aTC 6414
A New Approach for Finger Storage Slug Catcher Design
c. Sarica, O. Shoham, and J.P. Brill, U. of Tulsa
Copyright 1990, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was presented at the 22nd Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 7-10, 1990.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submiUed by the author(s}. Contents of t~e paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The matenal, as presented, does not necessardy reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Permission to copy isrestricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper IS presented.
ABSTRACT
Two options are available for separating the
gas liquid mixture at the exit of a two phase flow
pipeline operating under slug flow conditions.
These are a traditional vessel type separator and a
finger storage type slug catcher. Use of a vessel
separator is usually due to space limitations that
exist, for example, on offshore platforms. Finger
storage slug catchers are the obvious choice for
long, large diameter pipes, especially those which
undergo pigging. They are more cost effective and
more simple to construct and operate.
In the past, sizing of finger storage slug
catchers were based primarily on experience and
rules of thumb. Not surprisingly, most of the
existing slug catchers have been oversized. With
the recent trend of using a subsea compact finger
storage slug catcher upstream of the platform
riser, the need for more accurate design methods
is even more crucial.
This paper presents a new, innovative
approach for the prediction of the reqUired
dimensions of slug catcher fingers. The approach
is based on the effect of the finger pipe diameter
and inclination angle on the transition boundary
between slug flow and stratified flow. Prediction
of the slug characteristics at the slug catcher
inlet, under normal flow or pigging conditions,
are incorporated. Based on the new approach,
the reqUired length and optimal downward
inclination angle of the fingers can be
determined.
The new approach has been used to design
a finger storage slug catcher for actual field
References and illustrations at end ofpaper.
639
conditions. The effect of operational conditions,
e.g. pipeline diameter and finger inclination angle
on the reqUired slug catcher dimensions is
demonstrated.
INTRODUCTION
Pipelines can be operated under two phase
flow conditions for several reasons. In hostile
environments such as arctic and offshore fields,
oil and gas are often transported in a single
pipeline to reduce the construction cost. In
natural gas transportation, due to pressure and
temperature drop during flow in the pipeline,
condensation causing two phase flow may occur.
Depending upon the operating conditions, normal
or terrain induced slug flow, may develop. Also,
artificial slugs, possibly the largest ones, can be
created dUring the removal of accumulated liqUid
by a pigging (sphering) operation in gas pipelines.
It is a common practice to install a slug catcher to
accommodate liqUid slugs at the exit of a pipeline.
A slug catcher can serve as both a separator and
as temporary storage.
There are several unconventional slug
catcher types, such as a prorock slug catcher 1 , a
self supporting fluid separator2 , and a flexible
subsea slug catcher3 . However, the vessel and
finger storage types of slug catchers are the most
widely used in the petroleum industry.
Use of traditional vessel type separators as
slug catchers are mainly dictated by space
limitation and relatively small slug sizes. A
number of studies have been conducted to design
such catchers4 ,5,6.7.8.9.1O. In references 4, 5, and
6 the acceleration of the sluga during their
production into the catcher and resultant loads
on bends, fittings and slug catcher internals have
been investigated for a specific slug catcher
 A New Approach for Finger Storage Slug Catcher Design OTC 6414
2

