Validation of OLGA HD against transient and pseudo-

transient experiments from the SINTEF large diameter

high pressure flow-loop
G Staff 1, D Biberg 1, T Vanvik 1, N Hoyer 1, J Nossen 2, H Holm 3, P S Johansson 3
1
Schlumberger, SPT TC, Norway
2
Institute for Energy Technology (IFE), Norway
3
Statoil, Norway

ABSTRACT

In this paper we have compared the OLGA HD stratified flow model against transient
ramp-up and pseudo transient experiments from a Statoil funded experimental campaign
performed at the SINTEF Multiphase Flow Laboratory. The experiments were designed
to specifically target the transition point from low to high liquid holdup; the
accumulation point. We have explained how the removal of the liquid, when the gas flow
is increased to inside the multiple holdup solution region, can be described by a steady
state fully developed flow approximation. OLGA HD showed excellent predictions
compared to the accumulation point experiments. We have also compared the time
needed to remove the liquid for a fully transient simulation of experiments with ramp-up
into the multiple holdup solution region. A retuned version of OLGA HD, presented in
[1], performed well also on the experiments where OLGA 2014.1 HD overpredicted the
time needed to remove the liquid.

1 INTRODUCTION

Multiphase flow simulations of gas-condensate pipeline transport are a challenging task.

Important properties are the pressure drop for high rates and liquid accumulation at low
rates; factors contributing to determining the operational envelope of the field. However,
not only the liquid content and pressure drop at steady operating conditions are important
but also behaviour during transient operations like rate changes and outlet pressure
changes. The arrival time and the rate of the liquid after ramp-up may be critical factors
when designing liquid receiving facilities and operational guidelines.

The work described in this paper originates from a project funded by Statoil where the
uncertainty of OLGA for a gas-condensate field offshore Tanzania has been evaluated.
The Tanzania project is described in more details in [2]. The project consists of two
parts: the “Large Scale Liquid Loading Two-phase Flow Tests” campaign carried out at
the SINTEF Tiller large scale test facility, and the “Core Model Evaluation and Flow
Assurance Risk Study” done by Schlumberger. The experiments are described in more
detail in [3].

The OLGA HD stratified flow model is the next generation flow model for stratified
flows, the predominant flow regime in a gas condensate pipeline. In this paper we will
validate the OLGA HD 2014.1 flow model against some of the transient and pseudo-
transient experiments done in the Large Scale Liquid Loading Two-phase Flow Tests
campaign.

© BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17 357

2 RAMP-UP AND THE CONNECTION TO MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS

The new data from the SINTEF Multiphase Flow Laboratory consist of measurements
for both two and three phase flow. For simplicity we will in this paper only consider the
two-phase experiments.

2.1 The two fluid model

For two-phase flow OLGA applies the two-fluid model. We assume isothermal
conditions and zero mass transfer. Mass conservation is given by

+ = 0, (1)

+ = 0, (2)

where , are the gas/liquid densities, , are the gas/liquid (bulk) velocities and
, are the gas/liquid volume fractions.

Momentum conservation is given by

+
(3)
ℎ
=− − − − sin − cos ,

+
(4)
ℎ
=− − + − sin − cos ,

where , , are the gas-wall, liquid-wall and gas-liquid interfacial shear stresses,
, , are the gas-wall, liquid-wall and gas-liquid interfacial wetted lengths, ℎ is the
height of the gas-liquid interface, is the pipe inclination relative to the horizontal plane,
is the acceleration due to gravity and A is the pipe cross sectional area.

Assuming steady state fully developed flow the mass balance equations (1)-(2) are
trivially true and the momentum balance (3)-(4) reduces to

− = + − sin , (5)

− = − − sin . (6)

(5)-(6) are also approximately valid as long as the neglected dynamic terms in (3)-(4) are
small compared to the gravity and friction terms.

Eliminating the pressure drop between (5) and (6) gives the corresponding holdup
equation:

1− − g sin = − 1− + (7)

where the gravity term balances the friction forces.

