Phase Splitting Of Wet Steam in Annular
Flow Through a Horizontal Branching Tee
SzeĆFoo Chien, SPE, Texaco Inc.
Summary
A phase-splitting equation for flow of a two-phase fluid through a
tee junction was derived. It shows that the fluid quality at an outlet
of the tee is determined by the relationship between the liquid and
vapor extraction ratios of the fluid through that outlet. This equation
applies to any tee junction regardless of its geometry, orientation,
and inclination. This paper presents its application to the flow of wet
steam through a horizontal branching tee.
Experimental data were for wet steam flowing through a standard
branching tee of 2- and 4-in. sizes in a horizontal plane, inlet pressures from 400 to 800 psig, inlet qualities from 0.2 to 0.8, inlet vapor
velocities from 40 to 120 ft/sec, and for vapor-extraction ratios in
the 0.2 to 0.8 range. These data were analyzed focusing on the effect
of the vapor-extraction ratio of the run stream on the liquid-extraction ratio of the same stream. A correlation between these two extraction ratios has been established with steam quality, superficial
vapor velocity, and critical velocity at the inlet to the tee as controlling parameters. Using this correlation and the phase-split equation,
we are able to predict steam qualities exiting from horizontal
branching tees to within "15% of the experimental values, which
is more accurate than other phase-splitting models.
Introduction
A tee junction is a pipe fitting to divide one flowstream into two. Depending on the orientation, it can be used either as an impacting tee
or a branching tee, as shown in Fig. 1. An impacting tee divides the
inlet stream into two streams that exit perpendicular to the inlet. A
branching tee also divides the inlet into two streams: one stream follows the inlet flow direction, which is generally called the “run
stream,” and the other stream flows perpendicular to the inlet, which
is called the “branch stream.” Furthermore, a tee can be used in various inclinations, from vertical to horizontal.
When a two-phase fluid flows through a tee junction, the quality
of the fluid in the two outlets could be different from each other and
from that at the inlet stream. Such phenomena is known as phase
splitting. In the case of a branching tee, phase-splitting phenomena
is generally more severe. This is because the liquid phase of the twophase fluid has a higher density and inertia, and it tends to flow
straight through rather than making a 90° turn. In other words, the
branch stream tends to have a higher quality than that at the inlet
while the run stream tends to have a quality less than that at the inlet.
Furthermore, phase splitting also depends on the flow velocity, flow
pattern, and quality of fluid at the inlet of the tee.
In recent years, wet steam has been used extensively in major steam
enhanced-oil-recovery operations and phase splitting is one of the
problems involved in the design and control of steam distribution networks. The phase splitting results in an energy or heat distribution that
is disproportionate to the mass flow rate. To understand the behavior
of phase splitting and to improve the design and modeling of the flow
in the steam-distribution networks, phase-splitting research has been
conducted at Texaco’s research laboratories. The flow behavior and
empirical correlations predicting the phase splitting of wet steam in
annular flow through a horizontal impacting tee have been reported
by Chien and Rubel.1 The same topics for flow through a horizontal
branching tee are presented in this paper.
The facilities and procedures used for the branching tee experiments were the same as those for the impacting tee that were reCopyright 1996 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review May 11, 1994. Revised manuscript received
Nov. 10, 1995. Paper peer approved Nov. 21, 1995. Paper (SPE 28542) first presented at the
1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in New Orleans, Sept. 25–28.
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996
ported by Chien and Rubel, except a horizontal branching tee was
used in place of the impacting tee.
Review of Literature on Phase Splitting
of Wet Steam in a Branching Tee
Among the literature for phase splitting in a branching tee, Collier2
presented his data in terms of the liquid-extraction ratio of the
branch stream vs. the vapor-extraction ratio in the same stream, as
shown in Fig 2. Note that in the branch stream the liquid-extraction
ratio is always less than the vapor-extraction ratio. No correlation
or phase-splitting model was presented by Collier.
