0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
120 visualizzazioni5 pagine
Severe flow instability (heading or annulus heading) is known from operations of gas-lift systems. Here, two simple
stability criteria are developed and compared with reported field data. The stability problems experienced for the cases examined
would have been identified with these criteria and corrected at the design stage.
Severe flow instability (heading or annulus heading) is known from operations of gas-lift systems. Here, two simple
stability criteria are developed and compared with reported field data. The stability problems experienced for the cases examined
would have been identified with these criteria and corrected at the design stage.
Severe flow instability (heading or annulus heading) is known from operations of gas-lift systems. Here, two simple
stability criteria are developed and compared with reported field data. The stability problems experienced for the cases examined
would have been identified with these criteria and corrected at the design stage.
Summary. Severe flow instability (heading or annulus heading) is known from operations of gas-lift systems. Here, two simple stability criteria are developed and compared with reported field data. The stability problems experienced for the cases examined would have been identified with these criteria and corrected at the design stage. Introduction The currently used principles for gas-lift design were established during the early 1950's. 1-3 They provide relations between (1) gas injection pressure and the most efficient point of injection and (2) gas injection rate and the production rate to be expected. From these relations, standardized procedures for gas-lift design have been worked out. 4 Works on application and optimization of the procedures have provided further insight into the interrelations be- tween gas-lift design and economic performance. 5-8 Often-unstated assumptions of gas-lift design are that it will be possible to inject gas at a constant downhole rate and that the resultant production rate will be stable. This is not necessarily true; severe flow instability is well known in the actual operation of gas- lift systems. Variations in pressure and flow rate are observed in all multiphase flow systems, even in pumping wells, because of redistribution of gas and liquids. They cause relatively small short-duration pressure and flow changes. Alone, this has little effect on the continuity of production. In a gas-lift system, however, it may trigger system instabilities. API9 recommends that, for the sizing of pipes receiving gas- lifted production, a "surge factor" of 40 to 50% should be added to the estimated steady-state flow rate, compared with 20% for naturally flowing wells. 9 Intended as guidelines for cases where more definite information is lacking, these numbers may indicate something about the uncertainties concerning the flow instabilities during gas lift. Bertuzzi et al. 2 observed that when the lift-gas input rate was reduced below a certain minimum, violent heading would occur and the liquid production would eventually cease. They postulated that "a sudden drop in pressure in the tubing brought about a sudden surge of gas into the tubing. The volume of gas surging into the tubing is dependent on the pressure and volume of gas in the an- nular space. If the pressure in the annular space dropped too much, gas ceased to flow into the tubing. " More recently, gas-lift insta- bilities have led to shutdowns of wells in the Claymore field. 10 This was amended by replacement of the downhole injection valve by a fixed orifice. Flow instabilities have also been observed and analyzed for simple air-lift pumps. 11,12 This is related to gas-lift instability. However, the inflow mechanisms of a gas-lift system are considerably more complicated than for an air-lift pump. Besides, the friction damp- ening will be much larger in a gas-lift system because of order-of- magnitude-larger flow length. Thus, the dominating mechanisms of instability will be quite different. During the last few years, attempts have been made to under- stand and to quantify gas-lift instabilities with numerical techniques. One approach is to make a dynamic numerical model of the gas- lift system, assuming that instabilities that occur when the model is run on a computer represent physical flow instabilities, as Grupping et al. did. 13,14 This succeeds in demonstrating unstable flow