Dedication الرسالة

Dedication
I dedicate my reach to the all my family, and all my friends, and to

anyone who supported me and helped me in preparing this search.
II
Acknowledgment
For ever I offer my deep great thanks to Allah for his wide blessing. I
would like to express my appreciation to my supervisor on this research.
Dr.Hassn al Shrif for help, encouragement and valuable comments during this
work.
I wish to extend my appreciation to members of chemical engineering

department as well as each from helped to me in preparing this research.
III
Abstract
Pipelines are the primary means of transporting oil and gas in the world.
Often, different grades of petroleum products are sent in the same pipeline as it
is cost effective, which is known as batching. While two or more different
liquids are sent as a batch, mixing occurs at the interface of the two products
known as “Mixing Zone or Trans mix”. The size of the mixing Zone varies in
length and time across the length of the pipeline.
Most of the previous studies were concentrated on developing equations for

the interface length and the factors influencing it. Factors influencing the
Mixing Zone are pipeline length, pipe diameter, Reynolds number, the
kinematic viscosity of both fluids, mean flow velocity, friction factor, the type
of flow regime and relative roughness factors of the inner pipe wall.
The software OLGA is a transient flow simulator. Software OLGA can be

used to calculate the volume of the mixing zone and to predict how the above
factors influence the mixing zone length. It is capable to calculate flow
properties as function of both pipe length and time. The simulator is able to
simulate unlimited number of batches.
In this study, an existing 212 km, 42 inch pipeline was selected as a working
example. This pipeline is used to transport two different crude oils. Oil A has
high pour point (39℃ ) while B has much lower pour point (12 ℃). In the
mixing zone, drops of oil A will solidify forming inhomogeneous mixing with
oil B. This is commercially unwanted phenomena.
The obtained results of a selected number of equations and OLGA were

compared with real data from the field. In the field, facilities are installed to
detect any change in in density at two different locations and enable the
operator to shift oil flow to the appropriate storage tanks. The obtained
measurements show that the mixing zone length is 3 km at the flowrate 7000
BBL/hr. The calculated error for different equations range from 0.46% to 49.16
% while the software OLGA shows an error ranging from 6.6 % to 48.3%
depending on flow rate.
IV
‫‪Abstract in Arabic‬‬
‫خطوط األنابيب هي الوس‪A‬يلة األساس‪A‬ية لنق‪AA‬ل النف‪AA‬ط والغ‪AA‬از في الع‪AA‬الم‪ .‬في كث‪AA‬ير من‬
‫األحيان ‪ ،‬يتم إرس‪AA‬ال درج‪AA‬ات مختلف‪AA‬ة من المنتج‪AA‬ات البترولي‪AA‬ة في نفس خ‪AA‬ط األن‪AA‬ابيب‬
‫ألنها فعال‪AA‬ة من حيث التكلف‪AA‬ة ‪ ،‬وال‪AA‬تي ُتع‪AA‬رف باس‪AA‬م التجمي‪AA‬ع‪ .‬بينم‪AA‬ا يتم إرس‪AA‬ال س‪AA‬ائلين‬
‫مختلفين أو أكثر كدفعة ‪ ،‬يحدث الخل‪AA‬ط في واجه‪AA‬ة المنتجين المع‪AA‬روفين باس‪AA‬م "منطق‪AA‬ة‬
‫الخلط أو مزيج ترانس"‪ .‬يختلف حجم منطقة الخلط من حيث الطول والوقت عبر طول‬
‫خط األنابيب‪.‬‬
‫رك‪A‬زت معظم الدراس‪A‬ات الس‪A‬ابقة على تط‪A‬وير مع‪A‬ادالت لط‪A‬ول الواجه‪A‬ة والعوام‪A‬ل‬
‫المؤثرة عليها‪ .‬العوامل التي تؤثر على منطق‪AA‬ة الخل‪AA‬ط هي ط‪AA‬ول خ‪AA‬ط األن‪AA‬ابيب ‪ ،‬قط‪AA‬ر‬
‫األنب‪AA‬وب ‪ ،‬رقم رينول‪AA‬دز ‪ ،‬اللزوج‪A‬ة الحركي‪AA‬ة لكال الموائ‪AA‬ع ‪ ،‬متوس‪A‬ط س‪A‬رعة الت‪AA‬دفق ‪،‬‬
‫عامل االحتكاك ‪ ،‬نوع نظام التدفق وعوامل الخشونة النسبية لجدار األنبوب الداخلي‪.‬‬
‫برنامج ‪ OLGA‬هو محاكي تدفق ع‪A‬ابر‪ .‬يمكن اس‪A‬تخدام برن‪A‬امج ‪ OLGA‬لحس‪A‬اب‬

‫حجم منطق‪AA‬ة الخل‪AA‬ط والتنب‪AA‬ؤ بكيفي‪AA‬ة تأثير العوام‪AA‬ل الم‪AA‬ذكورة أعاله على ط‪AA‬ول منطق‪AA‬ة‬
‫الخلط‪ .‬إنه قادر على حساب خصائص التدفق كدال‪AA‬ة لك‪AA‬ل من ط‪AA‬ول األنب‪AA‬وب وال‪AA‬وقت‪.‬‬
‫جهاز المحاكاة قادر على محاكاة عدد غير محدود من الدفعات‪.‬‬
‫في هذه الدراسة‪ ،‬تم اختيار خط أنابيب موج‪AA‬ود بط‪AA‬ول ‪ 212‬كم و‪ 42‬بوص‪AA‬ة كمث‪AA‬ال‬
‫عملي‪ .‬يستخدم خط األنابيب هذا لنقل نوعين مختلفين من الزيوت الخام‪ .‬يحتوي الزيت‬
‫‪ A‬على نقطة صب عالية (℃‪ 39‬درجة مئوية) بينما يحتوي ‪ B‬على نقط‪AA‬ة ص‪AA‬ب أق‪AA‬ل‬
‫بكث‪AA‬ير (℃ ‪12‬درج‪AA‬ة مئوي‪AA‬ة)‪ .‬في منطق‪AA‬ة الخل‪AA‬ط‪ ،‬ستص‪AA‬لب قط‪AA‬رات ال‪AA‬زيت أ مكون‪AA‬ة‬
‫اختالًطا غير متجانس مع الزيت ب‪ .‬هذه ظاهرة غير مرغوب فيها تجارًيا‪.‬‬
‫تمت مقارنة النتائج التي تم الحصول عليها لعدد محدد من المعادالت و ‪OLGA‬م‪AA‬ع‬
‫البيانات الحقيقية من الميدان‪ .‬في الميدان‪ ،‬يتم تركيب المراف‪AA‬ق الكتش‪AA‬اف أي تغي‪AA‬ير في‬
‫الكثاف‪AA‬ة في م‪AA‬وقعين مختلفين وتمكين المش‪AA‬غل من تحوي‪AA‬ل تدفق ال‪AA‬زيت إلى ص‪AA‬هاريج‬
‫التخزين المناسبة‪ .‬توضح القياسات التي تم الحصول عليها أن طول منطقة الخل‪AA‬ط يبل‪AA‬غ‬
‫‪ 3‬كم عند معدل التدفق ‪ 7000‬برميل في الساعة‪ .‬يتراوح الخطأ المحس‪AA‬وب للمع‪AA‬ادالت‬
‫المختلف‪AA‬ة من ‪ ٪0.46‬إلى ‪ ٪49.16‬بينم‪AA‬ا يظه‪AA‬ر برن‪AA‬امج ‪ OLGA‬خط‪AA‬أ ي‪AA‬تراوح من‬
‫‪ ٪6.6‬إلى ‪ ٪48.3‬اعتماًدا على معدل التدفق‪.‬‬
‫‪V‬‬
List of contents
DEDICATION....................................................................................................................II
ACKNOWLEDGMENT....................................................................................................III
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................IV
ABSTRACT A....................................................................................................................V
NOMENCLATURE..........................................................................................................XI
1. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION..............................................................................2
1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................2
2. CHAPTER TWO.............................................................................................................5
2.1 Literature survey............................................................................................................5
2.2 Factors affecting interface length...................................................................................6
2.2.1 Effect of interface travel………………………………………………………..................................................... 6
2.3 Calculation of the volume of the mixture....................................................................10
2.3.1 The influence of pipeline diameter variation on the mixing volume………………………..10
2.4 Interface calculation method improves multiproduct transport..................................10
2.4.1 Experimental Study………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12
2.4.2 Mathematical Model…………………………………………………………....................................................... 13
2.4.3 Improvements………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
2.5 The initial mixing volumes at the start point of each pipe segment............................16
2.6 Studied the interface mixing in back-to-back batching light petroleum.....................18
VI
2.6.1 Method to reduce the interface volume…………………………………………….
20
2.7 A Non-linear Autoregressive External Inputs (NARX)..............................................21
2.7.1 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22
2.7.2 Viscosity…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
2.7.3 Pipe diameter…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

