sand monitoring equipment - sand removal and monitoring equipment - sand removal and monitoring equipment

Substantial gains can be made by deferring or avoiding the installation of downhole sand control. Implicit in this, is the acceptance that sand will arrive at surface and that the processing facilities can remove this effectively, without placing undue constraints on production capacity and uptime.

It is a simple statement, but the bare facts are that until now, little effort has been made to design bespoke sand separation equipment which will remove sand on a continuous basis without the need for regular shutdowns. The majority of equipment which does exist has been converted from its original duty-normally in the mining industry-without any modification or else it has been designed "in the mind" without any development testing. The majority of testing has taken place in situ with an appropriate level of failure and lost or deferred revenue.

As economic margins tighten, all operating companies are looking at ways of excluding sand without impacting PI or means of improving sand handling at surface. This review has prompted service companies to invest in the design, development and testing of new items of equipment often in conjunction with an oil company as sponsor and tester. This process is only just beginning and the benefits will not be available for a few years at best.

If the decision is made to defer or avoid sub-surface sand control, then the production facilities must be capable of handling any produced sand on a continuous basis. This requires the Process and Facilities Engineers to consider sand at the very early stages of a design and study its impact on the process route, line and vessel sizing, and materials of construction.

Early discussions with Petroleum Engineers and specifically Production Technologists are necessary to assess the probability of sand arriving at surface. If this is high, then the quantities of sand likely to be produced need to be defined. The phrases 'little sand' or 'no more sand than normal' are of little use to a Process Engineer despite an understanding of the degree of uncertainty which surrounds such predictions.

Probably the most important item of process data required is the produced sand particle size distribution as this allows settling rate calculations to be made. In the case of frac sand or proppant, this is easy as is its density and other physical properties are well known. However, it is important to note that there will be a larger proportion of fines back produced due to the crushing action of the frac. For produced sand, samples need to be taken. For an existing reservoir, the best method is to sample the sand collected in the primary production separator during internal cleaning. Taking samples from the sand wash line or produced water outlet is risky as an unknown quantity of fine material will leave with the hydrocarbon phase. Sampling of the inlet stream is not yet possible but the application of sand separation cyclones may yield good results.

Samples from a new reservoir or production area are even harder to take. The current methods are to core the reservoir and sample from the well test separator but there are many problems associated with this. Well tests by their very nature tend to be of short duration so the sample size may well be small and unrepresentative and they are at relatively low flowrates so sand may drop out in the tubing. The reservoir may be split into zones and it will not possible to determine from where the sand is being produced. Finally, the separator may contain some sand already.

A good understanding of the possible operational problems is required to assess the impact that the new sand handling facilities will have on manning levels, production deferment, and operating costs. It is possible that the use of surface sand handling facilities will make a project uneconomic or give a low rate of return.

In addition, an engineer must understand how sand can affect routine operations and problems identified should be designed out during detailed design. For example, erosion damage can be minimised by the use of control valves with hardened plugs and seats (e.g. stellite and tungsten carbide) and by using sacrificial sleeves on vessel nozzles. Instrument failures and blockages can be prevented by designing vessels which will not trap sand in level bridles.

The impact of downhole sand control on project economics has led an increasing number of Opcos to consider delaying its installation until proven necessary. Such a strategy however requires a reliable on line sand detection and monitoring.

Various methods can be used to detect or monitor sand production. Selection of the appropriate method is a function of the level of sand production that needs to be detected, the production conditions, the location and the potential risks associated with sand production.

Group experience with on line systems has generally been disappointing. Poor system reliability and high sensitivity to changing production conditions (rate, GOR etc) have led to major calibration and operational problems. However, indications are that some of these difficulties are now partially resolved.

It is important to note that sand production in gas wells is measured in kg/MMscm. Sand production levels in oil wells are measured in grams per cubic meter oil (stock tank) or Pounds of sand Per Thousand Barrels (pptb) (1 pptb = 3 g/m3). A sand concentration of 5 pptb is equivalent to 0.001 percent volume. An important remark is that sand production levels lower than say 50 pptb are difficult to measure accurately because of the very low sand concentrations in the wellstream.

Sandstone reservoirs which do not require sand control may produce hydrocarbons with various sand concentrations depending on the degree of rock consolidation. In these reservoirs, some sand may be produced from time to time and may depend on a large number of variables e.g. drawdown, production rate, watercut, GOR, etc. A small level of irreducible sand production is likely to exist.

Field experience shows that sand production is generally rate dependent. However sand concentration cannot be simply related to flow rate as sand production may increase as soon as the well is beaned up but subsequently declines again to background. This is probably due to the enlargement of pseudo-stable cavities behind the casing which is discussed below.

Accurate measurement of sand concentration in the wellstream is generally difficult because of the erratic nature of sand production, the difficulty of obtaining representative samples and the low absolute sand concentrations.

To provide an early warning of a sudden increase in sand production which, if permitted to continue, might cause an unacceptable degree of metal erosion in the subsurface or surface production system. Timely detection of high sand production rates is a genuine requirement for high velocity gas streams and high velocity, high GOR oil streams, especially in locations where the potential consequences of equipment failure are intolerable e.g. offshore platforms, subsea wells. Guidelines for acceptable sand production rates in high velocity gas wells are discussed elsewhere in the manual.

For trouble shooting i.e. to identify which well from a cluster or flowstation is producing sand or which interval in a well is producing sand. Remedial sand control measures can be implemented once the well or interval is identified.

The simplest way of monitoring sand production is to measure sand volumes recovered in sand traps, separators or storage tanks during periodic maintenance or by routine hold up depth tagging in the wellbore. This must be combined with periodic inspection of items susceptible to high erosion rates e.g choke internals or Non Destructive Test (NDT) inspection of critical components.

This method maybe adequate when expected sand production levels can be handled by the production facilities on a long term basis. Sand may be carried over before an increase in sand production is detected. When a significant increase in sand production is detected other methods need to be used to identify the well(s) which are producing sand and at what rate.

A sample of the wellstream is periodically taken and the sand content is measured. Sampling for sand is an operation which is labour intensive, costly and not entirely free of safety hazards. Sand concentrations determined from flowline samples can be very inaccurate for the following reasons:

Furthermore because of the sampling frequency and the turnover time, it is unlikely that a sudden massive increase in sand production of a particular well can be detected before a significant amount of sand is produced and/or the well sands-up.

The sampling point should be positioned in a location where sufficient turbulence exists to homogenise the wellstream i.e. downstream of a choke or a tee, preferably in a vertical section. The sample point is generally a small valve tapped in the flowline.

Erosion probes were first developed by Exxon as a safeguard against the erosional effects of sand. The probes are thin walled steel cylinders with a closed end and are installed at one or more locations in the flow line. When the probe wall is eroded, the flowline pressure is transmitted to a pressure signalling unit or to a pilot valve to actuate shut down controls. Erosion probes only give a qualitative indication of erosive conditions as the "sensitivity" (i.e. the amount of sand that has to be produced to erode the probe wall) of these devices is presently unknown.

