## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Multiphase Pipeline Design Guide

CPTC

NOVEMBER 1994

1

PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE

PART I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 1.2 Objective and Scope..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Definition of Terms........................................................................................................................................................ 1

**SECTION 2.0 – OVERVIEW OF MULTIPHASE FLOW FUNDAMENTALS
**

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Design Criteria.............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Velocity Guidelines ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 Flow Regimes............................................................................................................................................................... 13 Pressure Gradient ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.5 2.6 Frictional Losses .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Elevational Losses........................................................................................................................................ 17 Acceleration Losses...................................................................................................................................... 18 Allowable Pressure Drop............................................................................................................................... 20

Pressure Gradient Calculations...................................................................................................................................... 20 Section Highlights......................................................................................................................................................... 21

**SECTION 3.0 – STEADY STATE DESIGN METHODS
**

3.1 3.2 Pipeline Design Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 25 Steady State Simulators................................................................................................................................................ 26 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 Phase Equilibrium and Physical Properties.................................................................................................... 26 Pipeline Elevation Profile .............................................................................................................................. 28 Heat Transfer ............................................................................................................................................... 30 Recommended Methods for Pressure Drop, Liquid Holdup, and Flow Regime Prediction................................................................................................................................ 33 3.2.5 3.3 Interpretation of Results................................................................................................................................ 35

Section Highlights......................................................................................................................................................... 38

**SECTION 4.0 – TRANSIENT FLOW MODELING
**

4.1 4.2 Transient Flow Modeling (General) ................................................................................................................................ 41 Use of Transient Simulators........................................................................................................................................... 42

CPTC

NOVEMBER 1994

2

PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE

4.3

Section Highlights......................................................................................................................................................... 43

**SECTION 5.0 – SLUG FLOW ANALYSIS
**

5.1 5.2 Slug Flow (General) ...................................................................................................................................................... 45 Slug Length and Frequency Predictions......................................................................................................................... 46 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6 5.3 Hydrodynamic Slugging................................................................................................................................ 46 Terrain Slugging........................................................................................................................................... 51 Pigging Slugs............................................................................................................................................... 53 Startup and Blowdown Slugs........................................................................................................................ 55 Rate Change Slugs ...................................................................................................................................... 56 Downstream Equipment Design for Slug Flow............................................................................................... 56

Section Highlights......................................................................................................................................................... 59

**SECTION 6 – EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
**

6.1 Example Problem – 1 Low Gas/Oil Line Between Platforms .......................................................................................... 63 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.2 Line Size...................................................................................................................................................... 65 Slug Length Prediction ................................................................................................................................. 75 Slug Frequency and Length by Hill & Wood Method ...................................................................................... 80

Example Problem – 2 Gas Condensate Line .................................................................................................................. 88 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 Table 1, Wellstream Composition ................................................................................................................. 89 Table 2, Pipeline Evaluation Profile ............................................................................................................... 90 Pipeline Simulation Comparison ................................................................................................................... 92

SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 106

FIGURES

I: 1-1 I: 1-2 I: 2-1 I: 2-2 I: 5-1 I: 5-2 I: 5-3 I: 6-1 I: 6-2 I: 6-3 I: 6-4 Flow Regimes in Horizontal Flow................................................................................................................................... 8 Flow Regimes in Vertical Flow ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Horizontal Flow Regime Map......................................................................................................................................... 23 Vertical Flow Regime Map............................................................................................................................................. 24 Taitel-Dukler Liquid Holdup Predictions.......................................................................................................................... 60 Stages in Terrain Slugging ............................................................................................................................................ 61 Pipeline Slugging.......................................................................................................................................................... 62 Liquid Holdup for Example 1, Year 12 ............................................................................................................................ 101 Inlet Pressure for Example 1, Year 12............................................................................................................................ 102 Liquid Flowrate Out of Line, Example 1, Year 12............................................................................................................ 103 Gas Flowrate Out of Line, Example 1, Year 12............................................................................................................... 104

CPTC

NOVEMBER 1994

3

.........................................MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE I: 6-5 Liquid Holdup Predictions for Example 2.PART I ............................................ 105 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 4 ....................................

giving suggestions on the best methods to use in slug flow simulation. occurs in almost every aspect of the oil industry. gathering system pipelines. Near Horizontal and Near Vertical Angles The term "near horizontal" is used in this guide to denote angles of -10 degrees to +10 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 5 . 1. The best available methods can predict the operation of the pipelines much more accurately than those available only a few years ago.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE SECTION 1.2 Definition of Terms In discussing the design of multiphase pipelines. the feasibility of a design scenario hinges on cost and operation of the pipeline and its associated equipment. often referred to as multiphase flow.0. Multiphase flow in pipes has been studied for more than 50 years. This section of the guide helps the designer choose the best methods for the project. Multiphase flow is present in well tubing. however. with significant improvements in the state of the art during the past 15 years.PART I . The use of multiphase pipelines has become increasingly important in recent years due to the development of marginal fields and deep water prospects.0 . The designer. The fifth section describes slug flow modeling. and processing equipment. Part I of this guide consists of seven sections. it is necessary to define several terms used repeatedly throughout this text. In many cases. which illustrate the design steps used in analyzing the pipeline designs. and it gives guidelines to use in designs. The sixth section includes two sample problems. has to know which methods to use in order to get the best results. The fourth section of the report briefly describes transient flow modeling. The third section describes the use of steady state simulation methods. based on actual designs.1 Objective and Scope The simultaneous flow of gas and liquid through pipes.INTRODUCTION 1. The fundamentals of multiphase flow in pipelines are discussed in Section 2.

and wavy flow by various investigators. The term "near vertical" denotes upward inclined pipes with angles from 75 to 90 degrees from horizontal. This flow regime is referred to as annular-mist or mist flow by many investigators. In this guide. the liquid and gas separate by gravity. Over 100 different names for the various regimes and subregimes have been used in the literature. depending primarily on the gas and liquid velocities and the angle of inclination. Stratified Flow . only four flow regime names will be used: slug flow. Annular flow exists for all angles of inclinations. Stratified flow only exists for certain angles of inclination. but it is usually asymmetric for horizontal flow due to gravity. Some liquid may flow in the form of liquid droplets suspended in the gas phase. Annular Flow . This flow regime is also referred to as stratified smooth. and Figure I:1-2 shows the flow regimes for vertical upward flow. part of the liquid flows as a film around the circumference of the pipe. annular flow. and many large diameter horizontal pipes are in stratified flow. It does not exist in pipes that have upward inclinations of greater than about 1 degree. Figure I:1-1 shows the flow regimes for near horizontal flow. Most downwardly inclined pipes are in stratified flow.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE degrees from horizontal.at high rates in gas dominated systems. the fraction of liquid entrained increases and the liquid film thickness decreases. the liquid surface becomes wavy. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 6 . At low gas velocities.at low flowrates in near horizontal pipes.PART I . Descriptions of the flow regimes 1. The gas and remainder of the liquid (in the form of entrained droplets) flow in the center of the pipe. Observers have labeled these flow regimes with a variety of names. and dispersed bubble flow. Most gas dominated pipes in high pressure vertical flow are in annular flow. stratified flow. At higher gas velocities. Flow Regimes In multiphase flow. stratified wavy. the gas and liquid within the pipe are distributed in several fundamentally different flow patterns or flow regimes. the liquid surface is smooth. The liquid film thickness is fairly constant for vertical flow. 2. causing the liquid to flow on the bottom of the pipe while the gas flows above it. As velocities increase.

Among them are: intermittent flow. The slugs in vertical flow are generally much smaller than those in near horizontal flow. dispersed bubble flow can also occur at more moderate liquid rates when the gas rate is very low. The superficial velocities are defined as the in situ volumetric flowrate of that phase divided by the total pipe crosssectional area. Most multiphase flow prediction methods use the superficial gas and liquid velocities as correlating parameters. small diameter systems.for near horizontal flow. this corresponds to: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 7 . Various investigators have referred to this flow regime as froth or bubble flow.at high rates in liquid dominated systems. It occurs at all angles of inclination. The flow can be thought of as a combination of dispersed bubble flow (slug) and annular flow (Taylor bubble). Slug flow also occurs in near vertical flow. Superficial Velocities The velocities of the gas and liquid in the pipe are prime variables in the prediction of the behavior of the multiphase mixture. alternating combination of dispersed bubble flow (liquid slug) and stratified flow (gas bubble). pseudo-slug flow. but the mechanism for slug initiation is different. For near vertical flow. It occurs for all angles of inclination. In field scale pipelines. alternating slugs of liquid and gas bubbles will flow through the pipeline. When this happens. the flow is a frothy mixture of liquid and small entrained gas bubbles. plug flow. Dispersed bubble flow frequently occurs in oil wells. Investigators have used many terms to describe parts of this flow regime. In oil field units. Slug flow is the most prevalent flow regime in low pressure. and downstream equipment problems due to its unsteady behavior. The slugs can cause vibration problems.PART I . waves on the surface of the liquid may grow to sufficient height to completely bridge the pipe. Slug Flow . 4. slug flow usually occurs in upwardly inclined sections of the line.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE 3. at moderate gas and liquid velocities. The flow consists of a string of slugs and bullet-shaped bubbles (called Taylor bubbles) flowing through the pipe alternately. Dispersed Bubble Flow . This flow regime can be thought of as an unsteady. The flow is steady with few oscillations. and churn flow. increased corrosion.

which is more dense and viscous. It is also of prime importance in sizing downstream equipment. the liquid holdup (Hl) is greater than the no-slip holdup. It is equal to the sum of the gas and liquid superficial velocities. ft/sec = (actual ft3/sec of gas) / (pipe cross-sectional area. ft/sec = (actual ft3/sec of liquid) / (pipe cross-sectional area. Vm = Vsg + V sl Slip and Liquid Holdup Liquid holdup is defined as the volume fraction of the pipe that is filled with liquid. the liquid phase. When this occurs. It is the most important parameter in estimating the pressure drop in inclined or vertical flow.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Vsg = Superficial Gas Velocity. however. ft2) Mixture Velocity The mixture velocity (Vm) is the volumetric average velocity of the gas-liquid mixture. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 8 . which must be able to operate properly when the liquid holdup in the line changes because of pigging or rate changes. moves more slowly than the gas. this equates to the liquid holdup being equal to the ratio between the superficial liquid velocity and the mixture velocity: Hlns = No-slip liquid holdup = Vsl / Vm Under most conditions. ft2) Vsl = Superficial Liquid Velocity. In multiphase flow terminology. If there was no slip between the gas and liquid phases.PART I . both phases would move through the pipe at the mixture velocity. The liquid would occupy the volume fraction equivalent to the ratio of the liquid volumetric flowrate to the total volumetric flowrate.

Pout)/L. there will actually be 3 phases present (gas. It is possible to get conditions where the liquid holdup is less than no-slip. and the actual liquid velocity is smaller than the mixture velocity. but the sign of the pressure drop per unit length is usually positive. the term "pressure gradient" will be used to describe the pressure drop per unit length of pipe. and water). The choice of the definition is somewhat arbitrary.Pin)/L). the term "pressure gradient" is used to denote the pressure change per unit length (dp/dx = (Pout . while the sign of dp/dx is usually negative. there is generally less slip between the phases. (Pin . and working with some of the available software. or gas-liquid flow. The expressions for the actual gas velocity (Ug) and actual liquid velocity (Ul) are: Ug = Vsg 1 − Hl V U l = sl Hl For small diameter. the actual gas velocity is greater than the mixture velocity. 3-Phase Flow vs. but it should be noted when reading the multiphase flow literature. Most people prefer to work with positive numbers. In the majority of oil field applications. Pressure Gradient Two definitions of the term "pressure gradient" are used in the literature. 3-Phase flow methods CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 9 .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE H l > H ln s Under these conditions.PART I . For field piping. and the flow may approximate no-slip flow in dispersed bubble and annular flows. In this guide. there is frequently a vast difference between Ug and Ul. low pressure piping. but this only occurs over a small range of flowrates in downwardly inclined pipes. The rigorous prediction of 3-phase flow is in its infancy. so the majority of people use the pressure drop per unit length definition. the discussion will consider 2-phase flow. In many papers. oil. The magnitude of the pressure gradient is the same in either definition. 2-Phase Flow In most of this guide.

These models. small diameter data. consisting almost entirely of low pressure. examples of non-Newtonian fluids are drilling muds. These problems are discussed in more depth in Section 3. Non-Newtonian Fluids Most condensates and crude oils follow Newton’s law of viscosity. Newtonian vs. polymeric additives. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 10 . In the oil field. however. several investigators undertook experimental studies to try to understand the fundamental mechanisms of the various flow regimes.1 Mechanistic Models vs. have proven to extrapolate best to field conditions. or the flowrates are low enough to cause stratification of all three phases. The use of 2-phase models with averaged properties generally gives acceptable results unless either: emulsions are present.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE are not generally available. which is defined as: τ yx = µ where τyx dv x dy = shear stress = viscosity = velocity = distance µ vx y Some liquids. Extrapolations of these prediction methods to field conditions frequently proved to be seriously in error. multiphase flow prediction methods were correlations. referred to as mechanistic models. For many years.2. Correlations The prediction of multiphase flow behavior has improved considerably during the 50+ years that the subject has been studied. The correlations frequently used arbitrarily selected variables and were based on limited databases. and crude oils below their cloud point. In the past 15 years models have been developed. which are based on simulation of these mechanisms. based on curve fits of experimental data. so most simulators use 2-phase models with a mixed liquid stream using averaged properties for the oil and water.PART I . In the 1960s and 1970s. exhibit behavior that is very different from Newton's law. These fluids are referred to as non-Newtonian.

The methods of doing this are beyond the scope of this guide.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Flowline simulators are based on Newtonian fluids. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 11 . the simulator must be “tricked” into giving a Newtonian viscosity equivalent to the actual viscosity at the given temperature and shear stress.PART I . If a non-Newtonian liquid is present.

PART I .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Figure I:1-1 Flow Regimes in Horizontal Flow CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 12 .

PART I .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Figure I:1-2 Flow Regimes in Vertical Flow CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 13 .

It is difficult to accurately define the point at which velocities are "too high" or "too low". A description of each of the primary design criteria follows in Sections 2. This section of the guide will try to quantify limits.4. API RP-14E recommends the following formula: Vmax = C ρ ns (Eqn. a more optimal line size may be found that better suits the overall design of the pipeline system. lb/ft3 = (ρ g Vsg + (ρ l Vsl ) Vm ) ρg = Gas Density. ft/sec ρns = No-slip mixture density.3. and 2. In some cases. but these limits should be considered as guidelines and not absolute values.2 Velocity Guidelines The velocity in multiphase flow pipelines should be kept within certain limits in order to ensure proper operation. These considerations will be discussed later in the transient modeling section of the guide.PART I .1) where Vmax = Maximum mixture velocity.0 .OVERVIEW OF MULTIPHASE FLOW FUNDAMENTALS 2. Maximum Velocity For the maximum design velocity in a pipeline. and flow regime.1 Design Criteria The majority of lines are sized by use of three primary design criteria: available pressure drop. Operating problems can occur if the velocity is either too high or too low. allowable velocities. 2. 2. as described in the following sections.2. 2.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE SECTION 2. lb/ft3 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 14 .

Velocities that are too low are frequently a greater problem than excessive velocities. Many people think this equation is an oversimplification of a highly complex subject. It has been generally agreed that the form of the equation is not sophisticated enough. lb/ft3 = Constant. and as a result. several operating problems may occur: a) Water may accumulate at low spots in the line. the recommended maximum velocity in the pipeline is the value calculated from Equation 2. this water may be very corrosive. 100 for continuous service. and should include additional parameters. there has been considerable controversy over its use. refer to Chevron’s Piping Manual. so that the designer’s natural tendency to add "a bit of fat" to the design by increasing pipe diameter can cause severe problems in the operation of the line and the downstream facilities. This equation attempts to indicate the velocity at which erosion-corrosion begins to increase rapidly. Turndown conditions frequently govern the design of the downstream equipment.PART I .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE ρl C = Liquid Density. For additional guidance on the use of the API equation. Unfortunately. For wells with no sand present. At low velocities. As a result. values of C have been reported to be as high as 300 without significant erosion/corrosion. It should be noted that Equation 2. For flowlines with significant amounts of sand present.1 with a C value of 100. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 15 . 125 for intermittent service. there has been considerable erosion-corrosion for lines operating below C = 100.1 is also used by many people as an estimate of the maximum velocity for noise control. If there is an appreciable amount of CO2 or H2S in the well stream. The use of the API equation has been the subject of several research projects. Minimum Velocity The concept of a minimum velocity for the pipeline is an important one and should be considered in the design of the line. no other equation has been proposed which has gained acceptance in the industry as an alternative to the API equation.

