SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIMES

6200 North Central Expressway &!& SPE 3691

Dallas, Texas v5206 -

THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT To Correction

The Effect of Viscosity on Drag Reducer

Performance in Oil Pipelines

By

Jaime A. Lescarboura and Harry H. Wahl, Members AIME, ContinentalOil Co.

@ Copyright 1971
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for the k2ndAnnual CaliforniaRegional Meeting of the Society of
-----
Petroieum Engineers or Am, to be ‘neldin Los Angele~3 Ca~if., ~~~~.~-?~ 19V. D.WM:.“4-..
EGAIUA”DAUU+n
uu
copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be copied.
The abstract should contain conspicuousacknowledgmentof where and by whom the paper is pre-
sented. Publication elsewhere after publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the
s~c~~ OF DWIIROT.WTTM nnvzmwm~
.U..L”UU”...
-A.v .TfXTRNAT, is
------ .-“.--— -- II=IImIV
------V g~~~~~~ UpQn request to the Editor of the
appropriate journal provided agreement to give proper credit is made.

Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent to the
Society of Petroleum Engineers office. Such discussion may be presented at the above meeting and,
with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two SPE magazines.

------------
-..
ABSTRACT lN”l’KUIJUtil’lUN

The polymeric drag reducer CDR has been Drag reduction is the increase in
tested in the laboratory in oils with viscos- pumpability of a fluid caused by the addi-
ities ranging from 3 to 48 cp and in product tion of small amounte of additive to the
and crude oil pipelines at 3, 5, and 9 cp. fluid. It occurs only in turbulent flow.
Three regions have been identified in the At a given flow rate, the percent drag
drag reduction spectrum--(1) an extension of reduction is given by
leminar flow where drag reduction increases
AP - AP
with increasing flow velocity, (2) a trsnsi-
% D.R. .—A+x 100 (1)
tion region where drag reduction first de-
creases and then increases again with increas-
ing flow velocity, and (3) a region of maximum where AP is the pressure drop in the pipe
constant drag reduction. Above a certain without drag reducer, the base
critical concentration of polymer, the transi- pressure drop, and
tion from the laminar flow extension to the
maximum constant drag reduction occurs with- APP is the pressure drop in the line
out any inflection points. Below the critical when drag reducer is added to the
concentration the extension of laminar flow fluid,
increases with increasing oil viscosity. In
the region of extension of laminar flow, Because large pressure drop reductions can
significant drag reductions (up to 50 percent) be obtained with small amounts of drag
were obtained. reducer, drag reduction has a wide poten-
tial application within the oil industry.
--
lue
1-L-....4-A--
&ixJuLuLuLy
~...
uaLu
-L...+&.+
aLLuw Lb&al.
rmn
uu&\
4=
AD ail
effective drag reducer in all the oils tested We have reported recentlyl on a drag
regardless of their viscosity. The results reducing polymer, CDR, that gave substantial
of pipeline field tests in products and oils drag reduction in crude oil pipelines. How-
from 3 to 9 cp viscosity show that in the full ever, these tests were limited to relatively
turbulence region the performance of CDR is low viscosity fluids. Possible applications
independent of viscosity. of drag reduction in viscous solvents have

References and illustrations at end of paper.

I been suggested. TIIisinterest initiated a
study of the effect of solvent viscosity on
drag reduction.
I In this paper we present the results of
field and laboratory tests of CDR drag
reducer in oils ranging from 3 to 48 cp in
viscosity.
I EXPERIMENliL
I Flow Systems
AH laboratory runs were performed in a
l-inch pipe viscometer at 800F. The instru-
ment has been descrtbed in an earlier paper. 1
The low viscosity fluids tested were diesel,
crude oils, and a creosote-like material
used to treat wood. The intermediate vis-
cosity fluids were blends of 80 pale oil
I RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
(80 Saybolt Sec. refined oil) and diesel, and
the high viscosity fluids were blends of 400
pale oil and diesel. Testing of the high
viscosity fluids strained the range of opera-
tion of the viscometer and, therefore, only
relatively low Reynolds numbers were reached.
In fact, the highest viscosity fiuids couid
barely be pushed into the turbulent transi-
tion zone (2100 < NW < 4000). Because of
the nature of the transition zone, the data
scatter in the area was substantial.
In all cases actual test samples were
used to detertine t“hevi~cositY aiidik~L~~~j
at 800F. Each run consisted of a base run
of untreated solvent and a drag reduction run
wfth the appropriate concentration of CDR.
The field tests with crude oils were run
in two Oklahoma pipelines, which have been
described in detail elsewhere. 1 A field test
with the creosote-like fluid was run in the
Yellowstone pipeline in Montana. This
product pipeline, of about 10 inches ID, runs
from Billings, Montana to Spokane, Washington.
The test segment was 59.3 miles long and
extended between Springdaie and Manhattan
I where v is the flow velocity in ft/sec
pump stations. The line was tapped for pres-
sure measurements at both pump stations and
I C is CDR concentration in volume ppm.
at two intermediate points. The flow rate
was measured by positive displacement meter.
The pipeline flow rate was essentially con-
stsnt since the output of the pipeline pumps
was fixed.
I Experimental Materials
i 4 skt~$Fle%*tk,e‘~>~=iv:o~
The drag reducer used is a high
molecular weight hydrocarbon polymer named
CDR. It is in liquid form and has a density
I of 5.9 ill/gai.anda V~SCGSit~ of 100 cp at
750F.
The fluids used in the field tests were
crudes of 3 and 5 cp viscosity at test tem-
peratures and a creosote-like material of
about 9 cp viscosity at pipeline temperatures,
Laboratory tests were run with die~e~
and crude oils of 3 cp viscosity, crude oil
of 5 cp viscosity, wood treating fluid of 8
cp viscosity, and pale oil-diesel blends of
12, 19, 40, and 48 CP viscosity.
A description of the 27 test runs is
given in Table I. The testing and data
analysis procedures have been described at
length in reference 1. Drag reduction is
calculated from Equation 1.
The results of the pipeline tests are
presented in Figure 1 as drag reduction per-
cent versus Reynolds number. It is known
that, for pipe diameters from 8 to 12
inches, diameter has a linrLtedeffect on
drag reduction.1-3 Thus, in Figure 1, the
data points for the 5 cp and 9 cp fluids
lines obtained with 3 CP crude. As can be
seen, they do not. The 250 Vppm (5 cp) data
point lies well below the 300 Vppm (3 cp)
line, while the 1470 Vppm (9 cp) data point
is far above the 1000 Vppm (3 CP) line.
Figure 2 plots the same data in terms of
dr~g red~~~ion versus flOW velocity. vis-
cosity differences are not taken into
account. The solid lines in the figure are
the performances predicted for the different
concentrations of CDR by the predictive
equation developed in reference 1. This
equation, which is given below, assumes that
viscosity has no effect on drag reduction.
(v - 1.5)C
%D.R. = (2)
23 i- 2.2v+0.093C (V-1.5)*312
AS the figure shows, the agreement between
predicted and actual perform&ce is excel-
lent. ~is indicates that in high turbulence
flow, viscosity has little 6r riosffect c=
drag reduction.
The raw laboratory data of Figures 3 and
------ from bminar to
....-.
turbulent flow occurs in the untreated fluid
and in the fluid treated with CDR. This
transition was not observed previously because
with low viscosity fluids it occurs below the
flow capabilities of the test equipment.
Percent drag reduction versus Reynolds number
