Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The flow models are applied to a discretized topography; (0.2 to 30 centipoise), and for angles between –1o and 1 o. It
both steady state and transient models reduce a complex is widely believed that the high quality of the SINTEF dataset
pipeline profile to a series of straight pipes at constant angle. is largely responsible for the greater accuracy of OLGA,
In order to properly capture temperature and pressure particularly for gas-condensate systems.
gradients, these straight pipes are further discretized into a
number of sections (Figure 1). Each pipe section can be Steady-State Multiphase Models
considered as a separate ‘tank’ of volume V, with mass and Steady-state multiphase models assume that the flow is either
momentum flowing in and out across boundaries between steady in time, or that the transient behavior can be adequately
adjacent pipe sections. The system is then solved in a classic described by a time-averaged solution. Under these
staggered-grid, finite-difference scheme.3 conditions, the time derivatives are set to zero, and Equations
1-3 become
Transient Multiphase Models
A mass, momentum, and energy balance over a pipe section of
volume V yields the following: (AHiρiUi)in = (AHi ρiUi)out + ψ (4)
• slug flow: stratified flow, punctuated by slugs of accurately capture flow regime when benchmarked against
highly turbulent liquid; low-pressure, air-water data. There is no clear guidance as to
when the Taitel-Duckler criterion applies, and when the no-
• annular flow: a thin liquid film adhering to the pipe slip criterion is correct, but clearly there is a transition
wall, and a gas stream containing entrained liquid between the two that appears to be a function of pressure (i.e.,
droplets; gas density).
There is evidence to suggest that the no-slip criterion does
• bubble flow: a continuous liquid flow with entrained not select the correct flow regime for downward-directed
gas bubbles. flows. This is discussed more fully in the Pressure Drop
Prediction section.
In most steady-state models, flow regime selection is done
against an experimentally constructed flow regime map. Stratified Flow
Generally, the superficial liquid velocity is plotted against the Stratified flow is the prevailing regime in many of Conoco’s
superficial gas velocity (for example, see Figure 2, taken from multiphase trunklines. Unfortunately, stratified flow tends to
Mandhane et al.7). For a given pipe diameter and inclination be the most sensitive to pipeline angle, and to 3-phase effects
angle, the flow regime is a uniquely determined function of when water is present as a separate liquid phase.
superficial gas and liquid velocities. Transitions from one
regime to another are determined by a series of curves, based Horizontal Stratified Flow
on a variety of dimensionless parameters. In Beggs & Brill, Because of the steady nature of horizontal, stratified flow, one
for example, flow regime transitions are determined from the could draw the conclusion that a steady-state model would
no-slip liquid hold-up suffice. In fact, in the benchmarking studies, most of the
steady-state correlations perform reasonably well against the
SINTEF database for horizontal, stratified flow. Figure 3
λL = USL/(USL + USG) (7) gives the performance of Lockhart & Martinelli11, Beggs &
Brill12, Oilemans13, Duns & Ros14, and OLGA-2000 against
and the mixture Froude number, the SINTEF database at 20 bar, for superficial gas velocities
from 0.5 to 12.5 m/s, and a superficial liquid velocity of 0.15
m/s. At these conditions, the experimentally determined flow
FrM = (USL + USG)2/Dg (8) regime is stratified-wavy over the entire range of gas
superficial velocities. Table 1 defines the identifiers used to
A second approach for flow regime determination was indicate predicted flow regime.
outlined by Taitel & Duckler.8 For horizontal or near-
horizontal flow, stratified flow is assumed as a base case, then Table 1: Regime Identifiers used in Figures 3-6
perturbed slightly by introducing an infinitesimal wave to the Flow Regime Indentifier
smooth interface. Stability analysis of the perturbation yields Stratified-Smooth SM
the following condition, Stratified-Wavey SW
Transition TR
Slug SL
UG > (1–δL/D){(ρL–ρG)gcosθ AG/ρGdAL/dhL}1/2 (9)
Annular AN
When UG exceeds the right hand side of Equation 9, the flow Note that Lockhart & Martinelli greatly under-predicts
undergoes a transition from stratified to either slug (HL > 0.5) liquid hold-up at all superficial liquid velocities (this trend
or annular (HL < 0.5) flow. The Taitel-Duckler criterion has holds for all superficial liquid velocities in the SINTEF
proved fairly accurate against low-pressure, air-water data, but database). The Beggs & Brill liquid hold-up is low for USG <
does not capture the stratified-slug boundary accurately for 4 m/s (stratified flow), but high for USG > 4 m/s, where the
higher pressures.9 regime is incorrectly predicted to be annular. This same
The OLGA transient program selects flow regime based pattern holds true for Oliemans (a pipeline model developed
upon the so-called ‘minimum slip’ criterion.10 For a given against field data), which also incorrectly identifies the flow
pressure drop, OLGA selects the flow regime which gives the regime as annular for USG > 4 m/s. Duns and Ros predicts
lowest difference between the gas and liquid linear velocities – slug or transition flow over the entire range of USG’s, but
hence, ‘minimum slip’. The minimum slip condition also actually does a rather good job of predicting liquid hold-up, at
corresponds to the regime which gives the lowest liquid hold- least at these conditions. OLGA-2000 performs quite well
up for a given pressure drop. This is a purely empirical against the SINTEF database; however, it should be noted that
criterion; however, it seems to work. OLGA was benchmarked against these data, and so it stands to
While the minimum slip criteria has proven quite accurate reason that it should outperform all other models when
at high pressures, there is evidence to suggest that it does not compared to it.
4 THOMAS J. DANIELSON, LLOYD D. BROWN, AND KRIS M. BANSAL OTC 11965
Conoco benchmarking studies also evaluated the including OLGA – do not have a sharp enough dependence for
performance of the Xiao mechanistic model15, Beggs & Brill, hold-up as a function of pipe angle, and can significantly
Oliemans, Duns & Ros, and OLGA-2000 against the SINTEF under-predict liquid hold-up in slightly-inclined, stratified
database at 90 bar (Figure 4). Again, the experimentally flow.
determined flow regime indicates that the flow was stratified- The Xiao, Beggs & Brill, Oilemans, Duns & Ros, and
wavy regime over the entire range of superficial gas velocities. OLGA-2000 models were benchmarked against the 90 bar, 1o
The Xiao model underpredicts liquid hold-up quite inclined SINTEF data, again for USL = 0.15 m/s (Figure 6).
severely in the stratified regime – by as much as 50% in some Surprisingly, the Xiao model actually improves at very low
instances. The performance of Beggs and Brill eroded USG, but degrades significantly at USG > 2 m/s (where the flow
somewhat, particularly at high superficial gas velocities, regime is incorrectly identified as annular). The performance
where the hold-up is over-predicted by as much as a factor of of Beggs and Brill has eroded significantly over the horizontal
3. Again, the predicted flow regime at USG > 4 m/s is case, particularly at low USG. The same is true of Oliemans.
incorrectly identified as annular. Oliemans shows very much A comparison of the 20 bar - horizontal, 90 bar – horizontal,
the same pattern. While somewhat disconcerting, a relative and 90 bar – 1o incline cases indicates that there is little or no
difference in hold-up is much less important in the annular angle or pressure dependence present in Duns & Ros. There is
regime than it would be in the slug or stratified regime, as the a slightly greater dependence on pressure and angle for Beggs
total amount of liquid is much smaller and presents no special & Brill and Oliemans.
operational consequences. However, incorrect prediction of Experimentally, the effect of increasing pressure in
liquid droplet fraction will impact pressure drop (this topic is stratified flow reduces the liquid hold-up somewhat (although
covered in the Pressure Drop Prediction section). the effect is small). The effect of increasing angle of
The performance of Duns & Ros, among the best of the inclination has a much larger effect on liquid hold-up,
steady-state correlations at 20 bar, has eroded considerably increasing it significantly for all superficial gas velocities. A
against the 90 bar dataset. The model now over-estimates the general observation is that none of the steady-state models
liquid hold-up at USG < 4 m/s by nearly a factor of 2. It should benchmarked here had a stiff enough angle dependence, or a
be noted that Duns & Ros also incorrectly identifies the flow stiff enough pressure dependence to match the experimental
regime as slug over the entire range of USG. Lastly, the results. As a consequence, there is an under-prediction of
performance of OLGA-2000 was adequate over the entire liquid hold-up at small USG as pressure and inclination
range of USG, both in hold-up and regime prediction. increase.
A key weakness in many steady-state correlations (e.g., Against stratified field data, particularly for small
Beggs & Brill and Duns & Ros) is the lack of a gas density inclinations, none of the models, including OLGA-2000,
dependence in the liquid hold-up determination. It is known which under-predicted hold-ups by as much as 50% in the
that the gas density plays a key role in the interfacial friction stratified regime, were particularly accurate.16 However,
factor, which in turn determines liquid hold-up. Given this, it OLGA performed significantly better than any alternative.
is not surprising that the performance of these models
degrades at higher pressures. Three-Phase Stratified Flow
Three phase flow, i.e., flow of gas, condensate, and water, is
Inclined Stratified Flow also a common occurrence in subsea tiebacks and multiphase
If multiphase lines were completely horizontal, perhaps any trunklines. Stratified three-phase flow has been found to have
number of models would suffice for hold-up prediction. a much higher liquid hold-up than a corresponding two-phase
However, this is not the case in practice. Figure 5 gives a flow with the same volumetric liquid rate. This is due to the
histogram of the fraction of pipeline at a particular angle, as a fact that the condensate forms a lubricating layer between the
function of angle, for both the Conoco Caister-Murdoch gas and water phases. The net result is that the water tends to
(Northern North Sea) and LOGGS (Southern North Sea) move at much smaller linear velocities than either the gas or
multiphase trunklines. Note that both histograms exhibit a the condensate, which in turn leads to much higher hold-ups.
bell-shaped curve, the maximum of which is displaced roughly A further complication arises in the calculation of the
0.1o to the right, indicating an average pipeline inclination of interfacial friction between the water and condensate phases.
0.1o. Unlike the gas-liquid interface, which tends to be rather well-
Data taken at IFE (Conoco internal report) indicates that defined, the small density difference between the liquid phases
there is an extreme sensitivity of liquid hold-up to angles from can lead to large distortions in the water-organic liquid
0o to 0.5o for stratified flow, particularly for low superficial interface. If shear forces are sufficient, an emulsion layer – a
liquid velocities (USL < 0.02 m/s) – conditions quite common fourth phase - will be created between the water and organic
in multiphase trunklines. Unfortunately, little or no data has liquid phase. This makes characterization of the slip between
been taken at these very small positive angles for the liquid phases difficult or impossible from first principles.
benchmarking purposes. The result is that all models – At present, OLGAS is only one model commercially
available which has a three-phase capability, and the three-
phase model can only be accessed through the larger OLGA-
OTC 11965 FLOW MANAGEMENT: STEADY-STATE AND TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE PIPELINE SIMULATION 5
2000 transient code. Even this model should be used with Ramp-up Slugging
some skepticism, as there has been very little data taken in the Ramp-up slugging is a rather mild phenomenon when
three-phase, mildly-inclined, stratified regime. compared to terrain slugging. Ramp-up slugs are formed
during gas blowdown, i.e., when the gas throughput is
Slug Flow suddenly raised for an extended period of time; thus ramp-up
Slug flow can be divided into three distinct types: slugs are created operationally, and are more subject to
hydrodynamic slugging, terrain slugging, and ramp-up operational control (for example, controlling ramp-up rate)
slugging. Each presents its own unique computational than terrain slugs.
challenges. The situation is best described by reference to Figure 7,
which shows the liquid inventory in a typical wet gas pipeline
Hydrodynamic Slugging as function of wet gas rate. If the line is suddenly ramped
Hydrodynamic slugs are formed in horizontal and near- from a low gas flowrate to a higher rate, a large amount of
horizontal lines, when waves at a stratified gas-liquid interface liquid must be removed from the line (in this case, just under
gain enough height to bridge the pipe. When this occurs, the 3000 bbl) in order to achieve the new steady-state.
packets of fluid, or slugs, are pushed through the pipeline by Conversely, as the gas rate drops (ramp-down), the liquid
the gas. Liquid is constantly picked up at the front of the slug, inventory increases over time, ultimately reaching its steady-
and dropped at the slug tail. Depending on the balance state value. For large wet gas trunklines, the time to reach a
between these two processes, the slug either grows or steady-state hold-up after a ramp-down could be many days,
dissipates. Hydrodynamic slugs can grow to great lengths in or even weeks. Pigging is often employed as a method to keep
long, near-horizontal lines. Field studies have shown the liquid inventory from ever reaching steady-state, thus
hydrodynamic slugs to have a log-normal distribution with a minimizing the size of the primary separator on the platform.
tail of extremely long slugs (over 1000 diameters).17
Presently, there are no good models for estimating the size of Annular Flow
these largest slugs. Annular flow occurs when the gas rate is high enough to shear
Hydrodynamic slugs are the only slugs capable of being droplets from the liquid bulk and carry a significant portion of
effectlively modeled with a steady-state correlation. The them in the gas phase. In fact, there is a smooth transition
assumption in the model is that the pipe section is filled with a between stratified-mist flow and annular flow.
train of liquid slugs, each containing a small amount of As can be seen from Figures 3-6 in the Stratified Flow
entrained gas, separated by regions of stratified/stratified-mist section, all models tend to over-predict the liquid hold-up in
flow. As long as this assumption is not violated by the the annular regime. This indicates that the droplet field is
creation of very long slugs, most steady-state models should either not accounted for in the modeling, or is underestimated.
do an adequate job of predicting hold-up. An examination of the data indicates that the performance of
all models would be considerably enhanced in the annular
Terrain Slugging regime merely by assuming that the liquid hold-up equal to the
Terrain slugs are formed when liquid collects in a dip in the no-slip hold-up λL.
line. When enough liquid has accumulated to bridge the pipe, Recent experiments at SINTEF indicate that the droplet
the gas flow is suddenly greatly reduced or stopped. As liquid field is, in fact, not uniform in annular flow.19 Most of the
continues to collect, the pressure in the gas upstream of the droplets are quite close to the gas-liquid interface, and almost
blockage builds until it is great enough to overcome the none – apart from a fine mist – rise above the pipeline
pressure head of the trapped liquid, which is then pushed out midpoint. Unless a model accounts for this effect, it cannot
as a large slug. get both the hold-up and the pressure drop correct. If a
Because of the inherent transient nature of terrain slugging, uniform droplet field is assumed (as is the case in OLGA),
it must be modeled as a time-dependent process. Terrain slugs then the pressure drop will be over-estimated. There is
are very well-defined, sharp events which tend to pose the evidence from pressure measurements on Conoco’s Britannia
greatest operational difficulties. Terrain slugging is very field which supports this finding.20 Droplet field distribution
much influenced by the details of the pipeline profile, and is important not just for the correct modeling of the multiphase
adequate modeling will require a transient code with some flow itself, but also critical, for example, in the distribution of
facility for tracking individual slugs through the pipeline. corrosion inhibitor.
Alternatives include Lagrangian slug-tracking in OLGA, or While most models tend to over-predict the liquid hold-up
adaptive Lagrangian grid slug-tracking in Statoil’s in-house in the annular regime, the total amount of liquid is small, and
PETRA code.18 the operation of the line does not present any special
Though terrain slugging often represents the most difficult challenges.
operational environment, the evidence seems to suggest that
current transient codes do an adequate job of predicting terrain
slugging so that separators sizes and gas lift rates can be set
with a certain degree of confidence
6 THOMAS J. DANIELSON, LLOYD D. BROWN, AND KRIS M. BANSAL OTC 11965
(dP/dz)grav = ρMg (11) • Models for simulation of 3-phase stratified flow are few
and have not been adequately benchmarked.