2. Annular flow occurs at high superficial gas CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 16 . Stratified flow occurs at low superficial gas and liquid velocities. and dispersed bubble flows).MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE b) Liquid holdup may increase rapidly at low mixture velocities. however. the flow regime map is only valid for a single point in the pipeline. It isn’t possible to give a simple formula quantifying the velocity when the phenomena discussed above will occur. pressure and temperature change with position in the pipeline. annular. c) Low velocities may cause terrain induced slugging in hilly terrain pipelines and pipeline-riser systems.PART I . The flow regime prediction can show whether the line will operate in a stable flow regime or an unstable regime. As the angle of inclination. The prediction of liquid holdup and pressure drop are highly dependent on the flow regime. gas-liquid ratio. As discussed later in this section. with each regime exhibiting different behavior when the design variables are changed.3 Flow Regimes As discussed in Section 1. Dispersed bubble flow occurs at high superficial liquid velocities. A large accumulation of liquid may cause problems in downstream separators or slug catchers if the line is pigged or the rate is changed rapidly.2. can be made about the flow regime transitions. slug. A ball-park value for the minimum velocity would be a mixture velocity of 5-8 ft/sec. the gas and liquid in the pipe are distributed differently in each of the four major flow regimes (stratified. such as that shown in Figure I:2-1. Some general comments. the flow regime map also changes. and operating conditions of the line. pipeline diameter. including: topography. The flow regime map typically has the superficial gas velocity (Vsg) on the X-axis and the superficial liquid velocity (Vsl) on the Y-axis. The prediction of the correct flow regime is important for several reasons. The transitions between the flow regimes are frequently depicted in a flow regime map. The actual value of the minimum velocity can only be quantified by simulation of the system using the methods discussed in Section 5. 2. The minimum velocity depends on many variables.

Experimental studies of flow regime transitions have shown that each of the flow regime boundaries reacts differently to changes in the system variables. Baker. The best methods are discussed in the remainder of this section. and many flow regime transition prediction methods have been published. Some of these methods work fairly well. These methods are inherently inaccurate since no single parameter can model the sensitivity effects shown in the previous table. Beggs & Brill). Figure I:2-2 shows a typical flow regime map for vertical flow.PART I . Slug flow occurs at moderate superficial gas and liquid velocities.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE velocities. but most are poor. Many experimental studies of the transitions between the flow regimes for various systems have been made. usually using some arbitrary dimensionless parameter on each axis (e. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 17 . The following table shows the sensitivity of the transitions to changes in the major system variables: Transition Variable Angle of Inclination Gas Density Pipeline Diameter Liquid Physical Properties Slug to Dispersed Bubble Small Effect Slug to Annular Slug to Stratified Stratified to Annular Moderate Effect Strong Effect Small Effect Strong Effect Strong Effect Small Effect Small Effect Strong Effect Strong Effect Strong Effect Moderate Effect Moderate Effect Moderate Effect Small Effect Moderate Effect Many people have attempted to develop simple flow regime maps.g. The designer needs to carefully choose the method that will work best for the set of conditions. The only flow regime map prediction methods that have been effective for a wide range of conditions are those using mechanistic models to estimate the flow regime transitions.

even for the best prediction methods. The errors for this transition can be 1000%. The OLGAS method predicts flow regime transitions with similar accuracy to the Taitel. Taitel-Dukler frequently predicts this transition velocity to be 50-100 ft/sec. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 18 . As in many aspects of multiphase flow. Taitel and his co-workers at the University of Tel Aviv have subsequently published several articles that expand the range of angles of inclination and correct the errors in the original paper. methods give reasonably good predictions of the various flow regime transitions. these methods are the oldest and weakest of this family of methods. the designer should be aware of the gross errors in the slug to dispersed bubble transition. the flow regime prediction methods are not exact. Two programs are available within CPTC that incorporate the latest versions of the Taitel. CPTC should be consulted if it is desired to use these programs. These programs are FLOPAT. models. et al.PART I . It employs mechanistic models of each flow regime and links the models by the assumption that the flow regime giving the lowest liquid holdup is the correct one. developed by Tulsa University. This assumption holds up well in practice. and the accuracy of the predictions has improved with each revision. models. Errors of +/. The original Taitel-Dukler paper covered flow regime transitions in near horizontal flow only. If the Taitel-Dukler map is used. developed by Advance Multiphase Technology. Within Chevron. The Taitel. The dispersed bubble to slug transition typically occurs at a superficial liquid velocity of about 10 ft/sec. et al. and FLEX.25% for the transition velocities are typical. there are several programs available for flow pattern prediction. Unfortunately. et al. and one of the transitions (slug-dispersed bubble) is very much in error. this method can show the same type of behavior observed in the experimental work.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE In 1976. By modeling each transition. The Taitel-Dukler paper and the latest paper from Tel Aviv model flow regime transitions for all angles of inclination. Pipephase will print a flow regime map based on the Taitel-Dukler method for near horizontal flow and the Taitel-Dukler-Barnea model for near vertical flow. Another approach to the modeling of flow regime transitions is the method used in the OLGAS method. Taitel and Dukler published a landmark article describing a method of predicting flow regime transitions by modeling the mechanism of each transition.

The friction calculations. b) pressure changes due to elevational effects. There is negligible interfacial friction between the gas and liquid. and frictional losses at the interface between the gas and liquid. therefore. and wall friction between the liquid and the wall at the bottom of the pipe. are highly dependent on the flow regime.1 Frictional Losses In multiphase flow.4. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 19 . there is friction between the liquid film and the wall. In annular flow. There is also friction between the gas and liquid at the gas-liquid interface. The overall pressure gradient is composed of three additive elements: a) pressure drop due to friction. In dispersed bubble flow.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE 2. frictional losses occur by two mechanisms: friction between the gas or liquid and the pipe wall. or it can be considerably higher if waves are present. since the distribution of liquid and gas in the pipe changes markedly for each regime. c) accelerational losses. The calculation of the constituent parts of the pressure gradient will be discussed in the next three sections. 2. In stratified flow.4 Pressure Gradient In most pipelines.PART I . The Chevron Fluid Flow Manual contains a good discussion of these pressure loss terms for single phase flow and can be consulted as a reference. the pipeline diameter is determined by the allowable pressure drop in the line. The interfacial friction can be similar in magnitude to the wall friction if the interface is smooth. There is also considerable interfacial friction between the gas in the core of the pipe and the liquid film. The interfacial friction is usually the larger component. friction occurs between the liquid and the wall. there is wall friction between the gas and the pipe wall at the top of the pipe.

The friction loss in the slug is usually much higher than the losses in the bubble. In the slug. the liquid holdup must be determined.2 Elevational Losses Elevational losses may be the major pressure loss component in vertical flow and flow through hilly terrain. 32. The calculation of elevational losses is governed by the following equation: ρ g sinα dp = mix dx elev 144g c where: (dp/dx)elev = Pressure gradient due to elevation.2 lb-ft/(lbf-sec2) gc In order to calculate the elevational gradient.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Slug flow has several frictional components. 2. A summary of the effect of the major operating variables on the liquid holdup is: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 20 .PART I .4. 32.2 ft/sec2 = Angle of inclination = Gravitational conversion factor. In the gas bubble. The holdup in each flow regime has its own sensitivity to the important operating variables. namely gas and liquid friction with the pipe walls and interfacial friction between the gas and liquid. lb/ft3 = (ρl) (Hl) + (ρg) (1-Hl) Hl g α = Liquid Holdup = Acceleration due to gravity. the frictional components are the same as in stratified flow. psi/ft ρmix = Mixture Density. the friction losses are caused by the friction between the liquid and the pipe wall.

the influence of the major variables on the holdup is very different for each of the flow regimes. The only way to accurately predict liquid holdup is to use mechanistic models for each of the flow regimes. it is impossible to develop a general holdup correlation that will apply to all the flow regimes. Unfortunately. In single phase flow. The mechanisms for the losses in these two flow regimes are very different and will be discussed separately. 2.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Slug Flow Superficial Gas Velocity Superficial Liquid Velocity Gas Density Pipeline Diameter Angle of Inclination Liquid Properties Strong Strong Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Annular Flow Strong Strong Strong Weak Weak Moderate Stratified Flow Strong Strong Strong Weak Very Strong Moderate Dispersed Bubble Flow Strong Strong None Weak None Weak As seen in the previous table. almost all of the commonly used holdup methods available in commercial software try to do this.3 Acceleration Losses Although acceleration losses are present for all flow regimes. As a result.2. The expression for acceleration gradient is: ρ V dV dp = dx accel 144 g c dx CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 21 . acceleration losses can be calculated from Bernoulli’s equation.4.PART I . Acceleration losses represent the change in kinetic energy as the fluid flows down the pipe. They work poorly over much of the operating range as a result.4. The accuracy of available holdup methods is discussed further in Section 3. they are only significant for two flow regimes: annular flow and slug flow.

b) CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 22 . For a typical high pressure gathering system line. is not suitable for use in flare system design. it overruns and entrains the slower moving liquid from the film ahead of the slug front. In slug flow. lbm/ft3 = Velocity. and. In the design of a gathering system. Acceleration may account for 3050% of the overall pressure loss in such lines.4 Allowable Pressure Drop No clear-cut criteria exist for determining the amount of pressure drop to be allowed in a pipeline design. while most of the correlation based methods ignore this loss. as a result. Accelerating the liquid from the film velocity to the slug velocity can produce significant pressure losses. The kinetic energy acceleration losses are small for most oil industry applications. such as a frictional gradient of 0.02. 6.PART I . Allowable pressure drop is a function of the parameters of the system being designed. The main exception is high velocity flow through low pressure piping. rule of thumb values for pressure gradients. ft/sec For multiphase flow.4. acceleration is usually less than 1% of the total drop and is frequently ignored. Most methods assume a no-slip mixture and use the no-slip mixture density (ρns) and the mixture velocity (Vm) in the calculation of acceleration losses.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE where: ρ V = Density. Flare systems would be an example of piping that has high acceleration losses.5 psi per 100 ft. 2. of equivalent length. does not properly account for acceleration losses. The acceleration loss may be anywhere from <1% to more than 50% of the total pressure drop. This approach will account for the changes in reservoir pressure. the same type of relationship holds except that it refers to the flow of the mixed phase fluid. the ideal way to choose allowable pressure drops is to simulate the system from the reservoir through the processing plant as a function of time. Please note that the present version of Pipephase. As a slug propagates down the pipeline. are generally used. another source of acceleration contributes significantly to the total pressure drop. The following are some guidelines for specific systems: a) For plant piping. Mechanistic models include this loss.2-0.

The best available methods are discussed in Section 3.2.PART I . but only a few methods work well over a wide range of conditions.4.4. This approach would allow for future operation at reduced reservoir pressures.3. Hundreds of methods have been proposed to predict pressure drops. Pressure Gradient Calculations d) 2. The remainder of the difference would equal the initial choke pressure drop. A rule of thumb estimate of allowable pressure drop for long distance gas/condensate pipelines is to allow 10-20 psi per mile for frictional pressure drop at design rates.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE flowrate. c) If it isn’t feasible to do the rigorous simulations for a gathering system. and composition that the gathering system must handle during the life of the field. the allowable pressure drop can be estimated from the initial wellhead pressure and the processing plant inlet separator pressure. the calculation of the pressure gradient for multiphase flow is very complicated.1 to 2.5 As indicated in sections 2. A rule of thumb to use for this method is to take 1/3 of the difference between the wellhead pressure and the separator pressure as the allowable pressure drop in the pipeline. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 23 .4.

methods. rule of thumb values for pressure gradients. Kinetic energy acceleration losses are small for most oil industry applications. If the Taitel-Dukler map is used. For plant piping. Overall pressure gradient is composed of three additive elements: − pressure drop due to friction − pressure changes due to elevational effects − accelerational losses Frictional calculations are highly dependent on the flow regime.02 does not properly account for acceleration losses and is not suitable for use in flare system design as a result. of equivalent length.0 • No other equation has gained acceptance in the industry like the API equaton.5 psi per 100 ft.2-0. The OLGAS method predicts flow regime transitions with similar accuracy to the Taitel et al.1 with a C value of 100. the designer should be aware of the gross errors in the slug to dispersed bubble transiton. • • • • • • • • • • • CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 24 . since the distribution of liquid and gas in the pipe changes markedly for each regime.PART I . Elevational losses may be the major pressure loss component in vertical flow and flow through hilly terrain. The main exception is high velocity flow through low pressure piping. The Taitel et al. Using mechanistic models for each flow regime is the only way to accurately predict liquid holdup.6 Section Highlights Points to remember from Section 2. The rule of thumb for this method is to take 1/3 of the difference between the wellhead pressure and the separator pressure as the allowable pressure drop in the pipeline. The allowable pressure drop for a gathering system can be estimated from the initial wellhead pressure and the processing plant inlet separator pressure. are generally used.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE 2. Methods give reasonably good predictions of the various flow regime transitions. such as a frictional gradient of 0. Pipephase 6. The accuracy of the predictions has improved with each revision. The recommended maximum velocity in the pipeline is the value calculated from Equation 2.

CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 25 .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE • The rule of thumb for estimating allowable pressure drop for long distance gas/condensate pipelines is to allow 10-20 psi per mile for frictional pressure drop at design rates.PART I .

PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE

Figure I:2-1 Horizontal Flow Regime Map

CPTC

NOVEMBER 1994

26

PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE

Figure I:2-2 Vertical Flow Regime Map

CPTC

NOVEMBER 1994

27

PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE

SECTION 3.0 - STEADY STATE DESIGN METHODS

3.1

Pipeline Design Methods

As stated in the previous sections, the pipeline designer needs to estimate the pressure drop, flow regime, and velocities in the line in order to select the proper line size. The calculation of these parameters is laborious and is usually done by computer simulation. Line sizing is usually performed by use of steady state simulators, which assume that the pressures, flowrates, temperatures, and liquid holdup in the pipeline are constant with time. This assumption is rarely true in practice, but line sizes calculated from the steady state models are usually adequate. Within Chevron, Pipephase and PIPEFLOW-2 are available for steady state pipeline simulation. For a more rigorous pipeline sizing, the simulations could be done using transient simulators. Transient simulators allow changes in parameters such as inlet flowrate and outlet pressure as a function of time, and calculate values for the outlet flowrates, temperatures, liquid holdup, etc. as a function of time. If the line is operating in slug flow, the line size calculated from the transient model may be different from that calculated from a steady state simulator. The principal uses of transient simulators are in the design of downstream equipment and the development of operating guidelines. Transient simulators can model transient behavior such as slug flow, pigging, rate changes, etc. Transient simulators are quite new, developed in the last 10 years, and are not in general use. Chevron has used the OLGA program for transient flowline analysis on several projects, utilizing outside consulting services. CPTC developed an in-house transient simulator, but it currently does not have as many features as the commercially available codes. The use of steady state models will be further discussed in Section 3.2, and transient modeling will be briefly discussed in Section 4.

