Simulation of Gas/Liquid Flow
in Slug Catchers
A. 80S, Koninklijke/Shell Laboratorium
J.G. du Chatinier, Koninklijke/Shell Laboratorium
Summary. For the optimization of existing multiple-pipe-type slug catchers and the development of novel
configurations, small-scale model tests are used that u.se a two-liquid s~stem with a density r~tio repr~se.ntative
of that of the gas/liquid phases in practice. The techmque has been valIdated by field tests WIth an eXIstmg
slug catcher.
Introduction
Trunklines transporting natural gas often operate in the
two-phase-flow mode because of liquid injection and/or
additional liquid formation by retrograde condensation.
Slip in velocity between the gas and liquid phases leads
to accumulation of liquid in the pipeline (liquid holdup).
The total amount of liquid present at any time in a long-
distance two-phase pipeline can be significant. When oper-
ating conditions are changed, large volumes of liquid may
emerge from the pipeline, maybe as a result of a change
in volume flow-i.e., in velocity-or a sphere (or pig)
run through the line. The largest slug that can ever occur
is that caused by sphering. The occasionally very large
volumes of ("live") liquids encountered must be handled
and stored onshore as they emerge from the pipeline,
preferably without any reduction in velocity, which would
be reflected in the gas production. For this reason, a
liquid-receiving facility known as a slug catcher is always
connected to a two-phase pipeline.
A slug catcher consists essentially of two parts: a sepa-
rator, which separates the liquid from the mixed stream
arriving under normal (steady) flow conditions, and
storage, which receives and stores the incoming liquid slug
created by upset conditions (such as running a sphere
through the pipeline). When a more-or-less continuous
slug ofliquid arrives, the liquid displaces the gas present
in the slug catcher, ensuring an uninterrupted supply of
gas to the downstream facilities (compressor, treating
plant, and liquefied natural gas plant). Gas lines general-
ly operate at velocities of up to 12 m/s [39 ft/sec], and
large slugs will take only a matter of minutes to arrive.
Therefore, the holding capacity of the slug catcher must
essentially be as great as the volume of the largest slug.
Although liquid carry-over must be limited, a slug catch-
er is not meant to replace a high-efficiency separator.
A great number of slug catchers are in operation
throughout the world. \-3 They may have a vessel,
mUltiple-pipe, or parking-loop configuration and vary
widely in geometry, mainly because of the many degrees
of freedom possible in the design. It is very difficult to
produce a reliable design on a purely theoretical basis,
especially when the geometry is as complex as in the case
of a multiple-pipe slug catcher. Then, it is useful to have
Copyright 1987 Society of Petroleum Engineers
178
a suitable laboratory technique available to test a design
concept. In this paper, a laboratory-scale modeling tech-
nique is presented, together with its application for the
improvement of an existing mUltiple-pipe slug catcher.
First, though, a more detailed description of multiple-pipe
slug catchers is given.
The Multiple-Pipe Slug Catcher
In slug-catcher design, the mUltiple-pipe concept finds
wide application. A multiple-pipe slug catcher consists
of an entrance section, where liquid/gas separation occurs,
and an array of parallel downward-sloping bottles (of stan-
dard line-pipe size) for liquid storage.
Fig. 1 shows the layout of an existing mUltiple-pipe slug
catcher (in operation in The Netherlands). The names of
the various parts are indicated. An incoming liquid slug
flows through the splitter into the inlet manifold and then
through downcomers into and down the sloping bottles.
The downward-flowing slug displaces the gas present in
the bottles up through the risers mounted on the bottles;
from the risers, the gas flows through the outlet header
into the gas-treating plant. The liquid/gas exchange that
takes place in the bottles ensures that the gas supply to
the downstream facilities remains uninterrupted during liq-
uid slug arrival, provided that excessive liquid carry-over
can be avoided.
In this particular slug catcher, only primary bottles are
used. The liquid from the inlet header flows directly into
the bottles, which have both a separation and a storage
function. Fig. 2 shows the layout of another slug catcher
(in operation in the U.K.), which has nine primary and
four secondary bottles. The secondary bottles have only
a storage function and are filled from the bottom through
the primary bottles and bottom header.
The decision of how many primary and secondary bot-
tles should be used in a given multiple-pipe slug catcher
depends on several factors: the gas flow rate in the pipe-
line; the liquid storage capacity required; the size of plot
available (length available for bottles); and the diameter
and slope of the bottles, which determine the maximum
slug flow rate that the primary bottles can accommodate
without liquid carry-over occurring. It is desirable to keep
the number of primary bottles as low as possible for eco-
nomic and operational reasons; a lower number will en-
SPE Production Engineering, August 1987
 INLET HEAOER
FROM GAS LINE / DOWNCOMERS
----7 G~~~~~LET HEADERS