E 3691 JAIME A.LESCARBOUP
for the various fluids and CDR concentrations
is given in Figures 5 to 7 for the laboratory
tests. These figures include a theoretical
maximum drag reduction curve. This maximum
drag reduction is defined as the value ob-
tained, from Equation 1, when the drag
reducer extends the laminar regime beyond
Reynolds numbers of 2100. Figures 3 and 4
show that this theoretical maximum is usually
not reached since the additive increases the
viscosity of the solution. Thus, the laminar
pressure loss of the solution is higher than
that of the solvent alone. Another important
fact about this theoretical maximum drag
reduction is that it is not zero at 2100
Reyn0id5 number. Admittedly, there can be no
drag reduction until the flow turns turbulent.
However, as the untreated fluid goes into
turbulence, the pressure drop increases
suddenly (see Figures 3 and 4). If a drag
reducer extends laminar flow (the triangles
in the figures), the jump does not occur;
thus, at a Reynolds number a little higher
than 2100, the theoretical drag reduction is
around 35 percent.
Figure 5 shows the effect of viscosity
on percent drag reduction at constant CDR
concentration. Below a Reynolds number of
2100 the flow is laminar and there is no drag
reduction. Above 2100, drag reduction for
all viscosities falls on a curve slightly
below the theoretical maximum drag reduction.
As Reynolds number increases, drag reduction
begins to deviate downward from the maximum
drag reduction line. TIKLS deviation, or
transition, occurs at lower Reynolds numbers
iP.~m: 7:i~co~it3Tf~~id~, tb.~m.
i~.b.i~h.
x?is-
cosity fluids. Aa the figure shows, the drag
reduction transition begins at around 3000
for the 3 cp oil, at around 4000 for the 8
to 9 cp oils, and has not yet begun at 5000
for the 40 cp oil. The dashed lines in the
figures indicate the probable location of
trmsition . Since they are drawn through the
lowest data point measured for a particular
run, the lines are an upper bound to the
begi~.~ki~.g
of t-t-me+ t+~” ~.~~e ~-~IJ~&
..-.”- .-”.. .
that during transition drag reduction de-
creases, reaches a minimum , and then begins
to .
.------- ag~iil.
~ucIe.ds=
The data in Figure 6 shows the effects
“of both concentration and viscosity. The
3 cp data demonstrates that the fall-off from
maximum drag reduction is concentration
dependent aa well as viscosity dependent.
Transition begins earlier for the 230 Vppm
solution than for the 690 Vppm concentration.
Another important effect is shown by Figure 6.
Ait’houg’hduring transition a ktigher clrzg
reduction is obtained with 230 Vppm in 12 and
19 cp oils than with 690 Vppm in 3 cp oil,
AND HARRY A. WAHL 3
ultimately, at high Reynolds numbers, the
higher concentration gives the greatest drag
reduction. This shows that if turbulence is
high enough viscosity effects are un-
important. The field tests verify this con-
clusion.
Figure 7 shows data run at various.
concentrations in three low viscosity oils.
The effects observed previously are verified
here. The effect of concentration at con-
stant viscosity is clearly shown by the 300
Vppm, 2300 Vppm, and 5000 Vppm lines for the
3 cp oil; the 300 Vppm, 920 Vppm, and 1500
Vppm lines for the 5 cp oil; the 1500 Vppm
and 3(KXI Vppiii Iirlesfcr +!-.a
Q nm
~..=. -p m-ii
u+- . .Agai~.~
at constant viscosity, the lower the CDR
concentration the sooner transition begins.
Comparing the 1500 Vppm lines for 5 and 8 CP
oils, it is again evident that at higher
Reynolds numbers viscosity becomes un-
important and equal concentrations of CDR
give equal drag reduction regardless of the
solvent. This effect is also demonstrated
by the 3000 Vppm (8 CP) and 5000 Vppm (3 CP)
data. At hw ReY~i~~d~-..”.L--” L.++.* ~~-g
LLUULU=L. “.....
reduction is obtained with a lower concen-
tration of CDR in the 8 cp oil than with a
higher CDR concentration in the 3 cp oil.
However, as Reynolds number increases, the
5000 Vppm line crosses the 3000 Vppm line.
At higher &ynolds numbers, high turbulence,
5000 Vppm gives better drag reduction than
3000 Vppm, regardless of the viscosity of the
oils.
The results of this work show that there
are three regions in the drag reduction
spectrum. These regions are an ~Xt~iLSiO~I Gf
the laminar regime, a transition region, and
a regitm of constant drag reduction. In the
