- Email: [email protected]
Chapter 9 Flow Loops for Validating and Testing Multiphase Flow Meters
CHAPTER 9
Flow Loops for Validating and Testing Multiphase Flow Meters
The need to validate and test multiphase flow meterings (MFMs) and to assess their range of applicability has caused a significant rise in the number of multiphase flow loops around the world. These facilities are operated by academic organisations, independent research centres or individual companies. In a few special cases for the oil and gas sector, the flow loops use real hydrocarbon fluids and operate under actual field conditions. Flow loops provide measurements of different fluid phases, for a wide range of pressure and temperature, under controlled experimental conditions. They can also be configured in various ways to reflect different pipe geometries, inclinations and diameters. Thus, flow loops are used intensively to test and validate the performance of MFM’s, but there are limits to what can be achieved. For example, due to the numerous varieties of multiphase flow depending on operating conditions, fluids and flow regimes, it is impossible for a single flow loop to be capable of representing all possible situations. Another limitation is that the real conditions encountered in the field tend to be very different from those recreated in the research facility, even when the range of experiments in a particular flow loop is thought to be sufficiently exhaustive for a specific study area. This chapter attempts to review all the major facilities around the world that provide a broad range of operating conditions for testing MFMs.
9.1. Using Flow Loops to Verify the Performance of MFMs There are a few accepted standards for evaluating the performance of multiphase flow and wet gas meters for oil and gas applications, but, as yet, no International Regulations exists. At present, the following options are available to the industry for the verification of a meter’s performance: Testing is carried out at the manufacturer’s own test facilities (‘factory test’). The aim of the test is to ensure that the meter performs satisfactorily prior to delivery to the field site. The test should include testing of software and hardware to verify the full functionality of all instrumentation, and be performed with the meter assembled as per final installation (Corneliussen et al., 2005). The factory test is often limited to 295
296
Using Flow Loops to Verify the Performance of MFMs
a static calibration of the meter, while the dynamic calibration of the meter performance versus reference instrumentation is usually carried out in third-party flow loops. Testing is carried out in a third-party independent laboratory facility. Here, the advantage is that of working with stabilised fluids of known pressure–volume–temperature (PVT) properties and accurate reference metering. Depending on the flow envelope that can be covered by the calibration facility, a test matrix can be set up to verify the MFMs under different operating conditions. Testing is carried out in field flow loops, such as Petrobras’ Atalaia field in Brazil (Marruaz et al., 2001) and the K-lab at StatoilHydro’s Kaarstoe gas terminal (StatoilHydro, 2009), that allow controlled flow tests with real fluids. Testing is carried out in the field (where the meter is to be installed) by the end user, usually against conventional test separators. Some MFMs may require an in situ static calibration using actual well fluids before a dynamic verification can be performed (Corneliussen et al., 2005). In summary, the initial testing of a meter is usually carried out in the manufacturer’s factory first, then in specialised laboratories where two- or three-phase flows can be established. In this type of testing, fluids with well-known properties are used (e.g. water, air, synthetic oil or stabilised crude oil) and flow rates are controlled (corresponding to fixed gas and water fractions), which greatly reduces and even eliminates many uncertainties. This initial step defines the operational envelope of the meter and its measurement errors. The laboratory testing is then followed by field trials, which are required to identify potential operational problems, but may introduce more sources of error. These can be due to different upstream conditions (small variations in facilities layout may change the history of the flow), using real fluids instead of laboratory fluids of known properties, and the need for fluid property correlations to reconcile reference measurements with the meter readings taken at field operating conditions. Typically, the results of a field trial indicate the presence of error compensation. Whatever the testing and verification environment is, the issue remains of comparing the flow rates predicted by the meter with those taken as reference measurements at the separator (in the case of field testing) or with conventional single-phase metering devices (in the case of laboratory testing). The results of calibrations are only as accurate as the reference measurements provided by the calibration facility (Corneliussen et al., 2005). When evaluating the results of a calibration campaign, the uncertainty of the reference measurements must be accounted for. Flow loops used to verify and calibrate MFM’s have either vertical or horizontal (or both) test sections in order to accommodate some or all of
Flow Loops for Validating and Testing Multiphase Flow Meters
297
the possible metering configurations. Some loops have been specifically designed for testing at high gas volume fraction (GVF), while other are being built for heavy oil metering. Each facility has its own specifications in terms of operating pressure and temperature, phase flow rates, fluid properties, pipe diameter, length of the test section and available instrumentation and equipment (Falcone et al., 2008).
9.2. Main Criteria for the Classification of Flow Loops As no single flow loop has the capability to represent all possible multiphase flow situations, it is usual practice to build a flow loop to meet a specific need or to mimic a particular process. However, it is evident that some aspects of the design of multiphase flow loop facilities do recur, such as choice of materials and fluids. For example, low-pressure flow loops tend to have pipes made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) with special test sections made of Perspex or transparent PVC to allow visual identification of flow patterns and regimes. It is also usual for high-pressure facilities to be constructed from carbon steel or stainless steel pipe work, which leads to a requirement for inhibitors to be added to the test fluids in order to protect against corrosion. With regards to the type of fluids used for multiphase flow experiments, water and air are the most used, but stabilised oil, kerosene and nitrogen have become more commonplace for studies related to oil and gas applications. All operators of flow loops adopt similar choices of equipment (e.g. valve, compressors and pumps) and instrumentation (e.g. pressure transducers and hold-up measurement systems). Each facility can be identified according to total reported length, maximum working diameter, inclination, operating pressure, length of test section and type of fluid. Table 9.1 summarises a selection of worldwide flow loops based on flow direction, test fluids, pipe diameter, total length and maximum operating pressure. The maximum length of a flow loop affects the development of the different flow regimes that may enter the MFM being tested. Typically, wells used in hydrocarbon fields are orders of magnitude longer than the flow tubes used in laboratory experiments. However, as experiments on actual wells are difficult to perform, it is customary to assume that the conditions for flow pattern transitions are similar to those observed in the much shorter flow loops. Changes in pipe inclination and flow direction also affect the nature of the flow generated within the system (as discussed in Chapter 1). Although some flow loops can be hundreds of metres long, the section of pipe where tests are performed is just a few metres in length.
298
Table 9.1 Notation
A selection of worldwide flow loops and corresponding key specifications (as reported in the open literature) Flow Direction
IFE (Institute for Energy Horizontal & vertical Technology, Norway, Well Flow Loop) TUSTP1 (The University Horizontal & vertical of Tulsa, US, ThreePhase Flow Loop) TUSTP2 (The University Hilly of Tulsa, US, TwoPhase Flow Loop)
Diameter [mm]
Max Pressure [bar]
Nitrogen, naphtha, diesel and lube oil
101.6–304.8
90
1000
SINTEF (2009)
Natural gas, nitrogen, crude oil, condensate, refined liquid Water, oil and gas
25.4–406.4
75
N/A
SwRI (2009)
10
15
IFE (2009)
Modular sections
TUSTP (2009)
Modular sections
TUSTP (2009)
101.6
Mineral oil, water and air
50.8–101.6
Air and water
50.8–76.2
N/A
8.3
Length [m]
Ref.
Main Criteria for the Classification of Flow Loops
Horizontal & SINTEF (SINTEF vertical Petroleum Research, Norway, Large-Scale Flow Loop) Horizontal & SwRI (South West vertical Research Institute, US, High-Pressure Loop)
Fluids
Horizontal & vertical
Gas, oil, refined oil and water
Horizontal
Nitrogen and kerosene
Vertical
K-Lab (Statoil, Norway)
25.4–152
10
50 horizontal, NEL (2008) 10 vertical
152
63
N/A
NEL (2008)
Air, BP-7269 lubricating oil and water
108.2
25
10.5
Blaney and Yeung (2008)
Horizontal
Gas, oil and water
101.6
100
300 ft
Richardson (1999)
Horizontal
Gas, oil and water
152
45
200
Horizontal
Natural gas, condensate and water
N/A
135
N/A
Marruaz et al. (2001) StatoilHydro (2009)
Flow Loops for Validating and Testing Multiphase Flow Meters
NEL (National Engineering Laboratory, UK, Multiphase Flow Facility) NEL (National Engineering Laboratory, UK, Wet Gas Test Facility) CRAN (Cranfield University, UK, Multiphase Flow Test Facility) CEESI (Colorado Engineering Experiment Station, US, Wet Gas Test Facility) Atalaia (Petrobras, Brazil)
299
300
Main Criteria for the Classification of Flow Loops
With a 1000-m long flow line and a 55-m high vertical riser, the SINTEF large scale facility is currently the biggest facility of its kind in the world (SINTEF, 2009). A flow loop’s operating pressure is a key parameter when attempting to mimic real multiphase flow phenomena and especially so when compressible fluids are involved, as density variations with pressure are non-negligible. The magnitude of absolute operating pressure, pressure drop in the pipe and pipe length all have an impact on the type of flow regime that can be developed. If the test section of a flow loop is constructed from Perspex or PVC, then the maximum pressure at which that particular flow loop can be safely operated is limited to approximately 10 bar, depending on the pipe thickness. Approximately one half of the flow loops in use today operate under this working pressure limit. The range of flow regimes that can be reproduced in a flow loop is related to the flow rates that can be circulated within the system. The maximum flow rates are often expressed in terms of phase superficial velocity, which is the velocity that a given phase would have if it were flowing alone in the pipe. However, this does not provide an indication of how the phase superficial velocities vary in relation to different phase fractions to establish specific flow regimes. This information can be promptly obtained from flow regime maps and flow envelopes (an example of the latter is reported in Figure 9.1) drawn for the specific test loop. Knowing what flow patterns a test loop can reproduce is very important because, to some extent, all MFMs are affected by the flow regime passing through.
Liquid mass flux (kg/m2/s)
2500
2000 Pressure
1500
1000
1.2bar
3bar
500
5bar
0 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Gas mass flux (kg/m2/s)
Figure 9.1 Example of experimental phase envelope for air–water flow (Watson and Hewitt, 1999).
Flow Loops for Validating and Testing Multiphase Flow Meters
301
9.3. Instrumentation Key flow parameters must be measured during the multiphase flow tests in a flow loop in order to permit the verification of the performance of MFMs. Flow loops are therefore equipped with ad hoc sensors and measuring devices to record key variables such as phase hold-up, temperature, absolute pressure and differential pressure, together with the measurement of the reference flow rates. Each measuring device can be characterised by its accuracy, rangeability and repeatability (see Chapter 5 for these definitions), and most sensors perform well under steady-state flow conditions. However, these instruments cannot provide reliable information under fast transient conditions, which also affect the accuracy of MFMs (see Chapter 5).
9.4. Future Needs Despite the significant amount of flow loops around the world that can be used for testing and verification of MFMs, there are specialist areas that cannot be fully assessed in a laboratory environment as yet. Test facilities dedicated exclusively to wet gas metering have already been built and the same can be said for loops dedicated to the investigation of flow assurance issues, which can affect the performance of an MFM (see the Marathon Hydrate Assurance Loop at Tulsa University, the Multiphase Corrosion Flow Loop at the Ohio University and CEESI Hydrates flow loop, for example). However, there is less choice for the verification of MFM’s with heavy oil mixtures, or with fluid mixtures carrying sand, or with high-pressure high-temperature hydrocarbons remains unavailable. The Alberta Research Council already offers a facility for the investigation of niche flows, such as that if heavy oil slurries, which could result from cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS) developments, as discussed in Chapter 7. The facility can run with either a 101.6 mm or a 203.2 mm diameter straight pipe section, solid load up to 30% by volume, superficial velocity up to 6 m/sec and temperature between 20 and 801C (ARC, 2009).
REFERENCES ARC, 2009. Available at: http://www.arc.ab.ca/areas-of-focus/technical-and-testingservices/advanced-materials/advanced-materials-facilities/#slurry_flow_loop Blaney, S. and Yeung, H., 2008. Investigation of the exploitation of a fast-sampling single gamma densitometer and pattern recognition to resolve the superficial phase
302
References
velocities and liquid phase water cut of vertically upward multiphase flows. Flow Meas. Instrum., 19: 57–66. Corneliussen, S., Couput, J., Dahl, E., Dykesteen, E., Frøysa, K., Malde, E., Moestue, H., Moksnes, P. O., Scheers, L. and Tunheim, H., 2005. Handbook of Multiphase Flow Metering, Revision 2, The Norwegian Society for Oil and Gas Measurement and The Norwegian Society of Chartered Technical and Scientific Professionals, March 2005. Falcone, G., Teodoriu, C., Reinicke, K. M. and Bello, O. O., 2008. Multiphase-flow modeling based on experimental testing: an overview of research facilities worldwide and the need for future developments. SPE Proj. Fac. & Constr., 3(3): 1–10. SPE-110 116-PA. IFE, 2009. Available at: http://www.ife.no/laboratories/well_flow_loop/index_html-en/ view?set_language ¼ en&cl ¼ en Marruaz, K. S., Gonc- alves, M. L. A., Gaspari, E., Ribeiro, G. S., Franc- a, F. A. and Rosa, E. S., 2001. Horizontal slug flow in a large-size pipeline: experimentation and modeling 4. Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Mecanicas/J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci., 23: 481–490. NEL, 2008. Available at: http://www.flowprogramme.co.uk/facilities/default.asp Richardson, B., 1999. Colorado facility advances natural gas measurement. Pipeline Gas J., 226(7): 22. SINTEF, 2009. Available at: http://www.sintef.no/Home/Petroleum-and-Energy/ SINTEF-Petroleum-Research/Wellstream-Technology/Laboratories/The-Large-ScaleFlow-Loop/ StatoilHydro, 2009. Available at: http://www.statoilhydro.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/ TechnologyManagement/ResearchCentres/Porsgrunn/Pages/K-labK%C3%A5rst% C3%B8.aspx SwRI, 2009. Available at: http://www.mrf.swri.org/ TUSTP, 2009. Available at: http://www.tustp.org/research_facilities.html Watson, M. J. and Hewitt, G. F., 1999. Pressure effects on the slug to churn transition. Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 25: 1225–1241.
Flow Loops for Validating and Testing Multiphase Flow Meters
The need to validate and test multiphase flow meterings (MFMs) and to assess their range of applicability has caused a significant rise in the number of multiphase flow loops around the world. These facilities are operated by academic organisations, independent research centres or individual companies. In a few special cases for the oil and gas sector, the flow loops use real hydrocarbon fluids and operate under actual field conditions. Flow loops provide measurements of different fluid phases, for a wide range of pressure and temperature, under controlled experimental conditions. They can also be configured in various ways to reflect different pipe geometries, inclinations and diameters. Thus, flow loops are used intensively to test and validate the performance of MFM’s, but there are limits to what can be achieved. For example, due to the numerous varieties of multiphase flow depending on operating conditions, fluids and flow regimes, it is impossible for a single flow loop to be capable of representing all possible situations. Another limitation is that the real conditions encountered in the field tend to be very different from those recreated in the research facility, even when the range of experiments in a particular flow loop is thought to be sufficiently exhaustive for a specific study area. This chapter attempts to review all the major facilities around the world that provide a broad range of operating conditions for testing MFMs.
9.1. Using Flow Loops to Verify the Performance of MFMs There are a few accepted standards for evaluating the performance of multiphase flow and wet gas meters for oil and gas applications, but, as yet, no International Regulations exists. At present, the following options are available to the industry for the verification of a meter’s performance: Testing is carried out at the manufacturer’s own test facilities (‘factory test’). The aim of the test is to ensure that the meter performs satisfactorily prior to delivery to the field site. The test should include testing of software and hardware to verify the full functionality of all instrumentation, and be performed with the meter assembled as per final installation (Corneliussen et al., 2005). The factory test is often limited to 295
296
Using Flow Loops to Verify the Performance of MFMs
a static calibration of the meter, while the dynamic calibration of the meter performance versus reference instrumentation is usually carried out in third-party flow loops. Testing is carried out in a third-party independent laboratory facility. Here, the advantage is that of working with stabilised fluids of known pressure–volume–temperature (PVT) properties and accurate reference metering. Depending on the flow envelope that can be covered by the calibration facility, a test matrix can be set up to verify the MFMs under different operating conditions. Testing is carried out in field flow loops, such as Petrobras’ Atalaia field in Brazil (Marruaz et al., 2001) and the K-lab at StatoilHydro’s Kaarstoe gas terminal (StatoilHydro, 2009), that allow controlled flow tests with real fluids. Testing is carried out in the field (where the meter is to be installed) by the end user, usually against conventional test separators. Some MFMs may require an in situ static calibration using actual well fluids before a dynamic verification can be performed (Corneliussen et al., 2005). In summary, the initial testing of a meter is usually carried out in the manufacturer’s factory first, then in specialised laboratories where two- or three-phase flows can be established. In this type of testing, fluids with well-known properties are used (e.g. water, air, synthetic oil or stabilised crude oil) and flow rates are controlled (corresponding to fixed gas and water fractions), which greatly reduces and even eliminates many uncertainties. This initial step defines the operational envelope of the meter and its measurement errors. The laboratory testing is then followed by field trials, which are required to identify potential operational problems, but may introduce more sources of error. These can be due to different upstream conditions (small variations in facilities layout may change the history of the flow), using real fluids instead of laboratory fluids of known properties, and the need for fluid property correlations to reconcile reference measurements with the meter readings taken at field operating conditions. Typically, the results of a field trial indicate the presence of error compensation. Whatever the testing and verification environment is, the issue remains of comparing the flow rates predicted by the meter with those taken as reference measurements at the separator (in the case of field testing) or with conventional single-phase metering devices (in the case of laboratory testing). The results of calibrations are only as accurate as the reference measurements provided by the calibration facility (Corneliussen et al., 2005). When evaluating the results of a calibration campaign, the uncertainty of the reference measurements must be accounted for. Flow loops used to verify and calibrate MFM’s have either vertical or horizontal (or both) test sections in order to accommodate some or all of
Flow Loops for Validating and Testing Multiphase Flow Meters
297
the possible metering configurations. Some loops have been specifically designed for testing at high gas volume fraction (GVF), while other are being built for heavy oil metering. Each facility has its own specifications in terms of operating pressure and temperature, phase flow rates, fluid properties, pipe diameter, length of the test section and available instrumentation and equipment (Falcone et al., 2008).
9.2. Main Criteria for the Classification of Flow Loops As no single flow loop has the capability to represent all possible multiphase flow situations, it is usual practice to build a flow loop to meet a specific need or to mimic a particular process. However, it is evident that some aspects of the design of multiphase flow loop facilities do recur, such as choice of materials and fluids. For example, low-pressure flow loops tend to have pipes made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) with special test sections made of Perspex or transparent PVC to allow visual identification of flow patterns and regimes. It is also usual for high-pressure facilities to be constructed from carbon steel or stainless steel pipe work, which leads to a requirement for inhibitors to be added to the test fluids in order to protect against corrosion. With regards to the type of fluids used for multiphase flow experiments, water and air are the most used, but stabilised oil, kerosene and nitrogen have become more commonplace for studies related to oil and gas applications. All operators of flow loops adopt similar choices of equipment (e.g. valve, compressors and pumps) and instrumentation (e.g. pressure transducers and hold-up measurement systems). Each facility can be identified according to total reported length, maximum working diameter, inclination, operating pressure, length of test section and type of fluid. Table 9.1 summarises a selection of worldwide flow loops based on flow direction, test fluids, pipe diameter, total length and maximum operating pressure. The maximum length of a flow loop affects the development of the different flow regimes that may enter the MFM being tested. Typically, wells used in hydrocarbon fields are orders of magnitude longer than the flow tubes used in laboratory experiments. However, as experiments on actual wells are difficult to perform, it is customary to assume that the conditions for flow pattern transitions are similar to those observed in the much shorter flow loops. Changes in pipe inclination and flow direction also affect the nature of the flow generated within the system (as discussed in Chapter 1). Although some flow loops can be hundreds of metres long, the section of pipe where tests are performed is just a few metres in length.
298
Table 9.1 Notation
A selection of worldwide flow loops and corresponding key specifications (as reported in the open literature) Flow Direction
IFE (Institute for Energy Horizontal & vertical Technology, Norway, Well Flow Loop) TUSTP1 (The University Horizontal & vertical of Tulsa, US, ThreePhase Flow Loop) TUSTP2 (The University Hilly of Tulsa, US, TwoPhase Flow Loop)
Diameter [mm]
Max Pressure [bar]
Nitrogen, naphtha, diesel and lube oil
101.6–304.8
90
1000
SINTEF (2009)
Natural gas, nitrogen, crude oil, condensate, refined liquid Water, oil and gas
25.4–406.4
75
N/A
SwRI (2009)
10
15
IFE (2009)
Modular sections
TUSTP (2009)
Modular sections
TUSTP (2009)
101.6
Mineral oil, water and air
50.8–101.6
Air and water
50.8–76.2
N/A
8.3
Length [m]
Ref.
Main Criteria for the Classification of Flow Loops
Horizontal & SINTEF (SINTEF vertical Petroleum Research, Norway, Large-Scale Flow Loop) Horizontal & SwRI (South West vertical Research Institute, US, High-Pressure Loop)
Fluids
Horizontal & vertical
Gas, oil, refined oil and water
Horizontal
Nitrogen and kerosene
Vertical
K-Lab (Statoil, Norway)
25.4–152
10
50 horizontal, NEL (2008) 10 vertical
152
63
N/A
NEL (2008)
Air, BP-7269 lubricating oil and water
108.2
25
10.5
Blaney and Yeung (2008)
Horizontal
Gas, oil and water
101.6
100
300 ft
Richardson (1999)
Horizontal
Gas, oil and water
152
45
200
Horizontal
Natural gas, condensate and water
N/A
135
N/A
Marruaz et al. (2001) StatoilHydro (2009)
Flow Loops for Validating and Testing Multiphase Flow Meters
NEL (National Engineering Laboratory, UK, Multiphase Flow Facility) NEL (National Engineering Laboratory, UK, Wet Gas Test Facility) CRAN (Cranfield University, UK, Multiphase Flow Test Facility) CEESI (Colorado Engineering Experiment Station, US, Wet Gas Test Facility) Atalaia (Petrobras, Brazil)
299
300
Main Criteria for the Classification of Flow Loops
With a 1000-m long flow line and a 55-m high vertical riser, the SINTEF large scale facility is currently the biggest facility of its kind in the world (SINTEF, 2009). A flow loop’s operating pressure is a key parameter when attempting to mimic real multiphase flow phenomena and especially so when compressible fluids are involved, as density variations with pressure are non-negligible. The magnitude of absolute operating pressure, pressure drop in the pipe and pipe length all have an impact on the type of flow regime that can be developed. If the test section of a flow loop is constructed from Perspex or PVC, then the maximum pressure at which that particular flow loop can be safely operated is limited to approximately 10 bar, depending on the pipe thickness. Approximately one half of the flow loops in use today operate under this working pressure limit. The range of flow regimes that can be reproduced in a flow loop is related to the flow rates that can be circulated within the system. The maximum flow rates are often expressed in terms of phase superficial velocity, which is the velocity that a given phase would have if it were flowing alone in the pipe. However, this does not provide an indication of how the phase superficial velocities vary in relation to different phase fractions to establish specific flow regimes. This information can be promptly obtained from flow regime maps and flow envelopes (an example of the latter is reported in Figure 9.1) drawn for the specific test loop. Knowing what flow patterns a test loop can reproduce is very important because, to some extent, all MFMs are affected by the flow regime passing through.
Liquid mass flux (kg/m2/s)
2500
2000 Pressure
1500
1000
1.2bar
3bar
500
5bar
0 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Gas mass flux (kg/m2/s)
Figure 9.1 Example of experimental phase envelope for air–water flow (Watson and Hewitt, 1999).
Flow Loops for Validating and Testing Multiphase Flow Meters
301
9.3. Instrumentation Key flow parameters must be measured during the multiphase flow tests in a flow loop in order to permit the verification of the performance of MFMs. Flow loops are therefore equipped with ad hoc sensors and measuring devices to record key variables such as phase hold-up, temperature, absolute pressure and differential pressure, together with the measurement of the reference flow rates. Each measuring device can be characterised by its accuracy, rangeability and repeatability (see Chapter 5 for these definitions), and most sensors perform well under steady-state flow conditions. However, these instruments cannot provide reliable information under fast transient conditions, which also affect the accuracy of MFMs (see Chapter 5).
9.4. Future Needs Despite the significant amount of flow loops around the world that can be used for testing and verification of MFMs, there are specialist areas that cannot be fully assessed in a laboratory environment as yet. Test facilities dedicated exclusively to wet gas metering have already been built and the same can be said for loops dedicated to the investigation of flow assurance issues, which can affect the performance of an MFM (see the Marathon Hydrate Assurance Loop at Tulsa University, the Multiphase Corrosion Flow Loop at the Ohio University and CEESI Hydrates flow loop, for example). However, there is less choice for the verification of MFM’s with heavy oil mixtures, or with fluid mixtures carrying sand, or with high-pressure high-temperature hydrocarbons remains unavailable. The Alberta Research Council already offers a facility for the investigation of niche flows, such as that if heavy oil slurries, which could result from cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS) developments, as discussed in Chapter 7. The facility can run with either a 101.6 mm or a 203.2 mm diameter straight pipe section, solid load up to 30% by volume, superficial velocity up to 6 m/sec and temperature between 20 and 801C (ARC, 2009).
REFERENCES ARC, 2009. Available at: http://www.arc.ab.ca/areas-of-focus/technical-and-testingservices/advanced-materials/advanced-materials-facilities/#slurry_flow_loop Blaney, S. and Yeung, H., 2008. Investigation of the exploitation of a fast-sampling single gamma densitometer and pattern recognition to resolve the superficial phase
302
References
velocities and liquid phase water cut of vertically upward multiphase flows. Flow Meas. Instrum., 19: 57–66. Corneliussen, S., Couput, J., Dahl, E., Dykesteen, E., Frøysa, K., Malde, E., Moestue, H., Moksnes, P. O., Scheers, L. and Tunheim, H., 2005. Handbook of Multiphase Flow Metering, Revision 2, The Norwegian Society for Oil and Gas Measurement and The Norwegian Society of Chartered Technical and Scientific Professionals, March 2005. Falcone, G., Teodoriu, C., Reinicke, K. M. and Bello, O. O., 2008. Multiphase-flow modeling based on experimental testing: an overview of research facilities worldwide and the need for future developments. SPE Proj. Fac. & Constr., 3(3): 1–10. SPE-110 116-PA. IFE, 2009. Available at: http://www.ife.no/laboratories/well_flow_loop/index_html-en/ view?set_language ¼ en&cl ¼ en Marruaz, K. S., Gonc- alves, M. L. A., Gaspari, E., Ribeiro, G. S., Franc- a, F. A. and Rosa, E. S., 2001. Horizontal slug flow in a large-size pipeline: experimentation and modeling 4. Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Mecanicas/J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci., 23: 481–490. NEL, 2008. Available at: http://www.flowprogramme.co.uk/facilities/default.asp Richardson, B., 1999. Colorado facility advances natural gas measurement. Pipeline Gas J., 226(7): 22. SINTEF, 2009. Available at: http://www.sintef.no/Home/Petroleum-and-Energy/ SINTEF-Petroleum-Research/Wellstream-Technology/Laboratories/The-Large-ScaleFlow-Loop/ StatoilHydro, 2009. Available at: http://www.statoilhydro.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/ TechnologyManagement/ResearchCentres/Porsgrunn/Pages/K-labK%C3%A5rst% C3%B8.aspx SwRI, 2009. Available at: http://www.mrf.swri.org/ TUSTP, 2009. Available at: http://www.tustp.org/research_facilities.html Watson, M. J. and Hewitt, G. F., 1999. Pressure effects on the slug to churn transition. Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 25: 1225–1241.