CPTC

NOVEMBER 1994

28

The topics covered include: a) b) c) d) e) 3. The estimates of these parameters depend in large part on the quality of the input data available. Although there are several steady state programs available. the only data available may be an estimate of the oil rate and gas-oil ratio. as the accuracy of the input data improves.1 Phase Equilibrium and Physical Properties Pipeline Elevation Profile Heat Transfer Recommended Methods for Pressure Drop. and Flow Regime Prediction Interpretation of Results Phase Equilibrium and Physical Properties Accurate prediction of the phase behavior and physical properties for the fluid flowing through the pipeline is essential to a good simulation of the pipeline operation. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 29 .PART I . the discussion will center on the use of Pipephase. which is Chevron’s currently recommended simulator. Compositional models use an equation of state to estimate the quantity of liquid and gas at the operating conditions. After well tests have been performed. The decision on whether to use the black oil model or compositional modeling depends on the available information and the type of system that is being modeled. the quality of the pipeline simulation improves. Obviously. correlations are used to estimate the physical properties. During conceptual design work. gas and water as a function of time.2 Steady State Simulators This section contains some general guidelines on the use of steady state simulators.2.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE 3. Pipephase has two fundamentally different models available within it for estimation of phase behavior and physical properties. compositions of the wellstream and PVT data may be available as well as projections of the flowrates of oil. pressure and some global parameters such as specific gravity of the oil and gas. then. The black oil model estimates the phase behavior and physical properties by use of a series of correlations that are based on operating temperature. Liquid Holdup.

but cut properties were not noted. Pipephase requires two of the following parameters in order to characterize a cut: specific gravity. If tests of the phase equilibrium and physical properties have been done as part of the wellstream analysis. it cannot be stated categorically that either the black oil model or the compositional model is superior for low gas-oil ratio systems. The pipeline predictions after PVT matching should be considerably better than those obtained with use of the standard correlations. but it is unavoidable in many circumstances. In cases like this. This recommendation covers gas-oil ratios above about 3500 SCF/bbl.PART I . but the physical property estimates from the compositional models may not be as good as the black oil model. the mole fractions for cuts heavier than C6 may have been measured in the PVT analysis. Pipephase allows the users of the black oil model to adjust the model predictions for solution GOR.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE The choice of models for gas-condensate and volatile oil systems is clear. The accuracy of compositional modeling depends. but CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 30 . It is possible to manually modify the phase equilibrium calculations. on the characterization of the heavy ends of the well stream. the accuracy of the predictions increases when more cuts are used. the choice of models is more difficult. the only variable that can be easily manipulated to match experimental data is the liquid viscosity. The heavy ends could be characterized by one C6+ cut. Compositional models should be used for any gas-condensate or volatile oil system. The materials heavier than hexane (C6+) are usually characterized by use of pseudo-components or cuts. General practice with Pipephase has been to use the black oil model for lower gas-oil ratio streams. In many cases. or normal boiling point. If the compositional model is used in Pipephase. and liquid viscosity to match experimental values. or by a series of cuts corresponding to various boiling ranges.) As a result. This adds some error to the analysis. In general. in a large part. molecular weight. (Section 6-1 illustrates this point. the customary assumption is to use the properties of the corresponding normal paraffin as the cut properties. For lower gas-oil ratios. Pipephase does not have an option that will automatically adjust the phase equilibrium calculations to match experimental data. Compositional models should give more accurate phase equilibrium results. densities.

The models present in Pipephase can only do two-phase (gas-liquid) flow calculations. should be used to estimate the viscosity of the emulsion. If it is likely that an emulsion will form. elevational losses can account for much of the pressure drop in hilly terrain pipelines. Because the liquid holdup in upwardly inclined flow is greater than the holdup in downward flow. Although it is possible to get good estimates of the phase equilibrium for 3-phase (gas-oilwater) systems. the elevational pressure drop in uphill legs is greater than the pressure recovery in downhill legs. may not give good values for the viscosity and surface tension of the mixture. because the viscosity of an emulsion can be as much as 50 times as high as the viscosity of the oil or water. the viscosity estimate may be off considerably using simple volumetric averaging. which is available in Pipephase. The following table illustrates how sensitive the liquid holdup is to mixture velocity at various angles of inclination from horizontal. the Woeflin method. and the methods to do this are beyond the scope of this guide.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE it requires considerable effort.) CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 31 . As the mixture velocity decreases. If the velocities in the line are high.2 Pipeline Elevation Profile The pipeline elevation profile used in the simulation can have a significant impact on the calculated pressure drop. however. (The values shown are predictions of the OLGAS model.PART I . Pipephase averages the properties of the liquid hydrocarbon and liquid water. there will be an increasing difference between uphill and downhill holdups. As a result.2. the uphill and downhill holdups may be close. 3. and uses those average in the two-phase flow methods. If the oil and water form an emulsion. The feed stream is a gas-condensate with about 4 bbl/mm SCF of liquid present. even if the inlet and outlet of the line are at the same relative elevation. the available software does not allow rigorous simulation of threephase flow. Volumetric averaging.

3846 0.2538 0.2 HOLDUP FOR -0.0091 0.0224 0.3023 0.0108 0.5 MODEL 0.0 0.5 degree each. the pipeline segment consists of two equal length sections of -0.0179 0.0156 0.0 -0.4314 0.0131 HOLDUP FOR HORIZONTAL MODEL 0.5024 0.0085 0.5 degree and +0.4134 0.5 0.0135 0.0064 0.6009 0.0052 0.5000 0.1977 0.1 16. The second model consists of a single horizontal pipeline segment.0068 0.1 5.0156 0.4988 0.0041 0.5997 0.0122 0. The liquid holdups for the two models are: MIXTURE VELOCITY.4 8.4 8.PART I .0108 0.4337 0. DEGREES -2.0198 0.1 5.0218 0.1 16.5 DEGREE AND +0.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE MIXTURE VELOCITY FT/SEC ANGLE.0068 0.5797 0.7 4.5961 0. In the first model. FT/SEC 2.2 0.0224 0. a comparison of two models for a given section of a pipeline has been made.2 0.0317 0.0131 0.0134 0.5 1.0198 0.0131 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 32 .3015 0.0087 0.0158 Using the values in the above table.0124 0.0053 0.0 2.0218 0.3428 0.0115 0.2249 0.0 -1.7 4.0 2.0221 0.0126 0.0144 0.

The number of segments required depends on how rapidly the temperature. The amount of condensation of liquids along a gas-condensate line. 3. it is recommended that the designer add some terrain features to the pipeline profile to simulate hills and valleys that are inevitably present in the actual profile. For a system with rapid changes in pressure. for instance. it would be necessary to know the pipeline elevation profile within an accuracy of about one pipe diameter in order to get accurate holdup predictions. For very low velocities. In many cases. the pipeline topography is not known when the preliminary pipeline sizing calculations are run. • Low velocities cause severe problems in prediction of the pipeline performance. has a large impact on the pressure drop and liquid holdup in the line. it is necessary to have information on the following: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 33 . the designer only knows water depths at subsea wells or platforms. Corrosion is a strong function of temperature. This is generally not practical. the number of calculation segments should be greater. many calculation segments should be used in simulating the pipeline.2. flare systems. To improve the accuracy of the simulation.g. To properly model the heat transfer between the pipeline and the surroundings. pressure and holdup are changing in the pipeline. Hydrate and wax deposition may occur in the line. e.PART I . so good heat transfer estimates are vital to corrosion prediction. requiring accurate estimates of temperatures. This comparison makes two points: • The pipeline profile must be realistic if the calculations of liquid holdup and pressure drop are to be accurate. Frequently. in offshore pipeline design.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE The liquid holdups are far apart at low velocities and are the same at higher velocities. but it increases the computer simulation time. a more coarse grid can be used to simulate the pipeline. If the temperature and pressure are changing slowly. Increasing the number of calculation segments always improves the accuracy of the simulation.3 Heat Transfer The temperature profile along the pipeline is important in many circumstances. Instead of assuming a straight line pipeline profile.

PART I .38 Density. Values of the thermal properties for various materials can be read from the following table. With this information the programs can calculate heat transfer coefficients.2 1.35 0.75-1. Material Thermal Conductivity.50 0.11 0.022 Specific Heat. lb/ft3 Carbon Steel Stainless Steel Concrete (Saturated) Onshore Soil (Wet) Subsea Sandy Soil Coal Tar Epoxy Fusion Bonded Epoxy Neoprene Polyurethane Foam 490 488 147-200 90-110 105-115 92 75-90 90 2-12 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 34 .011-0.50 0. pipeline coatings and insulation whether the pipe is buried or exposed the burial depth of the line type of surroundings ambient temperatures thermal conductivities of the pipe. Note that the Chevron Fluid Flow manual also has an extensive list of thermal conductivities for various types of materials.32 0.11 0.15 0.20 0.15 0. coatings and insulation. which are then used to calculate the temperature profile in the pipeline. Btu/lb-degF 0. Btu/hr-ft-degF 26 8-13 0.25-1.10 0.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE • • • • • • thicknesses of the pipewall.12-0.30 0.35 1.20 0.

This velocity is generally too high. which can be used in these instances: Applications Wells Risers Buried Pipelines Concrete Coated Nonburied Pipelines Nonburied Pipelines without Concrete U Value. the temperature of the gas leaving the pipeline is less than ambient because of the J-T effect. This can lead to errors for pipelines in deep water or cold climates. More typical values are 1 to 3 ft/sec (0. it uses the viscosity at 60 degrees F. b) c) d) CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 35 . The default velocity of water flowing past a pipeline is 10 miles per hour in Pipephase. BTU/hr/ft2/degF 2 20-40 1-3 3-5 5-10 For gas/condensate pipelines.7-2 mph). In many gas pipelines. temperature loss by the Joule-Thomson expansion (J-T) effect can be significant. At lower temperatures. The following are rule of thumb values for heat transfer coefficients for subsea flowlines. The saturated concrete value should be used for subsea pipelines with concrete coating.PART I . The J-T effect is ignored in black oil simulations.. there may not be enough information to enable rigorous calculation of the heat transfer coefficient. The Pipephase viscosity routine does not estimate viscosities at temperatures below 60 degrees F. Several concerns arise when using Pipephase for heat transfer calculations: a) Pipephase only estimates temperature loss by the Joule-Thomson expansion cooling effect if the compositional model is used.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE At the early stages of a project. The thermal conductivity for saturated concrete is much higher than that for dry concrete.

4 There have been hundreds of multiphase flow design methods developed in the past 50 years. Mechanistic models solve a set of simultaneous equations developed for a specific flow regime. Mechanistic models extrapolate to field conditions much better than correlations because the mechanistic models account for the effects of all the major variables. Most of the methods available in Pipephase are correlations based on data taken in small diameter (0. The convective heat transfer routines in Pipephase are not very rigorous. The physics in these models are good. and Flow Regime Prediction 3. Correlations for a few key parameters are required in order to solve the equation set. This section of the guide discusses this problem and gives some recommendations on which methods to use for certain applications. the development of mechanistic modeling has created a marked improvement in prediction capabilities. mechanistic models attempt to model the physical phenomena associated with each flow regime.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE e) f) Unless a value is entered for Hrad. low pressure data. radiation is ignored in the heat transfer calculations. These correlations extrapolate poorly from field conditions. because changes in these variables were not studied in the experimental work. Recommended Methods for Pressure Drop. but the correlations built into them are based solely on small diameter. Several mechanistic models have been developed in the past few years. and flow regime predictions.2.PART I . Most of these methods only have small ranges in which their predictions are accurate. such as pressure. liquid holdup.2. radiation is negligible. Liquid Holdup.5-2 inch) test loops having an air-water flow operating at nearly atmospheric pressure. but it can be a significant effect for surface flowlines. In the past 10 years. Most computer programs contain dozens of options to select for pressure drop. For subsea or buried pipelines. The OLGAS model is CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 36 . The correlations developed from these data sets frequently do not include the effects of all the key variables. As noted in Section 1. Errors in heat transfer calculations can occur for systems in which convection is the prime source of heat transfer. Tulsa University has developed models for near vertical flow (Ansari) and a general model covering all inclinations (Xiao).

The Eaton holdup correlation is better than the other methods. _ 3) 4) 5) 6) b) Liquid Holdup 1) 2) Near Horizontal Low Gas-Oil Ratio . All of the methods are poor for low velocities.PART I . Methods are available that are as good or slightly better than OLGAS in certain ranges.Nothing is good. Near Vertical Gas/Oil . however. Near Vertical Gas/Condensate . nothing is accurate for gas/condensate.Beggs and Brill (Moody) is usable for low GOR lines. Use Beggs and Brill (Moody). OLGAS is a proprietary program that has not been available within Chevron. use no-slip.Beggs and Brill (Moody) is O. Inclined Down and Vertical Down . negotiations are underway to add OLGAS to Pipephase and several other programs as options. and it extrapolates best to field conditions. but answers may be suspect at times.Hagedorn and Brown is pretty good.Both Gray and Hagedorn-Brown are good.The most accurate method is no-slip. it is the recommended method for prediction of pressure drop.All available methods are poor. Near Horizontal Gas/Condensate Lines . Beggs and Brill (Moody) is fair. pressures from atmospheric to 1400 psi). liquid holdup and flow regime. Inclined Up . If gas velocities are high. Near Vertical Gas/Oil .K. OLGAS is based on a wide range of data (diameter from 1 to 8 inches.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE currently the best available method for general multiphase flow calculations. Near Horizontal Gas/Condensate . otherwise use 3) 4) 5) CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 37 . If OLGAS becomes available.Beggs and Bril1 (Moody) is good.Hagedorn and Brown is good.Eaton-Oliemans is good for relatively high velocities. The following methods can be used in Pipephase as a check of OLGAS or as the design method if OLGAS is not available: a) Pressure Drop 1) 2) Near Horizontal Low Gas-Oil Ratio .Everything is poor. As this guide is being written. Inclined Up . Near Vertical Gas/Condensate . but they are not as good overall.

If there is a wide variance in results. It is usually a good idea to spot-check the results by use of another method to ensure that the answers are reasonable. If this method is used. the conditions for a simulation may cause otherwise good multiphase flow methods to give erroneous results. Use Beggs and Brill (Moody).2. Calculation of the velocities from a Pipephase output is not straightforward.5 Interpretation of Results When a multiphase simulator such as Pipephase is run. and ensuring that the design criteria for the line (velocities. The following section provides assistance in understanding Pipephase output.PART I .2. 6) Inclined Down and Vertical Down . the interpretation of the results can be difficult. 3. c) Flow Regimes 1) The Taitel-Dukler flow regime map is as good as OLGAS for near horizontal flow with the exception of the slug-dispersed bubble boundary. The designers of Pipephase chose to include the actual gas and liquid velocities in their output table rather than the superficial gas and liquid velocities which are needed in the erosional velocity calculations. The Taitel-Dukler-Barnea map for near vertical flow is also as accurate as OLGAS. the velocity in the pipeline should be kept within a limited range.Everything is poor. 2) On occasion. As discussed in Section 1. As discussed in Section 2. the superficial and actual velocities are related by simple formulas: Vsg = Ug (1 − H l ) CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 38 . CPTC should be contacted for guidance. and allowable pressure drop) are met. it is recommended that a value of ~10 ft/sec be used as the superficial liquid velocity for the slug-dispersed bubble transition rather than the Taitel-Dukler prediction. The user must be careful because the holdups can be a factor of 10 in error in some cases. This boundary is very poorly predicted. flow regime. but answers may be suspect.2.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Beggs and Brill (Moody).

If the "link" contains several pipes with different inclinations.5 percent. if the liquid holdup is below 0. a value of 0. The flow regime map is printed only for the last "device" in a "link".PART I . the value of the no-slip mixture density must be known. This calculation is made more difficult by the poor formatting of the liquid holdup in the Pipephase output table. If other methods are used.) A more accurate way of calculating the superficial velocities from the Pipephase output tables which doesn’t rely on reading the value for the liquid holdup is: Hl = (U g − Vm) (U g − U l ) Vsl = U l H l Vsg = Vm − Vsl To calculate the C value in the API-RP14E equation. however. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 39 .00 for the holdup. the printout will show 0. The only way to print the flow regime map at specific points along the line is to make these points ends of Pipephase "links". (The liquid holdup is shown to only two decimal places in the table. from the phase densities shown on the output table and the superficial velocities calculated above: ρns = (ρg Vsg ) + (ρl Vsl ) Vm Pipephase allows the user to print a flow regime map based on either the Taitel-Dukler map for near horizontal flow or the Taitel-Dukler-Barnea map for near vertical flow. The no-slip mixture density can be calculated. For gas-condensate lines. Pipephase apparently only calculates and tabulates this value in the output table if the Beggs and Brill (Moody) method is used.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE and Vsl = U l H1 The liquid holdup is read from the "slip holdup" column. the flow regime map for some of these sections may be quite different from the map at the last "device".00 is given in the output table for the no-slip mixture density.