BOTTOM HEADER

~MARY BOTTLES

~ECONDARY BOTTLES

L1QU!O OUTLET

Fig. 1-Geometry of a mUltiple-pipe slug catcher with only Fig. 2-Geometry of a multiple-pipe slug catcher with
primary bottles. primary and secondary bottles.

sure that the number of T -connections and hence the
chances of liquid-slug maldistribution are minimized.
A major advantage of the multiple-pipe slug catcher is
its ease of operation. Apart from level control, no other
instrumentation is required. There are, however, a num-
ber of disadvantages.
1. It is most important that the incoming liquid be dis-
tributed evenly over the primary bottles. If the distribu-
tion is uneven, excessive liquid carry-over may occur
because of overloading of certain bottles.
2. The incoming liquid flows into the primary bottles
and drives out the gas in countercurrent flow. Should the
velocity of the gas relative to the liquid rise beyond a crit-
icallevel, the gaslliquid interface will become unstable.
In this case, excessive wave growth or even choking of
the bottle may take place, which can result in excessive
liquid carry-over. The slope of the bottles has a marked
influence on this.
3. It is not surprising that, given the nature of the flow
[two-phase flow in a three-dimensional (3D) network],
the configuration of a multiple-pipe slug catcher is some-
times very complex.
is not yet completely understood for two-phase flow
through a simple tee ,5; flow through a 3D network is
even less understood. At Koninklijke/Shell Laboratori-
um, Amsterdam, the laboratory-scale modeling approach
has therefore been adopted.
In this approach, a scaled-down version of the proto-
type slug catcher is built from Perspex TM. To create a
realistic ratio between the densities of the heavy and light
phases, the gas phase is simulated with kerosene and the
condensate with 55 wt % zinc chloride concentrate in
water. Table 1 shows that as far as the density ratio is
concerned, a much closer similarity is obtained than if
a water/air system were used. The mismatch as regards
the viscosity is of little importance, provided that, in the
full-scale and model slug catchers (if the scale is not too
small), all fluids are in turbulent flow. In the simulation
studies, Froude-number scaling is applied; i.e., the flow
conditions in the model slug catcher are considered rep-
resentative of those in the full-scale slug catcher charac-
terized by the same densimetric Froude number, N Fr :

Setup of Model Studies

Research is being carried out to optimize the perform-
ance of existing slug catchers and to develop novel types. when:l
Particularly in the case of multiple-pipe slug catchers, it VSg =
superficial gas velocity in the pipeline,
is very difficult to design a reliable slug catcher on a purely mis,
theoretical basis because of the complex problem of two- PL,Pg = liquid and gas densities, respectively,
phase flow in a 3D network. The distribution mechanism kg/m3,

TABLE 1-COMPARISON OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Natural Gas/Condensate
The Netherlands U.K. Kerosene/Zinc Chloride
Slug Catcher Slug Catcher Concentrate
System Physical Properties (70 bar) (110 bar) (55 wt%) Air/Water
Density of light phase, kg/m 3 65 158 755 1.3
Density of heavy phase, kg/m 3 590 418 1660 1000
Density ratio 9.1 2.6 2.2 769
Dynamic viscosity of light
phase, 10 -5 Ns/m2 1.35 1.8 140 1.8
Dynamic visosity of heavy
phase, 10 - 5 Ns/m 2 15.5 8.5 660 100
Interfacial surface
tension, 10 -3 N/m 9 0.65 12 72

