Pumping characteristics of a large-scale gas-lift system

T. Saito
a,
*
, T. Kajishima
b
, K. Tsuchiya
c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shizuoka University, 3-5-1 Johoku, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka 432-8561, Japan
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
c
Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Doshisha University, 1-3 Miyakodani, Tatara, Kyotanabe, Kyoto 610-0321, Japan
Abstract
In this study the hydrodynamics of a gas-lift system for CO
2
sequestration at deep sea (so-called GLAD System: Gas Lift
Advanced Dissolution System) are investigated. Experimental results are presented for both laboratory and pilot scale gas-lift
pumps, ranging from 47 to 151 mm in diameter and 7.7 to 196.6 m in height. It was found that for each pump geometry a maximum
liquid owrate was achieved for the range of gas injection rates studied. Moreover, the liquid-phase hold-up was adequately
modeled based on a gas-phase Froude number and applying 1-D Drift-Flux analysis. The axial pressure distribution for both scale
systems exhibited similar properties when normalized with respect to overall pipe length and outlet absolute pressure. A simple
hydrodynamic numerical model was found to adequately predict the induced liquid owrate for a given gas injection rate. Closer
agreement is expected when frictional losses for non-smooth pipe surface are taken into account as well as dissolution of gas from
the rising bubbles. Further work in this area is currently in progress.
2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: CO
2
sequestration; Gas Lift Advanced Dissolution System; Gas-lift pumping; Two phase ow
1. Introduction
Recently, global environmental problems, such as
global warming, acid rain, forest destruction and so on,
are getting more and more obvious. Consequently, all
nations have been discussing a cutback in the discharge
amount of CO
2
for the purpose of mitigating global
warming [1]. Humankind faces an enormous task to nd
eective solutions to the problem. The inherent di-
culties of the problem stem from the fact that the total
amount of CO
2
emitted from human activities is just
enormous (23 GtC/year) [2], and is directly related to the
consumption of fossil fuels used to support our daily
lifestyles [3]. Although changing our lifestyle and saving
energy are essential, and the most eective way to reduce
the CO
2
emission, they are insucient for completely
solving the global warming problem. Isolation of CO
2
from the atmosphere will still be needed to mitigate the
expected peak of CO
2
concentration in the atmosphere
in the near future. Ocean sequestration of CO
2
is a
hopeful option [4] because the CO
2
-absorption capacity
of the ocean is huge [5], and is capable of isolating CO
2
for more than several hundred years [6].
A method of ocean sequestration necessitates isolat-
ing a huge amount of CO
2
from the atmosphere for long
term (several hundred or thousand years) with low cost,
low energy consumption and a low secondary-environ-
mental impact. To realize these dicult demands si-
multaneously, we have developed a gas-lift system for
CO
2
sequestration in seawater at depths on the order of
1000 m. The system is a bundle of inverse-J pipelines set
in the ocean of 2003000 m depth, as illustrated in Fig. 1
[79], the so-called GLAD (Gas Lift Advanced Disso-
lution) System. The CO
2
-containing gas is pumped
using a compressor (3) and transported through an
underwater gas pipeline (4). The gas is injected into a
riser (5) at a depth between 200 and 400 m. Gas-lift
eect will occur in the riser, while CO
2
gas inside the
bubbles dissolves into the liquid phase (seawater). The
resulting CO
2
solution is forced to ow into a down-
comer (6) and transported through a drainpipe (8) to be
released from the bottom of the drainpipe.
The successful operation of the system relies on the
gas-lift pumping capability of the riser as well as reliable
dissolution of CO
2
gas into the liquid phase. So far we
*
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +81-53-478-1601.
E-mail address: ttsaito@ipc.shizuoka.ac.jp (T. Saito).
0894-1777/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.expthermusci.2003.07.005
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 28 (2004) 479488
www.elsevier.com/locate/etfs
have studied extensively the mass transfer between
bubble swarms and the liquid phase [10], and turbulence
structure of bubbly ows in a large-diameter pipe [11].
Those characteristics are essential to fully understand
the dissolution process of CO
2
gas in the GLAD system.
For its optimal design and operation, an understanding
of overall pumping characteristics of the system is also
needed since the proposed system will be of a massive
Nomenclature
A cross-sectional area of a pipe [m]
a factor []
b index number []
C
0
1:2 0:2

