Comparison of steam losses among mechanical, thermostatic and thermodynamic steam trap with condensate removal device brand XYZ

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosyida Permatasari ◽  
Amor Candrasa Nur Nawaksa
Keyword(s):  
Steam Trap

scholarly journals Steam Trap Maintenance-Prioritizing Model Based on Big Data

ACS Omega ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 4408-4416
Author(s):  
Jiwon Roh ◽  
Subean Jang ◽  
Suyeun Kim ◽  
Hyungtae Cho ◽  
Junghwan Kim
Keyword(s):  
Big Data ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Steam Trap

Effects of Sleeve Parameters On Cavitation Control Performance in Steam Trap Valves

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Qiu ◽  
Zhi-xin Gao ◽  
Zhi-jiang Jin ◽  
Jin-yuan Qian
Keyword(s):  
Power Systems ◽  
Optimization Design ◽  
Thermal Power ◽  
Orifice Diameter ◽  
Geometrical Parameters ◽  
Piping System ◽  
Cavitation Performance ◽  
Installation Angle ◽  
Steam Trap ◽  
Cavitation Intensity

Abstract The steam trap valve is used in thermal power systems to pour out condensate water and keep steam inside. While flowing through steam trap valves, the condensate water can easily reach cavitation, which may cause serious damage to the piping system. In this paper, in order to control cavitation inside steam trap valves, effects of sleeve parameters, including orifice diameter, installation angle and thickness, are investigated using a cavitation model. The pressure, velocity and vapor distribution inside valves are analyzed and compared for different sleeve geometrical parameters. The total vapor volumes are also predicted and compared. The results show that the sleeve parameters have a significant influence on the cavitation intensity and cavitation vapor distributions. Specifically, the orifice diameter of the sleeve has much larger effect on each aspect than that of other two geometrical parameters of the sleeve. The improved geometrical parameters of the sleeve are determined to suppress the cavitation inside the valve. The sleeve with smaller diameter orifices, higher installation angle (maximum 80°) and higher thickness is recommended in practice for better anti-cavitation performance. The work is of significance for cavitation control and the optimization design of steam trap valves.

Steam trap control valve for enhancing steam flood performance in an Omani heterogeneous heavy oil field

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 113-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Al Hadabi ◽  
Kyuro Sasaki ◽  
Yuichi Sugai ◽  
Amin Yousefi-Sahzabi
Keyword(s):  
Heavy Oil ◽  
Control Valve ◽  
Oil Field ◽  
Steam Trap ◽  
Steam Flood

On Subcool Control in Steam-Assisted-Gravity-Drainage Producers— Part I: Stability Envelopes

SPE Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. 841-867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mazda Irani
Keyword(s):  
Liquid Pool ◽  
Gravity Drainage ◽  
Steam Chamber ◽  
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage ◽  
Pool Level ◽  
Steam Trap ◽  
Electrical Submersible Pumps ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Observation Wells ◽  
Gas Lift

Summary Steam-assisted-gravity-drainage (SAGD) industry experience indicates that the majority of producer workovers occur because of liners or electrical submersible pumps (ESPs), and both failures appear to result from inefficient “steam-trap control.” Thermodynamic steam-trap control, also termed “subcool control,” is a typical operation strategy for most SAGD wells. Simply, subcool (or reservoir subcool vs. pump subcool) is the temperature difference between the steam chamber (or injected steam) and the produced fluid. The main objective is to keep subcool higher than a set value that varies between 0 to 40° and even higher values. This study presents a method to calculate the liquid-pool level from the temperature profile in observation wells, and liquid-pool shrinkage as a function of time. Unfortunately, it is not practical to monitor the liquid level by having observation wells for every SAGD well pair. For this reason, the algebraic equation for liquid-pool depletion on the basis of wellbore-drawdown, subcool, and emulsion productivity is generated. By use of this equation, the envelopes are suggested to differentiate three different regimes: “stable production,” “liquid-pool depletion,” and “steam-breakthrough limit.” Gas lift operations such as the MacKay River thermal project suggested that envelopes for constant wellbore drawdown are not practical. Therefore, the steam-breakthrough limit is defined for constant rate, which is more consistent in gas lift operations. In this study, the steam-breakthrough limit is validated for operation data from the MacKay River. This study provides a new insight into how factors such as production rate and wellbore drawdown can compromise subcool control and cause steam breakthrough, and how liquid-pool depletion may result in uncontrolled steam coning at long time. As a part of this study, a minimum-subcool concept (or target reservoir subcool) is presented as a function of skin and pressure drawdown. It is shown that the minimum subcool is highly dependent on the maturity of steam-chamber and underburden heat loss especially for zero-skin producers. The results of this work emphasize that the target subcool on the producer should increase slightly with chamber maturity, considering that the skin is nonzero for most SAGD producers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document