Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Energy analysis of oil-water flow with drag-reducing polymer in different

pipe inclinations and diameters
⁎
T. Al-Wahaibi , A. Abubakar, A.R. Al-Hashmi, Y. Al-Wahaibi, A. Al-Ajmi
Department of Petroleum and Chemical Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O.Box 33, Al-Khoud, P.C. 123, Oman

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: In this study, the energy analysis of oil-water flow with polymer additives in terms of the reduction in head loss,
Oil-water flow which results in reducing the pumping power required to overcome the head loss and in turn increasing the
Pressure gradients throughput was carried out. Three acrylic pipes with internal diameters of 30.6, 55.7 and 74.7 mm were used in
Energy analysis the study. The 30.6-mm ID pipe was positioned at horizontal (0°), upward (+5° and +10°) and downward (−5°)
Drag-reducing polymer
inclinations while the 55.7-mm and 74.7-mm ID pipes were only at horizontal position. The oil-water flow
conditions of 0.4 – 1.6 m/s mixture velocities and 0.1 – 0.9 input oil volume fractions were used. Master
solution of 2000 ppm concentration of water-soluble polymer – a high-molecular-weight anionic copolymer of
polyacrylamide and 2-Acrylamido-2-Methylpropane Sulfonic acid – was prepared and injected at controlled
flow rates to provide 40 ppm of the polymer in the water phase at the test section. It was found that the presence
of the polymer positively influenced the three parameters investigated. Specifically, the head loss was reduced
from 0.0885 to 0.0378 m, translating to a saving of 57.3% in pumping power requirement and 61% increase in
the throughput at a flow condition in the 30.6-mm ID pipe where the performance of the polymer was highest.

1. Introduction application (Karami and Mowla, 2012).

Polymers are the best drag-reducing additives because they have
Oil and gas industries have traditionally used drag reducers to the ability to drastically reduce the power necessary to drive fluids
reduce the pressure drops for the transport of fluids over long downstream by simply dissolving very small amounts of polymers in
distances. A typical example is the significant increase in the oil flow the working fluids. A drag-reducing polymer acts as a flow improver to
rate as a result of pressure drop reduction by adding 10 ppm polymer pipelines that can either provide an increase in the flow (using the same
in the 1300 km trans-Alaska pipeline (Burger et al., 1982). The skin amount of energy) resulting in a much higher throughput, or alter-
friction drag which appears when fluid flows over a wall surface is natively maintain the same flow rate while using considerably less
partly responsible for the pressure losses in pipelines and it can energy for pumping (Gyr and Bewersdorff, 1995).
consume large amounts of power and sometimes cause emission of The advantage of using polymer additives instead of applying
harmful gases. The use of pumps in fluid flow is to overcome this several pumps and/or looping to increase transportation efficiency
friction drag by increasing the pressure of the fluid. Unfortunately, can be viewed from energy analysis of the system in Fig. 1. In the
using several pumps through the pipeline has some restrictions as it analysis of piping systems, pressure losses are usually expressed in
can be very costly and can increase the pipeline pressure beyond the terms of the equivalent fluid column heights which are referred to as
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP). One way to still the head losses. The head losses which are caused by viscosity and are
increase the pipeline capacity if the output pressure has reached directly related to the wall shear stresses, represent the additional
MAOP is by looping. However, the looping also has its own challenges heights that the fluids need to be raised by the pumps in order to
like the need to shut down the pipeline and its high fixed cost, which overcome the frictional losses in the pipes. As depicted in Fig. 1, it is
can decrease the efficiency of the operation. Therefore, the use of clear that the pipe pressure at the final system head (h2) will exceed the
additives known as drag-reducing agents is one of the safest and least MOAP if the flow rate is increased from Q1 to Q2. The addition of the
costly methods of increasing system capacity and efficiency without DRP will change the system head curve such that the pipe pressure at
changing the pipeline conditions. This is why the drag reduction the final system head (h2ˈ) is reduced to below MAOP.
technique for wall turbulence has become very important in industrial Several studies have been carried out after the discovery of the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Al-Wahaibi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.10.060
Received 20 April 2016; Received in revised form 19 October 2016; Accepted 31 October 2016
Available online xxxx
0920-4105/ © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Al-Wahaibi, T., Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering (2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.10.060
T. Al-Wahaibi et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Nomenclature WPS Saving in power consumption or requirement [%]

