Discretization Methods for Multiphase Flow Simulation

of Ultra-Long Gas-Condensate Pipelines

Erich Zakarian, Henning Holm
Shtokman Development A.G., Russia

Dominique Larrey
Total E&P, Process Department, France

ABSTRACT

As part of the development of the super-giant Shtokman gas field in the Barents Sea, two
discretization methods were introduced for the multiphase flow simulation of the 550km-
long dry-two-phase gas export pipeline to shore. First, both methods are described in
details, with an illustrative application to the Shtokman case. Then, in-depth validation is
performed through steady-state flow simulations. The sensitivity to dynamic simulation
is also addressed.

1 PROFILE DISCRETIZATION OF GAS-CONDENSATE PIPELINES

Multiphase flow simulation of gas-condensate pipelines brings many challenges to the

Flow Assurance Engineer. Particularly, given either as-built profile or detailed terrain
survey, the actual or expected pipeline geometry must be discretized into a simplified
profile to allow reasonable computation time. In case of ultra-long pipelines, this
discretization requires the compression of a huge number of data points, typically from
several tens of thousand coordinates to only few thousand points. The transformation is
therefore significant and must be handled with great care since liquid accumulation in
gas-condensate flow is known to be very sensitive to pipe inclination (1). This is
particularly true at the design stage of new field development: if discretization is not
properly carried out, the onset of liquid accumulation can be under-predicted with respect
to gas export flow rate. Possible consequences are: wrong definition of the operating
envelope; inappropriate design of receiving facilities; high level trips in slug catcher
during transient operations; higher risk of gas flaring; etc.
1.1 Basics

The discretization of gas-condensate pipeline profile needs at least to satisfy the

following requirements (2):

1. The total pipe length must be preserved.

2. The simplified geometry must have the same overall shape (large and small
scale undulations) to induce the same dynamics: propagation of level slugs
after restart, formation of large liquid waves during inspection pigging or
production ramp-up, gravity-driven flow, etc.
3. The total climb must be conserved to predict the same overall liquid content
in steady-state flow conditions. By total climb, we mean the accumulated total
length of upward inclined pipes.
4. The angle distribution of the discretized profile must be as close as
possible to the original distribution. By angle distribution, we mean the
distribution of cumulated pipe length among predefined angle groups.
The last requirement is obviously the most difficult one to achieve. A conventional
approach is to predefine inclination classes where elements of relevant sub-profiles will
be grouped and lumped together. A commercial solution is available today within the
OLGA® Geometry Editor (3). We propose to review this solution before presenting two
alternatives.

1.2 OLGA® Geometry Editor

When profile simplification is justified, two options are available in OLGA® to filter the
geometry of a pipeline: box filter or angle distribution preservation.

The first option is mainly intended for removing noise from as-built pipeline survey. In
other circumstances, when for example evaluating pressure drop along an existing
pipeline with a known profile, box filtering can be used for data compression to speed-up
simulation. However box filtering is not at all recommended when liquid content is the
parameter under investigation since important details of the pipeline profile are likely to
be lost. An instructive demonstration will be given in the last part of this paper.

The second option of the Geometry Editor proposes to preserve the first and fourth
aforementioned requirements; i.e. conservation of total pipe length and angle distribution.
As advised in the user manual of the Geometry Editor, several tries are necessary to
select the best candidate (3): it is a good idea to compare the angle distributions of the
original geometry and the filtered ones. The filter with the best reproduction of the
original geometry should be used; keeping in mind that the angle groups should be
representative. From our experience with the Shtokman case, it is extremely difficult or
even impossible to satisfy the four aforementioned requirements with this second option.
It is also worth reminding that this method is strongly dependent on the selection of
relevant angle groups and sub-profiles, making almost impossible to achieve an optimal
result without some additional external programming.

Though complex and challenging, a discretization satisfying the four aforementioned

requirements is deemed mandatory for ultra-long gas-condensate transport systems such
as Shtokman: the seabed of the Barents Sea is indeed characterized by iceberg scours and
(elongated) pockmarks, making pipeline profiles extremely rough.

