0
Research Papers: Fluid-Structure Interaction

Measurements of Decompression Wave Speed in Binary Mixtures of Carbon Dioxide and Impurities

[+] 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 Ltd.,
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 June 20, 2016; published online September 27, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Akira Maekawa.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(2), 021301 (Sep 27, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1107; doi: 10.1115/1.4034016 History: Received May 27, 2015; Revised June 20, 2016

Shock tube tests were conducted on a number of binary CO2 mixtures with N2, O2, CH4, H2, CO, and Ar impurities, from a range of initial pressures and temperatures. This paper provides examples of results from these tests. The resulting decompression wave speeds are compared with predictions made utilizing different equations of state (EOS). It was found that, for the most part (except for binaries with H2), the GERG-2008 EOS shows much better performance than the Peng–Robinson (PR) EOS. All binaries showed a very long plateau in the decompression wave speed curves. It was also shown that tangency of the fracture propagation speed curve would normally occur on the pressure plateau, and hence, the accuracy of the calculated arrest toughness for pipelines transporting these binary mixtures is highly dependent on the accuracy of the predicted plateau pressure. Again, for the most part, GERG-2008 predictions of the plateau are in good agreement with the measurements in binary mixtures with N2, O2, and CH4. An example of the determination of pipeline material toughness required to arrest ductile fracture is presented, which shows that prediction by GERG-2008 is generally more conservative and is therefore recommended. However, both GERG-2008 and PR EOS show much worse performance for the other three binaries: CO2 + H2, CO2 + CO, and CO2 + Ar, with CO2 + H2 being the worst. This is likely due to the lack of experimental data for these three binary mixtures that were used in the development of these EOS.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Eiber, R. , Bubenik, T. , and Maxey, W. A. , 1993, “ GASDECOM, Computer Code for the Calculation of Gas Decompression Speed—Included in Fracture Control Technology for Natural Gas Pipelines,” American Gas Association, Washington, DC, NG-18 Report 208; A.G.A. Catalogue No. L5169.
Cosham, A. , Eiber, R. J. , and Clark, E. B. , 2010, “ GASDECOM: Carbon Dioxide and Other Components,” ASME Paper No. IPC2010-31572.
Cosham, A. , and Eiber, R. J. , 2008, “ Fracture Control in Carbon Dioxide Pipelines: The Effect of Impurities,” ASME Paper No. IPC2008-64346.
Seevam, P. N. , Race, J. M. , Downie, M. J. , and Hopkins, P. , 2008, “ Transporting the Next Generation of CO2 for Carbon, Capture and Storage: The Impact of Impurities on Supercritical CO2 Pipelines,” ASME Paper No. IPC2008-64063.
Elshahomi, A. , Lu, C. , Michal, G. , Liu, X. , Godbole, A. , and Venton, P. , 2015, “ Decompression Wave Speed in CO2 Mixtures: CFD Modelling With the GERG-2008 Equation of State,” Appl. Energy, 140, pp. 20–32. [CrossRef]
Botros, K. K. , Hippert, E., Jr. , and Craidy, P. , 2013, “ Measurements of Decompression Wave Speed in Mixtures of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Using Specialized Shock Tube,” Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Sept. 22–24.
Botros, K. K. , Hippert, E., Jr. , and Craidy, P. , 2013, “ Accurate Measurements of Decompression Wave Speed in CO2 Mixtures by a Shock Tube—Do We Still Need Full-Scale Burst Tests,” Int. Pipelines Mag., 16, pp. 22–26.
Munkejord, S. T. , and Hammer, H. , 2015, “ Depressurization of CO2-Rich Mixtures in Pipes: Two-Phase Flow Modelling and Comparison With Experiments,” Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 37, pp. 398–411. [CrossRef]
Cosham, A. , Jones, D. G. , Armstrong, K. , Allason, D. , and Barnett, J. , 2012, “ The Decompression Behaviour of Carbon Dioxide in the Dense Phase,” ASME Paper No. IPC2012-90461.
PRCI, 2013, “ Shock Tube Measurements of Decompression Wave Speed in CO2 With Impurities,” Pipeline Research Council International, Falls Church, VA, Report PR#383-104506.
Kunz, O. , Klimeck, R. , Wagner, W. , and Jaeschke, M. , 2007, “ The GERG-2004 Wide-Range Equation of State for Natural Gases and Other Mixtures,” Groupe Européen de Recherches Gaziéres (GERG), Brussels, Belgium, Technical Monograph GERG TM15, accessed Mar. 28, 2016, http://www.gerg.eu/public/uploads/files/publications/technical_monographs/tm15_04.pdf
Kunz, O. , and Wagner, W. , 2012, “ The GERG-2008 Wide-Range Equation of State for Natural Gases and Other Mixtures: An Expansion of GERG-2004,” J. Chem. Eng. Data, 57(11), pp. 3032–3091. [CrossRef]
Peng, D. Y. , and Robinson, D. B. , 1976, “ A New Two-Constant Equation of State,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundamen., 15(1), pp. 59–64. [CrossRef]
Lemmon, E. W. , Huber, M. L. , and McLinden, M. O. , 2010, “ NIST Standard Reference Database 23: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties—REFPROP,” Version 9.0, Standard Reference Data Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Botros, K. K. , Geerligs, J. , and Eiber, R. J. , 2010, “ Measurement of Decompression Wave Speed in Rich Gas Mixtures at High Pressures (370 bars) Using a Specialized Rupture Tube,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 132(5), p. 051303. [CrossRef]
Botros, K. K. , Geerligs, J. , Rothwell, B. , and Robinson, T. , 2015, “ Measurements of Decompression Wave Speed in Pure Carbon Dioxide and Comparison With Predictions by EOS,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 138(3), p. 031302. [CrossRef]
Metz, B. , Davidson, O. , de Coninck, H. , Loos, M. , and Meyer, L. , 2005, IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Maxey, W. A. , Kiefner, J. F. , Eiber, R. J. , and Duffy, A. R. , 1972, “ Ductile Fracture Initiation, Propagation, and Arrest in Cylindrical Vessels,” ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, STP514, pp. 70–81.
Xu, G. , Liang, F. , Yang, Y. , Hu, Y. , Zhang, K. , and Liu, W. , 2014, “ An Improved CO2 Separation and Purification System Based on Cryogenic Separation and Distillation Theory,” Energies, 7, pp. 3484–3502.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

