间歇流中临界砂沉积速度-模型评价

Ramin Dabirian, Mobina Mohammadikharkeshi, R. Mohan, O. Shoham
{"title":"间歇流中临界砂沉积速度-模型评价","authors":"Ramin Dabirian, Mobina Mohammadikharkeshi, R. Mohan, O. Shoham","doi":"10.2118/196085-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Sand transport in multiphase flow has recently gained keen attention of the oil and gas industry owing to the negative effects associated with it. These include partial pipe blockage, pipe corrosion, excessive pressure drop and production decline. To date, no comprehensive literature review and models evaluation have been published, which compare the experimental data collected for the prediction of the critical sand deposition velocity under intermittent flow with the related model predictions. This study can be used by engineers and researchers to determine the conditions under which the developed models perform the best.\n The intermittent flow critical sand deposition velocity data acquired by Najmi (2015) are presented in detail. Next, the effects of important parameters such as phase velocities, liquid viscosity as well as particle size and concentration on the critical velocity are investigated. The collected data are utilized to evaluate the performance of the models developed by Salama (1998), Hill (2011), Stevenson et al. (2001) and Danielson (2007), in order to determine the best model for the prediction of the sand critical velocity.\n The experimental data of Najmi (2015) indicate that higher critical velocities are required with increasing the liquid viscosity, particle size and particle concentration. However, the predictions of the models of Salama (1998), Stevenson et al. (2001) and Danielson (2007) demonstrate that these models do not take into account the effect of particle concentration. Depending on the liquid viscosity, Stevenson et al. (2001) model significantly over-predicts or under-predicts the critical velocity over different ranges of the phase velocities, while Salama (1998) model under-predicts the critical velocity under all experimental conditions. An overall comparison of the data with the published model predictions confirms that the Hill (2011) model has the best performance capturing the physical phenomena, including the effects of phase velocities, particle size, particle concentration and liquid viscosity.","PeriodicalId":10909,"journal":{"name":"Day 2 Tue, October 01, 2019","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical Sand Deposition Velocity in Intermittent Flow – Models Evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Ramin Dabirian, Mobina Mohammadikharkeshi, R. Mohan, O. Shoham\",\"doi\":\"10.2118/196085-ms\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Sand transport in multiphase flow has recently gained keen attention of the oil and gas industry owing to the negative effects associated with it. These include partial pipe blockage, pipe corrosion, excessive pressure drop and production decline. To date, no comprehensive literature review and models evaluation have been published, which compare the experimental data collected for the prediction of the critical sand deposition velocity under intermittent flow with the related model predictions. This study can be used by engineers and researchers to determine the conditions under which the developed models perform the best.\\n The intermittent flow critical sand deposition velocity data acquired by Najmi (2015) are presented in detail. Next, the effects of important parameters such as phase velocities, liquid viscosity as well as particle size and concentration on the critical velocity are investigated. The collected data are utilized to evaluate the performance of the models developed by Salama (1998), Hill (2011), Stevenson et al. (2001) and Danielson (2007), in order to determine the best model for the prediction of the sand critical velocity.\\n The experimental data of Najmi (2015) indicate that higher critical velocities are required with increasing the liquid viscosity, particle size and particle concentration. However, the predictions of the models of Salama (1998), Stevenson et al. (2001) and Danielson (2007) demonstrate that these models do not take into account the effect of particle concentration. Depending on the liquid viscosity, Stevenson et al. (2001) model significantly over-predicts or under-predicts the critical velocity over different ranges of the phase velocities, while Salama (1998) model under-predicts the critical velocity under all experimental conditions. An overall comparison of the data with the published model predictions confirms that the Hill (2011) model has the best performance capturing the physical phenomena, including the effects of phase velocities, particle size, particle concentration and liquid viscosity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Day 2 Tue, October 01, 2019\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Day 2 Tue, October 01, 2019\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2118/196085-ms\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 2 Tue, October 01, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/196085-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

由于多相流输砂的负面影响,近年来引起了油气行业的广泛关注。这些问题包括管道部分堵塞、管道腐蚀、压降过大和产量下降。到目前为止,还没有发表全面的文献综述和模型评价,将所收集的用于预测间歇流下临界沉积速度的实验数据与相关模型预测结果进行比较。这项研究可以被工程师和研究人员用来确定所开发的模型在何种条件下表现最佳。详细介绍了Najmi(2015)获得的间歇流动临界积砂速度数据。其次,研究了相速度、液体粘度、粒径和浓度等重要参数对临界速度的影响。收集到的数据用于评估Salama(1998)、Hill(2011)、Stevenson等人(2001)和Danielson(2007)开发的模型的性能,以确定预测砂临界速度的最佳模型。Najmi(2015)的实验数据表明,随着液体粘度、粒径和颗粒浓度的增加,需要更高的临界速度。然而,Salama(1998)、Stevenson等人(2001)和Danielson(2007)的模型预测表明,这些模型没有考虑到颗粒浓度的影响。根据液体粘度的不同,Stevenson等人(2001)的模型在不同相速度范围内对临界速度的预测明显过高或过低,而Salama(1998)的模型在所有实验条件下对临界速度的预测都偏低。将数据与已发表的模型预测进行总体比较,证实Hill(2011)模型在捕捉物理现象方面表现最佳,包括相速度、粒径、颗粒浓度和液体粘度的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Critical Sand Deposition Velocity in Intermittent Flow – Models Evaluation
Sand transport in multiphase flow has recently gained keen attention of the oil and gas industry owing to the negative effects associated with it. These include partial pipe blockage, pipe corrosion, excessive pressure drop and production decline. To date, no comprehensive literature review and models evaluation have been published, which compare the experimental data collected for the prediction of the critical sand deposition velocity under intermittent flow with the related model predictions. This study can be used by engineers and researchers to determine the conditions under which the developed models perform the best. The intermittent flow critical sand deposition velocity data acquired by Najmi (2015) are presented in detail. Next, the effects of important parameters such as phase velocities, liquid viscosity as well as particle size and concentration on the critical velocity are investigated. The collected data are utilized to evaluate the performance of the models developed by Salama (1998), Hill (2011), Stevenson et al. (2001) and Danielson (2007), in order to determine the best model for the prediction of the sand critical velocity. The experimental data of Najmi (2015) indicate that higher critical velocities are required with increasing the liquid viscosity, particle size and particle concentration. However, the predictions of the models of Salama (1998), Stevenson et al. (2001) and Danielson (2007) demonstrate that these models do not take into account the effect of particle concentration. Depending on the liquid viscosity, Stevenson et al. (2001) model significantly over-predicts or under-predicts the critical velocity over different ranges of the phase velocities, while Salama (1998) model under-predicts the critical velocity under all experimental conditions. An overall comparison of the data with the published model predictions confirms that the Hill (2011) model has the best performance capturing the physical phenomena, including the effects of phase velocities, particle size, particle concentration and liquid viscosity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Verification of Autonomous Inflow Control Valve Flow Performance Within Heavy Oil-SAGD Thermal Flow Loop Reactive vs Proactive Intelligent Well Injection Evaluation for EOR in a Stratified GOM Deepwater Wilcox Reservoir using Integrated Simulation-Surface Network Modeling A Novel Workflow for Oil Production Forecasting using Ensemble-Based Decline Curve Analysis An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Predict the Water Saturation in Carbonate Reservoir Rocks Characterization of Organic Pores within High-Maturation Shale Gas Reservoirs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1