SPE Production Engineering, August 1987 179


CARRY-OVER
VESSEL
PERSPEX MODEL
B
A
Fig. 3-The two-liquid test facility. 0=ZnC1 2 con-
centrate.
d = pipeline diameter, m, and
g = acceleration caused by gravity, m/s 2 .
The reasoning behind this approach is that the physical
mechanism involved in the liquid carry-over in slug catch-
ers is wave formation on the liquid/gas interface and slug-
ging in the bottles. These phenomena are governed
primarily by the Froude number. 6, 7
Fig. 3 shows schematically the experimental setup. The
two-liquid test facility consists of a Perspex model of the
slug catcher under study and the slug generator unit. The
main components of the slug generator unit are the storage
vessel (containing kerosene and zinc chloride concentrate)
and the slug vessel (containing zinc chloride concentrate).
A test cycle consists of the following steps.
1. Kerosene is recirculated through the model and the
storage vessel [with Valves A and C closed, Valve B open,
and Valve D (the three-way valve) in the "up" position].
This simulates the normal flow situation (i.e., no slug
arrival).
2. The kerosene stream is diverted through the slug ves-
sel by switching Valve D to the "down" position, which
forces a slug of zinc chloride concentrate into the slug
catcher. To simulate a certain "gas" content, the slug may
be mixed with kerosene.
3. After the slug-catching operation is completed, the
normal kerosene flow circulation is re-established and the
zinc chloride concentrate is drained from the Perspex
model.
4. The slug vessel is refilled with zinc chloride con-
centrate (by opening Valves A and C and closing Valve
B).
The zinc chloride carried over during a slug-catching
operation is collected in the carry-over vessel downstream
of the riser system, and its amount is measured when the
test is completed. The distribution of the slug over the
bottles was found from tests in which the bottles were iso-
lated from each other at the.1ower end by means of an
insert in the bottom header, the "condensate" contents
of the individual bottles being determined after the test.
180
DISTRIBUTION OF
SLUG OVER BOTTLES, 0/0
20
10
o
P LOCATION OF THE4
INLETS OF THE
INLET HEADER
Fig. 4-Distribution of the slug over the bottles in the non-
modified slu~-catcher model. D = 1.7 m 3th (equivalent to
15x10 6 Nm td); 0=2.5 m 3 th (equivalent to 23x10 6
Nm 3 td).
Strictly speaking, this approach is justified only in the first
stage of the slug-catching operation. In a full-scale slug
catcher, the bottles act in this first stage as if they are
closed because they are never completely drained off; the
condensate left in the bottom of the bottles then acts as
a seal. Eventually, when the descending condensate stream
in the bottles has made contact with the condensate re-
maining in the bottom of the bottles, the situation will
change. Condensate will flow from the more highly loaded
bottles to the less highly loaded ones through the bottom
header. This will affect the ascending gas stream and even-
tually the distribution of the slug over the bottles.
Model Studies for the Multiple-Pipe
Slug Catcher
Model studies with the two-liquid test facility, which has
only primary storage bottles, have been carried out in The
Netherlands for the existing multiple-pipe slug catcher.
This offered an ideal opportunity to verify the two-liquid
model test approach. In its original version, the slug catch-
er could accommodate slugs pigged at a gas flow rate in
the range of 18 to 20 million Nm 3 /d [670 to 750
MMscf/D] without liquid carry-over. Above this gas flow
rate, however, the slug catcher started to give liquid carry-
over (0.3% of the slug volume at 20x 10 6 Nm 3 /d [750
MMscf/DD, which hampered the operations of the gas-
treating facilities downstream. Because the gas flow rate
was expected to increase to up to 30 X 10 6 N m 3 / d [1, 120
MMscf/D], the performance of the slug catcher had to
be improved.
As a first step, a team carried out neutron back-
scattering (NBS) measurements 8 to measure the local liq-
uid holdup in the slug catcher during slug arrival. These
measurements revealed that the slug was unevenly dis-
tributed over the inlet header, leading to an uneven dis-
