Gas Release
Gas Release
Gas Release
6, June 2021
author has observed that the size of the hazardous area container with a dimension of 1 m × 0.5 m × 0.5 m was
decreases with an increase in the release rate of the surface located inside wind tunnel. The author [8] observed that the
gas. Also Li. et al. [7] presented an experimental and gas release rate increased approximately linearly with an
numerical analysis of the release and dispersion behavior of increasing in pressure at 0.75 m. Gathered some information
subsea gas. A variety of release scenarios are conducted to about the previous studies as can be summarized in Table I.
study the impact of release pressure, water depth and leak Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the
direction on dispersion behavior. The author observed that behavior of gas release and dispersion characteristics and
the gas plume under the larger leak pressure has been shown also to determine subsea rise time, gas transport path and
to have a higher volume. The effect of the leaking pressure on fountain height until reach sea surface with using production
the gas plume is also equivalent to the size of the nozzle. An gas density of Petroleum Egyptian company around 0.648 kg
experimental has been designed in order to test gas / and study the effects of the hole size and water depth on
leakage rate and dispersion behavior in various scenarios subsea gas release by developing a CFD model in order to
with considering orifice size, leakage pressure and water find mitigation method to contain the subsea gas release.
depth effect on gas flow rate a by using a transparent glass
TABLE I: INFORMATION ABOUT THE PREVIOUS STUDIES
Authors Numerical Turbulenc Hole size Water Validation Pressure Continuity, Pressure Volume
models e model depth model discretizati momentum velocity fraction
on and coupling,
turbulence
equations
[9] Coupled The - 30 m, 100 Rotvoll PRESTO! Second PISO The
VOF and standard K- m and 400 experiment order scheme Geo-Recon
DPM ε m upwind struct
approach model scheme algorithm
[10] Coupled The 10 mm, 50 Several Rotvoll PRESTO! Second PISO The
VOF and realizable mm, 100 depth experiment order scheme Geo-Recon
DPM κ-ε mm, and approximat upwind struct
approach turbulence full rupture. ely from 50 scheme algorithm
model m to 235 m
[11] Coupled The 30 mm 30 m, 50 m, Rotvoll PRESTO! Second PISO The
VOF and realizable and 70 m experiment order scheme Geo-Recon
DPM κ-ε upwind struct
approach turbulence scheme algorithm
model
[12] Coupled The 25.4 mm 50 m and Rotvoll PRESTO! Second PISO The
VOF and standard K- 300 m experiment order scheme Geo-Recon
DPM ε upwind struct
approach model scheme algorithm
[13] Coupled The - 7m Rotvoll PRESTO! Second PISO The
VOF and standard K- experiment order scheme Geo-Recon
DPM ε upwind struct
approach model scheme algorithm
163
International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 12, No. 6, June 2021
The standard k-epsilon model is the model of turbulence. where is a random number subject to Gaussian distribution;
In order to represent the turbulent properties of the flow, the K is turbulent kinetic energy.
standard k-epsilon model is comprised of two extra transport In the K-ε model, the determined time of bubble particles
equations. Turbulent kinetic energy is the first transport moving in turbulent vortices as in (10).
parameter, the second transport parameter is turbulent (10)
dissipation , the two equations are shown below in (5) & (6).
where is an existence period of turbulent vortices and
)
⃗⃗) = ( ) – (5) turbulent energy dissipation rate.
C. Model Descriptions
)
⃗⃗ ) = ( ) – 1) Geometry and mesh model
The two dimensional geometry built in ANSYS design
(6)
modeler the same dimensions as the experimental basin, with
width of 9 m and depth of 7 m plus 3 m for air above the
where =1.00, =1.30, =1.92, =1.44. and The flow water surface. A uniform grid size is created in ANSYS
was believed to be fully turbulent, and the molecular Meshing then the mesh has been refined by region adapting
viscosity influences were negligible. Therefore, the standard in ANSYS Fluent, around the gas plume area is refined as
k- model is valid for completely turbulent flows only. This shown in Fig. 2. (a) and (b). Increased number of cells till
model's drawback is delayed and separation decreased. reached to the optimum grid cells that didn’t make more
2) Eulerian-Lagrangian discrete phase model (DPM) changes in simulation results, therefore, the simulations have
DPM tracks the movement of discrete particles (bubbles) performed with 96899 quadrilateral cells also used time step
in the water from the released gas. The trajectory of the size at 0.001 to get better results and keep courant number
bubbles is solved by the particle force equation in the below 1.
differential Lagrangian coordinate frame. In Cartesian
coordinates frame, the force balance equation of particles is
shown in (7). Bubble inertia is proportional to the different
forces that act with bubbles, additional to drag force,
buoyancy and mass force [14].
(7)
Fig. 2. (a) Current simulation mesh; (b) Illustration of meshing.
The subsea gas plume motion is affected by the changing
in Temperature and Hydrostatic Pressure Losses. 2) Solution method
Temperature and hydrostatic pressure are the main factors for An unsteady solver based on pressure is used. For
bubble properties such as size and density, the ideal gas law unsteady simulations, the PISO algorithm is sufficient and is
usually defines them. The movement of bubbles is combined used for pressure and velocity coupling [14]. In order to
with the continuous phase flow. To measure the flow of the enhance model stability in the gravity field, the implicit body
continuous phase, an Eulerian VOF model preserving force formulation is enabled. For interface tracking of
momentum and mass via the Navier-Stokes equations. The various phases, the Geometric-Reconstruct scheme is used.
continuous phase mass transformation is represented by the Stochastic monitoring (random walk) considers the
continuity equation, which is a simplified form considering additional drag force of the dispersion phase (gas bubbles) in
the flow is diluted and the impact of the bubbles can be the turbulent dispersion [9]. First order implicit for transient
ignored [15]. formulation and second order upwind for turbulent kinetic
where is the velocity of the bubbles, is the density of energy, momentum and turbulent dissipation rate. The
the bubbles gas, u is the velocity of the fluid, ρ is the density numerical model is implemented by the fluent software with
of continuous phases, is drag force, N; is virtual mass a set of UDFs. The viscosity and density of the water phase
force and determine the drag force from (8). are set to 1.003e-3 kg/m.s and 998.23 kg/ respectively.
For air, it was given as 1.7894e-5 kg/m.s and 1.225 kg/ .
) (8) 3) Model validation
A numerical model is generated with the same size as The
where is the drag coefficient, is the density of the experiment is called “Rotvoll” and summarized in the report
bubble gas, Re is the Reynolds number and ) is a
164
International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 12, No. 6, June 2021
of [16] to check the validity of the numerical model. A series phase of the water (continuous phase) and the ambient air is
of experiments were carried out in a rectangular basin with a represented by the red color. The yellow line reflects the
depth of 7 m and 9 m width. The pipeline was linked at the interface between the two phases that illustrated by the Geo
release point between this vessel and the bottom centre of the Reconstruction Scheme. Fig. 6 shows the bubble contour for
basin. To hold the downstream pressure constant at a preset particle residance time after 5 seconds at flow rate 0.17
value to achieve a constant flow rate during release, a N /s.
pressure regulator was installed in the pipeline. The
underwater gas plume characteristics were captured by a TABLE II: FOUNTAIN HEIGHT COMPARISON FOR GAS VOLUME FLOW
RATES OF 0.17 N /S AND 0.75 N /S BETWEEN EXPERIMENT AND SIMULATION
high-speed video camera. The basin was filled with water and
Fountain height (m)
pure air released from the bottom with flow rate of 83, 170 Flow rate (N /s) 0.083 0.17 0.75
and 750 Nl/s. The inlet consisted of a release valve with a fast Experiment - 0.65 1.28
acting piston that injects gas vertically with a 10 streams of Simulation 0.25 0.56 1.21
particles are arranged at 0.33 m in front of the release point.
3.5
Experime
3 nt
velocity (m/s)
2.5
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
2
A. Validation Results 1.5
1
0.5
7 Experiment
0
6 Simulation 0 1 2 3 4
Distance from source point (m)
5
(a) Gas volume flow rate 0. 085 Nm3/s
4
Rise time (s)
Experimen
3 3 t
Simulation
2 2.5
Velocity (m/s)
1 2
0 1.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Flow rate(Nm3/s) 1
Fig. 3. Rise time comparision for gas volume flow rates of 0.085 Nm3/s, 0.17 0.5
N /s and 0.75 N /s between experiment and simulation. 0
0 1 2 3 4
In order to compare experimental and simulation findings, Distance from source point (m)
the rise time, centerline velocity and fountain height are (b) Gas volume flow rate 0.17 N /s
chosen as reference parameters. There is some lack of Fig. 4. Center line velocity comparison between experiment and simulation
experimental data for flow rate 0.75 N /s. The simulation for gas volume flow rates (a) 0.085 Nm3/s and (b) 0.17 Nm3/s.
and experimental rise time are concise in Fig. 3. The rise time
defines with the first particle reach the water surface. The
simulation and experimental fountain height are summarized
in table II and finally the Centre line velocity is summarized
in Fig. 4. (a) and (b). For comparing experimental and
simulation outcomes. The rise time and fountain height are
selected as reference variables the same as [11]. Found that
the outcomes of the simulation are magnificently aligned
with the experiments, It can be shown that the simulated Fig. 5. Contour plot colored by the volume fractions at the water surface.
values are greater than the experimental values induced by
the k model, which only provides the average turbulence
knowledge and lacks the ability to dissipate the elevated
momentum around the gas core to water. The URANS LES
turbulence model has been shown to display a more reliable
estimate of plume centerline velocity than the RANS k
model. Furthermore, a disadvantage of overlong
measurement time, which cannot be neglected. The current
numerical model is still used for further discussion because
the prediction error with the current turbulence model is
inside a reasonable range and also the affordable time cost.
