Abstract
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) plays a major role in worldwide energy consumption as a clean source of energy with low greenhouse gases emission. LPG transportation is exhibited through networks of pipelines, maritime, and tracks. LPG transmission using pipeline is environmentally friendly owing to the low greenhouse gases emission and low energy requirements. This work is a comprehensive evaluation of transportation petroleum gas in liquid state and compressible liquid state concerning LPG density, temperature and pressure, flow velocity, and pump energy consumption under the impact of different ambient temperatures. Inevitably, the pipeline surface exchanges heat between LPG and surrounding soil owing to the temperature difference and change in elevation. To prevent phase change, it is important to pay attention for several parameters such as ambient temperature, thermal conductivity of pipeline materials, soil type, and change in elevation for safe, reliable, and economic transportation. Transporting LPG at high pressure requests smaller pipeline size and consumes less energy for pumps due to its higher density. Also, LPG transportation under moderate or low pressure is more likely exposed to phase change, thus more thermal insulation and pressure boosting stations required to maintain the phase envelope. The models developed in this work aim to advance the existing knowledge and serve as a guide for efficient design by underling the importance of the mentioned parameters.
-
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
-
Research funding: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the Universiti Sains Malaysia.
-
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this article.
References
1. Bariha, N, Mishra, IM, Srivastava, VC. Fire and explosion hazard analysis during surface transport of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG): a case study of LPG truck tanker accident in Kannur, Kerala, India. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2016;40:449–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.01.020.Search in Google Scholar
2. Shi, GH, Aye, L, Liu, YC, Du, XJ. Dynamic simulation of liquefied petroleum gas vaporisation for burners. Appl Therm Eng 2018;137:575–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.04.030.Search in Google Scholar
3. Raslavičius, L, Keršys, A, Mockus, S, Keršiene, N, Starevičius, M. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as a medium-term option in the transition to sustainable fuels and transport. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2014;32:513–25. Elsevier.10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.052Search in Google Scholar
4. Baker, P, Watson, H. MPI air/fuel mixing for gaseous and liquid LPG. SAE Tech Pap 2005. https://doi.org/10.4271/2005-01-0246.Search in Google Scholar
5. Oh, S, Lee, S, Choi, Y, Kang, KY, Cho, J, Cha, K. Combustion and emission characteristics in a direct injection LPG/gasoline spark ignition engine. SAE Tech Pap 2010. https://doi.org/10.4271/2010-01-1461.Search in Google Scholar
6. MacLean, HL, Lave, LB. Evaluating automobile fuel/propulsion system technologies. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2003;29:1–69.10.1016/S0360-1285(02)00032-1Search in Google Scholar
7. Snelgrove, DG, Dupont, P, Bonetto, R. An investigation into the influence of LPG (autogas) composition on the exhaust emissions and fuel consumption of 3 Bi-fuelled renault vehicles. SAE Tech Pap 1996. https://doi.org/10.4271/961170.Search in Google Scholar
8. Bayraktar, H, Durgun, O. Investigating the effects of LPG on spark ignition engine combustion and performance. Energy Convers Manag 2005;46:2317–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2004.09.012.Search in Google Scholar
9. Lai, CH, Chang, CC, Wang, CH, Shao, M, Zhang, Y, Wang, JL. Emissions of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from motor vehicles. Atmos Environ 2009;43:1456–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.11.045.Search in Google Scholar
10. Kojima, M. Extractive industries for development series #25 extractive industries for development series #25 the role of liquefied petroleum gas in reducing energy poverty; 2011. Available from: www.worldbank.org/ogmc [Accessed 21 Apr 2021].Search in Google Scholar