design. Giozza7 has modified a model given by include slug length, slug holdup, slug velOCity, and
Schmidt et alB to simulate vessel type separator the translational velocity. The slug velocity is
behavior under slug flow conditions to handle equal to the mixture velocity under steady state
variable slug characteristics. Later, Miyoshi et al 9 flow conditions. The translational velocity is
modified Giozza's model to incorporate severe expressed as,
slugging effects, and proposed a procedure to
predict separator foam layer thickness. Gencell et vt = 1.2 Vm + Vd· • • (l)
al lO have developed a model utilizing linear
control theory to optimize the gains and reset
times of separator controllers and ensure stable where, v d is the drift velocity given by,
system operation.
Vd =(0.35 yg ~ for normal slug flOW) .. (2)
A finger storage type slug catcher is for pigging
preferable to the vessel separator type for two
reasons. First, it is cost effective when large Slug liqUid holdup can be predicted by the
volumes of liqUids must be handled. Secondly, Gregory et a1 correlation 15 .
although more space is required compared to the
vessel separator type, it causes less operational
problems. Very few studies have been conducted
for designing finger type slug catchers. Bos and s-(
E - 1
1 + (--!nL)1.39) (3)
du Chatinier 11 have investigated two phase flow 28.4
behavior (I.e. slug distribution and liqUid carryover
mechanism) in a high-pressure multiple-pipe slug For large diameter pipelines, the Prudhoe Bay
catcher, simulated by a two-liquid (kerosene/zinc correlation 16 can be used to obtain the average
chloride) laboratory facility at atmospheric slug length and the maximum anticipated slug
conditions. They claimed that the observed length.
maldistribution of the liqUid slug among the
fingers can be corrected by properly instalIin.s:r L savg= eX~-2.099 + 4.859 [In d]O.s}",.......(4)
downcomer constrictions in the facility. Oranje1~
presented an application of both platform and
onshore finger type slug catchers. Later, Oranje 13 Lsrnax= exp{ 1.54 + In LsavgL ( 5)
reported that the application of different slopes
for the separation and storage sections presents For pigging applications, a conservative estimate
considerable improvements in the storage of the volume of the liqUid in front of the pig can
capacity of the catcher, while achieving be obtained by integration of the liqUid holdup
significant reduction in installation cost. He along the pipeline, assuming no liqUid shedding
recommended that countercurrent flow in a slug at the back.
catcher, which may result in severe carryover,
should be eliminated by providing gas escape
headers along the fingers to ensure cocurrent
flow conditions. Contrary to Oranje's13
recommendations, in most of the existing finger
VL = A'JOr.. EpdL (6)
type slug catchers, counter current flow occurs.
One of the crucial problems in countercurrent The slug volume and the maximum slug length
flow type slug catchers is liqUid carryover can be expressed as
(flooding). A flooding diagram has been proposed
by Senni et al14. However, there is not enough
information about the diagram development, and V s= Yl.. (7)
how one should use the diagram to size a slug Es
catcher properly.
(L p
L srnax= ~s)O
In this paper, a new approach based on two
phase flow hydrodynamics is presented for the EpdL (8)
design of a finger type slug catcher. The effect of
the finger inclination angle on the slug catcher
dimensions is emphaSized. Estimation of maximum liqUid accumulation
The accumulation rate of liqUid in the
ANALYSIS catcher can be given by a liqUid mass balance
between the inlet and outlet of the catcher, as
Slu~ characteristics follows

