Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235625460
CITATIONS
READS
849
3 authors:
Bassam Ali Jubran
Yousef Zurigat
Ryerson University
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Mattheus F A Goosen
Alfaisal University
176 PUBLICATIONS 5,314 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Y. H. Zurigat
University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
M. F. A. Goosen
School of Science and Technology, University of Turabo, Puerto Rico
Abstract: In this paper, recent work on drag reducing agents in single and multiphase
flow pipelines is reviewed. Focus is placed on theories of drag reduction, the influence
of drag reduction agent types, and hydrodynamic and heat transfer characteristics of
flows in the presence of drag reducing additives. Questions are raised, shortcomings
are assessed, and future research needs are outlined.
Keywords: drag reducing agents, heat transfer, multiphase flow, flow conditioner
INTRODUCTION
Drag reduction in pipe flow using polymeric drag reduction agents (DRAs)
is a problem of great practical engineering interest because DRAs reduce
pumping power and increase piping system capacity. DRAs have been used
in several engineering systems, such as district heating and cooling, oil production and transportation pipelines, and others. Its first commercial use was
in the 1.2 m diameter Trans-Alaskan Pipeline in 1979, where a 50% drag
reduction was achieved, thereby increasing the capacity of the pipeline from
1.45 to 2.1 MBPD (Burger et al., 1982). This resulted in eliminating the
need for installing two pumping stations, which were planned to achieve the
Received 4 March 2004; accepted 23 April 2004.
Address correspondence to B. A. Jubran, Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5B 2K3. E-mail:
bassamj@squ.edu.om
1403
1404
B. A. Jubran et al.
mentioned increase in capacity. Since that time, the DRAs have been used
in many petroleum product pipeline installations, such as the Iraq-Turkey oil
pipeline and Oseberg Field in the North Sea (Berge and Solvik, 1996). Thus,
the use of DRAs has the following advantages:
1. Increased pipeline capacity (throughput).
2. Savings in pumping power.
3. Pressure reduction with the associated reductions in pipe thickness and
pressure surge.
4. Reduction in pipe diameter in the design phase as well as the number or
size of pumping facilities.
The result of DRA application is a reduction in systems overall costs.
One further advantage of using drag reducing agents is that the DRAs can
be implemented immediately or temporarily, giving high operational flexibility. Typical dosage rates for 1030% flow improvement in oil pipelines are
12 ppm of polymer per injection site. Berge and Solvik (1996) found that
the required DRA-injection rates for multiphase flows were four times higher
than those needed for stabilized crude oil. This was attributed to the higher
shear degradation that resulted from the higher degree of flow turbulence
in the multiphase system. The performance of DRAs is measured using the
effectiveness defined by:
effectiveness () =
(1)
1405
Figure 3. Cost comparison of conventional gel-type DRA with new generation type
DRA.
1406
B. A. Jubran et al.
1407
Decreased turbulence
production
Molecular stretching
Visco-elasticity and
normal-stresses
Shear thinning
Theory
Description
(continued)
Originally it was speculated that near-wall-layer, by virtue of shear-thinning, may have extremely lower friction coefficient than pure
solvent. Later this theory was discounted since it was proved that shear-thinning friction is somewhat lower, but not nearly that of
drag-reduction friction.
This may well be the most unfortunate theory. Drag-reducing polymer solutions are viscoelastic and show the normal-stress differences,
but for concentrations extremely high by drag-reduction standards. Very dilute solutions do not exhibit any measurable elasticity, nor
change of viscosity from pure solvent, still they are very strong drag reducers. Also, viscoelastic, cross-linked polyacrylic acid
(Carbopol) solutions do not show any drag-reduction, except for shear-thinning effect. It may well be that viscoelasticity does not play
any major role in drag reduction, but is merely an accompanying property of some drag-reduction fluids. It is known that both
viscoelastic and non-elastic fluids may produce drag-reduction.