358 © BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17

2.2 The OLGA High Definition (HD) stratified flow model
The OLGA High Definition (HD) stratified flow model was developed to meet the needs
for more reliable predictions of pressure drop and liquid inventories in ultra-long gas
condensate pipelines, by combining the consistency of a 3D model with the evaluation
speed of a 1D model.

The OLGA HD model represents a significant improvement in consistency over

traditional 1D models for stratified pipe flows by accounting for the 2D velocity
distribution over the pipe cross section, which in combination with the 1D (axial)
conservation equations gives a 3-D flow description for a gradually evolving stratified
flow. The velocity distribution determines the frictions and momentum flux terms
leaving the closures of traditional 1D models redundant. Integrating the flow description
over the pipe cross section gives the corresponding 1D result: a pre-integrated 3D flow
description that executes with a similar speed as a 1D model, see Biberg et al. [1].

The OLGA HD development was initiated by the HORIZON Joint Industry Project
sponsored by Chevron, Conoco, ENI, Exxon, Shell, Statoil and Total, see Biberg et al.
[4].

2.3 Multiple solutions for the steady state fully developed two-phase model
The holdup equation for fully developed steady state flow (7) may exhibit multiple
solutions depending on the input parameters. It is argued, e.g. by Barnea and Taitel in
[5], that when multiple solutions exist, the low solution is always stable, the middle
solution is linearly unstable and the high solution is non-linearly unstable for large
perturbations. These results are supported by the results in Section 4.2.

In OLGA-S, the steady state fully developed flow version of OLGA, it is always
assumed that the lowest holdup solution is the correct solution. In this paper, OLGA-S
will not refer to the commercial product OLGA-S, but the physical model inside it.
Figure 1 shows the liquid holdup for different superficial gas velocities. For this case we
notice a large region with multiple solutions. In the following, the abbreviations USG and
USL are the superficial gas and liquid velocity respectively.

USG1 exhibits only a single solution α1 which is a relatively high solution for the liquid
holdup. If the gas rate is ramped up from USG1 to USG3, still only a single solution
exists; however, α3 is a low solution for the liquid holdup. If the gas rate is ramped up
from USG1 to USG2, the liquid holdup will, according to the theory that the low solution
is the stable one, end up at the low solution α2low.

In this paper we will study ramp-up scenarios similar to increasing the gas rate from
USG1 to USG2 and how the liquid is removed during the transition from one stable
solution α1 to the other stable solution α2low. We will call this situation a ramp-up into the
multiple solution region.

2.4 A ramp-up into the multiple solution region

The OLGA HD simulation of the liquid removal for a case where the gas rate is
increased to inside the multiple solution regions is shown in Figure 2. The liquid is
removed in three sweeps.
1. Sweep 1; A hydraulic gradient is propagating from the inlet to the outlet, at
high speed (top plot Figure 2)
2. Sweep 2; A hydraulic gradient is slowly propagating from the outlet to the inlet
(middle plot Figure 2)

© BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17 359

 3. Sweep 3; A hydraulic gradient is slowly propagating from the inlet to the
outlet, but faster than in sweep 2 (bottom plot Figure 2)

Figure 1. Liquid holdup for different superficial gas velocities. Ramp-up from
USG1 to USG2 takes the solution into the multiple holdup solution region.

Figure 2. Ramp-up from outside the multiple solution region into the multiple
solution region. There exist three distinct propagating hydraulic gradients.
H1 is the liquid holdup for the steady state solution prior to ramp-up.
H4 is the liquid holdup for the steady state solution after the ramp-up.
There exist two quasi-stable liquid holdup solutions H2 and H3.

By using a simple mass balance it can be shown that the average propagating speed of
the hydraulic gradient is given by = . Nossen et al argued in [6] that

in the SINTEF experiments studied here, the liquid rate at the outlet during the second
and third sweeps is given by the liquid rate at the accumulation point for the current gas
rate. For the example in Figure 2 the difference in the liquid holdups H2 and H3 (second
sweep) is larger than the difference in the liquid holdups H3 and H4 (third sweep),
explaining the difference in propagation speed of the hydraulic gradient for the second
and third sweep. The discussion of sweep 1 is outside the scope of this paper.