The pressure drop in the line should be compared with the allowable pressure drop. If the pipeline contains inclined or vertical elements. The printout shows both the predictions of the multiphase flow design method (e. At low flowrates.PART I . induced by the terrain. If methods other than OLGAS are used. It is worthwhile to emphasize the point that the pipeline design should be checked at offdesign points as well as the nominal design point.g. The flow regime analysis may show that the line is in stratified flow. If OLGAS is available. the designer needs to decide if this flow regime is acceptable. Terrain slugging is discussed in more detail in Section 5. the flow line should not be in the slug flow regime. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 40 . Terrain induced slugs are generally much longer than the slugs in normal slug flow and can cause severe operating problems. they can be successfully operated. the flow regime predictions of OLGAS can be compared directly with the Taitel-Dukler prediction. Beggs and Brill) and the Taitel-Dukler method. It should be pointed out that pressure drop is not always a maximum at the highest flowrate. In practice. it may be very difficult to design a line to avoid slug flow under all anticipated flow conditions. this is an excellent flow regime in which to operate. As long as the pipeline and downstream equipment are designed with proper consideration of slug flow effects. For most pipelines. Once the flow regime is determined. the changes in these variables required to avoid slug flow may be impractical. and the user can feel confident that the predicted flow regime is valid if the two methods match. it is possible that the highest pressure drop may occur at a low flow condition due to high elevational losses at low flows. If the pressure drop and velocities for lines in dispersed bubble or annular flow are within acceptable limits. Ideally. however. these flow regimes are usually good regimes in which to operate. This decision is more difficult than it may appear. slugging may occur in lines predicted to be in stratified flow.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE The "link" summary tables print the flow regime predictions for each pipeline segment. The only variables the designer can change are diameter and operating pressure. It should be pointed out that many pipelines operate successfully in slug flow. The pressure drop in the line can be read from the Pipephase "link summary" table. disregard their flow regime predictions and only consider the Taitel-Dukler predictions as reasonable.2. In many instances.2. worst case conditions for liquid holdup and flow regime occur at turn-down conditions.

3 Section Highlights Points to remember from Section 3. since the mechanistic models account for the effects of all the major variables. e) Inclined Up .PART I . General practice with Pipephase: use the black oil model for lower gas-oil ratio streams. d) Near Vertical Gas/Oil . Pressure Drop a) Near Horizontal Low Gas-Oil Ratio . If it is likely an emulsion will form. The pipeline profile must be realistic if the calculations of liquid holdup and pressure drop to be accurate.Nothing is good. If OLGAS becomes available. Beggs and Brill (Moody) is fair.Hagedorn and Brown is good. c) Near Vertical Gas/Condensate . it is the recommended method for prediction of pressure drop. Use Beggs and Brill (Moody).Beggs and Brill (Moody) is good. the Woeflin method (available in Pipephase) should be used to estimate the viscosity of the emulsion. but answers may be suspect at times. f) Inclined Down and Vertical Down . The following methods can be used in Pipephase as a check of OLGAS or as the design method if OLGAS is not available: 1. and flow regime. b) Near Horizontal Gas/Condensate .Both Gray and Hagedorn-Brown are good. liquid holdup. Low velocities cause severe problems in prediction of the pipeline performance. All of the models are poor for low velocities.Eaton-Oliemans is good for relatively high velocities.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE 3.0 • • • • • • • • Compositional models should be used for any gas-condensate or volatile oil system.Everything is poor. Mechanistic models extrapolate to field conditions much better than correlations. This recommendation covers gas-oil ratios above 3500 SCF/bbl. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 41 .

use noslip.Hagedorn and Brown is pretty good. Be careful because the holdups can be a factor of 10 in error in some cases. Flow Regimes a) The Taitel-Dukler flow regime map is as good as OLGAS for near horizontal flow with the exception of the slug-dispersed bubble boundary. • • • The flow line should. but better than the other methods. This boundary is very poorly predicted. h) Near Horizontal Gas/Condensate Lines . l) Inclined Down and Vertical Down .PART I . The Eaton holdup correlation is poor. If gas velocities are high.Beggs and Brill (Moody) issuables for low GOR lines. j) Near Vertical Gas/Oil .The most accurate method is no-slip. If the pressure drop and velocity for lines in dispersed bubble or annular flow are within acceptable limits. it may be very difficult to design a line to avoid slug flow under all anticipated flow conditions. Use Beggs and Brill (Moody). CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 42 . i) Near Vertical Gas/Condensate . these flow regimes are usually good regimes in which to operate.Beggs and Brill (Moody) is O. otherwise use Beggs and Brill (Moody).Everything is poor. not be in the slug flow regime. At low flow rates slugging may occur in lines predicted to be in stratified flow. but answers may be suspect. it is recommended that a value of ~10 ft/sec be used as the superficial liquid velocity for the slug-dispersed bubble transition rather than the TaitelDukler prediction.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Liquid Holdup g) Near Horizontal Low Gas-Oil Ratio . b) The Taitel-Dukler-Barnea map for near vertical flow is also as accurate as OLGAS. induced by the terrain.Nothing is accurate. ideally. k) Inclined Up . In practice. If this method is used. nothing is accurate for gas/condensate.K.

which ensures that a set of boundary conditions (such as inlet flowrates and outlet pressures as a function of time) are met while solving the conservation equations. temperatures. and they are valuable in several other areas such as the design of downstream facilities. These calculations are done at each time step. model the actual operation of pipelines closer and with more detail than steady state simulators. Steady state modeling can be used to size pipelines. The first widely used commercial program. therefore. pressures. This program has not been widely used. These uses include: a) Slug flow modeling CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 43 .TRANSIENT FLOW MODELING 4. Steady state simulators assume that all flowrates. OLGA’s only current competitor. are modeled by use of their average holdups and pressure drops. Steady state simulators cannot properly address any of these other concerns. Transient models allow all the input variables to change with time. transient simulators have been used for a variety of purposes. and the diagnosis of operating problems.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE SECTION 4.2 Use of Transient Simulators Because of their power. Transpire. Chevron currently does not own either program but has used OLGA for specific projects through consultants. but the predicted size may be inaccurate if the line is in slug flow. are constant through time. pressures. OLGA. Transient simulators can size pipelines more accurately. and it does not have as many features as the commercial codes. development of operating guidelines. etc. PLAC. Inherently transient phenomena. Transient simulators solve a set of equations for conservation of mass. Chevron internally developed a transient code. in the same time frame as OLGA.1 Transient Flow Modeling (General) Transient multiphase flow simulators have only been developed recently. 4. such as slug flow.PART I . temperatures and liquid holdups. was introduced to the market at about the same time. began development in about 1983 and has been commercially available since 1990. Transient programs can model phenomena such as slug flow and can show the variations in parameters such as outlet gas and liquid flowrates as a function of time.0 . momentum and energy to calculate the liquid and gas flowrates. Transient simulators. The programs utilize an iterative procedure.

Section 5. As transient simulators improve and computer power increases. General guideline for the use of steady state and transient modeling: use steady state modeling during the feasibility level design of a system.0 • • Transient simulators model the actual operation of pipelines much closer than steady state simulators.PART I . this guide does not contain any guidelines for their use. including leak detection Operator training Design of control systems for downstream equipment Slug catcher design A general guideline for the use of steady state and transient modeling would be to use steady state modeling during the feasibility level design of a system but use transient modeling in the final design of the pipeline and its associated equipment.3 Section Highlights Points to remember from Section 4.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) Estimates of the potential for terrain slugging Pigging simulation Estimation of corrosion potential in low spots in the line Startup. it is likely that transient simulators will eventually supplant steady state simulators.1 discusses the use of the OLGA program for slug length prediction. but use transient modeling in the final design of the pipeline and its associated equipment. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 44 . shutdown and pipeline depressuring simulations Development of operating guidelines Real time modeling. Because Chevron does not own a transient simulator at this time. 4.

alternating slugs of liquid and bubbles of gas flow through the pipe.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE SECTION 5. the actual velocities during slug release can be very high.0 . most of the liquid inventory is pushed from the line as a liquid slug ahead of the pig. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 45 . and will be further discussed in Section 5. Although terrain slugging occurs at low superficial gas and liquid velocities.2. In near horizontal flow.1 Slug Flow . When a line is shut down. Terrain slugging occurs when a low point in the line fills with liquid. When this happens. The liquid does not move until gas pressure behind the blockage builds high enough to push the liquid out of the low spot as a slug. When the flow is restarted. the accumulated liquid may exit the pipeline as a slug.General The formation of slugs of liquid can be caused by a variety of mechanisms: a) Hydrodynamic Slugging b) Terrain Slugging c) Pigging d) Startup and Blowdown e) Flowrate Changes Each of the mechanisms will be briefly discussed here.PART I . slugs are formed by waves growing on the liquid surface to a height sufficient to completely fill the pipe. Terrain slugging can produce very long slugs in pipeline-riser systems. Hydrodynamic slugging refers to operating in the slug flow regime. When a pipeline is pigged. as illustrated in Figure I:1-1. liquid that is left in the line will drain to the low points in the line.SLUG FLOW ANALYSIS 5.

Each of the slug flow mechanisms is highly transient in nature.2 Slug Length and Frequency Predictions Although estimates of slug length and frequency are of prime importance in design of pipeline system facilities. Development of prediction methods has been hampered by the difficulty of the problem and the meager amount of available test data. The average slug length and the slug length distribution change with the position down the pipe. discuss available methods of predicting slug flow behavior and give some recommendations on sizing of slug catchers and separators.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE When the flowrate is increased. while the standard deviation of the slug length distribution decreases. dissipate. depending on the flowrate. or it can come out in the form of a slug. the liquid holdup in the line decreases. The next two sections of the guide discuss the slug flow mechanisms in more detail. Steady state models cannot properly simulate slug flow behavior and are very limited in their ability to predict slug characteristics such as slug length and frequency. 5. Slugs may grow.1 Hydrodynamic Slugging Experimental measurements of the slug length in hydrodynamic slug flow show several interesting results: a) The slug length is not constant. discusses the available test data. most of the prediction methods available are poor. or fractal distributions. b) CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 46 .PART I . This section discusses each of the mechanisms for slug flow. truncated Gaussian. inverse Gaussian. 5. the average slug length usually increases with the position in the pipe. As a result. The maximum slug length may be several times greater than the average. and give recommendations on the best available prediction methods. or merge as the flow continues down the pipe. the slug length varies greatly around an average value. This change in holdup can either exit the line as a gradual increase in liquid flow. Different investigators have characterized the slug length distribution as log normal. At a given point in the line.2.

have been widely used for slug length prediction. They were the first experimentalists to report the wide disparity between the extrapolation of lab results and field data. the topography of the line.000 times the Pipe Diameter. the liquid physical properties. Brill. the Brill. In the data base of published pipeline field test results.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE c) d) Slugs in vertical pipes are much smaller than slugs in horizontal pipes. and the gas density. A few correlation methods have been presented based on field data. with some slugs as long as 10. allowing more time for slug growth. the gas and liquid superficial velocities. Two of these methods. et al. Both methods will be discussed in detail. e) The differences between laboratory and field data shown in points d) and e) above are due to factors such as: terrain features have a large effect on the slug length and frequency. which means they are of limited use in the design of pipelines in the field. the average slug length is much higher than the results observed in the laboratory. Correlation and the Hill & Wood method. et al. The slug length in laboratory experiments can be fairly well correlated. They developed a simple correlation for slug CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 47 .PART I . slug flow in the field can be combination of mechanisms such as hydrodynamic slugging causing terrain slugging. - Average slug length is a complex function of many variables: the diameter and length of the pipeline. These tests show that the average slug length (in feet) is approximately 32 times the Pipe Diameter (in feet) for horizontal pipes. Several correlations have been presented for the prediction of slug length and slug frequency for horizontal piping and pipelines. The field tests results show average slug lengths of 300-2000 times the Pipe Diameter. Most of these correlations are based solely on laboratory data. field pipelines are much longer. took several sets of data on 12 and 16 inch pipelines at Prudhoe Bay in about 1978.

9999 Slug Length/Mean Slug Length 1. A comparison of the Brill predictions against measured average slug lengths from a 16" laboratory line and two field pipelines shows: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 48 . inches = Mixture velocity. the slug length distribution is the same for all pipelines.00 1.42 10.059 ln(Vm) where Ls D Vm = Average slug length. model is the basis for the slug length predictions in Pipephase.44 (ln(D))0.9900 99.72 4. and it has been used as the design basis for many facilities. With this assumption. Their method assumes that the variance for any pipeline is the same as the average value of the variance from these tests.76 The Brill method is easy to use.46 6. Unfortunately. ft/sec The Prudhoe Bay test data appeared to be a log normal distribution around the mean slug length.PART I . The Brill et al. = Pipeline inside diameter. Their correlation is: ln(Ls) = -2.7200 99.0000 84.1300 97. Log normal distributions were fit to each of the Prudhoe Bay tests. It gives poor predictions for almost every data set that was not included in the original correlation.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE length based on the Prudhoe Bay tests and small diameter laboratory data. The distribution is: Percent Probability 50. the Brill method is very inaccurate.5 + 0.65 2. and the mean slug length and variance were calculated.663 + 5.8600 99. ft.

cp µ g = Gas Viscosity. In order to calculate the Taitel-Dukler holdup. the slug length is a complex function of many variables. the value for the Lockhart & Martinelli X factor is calculated from the following equation: V X = sl V sg 0. The model is more sophisticated than the Brill approach and attempts to account for the many of the major variables. the Norris correlation and the Scott. Their work was based on both laboratory data and a large number of field measurements. As noted previously. cp CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 49 . The model assumes a horizontal pipe and uses the Taitel-Dukler stratified flow model to estimate the slip velocity and the equilibrium holdup at the beginning of the pipeline. Hill and Wood of BP published a paper proposing an alternate way of modeling slug frequency. Slug Length. while a bit better than the Brill method for larger pipelines. ft. et al. ft. The slug length is predicted to be almost exclusively a function of the line diameter.4 µ1 µ g 0. and the equilibrium holdup at the beginning of the pipeline. Their performance. There are two other methods based primarily on the Prudhoe Bay data.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Actual Data Source BHRG Field Data Field Data Avg. namely. Slug Length. 700 120 1800 The inaccuracy of the Brill et al. gas-liquid slip velocity. 30 1000 400 Predicted Avg.9 ρ1 ρ g 0. and a simple formula like this cannot approximate reality. Both of these methods assume that the slug length is only dependent on the line diameter. is also weak.PART I . method is due to the simplicity of their formula. In 1990.1 where: µ 1 = Liquid Viscosity. Their model correlates the slug frequency with the diameter. correlation.

which is defined as the slug length divided by the sum of the slug and bubble lengths. ft/sec = Liquid Holdup (based on stratified flow at the inlet of the pipe) To calculate the slug length. slugs/hour = Pipe Inside Diameter. ft/sec = Actual Liquid Velocity. the slug fraction.PART I . The slug fraction can be calculated rigorously by use of mechanistic slug flow models. such as the Hubbard-Dukler model or the Nicholson.74 H le U g − U l D(1 − H le ) ( ) where Fs D Ug Ul Hle = Slug Frequency. A simplified alternative to the use of these models is the following procedure.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Once X is known. The Gregory. Nicholson. the liquid holdup in the slug will be estimated. ft = Actual Gas Velocity. and Aziz method is the easiest method to use. The liquid holdup in the slug is given by: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 50 . the value for the liquid holdup (Hle) for stratified flow can be read from Figure I:5-1. and it is as accurate as most of the methods. must be known. The actual gas and liquid velocities can be calculated from the superficial velocities and the stratified flow liquid holdup by the formulas: Ug = Vsg 1 − H le and Ul = Vsl H le Their equation for slug frequency is: Fs = 2. and Aziz model. Gregory. First.