Erosion can also be caused by other factors than sand production. Further laboratory work may allow a more quantitative estimate. However it can be ensured by careful selection of the probe that it would fail long before the integrity of a critical component is at ris

Acoustic sand detection devices use a sensor rod inserted in the flowline or are simply clamped on the pipe. A piezo-electric crystal is used to detect the impact of sand grains on the sensor rod or pipe wall. This transducer converts vibrations caused by impact into electrical energy. The signal is preamplified prior to transmission through a coaxial cable. It is then processed to give the sand impact rate i.e. the sand production rate.

So far, the experience with acoustic sand detection systems is disappointing because of the lack of reliable calibration equipment, poor system reliability and cumbersome data presentation systems. Sand detection systems are also costly and expensive to maintain and operate as continuous intervention by skilled and trained personnel is required in order to maintain a reliable output.

Sand detection systems have proven helpful when used in a qualitative mode i.e. to detect threshold levels and trends in sand production. Derivation of quantitative sand production data requires in-situ calibration because the probes are highly sensitive to local production conditions i.e. flowline velocities, flow characteristics, grain size distribution, probe location. Presently the only acceptable way to provide calibration points for acoustic sand detection systems is by injection of known quantities of sand in the flowline. Currently industry efforts are under way to couple acoustic sand detection equipment, in particular clamp-on probes, to data processing systems, which (potentially) are capable of correcting detector output real time to changing flow line conditions, such as flow rate, gas liquid ratio etc. The corrections are based on knowledge of how detector output depends on these parameters. In principle this would eliminate a number of the problems, mentioned above, associated with the use of the equipment. Experience with such advanced systems will have to indicate to which extent the, sometimes erratic, relation between sand production and detector output, can be translated into useful correction algorithms.

Sand monitoring methods can be very expensive in terms of equipment and manpower costs. They can also result in unacceptable loss of revenue if for instance a well is beaned back on the basis of an inaccurate sand cut measurement. It is therefore important to correctly formulate the sand production monitoring requirements and select the appropriate method.

Passive sand production monitoring should be relied upon when the production system can cope with the expected sand production levels on a long term basis and the usually low risk of a sudden undetected increase in sand production which could ultimately lead to well or separator sand-up can be tolerated. Preventive maintenance may need to be enhanced to adequately monitor erosion of critical components or sand fill of production facilities.

It is recommended to move away from routinely taking large numbers of generally unreliable and unrepresentative samples. When zones are initially opened up or operational experience indicates, flowline sampling can be carried out as required to establish sand production trends of selected wells. Better supervision and more representative results can be expected because of the non-routine character of such tests. Operators which are currently involved in large scale sand sampling operations should critically review their programmes with a view to identify the problem wells.

Detection of sand under production conditions which could give rise to high erosion rates is feasible as the acoustic sand detection technology is based on the same physical principle that causes erosion i.e. kinetic energy. However in order to maintain a reliable output acoustic sand detection systems require continuous attention from a skilled operator which makes this method impractical for many cases.

Derivation of quantitative sand production data also requires on site calibration. The usefulness of quantitative data is questionable because it is difficult to translate these into expected erosion rates as reliable "erosion models" are not currently available.

Permanently installed probes could however be used for regular surveys by specialist contractors using portable electronic equipment to provide quantitative sand production trends of individual wells. Portable instrumentation has also proved useful for gathering sand production data during dedicated sand production tests.

Accurate measurement of low sand production levels, which can be handled by the production system on a long term basis and which do not pose a serious erosional threat, is not required and currently not feasible in practice. Consequently it is also unrealistic to base the decision for remedial sand control on threshold sand production levels measured under these conditions.

In summary, any sand production monitoring programme should be adapted to the local production environment, i.e. the production conditions, the level of support available and the potential consequences of sand production.

Sand separation direct from a wellstream is generally not an acute problem in the case of intermittent sand production because of the small volumes involved. It may become an issue if continuous and significant quantities are produced because of its impact on production. Dedicated sand removal facilities may then be required, the type of equipment used depending on the stream carrying the sand.

Continuous removal of sand from oil streams is currently not possible due in part to the high pressures involved, the multiphase character of well streams and the difficulties associated with removing the sand product. Continuous desanding from liquid hydrocarbon streams is being investigated by several manufacturers but no product is yet available for testing.

The traditional method is to let the sand settle out in the production separators and storage tanks and periodically shut down and flush out with water using dedicated sand wash bars. Blockage of separators is not usually a problem as the residence times are sufficiently low such that the majority of sand particles leave with the produced water. Some sand will obviously be deposited until the water residence time is smaller than the time taken for a particle to settle under gravity (Stokes law). Hence, for vessels which are over-sized with respect to water, as nearly all are in their early years, more sand will settle out than in a vessel designed for the appropriate flowrate.

If this theory of self regulation is true, which is disputed by some, then any sand which leaves the production separators is bound to deposit in degassers,TPI's or floatation units where the residence times are generally an order of magnitude greater. The logical extension of this argument is that sand wash facilities in separators are not necessary and sand should be removed upstream of floatation units, hydrocyclones etc.

In the past, separator sand wash systems were a hastily assembled collection of pipes and nozzles placed in the base of a separator. Rather than designed in response to observed behaviour, they were designed subjectively to fluidise sand simply by using a large number of water jets and then draining off the fluidised mix. The nozzles used were just 10-12 mm pipe with their ends crimped to give a jet. The principle problem with this system was that the high velocities and the direct impingement of the water on the vessel caused rapid erosion and left areas of sand unfluidised which subsequently compacted and grew. A typical system such as this would only remove 5% of the deposited wet sand.

Sand wash can be accomplished on or off line but there are problems associated with each. Offline washing allows the use of low pressure water and removes the risk of oil entering the sand disposal system but it interrupts production. Online jetting however, imposes greater risks which need to be designed out or minimised. For sand wash to be truly effective, research has shown that regular washing for short durations is preferable to longer washing at longer durations as this prevents the sand accumulating and compacting.

The source of the jetting water is also important. Online jetting requires a high pressure water source either from the water injection system or from a dedicated pump. Offline washing can be accomplished using utility water at 7 bar. Use of seawater on a regular basis may encourage the formation of scales, but this could be limited by using recycled produced water from the oily water treatment system. However, recycle of small oil droplets and sand fines is a possibility the latter of which may block the spray nozzles. Fine sand can be removed by using 50 micron cartridge filters.

This can be further sub-divided into separating reservoir sand and frac sand. For the former, its production is continuous and at a relatively constant rate so permanent facilities are required. Frac sand is only produced for a finite time after stimulation and can be handled by temporary facilities with a higher degree of manual involvement. In addition, proppant is generally coarser grained so making separation easier but it is also very hard so increasing the risk of erosion damage.

A fractured well must be flowed clean of completion fluid and excess proppant before it is connected up to the permanent production system. Proppant must be removed, continuously, by purpose built, temporary facilities capable of handling large quantities of sand. The amount of sand to be back flowed depends on the success of the frac and whether the well has screened out. Although ideally no proppant should be back produced in practise many fracced wells produce significant amounts of proppant. A typical stimulation may back produce some 200 kg/hr sand for 21 days with typical peak rates of 450-900 kg/hr.

These proprietary designs are based on bundles of small cyclones housed inside the separator shell. The use of small cyclones makes separation efficiency insensitive to flow rate changes and they can be easily adapted for continuous low flow operation by removal or blinding of a number of cyclones.

The principle of separation is centrifugal force and so the smaller the cyclone the greater the efficiency. Upon entry, the gas stream is split into a multiple of small cyclones each having, normally, two tangential, diametrically opposed inlets. The high forces generated push the sand out of the base of the cyclone into a storage chamber ready for removal. The cleaned gas reverses direction and leaves via the top of the cyclone.

Cyclone separators will remove small quantities of sand very efficiently but as they are centrifugal devices, efficiency is dependent of particle mass and not size. Typical removal specifications are 100 % of all particles above 10 micron with sand loadings of up to

Vessel height is dictated by the sand storage volume required and typical specifications from the Southern North Sea show values of six months at maximum sand burden. This essentially means that the vessels can run for a full year without being emptied. If they do require cleaning, the incorporation of sand wash facilities is recommended to help fluidise the sand but also to keep it wet during storage. Jetting water can be supplied by the utility water system but obviously cannot be permanently hooked up. Some operators have a connection from the kill pumps (or similar high pressure units) to allow fluidisation under pressure.

Pre-conditioning gas wells by flowing them at a THP below the minimum set for the worst case has also been successfully carried out on Sean. This conditions the wellbore and clears the tubing of any sand prior to a prolonged production period and allows the accurate prediction of a sand burst from a reservoir. Following preconditioning, the base line for any sand detection device can be set with confidence.

In typical production systems there are two water streams which will contain appreciable levels of sand. A continuous produced water stream from the production separators and an intermittent water stream as a result of sand wash operations. This sand will cause erosion of hydrocyclones if allowed to enter and will separate out in degassers and floatation units due to their calm flow regimes. The current accepted method is to hold the sand in the separators and periodically flush it out but methods are being developed for the continuous removal of sand from water. The most promising being 'sand cyclones'.

These were developed by the mining and water purification industries to remove solids from water both to recover valuable ores and to meet produced water specifications. Extensive use of this technology is also seen in the drilling industry to remove solids from drilling fluids

The water and solids enter the unit tangentially which sets up a circular flow inside the head space. The solids and liquid are drawn through the tangential slots and are accelerated into the separation chamber where centrifugal force throws the heavier particles to the vessel perimeter. The solids fall under gravity down the wall and enter the quiescent collection chamber. These solids are either periodically purged or continuously bled from the chamber through an appropriate valve into a collection and/or washing system. The desanded liquid is now drawn into the low pressure vortex and rises up through the vessel and leaves through the cyclone outlet.

The water flows into the sand cyclone at separator pressure and temperature. The sand is separated and purged, on a timed basis, through a actuated valve to disposal. The vessel pressure provides a driving force to ensure that the slurry moves and a special conical orifice ensures that some back pressure is maintained on the vessel. High levels of sand are detected by a nucleonic level detector or some similar non intrusive instrument. Some form of flushing system may required to clean out the vessels on shutdown. The desanded water flows to a series of hydrocyclones and the deoiled water passes through a level control valve to a degassing vessel prior to disposal.

The amount of oil which will adhere to the sand is not quantifiable and therefore the disposal route needs to be considered carefully (see Section .3). If the sand is water wet, then the quantity of oil will be small especially after experiencing the high forces inside the cyclone. If the sand is oil wet then direct disposal into the sea or water course will not be possible and some cleaning facility may be required.

The effect of sand cyclones on downstream oil/water separators is unknown at present. It is claimed by the manufactures that the cyclones will cause the oil particles to agglomerate and not shear but neither process is supportable by research or testing. If excessive shear is found in practice then a chemical coagulant could be injected upstream of the oil separation facility.

The following are typical specifications for a sand cyclone. It is important to note that the separation efficiency of a centrifugal device is not dependent on particle size but its weight. Therefore it is not possible to give a standard specification as you would for a filter, i.e. removes 100% of all particles greater than 100 micron.

One of the major problems associated with sand production relates to the disposal rather than equipment problems. Typical regulations permit the overboard disposal of sand providing that it is clean enough not to produce a visible sheen on the water surface and it is not contaminated with LSA (Low specific activity) scale. Plants which process heavy, viscous oils are more likely to require sand cleaning facilities than those producing light oils and condensates, though this may change as legislation becomes stricter. Many facilities can put sand direct into the sea as it remains water wet with no free oil.

Sand cleaning equipment falls into two distinct categories: newly developed and modified drilling equipment. The latter technology was based on the analogous but more difficult problem of removing oil based mud from drill cuttings due to its tightly bound material in the pores and the break up of clay like materials which tend to form complexes with oil droplets. Removal of oil from sands should be somewhat easier due to its pore free nature and lower viscosity.

Utilising existing cuttings systems has been looked at before but a variety of problems arise. The mass flow rates are orders of magnitude apart (kg/hr not t/hr) and the particle size distributions are substantially different. Also intermittent operation on sand (mixtures are not possible to prevent contamination of the mud) is not considered practical due to operational conflicts and retaining large complex systems after drilling is complete is not thought to be economic.

Washing the sand with a aqueous or solvent based liquid is probably the best method. Both methods have been used successfully to treat contaminated beach sands but these are onshore processes starting with high (80% w/w) oil concentrations and have associated solvent treatment systems.

The ideal washing medium must be water and experience has been gained by companies in washing oil contaminated produced sands in an agitated environment using hot water. Hydrocyclones mimic this effect with their high shear rates and produce oil free sand but with detrimental effects on cyclone life. In onshore plants a hot water supply is readily accessible, offshore the only water available in large quantities is sea water which at high temperatures (65 C) is highly corrosive.

Centrifuges are used extensively by the drilling industry to remove cuttings from mud streams. The market leaders in this area are Thomas Broadbent and Alfa Laval. The former has developed a new process which mixes the sand/oil/water mixture with a wetting agent (BP superwetter) and separates the solids with a shale shaker and a centrifuge. The product sand is oil free but coated with the wetting agent. The agent is environmental friendly and can be disposed of directly to a watercourse. The liquid stream containing the oil and the agent are then separated and the wetting agent recycled. Its principle drawback is that the wetting agent will only function if the feed stream is 5-8% w/w water not the 20% typically seen after settling. In addition, the cost of the agent and the equipment is seen as a barrier to acceptance for this duty.

Produced sand may be coated or commingled with barium sulphate scale, which contains traces of radioactive elements in concentrations sufficient to cause "low specific activity (LSA)", and as such is covered by the radioactive substances act.

The H.M. Industrial Pollution Inspectorate do not permit the backloading of unconsolidated LSA material but insist on disposal at sea. Each North Sea installation has a cumulative yearly allowance for dumping LSA material which is allocated in Giga-Becquerels. LSA scale can be identified offshore and handled accordingly.

Samples are sent for analysis which establish the level of activity, and together with an estimation of the total amount of material involved a cumulative figure for each installation can be kept. The process is monitored and the Head of Mining Installation (HMIPI) informed accordingly. The current allowance far exceeds requirements.

Such material is backloaded to shore and handed over to a licenced disposal contractor. This includes non-LSA contaminated sand from the oilfields and most of the produced sand volume from the SNS gasfields, comprising back produced proppant from hydraulic fracturing (Leman F and G).

Traces of hydrocarbons may be associated with produced sand. Disposal of these hydrocarbons at sea by dumping requires specific exemption from the department of energy, which is usually granted on the grounds of the small volumes involved.

A number of small field discoveries can only be developed economically using subsea satellites tied back to existing platforms. These economic constraints dictate that the subsea facilities must be simple, operate with a minimum of intervention and have wells of high productivity. This latter demand means that reservoirs which could be sand producers are not developed due to increased cost of installing downhole sand exclusion or sand tolerant production facilities. The latter can lead to oversized flowlines and equipment damage and a increased risk of asset failure due to sand breakthrough. In addition, low velocities can lead to sand deposition and partial blockage. This in turn will increase pressure loss and may lead to accelerated corrosion beneath the sand layer.

In line filters offer the possibility to separate out all particulate matter from a gas stream but if used on a continuous basis they are vulnerable to plugging and require significant operational and maintenance effort. Filters rely on a screen to separate out particulate matter and if sized to filter sand the holes are generally about 200 mesh (0.165 mm diameter) (see Fig. 776). If used on high velocity gas wells, filters, if they do not plug and burst due to high differential pressures, may be eroded by the abrasive material. As a result, these filters are of little use in continuous service and if fitted are soon either by-passed or operated with no screen.

In line filters can be considered for short duration well tests where produced sand volumes need to be accurately assessed and adequate operational support is available. A dual filter arrangement is preferred as it allows switching between vessels.

Measuring the levels of sand within a vessel is best achieved by non-intrusive devices which are unaffected by the vessel contents. The most reliable and the most commonly used are the radioactive devices such as the "Gammatrol" marketed by ICI and a similar instrument marketed by Foxboro. These systems use a low activity radioactive source located on one side of the vessel which emits a fan of radiation across the width of the vessel. This radiation is detected by a series of detectors located in the plane of the source but within the radiation beam. The unit is calibrated on an empty vessel to give 0% and then on a full vessel to give full scale. The advantage of this system is that it is non intrusive, has no moving parts, and it is intrinsically safe. As it is a source of radiation, strict procedures and laws govern their use, maintenance and installation. However, the only part which cannot be handled by the local maintenance staff is the source itself which must be installed and removed by a registered worker.

The current industry standard for setting velocity limits in pipework to minimise erosion/corrosion is set by API RP 14E. This formula correlates maximum allowable velocity to density using a dimensioned constant C (100 in imperial units, 125 in metric). This equation was developed based on experience from wells in the Gulf of Mexico and defines maximum velocity as that point at which velocity becomes the most significant factor in removing the protective corrosion layer or inhibitor film. As defined, it was based on carbon steel piping and does not reflect the range of materials in use today. Applying this limit to duplex stainless steel which has a superior hardness will lead to oversized lines but how much to increase the velocity to compensate is a matter of intense debate.

monitoring equipment - an overview | sciencedirect topics

monitoring equipment - an overview | sciencedirect topics

Sand monitoring equipment consists of a purpose-built spool piece 1 metre long with mechanical access fittings to install probes. The spool piece should be certified to either 6,000 or 10,000psi working pressure and have end fittings to mate with existing pipework downstream of the choke manifold. The erosion-monitoring probes should be installed through 2in. mechanical fittings installed in the spool piece.

Erosion-rate measurements of the sensor are done using high-resolution metal loss technology. Due to the very high-resolution obtained (the resolution is in excess of 100 times that of conventional ER), the results may be used in real time for proactive corrosion/erosion management and system optimisation. Measurements are made and transmitted with temperature data to an acquisition system. The sensor measures the metal loss and temperature of a sample element in the process with a very high level of resolution. This provides the ability to rapidly detect erosion rates and register even the smallest sand events instantaneously.

The intrusive monitoring system has been designed for ease of integration. The output from instruments (metal loss and temperature) is provided in engineering units and tied in directly to the dedicated onboard PC. Basic parameters (erosion rate and temperature) can be converted to erosion rate. Once the data is processed, clear accumulative sand production and sand rates are calculated.

The transmitter consists of an intrinsically safe instrument that is field mounted within 3m of the intrusive probe. The 24VDC power is supplied remotely via an isolating barrier and data is transmitted over a separate digital data link to a dedicated PC housed in a safe area. The probe cable is integrated with the instrument and cannot be extended in the field.

Tampering with monitoring equipment and falsifying consumer certifications has been the basis of criminal convictions. In May, 1998, Louisiana-Pacific Corp. pleaded guilty to Clean Air Act (CAA) and consumer fraud violations at its strand board manufacturing plant near Montrose, Colorado, agreed to pay a $5.5 million criminal fine, $31 million for consumer fraud violations, and make a $500000 donation to seven groups working to improve air quality. The criminal fine was the largest ever received in the CAA's 28 year history. The company pleaded guilty to tampering with emissions monitoring equipment, lying to the Colorado Department of Public Health about the number of times the mill violated its permits, creating nonrepresentative samples for the American Plywood Association that were used in quality assurance testing, and misrepresenting to customers, through use of the Association's quality assurance certification mark, that the product met the requirements of the Association. The investigation began when a former employee filed suit against the company when he was discharged after refusing to tamper with the equipment. US v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., No. 95-CR-215 (D. Colo. 1998).

In addition, inadequate resources devoted to environmental compliance can lead to criminal liability. In May 1991, United Technologies Corp. pleaded guilty to six felony violations of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and agreed to pay a $3 million fine for hazardous waste violations. The violations were the result of improper disposal of cleaning solvents at a Stratford, Connecticut site, discovered during an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspection of the facility. The company's in-house environmental compliance officer became aware of the illegal disposal, but it was not discontinued until the following year. The company had only one full-time person responsible for environmental compliance for all of its facilities in the United States. The US Attorney issued a statement that companies creating hazardous wastes have a clear duty to aggressively devote adequate manpower and financial resources to protecting our environment. The EPA Regional Administrator also issued a statement that it should now be abundantly clear that criminal sanctions are not reserved only for the flagrant and deliberate violations of the environmental laws, but also for violations that result from a company's plain or institutional indifference to meet its legal responsibility. US v. United Technologies Corp., No. 2:91CR00028 (D. Conn. 1991).

Liability exposure to individual officers or employees has expanded the scope of criminal liability and responsibility for not only the actions of individuals but also their respective corporate employers. In the first conviction for the newly created Multi-Agency Environmental Task Force in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the owner of an environmental laboratory pled guilty to mailing falsified environmental test results and bills for tests his company never performed. Jerry Martin, owner of Martin Environmental Laboratories, was sentenced to 1 year in prison and payment of $16781 to former customers. The company was fined $5000. US v. Martin Envtl Labs., No. 01-90040 (E.D. Mich. May 2, 2002). Because no environmental statutes prohibited laboratory fraud, Mr Martin was charged with mail fraud, a federal felony with sentencing guidelines that include prison. The case started with a tip from a former employee to the Task Force. The Task Force consists of the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Michigan Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the US Coast Guard, and the US Customs Service.

Additional capital costs are associated with nonstandard monitoring equipment and water-treatment plants, as included in the Barrick process plant design (Braul, 2013). The limited published data on the Barrick thiosulfate process has emphasized the importance of chemical monitoring and control to keep the thiosulfate circuit working properly.

One of the issues identified in the design of Barrick Gold's thiosulfate leaching plant was that clean water is required for the comminution circuit, where most of the process water needs are added. Also important was the treatment and removal or thiosulfate and degradation products from effluents to tails dams (La Brooy and Smith, 2013). It has been noted that the cost of oxidation of thiosulfate to sulfate to generate lixiviant-free water is likely to be much higher than the cost associated with cyanide leaching, due to the much higher reagent concentrations and the number of molecules of oxygen required per molecule of thiosulfate (Gos and Rubo, 2000). To overcome water quality issues, the Barrick plant has incorporated a membrane treatment plant to provide clean water for the comminution circuit and at the same time concentrate up lixiviant for recycling to the leach circuit (La Brooy and Smith, 2013; Choi etal., 2013). Consequently, additional capital costs in any process design would need to take into account the treatment of process water.

In the pilot MATS process network, the recycled thiosulfate liquor was returned directly to the mill and promoted gold leaching during milling (West-Sells and Hackl, 2005). The ball mill was rubber lined and used high-chromium alloyed balls, which appeared to alleviate problems with adding thiosulfate-leach solution to the mill. So some costs associated with providing a clean water source to the mill may be to some extent managed in some circumstances.

Uncertain risks place unique demands on facilities and facility managers. Specialized equipment, monitoring strategies, updated organizational structures, and revised working practices may be required. To develop comprehensive EHS management plans, facility managers may start by consulting the OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Handbook for Small Businesses. The OSHA Handbook contains a useful Hazard Assessment Checklist that addresses a broad range of potential hazards in the workplace. While the checklist is not intended to be nano-specific, readers will find that many elements of the list are useful for uncovering emerging nanotechnology EHS risks in the workplace. To consider checklist questions in the context of nanotechnology-specific risks, safety managers can consult references such as Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: An Information Exchange with NIOSH (the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), and the Environmental Defense-DuPont Nano Risk Framework. Such resources provide comprehensive and specific information to assist EHS personnel with making informed decisions regarding the management of emerging nanotechnology EHS risks.

More recent resources provided by ASTM International and the British Standards Institute contain useful information as well. In areas where significant questions remain, companies may wish to establish partnerships with groups such as the NIOSH Field Team, university and government laboratories, or qualified EHS consultants.

Traditional methods used to monitor and control corrosion may include installation of corrosion monitoring equipment, use of caustic in the crude oil, and a variety of other chemical corrosion control solutions. These traditional approaches, properly applied, provide acceptable corrosion control during operating timewhen the unit is functioning normally. However, they may not detect or allow adequate or timely responses to the upsets that occur or the damage they can cause, during 10% of unit operating time. The available methods are often not sufficiently sensitive and the frequency, reliability, and accuracy of measurements are not good enough to facilitate a timely response. However, even the best corrosion-control programs may not detect significant problems before the damage is done.

New solutions are being developed to detect and to capture significant changes in the corrosive environment in real time, to measure the changes accurately, and to address and correct those changes before significant corrosion has occurred. For example, a new analyzer (patent pending) has been developed for the continuous measurement of acidity and basicity (pH), iron (Fe), chlorine (Cl) in water and can provide the accurate, real-time data that are required for effective and timely corrosion control (Hilton and Scattergood, 2010).

There is a variety of wet chemistry tests in conjunction with corrosion monitoring tools to track the corrosive environment in crude oil and natural gas handling equipment. These wet chemistry tests quantify several components, such as acidity and basicity (pH), chloride (Cl), ammonia (NH3, NH4+), sulfide (S2-) and iron (Fe) in the water. However, the effectiveness of this testing is limited by the time it takes to collect and analyze samples. These tests are generally part of the routine service performed by operations personnel or the chemical supplier, and they may only be performed at daily or weekly intervals. Generally, operations staff will run a few of these tests once per shift, typically pH and possibly chloride. The result is the collection of minimal data, most of it during periods of stable operation. Only rarely and by chance is the data collected during a period of unit upset, when 90% of corrosion occurs. When upsets do occur, operations staff are usually busy trying to get the crude unit lined out and back to steady-state, and data collection is a very low priority. Typically, the amount of data collected through a corrosion-control program in the course of one year is just a fraction of the amount of data captured by an operations historian over an equivalent period.

The acidity or salinity (pH value) is the most frequently measured parameter in the crude-unit accumulator boot water, which may be checked from 4 to 10 times a day, possibly more often if a low pH is observed, or if it is a problematic unit. In some case, online pH probes may be required to monitor the water properties but, these probes do require frequent calibrationas a result, manual measurements of the aciditybasicity (pH) are often preferred.

The frequency of sampling and performing the other wet chemistry tests, for chloride, iron and ammonia, is substantially less. The result may be a total of between 52 and 260 data sets per yearthe majority of which are collected during periods of stable operation when little or no corrosion occurs. The same limitations apply to corrosion-rate data collected from probes and other monitoring devices. Data loggers may be used to relay these measurements to their central control system, in an attempt to gather more timely information, but this is not a common practice. However, test accuracy and speed of data turnaround are significant concerns when relying on manual wet chemistry testing. Human error, choice of test method, and the temptation to take shortcuts in sampling technique and preparation, can significantly affect the accuracy of the resulting data.

The time lag between sampling and performing the actual test can also make a significant impact on the value of the data for effective corrosion control. Samples are usually collected on a set schedule, at the end of a shift, and 46 h may elapse before they are processed in the laboratory and test results communicated to unit personnel. While this may be an adequate response time during periods of stable operation, and when data are used primarily to measure unit performance against a key performance indicator, it is too slow to facilitate a timely response within the corrosion window, the relatively brief period of upset when the most serious corrosion occurs. Without accurate, frequent and timely testing, corrosive incidents may be completely missed or discovered only after significant damage has occurred.

The key to controlling corrosion, without throwing metallurgy at the problem, is the ability to capture accurate data in real time, detecting and closing the corrosion window before significant damage occurs.

Associated water from the separator can be continuously sampled and passed through the analyzer, where specially designed pH electrodes provide a real-time measure of the pH. Simultaneously, the analyzer performs an automated, online analysis of chloride and total iron concentration in the process water. Chloride and iron analyses can be performed at frequencies ranging from one to six times per hour, depending on system conditions. With the online analyzer, the onset of a corrosion window in time can be detected and adjustments made to the corrosion-control chemical program, using closed-loop automated controllers, thus avoiding lag time and under-feed or over-feed of critical chemical components.

Rust never sleeps. To be truly effective, a corrosion-control program must go beyond the industry current practice of periodic sampling and manual sample processing. To this end, the analyzer can provide continuous, accurate, repeatable data, including conditions during the critical 10% of operations when 90% of corrosion occurs. By detecting these corrosion windows consistently and in real time, the analyzer provides a continuous view of pH, chloride and iron levels in the system, permitting the application of timely and effective chemical solutions before significant corrosion has occurred.