22
2.7.4 Pipe length……………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………. 23
2.8 THE CALCULATION METHOD OF MIXING VOLUME PIPELINE...................24
2.8.1 MIXING OIL PRODUCTS EMPIRICAL FORMULA……………………………………………….. 24
3. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY........................................................................31
3.1 OLGA is dynamic software that enable the simulation of pipelines..........................31
3.2 Conservation of Momentum......................................................................................31
3.3 Energy Equation: A mixture energy-conservation equation is applied:.....................34
3.4 Thermal Calculations..................................................................................................34
3.5 Interfacial Mass Transfer...........................................................................................35
3.6 Mixing Theory and Application..................................................................................35
4. CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS.......................................................................................37
4.1 Calculation of mixing length at a flow rate of 7000 bbls/ hr......................................38
4.1.1 Pipeline Simulation Using OLGA at flow rate 7000 BBL/ hr…………………………………….. 38
4.2 Calculation of mixing zone length at different flow ratesof 4625 bbls/ hr..................40
4.2.1 OLGA……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41
4.2.2 At flowrate 4625 BBLPD……………………………………………………................................................. 42
4.3 Calculation of mixing length at 3713 bbls/ hr.............................................................42
4.3.1 OLGA……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
42
VII
4.3.2 At flowrate of 3713bbls/ hr………………………………………………………………………………………………..
42
4.4 Calculation of mixing zone length at different...........................................................43
4.4.1 Pipeline Simulation Using OLGA at flow rate 5183 bbpd…………………………………………… 43
4.4.2 OLGA………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 43
4.4.3 Collocation at flowrate of 5183bbl/h……………………………………………………………………………..... 44
5. CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................47
5.1 Conclusions.................................................................................................................47
6. REFERENCES..............................................................................................................49
VIII
List of Table
Table 2-1 Formulas to calculate the dispersion coefficient K and λ...............20
Table 2-2 Dependence of k(θ) on the drag-reducing...........................................................20
Table 2-3..............................................................................................................................28
Table 4-1..............................................................................................................................37
Table 4-2..............................................................................................................................37
Table 4-3..............................................................................................................................37
Table 4-4..............................................................................................................................38
Table 4-5..............................................................................................................................40
Table 4-6..............................................................................................................................40
Table 4-7..............................................................................................................................42
Table 4-8..............................................................................................................................42
Table 4-9..............................................................................................................................44
Table 4-10 Relationship between length interface and flowrate.........................................45
IX
List of figure
Figure 1 when one product A is followed by another B a zone of mixing is formed: the
length of the mixture increase as it moves along the pipeline. (From reference1)..................6
Figure 2 (a) relationship between length of interface distance travelled L at constant velocity
of flow and constant Reynolds number. (From reference 1)...................................................8
Figure 3 (b) relationship between length of interface c and distance travelled L at constant
velocity of flow and constant Reynolds number. (From reference 1)......................................9
Figure 4 the pipeline has three segments of different diameters and lengths. (From reference
(4))..........................................................................................................................................11
Figure 5 the transported fuels densities other system components (From reference 4)........12
Figure 6 The first case of diesel-premium gasoline contact, with the evolution of densities
up to the mixing zone bounded by the densities ρm1 and ρm2. (From reference (4)).............13
Figure 7 the second case used the same contact but different densities than those from the
first case. (From reference (4)).................................................................................................14
Figure 8 The third case used the same contact but different densities than those from the first
case. (from refrence4)............................................................................................................15
Figure 9 Interface of two fluids. (From reference(5))..............................................................16
Figure 10 mixing process in the interface of sequentially moving petroleum products.(From

reference (8))............................................................................................................................18
Figure 11.Implementation of the method to reduce the interface volume in sequential

batching of petroleum products.(From reference (8))..............................................................20
Figure 12. Schematic diagram of the assumed pipeline with two segments. (From reference
(10)
)...........................................................................................................................................25
Figure 13. Ratios of actual and calculated contamination of 1 station-2.(From reference (10)).
................................................................................................................................................26
X
Nomenclature
D =inside pipe diameter in.
L= length of pipeline m.
L interface =length of interface m.
Re = Reynolds number.
V interface = volume of interface m2.
C = length of mixed oil products, m.
C 1 = Length of mixed oil products at the end point of former pipeline segment, m.
L = Transmission distance, m.
Rej = Critical Reynolds number.
Lm = is the mixing length, m.
A = Fluid A.
B= Fluid B.
D= diffusion coefficient.
λ = hydraulic drag coefficient.
K = Effective diffusion coefficient.
Vpl = the pipeline inner cavity.
XI
λ1, λ2 = hydraulic drag coefficients for the 1st and the 2nd back-to-back petroleum
products.
XII
Chapter one
Introduction
1. Chapter one 1
1.1 Introduction
Pipelines are used for transporting crude petroleum and refined petroleum
products over long distances. Crude oil is moved from the production site to
refineries and from there to the consumers. These movements take place using
transportation by different modes. Barges and tankers are used to transport
crude oil and refined products across the water while pipelines, trucks or trains
are used for the transportation of crude oil on the land. Pipelines are the most
efficient method for the transporting of crude oil and refined products.
Most of the pipelines that are used today are manufactured according to the
specifications of American Petroleum Institute (API). The pipe size depends on
the volume of the product that has to be transported from the facility to the
refinery or to the consumer where it is used. Pipelines are safe and efficient as
most are buried and are unseen. In addition to their efficiency, pipelines also
have important environmental and safety benefits. More than one immiscible
liquid can be transported in the same pipelines.
The phenomenon of mixing is a characteristic of multiple product pipelines

and reduces the quality of products transported through multi-product pipelines.
Several correlations are available in literature to calculate the size of the mixing
in multiproduct pipelines.
In both instances, a loss is attached to the volume of interface that must be

downgraded or removed as slop. Since all other aspects of multi product
pipeline operation remains constant such as the pumping cost, etc. the efficiency
of the pipeline is directly proportional to the volume fuel wasted. The volume of
this interface mixture formed varies as it is dependent on several factors.
Reference presented a correlation between mixing length and pipeline at
different Re ,Multi product pipelines are one of the efficient methods of
2
transporting crude oils and refined petroleum products. Interface generation is a
characteristics feature of multi product pipelines. Interface reduces the quality
of product transported through multi product pipelines.
A 42 inch, 220 km pipeline, is used to transport two different crude oils A and
B in batches with no physical barrier. Crude oil A has a pour point of 39 ℃
and crude oil B has a pour point of 12 ℃. Any mixing of oil A in oil B is not
allowed. Blend of oil A in oil B will alter the specification and homogeneity of
oil B. In the field, the mixing zone is detected by measuring the density of
flowing fluid at two points 2 km apart. Any change in density means the tail or
the end of the arrival mixing zone. Measures are taken to shift the oil in mixing
zone into oil A storage tanks.
The length of mixing zone between two oils, oil A (Abu Attifel) and oil B
(Zwitena) have been calculated using four selected equations and the software
OLGA for different flow rates. Contains one measured length of mixing zone at
a flow rate of 7000 BBLPD. The measured length was 0.83% and was taken as
reference to calculate the percentage errors presented in the table.
The objective of this thesis is to simulate the 42-inch pipeline using OLGA
software in order to determine the mixing zone length at different flow rates. In
addition, selected equations from literature are to be used to calculate the
mixing zone length for comparison with OLGA results and measured data.
3
Chapter two
Literature review
Chapter one: Introduction
2. Chapter two
2.1 - Literature review.
Austin, R. Palfrey[1]discussed the mixing of miscible, dissimilar liquids and

presented several facts that emerge from the analysis which are of considerable
importance from the viewpoint of the pipeline designer and operator. These facts are:
 The length of the interface is directly proportional to the square root of the
distance travelled.
 There are two distinct regions (rapid and slow mixing) in turbulent flow for each
pipe diameter.
 The transition from one region to the other occurs quite sharply at different
Reynolds numbers for each diameter of pipe.
 For inter-product contamination to be kept within reasonable limits, the velocity
of flow must be maintained sufficiently high to ensure the critical transition value
of Reynolds number in turbulent flow is exceeded at all times.
The formulae and graphs set out in their paper enable the estimation of amount of
mixing that occurs between products in a pipeline during serial pumping, to be
accurately and quickly predicted.
The intermixing distance for various pairs of fluids, especially those having very
close specification, should be determined on a large number of pipes over the entire
length of the distribution network. In particular the influence of density, viscosity and
topography of the pipeline should be included.
The large increase in the number of products pipelines now being built or projected
in many parts of the world makes it highly desirable that answers to the several queries
raised should be forthcoming as soon as are some remarks concerning multi-product
pipeline operation. Such an operation involves the transportation of a wide variety of
petroleum products through a single line over distances that may extend from a few to
several hundred miles. All the different products are dispatched through the line in
continuous succession with no medium employed to separate or segregate the several
groups or grades. Under these conditions there is always a mixing at the boundary of
two adjacent streams, and a slug of contaminated material is formed between batches of
different uncontaminated products. This slug of contaminated material gradually
increases in length as the two streams flow along the line in the direction of the
receiving point(s).
2
The effect of this mixing is shown diagrammatically in Figure 1.
Figure 1when one product A is followed by another B a zone of mixing is formed:

the length of the mixture increase as it moves along the pipeline. (From reference1)
2.2 - Factors affecting interface length.
The following factors, separately or together, have been reviewed by researchers in

the field of product mixing concerning their possible effect on the length of the
interface formed by two products flowing successively in a pipeline:
 The distance travelled by the interface.

 The mean velocity of flow in the pipeline.
 The Reynolds number.
 The internal diameter of the pipe.
 The kinematic viscosity of the product mixture (50-50 mixture by volume).
 The difference in specific gravity of the flowing products.
 The pipe friction coefficient.
 The relative roughness in the pipe.
 The curvature of the pipe.
 The intensity of turbulence in the stream flow.
 The scale of the turbulence.
 The molecular diffusion coefficient of the product mixture.
3
2.3 - Effect of interface travel.
Sufficient evidence from both theoretical studies and experimental work is already
available to show that the interface length, C, increases with the distance, L, travelled
by the interface, if all other variables are kept constant. This relationship has been set
down by various writers
The interface length, C, increases as the distance or pipe length, L increases. This
relationship has been set down by various authors as:
C∞ L00.482up to C ∞ LO.62 .
r −0.25
where f is friction factor= =0.79 R in Blasius region.
4
Therefore
( ) ( )( )
0.07 1.8
2L dL 0.079
C¿ 32100 0.25 (2.1)
r 2 R
That is
0.43 0.57 −0.45