behavior by numerical means. The other approach is to apply linear stability analyses directly on a mathematical model of the flow system. Fitremann and Vedrines l5 performed linear stability analyses for a gas-lift system. The results after low-pressure sim- plifications were shown to correspond to small-scale laboratory ex- periments. No field data comparisons were attempted. Copyright 1988 SOCiety of Petroleum Engineers 1452 In the current work, two simple criteria are developed providing causal relationships between gas-lift design parameters and flow stability. The criteria developed do not substitute the more advanced approaches of unstable flow behavior, but they may provide a prac- tical method for the design of stable gas-lift systems. Mechanisms of Gas-Lift Instability. Fig. 1 shows an abstraction of a gas-lift system. It is assumed that the high-pressure lift gas enters the surface inlet of the gas conduit (surface piping and casing/tubing annulus, or dedicated lift string) at a constant rate. The lift gas will flow through the gas conduit and enter the tubing through a subsurface injection port. The gas inflow rate into the tubing is governed by the pressure difference across this port, be- tween the gas conduit and the tubing. By conventional gas-lift design, constant inflow of lift gas is assumed. As mentioned, the tubing pressure may show temporary variations, causing temporary variations in the gas inflow rate. The question addressed here is how the gas-lift system will respond to this. If an increase of gas inflow causes increased pressure difference between the gas conduit and the tubing, then the gas inflow to the tubing will increase further. This positive feedback leads to unstable flow behavior, as described by Bertuzzi et at. 2 If an increased flow of gas causes decreased pressure difference between the gas conduit and the tubing, gas flow will decrease. Under this condition, the gas-lift system will be stabilized by negative feedback. Stability Criteria In Appendices A and B, first-order stability analyses for gas-lift systems are performed. This gives two explicit stability criteria. The first quantifies stabilization as a result of the inflow responses of reservoir fluid and lift gas; the second quantifies stabilization caused by depletion of the gas conduit pressure. Inflow Response. If the inflow rate of the heavier reservoir fluids is more sensitive to pressure than the lift-gas flow rate, then the average density of the flowing fluid mixture will increase in response to a decrease in tubing pressure. This causes the tubing pressure to increase again, which stabilizes the flow. Appendix A shows that stabilization by the inflow response requires (Criterion 1) PgseBgqgs} J FI = --> 1. ........................ (1) qLse (EAj)2 By this criterion, stability is promoted by a high flow rate of lift gas, a high productivity index, and a small injection port. Pressure-Depletion Response. If the first criterion is not fulfilled, a decrease in the tubing pressure will cause the gas flow rate to increase more than the liquid flow rate. This will cause a decreasing tubing pressure, but will also deplete the gas conduit pressure. If the gas conduit pressure depletes faster than the tubing pressure, then the pressure difference between the gas conduit and tubing will decrease, and so will the lift-gas rate. This stabilizes the flow. Appendix B shows that stability corresponds to Criterion 2: Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988 By this criterion, stability is promoted by a small gas conduit volume, a high gas flow rate, and a high inflow-response ratio. A high tubing pressure, provided by higher wellhead backpressure, will be stabilizing if the downhole gas injection volume is main- tained constant. Relationships to Existing Recommendations and Models Some of the above considerations can be recognized in existing design rules. API 4 recommends that the size of the injection port be chosen so that a pressure differential of 690 kPa [100 psi] is established across the injection port. For many gas-lift installations, this will secure a stable inflow-response ratio: F1 > l. Bertuzzi et at. 2 observed that the use of an auxiliary, small- diameter lift-gas string, would stabilize wells that were unstable when injected through the casing/tubing annulus. Criterion 2 shows that stability can always be achieved by choice of a sufficiently small gas-lift conduit. On the basis of experience and