A proper design of any slug catcher requires LiqUid Input] _[LiqUid Discharge] = [UqUid Accumulation]
[ Mass Rate Mass Rate Mass Rate
apriori information about the characteristics of
the slugs at the pipeline exit conditions, either
normal or artificially created by pigging. These
640
ocr 6414 Cem Sanca. Ovadia Shoham. James P. Brill
Assuming a constant liquid density in the catcher.
and no acceleration dUring the slug production.
the liquid accumulation rate can be written as,
qaccum = vmEsAp - qdis
The accumulated liquid volume can be stated as.
Vaccum = t sp qaccum
or
Vaccum =L~~ax [vmEsAp - qdiJ ............ ( 11)
If the discharge rate is expected to fluctuate. it is
recommended to use the minimum rate.
Fin~er type slu~ catcher sizin~
The present approach is based on the
criterion for the transition boundary between slug
and stratified flow. presented by Taitel and
Dukler 17. This approach was originally proposed
by Machado 18 • and modified recently. Following is
a detailed description of the new approach.
Transition from slug flow to the desired
stratified flow can be achieved by increasing the
slug catcher diameter and/or introducing a
downward inclination of the catcher. The
minimum slug catcher diameter which will cause
stratification can be determined using the
transition criterion given by Taitel and Dukler 17
(PL-Po) g cos ex Ao
VOtran -_ ( l-d
hL )
dA L
Po dhL
When VG. the actual gas velocity. is less than
VGtran. stratification is expected to occur in the
catcher. Once the minimum slug catcher
diameter is obtained. the next step in the design
is to accommodate the incoming liquid flow. Due
to accumulation of the liquid. stratified flow can
not be maintained in the catcher at the above
mentioned minimum diameter. Therefore. the
catcher diameter should be increased to
accommodate the liquid in the catcher. and to
avoid liquid carryover. For an increased catcher
diameter and the same production conditions.
the operational liquid holdup based on the
average flow rates of the gas and the liquid phases
at the catcher. E oper . can be obtained by solving
the combined momentum equation under
stratified flow conditions. Also. for a given gas
superficial velocity. VSG, the maximum possible
superficial liquid velocity for stratified flow to
exist can be determined, using the transition
criterion given by Eq. (12). The corresponding
liquid holdup is the transition holdup. Etran. The
difference between the transition liquid holdup
and the operational liquid holdup will determine
3
the available volume to handle the liqUid
accumulation in the catcher. Thus. for a particular
catcher diameter. the catcher length can be
obtained by.
(9)
L - Vaccum ( 1 3)
catc - A rE E ] .
catcl tran- oper
( 1 0) The model involves two significant conservative
assumptions. First. dUring the production of the
liquid slug body, liquid continues to be shed into
the trailing liquid film below the gas pocket. The
volume of the liquid accumulation is thus less
than calculated by Eq. (11). Second, it is assumed
that the liquid in the slug catcher prior to the
slug production is E oper. In reality, the liqUid level
in the catcher will fall during the production of
the gas pocket and film. Both of these
assumptions result in predicting slightly larger
slug catcher dimensions than needed and
introduce a safety factor.
Although the model is given only for one
finger. it is capable of handling more than one
finger, prOVided that the liquid distribution
among the fingers is known.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The proposed model is applied for
designing a slug catcher for a typical field case. All
relevant information is given in Table 1. The
results in this section are for the example case.
Fig. 1 shows a flow pattern map for a 20-in.
diameter horizontal slug catcher (same diameter
.... (12) as the pipeline). Shown on the map is the
operation point for the exit conditions of the
pipeline. The flow pattern in both the pipeline.
and the slug catcher is intermittent or slug flow.
Transition from slug flow to the stratified flow
pattern can be achieved by increasing the slug
catcher diameter. The minimum slug catcher
diameter which will cause stratification under the
same flow conditions is 26 in.. as shown by the
flow pattern map in Fig. 2. This is based on the
average flow rates of the gas and the liquid phases
at the slug catcher. However. due to the
intermittent nature of slug flow. the liquid and
gas flow rates into the slug catcher are not
constant. but vary signIficantly when the slug body
or the gas pocket are produced. Thus. one must
use a larger slug catcher diameter to ensure
stratification dUring the production of the liquid
slug body. Once the stratification is ensured. the
available space and the cost will be the dominant
factors in sizing the slug catcher. The flow
pattern map for a 52 in. diameter slug catcher is
shown in Fig. 3. The map shows that the
operation point for the same inlet flow condition
is located in the stratified flow regime. The
difference between the operational and transition
superficial liquid velocities and corresponding
liquid holdups determines the volume of the
641
4 A New Approach for Finger Storage Slug Catcher Design OTC 6414

liquid that the slug catcher can handle. For the the design slugs, either normal or artificially
example case, using Eqs. 11 and 13, and created during a pigging operation, at the
assuming q~i~ = O, a 1458 ft. long 52 in. internal pipeline exit conditions.
diameter horizontal slug catcher length is
calculated. ● The analysis is given only for one finger.
The model is capable of handling multiple fingers
Diameter effects provided that the liquid distribution among
fingers is known.
Fig. 4 presents the relationship between the
slug catcher diameter and both the operational . The larger the catcher diameter, the
and the transition liquid holdups for a horizontal smaller the catcher length that is required.
slug catcher. For increasing slug catcher
diameter, the transition liquid holdup increases ● Small downward inclination angles
while the operational holdup stays almost reduce the slug catcher dimensions significantly.
constant. On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 5 After a certain increase in downward inclination
for -5° downward inclined slug catcher, the angIe, further increase does not yield the same
operational liquid holdup decreases significantly order of reduction tn slug catcher length.
when the catcher diameter increases, although
the transition holdup has the same trend as for ● Once stratification is ensured in the
the horizontal case. catcher, space limitation and cost are the main
factors in sizing slug catchers,
Do Wnwar d inclinationn ande effec~

Fig. 6 shows the behavior of the transition

I REFERENCES
liquid holdup as a function of the slug catcher
diameter for four different inclination angles. As 1. Hubertz, T., et al.: “A Cost Effective
shown, the effect of the inclination angle on the Subsurface Concept for Onshore
transition holdup is insignificant because the Termination of Multiphase Export
aCtual t.ranSit,iOngaS velocity, vctra~, given by Eq. Pipelines, ” Seventh International Conf. on
12 stays almost constant for the range of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
inclination angles of interest. Houston, TX, (Feb. 7-12, 1988), pp 291-
295.
The relationship between the operational
liquid holdup and the slug catcher diameter for
five different inclination angles is given in Fig. 7.
As can be seen, the operational liquid holdup
2. Wheeler et al.: “Hydrocarbon

United States Patent, No 4793418.