17. Brill, J.P., Schmidt, Z., Coberly, W.A., Herring, J.D., and
References Moore, D.W., “Analysis of Two-Phase Tests in Large-Diameter
Flow Lines in Prudhoe Bay Field”, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., June 1981.
1. Xiao, J.J., and Shoup, G., “Sizing Wet-Gas Pipelines and Slug
Catchers with Steady-State Multiphase Flow Simulations”, 18. Hedne, P., Private Communication.
Transactions of the ASME, 120, 1998.
19. Hedne, Pal, and Meland, B., “Detailed Measurements in Large
2. Brill, J. P., and Beggs, H. D., “Two-Phase Flow in Pipes”, Sixth Scale High Pressure Two-Phase Pipe Flow”, International
Edition, 1998. Symposium on Two-Phase Flow Modeling and
Experimentation, Rome, October 9-11, 1995.
3. Patankar, S.V., “Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow”,
Harper & Row, 1980. 20. Joosten, M., Private Communication.
4. Kreith, F., and Black, W.Z., “Basic Heat Transfer”, Harper & 21. Bansal, K.M., and Danielson, T.J., “Benchmarking of PIPESIM
Row, 1980. and OLGA against the SINTEF Large-Diameter, High-Pressure
Database”, Conoco Internal Report 2725-1-99, September 1999.
5. Bradley, H. B., “Petroleum Engineering Handbook”’ Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Chapter 34, First Printing, (1987).
7
Figure 2: Typical flow regime map, taken from Mandhane et al.
OTC 11965 FLOW MANAGEMENT: STEADY-STATE AND TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE PIPELINE SIMULATION 9
Figure 3: Plot of liquid hold-up versus superficial gas velocity at 20 bar, USL = 0.15 m/s, for the SINTEF 8-inch flow loop. Here, the y-axis hold-
up values have been removed to preserve the proprietary data. The axes for Figures 4 and 6 are identical, and so the three figures can be
compared one-to-one.
Figure 4: Plot of liquid hold-up versus superficial gas velocity at 90 bar, USL = 0.15 m/s. Note that the experimentally determined liquid hold-
up is lower at the same USG than was the case at 20 bar, although the steady-state correlations are almost identical to those predicted at 20
bar.
10 THOMAS J. DANIELSON, LLOYD D. BROWN, AND KRIS M. BANSAL OTC 11965
o
Figure 5: Histogram of pipeline angle for two typical North Sea Trunklines. Average pipeline angle is roughly 0.1 , and flow is tyipcally three-
phase, stratified – the area of greatest weakness in the models currently available.
o
Figure 6: Liquid hold-up as a function of superficial gas velocity for USL = 0.15 m/s, 90 bar, 1 inclination. Note that even a small change in
angle can increase liquid hold-up significantly. While OLGA-2000 does a reasonable job of capturing this change, the steady-state
correlations underpredict the influence of pipe angle on hold-up.
OTC 11965 FLOW MANAGEMENT: STEADY-STATE AND TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE PIPELINE SIMULATION 11
Figure 7: Pipeline liquid inventory as a function of flowrate for a typical wet gas pipeline. Note that the increase in liquid hold-up for
decreasing wet gas rate mirrors the SINTEF data plotting liquid hold-up vs superficial gas velocity. Here, when the wet gas rate is increased
from 50 to 80 mmscfd, 2960 bbl of liquid must be pushed from the line to achieve the new steady-state liquid inventory.
Figure 8: Predicted vs. measured pressure drop for OLGA-2000 against the Beggs & Brill declined flow database. OLGA under-predicts
o o
pressure recovery for large negative inclinations (-60 to –90 ). Correct prediction of pressure recovery will be critical in proper design of
platforms with large downcomers.