numerical simulation, Grupping et at. 14 stated that gas-lift stabilization should "be based on the principle that the choking effect exercised at the surface injection orifice, relative to that of the downhole orifice, should be de- creased." By the current model, this conclusion can be derived from Criterion 1. Fitremann and Yedrines 15 observed that the pressure drop at the gas injection point has a strong stabilizing effect. This again corre- sponds to Criterion 1, expressed most clearly by Eq. A-9. In the pressure-depletion-response analyses, Appendix B, the Sffects of inertia and friction danIpening in the tubing are neglected. These "second-order" effects are included by Fitremann and Ye- drines in their model and presumably also by Grupping et al. 13 Fitremann and Yedrines' analysis showed that waves of three prin- cipal modes may establish in the tubing. The higher-frequency waves are danIpened by flow friction; the lowest frequency is undampened. The lowest frequency is the continuity wave, created by a change in the inflow-mixture density. By neglecting inertia and friction, the current analysis is based on the assumption that the higher-frequency waves are sufficiently dampened in a field-scale installation, so they can be neglected. The field cases analyzed below appear to support this assumption. Examination of Reported Field Cases Data on gas-lift instability are scarce in the literature. The cases reported by DeMoss and Tiemann 10 and by Bertuzzi et al. 2 are primarily studies of stable gas-lift performance. However, they contain enough information to examine the stability criteria, de- veloped above vs. actual gas-lift performance. DeMoss and Tiemann report that Well C-2 in the Claymore field turned out to be unstable when gas-lifted. The instability caused .---___ ----+ Production rr======= 4--- Lift gas Tubing Gas conduit (annulus or dedicated string) Downhole choke Reservoir Fig. 1-Gas-lift system. pressure surges and prevented injection from the lower injection port. Stability was later achieved by replacing the bottomhole in- jection valves by two fixed 9.5-mm [2r64-in.] orifices. Well C-6 showed a considerably lower productivity index than Well C-2; therefore, stability problems were expected. Well C-6 was therefore equipped initially with fixed 9.5-mm F%4-in.] downhole orifices. With this arrangement, the well gave no stability problems. The data reported for the Claymore wells are listed in the first two columns of Table 1. The production and injection rates and the pressure at the injection point are the design parameters reported for the system:The effective injection port size for the valve type originally installed in Well C-2 was estimated from the performance chart given. A tubing-pressure-controlling feature of the valve ap- parently did not work and was neglected. Table 2 lists the estimated fluid properties and downhole flow rates (volumetric flow rates at gas injection conditions). Bertuzzi et al. 's data were collected from an experimental well. In Cases 1 through 4 the gas was injected through a small-diameter auxiliary string. In these cases, no stability problems were experi- TABLE 1-DATA REPORTED Claymore Claymore Bertuzzi et al. Bertuzzi et al. Bertuzzi et al. Well C-2 Well C-6 Case 2 Case 7 Case 12 Vertical depth to injection port, It [m) 7,600 [2317) 7,865 [2397) 4,500 [1372) 3,810 [1161) 3,810 [1161) Tubing 10,' in. [mm) 4.78 [121.4) 4.78 [121.4) 1.995 [50.7) 1.995 [50.7) 1.995 [50.7) Tubing 00,' in. [mm) 5.51 [140.0) 5.51 [140.0) 2.375 [60.3) 2.375 [60.3) CaSing 10,' in. [mm) 8.7 [221) 8.7 [221) 5 [127) 5 [127) Gas-string 10, in. [mm) 0.824 [20.9) Liquid production rate, BID [m 3 /s) 14,000 [0.0258) 12,000 [0.0221) 374 [0.000688) 541 [0.000995) 541 [0.00114) Gas injection rate, MscflD [std m 3 /d) 11,200 [3.67) 12,000 [2.87) 68.3 [0.0224) 192.3 [0.0630) 507.9 [0.1664) WOR, 1t3/lt 3 0.025 0.04 306 105 18.8 Nominal injection port size," in. [mm) 0.91 (23) 24/64 [9.53) 14/64 [5.6) 14/64 [5.6) Orifice efficiency factor 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Injection-gas specific gravity 0.81 0.81 0.668 0.668 0.668 Oil specific gravity 0.884 0.884 0.846 0.846 0.846 Water specific gravity 1.07 1.07 1.07 Formation gaslliquid ratio, 1t3/lt 3 ",0 13 11.2 29.1 67.5 Temperature at injection port, OF [K) 172 (351) 172 (351) 166 (348) 162 (346) 162 (346) Pressure at injection port, psi [kPa) 1,610 [11 100) 1,600 [11 030) 1,035 (7140) 590 (4070) 600 [4140) Productivity index, BID-psi [m 3/s Pal 26 [6.94x10- 9 ) 14.4 [3.84x10- 9 ) 1.88 [5.02x10- 1O ) 1.88 [5.02x10- 1O ) 1.88 [5.02x10- 1O ) Values from tubing tables based on nominal diameters given . .... Two valves/orifices are used for the Claymore wells. The equivalent port size for the valves in Well C-2 is estimated from valve performance curve given. 