∆P Pressure drop [Pa]
Roman letters Description Unit
Greek symbols Description Unit
AMPS 2-Acryamido-2-Methylpropane Sulfonic acid [dimension-
less] β Angle of pipe inclination [deg]
DR Drag reduction [%] ρ Fluid density [kg/m3]
DRP Drag-reducing polymer [dimensionless] ρm Mixture density [kg/m3]
FI Flow rate or throughput increase [%] αo Oil fraction or oil cut [dimensionless]
fm Mixture friction factor [dimensionless]
fm − DRP Mixture friction factor at maximum drag reduction [di- Subscripts
mensionless]
g Acceleration due to gravity [m/s2] c Core phase
h1 andh2 Heads at different conditions [m] L Loss
hL Head loss [m] m Mixture
hL − DRP Head loss with drag-reducing polymer [m] o Oil phase
IDorD Pipe internal diameter [m] PS Power saving
L Pipe length or distance between two pressure impulse s Superficial
lines [m] T Oil-water mixture or total
MAOP Maximum allowable operating pressure [Pa] w Water phase
Q1, Q2 Volumetric flow rates at different conditions [m3/h] 1 Initial
QT Total volumetric flow or throughput [m3/s or m3/h] 2 Final
Um Mixture velocity [m/s]

polymer drag reduction in order to gain more insights into the

phenomenon especially in single phase flow. The study of Virk
(1975) revealed that DRPs suppressed the formation of turbulent
bursts in the buffer (or elastic) sub-layer and in turn suppressed the
formation and propagation of turbulent eddies. He found the elastic
sub-layer in between the viscous sub-layer and the outer turbulent core
region of the flow. This finding was generally accepted in subsequent
investigations (Pinho and Whitelaw, 1990). Essentially, Virk (1975)
also found that the onset drag reduction by polymer additives occurs at
the same Reynolds number regardless of the polymer concentration
though drag reduction occurs at lower Reynolds number when the
molecular weights of the polymers are increased. Another mostly
reported observation is that drag reduction rapidly increases with
Fig. 1. Effect of DRP on head loss of pipeline system.
increase in the polymer concentration until it levels off at maximum

Fig. 2. Schematic of two-phase oil-water flow loop.

2
T. Al-Wahaibi et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

drag reduction (Sifferman and Greenkorn, 1981). In some cases, ∆PwithoutDRP − ∆PwithDRP
%DR= ×100
further increase in the polymer concentration after reaching maximum ∆PwithoutDRP (1)
drag reduction can even result in a slight reduction in the drag
reduction (Hoyt, 1989). On the other hand, White and Mungal
(2008) have revealed that the drag reduction increased quickly with
increase in the Reynolds number until it reached the maximum (known 3. Analysis and discussion
as maximum drag reduction asymptote) at fixed polymer concentra-
tion. 3.1. Head loss reduction by DRP
Parameters influencing the performances of DRPs in single phase
flow include size, geometry and surface roughness of the pipe; The head loss in a fluid flowing through a pipe according to Darcy-
molecular weight, chain flexibility, structure and composition of the Weisbach equation is given as;
polymer; and temperature, pH, solvent and salt content of the polymer ∆P L U2
solutions. The investigations and findings on how the performances of hL = =4f
ρg D 2g (2)
DRPs are affected by each of these parameters are well reported. (Virk
and Merill, 1969; Inerthal and Wilski, 1985; Martin and Shapella, where hL is the head loss, ∆P is the pressure drop, f is the fanning
2003; Escudier et al., 2009; Japper-Jaafar et al., 2009; Karami and friction factor, U is the average velocity, L is the pipe length, ρ is the
Mowla, 2012). Among these parameters, the most influential ones are fluid density and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
the molecular weights and chain flexibilities of the DRPs whose For oil-water flow, Eq. (2) can be rewritten and simplify to give the
increases have been found to enhance the drag-reducing ability of the head loss as;
DRPs. ∆P L Um 2
Many studies involving the addition of DRPs have also been carried hL = =2fm
ρm g D g (3)
out in gas-liquid flow. Greskovich and Shrier (1971) investigated the
effect of a DRP on air-water slug flow in a 0.038-m diameter horizontal where fm is the mixture fanning friction factor, Um is the mixture
pipe and reported about 50% of drag reduction. Other similar studies velocity and ρm is the mixture density. The expressions for the mixture
include Scott and Rhodes (1972), Sylvester and Brill (1976), Kang and velocity and mixture density can be found in our previous publication
Jepson (2000), Al-Sarkhi and Hanratty (2001), and Al-Sarkhi et al. (Abubakar et al., 2016).
(2006) with reported drag reductions of about 33%, 37%, 82%, 48% It should be noted that another definition of percentage drag
and 72% respectively. Of course, the different levels of drag reduction reduction is given in terms of the friction factor as;
are expected since they used the different DRPs, working fluids, flow ⎛ ⎞
f
conditions, as well as different pipe roughness, diameters and inclina- %DR=⎜1 − m − DRP ⎟ ×100
tions. ⎝ fm ⎠ (4)
It is worth mentioning that only in the past decade that the study of where fm and fm − DRP are the friction factors before and after the
oil-water flow with the drag-reducing polymers started gaining con- addition of the DRP respectively.
siderable attention. Most of these studies reported significant drag Therefore, at a constant flow rate (or constant mixture velocity),
reductions by the respective polymers (Al-Wahaibi et al., 2007, 2013; simultaneous consideration of Eqs. (3) and (4) shows that the head loss
Al-Yaari et al., 2009, 2012, 2013; Omer and Pal, 2010; Langsholt, of the flow before (hL ) and after (hL − DRP ) adding DRP can be related to
2012; Yusuf et al., 2012; Deka et al., 2014; Edomwonyi-Otu et al., each other as follows:
2014).
Due to the aforementioned fascinating abilities of the drag reduc- ⎛ %DR ⎞
hL − DRP=⎜1 − ⎟ hL
tion technology, it is very important therefore to perform energy ⎝ 100 ⎠ (5)
analysis of the drag reduction by the DRP in the oil-water flow so as
Figs. 3–8 present the results of the head losses as a function of total
to properly determine the industrial benefits of the technology. This
volumetric flow rate or throughput in different pipe inclinations and
analysis is even more justified by the fact that none of the published
pipe diameters. Generally, the system head losses both before and after
studies that dealt with the use of drag-reducing polymers particularly
the addition of DRP increased with increase in the oil cut and
in multiphase flows performed the energy analysis of their findings.
throughput. This is because the system head loss is directly propor-
Although some single phase studies in the literature have determined
tional to the pressure gradient, which also showed the same trends
the percentage increases in the flow rates by the DRPs, only the work of
against these flow conditions. It can also be seen that the addition of
Karami and Mowla (2012) which dealt with the use of the DRPs in
the 40 ppm DRP reduced the head losses in the oil-water flow system
single-phase crude oil flow in pipelines, carried out the energy analysis
and these reductions increased as the throughput was increased. This
by determining only the head losses.
trend was also observed in the pressure gradients and it can be
attributed to the enhancement of the DRP performance as a result of
the stronger turbulence intensity associated with the increased
throughput.
2. Experimental set-up
It should be noted that the DRP was only effective in the water
dominated flow regions (i.e. up to 0.6 oil cut in the 30.6-mm ID pipe
The pilot-scale oil-water flow facility used for this study is schema-
tically shown in Fig. 2 while Table 1 provides the properties of the tap
Table 1
water and mineral-based hydraulic oil used as the working fluids. The Properties of the working fluids at 25 °C.
full detailed descriptions of the experimental set-up and procedure, as
well as the precautionary measures taken to ensure accurate results, Fluid Density (kg/ Viscosity Surface Interfacial
can be found in Abubakar (2016). Similarly, the chemical composition m3) (cP) Tension Tension
(mN/m) (mN/m)
of the AN 105-SH, which was used as the DRP, and the preparation
procedure of the polymer master solution (2000 ppm) were also Water 997 1 71.4 12.9
described in full details in Abubakar (2016). Oil (Shell Tellus S2 V 15) 872 24 29.5
Water with 40 ppm DRP 997 1.2 70.5 12.5
Eq. (1) was used to calculate the percentage drag reductions from
the measured pressure gradients.

3
T. Al-Wahaibi et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Fig. 6. Head loss in oil-water flow before (solid lines) and after (dotted lines) addition of
Fig. 3. Head loss in oil-water flow before (solid lines) and after (dotted lines) addition of DRP for different oil cuts in 30.6-mm ID pipe at −5° inclination.
DRP for different oil cuts in 30.6-mm ID pipe at 0° inclination.

Fig. 7. Head loss in oil-water flow before (solid lines) and after (dotted lines) addition of
Fig. 4. Head loss in oil-water flow before (solid lines) and after (dotted lines) addition of DRP for different oil cuts in 55.7-mm ID pipe at 0° inclination.
DRP for different oil cuts in 30.6-mm ID pipe at +5° inclination.

Fig. 8. Head loss in oil-water flow before (solid lines) and after (dotted lines) addition of
DRP for different oil cuts in 74.7-mm ID pipe at 0° inclination.
Fig. 5. Head loss in oil-water flow before (solid lines) and after (dotted lines) addition of
DRP for different oil cuts in 30.6-mm ID pipe at +10° inclination.
loss as a result of DRP addition can be mathematically expressed as;
and up to 0.7 oil cut in both 55.7-mm and 74.7-mm ID pipes) as the WPS =ρm g (hL −hL − DRP ) QT (6)
DRP is only water-soluble. Therefore, the reductions in the head losses
were not observed above these oil cuts where oil dominated flow where WPS is the saving in the pumping power and QT is the total
occurred. Another equally important observation was that the change volumetric flow rate.
in the pipe inclination, as presented in Figs. 3–6, did not significantly Fig. 9(a–d) presents the percentage savings in the pumping power
affect the reduction in the head loss. However, the increase in the pipe requirement in the oil-water flow as a function of oil cuts in 30.6-mm
diameter, comparing Fig. 3 with Figs. 7 and 8, did decrease the ID pipe at different pipe inclinations. Similarly, Fig. 10(a–b) presents
reduction in the head loss. This decrease in the head loss became the percentage savings in the pumping power requirement in 55.7-mm
more pronounced as the throughput was increased. and 74.7-mm ID pipes respectively. It can be seen that the addition of
the DRP generally brought about substantial savings in the pumping
3.2. Saving in pumping power requirement by DRP power or energy consumption in the oil-water flow. This means that for
transporting the same amount of oil-water mixture, smaller pump will
The saving in the pumping power required in overcoming the head be needed or using the same pump, larger amount of the oil-water

4
T. Al-Wahaibi et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Fig. 9. Percentage saving in power consumptions by the DRP in 30.6-mm ID pipe for different mixture velocities. (a) β=0°, (b) β=+5°, (c) β=+10° (d) β=−5°.

mixture will be transported if DRP is injected into the flow. It can also oil cut would reduce the level of interaction between the DRP molecules
be seen that the percentage saving in the energy consumption generally and turbulence eddies of the water phase, in which the DRP was
increased with increase in the mixture velocity but it decreased with soluble and then would impede the performance of the DRP (Al-
increase in the oil cut in all the pipe inclinations and diameters. This Wahaibi et al., 2007; Fu and Kawaguchi, 2013).
can be attributed to the fact that the increased mixture velocity would On a specific term, the percentage savings in the energy consump-
result to an increase in the turbulence intensity which in turn would tion in the 30.6-mm ID pipe (Fig. 9) at the 0.4 mixture velocity were
enhance the performance of the DRP. On the other hand, the increased smaller at the 0° inclination than their counterparts at the other

Fig. 10. Percentage saving in power consumptions by the DRP in 0ᴼ inclined pipe for different mixture velocities. (a) ID =55.7 mm, (b) ID =74.7 mm.

5
T. Al-Wahaibi et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Fig. 11. Percentage increase in flow rates by the DRP in 30.6-mm ID pipe for different oil cuts. (a) β=0°, (b) β=+5°, (c) β=+10° (d) β=−5°.

inclinations over the whole range of the oil cuts. The reason for this velocity were insignificant. It was even worse at the 0.5 oil cuts in the
trend cannot be far from the increase in the mixing rate of the two 74.7-mm ID pipe (Fig. 10b) where the percentage saving in the energy
phases associated with inclined flows which enhanced the performance consumption was not achieved. This shows that there is no drag
of the DRP. In addition, the percentage savings in the energy reduction by the DRP at this flow condition. This can be attributed to
consumption in the large pipe diameters (Fig. 10) at the 0.4 mixture the fact that the Reynold number at this flow condition (2234) is less

Fig. 12. Percentage increase in flow rates by the DRP in 0° inclined pipe for different oil cuts. (a) ID =55.7 mm, (b) ID =74.7 mm.

6
T. Al-Wahaibi et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

than the Reynolds number required to initiate the drag-reducing ability Pipe Inclinations and Diameters (Ph.D Thesis),. Sultan Qaboos University, Oman.
Abubakar, A., Al-Wahaibi, T., Al-Hashmi, A.R., Al-Wahaibi, Y., Al-Ajmi, A., Eshrati, M.,
of the DRP in this pipe diameter. Although the Reynolds numbers at 2016. Empirical correlation for predicting pressure gradients of oil-water flow with
the same flow condition in the 30.6-mm and 55.7-mm ID pipes (915 drag-reducing polymer. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 79, 275–282.
and 1665 respectively) where there were little drag reductions were Al-Sarkhi, A., Abu-Nada, E., Batayneh, M., 2006. Effect of drag reducing polymer on air-
water annular flow in an inclined pipe. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 32, 926–934.
lower than Reynolds number in the 74.7-mm ID pipe, the Reynolds Al-Sarkhi, A., Hanratty, T.J., 2001a. Effect of drag reducing polymer on annular gas-
number required for onset drag reduction by DRPs increases with liquid flow in a horizontal pipe. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 27, 1151–1162.
increasing pipe diameter according to White and Mungal (2008). Al-Wahaibi, T., Al-Wahaibi, Y., Al-Ajmi, A., Yusuf, N., Al-Hashmi, A.R., Olawale, A.S.,
Mohammed, I.A., 2013. Experimental investigation on the performance of drag
reducing polymers through two pipe diameters in horizontal oil-water flows. Exp.
3.3. Increase in throughput by DRP Therm. Fluid Sci. 50 (0), 139–146.
Al-Wahaibi, T., Smith, M., Angeli, P., 2007. Effect of drag-reducing polymers on
horizontal oil-water flows. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 57, 334–346.
The percentage increase in throughputs or flow rates (% FI) by the
Al-Yaari, M., Al-Sarkhi, A., Abu-Sharkh, B., 2012. Effect of drag reducing polymers on
DRP at constant power consumption can be determined using Eq. (7) water holdup in an oil-water horizontal flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 44, 29–33.
according to Burger et al. (1982). Al-Yaari, M., Al-Sarkhi, A., Hussein, I.A., Abu Sharkh, B., 2013. Effect of drag reducing
polymers on surfactant-stabilized water-oil emulsions flow. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci.
⎡⎛ ⎞0.556 ⎤ 51 (0), 319–331.
⎢⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎥ Al-Yaari, M., Soleimani, A., Abu-Sharkh, B., Al-Mubaiyedh, U., Al-Sarkhi, A., 2009. Effect
%FI =⎢ −1⎥ ×100
⎜ % DR ⎟ of drag reducing polymers on oil-water flow in a horizontal pipe. Int. J. Multiph.
⎢⎣ ⎝ 1−( 100 ) ⎠ ⎥⎦ (7) Flow 35, 516–524.
Burger, E.D., Munk, W.R., Wahi, H.A., 1982. Flow increase in the trans-Alaska pipeline
Figs. 11 and 12 present the percentage increase in the flow rate or using a polymeric Drag Reducing Additives. J. Pet. Tech., 377–386.
throughput, which is the primary end use of the DRP, of the oil-water Deka, P., Naidu, K.R., Mandal, T.K., Majumder, S.K., 2014. Flow pattern shifting and
drag reduction in oil-water flow in pipe. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2 (2), 245–252.
flow as a function of mixture velocity for different oil cuts in 30.6 mm, Edomwonyi-Otu, L.C., Chinaud, M., Angeli, P., 2014. Drag reduction in stratified oil-
and 55.7 and 74.7 mm ID respectively. The trends of the percentage water flows. In: BHR Group - 9th North American Conference on Multiphase
increase in the throughput against the flow condition were generally Technology. Canada, OnePetro, pp. 165–173.
Escudier, M.P., Rosa, S., Poole, R.J., 2009. Asymmetry in transitional pipe flow of drag-
similar to the trends observed in drag reduction but their absolute
reducing polymer solutions. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 161, 19–29.
values were not the same. For instance, it can be seen that the Fu, Z., Kawaguchi, Y., 2013. A short review on drag-reduced turbulent flow of
percentage increase in the throughput increased with increase in the inhomogeneous polymer solutions. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2013, 12.
Greskovich, E.J., Shrier, A.L., 1971. Drag reduction in two-phase flows. Ind. Eng. Chem.
mixture velocity reaching a plateau values effectively after 1.2 m/s
Fundam. 10, 646–648.
mixture velocity (especially in the 30.6-mm ID pipe) while it decreased Gyr, A., Bewersdorff, H.W., 1995. Drag Reduction of Turbulent Flows by Additives.
with increase in the oil cut, just as in the case of drag reduction. The Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherland.
reasons for these trends are the same with ones given in the discussion Hoyt, J.W., 1989. In: Busnell, D.M., Hefner, J.M. (Eds.), Drag Reduction by Polymers
and Surfactants, Viscous Drag Reduction in Boundary Layers. American Institute of
of the savings in the pumping power by the DRP in Section 3.2 since Aeronautics and Astronautics.
both of these parameters depend entirely on drag reducing ability of Inerthal, W., Wilski, H., 1985. Drag reduction experiments with very large pipes. Colloid
the DRP. Meanwhile, the overall observation shows that the addition of Polym. Sci. 263, 217–229.
Japper-Jaafar, A., Escudier, M.P., Poole, R.J., 2009. Turbulent pipe flow of a drag-
the DRP significantly increased the throughputs with the highest reducing rigid “rod-like” polymer solution. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 161, 86–93.
percentage increase of about 61% recorded in the 30.6-mm ID. Kang, C., Jepson, W.P., 2000. Effect of Drag-reducing Agents in Multiphase, Oil/Gas
Horizontal Flow. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1–7.
Karami, H.R., Mowla, D., 2012. Investigation of the effects of various parameters on
4. Conclusions pressure drop reduction in crude oil pipelines by drag reducing agents. J. Non-
Newton. Fluid Mech. 177–178, 37–45.
Energy analysis of drag-reducing ability of DRP in oil-water flow Langsholt, M., 2012. An experimental study on polymeric type DRA used in single- and
multiphase flow with emphasis on degradation, diameter scaling and the effects in
was carried out in this study in order determine the economic
three-phase oil-water-gas flow. In: Proceedings of the 8th North American
advantages of using the DRP as a drag reducer. The analysis included Conference on Multiphase Technology Banff, Alberta, Canada, pp. 73–87.
the determination of the head loss reduction, percentage saving in the Martin, J.R., Shapella, B.D., 2003. The effect of solvent solubility parameter on turbulent
flow drag reduction in polyisobutylene solutions. Exp. Fluids 34, 535–539.
power or energy consumption and ultimately percentage increase in
Omer, A., Pal, R., 2010. Pipeline flow behavior of water-in-oil emulsions with and
the throughput, which is the primary end use of the DRP. The results of without a polymeric additive. Chem. Eng. Technol. 33 (6), 983–992.
the analysis showed substantial reductions in the system head losses, Pinho, F.T., Whitelaw, J.H., 1990. Flow of non-newtonian fluids in a pipe. J. Non-
huge savings in the energy consumption as well as significant increases Newton. Fluid Mech. 34 (2), 129–144.
Scott, D., Rhodes, E., 1972. Gas–liquid slug flow with drag reducing polymer solutions.
in the throughputs by the addition of 40 ppm DRP. AIChE J. 18, 744–750.
Sifferman, T.R., Greenkorn, R.A., 1981. Drag reduction in three distinctly different fluid
Acknowledgement systems. Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 663–669.
Sylvester, N.D., Brill, J.P., 1976. Drag-reduction in two-phase annular mist flow of air
and water. AIChE J. 22 (3), 615–617.
The authors would like to thank The Research Council (TRC), Virk, P.S., 1975. Drag reduction fundamentals. AICHE J. 21, 625–656.
Oman for sponsoring the entire research works and Sultan Qaboos Virk, P.S., Merill, E.W., 1969. The onset of dilute polymer solution phenomena in viscous
drag reductionViscous drag reduction. Plenum press, New York.
University, Oman for providing enabling environment to carry out the White, C.M., Mungal, M.G., 2008. Mechanics and prediction of turbulent drag reduction
research. with polymer additives. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40, 235–256.
Yusuf, N., Al-Wahaibi, T., Al-Wahaibi, Y., Al-Ajmi, A., Al-Hashmi, A.R., Olawale, A.S.,
Mohammed, I.A., 2012. Experimental study on the effect of drag reducing polymer
References
on flow patterns and drag reduction in a horizontal oil-water flow. Int. J. Heat. Fluid
Flow 37, 74–80.
Abubakar, A., 2016. Study of Oil-Water Flow with Drag Reducing Polymer in Different