q
g
=q
l
_
[]
D pipe diameter [m]
F
l
average liquid holdup []
F
rg
gas-phase Froude number []
f
l
liquid holdup []
G momentum of mixture aq
g
v
g
1 aq
l
v
l
[kg/m
2
s]
g gravity acceleration [m/s
2
]
J supercial velocity [m/s]
L
0
pipe length between an inlet and a gas injec-
tion point [m]
L
1
pipe length between a gas injection point and
the water surface [m]
L
2
pipe length between a gas injection point and
an outlet [m]
P
z
dimensionless pressure []
p static pressure [MPa] or [Pa]
p
a
atmospheric pressure [MPa] or [Pa]
p
out
external pressure [MPa] or [Pa]
Q volumetric ow rate [m
3
/min] or [m
3
/s]
q volumetric ow rate at z [m
3
/s]
R gas constant [J/(kg K)]
Re Reynolds number []
T temperature [K]
t time [s]
U drift velocity [m/s]
V velocity [m/s]
V
g2
1:2J
l
J
g
z 0:35

gD
p
or
1:2J
l
J
g
0:35

gD
p
[m/s]
v velocity [m/s]
Z normalized length elevation []
z vertical distance from a gas injection point
[m]
a void fraction []
C gas injection rate per unit volume the gas
liquid mixture [kg/m
3
s]
k friction factor []
l viscosity [Pa s]
n loss factor at an inlet []
q density [kg/m
3
]
r surface tension of liquid [N/m]
s wall-friction stress of the liquid phase [Pa]
Subscripts
1 inlet
2 gas injection point
3 outlet
g gas phase
l liquid phase
m mixture

(1) Fired power plant, (2) CO
2
separation/capture system, (3) Compressor,
(4) Underwater gas pipeline, (5) Riser of GLAD, (6) Downcomer of GLAD,
(7) Float, (8) Drainpipe
Continental shelf
Continental slope
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Gas including CO
2
Gas including CO
2
Ambient
seawater
CO
2
-rich
seawater
(7)
(8)
200
400m
1
0
0
0

