You are on page 1of 7

Using Aspen HYSYS® Upstream for Sizing and Scheduling of Gathering

Webinar Q&A
This document summarizes the responses to questions posed before and during the webinar. Additional
questions should be directed to AspenTech Support. The webinar recording can be found here.

General Questions about Upstream Modeling in Aspen HYSYS

For liquid holdup, should I use Aspen HYSYS or Aspen HYSYS Upstream? Does it show the liquid
holdup fraction profile or does it show the holdup volume profile? What are the units on the y-axis of
the liquid holdup plot?


Both the Aspen HYSYS pipe segment and the Aspen Hydraulics subflowsheet (in Aspen HYSYS Upstream)
are suitable solutions for liquid holdup. They show the liquid holdup fraction profile and the y-axis
shows the liquid fraction (0-1).


Is there any way to correlate liquid fraction holdup to an actual holdup accumulate in the line?


There is no automatic utility in Aspen HYSYS to compare the correlation prediction of liquid holdup to an
actual value.


Do we need to have the composition of reservoir fluid while defining the start stream?


There are a number of ways to define the start streams depending on the data you have available and
what you are intending to model. Apart from the basic workflow of directly specifying the compositions,
additional characterization options such as the Oil Manager, Aspen Assay Manager and oil and gas feed
options are available in Aspen HYSYS. There are a number of 3rd party links available for additional
options, such as for PVT analysis.


Is there any capability to define the reservoir (like the black oil model)?
A: In Aspen HYSYS, there is the oil and gas feed option, on the material stream itself, where you can
specify parameters such as GOR and WOR to simulate a black oil analysis. There are also a number of 3rd
party links available for defining reservoir fluids, including links to PVTPro, PVTSim, and Prosper.


For deposit formation, can Aspen HYSYS Upstream predict the sand deposit and corrosion caused by
the sand when the liquid is traveling at low velocity?


Currently, we cannot model the effects of sand deposition and its behavior within Aspen HYSYS.

Some work has been completed on the analysis of flow behavior of high viscosity fluids. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: When you say Aspen HYSYS Dynamics. do you mean a regular pipe segment in dynamic mode? A: Yes. . It solves the nonlinear system of equations using the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. you’re using Aspen HYSYS Dynamics. so they can be determined. Aspen Hydraulics does not use an equation-oriented approach. and de Waard Model (1995). Aspen HYSYS Upstream also includes links to 3rd party software. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: How do you calculate the corrosion rate? Is it accurate? A: There are three methods available to calculate the corrosion rate: NORSOK M-506 standard. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: What are the considered correlations for pressure drops? Is Aspen Hydraulics using a numerical equation-oriented approach? A: The available pressure drop correlations are in the F1 help documentation. running the Aspen Hydraulics subflowsheet would require an Aspen HYSYS Upstream license on top of the base Aspen HYSYS license. specifically transient surge analysis? A: Aspen HYSYS Upstream can be used for liquid filled pipelines. please read the F1 help documentation. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Does Aspen HYSYS give line pack calculations for pipelines? A: While there are no specific line pack calculations that are given. but there aren’t any specific modules for transient surge analysis. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Aspen Hydraulics Q: Are additional licenses needed in order to run Aspen HYSYS Hydraulics? A: Yes. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Can Aspen HYSYS Upstream or Aspen HYSYS Dynamics be used for liquid filled pipelines. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Is it possible to simulate pigging operations? A: Aspen Hydraulics has an option to simulate pigging that allows you to create and launch pigs in the Aspen Hydraulics subflowsheet.Q: Have the results from Aspen HYSYS for heavy oil applications been validated with real data? A: Aspen HYSYS Upstream offers a number of pressure drop correlations. when you run the pipe segment in Aspen HYSYS in dynamics mode. de Waard Model (1991). the parameters required for line pack calculations are provided by Aspen HYSYS. To learn more about the calculation methods. including the Tulsa Unified Fluid Flow (TUFF) correlation.