The contour plot of volume fractions in Fig. 5 shows the
deflected rising water upward in radial surface flow occurs
due to the momentum of the entrained water plume, this
elevation is clear evidence of the two-way coupling used in
the present CFD simulation. The blue color represents the Fig. 6. Shows the bubble contour for particle residance time after 5 seconds
at flow rate 0.17 N /s.
165
International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 12, No. 6, June 2021
B. Effect of Leakage Hole Size for gas flow with water surface. It is apparent that the rate of
gas leakage has significantly impacted on the growing gas
8
plume. Therefore, the increase in the gas leakage rate, the
lower rise time is expected. As can be concluded comparison
Vertical rise distance (m)
7
6 between various scenarios of hole sizes with rise time of gas
5 leakage and maximum fountain height.in Fig. 8.
4
3 hole 25 mm
2 hole 40 mm
hole 60 mm
1
hole 90 mm
0
3 0 4 1 5 2 6 7
Time (s)
Fig. 7. The vertical rise distance with gas releasing time under various of
hole sizes. (a) Hole 25 mm
7
6
5
Rise time (s)
4
hole 25 mm
3 (b) Hole 40 mm
hole 40 mm
2 hole 60 mm
hole 90 mm
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Hole size(mm)
(a) Rise time
(c) Hole 60 mm
0.8
0.7
Fountain Height (m)
0.6
0.5
0.4 hole 25
mm
0.3
hole 40
0.2 mm
0.1 (d) Hole 90 mm
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Hole size (mm)
166
International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 12, No. 6, June 2021
8
6
depth 4 m
4
2 depth 7 m
0
0 5Water depth (m)10 15 (d) Depth 4 m
(a) Rise time.
0.6
Fountain height (m)
0.5
Fig. 12. Volume fraction contour to illustrate the gas flow with water surface
0.4 at variety of water depths (a) Depth 4 m; (b) Depth 7 m; (c) Depth 10 m; (d)
Depth13 m.
0.3
depth 4 m
0.2 depth 7 m
0.1 depth 10 m IV. CONCLUSION
depth 13 m
0 A numerical analysis was conducted based on CFD model
0 5 Water depth (m) 10 15 to study the properties of underwater gas release and to assess
(b) Fountain height. the gas dispersion by focus on rising time and fountain height
Fig. 10. Shows the comparison among many parameters that got affected by of gas plume in order to mitigate solution for petroleum
water depth (a) Rise time; (b) Fountain height. companies. The main results are summarized in the following
1) The rising time for the hole size 25 mm is about 1.29
14 times longer than the scenario of hole size 90 mm. on
the other hand the fountain height for larger hole size
12
is approximately 2.1 times higher than the smaller
Vertical rise distance (m)
REFERENCES
[1] C. H. Ward et al., Habitats and Biota of the Gulf of Mexico: Before the
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Volume 1: Water Quality, Sediments,
Sediment Contaminants, Oil and Gas Seeps, Coastal Habitats,
Offshore Plankton and Benthos, and Shellfish, Springer New York, pp.
(a) Depth 13 m 10-22, 2017.
[2] J. A. Pratt and C. J. Castaneda, Offshore Pioneers Brown & Root and
the History of Offshore Oil and Gas, Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing
Company, 1997.
[3] A. Gupta, Modeling and Simulation of Gas Release from Rupture of
Subsea Surface Gas Pipe, Indian Institute of Technology, 2014.
[4] L. Zheng and P. D. Yapa, “Modeling gas dissolution in deepwater
oil/gas spills,” Journal of Marine Systems, vol. 31, pp. 299-309, 2002.
[5] X. Li, G. Chen, H. Zhu, and C. Xu, “Gas dispersion and deflagration
above sea from subsea release and its impact on offshore platform,”
Ocean Engineering, vol. 163, pp. 157-168, 2018.
(b) Depth 10 m [6] C. H. Xu et al., “Simulation and assessment of gas dispersion above sea
from a subsea release: A CFD-based approach,” International Journal
167
International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 12, No. 6, June 2021
of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. Ahmed S. Shehata was born in Egypt on 25 June
353-363, 2019. 1984, graduated from Arab Academy for Science,
[7] X. Li, G. Chen, and F. Khan, “Analysis of underwater gas release and Technology and Maritime Transport at Egypt in 2006
dispersion behavior to assess subsea safety risk,” J Hazard Mater, vol. with a bachelor’s of marine engineering, in 2010 he
367, pp. 676-685, 2019. completed his M.Sc in marine engineering, his thesis
[8] Y. Zhang, J. Zhu, Y. Peng, J. Pan, and Y. Li, “Experimental research of title “Aerodynamic Performance of Wells Turbines
flow rate and diffusion behavior of nature gas leakage underwater,” Wave Energy Extractor” and in 2017 complemented
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol.65, 104119, his PhD in Department of Naval Architecture and his
2020. thesis title “investigation and improvement of wells turbine performance-
[9] S. Cloete, J. E. Olsen, and P. Skjetne, “CFD modeling of plume and fluid analysis & 2nd law of thermodynamics study”
free surface behavior resulting from a sub-sea gas release,” Applied He is currently working as assistant professor at the Department of Marine
Ocean Research, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 220-225, 2009. Engineering, College of Engineering &Technology, Arab Academy for
[10] F. Jianmin et al., “Simulation and assessment of underwater gas release Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria, Egypt. His
and dispersion from subsea gas pipelines leak,” Process Safety and current research areas are renewable energy systems, desalination systems,
Environmental Protection, vol. 119, pp. 46-57, 2018. computational fluid dynamics (CFD), structural analysis, offshore structure,
[11] Y. Sun, X. Cao, F. Liang, and J. Bian, “Investigation on underwater gas oil and gas engineer, process modeling, multi-physics modeling, CAD, and
leakage and dispersion behaviors based on coupled numerical methods.
Eulerian-Lagrangian CFD model,” Process Safety and Environmental
Protection, vol. 136, pp. 268-279, 2020. Ali I. Shehata was born in Egypt on 17 December
[12] J. E. Olsen and P. Skjetne, “Modelling of underwater bubble plumes 1981. He was graduated from Arab Academy for
and gas dissolution with an Eulerian-Lagrangian CFD model,” Applied Science, Technology and Maritime Transport at
Ocean Research, vol. 59, pp. 193-200, 2016. Egypt in 2004 with a bachelor’s of offshore and
[13] A. S. Kumara and T. Kim, Numerical Comparison of Drag Models marine engineering, in 2007 he completed his M.Sc
Applied to Subsea Gas Dispersion, vol. 1, pp. 259-272, 2018. in Mechanical Engineering, His thesis title
[14] X. Li, G. Chen, and H. Zhu, “Modelling and assessment of accidental “Experimental Investigation of Packed Column
oil release from damaged subsea pipelines,” Mar. Pollut. Bull, vol. 123, Absorption System” and in 2012 complemented his
no. 1-2, pp. 133-141, 2017. PhD in the Department of Mechanical Engineering
[15] J. E. Olsen, P. Skjetne, and S. T. Johansen, “VLES turbulence model and his thesis title “performance enhancement of vapour absorption cooling
for an Eulerian–Lagrangian modeling concept for bubble plumes,” systems”
Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 44, pp. 61-71, 2017. He is currently working as associate professor at the Department of
[16] T. Engebretsen et al., “Surface flow and gas dispersion from a subsea Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Arab
release of natural gas,” International Society of Offshore and Polar Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria,
Engineers, 1997. Egypt. His current research areas are heat and mass transfer, aircraft
applications, aero engines, computational heat transfer, absorption cooling
Copyright © 2021 by the authors. This is an open access article distributed systems, computational fluid dynamics, refrigeration and air conditioning,
under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted energy management and renewable energy resources.
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0). Ahmed Mehanna was born in Egypt on 23 June
1982. He was graduated from Arab Academy for
Ahmed M. Ellethy was born in Alexandria, Egypt on Science, Technology and Maritime Transport at Egypt
26 July 1992, who graduated from Arab Academy for in 2005 with a bachelor’s of marine engineering, in
Science, Technology and Maritime Transport at 2009 he completed his M.Sc in marine engineering,
Egypt in July 2014 with a bachelor’s of mechanical his thesis title “Update Development of Design
engineering (GPA: 3.76, Excellent with honor). Aspects of Bulk Carriers”.” and in 2015
He is currently working as ROV tooling engineer at complemented his PhD in Department of Naval
Egypt; he has an excellent experience in oil & gas Architecture and his thesis title “modeling of oil spill
field which related to subsea networks, operations and damage assessment in marine environment”.
structures, especially because he was working He is currently working as associate professor at the Department of Marine
previously as a Subsea Controls Engineer on many of control systems such Engineering, College of Engineering &Technology, Arab Academy for
as Vetco Gray, Aker Kvaerner and Cameron in one of Petroleum Companies Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria, Egypt. His
at Egypt. Therefore, he decided to implement the present study about Subsea current research areas are marine environment field, ships and offshore
gas leakage in order to enhance his experience in oil & gas field. structures, risk assessment, marine hydrodynamics, fluid mechanics, ship
design, shipbuilding, ship propulsion and renewable energy.
168