3
0
0
0
m

(5)
(6)
Fig. 1. Conceptual diagram of GLAD System.
480 T. Saito et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 28 (2004) 479488
scale, where the dissolution section is of the order of
200-m height. Few papers, however, have been pub-
lished regarding this kind of large-scale gas-lift pump
[12,13]. To obtain the necessary data on large-scale gas-
lift pump, we have systematically performed a wide
range of experiments using pipes of 46.7151 mm in
diameter and 7.7196.6 m in height.
In this paper the characteristics of a gas-lift pump are
modeled using a Froude number represented by the
length of the gas-lift pipe, the supercial velocity of
the gas phase, and the average void fraction in the pipe.
The lifting characteristics of water via a gas-lift pump
are investigated experimentally for a wide range of geo-
metries and experimental conditions. In particular, the
ow pattern near the outlet for both large- and labo-
ratory-scale measurements is examined based on a
waveform analysis of dierential pressure. Comparison
is also made between the axial pressure proles for the
two systems. Finally, a computational method for ana-
lyzing the pumping characteristics is discussed and the
numerical results are compared with experimental
measurements.
2. Experimental
2.1. Large-scale apparatus
The study involves both large-scale and laboratory-
scale experimental setups. A schematic diagram of the
large-scale (of 200-m height) setup is shown in Fig. 2. A
shaft (1) of 1.5 m in diameter and 200 m in depth is
placed under the ground and lled with tap water. A
gas-lift pipe (2), made of steel, 151 mm in diameter and
212.6 m in total height, is connected to a gaswater
separator (9) via a smooth bend. Compressed air (tem-
perature of 3035 C), supplied from a compressor (3), is
controlled with a mass ow controller (5) and injected
into the gas-lift pipe at a depth of 71, 100, 131 or 184 m
through an annular-type gas injector. The water level in
the shaft kept constant using a water-supply tank (6)
and pump (7). The ow rate of lifted water (tap water;
temperature of 2023 C) is measured with an electro-
magnetic ow meter (8), being registered as the super-
cial liquid velocity. The gaswater mixture is separated
into each phase in the separator (9) with the gas being
discharged into the atmosphere while the liquid is re-
turned to the shaft through a swing pipe (10) and a re-
turn pipe (11). A measure tank (12) and load cells (13)
are used to weigh the mass of the discharged water.
The pressure dierence in the gas-lift pump was
measured via a strain-gauge type dierential pressure
transducer (14); where the distance between the pres-
sure taps at the measured section was 4 m. The static
pressure inside the gas-lift pipe was measured via a
strain-gauge type pressure transducer (15) at several
depths. A check of the sensitivity of the pressure tapping
measurements (locations shown in Fig. 3) was obtained
by recording the single (liquid) phase pressure drop at
various ow rates to determine the Moody friction
(1) Shaft, (2) Gas-lift pipe, (3) Compressor, (4) Cooling tower, (5) Mass flow controller,
(6) Water supply tank, (7) Pump, (8) Electromagnetic flow meter, (9) Gas-water separator,
(10) Swing pipe, (11) Return pipe, (12) Measure tank,
(13) Load cell, (14) Differential pressure transducer, (15) Pressure transducer
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
7
1
m
1
0
0
m
1
3
1
m
1
8
4
m
2
0
0
m
1
2
.
6
m
(14)
(15)
(4)
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of 200-m gas-lift pump.
T. Saito et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 28 (2004) 479488 481
factor [14]. The comparison of the measured values with
the calculated (reported) values, in terms of the friction
factor vs. the Reynolds number relationship, is shown in
Fig. 4 which indicates a good agreement.
2.2. Laboratory-scale apparatus
Fig. 5 shows a schematic diagram of the laboratory-
scale experimental apparatus. It consists of three acrylic
gas-lift pipes (1) of diameters 130, 75.7 and 46.7 mm,
with corresponding heights of 11.8, 11.6 and 11.6 m,
respectively. For the 46.7-mm pipe, dierent gas injector
(3) positions at 0, 1.7 and 3.9 m could be selected. Gas
(air) was supplied from an oil-free air compressor (6).
After carefully controlling the mass ow rate of the air
(temperature of 3134 C) via a mass ow meter (8) and
a control valve (10), it was injected into a selected gas-
lift pipe through an annular-type gas injector (3). The
ow rate of lifted water (tap water; temperature of 21
23 C) was measured via an electromagnetic ow meter
(5). The lifted water was discharged from the gas-lift
pipe into the gasliquid separator (2) via a smooth pipe
bend. The water level in the head tank (4) is automati-
cally controlled in each run to be constant using the
water supply system (1316).
The pressure dierence in the gas-lift pump was mea-
sured via a strain-gauge type dierential pressure trans-
ducer (11); where the distance between the pressure
taps at the measuring section is 1 m. The static pressure
inside the gas-lift pipe is measured via strain-gauge type
pressure transducers (12) at several heights. A validity
check similar to that for the large-scale apparatus is
carried out.
3. Theoretical modeling
We will consider the momentum balance between the
bottom and top of a gas-lift pump as shown in Fig. 6.
Given that z is the vertical distance from the gas injector,
L
0
the pipe length between the inlet and the gas injector,
L
1
the length between the gas injector and the surface of
the water in the shaft or the vertical water tank, L
2
the
length between the gas injector and the outlet, L
3
the
total length of the gas-lift pipe, and D the inner diameter
of the gas-lift pipe, the owing equation for the mo-
mentum balance is obtained:
Air injection: 71m
Air injection: 100m
Air injection: 131m
Air injection: 184m
Inlet: 200m
Outlet
Water level
Pressure gauge 1
Pressure gauge 2
Pressure gauge 3
Pressure gauge 4
Pressure gauge 5
Pressure gauge 6
Electromagnetic flow meter
2
3
.
7

m
4
5
.
7

m
7
8
.
7

m
1
1
1
.
5

m
3.0 m
Differential pressure gauge
1
3
3
.
5

m
1
6
6
.
5

m
1
9
0
.
1

m
2
1
2
.
6

m
2
0
0

m
Pressure gauge 7
Fig. 3. Location of static and dierential pressure taps.
e/D = 0.00042
Re []
4 6 8 10
5
4 6 2
10
-2
4
3
2

[

Fig. 4. Relationship between friction factor and the Reynolds number.