360 © BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17

The liquid holdup levels of the dynamic ramp-up corresponding to the quasi stationary
solutions H2 and H3 can be related to the multiple holdup solutions for a fully developed
steady state flow as given by (7), see Figure 3. We argue that H2 and H3 in Figure 2 are
α2high and α2acc in Figure 3, based on the results from [6] that the liquid outlet rate is the
liquid rate at the accumulation point. By ramping up to USG3 we are outside the multiple
holdup solution region and all the surplus liquid is removed in a single sweep.

Figure 3. Multiple solution curve for the inlet superficial liquid velocity and the
superficial liquid velocity at the accumulation point for superficial gas velocity
USG2. Liquid holdup for USG1 is given by α1. Liquid holdup for USG2 after steady
state is reached is given by α2low. The two intermediate holdup solutions during the
liquid removal; H2 and H3 in Figure 2, are given by the high holdup solution α2high
for (USG2,USLinlet) and the holdup solution α2acc at the accumulation for
(USG2,USLacc).

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SINTEF EXPERIMENTS

Through the Statoil funded experimental campaign at the SINTEF Multiphase Flow
Laboratory Large Scale Loop at Tiller, several steady state, transient and pseudo transient
experiments were conducted. Most transient experiments were ramp-up experiments into
and beyond the multiple solution region. During the experiments it was noticed that the
liquid outlet rate during sweep two and three (see Figure 2) was not influenced by the
inlet rate. We argued in Section 2.4 that this corresponds to the accumulation point, see
also Nossen et al. [6]. As a result of this discovery, experiments were performed where
the liquid inlet rate was adjusted to keep the experiment in the second sweep situation
(middle plot Figure 2). When the gas rate was increased, the liquid outlet rate quickly
stabilized on the liquid rate determined by the accumulation point. This allowed for
frequent increments of the gas rate and hence the measurement of the corresponding
liquid outlet rate at the accumulation point at several gas rates. These experiments will be
referred to as pseudo-transient experiments, or as screening experiments. The liquid
holdups on both sides of the hydraulic gradient were measured in addition to the liquid
outlet rate.

© BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17 361

For more details on the SINTEF experiments we refer to Kjølaas & Holm et al. [3].

4 COMPARING THE EXPERIMENTS TO OLGA HD STRATIFIED

MODEL

4.1 Comparing against the screening experiments

We will compare both OLGA HD and OLGA-S HD against the screening measurements.
The OLGA HD simulations are fully transient simulations. The details of the OLGA
model can be found in Section 4.1.1. OLGA-S HD is a model for steady state fully
developed two-phase and three-phase flow, similar to (7). The OLGA-S HD and OLGA
HD comparisons are included to show the validity of the steady state fully developed
assumption for the conditions in the SINTEF experiments. This is important for
justifying the explanation of the ramp-up into the multiple solution region, given in
Section 2.4.

4.1.1 OLGA model of the experimental setup

The OLGA model is shown in Figure 4. The gas source is changed by a manual
controller allowing the gas rate to be ramped up in several steps. To prevent the removal
of all the liquid in the pipeline, another controller increases the flow rate of the liquid
source when the liquid level at the centre of the pipeline drops below a critical value. The
fluid file has been constructed based on the received fluid composition, and the liquid
viscosity and gas-liquid surface tension have been adjusted to match the measured
values.

Figure 4. OLGA model for the screening experiments.

4.1.2 OLGA HD comparison against the screening experiments

The main comparison will be against the measured flow rates. For the screening
experiments, all rates will be shown as the Froude numbers

= (8)
− cos /

where f is gas or liquid.

As described in [3], 5 different gamma densitometers located along the test section
allowed the holdup before and after the hydraulic gradient to be measured, equivalent to
high acc
α2 and α2 from Figure 3. Early in the measurement campaign, the liquid holdup
values were not considered important and no special care was taken to keep the hydraulic
gradient in the middle of the pipe. Consequently, for some of the measurements the
hydraulic gradient influenced the holdup at the inlet or the outlet depending on the
position of the hydraulic gradient. The liquid holdup measurements with severe influence
by the hydraulic gradient have been removed from the comparisons.