C=246 d L R . (2.2)
Where length C (ft) and L ft , d Pipe diameter inches,. Reynolds,
The interface length, C, increases as the distance or pipe length, L increases. This
relationship has been set down by various authors as: C ∞ L00.482up to C ∞ LO.62 . Only in
one case, however, that given by birge (4) when dealing with a gasoline - gasoline
mixtures, is the power of L less than 0.5.
Figures 2 a ,3 b in their paper presents a plot of interface length, C and the distance,
L, travelled by the interface-both dimensions in the same units. Each series of plotted
points represents the results obtained except in three cases of plots obtained from a 2-in
laboratory pipeline system (3), a graph of slope 0-5 has been drawn for each of the
series of points.
4
Figure 2 (a) relationship between length of interface distance travelled L at constant

velocity of flow and constant Reynolds number. (From reference 1).
5
Figure 3 (b) relationship between length of interface c and distance travelled L at

constant velocity of flow and constant Reynolds number. (From reference 1)
The interface length is given as proportional to L , although their experience showed

it to be proportional to L.
Only with that given by Khizgilov is a direct comparison possible, since only here
are the powers of d and L both given as 0·5.
( )
0.5 0.545 0.5
d 3000+60.7 R
Thus,C=4 ak 0.5
(2.3)
L R
Where a= 1.3 (given in reference 5 and k = 1, for values for R= 5000 and R= 100 000
this reduces respectively to: and C = 11.63d 0.5 L0.5 and C = 5.06d 0.5 L0.5These compare
6
with the formulae now recommended for calculating interface length, for the same pipe
diameter,
0.5 0.5
C=29.0 L at R=5000, C=3.71 L at R=100000 . (2.4)
It will be seen that Khizgilov's formulae tend to underestimate the contamination

length at low Reynolds numbers, but over- estimate it in the higher range of Reynolds
numbers. This is attributable to miscalculations regarding boundary layer effect.
Taylor’s formula, where d and L are also both to the power 0, 5, the corresponding
interface lengths are given by
C = 3·88 L0.5 at R = 5000 and C = 3·21 L0.5 at R = 100 000.
2.4 - Calculation of the volume of the mixture.
[2] Taylor(4) and Jufin(33)presented several equations for calculation of the constant K
and the volume of the mixing zone. More details (formula and tables) are presented in
their papers.
2.5 - The influence of pipeline diameter variation on the

mixing volume in batch transfers.
[2] Presented in their paper is a new model for estimating mixing volumes arising in
batch transfers in multiproduct pipelines, when variations of the line diameter as well
as injection and/or withdrawal of products are present. Besides these novel features, the
model incorporates the flow rate variation with time and the use of a more precise
effective dispersion coefficient, which is considered to depend on the concentration.
The governing equations of the model form a non-linear initial-value problem that is
solved by using a predictor-corrector finite difference method. A comparison among
several cases studied reveals that the pipeline diameter variation can effectively reduce
the amount of mixing volume when compared to a similar transfer carried out in a
constant diameter line.
2.6 - Interface calculation method improves multiproduct

transport.
[3] DjamelBennacer, RachidSaim, Said Abboudi, Benamar Testing empirical

correlations of the mixing zone between two hydrocarbons transported via pipeline
against field experiments of the same can improve engineering calculations used in
sizing storage tanks during pipeline design and multiproduct transport in general.
7
It is often necessary to pump two or more hydrocarbon liquids in a predetermined

sequence through a single pipeline, resulting in an interface (mixing zone) between the
products as fluid dispersion occurs due to non-uniform velocities. The interface, which
is not marketable and requires a large stock yard for reclassification or correction,
should be minimized to maintain the products' quality.
Calculating the magnitude of the mixture effect at the contact points of miscible
fluids has two main aspects: determining the value and the function of the axial
diffusion coefficient, D, and calculating the final amount of the mixture, Vm, or length
interface, Lm. Analysis includes two miscible fluids of different chemical
compositions, A and B, with respective concentrations CA and CB, flowing
sequentially in à pipeline.
Figure 4 the pipeline has three segments of different diameters and lengths. (From
reference (4)).
At instant t0 Fluid B covers the entire volume of the pipe and the two fluids are in
perpendicular contact relative to the pipeline axis (x = 0). During subsequent flow at
the instant t1 an interface forms in the contact zone and the concentration of fluid B
varies from CB = 1 at the beginning of the mixing zone to C B = 0 at the end of that area
(x = x1). Fluid A, meanwhile, varies from CA = 0 to CA = 1.
Interface length between fluids A and B evolves further over time (x = x2). But
diffusion helps separate the fluids in the mixing zone, creating an area where the
concentrations are assumed equal (CA = CB = 0.5). The interface is generally
characterized by the mixture concentration curve variation.
8
Mass transfer tends to be determined by the convection mechanism in the base flow
(center of the pipe) and the molecular diffusion mechanism near the walls. Given the
high flow rates usually present in a pipeline, molecular diffusion's contribution is
negligible.
Figure 5 the transported fuels densities other system components (From reference 4).
2.7 - Experimental Study.

(From reference 4) a 168-km multiproduct pipeline linking a refinery in western
Algeria to storage and fuel distribution centers served as the experiment site. The
pipeline has three segments of different diameters and a length (Figure 4) summarizes
the transported fuels' densities. Other system components (Figure 5) include:
A refined-products tank farm at the refinery. Two pumping stations receiving center
including fuel storage.
Fuels moved in batches from the refinery tank farm through SP1 pump station. A
vertical contact was established between batches as each was introduced, with the
subsequent mixing zone developing and progressing until reaching the terminal at
pipeline's end. The number of mixing zones depends on the number of batches
introduced to the pipeline.
Figure 6 The first case of diesel-premium gasoline contact, with the evolution of
densities up to the mixing zone bounded by the densities ρm1 and ρm2. (From
reference (4))
A counting system and electronic dens meter installed at the end of the pipeline
dispatch products to the appropriate tank by direct measurement of density.Density
ranges were entered in the pipelines distributed control system (DCS) before shipment.
Pure fuels go to storage tanks and mixtures to their destination tanks. Mixture
volume is recorded by a certified measuring gauge, by the direct reading of levels
(initial and final height of tank), and displayed by the supervisory system. The mixtures
had densities of 770-810 kg/cu m and 765-810 kg/cu m.
9
2.8 - Mathematical Model.
The flow of particles in a given direction can have two origins: one is the
concentration gradient, the other the action of a transporting force which causes the
particles to move with a certain mean velocity. According to the continuity equation
and Fick's law, the mathematical model describing the convection-diffusion process.
With Fluid B followed by Fluid A, describe the beginning of sequential flow in

terms of CB. The mixing intensity in the longitudinal direction can be expressed by the
diffusion coefficient, D, which correlates the physical properties of the medium and the
flow system. We selected eight empirical correlations from different investigations of
petroleum products.
Figure 7 the second case used the same contact but different densities than those
from the first case. (From reference (4))
Viscosity measurement of Fluids A and B is based on the Gambill correlation10

expressed. Solutions for convection-diffusion equations are similar as those for pure
diffusion equations, except for replacing X by x - ut, represented.
Observing the flow of Fluids A and B in the pipeline at a constant rate with variation
in the diameter exposes the mixture's evolution along the pipe. Are the mathematical
expressions of this evolution. Expresses the extreme end-of-pipe case, x = L. Since
fluids flow with constant average velocity in each section of pipe, substituting xn and L
in the equation of X yields.
Substituting the value of x in the Z cut-off concentration argument. In the final

section of the pipe, t tends toward t0 and thereafter θ = 1, leading first to provide the
mixture volume, Vm, which passes through the cross section of the pipe at a given time
(t1, t2).These in turn yield.
10
Diffusion coefficient D also depends on the pipe geometry and Reynolds number,
leading. Accounting for the constancy of the average velocity in the same section and
consequent Reynolds number yields.
The mixing zone can be subdivided into three parts, differentiated by two cut-off
concentrations, CB1 and CB2. These two parts represent the beginning and the end of
the mixing zone and can be respectively added to Liquids A and B without altering
their physicochemical characteristics. The intermediate area is the real mixture volume
that will be predicted theoretically and evaluated experimentally because its injection in
unstudied quantities into one of the two fuels may immediately affect their quality.
The cut-off concentrations will determine arguments Z1 and Z2 and formula ∑ mi =

m (i = A, B) 12 yields the admissible concentrations in the mixture.
They have resulted the two interface types used were diesel-premium gasoline and
gasoline-diesel. Theoretically calculated and experimentally recorded mixing volumes.
Figure 6 shows the first case of diesel-premium gasoline contact, with the evolution
of densities up to the mixing zone bounded by the densities ρm1 and ρm2. Tank-level
measurement showed 19.949 cu m as the mixture volume for diesel-premium gasoline
contact, with 826 kg/cu m and 738 kg/cu m the respective densities of diesel and
premium gasoline, a flow rate of 180 cu m/hr. and a mean temperature of 20.5 °C.
The second case used the same contact but different densities than those from the
first case (Figure 7). Density limits were the same. The mixture volume was 26.172 cu
m, with 816 kg/cu m and 738 kg/cu m the respective densities of diesel and premium
gasoline, a flow rate of 176 cu m/hr, and a mean temperature of 20.3 °C.(From
reference (4)).
Figure 8 shows a gasoline-diesel interface where the mixing area is also bounded by
the densities ρm1 and ρm2 but with ρm1 taking the gasoline-dependent value. A
mixture volume of 28.998 cu m as this contact's volume, with 713 kg/cu m and 818
kg/cu m as respective densities of gasoline and diesel, a flow rate of 176 cu m/hr, and a
mean temperature of 26.1 °C.
11
Figure 8 the third case used the same contact but different densities than those from
the first case. (From reference 4)
After the crude oil is converted into refined products such as gasoline, pipelines are
used to transport these products to terminals for transporting it to the gasoline stations.
Product pipelines are used in shipping of various products in addition to gasoline. As,
many product pipelines are used to move different products, these products are shipped
in the pipelines in batches. Delivery points may be refineries, where the oil is processed
into products, or shipping terminals, where the oil is loaded onto tankers. Batching is a
process where different grades of products are transported through the same pipeline.
The products are transported in a series of batches and are mixed with the adjoining
batches where they come into contact. This mixture of refined products while
transporting in pipelines is called trans mix or contamination length.
Figure 9 Interface of two fluids. (From reference (5))
Taylor’s (1954) equations can be used at various Reynolds numbers in the laminar
flow regime but do not predict accurately for the turbulent flow regime. The study will
also include the effects that the pipe bends and elbows have on the axial dispersion.
The contributions of this study include a) understanding the significance of the
interface length b) how the presence of elbows and bends effect the axial dispersion
and the interface length in any of the given flow regime in the pipelines c) how factors
such as pipeline length, pipe diameter, velocity and viscosity effect the length of the
interface.
12
Software will be developed to explain the above studies and also to reduce the axial
dispersion in the pipelines which in turn becomes significant in reducing the cost of
petroleum.
2.9 - Improvements:
Some other improvisations include adding the code for the calculation of equivalent
length, changes in the graph, mass fractions and adding minimizing and maximizing
buttons. Masse and Johannes (2002) used Smith and Schulze (1948) (Equation 2.5) for
the calculation of interface length (ft).
S= L
0.62
( 0.55+ 1075
ℜ )
. 0.87 (2.5)
2.10 -The initial mixing volumes at the start point of each pipe segment.
Li ,G . ,∧Bidmus[4] The Austin-Palfrey equation could be directly applied in this study;