39 V 1+ m 28.PART I .4 where Hls = Liquid Holdup in the slug The liquid holdup in the bubble (Hlb) can be assumed to be ~0. A rule of thumb.20 for much of the slug flow range. the design slug length is needed instead of the mean slug length. is that the maximum slug length is approximately 6 times the mean slug length.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE H ls = 1 1. From a material balance. This method models the growth or dissipation of each slug and models phenomena such as the merger of two slugs. from its inception to its dissipation or exit from the pipeline. based on the limited amount of experimental data available. To use the Hill & Wood model for slug catcher designs. Another alternative approach to hydrodynamic slug length prediction is the method used in the OLGA transient program. the slug fraction (SF) can be calculated from these values and the overall liquid holdup prediction: SF = Hl − H lb Hls − H lb The slug length can be calculated from: Ls = where Ls 3600SF (Vm ) Fs = Mean Slug Length. If a correlation based model is used for slug length prediction. ft An example of the use of the Hill & Wood model is shown in Section 6. The Hill & Wood model is more sophisticated than the Brill model and is based on a broader data base. The model accounts for terrain effects and CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 51 . The slug tracking model in OLGA attempts to dynamically track each slug in the system.1. the Hill & Wood model is probably the best available method.

If transient analysis is not possible. the liquid remains stationary until gas pressure behind the slug builds to a suitably high level to push the liquid out as a slug. If no further analysis is done. Figure I:5-2 illustrates the various stages in terrain slugging for pipeline-riser systems. On startup. some simplified methods have been developed for estimation of severe slug potential.2. This is one of the reasons that it is so difficult to extrapolate laboratory slug length data to field conditions.2 Terrain Slugging Terrain slugging refers to slug flow resulting from a blockage of a low spot in the pipe with liquid. The most severe form of terrain slugging occurs in pipeline-riser systems. The best way to analyze the line for terrain slugging is to run a transient simulator.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE the effects of all of the major variables. When the liquid completely fills up a low spot. which has only been available to the industry since early 1994.PART I . and it is discussed here. These slugs can be much larger than those associated with hydrodynamic slugging. the line may experience slugs that may be thousands of feet long. shows promise in prediction of slug lengths. which have a negatively sloping pipeline ahead of the riser. under certain conditions. Experimental work has shown that both hydrodynamic and terrain slugging may occur at various points in the line. 5. The method of Pots et al. At low flowrates very large slugs may form in this type of system. One of the problems with using a steady state program such as Pipephase is its inability to identify terrain slugging. By equating pressure buildup rates. Pipelines in the terrain slugging regime will usually be identified by the steady state simulator as being in stratified flow. These methods pertain only to the modeling of pipeline-riser slugging. Pots developed a formula for a dimensionless severe slugging factor πss: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 52 . the line may be designed in the belief that it is in a steady flow regime. Has been included in Pipephase. This model.

and low gas-oil ratios contribute to the likelihood and severity of terrain slugging. ft = Liquid holdup in the pipeline When the value for πss is less than 1. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 53 .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE 144 zRT Wg gc π ss = M Wl g L f (1 − H l ) where z R T M Wg Wl gc g Lf Hl = Gas compressibility = Gas Constant.2 ft/sec2 = Length of the pipeline. deg R = Gas Molecular Weight. ft Pipephase calculates πss if the SLUG table option is turned on. 10.2 lb-ft/lbf-sec2) = Acceleration due to gravity.PART I . Pots also gives an expression for the slug length in severe slugging: Ls = Lr / πss where Ls Lr = Slug length. 32. The Taitel-Dukler flow regime map can be used to determine whether the flowline is in stratified flow at the pipeline-riser junction. ft = Riser height. Pots indicates that the flowline must be in stratified flow for severe slugging to take place. Values less than 1 do not ensure that severe slugging will occur. severe slugging could occur.73 psia-ft3/(lb-mole-deg R) = Temperature. lb/sec = Liquid mass flowrate. lb/lb-mole = Gas mass flowrate. 32. lb/sec = Conversion factor. low pressure. The equation for πss indicates that long pipelines.

the model is conceptually a very good representation of pigging.2.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE The Pots method gives a reasonable approximation to terrain slugging behavior for a simple constant slope pipeline-riser system. The model developed by Barua of Tulsa University has been included in Pipephase. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 54 . Baker and McDonald developed a quasi-transient model of pigging in which the lengths and pressure drops for the various zones were estimated and tracked with time. Although some of the methods used in the Baker-McDonald model are antiquated. Several investigators have modified the Baker-McDonald model to improve its predictions.PART I . including: a) Liquid inventory control b) Maintenance and data logging c) Pipeline cleaning and dewaxing d) Inhibitor application The classic analysis of pigging was developed by Baker and McDonald in 1959.3 Pigging Slugs Pigs are run through pipelines for a variety of reasons. They identified five zones in a pipeline undergoing pigging: a) Undisturbed equilibrium flow b) Liquid slug ahead of the pig c) Pig itself d) Dry gas region behind the pig e) Reestablished equilibrium flow Figure I:5-3 graphically illustrates the zones in a pigged pipeline. but it cannot rigorously model the performance of a hilly terrain pipeline connected to a riser. 5.

however. ft3 = Average liquid holdup in the pipe = Cross-sectional area of the pipe. The pig and the slug in front of it move at a velocity that is equal to the gas velocity behind the pig. In lieu of better data. It is also possible to get a good estimate of the pig volume and transit time by simple hand calculations. The simpler models. the volume of liquid ahead of the pig is equal to the liquid holdup in the line minus the amount of leakage past the pig minus the amount of liquid produced while the pig is traversing the pipeline or: Qslug where Qslug Hl Ap fleak = (Hl Ap Lf) (1 . The transit time of the pig would therefore be: ttrans where ttrans Lf = Lf / Vm avg = Transit time for the pig. ft Vm avg = Average mixture velocity. the designer can use the following method. this velocity can be assumed to be equal to the mixture velocity.fleak) .Vsl Ap ttrans = Volume of liquid ahead of the pig. give pretty good predictions. For a first approximation.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE The commercial transient simulators model the physics of pigging more rigorously than the models of Baker & McDonald or Barua.02. use fleak = 0. ft/sec When the slug exits the line. To estimate the slug volume and transit time by hand. and are more accurate. sec = Pipeline length. ft2 = Fraction of the liquid that leaks past the pig The value for fleak is dependent on the type of pig and the pig velocity.PART I . The amount of time during which the liquid slug enters the slug catcher is: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 55 .

aeration of the liquid slug. a transient simulator must be used. such as pig acceleration and deceleration.4 Startup and Blowdown Slugs When a pipeline is shut down. the liquid holdup in the line decreases. Transient simulation is needed to model these slugs. at both the initial and final flowrates but will slug during the transition period until the line reequilibrates at the higher rate. such as stratified flow. due to high gas velocities during the blowdown period. When the line is restarted. 5.2.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE t slug = Qslug A p Vm avg = Time during which the slug enters the slug catcher. but it gives a ball-park estimate of the flows and volumes needed for the slug catcher design.. sec where tslug The liquid rate while the slug enters the slug catcher is: qslug where qslug = Vm avg Ap = Liquid rate into slug catcher when slug is exiting. slugs may also form. 5.2. If the pipeline is depressured at shutdown. Please note that the rate change slugs can occur in gas/condensate lines when the rates are increased. and to estimate the magnitude of the slugs. this liquid may exit the line in the form of slugs.5 Rate Change Slugs When the flowrate is increased. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 56 . ft3/sec The simplified analysis shown above doesn’t account for many effects that occur during pigging. etc. or it can come out in the form of a slug. depending on the flowrate change. The line may be in a steady flow pattern. the liquid will drain to the low points in the line. This change in holdup can either exit the line as a steady flow with increased liquid production.PART I . To determine whether slugging will occur.

This. Some of these include: a) Does the line need to be pigged routinely or is pigging only needed for maintenance? If pigging is a maintenance item done once per year. etc. must be factored into the design of this equipment. These variables should be calculated for the design operation and for a series of off-design cases: turndown rates.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE As with startup slugs. Off-design cases should be estimated as well as the design point. For oil dominated systems. it is impossible to predict whether slugs will occur when rates are changed using steady state or hand methods. separators. Some of the transient simulators also allow the user to simulate separators and control systems as part of the run. allowing the user to fine tune the design. too. if the occurrence of pigging is infrequent. Estimates of parameters such as slug volumes. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 57 . minimizes the high pressure slug catcher sizing. etc.2.2. It is also possible to send the liquid from the slug catcher to low pressure separation at high rates for short periods. and control systems downstream of pipelines must comprehend the presence and severity of slug flow.3 can be used. liquid and gas rates exiting the pipeline as a function of time. the size of slug catching equipment for gas-condensate pipelines will be governed by pigging considerations. In general. the methods shown in Sections 5. pigging.6 Downstream Equipment Design for Slug Flow The design of slug-catchers. As mentioned. For approximate sizing of the equipment. The line must be dynamically simulated using a transient flow program. shutdown and startup. Because slug catching equipment can be a substantial cost item.PART I . 5. transient modeling gives the best estimates of slug flow behavior. it is possible to minimize the cost of the equipment by considering alternative operating scenarios.1 to 5.2. the size of the slug catcher is usually governed by the maximum slug length due to either hydrodynamic or terrain slugs. rate changes. it is possible to run the pig at a rate low enough to keep a small slug catcher from overflowing.

all the production can be fed to one of the lines. If a high pigging frequency is chosen. Pigs have been developed with a variety of proprietary internals that limit the velocity at which the pig moves through the pipeline. When rates are low. It may be possible to limit the slug catcher size by restricting the pig velocity. the slug catcher size can be minimized. The use of multiphase pumps or subsea separators at well clusters can decrease slug catcher sizes significantly.PART I . Because the slug length for hydrodynamic slug flow is a function of the diameter of the line. It is possible to design the line for frequent pigging at low rates and steady state operation at higher rates. If pigging isn’t necessary for a gas-condensate line. the sizing of the slug catcher usually becomes dependent on rate changes. the use of parallel pipelines instead of one pipeline can decrease the slug length and volume going to the slug catcher/separator. Two other methods are: choking of the flow at the tope of the riser. and gas lifting the riser.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE b) Pigging of the line after steady state conditions are reached may result in a very large slug catcher. limits the rate of liquid exiting the line during the pigging operation. One approach would be to reroute the pipeline to reduce or eliminate dips in the pipeline profile. thereby keeping velocities high. in turn. c) d) e) f) g) h) i) CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 58 . If terrain slugging is shown to be a problem. minimizing liquid holdup. The use of parallel pipelines should be considered as a way of limiting the turndown for a line. thereby minimizing slug catcher size while eliminating the need for frequent pigging when the rate is high. so that the line never achieves steady state operation. which. Limiting the turndown on the line and limiting the amount that the rate is changed at one time can be beneficial in minimizing slug catcher sizes. there are several remedial steps which have been employed to decrease the severity of the slugging or eliminate it completely.

which are in the terrain slugging regime. Hydrodynamic Slugging 2. Pigging 4. In general. the size of the slugcatcher is usually governed by maximum slug length due to either hydrodynamic or terrain slugs. • • CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 59 .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE 5. the size of slugcatching equipment for gas-condensate pipelines will be governed by pigging considerations. the Hill & Wood model is probably the best available method. On startup..PART I . the line may experience slugs that may be thousands of feet long.3 Section Highlights Points to remember from Section 5. the line may be designed in the belief that it is in a steady flow regime. If no further analysis is done. Pipelines. If a correlation based model is used for slug length prediction.0 • The formation of slugs of liquid can be caused by a variety of mechanisms: 1. There are alternative operating scenarios which can be considered to minimize slug catcher size. Rate Changes • • • • The Brill method is very inaccurate. It gives poor predictions for almost every data set that was not included in the original correlation. will usually be identified by the steady state simulator as being in stratified flow. Terrain Slugging 3. Startup 5. Rule of thumb (based on limited amount of data available): the maximum slug length is approximately 6 times the mean slug. For oil dominated systems.

PART I .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Figure I: 5-1 Taital-Dukler Liquid Holdup Predictions for Simplified Flow in a Horizontal Pipeline CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 60 .

PART I .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Figure I: 5-2 Stages in Terrain Slugging of Pipeline Riser Systems CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 61 .

MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Figure I: 5-3 Pipeline Pigging CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 62 .PART I .

MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE SECTION 6.90 0.057 765 Water Production.66 2. Water production is initially zero.23 3.70 0.74 0.18 1.45 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 63 .48 0. The gas-oil ratio for the production is about 345 SCF/bbl oil. The dry wellstream composition. The production profile is: Year No.55 3.32 2.45 0.584 4.1 EXAMPLE1: Low Gas/Oil Line Between Platforms This example is based on the Mejo to Tapa P/P line in Nigeria. The specific gravity of the separator gas is about 0.PART I . as measured by a separator test.05 31. MMSCFD 5.478 7.71.26 The API gravity of the stock tank oil is 27.865 7.438 Gas Production.EXAMPLE PROBLEMS 6.37 1.954 2. bbl/day 15.49 0.94 4. 1 4 8 12 Oil Production.0.0 . but builds rapidly with time.04 4. is: Component CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6’s C7’s C8’s C9’s C10’s Mole % 0.55 0. The line runs 8 miles from a Wellhead Platform to a Producing Platform. bbl/day 0 8.

The line will be unburied. The pipeline system consists of a downward riser at the wellhead platform. The wellstream temperature at the wellhead platform is 130 degrees F.06 1. and it will not be coated with concrete.48 1. and the water depth at the production platform is 20 feet.64 2. and the ambient air and water temperatures are 80 degrees F.00 The specific gravity of the C20+ fraction is 0. The maximum pressure at the wellhead platform is 300 psig. The up riser is vertical and 100 feet long. what length and frequency are the slugs? CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 64 .57 2.82 1. the 8 mile long pipeline.30 100. The pipeline elevation profile is not known. and the molecular weight of the C20+ is 309.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE C11’s C12's Cl3’s Cl4’s C15's C16's Cl7's C18's Cl9's C20+ Total 3.07 2. The only information available on the pipeline elevation is that the water depth at the wellhead platform is 15 feet.PART I . and an upward riser at the production platform.09 26.22 2. What line size is required? Is slugging likely to be a problem? If slugging occurs.9499 at 60 degrees F.41 1. The pressure at the production platform is 80 psig. The hydrocarbon wellstream composition is assumed to remain constant throughout the life of the field. The down riser is vertical and it is 65 feet long.

6. it isn’t necessary to calculate these values with great precision. The pressure at the top of the riser should be almost equal to the separator pressure. When the Pipephase results are analyzed. If it appears that slugging is likely. the values of the erosional velocity constant will be computed and compared against the maximum value of 100. the phase equilibria and physical properties would need to be found by flash calculations. additional simulations will be done using the OLGA transient model.98. 80 degrees F.98 = 9.PART I . since the mixture velocity is the highest there. The minimum line size is given by the erosional velocity formula.400 sec) .76 ft3/sec Liquid ft3/sec: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 65 . At these conditions. almost all the gas should be flashed out of solution.1 Line Size In order to run Pipephase.7 psia) [(460+80) F/(460+60) F] (1 D/86.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Solution The operation of the line will be initially simulated by Pipephase. Since the minimum diameter is only a starting place for the pipe sizing calculations. Therefore the amount of gas and liquid present under the year 1 conditions should be approximately: Gas ft3/sec: cfsg = (345 SCF/bbl) (15478 bbL/D) (14. 80 psig.1.7 psia/94. Vmax = C ρ ns where C = 100 To calculate ρns and Vmax rigorously. The compressibility factor of the gas at these conditions would be about 0. so that the amount of gas present should be equal to the gas/oil ratio times the oil production rate. The temperature of the fluid at the top of the riser should be close to sea temperature. The maximum value of C should occur at the outlet of the up riser. an estimate of the line diameter is needed.