(

) Friction factor actually measured in water ow; () calculated

from Moodys diagram. Relative roughness of pipe wall e=D
0:00042.
482 T. Saito et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 28 (2004) 479488
q
l
AV
l1
V
l3
V
l1
L
1
q
l
gA n
q
l
AV
2
l1
2
k
L
0
D
q
l
AV
2
l1
2
q
l
gA
_
L
2
0
f
l
z dz k
1
D
V
2
l1
2

_
L
2
0
af
l
z
b
dz; 1
where A is the cross-sectional area of the gas-lift pipe, g
the gravitational acceleration, V the velocity of a given
phase, a and b are the factor and index number, re-
spectively, k the friction factor of the pipe wall, q the
density, n the loss factor at the inlet, subscripts g and l
denote the gas and liquid phases, respectively, subscripts
1 and 3 denote the inlet and outlet of the gas-lift pipe,
respectively, and f
l
z is the hold-up of liquid at z or
f
l
z 1 az with az being void fraction at z. The
second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (1) signies a
loss at the inlet and is negligible because it is usually very
small.
The integrals in the fourth and fth terms in Eq. (1)
can be expressed as
_
L
2
0
f
l
z dz L
2
F
l
; 2
_
L
2
0
af
l
z
b
dz LaF
b
l
; 3
where F
l
represents the average liquid hold-up in the
section between the gas injector and the outlet. From
Eqs. (2) and (3), and denoting V
l1
J
l
, Eq. (1) can be
rearranged to give
2
J
l

2gL
2
p
J
g

2gL
2
p
L
1
L
2
F
l
k
L
0
L
2
J
2
l
2gD
k
L
2
D
J
2
l
2gL
2
aF
b
l
;
4
where J is the supercial velocity of each phase. From
Eq. (4), the pumping performance of a gas-lift pump is
(1) Gas-lift pipes, (2) Air-water separator, (3) Gas injectors, (4) Head tank,
(5) Electromagnetic flow meters, (6) Compressor, (7) Cooling tower, (8) Gas Mass flow meters,
(9) Thermocouple, (10) Automatic control valve, (11) Differential pressure transducer,
(12) Pressure transducers, (13) Water tank, (14) Pump, (15) Electromagnetic flow meter,
(16) Automatic control valve
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(15)
(16)
(10)
(13)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(5) (5)
(8)
(9)
(14)
(11)
(7)
(12)
Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of laboratory-scale gas-lift pump.
Surface of the water
L
1
L
0
L
2
L
3
(A)
(C)
(B)
z
Fig. 6. Gas-lift pump model. (A) Inlet, (B) air injection and (C) outlet.
T. Saito et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 28 (2004) 479488 483
found to be expressed in terms of the average hold-up
(or void fraction) in the pump, three kinds of Froude
number and the dimensionless numbers representing
pump size. In summary, the pumping performance of a
gas-lift pump depends on the average gas holdup in the
gas-lift pipe and the Froude number characterized by
the supercial velocity of the gas phase and the length of
the gas-lift pipe. On this basis it is assumed that a one-
dimensional numerical simulation can be used to ana-
lyze the pumping performance of a gas-lift pump.
4. Numerical simulation
Based on the above theoretical analysis the gaswater
two-phase ow in the vertical pipe section in the GLAD
system can be simulated one-dimensionally. Assuming
that the density of the liquid phase q
l
and the temper-
ature T are constant, the conservation laws of mass and
momentum can be considered using a drift-ux model.
The mass conservation of the gas phase is expressed as
oaq
g

ot

oaq
g
v
g

oz
C
g
; 5
where a is the void fraction, v the velocity, and C
g
the
gas injection rate per unit volume of the gasliquid
mixture. By dening the density and momentum of the
mixture by q
m
aq
g
1 aq
l
and G aq
g
v
g