the Austin-Palfrey equations were revised by introducing an initial pipe length or an
initial length factor to incorporate the initial mixing volumes at the start point of each
pipe segment.
The effect of terrains on the mixing growth has been discussed in some publications
(Liang and Guo, 2011). There are several models available in the literature for
approximating the interfacial mixing growth in length and/or volume (Neutrium.net,
2013). Among them, the Austin-Palfrey empirical model is considered one of the more
robust models available in the literature (Patrachari, 2012). This model for estimating
mixing length includes two separate equations: Equation (2.6) for Reynolds numbers
beyond a critical value and Equation (2.7) at lower Reynolds numbers. The critical
Reynolds number is a function of pipe diameter.
Lm=¿=11.75 R e −0.1
√ DL¿ (2.6)
if ℜ> R e e =0000 e 2.75319 √ D
Lm=18419.9 R e −0.9
√ DL e2.19168 √D (2.7)
if ℜ≤ R e c =10000 e2.75319 √ D
13
Where:
Lm = is the mixing length,m.
ℜ = is the Reynolds number.

R e c =¿is the critical Reynolds number.
D = is the pipe diameter inches.

L = is the pipe length, foot.
The mixing volume V m , foot 3 is:
π 2
V m = D L m. (2.8)
4
For the Austin-Palfrey equation, Deng and Pu (1997) believed in the first pipe
segment, the mixing length 𝐿𝑚1 and volume 𝑉𝑚1 are obtained by directly using the
original Austin-Palfrey equation: (From reference (7))
Lm 1=11.75 R e 1
−0.1
√ D1 × L1 `` (2.9)
π 2 −0.1
V m 1= D 11.75 R e 1 √ D 1 × L1 (2.10)
4 1
2.11 - Studied the interface mixing in back-to-back

batching light petroleum products along the same pipeline.
Golunov , N . N .(2019)[5] studied the interface mixing in back-to-back batching light

petroleum products along the same pipeline. It is known that when one petroleum
product is pumped back-to-back in the line without any separating device, a mixture is
formed in the interface area of consistently moving batches, which is generally a
substandard product.
Formulas are given for calculating the hydraulic drag coefficient of a liquid with a
drag-reducing agent depending on the concentration of this additive, the Reynolds
number and the relative equivalent roughness of the inner pipe wall. The main aspects
of the drag-reducing agent injection to reduce the petroleum products interface.
As a result, it turns out that the petroleum product moving behind drives a wedge
into the fluid moving ahead due to the non-uniform velocity profile (convective
diffusion), and the turbulent mixing forces contribute to the mass transfer of one
14
product to another and vice versa (turbulent diffusion). These processes are inseparable
from each other and act in the batching process, constantly leading to an increase in the
volume of the resulting mixture. Figure 10 shows the mechanism of forming an
interface (mixing zone) of transported petroleum products.
For the first time, the theory of the mixing process during the liquid flow in the pipe
was developed by G. Taylor [64, 65], who used a one-dimensional model and
established the methodological base for all subsequent theoretical and experimental
studies in this area.
Figure 10 mixing process in the interface of sequentially moving petroleum

products.(From reference (8))
Taylor assumed that each of the mixing liquids fills the entire area of the multiphase
flow, i.e. has a density and an average flow velocity for each of the liquids. As a result
of the study, Taylor introduced the concept of the proportional factor K, usually called
the effective axial dispersion coefficient or the effective diffusion coefficient. This
coefficient is the main characteristic of the substance axial dispersion in the flow and
integrally considers the local convection and diffusion transfer of particles of mixing
liquids in the pipe.
To do this, the equation is used that can significantly simplify the mathematics of
the study, since the methods of solving equations of this type are well-known:
∂c
∂t
=U 0 ⋅
∂c ∂
=
∂ x ∂x
K⋅(∂c
∂x ) (2.11)
Where average batching velocity, x – axial coordinate of the pipeline, t – time. One
should note that if K-coefficient of the axial dispersion is considered to be constant,
15
the equation (1) reduces to the equation of the heat conductivity type (“the axial
diffusion equation”):
2
∂c ∂c
=K ⋅ 2 . (2.12)
∂t ∂x
Taylor’s works had a significant impact on all subsequent studies of the mixing
process and formed the basis for research activities in this area. The main areas for the
mixing process consideration are theoretical and experimental studies related to the
distribution of the average concentration in the pipe cross-section, the effective
diffusion coefficient, the size of the mixing volume, etc. Currently, the basic formula to
calculate volume of petroleum products mixture Vmix formed during back-to-back
batching is the Sienitzer-Maron.
()
0 , 43
d
V mix =1000 ⋅ ( λ 1 + λ2 )⋅
1 ,8 1, 8
⋅V pl (2.13)
L
Where λ1, λ2 ‒ hydraulic drag coefficients for the 1st and the 2nd back-to-back
petroleum products; d ‒ inner pipeline diameter, m; Vpl ‒ the pipeline inner cavity
volume, m3 ; L ‒ pipeline length, m. The interface volume in this formula depends on
the value of hydraulic drag coefficient λ, more specifically to a rather high degree – 1,8.
It follows that a decrease in the hydraulic drag coefficient λ1 , λ2 in the interface zone
of the batches will lead to a decrease in the volume of the resulting mixture of
interfacing petroleum products Tables (2-1,2) shows some formulas to calculate the
axial dispersion coefficient K (effective diffusion coefficient) and the hydraulic drag
coefficient λ proposed by various authors.
Table 2-1 Formulas to calculate the axial dispersion coefficient K and the hydraulic
drag coefficient λ. (From reference (8))
Formula to calculate the

axial dispersion coefficient Formula to calculate the
Author of the formula G.
K (effective diffusion hydraulic drag coefficient λ
coefficient)
√
K 0.125 K
G. Taylor =Re 0.749
U° d U°d
16
Table 2-2 Dependence of k(θ) on the drag-reducing agent “Neccad-547” concentration

θ(From reference (8))
Effect of drag reducers It is known that the hydraulic drag coefficient λ can be reduced by
injecting small amounts of drag-reducing agents into the flow; their effect is based on
dampening the turbulent pulsations of the pumped liquid near the inner wall of the pipeline
due to the interaction of long molecules of the additive with turbulent vortices.
Petroleum product No.2 with injected Petroleum product No.2 with injected
Small amount of drag-reducing agent Small amount of drag-reducing agent
Batch of petroleum product no.2 Batch of petroleum product no.1
Figure 11.Implementation of the method to reduce the interface volume in sequential

batching of petroleum products.(From reference (8))
2.12 - Method to reduce the interface volume.
To optimize the back-to-back sequential batching of petroleum products, The scheme

of this method implementation is shown in Figure 11.
The separating pill is formed in the interface zone of the displaced petroleum
product No. 1 and the displacing petroleum product No. 2. To do that, the drag-
reducing agent is injected in the “tail” of the displaced petroleum product batch and in
the “head” of the displacing batch. Since the agent is in the petroleum products
interface, the distribution of liquid velocities in the pipeline cross-section becomes
more uniform, the hydraulic drag coefficient goes down, and the efficiency of
displacing one petroleum product by another increases, therefore, the volume of the
mixture decreases. (From reference (8))
17
2.13 - A Non-linear Autoregressive External Inputs (NARX) model for estimating

the mixing volumes between batches in transmixRiverol, C., and S. Harrilal.
Riverol ,C . ,∧S . Harrilal [6] have Used of a multiproduct pipeline operation

inevitably produces an interface mixture or TRANSMIX which either has to be
returned to refinery to be re-processed or downgraded into one of the adjacent batches,
which is an additional cost as product is lost. In this paper, a Non-linear Autoregressive
External Inputs (NARX) model is used for estimating the mixing volumes. Comparison
with other models shows in the literature, the proposed neural network is reliable over a
wide range of flow conditions and data. The model was fed using field data, 10 hidden
layers and three subsets for the training were used: 50%, 65% and 85%. The NARX
was capable of simulating the system and demonstrate a good performance comparable
with the traditional methods and real data with a maximum error of 4% at 85% training
data
The answer lies in the correct sequencing of each product one behind the next on the
pipeline as well as optimum pumping rates and close monitoring and detection of the
movement of products. When two liquid products are transported in sequence in a
multiproduct pipeline, interface mixture is produced between the two products which
must be re-refined at an additional cost or downgraded into less the crucial product,
which is also considered as a loss. Since the operational cost of the multiproduct
pipeline is directly related to the amount of interface produced and volume of fuel
downgraded, the research question asked is how to reduce the volume of transmix
produced during transportation of liquid designed to transport ideally 42,000 barrels per
day of liquid fuels. Two types of gasoline super (RON92) and premium (RON95),
diesel fuel, and jet A-1are the liquid distillates produced at the refinery. One of the
primary objectives of the LFPP is to ensure refined petroleum product quality is
maintained during transfer from the refinery to the distribution facility. More
particularly, due to the extreme caution observed for the storage and handling of Jet A-
1 fuel, prevention of contamination is important. With the continuing increase of data
available, there has been growing interest into use neural networks (NN) for forecasting
purpose. Although the forecasting of time series has generally been made by linear
assumptions, the non-linear models are more present in the literature. In this article, the
Non-linear Autoregressive External Inputs (NARX) model was selected for modelling
the data where the non-linear integrated moving average and the autoregressive model
with allows to ensure that an appropriate forecasting will be obtained.
When two compatible products are transported one after the next, the batches come
into contact with each other and form an interface mixture which is downgraded or
added into the product of lower quality. Examples of compatible products include
18
kerosene and jet fuel as well as conventional regular gasoline and reformulated
premium gasoline. These are considered as same commodity groups but differing
grades.
In both instances, a loss is attached to the volume of interface that must be

downgraded or removed as slop. Since all other aspects of a multiproduct pipeline
operation remains constant such as the pumping cost, etc. the efficiency of the pipeline
is directly proportional to the volume fuel wasted. The volume of this interface mixture
formed varies as it is dependent on several factors.
 Velocity the flow difference this is the property of a fluid that resists flow
and the effect product viscosity on the interface length is difficult to
determine. Like the product velocity it is a function of the Reynolds number.
 Density difference between the two products If the two liquids being
transported have different densities, then a variance in the forces of inertia at
the product interface is generated which in turn increases the volume of the
interface. The effect of having differing densities on the pipeline decreases as
one product density starts to gradually merge into the adjacent product
density as they both move along the pipeline ..
2.14 -Pipe diameter.

