Two-Phase Flow Splitting at an Impacting Tee K. C. Hong, SPE, and Suzanne Griston, Chevron USA Production Co. Summary This paper describes laboratory air/water and field steam flow tess conducted to develop a reliable method for predicting the qualities of split streams and to find tee inser devices that increase the range of vapor-phase splitatios for which split qualities are equal. There ‘sults show that an empirical corelation based on airhwater tests can be applied to field steam-distibution systems for predicting phase spliting problems. The spliting problems are correctedby using the teeinsert devices teste, Test data show that ofthe inset devices that were evaluated, the downstream nozzles produced equal-quality splits over the widest range of vapor-phase split ratios Introduction Steamflooding involves the injection of heat into a reservoir in the form of two-phase steam. For the process to be effective, steam of suficiemt quality must be injected at sufficient rates into diferent pans of a reservoir Furthermore, to maximize steam displacement efficiency and volumetric sweep ofthe reservoir, it is necessary 10 distribute injected heat and mass uniformly over a seamflood area, [isso important to maintain an optimal quality of steam entering the reservoir because steam vapor and liquid have different dis placement mechanisms.’ A predetermined quality of steam must be ‘elivered toa given wellhead at predetermined rate, Citical flow chokes are used to control steam rates (0 each inj tion well? Impacting (dead-end) tes? are used at pipe branchesin an attempt to achieve even stear-qualtydstibution to each well Fig. 1), Unfortunately, wellhead quality and rate measurements collected in varioussteamflood projec indicate that uneven quality splisoften ‘occur whenever the rate split deviate from 50:50 at a pipe e-*Indi- vidual wells receive uneven and unpreditable portions of the steam Jet and mass, Uneven heat and mas dstbutions result poor di placement efficiency and volumetric sweep ofthe reservoir hile un- known steam-qualtydistibution leads to poor reservoir heat man agemeat and inaccurate mateil-balance analysis, ‘Therefore itis imporant fo obtain a better understanding of o6o- phase flow spliting a impacting tees. In addition, itis helpful wo de- velop a means to predict accurately and, if possible, to equalize the ‘qualities of split streams atthe pipe tee. This paper describes laborato: 1 aufwater and field steam flowspliting tests that were conducted to develop a reliable method for predicting the qualities of spit streams and to find several mechanical devices that can be inserted into an impacting te to improve quality distribution in steam lines. Literature Review In 1978, Hong} reported results from a laboratory sit/water experi- ‘ment for flow spliting through side-arm and impacting tes. The ex- periment shows that the sidearm (Fg, 1) produces unequal spi ting of vapor and liquid phases, causing different qualities ‘downstream from the spliting te, a phenomenon known as phse splitng. Ina dead-end mode, on te other hand the te splitthe va or and liquid phases equally as Tong as the gas-split ratio did not exceed 5:1 (85% to 15% or 159 10 855) Because ofthis benchmark study, impacting pipe ees have been used widely in California's steamflood projects, However, recent ‘wellhead flow rae and quality measurements with separator vessels indiate that uneven quality splits commonly occur asa result of un- even vapor flow spits! This problem results in wellhead steam xin 08 iyo Peon Expres tae SPE rast eae een e184 Reseed mang aed 8s ‘qualities varying from 20% to 90%. The main reason forthe dserep- ancy between the field data and Hong's laboratory findings is that the an?vatertess were run fora single set of inlet conditions: ai ve- locity of 90 fUsec and liquid volume fraction of 0.009, Steam condi- tions in a typical steam-distrbution system can range from 500-t0 1,000-psi pressure, 100-10 1,000-B/D flow rate, and 20% 0 90% {uality, These conditions reslt in vapor velocities ranging from 5 {0 70 [see and liquid volume factions ranging Irom O01 to 0.15 centering the pipe te. More recent studies? involving air/water of wet steam flow ‘through impacting tees show that uneven quality splits occur when the vapor flow split to each branch deviates from S0:30, Results from these studies show thatthe te branch withthe lower vapor rate also receives lower quality steam (Le, higher liquid volume fac: tion). Azzopardi et al and Chien and Rubel” develop empirical ‘correlations to predict the qualities of split steams, However, these ‘corlations do not accurately predict quality spits over the entire range oftheir laboratory test conditions “Many ofthe following devices and methods have been tested and, insome cases installed extensively inthe field to equalize te qual- ties of spit steams: [Separating the liquid and vapor phases atthe generator outlet and recombining them at each wellhead 2. vertical distribution pot and a homogenizing orifice? 5. Orifice devices inserted upstream and downstream of the te junction 1° “4A static mixer and statifier inserted upstream ofa branching tee The first ofthese methods i neither practical nor cost-effective, and none of the remainder perform as satisfactorily as originally thought ‘A review of the available literature has shown that two-phase ‘low-spliting data are needed for wider ranges of flow conditions. ‘We need an improved correlation that canbe used to predict quality splits for steam conditions representative of field distnbution sys tems. Furthermore a simple, reliable, low-cost device for sping ‘wet steam to produce uniform downstream qualities is needed for Field steam-distbution actors, Laboratory Air/Water Test Apparatus. The apparatus, shown in Fig. 2,had a network of lines (of Y-in-ID Lucite pipe anda%in. ID flow spliting dead-endtee made from a Lucite block. Air and water were used asthe wo- phase fuid Air froma constant-pressure source passed through alow nozzle mixer, where it vas combined with water. Water from a constant- fuid-fevel tank was pumped t the nozzle at rates controlled by a flow transducer/mete. The pressure of the combined two-phase stream was measured by a pressure transducer. The dry airflow rate Was varied between 2.76 and 13.81 selmi and the water rate be ‘ween 0.014 and 0.881 f/min. For these ranges of air and water flow rates, the upstream linear ar velocity in the Yin, pie ranged from 15 to 75 fs and the upstream liquid volume fraction from (0.005 o 0.06, These test conditions ae representative of eld steam flow rates of 200 10 800 B/D cold water equivalent (CWE) in a2, pipe at steam pressures beeen 300 and 800 psia and field steam ‘qualities inthe 20% to 80% range. ‘The aithvater mixture exiting each arm was separated and me- tered, and the air was vented tothe atmosphere. The flow tansduc- evmeleron each separator tank controlled the air low rat und thas the pereentage of the upstream air splitting into each arm ofthe te. For the majority of tess, the fraction of ar sping into each arm SPE Prodcton A Faiitis, August 1995StraightTrrough “ Fig. 1—Spiiting tee orientation. Varied from 59% to 95%. The liquid was passed through a pneumatic three-way valve and directed into either a slop tank before steady- state flow conditions were reached or into 8 measurement tank placed on a balance afer steady-state conditions were reached, The liquid measurements were used wo determine the average flow rate. ‘the percentage ofthe upstream lguid going into each arm, and the downstream liquid volume fraction Flow Split Data, The water splits were determined asa function of upstream gas velocity inlet liquid volume fraction (LVF) and per centage of the upstream ga split into a given downstream arm. Fig 4, Input Liquid Fraction = 0.01 Fig. 2Two-phaseflow-spliting apparatus. 3 shows representative watersplit data resulting from the test. Bach plot in Fig 3 shows wate-split data for differen upstream air velocities with a fixed upstream LVF (001, 0.02. 