Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NOMENCLATURES APPROACH
Nomenclature Units
Two different numerical approaches were examined in this
Bi Biot number research which described as follows:
CP Specific heat capacity KJ/Kg.K Btu/lb.0F
D Diameter m ft Approach One: Is designed to characterise the heat released
DF Design factor % % from the dense phase CO2 and NG to the surroundings. This
Temperature gradient K/m 0
F/m allows a comparison of the heat transfer amount between the
dT/dx
two fluids. It requires a long pipeline in order to differentiate
E Longitudinal joint factor
between the inlet and outlet properties of the pipelines. To
F Temperature de-rating factor simplify the analysis, the overall heat transfer coefficient is
f Friction factor calculated for different pipeline configurations in varying
h Convection heattransfer coef. W/m2.K Btu/ft2.hr.0F operating conditions.
K Thermal conductivity W/m.K Btu/ft.hr.0F
Turbulent Kinetic energy Approach Two: Study the heat released from the CO2
k
pipeline and determining the effect of the heat flux to the
L Pipeline length m ft p
k-epsilon (k-). Where k (J/Kg) is the turbulent kinetics energy maintenance (Witkowski et al., 2014). Table 1 present the
and (J/Kg.s) is the turbulent dissipation rate model is used. CO2 properties when leaving the CCS facilities.
Boundary conditions are used according to the required model
analysis. The inlet and outlet conditions are defined as a
Table 1 - Super critical CO2 properties when leaving the
pressure inlet at known pipeline operating parameters and
CCS
moreover, a pressure outlet. Where the system is able to
calculate the exit parameters. The model walls are separately Property SI Units English Units
specified with respective boundary conditions. Such as
symmetry walls at the cross sections and the top soil Temperature 313.15 K 104 0F
convection heat transfer into the surrounding air. Furthermore, Pressure 10 Mpa 1450.38 psi
no slip condition is considered for each wall. Finally, the Density 628.61 Kg/m 3
6.3 pound/gallon
analysis of the results takes place.
Specific heat capacity 5657.5 J/Kg.K 1.35 Btu/lb.0F
Carbon dioxide and NG transportation properties are Themal Conductivity 0.07141 W/m.K 0.04 Btu/ft.hr.0F
calculated using REFPROP software for different pipeline
operating conditions (Lemmon et al., 2007). Furthermore, for Heat transfer coefficient 2482.8 W/m2.K 437.3 Btu/ft2.hr.0F
the purpose of comparing the heat transfer and temperature
drop between CO2 and NG pipelines. A set of equations are
1.1 Pipeline sizing
developed to calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient
through the pipeline wall in order to simplify the CFD
Pipeline diameter calculation methods can be divided into two
analysis.
main groups:
A- Based on hydraulic laws for turbulent flow in circular
pipelines,
ANALYSIS B- Economic-related sizing based on optimal design.
For this study pipeline was sized using IEA GHG, (2005)
Similar to NG, the most efficient state for transporting CO2 via pipeline sizing formula revised by (Vandeginste and Piessens,
long distance pipelines are either as a sub-cooled liquid or as a 2008) and is shown below:
supercritical fluid. For pure CO2, the minimum operating
pressure and temperature for supercritical phase transportation D= (1)
are 7.39 MPa (1070.37 psi) and 304.19 K (87.87 0F)
respectively. Figure 2 illustrates the phase diagram of pure The average design flow rate regarding prospecting clusters in
CO2. the UK is 190.26 Kg/s (1.85 barrel/s), (www.ccshumber.co.uk,
2015). Hopkins (2014) stated that the average fluid velocity in
pipelines is between 1.5-3.0 m/s (4.9-9.84 ft/s); herefore, the
optimum average flow speed for the cluster flow rate
considered in the UK is 1.524 m/s (5 ft/s).
= (2)
(3)
E and F, the longitudinal joint and temperature de-rating
factors respectively, are assumed to be 1 (PD BS 8010-1,
IGE/TD/1).