Fluid
Separation at an Offshore Site and Method,” I
decreases significantly, even for small downward
inclination angles. 3. Huntley, A.I?.: “Flexible Subsea SIug Catcher
is Designed for Use in North Sea’s Troll
A typical plot of the inclination angle versus Field,” Oil & Gas J., Vol. 84, No 30, (July
the slug catcher length is given in Fig. 8. The 28, 1986), pp 84-86.
decrease in the slug catcher length is drastic
between 0° and -0.5° inclination angles, while it is 4. Huntley, A.R. and Silvester, R. S.:
“Hydrodynamic Analysis Aids Slug Catcher
insignificant between -0.5° and -5° inclination
Design,” Oil & Gas J., Vol. 81, No. 38, (Sept.
angles for all catcher diameters. Therefore, after a
19, 1983), pp 95-100.
certain increase in the downward inclination
angle, further increases do not yield the same
5. Silvester, R. S.: “Hydrodynamic Analysis Atds
order of reduction in the slug catcher length. The
Slug Catcher Design,” 2nd International
decrease in the operational liquid holdup, due to
BHRA Multiphase Flow Conf., London,
downward inclination of the slug catcher, will
England, (June 19-21, 1985), pp 443-453.
promote stratification and reduce the required
slug catcher length for a given sIug catcher
6. Silvester, R.S. and Gordon, I.G.: “Design of
diameter, as shown in Fig. 9.
Slug Catcher Systems for Dynamic Loading,”
Offshore Separation Processes Symposium
Proc., Middlesbrough, England, (May 15,
CONCLUSIONS

● A
new innovative approach for the
I 1986), pp 33-45.

7. Giozza, W. F.: “Simulation of Gas-Oil

prediction of the required dimensions of a slug
Separator Behavior under Slug Flow
catcher is presented. The approach utilizes the
Conditions,” M.S. Thesis, The University of
transition boundary criterion between the slug Tulsa
and stratified flow regimes.
8. Brill Engineering Co.: “Evaluation of
“ Proper design of a slug catcher requires Prudhoe Bay Field Slug Attenuation Test
apriori information about the characteristics of
. ..
OCT 6414 Cem Sarica, Ovadia Shoham, James P. Brill 5

Data,” Report to Prudhoe Bay Unit, (Sep.

L Length (ft)
1980), pp 61-79. Pressure (psia)
P
9. Miyoshi, M., et al.: “Slug Catcher Design for q Volumetric rate (ft3/s)
~p Producing gas-oil ratio (SCF/STB)
Dynamic Slugging in an Offshore production t
Facility,” SPE 1986 International Meeting Time (s)
~
on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, Temperature (oF)
(March 17-20, 1986) SPE 14124, pp 119- Velocity (ft/s)
135. ; Volume (ft3)

10. Genceli, H., et al.: “Dynamic Simulation of Subscrit)ts

Slug Catcher Behavior,” 63rd SPE Annual
Technical Conference, Houston, TX, (Oct. 2- accum Accumulation
5, 1988), SPE 18235, pp 549-562. catc Catcher
d Drift
11. Bos, A. and du Chatinier, J. G.: “Simulation of dis Discharge
Gas/Liquid Flow in Slug Catchers,” SPE G
~7;~;~ Engineer~g. (August, 1987), pp Gtran Gas transition
GSin Superficial gas input
L Liquid
12. Oranje, L.: “Handling Two-Phase Gas LSin Superficial liquid input
Condensate Flow in Offshore Pipeline m Mixture
Systems,” Oil & Gas J., Vol. 81, No. 16, 0 Oil
(Apr. 18, 1983), pp128-130. oper Operation
P Pipe
13. Oranje, L.: “Terminal Slugcatchers for Two- s slug
Phase Flow and Dense-Phase Flow Gas savg Slug average
Pipelines,” J. Energy Resources Technology, Smax Slug maximum
Vol. 110, No.4, (Dec. 1988), pp 224-229. sp Slug passage
t Translational
14. Senni, S., et al.: “The process Design ‘of a tran Transition
Subsea Booster System (S. B. S): Problems
and Solutions Related to the Hydraulics of Greek Letters
Multiphase Flow, ” Seventh International
Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic a Inclination angle (degree)
Engineering, Houston, TX, (Feb.7. 12,
1988), pp 297-305. v viscosity (Cp)
P Density (ibm/ft3)
15. Gregory, G.A., et al.: “Correlation of the a Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Liquid Volume Fraction in the Slug for
Horizontal Gas-Liquid Slug Flow,” Int, J,
Multiphase Flow, 4., (1978), pp 33-39.