Greatly extended linear macromolecules in shear direction interfere with turbulence, providing a stiffening effect, thus reducing friction
drag. Others postulate that molecular entanglements are responsible for interfering with and enlarging the sublayer eddies. Some have
argued that macromolecules elastic properties and continuous deformation, like a yo-yo effect, are responsible for damping small
turbulent eddies, storing and recovering otherwise dissipated turbulent energy. However, for extremely dilute solutions it seems
unlikely that such a hypothesis could be valid.
Some researchers suggest that polymer additives interfere with the production of turbulence, and that the reduction phenomena are not
due to turbulence dissipation, but are driven by reduced generation of turbulence. Since the two have to be in balance, their roles may
be easily mistaken.
1408
Turbulence energy dissipation via finest eddies is greatly reduced (suppressed) by additives interference, to an extent equal to the
drag-reduction, while larger eddies and large-scale flow instability are present (still turbulent flow), but with different and more
favorable structure.
It is postulated that resistance to vortex stretching reduces the mixing and energy losses. It is further shown that dilute polymer solutions
may have thousands of times higher extensional viscosity than the steady-state viscosity, which may have a strong influence on
drag-reduction mechanism, believed to play a major role in a region just outside the laminar sublayer (5 < y + < 50).
Since viscosity is shear-rate dependent and the shear-rate is directional, the solution structure becomes anisotropic; hence viscosity
(including dynamic and higher-order stress coefficients) has to be anisotropic: for shear thinning fluids, it is lower in the flow
direction and higher in cross-flow directions, thus suppressing considerably the cross-flow fluctuating velocity components (especially
small-scale eddy fluctuations).
Turbulence is the wasteful dissipation of fluid energy via the finest turbulent eddies, thus it directly increases friction drag. Therefore,
drag reduction is a direct measure of partial flow laminarization. By definition, turbulence implies random fluctuations and energy
dissipation, otherwise flow instability will have some orderly secondary (and unsteady) flow patterns.
Description
Unanswered questions:
Does viscoelasticity have any direct relation with turbulent drag reduction?
Is influence of wall crucial since polymers may profoundly modify jets and free turbulence?
What is the influence on drag reduction of internal and external boundary layers and how can concepts be unified?
Why is Onset of drag reduction present with some but not all drag-reducing fluids?
Why do additives produce the maximum friction and heat-transfer reduction asymptotes, but cannot fully laminarize flow (Ultimate Drag Reduction)?
Why is the asymptotic heat-transfer reduction stronger and occurs for higher polymer concentration than friction drag?
Laminarization of
turbulent flow
Non-isotropic properties
and turbulence
Vortex stretching
Decreased turbulence
dissipation
Theory
Table 1. (Continued)
1409
Characteristic properties
High-polymers
Macromoleculeshigh-molecular weight (106 or higher), linear structure, with maximum extensivity, excellent solubility.
Polyethylene oxide (the best)
Polyisobutylene (oil-soluble)
Polyacrylamide
Carboxymethylcellulose
Soap and surfactant aggregates
Low-molecular-weight alkali-metal and ammonium soap molecules form aggregates or micelles in long-chains.
Fibers
Asbestos fibers are extremely long (hair-like). Nylon fibers are shorter (length-to-diameter ratio about 50). Wood pulp
Asbeston
suspensions in water reduce turbulent friction. Drag reduction is less in fiber-gas suspensions.
Nylon
Wood pulp
Solid-liquid particles
Pneumatic systems have higher flow rates when dust-laden than with clean air only. Suspension of thoria in water show drag
Thoria
reduction. Even droplets in gases reduce friction.
Sand and dust particles
Droplets in gases
Other natural sources
Natural gums (like guar), algae, and bacteria usually produce copious, high-molecular-weight polysaccharide.
Principal properties of drag-reducing additives
Extended length and/or sufficient mass (inertia) to interfere and suppress turbulent fluctuations, particularly transverse ones.
Rigidity and/or elasticity to suppress and absorb turbulent fluctuations.
Type of additive
1410
Other
Turbulence structure
Transition to turbulence
Entrance lengths
Heat transfer
Friction factor
High friction drag reduction for very small concentrations gives a friction reduction of 40%, which, with increase of polymer
concentration, reaches the limiting asymptotic value up to 80%.
