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

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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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