To take up this challenge of long and rough pipeline profile discretization, two methods
were conceived:

• Based on the concept of pipeline indicator (4), the first method introduces a
three-step algorithm for the sequential selection, filtering and complexification
of relevant sub-profiles. The result is a series of new pipe coordinates, ready to
be entered in a multiphase flow simulator.
• The second method is based on the lumping of elements with similar
inclination. The lumped elements are then redistributed to match the large scale
and small scale topography of the original profile “as good as possible”.
Unlike conventional approaches, the predefinition of pipe inclination classes (or angle
groups) is not required for both methods, thus relieving the Engineer of the most
sensitive input. The distribution of pipe inclinations is also better conserved.

Both methods will be described through their application to the Shtokman case. A
pipeline profile from the Shtokman field to the onshore location of Teriberka, Russia,
was derived from a detailed seabed bathymetry survey by Pipeline Engineers, taking
account of free span analysis and seabed intervention. The resulting profile, defined by a
set of 108,785 points, will be used to illustrate our two discretization methods. This very
fine description is appropriate to determine the “roughness” of the pipeline geometry.
However it is far too excessive to be directly implemented in a dynamic simulator as we
will see in the last part of this paper.

2 PROFILE DISCRETIZATION: FIRST METHOD

2.1 Pipeline indicator

The pipeline indicator is a dimensionless parameter which quantifies the propensity of

gas-condensate pipelines to accumulate liquid in steady-state flow conditions (4):

N
∑ [Holdup(θ i ) − Holdup(0)]× Li
i =1
PI = N
× 1000
∑ Li
i =1
where:
0.49
Holdup (θ i ) = Arc tan[1.9 × (θ i − 0.66 )] + 0.25
π
θi = inclination of pipe i with respect to horizontal [%]
Li = length of pipe i [m]
N = number of pipes

The pipeline indicator is based on a fairly simple Holdup correlation. The latter does not
pretend to accurately quantify the liquid content within a pipe. It is a simple
mathematical correlation which aims to reproduce the typical step-function of the liquid
holdup with respect to pipe inclination in gas-condensate flow (5). Note that θi is defined
in percent and not in degree in the correlation.
An example is given in Figure 1 where the above Holdup correlation can be compared to
the liquid holdup predicted with OLGAS® version 5.3 (6), for representative flowing
conditions of the Shtokman gas export to shore.

OLGAS 5.3: liquid holdup vs. pipe inclination and gas superficial velocity
USL=0.003 m/s - ρ G=180 kg/m3 - ρ o=775 kg/m3 - μ G=0.02 cP - μ O=2.5 cP
σ=0.0025 N/m - Wall roughness=30 μm - Inner diameter=0.9906 m
0.70

0.60
Holdup function

Liquid holdup [-]

USG = 1.00 m/s
0.50
USG = 1.50 m/s
USG = 2.00 m/s
0.40
USG = 2.50 m/s
USG = 3.00 m/s
0.30
USG = 3.50 m/s
USG = 4.00 m/s
0.20
USG = 4.50 m/s

0.10

0.00
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pipe inclination [deg]

Figure 1: Pipeline indicator definition: holdup function

Total E&P experience in gas-condensate pipeline design and operation has led to
development of an empirical pipeline indicator scale (4): see Table 1. From the above
definition, it was straightforward to calculate the pipeline indicator of the Shtokman gas
export to shore. The latter, equal to 79.68, is in the upper range of the scale.

