This document summarizes a research project analyzing pipeline flow losses and fouling at a marine tank farm (MTF) in Jamnagar, India. The MTF receives crude oil from offshore single point moorings (SPMs) via subsea pipelines. The project models pressure losses along the pipelines based on flow rate, crude properties, and pipeline design. It calibrates the model using 2009 data and then simulates 2014-15 data to estimate fouling over 5 years. The results indicate minimum fouling of 5mm has occurred, corresponding to 265.3257806 cubic meters of debris buildup in the pipelines.

1. TRAINING REPORT AND THE
RESEARCH PROJECT
Presented by –
Anirudh Toshniwal
B.Tech (Petroleum Engineering)
Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Petroleum Technology
“Optimised model for inferring the flow losses and
fouling in pipeline based on pipeline design and data
analysis.”

2. MTF (MARINE TANK FARM)
 World’s biggest grass root refinery situated 25km away
from the city of Jamnagar refines the crude imported
from different gulf and other countries. The MTF takes
care of the unloading and dispatching of crude received
for refining from the marine route.
 Refinery at Jamnagar has RTF(Refinery Tank Farm),
RRTF(Rail Road Tank Farm) and MTF for dispatching
and unloading of crude and refined products.
 MTF is situated 8km away from the refinery complex
near the seashore.
 The plot area of MTF is 1000 acres with storage facility
biggest in Asia.

3. MTF (CONTD.)
 No. of ships handled annually = 1550
 Cargo load handled per annum = 106 million metric
tonne.
 It also exports products like LPG, MS, SKO, ATF,
LAB, PCN, ARN, TAME & Paraxylene from 5 berths
: A, A1, B, C & D at jetty.
 Their are in total 24 crude tanks.

4. GOOGLE IMAGE OF THE MTF

5. AERIAL VIEW OF TANKS PRESENT IN THE MTF
FACILITY

6. SPM(SINGLE POINT MOORING)
 It consist of two CALM( Catarnary Anchor Leg
Mooring ) mooring systems and two PLEM’s which
are connected to submarine pipeline ,loop to the
shore facility (MTF).
 Their are 5 SPM all together situated near the line
of Kandala from the shore of Sikka.
 SPM 1 & 2 installed in 1999 have their shore point
riser at NRP. Where as SPM 3 installed in 2006
goes till LOLO jetty. All three are responsible for
import of crude from countries like Venezuela,
Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Algeria,
Nigeria etc.

8. WORKING OF SPM AND THE PIPELINE ROUTES
FROM SPM TO TANKER.
 From SPM 3 their are two 48” pipelines coming
towards the ALP point or can be said LOLO jetty.
This pipeline is on the sea surface covering a
distance of 19.5km where as it comes to NRP(E).
 The total distance that pipe covers is approx. 28.2
km from which approx. 22.8km is in marine and the
other 5.3km is under land from shore to MTF.
 The maximum height reached by the pipeline above
sea level 6.8m Riser and the maximum water depth
reached is -34m PLEM valve.

11. DETAILS ABOUT THE PIPELINES INSTALLED FROM
SPM3 TO THE TANKER.
 The pipeline installed is of grade SMYS-API X-52
with a OD of 48” and design flow rate of 7000
tonne/hr.
 It can behold a pressure max to 30kg/cm2g and
design temperature of 65°C.
 Dependent on the water depth at which pipe
installed the pipe thickness changes. For a depth
more than 29m the thickness will be 22.2mm and
for less than 29m thickness will be 20.6mm.
 The pipeline is a pigable line having ROC of bends
sufficiently higher and internal roughness of
0.02mm.

12. TYPE AND GRADE OF OIL THAT IS BEING
RECEIVED FROM THE SPM3.
 Merey 16
 Arab Light
 DCO
 Ras Gharib
 Arab Extra Light
 Leona 22
And many more...

13. EXPLAINING THE METHODOLOGY.
 In the study presented on the pipelines coming from
SPM 3 to MTF possible pressure loses were
calculated considering the losses like friction loss,
bend loss, fluid entrance and exit head losses,
valve losses etc.
 Based on the data gathered from crude unloading
logs of 2009 the model was calibrated and a factor
of pressure drop was added to validate it.
 Based on the calibrated model the data logs of year
2014-15 were run through to look for the fouling in
the pipeline caused in the course of 5 years.

14. FRICTION LOSS
 The viscosity causes loss of energy in flows which
is known as frictional loss.
 Applying Bernoulli’s equations for real fluid between
two points in a pipeline.
 According to Darcy-Weishbach equation.

15. FRICTION LOSS (CONTD.)
 ƒ known as friction factor can be calculated using
Fanning’s friction factor equation or plotting in
Moody’s Diagram.

16. MECHANICAL LOSS
 Based on the design of the pipeline from the SPM 3 to
MTF certain losses like bend loss, tee loss, entrance
head loss, exit head loss etc take place.
 From SPM 3 to LOLO jetty the pipeline takes 3 bends in
lateral direction and 18 small bends up and down. The
ROC for these bends are in Kilometre which in
comparison with the radius of pipeline is a big number
reducing the r/R ratio to insignificant.
 From LOLO jetty to MTF goes through multiple bends
both in lateral and horizontal direction.
 35 number 90°bends are their with ROC of 6400mm, 5
number of 45° bends are their with ROC 4912mm, 7
other different angles with different ROC are present.

17. MECHANICAL LOSS (CONTD.)
 Mechanical loss calculated is based on the formula
defined as –
M.L. = ξv2 ρ/2g
V = flow velocity (ft/sec or m/sec)
g = acceleration of gravity (ft/sec2/ or m/sec2 )
ξ = minor loss coefficient.
ρ = density of fluid.

18. MECHANICAL LOSS (CONTD.)
 The schematics of design doesn’t impose the
regularity of application so their could be losses
which cannot be accounted here.
 Some of the mechanical losses like flow from SPM
to the PLEM valve and release from PLEM in to the
pipeline are the constrained landmarks where
losses must have occurred but are incalculable.
 We are recording the pressure values at SPM and
at the entrance of MTF any losses occurred within
the MTF are not imposed in the study.

19. PRESSURE LOSS FOR A CERTAIN RATE OF
FLOW
MEREY -16
 Maximum flow rate – 14500m3/hr
 Pipe internal diameter – 47.1884in / 47.1254in
 API – 16.24
 Viscosity – 265.665cp
 Pressure drop due to frictional loss – 11.68679
 Pressure drop due to mechanics - 0.720013
 Pressure loss due to elevation – 0.617728
 Total pressure Loss – 13.02454

20. PRESSURE LOSS FOR A CERTAIN RATE OF
FLOW
RAS GHARIB
 Maximum flow rate – 14500m3/hr
 Pipe internal diameter – 47.1884in / 47.1254in
 API – 21.99
 Viscosity – 54.841cp
 Pressure drop due to frictional loss - 7.564441
 Pressure drop due to mechanics - 0.69304
 Pressure loss due to elevation – 0.594587
 Total pressure Loss – 8.852068

21. PRESSURE LOSS FOR A CERTAIN RATE OF
FLOW
DCO
 Maximum flow rate – 14500m3/hr
 Pipe internal diameter – 47.1884in / 47.1254in
 API – 17.35
 Viscosity – 181.089cp
 Pressure drop due to frictional loss – 10.44997
 Pressure drop due to mechanics - 0.582848
 Pressure loss due to elevation – 0.613122
 Total pressure Loss – 11.64594

22. PRESSURE LOSS FOR A CERTAIN RATE OF
FLOW
ARAB LIGHT
 Maximum flow rate – 14500m3/hr
 Pipe internal diameter – 47.1884in / 47.1254in
 API – 33.18
 Viscosity – 4.6962cp
 Pressure drop due to frictional loss – 4.314247
 Pressure drop due to mechanics - 0.645948
 Pressure loss due to elevation - 0.554185
 Total pressure Loss – 5.51438

