The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

APPENDIX D: MINORITY REPORT
Pages 283-296

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 283... ... Finally, we are not attempting to choose a "winning" droplet model but rather to better quantify the uncertainty of the existing droplet models and then, most importantly, to understand how that uncertainty propagates into the oil fates calculated by an integrated model. As stated above, previous assessment of droplet model accuracy has been done by the authors of the respective models but it has often been limited in scope or used flawed methods for validation. Read the entire page →
From page 284... ... The SINTEF model overestimates the observations by about 50% while the ASA model makes a perfect forecast. However, this perfection comes as no accident because ASA used the DeepSpill measurement to fit their model coefficients. Read the entire page →
From page 285... ... However, they never truly validated the predictive ability of the model by comparing it to a new set of observations using Equation 33. Though a less rigorous validation step, they could have at least compared the model to the calibration dataset using Equation 33 to calculate Kb. Read the entire page →
From page 286... ... does suggest that the difference between 1 and 3.4 mm would not substantially affect degradation, evaporation, or oil in the water column implying that the ASA estimate might not compare too badly to the Gros dataset. Table D.1 shows that the Paris model predicts a d50 of 70 µm. Read the entire page →
From page 287... ... We selected 80 experiments from this large set of observations and compared three equilibrium models to those. These comparisons show that both the ASA and SINTEF models compare well with a correlation coefficient squared of about 0.98 though there is considerable scatter as indicated by 90% confidence limits of up to 70%. Read the entire page →
From page 288... ... Given their firmer physical basis, VDROP-J and Oildroplets could perform even better but this is conjecture until these models are more thoroughly calibrated and truly validated using predicted calibration coefficients. It is reassuring that the VDROP-J and SINTEF models compare well with each other and the definitive DWH dataset of Gros et al. Read the entire page →
From page 289... ... 3. Comparisons with DWH suggest both the VDROP-J and SINTEF models predict reason able droplet sizes though the uncertainty of the observed dataset remains a question mark as does the rather low d50 predicted by VDROP-J for the 1% DOR case. Read the entire page →
From page 290... ... SINTEF 0, 1, and 2 consisted of roughly 10-50 individual experiments each involving the release of an oil jet into sea water in the so-called SINTEF Tower Basin, a 6 m high by 3 m diameter cylinder. Droplet sizes were measured with a Laser In Situ Scattering and Transmissiometry (LISST) Read the entire page →
From page 291... ... The introduction of SilCams into the Tower Basin allowed for much higher flow rates and droplet sizes than explored in SINTEF 0, 1, and 2. The overriding uncertainty for the Ohmsett experiments comes from the potential for significant droplet fractionation, which is the natural consequence of the fact that the oil plume gets pushed over to the side by the horizontal current. Read the entire page →