71) (28.73 psia-ft3/mole-degF) (460+80 degF)] = 0.5 (12 in/ft) = 6.7 lb/ft3 The no-slip average density of the mixture. If the pressure drop becomes excessive.01) ft3/sec) / (42.PART I .01 ft3/sec The densities of each phase are approximately: Gas: ρg = (.01) = 5.4 lb/ft3) [141.97 lb/mole) (95 psia) / [(.344 * 9.54)0.76) + (55.82 inches Rounding this result to the nearest standard line size indicates that the pipeline must be at least an 8 inch line to meet the erosional velocity criterion.5/(131. is given by: ρns = (ρg cfsg ) + (ρl cfsl ) (cfsg + cfsl ) = [(0.5+27 deg API)] = 55.76 + 1. until CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 66 .76 + 1.54 lb/ft 3 The erosion velocity criteria gives a maximum velocity of: Vmax = 100 / (5. Pipephase runs should be made for the production rates at the various years starting with a line size of 8 inches.98) (10.48 gal) = 1. ρns.5 ft/sec The minimum diameter of the line. is: Dmin = [( 4 * (9.5 = 42.01)] / (9. increase the line size.5 ft/sec) * 3.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE cfsl = (15478 bbl/D) (1 D/86.1416)]0. therefore.7 *1.344 lb/ft3 Liquid: ρl = (62.400 sec) (42 gal/bbl) (1 ft 3/7.

and will be ignored in the rough line sizing calculations. typically being anywhere from 5% to 100% too low.76 + 1.01) ft 3 / sec x 4 x 144 3. = 0. Liq. it is possible to approximate the frictional pressure drop by use of a "ball-park" method.01)] /(9.54 lb/ft3 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 67 . Adding 25% to the homogenous friction loss will bring the answer into a reasonable range. For this example. = 10 cp) gives a no-slip viscosity of: [(0. Using typical values for the viscosities of each phase (Gas Visc. Visc.01) = 0.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE the inlet pressure for the limiting case remains below about 300 psig for all production rates. The approach discussed in the previous paragraph requires a trial and error solution for the diameter.015 cp. the elevational and accelerational pressure drops will be much less than the frictional loss.1416 d 2 where d is in inches Vm = 1975 / d2 (ft/sec) ρns = 5.76) + (10 x 1.PART I .95 cp The homogenous frictional pressure gradient is: 2 dp 4 f nsV m ρns = 2 g c (12d ) dx d 1488 ρnsVm 12 Rens = µns Vm = (9.015 x 9. To cut down the number of trial diameters. The friction loss can be estimated by assuming a homogenous mixture of the two phases. The assumption of homogenous flow gives a friction loss that is low.76 + 1.

PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE

µns = 0.95 cp

Substituting these values into the expression for Rens gives: Rens = 1,426,000/d For a smooth pipe, the Fanning friction factor can be approximated by: fns = 0.046 / Rens0.2 Substituting, fns = 0.046/(1426000/d)0.2 = .00270 d0.2 Combining this expression with the expressions above gives the following expression for the homogenous frictional pressure gradient:

1975 4 0.00270d 0.2 2 d (64.4)(12d)

dp = dx

(

)

2

(5.54)

= 302.0/d4.8 psi/ft The allowable pressure drop is 300-80=220 psi in the 8 mile long pipeline. Equating this pressure drop to the homogenous pressure gradient, and adding 25% to the homogenous pressure gradient to account for the two-phase behavior gives: 220 psi/(8 * 5280 ft) = 1.25 * 302.0/d4 8 psi/ft d = 10.29 inches These calculations indicate that an 8 inch line is probably too small, and that a 10 inch line is probably the minimum line size that can be used to stay within the desired pressure drop.

CPTC

NOVEMBER 1994

68

PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE

For the sake of this example, we will make Pipephase runs for 8, 10, and 12 inch pipelines and risers. Since we have both black oil properties and compositions available for this example, we will run both the black oil model and the compositional model in Pipephase for the 10 inch line as a comparison between the methods. In general, compositional modeling predicts the phase equilibrium more accurately than black oil modeling, but the black oil models may predict the physical properties of the liquid better than compositional modeling. For low GOR systems, black oil modeling may give the best answers, while compositional modeling is clearly superior for high GOR systems. The black oil model only needs the gravities of each phase and the total gas-oil ratio of the system. For the compositional model, the program needs two of the following for each petroleum cut: molecular weight; specific gravity; or normal boiling point. In the example information, we are given the specific gravity and molecular weight for the C20 + cut, but we have no information on the C6 to Cl9 cuts. Without this information, the only possible characterization is to use the normal paraffin data for the cut. Use nCl0 as the basis for the properties of the Cl0 cut, for instance. In reality, each of these cuts consists of hundreds of different components boiling in the same boiling range as the normal paraffin, and the phase behavior of this mixture of aromatics, naphthenes, and alkylated paraffins is not the same as the behavior of the normal paraffin. The proper way to characterize the cuts is to have laboratory analyses of the specific gravity and molecular weight of each of the cuts in addition to their boiling ranges, but this information is rarely available. Information is needed on the pipeline and risers. The diameters to be used in this exercise are: Nominal Diameter, inches 8 10 12 Outside Diameter, inches 8.625 10.750 12.750 Inside Diameter, inches 7.625 9.500 11.375

CPTC

NOVEMBER 1994

69

PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE

Since there is insufficient data to do rigorous heat transfer calculations, use an overall heat transfer coefficient, U, of 5 BTU/hr/ft2/degF for the pipeline and a U of 20 for each of the risers. The pipeline elevation profile has not been given. The simplest way to simulate the pipeline profile is to assume that it has a constant slope, with a 5 foot drop in elevation over its 8 mile length. This assumption will give the most optimistic results, because it will minimize the elevational pressure drop for hills. To better mirror reality, some terrain effects could be added by adding hills and valleys to the profile. For high velocities, there will be negligible difference in the holdup and pressure drop between the constant slope profile and the profile with the hills added. For low velocities, however, the difference can be significant. For the sake of simplicity in this example, we will use the straight-line profile for the Pipephase runs, with the understanding that the pressure drop and liquid holdup for low rates may be low. The Pipephase runs will be made with a constant outlet ("Sink") pressure of 80 psig. The inlet ("Source") pressure to the line will vary with the production rate. Since this line is a low gas-oil ratio line, the Beggs and Brill correlation will be used to calculate the pressure drop and liquid holdup for the line. If the OLGAS method had been available, it would have been used for the calculations. Because of its mechanistic model, OLGAS would show more of an impact of hills than Beggs and Brill, and would give more accurate answers. The Beggs and Brill flow regime calculations are poor, and they will be ignored. The Taitel-Dukler-Barnea flow regime predictions will be used instead. A comparison of the predictions of the black oil model with three different liquid viscosity methods and the compositional model was made for the 10-inch line at year 1 rates. The predicted inlet pressures and liquid viscosity for the models were:

CPTC

NOVEMBER 1994

70

Glass Is. 10. This viscosity indicated that the Glaso correlation modeled the liquid viscosity best. Vazquez Vis. The inlet pressures for the various cases were: Year No. The 10inch line is at the maximum inlet pressure for the Year 1 conditions. which can be explained by the large differences in liquid viscosity. and merit further investigation. The mixture velocities at the exit of the P/P riser for the various cases are: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 71 . Black Oil. The viscosity of the reservoir fluid was measured during the PVT analysis of the recombined wellstream.PART I .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Model Compositional Black Oil. Inlet Pressure. Errors of this magnitude in physical properties are disturbing. It was decided to use the Black Oil model with the Glaso liquid viscosity correlation for all the Pipephase runs for this example. Pipephase runs were made for the three line sizes (8. 1 4 8 12 8 inch 530 433 194 126 10 inch 301 242 133 115 12 inch 199 164 119 110 The 8-inch line is too small to handle the rates in the early years of production. psig 247 301 320 335 Liquid Viscosity at Pipeline Outlet. The 12-inch line is comfortably within the maximum inlet pressure of the line. cp 2 18 29 62 There is a wide discrepancy between the model predictions. and 12 inch) for the 4 production rates shown in the production forecast. The poor viscosity prediction of the compositional model may be due in part to the characterization of the heavy ends of the wellstream. Chew Vis. Black Oil.

1 4 8 12 8 inch 30. 1 4 8 12 8 inch 3.51 10 inch 21.90 12 inch 13.PART I .06 2.14 6.89 0.64 The superficial liquid velocity at the exit of the P/P riser are: Year No.60 1.75 1.80 2.48 The value of the constant C in the erosional velocity formula can be calculated by either of CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 72 .44 10 inch 19.06 12.59 12 inch 14. The values for these parameters can be calculated from the program output by the following relationships: Vsg = Ug (I-HI) Vsl = Ul HI where the Ug is the actual gas velocity.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Year No.23 1.47 1.28 0.58 8.88 2.60 5.00 9.81 1.37 2.03 3. and HI is the slip liquid holdup.98 1.47 0. 1 4 8 12 8 inch 33.01 15.71 0. Ul is the actual liquid velocity.07 10 inch 2.12 Pipephase does not print the superficial gas and liquid velocities. The superficial gas velocity at the exit of the P/P riser are: Year No.21 18.44 1.13 3.56 0.90 1.69 12 inch 1. These three parameters are tabulated in the "Link" device detail report.20 3.

gas.2 12 inch 35.2 8.9 5. Substituting these values into the above equation gives the following values for C at the exit of the P/P riser: Year No.9 10 inch 50. 1 4 8 12 8 inch 78. and no-slip densities can be read from the. 1 4 8 12 8 inch 1064 1268 1367 1563 10 inch 1336 1683 2018 3093 12 inch 1664 2197 3607 5009 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 73 .0 28. The Taitel-Dukler-Barnea flow regimes at the end of the pipeline for the various cases are: Year No. using the Beggs and Brill correlation. "Property" summary table in the Pipephase output.4 26.3 17. are: Year No.8 12.1 11.4 40.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE the following equivalent relationships: C = [Vm (ρl Vsl + pg Vsg)]0.8 The values for C are within the API guidelines for all cases.5 = ρns0.PART I .5 Vm The values of the liquid. 1 4 8 12 8 inch Slug Slug Slug Slug 10 inch Slug Slug Slug Strat 12 inch Slug Slug Strat Strat The predicted liquid holdups (in barrels).9 62.

We need to quantify the occurrence and severity of slug flow. 1 4 8 12 8 inch 0. The values for the various cases are: Year No.052 0. Year 8 for the 12-inch and year 12 for both the 10 and 12 inch lines are shown to be in stratified flow in the pipeline. Therefore. the predicted flow regimes for the system using the Pipephase results are: Year No.098 0. The velocities in the later years of operation are a definite concern for all three-line sizes. severe slugging is a concern during the later years. The 8-inch line is definitely undersized.024 0. The Pipephase results indicate that the pipeline will operate in the hydrodynamic slug flow regime for all rates with the 8 inch line.020 10 inch 0.078 0. so the production rate could be less than design if the Pipephase predictions are optimistic. and years 1 to 4 for the 12 inch line. The key to estimating whether severe slugging will occur is to determine whether the Pots πss factor is less than 1. will be in the severe slugging regime. years 1 to 8 for the 10 inch line. which are in stratified flow in the pipeline. 1 4 8 12 8 inch Hydrodynamic Slug Hydrodynamic Slug Hydrodynamic Slug Hydrodynamic Slug 10 inch Hydrodynamic Slug Hydrodynamic Slug Hydrodynamic Slug Severe Slug 12 inch Hydrodynamic Slug Hydrodynamic Slug Severe Slug Severe Slug CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 74 .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE The conclusions regarding the line sizing are that the 10-inch line is the appropriate line size.121 All the values of πss are much less than 1. This result is deceptive. By Pots’ analysis. since stratified flow in a downwardly sloping pipeline connected to a vertical riser is the classical severe slugging scenario. Due to these low velocities.023 0. only those points. and the 12-inch appears oversized.041 0.044 0.084 0. The pressure drop for the 10-inch during year 1 is right at the upper limit for inlet pressure.032 0.PART I .042 12 inch 0. indicating that severe slugging is possible for this pipeline. Pipephase tabulates this value as part of its "SLUG" report.

In severe slugging. The maximum slug length therefore is approximately equal to the average slug length. As mentioned in the text. blocking the flow. and drain in from the pipeline. these predictions are the best available method. liquid will fall back down the riser. The values for the slug length reported in Pipephase for the 3 severe slugging conditions are: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 75 . When the gas has exited the riser. predictions will be used as the basis for predicting slug length in hydrodynamic slug flow. since the operation in cyclic. The slug length is estimated by: Ls = Lr / πss where Lr is the riser height in feet. the operation is cyclic: • • • • The low spot fills with liquid. The liquid exits the system as a slug.2 Slug Length Prediction We need to estimate the slug lengths for the various cases.PART I . These estimates will be checked against the predictions of the Hill & Wood model for hydrodynamic slugging and the predictions of the OLGA transient model. however. The Brill. The slug length should not vary much for a constant rate. The output for the Pipephase "SLUG" option prints tables summarizing the predictions of the Brill. and the Pots πss method will be used as the basis for predicting slug length in severe slugging.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE 6. et al. Unless a transient model is available. correlation.1. et al. Liquid builds in the pipeline and riser until the pressure behind the liquid slug builds to a high enough level to push the slug out. the use of correlations for slug length prediction is not very accurate. starting the cycle again. It also indicates an approximate slug length for severe slugging. increasing in velocity as the gas behind the slug expands.

the Brill method is based on a very small amount of data.9997 percentile The average slug.500 slugs/yr If one slug per year can be greater than the design slug.Ls = 2392 ft. The design percent slug was calculated for all the other hydrodynamic slug cases. For example. year 12 is due to the large increase in holdup in the line predicted by Beggs and Brill. For the hydrodynamic slugging cases.Ls = 3140 ft c) For the 12" Line.5 times as long as the average or 3080 ft long.1/320500) * 100 = 99. Year 12 . Estimating the average slug frequency from the Pipephase "SLUG" report.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE a) For the 10" Line. is 293 ft long. A reasonable philosophy would be to design the separator/slug catcher for the once per year slug. et al. The slug distribution table above can be used to estimate the slug length corresponding to one occurrence in this number of slugs per year. The maximum allowable slug would then be about 10. the designer needs to estimate the slug length corresponding to a design occurrence frequency. and it doesn’t account for most of the variables. the year 1 rate through the 10" line gives a slug frequency of 98. Year 8 . which play a part in slug flow.4 seconds by the Brill model. b) For the 12" Line. Year 12 .4 sec = 320. To use the Brill slug length model to estimate the maximum size of a slug for equipment selection. The design slug was close to the 99.Ls = 829 ft The large decrease in the slug length for the 12" line. the "SLUG" report in Pipephase contains predictions of the average slug length and the slug length distribution using the Brill. the number of slugs per year can be calculated. As detailed in the text. the design slug must be at the (1 . This frequency corresponds to (365 D/yr * 86. according to Brill. The accuracy of this value is doubtful.PART I .400 sec/D) / 98. using the one slug per CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 76 . model.9999% slug length for all cases.

based on the Brill. 1 4 8 12 * Terrain slugs To calculate the liquid surge requirements for the separator based on these slug lengths. and ts is the time that the liquid slug exits the pipeline. This assumption gives a Qdump of 1. Since the slugs consist of aerated liquid.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE year criteria. 8 inch 2152 2079 1943 1848 10 inch 3153 3050 2847 2392* 12 inch 4250 4113 3140* 829* CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 77 . additional information is needed. method.35 ft3/sec. Tabulating the 99.33 times the design oil rate. The surge volume required also depends in large measure on the capacity of the liquid dump valves on the separator. The required surge volume for the separator is: Volsurge = Volslug . For this example. the liquid holdup in the slug must be known in order to determine the volumetric rate entering the separator. we will assume that the volumetric capacity of the dump valve is 1.9999% data for the hydrodynamic slug cases gives design slug lengths (in feet) for the various cases of: Year No. The Pipephase "SLUG" table includes a calculation of the liquid holdup in the slug.PART I . The tabulated value for the "liquid from the slug" is equal to: Volslug = Vm Hls Ap ts where Hls is the liquid holdup in the slug. et al. The separator is also assumed to be a 2-phase separator.ts Qdump where Qdump is the volumetric capacity of the dump valve. Ap is the pipe cross-sectional area.

