0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

The Effects of Polymer Solution Preparation and Injection on Drag Reduction

[+] Author and Article Information
R. Sun Fore, J. Szwalek

Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering,  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2145

A. I. Sirviente1

Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering,  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2145

1

Corresponding author (asirv@engin.umich.edu); Tel: (734)-647-9411; Fax: (734)-936-8820).

J. Fluids Eng 127(3), 536-549 (Mar 16, 2005) (14 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1905644 History: Received March 04, 2004; Revised March 16, 2005

The understanding of drag reduction by injection of polymer solutions requires an adequate and accurate polymer solution preparation process as well as a thorough understanding of the effects that the delivery system might have on the polymer flow. Mass production of polymer solutions for engineering applications could be more cost effective if large batches of highly concentrated polymer solutions are prepared and then diluted to the final concentrations of interest. However, as shown in this study, depending on the type of polymer used this procedure might be more or less adequate. This study also corroborates that the presence of macro-molecular polymer structures induced by injecting highly concentrated polymer solutions into a shear flow translates into a drag increase and substantial degradation endurance especially at high Reynolds numbers in comparison to homogeneous polymer solutions.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2005 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of the recirculating channel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic of the polymer consistency apparatus

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Hydration test for a 10,000ppm PAM (open symbols) and HPAM (solid symbols) master solutions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Hydration test for a 1,000ppm PEO master solution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison of drag reduction abilities of 100ppm solutions obtained by diluting 10,000 and 1,000ppm master batches: PAM (open symbols) and HPAM (solid symbols). Data represents stable solutions for each dilution.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Consistency test for 10, 50, and 100ppm PAM solutions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Consistency test for 10, 50, and 100ppm HPAM solutions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Consistency test for 10, 50, and 100ppm PEO solutions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Consistency test for 10, 50, and 100ppm HPAM solutions with and without 0.1molar concentrations of salt

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of degradation for the first pass of 14ppm PAM solutions obtained by injecting into the channel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of degradation for the fourth pass of 14ppm PAM solutions obtained by injecting into the channel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of degradation for the fifth pass of 14ppm PAM solutions obtained by injecting into the channel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of degradation for 14ppm PAM solutions for the tenth pass obtained by injecting 10,000, 8,000, 5,000, 3,000ppm solutions into the channel along with the fifth pass from injection of 1,000ppm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Degradation for 14ppm PAM solutions obtained by diluting 1,000ppm compared to a samples taken from injection of 1,000 and 10,000ppm into the channel

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In