From page 292... ... Red numbers indicate questionable Tower data; blue numbers indicate "acceptable"; and green numbers indicate "excellent" as judged by Brandvik et al. Read the entire page →
From page 293... ... APPENDIX D 293 TABLE D.3 Summary of Experiments Used in Figure D.2 Oil Pipe Φ Flow Temp IFT GOR Oil ρ Exp. Name mm L/min C° mN/m m3/m3 kg/m3 Visc cp DOR % Source \heartsuit 120 1,000 4 25.00 0.50 854 3.9 0.0 DeepSpill \vartheta 1.5 1.2 13 13.40 0.00 832 7.1 0.0 SINTEF 2 \iota 1.5 1.2 13 2.30 0.00 832 7.1 1.0 SINTEF 2 \kappa 1.5 1.2 13 0.01 0.00 832 7.1 2.0 SINTEF 2 \lambda 1.5 1.2 75 13.40 0.00 832 2.8 0.0 SINTEF 2 \mu 1.5 1.2 75 6.80 0.00 832 2.8 1.0 SINTEF 2 \nu 1.5 1.2 75 0.10 0.00 832 2.8 2.0 SINTEF 2 \xi 1.5 1.2 50 12.20 0.00 832 4.1 0.0 SINTEF 2 \pi 1.5 1.2 50 13.10 0.00 832 4.1 1.0 SINTEF 2 \rho 1.5 1.2 50 0.02 0.00 832 4.1 2.0 SINTEF 2 \sigma 1.5 1.2 23 17.50 0.00 832 6.0 0.0 SINTEF 2 \varsigma 1.5 1.2 23 1.90 0.00 832 6.0 1.0 SINTEF 2 \tau 1.5 1.2 23 0.01 0.00 832 6.0 2.0 SINTEF 2 \phi 1.5 1.2 18 10.00 0.00 900 20.0 0.0 SINTEF 2 \psi 1.5 1.2 18 3.50 0.00 900 20.0 1.0 SINTEF 2 A 1.5 1.2 78 10.70 0.00 900 20.0 0.0 SINTEF 2 B 1.5 1.2 85 3.70 0.00 900 20.0 1.0 SINTEF 2 C 1.5 1.2 13 15.00 0.00 797 4.0 0.0 SINTEF 2 D 1.5 1.2 13 0.06 0.00 797 4.0 2.0 SINTEF 2 E 0.5 0.2 13 15.50 0.00 839 10.0 0.0 SINTEF 1 F 1.5 1.0 13 15.50 0.00 839 10.0 0.0 SINTEF 1 G 1.5 1.5 13 15.50 0.00 839 10.0 0.0 SINTEF 1 H 1.5 1.5 13 0.05 0.00 839 10.0 2.0 SINTEF 1 I 1.5 1.5 13 0.09 0.00 839 10.0 4.0 SINTEF 1 J 2.0 5.0 13 15.50 0.00 839 10.0 0.0 SINTEF 1 K 3.0 5.0 13 15.50 0.00 839 10.0 0.0 SINTEF 1 L 3.0 1.5 22 19.30 0.00 700 0.9 0.0 SINTEF 5 M 3.0 1.5 26 18.20 0.23 700 0.8 0.0 SINTEF 5 N 3.0 1.5 27 18.20 1.00 706 0.8 0.0 SINTEF 5 O 3.0 1.5 28 21.60 3.67 705 0.8 0.0 SINTEF 5 P 3.0 1.5 28 2.80 0.17 695 0.8 1.0 SINTEF 5 Q 3.0 1.5 32 3.27 0.67 695 0.7 1.0 SINTEF 5 R 3.0 1.5 36 3.87 2.33 690 0.7 1.0 SINTEF 5 S 3.0 1.5 27 3.87 0.00 700 0.8 1.0 SINTEF 5 T 3.0 1.5 27 18.60 0.00 776 0.8 0.0 SINTEF 5 U 3.0 1.5 37 21.00 0.43 774 0.7 0.0 SINTEF 5 V 3.0 1.5 36 21.50 1.13 773 0.7 0.0 SINTEF 5 W 3.0 1.5 49 19.50 4.00 773 0.6 0.0 SINTEF 5 X 3.0 1.5 50 1.77 3.93 772 0.5 1.0 SINTEF 5 Y 3.0 1.5 45 3.37 0.87 772 0.6 1.0 SINTEF 5 Z 3.0 1.5 41 3.37 0.40 773 0.6 1.0 SINTEF 5 a 3.0 1.5 40 3.57 0.00 773 0.6 1.0 SINTEF 5 b 3.0 1.5 22 22.00 0.00 764 0.8 0.0 SINTEF 5 c 3.0 1.5 30 20.00 0.93 773 0.7 0.0 SINTEF 5 d 3.0 1.5 31 21.30 0.00 775 0.7 0.0 SINTEF 5 e 3.0 1.5 34 20.00 0.80 755 0.6 0.0 SINTEF 5 f 3.0 1.5 38 2.87 1.00 753 0.6 1.0 SINTEF 5 g 3.0 1.5 39 2.87 0.00 754 0.5 1.0 SINTEF 5 h 3.0 1.5 35 3.27 0.00 752 0.6 1.0 SINTEF 5 i 3.0 1.5 37 0.57 0.87 770 0.6 1.0 SINTEF 5 j 25.0 50.0 13 20.00 0.00 826 4.6 0.0 SINTEF 6 k 25.0 80.0 13 20.00 0.00 826 4.6 0.0 SINTEF 6 continued Read the entire page →
From page 294... ... 2017. Subsea Dispersant Injection -- Large-Scale Experi ments to Improve Algorithms for Initial Droplet Formation (Modified Weber Scaling) Read the entire page →
From page 295... ... 2019a. Quantification of oil droplets under high pressure laboratory experiments simulating deep water oil releases and subsea dispersants injection (SSDI) Read the entire page →

From page 283...

... Finally, we are not attempting to choose a "winning" droplet model but rather to better quantify the uncertainty of the existing droplet models and then, most importantly, to understand how that uncertainty propagates into the oil fates calculated by an integrated model. As stated above, previous assessment of droplet model accuracy has been done by the authors of the respective models but it has often been limited in scope or used flawed methods for validation.

Read the entire page →

From page 284...

... The SINTEF model overestimates the observations by about 50% while the ASA model makes a perfect forecast. However, this perfection comes as no accident because ASA used the DeepSpill measurement to fit their model coefficients.

Read the entire page →

From page 285...

... However, they never truly validated the predictive ability of the model by comparing it to a new set of observations using Equation 33. Though a less rigorous validation step, they could have at least compared the model to the calibration dataset using Equation 33 to calculate Kb.

Read the entire page →

From page 286...

... does suggest that the difference between 1 and 3.4 mm would not substantially affect degradation, evaporation, or oil in the water column implying that the ASA estimate might not compare too badly to the Gros dataset. Table D.1 shows that the Paris model predicts a d50 of 70 µm.

Read the entire page →

From page 287...

... We selected 80 experiments from this large set of observations and compared three equilibrium models to those. These comparisons show that both the ASA and SINTEF models compare well with a correlation coefficient squared of about 0.98 though there is considerable scatter as indicated by 90% confidence limits of up to 70%.

Read the entire page →

From page 288...

... Given their firmer physical basis, VDROP-J and Oildroplets could perform even better but this is conjecture until these models are more thoroughly calibrated and truly validated using predicted calibration coefficients. It is reassuring that the VDROP-J and SINTEF models compare well with each other and the definitive DWH dataset of Gros et al.

Read the entire page →

From page 289...

... 3. Comparisons with DWH suggest both the VDROP-J and SINTEF models predict reason able droplet sizes though the uncertainty of the observed dataset remains a question mark as does the rather low d50 predicted by VDROP-J for the 1% DOR case.

Read the entire page →

From page 290...

... SINTEF 0, 1, and 2 consisted of roughly 10-50 individual experiments each involving the release of an oil jet into sea water in the so-called SINTEF Tower Basin, a 6 m high by 3 m diameter cylinder. Droplet sizes were measured with a Laser In Situ Scattering and Transmissiometry (LISST)

Read the entire page →

From page 291...

... The introduction of SilCams into the Tower Basin allowed for much higher flow rates and droplet sizes than explored in SINTEF 0, 1, and 2. The overriding uncertainty for the Ohmsett experiments comes from the potential for significant droplet fractionation, which is the natural consequence of the fact that the oil plume gets pushed over to the side by the horizontal current.

Read the entire page →

From page 292...

... Red numbers indicate questionable Tower data; blue numbers indicate "acceptable"; and green numbers indicate "excellent" as judged by Brandvik et al.

Read the entire page →

From page 293...

... APPENDIX D 293 TABLE D.3 Summary of Experiments Used in Figure D.2 Oil Pipe Φ Flow Temp IFT GOR Oil ρ Exp. Name mm L/min C° mN/m m3/m3 kg/m3 Visc cp DOR % Source \heartsuit 120 1,000 4 25.00 0.50 854 3.9 0.0 DeepSpill \vartheta 1.5 1.2 13 13.40 0.00 832 7.1 0.0 SINTEF 2 \iota 1.5 1.2 13 2.30 0.00 832 7.1 1.0 SINTEF 2 \kappa 1.5 1.2 13 0.01 0.00 832 7.1 2.0 SINTEF 2 \lambda 1.5 1.2 75 13.40 0.00 832 2.8 0.0 SINTEF 2 \mu 1.5 1.2 75 6.80 0.00 832 2.8 1.0 SINTEF 2 \nu 1.5 1.2 75 0.10 0.00 832 2.8 2.0 SINTEF 2 \xi 1.5 1.2 50 12.20 0.00 832 4.1 0.0 SINTEF 2 \pi 1.5 1.2 50 13.10 0.00 832 4.1 1.0 SINTEF 2 \rho 1.5 1.2 50 0.02 0.00 832 4.1 2.0 SINTEF 2 \sigma 1.5 1.2 23 17.50 0.00 832 6.0 0.0 SINTEF 2 \varsigma 1.5 1.2 23 1.90 0.00 832 6.0 1.0 SINTEF 2 \tau 1.5 1.2 23 0.01 0.00 832 6.0 2.0 SINTEF 2 \phi 1.5 1.2 18 10.00 0.00 900 20.0 0.0 SINTEF 2 \psi 1.5 1.2 18 3.50 0.00 900 20.0 1.0 SINTEF 2 A 1.5 1.2 78 10.70 0.00 900 20.0 0.0 SINTEF 2 B 1.5 1.2 85 3.70 0.00 900 20.0 1.0 SINTEF 2 C 1.5 1.2 13 15.00 0.00 797 4.0 0.0 SINTEF 2 D 1.5 1.2 13 0.06 0.00 797 4.0 2.0 SINTEF 2 E 0.5 0.2 13 15.50 0.00 839 10.0 0.0 SINTEF 1 F 1.5 1.0 13 15.50 0.00 839 10.0 0.0 SINTEF 1 G 1.5 1.5 13 15.50 0.00 839 10.0 0.0 SINTEF 1 H 1.5 1.5 13 0.05 0.00 839 10.0 2.0 SINTEF 1 I 1.5 1.5 13 0.09 0.00 839 10.0 4.0 SINTEF 1 J 2.0 5.0 13 15.50 0.00 839 10.0 0.0 SINTEF 1 K 3.0 5.0 13 15.50 0.00 839 10.0 0.0 SINTEF 1 L 3.0 1.5 22 19.30 0.00 700 0.9 0.0 SINTEF 5 M 3.0 1.5 26 18.20 0.23 700 0.8 0.0 SINTEF 5 N 3.0 1.5 27 18.20 1.00 706 0.8 0.0 SINTEF 5 O 3.0 1.5 28 21.60 3.67 705 0.8 0.0 SINTEF 5 P 3.0 1.5 28 2.80 0.17 695 0.8 1.0 SINTEF 5 Q 3.0 1.5 32 3.27 0.67 695 0.7 1.0 SINTEF 5 R 3.0 1.5 36 3.87 2.33 690 0.7 1.0 SINTEF 5 S 3.0 1.5 27 3.87 0.00 700 0.8 1.0 SINTEF 5 T 3.0 1.5 27 18.60 0.00 776 0.8 0.0 SINTEF 5 U 3.0 1.5 37 21.00 0.43 774 0.7 0.0 SINTEF 5 V 3.0 1.5 36 21.50 1.13 773 0.7 0.0 SINTEF 5 W 3.0 1.5 49 19.50 4.00 773 0.6 0.0 SINTEF 5 X 3.0 1.5 50 1.77 3.93 772 0.5 1.0 SINTEF 5 Y 3.0 1.5 45 3.37 0.87 772 0.6 1.0 SINTEF 5 Z 3.0 1.5 41 3.37 0.40 773 0.6 1.0 SINTEF 5 a 3.0 1.5 40 3.57 0.00 773 0.6 1.0 SINTEF 5 b 3.0 1.5 22 22.00 0.00 764 0.8 0.0 SINTEF 5 c 3.0 1.5 30 20.00 0.93 773 0.7 0.0 SINTEF 5 d 3.0 1.5 31 21.30 0.00 775 0.7 0.0 SINTEF 5 e 3.0 1.5 34 20.00 0.80 755 0.6 0.0 SINTEF 5 f 3.0 1.5 38 2.87 1.00 753 0.6 1.0 SINTEF 5 g 3.0 1.5 39 2.87 0.00 754 0.5 1.0 SINTEF 5 h 3.0 1.5 35 3.27 0.00 752 0.6 1.0 SINTEF 5 i 3.0 1.5 37 0.57 0.87 770 0.6 1.0 SINTEF 5 j 25.0 50.0 13 20.00 0.00 826 4.6 0.0 SINTEF 6 k 25.0 80.0 13 20.00 0.00 826 4.6 0.0 SINTEF 6 continued

Read the entire page →

From page 294...

... 2017. Subsea Dispersant Injection -- Large-Scale Experi ments to Improve Algorithms for Initial Droplet Formation (Modified Weber Scaling)

Read the entire page →

From page 295...

... 2019a. Quantification of oil droplets under high pressure laboratory experiments simulating deep water oil releases and subsea dispersants injection (SSDI)

Read the entire page →

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.

APPENDIX D: MINORITY REPORT Pages 283-296

APPENDIX D: MINORITY REPORT
Pages 283-296