Seeger et al.3 presented, as shown in Fig. 3, that the quality of
fluid exiting the branch stream in a horizontal tee is generally higher
than that entering the inlet and proposed a model to predict the
branch quality for flow patterns other than bubbly flow.
ǒ Ǔ
ǒ Ǔ
u3
u3
x3
x1 + 5 u1 * 6 u1
and a + 13.9
ƪǒ
v g1
v f1 S 21
Ǔ
2
ǒ Ǔ
u
) 2 u3
1
0.26
3
ǒ Ǔǒ1 * uu Ǔ ,
u
) a u3
1
3
1
4
. . (1)
ƫ
* 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
S1 is the ratio of the vapor-phase velocity to the liquid-phase velocity. Its correlation was adapted from Rouhani.4
NJ
Nj
V g1
1
S 1 + [ 1 ) 0.12 (1 * x 1 )] n 1 ) u * x 1 n g1
,
1
( 1 * x 1 ) n f1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
where n1 is the specific volume of steam at the inlet of the tee and
Vg1 is the weighted mean drift velocity of the vapor phase at the inlet
of the tee,
V g1 +
1.18n 0.5
f1
ƪ ǒ
gs n1 * n1
f1
g1
Ǔƫ
0.25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
Based on the branching tee data obtained by Texaco, Rubel et al.5
evaluated the accuracy of several phase-splitting models for the
flow through branching tees. These included models proposed by
Seeger et al.,3 Azzopardi and Whalley,6 Shoham et al.,7 Hwang et
al.,8 and Hart et al.9 Seeger et al.’s model predicted closest to the
experimental data, to within "30% for about 90% of Texaco’s data.
In this work, a phase-splitting equation for the flow of a twophase fluid through any tee junction was derived. The equation
showed that the quality of exiting fluid is determined by the relationship between the liquid-extraction ratio and the vapor-extraction ratio of the exiting stream. Experimental data for flow of steam
through branching tees were analyzed focusing on the effects of vapor-extraction ratio on the liquid-extraction ratio in the run stream.
A correlation between these two extraction ratios was established.
This correlation was then incorporated into the phase-splitting
equation to derive a model for predicting the quality change of
steam in horizontal branching tees.
Derivation of the PhaseĆSplitting Equation
By definition, the steam quality at the inlet of the tee and at one of
the exiting streams (the run stream has been used in this work) can
be expressed as functions of the mass fluxes.
83
Fig. 1—Tee junctions.
u g1
x1 + u ,
1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
u g2
and x 2 + u , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
2
and the vapor- and liquid-extraction ratio of the run stream,
u g2
F g2 + u , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
g1
uf 2
and F f 2 + u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
f1
Using these definitions, the value of the quality ratio of the run
stream, x2/x1, can be expressed as a function of x1, Fg2, and Ff2.
x2
x1 +
1
x 1 ) (1 * x 1)
F f2
F g2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
Note that the quality ratio for a prescribed inlet quality x1 is affected
only by the value of Ff2/Fg2, which is the relationship between the
liquid- and vapor-extraction ratio of the run stream. This explains
why Collier chose the liquid- and vapor-extraction ratios in plotting
his experimental results, as shown in Fig. 3. However, he focused
his attention on the branch stream.
The above equation was derived for any tee junction without limitation or constraint on its geometry, orientation, inclination, or
flow pattern. However, the relationship between the liquid-/vaporextraction ratio or the value of Ff2/Fg2 will be definitely affected by
the geometry, orientation, and inclination of the tee as well as by the
flow pattern and other flow conditions. In this paper, the experimen-
Fig. 3—Seeger et al.’s flow through a horizontal branching tee.
84
Fig. 2—Collier’s results of extraction ratios in a branching tee.
tal data of steam flowing through a horizontal branching tee are analyzed focusing on the effect of the vapor-extraction ratio on the liquid-extraction ratio in the run stream of the tee.
Development of the Correlation Between the
LiquidĆExtraction Ratio and the VaporĆExtraction Ratio
for the Branching Tee Data
Experimental phase-splitting data are for wet-steam flow through a
commercial 2- or 4-in. standard branching tee (with the diameter at
each of the outlets identical to the inlet diameter). Steam pressures
covered from 400 to 800 psig, steam qualities from 0.2 to 0.8, inlet
vapor superficial velocities from 40 to 110 ft/sec, and vapor-extraction ratios from 0.2 to 0.8. Because the flow rate and quality of steam
used in most steam enhanced-oil-recovery operations are such that
they are either in annular or in annular-mist flow, only the experimental data that met such flow patterns were used in this analysis.
Fig. 4—Ff 2 vs. Fg 2 at inlet vapor velocity of 45 ft/sec.
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996
Fig. 5—Ff 2 vs. Fg 2 at inlet vapor velocity of 60 ft/sec.
Fig. 6—Ff 2 vs. Fg 2 at inlet vapor velocity of 85 ft/sec.
The flow pattern of the data is checked by the flow-pattern model
for two-phase fluids proposed by Taitel and Dukler10 and modified
for steam flow applications by Chien.11 A total of 225 sets of data
of 2-in. tees and 57 sets of 4-in. tees were used.
The relationship between the liquid- and the vapor-extraction ratio in the run stream is the primary interest in this study. Figs. 4
through 7 are examples of liquid-extraction ratio plotted against the
vapor-extraction ratio for nominal inlet vapor velocities of 45, 60,
85, and 110 ft/sec, respectively. The nominal inlet quality for each
set of experimental data is also indicated in the figures. These plots
show the following.
1. The value of the liquid-extraction ratio in the run stream, Ff2,
is higher than the value of the vapor-extraction ratio, Fg2.
2. The liquid-extraction ratio in the run stream increases as the vapor-extraction ratio is increased. When the vapor-extraction ratio
approaches one, the value of the liquid-extraction ratio also approaches one.
3. The trend of the curves representing the liquid-extraction ratio,
Ff2, vs. the vapor-extraction ratio, Fg2, at a given inlet quality does
not change appreciably as the inlet vapor velocity changes.
4. For a given value of the vapor-extraction ratio and inlet vapor
velocity, the value of the liquid-extraction ratio increases as the inlet
quality is reduced. However, the amount of change in the liquid-extraction ratio is relatively small as compared with the change in the
inlet quality.
5. The effect of steam pressure on the relationship between the
liquid-/vapor-extraction ratios is minimal for the range of the steam
Fig. 7—Ff 2 vs. Fg 2 at inlet vapor velocity of 110 ft/sec.
Fig. 8—Ff 2 vs. Fg 2 at inlet vapor velocity of 40 ft/sec.
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996
85
Examples of the relationship between the liquid- and the vaporextraction ratios calculated according to the above correlation for
steam at 400 psig and at an inlet vapor with a superficial velocity of
100 ft/sec are shown in Fig. 9. The results are in good agreement
with those of the experiment of the same pressure and inlet conditions, shown in Fig. 7.
It should be emphasized that the previous correlation is based on
the experimental data in the specified flow pattern, flow orientation,
and flow geometry. Its validity beyond the specified conditions has
not been determined. Caution should be exercised when the correlation is used outside the specified ranges and flow conditions. Nevertheless, the technique of analysis and the formulation of the correlation for the extraction ratios are applicable to the flow of any
two-phase fluid through any tee junction under any flow conditions.
For those who prefer to use the extraction ratios in the branch
stream, Eq. 10 can be written as
F f 3 + 1 * F mg2, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
or F f 2 + ǒ1 * F g3Ǔ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
m
because Ff2)Ff3+1 and Fg2)Fg3+1.
Incorporating the Correlation into
the PhaseĆSplitting Equation
Fig. 9—Prediction of Ff 2 vs. Fg 2 according to the extraction ratio
correlation.
pressure covered in this study. Fig. 8 shows the liquid-extraction ratio vs. the vapor-extraction ratio at 800 psig. Note that majority of
the curves in the figure coincide with those in Fig. 4, which is at 400
psig and at a comparative inlet vapor velocity.