The liquid produced during one cycle is equal to tc * Vsl * Ap. This time period is so much smaller than the others that it can be assumed to be virtually instantaneous. b) Slow gas expansion phase After the gas pressure has built to a high enough level to push the slug. With this simplified model. The time required to build the slug is approximately: tbu = Ls/vsl The liquid rate out of the line is ~0 during this time. the liquid rate out of the line is approximately equal to the mixture velocity. The velocities in the riser may reach 60-80 ft/sec. and the CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 78 . The slug cycle time (tc) is equal to tbu + tsg.PART I . 1 4 8 12 8 inch 145 195 101 0 10 inch 561 654 294 — 12 inch 1398 1506 — — It is more difficult to estimate the slug volumes for the severe slugging cases using only steady state analysis. use the following: a) Slug buildup phase When the slug is building up. c) Fast gas expansion When the liquid slug is shorter than the riser pipe. there is essentially no flow out of the pipeline. the design surge volumes (ft3) for the hydrodynamic slugging cases are: Year No. The liquid leaving the pipeline during the slug buildup phase is essentially 0.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE With these assumptions. the flowrates out of the pipe can be estimated. the gas behind the slug expands rapidly. The liquid rate is so high that essentially all the liquid produced during this time goes into the separator surge. For a crude approximation of the behavior. Vm. The time required for this phase is tsg.

The required surge volume therefore is 49. (tbu + tsg) Vsl Ap = (tsg Vm Ap) + (Lr Ap) tsg = [(tbu Vsl) .69=3467 sec. the liquid will not accumulate in the separator during the slow gas expansion phase. The model indicates that the liquid flowrate out of the line is: 0 ft3/sec for 0<t<3467 (0.90 ft/sec. Volume=0. Ap=0. Therefore. we will check the outlet rates for the 10" line at year 12. The value for tsg = (2392-100)/0.782 ft3/sec for 3467<t<6014 Infinity for t=6014.90+0.492 ft2.69 ft/sec.69) * 0. the required surge volume for the downstream separator would be 654 ft3 for the 10" line. Vsg = 0. The values for the key parameters are Ls = 2392 ft. 1 4 8 12 8 inch 145 195 101 0 10 inch 561 654 294 49 12 inch 1398 1506 935 71 Using the Brill analysis.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE volume of liquid exiting during the fast gas expansion is equal to the riser volume.492 = 0.782 ft3/sec is less than the Qdump of 1.2 ft3 Since the 0. The value for tbu = 2392/0.90 = 2547 sec. Completing these calculations for the other severe slugging cases gives the following tabulation for the required surge volumes (ft3) for all the cases: Year No. The remainder of the liquid must exit during the slow gas expansion phase.PART I .2 ft3. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 79 .Lr] / Vsg tsg = (Ls . and Lr = 100 ft.Lr) / Vsg To illustrate the use of these equations.35 ft3/sec. Vsl = 0.492 x 100-49.

1)° 4 * (7. the slug frequency for the 10" line for the year 1 conditions will be calculated.4 µl µ g 0.PART I . The actual gas and liquid velocities can be calculated from the superficial velocities and the stratified flow liquid holdup.4)°~9 * (53. a calculation of the liquid holdup at the beginning of the pipeline must be made using the Taitel-Dukler stratified flow model. To use the Hill & Wood method.97/1.40 ft/sec Vsl = 2. Once these parameters are known. To illustrate the procedure.68 read from Figure I:5-1. The actual gas velocity is: ρg = 1.1 cp CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 80 .1. is: Hle=0.012)°~1 = 3.1 Once X is known. The value for the Lockhart & Martinelli X factor can be calculated from the following equation: V X = sl V sg 0. using the Taitel-Dukler model for horizontal flow. the slug frequency can be calculated.84 The value for the stratified flow liquid holdup.10 lb/ft3 ρl = 53.9 ρl ρ g 0.1/. The values for the required parameters at the beginning of the pipeline are: Vsg = 5.10 ft/sec X is then: X= (2. the value for the liquid holdup for stratified flow can be read from Figure I:5-1. The method assumes a horizontal pipeline.1/5.3 Slug Frequency and Length by Hill & Wood Method The Hill & Wood correlation for slug frequency will be used to check the slug length predictions and surge volume predictions.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE 6.97 lb/ft3 µg = 0.012 cp µl = 7.

the slug fraction can be calculated from these values and the overall liquid holdup prediction: SF = (Hl .Hlb) /(Hls .Ul) / (D (l -HIe)) = (2. First.40/(1-. Nicholson.5/28. the liquid holdup in the slug will be estimated. There are several ways to do this.Hlb) CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 81 .68 = 3.1/.68) = 16.4)1.864 The liquid holdup in the bubble can be assumed to be ~0.88 ft/sec The actual liquid velocity is: Ul = Vsl/Hle = 2. the slug fraction must be calculated. From a material balance..09)/[(9. and Aziz method is the easiest method to use. and it is as accurate as most of the methods.5/12)(1-.88-3.09 ft/sec Putting these values into the Hill & Wood slug frequency equation gives: Fs = 2.74 Hle (Ug .5 ft/sec) (3600 sec/hour) (1 hour)/101 slugs = 267 ft To estimate the slug length.68)] = 101 slugs/hour The length of the average slug plus bubble unit would be: Ls + Lb = (Vm) (3600)/Fs = (7. The Gregory.39] = 1/[1+(7. This example will show the easiest way to estimate the slug fraction.68) (16.39] = 0.4)1.PART I .20 for much of the slug flow range. The liquid holdup in the slug is given by: Hls = l [l +(V.’/28.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Ug = Vsg/(1 HIe) = 5.74) (0.

Using this value. ft. the design slug lengths are: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 82 .20)/(0.PART I .864 .20) = 0.0. the slug length is equal to: Ls = SF (Ls + Lb) = 0. This value for the average slug length is much less than the 293 ft average slug length calculated by the Brill et al. Experimental evidence from the Prudhoe Bay field tests and BHRG laboratory studies indicate that the maximum slug length is approximately 6 times the average slug length.33 x 267 = 88ft. method.0. SF = (0.33 Since the slug fraction is equal to the slug length divided by the slug length plus bubble length.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Hl = 0. The average slug lengths for the 10" line are: Year Number 1 4 8 12 Average Slug Length.42 . 88 52 49 Terrain Slugging The Hill and Wood method does not predict a slug length distribution.42 by the Beggs and Brill method at the beginning of the pipeline. Therefore.

528 312 294 2392 Volsurge = [(528 ft) x (. based on a 3 minute liquid residence time in the vessel.35 ft3/sec) / (7. The inlet pressures using OLGA for the cases were: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 83 . For comparison.[(528 ft) x (1.50 ft/sec)] = 129ft3 The values of the design surge volume for the 10" line during all the years are: Year Number 1 4 8 12 Average Slug Length. The transient OLGA program was run for the four design cases for the 10" line. this volume is: Average Slug Length.PART I .864) x (0. ft. the liquid volume needed for separation is about 200 ft3.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Year Number 1 4 8 12 The design surge volume would be: Volsurge = (Lsdes Hls Ap) . ft. method.[(Lsdes Qdump) / Vm] For the year 1 conditions.492 ft2 )] . 129 76 2 49 The design surge volume using the Hill & Wood method of 129 ft3 is considerably less than the 654 ft3 calculated by use of the Brill et al.

and then experience terrain slugging in year 12. for instance.PART I . which indicated the line should be in slug flow for years 1 through 8. OLGA tends to predict pressure drops that are too low in slug flow. This is due in part to the physical properties used in the OLGA runs. For year 1. and Beggs and Brill tends to overpredict pressure drops. is due to the different multiphase flow models. however. The flow regimes predicted by OLGA were: Year Number 1 4 8 12 Flow Regime Hydrodynamic Slug Flow Hydrodynamic Slug Flow Hydrodynamic Slug Flow Terrain Slug Flow OLGA confirms the Pipephase flow regime predictions. The actual inlet pressure is between the two answers. Most of the difference. the expected inlet pressure would probably be about 270-280 psig. The liquid holdup predictions of OLGA were: Year Number 1 4 8 12 OLGA 1365 bbl 1831 bbl 2565 bbl 2915 bbl Beggs and Brill 1336 bbl 1683 bbl 2018 bbl 3093 bbl CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 84 . since OLGA uses a compositional model similar to Pipephase’s compositional model.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Year Number 1 4 8 12 OLGA 228 psig 187 psig 115 psig 101-113 psig Beggs and Brill 301 psig 242 psig 133 psig 115 psig The pressure drops calculated by OLGA are much less than the Beggs and Brill pressure drops.

which is equivalent to 1. the slug length would be independent of the number of segments used. but they can be very poor for stratified flow. which corresponds to an instantaneous flowrate of 21. compared to the average flowrate of 5203 BPSD.000 seconds. and can be ignored.28 kg/sec. compared to its average rate of 0. as seen above.0 mmSCFD. If the model converges on a solution. number of pipeline segments was: Number of Segments 79 154 294 Average Slug Length. The OLGA results are much more believable than the Pots predictions. or merges with another slug as it flows down the line. The pressure oscillates between 101 psig and 113 psig. for example. The results shown for about the first 15. The slug-tracking runs for these cases. For year 1.700 BPSD. which is considerably smaller than the 2392 feet predicted by the Pots method. as seen in Figures 1:6-1 to I:6-4.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE The liquid holdup predictions of OLGA and Beggs and Brill are quite close. however. runs were made with three different numbers of pipeline segments. as shown in Example 2. dissipates.26 mmSCFD.000 seconds reflect the initial conditions selected for the problem. For this case. The slug-tracking model in OLGA V3. a cyclic pattern of terrain slugs is seen. a slug exits the pipeline with a volume of about 11 cubic meters (-70 bbls). For the year 12 conditions. After 15. This slug volume corresponds to a slug length of ~790 feet. The slug-tracking model tracks each individual slug.1 was run for the three years that were in hydrodynamic slug flow. and determines whether it grows. Beggs and Brill’s holdup predictions in slug flow are pretty good. OLGA shows a cyclic terrain slugging pattern. the average slug length vs. feet 197 82 51 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 85 .PART I . were unable to converge on a value for the average slug length. The gas flow rate peaks at about 0. Every 2400 seconds. The liquid mass flow rate out of the pipeline peaks at a rate of about 40 kg/sec.

The slug lengths predicted by Pipephase for the terrain slugging case were found to be too large. The water quantity is about 4 bbl/mmSCF. rate changes. Both predictions are much less than the Brill. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 86 . The peak production rate is 500 mmSCFD of gas and condensate.PART I . the only conclusion that can be drawn from the slug-tracking analysis is that the average slug length is probably less than 50 feet for the year 1 conditions. Glycol is injected into the line for hydrate suppression. shutdown. They confirmed that the pipeline would be in hydrodynamic slug flow for the first 8 years. Based on this analysis. the program had not reached a value for the slug length that was independent of pipeline discretization. et al. and the slug lengths for the hydrodynamic slugging cases were predicted to be of the same magnitude as the Hill and Wood predictions. method.Gas/Condensate Line A pipeline is needed to flow the production from a subsea well development to shore. The arrival pressure onshore is 900 psia. The inlet pressure to the line cannot exceed 1200 psia under normal operation. The minimum turndown is 25% of design rate. The slug-tracking predictions are in line with the results of the Hill and Wood model. If this example was an actual design.2 EXAMPLE 2 . 6. the slug catcher should be designed for a surge volume of about 150 ft3. the OLGA runs verified that the 10" pipeline should be capable of flowing all rates within the allowable pressure drop. including water and injected glycol is given in Table 1. and condensate. checks of other transient phenomena such as startup. As a result. Since the slug length was still decreasing using the maximum number of segments. should be performed to determine whether they would cause slugs which would govern the size of the slug catcher. The offshore field produces a mixture of gas. and the condensate production rate is also about 4 bbl/mmSCF. In summary. The wellstream composition. water. based on the Hill and Wood results. and then operate in the terrain slug flow regime by year 12. etc.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE The maximum number of pipeline segments in the commercial version of OLGA is 297.

Initially.10359 0.05431 0.08426 0.125 inches of epoxy coating.11650 75.82831 1. the wellhead pressure will be over 4000 psig.07833 0.16298 0. and is coated with 3 inches of concrete and 0.01223 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 87 . 6. the wellhead temperature and pressure are estimated to be 222 degrees F and 1215 psia.1 TABLE I.07390 0.15655 0.06506 0. simulating conditions late in the life of the field.68468 11.PART I .03915 0.02022 0.79904 3. The pipeline is unburied.2. The wellhead pressure will decrease with time as the reservoir becomes depleted. For design. Wellstream Composition Component N2 CO2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6’s C7’s C8’s C9’s C10’s C1l’s Cl2’s Mole % 3.23880 0.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE The pipeline elevation profile is shown in Table II.

6 0.00024 0.32004 100.00021 0.00985 0.00157 0.00074 0.00556 0.12530 3.00019 0. ft 1148 3608 984 1640 Elevation Change.25 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 88 .00794 0. km 0.00000 6.00073 0.0 0.2. ft -6. Pipeline Elevation Profile Water Depth.00054 0.00016 0.00248 0.0 -3.00037 0.00126 0.PART I .75 2.0 Cumulative Distance.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Cl3’s C14's C15's C16’s Cl7’s C18's C19's C20's C21's C22's C23's C24's C25's C26's C27’s C28+ Ethylene Glycol Water Totals 0.2 TABLE 11.35 1.45 1.00031 0.00460 0.3 0. m 216 218 218 219 219 Segment Length.

3 0.45 14.45 61.0 26.0 3.20 12.3 0.8 32.8 32.25 34.90 7.90 9.6 0.0 -3.4 0.8 32.95 18.75 63.15 3.40 11.0 16.8 32.0 6.95 8.70 16.8 32.95 4.60 42.55 56.8 16.8 32.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE 2.3 0.8 32.8 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 89 .35 6.0 -3.30 8.55 3.45 3.4 32.85 30.8 32.8 32.1 6.75 7.30 6.40 13.30 7.0 0.6 6.45 20.8 32.70 10.8 32.15 60.05 218 218 219 219 218 218 217 217 218 218 216 214 210 208 208 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 65 65 65 60 50 984 1968 984 1640 1148 6724 1804 1312 1476 656 1148 1968 2624 984 1312 2624 3936 3444 3280 4100 4100 4920 5740 6232 6560 5740 14432 14268 24600 24436 21648 14104 4264 4264 3.8 32.10 25.6 13.45 15.0 3.10 49.20 22.00 10.10 24.3 0.3 0.PART I .2 32.

mmSCFD 125 250 500 30” Line 932 psig 970 psig 1120 psig 28” Line 938 psig 994 psig 1200 psig CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 90 .8 32.5". and 500 mmSCFD) for two line sizes (30" and 28").4 16. As a check. Since this line is a gas-condensate line.4 16. 250.PART I .50 79.45 80. The inside diameters used for the 30" line was 28.3 Pipephase Simulation Comparisons Pipephase simulations of the operation were made for 3 rates (125.4 6. The TaitelDukler-Barnea method was used to predict the flow regime.10 40 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 36736 13940 3116 4592 3608 2132 2624 2296 32. The predicted inlet pressures using the Oliemans correlation were: Production Rate.4 16.40 84. the Oliemans method was used to estimate the pressure drop in the system.4 16. A transient analysis of this line was also performed using OLGA. the Beggs and Brill method was run for the selected line size. and the inside diameter for the 28" line was 26.5".4 16.60 83.85 81.2.25 78. It will therefore be possible to compare the predictions of Oliemans and Beggs and Brill against OLGA.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE 74.8 16.95 82.

mmSCFD 125 250 500 11. Both line sizes will continue to be checked.02).230 14. this is difficult because of the poor formatting of the liquid holdup in the output table.280 4. For holdup below 0.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE The 30" line is comfortably within the wellhead pressure specification.005.560 13. Fortunately. A check of the pressure drop for the 28" line using the Beggs and Brill correlation gives: Production Rate. The 28" line is right on the specification at design rate.100 12.890 5. For gas/condensate lines.760 7. which is not adequate to accurately determine the superficial velocities.480 6.g. it is possible to calculate accurate values for the superficial gas and liquid velocities and liquid CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 91 . mmSCFD 125 250 500 Inlet Pressure. 0. The superficial velocities can be calculated from the actual gas or liquid velocities and the liquid holdup. The total liquid holdup for the line (barrels) using Oliemans and Beggs and Brill were: Production Rate.00.30” Oliemans .28” The superficial gas and liquid velocities are not printed in the Pipephase output.28” Beggs-Brill .PART I . Pipephase prints 0. making the 28" line more questionable. The OLGA transient simulations will be used as a third check of the pressure drop to determine whether the 28" line appears acceptable.340 Oliemans . Pipephase prints the value of the liquid holdup as a two decimal place value (e. psig 947 1008 1226 Beggs and Brill indicates a higher pressure drop than Oliemans.000 9.