23. MAXIMUM FLOW RATE ACHIEVABLE THEORETICALLY
FOR DIFFERENT CRUDES WITH A PRESSURE
DIFFERENCE
CRUDE TYPE 10kg/cm2 9kg/cm2 8kg/cm2
Merey 16 12335 11554 10732
Ras Gharib 15597 14645 13642
Arab Light 20558 19350 18074
DCO 13216 12387 11514
Leona 22 15963 14993 13969
Arab Ex Light 22171 20881 19520

24. COMPARISON WITH THE REAL TIME
DATA OF 2009-10
 Using the crude unloading logs from 2009-10 we
were able to infer that their are certain losses which
cannot be accounted in hydraulics and mechanics
considered.
 Although this difference in pressure accounted was
uniform for same fluid for similar flow rate and
physical properties.
 Pressure difference was calculated for different
crudes and its average was taken and considered
as the calibration or rectifying factor.

25. AVERAGE PRESSURE DIFFERENCE VS. FLOW
RATE
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
9216 9037 8997 8783 8777 8578 8427 8424 8228 6767
Merey 16
Merey 16

26. AVERAGE PRESSURE DIFFERENCE VS FLOW
RATE
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
3544 4713 5656 7154 7162
Ras Gharib
Ras Gharib

27. AVERAGE PRESSURE DIFFERENCE VS FLOW
RATE
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
12036 11636 9318 8773 6875
Arab Light
Arab Light

28. INFERENCE FROM THE CALIBRATION
 Every pressure difference is altogether dependent
on the flow rate, density, viscosity and for every
different flow rate the losses are also different may
it be frictional losses or mechanical losses.
 Considering these factors an average flow rate
value from the logs was calculated and average
pressure difference value between the absolute and
real were calculated.

29. VALUES IN COMPARISON WITH DATA FROM
2009-10
Merry 16 Ras Gharib Arab Light
Average Flow
Rate
8477.4 7201 11516.25
Average
Pressure
Difference
2.032538 1.63415 2.220027

30. SIMULATING THE CALIBRATED MODEL WITH
DATA LOG OF 2014-15
 As done for data from 2009-10 , 2014-15 data was
simulated with the model and pressure difference
was calculated.
 In the span of 5 years we expect the values of
pressure loss to be varied giving us the expected
fouling or other incalculable losses.
 Since for different values of flow rate for different
fluid the value of fouling will be different so we can
say that the minimum value of fouling reported in all
fluid will be taken as the result.

31. Merry 16 Ras Gharib Arab Light
Average Flow
Rate
8758.95 6425.571429 9987
Average
Pressure
Difference
2.2435813529 1.756814 2.3204
Pressure
Change in 5
Years
0.2110433529 0.1226635714 0.100373
Expected
Fouling
10.5 mm /
0.413385 inch
13 mm /
0.51181 inch
8 mm / 0.31496
inch

32. RESULTS
 On the basis of simulation done using real time
data we can conclude that the minimum fouling in
the pipeline is of 8mm.
 Considering the mechanical losses shutters down
the gap between the absolute and real time data
giving us a better window to work on.
 Considering the inconsistency in the values of flow
rate for a given pressure difference and human
error while noting it down an error of ±1.0% is
considered.
 Which entails the minimum fouling to 5mm.
 The debris can be estimated to be of volume
265.3257806 m3.

33. REFERENCES
 Reliance industries operating manual MTF crude
area.
 Gulf Interstate Engineering – Design data
 Antares offshore, L.L.C – Design data
 MTF crude unloading logs.
 CTS data files provided.
 Integrated crude system/web portal – crude
specifications.
 Handbook of pipeline engineering.-Mc Graw Hill

34. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project wouldn’t have been possible without
valuable guidance from following eminent
personals.
 Mr Praveen Kumar Gupta – HOD (MTF)
 Mr Pankaj M. Patel – Mentor (MTF- crude)
 Mr Atul Moghe – (MTF-Marine)
 Mr Sanjai Tiwari – CTS
 Mr Pravin S. Potdar – CTS
 Mr Saurabh Abrol and Mr Nishit Shah – (MTF-
crude)

35. THANK YOU