Skip to content

Modelling Electrostatic Discharge in Non-Metallic Pipes

The Non-metallic Innovation Centre (NIC) is developing a modelling approach to assess the risk of electrostatic discharge (ESD) in composite pipes used for transporting natural gas.

Non-metallic solutions are increasingly being deployed across the oil and gas, construction, and renewable industries. This was reflected by the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2020, who produced a roadmap for improving the performance of sustainable non-metallic solutions to tackle corrosion. For the oil and gas sector, whilst the transport of natural gas and particulates through non-metallic pipes eliminates the economic and environmental impacts of corrosion, it can lead to the accumulation of static charge on the inner surface of the pipe. Due to the non-conductive nature of the polymeric materials, this charge is not dissipated, leading to the risk of explosion and injury should it discharge. Indeed, Hu et al (2013) produced a comprehensive review of ninety-nine electrostatic accidents in the oil and gas industry, where 96% of the accidents they analysed included fire or explosion and 24% were the result of poor grounding. Moreover, if the charge results in an electric field exceeding the dielectric strength of the material, then the discharge can melt a hole through the pipe, causing leaks which are costly, dangerous and damaging to the environment. This risk must be quantified and mitigated to ensure safe operation and enable wider use of non-metallic pipes in gas service.

Current approaches to evaluating the risk of electrostatic discharge rely only on the flow regime (API/RP 2003 and NFPA 77) using analytical approximations (e.g. Baker and Mandhane charts). If a "mist" regime is present, then the risk of electrostatic discharge is declared high. This approach does not quantify the risk and can be overly conservative. Moreover, mitigation methods to avoid a mist regime are difficult to practically implement.

For these reasons, the NIC is developing a multi-physics modelling-based procedure that quantifies the risk of electrostatic discharge in non-metallic pipes containing flows of gases, mists and particulates. Initial finite element models in COMSOL Multiphysics® v5.5 have extended the work of Walmsley (Walmsley, 1996) to consider aerosol flow regimes and used the work of Matsusaka (Matsusaka, 2010) to consider the charging behaviour of sand particles.

The initial COMSOL models use the Pipe Flow Module to evaluate the flow velocity in the pipe and the AC/DC Module was used to investigate the charging behaviour (see Figure 1). The Particle Tracing Module was used to investigate the behaviour of sand particles (Figure 2) in the fluid flow.

The approach was validated in laboratory conditions for gas flows using a bespoke rig and the models were then used to assess real scenarios from the field. It is now being used by the oil and gas industry to provide risk assessments and optimise designs for safety. Currently, more extensive experimental validation work of the models is being undertaken to consider much higher gas velocities and the effect of water and sand flow rates through industry-wide used pipes (Figure 3). The final model will then be packaged in a user-friendly numerical tool to be used for risk assessment and decision making.

Upon the completion of the current models enhancement at NIC, the models can then be used to compare different ESD mitigation methods, for example, thickening of the pipe wall, choice of pipe material, presence of conductive coatings and additives and the location of grounding points, to allow the choice of the optimum piping and operating conditions to ensure ESD does not occur.

Figure 1. The image shows the electric potential evolved due to the motion of gas through a non-metallic pipe
Figure 1. The image shows the electric potential evolved due to the motion of gas through a non-metallic pipe
Figure 2. Behaviour of sand particles under typical operating conditions of a natural gas pipeline
Figure 2. Behaviour of sand particles under typical operating conditions of a natural gas pipeline
Figure 3. Industry-wide pipe (Shawcor, 2021) used in the validation work
Figure 3. Industry-wide pipe (Shawcor, 2021) used in the validation work

In summary, whilst there are robust standards for mitigating ESD risks for metallic infrastructure, there is a clear technology gap for quantifying ESD risks for the transport of natural gas through non-metallic pipelines. To address this gap and ensure process safety, quantifying the safety of non-metallic solutions with respect to ESD, using multi-physics modelling methods unlocks opportunities for wider use in the oil and gas, construction, and renewable sectors.

 

References

Hu Y, Wang D, Liu J, Gao J, 2013 “A case study of electrostatic accidents in the process of oil-gas storage and transportation” J. Phys:.Conf. Ser. 418 012937.

Matsusaka S, Maruyama H, Matsuyama T, Ghadiri M, 2010 “Triboelectric Charging of Powders: A Review”, Kyoto Univeristy Information Repository.

Shawcor, 2021 https://cdn.shawcor.com/hg/medialibraries/shawcor/corporate/pdfs/flexpipe_linepipe_product_data_sheet_english.pdf

Walmsley, H.L., 1996 “The electrostatic fields and potentials generated by the flow of liquid through plastic pipes”, Journal of Electrostatics, Volume 38 p.249-266.

}