Total E&P experience in gas-condensate pipeline

PI value
design and operation
The pipeline profile is rather globally sloping downwards. No particular
PI < 0
operating problem is expected.
The pipeline profile is close to horizontal or the profile is over-
0 < PI < 20
simplified. No particular operating problem is expected.
The pipeline profile is relatively flat (or slightly hilly). Normal operation
20 < PI < 40 is not expected to be difficult. Possible problems at very low flow rates
or following restart.
The pipeline crosses hilly terrain. Operation (e.g. ramp-up) has to be
40 < PI < 80
studied carefully.
The pipeline profile is very hilly. Operation requires very careful study.
80 < PI
Validity of simulation software to be checked.
Table 1: Pipeline indicator scale (4)

2.2 Discretization

Profile discretization is based on the following three steps:

1. Pipeline indicator analysis for the selection of relevant sub-profiles.

2. Simplification of the original sub-profiles.
3. Optimized complexification of the selected sub-profiles.
Note: by complexification, we simply mean roughening by addition of random points
along the pipeline profile to make it more irregular or bumpier.

2.2.1 Sub-profile selection

In Figure 2, the geometry of the Shtokman pipeline (elevation, total climb, and pipe
inclination) is given for the original profile (108,785 points – 554 km).

Pipeline geometry
200 5000
Pipe elevation (original profile: 108,785 points) [m]

Total climb [m]

100 4000
Elevation [m]

Total climb (original profile: 108,785 points) [m]

0
3000
-100
2000
-200
-300 1000
-400 0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Pipe inclination
20
15
Inclination [deg]

10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Figure 2: Original profile (108,785 points): geometry

It is clear that pipe inclination is not evenly distributed along the export route. Some
portions are relatively flat like the one around kilometre point (KP) 240 where pipe
inclination never exceeds +/- 1°. Some other parts are fairly hilly like the first hundred
kilometres where pipe angles can be up to +/-7°.

To ease the selection of relevant sub-profiles, the profile of pipeline indicator was
calculated at different scales by dividing the pipeline into sub-profiles of constant length:
1, 5, 10, 25, 50 km: cf. Figure 3. With pipeline indicator calculated every 1 km, the
selection of consistent sub-profiles is unclear as the indicator varies significantly from
one point to another. And vice-versa, a large scale like 50 km over-simplifies the real
complexity of the pipeline geometry. An intermediate scale (10 km) seems to be more
appropriate to select relevant sub-profiles as shown in Figure 4.

The pipeline indicator, total climb and total length were computed for each selected sub-
profile: cf. Table 2.

Sub-profile selection: pipeline indicator and total climb

Length range [km] 0-10 10-20 20-70 70-140 140-180 180-200
Pipeline indicator [-] 58.48 89.24 104.83 82.48 61.97 80.77
Total climb [m] 55.04 75.12 483.90 612.43 199.31 131.14
Length range [km] 200-220 220-230 230-280 280-320 320-360 360-410
Pipeline indicator [-] 97.95 63.40 45.57 77.01 100.03 67.64
Total climb [m] 189.26 58.97 171.22 273.30 386.93 254.57
Length range [km] 410-460 460-500 500-510 510-540 540-554
Pipeline indicator [-] 106.54 38.09 64.23 85.74 151.63
Total climb [m] 599.81 144.93 49.85 195.13 306.09
Table 2: Sub-profile selection: pipeline indicator and total climb
 Pipeline indicator
300

Pipeline indicattor [-]

250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Pipeline indicator

Pipeline indicattor [-]

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Pipeline indicator
Pipeline indicattor [-]

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Pipeline indicator
160
Pipeline indicattor [-]

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Pipeline indicator
180
Pipeline indicattor [-]

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Figure 3: Pipeline indicator profile at different scales (1, 5, 10, 25, 50 km)

Pipe inclination Pipe inclination

10 10
8 8
Inclination [deg]

Inclination [deg]

6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
-8 -8
-10 -10
230000 240000 250000 260000 270000 280000 410000 420000 430000 440000 450000 460000
Distance from offshore platform [m] Distance from offshore platform [m]

180
Pipeline indicattor [-]

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Figure 4: Sub-profile selection through pipeline indicator analysis

2.2.2 Filtering

The selected sub-profiles must now be simplified to condense the original set of 108,785
discretization points into a smaller set. Previous work in the Shtokman project had
demonstrated that pipeline discretization with approximately 2,500 pipes (and 2
calculation cells or sections per pipe) was an acceptable upper limit in terms of
computation time. This figure provides a target for the simplification process: assuming
2,500 pipes for a 550km pipeline, each pipe length should be about 200 m.