0.04, and 0.06). ‘The data represent air flow splits ranging from 54 to 98% in each arm, resulting in two sets of flow-split data for each set of inlet, Conditions. the two arms are perfectly symmetric, the two datasets are expocted to overlap, Symmetry was observed only for inlet air Velocities above 30 fUsee 'A desired outcome isto split the water inthe same proportion as the sir to equalize the LVF’ (or qualities) in exit arms. Ifthe water indeed split in the same proportion asthe aie forall flow conditions, Input Liquid Fraction = 0.02 100 100 ge oat to fas g mit z oes a® © ‘°° feo 4 Foo poett 2 2 4 dao : peolgee ? ayo : 3 is see era pik, $0 nae 088 45 (see roby hod Or 80 * 60 Wee Be 18 nae %9 20 40, 60 30 100 %% 20 40 60 80 Too Alte Arm () sito Arm 6) «: input Liquid Fraction = 0.04 Input Liquid Fracton = 0.06 100 100 80 ze Eo vil 60 2 ea ‘ it 40 of sorg eal pelget " 20 20 °o 20 40 60 80 100 %% 20 40 60 80 100 Air to Arm (%) Air to Arm (%) Fig. —Etlet of inlet air velocity on wat SPE Production & Facies, August 1995 stream spiting. 185,ll the ploted data would fall ona diagonal line. As scen in Fig. 3 this instance occurs for sirsplit ratios of less than 2:1 and inet LVP's below 0.02. As the ait-split ratio increases above 21, the data points increasingly deviate from the diggonal line. The data also ‘how that the arm receiving lower ir flow receives a disproportion. ately higher LVF. This effect becomes more pronounced as the inet air Velocity and LVF increase, Ics important to note tha, at low inlet aie velocity and LVF (15 fusee and 0.005), equa phase splitting, ‘occurs over the entre range of air-split ratio. ‘A visual inspection ofthe flow-split behavior atthe tee shows that for the majority of flow conditions tested, the two-phase Mow up- stream ofthe te isin astratified flow regime. In this repime, he ig- ‘uid phase is affected only slightly bythe gas flow andtends divide ‘more equally atthe te, IFthe liquid-phase low were completely un affected by the gas flow all datapoints woud lie along a horizontal line passing through the S0% water-slit point, Tis condition isa prosched othe inlet LVF increases above 0.04 Flow splitting with inlet LVF's below 0,02 and gas velocity equal to 15 see does not follow ths trend because the flow isin an ann Jaemist flow regime For this low inlet gas veloety and LVF. the slip velocity (difference in velocity between liquid and vapor) ap. proaches zero, Hence, the liquid tends to flow in the same propor- tion as the vapor into each arm, produeing equal downstream quali- ties. Forthe most part, the data appear ofall along the diagonal ine. Empirical Correlation To Predict Downstream LVF. The present study produced data that can be used fr predicting LVF's (or quai ties) of split streams. A correlation equation, based on the flow-split data, to relate the LVE,¥, of a split steam to the three control vai 1 be expressed by Vita” o ‘The coefficients, a and 2, in Eq. 1 are elated to F, which is the product of two variables, Vn an tie a=a;tainF+asPO5, Q and b= bj +b Ft bsln 4 bP, ° where the empirical constants are 4 =0.2088; 2) and bj = ~3.0662: by 02541; a5=0.3928; (0.4052; by= ~ 1.0381; by =2.7228. Eq. 1 fits the empirical flow-split data quite well with an overall potdaess of fit of 0.98. Prediction of Spit Steam Qualities. We developoda procedure for predicting quality splits ata horizontal impacting tee. Eg, 1 is used to caleuate the downstream LVF. The computed LVF is converted to Steam quality using liguid- and vaporspecifc volumes obtained from steam tables, 1. We measure steam pressure, quality. and rate at thetee inlet 2. We determine the pipe cross-sectional area, Ac in square fet 3. We find specific volumes, vp and y, in cubic feet per pound, from steam tables, 4. We caleulte the inlet vapor velocity and liquid volume frac- yy * 0.00405( fees TUS; ® and Vine™ (1=2) wy f11=2) y+ le o where «is in fraction and the rte i in barels per day CWE." 5. We Find the velocity in a given downstream arm: tne ration of vapor into am), © 6. Weealeulate Vag fom Eg, in terms of tne Vine 88 ta 7.We convert Vin the downstream arm to steam quali eam = (1+ War UVa) 8, Repeat Steps 5 through 7 forthe other arm. o 186 ‘TABLE {COMPARISON OF STEAM QUALITIES: PREDICTION VS. CHIEN AND RUBEL’ TEST DATA: STEAM | PRESSURE = 400 PSIG; INLET VAPOR VELOCITY =40 | \ FTISEC. ,_rsee_ Case Predicted Steam Faw” 1 02 0s0 O28 034 2 0s 099035 038 3 02 072 068 o7 4 04 072 ov on 5 02 0400s 029 6 os © 040038, 098 | 7 02 078 =~ ot on | 8 08 «078 OTs om |. 9. We check the mass balance for consisteny: ne ie inte] = art (et Yat + gn m2 ea: @ To use the above procedure ina steam-distibution system, we ‘must koow the steam Flow eat and quality entering the iste june tion, These values can be determined from measurements atthe ‘steam generators) In addition, the vapor flow rate at each injection well must be estimated, We can determine this rate by using the ‘Thorahill-Craver flow-rate equation for wellhead chokes assuming 100% quality to obsain the vapor rate? The vapor flow into an arm is simply the sum of all the rates that are measured or estimated at the welheads served by that arm. Sialaly the vapor Fate entering tee isthe sum of the two downstream rates. This procedure can be ‘sed on a programmable hand-held calculator or with a PC sprea- sheet program, 7 er. we lal += —_— — Tee LL Wo Wa Fig. 4Schematic representation of tee designs. Sieartor Fig. 5Schomatic of feld test setup. SPE Production & Facilites, Augutt 1995[Taste 2—FeLD TEST DATA FOR AND @N NORWAL] TPACTING TEES a Poscd veoer Vapor gut unity Guay Vesely inet km tonm team en | tweed Gr “ar “ea” “ea” 2am 07 on zm Or » | ase Gowe ov ® arse Gone B46 ase 038 oo | aoe 0089 = fo 00m of an os 3S 8 fo Ome es ‘eee O00 2 0.099 o 8 0.09 uF O. o 5 dos ® dors o * o's & 8 | 008 ar | 8.08 nO Soe @ & One ee | ser onus u 2 tor ols Bf ae one 2 | sa one 2 voz oat s & {oat Soe 2 4 mo 0m mt mse om 3% oo ee io oo is foe ei Some tw Yeas om 5D ess oom i200) wD Vee 00 mt Ho oor Steet Heim eae ‘This method has been wsed fo predict the steam-uality split data obiained by Chien and Rubel.’ Table I shows thatthe predicted and ‘measured quality spits are in good agreement, except for the low vaporsplit and low-inpur-steam-quality cases, Improved ‘Tee Split Devices. The second objective ofthis study was to develop fe insert devices that would split the gas and liquid [hases inthe same proportion for wider ranges of flow conditions than possible with normal impacting tee. Several different inser devices, four of which are shown in Fig. 4, were tested, and the phase spliting results were compared with those obtained for anor ‘mal impacting te. Unfortunately, most of tho insert devices do notinerease the range ‘of gas-split ratios for which equal-quality splits accu. In fact, some evices, such a the reduced-diametet tee, actual narrow the range, The staie-mixer insert only slightly increases the eange for ‘which equal-quaity splits oecur. The greatest improvernens for equal-quality splits ae ebtained with the preseparator vane, dost stream nozzles, and vaneinozzles combination. These promising ‘devices wore fuaher tested in the Feld with ive seam overly thie performance for equalizing the qualities of spit steams SPE Production & Fclies, August 195 TABLE3—FIELD TEST OATA FOR ZN. NOZRLE REDUCER TEE Tat apor vagorie Ua Veecly ‘hen Rn Wise) native 2718 0087 oe 7 aris oe? ‘6 2 wore ore 78 FA sore ore 2 x wae ore 5 @ wos cont © s or ote ai ® a8 oioes ‘0 2 sro os . n aot os 2 a 5206 ots &o 7 206 ots 2 2 | Beae ose & 5 | 54.53 0.032 50 49 er oot & n 7 oat s 2 et one 0 2 i doce & * Field Steam Flow Test ‘We conducted field tess to evaluate steam flow splitting at impact ing tees with several objectives in mine: 1. Todetermine the range of steam conditions under which equal duality splits occur 2, To compare fet steam flowspit data with laboratory ait/wa ter data and verify empirical correlation. 