MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2009589396 · doi:10.4043/24114-ms

Advances in Multiphase Flow CFD Erosion Analysis

2013· article· en· W2009589396 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueOffshore Technology Conference · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Établissements canadiensIntecsea (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputational fluid dynamicsMultiphase flowErosionPetroleum engineeringFlow (mathematics)MechanicsSubseaEnvironmental scienceMarine engineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract One of the flow assurance challenges in subsea production systems is the occurrence of erosion damage due to the existence of sand particles and high production Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) as such erosion mostly occurs in highly gas dominated operating conditions in the annular flow regime. The erosion rate for an elbow with a constant flow velocity and with all other factors equal is higher in gas systems than liquid systems as more particles will impact on the inner wall of the outer curvature of the elbow. The maximum wear location and the penetration rate for multiphase flows are often an intermediary of gas and liquid systems occurring at 55 degrees from the inlet of the elbow, however this depends heavily on the multiphase flow regime. A challenge facing industry is availability of erosion prediction models; the majority of available models are based on single-phase liquid or gas as the carrying medium. This can result in large discrepancies in erosion rates and potentially increased wall thickness, fabrication and subsequent intervention costs. To predict the flow regime in greater clarity requires the use of computational power and / or instrumentation that can accurately characterize the flow within the pipes. Since experimental work is costly and unlikely to be representative of a large integrated production system, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is used to perform erosion assessments and can also aide in corrosion prediction and inhibitor selection. Only erosion assessments by CFD methods are discussed in detail within this paper. CFD has been extensively applied for erosion analyses; it is commonly used for identifying potential failure locations, improving understanding of failure mechanisms and only qualitatively used for erosion rates. CFD erosion modelling capability in this paper has been enhanced by simulating flow regime characteristics, in particular the liquid film for annular flow. This benefits the simulation to obtain greater accuracy for sand particle impact angles, area, speed and thus the erosion rate is significantly enhanced. In addition, the local volume fraction of sand has been considered in order to accurately evaluate the impact force. The research to date shows that a promising agreement is obtained between predicted erosion rate and the empirical predictions (Salama, Salama & Venkatesh and DNV RP-501 methods). Further comparisons to empirical model predictions are carried out to address the importance of flow regime on the results as current empirical models lack this consideration. The influence of the flow orientation (upwards and downwards flow), has also been investigated in this work due to current lack of publically available data. The paper presented hereafter illustrates that considerable difference in flow orientation is revealed and the prediction can be improved by considering the flow characteristics. An example is provided highlighting the use of liquid film and droplet velocity to replace the mixture velocity implemented in empirical models for annular flow. All of the findings of this work are aimed at providing assistance to industry not only performing the qualitative but quantitative CFD erosion analysis.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,798
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,207
Écart entre enseignants0,201 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle