123

8
CFD modelling of the decompression process of CO 2 pipeline

Upload: dsfg

Post on 02-Feb-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

454,ghf

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 123

CFD modelling of the decompression process of CO2 pipeline

Page 2: 123

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

• This technology traps 90% of carbon dioxide.(Li, H. and J. Yan, 2009).

• CCS technology is aimed to reduce 50% of GHG by 2050 (Li, H. and J. Yan, 2009).

• In CCS process, a significant amount of carbon dioxide through pipe networks(Li, H. and J. Yan, 2009).

Page 3: 123

Fracture propagation

• Among operators creak propagation is a major concern (Elshahomi, A et al, 2013).

• Fracture propagation involves various technical aspects including decompression process (R. Cleaver and P. Cumber, 2000).

Page 4: 123

Decompression process

• The outflow of gas reduces the pressure in the neighbourhood of the opening and generates a decompression front (rarefaction wave) that propagates within the pipeline, away from the point of failure.

Page 5: 123

Battelle Two Curve Method (BTCM)

Page 6: 123

Decompression Models

• GASDECOM(19970)- Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling (BWRS) EOS)( Evgeniy Burlutskiy,2012)

• DECAY-Peng-Robinson (PR) EOS (K. K. Botros,et al 2013)

• DECOM-span and Wanger and GERG-2004 (Elshahomi, A et al, 2013)..

• CFDECOM-Peng-Robinson-Stryjek-Vera EOS along with the Peng-Ribinson and Span Wanger EOS

Page 7: 123

GERG 2008 EOS• Accuracy of these models proposed depends on EOS Employed

(Elshahomi, A et al, 2013).

• Basically to natural gas mixture, it also included carbon dioxide pure stage (O. Kunz and W. Wagner ,2012)

• GERG, AGA-8, BWRS, PR and RKS to compare denser phase region densities(Btros et.al .2013).

• GERG was more accurate than the rest of the EOS was concluded by Botros et. Al (Btros et.al as cited inLiu, X., et al.2014).

Page 8: 123

References. 1. Elshahomi, A., Lu, C., Michal, G., Liu, X., Godbole, A., Botros, K. K., Venton, P. & Colvin, P, 2013, “Two-dimensional CFD modelling of gas-decompression behaviour”, The 6th International Pipeline Technology Conference, pp. S18-02-1 - S18-02-23. United States: Clarion Technical Conferences.

2.. Evgeniy Burlutskiy,2012, “Mathematical Modeling of Non-Isothermal Multi-Component Fluid Flow in Pipes Applying to Rapid Gas Decompression in Rich and Base Gases”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol:6,pp:117-112. 3. K.K. Botros , J. Geerligs , L. Carlsonb, M. Reed 2013, “Experimental validation of GASDECOM for High Heating Value Processed Gas mixtures (58 MJ/m3) by specialized shock tube” ,International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping,volume no:107,pp:20-26. 4. Li, H. and J. Yan, 2009, Evaluating cubic equations of state for calculation of vapor–liquid equilibrium of CO2 and CO2 mixtures for CO2 capture and ‐storage processes. Applied Energy.86(6): p. 826 836.‐ 5. Liu, X., A. Godbole, C. Lu, G. Michal, and P. Venton, 2014, Source strength and dispersion of CO2 releases from high pressure pipelines: CFD model ‐using real gas equation of state. Applied Energy. 126(0): p. 56 68.‐ 6. O. Kunz and W. Wagner ,2012, “The GERG-2008 Wide-Range Equation of State for Natural Gases and Other Mixtures: An Expansion of GERG-2004”, American Chemical Society,volume 57,3032-3091. 7. R. Cleaver and P. Cumber, 2000"Modelling pipeline decompression during the propagation of a ductile fracture", INSTITUTION OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS SYMPOSIUM SERIES 147, pp. 201-212.