first region, total turbulence suppression
occurs, while in the other regions there is
an apparent turbulence attenuation. ‘he
total turbulence suppression is clearly
*-—-—- h,, thm
aemonstrausu
-..->
LU
z- ma-----
rAguL=
‘1
d
.
=bu
...! ?74
.A~U..=
,-,,,va ,4
-f .1 . ..-
extension of the laminar flow line to
~~~w
Reynolds numbers above 2100. The behavior
is shown in Figures 5 Lo 7 by the Iiileiif
maximum drag reduction located slightly below
the line of theoretical maximum drag reduc-
tion. The theoretical maximum is not reached
because CDR makes the solution slightly more
viscous than the solvent alone. Aa the
Reynolds number increases beyond 2100, the
drag reduction increases until turbulence
appears. There is then a transition region
in which drag reduction first decreases and
then increases again as Reynolds number
increases. Finally, a region is reached
where drag reduction remains constant as the
flow rate increases. This behavior is
demonstrated in Figure 7 by the 300 and 900
Vppm curves.

4 THE EFFECT OF VISCOSITY ON DRAG REDUCER PERFORMANCE
It might be argued that the maintaining
of laminar flow to Reynolds numbers above
2100 is a non-Newtonian effect similar to
that observed by Dodge and Metzner. q lhey
found that as the fluid becomes more non-
Newtonian, as indicated by their non-Newtonhn
index n becoming less than unity, it required
a higher Reynolds number to generate turbulent
flow. However, a non-Newtonian index of 0.4
is needed to extend laminar flow to NRS =
~o~~● Me ha.~= fnt~ndthat
.—- ---— a solution contain-
ing 1150 Vppm of CDR is still Newtonian
(n = 1.0), but extends the laminar regime to
Reynolds numbers over 5000 (cf. Figure 5).
Thus, the effect observed in this study is
due to the specific action of a drag reducer
and is not a purely non-Newtonian effect.
The appearance of the three regions in
the drag reduction spectrum is dependent on
the viscosity of the solvent aa well aa on
drag reducer concentration. The field data,
which is in the transition region, indiea?es
that the appearance of the drag reduction
regions is also diameter dependent. The flow
velocity in the field tests was not high
, .4nm nf (-~p.~~~n.t drag
enougn to reaeklEk ree~w....
reduction.
The discovery of the concentration and
diameter dependent of the drag reduction
spectrum verifies the work of Liaw5 who
classified drag reducing poiymer soiutioiias
dilute or concentrated, depending on whether
a critical concentration, Cc, is exceeded.
Above Cc pressure loss-flow rate plots show
a gradual deviation from an extension of the
laminar line with no transition region.
This behavior is supported in our results by
the 3000 Vppm solution of CDR in wood treat-
ing fluid (cf. Figure 7). Liaw found that
Cc is dependent on diameter but seems to be
independent of the solvent for a given
polymer. Critical concentration increases
with pipe diameter approximately as D2. It
is possible that the drag reduction spectrum
is independent of the type of solvent for a
given polymer, However, the solvent WLS-
cosity does have an effect on the appearance
of the three regions of the drag reduction
spectruoo. most clearly sh~
~.i~ is in
Figure 7 but can also be seen in Figure 5
and Figure 6.
Figure 7 shows that CC for 8 CP oil is
below 3000 Vppm since the data shows no
transition zone but only a gradual deviation
from laminar flow. Similarly the Cc for 3 cp
oil is above 5000 ppm since a transition zone
still exists. It is apparent that the
beginning of the transition, when there is
one, is dependent on the solvent as well as
on drag reducer concentration. Tiiu.9,fOZ
*3 CP Gil. the
begins at
+Fsn~i~iQp-
..-.
ZO~e
—..--- ~~~ ~~~;
IN UIL PIFEIZNES
N% = 2950 for 2300 ppm, but at N% = 4400 for
5000 ppm. However, at a constant 1500 ppm
CDR, the transition zone begins at NRS = 2950
for 5 cp oil, but at NW = 4400 for 8 CP oil.
These tests also show that the full
turbulence performance of CDR is independent
of the solvent, being dependent only on the
concentration. How soon this maximum per-
formance is reached is a function of solvent
viscosity.
.. - -~ -L..- -.=---=1fiaq-l~,~+nns could
~~~ OL L11=5c SGUGA-A tivLw-...-..--
be deduced from Figure 5 and Figure 6. How-
ever, the fact that most of these data lie
in the turbulent transition region makes the