tribution of the slug over the bottles and hence to
overloading of several bottles.
Next, model tests were set up with the two-liquid test
facility to simulate the real-life situation and to develop
SPE Production Engineering, August 1987
 CARRY- OVER, 0/0
10
5 10t-
0.3 -------
o 1 2 3 4 5 6
SLUG FLOW RATE IN MODEL, m3 /h
Fig. 5-Effect of eccentric 15-mm downcomer constric-
tions on the performance of the model slug catcher.
ways of improving the distribution of the slug over the
bottles to avoid carry-over.
AI: 20 Perspex model of the slug catcher was built.
Froude scaling implies for the velocity, v,
vfS=11.6 Vm
or, for the flow rate, q,
qfs=9qm'
where qm is in m 3 Jh and qjS is in 10 6 Nm 3 Jd (at7,OOO
kPa [70 bar] and lO o e [50°F]).
First the performance of the full-scale slug catcher was
simulated. The slug flow rate in the model varied between
1.2 and 5.1 m 3 Jh [7.5 and 32 bbl/hr], corresponding to
a gas flow rate of 11 X 10 6 to 46 X 10 6 Nm 3 Jd (at 7,000
kPa and lO o e [70 bar and 50°F]) in the full-scale slug
catcher. Uneven liquid distribution was observed to occur
at flow rates below 3.5 m 3 Jh [22 bbl/hr]. This effect was
more pronounced for lower flow rates.
Fig. 4 shows the distribution of the slug over the bot-
tles for two flow rates. Most of the slug flows into the
bottles closest to the inlets of the inlet header. A few bot-
tles farther downstream receive hardly any slug. A simi-
lar maldistribution pattern has also been observed in the
full-scale slug catcher. It was further observed in the
model tests that, in the risers of the less highly loaded
bottles, the "gas" flowed downward rather than upward.
This gas flowed back to the inlet header, thereby proba-
bly reinforcing the maldistribution of the slug in the inlet
header. The liquid-carry-over mechanism was the same
as observed by NBS in the full-scale slug catcher. High
waves of "condensate" built up in the bottles just up-
stream of the riser, and condensate whipped off the wave
crests was entrained in the gas stream escaping through
the riser.
SPE Production Engineering, August 1987
DISTRIBUTION OF
20~LUG OVER BOTTLES, %
AVERAGE LEVEL
-- ------
OL...
~
LOCATION OF THE~
INLETS OF THE
INLET HEADER
Fig. 6-Effect of downcomer constrictions on the slug dis-
tribution in the model slug catcher; flow rate is 2.5 m 3 /h
(equivalent to 23 x 10 6 Nm 3/d). 0 = no constrictions;
~ = 15-mm eccentric constrictions.
The left curve in Fig. 5 represents the condensate carry-
over in the model as a function of the slug flow rate. It
can be seen that, even at the lowest flow rate, liquid carry-
over occurred. In the model, the slug flow rate at which
the liquid carry-over reached a value of 0.3% is about
1.7 m 3 Jh [10.7 bbl/hr], corresponding to a gas flow rate
of 15 X 10 6 Nm 3 Jd [562 MMscflD]. This is in the same
order of magnitude as the flow rate of 20 x 10 6 Nm 3 Jd
[750 MMscfJD], at which the same amount of carry-over
occurred in practice.
Therefore, we may conclude that the model qualitatively
simulates well the liquid distribution of the slug over the
inlet header and bottles and the liquid carry-over mecha-
nism of a full-scale slug catcher.
Both the field measurements (NBS) and laboratory ex-
periments indicated that the slug catcher did not function
optimally because of the maldistribution of the slug over
the bottles. A straightforward remedy is to introduce a
flow resistance for the liquid by installing constrictions
in the downcomer portholes; the extra pressure drop
created by this measure is conducive to better distribu-
tion. For this purpose, a close-fitting pipe was mounted
in the inlet header of the model. The pipe had holes of
equal size in the place of the downcomers. These holes
functioned as constrictions. In the model experiments,
pipes were used with holes ranging in diameter from 8
to 22 mm [0.3 to 0.9 in.]. The constrictions minimized
the maldistribution of the slug and therefore improved the
slug-catcher performance. If the constrictions were too
small, however, the increased turbulence in the inlet sec-
tion of the bottle generated foam, which adversely affected
the performance of the slug catcher. Furthermore, foam-