The Box Filter available within the OLGA® Geometry Editor is used for filtering: a
sample distance of 1000 m is set to pick-up one point every one kilometer from the
original profile. This sample distance is large enough to allow the later complexification
of the sub-profiles with a sample length of 200 m. It also preserves the overall shape (and
most of the low points) of the original profile: cf. Figure 5.
Pipeline geometry
200 5000
Pipe elevation (simplified profile with OLGA box filter) [m] 4500

Total climb [m]

100 4000
Elevation [m]

Pipe elevation (original profile: 108,785 points) [m]

0 Total climb (original profile: 108,785 points) [m] 3500
Total Climb (simplified profile with OLGA box filter) [m] 3000
-100 2500
2000
-200 1500
-300 1000
500
-400 0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Pipe inclination
20
Pipe inclination (original profile: 108,785 points) [deg]
15
Inclination [deg]

Pipe inclination (simplified profile with OLGA box filter) [deg]

10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Figure 5: Profile simplification: new geometry

As expected, the filtering smoothes out the original geometry. The overall pipeline
indicator is now 25.8 instead of 80. The total climb is also drastically reduced, now 1,235
m instead of 4187 m. The total length remains approximately the same with 554,400 m
instead of 554,505 m.

2.2.3 Complexification

So far, the first two requirements listed in section 1.1 are satisfied. The simplified profile
must now be complexified to increase the total climb and keep the angle distribution of
the discretized profile as close as possible to the original one. This is achieved according
to the following constraints:
1. The total climb of each sub-profile must be preserved by +/- 1%.
2. The pipeline indicator of each sub-profile must be preserved by +/-1%.
3. The minimum pipe length must be about 200 m.

A complexification is successively applied to each sub-profile by adding random points

along the simplified sub-profile: cf. Figure 6 (left side). Basically, given a sub-profile and
a number N of random points per pipe, a set of new points is derived from the uniform
sectioning of each pipe into N+1 smaller pipes. The y-coordinate of these new points is
randomly moved up or down to increase the roughness of the sub-profile, using for
example the inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution: cf. Figure 6 (right
side). The point scattering is adjusted with a complexification coefficient Cx. One single
Cx value is set for each sub-profile:

yinew = y iold + C x × NormStd −1 (Rnd )

x −z2
NormStd (x ) =
1
∫ 2π
e 2 dz
−∞
Cx = complexification coefficient
yiold = old y-coordinate (simplified profile) [m]; see Figure 6
yinew = new y-coordinate (complexified profile) [m]; see Figure 6
Rnd = random value between 0 and 1

Pipeline geometry Inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution
-305
4
Complexified profile
-310 3
Simplified profile

-315 2
Elevation [m]

-320 1

NormStd‐1
0
-325

‐1
-330
‐2
-335
‐3
-340
‐4
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Distance from offshore platform [m] Probability

Figure 6: Example of sub-profile complexification; complexification function

By adding some unevenness to the geometry, we increase the pipeline indicator and the
total climb of each sub-profile. To ensure a minimum pipe length of 200 m, the number
of random points per pipe must be less or equal than 4.

The algorithm is therefore fairly simple, using a simple random process but iterations are
required to converge before the aforementioned constraints are satisfied. At most few
minutes using a small program in Excel® are required to complete the complexification
process. The Cx coefficient is easily and quickly adjusted by hand for each sub-profile to
ensure algorithmic convergence. The results are summarized in Table 3, including Cx
coefficient. The complexified geometry is given in Figure 7. The average pipe length is
now approximately 200 m instead of 5 m as in the original profile. Both old and new
geometries are very similar: the original and complexified profiles of elevation and total
climb are almost superimposed.
 Pipeline geometry
200 5000
Pipe elevation (complexified profile) [m] 4500

Total climb [m]

