Descargar Software Pipephase Training

Results with the actual data, we found that the PIPEPHASE software is better to analyze the hydraulic situation of pipe network in the. Coal-bed methane field, gas-gathering pipe network, pressure drop, TGNET, PIPEPHASE, hydraulic adaptability. Date received: 20. Provide a solid foundation for later researchers to study. The examples below are actual, published experimental and field cases, and were selected to highlight our software's flexibility in accounting for various effects. Set up and performed by your already-trained HYSYS, ASPEN PLUS, PROMAX, UNISIM, PETROSIM, NETSIM, VMGSIM, MAXIMUS, PIPEPHASE, PROSPER,.

As gas moves through a pipeline its pressure and temperature change due to the frictional loss, elevation change, acceleration, Joule-Thompson effect, and heat transfer from the surroundings. Due to pressure and temperature change, liquid and solid (hydrate) may also form in the line which in turn affects the pressure profile. Modeling and simulation of multiphase system, even under steady-state condition, is complex. There are a few tools designed specifically for modeling and analysis of complex multiphase systems such as PipePhase, PipeSim, OLGA, etc [1]. This Tip of the Month illustrates how general-purpose process simulation programs can be used to simulate wet pipelines. In order to perform computer simulation, let’s consider the gas shown in Table 1.

The gas enters a pipeline with an inside diameter of 18.81 inches (47.8 cm) at rate of 180 MMSCFD equivalent to 19800 lbmole/hr (8989 kgmole/h). The pipeline length and elevation profile are shown in Figure 1.

The ambient temperature is assumed to be 60 °F (15.6 °C). The gas enters the line at 1165 psia (8032 kPa) and 95 °F (35 °C). The pipeline is buried under ground; with an approximate overall heat transfer coefficient of 1 Btu/hr-ft 2-°F (5.68 W/m 2-°C) was assumed. Due to the high content of H 2S and CO 2 (25.6 and 9.9 mole%, respectively) and to prevent corrosion and hydrate formation, the gas has been dehydrated before entering the pipeline. The calculation algorithms for computer simulation are discussed in the Gas Conditioning & Processing, Vol 3, Computer Applications for Production/Processing Facilities [2].

The pipeline was divided into 14 segments according to the number of up-hills and down-hills in the line. In addition, each segment was divided into 10 equal increments to achieve higher calculation accuracy. The pipeline was simulated by HYSYS [3], ProMax [4] and EzThermo [5] programs.

For pressure drop calculation, the Beggs and Brill method with the original liquid hold up correlation was chosen in all three programs. The SRK equation of state (EOS) was chosen in the ProMax and EzThermo but PR EOS was chosen for HYSYS. Figures 2 through 4 present the pressure, temperature, and liquid formation profiles along the pipeline.

Figure 2 indicates that the pressure profiles predicted by the three programs follow the same pattern and ProMax and EzThermo results are very close to each other. The main difference in the calculated outlet pressure is due to the different amount of liquid formation predicted from phase behavior.

Figure 3 indicates that the temperature profiles predicted by the three programs fall on top of each other. It seems that the small amount of liquid condensation in the line has a smaller effect on the temperature profile than on the pressure profile. The liquid formation profiles predicted by the three programs are shown in Figure 4. As shown in this figure, the amount of liquid formation in the line predicted by ProMax is relatively higher than the other 2 programs. This can be explained by viewing the dew point curves predicted by these programs on Figure 5. Note that the cricondentherm predicted by ProMax is higher than the other two. As we have shown in an earlier tip of the month and publication [6], the characterization of heavy ends has a strong effect on the dew point curve and consequently on the liquid condensation in transmission lines [7].

In this study, the same normal boiling point, relative density, and molecular weight for C 6+, as shown in Table 1, are used in all three programs. However, the critical properties predicted by these programs were not quite the same.

In addition, the binary interaction parameters between different components and C 6+ are not the same. Pipe surface roughness also play an important role for friction pressure drop in gas pipeline. It is interesting to see that the line pressure-temperature profiles by the three programs are practically the same despite the differences in the phase envelope. The fractional hold-up along the pipeline calculated by the three programs are shown in Figure 6. Even though all three programs demonstrate the same trends, those predicted by HYSYS and EzThermo follow each other more closely. In line with our earlier tip of the month and in order to see the impact of the overall heat transfer coefficient on the pipeline behavior, the overall heat transfer coefficient of 1 Btu/hr-ft 2-°F (5.68 W/m 2-°C) was changed to 0.25 Btu/hr-ft 2-°F (1.42 W/m 2-°C). Rosetta Stone 3 Crack Activation Xp.

The simulation results indicate that the overall heat transfer coefficient can affect the line behavior considerably. The effect of the overall heat transfer coefficient on the temperature profile predicted by the three programs is presented in Figure 7. The work reported here clearly shows the importance of simulation tools and how general-purpose process simulation programs can be used to model and analyze the behavior of a gas transmission pipeline. However, care must be taken to utilize these programs properly. Improper use of the overall heat transfer coefficient or heavy end characterization can lead to completely erroneous conclusions about the presence or absence of liquid, even to indicate as far as a pipeline will be handling dry gas when in reality the line will be in two phase gas – liquid flow. References: • Ellul, I.

R., Saether, G. And Shippen, M. E., “The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial,” The Proceeding of Pipeline Simulation Interest Group, Paper PSIG 0403, Palm Spring, California, 2004.

Lilly, Gas Conditioning and Processing, Vol. 3 (2nd Edition), Campbell Petroleum Series, Norman, Oklahoma, 1990. • Aspen HYSYS, Version 2006, Engineering Suit, Aspen Technology, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2006.

• ProMax Version 2.0, Process Simulation Software by Bryan Research & Engineering, Inc., Bryan, Texas, 2008. • EzThermo, Moshfeghian, M. And Maddox, R.

• Moshfeghian, M., Lilly, L., Maddox, R. And Nasrifar, Kh., “Study Compares C6+ Characterization Methods for Natural Gas Phase Envelopes,” Oil & Gas Journal, 60-64, November 21, 2005. • Dustman, T, Drenker, J., Bergman, D. F.; Bullin, J. A., “An Analysis and Prediction of Hydrocarbon Dew Points and Liquids in Gas Transmission Lines,” Proceeding of the 85th Gas processors Association, San Antonio, Texas, 2006.

MAHMOOD MOSHFEGHIAN is a Senior Technical Advisor and Senior Instructor. He is the author of most Tips of the Month and develops technical software for PetroSkills. He has 40 years teaching experience in universities as well as for oil and gas industries. Moshfeghian joined JMC in 1990 as a part time consultant and then as full time instructor/consultant in 2005. Moshfeghian was Professor of Chemical Engineering at Shiraz University. Moshfeghian is a senior member of AIChE and has published more than 125 technical papers on thermodynamic properties and Process Engineering. Moshfeghian has presented invited papers in international conferences.

He is a member of the Editorial Board for the International Journal of Oil, Gas, and Coal Technology and a member of the GPSA Technical Committee Group F. He holds B.S. (75) and and PhD (78) degrees in Chemical Engineering, all from Oklahoma State University.

• TechValidate research data is sourced directly from verified business and technology professionals. How To Install D2k In Windows Xp here. We verify their identity, but protect it so that they can speak freely. • The data we publish represents the experiences of customers and users of the products and services we cover, and we always verify that this data comes from actual customers and users. • We publish only factual data – statistics, deployment facts, and the unfiltered voice of the end-user – without any editorial/analyst commentary.