6. The general trend of the liquid-extraction ratio plotted against
the vapor-extraction ratio followed those presented by Collier.
Based on the previous observations, the liquid-extraction ratio of
the experiment data was correlated as a function of the vapor-extraction ratio.
F f 2 + F g2m, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
where m is a polynomial function of inlet quality and a dimensionless vapor velocity.
m + A0 ) A1
ǒ Ǔ ǒ Ǔ
V g1
V g1
) A2 *
*
V g1
V g1
2
) A3
ǒ Ǔ
V g1
V *g1
3
) A4
ǒ Ǔ
V g1
V *g1
4
,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
A0+*0.0803)0.792 x1, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
A1+18.571)15.390 x1, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
A2+*371.660)89.403 x1, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
A3+3225.433)663.833 x1, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
and A4+*10288.330*6148.333 x1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
Vg1 is the superficial velocity of the vapor at the inlet and V *g1 is the
critical velocity of saturated vapor at the inlet pressure. The value
of V *g1 depends on the steam pressure. For steam in the 400- to
800-psig range, a value of 1,500 ft/sec had been used.
Among the reasons for expressing Ff2 as an exponential function
of Fg2 are that, when all fluid flows through the run stream, both Fg2
and Ff2 equal one, and when all fluid flows through the branch
stream, both Fg2 and Ff2 equal zero.
86
As presented in the previous section, the liquid-extraction ratio of
the run stream of the horizontal branching tee can be expressed as
a function of the vapor-extraction ratio:
F f 2 + F mg2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
Replacing the Ff2 in Eq. 9 with that of Eq. 19 leads to
x2
1
x 1 + x ) (1 * x )F m*1, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)
1
1 g2
which shows that x2/x1 can be solved for a prescribed Fg2, x1 and
known value of m.
In most cases, instead of the vapor-extraction ratio the mass-flux
ratio u2/u1 is a preferred parameter. The vapor-extraction ratio in the
run stream can be written as
ǒ Ǔǒ Ǔ
u x
F g2 + u 2 x 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
1
1
Replacing the term Fg2 in Eq. 20 with that of Eq. 21 and rearranging
provides the phase-split equation for a horizontal branching tee.
ǒ
Ǔǒ Ǔ ǒxx Ǔ
x2
u2
1
x1 ) x1 * 1 u1
m*1
2
1
m
* x1 + 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
1
Eq. 22 shows x2/x1 can be solved for a prescribed inlet condition
(p1, x1, and u1) and a prescribed u2/u1. Because the value of m is generally between 0.2 and 0.6 for the test conditions specified, Eq. 22
will have to be solved either by trial-and-error or by a numerical iterative method, such as the Ralph-Newton method. For those who
prefer to solve x2/x1 for a prescribed u3/u1, simply replace the u2/u1
term in Eq. 22 with (1*u3/u1).
Once the value of x2/x1 is obtained, the value of other phase-splitting parameters can be readily determined.
u x
F g2 + u 2 x 2 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
1 1
Fg3+1*Fg2, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
u 1 * x2
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
Ff 2 + u2
1 1 * x1
Ff3+1*Ff2, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26)
u3
u2
u 1 + 1 * u 1, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (27)
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996
Fig. 10—Predicted x2/x1 vs. u2/u1 at inlet vapor velocity of 100 ft/
sec.
u x
1 * u 2 x2
F g3
x3
1 1
and x +
+
u2 .
u3
1
1
*
u1
u1
ǒ Ǔ
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (28)
Fig. 11—Value of inlet mass flux u1 for prescribed x1, x2 , p1, and
u2.
let flux at prescribed value of x1 (0.40), x2 ( 0.32 and 0.24), and p1
(400 psig).
Examples of x2/x1 predicted by Eq. 22 are plotted against u2/u1
in Fig. 10. They are for steam at 400 psig, a superficial inlet velocity
of vapor at 100 ft/sec and various inlet qualities. The predictions
agreed well with the experimental data taken at the same steam flow
conditions.