While there is no direct parameter for showing maximum pressure in a pressure surge situation. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Can Aspen Hydraulics be used for LPG pipeline sizing and to calculate the surge pressure? A: Preliminary pipeline sizing can be done within Aspen Hydraulics. . you should be able to model gravity lines. Aspen HYSYS may be sufficient for modeling simulating gas networks. gives additional options to model pipeline networks. which helps take a holistic look at the process and makes better design and operational decisions. For example. single line flow modeler. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Can we model gravity lines using Aspen Hydraulics? A: Aspen Hydraulics does take into account pressure drops due to elevation changes. the behavior can be simulated in dynamics mode with Aspen Hydraulics. Aspen Hydraulics will provide accurate results and you most likely won’t need additional software such as OLGA and LedaFlow. available in Aspen HYSYS Upstream. well-known commercial software? A: The main advantage of using Aspen HYSYS vs.Q: What is the difference between Aspen HYSYS Upstream and the old PIPESYS? Is Aspen Hydraulics (in Aspen HYSYS Upstream) a replacement of PIPESYS? A: PIPESYS is a steady-state. Aspen Hydraulics. other well-known flow assurance software is the easy integration of the processing facility with the gathering networks. as well as the ability to switch to a transient model. the erosion velocity currently takes into account the API14E standards for the equation and for determining the empirical constant. with a low condensate percentage. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Has erosional velocity API14E been implemented in Aspen HYSYS Upstream (Aspen Hydraulics)? A: Yes. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Is there an option to use OLGA flow correlations in Aspen Hydraulics? A: OLGA flow correlations are not available within the Aspen Hydraulics subflowsheet. In some instances. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Are there any advantages for using Aspen Hydraulic vs. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Third-Party Tools Q: Do you have the OLGA-S correlation? A: The OLGA-S correlation is available in the pipe segment unit operation and will require a separate license provided by Schlumberger in order to use it within Aspen HYSYS. so yes.

You should be cautious when using default characterization options for modeling high-viscosity fluids because the accuracy might be poor for the situation. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Can heat tracing data and solar radiation be given as an input? Can we input how ambient temperature varies throughout the day? A: The heat transfer options are limited to the external medium. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Questions Regarding Process Ecology’s Experience with Aspen HYSYS Viscosity Model Q: Can you elaborate on the emulsion viscosity model? Are the model results cross-checked with actual lab data and if so. If the system being modeled involves heavy oil. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: I have had problems modeling production fluid viscosity.Heat Transfer Q: In general. the main difference between the Aspen HYSYS pipe segment and an Aspen Hydraulics subflowsheet is the support of the topology and boundary conditions. compressible gas flows. should the temperature of the soil at the required depth or the ambient temperature be specified? Or is the required field declared as the medium temperature? A: In the heat transfer options for the pipe segment and the Aspen Hydraulics subflowsheet within Aspen HYSYS. In this case. Have you ever worked with HC using a high water content or emulsified flow? Which correlation could you recommend for high-viscosity fluid? A: We have used internal procedures for tuning the viscosity model of Aspen HYSYS to match plant data. how accurate are they? A: This particular project involved a gas/condensate system and the Aspen HYSYS default viscosity model which gave us adequate results for the pressure drop. The exception is that the Aspen HYSYS pipe segment should not be used for high-speed. including the default liquid combination viscosity method using the non-polar mixing rule from Perry’s Handbook. please read the F1 help documentation. Aspen HYSYS allows the user to choose from several methods. the compressible pipe on the main Aspen HYSYS flowsheet or Aspen Hydraulics flowsheet should be used. the Aspen HYSYS pipe segment is acceptable. which part of Aspen HYSYS do you think is better? A: For steady-state simulations. which should not be applicable to this system. there is an option to select “Ground” as the external medium. To learn more about the calculation methods. For a single pipeline system. for simulating the refrigeration systems including solar panels. be cautious about using default characterization options. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: For heat transfers when the pipe is buried. You can manually adjust ambient temperature within the pipe. If the system is a flownetwork. . as well as the volume-weighted liquid combination methods and variations using various correlations from the literature. which allows you to specify the temperature of the soil at the required depth. pipe wall and insulation parameters. then the Aspen Hydraulics subflowsheet must be used.

. which may be useful for your situation. However. we always recommend evaluating the performance of pressure drop predictions to field pressure data. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Did you consider heat transfer for used pipe segments? If yes. We found that the results are similar when the same correlation is used. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: When using Aspen HYSYS in steady-state mode for hydraulics. An increased number of components reduces the Aspen Hydraulics convergence speed significantly. However. inner pipe and outer heat transfer coefficients are rigorously calculated and are more rigorous and computationally intensive. It is possible to configure recycle operations to pass certain variables (e. in Aspen HYSYS Dynamics. Do you have a better way of accomplishing that in Aspen HYSYS? A: Getting multiple adjusts to converge is tricky. Process Ecology made an effort to minimize the number of components used in the system for characterization of gas/condensate. then did you compare Aspen Hydraulics vs.Aspen HYSYS Pipe Segment Q: Is the pipe segment in Aspen HYSYS reliable for rigorous heat transfer modeling? A: In steady-state mode. Aspen HYSYS Dynamics? A: In Aspen HYSYS Dynamics. we use "ADJUST BLOCK" to perform backward calculations starting from a given pressure at CPU (Central Processing Facility) and traveling to the well head. flow. heat transfer is modeled assuming there is a constant U value. but comes at a computational cost.g. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Questions Regarding Process Ecology’s Project Q: Did you use black oil fluid or the compositional system for this particular project? A: The compositional system was used. as well as insulation. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Have you compared the accuracy of the pipe segment and Aspen Hydraulics for a two-phase flow? A: We have compared the pressure drop estimation for the “standard” pipe segment to the Aspen Hydraulics pipe segment. However.g.. You can use the Aspen HYSYS Dynamics pressure-flow solver or Aspen Hydraulics to simulate the gathering network.. composition temperature) in the other direction. In Aspen Hydraulics. The Aspen Hydraulics pipe includes more rigorous heat transfer calculations then in Aspen HYSYS Dynamics (similar to the steady-state pipe segment). By using Aspen HYSYS steady-state mode. the Aspen HYSYS pipe segment accounts for inner and outer heat transfers. pressure) in one direction and other variables (e. if possible. however. using black oil fluid for simulation of a gas gathering system might lead to inaccurate results. the user needs to specify a fixed heat transfer coefficient. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Aspen HYSYS Upstream Q: What would be your choice of a pressure drop correlation for a multiphase flow? A: We often use the Tulsa method as it has proven to be successful for a number of projects. it’s not viable for modeling larger (or looped) gathering networks.

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: You mentioned the use of the Tulsa method for the gathering system. Did you use this feature or only a pipe segment to simulate? A: In this model. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Does Google Earth limit you to onshore assets? How did you transfer the elevation profile from Google Earth to your model? A: We do not have experience using Google Earth for extracting the elevation profile of offshore assets.Q: Is the automation tool discussed for the steady-state analysis based on Aspen Simulation Workbook (ASW)? How did you develop the automation tool? A: In this case. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Does the stream get leaner in the model as the liquid falls out of the pipe? A: As gas condenses in the pipe. terrain and pig-induced slugging were not part of the analysis. In addition. phase slip is considered. if possible. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: You mentioned TPFSU was the flow correlation. gas-liquid pipe hydraulics than another? A: For this study. although it would be possible to create something similar using ASW. What method would you recommend using when dealing with transmission pipelines with a high diameter (over 24-inches)? A: We found that the predicted pressure profile matched reasonably well using the Tulsa method for pipelines in the range of 6” to 16”. which would allow for different vapor/liquid flow rates and therefore a different overall composition and liquid holdup over the length of the pipe. Further analysis of the elevation profile was performed to reduce the number of segments and increase the model speed. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Do you find that the Duckler correlation is more accurate for two-phase. It was more difficult to access some variables in the Aspen Hydraulics subflowsheet. the automation tool was not based on ASW. _______________________________________________________________________________ Q: We used complex pipes to simulate a simple gas production flowline and found that the results are very sensitive for the type of model being used. The elevation profile was initially exported to Excel. Results can be very sensitive to the selected pressure drop model. therefore it is important to carefully consider the selection of this model and match to field data. . requiring backdoor variable access. We would recommend evaluating the performance of the pressure drop predictions to field pressure data. if possible. the Tulsa method was used. we found that the Tulsa method gave the best match to the actual field data. therefore how does that correlate to actual train slugging data? A: In this case. The automation tool was created in C# and Excel using coding functions to export/import data to and from Aspen HYSYS. the model tracks the separate gas and liquid compositions.

If a pump is required.Q: Can you have a multiphasic pump in the gathering network? Can you predict their behavior. . temperature? A: The Aspen Upstream Hydraulic flowsheet allows limited unit operations inside the flowsheet: Pipe/Valve/Swage/Tee.e. We have successfully used Aspen Hydraulics in dynamic mode for other applications. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: How does the model and the "drilling program" take into account the changes in production well pressures and rates over time for new wells coming online and previous wells that are starting to decline? What about mid-point compression stations? A: In this case. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: Was Aspen Hydraulics run in dynamics mode during the gas gathering network modeling project you’re describing? A: No. the bottom-hole separator was not modeled. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Q: What represents the bottom-hole separator that’s modeled in the system? A: In this case. There wasn’t a booster compressor in the network. Aspen Hydraulics was only run in steady-state mode for this project. i.. it would be necessary to transition the stream out of the Aspen HYSYS Upstream/Hydraulic subflowsheet and model it in the main flowsheet. the client provided the data for the drilling schedule and forecast of expected production from the wells in each quarter. The inlet boundary of the system was after the choke valve.