results harder to interpret. Moreover, the
measurements in the transition region
generally show more scatter than either
laminar or fully turbulent data.
Figure 5 shows transition beginning below
NRe = 2950 fo~ 3 w dl, at NRS ~ 29!20 fo~
8-19 cp oil, and above N& = 5000 for 40 CP
oil. Figure 6 shows that for 230 ppm CDR
the transition region begins below NW = 2900
for 12 arrd19 cp oil. The fact that differ-
ences in solvent viscosity mask the effect
of concentration is shown by a comparison of
the 690 ppm, 3 CP run with the 460 ppm, 40-48
cp runs. Transition begins later in the
viscous oils than in diesel even though the
concentration -= bun . . .,.6,,-.
UL
nnn 4. h40h-Y i~- ~~-~ ~ie~el
than in the viscous oils.
CONCLUSIONS
The major conclusions of this study are
that CDR performs better in viscous oils
than in low viscosity oils at low Reynolds
numbers (2100 to 10,000) and that it performs
equally well in all viscosity levels at
Reynolds numbers above 10,000. For a given
pipe diameter, viscous fluids require higher
flow velocities in order to reach a given
Reynolds number. 7%us, the velocities
required to achieve turbulent flow with
viscous fluids may be outside the practical
pipeline limits.
Three regions have been identified in
the drag reduction spectrum: i) a region of
total turbulence suppression where drag
reduction increases with increasing Reynolds
number or flow velocity, 2) a transition
region where drag reduction first decreases
and then increases again with increasing
Reynolds number, and 3) a region of maximum
constant drag reduction where the drag reduc-
tion is independent of Reynolds number or
flow velocity. Above a certain critical
concentration, the transition zone does not
appear mu ~ -1.-~lnT.*
~~b=.&VW .=e_..- full
mnuima g~e~ f~orn
turbulence suppression to maximum drag
PE 3691 JAIME A. LESCARBOU
reduction gradually without any inflection v-
points. The critical concentration is a
function of solvent viscosity, It decreases AP
as solvent viscosity increases. Below the
critical concentration, where there is a
transition region, its beginning and end have APP
been shown to be dependent on both concen-
tration and solvent viscosity.
v-
For ease of operation it is desirable to
operate above the critical concentration.
From the economic standpoint, however, it is Vppm - voiume parts per million; voiumes of
preferable to operate below Cc. The use of
CDR in viscous solvents should be most eco-
nomical in the region from NW 2100 to the
beginning of the drag reduction transition REFERENCES
since an early maximum drag reduction is
obtained. When operating below Cc, however, 1.
care must be taken not to overshoot into that
portion of the transition region where drag
reduction is poor.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 2.
The authors thank the Management of
Continental Oil Company for permission to
publish this paper and acknowledge the in- 3.
valuable comments and suggestions of co-
workers. Special thanks are due the
Management and personnel of Continental Pipe-
line Company for their assistance in running
the pipeline tests.
L
T.
NOMENCLATURE
c - CDR concentration in volume ppm
5.
D - internal pipe diameter, inches
D.R. - drag reduction
N* - Reynolds number, dimensionless,
given by $
mean flow velocity, ftlsec
- pressure drop in the line without
CDR, psi
- pressure drop in the line with polymer
in crude, psi
fluid kinematic viscosity, consistent
units
...
CDR per million volumes of solvent
Lescarboura, J. A., Culter, J. D., and
Wahl, H. A., llDragReduction with a
Polymeric Additive in Crude Oil Pipe-
lines,” ~r. —. J., 11 (1971)
Patterson, G. K., Zakin, J. L., Snd
Rodriguez, J. M., “Drag Reduction,”
I&EC, Q, 22-30 (1969)
Rodriguez, J. M., Zakin, J. L., and
Patterson, G. K., “Correlation of Drag
Reduction with Modified Deborah Number
for Dilute Polymer Solutions,” Trans.
Sot. Pet. Engr., 240, 325-332 (1967)
u“..&b,
T) ~. , ----
Tk-trlcma “.
and Mntmiar
--..”---- , .A.
. . R..
-. ,
“Turbulent Flow of Non-Newtonian Systems,”
A.I.Ch.E. J., ~, 189-204 (1959)
Liaw, Gin Chain, “The Effect of Polymer
Structure on Drag Reduction in Non-
Polar Solvents,” Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Missouri at Rolls (1968)
 TABLE 1 - DRAG REDUCTION TESTS RUN ON CDR AT VARIOUS VISCOSITIES