More fluid can be moved through a pipeline with a large internal diameter, assuming
all other variables fixed, the volume of the interface mixture is also increases as the
pipe diameter increases.
2.15 - Pipe length.

A mixed interface is formed between two products as soon as one product enters the
pipeline following the first. The extent of comingling at the interface is low at the start
of the pipeline and the length of the mixture gradually increases as it travels
downstream. The longer the pipeline, the greater the volume of interface generated. The
interfacial mixing of multiproduct pipelines is an ongoing and evidently an
economically important issue within the petroleum products transportation industry.
Prediction of the volume of interface is important as underestimating results in product
contamination which may affect the product quality. However, overestimating results
in valuable product being diverted into TRANSMIX slop tank for reprocessing at an
additional cost. Several models have been proposed to estimate the interface length
between two adjacent products and by extension the volume of the TRANSMIX. In an
article several empirical methods are presented by which the volume of interface
mixture can be quantified. Generally, it was discovered that the interfacial mixing,
which usually develops very quickly upon entry into the pipeline, is an inverse
19
logarithmic function. As identified in the previous paragraph, the volume of the pipe,
fluid properties such as density and viscosity as well as flow velocity are considered as
major factors influencing the length of the interface. The interface length is directly
proportional to the length of the pipe and inversely proportional to the fluid velocity
and by extension the Reynolds number. The equations. (2.14)-(2.16) they are the more
common methods for to calculate the interface length. (From reference (9))
Jablonski (1946)
ℜ ) ( Min ( ρ ρ ) ) .
( ) Max ρa ρb
0.4
Linterface =D L
0.6
(1.5169+ 20281.8 a b
(2.14)
Taylor ( 1946 )
Linterface =6.59998 ℜ
−0.0625
√ D . L (2.15)
Sjenitzer (1958)
0.43 0.57 −0.45
Linterface =245.999 D L ℜ (2.16)
Finally .the volume of the mixture in that length of pipeline is calculated by the
following general equation.
2
πD
V interface = Linterface (2.17)
4
Have explained in the theory of NARX model considers that the process data
generation corresponds to Non-linear Auto-Regressive (NAR) with external input.
(From reference (9))
D =inside pipe diameter m.
L= length of pipeline m.
L interface =length of interface m.
Re = Reynolds number.
V interface = volume of interface m2.
20
2.16 - THE CALCULATION METHOD OF MIXING VOLUME IN A

PRODUCTS PIPELINE.
Gong , Jing , et al [7]have explained order to improve the operational management of

a products pipeline, we need to identify a suitable formula to calculate the volume of
the contaminated product accurately when it arrives at the end point of the products
pipeline. This paper presents a calculation method of mixing volume in a products
pipeline.
The characteristics of mixed oil products in pumping stations and the distribution of
the products along the pipeline. It not only can improve the accuracy of the mixed oil
products volume prediction, but also can be easily used for field application.
2.17 - MIXING OIL PRODUCTS EMPIRICAL FORMULA

The Austin-Palfrey formula was obtained in 1960 by Austin and Palfrey who
collected and analyzed a large number of experiments and field data from products
pipelines, as follows:
Re > Re , c=11.75 D0.5 L0.5 R−0.1

j
(2.18)
Re > Re , c=18384 D0.5 L0.5 R−0.9 e 2.18 D
0.5
j
(2.19)
Re =10000e
0.5
2.72 D
j ,e=2.718 (2.20)
The application scope of this formula is listed as follows:

 The viscosity of contaminated product will be used in the calculation of the
Reynolds number of mixed oil product.
 The impact of the batch sequence is not considered. Under this condition there is
less mixing volume in the products pipeline. Therefore, we use equation (2.17) in
this paper for the following study. The operating condition of the products
pipeline is complex. Oil products begin mixing at the initial station and the length
of the mixing zone becomes progressively larger along the pipeline. After going
through many pumping stations, the contaminated product arrives at the terminal
station. Many influential factors lead to the increase of the mixing volume. So
when we use the Austin-Palfrey formula, we consider these factors affecting the
contaminated product as follows:
 Variable diameter and variable flow rate there are several delivery and receipt
points along the pipeline, so the flow rate varies along the pipeline. The diameter
21
of the pipeline segment varies according to the designed flow rate. According to
the flow rate change point or the pipe diameter change point, the pipeline can be
divided into a number of pipeline segments. The diameter and the flow rate of
each pipeline segment do not change. Firstly, we convert the length of the mixed
oil products of the former pipeline segment into the equivalent tube length of the
mixed oil products, and then use the mixed oil products empirical formula to
estimate the equivalent tube length of the former pipeline segment. Finally we
obtain equivalent transmission distance for the mixing volume calculation of the
latter pipeline segment. For better understanding of the equivalent tube length
method, an example is described as follow. We assume a pipeline which is
divided into two segments. A schematic presentation is shown in Figure 12. The
length and the diameter of the former pipeline segment are L1 and D1
respectively. The flow rate is Q1, the Reynolds number is Re1, and the length of
contamination is C1. The length and the diameter of the latter pipeline segment
are L2 and D2. The flow rate is Q2 and the Reynolds number is Re2.
Figure 12. Schematic diagram of the assumed pipeline with two segments When the
Reynolds number is larger than critical Reynolds number, by using equivalent tube
length method and equation (71), the equations to calculate the length of contamination
at the end point of the latter pipeline segment C2 are derived as follows. (From
reference (10)).
Then we convert the remaining mixed oil products volume into equivalent tube
length and add this equivalent tube length to the length of the pipe segment.
 Contaminated product caused by pumping stations According to the statistic of

other products pipelines, after the mixed oil products is transported through a
pumping station, the length of the mixed oil products may increase up to 36.6 m on
average .Mixing volume caused by the pumping station varies from every pipeline.
In order to simplify the calculation, we just treat it as a constant.
22
 The mixing volumes of each pipeline segments are calculated by the Austin-Palfrey
formula.
The Austin-Palfrey empirical formula, the final result is often smaller than the actual
mixing volume. The reason is that calculated mixing volume in every pipeline
segment is smaller than the actual mixing volume. After several calculations, the
error value becomes larger, so the study for contamination equation according to
pipeline segment is necessary. The smaller the error of each pipeline segment is,
the more accurate the terminal contamination calculation is. The ratios of the actual
mixing volume and the calculated contamination data of all the batches in 1#
station-2 # station pipeline segment are shown in Figure 13. By removing extreme
values, we obtain that the average ratio of 1# station-2 # station pipeline segment is
1.496. By the same data treatment methods mentioned above, the average ratio of
each pipeline segment can be obtained.
2.5
1.5
ratio
1 Series2
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
batch inde
Figure 13. Ratios of actual and calculated contamination of 1 station-2 station

pipeline segment According to the data analysis and calculation, a modified
contamination formula is as follow.(From reference (10)).
0.5 0.5 −0.1

C i=K i L Di Di ℜi . (2.21)
C = length of mixed oil products, m.
C 1 = Length of mixed oil products at the end point of former pipeline segment, m.
D = Pipe diameter of former pipeline segment, m.
L = Transmission distance, m,
23
Rei = Reynolds member of I pipeline segment.
Rej = Critical Reynolds number.
Table 2-3
Number Equation description
1- (2.5)
S= L
(0.62
) 1075
0.55+ 0.87 (2.5)
ℜ
Smith and Schulze (1948) calculation of interface length
(ft).
This model for estimating mixing length includes two
separate equations: Equation (2.6) for Reynolds numbers
beyond a critical value and Equation (2.7) at lower
Reynolds numbers. The critical Reynolds Number is a
function of pipe diameter.
Lm=11.75 R e √ DL. (2.6)
−0.1
2- (2.6), (2.7) if ℜ> R e e =0000 e 2.75319 √ D .