5. To evaluate the performance of diferent te inserts designed improve quality spits. Four different impacting te designs were evaluated: (1) anormal tee, (2) a satic-miner setifis, (3) a presepaator vane, and (4) a nozzle reducer. Fig 4 shows schematic diagrams ofthe te designs Egquipment and Procedure, The west setup, shown in Fig. , was designed to take steam output from a 22 MMBtwhr portable gas- fired generator. The total steam ouxpur from the generator was di rected through an impacting te, and te split steams were injected into a nearby dualstring well, Two- and 4-in. nominal-diameter Pie tees were used to provide an extended range of inlet vapor velo- cities. Steam quality entering the te was varied by adjusting the fuel and feedwater rates atthe generator, The low rates of split streams ‘exiting each tee were controlled with wellhead chokes. For each tee ‘design, « minimum of nine separate tests (three inlet qualities and three outlet vapor flow splits) were run foreachof the two te diame- ters and 4 in} fora total of 18 tests, These est conditions cover {range of inlet vapor velocities and liquid volume Fractions from to 70 usec and from 0:01 t0 0.10, respectively. Tests were not run for the dn, nozzle-reducer te for reasons discussed late, Pipe Manges and bypass lines were used for easy installation of achtec design. Steam-separstor vessels were installed downstream of wellhead chakes to monitor and record the rates and qualities of splitstreams exiting the te. Metal sheathed Type-E thermocouples ‘were installed upstream of the tee snd upstream and downstream of cach choke to monitor steam temperatures (and consequently, sat0- ration pressures). Critical low was achieved at each choke to main- tain stable test conditions. Data were collected fr atleast 30 min- ts (under stable conditions) before changing tothe next testcase Data Analysis. The generator flow rate and quality data were ana- lyzed to determine the vapor-phase velocity and the liquid fraction ofthe steam enteing the tee. The separator vapor und liquid flow rates were analyzed fo determine the steam flow rates and qualities of split streams exiting the two arms ofthe tee. The separator data were adjusted to pressure contions upstream ofthe choke to cor rect fr liquid lashing as aesulto the large pressure drop. Isenthal- 187Fig. 6—Steam flow spliting at normal impacting tees. pic toting across each choke was assumed io aban team quali- ties at upstream presse eondiions. ‘The ot adjusted liquid and vapor exiting the te were compared with the generatonoutet data to ensure thatthe stearmass Now ‘ate and thermal energy Were Balance, The adjstd separator dta ‘were used inl subsequent analyses to determine the steam cod tions entering ad exiting the ee, The vaporphase velocity and the liquid volume fraction entering the tec Were computed with Eqs. 4 ana 5, respectively. The percent vapor an igi spits exiting each branch ofthe te were computed from the adjusted separator data, ‘Test Results. Flow rate and quality split data are summarized in ‘Tables? and 3 forthe normal 3-and:-in, tes andthe nozzle-reduc~ ertee, respectively. (For brevity, test data for oer tee design ate ‘not included but can be found in the original SPE 278662). The tee split data were analyzed and compared with the laboratory ae/water data, ‘Normal Impacting Tee, The resulting liquid-phase splits for come sponding vapor-phase splits obtained forthe 2- and 4in-tee tests are shown in Fig. 6: The 2in-tee daca clearly show that uneven liquid ‘phase splits occur ence the vapor-phase flow split deviates from 50:50 teach arm, The data also show tha the arm wit the lower va ‘or low receives a disproportionately higher ligud low. These Find ngs are consistent withthe laboratory ac water test results, The in = tee data show thatthe liquid and vapor phases split proportionately to each ar for nearly the entre range of test conditions. Therefore, ‘appears that equal-uality spits can be obtained when the vapor ve- Jocity entering the tee is below 20 fUsec. This velocity effet aso was observed in the laboratory srfwater tests for inlet gui fractions ‘equal toot Tess than 0.02, shown in Fig, 3 (Plots a and b) ig. 7 compares the predicted and measured quality splits. The predicted quality splits estimated from the empirical corelation are ‘ngood agreement with measured quality spits. This resultissome- ‘what unexpected in light of an apparent discrepancy between the Taboratory air/ater and field steam data at higher inlet liquid vol ume fractions 90 $—_—_——_———— 80} 60) redieted Quatty to Arm () 2 a0 0 sated Quality 12 em (8) 30400 Fig. 7—Predicted vs. measured steam quality splits. 