1 aq
l
v
l
, respectively, the conservation of mass and
momentum of the mixture can be represented by the
following basic equations:
oq
m

ot

oG
oz
C
g
; 6
oG
ot

oaq
g
v
2
g

oz

o1 aq
l
v
2
l

oz

op
oz
qg
4s
w
D
; 7
where p represents the static pressure; s
w
the wall-fric-
tion stress of the liquid phase. The third basic equation
is the gas equation (for an ideal gas):
q
g

p
RT
; 8
where R is the gas constant. It is noted that four para-
metric variables q, G (or the velocity of the mixture
v
m
G=q
m
), p and a are involved in the basic equations.
A drift-ux model is employed to close the above set
of basic equations, Eqs. (5)(8), where v
g
, v
l
and s
w
are
to be expressed in terms of v
m
and a. Consequently, the
velocity components of each phase are given as:
v
g
C
0
J
m
U
g
; 9
v
l

1 aC
0
J
m
aU
g
1 a
; 10
where J
m
J
g
J
l
; J
g
av
g
and J
l
1 av
l
. C
0
and
U
g
are given as follows [15,16]:
C
0
1:2 0:2

q
g
=q
l
_
; 11
U
g

1:41 rg
q
l
q
g
q
2
l
_ _
1=4
a 60:25 bubbly flow
0:35

gD
q
l
q
g
q
l
_
a P0:3 slug flow
_

_
;
12
where r is the surface tension of liquid. In the present
computation, the drift velocity U
g
is linearly interpo-
lated with a in the range 0:25 < a < 0:30 which marks
the transition from bubbly to slug ow.
The wall friction is estimated from the model [17]:
s
w

kqJ
2
l
81 a
1:75
; 13
where
k
64Re
1
l
R
l
< 2300
0:3164Re
0:25
l
R
l
< 2300
_
; 14
where Re
l
is the Reynolds number, Re
l
Dq
l
J
l
=l
l
, with
l
l
being the viscosity of liquid.
The nite dierence method has been applied to dis-
cretize the basic equations. Specically, the non-linear
(convection) terms in the conservation laws are discre-
tized based on the upstream nite dierence method
[18,19]. The implicit time marching scheme for the
density and pressure was employed to deal with the high
compressibility of the gas phase [20]. The formal accu-
racy is 4th-order in space and 1st-order in time.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Eect of gas injection rate on liquid pumping rate
The volumetric liquid (water) ow rate, Q
w
, vs. the
volumetric gas injection rate, Q
g
, is plotted in Fig. 7 for
dierent pipe diameters, D, pipe lengths, L
2
and sub-
mergence ratios, L
1
=L
2
. It can be seen that for each ex-
perimental geometry there is a maximum in the liquid
pumping rate for the given range of gas injection rates.
It is also found that Q
w
or its maximum value increases
with D, and that Q
w
tends to increase with L
2
as well
when Q
g
and D are kept constant.
From the theory of an air-lift pump by Nicklin [21],
the liquid hold-up at z, f
l
z, can be expressed by the
following equations:
f
l
z 1 J
g
z=V
g2
z; 15
where
J
g
z q
g
z=A; 16
V
g2
z 1:2J
l
J
g
z 0:35

gD
_
: 17
484 T. Saito et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 28 (2004) 479488
Since the static pressure inside the pipe, pz, is ap-
proximated by pz rq
l
gL
1
z p
a
, the gas volu-
metric ow rate at z, q
g
z, is calculated from
q
g
z p
a
Q
g
=pz Q
g
1
_ _
r
L
1
z
10
_
: 18
From Eqs. (15) and (18), the average liquid hold-up in
the pipe, F
l
, is calculated as follows:
F
l

1
L
1
_
L
1
0
f
l
z dz
1
J
g
V
g2
L
1
10
1
_ _
1:2
J
g
V
g2
__
1
ln 1
L
1
10
1
_ _ _ _
1:2
J
g
V
g2
_
1
__
; 19
where
V
g2
1:2J
l
J
g
0:35

gD
_
; 20
F
l
against the gas-phase Froude number, F
rg
, is plotted
in Fig. 8 for dierent pipe diameters, pipe lengths and
submergence ratios.
F
rg
J
g
=

