

.c:

Eo-

0.10

.i

.0+
o

o~++

+ +

+
+

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Experimental Slug Frequency (slugs/sec)

Figure 6.1.9: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental


slug frequency for 75 ppm of water soluble DRA and 100A. water

1.00

C,J
~

0.90

(I)

........

(I)

OJ)

0.80

>.

0.70

";j

'-"
C,J

=
=
~

315

+ Oppm

o 20 ppm
A 50 ppm

...... +
0

0.60

e"
~

s-

0.50

0.40

-;

0.30

'-OJ)
{;3

.~

....
~

A '!iP...
..

A~+

0.20

s-

A.
A 0lO
A

0.10

.c
~

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

1.00

Experimental Slug Frequency (slugs/sec)

Figure 6.2.1: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental


slug frequency for oil soluble DRA and 900~ 6 cP oil and 10% water

1.00

C,J
~

fIj

........

0.90

(I)

OJ)

0.80

0.70

";j

'-"
C,J

=
~

=
r::r

0.60

s-

0.50

OJ)

0.40

-;

0.30

{;3
.~

....
s-

0.20

.c

0.10

e~

+ +
+ .. -

.. -+~

++~_ .. -

++,#...

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Experimental Slug Frequency (slugs/sec)

Figure 6.2.2: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug


frequency for 0 ppm of oil soluble DRA and 500/0 6 cP oil and 50% water

316

1.00
0.90
0.80

0.70

.0

0.60
0.50

o
o

0.40

0 ..

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Experimental Slug Frequency (slugs/sec)

Figure 6.2.3: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug


frequency for 20 ppm of oil soluble DRA and 50% 6 cP oil and 50% water

...-..
(J
~

fIj

"""OJ)

1.00
0.90

fIj

=
--=
=

-;;

0.80

0.70

0.60

(J

-=

A
A

0~

OJ)

00
-;
(J

;:
~

"-

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20

.c
~

0.10

AA

A~~.~

t~l

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Experimental Slug Frequency (slugs/sec)

Figure 6.2.4: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug


frequency for 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA and 50 0k 6 cP oil and 50% water

~
........

0.90

C'IJ

C!l

0.80

0.70

=
=
c::r

0.60

I-

0.50

-;;

317

1.00

CJ

+Oppm
o 20 ppm
ASOppm

CJ
~

'-

C!l

0.40

-;

0.30

0.20

{i5

...

.~
I-

+.'

.41, -+

~ ~y.'-:+

..'+

A A.~.
.A....
A
~--

-=

0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Experimental Slug Frequency (slugs/sec)

Figure 6.2.5: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug


frequency for water soluble DRA and 900/0 water and 10% 6 cp oil

1.00
+Oppm

0.90

o 20 ppm

0.80

A 50 ppm

0.70

(i}

0.60

....

0.50

0.20

.0

0.40
0.30

A~9

.'

..'+

0
A

0.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Experimental Slug Frequency (slugs/sec)

Figure 6.2.6: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug


frequency for water soluble DRA and 50% water and 50% 6 cp oil

318

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60

+..

Q.'.

0.50

0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10

.A

"..

+.--

~+'

+ +0

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Experimental Slug Frequency (slugs/sec)

Figure 6.2.7: A comparison of the theoretical and experimental slug


frequency for water soluble DRA and 10% water and 90% 6 cp oil

319
When a water soluble DRA was used with three phase flow, Equation 6.1.2
generally predicted the slug frequency well. Figure 6.2.5 shows that for a water cut of
90% and an oil cut of 10% the correlation predicted the slug frequency well for all DRA
concentrations.
When the water cut was decreased to 50%, Figure 6.2.6 shows good agreement
between the experimental and theoretical values. The last water cut of 10% is shown in
Figure 6.2.7. This figure shows more scatter than the rest of the data, but the correlation
still shows good agreement for the majority of the experiments. It seems for this DRA, as
the water cut decreases the correlation becomes less accurate. This correlation seems to
work well for 2 phase flow data and some three phase flow data. An additional term to
take into account the interaction between the oil, water and DRA may also be needed to
accurately model the slug frequency in three phase flow.

320
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS

This study used an oil soluble DRA and a water soluble DRA with a 6 cP oil and
water to determine how DRA effects two and three phase flow. The experiments were
performed in 10 em acrylic and stainless steel pipelines at ambient temperature and
pressure.

The flow regimes of stratified, slug, pseudo slug and annular flow were

examined for the oil soluble DRA. Full pipe flow and slug flow were examined for the
water soluble DRA.

Based upon the experiments, the following conclusions can be

made.

Oil Soluble DRA


Drag reducing agent concentrations of 0, 20, and 50 ppm were used in the
experiments. Based upon the results, at the low water cut of 10% and when two phase
flow was present, the DRA decreased the pressure drop at all flow regimes studied. The
pressure drop decreased as much as 75% for this DRA. It was shown that at full pipe and
multiphase flow conditions the DRA would gradually fallout of solution over time and
form a polymer layer between the oil and water interface.
At the high water cut of 50%, the oil soluble DRA created a dispersion when the
DRA was present in the flow and caused the effective viscosity to increase to over 30 cP.
The pressure drop increased as much as 262% at a DRA concentration of 50 ppm. The
stratified/slug transition shifted to a lower superficial gas velocity, i.e, slug flow occurred

321

sooner. The slug/annular transition shifted to a higher superficial gas velocity, i.e. slug
flow occurred longer. Therefore, when the DRA was present in the system, slug flow
dominated the flow regimes maps for three phase flow.

Water Soluble DRA


The water soluble DRA experiments were performed at DRA concentrations of 0,
20, 50, and 75 ppm.

When pure water was used, it was shown that the water soluble

DRA is pH sensitive, therefore, the effectiveness of the DRA would steadily decrease at
the low pH values.

When carbon dioxide was used as the gas phase, the DRA would

quickly return to baseline conditions and no experiments could be performed. When the
gas phase was changed to nitrogen, the carbonic acid, which is created in the presence of
carbon dioxide and water was no longer being created and the effectiveness of the DRA
became stabilized. The pressure drop decreased steadily as the drag reducing agent
increased. At a DRA concentration of75 ppm, the pressure drop in full pipe flow did not
further decrease when compared to the 50 ppm. The slug flow experiments showed an
additional decrease in pressure drop at 75 ppm when compared to 50 ppm. This is
explained because slug flow has more opportunities of decreasing the pressure drop. For
example, the pressure drop in full pipe flow can only be decreased by reducing the
friction between the wall and the fluid. Once the friction between the slug body and the
wall has reached the maximum drag reduction, the pressure drop can still be reduced in
slug flow by decreasing the slug frequency, slug length, or turbulence in the slug front.

322
When oil was added to the flow, the results indicate that at 20 ppm, the interfacial
tension between the oil and water decreased thereby causing a slight dispersion. The
average pressure drop increased slightly at these conditions.

When the DRA

concentration was increased to 50 ppm, the interfacial tension between the oil and water
increased after a limited amount of contact between the two phases.

The dispersion

disappeared and the pressure drop decreased. At 75 ppm, the pressure drop did not
change when compared to 50 ppm for oil/water flow and oil/water/gas flow.

Flow Properties when a Dispersion was not Created


For stratified flow, the height of the liquid film increased which caused the
velocity of the liquid film to decrease. At high gas velocities, 4 mis, the gas tried to
cause the liquid film to spread itself around the inner perimeter of the pipe causing the
liquid film to become crescent shaped.
When the flow regime was wavy stratified, the addition of the DRA would cause
the gas to force the liquid up the side of the pipeline causing a crescent shaped film. The
flow regime would try to go toward transition to annular flow.
The DRA had the greatest effect on the slug frequency, Froude number and liquid
film velocity.

The remaining slug characteristics were not as affected.

The slug

frequency and Froude number decreased with increasing DRA concentration. The liquid
film velocity increased. At the higher gas velocities, the slugs would change to pseudo
slug at the higher DRA concentrations of 50 and 75 ppm.

323
For the flow regimes of transition to annular flow and annular flow the DRA had
little effect on the pressure drop unless pseudo slug or slug were present. When pseudo
slug or slugs were present, the DRA effected the pseudo slug or slugs flowing through the
pipeline. Therefore, the reduction in pressure drop was due to the reduction of pressure
drop exhibited by the pseudo slug or slug and not by the annular film.

Flow Properties when a Dispersion was Created


When a dispersion was created by the addition of the DRA, the wavy stratified,
rolling wave stratified, transition to annular and annular flow developed slugs at either 20
or 50 ppm of DRA, depending upon the gas velocity. When slug flow was present at
baseline conditions, the DRA would increase the slug frequency and Froude number
while the liquid film velocity decreased.

The increase in pressure drop was mainly

related to the increase in slug frequency or the appearance of slugs.

Pressure Drop Components of Slug Flow


The pressure drop components were calculated for all the slug flow experiments
performed. When a dispersion was not created, the accelerational pressure drop due to
the slug front, frictional pressure drop due to the slug body and the pressure recovery of
the slug tail decreased with increasing DRA concentration. The frictional pressure drop
of the liquid film increased. This increase is due to the increase in liquid film velocity
and the reduction of slug frequency. As the slug frequency decreases the length between
slugs increase, thereby, increasing the pressure drop due to the liquid film. The major

324

contributor to the total pressure drop was determined to be the accelerational pressure
drop due to the slug front with the frictional pressure drop due slug body being second.
The pressure drop of the liquid film had the least impact on the total pressure drop. As
the gas velocity was increased, the accelerational pressure drop due to the slug front
became a larger percentage of the total pressure drop. It was also determined that when a
large decrease in pressure drop was observed, the majority of the decrease came from the
reduction in accelerational pressure drop of the slug front.
When a dispersion was created, the accelerational pressure drop due to the slug
front, the frictional pressure drop due to the slug body, and the accelerational recovery of
the slug tail increased with increasing DRA concentration. The pressure drop due to the
liquid film decreased. Similar results were shown to when a dispersion was not created,
the accelerational pressure drop due to the slug front was the dominant pressure
component while the frictional pressure drop was second and the pressure drop due to the
liquid film had the least effect. The accelerational pressure drop also became a larger
percentage of the total pressure drop as the gas velocity increased and as the DRA
concentration increased. It was also determined that when the pressure drop increased,
the majority of the increase was due to the increase of accelerational pressure drop of the
slug front.

Modeling

This study has shown that a reduction in slug frequency can be determined if the
superficial liquid velocity is known. The slug properties can be measured or calculated at

325
baseline conditions, therefore, using a estimated slug reduction, the slug frequency with
DRA can be determined.

Since the translational velocity, slug length and height the

liquid film are not significantly effected by the DRA, the liquid film velocity can be
calculated by using iterative solution found commonly in software such as OLGA. Then
by using the equations for the individual pressure drop components the theoretical
pressure drop when DRA is present can be calculated. Therefore, the effectiveness of the
DRA can be estimated.
The slug frequency was correlated with the actual gas velocity above the liquid
film, liquid film velocity, diameter of the pipe, superficial liquid and gas velocity. For
two phase flow, the following correlation was found to be independent of fluid type and
DRA type.

(7.1)

When Equation 7.1 was used to predict the slug frequency in three phase flow, a good
agreement between the theoretical and experimental values generally was shown. The
only exception was at 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA at the 50% water cut when a dispersion
was created.

At these conditions, the correlation generally over predicted the

experimental value.

326

BIBLIOGRAPHY
AI-Sheikh, J. N, Saunder, D. E. and Brodkey, Robert S. "Prediction of Flow Patterns in
Horizontal Two-Phase Pipe Flow" Can. J. of Chemical Eng. 48, February 1970,
21-29.
Andreussi, P., Minervini, A., and Paglianti, A. "Mechanistic Model of Slug Flow in NearHorizontal Pipes" AIChE Journal, 39, 8, 1281-1291.
Andritsos, Nikolaos and Hanratty, T. J. "Influence of Interfacial Waves in Stratified GasLiquid Flows" AIChE Journal, 33, 3, March 1987, 444-454.
Arirachakaran, S. Oglesby, K. D. Malinowsky, M. S., Shoham, o. and Brill, J. P. "An
Analysis of OiVWater Flow Phenomena in Horizonal Pipes" SPE Paper 18836,
1989. 155-167.
Arunanchalam, V. R., Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Waterloo, Canada (1969).
Bergelin, OlafP. and Gazley, Carl Jr. "Co-Current Gas-Liquid Flow 1. Flow in
Horizontal Tubes" Proc. Heat Transfer Fluid Mech. Inst. 1949, 5-18.
Bevington, Philip R. Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences.
McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1969.
Chen, X. T., Cai, X. D. and Brill, J. P. "Gas-Liquid Stratified-Wavy Flow in Horizontal
Pipelines" J. ofEnergy Resources and Technology 119, December 1997,209-216
Dukler, Abraham E. and Hubbard, Martin G. "A Model for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in
Horizontal and Near Horizontal Tubes" Ind. Eng. Chern. Fundam. 14,4,1975,
337-347.
Fan, Z., Ruder, Z. and Hanratty, T. J. "Pressure Profiles for Slugs in Horizontal
Pipelines" Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 19, 3, 1993,421-437.
Govier, G. W. and Orner, M. M. "The Horizontal Pipeline Flow of Air-Water Mixtures"
Can. J. ofChemical Eng. June 1962, 93-104.
Greskovich, E. J. and Shrier A. L. "Drag Reduction in Two-Phase Flows" Ind. Eng.
Chern. Fundamentals, 10,4,1971,646-648.
Hamersma, P. J. and Hart, J. "A Pressure Drop Correlation for Gas/Liquid Pipe Flow
with a Small Liquid Holdup" Chern. Eng. Sci. 42, 5, 1987, 1187-1196.

327
Hart, J., Hamersma, P. J., and Fortuin, J. M. H. "Correlations Predicting Frictional
Pressure Drop and Liquid Holdup During Horizontal Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow with
a Small Liquid Holdup" Int. J. Mutliphase Flow, 15, 6, 1989, 947-964.
Hoogendoorn, C. J. "Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes" Chemical Engineering
Science, 9, 1959,205-217.
Jepson, W. P. and Taylor, R. E. "Slug Flow and its Transitions in Large Diameter
Horizontal Pipes" Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 19, 3, 1993, 411-420.
Kale D. D. "Drag Reduction in Two-Phase Gas-Liquid Flows" AIChE Journal, 33,2,
February 1987,351-352.
Kang, Cheolho, Jepson, William P., Gopal, Madan. "The Effect of Drag Reducing
Agents on Corrosion in Multiphase Flow" NACE, San Diego, California, March
1998 (a).
Kang, C. and Jepson, W. P. "Effect of Drag-Reducing Agents in Multiphase, OiVGas
Horizontal Flow" SPE 58976, Mexico February 1-3, 2000.
Kang, C., Vancko R. M. Jr, Green, A. S., Kerr, H., Jepson, W. P. "Effect of DragReducing Agents in Multiphase Flow Pipelines" Journal ofEnergy Resources
Technology, 120, March 1998 (b), 15-19.
Laurinat, J. E. and Hanratty T. J. and Dallman, J. C. "Pressure Drop and Film Height
Measurements for Annular Gas-Liquid Flow" Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 10, 3,
1984, 341-356.
Laurinat, J. E., Hanratty, T. J. and Jepson, W. P. "Film Thickness Distribution for GasLiquid Annular Flow in a Horizontal Pipe" PhysicoChemical Hydrodynamics, 6,
1/2,1985,179-195.
Lee, Ai Hsin. "A Study of flow Regime Transitions for Oil-Water-Gas Mixtures in Large
Diameter Horizontal Pipelines" Thesis, August 1993, Ohio University.
Lester, C. B. "The Basics of Drag Reduction" Oil and Gas Journal, Feb 4,1985,51-56.
Lockhart R. W. and Martinelli R. C. "Proposed Correlation of Data for Isothermal TwoPhase, Two Component Flow in Pipes" Chemical Engineering Progress, 45, 1,
January 1949, 39-48.
Maley, L. C. "A Study of Slug Flow Characteristics in Large Diameter Horizontal
Multiphase Flow Pipelines" Thesis, June 1997, Ohio Unversity

328
Mandhane, J. M, Gregory, G. A. and Aziz, A. "A Flow Pattern Map for Gas-Liquid Flow
in Horizontal Pipes" Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 1, 1974, 537-553.
McMahon, Andrew J., Smith, Phil S., and Lee, Yung. "Drag Reducing Chemical Enables
Increased Sea Water Injection Without Increasing the Oxygen Corrosion Rate"
Corrosion 1997, Paper 258, 258/1-258/13.
Olujic, Zarko. "Predicting Two-Phase-Flow Friction Loss in Horizontal Pipes" Chemical
Eng. June 24, 1985, 45-50.
Pal, Rajinder. "Effect of Droplet Size on the Rheology of Emulsions" AIChE Journal, 42,
11, November 1996, 3181-3190.
Rosehart, R. G., Scott, D. S., and Rhodes, E. "Gas-Liquid Slug Flow with DragReducing Polymer Solutions" AIChE Journal, 18,4, July 1972,744-750.
Spedding, P. L. and Hand, N. P. "Prediction in Stratified Gas-Liquid Co-Current Flow in
Horizontal Pipelines" Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 40,8,1997,1923-1935.
Sylvester, N. D. and Brill, J. P. "Drag Reduction in Two-Phase Annular-Mist Flow of
Air and Water" AIChE Journal, 22, 3, May 1976, 615-617.
Sylvester, N. D., Dowling R. H., and Brill J. P., "Drag Reduction in Cocurrent Horizontal
Natural Gas-Hexane Pipe Flow" Polymer Eng. and Science, 20, 7, Mid-May
1980, 485-492.
Taitel, Yemada and Dukler, A. E. "A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transitions in
Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow" AIChE Journal, 22, 1, January
1976, 47-54.
Thwaites, G. R., Kulov, N. N., and Nedderman, R. M. "Liquid Film Properties of TwoPhase Annular Flow" Chemical Eng. Science, 31, 1976, 481-486.
Toms, B. A. Proc. First Intern. Congr. Rheology, pt. 2, p. 135, North Holland,
Amsterdam (1948).
Tronconi, Enrico. "Prediction of Slug Frequency in Horizontal Two-Phase Flow" AIChE
Journal, .3,5 May 1990, 701-709.
Virk, P. S., "Drag Reduction Fundamentals" AIChE Journal, 21, 4, July 1975, 625-656.
Wilkens, R. J. "Prediction of the Flow Regime Transitions in High Pressure Large
Diameter, Incline Multiphase Pipelines" PhD Thesis, June 1997, Ohio Unversity.

329

APPENDIX A
DATA TABLES

330

Average Pressure Gradient and Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP Oil with
Carbon Dioxide using Oil Soluble DRA
Table 4_1 : Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
- the aery1-IC pipe
- 1-me
so1u bi e DRA at a superfiICIial 01-I ve 1OCIity 0 fO .1 mIsm
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (palm)
V SG
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Error
Average
Error
Average
(mls)
Error
16
4
1
11
6
11
6
.
7
2
24
4
16
5
15
33
3
4
20
4
13
4
4
3
4
11
5
20
4
6
20
4
5
30
9
24
33
4
8
34
5
7
39
10
42
7
43
7
42
4
4
12
63
6
5
61
65
15
96
5
7
5
89
98
17
121
6
117
117
4
6

Table 4_2: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
- thestainIess st ee 1pipe
- 1-me
so Iu bl e DRA at a superf ICIial 01-I ve 1OCIity 0 fO 1 mIsin
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error
(mls)
1
20
3
13
10
13
4
25
5
2
10
25
15
4
3
37
4
4
18
5
32
4
21
5
6
4
16
5
6
23
4
5
4
28
23
8
38
4
5
37
5
35
10
47
4
46
4
7
43
12
64
7
5
66
10
64
15
101
6
8
7
93
98
17
127
5
4
119
123
4

331
Table 4.3: Effectiveness ofDRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil soluble
both pIpe
1mes
DRA at a supe:rfiICIial 011 velocity 0 f 0.1 mls In
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
VSG
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
(mls)
Error
Ave
29%
1
20%
37%
8%
34%
17%
35%
36%
340/0
2
10%
3%
25%
36%
4%
18%
43%
3
39%
2%
6%
14%
62%
10%
7%
51%
4
-217% 271%
75%
11%
-478% 611%
4%
20%
-45%
6
17%
-2%
5%
-20%
2%
7%
-22%
-2%
8
3%
7%
3%
-18%
4%
9%
<1%
10
-1%
1%
3%
6%
2%
6%
9%
<1%
-4%
12
2%
-3%
7%
4%
<1%
3%
2%
15
-2%
3%
4%
1%
7%
3%
8%
2%
3%
17
1%
6%
<1%
4%
1%
3%
1%

Table 4.4: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
I 011 ve IOCIity 0 fO 2 mIsm
th e aeryIlCpIpe
Ime
soIu bie DRA at a supe rfiicia
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
20 ppm
oppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Average
Average
Error
(mls)
Error
Error
4
1
17
6
35
4
16
3
2
33
42
4
21
13
3
36
44
10
7
11
29
4
45
27
35
21
16
45
18
81
53
6
73
36
6
11
lOS
8
7
7
86
85
10
107
7
107
18
98
4
12
121
8
118
11
125
5
15
163
8
12
161
8
167
17
209
200
4
5
7
204

332
Table 4.5: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
0 fO 2 mI SID
thestainless stee 1 pIpe
1-me
so1u bi e DRA at a supe rfi CIial 011 ve1
ocity
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
o
ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Error
(mls)
Average
Error
Average
Error
1
26
11
12
9
6
15
2
43
8
16
4
16
4
3
56
5
56
6
12
32
4
56
15
41
25
34
22
6
73
14
66
27
52
20
8
93
13
92
8
86
6
10
108
6
113
4
7
105
12
121
13
124
5
116
10
15
166
8
163
8
170
7
17
206
7
204
10
9
199

Table 4.6: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil soluble
DRA at a superfiiciial 01-I ve 1OCIity 0 fO 2 mI SID
b0 th pipe
- 1-mes
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
VSG
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
(mls)
Ave
Error
Error
42%
3%
-105% 47%
53%
1
12%
5%
10%
1%
-29%
62%
38%
35%
16%
62%
2
2%
3
-25%
16%
1%
15%
44%
1%
18%
11%
4
<1%
26%
27%
38%
22%
25%
21%
19%
6
10%
9%
29%
15%
37%
34%
24%
17%
8
8%
8%
18%
2%
1%
5%
5%
19%
10
8%
-5%
3%
1%
12%
2%
<1%
11%
12
-3%
5%
2%
-2%
7%
2%
4%
3%
15
1%
3%
2%
l%
1%
-2%
3%
-2%
17
4%
1%
1%
4%
2%
2%
<1%
2%

333
Table 4.7: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
0 f 0.3 m/ssm
i the acrylic
..
so Iu ble DRA at a superficial
CI 011 ve I
OCIty
pIpe IIDe
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (palm)
20 ppm
50 ppm
o
ppm
VSG
Average
Error
Average
Average
(mls)
Error
Error

1
2
3
4

6
8
10
12
15
17

47
55
88
97
142
146
190
228
270
316

7
5
37
5
4
14
11
12
17
13

28
63
71
85
98
149
172
215
272
297

9
7
7
19
27
30
53
46
29
26

31
37
64

35
76
123
148
204
256
313

11
8
10
19
20
26
16
24
23
17

Table 4.8: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
I 011 ve IOCIity 0 fO 3 mI sm
thestai ness
I st ee 1pipe
1me
so Iuble DRA at a superfilela
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
o
ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Average
Error
Average
Error
Error
(mls)
7
10
10
28
46
30
1
9
7
11
39
48
2
30

3
4

6
8

10
12
15
17

77
86
143
155
172
192
282
297

7
11
18
26
17
8
17
9

60
82
100
139
169
203
264
289

6
16
29
24
36
27
38
25

60
42
68
144
142
193
270
316

6
17
19
18
18
22
22
21

334
Table 4.9: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil soluble
DRA at a supe rfi CIial 01-I ve IOCIty
- 0 fO 3 mfs m
- b0 th pIpe
- Iines
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
V SG
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
(mfs)
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
41%
1
11%
7%
36%
36%
15%
39%
4%
2
-15%
2%
37%
15%
33%
8%
19%
7%
3
19%
26%
1%
27%
20%
<1%
22%
21%
4
12%
14%
64%
5%
9%
18%
52%
15%
31%
6
17%
30%
46%
11%
12%
52%
7%
-2%
8
11%
1%
10%
16%
9%
7%
4%
10
10%
24%
22%
2%
11%
5%
17%
3%
6%
12
17%
-6%
7%
10%
11%
<10/0
7%
15
-1%
6%
7%
8%
5%
4%
4%
3%
17
6%
4%
3%
6%
1%
2%
-6%
5%

Table 4.10: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mfs in the acrylic pipeline
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
V SG
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
(mfs)
Average
Error
Average
Average
Error
Error
1
60
50
12
48
7
7
92
2
75
11
69
12
5
109
3
4
88
17
58
17
4
121
99
16
90
18
4
6
199
32
170
23
149
21
8
251
16
29
221
40
192

Table 4.11 : Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
- I 011 ve1
0 fO 4 m/ssmte
i h stanl
- 1me
so Iu ble DRA at a superfi CIa
OCIty
1 ess st ee I pipe
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
o ppm
50 ppm
20 ppm
VSG
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error
(mls)
61
1
11
9
48
5
52
71
11
2
6
50
10
65
3
107
27
6
67
67
26
4
117
12
87
27
116
18
6
182
34
22
151
33
140
247
8
32
197
43
200
17

335
Table 4.12: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
b0 th pIpe
- 1-mes
so Iu bie DRA at a supe rfi CIial 011 ve IOCIity 0 fO 4 mIsin
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
Acrylic
V SG
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
(mls)
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
21%
1
4%
4%
21%
18%
4%
5%
15%
18%
2
8%
30%
8%
26%
9%
8%
7%
3
19%
47%
12%
38%
21%
13%
37%
22%
18%
4
11%
1%
7%
25%
13%
17%
26%
.
25%
6
15%
2%
17%
4%
1%
2%
23%
8
12%
20%
24%
8%
7%
2%
19%
4%

Table 4.13: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
th e acry 1-IC pipe
- 1-me
so1u bie DRA at a supe rfiICIial 01-I ve1OCIity 0 fO 5 mIsin
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
20 ppm
oppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Average
Error
Error
Average
Error
(mls)
1
76
14
75
10
70
8
93
2
82
20
23
14
71
182
170
4
10
20
28
127
6
249
207
17
16
43
193
8
346
47
298
53
242
16

Table 4.14: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
- 0 fO _5 mISIn
- the stain
- 1ess stee 1 pIpe
1me
so 1ubl e DRA at a superfiICIial 01-I ve 1OCIty
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Average
Error
Average
Error
(mls)
Error
1
84
71
7
4
7
72
107
2
18
92
22
4
85
4
153
32
4
136
33
110
6
235
199
17
33
37
167
303
8
33
260
39
245
20

336
Table 4.15: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
- Imes
so Iu bi e DRA at a superficial
lCI oil
01 ve IOCIity 0 fOSmI
s m bth
0
pIpe
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
Acrylic
V SG
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Ave
(mls)
Error
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
1%
6%
16%
1
4%
8%
7%
15%
5%
2
120/0
14%
9%
18%
23%
14%
20%
14%
4
7%
11%
20%
11%
30%
8%
1.9%
28%
6
17%
8%
150/0
4%
22%
7%
29%
3%
14%
8
4%
14%
4%
30%
5%
19%
2%

Table 4.16: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
I 011 ve IOCIity 0 flO mIsm
th e aery1lC pipe
- 1me
so Iu bIe DRA at a superfiicia
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
20 ppm
50 ppm
oppm
VSG
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error
(mls)
248
204
185
20
26
2
18
275
31
382
17
321
27
4
6
509
25
430
372
21
27

Table 4.17: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
- I 01-I velocity 0 f 1.0 mls m
- the stainless steeI pipe
I-me
so 1u bl e DRA at a superfilela
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
oppm
V SG
50 ppm
20 ppm
Average
Average
Error
Average
Error
Error
(mls)
22
214
187
2
241
17
23
4
279
25
342
17
384
24
23
477
390
546
30
6
42

Table 4.18: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
I 01-I ve 1OCIity 0 flO mIs m
- b0 th pIpe
- I-mes
so Iu ble DRA at a superfiicia
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
VSG
Ave
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
(mls)
Error
Ave
Error
18%
3%
22%
2%
2
5%
11%
1%
26%
4
16%
11%
27%
30/o
1%
28%
5%
20/o
6
15%
1%
13%
29%
1%
1%
27%
1%

337
Table 4.19: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
0 f 1 25 mJsm
- th e acryI-IC pIpe
- I-me
so Iu bI e DRA at a supe rfiICIial 011 ve I
OCIty
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
V SG
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
(mls)
Error
Average
Average
Error
Error

2
4
6

20
36
28

334
492
628

293
423
569

17
26
26

20
27
29

253
359
482

Table 4_20: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
I 01-I ve IOCIity 0 f 1 25 mI sin
- the SIess
tainl
- lime
so Iu bl e DRA at a superfi cia
st ee I pipe
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
50 ppm
oppm
20 ppm
VSG
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error
(mls)

2
4

19
23
18

328
495
687

296
440
623

20

29
25
21

264
381
496

40

37

Table 4.21: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
- I 01-I ve Iocity
- 0 f 1.25 mI s m
- b0 th pIpe
- I-mes
so Iu hie DRA at a superfiicia
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Stainless
Steel
Acrylic
VSG
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
(mls)
4%
<1%
1%
1%
12%
10%
24%
19%
2
2%
<1%
2%
4%
14%
23%
4
11%
27%

9%

<1%

9%

3%

23%

1%

28%

1%

Table 4.22: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
- 0 f 1 5 mI sm
- the aery1-IC pIpe.
- I-me
so1u bIe DRA at a superfi CIial 01-I ve Iocity
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
50 ppm
20 ppm
oppm
VSG
Average
Average
Error
Average
Error
Error
(mls)
21
17
19
393
318
372
2
25
21
31
436
559
4
516
20
6
721
25
24
675
578

338
Table 4.23: Average pressure gradient for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
- 0 f 1 5 mI sm
thestainl ess stee I pipe
- lime
so 1u bl e DRA at a superfiICIial 01-I ve IOCIty
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
V SG
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
(mls)
Error
Average
Error
Average
Error

2
4
6

408
591
812

18
28
33

379
555
739

18
26
51

20
22
26

330
467
639

Table 4.24: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon dioxide using oil
11
b 0 th pIpe
. 1ines
so Iu bl e DRA at a superfiicia
01 ve 1OCIity 0 f 1 5 mI s m
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
VSG
Ave
Error
Ave
(mls)
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Error

2
4
6

5%
8%
6%

1%
2%
1%

7%
6%
9%

<1%
<1%
3%

19%
22%
20%

2%
2%
<1%

19%
21%
21%

1%
1%
1%

Average Pressure Gradient and Effectiveness of DRA for 90% 6 cP Oil, 100/0
Deionized Water with Carbon Dioxide using Oil Soluble DRA
Table 4.25: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
- - d wat er ve IOCIity 0 fO 1 mI sin
th e aeryIic pipe
- 1-me
0 fO 9 mI sand superfilCIial deioruze
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (palm)
50 ppm
oppm
20 ppm
VSG
Average
Error
Average
Average
Error
Error
(mls)

2
4
6

270
414
547

28
19
30

220
340
486

21
21
37

179
250
407

16
27
17

Table 4.26: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 0_9 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0_1 mls in the stainless steel
- 1-me
pipe
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error
(mls)
16
257
24
19
2
212
160
20
20
4
430
24
356
274

547

24

492

18

406

18

339
Table 4.27: Effectiveness of DRA using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of

o 9 mI sand superfi CIial dei


d wa t er ve locity
b0 th pipe
Imes
eiomze
OCI
0 fO .1 mI sm
V SG

(mls)
2
4
6

DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm


Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
19%
1%
18%
l%
18%
1%
17%
2%
11%
2%
10%
l%

DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm


Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
34%
1%
38%
l%
40%
20/o
4%
36%
26%
1%
<10/0
26%

Table 4.28: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 1.13 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.13 mls in the acrylic pipeline
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Error
Average
(mls)
Error
Average
Error
350
2
19
330
20
278
17
516
459
16
4
25
22
393
645
35
520
26
6
33
612

Table 4.29: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 1.13 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.13 mls in the stainless steel
1IDe
pipe
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
20 ppm
50 ppm
oppm
VSG
Average
Average
Error
Average
Error
(mls)
Error
349
2
24
262
23
21
333
30
524
394
4
I9
501
30
22
704
650
45
534
6
28

Table 4.30: Effectiveness of DRA using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of
1 13 mI sand superfi CIial dei
d water ve IOCIty 0 fO 13 mI S In
bot h pipe
limes
eioruze
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
Acrylic
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Stainless Steel
VSG
(mls)
Ave
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Error
6%
2
I%
5%
21%
25%
2%
l%
1%
11%
<1%
4%
24%
4
2%
<1%
25%
30/o
5%
1%
6
8%
19%
<1%
24%
3%
<1%

340
Table 4.31: Average pressure gradient oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of
1 35 mI sand superflCIial d
- d wa t er ve locity
- the aery 1IC pipe
- 1-me
eioruze
OCI
0 fO 15 mI sm
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
o ppm
V SG
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
(mls)
Error
2
422
17
417
369
19
18
4
602
569
33
25
485
22
737
6
29
17
645
27
781

Table 4.32: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
of 1.35 mls and superficial deionized water velocity of 0.15 mls in the stainless steel
1-me
pipe
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
20 ppm
50 ppm
oppm
VSG
Error
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
(mls)
18
369
416
25
2
425
25
29
508
609
29
630
40
4
40
706
814
17
24
857
6

Table 4.33: Effectiveness of DRA using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of
1 35 mI sand superfilela
I d eiomze
- - d water ve IOCIity 0 fO 15 mI s m
- b 0 th pIpe
- 1mes
DRA
Effectiveness
at 50 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
VSG
Ave
Error
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
(mls)
1%
13%
<1%
1%
2%
13%
1%
l%
2
1%
19%
3%
1%
2%
19%
4
5%
1%
3%
18%
1%
6%
1%
5%
l%
18%
6

341
Average Pressure Gradient and Effectiveness of DRA for 50% 6 cP Oil, 50%
Deionized Water with Carbon Dioxide using Oil Soluble DRA
Table 4.34: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
d wa t er 0 fO 1 mI SIn
the aery1-
0 fO 1 mI sand supe:rfiCIial dei
eioruze
IC pIpe Iime
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Average
Error
Error
Average
Error
(mls)
1

2
3
4
6
8
10
12
15
17

33
25
47
52
55
76
80
117
179
223

6
7
12
16
9
5
3
10
21
6

25
47
78
78
142
95
104
194
266
298

7
9
6
16
4
8
12
38
12
37

63
74
78
112
100
163
164
243
296
315

5
17
12
16
7
15
8
5
15
3

Table 4_35: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
d wat er 0 fO 1 mI SID
the stanuess
tainl
- rme
st ee I pipe
eiomze
0 fO 1 mI sand superfiICIial d
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
20 ppm
50 ppm
V SG
oppm
Average
Error
Error
Average
Average
Error
(mls)