362 © BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17

The computed error is relative:

−
= . (9)

The error is presented as mean error, Root Mean Square error (RMS) and the percentage
of comparisons within ±5,10 and 20%. We will show the errors both in superficial gas
and liquid velocity. The error in the superficial gas velocity is considered to be the most
relevant error since the gas volume rate is very close to the total volume flow rate in a
typical gas-condensate field. Consequently, the uncertainty in the flow rate for a specific
behaviour of the field is best represented by the error in the superficial gas rate. However,
the error in the superficial liquid velocity will be important when comparisons against the
liquid removal from the full ramp-up experiments are discussed in Section 4.2.

Overall the predictions from OLGA HD are good compared to the measured superficial
gas velocity. The error in the superficial liquid velocity is relatively larger due to the
small values of the superficial liquid velocities and the non-linear increase in the
superficial liquid velocity at the accumulation point as a function of the superficial gas
velocity.

The error statistics for the superficial velocities can be found in Table 1 and the
comparisons are shown in Figure 5.

Table 1 Relative error statistics for superficial gas (USG) and liquid (USL) velocity.
#cases = 95 Mean RMS ±5% ±10% ±20%
USG 0.059 0.082 35.8 78.9 98.9
USL -0.26 0.49 3.2 7.4 16.8

Figure 5. Computed vs Measured for USG and USL. The dashed lines are
±20% error.

The measurements have been sorted for different pipe diameters and inclinations in order
to better show how they affect the predictions. The results can be found in Figure 6-
Figure 11. The continuous lines are the results from the OLGA-S HD simulations, the
small dots are the results from the transient OLGA HD simulations while the large dots
are the measured values. The left plot contains the liquid Froude number at the
accumulation point for different gas Froude numbers. The right plot contains the liquid
holdup upstream and downstream the hydraulic gradient, corresponding to α2high and α2acc
from Figure 3. α2high is the upper line while α2acc is the lower line in the right plots.
Notice that for increasing gas Froude numbers the low holdup solution, α2acc, increases.

© BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17 363

The explanation is that at the liquid accumulation point the liquid Froude number
increases for increasing gas Froude number, increasing the liquid flow rate.

The agreement between the quasi steady state results from the transient OLGA HD
simulation and the steady state fully developed approximation from OLGA-S HD is very
good. This supports the claim that the steady state fully developed model (7) is a good
approximation and hence a good explanation model. However, the deviation in the high
liquid holdup solution predicted by OLGA HD compared to OLGA-S HD increases for
lower gas rates. This is because a lower gas rate gives a lower liquid rate and hence a
larger difference in the holdup across the hydraulic gradient, α2high and α2acc respectively,
and consequently the influence of the hydraulic gradient increases for this relatively short
pipeline. When the length of the pipeline is increased, the deviation between OLGA HD
and OLGA-S HD is reduced.

The predictions of the liquid holdup are good overall, considering the uncertainty in the
holdup measurements due to the influence of the hydraulic gradient. The deviation
compared to the measurements is larger for the 8'' 5 degrees inclined pipe and the 12'' 1
degree inclined pipe. We have no good explanation of why the holdups for these two
configurations are predicted less accurately than the remaining configurations. Note also
that for the very low holdups, the measurements are in the order of the measurement
uncertainty which in [3] has been estimated to 0.001 volume fraction.

Figure 6. Comparisons against the 8 inch 1◦ inclined pipeline experiments.

Figure 7. Comparisons against the 8 inch 2.5◦ inclined pipeline experiments.

364 © BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17

 Figure 8. Comparisons against the 8 inch 5◦ inclined pipeline experiments.

Figure 9. Comparisons against the 12 inch 1◦ inclined pipeline experiments.

Figure 10. Comparisons against the 12 inch 2.5◦ inclined pipeline experiments.

Figure 11. Comparisons against the 12 inch 5◦ inclined pipeline experiments.

© BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17 365

4.2 Comparing against transient ramp-up scenarios
The OLGA cases for the ramp-up experiments were similar to the OLGA case for the
screening experiments presented in Figure 4, except for the controller on the liquid flow
rate. The time series for the outlet pressure, the gas and liquid source flow rate were
extracted from the measurements and applied to the OLGA cases. All cases were
initialized using the OLGA HD steady state pre-processor and then simulated with
constant properties till the flow was fully developed, before the flow rates and outlet
pressure were changed according to the measurements.

We will compare the computed liquid holdup against the liquid holdup measurements
from the 5 different gamma densitometers. The instruments were positioned at 10, 28, 47,
66 and 85 m measured from the start of the inclined pipeline. For more details on the
experimental setup we refer to [3].

By looking at the change in liquid holdup as a function of time we are measuring the time
it takes to remove the liquid, given by

−
= , (10)
−

where L is the length of the pipe from which the liquid is removed, and are
the liquid holdups before and after the sweep, and , are the superficial
liquid velocities into and out of the pipeline. Consequently, the three computed values
contributing to the difference in predictions compared to the measurements are
, and . From these three computed values, is normally the most
sensitive value and the sensitivity increases with the reduction of − . In
Figure 13 the error in the time required to remove the liquid is shown as a function of the
error in the prediction of the superficial liquid velocity at the accumulation point. The left
plot shows an example where the gas is increased from USG1=3 m/s to USG2=3.09 m/s.
For this example the inlet superficial liquid velocity is set to the superficial liquid
velocity at the accumulation point of USG1=3 m/s. For a predicted close to
, the error in the liquid removal time goes to infinity as shown in the right plot in
Figure 13. If is predicted to be lower than , the pipe will accumulate liquid
instead of removing the liquid. For this example we have assume no error in the
predicted liquid holdup values.

To make the results more readable, both the measurements and the OLGA HD results
have been averaged using a moving average algorithm to remove noise and high
frequency waves.

We will show comparisons for three different ramp-up cases using two OLGA HD
versions; the 2014.1 HD version and a retuned HD version described in [1]. In Figure 12
the three different cases are illustrated. Case 1 is outside the multiple holdup solution
region while both case 2 and 3 are ramped up into the multiple holdup solution. Case 2
has the lowest inlet liquid rate while case 1 has the highest.

366 © BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17

 Figure 12. Illustration of the ramp-up situation for the transient three cases.

Figure 13. (Left) The superficial liquid velocity at the accumulation point as a
function of the superficial gas velocity. (Right) The relative error in the time needed
to remove the liquid, as a function of the error in the superficial liquid velocity.
We assume no error in the predicted liquid holdup.

4.2.1 Results using OLGA 2014.1 HD

4.2.1.1 Case 1: Ramp-up for a case outside multiple solution region, 8'' 2.5 degrees
inclined pipe
The gas rate is ramped up to a high rate as shown in the left plot in Figure 14. Case 1 has
a higher liquid loading and does not exhibit multiple solutions as seen from the right plot
in Figure 14. In Section 2.4 we argued that when the case is not ramping up to inside the
multiple solution region, all the liquid is removed in a single sweep. This is confirmed
from Figure 15 where both the OLGA HD simulation and the experiments show only a
single sweep. We notice that OLGA HD underpredicts the liquid holdup.

The measurements show different liquid holdup values for the different gamma
densitometers, however, it is believed that for this case some of the difference is due to
measurement uncertainty since there is a non-consistent behaviour of the liquid holdup
measurements along the pipeline.

© BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17 367

 Figure 14. Case 1, 8'' 2.5 degrees inclined. (Left) Gas/liquid Froude numbers and
outlet pressure taken from the experiment. (Right) The liquid holdup solution curve
shows no multiple solution region. Consequently the ramp-up from gas Froude
number Frg1 to Frg2 removes the surplus liquid ( − ) in a single sweep.

Figure 15. Case 1, 8'' 2.5 degrees inclined. Liquid holdup values for 5 different
positions in the pipeline. The surplus liquid is removed in a single sweep which is in
agreement with the right plot in Figure 14 showing no multiple solution region.
(Top) OLGA HD simulation. (Bottom) Measured values.