2.1 Overall heat transfer in a cross sectional area of Steady state heat transfer
pipeline
Steady state heat transfer in the pipeline assumes the heat loss
Consider the cross sectional area of a pipeline as illustrated in across the pipe wall from the flowing fluid is constant over
Figure 3. The heat flow rate through the pipeline is assumed to time. Coupling the enthalpy, pressure and velocity into the
be steady state. energy, mass, and momentum conservation can give an
accurate prediction of the temperature along the pipeline.
Parker et al., (1969) explains the difficulties in solving the
resulting formulaes analytically. However, they can be solved
numerically.
PSIG 1624 A Thermal Analysis of a CO2 Transportation Pipeline: a Design Configuraion for Opimum On-shore Transportation 5
2.2 Heat transfer of carbon dioxide and NG pipelines Table 2 - Pipeline configuration properties
Where n is 0.4 if the fluid is being heated and 0.3 if the fluid is
being cooled. Table 3 - U-values for pipeline individual layers
To achieve a satisfactory result, the pipeline length must be U-Value
greater than 10D, the Prandtl number between 0.7 to 160 and No Configuration 2
W/m .K Btu/ft2.hr.0F
the Reynolds number over 10,000 (Bai and Bai, 2012). All
fluid properties are assumed to be calculated at the average 1 Internal convection Refer to table 2
fluid temperature for the reason that temperature drops along 2 Steel pipe 9697.37 1707.8
the pipeline are relatively small. 3 Coating 303.03 53.4
4 Thermal Insulation 6.88 1.2
3. Pipeline configurations and parameters
5 Soil 1.36 0.24
This study invistigated three pipeline construction 6 External convection 16.89 2.98
configurations:
1. Carbon steel pipeline under the soil
2. Coated carbon steel pipeline under the soil RESULTS
3. Coated and thermally insulated pipeline under the soil This section explained the differences between heat transfer
from dense phase CO2 and heat transfer from natural gas.
The Fluent design modeller has a limited drawing box;
therefore, the maximum length of the pipeline is limited to 1. Heat transfer in carbon dioxide and Natural gas
500m. Application of the meshing and layer parts on the pipelines simulation result
model is a complicated step. Consequently, only the fluid
domain has been modelled and the overall heat transfer A comparison is carried out considering a pipeline
coefficient passing through the pipeline walls in to the configuration of a steel pipe and coating. The pipeline
atmosphere has been calculated separately. Table 2 operating parameters for CO2 and NG are taken to be the same
demonstrates the properties of pipeline materials, pipeline where the average maximum heat transfer coefficient of the
coating and surrounding soils suitable for agriculture flowing fluid was calculated. Furthermore, the OHTC (U-
(Engineeringtoolbox.com). value) passing through the pipeline walls is calculated using
the parameters in Table 2. The results showed that the CO2
Overall heat transfer coefficient calculation reduces in temperature from 313.15 K (104.10 0F) at the
pipeline inlet to 312.99 K (103.7 0F) at a distance of 500m
The OHTC is calculated using equation (5) and the parameters (1640.42 ft) along the pipeline. In comparison with the NG
given for the flow, pipeline configurations and in Table 2. pipeline reached 312.603 K (103.02 0F) for the same distance.
Equation (5) is based on the internal radius of the pipeline; Consequently, this shows that a CO2 pipeline will maintain its
however, Table 3 presents the U-value for the individual fluid temperature for a longer distance (kilometers) than a NG
pipeline layers. pipeline. This requires further investigation to understand the
effect of an elevated soil temperature on plantations.