1
2
3
4
6
8
10
12
15

17

18
32
45
47
56
76
86
142
192
216

4
11
9
17
16
5
9
20
37
4

13
45
64
70
116
68
114
174
219
256

4
14
13
13
10
4
8
51
4
5

64
75
81
108
120
158
155
210
250
277

8
4
6
16
4
8
6
3
23
14

342
Table 4.36: Effectiveness of DRA using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of
0.1 mls and superficial deionized water of 0.1 mls in the acrylic and stainless steel
1mes
pipe
ORA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
V SG
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
(mls)
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
23%
7%
29%
3%
-89%
1
21%
-262% 42%
-88%
2
17%
-41%
71%
10%
-194%
22%
-134%
-67%
3
30%
-42%
6%
-68%
24%
16%
-78%
-48%
4
16%
-49%
32%
-114%
36%
-132% 49%
-160% 36%
6
-108%
42%
-83%
17%
-115% 53%
-24%
8
7%
2%
11%
1%
-114%
5%
-107%
10
-29%
10%
-320/0
5%
12%
-104%
2%
-80%
-66%
12
19%
-230/0
-48%
18%
22%
-108%
13%
15
-49%
12%
-14%
20%
-66%
15%
11%
-31%
17
-34%
4%
13%
-19%
<1%
-41%
-28%
2%

Table 4.37: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
1dei
d wa t er 0 fO 15 mI s m
the aery1
1-me
0 fO 15 mI sand supe rfilela
eiomze
ICpipe
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (palm)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
(mls)
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error
1
34
8
49
10
110
8
61
2
4
8
96
5
114
3
73
8
78
32
124
25
4
55
6
109
8
93
5
6
95
10
170
43
34
198
8
146
10
249
37
280
43
10
155
15
157
18
21
304
12
195
22
342
29
22
191
15
266
13
17
255
23
417
17
295
28
490
18
313
27

343
Table 4.38: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
d water 0 fO 15 mIsm
thestainl ess steeI pIpe
1me
eioruze
0 fO 15 mIsand supe rfiICIial d
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Average
Error
Average
Error
Error
(mls)
50
28
8
101
5
7
1
74
7
2
41
6
14
104
3
4
39
27
115
23
52
4
80
10
101
24
81
3
6
115
145
38
8
201
24
141
270
4
191
17
23
8
10
143
3
143
26
259
19
12
187
4
174
16
305
27
15
254
26
232
17
413
24
17
287
25
250
35
424
30

Table 4.39: Effectiveness of DRA using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of
0.15 mls and superficial deionized water of 0.15 mls in the acrylic and stainless steel
Imes
pipe
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
VSG
Ave
Error
(mls)
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
Ave
Error
1
-46%
7%
44%
8%
-226%
55%
-101% 21%
2
-56%
3%
-82%
11%
-86%
1%
-156% 23%
3
-7%
32%
25%
46%
-69%
16%
-122% 26%
4
-71%
7%
-26%
-99%
15%
5%
-2%
8%
6
-79%
27%
-26%
-108%
24%
9%
17%
-74%
8
-70%
14%
-36%
8%
-92%
20%
-92%
10%
10
-1%
6%
<1%
-96%
16%
7%
-82%
9%
12
2%
2%
7%
7%
-76%
5%
-63%
11%
15
4%
4%
9%
3%
-57%
1%
-63%
7%
17
-6%
1%
13%
6%
-66%
9%
-48%
3%

344
Table 4.40: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
d wat er 0 f02m1
eioruze
IC ni
pIpe I-me
0 f02m1 sand superfiICIial dei
sm the aery Iic
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (palm)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Error
Average
Average
Error
Error
(mls)
5
1
45
64
136
5
9
2
77
17
94
153
6
17
6
96
3
143
112
17
17
4
113
5
181
228
19
17
6
164
213
242
21
23
21
8
215
25
304
329
48
42

Table 4.41 : Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
0 2 mIsand superfiicta
1dei
- d wat er 0 f 0 2 mIsIn
the stainl
1me
eiomze
81 ess st ee I pipe
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
oppm
50 ppm
20 ppm
VSG
Average
Error
Average
Average
Error
Error
(mls)
40
55
130
11
1
5
6
2
61
19
109
140
8
5
3
102
4
83
139
24
21
4
106
5
157
210
17
18
17
6
148
43
177
236
18
8
170
274
339
20
38
21

0f

Table 4.42: Effectiveness of DRA using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of
o 2 mI sand superfilela
I dei
d wat er 0 fO 2 mI s m
b0 th pIpe
limes
eioruze
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
V SG
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Ave
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
(mls)
Ave
Error
Error
-42%
1
3%
-38%
4%
-228%
16%
-204%
24%
-22%
2
8%
-81%
48%
-131%
59%
-99%
36%
3
14%
10%
19%
17%
9%
-36%
18%
-27%
4
-61%
8%
-48%
9%
-97%
8%
7%
-102%
-30%
6
5%
-20%
23%
4%
-59%
35%
-47%
8
6%
-41%
-61%
10%
4%
-53%
-100%
2%

345
Table 4.43: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
d water 0 f 0 25 mI SIn
the aery1-
IC pIpe Ime
eiomze
0 f 0 25 mI sand supe rfi CIal dei
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
o ppm
50 ppm
V SG
20 ppm
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error
(mls)
6
86
10
174
8
84
1
179
17
106
7
116
20
2
18
146
4
183
19
235
4
305
24
207
178
19
6
29
284
365
406
35
8
38
39

Table 4.44: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
0 25 mI sand superfiCIa
- I dei
d wa t er 0 f 0 25 mI SID
- the st
1me
arnl ess stee I pipe
eiomze
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error
(mls)
84
147
7
1
7
85
4
96
115
2
16
192
17
6
231
23
4
123
4
173
29
26
17
269
314
6
168
29
388
24
264
19
335
8
29

0f

Table 4.45: Effectiveness of DRA using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of

o 25 mI sand superfiCIal deiomze


- d water 0 f 0 25 mI sin
b 0 th pipe
1-mes
VSG

(mls)
1
2
4
6
8

DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm


Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
-2%
5%
-1%
3%
-10%
12%
-20%
ll%
-25%
-40%
10%
19%
-60%
14%
3%
1%
-28%
4%
-27%
2%

DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm


Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
8%
7%
-76%
-107%
-99%
8%
-70%
4%
-88%
13%
-61%
8%
9%
-86%
5%
-47%
l%
7%
-47%
-43%

346
Table 4.46: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
d water 0 fO 5 mI sm
the acry1
IC pipe1me
eioruze
0 fO 5 mI sand supe rfiICIial dei
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
V SG
Average
Average
Error
Average
Error
Error
(mls)
2
240
17
22
239
21
368
4
374
19
334
44
480
35
6
505
20
438
26
25
583

Table 4.47: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
Ldei
d wa t er 0 f05m1
- 1-me
0 f05m1 sand supe rfi CIa
eioruze
s m thestainIess st ee 1pipe
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
Average
Error
Average
(mls)
Error
Average
Error
2
222
16
307
27
375
16
4
371
17
417
34
458
24
6
483
17
553
22
620
28

Table 4.48: Effectiveness of DRA using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of

o 5 mI sand supe rfiICIa


I d
d wa ter 0 fO 5 mI s m
b 0 th pIpe
1mes
eiomze
V SG
(mls)
2
4
6

DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm


Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
1%
<1%
-39%
2%
11%
7%
-13%
4%
13%
2%
-14%
1%

DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm


Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
-53%
7%
-69%
5%
-28%
3%
-24%
1%
-15%
1%
-28%
1%

Table 4.49: Average pressure gradient for using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil
ve 1OCIity 0 fO 75 mI sand superfiICIial dei
d wa t er 0 fO 75 mI SIn
the acry lic
eioruze
IC ni
pipe 1me
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (palm)
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
VSG
(m/s)
Average
Error
Average
Average
Error
Error
2
449
19
564
27
577
24
4
601
25
724
31
724
20
6
743
19
906
899
24
30

347

Table 4.50: Average pressure gradient using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity
d water 0 fO 75 miSIn
thestainIess stee1 pipe
lime
eioruze
0 fO 75 misand supe rfiICIial dei
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
50 ppm
o
ppm
20 ppm
VSG
Average
Error
Average
Average
Error
Error
(mis)
18
414
543
556
2
19
21
23
592
766
27
736
4
23
977
19
738
955
19
6
45

Table 4.51: Effectiveness of DRA using oil soluble DRA at a superficial oil velocity of

o 75 misand superfiCIial dei


d wa t er 0 fO 75 miSIn
b0 th pipe
1mes
eiomze
VSG

(mis)
2
4
6

DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm


Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
-26%
1%
1%
-31%
-20%
<1%
<1%
-29%
-21%
<1%
-29%
5%

DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm


Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
2%
-28%
<1%
-34%
1%
-24%
-21%
2%
6%
-22%
-32%
1%

348

Average Pressure Gradient and Effectiveness ofDRA for 100% Deionized Water
with Nitrogen using Water Soluble DRA

Table 4.52: Average pressure gradient for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using
w ater so 1u bi e DRA at supe rfiCIa
1d
- d water 0 fO 5 mI sm
- the acry 1-IC pipe
- lime
eioruze
V SG
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
(mls)
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
75 ppm
Average Error Average Error Average Error Average Error
3
4
25
3
3
22
0
27
21
57
8
1
57
3
44
6
41
3
4
49
4
2
93
5
83
5
59
4
16
92
4
177
17
156
18
134
172
98
8
6
222
28
223
21
16

Table 4.53: Average pressure gradient for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using
w aersou
t
1 bi e DRA at superfiICla
- 1d
- d wa t er 0 fO 5 mI SIn
- the stainl
I-Ine
eioruze
I ess st ee 1 pipe
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
VSG
(mls)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
75 ppm
Average Error Average Error Average Error Average Error
0
18
14
17
3
14
3
3
3
1
43
8
43
6
5
32
5
34
2
65
36
5
4
50
4
44
3
4
4
164
17
128
21
103
20
55
68
19
5
6
190
19
186
21
120

Table 4.54: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using water
sou
I ble DRA at supe rfiicia
- 1deioruze
- d wa t er 0 fO 5 mI s m
b0 th pipe
rmes
VSG Effectiveness at 20 ppm Effectiveness at 50 ppm Effectiveness at 75 ppm
(mls) Acrylic
Acrylic
Stainless
Acrylic
Stainless
Stainless
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
0
333%
61%
21%
243%
214%
202%
1
-1<1%
-15%
237%
262%
196%
289%
2
111%
231%
371%
286%
321%
413%
4
122%
578%
225%
242%
376%
417%
6
-13%
21%
232%
637%
374%
561%

349
Table 4.55: Average pressure gradient for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using
w aersou
t
I bi e DRA at superfiICIial dei
d wat er 0 flO m/ sm
th e aery I
eioruze
IC piperme
VSG
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
(m/s)
oppm
20 ppm
75 ppm
50 ppm
Average Error Average Error Average Error Average Error
3
4
0
93
3
4
80
64
61

2
4
6

230
432
530

33
17

188
364
480

14
16
20

152
324
369

10
18
22

103
177
205

5
9
18

Table 4.56: Average pressure gradient for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using
1deioruze
- - d water 0 flO m/ sm
th e stainl
- 1Ine
w ater so 1u ble DRA at superfiICla
1 ess st ee I pipe
VSG
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
(m/s)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
75 ppm
Average Error Average Error Average Error Average Error

0
2
4
6

77
204
396
500

3
5
30
42

65
158
317
394

4
3
22
17

50
133
265
284

4
8
30
26

52
81
150
156

4
7
4
17

Table 4_57: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using water
so1ubie DRA at superfi CIial deiomze
- d wat er 0 flO m/sin
b0 th pipe
1-mes
Effectiveness at 75 ppm
VSG Effectiveness at 20 ppm Effectiveness at 50 ppm
(m/s)
Acrylic
Stainless
Acrylic
Stainless
Acrylic
Stainless
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave

0
2
4

141%
185%
163%
101%

161%
23<1%
20<1%
213%

351%
342%
252%
312%

362%
357%
337%
435%

312%
462%
511%
572%

224%
493%
536%
613%

Table 4.58: Average pressure gradient for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using
w ater so 1u bie DRA at superfiICIial d
d wat er 0 f 1 25 m/ sm
th e aery 1IC pIpe
- liIDe
eioruze
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (palm)
VSG
(mls)
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
75 ppm
Average Error Average Error Average Error Average Error
3
0
139
3
3
87
118
86
3

2
4
6

319
552
638

9
18
46

254
470
576

4
22
20

210
395
493

8
17
17

135
276
298

6
22
38

350

Table 4.59: Average pressure gradient for 1000/0 deionized water with nitrogen using
water soluble DRA at superficial deionized water of 1.25 mls in the stainless steel
p.ipe 1me
V SG
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
(mls)
oppm
75 ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average Error Average Error Average Error Average Error
0
98
74
3
118
3
3
72
3
4
175
276
123
2
8
227
11
7
357
17
444
17
202
21
4
512
17
242
18
19
428
18
6
635
21
523

Table 4.60: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using water
so1u bie DRA at superfiicia
I dei
- d wat er 0 f 1 25 mIs m
b 0 th pipe
1-mes
eioruze
Effectiveness at 75 ppm
VSG Effectiveness at 20 ppm Effectiveness at 50 ppm
(mls) Acrylic
Stainless
Stainless
Acrylic
Stainless
Acrylic
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
0
15<1%
17<1%
391%
381%
381%
381%
461%
201%
182%
371%
471%
343%
2
4
151%
301%
414%
544%
291%
13<1%
331%
486%
543%
6
103%
18<1%
233%

Table 4.61: Average pressure gradient for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using
w at er so Iu bIe DRA at superfiICIial deiomze
- d wat er 0 f 1 5 m/ss iill thee aery
acrvlic
IC ni
pipe Ime
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
VSG
(mls)
75 ppm
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average Error Average
Error Average Error Average Error
0
194
3
4
161
3
116
124
3
3
2
412
4
345
3
274
166
13
21
4
674
280
20
537
17
487
18
6
788
37
368
23
707
24
556
17
Table 4.62: Average pressure gradient for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using
d wat er 0 f 1 5 mIsm
the stainl
1ille
w a ter so Iu bl e DRA at superfiICIial d
at ess st ee 1 prpe
eiornze
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
VSG
(mls)
o ppm
50 ppm
75 ppm
20 ppm
Average
Error Average
Error Average Error Average Error
0
167
4
3
135
3
99
3
104
8
140
2
360
4
4
236
11
294
4
643
20
19
517
33
427
264
26
6
807
21
273
32
505
22
686
29

351
Table 4.63: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% deionized water with nitrogen using water
so Iu bl e DRA at supe rfiICIial d
d wa t er 0 f 1 5 mIs m
b0 th pIpe
1mes
eiomze
Effectiveness at 75 ppm
Effectiveness at 20 ppm Effectiveness at 50 ppm
VSG
(mls) Acrylic
Stainless
Acrylic
Acrylic
Stainless
Stainless
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
381%
401%
411%
362%
0
17<l%
19<1%
532%
345%
344%
522%
18<10/0
16<1%
2
491%
342%
482%
20<1%
281%
4
203%
602%
381%
483%
301%
6
101%
152%

Table 4.64: Average pressure gradient for 100% deionized water full pipe flow using

w at er soIu bl e DRAill th e aery 1


IC pipe me

VS L

(mls)
0.75
1.75
2.0

o ppm
Average
57
258
331

Error
3
4
4

Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)


50 ppm
20 ppm
Average Error Average Error
49
3
38
3
4
151
3
213
4
187
268
3

75 ppm
Average Error
4
41
3
142
4
193

Table 4.65: Average pressure gradient for 100% deionized water full pipe flow using
t
I hIe DRAill thestainI ess stee I pipe
lime
w aersou
V SL
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
(mls)
75 ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
oppm
Average Error
Average Error Average Error Average Error
0.75
4
44
3
32
3
38
30
3
1.75
223
4
3
3
180
129
4
123
2.0
287
4
229
160
165
3
3
3

Table 4.66: Effectiveness of DRA for 100% deionized water full pipe flow using water
so1u bl e DRAIn b0 th pIpe.mes
1
VSL Effectiveness at 20 ppm Effectiveness at 50 ppm Effectiveness at 75 ppm
(mls) Acrylic
Stainless
Acrylic
Acrylic
Stainless
Stainless
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
Ave
0.75
266%
141%
121%
323%
284%
332%
1.75
451%
45<1%
181%
191%
42<1%
421%
2.0
421%
19<1%
20<1%
43<1%
441%
42<1%

352
Average Pressure Gradient and Effectiveness ofDRA for 90A Deionized Water and
10o~ 6cP oil with Nitrogen using Water Soluble DRA
Table 4.67: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
- 0 fO 1 mIsm
- the acryI-IC pIpe
- I-me
water 0 fO 9 mIsand supe:rfiICIial S cP 01-I ve IOCIty
V SG
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (palm)
(mls)
oppm
50 ppm
20 ppm
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error
0
99
4
97
3
143
4
5
2
246
12
13
155
262
21
4
427
265
30
442
23
313
18
19
542
19
6
557

Table 4_68: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
- the Stainl
- I-me
at ess st ee I pipe
water 0 f09m1 sand superficial
ICI S cP 01-I ve IOCIity 0 fOImI
. SIn
VSG
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
(mls)
50 ppm
oppm
20 ppm
Average
Error
Average
Error
Error
Average
4
4
87
0
83
4
121
5
135
4
209
224
5
2
17
209
4
401
23
395
18
17
36
267
6
471
29
483

Table 4_69: Effectiveness of DRA using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
t
f09m1 s an d supe:rfiICIial o cP 01-I ve1OCIity 0 fOImISIn
- b0 th pipe
- 1-mes
waero
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
V SG
(mls)
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Error
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
0

2
4

-45%
-7%
-4%
3%

3%
<1%
2%
<1%

-46%
-7%
1%
-3%

2%
1%
1%
2%

2%
37%
38%
44%

1%
1%
1%
l%

-5%
350/0
48%
43%

1%
I%
l%
<l%

353
Table 4. 70: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
t
f 1 13 mI sand superfi Clial S c P 011 ve 1OCIity 0 fO 13 mI sm
the aery Iic
ni 1me
waero
IC pipe
V SG
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
(mls)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Error
Average
Average
Error
Error

0
2
4
6

4
4
17
23

147
327
534
650

193
344
636
715

6
4
23
24

6
3
34
17

149
212
319
402

Table 4.71: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
water of 1.13 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.13 mls in the stainless steel
Ime
pipe
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
VSG
(mls)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error

0
2
4
6

4
11
36
19

143
290
515
618

168
310
622
691

8
9
23
17

5
6
41
23

133
184
307
377

Table 4.72: Effectiveness of DRA using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
waero
t
f 1 13 mI sand superfiICIial S CP 011 ve IOCIity 0 fO 13 mIsin
b0 th pIpe
- limes
V SG
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
(mls)
Acrylic
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Stainless Steel
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Error

0
2
4
6

-32%
-5%
-19%
-10%

1%
<1%
<1%
<l%

-17%
-7%
-21%
-12%

3%
1%
4%
1%

-1%
35%
40%
38%

1%
<1%
4%
l%

1%
<1%
4%
2%

7%

36%
40%
39%

Table 4.73: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
0 fO 15 mI sm
the aery1-IC pipe 1-me
water 0 f 1 35 mIsand superfiICIial S cP 01-I ve1
OCIty
V SG
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
(mls)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Error
Average
Average
Error
Error
0
4
3
211
172
249
4
e

2
4
6

418
646
749

4
17
24

454
797
937

12
16
32

265
416
483

4
23
17

354
Table 4.74: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
water of 1.35 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.15 mls in the stainless steel
rme
pIpe
V SG
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
(mls)
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Error
Average
Error
Average
Error
0
192
4
215
4
152
4
2
379
5
416
9
243
10
4
614
25
787
18
398
17
6
764
18
931
22
444
17

Table 4.75: Effectiveness of DRA using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
t
f 1 15 mI sand superfiICIial f c P 011 ve IOCIity 0 fO 15 mI SIn
b0 th pipe
1mes
w aero
V SG
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
(mls)
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
Ave
Error
0
2
4
6

-18%
-9%
-23%
-25%

1%
2%
1%
<l%

-12%
-10%
-28%
-22%

1%
1%
2%
<1%

19%
37%
36%
35%

<1%
<1%
2%
<1%

21%
36%
35%
42%

1%
2%
<1%
l%

Table 4.76: Average pressure gradient for 90% water and 100/0 oil flow using water
so1u hIe DRAIn the aery1
IC pIpe 1me
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (palm)
VSL
(mls)
20 ppm
o ppm
50 ppm
Average
Error
Average
Error
Average
Error
1.75
285
4
4
331
4
210
2.0
367
5
434
4
4
257

Table 4.77: Average pressure gradient for 90% water and 10% oil flow using water
so1uble DRAIn thestainIess stee I pipe
1me
VSL
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
(mls)
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Error
Average
Average
Error
Error
1.75
256
4
290
4
4
190
2.0
332
4
4
383
231
5

355
Table 4.78: Effectiveness ofDRA using water soluble DRA for 90% water and 10% oil
pipe rines
flow In
in both
0
ni
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
VSL
Stainless Steel
(mls)
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
1.75
2.0

-16%
-18%

<1%
1%

-13%
-15%

<1%
<1%

26%
30%

<1%
<1%

26%
31%

<1%
<1%

Average Pressure Gradient and Effectiveness ofDRA for 500/0 Deionized Water and
50% 6cP oil with Nitrogen using Water Soluble DRA
Table 4.79: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
water of 0.25 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.25 mls in the acrylic pipeline
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
VSG
(mls)
50 ppm
oppm
20 ppm
Error
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
4
33
47
37
0
4
5
5
70
83
4
55
1
3
4
104
4
109
14
73
2
4
4
206
206
104
18
22
20
6
249
105
17
245
21

Table 4.80: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
water of 0.25 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.25 mls in the stainless steel
1me
pipe
VSG
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
(mls)
50 ppm
20 ppm
oppm
Error
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
0
4
33
47
5
37
4
5
70
83
4
55
1
3
4
2
104
109
73
4
14
206
4
4
18
206
22
104
6
249
20
17
245
105
21

356
Table 4.81: Effectiveness of ORA using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
b0 th pipe
1-mes
ocity 0 fO 25 mIs m
water 0 fO 25 mIsand superfiICIial S CP 011 ve 1
DRA
Effectiveness
at 50 ppm
DRA
Effectiveness
at
20
ppm
VSG
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
(mls)
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Error
Error
Error
Ave
Ave
Ave
Error
3%
20/0
-190/0
-30%
2%
-14%
0
-45%
2%
38%
7%
21%
3%
<0%
-8%
1%
-19%
1
41%
2%
1%
6%
30%
-4%
9%
-13%
2
43%
2%
2%
<0%
5%
4%
50%
2%
4
5%
5%
45%
-10%
4%
6
2%
2%
58%

Table 4.82: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
16 CP 01-I ve IOCIty
- 0 f05m1
IC pipe lime
sm the aery1-
water 0 f05m1 sand superfiICla
V SG
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
(mls)
50 ppm
oppm
20 ppm
Average
Average
Error
Average
Error
Error
137
4
4
205
4
0
111
147
4
278
2
259
6
14
17
236
30
458
4
445
23
295
29
574
6
512
21
29

Table 4.83: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
0 fO .5 mIsm
thestain! ess steeI pipe
- rme
water 0 fO 5 mIsand superfiICIial S cP 011 ve I
ocity
V SG
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
(mls)
50 ppm
oppm
20 ppm
Average
Error
Average
Error
Average
Error
123
4
0
92
182
4
5
4
131
246
240
7
5
2
199
19
417
22
439
18
4
234
29
6
474
18
544
16

357
Table 4.84: Effectiveness of DRA using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
t
fO 5 mI sand supe rfi Clial o cP 01-I ve 1OCIity 0 fO 5 mI s m
- b0 th pIpe.
- 1mes
waero
VSG
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
(mls)
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
-84%
0
3%
-99%
4%
-34%
2%
-23%
1%
3%
-3%
1%
43%
45%
<l%
-7%
<1%
2
47%
52%
1%
2%
2%
-5%
1%
-3%
4
1%
-15%
6
-12%
1%
42%
51%
4%
3%

Table 4.85: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
t
fO 75 mI sand supe rfiICIial e cP 01-I ve IOCIity 0 fO 75 mI sm
- the aery IICpIpe
1-me
waero
V SG
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
(mls)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Average
Error
Average
Error
Error
0
211
247
229
4
4
4
457
2
517
261
7
4
3
688
4
400
40
20
823
18
6
795
35
910
16
458
18

Table 4.86: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
water of 0.75 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 0.75 mls in the stainless steel
rme
pipe
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
VSG
(mls)
50 ppm
oppm
20 ppm
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error
0
181
5
211
205
3
4
2
415
3
477
231
10
5
4
668
795
17
374
17
18
767
6
423
20
37
906
27
Table 4.87: Effectiveness of DRA using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
t
fO 75 mIs an d supe rfiicia
16 c P 011 ve IOCIity 0 fO 75 mISIn
- b0 th pIpe
- limes
waero
V SG
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
(mls)
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
0
-170/0
-13%
1%
l%
-17%
1%
<l%
-9%
2
-13%
<1%
2%
44%
1%
-15%
43%
<1%
4
-20%
1%
-19%
<l%
1%
44%
42%
4%
6
-14%
3%
45%
<1%
2%
42%
<l%
-18%

358
Table 4.88: Average pressure gradient for 50% oil and 50% water flow using water
sau
1 ble DRAIn the aery1
IC pipe1me
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
VSL
(mls)
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Average
Error
Error
Average
Error
0.75
69
4
83
4
4
71
1.25
163
4
232
4
177
5
1.75
250
5
317
4
230
5
2.0
376
406
4
4
269
4
Table 4.89: Average pressure gradient for 50% oil and 50% water flow using water
1 bi e DRAm thestainI ess st ee1pipe
1me
sau
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
VS L
(mls)
O]Jpm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Average
Error
Error
Average
Error
0.75
54
4
61
4
57
4
1.25
137
4
206
158
4
6
1.75
239
4
275
204
4
5
2.0
350
4
357
238
4
4
Table 4.90: Effectiveness of DRA using water soluble DRA for 50% oil and 50% water
pipe
fl ow in both
0
ni rtoes
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
VSL
(mls)
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
Ave
Error
0.75
1.25
1.75
2.0

-20%
-42%
-27%
-8%

2%
1%
1%
<1%

-13%
-51%
-15%
-2%

2%
<1%
<1%
<1%

-2%
-9%
8%
29%

1%
1%
<1%
<1%

-5%
-15%
15%
32%

2%
<1%
1%
<1%

Average Pressure Gradient and Effectiveness ofDRA for 10% Deionized Water and
90% 6cP oil with Nitrogen using Water Soluble DRA
Table 4.91: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
t
fOImI sand supe rficial
ni 1-me
waero
IC pIpe
ICI S CPl
01 ve 1OCIity 0 f09m1
SIn the aeryIic
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
VSG
(mls)
oppm
50 ppm
20 ppm
Average
Error
Average
Average
Error
Error
0
119
3
117
3
80
4
293
2
7
254
6
5
166
496
4
18
17
233
451
17
603
6
17
537
257
17
19

359
Table 4.92: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
t
fOImI sand superficial
waero
ICI S c PI
01 ve IOCIity 0 f09m1
sm th estainl ess steeI
pIpe Ime
V SG
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
(mls)
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Error
Average
Average
Error
Error

0
2
4
6

4
7
26
17

93
228
439
503

94

235
445
544

3
3
28
16

4
14
22
55

61
160
208
257

Table 4.93: Effectiveness of DRA using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
t
fO 1 mI sand superfiICIial S cP 011 ve IOCIity 0 fO 9 mIs m
b0 th pIpe
1mes
waero
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
VSG
(mls)
Acrylic
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Stainless Steel
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Error

0
2
4
6

2%
13%
9%
11%

<1%
<1%
<1%
l%

-2%
-3%
-2%
-8%

l%
2%
<1%
<1%

33%
43%
53%
57%

1%
1%
2%
2%

35%
30%
53%
49%

l%
4%
2%
9%

Table 4.94: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
t
fO 13 mI sand superfiICIial S CPl
the aery1
lime
waero
ICpipe
01 ve IOCIity 0 f 1 13 mIsm
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (palm)
VSG
(mls)
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error

0
2
4
6

171
375
634
777

4
9
18
17

163
326
588
704

4
6
17
26

116
222
287
380

4
17
16
22

Table 4.95: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
water of 0.13 mls and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 1.13 mls in the stainless steel
- I-me
pIpe
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (Palm)
VSG
(mls)
oppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Average
Error
Error
Average
Error
5
4
0
140
4
140
92
4
2
289
7
17
285
206

4
6

513
640

33
21

544
697

34
31

272
320

41
26

360
Table 4.96: Effectiveness of DRA using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
0 f 1 13 m/ s m
b 0 th pIpe
- limes
ocity
water 0 fO 13 m/ sand superfiICIial 6 c P 011 ve1
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
VSG
(m/s)
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
Ave
Error
2%
35%
0%
<1%
32%
1%
4%
<1%
0
1%
41%
29%
5%
1%
3%
1%
13%
2
-6%
<1%
55%
47%
5%
<1%
1%
7%
4
50%
2%
-9%
1%
51%
2%
9%
l%
6

Table 4.97: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
th e aeryIicpipe
lime
t
fO 15 m/ sand superfiICIial S cP 011 ve IOCIity 0 f 1 35 m/ sm
waero
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
V SG
(m/s)
50 ppm
oppm
20 ppm
Error
Average
Error
Average
Average
Error
5
3
153
4
220
236
0
7
259
413
4
459
4
2
17
694
21
766
24
365
4
21
44
896
801
402
28
6

Table 4.98: Average pressure gradient using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
water of 0.15 m/s and superficial 6 cP oil velocity of 1.35 m/s in the stainless steel
1-me
pIpe
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
VSG
(m/s)
20 ppm
50 ppm
oppm
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error
4
0
195
191
4
125
3
9
354
4
250
2
360
4
29
46
346
4
634
666
22
22
403
6
768
24
813
18
Table 4.99: Effectiveness of DRA using water soluble DRA at superficial deionized
f015m/ sand superficial
- limes
t
pipe
waero
CIa S CPl
01 ve 1OCIity 0 f135m/
SIn both
0
DRA
Effectiveness
at 50 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
VSG
(mls)
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Acrvlic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
1%
7%
36%
0
<l%
2%
<l%
35%
1%
31%
2
10%
<1%
2%
<1%
43%
2%
1%
45%
3%
9%
<1%
-5%
52%
1%
4
4%
48%
6
55%
1%
11%
2%
-6%
1%
1%

361
Table 4.100: Average pressure gradient for 10% water and 90% oil flow using water
soIu ble DRAIn the aery I-IC pIpe
- lime
V SL
Acrylic Pressure Gradient (Palm)
(mls)
20 ppm
50 ppm
0J:>pm
Average
Average
Average
Error
Error
Error
1.75
4
318
5
3
313
191
2.0
392
5
393
4
252
4

Table 4.101: Average pressure gradient for 10% water and 90% oil flow using water
soIubl e DRAIn th estainl ess st eeI pipe
rme
V SL
Stainless Steel Pressure Gradient (palm)
(mls)
o ppm
20 ppm
50 ppm
Average
Error
Average
Error
Average
Error
1.75
255
4
279
5
4
167
2.0
321
4
344
7
233
3

Table 4.102: Effectiveness of DRA using water soluble DRA for 10% water and 90% oil
fl ow in
b0 th pipe
1mes
DRA Effectiveness at 20 ppm
DRA Effectiveness at 50 ppm
VS L
(mls)
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Acrylic
Stainless Steel
Ave
Error
Ave
Error
Ave
Ave
Error
Error
1.75
2.0

-2%
<1%

1%
<1%

-9%
-7%

<1%
1%

39%
36%

<1%
<1%

34%
27%

<1%
<1%

362

APPENDIXB
SLUG PROPERTIES

363

Slug Properties of 6cP Oil with Carbon Dioxide using Oil Soluble DRA
Table 4.1.3: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial
011 so Iubl e DRA
car bon dIOXIide ve locity
OCI
0 f 1 mI S usmg
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
Velocity
Velocity
Length
of DRA
Film
number
Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5 0.4(m)
10%
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
4.2
2.0
0.18
3.2
3.2
3
20
4.8
2.3
0.20
3.5
2.7
3
50
4.2
2.2
3.5
0.25
2.6
3

Table 4.1.4: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial
0 f 2 mI s USIng
011 so1ubl e DRA
ocity
car b on d10XIide ve1
Amount
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Velocity
Velocity
Length
Frequency
of DRA
Film
number
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
10%
0.4(m)
0.5
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
3.6
2.9
0.29
5.0
2.4
4
20
3.7
3.3
0.38
5.7
2.3
3
50
3.7
3.0
0.47
4.8
1.9
2

Table 4.1.5: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial
011 so1ubl e DRA
car b on d10XIide ve locity
OCI 0 f3m1 S USIng
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Frequency
Velocity
Velocity
number
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.4(m)
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
10%
0.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
3.3
4.0
0.47
7.3
3.0
2
20
3.6
3.8
2.0
2
0.51
6.6
50
3.8
4.1
0.42
7.1
1.8
3

364
Table 4.1.6: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.2 mls and a superficial
0 f 4 mIs usmg 011 so Iu bl eDRA
OCIty
carbon dIOXIde ve I
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Amount
Frequency
Velocity
Velocity
Length
number
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
O.4(m)
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)
O.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0.54
0
3.4
4.8
8.7
2.4
2
0.65
8.9
1.9
20
3.3
5.0
1
0.70
9.4
1.9
50
3.1
5.1
1
Table 4.1.7: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls using oil soluble DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
Length
Frequency
Velocity
number
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.4(m)
0.2 (mls)
O.5
10%
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
2.5
5
0.38
3.7
4.0
2.4
0
4.3
0.24
3.1
5
20
2.2
3.5
2.3
5
50
4.3
2.1
0.35
3.2

Table 4.1.8: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of2 mls using oil soluble DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
Velocity
Velocity
number
Length
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)
O.4(m)
O.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
5
3.1
3.2
0
3.6
0.37
5.3
2.1
6
3.8
2.9
0.44
20
4.7
5
3.8
2.8
0.45
2.5
50
4.5

Table 4.1.9: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and a superficial
0 f 3 mls USIng oil so Iu bl eDRA
carbon dioxide veIocity
Slug
Slug
Liquid
Amount
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
Velocity
Length
of DRA
Film
Velocity
number
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.4(m)
10%
0.2 (mls)
O.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
3.3
4
4.0
0.48
7.3
4.0
20
3.5
4.3
5
0.55
7.4
2.5
50
3.3
4.5
0.69
2.6
4
7.9

365
Table 4.1.10: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls using oil soluble DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
Length
Frequency
Velocity
number
of ORA
Film
(ppm)
Height
O.4(m)
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
10%
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0.44
0
5.2
10.0
3.2
3.2
6
0.79
2.1
5
20
3.1
5.5
10.1
0.71
2.1
50
3.4
5.2
9.1
2

Table 4.1.11: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and a superficial
carb on d10XIide ve locity
OCI 0 f6m1 S USIng 011 so 1u bl e DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
Frequency
of DRA
Velocity
number
Length
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.4(m)

0.05
(mls)
10%
0.2 (mls)
0.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0.90
2.1
0
2.8
6.6
13.0
6
20
0.87
3.0
7.5
14.5
1.8
6
4
50
2.9
7.1
1.08
13.3
1.2

Table 4.1.12: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.3 mls and a superficial
carb on diIOXId e ve locity
OCI
0 f8m1 S using 011 so I u bl e DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
Velocity
Length
of DRA
Velocity
Film
number
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
O.4(m)
0.2 (mls)
10%
0.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
8.0
0.96
2.5
2.6
16.7
6
20
7.9
0.97
1.9
8
2.6
16.5
50
Pseudo Slug

Table 4.1.13: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Slug
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
of DRA
Length
Frequency
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
(ppm)
Height
0.4(m)
10%
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (ern)
0
3.9
0.30
3.4
7
2.4
3.9
20
2.9
7
4.1
0.39
2.7
4.1
50
4.2
0.38
2.7
7
2.3
3.4

366

Table 4.1.14: Slug Properties for a Superficial Oil Velocity of 0.4 mls and a Superficial
0 f2 mI S usmg
011 so Iu bl e DRA
carb on d10XIide veIocity
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
Frequency
Velocity
Velocity
Film
number
Length
of DRA
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.4(m)
0.2 (mls)
O.5
10%
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
3.4
0.45
3.1
5.3
3.4
7
3.8
0.53
4.5
7
20
2.9
2.6
0.47
4.8
7
3.6
2.9
3.0
50

Table 4.1.15: Slug roperties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 3 mls using oil soluble DRA
Liquid
Slug
Amount
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Film
Velocity
Frequency
of DRA
number
Velocity
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.5
0.4(m)
0.2 (mls)
10%
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
3.2
0
4.4
0.69
7.7
3.5
6
20
3.2
0.94
7.4
4.5
2.5
6
50
3.7
4.4
0.86
6.8
1.7
5

Table 4.1.16: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls and a superficial
011 SOIU bi e DRA
carb on diIOXId e ve locity
OCI 0 f 4 mI S USIng
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Frequency
ofDRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.4(m)
0.2 (mls)
10%
0.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
3.2
6
6.0
0.60
11.4
4.0
20
3.2
5.3
1.05
8.9
2.2
6
50
3.3
5.2
0.93
4
8.9
1.8

Table 4.1.17: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls and a superficial
0 f6m1 S using 011 so Iubl eDRA
carb on dIOXIide ve IOCIty
Amount
of DRA
(ppm)
0
20
50

Liquid
Film
Height
0.3 (em)
2.8
2.8
2.9

Translational
Velocity
0.2 (mls)

Liquid Film
Velocity
0.05 (mls)

Froude
number
0.5

Slug
Length
0.4(m)

7.3
6.7
6.9

0.75
1.33
1.52

14.9
12.2
12.1

3.5
1.5
1.6

Slug
Frequency
10%
(slugs/min)
8
9
4

367
Table 4.1.18: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.4 mls and a superficial
car bon diIOXIide ve locity
OCI 0 f8 mIS USIng 011 so IUbl e DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
Frequency
Velocity
number
Length
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls)
O.5
O.4(m)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
2.6
8.5
1.39
2.2
9
17.2
1.34
2.6
8.5
17.0
2.1
20
9
1.66
2.6
5
16.6
1.6
8.8
50

Table 4.1.19: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls using oil soluble DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
of DRA
Film
Velocity
number
Frequency
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
O.5
10%
0.2 (mls)
O.4(m)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0.41
11
4.1
3.5
2.4
0
2.3
4.2
3.8
0.46
2.3
20
11
2.6
10
4.1
50
0.26
4.1
3.2
2.5

Table 4.1.20: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls using oil soluble DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
number
Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
Velocity
(ppm)
Height
O.4(m)
10%
0.05 (mls) O.5
0.2 (mls)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
2.1
11
0
3.5
3.0
0.75
4.5
10
2.5
4.8
0.66
20
3.6
3.1
2.9
7
3.3
50
0.78
4.7
3.8

Table 4.1.21: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mls and a superficial
carbon d10XIide ve1
ocity 0 f 4 mIs using 01-I so1ubl e DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
Length
Velocity
number
of ORA
Film
Velocity
(ppm)
Height
10%
O.4(m)
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)
O.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
3.1
8.2
3.5
9
4.6
0.78
10
20
3.2
2.7
5.5
0.93
9.7
6
50
1.8
3.5
1.16
7.9
5.1

368

Table 4.1.22: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mls and a superficial
0 f 6 mI S using 011 so IUhi e DRA
OCI
car bon d10XIde ve locity
Slug
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Amount
Liquid
Velocity
Frequency
number
Length
Velocity
Film
of DRA
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
O.4(m)
0.2 (mls)
0.5
10%
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
1.13
3.0
10
7.4
14.2
0
2.8
1.40
13.8
2.5
9
7.4
20
2.7
1.47
7
12.5
1.9
50
2.9
7.1

Table 4.1.23: Slug Properties for a Superficial Oil Velocity of 0.5 mls and a Superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 8 mls using oil soluble DRA
Slug
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Amount
Frequency
Velocity
number
Length
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.4(m)
0.05 (mls)
10%
0.5
0.2 (mls)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (ern)
14
2.2
1.33
17.6
0
2.6
8.9
12
1.34
17.5
2.2
2.8
20
9.1
2.07
6
2.6
16.5
2.0
50
9.0

Table 4.1.24: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.0 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of2 mls using oil soluble DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
Velocity
number
Length
of DRA
Film
Velocity
(ppm)
Height
0.5
0.4(m)
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (ern)
30
0
0.81
5.0
2.1
3.8
3.4
28
2.4
0.78
5.1
20
3.6
3.4
24
2.2
4.0
1.01
4.4
50
3.4

Table 4.1.25: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.0 mls and a superficial
0 f 4 mls using 011 so Iubl e DRA
carbon dioxide veIocity
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
Velocity
Length
of DRA
number
Film
Velocity
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.5
0.4(m)
0.2 (mls)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
25
3.7
0
3.1
0.47
10.0
5.2
20
3.0
2.3
25
5.6
1.87
8.1
20
50
3.3
1.32
8.0
3.1
5.2

369
Table 4.1.26: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.0 mls and a superficial
car b on dilOXId e ve locity
OCI 0 f6m1 S using 011 so IU hIe DRA
Slug
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Liquid
Amount
Frequency
Velocity
Length
Velocity
number
of ORA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.4(m)
0.05 (mls)
10%
0.2 (mls)
0.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
3.3
24
12.1
1.36
6.8
2.9
0
3.0
24
1.69
12.4
7.2
20
2.8
19
2.7
2.27
10.4
7.0
50
3.0

Table 4.1.27: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.25


011 so Iu bl e DRA
car b on diIOXIide ve locity
OCI 0 f2 mIS using
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Liquid
Amount
Velocity
number
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
0.3 (em)
3.7
3.6
1.59
0
3.9
5.6
0.70
3.6
20
3.8
1.19
4.4
3.5
50
3.9

Table 4.1.28: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.25


carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls using oil soluble DRA
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Amount
Velocity
number
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.5
0.2 (mls)
0.3 (em)
5.5
0.97
9.1
0
3.4
7.9
20
3.3
5.5
1.63
7.4
5.2
1.62
50
3.3

Table 4.1.29: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.25


011 so Iu bl e DRA
car b on diIOXIide ve locity
OCI 0 f6m1 S USIng
Liquid
Amount
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
number
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
0.3 (em)
0
6.9
1.00
12.2
3.2
20
2.9
7.3
2.22
11.2
50
3.1
6.7
2.19
9.8

mls and a superficial


Slug
Length
0.4(m)
1.5
2.3
2.1

Slug
Frequency
10%
(slugs/min)
39
39
33

mls and a superficial


Slug
Length
0.4(m)
3.0
2.8
3.0

Slug
Frequency
10%
(slugs/min)
33
29
26

mls and a superficial


Slug
Length
0.4(m)
3.1
2.9
2.5

Slug
Frequency
10%
(slugs/min)
35
28
30

370
Table 4.1.30: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.5 mls and a superficial
car bon di10XIide ve locity
OCI 0 f2 mIS usmg 011 so Iu bl e DRA
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
Velocity
Velocity
Frequency
of DRA
Film
number
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.5
10%
0.4(m)
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
4.2
0.64
5.5
3.7
2.4
44
4.0
20
1.29
4.6
3.8
1.9
46
50
4.0
3.5
1.11
4.5
2.0
45

Table 4.1.31: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.5 mls and a superficial
carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Fronde
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
Frequency
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.5 O.4(m)
100/0
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
3.8
5.2
1.21
7.6
2.4
43
20
3.7
5.3
6.5
1.96
2.0
39
50
3.8
2.3
5.3
1.66
6.9
38

Table 4.1.32: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.5 mls and a superficial
011 so1ubIe DRA
carb on dIOXIide ve locity
OCI 0 f6 mIS using
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
Length
Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) O.5
O.4(m)
10%
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
3.9
6.7
1.05
10.6
2.6
44
20
3.2
6.8
3.3
43
0.81
12.6
50
3.2
3.4
34
7.3
1.5
12.3

371
Slug Properties for 90% 6cP, 10% Deionized Water, and Carbon Dioxide using Oil
Soluble DRA

Table 4.2.1: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.9 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
011 so Iu bl e DRA
using
Slug
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Amount
Frequency
Velocity
number
Length
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.4(m)
0.2 (mls)
10%
0.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
4.3
2.2
24
1.12
3.8
3.4
0
2.1
1.18
4.3
23
3.5
20
3.9
2.2
0.97
5.1
23
3.8
50
4.3

Table 4.2.2: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.9 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
Velocity
number
Length
Film
Velocity
of DRA
(ppm)
Height
0.4(m)
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)
0.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
23
2.5
5.4
1.67
7.9
3.1
0
20
8.7
3.0
5.7
1.52
20
3.3
2.5
16
1.85
8.1
50
3.5
6.0

Table 4.2.3: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.9 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
011 so Iu bl e DRA
using
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
number
Length
Velocity
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.5
0.4(m)
10%
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
20
0
2.7
11.6
3.2
7.2
2.15
3.0
21
2.8
11.7
20
7.2
1.99
19
10.5
2.0
50
3.1
7.3
2.35

372
Table 4.2.4: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.13 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.13 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
011 soIu hIe DRA
using
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
Film
Velocity
number
Length
Frequency
of DRA
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
10%
0.4(m)
0.5
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
3.9
0.37
3.7
6.3
2.5
41
20
3.9
0.78
3.6
5.3
2.2
38
50
4.1
0.95
3.6
4.8
2.4
31
Table 4.2.5: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.13 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.13 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
Frequency
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
10%

0.3 (em)
O.4(m) (slugs/min)
0
3.3
1.65
7.8
5.5
2.4
33
20
3.3
1.27
5.6
8.9
29
3.2
50
3.5
5.4
1.96
6.9
26
2.4
Table 4.2.6: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.13 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.13 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
Length
Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls) 0.5
100/0

0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0.4(m)
0
2.8
1.78
7.1
30
12.0
3.3
20
2.8
1.77
7.0
28
11.8
3.5
50
3.1
2.38
27
6.9
9.8
2.5
Table 4.2.7: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.35 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Slug
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
of DRA
Film
Frequency
Velocity
Velocity
number
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.4(m)
10%
0.5
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
4.1
3.7
0.92
53
5.1
1.9
20
4.0
0.35
3.7
6.3
54
2.3
50
4.0
1.57
3.7
4.0
45
1.7

373
Table 4.2.8: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.35 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
011 so Iu ble DRA
using
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Velocity
Film
Velocity
Frequency
number
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
10%
O.4(m)
0.5
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
3.7
5.3
0.83
8.6
2.6
47
20
3.4
5.5
0.69
9.8
3.0
45
'5.3
50
3.5
1.97
6.7
2.3
36

Table 4.2.9: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 1.35 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Velocity
Film
Velocity
Length
Frequency
number
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
0.4(m)
10%
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
6.5
3.1
1.04
11.5
3.1
43
20
3.0
7.1
40
2.08
11.1
2.8
50
3.2
7.1
2.41
9.7
33
2.6

Slug Properties for


SolubleDRA

500~

6cP, 500/0 Deionized Water, and Carbon Dioxide using Oil

Table 4.2.10: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls
011 soIubl e DRA
USIng
Amount
Liquid
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
of DRA
Velocity
Film
Velocity
number
Length
Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
10%
0.05 (mls)
O.4(m)
0.5
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
4.2
2.3
2.1
3
0.29
3.7
20
4.3
2.2
4
0.21
2.0
3.6
50
4.9
2.4
0.09
5
3.8
1.9

374
Table 4.2.11: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
011 so1u ble DRA
usmg
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
Length
Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
O.4(m)
0.5
10%
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
3.7
3.0
0.45
4.9
1.4
3
20
4.2
3.4
0.32
5.4
2.0
3
50
4.4
3.5
0.16
5.8
1.5
6
Table 4.2.12: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.1 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.1 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 3 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of ORA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
Length
Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
10%
0.2 (mls)
0.4(m)
0.5
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
3.6
4.2
0.47
7.3
1.6
3
20
3.9
4.4
0.19
7.9
2.9
4
50
4.0
4.6
0.24
8.1
1.7
5
Table 4.2.13: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.15 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls
011 so1ubl e DRA
using
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
Frequency
number
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
0.4(m)
10%
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
4.5
2.5
0.33
3.7
3.6
3
20
4.0
2.3
0.38
4
3.6
2.6
50
4.7
2.5
0.10
9
4.1
1.7
Table 4.2.14: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.15 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
011 so IU hIe DRA
using
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
Frequency
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
0.4(m)
10%
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
3.8
3.2
0.42
5.2
2.5
5
20
3.8
3.5
0.47
5.7
1.9
6
50
4.4
3.5
0.15
2.2
7
5.8

375
Table 4.2.15: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.15 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 3 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Slug
Velocity
Velocity
Length
Frequency
of DRA
Film
number
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)
O.4(m)
0.5
10%
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0.71
7.7
0
3.5
4.6
2.0
4
0.37
3.3
3.6
4.6
8.2
5
20
0.42
50
4.0
6.7
1.5
7
4.1
Table 4.2.16: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.15 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.15 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
Velocity
number
Length
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.4(m)
0.05 (mls) 0.5
0.2 (mls)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
1.2
0.97
8.8
2
0
3.4
5.3
2.7
4
0.63
9.6
20
3.4
5.4
5
0.58
11.4
2.1
50
3.4
6.2
Table 4.2.17: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.20 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.20 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls
011 so Iubl e DRA
USIng
Slug
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Liquid
Amount
Frequency
Length
Velocity
number
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.4(m)
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.5
0.2 (mls)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
2.4
6
0.49
3.7
4.2
2.6
0
2.7
7
0.31
3.9
4.4
2.5
20
14
1.6
4.1
2.5
0.08
50
4.7
Table 4.2.18: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.20 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.20 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
Length
number
Velocity
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.4(m)
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.5
0.2 (mls)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
6
2.3
0.66
5.0
0
3.9
3.3
7
3.0
5.8
0.35
20
3.6
4.2
11
1.8
0.2
5.4
50
4.5
3.4

376
Table 4.2.19: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.20 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.20 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 3 mls
011 so IU ble DRA
using
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
Length
Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.5
10%

0.3 (em)
0.4(m)
(slugs/min)
0
3.6
4.7
0.82
7.6
2.2
6
20
3.3
4.4
0.89
7.4
2.1
7
50
4.1
4.3
0.43
7.1
1.7
9
Table 4.2.20: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.20 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.20 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
Frequency
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.5
10%

0.3 (em)
0.4(m)
(slugs/min)
0
3.4
1.14
8.0
5.0
1.4
5
20
3.7
10.7
6.3
0.72
1.8
9
50
3.8
5.4
0.55
9.3
1.7
10
Table 4.2.21: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.20 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.20 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Slug
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
Length
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
10%
0.2 (mls)
0.5

(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0.4(m)
0
3.1
6.7
1.27
11.5
1.2
5
20
3.1
1.7
8
6.9
1.02
12.5
10
50
3.2
14.9
1.6
8.0
0.86
Table 4.2.22: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.25 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.25 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 1 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Slug
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
Frequency
number
Length
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls)
0.5
0.4(m)
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
4.3
0.30
2.8
4.5
10
2.8
20
4.6
2.8
0.57
3.8
1.9
9
50
4.5
2.6
0.04
4.4
1.7
17

377
Table 4.2.23: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.25 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.25 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number Length
Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.4(m)
0.5
10%
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
3.8
3.4
0.77
5.1
2.1
9
20
3.8
3.7
0.55
6.0
2.9
9
50
4.6
3.3
0.20
5.2
1.7
15
Table 4.2.24: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.25 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.25 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number Length
Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls) 0.5
0.4(m)
10%
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
3.5
5.6
2.0
1.18
8.8
7
20
3.3
3.0
5.9
0.95
10.3
8
50
3.9
5.7
0.44
2.5
9.8
9
Table 4.2.25: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.25 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.25 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Frequency
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number Length
(ppm)
Height
0.4(m)
10%
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls) 0.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
1.7
0
9
3.2
7.1
1.38
12.1
3.1
7.6
2.0
6
20
1.50
12.9
1.8
12
50
3.3
7.3
0.82
13.2
Table 4.2.26: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.25 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.25 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 8 mls
011 so Iu ble DRA
USIng
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
of DRA
Velocity
Frequency
Film
number Length
Velocity
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.4(m)
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.5
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
3.0
8.3
1.6
9
14.8
1.61
20
2.8
9.4
18.1
2.0
13
1.30
50
3.4
9.4
1.8
18.0
16
0.61

378
Table 4.2.27: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.5 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
011 so Iuble DRA
using
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Velocity
Velocity
Film
number
Length
Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.5
10%
0.4(m)
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
0.97
4.2
3.4
4.4
2.0
23
20
4.0
1.04
3.5
4.6
2.0
23
50
4.5
3.5
0.36
5.4
2.2
25
Table 4.2.28: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.5 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Velocity
of DRA
Velocity
number
Length
Frequency
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.4(m)
0.2 (mls)
0.5
10%
0.3 (em)
(slugs/min)
0
3.7
5.6
1.72
7.6
2.1
19
20
1.80
8.4
2.5
3.4
6.0
18
0.68
8.8
2.6
50
3.8
22
5.3
Table 4.2.29: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.5 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.5 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Slug
Amount
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
Velocity
number
Length
of ORA
Velocity
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.4(m)
0.2 (mls)
0.5
10%
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
1.8
3.1
6.8
2.62
8.9
19
2.3
20
7.4
2.24
10.6
17
3.3
2.4
1.26
12.0
19
50
3.6
7.4
Table 4.2.30: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.75 m/s, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.75 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 2 mls
011 so Iuhie DRA
using
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
Frequency
number
Length
of DRA
Film
Velocity
(ppm)
Height
0.4(m)
0.05 (mls) 0.5
10%
0.2 (mls)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
2.3
43
4.0
4.0
0.93
5.7
20
3.7
2.1
47
4.2
0.69
5.5
50
4.4
0.23
1.8
52
3.7
6.2

379

Table 4.2.31: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.75 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.75 m/s, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 4 mls
using oil soluble DRA
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
ofDRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number
Length
Frequency
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
0.4(m)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
3.5
2.18
5.6
6.9
2.3
34
20
3.8
0.93
2.8
5.2
8.2
39
0.99
7.9
50
2.1
41
3.8
5.1
Table 4.2.32: Slug properties for a superficial oil velocity of 0.75 mis, a superficial
deionized water velocity of 0.75 mis, and a superficial carbon dioxide velocity of 6 mls
011 so IU bl e DRA
using
Slug
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Amount
Liquid
Frequency
number
Length
Velocity
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.5
O.4(m)
0.2 (mls)
(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
33
3.06
8.3
2.0
3.2
7.0
0
39
3.0
11.5
1.20
20
3.4
6.8
33
2.3
1.44
10.6
50
3.8
6.9

380
100% Water with Nitrogen

Table 4.5.1: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial
0 f 1 m/sS using
usi water SoIubi e DRA
illitr ogen ve I
OCIty
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls) 0.5
0.2 (mls)
10%

0.3 (em)
0.4(m) (slugs/min)
4.1
2.5
0.32
0
4.0
9
2.6
20
4.4
2.4
0.41
3.4
2.2
9
50
4.3
0.46
2.4
3.4
9
2.1
75
4.4
2.4
0.39
3.4
2.9
7

Table 4.5.2: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial
illitrogen ve locity
OCI 0 f2 mIS usmg wa ter so Iuble DRA
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
of DRA
Film
Velocity
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)
0.5

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
8
0.92
1.8
0
3.6
3.6
5.2
7
2.2
20
3.8
0.81
5.0
3.5
7
2.4
50
3.5
0.88
5.2
3.5
5
0.87
2.6
4.7
75
3.8
3.4

Table 4.5.3: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble DRA.
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
of DRA
Film
Velocity
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
10%
O.5
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls)

(slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0.4(m)
9
0
3.0
2.0
1.33
12.0
6.9
6
20
3.2
1.40
10.5
1.5
6.4
6
1.50
1.3
50
10.4
3.2
6.5
75
Pseudo Slug

381
Table 4.5.4: Slug Properties for superficial water velocity of 0.5 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of 6 mls using water soluble DRA.
Slug
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Amount
Velocity
Velocity
of DRA
Film
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5

0.3 (em)
0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0
3.0
7.9
1.43
1.9
13.9
8
20
3.1
7.9
1.57
13.5
1.2
7
50
Pseudo Slug
75
Pseudo Slug
Table 4.5.5: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.0 mls and superficial
nitrogen velocity of2 mls using water soluble DRA.
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
Velocity
of DRA
number Length Frequency
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
10%

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
1.7
27
0
3.9
1.07
5.3
3.9
4.8
2.1
18
20
4.3
3.8
1.11
2.0
20
1.23
5.1
50
4.0
3.9
1.97
2.1
9
3.2
75
3.9
3.7
Table 4.5.6: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.0 mls and superficial
ve locity
OCI 0 f 4 mI S USIng wa t er soIu bl e DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)
0.5

O.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
18
2.5
10.0
2.11
3.2
6.8
0
15
2.0
8.7
2.38
20
3.3
6.6
14
1.6
8.3
2.76
50
6.7
3.2
6
1.8
6.6
2.51
7.9
75
3.6

illitrogen

Table 4.5.7: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.0 mls and superficial
rutrogen ve locity
OCI
0 f 6 mI S USIng wat er soIu bl e DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls)
0.5

(slugs/min)
0.4(m)
0.3 (em)
2.4
17
0
2.9
8.0
2.63
11.9
1.8
16
3.3
2.51
11.5
20
8.1
2.1
13
50
2.84
3.1
8.0
11.2
Pseudo Slug
75

382
Table 4.5.8: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.25 mls and superficial
illitrogen ve locity
OCI 0 f2 mI S usmg water so Iu bl e DRA
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)
0.5
10%

0.3 (em)
0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0
3.9
1.27
4.1
5.3
1.8
31
20
4.0
4.0
1.42
4.8
1.7
28
50
3.7
4.4
1.93
4.7
1.8
22
75
4.0
3.8
2.16
3.1
1.9
15
Table 4.5.9: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.25 mls and superficial
illitrogen ve locity
OCI 0 f 4 m/sS usi
using wa t er so Iu bl e DRA
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
Velocity
of DRA
Film
Velocity
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)
10%
0.5

0.3 (em)
0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0
3.4
2.41
1.8
6.5
8.2
27
2.54
20
3.5
6.6
8.1
1.8
23
3.12
19
50
3.2
6.8
7.8
1.9
75
3.2
3.73
7.1
7.1
1.8
10
Table 4.5.10: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.25 mls and superficial
0 f 6 m/ss usmg
usi water so Iu bie DRA.
nitrogen ve I
OCIty
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
Velocity
of DRA
Film
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.5

O.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
24
0
3.1
8.3
2.71
11.8
2.3
20
3.3
2.90
10.9
1.9
21
8.2
50
9.0
3.67
11.7
2.0
18
3.0
75
2.8
4.67
1.6
10
8.8
9.2
Table 4.5.11: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.5 mls and superficial
mitrogen ve locity
OCI 0 f 2 m/sS USIng
usi wa ter so Iubl e DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Frequency
Velocity
number Length
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.5

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
3.9
49
0
4.2
1.62
4.8
1.3
20
4.2
4.2
1.29
1.6
44
5.3
50
4.2
4.2
1.67
4.6
1.7
33
75
4.0
19
2.09
3.9
3.4
2.3

383
Table 4.5.12: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.5 mls and superficial
0 f 4 m/ s.
illitrogen ve I
OCIty
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
Velocity
Velocity
of DRA
Film
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (m/s) 0.05 (m/s)
100/0
O.5

0.3 (em)
O.4(m) (slugs/min)
0
3.2
6.7
2.29
9.2
2.4
36
20
3.5
6.8
2.67
2.0
8.1
31
50
3.3
6.8
3.25
7.3
1.9
26
75
3.4
6.6
3.90
5.4
1.8
13

Table 4.5.13: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.5 m/s and superficial

ocity 0 f6m/ s.
mtrogen
ve1
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Amount
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
Velocity
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (m/s) 0.05 (m/s)
0.5

0.3 (em)
O.4(m) (slugs/min)
2.5
32
2.89
11.3
3.0
0
8.1
10.1
2.91
2.3
28
3.4
20
7.9
24
2.0
3.59
9.9
50
3.2
8.3
8.2
1.9
12
4.61
3.1
8.4
75

90% Water, lOOk 6cP Oil with Nitrogen


Table 4.6.1: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.9 m/s, superficial oil
it 0 fO 1 m/ s,and supe rfilela
I illitrogen ve locity
OCI
0 f2 m/ s.
ve1OCl:Y
Slug
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Amount
Velocity
number Length Frequency
Film
Velocity
ofDRA
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (m/s) 0.05 (m/s) O.5

O.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (ern)
27
1.06
5.2
2.1
3.8
0
3.8
24
4.9
2.2
3.6
1.24
20
3.7
2.1
12
3.8
1.87
3.2
50
3.5

384
Table 4.6.2: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.9 mis, superficial oil
ve IOCIity 0 fO 1 mI s,and superfiICIial nitrogen

ve IOCIity 0 f4m1 s usmg water so Iubl e DRA


Amount
Liquid
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)
10%
0.5

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
3.2
1.97
9.4
20
6.4
2.3
9.5
3.3
1.75
20
19
2.8
6.4
3.0
7.3
10
50
6.5
3.17
2.2

Table 4.6.3: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.9 m/s, superficial oil
I mitrogen ve Iocity
usmg wa t er so Iu bl e DRA
ve IOCIity 0 fO 1 mI s,and supe rfiicia
OCI 0 f6 m/sS usi
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
number Length Frequency
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
10%
0.5
0.2 (mls)

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
12.3
21
3.0
2.02
2.7
0
7.6
18
11.3
2.7
2.44
2.8
7.5
20
11
10.4
2.0
3.26
2.9
8.0
50

Table 4.6.4: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.13 mis, superficial oil
0 f 2 mI s USIng water so Iubl e DRA
velocity of 0.13 mis, and superficial nitrogen ve I
ocity
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
number Length Frequency
Velocity
Film
Velocity
of DRA
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.5
0.2 (mls)

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
36
5.5
2.1
1.06
4.0
4.0
0
32
5.0
2.2
3.8
1.34
4.0
20
21
2.9
1.8
2.10
3.8
3.6
50

Table 4.6.5: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.13 mis, superficial oil
nitrogen ve locity
S USIng wa t er so 1ubl e DRA
ve IOCIity 0 f013m1 s, an d superficial
OCI 0 f4m1
icia ill
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
Velocity
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.5
0.2 (mls)

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (ern)
32
2.5
3.3
0
1.71
10.2
6.7
30
9.3
2.6
20
1.97
3.2
6.4
2.0
14
3.3
3.32
6.4
50
6.4

385
Table 4.6.6: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.13 mis, superficial oil

0 f 6 mI s usmg water so Iuble DRA.


ve I
ocity
velocity of 0.13 mis, an d supe rfiICIal rutrogen
Slug
Slug
Translational
Liquid
Film
Froude
Liquid
Amount
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.5
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (ern)
7.7
1.68
12.6
2.7
32
0
3.2
2.10
11.4
2.6
29
20
3.1
7.5
3.78
1.9
9.5
14
50
3.1
8.2

Table 4.6.7: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.35 mis, superficial oil
ve IOCIity 0 fO 15 mI s,and supe rfiicia
I illitrogen ve locity
OCI
0 f2 mI S using wa ter so Iubl e DRA
Slug
Slug
Amount
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Liquid
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.5

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
46
1.9
0
4.2
1.23
5.3
4.2
1.6
45
1.83
4.4
20
4.2
3.9
2.7
1.7
28
3.7
2.33
50
3.9

Table 4.6.8: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.35 mis, superficial oil
s usmg wa ter so Iubie DRA
nit rogen ve locit
icia m
OCI y 0 f4m1
ve1OCIity 0 f015m1 s,and supe rficial
Slug
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Amount
Liquid
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls)
0.5

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
40
2.5
9.9
6.7
1.75
0
3.5
39
1.9
8.0
6.5
2.57
20
3.5
21
2.2
6.3
3.48
6.6
50
3.3

Table 4.6.9: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 1.35 mis, superficial oil
0 f 0.15 mI s, an d supe rfiicia
I rutrogen

0 f6 mI s using water so Iubie DRA


ve I
ocity
ve I
ocrty
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
number Length Frequency
Velocity
ofDRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls) 0.5

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
39
2.8
7.8
1.78
12.4
0
3.3
38
2.2
10.7
20
3.5
7.8
2.42
18
2.0
8.1
50
3.3
7.9
4.03

386
50A Water, 50% 6cP Oil with Nitrogen
Table 4.6.10: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.25 mis, superficial oil
ve 1OCIity 0 fO 25 mI s,and superfi CIa
1 illitr ogen ve locity
usi water so Iu bl e DRA
OCI 0 f 1 m/sS usmg
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.5
10%

0.3 (em)
0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0
4.4
2.2
0.40
3.2
2.1
10
20
4.3
0.54
2.3
3.1
1.9
10
4.6
0.66
50
2.1
2.4
1.9
7
Table 4.6.11: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.25 mis, superficial oil
ve IOCIity 0 fO 25 mIs,and superfici
usi wa t er so Iu bl e DRA
iciaI illitr ogen ve locit
OCI Y0 f2 m/ss usmg
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
10%

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (ern)
3.8
7
0
3.4
0.91
4.7
2.1
20
3.7
0.77
3.5
5.2
2.5
8
3.7
50
3.1
1.03
4.0
6
1.9

Table 4.6.12: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.25 mis, superficial oil
0 fO.25 mI s, an d superfiicia
I nitrogen

ve I
ocity
ve1
ocity 0 f 4 mIs usmg water so Iu bl e DRA.
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Liquid
Film Fronde
Translational
of DRA
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (m/s) 0.5

0.3 (em)
0.4(m) (slugs/min)
8
3.3
2.1
0
6.6
1.12
11.2
7
1.9
20
3.2
6.5
1.29
10.9
4
50
3.3
6.1
1.46
1.7
9.6

Table 4.6.13: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.25 mis, superficial oil
0 fO .2 5 mIs,and superfiicia
1 nitrogen

0 f6 m/sS USIng
usi water so Iu bIe DRA
ve1
ocity
ve1
OCIty
Amount
Slug
Liquid
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
of DRA
Velocity
Film
Velocity
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.05 (mls)
0.5
10%
0.2 (mls)

0.3 (em)
0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0
3.2
8.1
1.27
2.0
8
14.3
3.2
20
7.9
1.35
6
13.7
1.9
50
Pseudo Slug

387
Table 4.6.14: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.5 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.5 mis, and superficial nitrogen velocity of2 mls usin ~ water soluble DRA.
Slug
Liquid
Slug
Amount
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
Velocity
of DRA
number Length Frequency
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
100/0
0.5

0.3 (em)
0.4(m) (slugs/min)
1.14
4.9
24
0
3.9
3.8
2.0
1.21
4.9
3.9
3.8
1.6
29
20
4.0
1.80
2.0
11
50
3.5
3.1

o.s

Table 4.6.15: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of


m/s, superficial oil
velocity of 0.5 mis, and superficial nitrogen velocity of 4 mls usiru ~ water soluble DRA.
Slug
Liquid
Slug
Amount
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
Velocity
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.5
0.2 (mls)

(slugs/min)
0.4(m)
0.3 (em)
9.0
16
0
3.3
2.12
2.4
6.5
9.2
2.2
16
3.4
6.6
2.12
20
9
2.79
7.6
1.7
50
3.4
6.5
I

Table 4.6.16: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of ~.5 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.5 mis, and superficial nitrogen velocity of 6 mls usiru ~ water soluble DRA.
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
number Length Frequency
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.5

(slugs/min)
0.4(m)
0.3 (em)
16
2.7
2.21
11.1
0
3.2
7.5
19
11.7
2.1
2.16
20
3.3
7.8
9
1.8
8.0
10.1
50
3.0
3.43
I

Table 4.6.17: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0~75 mis, superficial oil
velocity of 0.75 mis, and superficial nitrogen velocity of2 mls usin.g water soluble DRA.
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Frequency
number
Velocity
h
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.5 ILen:
0.2 (mls)
0.3 (em)
10.4(m) (slugs/min)
45
1.6
0
1.64
4.7
3.9
4.1
49
5.5
1.8
20
4.0
1.24
4.2
1.7
26
2.9
50
4.0
2.21
3.8
I

388
Table 4.6.18: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.75 mis, superficial oil
0 fO 75 mIS, an d superfiICIial mtrogen

0 f 4 mIS USIng wa ter so Iu ble DRA


ve I
OCIty
ve I
OCIty
Slug
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Amount
Frequency
Length
Velocity
Velocity
number
Film
of DRA
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.05 (mls) 0.5
0.2 (mls)

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
8.4
33
2.3
6.5
2.23
3.6
0
6.6
1.80
9.3
2.5
35
3.6
20
3.84
5.1
2.1
17
50
3.3
6.3

Table 4.6.19: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.75 mis, superficial oil
CIaI illitrogen ve locit
OCI y 0 f ti m/ss USIng
usi wa t er SoIu bIe DRA
ve IOCIity 0 f075m1 s, an d superfici
Slug
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.5
0.2 (mls)
10%
0.05 (mls)

(slugs/min)
0.4(m)
0.3 (em)
0
10.6
2.5
32
3.5
7.7
2.36
10.6
32
20
3.5
7.7
2.36
2.4
8.3
4.20
8.5
2.2
16
50
3.2

10 % Water, 90% 6cP Oil with Nitrogen


Table 4.6.20: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.1 mis, superficial oil
ve IOCIity 0 fO 9 mIs,and superfiICIial mitrogen ve locity
OCI 0 f2 m/sS usi
usm,~waersou
t
I bi e DRA
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Froude
Slug
Translational Liquid Film
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
0.5

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
27
0
4.0
3.9
1.10
5.2
1.6
20
3.9
5.2
24
3.9
1.08
1.8
50
3.8
3.3
12
3.5
1.79
2.1

389
Table 4.6.21: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.1 m/s, superficial oil
0 f09m1 s,and superfiICIial illitrogen ve locity
t
I bl e DRA
OCI 0 f4m1 S usmi ~waersou
ve Iocrty
Slug
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Liquid
Amount
Velocity
number Length Frequency
Velocity
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) O.5

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (ern)
2.2
18
2.16
9.1
6.5
3.1
0
2.09
2.1
18
6.6
9.2
20
3.3
10
3.05
7.6
2.2
6.6
50
2.9

Table 4.6.22: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.1 m/s, superficial oil
I nitrogen

0 f 6 mIS USIng water so1u bl e DRA


ve1
ocity 0 f o. 9 mIs,and superfiicia
ve I
ocity
Slug
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Amount
Liquid
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
10%
0.5

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
8.0
2.69
2.2
19
2.8
11.9
2.45
1.9
19
20
3.2
7.8
11.3
50
8.0
3.22
2.0
11
2.9
10.5

Table 4.6.23: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.13 mis, superficial oil
ve IOCIity 0 f 1 13 mIs,and superfiicia
I illitrogen ve locity
OCI 0 f2 m/sS USIng
usi wat er so Iu bl e DRA
Amount
Liquid
Slug
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
of DRA
Velocity
Film
Velocity
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
10%

0.3 (em)
0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0
4.2
4.0
5.0
1.7
33
1.19
1.8
20
4.1
4.0
1.21
5.1
31
50
3.8
1.8
3.6
1.97
3.2
21

Table 4.6.24: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.13 mis, superficial oil
ve1
ocity 0 f 1.13 mIs, and superficial nitrogen velocity of 4 mls using water soluble DRA.
Amount
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls)
0.05 (mls)
O.5
10%

0.3 (ern)
0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0
3.6
6.6
2.01
9.0
2.1
27
20
3.6
6.6
1.66
9.7
2.4
28
50
3.3
6.4
3.11
6.8
2.0
11

390
Table 4.6.25: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.13 mis, superficial oil
ve IOCIity 0 f113m1 s, an d superfici
icia I mitrogen ve locity
OCI 0 f6m1 S usmg wat er so Iu bl e DRA
Slug
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Amount
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
10%

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
8.0
3.06
10.7
0
3.0
2.1
24
7.8
1.99
11.7
3.4
2.8
22
20
3.72
9.6
50
3.1
8.2
1.9
14

Table 4.6.26: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.15 mis, superficial oil
0 f 1 35 mIs,and superfiicia
I rutrogen ve locit
usi water so Iu hIe DRA
ve I
ocity
OCI :y 0 f2 m/ss USIng
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Slug
Velocity
Velocity
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
(ppm)
Height
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5
10%

O.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
4.2
1.16
5.4
1.7
44
0
4.3
4.2
1.23
5.3
1.6
45
20
4.1
1.99
3.3
50
3.9
3.7
1.7
28

Table 4.6.27: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.15 mis, superficial oil
ve IOCIity 0 f 1 35 mIs,and superfiCIa
I ruitrogen ve locity
OCI 0 f 4 m/sS USIng
usi water so Iu bl e DRA
Amount
Liquid
Slug
Slug
Translational Liquid Film Froude
number Length Frequency
of DRA
Film
Velocity
Velocity
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.05 (mls)
0.2 (mls)
0.5

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
3.7
6.6
2.30
8.3
1.9
36
20
3.7
6.6
2.17
8.5
1.9
39
50
6.6
3.22
6.9
3.3
2.2
21

Table 4.6.28: Slug properties for superficial water velocity of 0.15 mis, superficial oil
1 mtrogen

usi water so Iu bi e DRA


ocity 0 f 1.3 5 mIs,and superfiicia
ve 1
ve 1
ocity 0 f 6 m/sS USIng
Slug
Amount
Liquid
Translational Liquid Film Froude
Slug
Velocity
of DRA
Film
Velocity
number Length Frequency
(ppm)
Height
10%
0.2 (mls) 0.05 (mls) 0.5

0.4(m) (slugs/min)
0.3 (em)
0
3.3
7.8
2.87
10.2
28
2.4
20
3.6
7.8
2.1
11.2
2.2
38
50
3.3
18
7.9
3.93
8.3
2.0

391

APPENDIXC

PRESSURE DROP COMPONENTS

392

Calculation of Pressure Drop Components for 100% 6 cP Oil with Carbon Dioxide
using Oil Soluble DRA
Table 5.1.1: Calculation of pressure drop components for 100% 6
dioxid
10XI e usmg 01-I so1u bl e DRA ato porn
VsI
Vsg
Mla
Mltai]
Mlsb
Mlfilm Theo. Mlt
(mls) (mls)
(pa)
(Pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
0.2
204
17
1
164
80
305
0.2
2
43
328
132
239
478
0.2
3
187
124
205
86
431
4
0.2
289
173
465
118
122
44
377
0.3
1
211
248
127
2
471
55
0.3
409
174
761
0.3
3
422
554
108
913
171
4
0.3
632
98
1,232
882
380
6
344
1,316
0.3
970
346
349
413
1,701
0.3
8
1,215
462
388
0.4
1
356
530
13
706
192
54
0.4
2
526
209
710
1,081
0.4
171
3
569
252
822
1,311
0.4
4
1,116
159
1,687
852
441
0.4
6
1,432
1,207
236
2,294
581
0.4
1,710
593
8
581
621
2,343
0.5
52
1
500
247
527
832
0.5
2
660
234
652
59
1,137
0.5
4
1,084
1,033
358
175
1,934
0.5
1,602
6
1,280
2,655
649
422
0.5
2,804
945
544
8
1,010
3,282
1,348
1
2
497
1,035
61
1,947
4
3,548
1,274
2,532
38
4,844
1
3,922
1
6
1,284
3,096
153
5,887
1.25
130
2
849
279
820
1,520
1.25
4
3,789
2,209
1,419
67
4,646
1.25
6
6,876
2,391
2,863
83
7,432
1.5
2
2,406
1,531
23
3,040
920
4
1.5
4,196
1,432
81
4,268
1,442
1.5
6
9,139
1,760
90
7,761
3,229

cP oil with carbon


Exp. Mlt
(Pa)
182
351
380
477

507
587
941
1,036
1,510
1,559
644
982
1,166
1,287
2,119
2,674
811
989
1,939
2,654
3,685
2,643
4,077
5,427
3,559
5,244
6,694
4,191
5,967
7,692

%
Diff.
67%
36%
13%
3%
26%
30%
3%
19%
13%
9%
10%
10%
12%
31%
8%
12%
3%
15%
0%
0%
11%
26%
19%
8%
57%
11%
11%
27%
28%
1%

393
Table 5.1.2: Calculation of pressure drop components for 100% 6 cP oil with carbon
dioxide using 20 ppm of oil soluble DRA
VsI

Vsg

(mls)

(mls)

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.5
1.5
1.5

2
3
4

1
2
3
4
6
8
1
2
3
4
6
8
1
2
4
6
8
2
4
6
2
4
6
2
4
6

Ml a
(Pa)
192
238
221
134
288
492
569
605
1,118
1,612
346
555
479
657
1,256
1,681
533
697
1,217
1,241
2,606
1,254
1,922
3,402
2,003
2,643
3,649
1,446
2,860
7,456

Mltail
(Pa)
133
122
91
57
161
201
268
283
499
508
240
209
219
279
441
571
318
272
542
487
1,006
442
702
1,184
759
933
1,260
510
931
2,487

Mlsb
(pa)
160
190
89
46
332
331
354
340
273
342
424
543
544
427
324
542
518
733
995
892
792
1,159
2,498
3,237
885
2,541
3,758
1,185
1,633
2,856

Mlfilm
(Pa)
23
77
148
241
19
69
137
269
347
395
31
77
306
409
584
640
63
65
258
632
618
52
17
281
19
123
266
70
157
50

Theo. Ml t
(Pa)
242
383
368
364
477
691
792
931
1,239
1,841
561
966
1,110
1,215
1,723
2,292
796
1,224
1,928
2,279
3,010
2,024
3,734
5,737
2,148
4,374
6,413
2,190
3,718
7,876

Exp. ~Pt
(Pa)
374
453
474
478
300
676
761
908
1,050
1,591
508
805
942
1,053
1,811
2,358
805
874
1,808
2,209
3,178
2,171
3,421
4,591
3,120
4,517
6,071
3,971
5,501
7,199

%
Diff.
35%
16%
22%
24%
59%
2%
4%
3%
18%
16%
10%
20%
18%
15%
5%
3%
1%
40%
70/0
3%
5%
7%
9%
25%
31%
3%
6%
45%
32%
9%

394
Table 5.1.1.3: Calculation of pressure drop components 100% 6 cP oil with carbon
dioxide using 50 ppm of oil soluble DRA
VsI

Vsg

AP a

AP tail

APsb

(mls)

(mls)

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.5
1.5
1.5

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
6
8
1
2
3
4
6
8
1
2
4
6
8
2
4
6
2
4
6
2
4
6

(Pa)
150
146
388
121
240
400
389
284
648

(Pa)
91
63
184
52
126
151
194
129
261

(Pa)
147
89
113
54
240
350
356
116
63

347
552
506
493
547
899
611
467
710
1,018
942
1,177
2,402
2,271
1,176
2,400
4,021
1,536
3,315
6,290

178
208
239
212
205
324
339
203
290
392
341
428
858
762
402
762
1,226
489
1,102
2,246

421
647
208
199
161
179
712
626
285
411
415
1,154
2,267
2,247
1,232
2,610
2,933
1,241
1,720
4,213

Theo. APt
(Pa)
(Pa)
47
253
139
310
126
443
276
399
. 83
437
129
728
264
815
294
566
579
1,029
Pseudo Slug
94
683
135
1,126
400
875
449
929
1,018
1,521
1,185
1,939
1,016
32
329
1,219
1,371
666
2,000
962
1,700
2,716
1,991
88
798
4,610
5,782
2,026
2,083
76
4,365
117
1,904
7,633
2,337
50
4,055
121
8,360
103
APfilm

(Pa)
174
229
313
377
326
391
683
373
815

%
Diff.
46%
35%
42%
6%
34%
86%
19%
52%
26%

531
731
621
960
1,591
2,044
742
763
1,350
2,063
2,579
1,969
2,930
3,963
2,700
3,833
5,142
3,390
4,656
6,164

29%
54%
41%
3%
4%
5%
37%
60%
2%
3%
5%
1%
57%
46%
23%
14%
48%
31%
13%
36%

Exp. APt

395

Calculation of Pressure Drop Components for 90 0k 6 cP Oil and 10% Deionized


Water with Carbon Dioxide using Oil Soluble DRA

Table 5.1.4: Calculation of pressure drop components for 900/0 6 cP oil and 10%
dei
d wat er wiith car b on d10XIide usmg 011 so Iu bl e DRA ato ppm
eioruze
VsI
Vsg
Ml a
Mltai)
Ml sb
Mlfilm Theo_ Ml t Exp. Ml t % Diff.

(mls)

(mls)

1
1
1
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.5
1.5
1.5

2
4
6
2
4
6
2
4
6

(pa)
1,006
2,143
2,324
2,393
2,789
4,426
1,976
4,812
6,520

(Pa)
343
760
794
973
995
1,464
709
1,696
1,984

(Pa)
1,129
2,316
3,211
813
2,125
4,376
1,122
1,450
2,638

(pa)
95
53
650
17
130
32
40
45
59

(pa)
1,887
3,751
5,392
2,249
4,049
7,369
2,429
4,611
7,232

(Pa)
2,884
4,418
5,840
3,735
5,502
6,881
4,502
6,418
8,336

35%
15%
8%
40%
26%
7%
46%
28%
13%

Table 5.1.5: Calculation of pressure drop components for 90% 6 cP oil and 10%
dei
- d water
t wiith car b on di10XIide usmg 01-I so Iubl e DRA at 20 PlJm
eiornze

VsI

Vsg

(mls)

(mls)

1
1
1
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.5
1.5
1.5

2
4
6
2
4
6
2
4
6

Ml a
(pa)
1,034
2,234
2,762
1,718
3,214
4,148
2,771
4,672
4,742

Mltail
(pa)
381
929
973
629
1,209
1,351
1,055
1,717
1,529

Mlsb
(Pa)
1,133
2,489
2,927
1,243
2,834
4,448
1,332
2,000
3,711

Mlfilm
(pa)
108
194
538
40
87
87
9
31
137

Theo. Ml t
(pa)
1,894
3,988
5,254
2,372
4,926
7,333
3,057
4,987
7,061

Exp. Mlt
(pa)
2,347
3,626
5,179
3,520
4,892
6,524
4,449
6,071
7,859

% Diff.
19%
10%
1%
33%
1%
12%
31%
18%
10%

396
Table 5.1.6: Calculation of pressure drop components for 90% 6 cP oil and 10%
d
d water WIith car bon dioxid
eioruze
IOXl e usmg 011 so Iu bi e DRA at 50 P]:Jm
Vsg
VsI
&fjlm Theo. &t Exp. &t % Diff.
&a
&sb
&tail
(mls) (mls)
(Pa)
(pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
1,256
100
2,191
1,906
15%
1
1,629
793
2
600
1,677
777
1,707
3,207
2,671
20%
1
4
1,014
4,340
8%
1
2,502
1,432
3,998
6
951
16%
1,425
61
2,493
2,966
1.25
1,616
608
2
4,190
5%
2,189
181
3,981
1.25
4
2,482
871
0%
2,808
344
5,517
5,545
1.25
6
3,481
1,116
51%
1,060
99
1,916
3,938
1.5
1,088
2
331
23%
2,050
142
3,984
5,179
1.5
2,615
4
823
196
6,797
6,877
1%
3,452
1.5
4,655
1,506
6

397

Calculation of Pressure Drop Components for 50A 6 cP Oil and 50%


Water with Carbon Dioxide using Oil Soluble DRA

Deionized

Table 5.1.7: Calculation of pressure drop components for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
dei
d water with carbon diIOXIide usmg
011 so Iu bl e DRA ato ppm
eioruze
VsI
Vsg
LlPa
LlPtail
LlPsb
LlPfilm Theo. LlPt Exp. LlPt % Diff.
(mls)
(mls)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
32%
0.2
44
355
80
241
153
124
1
270
34%
94
100
107
360
0.2
247
2
7%
464
497
0.2
172
112
131
3
393
31%
0.2
258
387
559
4
76
54
150
16%
0.3
177
102
287
56
418
359
1
13%
741
185
385
0.3
653
461
80
2
6%
781
242
732
0.3
460
252
3
222
16%
474
675
581
0.3
48
4
269
116
14%
70
543
477
0.4
157
345
1
286
5%
821
860
418
157
0.4
493
207
2
10%
1,196
275
1,077
337
449
0.4
691
3
8%
1,201
235
187
538
1,111
0.4
620
4
20%
1,746
1,389
100
697
0.4
340
6
932
12%
898
1,005
5
0.5
713
417
703
1
1%
1,126
1,134
590
145
0.5
682
283
2
3%
1,561
0.5
971
449
455
535
1,512
3
3%
2,206
0.5
1,720
406
2,143
693
709
4
12%
3,031
744
962
2,660
0.5
2,120
322
6
9%
2,561
2,339
493
1,225
107
1.0
1,500
2
16%
3,993
1,516
3,361
1.0
2,411
957
391
4
23%
5,389
1.0
2,229
1,357
1,210
4,133
663
6
37%
4,788
3,023
1.5
2,148
777
1,605
48
2
29%
6,407
4,537
2,531
1.5
2,645
821
182
4
27%
7,925
5,764
1,069
2,952
1.5
3,822
59
6

398
Table 5.1.8: Calculation of pressure drop components for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
011 so 1u bl e DRA at 20 PlDm
dei
d wa ter with car bon dilOX1-de usmg
eioruze
Vsg
VsI
Ml a
Mltai)
Mlfjlm Theo. Ml t Exp. Mlt % Diff.
Mlsb
(mls) (mls) (pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(pa)
22%
332
272
238
108
179
23
0.2
1
17%
507
72
422
0.2
338
161
174
2
4%
337
36
863
831
0.2
704
461
3
43%
471
381
191
191
829
0.2
4
91
15%
449
526
0.3
191
85
281
62
1
1,021
29%
100
726
553
256
330
0.3
2
35%
83
1,127
835
731
337
650
0.3
3
1,026
3%
289
229
997
4
664
422
0.3
13%
769
678
24
0.4
462
234
516
1
1,004
27%
53
1,272
850
409
778
0.4
2
25%
1,026
304
1,281
0.4
661
262
579
3
21%
244
1,524
1,936
0.4
4
1,666
915
529
16%
1,654
1,910
2,273
0.4
608
470
6
394
24%
701
917
482
59
0.5
1
285
446
19%
1,233
1,472
855
392
85
0.5
2
925
1,952
10%
360
2,147
1,142
525
1,170
0.5
3
10%
2,101
1,902
0.5
4
1,097
458
985
477
10%
3,888
3,513
3,271
1,274
654
0.5
6
862
5%
2,547
2,429
123
1,408
453
1,351
1.0
2
3,567
12%
3,983
2,052
1.0
847
2,240
538
4
2%
4,675
2,740
1,219
4,747
1.0
6
994
1,782
43%
6,011
3,410
39
2,652
855
1,575
1.5
2
29%
7,719
5,493
67
5,069
1,579
1,936
1.5
4
8%
9,587
8,846
7,853
2,438
98
1.5
6
3,332

