Drag reduction in stratified oil-water flows

L C Edomwonyi-Otu, M Chinaud, P Angeli

Department of Chemical Engineering, University College London, UK

ABSTRACT

In this work, experiments were performed during horizontal separated oil-water flows in
an acrylic pipe with an internal diameter of 14 mm. The test fluids were tap water and a
middle distillate oil. Magnafloc 1011 (a copolymer of polyacrylamide and sodium
acrylate) was used as drag reducing agent and was added from an initial concentration of
1000ppm in the water phase in the pipe to generate in situ concentrations between 20ppm
and 50ppm using a pressurized air system. Particle image velocimetry (PIV)
measurements were carried out to study the changes on the water phase velocity profiles
and turbulence properties caused by the polymer addition Results showed significant
changes to the total turbulence in the near wall and interface regions, the water hold-up
and the velocity profiles of the water layer flow. The addition of the polymer also shifted
the boundaries of stratified flow to higher superficial oil and water velocities while it
reduced the frictional pressure drop by almost 45 % in some of the cases studied.

Keywords: Polymer, drag reduction, flow pattern, particle image velocimetry, turbulence

1. INTRODUCTION

Multiphase flows appear in many industrial processes and particularly in the petroleum
industry were mixtures of crude oil, water, gas and solids produced from wells are
transported for processing. The gas and solid components are easily separated near
production facilities owing to density differences while oil and water mixtures may be
transported over long distances in pipes of various sizes and inclinations. Different flow
patterns can form in oil-water flows depending on fluid properties, flowrates,
temperature, and pipe inclination amongst others. These flow patterns determine to a
great extent the pressure drop of the flow system and the pumping requirements as well
as the ease of phase separation (1,2).

The addition of minute amounts of certain polymeric materials in a fluid during two-
phase flow has been shown to reduce the frictional pressure drop and affect water hold-
up, and erosion/corrosion rates as well as heat transfer capabilities (2–7). This deliberate
reduction of the frictional pressure drop is termed drag reduction, and was recognized
after the famous Toms experiment (8). Drag reduction has led to huge savings in the
Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System where the addition of 10 ppm of oil-soluble polymer
resulted in over 50 % reduction in pressure drop and elimination of some planned
pumping stations (5,9).

© BHR Group 2014 Multiphase 9 165

In comparison to the volume of report on gas-liquid flows, drag reduction in liquid-liquid
flows has received less attention with the first published article by Al-Wahaibi et al (3).
Since then, there has been renewed interest owing to the increasing need to use water in
improving the productivity of oil wells in later years (10). It has been shown by Al-Yaari,
Al-Wahaibi and coworkers (1–3,5,11,12) that small amounts of polymer added in the
water phase result in a reduction in pressure drop of over 65 % and significantly extend
the region of stratification in oil-water flows. The polymer addition also caused
dampening of interfacial waves, and altered the flow patterns and their boundaries and
the hold up. Despite the many investigations particularly in single phase flows, the
mechanism of drag reduction is still not well understood (4,13–23). Moreover, in
multiphase flows, the presence of an interface can add complexity. It was recently shown
that addition of polymers can affect the interfacial wave characteristics of oil-water flows
(24). In this paper the effect of polymer addition on the velocity profiles and turbulence
properties in stratified oil-water flows is investigated with Particle Image Velocimetry.

2. EXPERIMENTAL SET UP

The experimental studies were carried out in an acrylic test section 4.0 m long with 14
mm ID, using tap water and a middle distillate oil, Exxsol D140 (Density, 830 kg/m3;
Viscosity, 5.5 mPas at 23 °C ) as test fluids. A schematic of the experimental flow
facility can be seen in Figure 1. The two fluids are stored in separate tanks and are pumped
into the test section through centrifugal pumps. The flow rates of the water and oil phases
are controlled by two variable area flowmeters with maximum 7.5 l/min and error of 0.5
% full scale. In addition, a flowmeter with a maximum of 35 l/min maximum was used
for higher flowrates during single phase water measurements. The fluids join at the test
section inlet through a Y-junction that minimises mixing.

Figure 1 Schematics of flow facility

Conductance probes were used to record over time the oil-water interface height at a
frequency of 512 Hz. The data obtained from the probes were treated following a
rigorous methodology (25). Pressure gradient was measured using a differential pressure
transducer (ABB 266MST 0.04 % base accuracy) connected to two pressure ports (0.5 m
apart) located at 3.25 m and 3.75 m respectively from the inlet junction. An acrylic box

166 © BHR Group 2014 Multiphase 9

filled with glycerol was placed between the pressure taps to improve visualization of the
flow patterns. The flow patterns and their boundaries were identified with a high speed
camera (Photron Ultima APX, monochrome) at 1200 fps which was placed opposite the
viewing box. Magnafloc 1011 (co-polymer of polyacrylamide and sodium acrylate) was
used as drag reducing agent. A pressurized air system was used to inject the polymer
master solution into the test section. The concentration of the master solution was 1000
ppm while the diluted concentration in the test section varied between 20 and 50 ppm.
After the test section the mixture entered a separator vessel. The oil was recycled while
the water with polymer added was not recycled to avoid any degradation effects.