100 4000

Elevation [m]
Pipe elevation (original profile: 108,785 points) [m]
0 Total climb (complexified profile) [m] 3500
Total climb (original profile: 108,785 points) [m] 3000
-100 2500
2000
-200 1500
-300 1000
500
-400 0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Pipe inclination
20
Pipe inclination (original profile: 108,785 points) [deg]
15
Inclination [deg]

Pipe inclination (complexified profile) [deg]

10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Figure 7: Profile complexification: new geometry

Sub-profile selection: pipeline indicator, total climb

and complexification coefficient
Length range [km] 0-10 10-20 20-70 70-140 140-180
Original pipeline indicator [-] 58.48 89.24 104.83 82.48 61.97
New pipeline indicator [-] 58.63 89.02 105.30 82.96 62.17
Original total climb [m] 55.04 75.12 483.90 612.43 199.31
New total climb [m] 54.67 75.04 486.11 614.76 200.09
Complexification coefficient (Cx) [-] 2.5 2.5 3.2 3 2
Length range [km] 180-200 200-220 220-230 230-280 280-320
Original pipeline indicator [-] 80.77 97.95 63.40 45.57 77.01
New pipeline indicator [-] 81.13 97.03 63.51 45.98 77.69
Original total climb [m] 131.14 189.26 58.97 171.22 273.30
New total climb [m] 129.98 190.43 58.72 171.49 273.01
Complexification coefficient (Cx) [-] 2.5 3.5 2.3 1.3 2.5
Length range [km] 320-360 360-410 410-460 460-500 500-510
Original pipeline indicator [-] 100.03 67.64 106.54 38.09 64.23
New pipeline indicator [-] 100.12 68.06 106.44 38.00 64.02
Original total climb [m] 386.93 254.57 599.81 144.93 49.85
New total climb [m] 385.78 252.34 605.48 144.40 49.78
Complexification coefficient (Cx) [-] 3.7 2 4.5 1.8 2
Length range [km] 510-540 540-554
Original pipeline indicator [-] 85.74 151.63
New pipeline indicator [-] 85.76 150.30
Original total climb [m] 195.13 306.09
New total climb [m] 196.99 308.84
Complexification coefficient (Cx) [-] 2.3 5.5
Table 3: Complexification: pipeline indicator and total climb of sub-profiles

3 PROFILE DISCRETIZATION: SECOND METHOD

In contradiction to the first method, the second one is based only on lumping and re-
organizing the elements given in the original detailed profile. It has many similarities
with the OLGA® Geometry Editor. However it is stressed again that it does not depend
on predefined inclination classes. The method consists of the following main steps:

1) Define the following three criteria (in priority) to determine the pipe length to be
used for the simplified profile (see Figure 8 and Figure 9):
i. minimum pipe length
 ii. maximum elevation change for a pipe element
iii. maximum pipe length
2) Sort all elements in the detailed profile by inclination in ascending order; see Figure
10.
3) Lump together the sorted elements to longer pipes, starting with the element with
the steepest downhill inclination. The length of each pipe element is then limited by
dominating criteria in 1).
4) Distribute the pipe elements in the simplified profile to match the large scale and
small scale topography of the detailed profile.

Sectioning of the pipeline elements according to OLGA® rules is considered as post-

processing of the simplified profile and is not considered as part of the main scope of this
paper.

The three different criteria in 1) give flexibility to control how the pipes in the simplified
profile are created (see Figure 8 and Figure 9), i.e. allow long pipe length for pipes with
low inclination and shorter pipe length at higher inclination, or to specify all pipe to have
the same length. The minimum and maximum pipe lengths are mandatory requirements.

By introducing the “sorting and lumping” the traditional dependence on predefined

inclination distribution classes is avoided, and a more continuous inclination distribution
is achieved. By adding the length and elevation changes for all the elements in the
detailed profile both the total profile length and the “Total Climb” are conserved.

As for the first method, it is possible to divide the detailed profile into sub-intervals. This
may be beneficial to simplify the process of redistribution of the elements in step 4). The
length of a subinterval is typically 10-50 km, depending on the resulting number of pipe
elements within each sub-interval.

