0
Research Papers: Fluid-Structure Interaction

Measurements of Decompression Wave Speed in Pure Carbon Dioxide and Comparison With Predictions by Equation of State

[+] Author and Article Information
K. K. Botros

NOVA Chemicals Centre for Applied Research,
Calgary, AB T2E 7K7, Canada
e-mail: kamal.botros@novachem.com

J. Geerligs

NOVA Chemicals Centre for Applied Research,
Calgary, AB T2E 7K7, Canada

B. Rothwell

Brian Rothwell Consulting Inc.,
Calgary, AB T3A 5V9, Canada

T. Robinson

TransCanada PipeLines Limited,
Calgary, AB T2P 5H1, Canada

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received May 27, 2015; final manuscript received October 22, 2015; published online December 10, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Chong-Shien Tsai.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 138(3), 031302 (Dec 10, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1106; doi: 10.1115/1.4031941 History: Received May 27, 2015; Revised October 22, 2015

Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) is one of the technologies that have been proposed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. CCS will require the transportation of the CO2 from the “capture” locations to the “storage” locations via large-scale pipeline projects. One of the key requirements for the design and operation of pipelines in all jurisdictions is fracture control. Supercritical CO2 is a particularly challenging fluid from this point of view, because its thermodynamic characteristics are such that a very high driving force for fracture can be sustained for a long time. Even though CO2 is not flammable, it is an asphyxiating gas that is denser than air, and can collect in low-lying areas. Additionally, it is well known that any pipeline rupture, regardless of the nature of the fluid it is transporting, has a damaging reputational, commercial, logistic, and end user impact. Therefore, it is as important to control fracture in a CO2 pipeline as in one transporting a flammable fluid. With materials specified appropriately for the prevention of brittle failure, the key element is the control of propagating ductile (or tearing) fracture. The determination of the required toughness for the arrest of ductile fracture requires knowledge of the decompression behavior of the contained fluid, which in turn requires accurate knowledge of its thermodynamic characteristics along the decompression isentrope. While thermodynamic models based on appropriate EOS (equations of state) are available that will, in principle, allow determination of the decompression wave speed, they, in general, have not been fully validated for very rapid transients following a rupture. This paper presents experimental results of the decompression wave speed obtained from shock tube tests conducted on pure CO2 from different initial conditions, and comparison with predictions by models based on GERG-2008, Peng-Robinson, and BWRS equations of state (EOS). These tests were conducted as a baseline before introducing various impurities.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the shock tube setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Rupture disks used in the present work (before and after rupture)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Example of a typical pressure–time trace obtained from one of the shock tube tests (Test #31)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Measured pressure–time traces of the first five pressure transducers following rupture for test #31 (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Experimental determination of decompression wave speed and comparison with prediction based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (Test #31)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Pressure–temperature isentropes based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Effect of Charpy energy on arrest pressure for 11.27 MPa, 406.4 mm OD, Grade 415 (X60), and assuming Test #32A conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Experimental determination of decompression wave speed and comparison with prediction based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (Test #32A)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Measured pressure–time traces of the first five pressure transducers following rupture for Test #32A (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Measured pressure–time traces following rupture for Test #32A (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Experimental determination of decompression wave speed and comparison with prediction based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (Test #15)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Measured pressure–time traces of the first five pressure transducers following rupture for Test #15 (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Measured pressure–time traces following rupture for Test #15 (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of Charpy energy on arrest pressure for 11.111 MPa-a, 406.4 mm OD, Grade 415 (X60), and assuming Test #31 conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Effect of prediction of plateau pressure on the required material toughness for ductile fracture crack arrest for 11.111 MPa, 406.4 mm OD, Grade 415 (X60), WT = 10.1 mm, and assuming Test #31 conditions

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In