Almost every chapter acknowledges a variety of methodological constraints. One frequent constraint is the limited availability of inexpensive monitoring equipment that would enable adequate replication to encompass the large variability inherent in IRES. Another arises from scale-dependent limitations that include uncertainty about whether measurements made at, for example, the stream reach scale could be validly extrapolated to higher or lower scales. On the positive side, there is optimism that new technologies such as geochronological techniques (e.g., radiocarbon, luminescence, and cosmogenic radionuclide dating for tracking geomorphological processes, Tooth, 2012) and 16S rRNA sequencing for microbial studies (e.g., Zeglin, 2015) applied to IRES hold considerable promise for filling many of the current knowledge gaps. Although these new methods may not address all of the scale-dependent problems, they will add badly needed data from which meta-analyses and other synthetic studies might elucidate where mismatches of spatiotemporal scales are especially serious.

Many sampling techniques have been developed for use in perennial streams and rivers, and their applicability to different types of IRES must be carefully assessed, along with appropriate analyses of sensitivity and uncertainty. The same applies to the burgeoning field of modeling. For example, almost all of the currently used hydrological models are poor at simulating zero-flows (Chapter 2.2) and often need modification (e.g., Ivkovic et al., 2014) or even new models for successful application to simulate intermittence in IRES. In addition, fundamental hydrological data for IRES are often lacking because river gaging stations are preferentially placed on perennial streams and rivers (Chapter 1). This lack of data hampers assessment of the adequacy of models to simulate multiyear hydrographs in many IRES. Novel approaches may be needed such as citizen-science programs that record river flow states (Turner and Richter, 2011) or application of recent technologies such as multiple-probe data loggers and airborne imagery (Fig. 6.4, Chapters 2.2 and 2.3). Some of these techniques may also be useful for tracking the spread of invasive plants in IRES or monitoring recolonization pathways of invertebrates and fishes when flow resumes and of terrestrial and semiaquatic biota recolonization of the channel during drying.

Fig. 6.4. Recent advances in technology such as airborne imagery at different scales (ac, extracted from Google Earth Pro and showing the inland region of Alicante, Spain) and remote sensing are greatly enhancing our understanding of the relationships of IRES to the broader landscape and river networks worldwide.

These methodological constraints have several important implications for successful management of IRES. Firstly, the resulting lack of data (especially integrated hydrological, biogeochemical, and ecological information) may tempt managers to evade consideration of IRES or to attempt to use data from nearby perennial streams and rivers as a surrogate. Secondly, even where data are collected, the records are frequently incomplete. For example, using standard procedures to sample benthic aquatic macroinvertebrates as biomonitors (commonly done in perennial streams and rivers, Bonada et al., 2006) may not be feasible in IRES when the stream is dry. Even when aquatic macroinvertebrate samples can be collected, disentangling the likely ecological responses to anthropogenic inputs from those to natural intermittence (e.g., Chapters 3.1 and 3.2) is problematic. Habitat fragmentation caused by intermittence may also affect recolonization processes, confounding detection of anthropogenic impacts. Consequently, most biomonitoring approaches and tools developed in perennial systems are not applicable in IRES and must be adapted (Sheldon, 2005, Chapter 5.1). Alternatively, the use of terrestrial or hyporheic invertebrates as alternative indicators of biological condition during dry or zero-flow periods is being explored for IRES (e.g., Steward et al., 2012; Leigh et al., 2013) but results will still require cautious interpretation if they are to reliably indicate anthropogenic impacts during different hydrological phases. Thirdly, the inherent high variability of IRES means that greater numbers of samples and larger datasets are needed to adequately summarize physicochemical or biological condition, especially when pools are dwindling or soon after flow resumes. Methods that enable rapid and multipoint sampling of reliable indicators of ecosystem condition of IRES are badly needed to improve the information used to measure the success of restoration activities (Chapter 5.4) or SAM (Chapter 5.5). This presupposes an understanding of what constitutes healthy ecosystems in different IRES to define appropriate reference or target conditions, also a substantial knowledge gap for many parts of the world (see later).

The capability of the energy auditor and the scope of an audit could be extended by the use of in place instrumentation and temporary monitoring equipment. In-place instrumentation refers to existing utility metering, air-conditioning control instrumentation, and energy management systems (EMS). The use of in-place utility metering and temporary monitoring equipment in energy auditing can yield valuable information about the building systems such as:

Since the pioneering observations conducted on Vesuvius (Italy) during the second half of the 19th century, seismometers have been the most common type of monitoring equipment deployed on volcanoes. This is mainly due to the fact that, until recently, seismic instruments were the most portable, in turn allowing continuous recording and data collection from remote locations. Moreover, almost all eruptions in seismically monitored volcanoes have been preceded by some sort of seismic anomaly, which in several cases gave rise to successful forecasts (e.g., McNutt et al., 2015; short-term seismic precursors to Icelandic eruptions during the past 40years are also comprehensively reviewed by Einarsson, 2018). Nonetheless, it was only by the early 80s of the past century, with the establishment of physically sound source models and the advent of digital, continuous-recording instruments, that volcano seismology evolved toward an independent and quantitative discipline (e.g., Chouet, 2003).

In early seismological investigations at volcanoes, instruments and methodologies were inherited from what had been originally developed for earthquake studies at the local and regional scales. However, seismic wave fields in volcanic environments present peculiarities which call for specific considerations and procedures. Seismic sources on volcanoes arise from a variety of mechanisms, ranging from the complex interaction between multiphase fluids and their hosting rock, to ductile deformation and brittle failure, all influenced by gravity forces associated with mass transport and/or sector instabilities. The resulting signals exhibit multiple signatures, whose characteristic frequencies range over a wide frequency interval. Owing to both the low amplitude of these signals and the almost-ubiquitous presence of volcanic tremor, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is generally poor, thus implying the need of conducting observations close to the source. In addition, seismo-volcanic sources are generally confined within the uppermost few kilometers of crust, and propagation occurs in markedly heterogeneous terrains, often bounded by pronounced topographical features. All these elements hinder the use of those approximations traditionally adopted in earthquake seismology, such as the omission of near-field effects, and the modeling of propagation in simplified, layered Earth models.

Notwithstanding the fast evolution it experienced over the past few decades, volcano seismology still has to face several challenging perspectives, including (i) the improvement and generalization of physical models describing the source dynamics, (ii) the development of efficient processing environments for the real-time analysis of the huge amount of data continuously produced by monitoring networks, and (iii) the enhancement in the resolution of subsurface images of different seismological parameters, and their quantitative interpretation in terms of the specific physical conditions of volcanic materials.

Several review papers and books already exist in the literature covering various aspects of volcano seismology (e.g., Chouet, 1996, 2003; Wassermann, 2012; Chouet and Matoza, 2013; McNutt et al., 2015; Thompson, 2015; Zobin, 2016). As the title indicates, this chapter mostly focuses on the specific methodologies which have been adapted to, or specifically developed for the quantitative analysis of volcanic signals. While presenting updates to what already discussed in the aforementioned review papers, we dedicate particular emphasis on the new/emerging methodologies, and on those still presenting unresolved issues.