11. Bisht, S, Sharma, S. Carbon footprints of liquefied petroleum gas transportation in the Indian Himalaya. J Clean Prod 2018;196:1065–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.085.Search in Google Scholar
12. Mohitpour, M, Jenkins, A, Babuk, T. Pipelining liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). In: Proceedings of the biennial international pipeline conference, IPC. The American Soceity of Mechanical Engineering (ASME); 2007, 1:531–8 pp.10.1115/IPC2006-10032Search in Google Scholar
13. Srikanth, SA, Narasimhan, S, Narasimhan, S. Optimization of pipeline unloading operations in an LPG terminal. Comput Aided Chem Eng. 2011;29. Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-444-54298-4.50165-3Search in Google Scholar
14. Bau, HH, Sadhai, SS. Heat losses from a fluid flowing in a buried pipe. Int J Heat Mass Tran 1982;25:1621–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0017-9310(82)90141-7.Search in Google Scholar
15. Chung, M, Jung, PS, Rangel, RH. Semi-analytical solution for heat transfer from a buried pipe with convection on the exposed surface. Int J Heat Mass Tran 1999;42:3771–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0017-9310(99)00046-0.Search in Google Scholar
16. Zeng, HY, Diao, NR, Fang, ZH. A finite line-source model for boreholes in geothermal heat exchangers. Heat Tran Asian Res 2002;31:558–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/htj.10057.Search in Google Scholar
17. Ovuworie, C. Steady-state heat transfer models for fully and partially buried pipelines; 2010. https://doi.org/10.2118/131137-ms.Search in Google Scholar
18. Zhang, D, Wang, Z, Sun, J, Zhang, L, Li, Z. Economic evaluation of CO 2 pipeline transport in China. Energy Convers Manag 2012;55:127–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2011.10.022.Search in Google Scholar
19. Drescher, M, Wilhelmsen, Ø, Aursand, P, Aursand, E, De Koeijer, G, Held, R. Heat transfer characteristics of a pipeline for CO2 transport with water as surrounding substance. Energy Procedia 2013;37:3047–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.191.Search in Google Scholar
20. Zhou, J, Adewumi, MA. Predicting flowing gas temperature and pressure profiles in buried pipelines. Scientific.Net; 1997.Search in Google Scholar
21. Segtovich, ISV, Barreto, AG, Tavares, FW. Phase diagrams for hydrates beyond incipient condition — complex behavior in methane/propane and carbon dioxide/iso-butane hydrates. Fluid Phase Equil 2016;426:75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2016.02.002.Search in Google Scholar
22. McCoy, ST, Rubin, ES. An engineering-economic model of pipeline transport of CO2 with application to carbon capture and storage. Int J Greenh Gas Contr2008;2:219–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00119-3.Search in Google Scholar
23. Kahyarian, A, Singer, M, Nesic, S. Modeling of uniform CO2 corrosion of mild steel in gas transportation systems: a review. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2016;29:530–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.12.052.Search in Google Scholar
24. Vandeginste, V, Piessens, K. Pipeline design for a least-cost router application for CO2 transport in the CO2 sequestration cycle. Int J Greenh Gas Contr2008;2:571–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2008.02.001.Search in Google Scholar
25. Beggs, HD, Brill, JR. Study of two-phase flow in inclined pipes. J Petrol Technol 1973;25:607–17. https://doi.org/10.2118/4007-PA.Search in Google Scholar
26. Payne, GA, Palmer, CM, Brill, JP, Beggs, HD. Evaluation of inclined-pipe, two-phase liquid holdup and pressure-loss correlation using experimental data (includes associated paper 8782). J Petrol Technol 1979;31:1198–208. https://doi.org/10.2118/6874-pa.Search in Google Scholar
27. Morganti, KJ, Foong, TM, Brear, MJ, Da Silva, G, Yang, Y, Dryer, FL. The research and motor octane numbers of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). Fuel 2013;108:797–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.01.072.Search in Google Scholar
28. Abd, AA, Naji, SZ, Hashim, AS. Effects of non-hydrocarbons impurities on the typical natural gas mixture flows through a pipeline. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2020;76:103218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103218.Search in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cppm-2021-0024).
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