8 Modified Impacting Tees. Plots of the liquid-phase-vs-vapor- ‘phase splits for normal and modified tes designs ae shown in Figs. Band9 forthe 2- and 4-in-diameer tees, respectively. Comparison ‘of flow splits obtained forthe 2-in-diameter mixer statfier and normal tes indicates that the mixer-stratifier inert does not im- prove the liquid-phase splits to cach arm, as shown in Fig. 8a Infact, this device tends to split the liquid-phase equally to each arm, inde pendently of the vapor-phase split. Comparison of flow-split data forthe 2-n, preseparator vane and normal tes indicates thatthe vane inset slightly improves the liquid-phase split, shown in Fig, ‘8. Comparison of flow splits forthe 2-n, nozzle reducer and nor- smal tee, shown in Fig. 8c, indicates thatthe nozzlereducer inserts greatly improve the liquid-phase split to each arm. Indeed, the li Uuid- and vapor-phase splits are nearly proporional to each arm for all test conditions low-split data forthe 4-in. mixer stratiier and normal tes are shown inFig. 9a. Atlower-inlet-vapor velocities, itiseven more ap ‘parent thatthe mixer-statfier insert device tends to split te iquid- ‘hase eqully, egardless ofthe vapor-phase split As with the 2-in, tee tests, comparison of flow-split data for the 4-in. preseparator ‘vane and normal tes, shown in Fig. 9b, indicates that a slight im ‘provement inthe liquid-phase splits is obtained when the vane insert isused, The4-in. nozzle-reducer te was nottesed because the in, normal te already hada reduced section approximately 2 ft down stream of the te junction, Therefore, testing of thei, te with e ‘ducer nozzles would have been somewhat redundant. ‘The improved liquid-phase spits observed for the preseparator vane and nozzle-reducer tee insets were consistent with the results obtained from the laboratory airhwater ests. orlow-inlet-air veloc ity proportional water andar split were obtained forthe presepara- tor vane, nozzle reducer, and normal tee designs. At higher inet air velocities, the nozle-reducer te performed better than the presepa ‘aor vane in equalizing liquid-phase and vapor-phase spits to each arm ofthe tee. Conclusions | Normal impacting tes split the liquid phase indifferent pro- Porton than the vapor phase when the vapor flow-split ratio dev aes from 1:1 (50:50). 2. The disproportionate liquid and vapor-phase splitting be- comes more pronounced asthe inlet vapor velocity andor the inlet, liquid volume fraction increases, 3. In general, laboratory and ied test data were in agreement in icatng that ai water mixtures behave like wet steam for compare bie ranges of vapor velocities and liquid volume fraction, 44, An empirical correlation, derived from laboratory aicwater ata, accurately predicts atual steam quality splits observed in the field tests of normal impacting tes '5. Nozzles inserted directly downstream of an impacting te junc- tion greatly increase the range of vapor-phase split rato for which ‘equal-quality splits occur. These devices are recommended for field ‘use to equalize the qualities ofthe split streams. SPE Production & Facies, August 1995na Setar va.Noral Too b.Preseparstor Vane ve, Normal Tee 100 109 a %0 z ee z £60 yet? Fe < & we 2 2 8 steer e 2 3 40) Pe Ba z oe 5 a © tome aah 0 tra um © icon Srtier 2 Presper Vane % a 0 a0 08000 ‘Vapor to Arm (4) Vapor to Arm () © Nozzle Reducor ve. Normal Tow 100 um (%) 3 2040 60 a0 ~~ t00 Vapor to Arm (%) Fig. 8 Performance of insert devices for in. tees. 6. Alternatively, he installation of an enlarged diameter eet {ce the vapor phase velocity below 20 fvsee can be an effective ‘cans of equalizing the qualities of the split steams Py = steam pressure, nL? as velocity in am, Lit, fusec as velocity at inlet, Lit. fuse liquid volume fraction = liquid volume fraction in arm Tiguid volume fraction at inlet specific liquid volume, L3im, fom specific gas volume, Lm, fom specific gas volume in arm, Lm, f0/1bm specific as volume at inlet, Lm, fom steam quality Nomenclature ‘Ac = cross-sectional area, L?, 12 defined by coefficient in Ea, 2 defined by coefficient in Eq, 3 product of variables Vary & wit ‘vapor velocity in anwiglet vapor velocity "i, = injection rte, steam, Lt Mtge Straiar va Norma Toe » Proseparator Vane ve. Normal Toe arm 0%) © Normal Toe Mixer Stratiter + Proseparator Vane odo wt vapor te Am) Fig. @-Pertormance of insert devices for 4-n. tees. SPE Production & Facies, August 195 189y= inlet steam quality steam quality in arm steam quality at inlet inte Acknowledgments We gratclully acknowledge B.A. Brodie, now with Chevron USA Products, who performed the laboratory experiments, developed the ‘comelation equation, and produced many ofthe plots appearing in this paper: JM. Hendrix of Chevron USA Production Co., wo main- tained steady steam generator output conditions, expedited the vati- ous changes tothe test facility, and provided various feedback and in- sights during the field zest, Acknowledgment is also due E. Luna of Chevron USA Production for the many helpful and stimulating ds- cussions held during the design and exceution ofthe field test. References 1. Hong, KC: “Effects of Steam Quality and fnjetion Rate on Sta foo Performance,” SPERE (Now. 194) 290, Chien, SF: "Catical Flow of Wet Steam Though Chokes.” JP (March 1990) 363; Trans, AIM, 289. 8. Hong, KC="Two-Phase Flow Spliting ata Pipe Tee! JPT (Feb, 1978) 230, 4 Peake, WT: “Steam Distibution Surveillance and Analysis.” paper ‘SPE 24079 presened a the 1992 SPE Westem Replonal Meeting. Bo Kesfield, March 30-Apni 5. Azopardi BJ, Panis, A. and Govan, AH. “Annular Two-Phase Flow Split at n Impacting TInt J Mutiphae Eow (1987) 134605, 6. Huang ST, Soliman, HIM. and Laboy, "Phase Separation fm: pocting Wes and Tess.” Ini J. Multiphase Flow (1999) 8, 965. 17.Chien, SF and Rubel, MT: “Phase Spliting of Wt Steam in Annular Flow Through a Hodzootal Impacting Te,” SPEPE (Nov, 1992) 368. 8. Rector, BB: “Steam Separating Solves Phase Spiting Problems in ‘er Steam Disisbation Systems.” paper CIM 90+(3 presented tthe 1990 Joint CIMUSPE Int. Technical Meeting, Calgsry, Canad, ne los. 9, Fouda. AE. and Rhodes, E “Two-Phase Annular Flow Steam Divi sion," Frans- Ins. Chem. Ege. (1972) 50, 353 10, Pearce, "Management of the Dut Steamlond” Proc. 989 AS- COPE Conterene, Singapore 1H Jones. J-and Williams, RL" Two-Phase lw Spliting Device That Works SPEPE (Aug 193) 197, 12, Hong. K.C.and Griston, Suzanne. “Two-Phase Flow Spiting ats puctng Tee” paper SPE 27866 presened al the 1998 SPE Wester Re- tonal Meeting, Long Reach, CA, March 23-25, 190 SI Metric Conversion Factors bbl x 1.589873. E-01 =m} Bru 1.035056 E+00 =k ep x Lor E03 = Pars fx30d" E01 =m £2 9.290.308" B02 =m? fOX2831685 E02 =m “F CESS in x2.50" +00 lb x4535924-E-O1 =ke psi X6.894 757 +00 kPa “comenion erie nt. SPEPE K. C. Hong fs 0 senior advisor for Pettoleum Enginesring/En- anced OtRecovery with Chevron USA Production Co. nBakers- fal, He has been teaching thermal EOR, sieamiiood reservoir management, ond thermal modaing to’ company engineers ‘and geologisi Between conducting cosses, ne provides techn ‘cal Consuttaton on subjects ranging from steam metering/con- trol nd resevoir heat management to heterogeneots reserva characterization ond simulaton. Uni 1992, Hong wes with Chev- fon Ol Feld Resocren Co. (now Chevron Petroleum Technology Co) in Lo Habra, CA, whore he conducted numerical, exper imental. and field studies of thermal recovery processes and mechanisms Hs other research experience includes wet model Ing. well completion methods, rautiphate pipe flow, fhic phase behavior, and reservok simulation, He holes 85, MS, onl PhO ce- ‘60s n chomicat engineering ftom iowa Stato U. Suzanne Gris fon s G petroleum engineer with Chevron USA Production Co, She received her MS degree in mechanice! engineering from Caitoria Poyvlectaie U. et Pomona, cndis curtenty working to- ‘ward ner PhD in mechanical engineering atthe U. of Calfornia, {tirvne. Inher Curent poston, Grston bangs fo Chevron USA her ‘exlansve experience in steam metering, dstibuton, and prot ing hat was developed during her 12 years of research at Cnev- ron Ol Field Research Co, ‘SPE Production & Facies, August 1995