The fourth sampling technique involves a combination of sampling and analysis. The analytical technique is incorporated in a continuous monitoring instrument placed at the sampling location. Most often, the monitoring equipment is located inside a shelter such as a trailer or a small building, with the ambient air drawn to the monitor through a sampling manifold. The monitor then extracts a small fraction of air from the manifold for analysis by an automated technique, which may be continuous or discrete. Instrument manufacturers have developed automated in situ monitors for several air pollutants, including SO2, NO, NO2, O3, and CO.

The fourth sampling technique involves a combination of sampling and analysis. The analytical technique is incorporated in a continuous monitoring instrument placed at the sampling location. Most often, the monitoring equipment is located inside a shelter such as a trailer or a small building, with the ambient air drawn to the monitor through a sampling manifold. The monitor then extracts a small fraction of air from the manifold for analysis by an automated technique, which may be continuous or discrete. Instrument manufacturers have developed automated in situ monitors for several air pollutants, including SO2, NO, NO2, O3, and CO. This approach is also being increasingly applied for organic pollutants. For example, real-time GC-MS are being used to monitoring a wide range of organic compounds, including air toxics.

Continuous emission monitoring (CEM) is an important type of combined real-time sampling. Indeed, it is increasingly used in the source applications discussed in Chapter 24. Regulatory agencies are increasingly requiring enhanced and periodic measurements to ensure compliance with emission standards for specific pollutants. In the United States, these are known as the compliance assurance monitoring (CAM) rule. The rule is designed to ensure proper operation of air pollution control equipment. The CAM rule has two general means of compliance: direct and indirect. Direct compliance assurance can be accomplished using CEM. Indirect compliance assurance is based on measurements of key parameters related to how well the equipment is operating (e.g. temperature, flow, pressure drop, voltage changes).16 The CAA requires CEM for large sources and sources that must be monitoring under New Source Review (see Chapter 3).

The CEM is an integrated system that collects samples directly from the stack or other air pollutant conveyance to the atmosphere. The system consists of the equipment needed to determine a pollutant's concentration or emission rate. The system components shown in Figure25.8 are: (1) the sampling and conditioning system; (2) chemical analyzers; (3) the data acquisition system (DAS); and (4) the controller system. In addition to measuring various gas and particulate phase pollutant, CEM also is used for opacity, and volumetric flow rates.

There are two basic types of CEMS: extractive and in situ. The monitor and analyzers of an in situ CEM are located within the stack. Extractive CEM systems capture a sample from within a stack, condition the sample (e.g. remove moisture and impurities) and move the sample to the analyzer. As shown in Figure25.8, point measurements measure pollutant concentrations at a single precise point where the sampling cell is located, whereas path measurements are taken across a given path in the emissions stream. Path readings are often from a signal across the stack and reflecting it back to a detector near the source of the signal. The measured concentrations crossing that path are averaged over a given period of time.

Numerous gaseous compounds are being sampled with CEM, including NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, O2, total hydrocarbons, and hydrochloric acid (HCl). This concept also applied outside of the stack. For example, several open-path, continuous monitoring methods are being used successfully for a wide range of pollutants in the ambient air. These are discussed later in this chapter.

roxar sam acoustic sand monitor | emerson us

roxar sam acoustic sand monitor | emerson us

Product(s) in your cart may not be available in the selected country and will be removed from your cart if you choose the SELECT button below. Please contact us if you need assistance purchasing this product in another country.

Roxar SAM Acoustic Sand Monitor is a non-intrusive sensor that provides real-time production sand information, allowing increased oil & gas production rates and less topside erosion events. The referenced instrument is based on acoustic technology and proprietary algorithms that translate the sand noise into actionable data. The Roxar SAM provides an immediate response to sand production that allows production flow adjustment, sand separator efficiency monitoring and other onshore and offshore upstream applications. The referenced instrument data can be enhanced further with Roxar SandLog and / or Permasense corrosion and erosion monitors.

erosion testing, erosion resistance & sand monitoring | dnv labs - dnv

erosion testing, erosion resistance & sand monitoring | dnv labs - dnv

Sand is an inevitable by-product during oil and gas production. Sand can have significant consequences for both the production and the assets. Key failure modes are related to sand particle erosion, sand accumulation, plugging or contamination by sand.

The process laboratory at DNV headquarters at Hvik, just outside Oslo, has been in operation since 1995 and has been used extensively in experiments related to sand erosion, sand monitoring equipment and sand transport phenomena. Experience from experimental investigation and dedicated erosion testing form the basis of therecommended practice DNVGL-RP-0501 Managing sand production and erosion.

Trust is key to unlocking additive manufacturings potential for your business. We look at the top benefits of, and barriers to, this technology, and how DNV can help your sector to use it to become safer, more efficient and more sustainable.

sludge monitoring (monitoring and testing) equipment

sludge monitoring (monitoring and testing) equipment

When operating in the aerobic mode, oxygen from a supply of pure oxygen is added in small increments into each respirometer vessel in response to oxygen uptake and carbon dioxide absorption. This mode of operation maintains a constant oxygen concentration in the headspace within the reaction vessel. Oxygen transfer from the headspace to the liquid phase is accomplished by using ...

Years of experience in the field of Wastewater Treatment led HTI to develop their own exclusive portable sludge / biosolids transfer pump, and now it is available to you. These biosolids transfer pumps are portable - able to be hauled on a trailer with a 3/4-ton pickup truck. This portable sludge pump features a high-volume agitation rate, and is able to handle a 12% biosolids mixture, with a ...

By LLC based in Sahuarita, ARIZONA (USA). from Wastewater Product line

By Enexio Water Technologies GmbH based in Hrth, GERMANY. from Water Technologies - Lamella Clarifiers Product line

Extreme power for bottom cleaning and heavy debris removal. Self Righting Design. Fillable Weight Port for High Flow Conditions. Reduced Operating Costs. High Efficiency Cleaning. Superior Water Pattern ...

By KEG Technologies, Inc. based in Spartanburg, SOUTH CAROLINA (USA). from Pipe Floor Cleaner Product line

The stainless steel probe LMK 387 was developed for level and gauge measurement in wastewater, sludge or water courses. The mechanical robustness of the front-flush ceramic diaphragm faciliates an easy disassembly and cleaning of the probe in case of service. Compared to the level probe LMK 382 the outside-diameter is only 22 mm, which allows an easy installation and backfitting in 1" tubes or ...

By BD|Sensors GmbH based in Thierstein, GERMANY. from Level - Submersible Probes - Industry Product line

By ATB Water GmbH based in Porta Westfalica, GERMANY. from Wastewater Treatment Components - Decanter Product line

Our Membrane trains are flexible and go with the flow. We can configure our cassettes into smaller footprints or retrofit conventional long membrane tank trains. Our unique membrane operations and flexibility in design even allows for the retrofitting of circular clarifiers. With more configuration options, customisation of trains and greater flexibility in operational control, our membrane ...

By Toro Equipment S.L. based in La Cisterniga, SPAIN. from Dosage Equipments Product line

BPC offers two types of data loggers as well as several in-line sensors, and electronic accessories. All are frequently required for setting up an automated laboratory or a small pilot-scale process monitoring system. Our high-quality instruments offer possibility for a better understanding of fermentation processes, resulting in better process design and optimised process ...