To reorganize all the elements (step 4) to fit the large scale and small scale topography of
the detailed profile, a cost function is defined:

F ( y ) = ∑i wi ⋅ ( yi − yi )2
yi = values from the simplified profile
yi = values from the detailed profile
where as i denotes:
1) elevation
2) total climb
3) number of low points in the simplified profile
4) number of crossings between the simplified and the detailed profile

The accumulated “Pipeline Indicator” along the profile could as well be easily included
in the cost function.

The cost function is minimized by “Simulated Annealing” (7). Weight factors are applied
to the different parts of the cost function.

A zoom-out of the simplified profile prior and after to reorganizing the elements is
shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12, respectively. The inclination distribution is shown in
Figure 13 and the final simplified profile is shown in Figure 14.
 Pipe elevation change (m)
Maximum elevation change

Xmin Xmax
Pipelength (m)

Figure 8: Criteria to determine pipe length in simplified profile (step 1)

25 1000
20 Elevation change of single pipe 900
15 Pipe length 800
Elevation change (m)

10 700

Pipe length (m)

5 600
0 500
-5 400
-10 300
-15 200
-20 100
-25 0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Pipe inclination (deg)

Figure 9: Pipe length and pipe elevation change as function of inclination (step 1)
(200 m minimum length, 5 m maximum elevation change and 1000 m maximum
length)

10 -200
8 -300
6 Inclination -400
4 Elevation profile -500
Inclination (deg)

2 Original pipeline profile -600 Elevation (m)

0 -700
-2 -800
-4 -900
-6 -1000
-8 -1100
-10 -1200
Distance (m)

Figure 10: Sorting elements according to inclination in ascending order (step 2)

 -220
Original profile
-230
Simplified profile prior to redistribution of the elements
-240

-250

-260

-270

Elevation (m)
-280

-290

-300

-310

-320

-330

-340

-350

-360
50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Distance (m)

Figure 11: Pipeline profile prior to redistributing of the elements (step 4)

-220
Original
-230
Simplified profile after redistribution of the elements
-240
-250
-260
-270
Elevation (m)

-280
-290
-300
-310
-320
-330
-340
-350
-360
50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Distance (m)

Figure 12: Pipeline profile after redistributing of the elements

4 OVERALL COMPARISON OF THE DISCRETIZATION METHODS

The angle distribution of the discretizations is close to the original one: cf. Figure 13. In
Table 4 and Figure 14, an overall comparison is given. Very good consistency between
discretizations is observed despite different simplification approaches. The profiles of
elevation and total climb are almost superimposed.
Pipe angle distribution
Total pipe length per angle group [m]

80000

70000 Original profile

Discretized profile (second method)
60000 Discretized profile (first method)
50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
1)

5)

5)
)

)
0)

0)

)
1)

20

90
-5

25

,2

,3

,5

,7

,9
.2

.4
.0

.2
.7
-6

-2

,-

,0

,0

(4

(6

(8
0.
0,

.5

.5

0,
,0

,0

0,
,1
(-2
0,

0,

(1

(2
,-
(-1

.1

.3

(1

(3
(0

(1
.5
(-9

(-3

(0

(0
.5

(0
(-0

Pipe angle group [deg]

Figure 13: Original profile vs. discretizations: angle distribution

 Simplified Discretized Discretized
Original
profile profile profile
profile
(OLGA Box (first (second
(108,785 points)
Filter) method) method)

Number of pipes 108,784 554 2,766 2,198

Pipeline indicator [-] 79.7 25.8 80.3 79.9

Total climb [m] 4,187 1,235 4,180 4,187

Total length [m] 554,505 554,400 554,507 554,505

Table 4: Original profile vs. discretizations: number of pipes, pipeline indicator,

total climb and total length

Pipeline geometry
200 5000
Pipe elevation (discretized profile: first method) [m]
100 Pipe elevation (discretized profile: second method)[m] 4000

Total climb [m]

Elevation [m]

0 Total climb (discretized profile: first method) [m]

Total climb (discretized profile: second method) [m] 3000
-100
2000
-200
-300 1000

-400 0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Pipe inclination
10 Pipe inclination (discretized profile: first method) [m]
8 Pipe inclination (discretized profile: second method) [m]
6
Inclination [deg]

4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Distance from offshore platform [m]

Figure 14: Comparison of the discretized geometries

5 SIMULATION

An in-depth comparison between steady-state flow simulations of the original profile and
the discretized ones is now presented, using OLGA® steady-state pre-processor (point
model). Sensitivity to dynamic simulation is also investigated using OLGA® dynamic
simulator.