2gL
2
_
: 21
The pumping performance of gas-lift pumps is consid-
ered to be a function of F
l
and F
rg
as shown in Fig. 8 with
dimensionless parameters of L
1
=L
2
, L
0
=L
2
and D=L
2
Thus, one can nd that the theoretical analysis pre-
sented in Section 3 is valid. Moreover, this indicates that
one-dimensional numerical simulation can be used to
analyze the pumping performance of gas-lift pumps.
5.2. Axial pressure and waveform analysis
The dierential pressure uctuation for both the
laboratory- and large-scale systems was examined in ac-
cordance with [22] in order to gain a clear understanding
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Q
g
[Nm
3
/min]
0.01
0.1
1
10
Q
w


[
m
3
/
m
i
n
]
D (mm) L
2
(m) L
1
/ L
2
(-)
75.7 11.6 0.850
75.7 11.6 0.800
75.7 11.6 0.700
46.7 11.6 0.850
46.7 11.6 0.800
46.7 11.6 0.700
46.7 9.90 0.700
46.7 7.70 0.700
151 196.6 0.936
151 143.6 0.912
151 112.6 0.888
151 83.6 0.849
130 11.8 0.700
D (mm) L
2
(m) L
1
/ L
2
(-)
151 196.6 0.936
151 143.6 0.912
151 112.6 0.888
151 83.6 0.849
130 11.8 0.700
Fig. 7. Liquid volumetric ow rate vs. gas injection rate.
10
0
10
-1
2
4
8
6
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
2 4 8 6 2 4 8 6
F
Rg
[]
F
l


[

]
L
2
(m) D (mm)
83.6
112.6
142.6
196.6
151
151
151
151
L
2
(m) D (mm)
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.8
75.7
75.7
75.7
130
11.6
11.6
11.6
7.7
9.9
47
47
47
47
47
L
2
(m) D (mm)
Fig. 8. Liquid phase holdup vs. gas-phase Froude number.
T. Saito et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 28 (2004) 479488 485
of the ow patterns occurring inside the gas-lift pumps.
Fast Fourier Transform analysis was used to obtain the
normalized (magnitude)
2
vs. frequency spectrum shown
in Fig. 9. It can be seen that the frequency plots for both
systems are similar with a shift to higher frequencies
occurring for the large-scale gas-lift pump. The reason
for this is that the frequency of void uctuation in the
large-scale gas-lift pump is increased with increases in
the velocities of liquid and gas phases. Regrettably, the
frequency plots do not specically identify the type of
ow, although it is expected that the ow is either churn-
turbulent or slugging.
The axial pressure prole, p, in the gas-lift pipe has
been plotted in Fig. 10 for both the laboratory- and
large-scale systems. Also shown in the gure is the ex-
ternal uid pressure (ambient plus hydrostatic) as a
function of pipe elevation. For the laboratory scale
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
P
z



[

]
Z (= 1 z / L
2
) []
Q
g
(Nm
3
/min)
2.29
10.8
38.4
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
(a)
(b)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Q
g
(Nm
3
/min)
0.491
0.962
1.47
1.93
P
z



[

]
Z (= 1 z / L
2
) []
Fig. 11. Dimensionless pressure vs. normalized axial position. (a)
D 75:7 mm, L
2
11:6 m. (b) D 151 mm, L
2
142:6 m.
0 5 10 15
Frequency [Hz]
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

m
a
g

s
q
u
a
r
e
d

[
-
]