10 Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988 1453 TABLE 2-ESTIMATED FLUID PARAMETER AND FLOW RATES. IN SI UNITS AS APPLIED IN THE CALCULATIONS Claymore Well C-2 z factor of injected gas 0.79 FVF of injected gas 0.00877 Downhole density of injected gas, kglm 3 113 Downhole density of reservoir fluid mix, kg/m 3 884 Downhole fluid (oil, gas, water) rate, m 3 /s 0.0258 Downhole gas injection rate, m 3 /s 0.0322 enced. Case 2 examined here is the lowest-flow case. According to our stability criteria, this would be the least stable. For Bertuzzi et ai.'s Cases 5 through 18, the gas was injected into the annulus. The well was equipped with a 5.6-mm [1%4-in.] downhole orifice. They reported that "liquid production could be varied only over a range of about 10 percent by varying the input gas rates. If the gas input rate was reduced below the minimum, heading would occur and the flow would eventually cease. " Cases 7 and 12 are examined here. Case 12 had the highest reported liquid production and should be stable. In Case 7, the liquid production is about 13 % lower than for Case 12; it should therefore be at least on the border of instability. . The data reported by Bertuzzi et ai. are listed in the three last columns of Table 1. Table 2 lists the estimated fluid properties and downhole flow rates (volumetric flow rates at gas injection con- ditions). For both Bertuzzi et ai.'s data and the Claymore cases, 0.9 was used for the orifice efficiency factor. Table 3 summarizes the stability criteria calculated for the cases examined. As seen, the estimates correspond nicely to observed behavior. A discrepancy occurs for Bertuzzi et ai.'s Case 12, which was reported as stable but is predicted to be unstable. This is a case of high flow rate in a small tubing with significant, but not suffi- cient, stabilization by conduit pressure depletion (F2 =0.83). It is possible that tubing-flow friction dampening, which is neglected in the criteria development, may smooth out the flow variations in this case. However, there may also be other explanations. Conclusions On the basis of limited comparison with reported field data, the theoretically founded criteria appear to identify potentially unstable wells and to provide quantitative guidelines for stabilization. The stability problems experienced for the cases examined would have been identified with these criteria and corrected at the design stage. Nomenclature Ai = injection port size, m 2 [ft2] AI = tubing flow area, m 2 [ft2] Bfi = FVF of reservoir fluids at injection point Bg = FVF of gas at injection point D = vertical depth to injection point, m [ft] E = orifice efficiency factor, here assumed to equal 0.9 F 1 ,F 2 = stability criteria g = acceleration of gravity, m/s2 [ft/sec 2 ] J = productivity index, std m 3 /s'Pa [scf/sec'psi] M = gas molecular weight Pei = gas conduit pressure at the injection point, Pa [psi] PR = reservoir average pressure, Pa [psi] Claymore Bertuzzi et a/. Bertuzzi at al. Bertuzzi at al. Well C-6 Case 2 Case 7 Case 12 0.79 0.9 0.92 0.92 0.00882 0.0154 0.0274 0.0270 112 52.9 29.7 30.2 884 911 593 377 0.0221 0.000807 0.00179 0.00323 0.00254 0.000345 0.00173 0.00449 Pt = tubing pressure, Pa [psi] Ptf = tubing-head flowing pressure, Pa [psi] Pti = tubing flowing pressure at gas injection point, Pa [psi] Pwf = bottornhole flowing pressure, Pa [psi] !::"Pj = friction loss, Pa [psi] qfi = flow rate of reservoir fluids at injection point, m 3 /s [ft 3 /sec] qgi = flow rate of lift gas at injection point, m 3 /s [ft 3 /sec] qgse = flow rate of lift gas at standard conditions, std m 3 /s [scf/sec] qLse = flow rate of liquids at standard conditions, std m 3 /s [scf/sec] R = universal gas constant, Nm/kmol' K [ft-Ibf/gmol' OF] t = time, seconds 'rei = conduit gas flowing temperature at the injection point, K reF] Tti = tubing fluid flowing temperature at the injection point, K [OF] v = flow velocity, m/s [ft/sec] Ve = gas conduit volume, m 3 [ft3] VI = tubing volume downstream of gas injection point, m 3 [ft3] Wei = mass injection rate of gas into conduit volume, kg/s [Ibm/sec] wti = mass injection rate of gas into tubing, kg/s [Ibm/sec] z = gas z factor o = small perturbation of steady state Pa = tubing-averaged fluid density, kg/m 3 [lbm/ft3] Pfi = reservoir fluid density at injection point, kg/m3 [lbm/ft3] Pgi = lift-gas density at the injection point, kg/m 3 [lbm/ft3] Pgsc = lift-gas density at standard surface conditions, kg/std m 3 [lbm/sct] Pi = mixture density of reservoir fluids and lift gas at injection point, kg/std m 3 [Ibm/sct] References I. Poettmann, F.H. and Carpenter, P.G.: "Multiphase Flow of Gas, Oil, and Water Through Vertical Flow Strings with Application to the Design of Gas-Lift Installations," Drill & Prod. Prac., API (1952) 257-317. 