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

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the shock tube setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Example of typical pressure–time traces obtained from a shock tube test on pure CO2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Experimentally determined decompression wave speed and comparison with prediction based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (pure CO2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Measured pressure–time traces following rupture for test #4 (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Experimentally determined decompression wave speed and comparison with prediction based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #4)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Pressure–temperature isentropes based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #4)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Measured pressure–time traces following rupture for test #7 (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Experimentally determined decompression wave speed and comparison with prediction based on GERG-2008 EOS, PR EOS, and gasdecom (test #7)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Pressure–temperature isentropes based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #7)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Measured pressure–time traces following rupture for test #2 (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Experimentally determined decompression wave speed and comparison with prediction based on GERG-2008 EOS, PR EOS, and gasdecom (test #2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pressure–temperature isentropes based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Pressure–temperature isentropes based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #10B)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Measured pressure–time traces following rupture for test #5 (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Experimentally determined decompression wave speed and comparison with prediction based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #5)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Pressure–temperature isentropes based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #5)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Measured pressure–time traces following rupture for test #9 (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Experimentally determined decompression wave speed and comparison with prediction based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #9)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Pressure–temperature isentropes based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #9)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Measured pressure–time traces following rupture for test #10B (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Experimentally determined decompression wave speed and comparison with prediction based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #10B)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Measured and calculated decompression curves for test #4, together with tangent fracture speed curves for 406.4 mm OD, 12.7 mm WT, Grade L415M pipe

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