Nominal Pipe Viscosity

Solvent Size, Inch Cp CDR Concentration, VPPM

Diesel Oil 1 3 230, 690, 1150, 2300, 5000

Crude Oil 1 3 300, 1520

Crude Oil 1 5 300, 920, 1520

Wood Treating Fluid 1 8 1520, 3040

80 Pale/Diesel 1 12 230, 1150

80 Pale/Diesel 1 19 230, 1150

400 Pale/Diesel 1 40 460, 1150

400 Pale/Diesel 1 48 460

Crude 8 3 150, 230, 300, 480, 600, 1000

Wood Treating Fluid 10 9 1470

Crude 12 5 250
 40 I 1 I I I I I I
CMICJ=NTRATION
1
I
+ 250 VPPM IN 12’’ CRUOE LINE ‘“”’;;~’;;pj-”-

D
+
o
250
1470
vPPM
vPPM
IN 12’’ CRUDE LINE
IN 10 “ PRODUC7LIN 36 01470 VPPM IN IO” PROOUC7 LINE d

/1
25 ■ ● 150 VPPM IN e“CRUOE LINE
● 150 VPPM IN 8“ CRUDE LINE
z A 230 VPPM IN ,, - - A 230 VPPM IN 8“’ ,, ,
o 32 , 480v PPM IN 8“ ‘, ‘- 1000
+ ■ 480 VPPM IN ., .,
0 / 1
20 /0 0 300 VPPM IN .( ,, ,, 0 300VPPM IN 8“ ,. ,, 1

F’
:

A 600 VPPM IN H ,$ I, A 600 VPPM IN e“ I ,,

A z 28
2 A ❑ 1000 vP~ IN ,, ,, ,, 0 Cl 1000 VPPMIN C!’” s ,, //:- .s0
w o +
F
: Is ~ 24
a
/ 0
●
‘o /
a u
n a

g 10 / w 20
Id 2
o C/ 0
K ~ 16
w
Ls I&l
v
: 12
L 1
I I I I I I I
o
) 40 60 80 100 200 400 600
REYNOLDS NUMBER IN THOUSANDS

Fig. 1 - Performance of CDR vs Reynolds

number for various concentrations in
lines Of 8 to 12 in. in diameter.
I 2345678
FLOW VELOCITY: FT./SEC.

Fig. 2 Orag reduction obtained

in f eld tests compared to
pred cted drag reduct [on.

30
25 TURBULENT
FLOW-l c?
nn E 4
5.0

_ 3.G
u)
~- 10
‘. 2.0 0
a. a
a n 8
u
a
6
(%
(n 5
u 0.0 u
a a
2 0. 4“
WY
: 0.5
a
3
a
2.5
0.3
2
0.2

,.“=
1.5

I !
0. I
4 567890
0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 23 579 I 1.5 2 2.5 3
MASS FLOWRATE, W,LB/SEC.
MASS FLOWRATE,W, LB/SEC.

Fig. 3 - Raw data for 1,150 vppm CDR in Fig. 4 - Raw data for 1,150 vppm COR
12 cp mix of 80 pale and diesel oils at in 40 cp mix of 400 pale and diesel
800F in l-in. pipe. oils at 80°F in l-in. pipe.
 “&
L
s
m.
O(JI
cm
0 .-
0+
.—

E(!I
D3
00
.-
+!-

F’--lT
06
-DY//’- >

L
ac
~ .-

m
l.,ll. ~i!! !- .—
L

0 0 0 0
0 : F1 N
In

NO11911Q3M 9V80 lN33M3d

Nou9na3tJ 9VM01N33M3d

z ‘?. “\:_
N&+,
\ o
u-l
, .-
0

c
.—
.-m
IA

XOOQ+Z