Eq. 22 can also be used to determine the inlet steam flow rate for
prescribed inlet quality, downstream quality, and downstream mass
flux. That is to determine the value of u1 for a prescribed x1, x2, and
u2. Because the value of u1 is involved in m, it will have to be solved
simultaneously with Eq. 11. Fig. 11 showed examples of such a determination—the inlet mass flux required for various values of out-
Comparison Between Predicted and
Measured Quality Ratios
For given values of p1, x1, u1, and u2/u1 of the experiment, Eq. 22
has been used to predict the value of the quality ratio, x2/x1. This ratio is then used to calculate Fg2, Ff2, Fg3, x3/x1, etc. Figs. 12 and 13
compare the experimental data of x2/x1 and x3/x1 with the predictions of this study. More than 90% of the predictions are within
"15% of the measured values. Comparing with the prediction of
Fig. 12—Comparison between experimental data of x2/x1 and
prediction of this study.
Fig. 13—Comparison between experimental data of x3/x1 and
prediction of this study.
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996
87
other models for the same experimental data,5 the present model
showed improved accuracy.
Conclusions
1. A phase-splitting equation determining the relationship among
the key phase-split parameters of wet steam flow through a tee junction has been derived. It shows the quality of an exiting stream of
a tee junction and is determined by the relationship between the liquid- and vapor-extraction ratios of that stream. The equation is applicable to any two-phase fluid, flow pattern, tee geometry, flow
orientation, and inclination.
2. Experimental data of the flow of wet steam through horizontal
branching tees were analyzed focusing on the effect of the vapor-extraction ratio on the liquid-extraction ratio in the run stream of the
tee junction. Results led to a correlation expressing the liquid-extraction ratio as a function of vapor-extraction ratio, inlet steam
quality, and inlet vapor velocity.
3. Using the liquid-extraction correlation and the phase-split
equation, a model was developed to determine steam quality at a
given inlet condition and prescribed mass-extraction ratio or to determine the inlet flow condition for a prescribed downstream condition.
4. The proposed model predicts the quality ratio to within "15%
of the measured value. Accuracy of the prediction is better than other phase-splitting models for the branching tees.
5. The proposed techniques for analyzing and correlating phasesplitting data are applicable to any other two-phase fluids, tee junctions, and flow conditions.
Nomenclature
a+ coefficient in Seeger et al.’s quality ratio equation
A0,A1,A2,
A3,A4+ coefficients in Eq. 11
Fg2+ vapor-extraction ratio in the run stream, fraction
Fg3+ vapor-extraction ratio in the branch stream, fraction
Ff2+ liquid-extraction ratio in the run stream, fraction
Ff2/Fg2 + liquid-/vapor-extraction ratio of the run stream,
dimensionless
Ff3+ liquid-extraction ratio in the branch stream, fraction
g+ gravitational acceleration, ft/sec2
m+ exponent in the liquid-extraction ratio equation
p1+ steam pressure of the inlet stream, psig
S1+ velocity ratio in Seeger et al.’s correlation,
dimensionless
u1+ mass flux of steam in the inlet stream, lbm/(ft2-sec)
u2+ mass flux of steam in the run stream, lbm/(ft2-sec)
u3+ mass flux of steam in the branch stream, lbm/(ft2-sec)
ug1+ mass flux of the vapor phase in the inlet stream,
lbm/(ft2-sec)
ug2+ mass flux of the vapor phase in the run stream,
lbm/(ft2-sec)
ug3+ mass flux of the vapor phase in the branch stream,
lbm/(ft2-sec)
u2/u1+ mass-flux ratio of the run stream, dimensionless
u3/u1+ mass-flux ratio of the branch stream, dimensionless
vf1+ specific volume of saturated liquid at the inlet
pressure, ft3/lbm
vg1+ specific volume of saturated vapor at the inlet
pressure, ft3/lbm
v1+ specific volume of steam at the inlet pressure, ft3/lbm
V *g1+ critical velocity of saturated vapor at the inlet
pressure, ft/sec
Vg1+ superficial vapor velocity at the inlet, ft/sec
Vg1+ weight mean drift velocity of vapor phase at the inlet,
ft/sec
x1+ steam quality of the inlet stream,fraction
x2+ steam quality of the run stream, fraction
x3+ steam quality of the branch stream, fraction
x2/x1+ quality ratio of the run stream, dimensionless
x3/x1+ quality ratio of the branch stream, dimensionless
88
s+ interfacial tension, lbm/sec2
Acknowledgments
I thank Texaco Inc. for permission to publish this paper and recognize the contributions made by the members of the Steamflow Technology group at Texaco’s E&P Technology Dept.
References
1. Chien, S.F. and Rubel, M.T.: “Phase Splitting of Wet Steam in Annular
Flow Through a Horizontal Impacting Tee,” SPEPE (Nov. 1992)
368–374.
2. Collier, J.G.: “Single-Phase and Two-Phase Flow Behavior in Primary
Circuit Components,” Two-Phase Flows and Heat Transfer, Hemisphere Publishing, Washington, DC (1977) 1, 313–365.
3. Seeger, W., Reimann, J., and Muller, U.: “Two-Phase Flow in T-Junction
with a Horizontal Inlet—Part I: Phase Separation,” Intl. J. of Multiphase
Flow (1986) 12, 575–585.
4. Rouhani, S.Z,: “Modified Correlations for Void and Two-Phase Pressure Drop,” AB Atomenergi (Swedan) Report AE-RTV841 (1969).
5. Rubel, M.T. et al.: “Phase Distribution of High-Pressure Steam-Water
Flow at Large-Diameter Tee Junctions,” J. of Fluid Engineering (1994)
116, No. 3, 592–598.
6. Azzoppadi, B.J. and Whalley, P.B.: “The Effect of Flow Patterns on
Two-Phase Flow in a T Junction,” Intl. J. of Multiphase Flow (1982) 8,
491–507.
7. Shoham, O., Brill, J.P., and Taitel,Y.: “Two-Phase Flow Splitting In a
Tee Junction—Experiment and Modeling,” Chemical Engineering Science (1987) 42, 2667–2676.
8. Hwang, S.T., Soliman, H.M., and Lahey, R.T.: “Phase Separation in Dividing Two-Phase Flows,” Intl. J. Multiphase Flow (1988) 14, 439–458.
9. Hart, J., Hamersma, P.J., and Fortuin, J.M.H.: “Phase Distribution During Gas-Liquid Flow Through Horizontal Dividing Junction,” Nuclear
Engineering and Design (1991) 126, 293–312.
10. Taitel, Y. and Dukler, A.E.: “A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transitions in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow,” American
Inst. of Chemical Engineers J. (1976) 22, 1, 47–55.
11. Chien, S.F.: “Steam Flow Chart,” paper SPE 23417 presented at the
1992 Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas,
Venezuela, March 8–11.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
Btu 1.055 056
in. 2.54*
ft 3.048
ft2 9.290 304*
ft3 2.831 685
(°F)459.67 )/1.8
lbm 4.535 924
psi 6.894 757
*Conversion factor is exact.
E)00 +kJ
E)00 +cm
E*01 +m
E*02 +m2
E*02 +m3
+K
E*01 +kg
E*03 +MPa
SPEPF
SzeĆFoo Chien recently retired from Texaco Inc. where he was
a research consultant in the E&P Technology Dept. He had
been with Texaco Research since 1961. His research focus was
in rheology, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer of multiphase
and nonĆNewtonian fluids and recovery of unconventional enĆ
ergy resources. He is an honorary professor at U. of Petroleum,
Shangdong, China, and is a member of SPE, ASME, and API.
Chien holds a BS degree from Natl. Taiwan U. and MS and PhD
degrees from U. of Minnesota, all in mechanical engineering.
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996