4.2.1.2 Case 2: Ramp-up to medium high gas rate, 8'' 2.5 degrees inclined pipe
The gas rate is ramped up to a medium rate inside the multiple holdup solution region as
shown in the left plot in Figure 16. The right plot in Figure 16 shows the multiple liquid
holdup solution curve for the liquid Froude number at the inlet and the liquid Froude
number at the accumulation point for the ramp-up gas Froude number, Frg2. From Figure
17 we notice that OLGA HD severely overpredicts the time needed to remove the liquid.
The two main contributing factors are; OLGA HD underpredicts the liquid outlet rate and

368 © BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17

overpredicts the liquid holdup ahead of the second sweep (equivalent to H2 in
Figure 2). Both are consistent with the results in Figure 7. From the experiments in
Figure 17 we recognize the four different holdup values, , , , , as shown
in the right plot of Figure 16. The OLGA HD simulation has not reached the third sweep
inside the timeframe in Figure 17 and consequently we only see the first three holdup
values , , .

Figure 16. Case 2, 8'' 2.5 degrees inclined. (Left) Superficial gas/liquid rate and
outlet pressure taken from the experiment. (Right) The multiple holdup solution
curve for the inlet liquid Froude number (Frlin) and the outlet liquid Froude
number (Frlout) determined by the accumulation point for the ramp- up gas
Froude number (Frg2). The dash-dot line is the liquid Froude number at
the accumulation point for the different gas Froude numbers.

Figure 17. Case 2, 8'' 2.5 degrees inclined. Liquid holdup values for 5 different
positions in the pipeline. (Top) OLGA HD simulations. (Bottom) Measured values.

© BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17 369

4.2.2 Results using retuned OLGA HD
In [1], Biberg et al. described a retuned version of OLGA HD and showed the
improvements on several datasets. We will here show the performance of the retuned
OLGA HD version on some of the ramp-up cases.

4.2.2.1 Case 2: Ramp-up to medium high gas rate, 8'' 2.5 degrees inclined pipe
We re-ran Case 2 using the retuned HD version from [1]. The gas rate is ramped up to a
medium rate as shown in left plot in Figure 18. The right plot in Figure 18 shows an
increase in prediction of the superficial liquid velocity at the accumulation point
compared to the results from OLGA 2014.1 HD (ref Figure 16) which suggests that the
time to remove the liquid is reduced. This is confirmed by the results in Figure 19. The
simulations are qualitatively very similar to the measurements and the time needed to
remove the liquid is less overpredicted.

4.2.2.2 Case 3: Ramp-up to low gas rate, 12'' 5 degrees inclined pipe
The gas rate is ramped up to a rate just inside the multiple solution region. The right plot
in Figure 20 shows the multiple liquid holdup solution curve for the liquid Froude
number at the inlet and the liquid Froude number at the accumulation point for the ramp-
up gas Froude number, Frg2. The small difference between the liquid rate in and out of
the pipeline makes it challenging to correctly predict the time needed to remove the
liquid. From Figure 21 we see that retuned OLGA HD very accurately predicts the time
needed to remove the liquid. The liquid holdup is slightly underpredicted.

Figure 18. Case 2, 8'' 2.5 degrees inclined using retuned HD. (Left) Superficial
gas/liquid rate and outlet pressure taken from the experiment. (Right) The multiple
holdup solution curve for the inlet liquid Froude number (Frlin) and the outlet
liquid Froude number (Frlout) determined by the accumulation point for the ramp-
up gas Froude number (Frg2). The dash-dot line is the liquid Froude number at
the accumulation point for the different gas Froude numbers.

370 © BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17

Figure 19. Case 2, 8'' 2.5 degrees inclined using retuned HD. Liquid holdup values
for 5 different positions in the pipeline. (Top) Retuned OLGA HD simulations.
(Bottom) Measured values. The time needed to remove the liquid is reduced
compared to OLGA 2014.1 HD (ref Figure 17).

Figure 20. Case 3, 12'' 5 degrees inclined using retuned HD. (Left) Superficial
gas/liquid rate and outlet pressure taken from the experiment. (Right) The multiple
holdup solution curve for the inlet liquid Froude number (Frlin) and the outlet
liquid Froude number (Frlout) determined by the accumulation point for the ramp-
up gas Froude number (Frg2). The dash-dot line is the liquid Froude number
at the accumulation point for all the gas Froude numbers.

© BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17 371

 Figure 21. Case 3, 12'' 5 degrees inclined using retuned HD. Liquid holdup values
for 5 different positions in the pipeline. (Top) Retuned OLGA HD simulations.
(Bottom) Measured values.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The behaviour of the liquid removal during a ramp-up scenario into the multiple holdup
solution region can be approximated by a steady state fully developed model, indicating
that for this scenario the dynamic terms from the momentum equation (3)-(4) are
negligible compared to the friction and gravity terms. This is supported by the agreement
between the transient solver OLGA HD and the steady state fully developed model in
OLGA-S HD, and the agreement with the transient ramp-up and the pseudo-transient
screening experiments done by SINTEF, [3]. This shows that the friction model is crucial
for correctly predicting the arrival time and rate of the liquid at the receiving facility.

The results in this paper do not indicate that a ramp-up scenario for an entire pipeline can
be well predicted using a steady state fully developed approximation. In a real pipeline
the pressure and fluid properties will change with time and the gas and liquid rate will
not be constant, which will potentially move the system in and out of the multiple holdup
solution region, making the scenario impossible to predict except by using a full transient
solver. Still, the newly acquired understanding of the physics behind the liquid removal
should be useful.

The OLGA 2014.1 HD stratified model reproduces the SINTEF liquid accumulation
experiments well, both for the liquid holdup H2 upstream and H3 downstream of the
hydraulic gradient (Figure 2), and the liquid rate out of the pipeline. By looking at the

372 © BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17

error relative to the gas rate, 79% of the experiments are reproduced within ±10% and
99% within ±20%.

The prediction of the time needed to remove the liquid for a ramp-up scenario is
influenced by the computed liquid holdups, and in particular the liquid rate at the
accumulation point. OLGA 2014.1 HD predicts the liquid removal time well for some
cases but overpredicts for cases where the gas rate is just inside the multiple holdup
solution region. The retuned version of OLGA HD, presented in [1], predicts also these
challenging cases well.

6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Statoil for funding parts of this work and for the
permission to publish the results. We would also like to Chris Lawrence from
Schlumberger for many useful discussions. In addition we would like to thank Jørn
Kjølaas and Marita Wolden from SINTEF for their valuable help in getting the details of
the experiments correct.

REFERENCES

[1] D. Biberg, G. Staff, N. Hoyer and H. Holm, "Accounting for flow model
uncertainties in gas-condensate field design using the OLGA High Definition
Stratified Flow Model," in 17th International Conference on Multiphase Production
Technology, 2015.
[2] H. Holm, "Tanzania Flow Assurance Challenges," in 17th International Conference
on Multiphase Production Technology, 2015.
[3] J. Kjølaas, M. Wolden, T. E. Unander, H. Holm and P. S. Johansson, "A
comprehensive study of low-liquid-loading two- and three-phase flows," in 17th
International Conference on Multiphase Production Technology, 2015.
[4] D. Biberg, H. Holmås, G. Staff, T. Sira, J. Nossen, P. Andersson, C. Lawrence, B.
Hu and K. Holmås, "Basic flow modelling for long distance transport of wellstream
fluids," in 14th International Conference on Multiphase Production Technology,
2009.
[5] D. Barnea and Y. Taitel, "Structural and interfacial stability of multiple solutions for
stratified flow," International journal of multiphase flow, pp. 821-830, 1992.
[6] J. Nossen, T. Sira, T. Vanvik and H. Holm, "Analysis of hydraulic gradients in large
scale experiments," in International Conference on Multiphase Production
Technology, 2015.
[7] D. Biberg, The HD Stratified Flow Model, in Design og drift flerfasesystemer for
olje og gass. Tekna - Teknisk-naturvitenskapelig forening, Oslo, 2012.

© BHR Group 2015 Multiphase 17 373