In the experiments water superficial velocities (Usw) varied from 0.052 m/s to 0.8 m/s,
and oil superficial velocities (Uso) varied from 0.008 m/s to 0.7 m/s. For every condition,
once the flowrates of the two phases and of the injected polymer solution were set, data
was obtained after about 5 minutes to allow a stable flow. Drag reduction experiments
were repeated 3 times with an average error less than 2 % for measured pressure drop.
Particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements were carried out for flows in the
stratified region to determine the changes in turbulence properties of the water phase
after polymer addition. The PIV measurement system consists of a high power (120 mJ),
double-pulsed, Nd:YAG laser for illumination and includes a light arm for easy
manipulation of the laser beam. A high-resolution (4M pixel) CCD frame straddling
PowerView PIV camera positioned in front of the view box allowed data to be captured.
The time difference between the laser pulses was set at 100µs at a straddle frequency of
4.83 Hz with an exposure time of 400 µs. About 350 images (frames A & B) were
captured for each flow condition. The images were treated and processed with the TSI’s
Insight 3G software.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 2 shows the oil-water flow pattern map before and after the addition of polymer to
the water phase. As can be seen, with the addition of polymer rivulet flow is eliminated
while the boundaries of stratified and stratified wavy flows are signifcantly extended to
higher oil an water superficial velocities. The extension of the stratified flow region with
the addition of polymer has also been reported previously (2,3,5,23,26–29).

Stratified wavy

Stratified

Figure 2 Oil-water horizontal flow pattern map.

Bold boundaries shows pattern before polymer addition while
broken line boundaries shows patterns after polymer addition.

© BHR Group 2014 Multiphase 9 167

Indicative results on the effect of polymer addition on the velocity and turbulence of the
water phase are shown in Figs. 3-6. These measurements were carried out with PIV at
superficial water velocity (Usw) of 0.28 m/s and superficial oil velocities of 0.15 m/s and
0.2 m/s respectively. In turbulent flow, the longitudinal/axial (u) and vertical/radial (v)
velocities measured at a point in a flow vary with time and are written as a sum of a mean
and a turbulent component as follows;

u(t) = U + u’(t) (1)

v(t) = V + v’(t) (2)

Where U, V are the mean velocities while u’(t), v’(t) are turbulent fluctuations in the
axial and radial directions respectively. The Reynolds shear stress is given by u ′v ′ .

Figure 3 Axial and radial velocity profiles for Uso = 0.15 m/s and Usw = 0.28 m/s

Figure 4 Axial and radial velocity profiles for Uso = 0.20 m/s and Usw = 0.28 m/s

It can be observed from Figures 3 and 4 that the addition of polymer in the water phase
affects the velocity profile. The maximum axial velocity is increased while the profile
shape changes to parabolic, suggesting a laminarisation of the flow. On the other hand,
the radial velocity component shows a significant reduction. These changes suggest a
modification of the velocity profiles in oil-water flows in agreement with previous

168 © BHR Group 2014 Multiphase 9

reports on single phase flows (15,20,21). It can also be observed from Figures 3 and 4
that the axial velocity gradient (dU/dy) is affected by the polymer addition in all cases
studied. While it is reduced in the near wall region, it is increased particularly close to the
peak of the parabolic profile. The effect of the polymer seems to be larger in the near
wall region compared to the region near the interface.

Figures 5 and 6 shows the turbulence profiles of the oil – water flow at superficial water
velocity (Usw) of 0.28 m/s and superficial oil velocities (Uso) of 0.15 m/s and 0.2 m/s
respectively.

The turbulence profiles in the water phase show a significant reduction in the near wall
and interface regions for the cases studied. Comparatively lower reductions are observed
in the radial fluctuations than in the axial fluctuations. The effect of polymer appears to
be larger close to the wall than the interface. However, the results from the near interface
region can be affected by the fluctuating nature of the interface (30). These changes in
the turbulence properties of the flow and the subsequent increase in the maximum axial
velocity suggest a redistribution of the turbulent motion from the radial to the axial flow
direction.

