Ramin Dabirian, I. Gavrielatos, R. Mohan, O. Shoham
{"title":"Utilization of Churn Flow Coalescer for Improving Foam Breakup in Gas-Liquid Cylinderical Cyclone","authors":"Ramin Dabirian, I. Gavrielatos, R. Mohan, O. Shoham","doi":"10.1115/FEDSM2018-83317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Foaming can hinder gas-liquid separation, therefore, it is desirable to break the foam upstream of separation facilities. There are different methods to breakup foam, including chemical (utilizing defoaming agent), mechanical (such as cyclones), and thermal (by increasing temperature).\n Foam stability and breakup are studied in a standalone Churn Flow Coalescer (CFC) and in a Churn Flow Coalescer/Gas-Liquid Cylindrical Cyclone© (CFC/GLCC©) system. The goal is to investigate the possible improvement of the foam breakup efficiency in the GLCC© by installing a CFC upstream of the GLCC©. Testing the standalone CFC, it was found that the CFC generates more, but less stable, foam that can be broken more easily.\n Three different CFC’s are tested with diameters of 1″, 2″ and 3″. For the same inlet conditions, the 3″ CFC with tangential inlet was found to be the most efficient for generating less stable foam. The optimal operating conditions for this CFC are at low superficial gas velocities, namely, vsg(CFC) between 0.1 to 0.3 m/s. Higher flow rates generate smaller bubbles and more stable foam. From testing the CFC/GLCC© system, it is found that foam breakup in this system is more efficient than that of the standalone GLCC©, under the same flow conditions.\n The operational envelope of the CFC is predicted based on the transition boundary to churn flow developed by Taitel et al. (1980), as a function of the CFC aspect ratio (LE/D). The analysis of transition boundary between slug and churn confirm that less stable foam occurs at the left of churn flow transition boundary.","PeriodicalId":23480,"journal":{"name":"Volume 1: Flow Manipulation and Active Control; Bio-Inspired Fluid Mechanics; Boundary Layer and High-Speed Flows; Fluids Engineering Education; Transport Phenomena in Energy Conversion and Mixing; Turbulent Flows; Vortex Dynamics; DNS/LES and Hybrid RANS/LES Methods; Fluid Structure Interaction; Fl","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 1: Flow Manipulation and Active Control; Bio-Inspired Fluid Mechanics; Boundary Layer and High-Speed Flows; Fluids Engineering Education; Transport Phenomena in Energy Conversion and Mixing; Turbulent Flows; Vortex Dynamics; DNS/LES and Hybrid RANS/LES Methods; Fluid Structure Interaction; Fl","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/FEDSM2018-83317","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
搅流凝聚器在改善气液圆筒旋风分离器泡沫破碎中的应用
泡沫会阻碍气液分离,因此,希望在分离设施的上游打破泡沫。有不同的方法来分解泡沫,包括化学(利用消泡剂),机械(如旋风)和热(通过提高温度)。在独立搅拌流聚结器(CFC)和搅拌流聚结器/气液圆柱形旋风分离器©(CFC/GLCC©)系统中研究了泡沫稳定性和破裂。目的是研究通过在GLCC©上游安装CFC来提高GLCC©泡沫破碎效率的可能性。测试独立的CFC,发现CFC产生更多的泡沫,但不太稳定,更容易破裂。测试了三种不同的CFC,直径分别为1″,2″和3″。在相同的进口条件下,发现具有切向进口的3″CFC最有效地产生不稳定的泡沫。该CFC的最佳操作条件是在低表面气速下,即vsg(CFC)在0.1 ~ 0.3 m/s之间。更高的流量产生更小的气泡和更稳定的泡沫。通过对CFC/GLCC©系统的测试发现,在相同的流量条件下,该系统的泡沫破碎效率高于单独的GLCC©。CFC的运行包络线是根据Taitel等人(1980)提出的流失流过渡边界作为CFC展弦比(LE/D)的函数来预测的。对段塞流与搅打流过渡边界的分析证实,在搅打流过渡边界的左侧出现了不稳定的泡沫。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。