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

m
a
g

s
q
u
a
r
e
d

[
-
]
0 5 10 15
Frequency [Hz]
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9. Normalized pressure uctuation spectra. (a) D 75:7 mm,
L
2
11:6 m, Q
g
1:47 Nm
3
/min. (b) D 151 mm, L
2
196:6 m,
Q
g
38:4 Nm
3
/min.
Q (Nm
0.491
0.962
1.47
1.93
Outlet
Inlet
Air injection
Water level
p
out
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.1 0.15 0.05
(a)
(b)
0.20
Q
g
(Nm
3
/min)
p [MPa]
L
2

z


[
m
]
p [MPa]
Q
g
(Nm
3
/min)
2.29
10.8
38.4
0 Outlet
Inlet
Air injection
Water level
50
100
150
200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
LL
2

z



[
m
]
Fig. 10. Axial pressure proles. (a) D 75:7 mm, L
2
11:6 m. (b)
D 151 mm, L
2
196:6 m.
486 T. Saito et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 28 (2004) 479488
system, in the region above the gas injection point, up to
approximately 0.3L
2
the axial pipe pressure is similar to
the external uid pressure. However, beyond this dis-
tance there is a marked dierence between the internal
and external pressure, whereby the internal pressure is
signicantly greater than the external pressure.
In order to better compare the axial pressure proles
between the two systems, the length elevation and
pressure measurements have been normalized as fol-
lows:
Z 1 z=L
2
; 22
P
z
p=p
out
; 23
where Z is the normalized length elevation, P
z
the nor-
malized pressure, and p
out
the external pressure.
The pressure ratio is shown in Fig. 11(a) and (b). The
ratio P
z
sharply increases with an increase in Z before
reaching the maximum; the ratio takes the maximum at
the water surface. After the maximum, it decreases with
an increase in Z. Although the maximum value in the
large-scale gas-lift pump is larger than that in the lab-
oratory-scale, their proles are very similar.
Thus, these experimental results on the pressure
proles in the gas-lift pipes also indicate that the theo-
retical analysis presented in Section 3 is valid and that
one-dimensional numerical simulation can be used to
analyze the pumping performance of gas-lift pumps.
5.3. Numerical model predictions
The numerical model, based on the equations de-
scribed in Section 4, was used to predict the induced
water volumetric ow rate for the large-scale gas-lift
pump. The comparison between the steady state and
measured values is given in Fig. 12. Numerical results
show satisfactory agreement with the measured. Gen-
erally, the numerical model predicted slightly larger
liquid volumetric owrates for any given gas injection
rate. This was due to the underestimation of the wall
friction losses resulting from the assumption of a hy-
drodynamically-smooth inside pipe surface.
As a result, the numerical model and computational
method proposed in the present study can be used to
analyze the pumping capability of GLAD system. In the
present numerical model, mass transfer from the bub-
bles has not been included, which would in practice re-
duce the bubble size resulting in a lower gas void
fraction and thereby reducing the buoyancy driving
force among the liquid ow. A model describing disso-
lution of CO
2
from bubbles to a liquid phase should be
linked with the present study.
1 10 100
1.5
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
6
4
2
Q
w

[
m
3
/
m
i
n
]
Q
g
[Nm
3
/min]
: Experimental
: Numerical prediction
1 10 100
1.5
6
4
2
Q
w

[
m
3
/
m
i
n
]
Q
g
[Nm
3
/min]
: Experimental
: Numerical prediction
1 10 100
1.5
6
4
2
Q
w

[
m
3
/
m
i
n
]
Q
g
[Nm
3
/min]
: Experimental
: Numerical prediction
Q
w

[
m
3
/
m
i
n
]
Q
g
[Nm
3
/min]
1 10 100
1.5
6
4
2
: Experimental
: Numerical prediction
Fig. 12. Predicted vs. measured liquid volumetric ow rate for large-scale gas-lift pump.
T. Saito et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 28 (2004) 479488 487
6. Conclusions
In this study a comparison was made between the
lifted liquid volumetric ow rate for both laboratory-
and large-scale gas-lift pumps. It was found that for
each pump geometry a maximum liquid owrate was
achieved for the range of gas injection rates studied.
Moreover, the liquid-phase hold-up was adequately
modeled based on a gas-phase Froude number and ap-
plying 1-D Drift-Flux analysis. The axial pressure dis-
tribution for both scale systems exhibited similar
properties when normalized with respect to overall pipe
length and outlet absolute pressure. A simple hydrody-
namic numerical model was found to adequately predict
the induced liquid owrate for a given gas injection rate.
Closer agreement is expected when frictional losses for
non-smooth pipe surface are taken into account as well
as dissolution of gas from the rising bubbles. Further
work in this area is currently in progress.
Acknowledgements
The present study was carried out with the nancial
support of Scientic Research A No. 13355008, Grants-
in-Aid for Scientic Research, JSPF (Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science). The authors would like to
gratefully acknowledge the support of the society.
References
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Summary
for Policymakers: The Economic and Social Dimensions of
Climate Change, IPCC Working Group III, 2000.
[2] International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook 1998
Edition, 1998, pp. 3436.
[3] IEA, World Energy Outlook 1998 Edition, 1998, pp. 5355.
[4] P.M. Haugan, H. Drange, Sequestration of CO
2
in the deep ocean
by shallow injection, Nature 357 (1992) 318320.
[5] C. Marchetti, On geoengineering and the CO
2
problem, Climatic
Change 1 (1977) 5968.
[6] M.I. Hoert, Y.C. Wey, A.J. Callegari, W.S. Broecker, Atmo-
spheric response to deep-sea injections of fossil-fuel carbon
dioxide, Climatic Change 2 (1979) 5368.
[7] T. Saito, T. Kajishima, Method and Apparatus for Dissolving and
Isolating Carbon Dioxide Gas under the Sea, US Patent No.
5662837, 1997.
[8] T. Saito, T. Kajishima, R. Nagaosa, CO
2
sequestration at sea by
gas-lift system of shallow injection and deep releasing, Environ-
mental Science and Technology 34 (2000) 41404145.
[9] T. Saito, S. Kosugi, T. Kajishima, K. Tsuchiya, Characteristics
and performance of a deep ocean disposal system for low-purity
CO
2
gas via a gas lift eect, Energy and Fuels 15 (2001) 285292.
[10] T. Saito, T. Kajishima, K. Tsuchiya, S. Kosugi, Mass transfer and
structure of bubbly ows in a system of CO
2
disposal into the
ocean by gas-lift column, Chemical Engineering Science 54 (1999)
49454951.
[11] R.F. Mudde, T. Saito, Hydrodynamical similarities between
bubble column and bubbly pipe ow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics
437 (2001) 203228.
[12] M. Weber, Y. Dedegil, Transport of solids according to the air-lift
principle, in: Proceedings of Hydrotransport 4 H1, 1976, pp. 123.
[13] Y. Shimizu, C. Tojyo, M. Suzuki, T. Saito, T. Usami, An
experimental study on the steady and unsteady characteristics of
air-lift pumping system, in: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Multiphase Flows 91Tsukuba, 1991, pp. 367
369.
[14] L.F. Moody, Friction factors for pipe ow, Transactions of the
ASME 66 (1944) 671684.
[15] N. Zuber, J.A. Findlay, Average volumetric concentration in two-
phase ow systems, Transactions of the ASME Series C Heat
Transfer 87 (1965) 453468.
[16] M. Ishii, One dimensional Drift-ux Model and Constitutive
Equations for relative motion between phases in various two
phase ow regimes, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL-77-47,
1977.
[17] T. Tomiyama, N. Furutani, H. Minagawa, T. Sakaguchi,
Numerical analyses of air-lift pumps based on the multi-uid
model, Japanese Journal of Multiphase Flow 2 (1992) 173188.
[18] T. Kajishima, Conservation properties of nite dierence method
for convection, Transactions of the Japanese Society of Mechan-
ical Engineers Series B 60 (1994) 20582063.
[19] T. Kajishim, Upstream-shifted interpolation method for numer-
ical simulation of incompressible ows, Transactions of the
Japanese Society of Mechanical Engineers Series B 60 (1994)
33193326.
[20] T. Kajishima, T. Saito, Numerical simulation of unsteady ow in
air-lift pump, JSEM International Journal, Series B 39 (1996) 525
532.
[21] D.J. Nicklin, The air-lift pump: theory and optimisation, Trans-
actions of the IChemE 41 (1963) 2939.
[22] O.C. Jones, N. Zuber, Interrelation between void fraction and
uctuations and ow patterns in two-phase ow, International
Journal of Multiphase Flow 2 (1975) 273306.
488 T. Saito et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 28 (2004) 479488