OTC 24326

Slug Catcher Two-Phase Flow Modeling and Numerical Simulations

C. Verga, M. Pinelli, Engineering Department, University of Ferrara; A. Monesi, Bellelli Engineering

Copyright 2013, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Brasil held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 29–31 October 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract mus t contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
In Oil & Gas applications, the use of pipelines that carry both liquid and gas phases of fuels extracted from on-shore and off-
shore subsea wells is constantly growing. In these conditions, flow regimes such as slug flow and plug flow can appear. If
these flow regimes are established, damage at the downstream devices, such as the treatment systems located at the end of the
pipeline, can occur. It is therefore necessary to separate the phases before they are treated. The purpose of a slug catcher is to
separate the phases at the exit of the pipeline and to send them separately to the respective treatment systems.
In this paper, a series of fluid dynamic simulations using a CFD methodology to predict the separation performances of a
typical finger-type slug catcher geometry are carried out. A typical geometry which resembles real installations is considered.
Different computational models were tested to find the solution that would give more accurate results with the minimum
computational effort. For this purpose, comparisons between static models (computationally less expensive) and transient
models (more accurate) were carried out. The influence of different models of turbulence and the influence of the
computational grid on the final results were also evaluated. Guidelines for the correct implementations of these kinds of
simulations are reported and the impacts of modeling assumptions on the expected results are discussed.
The main technical contributions of the paper are:
 evaluating the operation of a slug catcher in different flow conditions;
 testing the validation of the slug catchers by means of numerical simulations;
 verifying the design choices in order to optimize the geometry of the slug catcher in relation to the conditions of use.

Introduction
Multi-phase pipelines are very common in oil & gas applications. This kind of pipeline can carry both a liquid and a gaseous
phase. The simultaneous presence of the two phases leads to the formation of biphasic flow as stratified flow, bubble flow or
slug flow.
These phenomena have been studied by many researchers both for the complexity of the problem and the consequences
that the formation of these phenomena can cause on the device installed downstream of the pipeline.
In particular the slug flow is a potentially very dangerous phenomenon that can seriously damage the device downstream
of the pipeline. This kind of problem occurs both in nuclear industry and in oil and gas ones.
In the 90s Paglianti et al [1] analyzed several flow variables to clarify the intrinsic features of the flow regimes. With
diffusional analysis, employed to analyze time series from a capacitance probe, three different flow behaviors in the slug flow
region are identified. The plug flow occurs at low Froude numbers, at intermediate Froude numbers the elongated bubble flow
occurs while ate the higher Froude numbers the slug flow occurs. Frank [2] has investigated the formation and the propagation
of slug flow in a horizontal circular pipe with a series of a numerical simulation by using the commercial CFD code ANSYS
CFX. With these simulations the inlet and boundary conditions that lead to the formation of the flow regime were investigated.
Vallée et al [3] have studied two horizontal channels with rectangular cross-sections and the hot-leg of the German Konvoi-
reactor. The three geometries were investigated by using both experimental data and computational fluid dynamics simulation.
From these studies, the authors obtained a model to predict the formation of the slug flow in the nuclear reactors cooling lines.
Bartosiewicz et al [4] have simulated the slug flow behavior by using several CFD codes in order to match the experimental
data. Azzopardi and Smith [5] have investigated the two phase phenomena that occurs in a T junction studying the effect of the
downstream geometry and the condition of the incoming gas and liquid flow.
Another typical flow condition that can be found in the multi-phase pipelines is the droplets carried by the gaseous flow.
This problem is also common in several research areas. In particular the CFD analyses with particle tracking were used for the
2 OTC 24326

Figure 1: Flow pattern map for a rectangular channel [1]

study of wet compression. Khan and Wang [6] have carried out several CFD simulations for studying the performance of a
single rotor-stator stage of a compressor with and without fogging. This model can also predict the erosion that occurs on the
compressor blade. The wet compression was also studied by Sun et al [7]. Their model can also predict the interaction of the
droplets with the wall in addition to the compressor performance.

Multi-Phase Flow Pipeline

Multi-phase flow pipelines are pipelines inside which gas and liquid flow together. Multi-phase pipelines are common in the
oil & gas industry and they are used to transport the fuels just extracted from the on-shore and off-shore wells until the
treatment facilities.
In a multi-phase flow pipeline several flow regimes may occur depending on the velocity of the phases and the orientation
of the pipe. For the horizontal pipe these flow regimes can be classified as (Figure 1):
 stratified flow: this flow regime occurs with low gas and liquid flow velocities. The gravity, which operates in the normal
direction compared to the flow direction, leads to the complete separation of the phases;
 stratified-wavy flow: the gas and liquid phases are still completely separated but the increased gas velocity produces the
waving of the liquid surface;
 plug flow: the plug flow occurs when the waves rippling the liquid surface, as a result of the increased velocity of the gas
and liquid phase, reach amplitudes which occupy all the section of the pipe. This flow regime has gas bubbles, collected in
the upper part of the pipeline, separated by liquid gas;
 slug flow: is the limit case of the plug flow. This phenomenon develops for higher velocity of the gas phase. The slug flow
presents gas bubbles of a large dimension (in relation to the pipeline) altering with liquid waves. Moreover, because of the
pressure difference at the two extremes of the liquid slug, small gas bubbles can enter the slug itself;
 bubble flow: this flow regime occurs for even higher velocity, especially for the liquid phase. Numerous gas bubbles flow
inside the continuous liquid phase;
 annular-dispersed flow: this happens at high gas velocity. The liquid phase flows through the pipe wall and the gas phase
flows at the pipeline center. Due to gravity the film will be thicker in the lower part of the pipe. Within the gas flow there
will be dispersed liquid droplets.
The slug flow is particularly interesting because it is the most common phenomenon in the multi-phase pipeline. The slug
flow is also the most dangerous phenomenon for the treatment facilities downstream of the pipeline due to the high pressure
variations. The slug flow happens when the velocities of the phases are high enough to raise the waves, which are created on
the surface of the liquid, until the entire pipe cross section is filled. The gas behind the slug increases pressure because of the
hindrance to flow. The pressure difference that has been created between two gas pockets increases the speed of the slug. The
OTC 24326 3

slug flowing into the pipeline increases its dimensions. The high pressure behind the liquid slug leads gas bubbles to enter the
slug.
The formation of the slug can also be caused by the configuration of the pipeline. The liquid phase, which is denser,
accumulates in the low points of the pipeline until, once the tube is clogged, the liquid is pushed forward by the gas that has
been blocked behind the slug.
Based on the flow condition and on the pipeline geometry, there are four mechanisms of slug generation:
 terrain slugging: this is caused by the variation of height and pipe inclination. The liquid accumulates in the lower point
until it blocks the pipeline. The gas blocked behind the liquid increases in pressure. The high pressure of the gas pushes
the liquid forward creating the slug;
 hydrodynamic slug: this is caused by the gas that flows over the slower liquid. The waves, which are formed on the
surface of the liquid, increase in amplitude they until obstruct the tube. Once the tube is obstructed, the waves are pushed
forward by the gas forming the slug;
 riser-based slugging: this is also called severe slugging. This occurs in the vicinity of the risers typically found in off-
shore applications. As in terrain slugging, the liquid accumulates at the base of the risers (lower point) until, as a result of
the obstruction that is created, a sufficient pressure will push the slug along the risers. The liquid slug will be followed by
a gas slug that will last as long as enough liquid accumulates at the base of the risers to allow the formation of a new
liquid slug;
 pigging slug: this is generated by the pigging operation of the pipeline. Liquid and solid particles accumulate along the
pipeline and they must be removed during the cleaning process of the line. For this kind of operation a special tool called
pig is used. The pigs are pushed forward by the gas flow and they are able to remove liquid and solid accumulation. Due
to these operations, a liquid slug will form in front of the pig.