ing was markedly reduced if the constrictions were lo-
cated eccentrically, because the condensate was then
guided along the downcomer wall rather than flowing as
jets into the bottles. Fig. 6 shows the beneficial effect of
181
 VSg~
the optimum downcomer constrictions (I5-mm [0.6-in.]
diameter, eccentric) on the slug distribution. Now each N Fr = Froude number, Pg
bottle receives an amount ofliquid deviating less than 20% (PL -Pg)dg
from the average. q = gas flow rate, m 3 /h [bbl/hr] or Nm 3 /d
The effect of the constrictions on the condensate-carry- v = velocity, m/s [ft/sec]
over point is demonstrated in Fig. 5. It is clear that the
slug-catcher performance has improved markedly. The
P = density, kg/m3 [Ibm/gal]
onset of carry-over has shifted to a flow rate of 3.5 m 3 /h
[22 bbl/hr], which is equivalent to a "gas" flow rate of Subscripts
32 X 10 6 Nm 3 /d [1,200 MMscf/D] in practice. Applica- fs = full-scale
tion of the scaling rule that the ratio of the resistance fac- g = gas
tor of the constrictions and the Fanning friction factor L = liquid
associated with the condensate flow in the inlet header m = model
should be the same for both the model and the full-scale S = superficial
slug catcher results in an optimum of 38 cm [15 in.] for
the diameter of the downcomer constrictions in the real- References
life situation.
I. Huntley, A.R. and Silvester, R.S.: "Hydrodynamic Analysis Aids
The optimum downcomer constrictions were installed Slug Catcher Design," Oil & Gas 1. (Sept. 19, 1983) 81, 95.
in the full-scale slug catcher. Follow-up NBS measure- 2. Oranje, L.: "Handling Two-Phase Gas/Condensate Flow in
ments showed that the slug distribution over the inlet head- Offshore Pipeline Systems," Oil & Gas 1. (April 18, 1983) 81, 129.
er and bottles had improved substantially. All eight bottles 3. Martin, R.E.: "Handling Liquids in Offshore Gas Lines Gets New
now received the same amount of slug to within about Approach," Oil & Gas J. (April 27, 1981) 79, 143.
4. Azzopardi, B.I. and Whalley, P.B.: "The Effect of Flow Patterns
20 %. The onset of carry-over was shifted to a gas flow on Two-Phase Flow in a T-junction," Inti. 1. Multiphase Flow
rate of 34x10 6 Nm 3/d [1,275 MMscf/d], which is in (1982) 8, 491.
good agreement with the prediction based on the model 5. Saba, N. and Lahey, R. T.: "The Analysis of Phase Separation Phe-
experiments (32X10 6 Nm 3/d [1,200 MMscfIDD. nomena in Branch Conduits," IntI. 1. Multiphase Flow (1984) 10, I.
6. Wallis, G.B. and Dobson, D.E.: "The Onset of Slugging in
Horizontal Stratified Flow," Inti. 1. Multiphase Flow (1973) 1, 173.
Conclusions 7. Taitel, Y. and Dukler, A.E.: "A Model for Predicting Flow Regime
1. Two-phase flow behavior in a high-pressure multiple- Transitions in Horizontal and· Near-Horizontal Gas/Liquid Flow,"
AIChE 1. (1976) 22, 47.
pipe slug catcher (i.e., slug distribution and liquid-carry-
8. De Monchy, A.R., Kok, C.A., and van Klaveren, I.A.: "Appli-
over mechanism) has been successfully simulated in a two- cations of Californium-252 Neutron Scattering Gauges in the
liquid laboratory model at atmospheric conditions. Petrochemical Industry," Proc., IntI. Symposium on Califor-
2. The model studies showed that the performance of nium-252 Utilization, Paris (April 26-28, 1976).
an existing slug catcher could be improved by correcting
maldistribution of the liquid slug. This was achieved in SI Metric Conversion Factors
the model by installing downcomer constrictions.
bar X 1.0* E+05 Pa
3. The effectiveness of appropriately sized constrictions,
located eccentrically, has been confirmed in the full-scale
bbl X 1.589873 E-Ol m3
in. X 2.54* E+OO cm
slug catcher. The new, much higher onset-of-carry-over
flow rate was predicted well by the model experiments.
* Conversion factor is exact. SPEPE
Nomenclature
Original manuscript received in the Society of Petroleum Engineers office March 6,
d = diameter, m [ft] 1985. Paper accepted for publicalion May 28,1986. Revised manuscript received Sept.
5,1986. Paper (SPE 13724) first presented at the 1985 SPE Middle East Oil Technical
g = gravity constant, m/s 2 [ft/sec 2 ] Conference and Exhibition held in Bahrain, March 11-14.

