0
Research Papers: Design and Analysis

Measurements of Decompression Wave Speed in Simulated Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Mixtures Containing Hydrogen

[+] 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 August 2, 2016; published online September 27, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Akira Maekawa.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(2), 021201 (Sep 27, 2016) (7 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1108; doi: 10.1115/1.4034466 History: Received May 27, 2015; Revised August 02, 2016

In order to determine the material fracture resistance necessary to provide adequate control of ductile fracture propagation in a pipeline, a knowledge of the decompression wave speed following the quasi-instantaneous formation of an unstable, full-bore rupture is necessary. The thermodynamic and fluid dynamics background of such calculations is understood, but predictions based on specific equations of state (EOS) need to be validated against experimental measurements. A program of tests has been conducted using a specially constructed shock tube to determine the impact of impurities on the decompression wave speed in carbon dioxide (CO2), so that the results can be compared to two existing theoretical models. In this paper, data and analysis results are presented for three shock tube tests involving anthropogenic CO2 mixtures containing hydrogen as the primary impurity. The first mixture was intended to represent a typical scenario of precombustion carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, where typically the concentration of CO2 is around 95–97% (mole). The second mixture represents a worst case scenario of this technology with high level of impurities (with CO2 concentration around 85%). The third test represents a typical chemical-looping combustion process. It was found that the extent of the plateau on the decompression wave speed curves in these tests depends on the location of the phase boundary crossing along the bubble-point curve. The closer the phase boundary crossing to the critical point, the shorter the plateau. This is primarily due to the change in magnitude of the drop in the speed of sound at phase boundary crossing. For the most part, the predictions of the plateau pressure by both of the EOS that were evaluated, GERG-2008 and Peng–Robinson (PR), are in good agreement with measurements by the shock tube. This by no means reflects overall good performance of either EOS, but was rather due to the fact that the isentropes intersected the phase envelope near the critical point, or that the concentration of H2 was relatively low, either in absolute terms or relative to other impurity constituents. Hence, its influence in causing inaccurate prediction of the plateau pressure is lessened. An example of pipeline material toughness required to arrest ductile fracture is presented which shows that predictions by GERG-2008 are more conservative and are therefore recommended.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

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]
Botros, K. K. , Geerligs, J. , Rothwell, B. , Buterbaugh, C. , Hsiao, C. P. , Venton, P. , Cooper, R. , and Robinson, T. , 2013, “ Shock Tube Measurements of Decompression Wave Speed in CO2 With Impurities,” Pipeline Research Council International, Falls Church, VA, PRCI Report No. PR#383-104506.
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, Fracture Toughness ASTM STP 514, pp. 70–81.
Herzog, H. J. , 2001, “ What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration?,” Environ. Sci. Technol., 35(7), pp. 148A–153A. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2014, “ Typical IGCC Configuration,” U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, accessed June 9, 2016, http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/igcc-config
Mattisson, T. , and Lyngfelt, A. , 2001, “ Applications of Chemical-Looping Combustion With Capture of CO2,” Second Nordic Minisymposium on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Göteborg, Sweden, Oct. 26, pp. 46–51.
Lyngfelt, A. , Leckner, B. , and Mattisson, T. , 2001, “ A Fluidized-Bed Combustion Process With Inherent CO2 Separation; Application of Chemical-Looping Combustion,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 56(10), pp. 3101–3113. [CrossRef]
Kunz, O. , Klimeck, R. , Wagner, W. , and Jaeschke, M. , 2007, “ The GERG-2004 Wide-Range Equation of State for Natural Gases and Other Mixtures,” GroupeEuropéen de RecherchesGaziéres (GERG), Technical Monograph GERG TM15, accessed June 9, 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. Fundam., 15(1), p. 59. [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,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Data Program, Gaithersburg, MD.
Eiber, R. , Bubenik, T. , and Maxey, W. A. , 1993, “ GASDECOM: Computer Code for the Calculation of Gas Decompression Speed,” Fracture Control Technology for Natural Gas Pipelines NG-18, Report 208, American Gas Association, Washington, DC.
Botros, K. K. , Geerligs, J. , Rothwell, B. , and Robinson, T. , 2016, “ Measurements of Decompression Wave Speed in Binary Mixtures of Carbon Dioxide and Impurities,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technolg. 138(3), p. 031302. [CrossRef]
Botros, K. K. , Geerligs, J. , and Eiber, R. J. , 2010, “ Measurement of Decompression Wave Speeds in Rich Gas Mixtures at High Pressures (370 bar) Using Specialized Rupture Tube,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 132(5), p. 051303. [CrossRef]

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 #37 (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Experimentally determined decompression wave speed and comparison with prediction based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #37)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pressure–temperature isentropes based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #37)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Measured pressure–time traces following rupture for test #8 (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 #8)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Effects of prediction of decompression wave speed (measured and predicted) on the required material toughness for ductile fracture arrest for 14.416 MPa, 406.4 mm OD, Grade 415 (X60), WT = 12.7 mm, assuming test #8 conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Measured pressure–time traces following rupture for test #13 (time zero is arbitrary)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Experimentally determined decompression wave speed and comparison with prediction based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #13)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Pressure–temperature isentropes based on GERG-2008 and PR EOS (test #13)

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