Slug Catcher

Slug Catcher Types. The slug catcher is a device that is installed at the end of a multi-phase pipeline in order to separate the
phases and to provide temporary storage for the liquid. The slug catchers can be classified in three categories [8]:
 vessel type slug catcher: this can have a geometry similar to a knock-out vessel, or in some cases, a more sophisticated
layout. The configuration of the vessel type slug catcher is suitable in the case of limited plot size (e.g. off-shore platform)
as at constant volume the total length is less. The main disadvantage of this kind of slug catcher is a lower volume of
accumulation, generally less than of 100 m3;
 parking-loop slug catcher: in this kind of slug catcher there is a separation between the separating and the storage parts.
The parking-loop consists of a separator with the liquid outlet connected to a long single pipe loop. In normal operating
conditions the incoming gas and liquid are separated in the vessel. When a slug arrives the two parts of the slug catcher
come into contact so that the wave of liquid can be stored in the finger and can be treated with longer residence time. This
type of slug catcher is also suitable for off-shore applications, in this case the vessel can be placed on the platform and the
parking-loop on the sea-bed. The main disadvantage of this slug catcher is the high reliance on strict operational
procedures. This kind of configuration is suitable only for the pigged slug since the non-pigged slugs are not easy to
predict and it may not be possible to activate the required operational procedure in time;
 multiple-pipe slug catcher: this is also called finger type slug catcher. A sketch of this kind of geometry together with its
main components is represented in Figure 2. This slug catcher is made by a series of tubes (genetically inclined)
connected to a manifold called splitters. The splitter is connected to the incoming pipeline. This configuration has a cost
advantage, especially for the high-pressure design of the pipeline, and a greater layout flexibility. The finger type slug
catcher is also easy to operate since no flow controls are required but this kind of slug catcher has high dimensions due to
the length of the finger.

Separation Mechanism. A slug catcher can operate under two different flow conditions, the gas dominated feed and the
liquid dominated feed. Slug catchers normally operate with a gas dominated feed. In this condition the gas flow carries
droplets of liquid of different size. Under these conditions the slug catcher separates the liquid droplets from the gas flow and
collects them in the fingers. The second operating condition is the dominated liquid feed. This condition happens when the line
is pigged or a slug flow arrives. In this case the slug catcher will stratify the liquid inside the fingers. In this way the slug does
not propagate beyond and does not block the gas flow towards the slug catcher gas outlet.
The separation in a slug catcher can occur in several ways [8]:
 stratification: stratification consists in separating the gas and liquid phases by gravity, i.e. by decanting the heavier liquid.
This process occurs especially with reduced velocity. The reduced velocity is obtained by increasing the passage area, i.e.
the number of tubes. In this way the propagation of the liquid slug is inhibited. To facilitate the overwritten processes, the
fingers are inclined downwards (downcomer);
 droplet settling: a droplet settling occurs in the primary bottle. Here, the reduced velocity and the long residence time
facilitate the separation of the droplet by gravity;
 turbulent settling: the settling of the droplet by gravity is efficient for droplets of a large dimension, instead the light
weight of the smallest droplets makes it difficult. The effect of the turbulence, generated by the sudden change of
4 OTC 24326

direction (in the splitter and the inlet header), can have a positive influence on the separation of smaller droplets. The
turbulent fluctuations tend to cause the small droplets to collide against the slug catcher’s walls or against other droplets;
 tee-junction separation at entry to a riser: a further separation happens at the risers inlet near to the tee-junction. Here the
gas flow suddenly changes direction, as “aspirated” from the risers, while the liquid (both the droplets and the liquid slug)
continues to proceed along the primary bottle.

Numerical Model
In this work, a series of fluid dynamic simulations using a CFD methodology to predict the separation performances of a
typical finger-type slug catcher geometry is carried out. The geometry chosen is a multiple-pipe slug catcher, since it is the
geometry which can be more commonly found in practice. The computational model, which resembles a real installation, used
for the simulations is depicted in Figure 3. In the simulation carried out a simplified slug catcher finger type geometry was
used. The geometry used was a typical geometry in order to give a general methodology for checking the performance of a
slug catcher.

Figure 2: Multiple pipe slug catcher [8]

Figure 3: Slug catcher finger type geometry

OTC 24326 5

A slug catcher can operate both with a gas dominated feed and with a liquid dominated feed. For the simulation of these
two cases two distinct models were developed. Both the models were developed with the commercial CFD code ANSYS CFX
13.0 [9]. In both cases the code solves the 3D Reynolds-averaged from the Navier-Stokes equations by using a finite-element
based finite-volume method.
The simulated liquid dominated feed case reproduces the arrival of a pigging slug. For this case two distinct phases (liquid
and gas) were simulated. The code solves one set of Navier-Stokes equations for each phase and for each phase a transport
equation is solved. This approach is called Eulerian-Eulerian multi-phase model. The transport equation for phase α will be as
follows:

( ) ( )

No mass phase transfer between the phases is allowed for this kind of problem.
The code computes also the interactions between the phases. The model developed considers the surface tension of the
liquid and the momentum transfer between the phases. The interphase momentum transfer, M αβ, occurs due to interfacial
forces acting on phase α due to the interaction with the phase β. The forces between two phases are equal and opposite (Mαβ =
-Mβα). The total interfacial force acting between two phases may arise from several independent physical effects:

In the case of gas dominated feed, the use of the slug catcher as a two-phase separator is simulated. In this condition the
gas transports liquid droplets. For the simulation of this case the particle tracking model was used. The particle tracking model
studies the particle motion by using the motion field solution of the gas calculated at the previous iteration. As ( ) the
particle displacement is given as

In forward integration, the particle velocity calculated at the start of the time step is assumed to prevail over the entire step.
At the end of the time step the new particle velocity is calculated using the analytical solution to the particle momentum
equation:

The analytical solution of the particle momentum equation above can be written as

( ) ( )
( ) ( )

Particles can be either fully coupled to the continuous fluid or can be one- way coupled. With the fully coupled model it is
possible to predict the effect of the particle on the continuous phase flow. In fact, with this approach, particles exchange
momentum with the continuous phase, allowing the continuous flow to affect the particles and the particles to affect the
continuous flow. The fully coupled approach has a higher computational cost compared to one-way coupling. The one-way
coupling simply predicts the behavior of the particles on the base of the continuous flow field but the particle does not
influence the continuous flow. If the influence of the particles on the fluid field is significant, the one way coupling model is
inappropriate.
The standard two equation k-ε turbulence model was used for the liquid dominated feed simulations. The k-ε model has a
good stability and accuracy for these kinds of problems. In two-phase simulations (or, in general multi-phase) the equations of
the k-ε model are similar to those of a single-phase problem except for an additional term that represents the interphase transfer
( ) ( )
for k (named ) and ε (named ). The transport equations for k and ε, for phase 1 (but the same applies for phase 2), will
be as follows:

( )
( ) { [ ⃗ ( ) ]} ( )

( )
( ) [ ( ) ] ( )
6 OTC 24326

The turbulent viscosity is defined as:

( )

An accurate prediction of the near-wall flow is one of the most important targets of the CFD analyses. In fact, the
behaviour of the phase interfaces near the wall and the correct determination of pressure drops along the device are strictly
influenced by near-wall flow modelling. The code used for the calculations supports a modified wall function model. In this
paper, a scalable wall function approach was used for all simulations. Scalable wall functions are based on the analytical-wall-
function approach, well documented in Apsley (2007), in which a modified turbulent velocity scale ũτ dependent on the
turbulent kinetic energy at the near-wall node kP is used

⁄ ⁄
̃

and as a consequence a modified y+ based on ũτ can be obtained:

̃ ̃

and

(̃ )

The basic idea behind the scalable wall function approach used in ANSYS CFX (Grotjans and Menter, 1998) is then to
prevent the computed ỹ+ value used in the logarithmic formulation from falling below 11.06, which is the value assumed for
the intersection between the logarithmic and the linear near wall profile.
For the gas dominated feed simulations the baseline Reynolds Stress turbulence model was also used. This model has
higher accuracy compared to the k-ε model for this kind of problem though the Reynolds Stress model has higher
computational cost. The Reynolds Stress model in fact solves an equation for each component of the Reynolds Stress tensor.
The increase of the computational cost is nevertheless justified by the increase in accuracy of the results.
In both the studied cases the fluids are deemed at the same temperature, so no heat transfer is considered. A second-order
high-resolution advection scheme was adopted to calculate the advection terms in the discrete finite-volume equations. A
buoyancy model is solved to consider the density difference of the fluids. This model takes into account the forces that develop
between the phases due to the buoyancy and the hydrostatic pressure within the single continuous phase.
A structured mesh, generated by means of ANSYS ICEM CFD 13.0 [10], was used for all the cases (Figures 4 and 5). This
type of mesh has the advantage of being more accurate compared to a tetrahedral mesh. The topology and number of elements
of the mesh were selected after a short sensitivity analysis in a simplified condition. In Figure 6, it can be seen that the
difference of the total pressure between the inlet and the outlet of the slug catcher (which has been used as the monitoring
parameter) varies negligibly after 500000 elements.

Figure 4: Gas outlet, grid detail

OTC 24326 7

Figure 5: Slug catcher grid

Each grid is characterized by a different number and thickness of wall layers in order to investigate the behavior of the grid
compared to the boundary layer. Multiblock hexahedral grids were generated as O-type grids. Grid quality parameters have
been checked during the grid generation. The Aspect Ratio, the Skewness and the overall Quality present almost the same high
level of quality. Regarding these parameters, for instance, most of the elements (> 80 %) are situated within the highest
representative values of quality for each parameter (the final 20 %).

Computational Strategy
A mass flow rate for each phase was imposed at the inlet for each case. Static pressure is imposed at the outlet. The system
temperature is imposed at the domain definition and the system is deemed to be isothermal. To solve a transient problem the
initial condition of the system at the initial time is required. A steady state simulation is carried out to provide the initial
condition, i.e. the system configuration at the instant 0 s. The time step of the simulation has been set to have the minimum
computational effort with good accuracy of results. In fact, the smaller the time step, the longer the computation time. In all the
studied cases the initial time-step is 0.1s. This time step as well as ensuring good accuracy of results also ensures low Courant
number.
The courant number is defined as:

The Courant number is an important parameter for the study of a transient problem with the propagation of waves or
similar phenomena, such as the sloshing problem. In a spatial discretized field the transient time step must be less than the time
that the wave takes to travel the distance between two adjacent grid points. In this way no information regarding wave
propagation will be lost. When explicit time-marching schemes are used for the numerical solution not respecting this
condition, it will produce incorrect results. For the implicit time-marching scheme, as ANSYS CFX, the respecting of this
condition is not strictly necessary, but too high a Courant number will produce inaccurate results. For this reason when the
Courant number becomes too high a smaller time step is selected. For all the cases 10 interactions for each time step are
selected. With this number of interactions the residuals for each interaction are sufficiently small.
8 OTC 24326

6000

5000

4000

Δp [Pa]
3000

2000

1000

0
0.0E+00 1.0E+06 2.0E+06 3.0E+06 4.0E+06 5.0E+06
Number of elements
Figure 6: Mesh Sensitivity

Results and Discussion

Liquid Dominated Feed.The liquid dominated feed configuration simulates the behavior of the slug catcher when a liquid
slug arrives. In the first 5 s of the simulation the flow is only gaseous, in this way the convergence of the solution is improved.
After 5 s a liquid slug enters the slug catcher. The duration of the wave is 4 s. The slug flow is simulated as a liquid wave that
occupies the whole section of the inlet tube. This condition is very similar to what happens in reality. The liquid slug, entering
the slug catcher, hits the splitter. The splitter is used to separate the flow uniformly. The enlargement of the passage section,
which is obtained in this manner, is used to stratify the liquid. In this way the liquid remains in the lower part of the slug
catcher and the liquid slug does not flow beyond. In Figure 7 it is possible to note that the slug catcher stratifies the liquid, so
the slug flow disappears, just after the first splitter. The other function of this zone is to divide the flow uniformly between the
fingers. Even if the geometry is simplified, the subdivision of the flow is quite uniform. To improve the uniformity of the flow,
especially in the lateral fingers, the constrictor at the beginning of the finger can be improved. Inside the fingers, the flow is
stratified and the liquid surface is not rippled and near the risers, the liquid level is low. This low liquid level near the risers
and the absence of fluid dynamic phenomena ensure that no liquid flows into the risers (Figure 8). In this way the liquid cannot
reach the outlet of the slug catcher so at the outlet there is only gas. The liquid flows down the finger where it accumulates and
then it can be discharged. In this simulation the liquid volume entering the slug catcher is small compared to the capacity of
accumulation of the device but it is possible to use this model to verify the performance of the slug catcher under different
conditions of use.