5.1 Validation of the discretizations with steady-state simulation

The number of pipes within the original geometry (108,784) is too large to allow
multiphase flow simulation with OLGA®. However, it is possible to simulate a portion of
the profile with a high pipeline indicator, like for example from KP 20 to KP 70: cf.
Table 5.

Unlike the onshore arrival pressure which is controlled to be approximately constant

whatever the gas export rate, the pressure at KP 70 is not constant. It depends on the gas
export rate, as shown in Figure 15 (see curve Back-pressure – Kilometer Point = 70 km).
To ensure proper flowing conditions and liquid dropout (gas retrograde condensation),
this back-pressure was set at the outlet of the sub-profile, for both original geometry and
discretizations.
 Discretized Discretized
Original
profile profile
profile
(first method) (second method)
Number of
10,041 252 211
discretization points
Pipeline indicator [-] 104.6 105.3 104.5

Total climb [m] 485.2 486.1 477.4

Total length [m] 50,213.6 50,214.1 50,209.2

Table 5: Original profile vs. discretizations (from KP 20 to KP 70)

The results obtained from OLGA® pre-processor are given in Figure 15 (inlet pressure at
KP 20) and Figure 16 (condensate content from KP20 to KP 70). They confirm the good
quality of the discretizations: the onset of condensate accumulation is predicted exactly at
the same export flow rate as with the original profile: 39 MSm3/d.
Inlet pressure (at KP 20) vs. export flow rate
42" ND pipeline - Fluid: 50% J0/50% J1 - OLGA steady-state pre-processor
190
Original profile 20-70 km
First discretization method (20-70 km)
180
Second discretization method (20-70 km)
Back-pressure - Kilometer Point = 70 km
170
Inlet pressure [bara]

160

150

140

130

120

110
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Export flow rate [MSm3/d]

Figure 15: Inlet pressure and back-pressure: from KP 20 to 70

Condensate content vs. export flow rate

42" ND pipeline - Fluid: 50% J0/50% J1 - OLGA steady-state pre-processor
2000
Original profile 20-70 km
1800
First discretization method (20-70 km)
Total condensate content [m3]

1600 Second discretization method (20-70 km)

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Export flow rate [MSm3/d]

Figure 16: Total condensate content: from KP 20 to 70

To illustrate the consequences of poor discretization, Figure 17 shows a comparison
between the global profile discretizations (554 km) and the profile simplified with the
Box Filter only (Figure 5). The condensate accumulation is largely under-predicted with
the “Filtered” profile for gas export rates below 40 MSm3/d. From this single example, it
is clear that inappropriate discretization method may have significant impact on the
design of process facilities and the definition of the operating envelope.
Total condensate content vs. export flow rate
42" ND pipeline - Fluid: 50% J0/50% J1 - OLGA steady-state pre-processor
10000
First discretization method
9000
Second discretization method

Total condensate content [m3]

8000
Simplified profile with OLGA Box Filter
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Export flow rate [MSm3/d]

Figure 17: Simplified and discretized geometries: total condensate content vs.
export flow rate

5.2 Steady-state pre-processor vs. dynamic simulation

Unlike point model simulation with OLGA® steady-state pre-processor, the results from
dynamic simulation are dependent on the sectioning (or meshing) of pipes into
calculation cells (or sections). This subject is outside the scope of this paper. However, it
is worth demonstrating the need for data compression when simulating long gas-
condensate pipelines.

Two different meshes were simulated with a minimum section length around 100 m to
avoid severe time step limitation by CFL criterion. In the discretization from the first
presented method, each pipe was divided in two calculation cells for a total 5,530
sections. In the second discretization, the following sectioning was applied for a total
5,811 sections: three cells per upward sloping pipe and 2 cells per downward sloping
pipe.

The calculated condensate accumulation with respect to the gas export flow rate is given
in Figure 18. When running dynamic simulation, the onset of condensate accumulation is
predicted at a slightly higher gas export rate (41 instead of 39 MSm3/d). However the
results are still consistent with the steady-state pre-processor simulations.
 Total condensate content vs. export flow rate
42" ND pipeline - Fluid: 50% J0/50% J1
10000
First discretization method - OLGA SS pre-processor
9000 Second discretization method - OLGA SS pre-processor
First discretization method - OLGA dynamic

Total condensate content [m3]

8000 Second discretization method - OLGA dynamic

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Export flow rate [MSm3/d]

Figure 18: OLGA® Steady-state pre-processor vs. OLGA® dynamic: total

condensate content and export riser inlet pressure

To run these dynamic simulations, a significant computation time was required despite
significant data compression and the use of fast computers: cf. Figure 19. It is worth
reminding that computation time increases (approximately) quadratically with the
number of pipe sections. We see from this example that simplification of ultra-long gas-
condensate pipeline profile is essential to avoid unrealistic simulation work.

Required simulation time to reach  Required computation time to reach 

steady‐state flow conditions  steady‐state flow conditions 
First discretization method
Second discretization method
30 days
33 h
Simulation time
20 days
21 h 20 h 21 h

7 days 10 h 10 h

5 days 5 h 6 h

28 35 49 70 28 35 49 70
Export flow rate [MSm3/d] Export flow rate [MSm3/d]

Figure 19: Dynamic simulation: computation time

Note: computation time is given for DELL OptiPlex 755 computer: Intel® Core TM 2 Duo
Processor E6750 (2.66 GHz) and 3.25 GB of DDR2 RAM.

6 CONCLUSION

Two discretization methods for ultra-long gas-condensate pipeline were presented

through an application to the Shtokman case. Essential characteristics of detailed pipeline
profile are accurately preserved: total pipe length, large/small scale undulations, total
climb and pipe inclination distribution. A comparative study confirmed the ability of the
discretization methods to preserve the hydrodynamic behaviour of the original profile
despite significant data compression.
This paper emphasizes the importance of gas-condensate pipeline modelling when it
comes to predicting liquid accumulation for a proper design of receiving facilities. More
generally, the aforementioned methods can be used either for the design of a production
system, including the definition of the operating envelope, or for operation support with
the simulation of actual production conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank SDAG shareholders (Gazprom, Total and StatoilHydro)
for their support in the preparation of this paper and their permission to publish.

The authors would also like to expressly thank Doris Engineering (Geraldine Coudert
and Benoit Jacob) for their valuable help with dynamic simulation.

REFERENCES

(1) Langsholt, M. and Holm, H., “Oil-water-gas flow in steeply inclined pipes”, BHR
Group, 10th International Conference on Multiphase Technology, Cannes, France,
2001
(2) Eidsmoen, H., Roberts, I., “Issues relating to proper modelling of the profile of
long gas condensate pipelines”, PSIG paper 0501, Pipeline Simulation Interest
Group, Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, November 7-9, 2005
®
(3) OLGA , User manual, Transient multiphase flow simulator, Version 5, 2006
(4) Barrau, B., “Profile indicator helps predict pipeline holdup, slugging”, Oil & Gas
Journal, Vol. 98, Issue 8, p. 58-62, Feb 21, 2000
(5) Kvandal, H., Munaweera, S., Elseth, G. and Holm, H., “Two-Phase Gas-
Condensate Flow in Inclined Pipes at High Pressure”, Paper SPE 77505, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29
September–2 October 2002.
®
(6) OLGA Multiphase Toolkit, version 5.3
(7) Numerical RecipesTM, 2nd edition ANSI C