Figure 5 Fluctuations in the axial (A), radial (B) and shear (C)
Reynolds stresses for Uso = 0.15 m/s and Usw = 0.28 m/s

© BHR Group 2014 Multiphase 9 169

 Figure 6 Fluctuations in the axial (A), radial (B) and shear (C)
Reynolds stresses for Uso = 0.20 m/s and Usw = 0.28 m/s

It can also be observed from Figures 3 – 6 and for all measured parameters that the
interface height is reduced with an increase in Uso for a fixed Usw. When polymer is
added the interface height is also reduced. This reduction in water hold up would lead to
higher mean water velocity when polymer is added. Similar observations of reduced
water hold up with the addition of polymer have also been reported before by (12) for
input ratio (Uso/Usw) less than 1. They are however, in contrast with the results by Al-
Wahaibi et al (3) who reported an increase in interface height when polymer was added
in the water phase.

The changes in pressure drop after the addition of polymer are shown in Fig. 7 as %
difference in frictional pressure drop (% drag reduction) for Usw = 0.28 m/s, 0.34 m/s,
0.393 m/s and 0.45 m/s for Uso = 0.2 m/s, 0.25 m/s and 0.3 m/s respectively. It can be
observed that drag reduction decreases with increasing Uso for a fixed Usw, while no
clear trend is observed for increasing Usw at fixed Uso. The decrease in drag reduction
may be attributed to the increased contribution of pressure drop from the oil phase at the
expense of that from the water phase where the polymer is added. The behaviour of drag
reduction with increasing Usw for a fixed Uso may depend on the particular flow pattern
prior to the polymer addition (Fig. 2). For example, the pattern at Usw = 0.28 m/s and
Uso = 0.195 m/s is close to the transition boundary between stratified and rivulet flow
where pressure fluctuations are high (31); drag reduction is found to be about 42 %. The

170 © BHR Group 2014 Multiphase 9

pattern at Usw = 0.34 m/s is clearly in the region of stratified flows and has drag
reduction of about 30 %. Flows at Uso = 0.245 m/s and 0.3 m/s are within the stable flow
regions of rivulet and dual continuous flows with less disturbances associated with flow
pattern change particularly near the boundaries.

Figure 7 Drag reduction at different flow conditions

of Uso and Usw for oil-water flows

4. CONCLUSIONS

Addition of polymer in the water phase during oil-water flow in a horizontal pipe was
found to extend the boundaries of stratified flows to higher oil and water superficial
velocities. It also reduced pressure drop by as much as 45% in some oil and water
flowrate combinations. The interface height was reduced when polymer was added,
indicating an increase in the average in–situ water velocity. PIV measurements in the
water phase revealed a change in the velocity profile to a parabolic shape suggesting
laminarisation of the flow. The fluctuating axial and radial velocities were also affected
by the addition of the polymer.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF)
for the PhD scholarship for Mr L. C. Edomwonyi-Otu, as well as the EPSRC instrument
pool for the PIV and high-speed camera used in the project. The technical support of
Dr Simon Barrass is kindly acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. Al-Sarkhi A. Drag reduction with polymers in gas-liquid/liquid-liquid flows in

pipes: A literature review. J Nat Gas Sci Eng. Elsevier B.V; 2010 Mar;2(1):41–8.
2. Al-Wahaibi T, Yusuf N, Al-Wahaibi Y, Al-Ajmi A, Al-Hashmi AR, Olawale AS, et
al. Experimental study on the effect of drag reducing polymer on flow patterns and
drag reduction in a horizontal oil–water flow. Int J Heat Fluid Flow. Elsevier Inc.;
2012 Oct;37:74–80.

© BHR Group 2014 Multiphase 9 171

3. Al-Wahaibi T, Smith M, Angeli P. Effect of drag-reducing polymers on horizontal
oil–water flows. J Pet Sci Eng. 2007 Jun;57(3-4):334–46.
4. Vleggaar J, Tels M. Heat transfer in a heterogeneous drag reduction system. Int J
Heat Mass Transf. 1973 Aug;16(8):1629–31.
5. Al-Yaari M, Soleimani A, Abu-Sharkh B, Al-Mubaiyedh U, Al-sarkhi A. Effect of
drag reducing polymers on oil–water flow in a horizontal pipe. Int J Multiph Flow.
Elsevier Ltd; 2009 Jun;35(6):516–24.
6. Kang C, Jepson WP, Gopal M. The Effect of Drag Reducing Agents on Corrosion in
Multiphase Flow. Corrosion’ 98. 1998. p. 54:1–11.
7. Zahran RR, Sedahmed GH. Effect of drag-reducing polymers on the rate of flow-
induced corrosion of metals. Mater Lett. 1998 May;35(3-4):207–13.
8. Toms B. Some observations on the flow of linear polymer solutions through straight
tubes at large Reynolds numbers. International Congress on Rheology. Amsterdam:
North Holland publication company; 1948. p. 135–41.
9. Jubran B, Zurigat Y, Goosen M. Drag Reducing Agents in Multiphase Flow
Pipelines: Recent Trends and Future Needs. Pet Sci Technol. 2005 Nov 1;23(11-
12):1403–24.
10. Hadžiabdić M, Oliemans RVA. Parametric study of a model for determining the
liquid flow-rates from the pressure drop and water hold-up in oil–water flows. Int J
Multiph Flow. 2007 Dec;33(12):1365–94.
11. Al-Wahaibi TK. Pressure gradient correlation for oil–water separated flow in
horizontal pipes. Exp Therm Fluid Sci. Elsevier Inc.; 2012 Oct;42:196–203.
12. Al-Yaari M, Al-Sarkhi A, Abu-Sharkh B. Effect of drag reducing polymers on water
holdup in an oil–water horizontal flow. Int J Multiph Flow. ScienceDirect;
2012;44:29–33.
13. Parimal PM, Cheolho K, Alvaro A. IPC2008-64336 The Performance of Drag
Reducing Agents in Multiphase Flow. IPC2008, Seventh International Pipeline
Conference. Calgary, Canada; 2008. p. 1–9.
14. Den Toonder JMJ, Hulsen M a., Kuiken GDC, Nieuwstadt FTM. Drag reduction by
polymer additives in a turbulent pipe flow: numerical and laboratory experiments. J
Fluid Mech. 1997 Apr 25;337:193–231.
15. Warholic MD, Heist DK, Katcher M, Hanratty TJ. A study with particle-image
velocimetry of the influence of drag-reducing polymers on the structure of
turbulence. Exp Fluids. 2001 Nov 1;31(5):474–83.
16. Warholic MD, Massah H, Hanratty TJ. Influence of drag-reducing polymers on
turbulence: effects of Reynolds number, concentration and mixing. Exp Fluids. 1999
Oct 4;27(5):461–72.
17. Hoyer K, Gyr A, Tsinober A. On the mechanism of drag reduction in dilute polymer
solutions. Appl Sci Res. 1996;55(4):289–95.
18. Yu B, Li F, Kawaguchi Y. Numerical and experimental investigation of turbulent
characteristics in a drag-reducing flow with surfactant additives. Int J Heat Fluid
Flow. 2004 Dec;25(6):961–74.
19. Lumley JL. Drag Reduction in Turbulent Flow by Polymer Additives. J Polym Sci
Macromol Rev. 1973;7(1):263–90.
20. Gyr A, Bewersdorff H. Drag reduction of turbulent flows with additives. Dordrecht:
The Netherlands Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995.
21. White C, Mungal M. Mechanics and Prediction of Turbulent Drag Reduction with
Polymer Additives. Annu Rev Fluid Mech. 2008 Jan;40(1):235–56.
22. Manfield CJ, Lawrence C, Hewitt G. Drag-reduction with additive in multiphase
flow: a literature survey. Multiph Sci Technol. 1999;11:197–221.

172 © BHR Group 2014 Multiphase 9

23. Mowla D, Naderi A. Experimental study of drag reduction by a polymeric additive
in slug two-phase flow of crude oil and air in horizontal pipes. Chem Eng Sci. 2006
Mar;61(5):1549–54.
24. Edomwonyi-Otu LC, Barral AH, Angeli P. Influence of Drag Reducing Agents on
Interfacial Wave Characteristics in Horizontal Oil-Water Flows. The 16th
International Conference on Multiphase Production Technology. Cannes, France:
BHR Group; 2013. p. 353–62.
25. Barral AH, Angeli P. Interfacial characteristics of stratified liquid-liquid flows using
a conductance probe. Exp Fluids. 2013;54(10):1604.
26. Al-Sarkhi A, Abu-Nada E, Batayneh M. Effect of drag reducing polymer on air–
water annular flow in an inclined pipe. Int J Multiph Flow. 2006 Aug;32(8):926–34.
27. Al-Sarkhi A, Soleimani A. Effect of drag reducing polymers on two-phase gas –
liquid flows in a horizontal pipe. Chem Eng Res Des. 2004;82(December):1583–8.
28. Baik S, Hanratty TJ. Effects of a drag reducing polymer on stratified gas–liquid
flow in a large diameter horizontal pipe. Int J Multiph Flow. 2003
Nov;29(11):1749–57.
29. Hanratty TJ, Al-Sarkhi A. Effect of drag-reducing polymers on annular gas - liquid
flow in a horizontal pipe. Int J Multiph Flow. 2001;27:1151–62.
30. Theunissen R, Scarano F, Riethmuller ML. On improvement of PIV image
interrogation near stationary interfaces. Exp Fluids. 2008 Mar 9;45(4):557–72.
31. Barral AH, Edomwonyi-Otu LC, Angeli P. Flow patterns and interfacial
characteristics in stratified oil-water flows In pipes of different diameter.
Experimental Methods in Multiphase Flows. Jeju, South Korea; 2013. p. 1–6.

© BHR Group 2014 Multiphase 9 173