Lm=18419.9 R e √ DL e 2.19168 √ D
−0.9
(2.7)
2.75319 √ D
if ℜ≤ R ec =10000 e .
Lm= is the mixing length (km).
Re= is the Reynolds number.
D= is the pipe diameter (inch).
L= is the pipe length (km).
24
Number Equation description

The interface length is directly proportional to the length of
the pipe and inversely proportional to the fluid velocity and
by extension the Reynolds number.
The equations. (2. 15) - (2.16) They are the more common
methods for to calculate the interface length (km).
Taylor ( 1946 )
Li nterface =6.59998 ℜ
−0.0625
√ D . L .(2.15)
3- (2.15),(2.16) Sjenitzer (1958)
0.43 0.57 −0.45
Linterface =245.999 D L ℜ ( 2.16 ) .
the volume of the mixture in the mixing zone is calculated
by the following general equation.
2
πD
V interface = Linterface ( 2.17 ) .
4
Linterface= the interface length (km).
D = pipe dimmeter (inch).
The Austin-Palfrey formula was obtained in 1960 by
Austin and Palfrey who collected and analyzed a large
number of experiments and field data from products
pipelines, as follows:
Re > Re , C=11.75 D0.5 L0.5 R−0.1 (2.18)
j
Re > Re , C=18384 D0.5 L0.5 R−0.9 e 2.18 D (2.19)

0.5
Re =10000e 2.72 D ,e=2.718

0.5
Oil products being mixed at the initial station and the

length of the mixing zone become progressively larger
along the pipeline. After passing through many pumping
stations, the contaminated product arrives at the terminal
4- (2.18), (2.19) station. Many influential factors lead to the increase of the
mixing volume. So when we use the Austin-Palfrey
formula, we consider these factors affecting the
contaminated product. The reason is that calculated mixing
volume in every pipeline segment is smaller than the actual
mixing volume.
C =Length of mixed products (m).
D= Pipe diameter (m).
L= Transmission distance (m).
Re= Reynolds number of mixed oil product.
Rej= Critical Reynolds number.
25
Chapter three
Methodology
3. Chapter three methodology
3.1 - OLGA is dynamic software that enable the simulation of pipelines.
It utilizes separate continuity equations are applied for gas, liquid bulk, and liquid droplets,
which may be coupled through in a multi-phase mass transfer. Only two momentum
equations are used, however: a combined equation for the gas and possible liquid droplets
and a separate one for the liquid film. A mixture energy- conservation equation currently is
applied. Conservation of mass. For the gas phase,
∂ −1 ∂
∂t
( V g ρg ) =
A ∂z
( A V g ρg v g ) +Ψ g+ Gg … … … … … … … … … … … . ( 3.1 )
For the liquid phase at the wall,
∂ −1 ∂ VL
∂t
( V L ρ L) =
A ∂z
( A V L ρ L v L ) −Ψ e
V L +V D
−Ψ e +Ψ D +GL … … … . ( 3.2 )
For liquid droplets,
∂ −1 ∂ VL
∂t
( V D ρ L) =
A ∂z
( A V D ρ L v D )−Ψ e
V L+ V D
−Ψ e +Ψ D +G D … … … … . ( 3.3 ) .
In Eqs.1 through 3,V g , V L , V D , = gas ,liquid–film ,and liquid-droplet volume fraction , ρ

=density, v = velocity, P = pressure ,and A = pipe cross-sectional area, Ψ g= mass transfer rate
between the phase, Ψ e ,Ψ D = the entrainment and deposition rates,and Gf =possible mass
source of Phase f. Subscripts g, L,I and D indicate gas , liquid, interface, and droplets,
respectively.
3.2Conservation of Momentum
Conservation of momentum is expressed for three different fields, yielding the following
separate 1D momentum equations for the gas, possible liquid droplets, and liquid bulk or
film. For the gas phase.
( )
∂ ∂p 1 ∂ 1 Sg 1 Si
∂t
( V L ρ L V g )=−V g
∂z
−
A ∂z
( A V g ρ g v g ) −λ g −Ψρ g v g+ v g ×
2
2 4A
−λt ρ g v r v r
2 4A
+V g ρg gg cos α +Ψg v a
For liquid droplets,
( )
∂ ∂p 1 ∂ VD
∂t
( V D ρ D V D )=−V D
∂z
−
A ∂z
( A V D ρ L v D ) + V D ρ L g cos α −Ψg
2
v +Ψ e vi −Ψ d v D −FD … .. ( 3.5 ) .
V L +V D α
Eqs.4 and 5 were combined to yield i a combined momentum equation, where the gas /
droplet drag terms, F p, cancel out:
Chapter three: Methodology
−∂
∂t
( V g ρg V g +V D ρ D V D )=−( V g +V D )
∂p
∂z( )
−
1 ∂
A ∂z
( 2 1
2
1
A V g ρg v g+ A V D ρ L v D ) −λ g ρg v g v g−h ; perr
2
2
1t
4d
+( V g
For the liquid at the wall,
( )
∂ ∂p 1 ∂ 1 SL Si VL
∂t
( V L ρ L v L ) =−V L
∂z
−
A ∂z
( A V L ρ L v L ) −λ L ρ L V L V L
2
2 4A
+ λi
4A
+V L ρ L gcosα−Ψg v +Ψ e v i−
V L+ V D α
In Equations 4 through 7, α = pipe inclination with the vertical and S g , S L, and S j=wetted
perimeters of the gas, liquid, and interface. The internal source, Gf , is assumed to enter at a
90° angle to the pipe wall, carrying no net momentum.
V a =v L for Ψg >0..................... …….................. (3.8a)
(and evaporation form the liquid film),
V a =v D for Ψg >0........................... …….…….... (3.8b).
(and evaporation from the liquid droplets),
And V a =v g for Ψg> 0........................... ……..... (3.8c).
The above conservation equations can be applied for all flow regimes. Observe, however,
that certain terms may drop out for certain flow regimes; e.g., in slug or dispersed bubble
flow, all the droplet terms disappear. For slug flow, the frictional pressure-drop terms are
composite. They consist of three terms, owing to the liquid slug, the slug bubble and the film
under it, and the liquid-film-acceleration pressure drop the above conservation equations can
be applied for all flow regimes. Observe, however, that certain terms may drop out for certain
flow regimes; e.g., in slug or dispersed bubble flow, all the droplet terms disappear. For slug
flow, the frictional pressure-drop terms are composite. They consist of three terms, owing to
the liquid slug, the slug bubble and the film under it, and the liquid-film-acceleration pressure
drop.
The relative velocity v r is defined by the following slip equation:
V g=R D ( v L + v r ) , … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ... ( 3.9 ) .
Where R D is a distribution slip ratio caused by an uneven distribution of phases and

velocities across the pipe cross section, as outlined in the next section.
Where E=internal energy per unit mass, h = elevation, H s = enthalpy from mass sources, and
U=heat transfer from pipe walls.
The droplet velocity is similarly defined by.
=V D=V g−¿V cosα ¿, …………………………………….. (3.10)
D
28
Pressure Equation: OLGA reformulates the problem before discretizing the differential
equations to obtain a pressure equation. This equation, together with the momentum
equations, may be solved simultaneously for the pressure and phase velocities and thus allow
a stepwise time integration.
The conservation-of-mass equations (Eqs. 1 through 3) may be expanded with respect to

pressure,
ρ f = ρ f (p, T, R s), .................. ………………………............ (3.11).
Temperature, and composition, assuming that the densities are given as where the gas mass
fraction, s• is defined by Eq. 17.
For the gas equation (Eg. 1), the left side may be expressed as
∂ V g ρg
∂t
= ρg
∂V g
∂t
+V g
∂ ρg
∂t
=ρg
∂V g
∂t
+V g
∂ ρg
∂p [( )T ,R S ∂t
+( )
∂ p ∂ ρg
∂T p , RS ∂t]
∂ Rs
… … (3.12)
Dividing the expansions (Eq. 12) for each phase by the densities and adding the three
equations yields a volume-conservation equation (neglecting the last two terms in Eq. 12
because they normally are negligible in pipeline transport problems owing to the slow
temperature development):
[
V g ∂ ρg 1−V g ∂ ρ L ∂ p 1 ∂ m g 1 ∂m l 1 ∂ mD
( ) + ( ) ¿ ¿T , R ¿ = + + … … … … … … … … …(3.13)
ρg ∂ p T ,R ρL ∂ P
S
∂t ρg ∂ t ρL ∂ t ρL ∂ t
s
Inserting the mass-conservation equations for each phase and applying gives.
V G +V L +V D =1
( )
V g ∂ ρg
ρg ∂ p T , RS
+
1−V g ∂ ρ L
(
ρL ∂ P
) ¿ ¿T ,R ¿
s
∂ p −1 ∂ ( AV g ρg V g )
=
∂ t Aρ g ∂Z
−
1 ∂ ( AV L ρL V L )
Aρ L ∂Z
−
1 ∂ ( AV D ρD V D )
Aρ L ∂Z (
+Ψ g
1
ρg
−
Eq. 14 provides a single equation for the pressure and phase fluxes. Note that if the phase
transfer term, 1/Ig' is a function of pressure, temperature, and composition,
Ψ g=Ψ g ( p , T , R s ) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …(3.15) .
29
Then Ψ gmay be expanded by a Taylor series in p, T, and R s as shown in Eq. 18. A strong
effect of pressure on the phase transfer (boiling) may then be incorporated into Eq. 14.
3.3 Energy Equation: A mixture energy-conservation equation is applied:
∂
¿
∂t
Where E=internal energy per unit mass, h=elevation, H S = enthalpy from mass sources, and
U=heat transfer from pipe walls.
3.4Thermal Calculations
OLGA can simulate a pipeline with a totally insulated wall or with a wall composed of
layers of different thicknesses, heat capacities, and conductivities. The wall description may
change along the pipeline to simulate, for instance, a well surrounded by rock of a certain
vertical temperature profile, connected to a flowline with insulating materials and concrete
coating, and an uninsulated riser. OLGA computes the heat-transfer coefficient from the
flowing fluid to the internal pipe wall; the user specifies the heat-transfer coefficient on the
outside. Circumferential symmetry is assumed; if this is broken, for example, with a partly
buried pipe on the sea bottom, average heat-transfer coefficients must be specified. Special
phenomena, such as the Joule-Thompson effect, are included, provided that the PVT package
applied to generate the fluid property tables can describe such effects.
All fluid properties (densities, compressibilities, viscosities, surface tension, enthalpies, heat
capacities, and thermal conductivities) are given as tables in pressure and temperature, and
the actual values at a given point in time and space are found by interpolating in these tables.
The tables are generated before OLGA is run by use of any fluid properties package, based
on a Peng-Robinson, Soave-RedlichKwong, or another equation of state, complying with the
specified table format.
The total mixture composition is assumed to be constant in time along the pipeline, while the
gas and liquid compositions change with pressure and temperature as a result of interfacial
mass transfer. In real systems, the velocity difference between the oil and gas phases may
cause changes in the total composition of the mixture. This can be fully accounted for only in
a compositional model.
30
3.5Interfacial Mass Transfer
The applied interface mass-transfer model can treat both normal condensation or
evaporation and retrograde condensation, in which a heavy phase condenses from the gas
phase as the pressure drops. Defining a gas mass fraction at equilibrium conditions as.
R S=mg /(mg +m L +m D ¿ ), … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...(3.17)¿
The mass-transfer rate may be computed as:
Ψ g= ([ ∂∂Rp ) ∂∂ pt +( ∂∂Rp ) ∂∂ pz ∂∂ zt +( ∂∂Rp ) ∂T∂t +( ∂∂Rp ) ∂∂Tz ∂∂tz ] (m +m +m ) ….. (3.18)