16. Norris, L.: “Correlation of Prudhoe Bay

Liquid SIug Lengths and Holdups Including
1981 Large Diameter Flow Line Tests, ”
Exxon International Report (October 1982).

17. Taitel, Y. and Dukler, A. E.: “A Model for

Predicting Flow Regime Transition in
Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas Liquid
HOW,” AIChE J., 22, (1976), pp 47-55.

18. Brill, J.P. and Beggs, H. D.: ‘Two Phase FIOW

in piD es”, The University of Tulsa (1983).

NOMENCLATURE

~L DESCRIPTION

A Area (ft2)
d Diameter (in.)
E Liquid holdup
g Gravity acceleration (ft/sZ)
Height (ft)

643

— —
— — — — —
— — — —
 TABLE 1
TYPICAL FIELD DATA FGR FINGER TYPE SLUG CATCHER DESIGN
EXAMPLE

~o= 70.000 STWDAY

Rp = 1,000 SCF/STB

p = 450 paig

T=800F

PO= 45 lbm/tuft

pG = 2 lbm/tuft

%= lcp

vG = 0.01 Cp

a = 23 dynefcm

dp = 20 in,

VSI,M= 2.5 ftjs

Vwln = 5.5 ft/r+

_ = 550.6 ft.

krsx s 2568.4 ft.

102 Dis~med Buble lo~

m Dlsperaed Buble
> - z
Or.cration Fuint -
$5
~ Operation Point
& 101 ?
hrtenn[ttent ~ 101
a & I“tennittent
0
● ~
% Amlldar L
: 100?
+ 100
~ ~

a ~o-l ~
l-l lo-l=
% Stratltled Smcoth
a Strattlkd Smcoth StratUlcd Wavy
i
& 1o”’ 4
Z g 10-’!
$
~o-3 ,
~:-’ ~o-l o 1 lo-’~
~o-’
10= 103 ~o-l o 1
Superfici&”Gas Vef%ty (ft/s) 10’ 10s
Superffci~l”Gas Ve&ity (tl/s)
Fig. I: Ffow pattern Map for a 20 in. Horizontal Slug Catcher.
Fig,2 : Flow Pattern Map for a 26 in. Horizontal Slug Catcher.

Intermittent I
llansitlon Point

-------------
0,8 -------
------
-----
f ----
operation PQtnt ----
----
Stratloed wavy #-
StratlIlcd Smmtb I ..
0.6
1
— Operatton

0,4 !
I ‘-----S Transition

25 35 45 55
Diameter, in.
Fig.3 : Ffow Pattern Map for a 52 fn. Slug Catcher.
Fig.4: Liquid Holdup vs Diameter for a Horizontal Slug Catcher.

644
 FJ
E 0.8-
m

1
— Operation
0.7-
— Transition — a= 0,0
0,2
— a-o,rx

o.o~
-. . . . ..-
a-os
— E-s,o

25 35 .. 0.6-
45 00
2s
Diameter, in. 35 45
Fig. 5; Liquid Holdup vs Diameter for a -5° Inclined Slug Catcher. Diameter, in.

Fig.& Transition Holdup va Diameter

1.C

— a. ac)
&

1
—
........
a .-0,01 — d=36ti.
0.8 a = -!3.03 “5mo — d=40h.
~ — C.-m ‘------ d= 44 in.
z
. .. .. .. .. .
a= -5.0 — d=52in.
z 0.6 ?m I

I
~

~
3 fJ.4

“:.I
0,2
~
----------
----------
----------- -------------------------- .. .. .. .. ..
0.0
25 35 45 ..
55
-4
Diameter, in. -3 -2 -1 0 1
Inclination Angle, degree
Ffg.7: Operational Holdup vs Diameter.
Fig.8: Slug Catcher Length w Inclination Angle.

10000-

— a= 0.0
‘. 8000- — a= -0.01
..... ...
--0,1
~ — a= -5.0

J 6000-
g
g
% 4000- ‘.,
0 \...
2000-

0-
25 35 45 55
Catcher Dimneter, III.
Ffg. 9: Effect of Inclination Angle

845

I
I