182 SPE Production Engineering, August 1987

Discussion of Simulation of Gas/Liquid
Flow in Slug Catchers
Douglas F. North, SPE, North & Assocs.
Bos and du Chatinier's paper "Simulation of Gas/Liquid Flow in
Slug Catchers" (Aug. 1987 SPEPE, Pages 178-82) was of interest
to me because of my experience in the design of slug-catcher facil-
ities. Slug catchers provide a number of advantages in two-phase
pipeline systems. The primary advantages are (I) a reduced pressure
drop oh the pipeline system that can approach single-phase condi-
tions with sufficient pigging; (2) the ability to separate gas and liquid
slugs effectively and to handle large quantities of liquid in a timely
and controlled manner; (3) with systematic pigging, a reduction in
the accumulation of "free water" in the lower sections of the pipe-
line, which reduces the possibility of internal corrosion; and
(4) minimal pressure fluctuations downstream of the facility when
slugs are received, thus reducing the possibility of upsets in com-
pression or processing equipment.
Downcomer constrictions on the slug catcher were used to dis-
tribute the liquids in the bottles better and thereby to reduce liquid
Author~ Reply to Discussion of Simulation of
Gas/Liquid Flow in Slug Catchers
A. Bos, Koninklijke/Sheli Laboratorium
We agree that one of the important advantages of using a slug catcher
at the end of a two-phase pipeline is that it will minimize pressure
fluctuations in the downstream gas-treating facilities during slug
arrival. The reason is that, because the incoming slug displaces the
gas present in the slug catcher, the gas flow to the gas plant is not
interrupted. In the simulation studies, the pressure effects associated
with the slug-catching operation have not been measured.
As far as the situation in the field is concerned, in a few cases
we measured the pressure upstream rather than downstream from
a slug catcher to detect an approaching slug. The philosophy be-
hind this was that a slug traveling through a pipeline in hilly ter-
rain will generate pressure fluctuations. Indeed, it was noticed that
just before the slug enters the slug catcher, pressure effects on the
132
carry-over from the system. The restriction of liquid flow, how-
ever, would increase the pressure fluctuations when the slugs are
received. Therefore, the advantage of minimal pressure disturbance
may be compromised with the better liquid distribution in the head-
ers. I would appreciate Bos and du Chatinier's comments on the
pressure variations in the simulation studies, as well as in the oper-
ating facility, before and after the downcomer constrictions were
installed.
I am not aware of any published laboratory investigations or field
measurements of operating slug catchers that recorded the magnitude
of pressure variations when liquids are being received. If the authors
could provide their comments on this aspect of slug-catcher opera-
tion, I am sure it would provide insight for those involved in the
operation or design of these facilities.
(SPE 17173) SPEPE
order of 20 kPa [0.2 bar] are generated. Because of the buffering
effect of the slug catcher volume, the pressure effects in the down-
stream gas-treating facilities will be less. For the slug catcher simu-
lated in our studies, we calculated that when the slug passes tlie
downcomer constrictions, the pressure drop over the constrictions
increases from 2 to 20 kPa [0.02 to 0.2 bar] (at a gas flow rate
of 30 X 10 6 normal m 3 /d [1,117 x 10 6 riormal ft3/D]). This pres-
sure drop is on the same order of magnitude as the "natural" pres-
sure fluctuations generated by the slug while it is still in the pipeline.
Because these pressure effects are relatively small, they will not
affect the downstream equipment.
(SPE 17465) SPEPE
SPE Production Engineering, February 1988