S
T
S
T
S
p
S
p
g L D
The term ( ∂ R S /∂ p )T (∂ p /∂t ) represents the phase transfer from a mass present in a section
owing to pressure change in that section. The term ( ∂ R S /∂ p )T (∂ p /∂ z )(∂ z /∂ t) represents
the mass transfer caused by mass flowing from one section to the next. Because only
derivatives of R Sappear in Eq. 18, errors resulting from the assumption of constant
composition are minimized.
3.6Mixing Theory and Application
When two immiscible (or different) liquids flow in a pipeline, mixing zone is generated due
to diffusion and dispersion of both liquids in each other. This interface can be described by
the following general equation: -
∂C
∂t
+u
∂C
∂x
+v
∂C
∂y
+w
∂C
∂z
=D + +
[
∂2 C ∂ 2 C ∂ 2 C
∂ x2 ∂ y2 ∂ z2
. ] (3.19) .
where
t =time(s).
u=local velocity at a radius "r".
v=volume occupied by viscous sublayer in mixed plug.
D =molecular diffusion coefficient.
x, y, z = coordinates (m).
Z =dimensionless distance in the axial direction.
w=dimensionless width of a turbulent ejection.
C=concentration.
Consider a one-dimensional system in the Z-direction.
The system is uniform in x and y, such that ∂/∂x = 0 and ∂/∂y = 0.
31
Chapter Four
Date and Results
4. Chapter four Date and Results.

This thesis intends to calculate the size of the mixing i.e. to determine the volume of
contaminated oil in each batch. The goal is realized through calculation using different
correlations from literature and through simulation of 212 km pipeline. Obtained results are
to be compared to real data from the Zwitena terminal where facilities are available to
convert all oil in the mixing zone to tanks of oil A (Abo Attifel). In addition, in the mixing
zone, all properties (including density, viscosity and temperature) vary from one oil to the
other. The results would be highly beneficial for the operator of the above mentioned pipeline
and for other similar cases.
Table 4-4
Properties of Abo Attifel crude Oil
Pour point, oC +39
Kinematic viscosity @ 210 oF, cSt 2.151
2
Density@ 15 ºC, g/ml 0.812
1
0
Specific gravity@60/60 F 0.812
9
API gravity 42.6
Table 4-5
Properties of Zwitena Crude Oil
Pour point, oC 12
Kinematic viscosity @ 210 oF, cSt 18.350
7
Density@ 15 ºC, g/ml 0.9213
Specific gravity@60/60 0F 0.9220
API gravity 22.0
Table 4-6
Properties of Pipeline Crude Oil
Schedule STD Pipe 42″ (DN 1050 mm) Reference ANSI/ASME B36.10
Pipe Schedule STD (Standard Weight(IPS System))
NPS(INCH) 42
DN(mm) 1050
OD(mm) 1067
ID 1047.94
WALL 9.53
THICKNESS(mm)
WEIGHT(Kg/m) 248.53
MTIRAL OF PIPE Carbon steal 0.1in
length pipeline 212 k meter
33
Table 4-7
Properties of Batches Schedule Received from Zwitena Company
Crude shipping program to terminal
Production department 103A
1 August 2021
Crude BATCH START FINISH RATE VOLUME Duration
BBLS BBLS TIME/DATE TIME/DATE BBLS/H BBLS Hrs
OIL B 01/08/2021 0:00 02/08/2021 16:00 3713 148500 40
OIL A 5183 02/08/2021 16:00 06/08/2021 04:00 4613 387500 84
OIL B 06/08/202104:00 07/08/2021 20:00 4625 185000 40
OIL A 5184 07/08/2021 20:00 11/08/2021 08:00 4613 387500 84
OIL B 11/08/2021 08:00 16/08/2021 00:00 4625 185000 40
OIL A 5185 13/08/2021 00:00 16/08/2021 12:00 4613 387500 84
OIL B 16/08/2021 12:00 18/08/2021 04:00 4625 185000 40
OIL A 5186 18/08/2021 04:00 21/08/2021 16:00 4613 387500 84
OIL B 21/08/2021 16:00 23/08/2021 08:00 4625 185000 40
OIL A 5187 23/08/2021 08:00 26/08/2021 20:00 4613 387500 84
OIL B 26/08/2021 20:00 28/08/2021 12:00 4625 185000 40
OIL A 5188 28/08/2021 12:00 01/09/2021 00:00 4613 387500 84
CRUDE BBL DAYS
OIL A 2325000 21
OIL B 1073500 10
TOTAL 3398500 31
4.1- Calculation of mixing length at a flow rate of 7000 BBLD.
The mixing zone length between two oils A and B was calculated using OLGA along with
the selected equations at a flow rate of 7000 BBLD. At this flow rate, the length of the
mixing one was reported as 3 km from measurements at Zwitena terminal. This length was
considered as reference to evaluate the results obtained from the selected equations and
OLGA.
4.2 - Pipeline Simulation Using OLGA at flow rate 7000 BBLD.

Figure 4.1 and 4.2 present the temperature and density profiles for a batch at flow rate of
7000 BBLD. From both figures, the transient time for both temperature and density to
change from oil A to that of oil B.
Material balance on pipe section with length L* results in:
34
L*
L*
Figure 4.1 pipe section with length L
Q ρ ∆t = V ρ = π ρ D2 L*/4
L* = (Q*∆t*4)/(D2*π) = 3 km. (measured)
Also, the percentage error is the calculated L, at any flow rate using any of the selected
equations, is compared to the measured L* at flowrate of 7000 BBLPD:
Error % = ((L - L*)/ L*) x 100
Figure 4.2 Oil Density at Flowrate 7000BBLPD for Oil A using OLGA
35
Figure 4.3 Temperature / Time at Flow Rate of 7000 BBLPD for oil A
Using OLGA
Table 4-8
Modified interface length for different flow rates
Flowrate Length interface L Length interface L*
Q BBLPD Eq (2.5) Eq (2. 6) Eq (2.15) Eq (2.18) OLGA
3713 1.22 1.81 1.79 1.81 2.25
4625 1.21 1.77 1.53 1.77 2.8
5183 1.19 1.75 1.52 1.75 3.1
7000 1.2 1.79 1.54 1.79 3
4
3.5 Eq (2.5)
3 Eq (2. 6)
Length
Eq (2.15)
2.5
Eq (2.18)
2 OLGA L*
1.5
1
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Flowrate
Figure 4.4 Modified interface length for different flow rates. This flow rate was applied on
the equations presented in chapter 2 and the results are presented below: at flowrate 7000.
36
Table 4-9
No. Equations Errors L%
Equation 2.5
1 Error L = ((S - L*)/L*) x 100 = 60 %.
= 1.2 km.
Equation 2. 6
2 Error L = ((L - L*)/L*) x 100 = 40.3%.
= 1.79 km.
Equation 2.15
3 Error L = (- L*)/L*) x 100 = 48.6 %.
=1.54 km.
Equation 2.18
4 Error L = ((C -L*)/L*) x 100 = 40.3 %.
C =11.75 = 1.79 km.
4.3 - Calculation of mixing zone length at different flowrate of 4625
BBLPD.
the selected equations at a flow rate of 4625 BBLPD.
Figure 4.6 and 4.7present the temperature and density profiles for a batch at flow rate of
4625 BBLPD. From both figures, the transient time for both temperature and density to
change from oil A to that of oil B is 6hours.
Material balance on pipe section with length L*, Figure 4.1, results in:
Q ρ ∆T = V ρ = π ρ D2 L*/4
L= (Q ∆t4)/(D2π) = 2.8km.
Also, the equation for the percentage error is the measured L* (measured)
And L is the value of the length of the mixing zone in the equation Above.
4.4 OLGA
Error % = ((L- L*)/L*) x 100 = 6.6%.
37
Figure 4.6 Temperature with time at flowrate 4625BBLPD and 3713BBLPD for Zwitena Oil
B by OLGA.
Figure 4.7 Oil Density at Flowrate 4625 BBLPD and 3713 BBLPD For Zwitena Oil B
By OLGA Simulation.
4.5 At Flowrate 4625 BBLPD.

Table 4-10
Equation 2.5
1 Error L = ((S - L*)/L*) x 100 = 59 %.
= 1.21 km.
Equation 2. 6
2 Error L = ((L - L*)/L*) x 100 = 41%.
= 1.77 km.
3 Equation 2.15 =1.53 km. Error L = (- L*)/L*) x 100 = 49 %.
Equation 2.18
4 Error L = ((C -L*)/L*) x 100 = 41 %.
C =11.75 = 1.77 km.
38
4.6 Calculation of mixing length at 3713 BBLPD.
the selected equations at a flow rate of 3713 BBLPD. At this flow rate, the length of the
mixing was found as 2.25 km using OLGA.
3713 BBLPD. Material balance on pipe section with length L*, Figure 4.1, results in:
Q ρ ∆T = V ρ = π ρ D2 L*/4
L= (Q ∆t 4)/(D2 π) = 2.25 km.
Also, the equation for the percentage error is the measured L* (measured)
and L is the value of the length of the mixing zone in the equation Above.
4.7 OLGA.
Error % = ((L - L*)/ L*) x 100 = 25 %.
4.8 At flowrate of 3713 BBLPD.
Table 4-11
Equation 2.5
1 Error L = ((S - L*)/L*) x 100 = 59.3 %.
= 1.22 km.
Equation 2. 6
2 Error L = ((L - L*)/L*) x 100 = 40%.
= 1.81 km.
Equation 2.15 =1.79
3 Error L = (- L*)/L*) x 100 = 40.3 %.
km.
Equation 2.18
4 Error L = ((C -L*)/L*) x 100 = 39.6 %.
C =11.75 = 1.81 km.
4.9Calculation of mixing zone length at different flow rat at flow rate 5183
bbls form table (4.4)
Calculation of mixing length at a flow rate of 5183 BBLPD the mixing zone length
between two oils A and B was calculated using OLGA along with the selected equations at a
flow rate of 5183 BBLPD. At this flow rate, the length of the mixing was reports as 3.1 km
from OLGA at oil A terminal 212 km. This length was considered as reference to evaluate
the results obtained from the selected equations and OLGA.
39
4.10 Pipeline Simulation Using OLGA at flow rate 5183 BBLPD.

5183 BBLPD, Material balance on pipe section with length L. Figure 4.1, results in:
Q ρ ∆T = V ρ = π ρ D2 L*/4
L= (Q ∆T 4)/ (D2 π) = 3.1 km.
also, the equation for the percentage error is the measured L* (measured) and L is the value
of the length of the mixing zone in the equation Above. Pipeline Simulation OLGA (L).
4.11 OLGA.
Error L = ((L-L*)/L*) x 100 = 3.3%.
Figure 4.10 Temperature/ time profile at flowrate 5183 BBLPD for Oil A by OLGA.
40
Figure 4.11 Oil Density/ time profile at flowrate flow rate 5183 BBLPD Oil A By OLGA
Simulation.
From Table 4.3 Properties of Pipeline Crude Oil and the results were as follows.
4.12 Collocation at flowrate of 5183 BBLPD.
Table 4-12
No
Equations Errors L%
.
Equation 2.5
1 Error L = ((S - L*)/L*) x 100 = 60 %.
= 1.19 km.
Equation 2. 6
2 Error L = ((L - L*)/L*) x 100 = 41%.
= 1.71 km.
3 Equation 2.15 =1.52 km. Error L = (- L*)/L*) x 100 = 49.3 %.
Equation 2.18
4 Error L = ((C -L*)/L*) x 100 = 41.6 %.
C =11.75 = 1.75km.
The OLGA simulation results ranged from 2.8 to 3.1 km and were good, and the error
rate ranged from 6.6% to 3.3% as present in Tables (4.10,a,b,c,d) and shown on Figure (4.4).
Equation (2.18) showed that the length of the mixing zone was 1.79 km with an error of
40.3 %. Other. equations show errors range from 39.6% to 60 % as shown on (Tables (4.10,c)
(4.10,d)). On the other hand, software OLGA shows that the mixing zone length was 3 km
and an error rate of 0%, That is, the result was close to the me.
41
Chapter Four: Date and Results
Table 4-13Relationship between length interface and flowrate

Table 4.6 (a) Equations (2,18) FLOWRATE =
Equations
(7000 BBLPD) L time Equations (2.5) Equations (2. 6) OLGA (1112.911 m3/hr)
(2.5)
C =11.75
212000 m 2hr 1.2 km 1.79 km 1.54 km 1.79km 3 km
L=( (L*-L)/L*) x100 - 60% 40.3% 48.6% 40.3% -
Table 4.6 (b) FLOWRATE
(4625 BBLPD) Zwitena (735.31 m3/hr)
Equations
(2,18).
L Time Equations (2.5) Equations(2.6) Equations(2,15) OLGA
C =11.75
212000 m 3hr 1.19 km 1.75 km 1.52 km 1.75 km 3.1 km
L=( (L*-L)/L*) x100 - 60% 41 % 49.3% 41.6 % 3.3%
Table 4.6 (c) FLOWRATE
(3713 BBLPD) Zwitena (590.31m3/hr)
Equations (2,18)
L time Equations (2.5) Equations (2.6) Equations (2,15) OLGA
C=11.75
212000 m 3hr 1.21km 1.77km 1.53 km 1.77 km 2.8 km
L=( (L*-L)/L*) Table 4.6 (d)
- 59% 41 % 49 % 41% 6.6 %
FLOWRATE x100 (5183 BBLPD)
Abu Attifel (824.031m3/hr
42
Chapter Four: Date and Results
Equations (2,18)
tim Equations
L Equation(2.5) Equations (2.6) OLGA
(2,15)
C=11.75
212000 m 3hr 1.22 km 1.81 km 1.79 km 1.81 km 2.25 km
L=( (L*-L)/L*) x100 - 59.3% 40 % 40.3 % 39.6 % 25 %
43
Chapter five
Conclusions and Recommendations
45
Chapter six: References
5. - Chapter five conclusions and recommendations
5.1 – Conclusions.
A 212 km, 42-inch pipeline transporting two different types of crude

oils without a physical separator was simulated using OLGA. The purpose
is to determine the length of mixing zone. The mixing zone is where the
properties vary from one oil to another. The properties included density,
viscosity and temperature.
The length of the mixing zone was calculated according to the flow
rate and compared with the results obtained using real field measurements.
In addition, the length of the mixing zone was calculated using different
equations from literature.
Results show that the length of mixing zone increases with flow rate.
Austin and Palfrey equation 2.18, showed an error ranges from 39.6 % to
60 %. Also results show that mixing length using OLGA ranges from 0%
to 48.3% depending on flowrate.
5.2 – Recommendations.
Olga had shown range of errors. This due to the pipe length and pipe
diameter (212km and 42 inch) the software Olga can be used to take oil
flow is other applications provided the model is for their tuned and
cheeked.
46
Reference
Chapter six: References
References
[1] B. J. E. Austin, R. Palfrey, and R. Eng, ‘Hydraulic Plant and Machinery Group Mixing
of Miscible But Dissimilar Liquids in Serial Flow in a Pipeline’, Proc. Instn. Mech.
Engrs, vol. 178, no. 15, p. 377, 1964.
[2] F. Bastos, F. Rachid, J. H. Carneiro De Araujo, and R. Martins Baptista, ‘IPC02-27168

THE INFLUENCE OF PIPELINE DIAMETER VARIATION ON THE MIXING
VOLUME IN BATCH TRANSFERS’, 2002.
[3] ‘Interface calculation method improves multiproduct transport’. .
[4] G. Li and H. Bidmus, ‘Estimating mixing lengths in multi-product pipelines’, PSIG

Annu. Meet. PSIG 2019, pp. 1–6, 2019.
[5] P. Science, ‘reduction in back-to-back batching’, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 46–51, 2019.
[6] C. Riverol and S. Harrilal, ‘A Non-linear Autoregressive External Inputs (NARX)

model for estimating the mixing volumes between batches in TRANSMIX’, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf., vol. 127, pp. 161–163, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.07.011.
[7] W. Wang and Q. Wang, ‘IPC2010-’, pp. 1–6, 2016.
48

Dedication الرسالة

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Dedication الرسالة

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dedication الرسالة

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dedication

I dedicate my reach to the all my family, and all my friends, and to

I wish to extend my appreciation to members of chemical engineering

Most of the previous studies were concentrated on developing equations for

The software OLGA is a transient flow simulator. Software OLGA can be

The obtained results of a selected number of equations and OLGA were

‫برنامج ‪ OLGA‬هو محاكي تدفق ع‪A‬ابر‪ .‬يمكن اس‪A‬تخدام برن‪A‬امج ‪ OLGA‬لحس‪A‬اب‬

1. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION..............................................................................2

2.1 Literature survey............................................................................................................5

2.2 Factors affecting interface length...................................................................................6

2.2.1 Effect of interface travel………………………………………………………..................................................... 6

2.3 Calculation of the volume of the mixture....................................................................10

2.3.1 The influence of pipeline diameter variation on the mixing volume………………………..10

2.4 Interface calculation method improves multiproduct transport..................................10

2.4.1 Experimental Study………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12

2.4.2 Mathematical Model…………………………………………………………....................................................... 13

2.6 Studied the interface mixing in back-to-back batching light petroleum.....................18

2.7 A Non-linear Autoregressive External Inputs (NARX)..............................................21

2.7.3 Pipe diameter…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2.7.4 Pipe length……………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………. 23

2.8 THE CALCULATION METHOD OF MIXING VOLUME PIPELINE...................24

2.8.1 MIXING OIL PRODUCTS EMPIRICAL FORMULA……………………………………………….. 24

3. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY........................................................................31

3.1 OLGA is dynamic software that enable the simulation of pipelines..........................31

3.2 Conservation of Momentum......................................................................................31

3.3 Energy Equation: A mixture energy-conservation equation is applied:.....................34

3.4 Thermal Calculations..................................................................................................34

3.5 Interfacial Mass Transfer...........................................................................................35

3.6 Mixing Theory and Application..................................................................................35

4. CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS.......................................................................................37

4.1 Calculation of mixing length at a flow rate of 7000 bbls/ hr......................................38

4.2.2 At flowrate 4625 BBLPD……………………………………………………................................................. 42

4.3 Calculation of mixing length at 3713 bbls/ hr.............................................................42

4.4 Calculation of mixing zone length at different...........................................................43

4.4.1 Pipeline Simulation Using OLGA at flow rate 5183 bbpd…………………………………………… 43

4.4.3 Collocation at flowrate of 5183bbl/h……………………………………………………………………………..... 44

5. CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................47

Table 2-1 Formulas to calculate the dispersion coefficient K and λ...............20

Table 2-2 Dependence of k(θ) on the drag-reducing...........................................................20

Table 4-10 Relationship between length interface and flowrate.........................................45

Figure 9 Interface of two fluids. (From reference(5))..............................................................16

Figure 10 mixing process in the interface of sequentially moving petroleum products.(From

Figure 11.Implementation of the method to reduce the interface volume in sequential

D =inside pipe diameter in.

L interface =length of interface m.

V interface = volume of interface m2.

C = length of mixed oil products, m.

Rej = Critical Reynolds number.

Lm = is the mixing length, m.

λ = hydraulic drag coefficient.

K = Effective diffusion coefficient.

Vpl = the pipeline inner cavity.

The phenomenon of mixing is a characteristic of multiple product pipelines

In both instances, a loss is attached to the volume of interface that must be

2.1 - Literature review.

Austin, R. Palfrey[1]discussed the mixing of miscible, dissimilar liquids and

The effect of this mixing is shown diagrammatically in Figure 1.

Figure 1when one product A is followed by another B a zone of mixing is formed:

2.2 - Factors affecting interface length.