Gas Dominated Feed. The gas dominated feed model was developed to analyze the separation performance of the slug
catcher. In the case of gas dominated feed the gas carries droplets of liquid. Before every transient simulation a steady state
simulation was carried out to provide the initial conditions. In the steady state simulations only the gas flows without any
liquid droplets were simulated. Several models were developed and compared each other.

a b

Figure 7: Slug wave at the slug catcher splitter after 8 s (a) and 10 s (b)
OTC 24326 9

Figure 8: Liquid volume fraction and gas streamline at the gas risers after 30 s

Figure 9: Gas dominated feed simulation with fully coupled model

In ANSYS CFX one-way coupling and fully coupled particle tracking approaches are available. With the fully coupled
model the continuous phase affects the droplets and the droplets affect the continuous phase instead with the one-way coupling
model only the continuous phase affects the droplets but not vice versa. With the fully coupled model the droplets tend to
settle more quickly on the bottom of the slug catcher and they flow into the lower part of the finger. In Figure 9 the result of a
simulation with the fully coupled model can be seen; the droplets settle completely before the risers. In this way, the droplets
cannot flow through the risers so at the outlet there will be no liquid.
With the one-way coupling model, the droplets, especially the smallest, tend to flow higher in the fingers, than with the
fully coupled model, following the gas flow. Near the risers the smallest droplets are dragged up the riser by the gas flow. In
10 OTC 24326

this case a certain amount of liquid will flow through the slug catcher outlet. So with the one-way coupling model, the
separation efficiency is less than with the fully coupled model, see Table 1.
For the one-way coupling model the quantity of liquid that reaches the gas outlet depends on the droplet-wall interaction
model. The interaction between the droplets and the walls can be modeled by means setting the restitution coefficient. In this
case the droplets are treated as if they bounce on the wall with an elastic or an inelastic collision. By modifying the
perpendicular and parallel restitution coefficient the type of collision between the droplet and the wall can be set. If the
restitution coefficients are set equal to 1, the collision will be elastic (elastic body). If the restitution coefficients are set less
than 1, the collision will be inelastic (inelastic body). If both the restitution coefficients are set equal to 0 the droplets that
impact the wall will escape the computational domain. In Figure 10 it is possible to note that by reducing the perpendicular
and the parallel coefficient the behavior of the droplets does not change much. The separation efficiency of the inelastic
collision model increases slightly compared to the elastic model for effect of the slowdown of the droplets. This effect
increases a little by increasing the number of droplets tracked as stated in Table 1.

a b

Figure 10: Gas dominated feed simulation with one-way coupling model, (a) inelastic body, (b) elastic body

Table 1: Separation efficiency

One-way coupling
One-way coupling One-way coupling
Fully coupled Inelastic Body
Elastic Body Inelastic Body
with more particles tracked

100% 65% 66% 74%

a b

Figure 11: Gas streamline with the particles simulated as an elastic body (a) and an inelastic body (b)

With the fully coupled model, simulating the particles as an elastic body or an inelastic body did not affect the separation
efficiency but the particles simulated as an inelastic body settle more quickly, compared with the particles simulated as an
elastic body. In the last case, in fact, the particles do not lose their velocity so once they collide with the wall they return in the
gas flow (Figure 11 a and b).
OTC 24326 11

Conclusion
In this paper two different numerical models were developed for the study of the behavior of a slug catcher. The first model
simulates the behavior of the slug catcher in the case of a liquid dominated case i.e. the arrival of a slug wave. The second
model simulates the behavior of the slug catcher in the case of gas dominated feed i.e. when the slug catcher operates as a
normal gas-liquid separator. Both the models were developed using the CFD commercial code ANSYS CFX. In the liquid
dominated feed case a multi-phase model was developed. This model is able to simulate the behavior of the two phases and the
behavior of the gas-liquid interface. The model developed is able to predict the performance of the slug catcher when a liquid
slug arrives. In the gas dominated feed a particle tracking model was used. This model is able to track the particle of liquid
carried by the gas flow. Under this operating condition different models were developed and their results were compared. A
Reynolds stress turbulence model was used as it is more accurate compared to the k-ε model. The one-way coupling model
and the fully coupled model have also been compared. With the fully coupled model the particles tend to settle more quickly
compared to the one-way coupling model as the interaction between the particles and the gas flow lead the droplets to settle
quickly on the finger bottom. Instead with the one-way coupling model the particles do not settle as quickly as in the previous
case, so a part of them can follow the gas flow through the gas riser until the gas outlet. So with the fully coupled model the
slug catcher separation efficiency is 100% while with the one-way coupling the separation efficiency is lower.
With both models it is possible to analyze the separation performance of a slug catcher, the pressure loss and the behavior
of the device under the aforementioned operating conditions.

Nomenclature
Cε1 k-ε turbulence model constant;
Cε2 k-ε turbulence model constant;
Cε3 k-ε turbulence model constant;
Cμ constant;
Fall sum of all forces acting on the particle;
k turbulence kinetic energy;
mp particle mass;
Pb effect of buoyancy;
Pk shear production turbulence;
rx volume fraction for the phase x;
Sk k source term;
Sx mass source for phase x;
Sε ε source term;
U velocity magnitude;
⃗ vector velocity;
̅ velocity mean part;
U’ velocity fluctuating part;
uτ friction velocity;
u+ near wall velocity;
u velocity component in x direction;
vf final particle velocity;
particle velocity at the old time step;
particle velocity at the start of timestep;
vp particle velocity;
v velocity component in y direction;
w velocity component in z direction;
xi displacement in the I direction;
particle displacement at the old time step;
particle displacement at the new time step;
y+ y plus;
YM k diffusion term;

ε turbulence dissipation rate;

κ Von Karman constant;
ρ density;
µ dynamic viscosity;
µτ turbulent viscosity;
σk k-ε turbulence model constant;
σε k-ε turbulence model constant;
12 OTC 24326

̿ Reynolds stress tensor.

Reference
[1] Paglianti A., Giona M., Soldati A., 1996, “Characterization of subregimes in two-phase slug flow”, Elsevier Science Ltd.
[2] Frank T., 2005, “Numerical simulation of slug flow regime for an air-water two-phase flow in horizontal pipes”, 11th International
Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics.
[3] Vallée C., Höhne T., Prasser M., Sühnel T., 2007, “Experimental investigation and CFD simulation of slug flow in horizontal channels”,
Forschungszentrum Dresden-Rossendorf e.V.
[4] Bartosiewicz Y., Seynhaeve J. M., Vallée C., Höhne T., Laviéville J. M., 2010, “Modeling free surface flows relevant to a PTS scenario:
Comparison between experimental data and three RANS based CFD-codes. Comments on the CFD-experiment integration and best
practice guideline”, Elsevier.
[5] Azzopardi B. J., Smith P.A., 1992, “Two-phase flow split at T junctions: effect of side arm orientation and downstream geometry”,
Pregamon.
[6] Khan J. R., Wang T., 2011, “Three-dimensional modeling for wet compression in a single stage compressor including liquid particle
erosion analysis”, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power ASME.
[7] Sun L., Zheng Q., Luo M., Li Y., Bhargava R., 2010, “Understanding behavior of water droplets in a transonic compressor rotor with wet
compression”, ASME Turbo Expo.
[8] Shell, Design and engineering practice, 2009, “Design of multiple-pipe slug catchers”.
[9] ANSYS CFX 13.0, 2010, User Manual.
[10] ANSYS ICEM CFD 13.0, 2010, User Manual.