6 Ahmed Saad, Hamed Aghajani, Ben Wetenhall, Ibrahim Ahmed PSIG 1624
8 Mpa
Table 4 - OHTC for CO2 and NG in pipeline
450
configurations
400
350
U-Value (OHTC)
300
285 295 305 315 325 335 No Pipeline cross section
CO2 NG
Temperature (K) Pipeline pipeline
Figure 5 - Heat transfer coefficient trends in NG pipelines 1 Steel pipeline 1681.2 361.5
2 Steel pipe + coating 268.8 164.8
Prandtl number represents the relationship between the fluids Steel pipe + coating +
specific heat capacity, viscosity and thermal conductivity and 3 6.71 6.65
thermal insulation
relates convection with conduction heat transfer in pipelines
through the Nusselt number (see above). Figures 6 and 7, Steel pipe + coating +
shows the Prandtl number behaviors in CO2 and NG pipelines 4 thermal insulation + 1.134 1.132
respectively. The results illustrate that Prandtl number exhibits surrounding soil
the same trend behaviour as the heat transfer coefficient. A
Steel pipe + coating + soil +
higher range in the CO2 pipeline is observed compared to NG. 5 1.066 1.06
external convection
PSIG 1624 A Thermal Analysis of a CO2 Transportation Pipeline: a Design Configuraion for Opimum On-shore Transportation 7
The results demonstrate that the optimum operating conditions The analysis displays the temperature distribution on the
for lower heat transfer characterisation in pipelines is as pipeline and soil cross sectional area, as demonstrated in
follows; the NG pipelines operate at a higher operating Figures 10 bellow as a base case scenario.
temperature exceeding 323.15 K (122 0F) and lower operating
pressure of less than 9MPa. The CO2 pipeline can function at a
high operating temperature of more than 333.15 K (140 0F)
and at a high operating pressure of more than 10MPa to
achieve the same benefits. Figure 8 illustrates the effect of the
pipeline configuration layers on the heat transfer from the CO2
and NG pipeline to the surroundings. The highest OHTC from
the pipeline and the flowing fluid occurs at configuartion (1).
1800
1600 CO2 Pipeline
1400 NG pipeline
U-Value (OHTC)
pipeline to the normal ground temperature 278 K (40.73 0F) on transfer rate from the pipeline to the surroundings. Regarding
the far sides. the operating conditions, 0.1 m (0.33 ft) distance from ground
level is not affected in the vicinity of the pipeline.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the higher heat transfer coefficient of the CO2
pipeline, temperature reduction along the NG pipeline is more
rapid. The CO2 pipeline would affect distances which are three
times longer compared to the NG pipeline and hence could
affect the pre-maturity of a greater number of plantations.
The CO2 pipeline heat transfer analysis also explains that the
insulation layer efficiency is 89.3% in terms of maintaining
the internal product temperature. In contrast to the coated
pipeline approximately 45.5%, furthermore there is little effect
of the coated layer of 2.3% contribution addressed from the
steel pipeline configuration analysis. It also reveals a thermal
insulation layer of 50 mm (0.164 ft) reduces temperature
transfer from the pipeline to the surroundings by 86.1%.
Hence, it is the best option for high temperature product
applications.
REFERENCES
1-American National Standards Institute. Committee B31
Code for Pressure Piping. (2012) Pipeline transportation
systems for liquids and slurries: ASME code for pressure
piping, B31. 2012 edn. New York: American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
2-ANSYS FLUENT Inc. (2015) 'theory guide and software'.
3- API, A.P.I. (2004) 'Specification 5L-Specification for Line
Pipe, 43rd Edition, Washington'.
Figure 20- The effect of thermal insulation thickness in
4- Bai, Y. and Bai, Q. (2012) Subsea engineering handbook.
heat transfer rate
Waltham, MA: Gulf Professional Pub.
5- http://www.ccshumber.co.uk/the-pipeline.aspx, (2015) The
The temperature in Figure 20 shows non-linear behaviour with
project | Yorkshire and Humber CCS | National Grid [online]
distance from the pipeline centre. At 600 mm (1.97 ft) where
the plants rooting zone starts, a 10mm (0.033 ft) layer of Available at: http://www.ccshumber.co.uk/the-project.aspx
insulation shows a 64.0% temperature reduction compared [Accessed 19 Jun. 2015].
with the temperature of the internal fluid. A thicker insulation
layer of 30mm (0.1 ft) shows a temperature reduction of
PSIG 1624 A Thermal Analysis of a CO2 Transportation Pipeline: a Design Configuraion for Opimum On-shore Transportation 11