Bright Technologies offers complete Belt Filter Press dewatering systems that are skid or trailer mounted. We design and manufacture the skid equipment package for high throughput, low maintenance, superior cake solids and ease of ...

By Sebright Products, Inc. based in Hopkins, MICHIGAN (USA). from Belt Filter Presses Product line

Professional Series Multi-Stage Sediment/Sludge Sampler Kit! This sampling kit provides all of the components needed to collect sludge and sediment samples up to 4' in length. The 12" base section and three extra body sections allow you to assemble a sampler that is 12", 24", 36", or 48". in length. This kit was designed for soil sampling professional who wants the strongest, most durable ...

By Arts Manufacturing and Supply, Inc. (AMS Inc.) based in American Falls, IDAHO (USA). from Hand Tooling - Sludge and Sediment Samplers - Sludge and Sediment Sampling Kits Product line

By ATB Water GmbH based in Porta Westfalica, GERMANY. from Wastewater Treatment Components - Decanter Product line

By SURCIS, S.L. based in Barcelona, SPAIN. from BM Multi-purpose Respirometry System Product line

Stops caving sediment! Use this manually-driven sampler for discrete interval sediment sampling in rivers, lakes, wetlands, and estuaries. To obtain a sample, the sampler is lowered to the surface as a dual tube or driven down to the desired depth where sampling is to begin below the surface. Upon reaching the desired sampling depth, the inner rods attached to the internal drive tip are retracted ...

By Arts Manufacturing and Supply, Inc. (AMS Inc.) based in American Falls, IDAHO (USA). from Hand Tooling - Sludge and Sediment Samplers - Sludge and Sediment Sampling Kits Product line

This uniquely designed aerator provides oxygen from the bottom up without the need for an external blower, providing 360-degree radial mixing. The Hurricane submersible aerators 360-degree radial mixing system incorporates new, unique air diffusers for high oxygenating efficiency and thorough mixing over a wide ...

By Fluence Corporation based in White Plains, NEW YORK (USA). from Aeration Equipments Product line

The SedVac Sediment Dredge System is a sediment removal system designed to clean your clarifier by effectively removing the compression zone layer of sludge. Unlike clog-prone vacuum pipes, the SedVac system can handle high concentrations of sludge and grit and is capable of consistently removing solids of 3% concentration across a wide range of influent quality. Its unique header wing design ...

By Brentwood Industries, Inc. based in Reading, PENNSYLVANIA (USA). from Water and Wastewater Treatment Product line

By Eijkelkamp Soil & Water based in Giesbeek, NETHERLANDS. from Sediment Samplers Product line

The NEW AMS Replaceable Tip Sand/Loose Sediment Soil Probe is ideal for obtaining unconsolidated soil samples in a 1 x 24 poly liner. The soil probe is equipped with a 1 core catcher which ensures full sample recovery in the proper soil conditions. Probe includes 1 x 24 Probe body, 10 comfortably gripped cross handle, replaceable tip, 1 core ...

By Arts Manufacturing and Supply, Inc. (AMS Inc.) based in American Falls, IDAHO (USA). from Hand Tooling - Sludge and Sediment Samplers Product line

This self-priming (up to a depth of 6 meter) centrifugal pump is used primarily for (fast) purging or emptying of monitoring wells and bore holes. Other applications are pumping water for irrigation, drinking water for cattle, etc. The pump has a quiet, reliable starting, economical fourstroke engine running on ordinary or unleaded petrol. The pump is not sensitive to polluted water and the ...

By Eijkelkamp Soil & Water based in Giesbeek, NETHERLANDS. from Groundwater Samplers Product line

By ATB Water GmbH based in Porta Westfalica, GERMANY. from Wastewater Treatment Components - Decanter Product line

dust monitoring equipment, devices and products | measure particulate monitor

dust monitoring equipment, devices and products | measure particulate monitor

With Aeroqual Cloud, setting up, operating and maintenance of your air monitoring network has never been easier. Users can view real-time data and can communicate with their Dust Sentry monitors in a network. You can also set up SMS and email alerts for when dust levels reach user-configurable limits, making it simple to take quick and effective action.

Keep your monitoring hardware functioning and accurate with remote software updates, service and calibration, sensor and system diagnostics. Reduce the need for regular site visits with our enhanced remote tech support tools.

Environmental consultantswho require defensible particulate measurement for their clients air quality permits, EIA and Greenfield baseline studies, or who need to measure multi-channel PM size fractions.

Dust Sentry combines a light scattering nephelometer and sharp cut cyclone to deliver defensible and accurate mass measurement of specific dust particles. It can be configured for PM10, PM2.5, PM1, or TSP.

A co-location study of the Dust Sentry monitor demonstrates good correlation to U.S. EPA Federal Equivalent and Federal Reference Methods. The study also evaluated the Dust Sentry PM10 monitor to meet the criteria of the UK Environmental Agency MCERTS Standard for Indicative Ambient Particle Monitors.

Two Dust Sentry monitors with PM10 sharp cut cyclones were co-located with two PM10 EPA designated Federal Equivalence Method Beta Attenuation Monitors (BAMs) and a PM10 Partisol sampler, a Federal Reference Method.

The monitors were installed at a National Environmental Standard monitoring site in Nelson, New Zealand for 55 days from 28 July until 20 September 2012. Overall the results show that the Dust Sentry performed well in relation to the BAMs and each other. In summary:

The portable particulate monitor is a handheld device for indicative and simultaneous measurement of PM10 and PM2.5 in ambient outdoor or indoor environments.Its designed for checking pollution hotspots, ambient air quality surveys and validating air quality models.

sand monitoring equipment. intrusive & non-intrusive

sand monitoring equipment. intrusive & non-intrusive

Over time, sand will cause damage to plant and equipment on a platform, Left unchecked it can be responsible for loss of primary containment, creating the possibility of explosion and serious injury. In all cases, sand erosion results in loss of efficiency, downtime and reduced production.

Because the deterioration is unseen, you need sensors that monitor for hidden damage and provide real-time data to indicate where problems could occur. Quickly identifying the presence of sand gives you the opportunity to adjust production, reduce maintenance and minimise potential equipment damage.

Accurate monitoring coupled with analysis and interpretation of the real time data means improved longevity of your assets and reduces costly repairs, replacement and downtime. Depending on the data output required we can also provide expert analysis to interpret the information provided.

We offer training, support and maintenance in the operation of monitoring systems and provide expertise to input the right set up information (flow, speed etc) to make sure the data you receive is correct and accurate.

As independent experts we can recommend the most suitable monitoring technology for your specific needs. All the equipment we supply is industry proven, and used by highly respected and successful companies around the world.

We have a variety of multiple sensor packages which can be tailored to meet your requirements. Check out SMS Multi Sensor Frac Monitoring Package which includes Acoustic Detectors (non-intrusive clamp on), Intrusive Erosion Probes, Real Time UT Wall Thickness Sensors, Real Time H2S Monitoring and Non-Intrusive Flow Metering - all integrated into SMS SMART Software so the data can be viewed either on location or remotely via a secure internet connection.

Related Equipments