2. Bertuzzi, A.F., Welchon, J.K., and Poettmann, F.H.: "Description and Analysis of an Efficient Continuous-Flow Gas-Lift Installation," Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 271-78. TABLE 3-RESUL TS Predicted Observed WelllCase
Behavior Behavior Well C-2 0.06 0.76 Unstable Unstable Well C-2 after valves replaced by 20/64-in. orifices 1.9 Stable Stable Well C-6 0.76 2.7 Stable Stable Bertuzzi et a/. Case 2 5.2 Stable Stable Bertuzzi et a/. Case 7 0.09 0.28 Unstable Unstable (?) Bertuzzi et a/. Case 12 0.55 0.83 Unstable Stable (?) 1454 Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988 3. Gilbert, W.E.: "Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance," Drill. & Prod. Prac., API (1954) 126. 4. Gas Lift, Vocational Training Series, Prod. Dept. API, 6. 5. Blann, J.R., Brown, J.S., and DuFresne, L.P.: "Improving Gas-Lift Performance in a Large North African Oil Field," JPT(Sept. 1980) 1486-92. 6. Kanu, E.P., Mach, J., and Brown, K.E.: "Economic Approach to Oil Production and Gas Allocation in Continuous Gas Lift," JPT (Oct. 1981) 1887-92. 7. Clegg, J.D.: "Discussion of Economic Approach to Oil Production and Gas Allocation in Continuous Gas Lift," JPT(Feb. 1982) 301-02. 8. Blann, J.R. and Williams, J.D.: "Determining the Most Profitable Gas Injection Pressure for a Gas Lift Installation," JPT (Aug. 1984) 1305-11. 9. API RP 14E, Design and Installation of Offshore Production Platform Piping Systems, API (1984). 10. DeMoss, E.E. and Tiemann, W.D.: "Gas Lift Increases High-Volume Production From Claymore Field," JPT (April 1982) 696-702. 11. Hjalmars, S.: "The Origin of Instability in Airlift Pumps," Trans., Appl. Mech., ASME (1973) 41, 399-404. 12. Apazidis, N.: "Influence of Bubble Expansion and Relative Velocity of the Performance and Stability of an Airlift Pump," Inti. J. Multiphase Flow (1985) 11, No.4, 459-79. 13. Grupping, A.W., Luca, C.W.F., and Vermeulen, F.D.: "Heading Action Analyzed for Stabilization," Oil & Gas J. (July 30, 1984) 47-51. 14. Grupping, A.W., Luca, C.W.F., and Vermeulen, F.D.: "These Methods Can Eliminate or Control Annulus Heading, " Oil & Gas J. (July 30, 1984) 186-92. 15. Fitremann, J.M. and Vedrines, P.: "Non Steady Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipes and Gas-Lifted Wells," Proc., Second Inti. Conference on Multi- Phase Flow, London (June 19-21, 1985) 245-62. Appendix A-Inflow Response A decrease in the downhole tubing pressure will cause increased flow of both reservoir fluid and lift gas. If the flow of gas increases relatively more than the flow of liquid, the density of the fluid mixture decreases. This reduces the static head and the flow friction and thus may accentuate instabilities. On the other hand, if the density increases in response to decreasing pressure, both the static head and the flow friction will increase and the system will be stabi- lized by negative feedback. Thus, a criterion for stability becomes OPi F, =-<0 .................................... (A-I) OPli The density of the inflowing mixture is expressed by the amount of reservoir fluids and lift gas and by their respective densities: The change in density of the inflowing fluid mixture resulting from change (perturbation) of the inflow rates can be expressed mathematically by the differentiation of density equation: From Eq. A-3, it can be seen that the postulated stability criterion is fulftlled for Neglecting inflow transients, the flow of reservoir liquids is assumed proportional to the pressure difference between the reservoir and the well bottom: qft =Bftl(ji R -Pwj)' .............................. (A-5) Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988 The flow of lift gas can be described by the orifice equation for constant-temperature flow: ..................... (A-6) Assuming constant-temperature gas flow across the port implies a slight approximation because the gas may undergo some expansion cooling. As long as the pressure difference across the valve is small compared with the total pressure, this error will be negligible. The change in injection gas flow caused by a change in tubing pressure can be expressed mathematically by differentiation of Eq. A-6: oqgi = _ (EAi)2 . ................................ (A-7) Here, the conduit volume has been assumed large enough to prevent any significant pressure decrease. Decreasing conduit pressure would have an extra stabilizing effect, which is considered separately in Appendix B. With these derived expressions for the flow rates and their derivatives, the criterion for a stable inflow performance may be expressed as Bftl F,=----->l ........................... (A-8) qft (EAi)2 or, equivalently, in terms of pressures, 2Pt' In(p Ipt') F, = I CI I > 1. .......................... (A-9) PR-Pwj It is convenient to express the criterion in terms of surface flow rates: Fl = _1_ > 1. ..................... (A-tO) qLsc (EAJ2 Appendix B-Pressure-Depletlon Response Suppose that the system is unstable by the criterion derived in Ap- pendix A. Then a decrease in tubing pressure will cause increased inflow of lift gas. However, the increased inflow of lift gas will also deplete the gas conduit pressure. If the gas conduit pressure depletes faster than the tubing pressure, the gas flow rate will soon reverse to stabilize the flow: aqg/at<o . ..................................... (B-1) By the orifice equation (Eq. A-6), the requirement for decreasing flow is that the gas conduit/tubing pressure ratio decrease. Thus, the flow of lift gas decreases when p. -ap /at F2=--.!!... Cl > 1. ........................... (B-2) Pci -apti1at The change of gas conduit pressure is expressed by the general gas equation: apci zciRTci --=O(Wci-Wli)---' ........................ (B-3) at VcM 1455 The flow of gas into the gas conduit-gas volume-is assumed constant. The mass flow rate is converted to vQlume flow rates at tubing pressure to correspond with the parameter system used here: apci Pti TciZci --=----oqgi . .......................... (B-4) at Vc TtiZ ti With acceleration neglected, the tubing pressure can be described by a general momentum balance: Pti=Pwf+PagD+IlPf . ............................ (B-5) Consider a small change in input gas/liquid ratio. This will prop- agate as a continuity wave with no friction dampening. The pressure response to such a change is found by differentiation of the flow equation above. Assuming constant wellhead pressure and no friction dampening of the continuity wave in the tubing yields PPt apa - =gD- . .................................. (B-6) pt at To quantify the variation in tubing-averaged density, we may start from the continuity equation. Neglecting acceleration, the continuity equation becomes ap ap -+v-=O . .................................. (B-7) at ax Consider a step change in input fluid density. Until the corre- sponding continuity wave has propagated to the wellhead, the outflow fluid density will be as before. Then the average density variation can be derived from the continuity equation as above: apa qji+qgi -=---OPi' .............................. (B-8) at At 1456 By combining Eqs. B-6 and B-8 with Eqs. A-2 and A-4, we can express the pressure response of the tubing caused by a change in gas inflow as apti _ D Pji -Pgi qji (F I)" ---g ------ 1- uqgi' ............. (B-9) at V t qji -qgi The conduit pressure depletion criterion can now be expressed by combining Eqs. B-2, B-4, and B-9: PtiTciZci c= ==1. ............................... (B-Il) PciTtiZti The parameter C defined above is the gas volume factor between the gas conduit and the tubing. For all foreseeable cases, this will be close to unity. SI Metric Conversion Factors bbl x 1.589 873 E-OI ft x 3.048* E-Ol ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 gal x 3.785 412 E-03 in. x 2.54* E+OO Ibm x 4.535 924 E-Ol 'Conversion factor is exact. JPT Original SPE manuscript (SPE 16468) received for review Feb. 2.1987. Paper accepted for publication Oct. 20, 1987. Revised manuscript received Feb. 1, 1988. Journal of Petroleum Technology, November 1988
Hydraulic Tables; The Elements Of Gagings And The Friction Of Water Flowing In Pipes, Aqueducts, Sewers, Etc., As Determined By The Hazen And Williams Formula And The Flow Of Water Over The Sharp-Edged And Irregular Weirs, And The Quantity Discharged