399
Table 5.1.9: Calculation of pressure drop components for 50% 6 cP oil and 50%
d
d water WIith car b on di10Xlide using
011 so Iuble DRA at 50 ppm
eioruze
VsI
Vsg
Ml a
Mltail
Mlsb
Mlfilm Theo. Ml t Exp. Ml t % Diff.
(mls) (mls)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
0.2
427
1
208
25
30%
225
469
671
0.2
820
9%
2
285
269
58
862
794
0.2
873
292
109
836
18%
3
296
986
0.2
4
784
235
24%
152
211
912
1,197
0.3
30%
1
795
357
372
10
820
1,173
8%
0.3
1,012
46
1,315
1,215
2
335
592
150
1,363
1,318
3%
1,101
282
0.3
3
393
272
1,158
11%
1,282
0.3
4
871
296
434
1,111
1,447
15%
448
130
1,236
0.4
444
1
1,630
1,910
1,637
17%
500
32
0.4
749
2
1,524
22%
1,529
1,855
0.4
3
431
133
624
4%
2,011
578
192
2,321
2,429
0.4
4
695
1%
0.4
2,356
2,556
2,576
694
380
6
514
23%
1,860
1,202
120
1,427
0.5
1
434
539
41%
2,697
1,911
0.5
2,393
1,001
3
2
700
10%
2,765
2,506
0.5
2,027
1,195
164
3
620
7%
3,253
320
3,469
0.5
2,995
4
772
926
31%
6,073
5,687
4,333
0.5
6
1,706
271
1,049
3%
3,924
2,743
3,793
706
1,667
89
1.0
2
42%
5,122
4,891
7,293
1.0
4
1,172
3,545
29
6,223
14%
5,014
7,119
1.0
6
1,280
2,859
525
27%
6,150
4,483
3,803
50
892
1,523
1.5
2
3%
7,725
7,488
4
5,168
1,002
3,193
128
1.5
31%
9,668
12,701
9,000
5,409
231
1.5
6
1,939

400

Calculation of Pressure Drop Components for


using Water Soluble DRA
Table 5.2.1: Calculation of pressure
illitrogen usmg
wa t er soIuble DRA at
VsI
Vsg
Mla
Mltail
(mls) (mls)
(pa)
(Pa)
217
0.5
644
1
0.5
554
179
2
0.5
1,110
638
4
0.5
1,607
712
6
1.0
1,681
535
2
1.0
1,799
889
4
1.0
2,262
874
6
1,748
559
1.25
2
2,652
1,080
1.25
4
3,603
1,446
1.25
6
1.5
1,529
401
2
3,259
1,311
1.5
4
4,532
1,616
1.5
6

100o~

Deionized Water with Nitrogen

drop components for 100% deionized water with

ppm

Mlsb
(Pa)
526
373
637
393
851
2,079
1,694
1,079
1,847
2,303
803
2,993
3,475

Mlfilm
(pa)
7
183
469
603
48
594
1,160
49
222
847
56
74
323

Theo. Mlt
(Pa)
960
932
1,579
1,891
2,045
3,582
4,242
2,317
3,641
5,307
1,987
5,015
6,714

Exp. Mlt
(pa)
606
997
1,886
2,364
2,449
4,604
5,659
3,401
5,892
6,807
4,395
7,188
8,410

% Diff.

58%
7%
16%
200/0
160/0
22%
25%
32%
38%
22%
55%
30%
20%

Table 5.2.2: Calculation of pressure drop components for 100% deionized water with
wa t er soIU bl e DRA at 20 ppm
mitrogen using
VsI
Vsg
Mla
L\Psb
Mltail
Mlfilm Theo. Mlt Exp. Mlt % Diff.
(mls) (mls)
(Pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
38%
610
0.5
842
625
230
435
1
11
12%
883
177
991
0.5
569
159
2
439
28%
1,663
1,205
0.5
4
397
597
761
244
32%
2,381
0.5
1,362
1,624
6
607
747
121
2,009
21%
2,424
1.0
1,714
542
1,197
55
2
25%
3,882
2,915
1,330
1.0
617
1,240
962
4
29%
5,116
3,657
1.0
2,661
1,125
1,238
6
883
18%
2,707
1.25
1,541
2,208
2
443
1,050
60
5,014
38%
3,087
1.25
2,174
929
1,276
4
566
26%
6,148
3,139
4,571
1,254
1,446
1,240
1.25
6
29%
3,680
2,600
1.5
2,233
2
692
1,016
43
31%
5,726
1.5
3,094
4
1,306
3,960
2,148
24
20%
7,546
6,002
4,437
1,543
2,482
1.5
626
6

401
Table 5.2.3: Calculation of pressure drop components for 100% deionized water with
wat er so IuhIe DRA at 50 ppm
ruitrogen using
Vsg
VsI
M>a
L\P fi1m Theo. M>t Exp. M>t % Diff.
M>tail
M>sb
(mls) (mls) (Pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(pa)
0.5
1
551
197
785
68%
416
14
468
0.5
477
1,044
67%
2
122
512
177
627
0.5
724
353
1,243
13%
4
193
679
1,435
0.5
Pseudo Slug
6
1,469
1.0
40%
2
412
1,161
58
2,276
1,622
1.0
26%
4
926
389
1,366
2,572
668
3,458
1,689
3,838
3,935
2%
1.0
6
614
1,101
1,663
1.25
84
2,023
2,243
100/0
2
913
270
1,296
1.25
4
1,096
1,210
3,156
4,209
25%
429
1,279
1,769
1.25
2,253
5,088
5,260
3%
6
771
1,836
15%
1,616
1,234
2,488
2,918
1.5
427
66
2
30%
1,595
2,010
3,635
5,194
1.5
4
542
573
2,714
1,516
5,436
5,930
8%
1.5
6
916
2,122

Table 5.2.4: Calculation of pressure drop components for 100% deionized water with
wat er soIubl e DRA at 75 ppm
usmg
VsI
Vsg
Theo. L\Pt Exp. M>t % Diff.
M>a
M>tail
M>sb
M>film
(mls) (mls) (Pa)
(Pa)
(pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
90%
437
0.5
1
495
177
492
831
22
76%
519
0.5
2
913
419
219
388
114
0.5
4
Pseudo Slug
0.5
6
Pseudo Slug
45%
1,094
1.0
2
277
669
1,582
78
715
26%
1,888
1.0
559
1,761
2,379
4
269
328
1.0
6
Pseudo Slug
1.25
19%
2
472
1,099
273
1,718
1,440
126
26%
1.25
2,947
4
361
189
2,920
3,717
625
1.25
80%
6
520
5,737
3,181
218
851
4,583
1.5
42%
2
799
187
1,814
82
2,508
1,769
1.5
4
37%
452
1,083
4,080
2,981
142
2,687
1.5
6
766
54%
4,246
6,035
3,929
265
1,288

illitrogen

402

Calculation of Pressure Drop Components for 90% Deionized Water and 10% 6 cP
oil with Nitrogen using Water Soluble DRA
Table 5.2.5: Calculation of pressure drop components for 90% deionized water and 10%
6 CP 011 WIith mitrogen usmg
wa ter so Iubi e DRA at 0 ppm
VsI
Vsg
Ml a
Mltai}
Mlsb
Mlfilm Theo. Ml t Exp. Ml t % Diff.
(mls) (mls) (pa)
(pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(pa)
56
856
1,911
2,621
27%
1.0
2
1,720
721
3,207
4,554
30%
1,660
1,816
642
1.0
4
911
1,840
1,162
4,337
5,943
1.0
6
2,328
994
27%
3,491
34%
52
2,316
1.25
2
1,920
695
1,040
3,936
5,698
31%
1.25
4
3,557
2,158
159
1,939
1,073
5,141
6,933
26%
1.25
2,822
1,065
2,312
6
2,705
4,458
39%
2
2,477
1,127
41
1.5
941
4
98
4,212
6,891
39%
3,827
1,813
2,101
1.5
7,993
21%
2,932
597
6,313
1.5
6
4,212
1,428

Table 5.2.6: Calculation of pressure drop components for 90% deionized water and 10%
6 CP 01-I WIith illitrogen usmg
wa t er so1ubl e DRA at 20 P: om
VsI
Vsg
Ml a
Mlsb
Mltail
Mlfilm Theo_ Ml t Exp. Mlt % Diff.
(mls) (mls) (Pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(pa)
27%
2,795
53
2,038
1.0
2
1,639
997
651
4,716
370/0
2,977
1.0
4
1,899
1,137
1,568
648
1.0
1,028
4,056
5,782
30%
6
2,940
1,240
1,328
36%
1.25
2,356
3,673
2
1,850
675
1,130
52
6,787
34%
4,487
1.25
4
4,466
2,551
2,518
54
7,626
25%
1.25
6
4,826
2,358
5,751
1,979
546
4,838
47%
1.5
2,237
2,557
2
792
1,067
43
19%
1.5
4
4,115
5,300
1,961
2,043
90
4,286
23%
9,999
1.5
6
8,344
7,705
3,143
2,415
89

403
Table 5.2.7: Calculation of pressure drop components for 90% deionized water and 10%
6 CP 011 WIith mitr ogen usmg
wa ter so Iu bl e DRA at 50 ppm
VsI
Vsg
LlPa
AP sb
Theo. APt Exp. APt % Diff.
APtail
APfilm
(m/s) (m/s)
(pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
1.0
435
120
2
1,028
1,672
1,653
1%
330
1.0
474
257
2,827
8%
4
806
2,018
3,040
1.0
1,099
2,360
3,333
20%
6
451
997
4,004
628
2,259
18%
1.25
2
153
1,285
87
1,846
3,406
1.25
4
859
373
1,207
1,628
2%
3,321
540'
4,289
15%
1,304
1,330
2,829
4,923
1.25
6
2,823
29%
806
170
1,291
79
2,005
1.5
2
4,441
1,276
1,033
3,915
12%
1.5
524
2,130
4
5,157
1,653
2,571
5,564
8%
1.5
6
524
1,865

Calculation of Pressure Drop Components for 500/0 Deionized Water and 500/0 6 cP
oil with Nitrogen using Water Soluble DRA
Table 5.2.8: Calculation of pressure drop components for 50% deionized water and 50%
wa t er so Iu bi e DRA at 0 ppm
6 CP 011 WIith mitr ogen using
Vsg
VsI
LlP a
Theo. LlPt Exp. APt % Diff.
APtail
APsb
APfilm
(m/s) (m/s)
(Pa)
(pa)
(pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
7%
747
796
360
504
30
0.5
621
1
23%
1,114
862
273
427
233
0.5
475
2
45%
2,199
1,095
949
435
1,211
0.5
630
4
2,656
36%
1,645
1,015
1,696
0.5
6
473
593
33%
2,764
1.0
1,335
1,124
55
1,850
2
664
4,750
32%
1,514
3,224
1.0
4
1,016
1,912
814
21%
5,466
2,500
1,025
1.0
6
1,047
1,857
4,335
60%
4,871
1,301
1,112
1,927
1.5
2
543
56
7,337
37%
4,600
3,485
1,920
2,937
98
1.5
4
19%
8,476
6,867
1.5
5,986
2,378
3,063
195
6

404

Table 5.2.9: Calculation of pressure drop components for 50% deionized water and 50%
6 CP 011 WIith illitrogen usmg
wat er so1u ble DRA at 20 ppm
VsI
Vsg
Ml a
Mlsb
Mltail
LlPfilm Theo. Mlt Exp. Mlt % Diff.
(mls) (m/s) (pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
0.5
1
484
287
437
4
639
887
28%
0.5
2
590
346
582
145
970
1,164
17%
0.5
4
845
704
495
579
1,215
2,194
45%
0.5
1,217
6
717
324
706
1,530
2,609
41%
1.0
1,322
2
684
857
61
1,556
2,970
48%
1.0
4
1,568
1,133
1,690
857
2,982
4,887
39%
3,247
1.0
6
1,589
1,485
919
4,062
6,128
340/0
1.5
1,928
2
916
1,149
38
2,199
5,514
60%
1.5
4
4,336
2,455
2,827
74
4,781
8,774
46%
6,073
1.5
6
2,431
6,834
2,988
203
9,703
30%

Table 5.2.10: Calculation of pressure drop components for 50% deionized water and 50%
6 CP 011 WIth illitrogen usmg
water so Iubl e DRA at 50 p om
VsI
Vsg
Mla
~Psb
Mltail
Mlfilm Theo. Mlt Exp. Mlt % Diff.
(mls) (m/s) (pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
7%
0.5
587
1
290
143
332
68
546
0.5
775
11%
2
329
132
861
355
309
6%
0.5
4
442
1,173
1,105
317
230
817
0.5
6
Pseudo Slug
7%
1,564
1.0
1,671
2
388
941
468
126
21%
1.0
4
566
3,057
2,518
403
738
2,155
1.0
3,145
39%
6
766
369
778
3,197
4,372
1.5
598
29%
2
1,422
1,969
2,781
153
102
1.5
4
0%
511
207
2,202
4,279
4,261
1,773
1.5
6
1,208
4,882
31%
532
2,130
3,607
6,414

405

Calculation of Pressure Drop Components for 10h. Deionized Water and 90;;' 6 cP
oil with Nitrogen using Water Soluble DRA
Table 5.2.11: Calculation of pressure drop components for 10% deionized water and 90%
wa t er so Iuble DRA at 0 ppm
6 CP 011 WIith mitrogen using
VsI
Vsg
&tai)
&a
LlPsb
& film Theo. &t Exp. &t % Diff.
(mlS) (mlS) (pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(pa)
(pa)
1.0
1,269
2
560
1,095
47
3,130
1,851
41%
1.0
1,765
4
899
2,213
491
5,286
3,570
32%
1.0
3,005
6
1,207
2,553
637
6,429
4,988
22%
1.25
1,683
2
765
4,000
1,246
38
2,201
45%
1.25
4
3,465
1,776
3,274
73
6,758
5,037
25%
1.25
6
6,058
2,470
3,345
82
8,284
7,016
15%
1.5
1,914
2
4,892
867
1,259
39
2,345
52%
1.5
4
4,042
2,030
3,016
8,175
66
5,094
38%
1.5
6
6,984
70
2,828
3,654
9,559
7,880
18%

Table 5.2.12: Calculation of pressure drop components for 10% deionized water and 90%
wa t er so1u ble DRA at 20 p'pm
6 CP 011 WIith mitr ogen usmg
Vsg
VsI
LlPsb
&a
&tail
&film Theo. LlP t Exp. &t % Diff.
(mls) (mls) (pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
1.0
2
965
1,776
35%
395
54
2,714
1,153
1.0
1,965
4
988
3,889
19%
2,509
403
4,812
1,985
1.0
6
1,045
17%
729
2,450
5,732
4,751
1.25
1,197
2
510
48
2,043
44%
1,309
3,673
1.25
2,685
4
4,961
27%
1,251
3,447
81
6,787
1.25
4,514
6
18%
1,720
254
7,626
6,236
3,189
1.5
2
1,013
61%
421
1,070
66
4,402
1,728
1.5
4
2,614
1,248
46%
2,491
114
7,407
3,971
1.5
6
6,012
2,401
22%
2,905
8,539
6,628
112

406
Table 5.2.13: Calculation of pressure drop components for 10% deionized water and 90%
6 CP 011 WIith illitrogen usmg
wat er so Iu bl e DRA at 50 p om
VsI
Vsg
Mla
Mlsb
Mltail
Mlfilm Theo. Mlt Exp. Mlt % Diff.
(mls) (mls)
(pa)
(Pa)
(Pa)
(pa)
(pa)
(Pa)
1.0
330
2
115
406
1,770
1,597
10%
976
2,463
1.0
365
2,481
4,022
62%
4
205
1,399
2,747
1.0
6
918
389
1,098
2,747
4,374
59%
1.25
442
2
135
1,266
104
2,366
1,677
29%
575
1.25
286
2,227
3,057
4,127
4
1,610
35%
1.25
1,076
3,316
472
1,467
4,055
5,387
33%
6
37%
1.5
427
2,767
1,755
2
112
1,338
102
1.5
886
1,351
4
421
2,971
3,893
4,787
23%
1.5
6
1,333
3,063
5,950
39%
503
2,057
4,285

ABSTRACT
TULLIUS, LISA, CATHERINE. Ph.D. June 2000
Chemical Engineering
A Study of Drag Reducing Agents in Multiphase Flow in Large Diameter Horizontal
Pipelines (406 pp.)
Director of Dissertation: W. Paul Jepson

This study examines the effect of drag reducing agents (DRA) on multiphase flow
in a 10 ern acrylic and stainless steel pipeline at ambient temperature and pressure. Two
and three phase flow is studied using a 6 cP refined oil, water and gas. The effect of
DRA on full pipe, oil/water, stratified, wavy stratified, slug, pseudo slug and annular flow
is examined. This study also compares the performance of an oil and water soluble DRA.
The results show that the oil soluble DRA significantly decreases the pressure
drop for all flow regimes studied when the water cut is 10% or less, except for annular
flow. The annular flow regime shows only shows an effectiveness of 10% and less. At
the high water cut of 50%, the oil soluble DRA creates a dispersion at 50 ppm of DRA,
causing the pressure drop to increase. The dispersion also creates large shifts in the flow
regime map causing slug flow to become the dominant flow regime.
The water soluble DRA generally showed a higher effectiveness than the oil
soluble DRA. The water soluble DRA does not create a dispersion at 20 to 75 ppm of
DRA at water cuts of 10, 50, and 90%. The water soluble DRA decreases the average
pressure drop of full pipe and slug flow.
This study also shows that the DRA changed the flow properties. For example
the slug frequency decreased with increasing DRA concentration when a dispersion is not