Stronger heat-transfer reduction than friction drag reduction; over 90% of corresponding Newtonian values for the limiting asymptotic
case. Generally, this phenomenon is not useful, as in crude-oil pipelines. In contrast, heat transfer is increased in boiling and in
laminar flow through non-circular ducts.
Much longer than the corresponding Newtonian values, on the order of 100 and 500 hydraulic diameters for hydrodynamic and thermal
entrance lengths, respectively.
Smoother transition from laminar to turbulent flow, as opposed to abrupt transition of Newtonian fluids. Also, higher transitional
Reynolds number values (much higher than 2000, often 5000 or higher). In some cases the onset of drag-reduction is encountered.
Flatter velocity profiles (in central region) than the solvent alone. That is quite the opposite from the influence of pipe roughness on the
profile.
Fluctuating v velocity component is reduced, while axial component u is less affected; though some results are conflicting. Spacing
between large-scale slow-streaks is more than doubled, and time between the bursts (fluid lumps) ejected from the wall region is
increased ten-fold.
Cavitation is of a different character and is often greatly reduced. Extensional flows through porous media (an application in
enhanced-oil-recovery) and jet flows have different characteristics than in pure solvent. Several other behaviors of more-concentrated
polymer solutions, such as die-swell, Weissenberg rod-climbing effect, tubeless siphon, inverse secondary flow, etc. are markedly
different from Newtonian flows.
Characteristic phenomena
1411
1412
B. A. Jubran et al.
Figure 4. (a) Type A fan for collapsed conformation of B1120, in 0.3 N NaCL
(b) type B ladder for extended conformation of B1120, in 0.0003 N NaCl.
1413
1414
(Detergent)
Properties
GEM
Guargum (GM),
Xanthangum (XM),
Polyacrylamide (PAM),
Carboxymethylcellulose
(CMC), and asbestos
fiber (AF)
Oil soluble DRA
Modified CDR
CDR polymers
Horizontal 2.510 cm
diameter pipelines
Multiphase, oil/gas
Horizontal 10-cm
diameter pipeline
Horizontal-oil pipeline,
(field tests), diameter 8,
12, and 48-in
Water, single phase
Horizontal-oil pipeline,
(field tests), diameter 8,
12, and 48-in
Fluids
Horizontal-oil pipeline,
(field tests), diameter
48-in
Applications
10100 ppm
10500 ppm
20 and 50 ppm
2501500 ppm
5, 2%
10, 20%
5, 10, 20
Concentration
(ppm)
2346%
1423%
623%
Effectiveness
Reddy (1986)
References
1415
1416
B. A. Jubran et al.
1417
Vertical pipe
Vertical pipe
90%
50%
Horizontal pipe
6781%
Slug flow
Horizontal pipe
Horizontal pipe
42%
More than 40%
Pipe
inclination
Drag
effectiveness
Flow regime
Flow conditions
Reference
1418
B. A. Jubran et al.
used previously (2001). However, they found that compared with the large
diameter pipe, a larger concentration of polymer is required in the smaller
diameter pipe to achieve the maximum drag reduction (10 ppm in 9.53 cm
pipe and 30 ppm in 2.54 cm pipe). Differences in the resulting flow pattern
were also observed. At the large diameter pipe the resulting flow pattern was
stratified with smooth interface while at the smaller diameter pipe the pattern
was characterized by stratified-annular.
The study of Soleimani et al. (2002) investigated the effect of DRAs on
the transition form stratified to slug flow in a horizontal 2.54 cm pipe. It was
found that at gas superficial velocities greater than 4 m/s the DRAs delay
the transition to slug flow; i.e., transition occurs at larger liquid holdup. As
DRAs are added into a stratified flow, a higher thickness of the liquid layer
is required to initiate the slugging. In view of these findings, the addition
of DRAs to multiphase flow has potential in flow conditioning. In general,
limited work has been done on the role of DRAs as a flow conditioner and
more comprehensive work is needed.
Dass et al. (2000) reported a model to predict the components of pressure
drop in slug flow in a horizontal pipe. The aim of their work was to shed
light on the contributions of the frictional and acceleration components to
total pressure drop in horizontal slug flow in the presence of drag reducing
agents. The predicted and experimental results showed good agreement. The
DRA was active in reducing both components of the pressure drop. It was
found that the acceleration component was dominant and contributed more
than 80% of the total pressure. This increased significantly as the superficial
gas velocity was increased. Both components of the pressure were reduced
by 67% and 78% at DRA of 20 and 50 ppm, respectively. However, drag
reduction was decreased as the superficial gas velocity was increased. It is
interesting to note in their study that the drag reduction obtained was mainly
in the acceleration component, indicating that the DRA was effective in the
mixing zone of the slug flow. Fan and Hanratty (1993) developed a model to
predict the pressure drop across a stable slug flow. They treated the slug as a
hydraulic jump and assumed that the pressure change takes place at the rear
of the slug, where the change could be positive or negative.
Dukler and Hubbard (1975) developed a model to predict the frictional
and acceleration components of total slug pressure drop in an air-water system. The model assumed that the two phases within the slug body were
homogeneously mixed with negligible slip. The frictional component of the
pressure was predicted using an equation similar to that used in a single phase
flow after modifying the density of the mixture and the friction factor. The
acceleration contribution was found by assuming a stabilized slug flow body
that is receiving and losing mass at equal rates. The acceleration pressure drop
was then calculated from the force required to accelerate the liquid to slug
velocity. Vlachos and Karabelas (1999) investigated shear stress circumference in stratified flow. They used the momentum equations for both phases
to predict the liquid holdup, axial pressure gradient, and average liquid to
1419
wall shear stress, for the wavy stratified and stratified/atomization gas/liquid
flow in a horizontal pipe.
1420
B. A. Jubran et al.
Toh and Ghajar (1988) and Matthys (1991) observed that the thermal
entrance and hydrodynamic lengths for drag reducing solutions were more
than that observed for Newtonian fluid flow with values of more than 20 and
100 diameters, respectively.
Matthys (1991) carried out a comprehensive survey on the most important results and the current research needs of heat transfer, drag reduction,
and fluid characterization for turbulent flow of polymer solutions in pipes.
He investigated the problem of the reduction in convective heat transfer in
the presence of a drag reducing agent. It was pointed out that the reduction
produced by the addition of the agent was upset by the greater reduction produced in the convection heat transfer. He attributed the lack of investigations
on heat transfer of polymer solutions to the complexity of viscoelastic flows.
This required a more demanding experimental set up to accurately record the
data. Matthys (1991) indicated the availability of macroscopic and correlation work for purely viscous non-Newtonian fluids, but not for viscoelastic
non-Newtonian fluids that cover flows with drag reduction agents.
Gasljevic and Matthys (1991) investigated the thermal and hydrodynamic
characteristics of drag-reducing surfactant solutions in the entry region of the
pipe, as well as after fittings. In addition, they provided an excellent literature
review on the subject. It was reported that for surfactant solutions the friction
coefficient and the Nusselt number were varying at the same rate beyond 300
diameters. Heat transfer downstream of an elbow tended to increase over that
obtained for fully developed flow, but it did not degrade the fluid.
Gasljevic et al. (1993) conducted a comprehensive experimental investigation on the performance of various types of heat exchangers in the presence
of drag reducing surfactants in the working fluid. The working fluid used was
a solution of 2300 ppm of Ethoquad T/13 and 2000 ppm of NaSal in deionized
water. Pressure and heat transfer measurements were taken at an operating
temperature in the range of 312319 K and fluid velocities of 0.23 m/s.
They compared their results with those obtained when tap water was used as
the working fluid and concluded that the thermal and hydrodynamic characteristics are very much dependent on the geometry and flow conditions in the
heat exchanger. It was also noted that a significant drag reduction could be
achieved in heat exchangers with little penalty in the heat transfer process.
Gasljevic and Matthys (1993, 1991) reported an investigation to explore
the use of surfactant drag reducing additives to reduce the pumping power
in hydronic heating and cooling systems. Various issues were investigated,
namely the matching of the additives with system characteristics, drag reduction in fittings and valves, and the heat transfer process in the presence of
reduction agents. It was concluded that the use of drag reducing agents in
heating and cooling systems can be implemented at a small cost and would
lead to significant energy savings.
Kostic (1994) carried out a critical review on turbulent drag, heat transfer
reduction phenomena, and laminar heat transfer enhancement in non-circular
duct flow of non-Newtonian fluids. The review outlined peculiar behaviors
1421
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper has highlighted research conducted on drag reduction in single and
multiphase flows with particular reference to the oil industry. It has examined
work related to theories of drag reduction, the influence of drag reduction
types, and hydrodynamic and heat transfer characteristics of the flows in the
presence of a drag reducing agent. Moreover, it has raised questions and
shortcomings that need answers, as well as pin-pointing potential areas that
need further research.
Drag reduction phenomena and theories related to multiphase flow are
still far from being well understood. More work is needed in the areas of
shear degradation, and the effect of wax content, water cut, and pipe inclination on the performance of drag reduction in smooth and perforated pipes
with emphases on oil wells. Most of the work carried out on the performance
of horizontal wells consider only the friction component of the total pressure
without taking into consideration the acceleration component. Limited work
has been done on the role of drag reducing agents as a flow conditioner, especially for large pipe inclinations with a high water cut. Further fundamental,
experimental, and analytical investigations are needed to better understand
the heat and hydrodynamic processes associated with drag reduction in single and multiphase flows, since the Reynolds and Colburn analogies are not
valid for drag reducing fluids.
REFERENCES
Al-Sarkhi, A., and Hanratty, T. J. (2001). Effect of drag-reducing polymer
on annular gas-liquid flow in horizontal pipe. Int. J. Multiphase Flow
27:11511162.
1422
B. A. Jubran et al.
Al-Sarkhi, A., and Hanratty, T. J. (2001a). Effect of pipe diameter on the performance of drag-reducing polymers in annular gas-liquid flows. Trans
IChemE Part A 79:402408.
Berge, B. K., and Solvik, O. (1996). Increased pipeline throughput using drag
reducer additives (DRA): Field experiences. SPE 36835, 203208.
Bewersdorff, H., and Berman, N. A. (1987). Effect of roughness on drag
reduction for commercially smooth pipes. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 24:365370.
Burger, E. D., Munk, W. R., and Wahl, H. A. (1980). Flow increase in the trans
Alaska pipeline using a polymeric drag reducing additive. 55th Annual
Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Dallas, Texas, Sept. 2124, SPE 9419.
Burger, E. D., Munk, W. R., and Wahl, H. A. (1982). Flow increase in trans
Alaska pipeline through use of polymeric drag-reducing additive. JPT
377386.
Cho, Y. I., and Hartnett, J. P. (1982). Heat transfer in flows with drag reduction. Adv. Heat Transfer 15:59139.
Choi, U. S., and Kasza K. E. (1989). Long-term degradation of dilute polyachrylamide solutions in turbulent pipe flow. Drag Reduction in Fluid
Flows, Ellis Horwood Limited, 163169.
Dass, M., Kang, C., and Jepson W. P. (2000). Quantitative analysis of drag
reduction in horizontal slug flow. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 14 October, SPE 62944.
Derrule, P. M., and Sabersky, R. H. (1974). Heat transfer and friction coefficient in smooth and rough tubes with dilute polymer solutions. Int. J.
Heat and Mass Transfer 17:529540.
Dikken, B. J. (1990). Pressure drop in horizontal wells and its effects on
production performance. JPT 14261433.
Dimant, Y., and Poreh, M. (1976). Heat transfer in flows with drag reduction.
Adv. Heat Transfer 12:77113.
Dukler, A. E., and Hubbard, M. G. (1975). A model for gas-liquid slug flow
in horizontal and near horizontal tubes. Ind. Chem. Fundam. 14(4).
Fan, Z., and Hanratty, T. J. (1993). Pressure profiles for slug flow in horizontal
pipelines. J. Multiphase Flow 19(3):421430.
Gasljevic, K., and Matthys, E. F. (1991). Feasibility study of the use of
drag-reducing additives to reduce pumping power in hydronic thermal
distribution systems. Winter Annual Meeting of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers ASME, Fluids Engineering Division, FED, 132:
5765.
Gasljevic, K., and Matthys, E. F. (1993). Saving power in hydronic thermal
distribution systems through the use of drag-reducing additives. J. Energy
and Buildings 20(1):4556.
Gasljevic, K., and Matthys, E. F. (1994). Hydrodynamic and thermal field
development in the pipe entry region for turbulent flow of drag-reducing
surfactant solutions. Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engi-
1423
1424
B. A. Jubran et al.
Matthys, E. F. (1991). Heat transfer, drag reduction, and fluid characterization for turbulent flow of polymer solutions: Recent results and research
needs. J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics 38:313342.
Matthys, E. F., Ahn, H., and Sabersky, R. H. (1987). Friction and heat transfer measurements for clay suspensions with polymer additives. ASME
Transactions, J. Fluids Eng. 109:307312.
Matthys, E. F., and Sabersky, R. H. (1987). Friction and heat transfer study of
a discontinuously shear-thickening antimisting polymer solution. J. NonNewtonian Fluid Mech. 25:177196.
Mizunuma, H., Ueda, K., and Yokouchi, Y. (1996). Synergistic effects in
turbulent drag reduction by riblets and polymer additives. FED-Vol. 237,
Fluids Engineering Conference, 2 ASME.
Reddy, G. V. (1986). Drag reduction by polymers in recirculatory flow. Chem.
Eng. World 6:7378.
Rosehart, R. G., Scott, D. S., and Rhodes, E. (1972). Gas liquid slug flow
with drag-reducing polymer solutions. AIChE Journal 18:744750.
Sellin, R. H., and Ollis, M. (1983). Effect of pipe diameter on polymer drag
reduction. Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev. 22:445452.
Sitaramaiah, G., and Smith, C. L. (1969). Turbulent drag reduction by polyacrylamide and other polymers. SPE paper 2405.
Soleimani, A., Al-Sarkhi, A., and Hanratty, T. J. (2002). Effect of dragreducing polymers on pseudo-slugs-interfacial drag and transition to slug
flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 28:19111927.
Su, Z., and Gudmundsson, J. S. (1994). Pressure drop in perforated pipes:
Experiments and analysis. SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference,
Melbourne, Australia, 710 November, SPE 28800.
Toh, K. H., and Ghajar A. J. (1988). Heat transfer in the thermal entrance
region for viscoelastic fluids in turbulent pipe flow. Int. J. Heat and Mass
Transfer 31(6):12611267.
Virk, P. S. (1975a). Drag reduction fundamentals. AIChE Journal 21:625
656.
Virk, P. S. (1975b). Drag reduction by collapsed and extended polyelectrolytes. Nature 253:109111.
Virk, P. S., Sherman D. C., and Wagger, D. L. (1997). Additive equivalence
during turbulent drag reduction. AIChE Journal 43(12):32573258.
Vlachos, P., and Karabelas, P. (1999). Predictions of holdup, axial pressure
gradient and wall shear stress in wavy stratified and stratified/atomization
gas/liquid flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 25:365372.
Wahl, H. A., Beaty W. R., Dopper J. G., and Hass G. R. (1982). Drag reducer increases oil pipeline flow rates. Offshore South East Asia 1982
Conference, 912 February, Singapore.
Yoo, S. S., Hwang, T. S., Eum, C. S., and Bae, S. C. (1993). Turbulent heat
transfer of polyacrylamide solutions in the thermal entrance region of
circular tube flows. Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer 36(2):365370.