PART I . mmSCFD 125 0.0189 0.54 5.28” CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 92 . mmSCFD 125 250 500 4.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE holdup from the information give in the output table.39 10.32 18.Vsl The liquid holdup is given by: HI = Vsl / Ul The superficial gas velocities (ft/sec) for the various cases are: Production Rate. ft/sec Vm = Mixture velocity.0226 Oliemans . The superficial liquid velocity can be calculated from the formula: Vsl = [Ul(Ug . ft/sec The superficial gas velocity can be calculated by: Vsg = Vm .38 Oliemans .Vm)]/(Ug.77 21.28” The superficial liquid velocities (ft/sec) are: Production Rate.0224 0.77 21. ft/sec Ul = Actual liquid velocity.38 10.28” Beggs-Brill .28” Beggs-Brill .40 5.30” Oliemans .Ul) where Ug = Actual gas velocity.30” Oliemans .66 9.

0884 0.0787 0.0471 0. Pipephase will not print a slug report for the runs in which the Oliemans correlation was used. The slug lengths predicted by CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 93 ./Annul. using the Taitel-Dukler-Barnea method are: Production Rate./Slug Strat./Slug Strat. mmSCFD 125 250 500 Oliemans .0471 0.0381 0.0895 All the C values are well below 100.28” 0.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE 250 500 0.0439 0. Slug Strat.28” Beggs-Brill .PART I .0439 0.0226 0. all the segments are shown to be in either stratified or annular flow.0189 0.0224 0.0381 0.30” Oliemans . For the 500 mmSCFD rate.28” Beggs-Brill . mmSCFD 125 250 500 Slug Strat. Oliemans . Some of the segments of the line are shown to be in slug flow at 250 mmSCFD./Slug Strat. It did print slug lengths for the Beggs and Brill runs. while others are shown to be in stratified flow./Annul./Annul.0895 The values of C in the erosion velocity for the various cases are: Production Rate.0787 0.0884 0. Slug Strat. The dominant flow regimes for the various cases.30” Oliemans .28” The line is shown to be in slug flow at the 125 mmSCFD rate. so corrosion-erosion should not be a concern.

54 5.120 49.30” Oliemans . this equates to: Volslug = (Hl Ap Lp) -( tpig Vsl Ap) CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 94 .28 Oliemans . method are 1460 to 1580 ft average slug length for the 28" line.28” The pipeline is 84.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE the Brill et al.28” An approximation of the volume of the slug ahead of the pig is that the slug volume is equal to the liquid holdup minus the amount of liquid produced during the pig traverse time. This volume can be estimated from the Pipephase output. These numbers are very unrealistic for gas/condensate systems of this diameter. are: Production Rate.920 15.59 10.28” Beggs-Brill . Vm. mmSCFD 125 250 500 4.28” Beggs-Brill .87 9.850 ft.61 5. Numerically. therefore. The pig travels at approximately the mixture velocity.080 25.570 14.79 19.310 Oliemans . The pig traverse times (seconds).92 19.260 14.62 10.54 17. long.660 49. The average values for Vm (ft/sec) for the various cases is: Production Rate. The design criterion for the slug catcher surge volume is usually the liquid volume associated with pigging the pipeline.1 km or 275.30” Oliemans .PART I .350 25.640 28. mmSCFD 125 250 500 56.

520 3. the slug catcher would be sized for the 13.030 8. and Beggs and Brill predictions for the 28 inch line at the various rates is: CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 95 .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE The slug volumes (barrels) for the various cases are: Production Rate. the table above would be used to design the surge volume required for the slug catcher.730 5.470 Oliemans . determine whether slugging is likely. For the 28" line.28” Beggs-Brill .020 4. mmSCFD 125 250 500 30 Inch 1045 psig 980 psig 1100 psig 28 Inch 1018 psig 982 psig 1179 psig A comparison of the OLGA.380 13.30” Oliemans . OLGA simulations were run at the three design rates for both the 28 inch and 30 inch lines.28” If transient analysis is not available. mmSCFD 125 250 500 10. with the recognition that neither Oliemans nor Beggs-Brill predicts liquid holdup well for gas/condensate pipelines.280 11. The predicted inlet pressures at the various rates were: Rate. Oliemans. and size the slug catcher.920 7. We will use the OLGA transient program to check the design of the line to confirm the line size.800 12.PART I .800 bbl surge volume.

so the 28" line can be used.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Rate. OLGA’s holdup predictions are much higher than either Oliemans or Beggs and Brill at the lowest flowrate.800 bbls 8.230 bbls Beggs-Brill 14. The OLGA results confirm that the pressure drop in the pipeline is less than the allowable drop for the 28" line. OLGA indicates that. mmSCFD 125 250 500 30 Inch 52. The OLGA holdup jumps when the gas velocity is too low to pull the liquid up the upwardly inclined pipeline segments.900 bbls 3.650 bbls Oliemans 9.650 bbls Comparing these results with Oliemans and Beggs and Brill for the 28 inch line shows the wide disparity in results between the methods: Rate.310 bbls 28 Inch 32. The difference between Oliemans and OLGA at the 125 mmSCFD rate is due to the high liquid holdup predicted by OLGA. and they are much lower at the other rates. as shown below.790 bbls 2. except at the lowest rate. The predicted liquid holdups from OLGA are: Rate.790 bbls 2.340 bbls These results are plotted in Figure I:6-5.280 bbls 4.560 bbls 13.PART I .900 bbls 3.100 bbls 12. mmSCFD 125 250 500 OLGA 32.800 bbls 3. mmSCFD 125 250 500 OLGA 1018 psig 982 psig 1179 psig Oliemans 938 psig 970 psig 1200 psig Beggs-Brill 947 psig 1008 psig 1226 psig The Oliemans predictions match the OLGA predictions quite closely. for these operating CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 96 .480 bbls 6.

Slug Strat. Although the comparison might not seem very good. Taitel et al. A good rule of thumb is that slug flow does not occur for liquid holdups less than about 20%. The comparison between the OLGA results and the Taitel-Dukler-Barnea predictions is: Rate. OLGA predicts a somewhat lower transition velocity from Stratified to Slug flow than Taitel-Dukler-Barnea. mmSCFD 125 250 500 30 Inch Stratified and Slug Stratified Stratified 28 Inch Stratified and Slug Stratified Stratified OLGA shows that some of the pipeline segments are in slug flow at the 125 mmSCFD rate for both line sizes. The predicted flow regimes from the OLGA simulations were: Rate. corresponding to a throughput rate of about 220 mmSCFD. At the highest rate. the predictions are really the same. the results of the two methods are fairly close. this is indistinguishable from annular mist flow./Slug Strat. so the CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 97 . Below this rate. mmSCFD 125 250 500 OLGA Strat. Visually. all of the segments are shown to be in stratified flow. The liquid holdup by both the Oliemans and Beggs and Brill methods for the 250 mmSCFD rate is <7%./Slug Strat./Annul. so that it shows slug flow only at the lowest rate. The only difference between the two methods is at the 250 mmSCFD.PART I . the liquid holdup builds up rapidly.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE conditions. Neither Beggs and Brill nor Oliemans model this sensitivity to flowrate in inclined pipes. this minimum superficial gas velocity is about 9 ft/sec. For the higher rates. since OLGA shows stratified flow with considerable entrainment. Strat. This behavior has been observed in the field and in experimental studies in inclined flow.

doesn’t appear likely. The best solution for the slug catcher design probably is to size the slug catcher for the 250 mmSCFD rate. At 125 mmSCFD. the smaller slug catcher could be used. the slug catcher would have to be sized for about 40.48 / 0.0224 / 3. To get an estimate of the pigging frequency that would be required. The capital expenditure to build a slug catcher that large would be very significant.000 bbls.900 3.PART I . mmSCFD 125 250 500 Liquid Slug Size. The design volume for the slug catcher should comprehend errors in the composition.83 / 3600/ 24 = 2. bbls 33. the 3770 bbl maximum slug size calculated for the 250 mmSCFD rate should be increased to a design slug catcher surge volume of at least 5000 bbls.770 1. calculate the time required to produce ~3770 bbls of liquid from the wellstream at the desired rate. pipeline topography. and pig the line frequently when the rate is less than 250 mmSCFD.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE prediction of slug flow by Taitel. the pigging frequency would be: 3770 bbls * 42 gal/bbl / 7. The liquid slug sizes ahead of the pig for the various rates in the 28" line are: Rate.920 If the line is run to equilibrium at the lowest rate. is more believable for this rate. and errors in the multiphase flow methods. The OLGA prediction.86 days If the line is pigged every 2-3 days at the 125 mmSCFD rate. therefore. For our example. et al. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 98 .48 gal/ft / Vsl ft/sec / Ap ft2 / 3600 sec/hr / 24hr/D = 3770 * 42 / 7. The amount of the increase should be based on sound engineering judgment. OLGA simulations for pigging were also performed.

CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 99 . c) pig the line every 2 days at production rates less than 250 mmSCFD.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE In summation.PART I . b) install a slug catcher with a 5000 bbl surge capacity. the best design for this pipeline would be: a) install a 28" line.

Year 12 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 100 .PART I .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Figure I: 6-1 Liquid Holdup for Example 1.

Year 12 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 101 .PART I .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Figure I: 6-2 Inlet Pressure for Example 1.

PART I . Example 1. Year 12 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 102 .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Figure I: 6-3 Liquid Flowrate Out of line.

PART I .MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Figure I: 6-4 Gas Flowrate Out of line. Year 12 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 103 . Example 1.

MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE Figure I: 6-5 Liquid Holdup Predictions for Example 2 CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 104 .PART I .

D. No. Hill. et al. Taitel. 1.MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE SECTION 7. 1990. 1.” Int. pgs. “A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transitions in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow. Y. T.” Society Petroleum Engineering Journal.E.. and Dukler. 1987.. 47-55. 171. A.” Society of Petroleum Engineers. Brill.. June 1981.G. 141-149. J.PART I . Bendiksen. et al. May 1991. SPE 20629. Multiphase Flow 13. D.. pgs. pgs.0 .REFERENCES Barnea.P. 1976. 22. “A Unified Model for Predicting Flow-Pattern Transitions for the Whole Range of Pipe Inclinations.. 363-347. and Wood.” SPE Production Engineering. CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 105 . 1-12.” AIChE Journal. “The Dynamic 2-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and Application. J. “A New Approach to the Prediction of Slug Frequency.J.. No. “Analysis of Two-Phase Tests in Large-Diameter Flow Lines in Prudhoe Bay Field. pg.

- flow assurance
- Slug Catcher
- 2 OLGA Basic Upd
- Slug Catcher Design Guide
- 72713875 Slug Catcher Sizing
- Slug Catcher Conceptual Design
- Slug Catcher-Finger Type Design
- Guidelines for Hydraulic Desig of Multiple Pipe Slug Catchers
- Slug Catcher Sizing
- BP - Multi Phase Design Manual
- Multiphase Flow Evaluations and Slug Calculation
- Calculation Spreadsheet_Slug Catcher
- Slug Catcher Conceptual Design as Separator for Heavy Oil
- Flow Assurance Guidelines
- OLGA Example
- Introduction to OLGA
- Flow Assurance and Multiphase Pumping
- OLGA Exercises
- OLGA Tutorial
- Hydrate handbook
- Flow Assurance With Olga 7
- 6-PVTsim-4-OLGA-upd
- R-216z-991 (Finger Type Slug Catcher)
- FA With OLGA Exercises 20070522
- 3 Intro to Flow Assurance Upd
- Pb 52 File Slug Catcher
- Print Able Olga 7 User Manual
- Slug Flow Analysis
- OLGA 7 Offshore Low Res
- 06_Guidelines for Slugtracking

Skip carousel

- UT Dallas Syllabus for mech3315.001.11s taught by Matthew Goeckner (goeckner)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for phys4v10.108.11s taught by Beatrice Rasmussen (bearas)
- Review on Enhancement of Convective heat transfer using Nanofluids and Insert
- CFD Analysis of Convergent-Divergent Nozzle using Standard K-ÃŽâ€¢ Model
- tmp276D
- Performance Characteristic of Infinitely Short Bearing
- As 2417-2001 Rotodynamic Pumps - Hydraulic Performance Acceptance Tests - Grades 1 and 2
- Numerical Analysis of Centrifugal Air Blower
- An Overview of Vortex Tube on CFD with Straight and Helical Nozzle
- tmpCF9E.tmp
- tmp4FFC
- As 4061-1992 Fluid Power Systems and Components - Vocabulary
- As 3778.5.1-1991 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Dilution Methods - Constant-Rate Injection Method
- As 2360.1.3-1993 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits Pressure Differential Methods - Measurement Usi
- UNSTEADY MHD FLOW OF A NON-NEWTONIAN FLUID UNDER EFFECT OF COUPLE STRESSES BETWEEN TWO PARALLEL PLATES
- tmp22F7.tmp
- Effect of Added Fines on Relative Pressure Drop for Narrow-Sized Silica Sand Slurry Flow
- Methods of Heat Transfer Enhancement Using Different Surfaces Inserts
- As 3706.9-2001 Geotextiles - Methods of Test Determination of Permittivity Permeability and Flow Rate
- As 3778.5.2-1991 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Dilution Methods - Integration Method for the Mea
- As 3882-1991 Rheology - Glossary of Terms and Classification of Properties
- tmp8B4.tmp
- Lid driven cavity flow simulation using CFD & MATLAB
- tmp5F03
- tmp62D3
- NASA Facts High-Speed Research-Smoothing the Flow Over Supersonic Wings
- tmpDD90
- As 2360.6.2-1993 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits Volumetric Methods - By Volume
- Finite Fields, Polynomial Basis, Dual Basis, Normal Basis, syndrome calculation circuit, BMA (Berlekamp-Massey algorithm), Chien search circuit, Galois Fields.
- As 3778.4.10-1991 (R2009) Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Measurement Using Flow Gauging Structure

Skip carousel

- Marsh-McBirney Inc v. Isco, Inc., 4th Cir. (1996)
- As 3778.2.5-2001 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels General - Guidelines for the Selection of Flow Ga
- As 3778.2.3-2001 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels General - Determination of the Stage-discharge Re
- As 4323.2-1995 Stationary Source Emissions Determination of Total Particulate Matter - Isokinetic Manual Samp
- As 3778.4.2-1991 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Measurement Using Flow Gauging Structures - Recta
- Pacific-Power--Exhibit-No-SAB-2
- As 2417-2001 Rotodynamic Pumps - Hydraulic Performance Acceptance Tests - Grades 1 and 2
- MACE Case Study Sewer Lift Station Monitoring
- As 3778.3.4-1990 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Velocity-Area Methods - Collection and Processing
- As 3778.5.1-1991 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Dilution Methods - Constant-Rate Injection Method
- As 2360.1.4-1993 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits Pressure Differential Methods - Measurement Usi
- As 3778.5.3-2007 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Liquid Flow in Open Channels and Partly Filled Pi
- As 3778.3.2-1990 (R2009) Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Velocity-Area Methods - Measurement by Mo
- Invensys Systems v. Emerson Electric et. al.
- As 3778.3.6-2001 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Velocity-Area Methods - Measurement of Flow in Ti
- As 3778.3.1-2001 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Velocity-Area Methods - Measurement by Current Me
- As 3778.6.7-1992 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Measuring Devices Instruments and Equipment - Ult
- May 2011 Issue
- As 2360.1.5-2001 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits Pressure Differential Methods - Measurement Usi
- As 3778.4.11-1991 (R2009) Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Measurement Using Flow Gauging Structure
- As 2360.7.2-1993 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits Assessment of Uncertainty in the Calibration An
- As 3778.3.3-2001 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels Velocity-Area Methods - Measurement by Slope-Area
- As 2360.7.1-2001 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits Assessment of Uncertainty in the Calibration An
- Marsh-Mcbirney, Incorporated v. Isco, Inc., Marsh-Mcbirney, Incorporated v. Isco, Inc., 92 F.3d 1180, 4th Cir. (1996)
- As 3778.2.2-2001 Measurement of Water Flow in Open Channels General - Establishment and Operation of a Gaugin
- MACE Case Study Metering Lateral Diversions

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading