×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

TURBULENCE IN NATURAL GAS

TURBULENCE IN NATURAL GAS

TURBULENCE IN NATURAL GAS

(OP)
Platform offshore natural gas production have the worry of having a bottleneck at admission 3 Gas Vessel, as these three flowlines and output are the same diameter (8 "ANSI 600) and can produce turbulence???. Currently it has an average of +/- 22 psi pressure differential between the production Gas Vessel and output pipeline.
As shown in the graph and it's really like we have in the field, the production test Gas Vessel and enter below and the new MBD-2020 Gas Vessel above the line output to the pipeline.

PROFESSIONAL CRITERIA WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ON THE SUBJECT THAT COULD HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THIS CONFIGURATION AND HOW WE CAN MITIGATE

RE: TURBULENCE IN NATURAL GAS

"Turbulence" is a technical term with a precise definition (i.e., Reynolds Number greater than 6000) that is used in many no-technical discussions (e.g., "the airplane experienced turbulence"). Turbulence is manifested as a random three dimensional motion imposed on the flow. The 22 psid you are talking about is not "turbulence" as much as it is "interference" or "phase interactions".

Each of your three inputs is moving at its own bulk velocity, which means it is at a different dynamic pressure (very very small differences, granted, but different nonetheless). Until these streams homogenize themselves, they will act like a multi-phase flow, which means that they will expend a lot of energy changing flow regime, just like a multi-phase stream..

The useful flow area of a line is a very complex subject, but a rule of thumb that works is 2X8"=10", 8"+10"<12", 2X10"=12". This is not obvious from combining flow area and converting the combined area to an effective diameter (e.g. 8+8=11.3), but the wetted area (i.e. the place where the no-flow boundary occurs) is 3/5 as big in the 10" which makes the big pipe more effective than the two smaller pipes. CFD runs supports that the reduction in the volume of the no-flow boundary theoretically makes the pipe more efficient. Putting two 8-inch streams into an 8-inch pipe significantly increases the velocity of the combined stream. If you had known you were going to combine these three streams at design time, the departing pipe should have been 12" instead of 10", nothing you can do about that now.

As a general rule, I would have tied the new production unit into the second stub instead of the first stub (the models show slightly better mixing with a side stream instead of a head-to-head stream, but not big enough to change it if already built, the head-to-head configuration is probably costing you 2-3 psid of the 22 you are losing. The rest is just too much gas in too little space, the reservoir will fix that for you over time.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources