SPE 74359
Simulating Slug Flow in Hilly-Terrain Pipelines
Y. Sharma, M. Ihara, and R. Manabe, Japan National Oil Corporation/Technology Research Center
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Petroleum Conference and
Exhibition in Mexico held in Villahermosa, Mexico, 10–12 February 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A simulator has been developed to track two-phase slugs in
pipelines transporting liquid and gas mixtures. The algorithm
consists of close coupling of a one dimensional hydrodynamic
slug flow model with an interface tracking methodology, and
solving both simultaneously with an iterative procedure. The
tracking scheme is based on propagating the fronts and backs
of the liquid slugs to new locations during an incremental time
step. New positions of the interfaces determine if a slug will
enter the pipeline, exit the pipeline, collapse, merge with a
slug ahead of it, or none of the above. The solution procedure
determines the locations and the characteristics of all the slug
units which exist in the pipeline at a given time.
Data collected in hilly-terrain and horizontal pipes in a large-
scale multiphase flow loop were used to validate the slug
tracking simulator. The average absolute percent errors in
predicting the maximum slug length and inlet pressure were
12.6 and 0.47 respectively. A case study with field data
collected on a 14,762 feet, 16 in. pipeline showed that the
simulator predicted the maximum slug length and inlet
pressure with absolute percent errors of 11.6 and 4.3
respectively. The comparisons are good and provide
confidence in using the algorithm and the simulator to model
and track two-phase slugs in hilly-terrain pipelines.
The simulator can be used to determine the characteristics of
the slug unit used to design separators and slug catchers. It can
also be used to analyze the impact of the flow and pressure
transients on reservoirs, equipment, and structures, and study
the effects of slugging on corrosion rates. The history of each
slug in the pipe can be traced by determining if it will grow,
shrink, collapse, or remain the same size as it traverses the
pipe. During slug tracking, slug lengths are determined by the
locations of interfaces instead of a correlation.
Introduction
The efficient and economic production of hydrocarbon
reserves found in reservoirs located in marginal fields and
hostile environments often require the transportation of
unprocessed fluids. In the case where the fluids are
hydrocarbon gas, hydrocarbon liquid, and formation water, a
multiphase flow mixture is the result.
A common occurrence in a pipeline transporting a multiphase
flow mixture is the existence of flow patterns. These flow
structures are characterized by a distribution of the interfaces
separating the phases. Examples of flow patterns include
churn, bubble, slug, and annular in vertical pipes; stratified,
dispersed bubble, slug, and annular in horizontal multiphase
flow. These flow structures are determined by, (i) operational
variables, such as flow rates of fluids and pressure;
(ii) geometrical variables, such as diameter and angle of
inclination of pipe; and, (iii) physical properties of the fluids
being transported, such as density and viscosity.
Flow variables in multiphase transportation are dependent on
the distribution of the phases. These variables include liquid
holdup, gas void fraction, pressure gradient, and heat and
mass transfer coefficients. Thus, it is necessary to know not
only when these flow patterns occur, but also the
characteristics associated with each flow structure.
The slug structure is a common and complex two phase flow
pattern. It consists of a region of liquid with entrained gases,
referred to as the liquid slug body; a gas bubble or pocket, and
a liquid film. Figure 1 shows the slug flow pattern in the case
of horizontal flow.
In multiphase pipelines, slugs can be differentiated according
to its mode of formation. The slug flow structure may be
initiated by flow instabilities, such as the Kelvin-Helmholtz
instability. These are termed hydrodynamic slugs. In other
cases, the geometry of the pipeline plays an important role in
slug formation. An example of this is a pipeline-riser pipe
system. At low fluid flow rates, there is blockage at the base
of the riser leading to an intermittent flow behavior termed
severe slugging. Slugs formed as a result of the geometry are
commonly referred to as terrain induced slugs.
2 Y. SHARMA, M. IHARA, AND R. MANABE
An initiated slug can grow or decay as it moves along a
pipeline due to expansion, wake, and terrain induced effects.
Slug tracking is the process whereby the development of the
slug is traced from the initiation point to the point of decay or
to the exit of the pipeline.
An understanding and knowledge of slug flow characteristics
are necessary to permit, (i) design of downstream process
equipment such as slug catchers and separators, (ii) analysis of
the impact of pressure and flow transients created by this
complex flow on the reservoir, equipment, and structures, and
(iii) the effect of slugging on corrosion rates. A slug tracking
simulator would provide information on length of the mean
slug, length and frequency of the largest slug, slug generation
and dissipation, pressure behavior, consequences of low flow
rate operations, shut in consequences, and how to utilize
advantages of the existing configuration for efficient and cost
effective transport of the fluids.
Previous Work
Taitel and Barnea 1 presented a hydrodynamic model to study
slug flow in hilly -terrain pipelines. The model was used to
track individual slugs. Results generated by the model
indicated that anticipated trends in slug flow development
were predicted by the algorithm implemented in the simulator.
A Lagrangian approach was used by Gilchrist and Wong 2 to
study slug growth and acceleration effects associated with
horizontal slug flow. The slug structure was considered to be
comprised of three sub-volumes; a liquid slug with entrained
gas bubbles, a liquid film with zero gas void fraction, and a
gas bubble with zero liquid holdup. Mass and momentum
equations were developed for the liquid slug and liquid film
sub-volumes. An equation of state was used to formulate the
changes in pressure in the gas bubble. The system of ordinary
differential equations was coupled and solved simultaneously
by a 4th order Runge-Kutta method. The simulated results for a
particular slug unit showed fluctuations in the average slug
velocity and void fraction in the liquid slug, and growth in the
slug length as it traversed a pipeline.
Sakaguchi et al 3 analyzed the dynamics of a transient liquid
slug and the impact force exerted by the exiting liquid slug on
a solid structure. The flow field was described by a single
phase liquid slug, an upstream liquid film-gas bubble region,
and a downstream liquid film-gas bubble region. The system
of equations was formulated by applying integral mass and
momentum balances over a control volume of the liquid slug,
and using continuity of mass and momentum across the front
and back interfaces of the slug. A separated flow model was
applied to the region downstream of the liquid slug. Uniform
pressure and a constant liquid holdup were assumed in the
large gas bubble and liquid film region located upstream of the
liquid slug. The continuity relations at the front interface
incorporated a pick up mechanism. The continuity relations at
the back interface incorporated a shedding process. The pick
up and shedding mechanisms have been described by Dukler
SPE 74359
and Hubbard 4. The system of equations was solved with a
Runge-Kutta procedure. Measurements were made for the
locations of the front and back of the liquid slug, liquid holdup
in the film, pressure, and the impact force. It was reported that
comparisons between measured and calculated results
were good.
Barnea and Taitel 5 formulated a model that calculated the
slug length distribution, mean slug length, and maximum slug
length for different locations in a pipeline. The inlet
distribution of the slugs was assumed to be either uniform or
normal. For a given liquid slug, it was proposed that the slug
tail would move at its translational velocity and the slug front
would move at the translational velocity of the slug located at
the downstream position. These velocities were then used to
track the front and back of the liquid slugs. An important
requirement in the proposed model is the specification of a
relation for the translational velocity. The authors used an
exponential expression. The model was used to show that a
log normal distribution described a fully developed slug flow.
The maximum and mean slug lengths were shown to be
approximately 3 times and 1.5 times the minimum stable
slug length.
Zheng et al 6 collected data in a hilly-terrain pipeline and
determined slug fronts, bubble front velocities, slug lengths,
film lengths, slug holdup, and film holdup. The pipeline
consisted of a horizontal section connected to an uphill
section, followed by a downward inclined pipe connected to a
horizontal section. Slugs generated in the upstream horizontal
section were seen to grow in the lower sections of the uphill
pipe. This growth in length resulted from the pickup of
additional liquid shed from the downstream slug, and the
entrapment of bubbles in the slug. Higher up the section, the
lengths showed near stability. In the downhill section, some
slugs dissipated, while others experienced decreasing lengths
by shedding liquid. Pseudo slugs were observed to form at the
elbow connecting the horizontal pipe with the upward inclined
section. Some of these pseudo slugs did survive in the uphill
pipe. However, if a pseudo slug survived its flow through the
uphill section, it was not certain to exist during its flow in the
downhill and downstream horizontal sections.
Zheng et al 7 followed their experimental work described
above with the formulation of a model to study slug flow
characteristics in hilly-terrain pipelines. The model applied
source and sink concepts to the connections at elbows between
pipes. Slugs could generate at lower-elbows and dissipate at
the upper-elbows. The hydrodynamics of the liquid film
determined the generation, growth, and dissipation processes.
The model assumed a uniform film thickness. Slug length
variations calculated with the model agreed well with
experimental data.
Straume et al 8 used a Lagrangian methodology combined with
an Eulerian model to study slug flow. The resulting
formulation was proposed to reduce the numerical diffusion
SPE 74359 SIMULATING SLUG FLOW IN HILLY-TERRAIN PIPELINES 3

which exist at the slug fronts and tails when utilizing an
Eulerian approach. The methodology was implemented in a
two-fluid model. Calculated data agreed well with data for
startup and terrain induced slugs.
A theoretical formulation of the integral balances for mass and
momentum to study slug flow was presented by Ozawa and
Sakaguchi 9. The model yielded results for the positions of the
slug nose and tail, and the pressure drop across the slug nose,
which showed good comparisons with experimental data. It
was suggested that the approach could be used to study
transient two-phase slug flow in solid-liquid or
solid-gas systems.
pocket or gas bubble located above the liquid film between
successive liquid slugs.
Consider the i-th slug unit. The liquid slug is defined by two
interfaces; (i) the liquid slug front, Xi and (ii) the liquid slug
tail, Yi . The liquid film and the gas bubble are defined by two
interfaces; (i) the back of liquid slug, Yi, and (ii) the front of
the slug which is trailing, Xi+1. The characteristics of a slug
unit are then determined by the hydrodynamics in each region
and the interactions of these regions. The main equations of
the slug flow model proposed by Taitel and Barnea1, and used
in the development of the slug tracking simulator in this study,
are presented below.

A review of transient models of slug flow was presented by The liquid film hydrodynamics are described by Eq. 1 and
Ozawa et al 10. It was explained that in vertical flow, the Eq. 2.
dominant effect in slug transport was gravity, while in
horizontal flow, the momentum efflux of the liquid at the back τ S l ,i τ wg , i S g ,i
of the slug was important.
wl , i
−
A l ,i A g ,i
The integral balances of mass and momentum for the liquid
 1 1 
slug and gas bubble of a slug unit formed the basis of a −τ S i ,i  + 
Lagrangian slug tracking model developed by Nydal and
i ,i  A l ,i A g ,i 
 
Banerjee 11, 12. Simulations with the algorithm predicted
anticipated trends in slug flow development in hilly-terrain
pipelines. Simulated results on terrain induced slugging + ( ρ l , i − ρ g , i ) gSin θ = 0 (1)
compared well with published data. The model assumed that
no gas was entrained in the liquid slug. Also, a liquid film of
constant thickness was assumed to be formed in the gas
R s,i
bubble region. U f,i = V t,i − ( V t,i − U s,i ) (2)
R f,i
An Eulerian two-fluid scheme is most applicable to simulating
multiphase flows where there is a continuous interface
The bubble velocity is given by,
between the phases. Examples of these separated structures
include stratified, stratified- wavy, and annular flows. The
two-phase slug’s structure is more complex than this separated
or layered configuration. Several local mechanisms are 
V g,i = V t,i − (V t,i − U s,i )
(1 − R s,i ) 
involved in defining the unit’s phenomena. These include
entrainment of gas and liquid at its front, penetration of the  (1 − R f,i )  (3)

trailing bubble into the slug body at its back, and flow of a fast
moving bubble above a slow liquid film. It is not a The slug front velocity is calculated with,
straightforward process to describe the physics of the slug
flow by incorporating mechanistically derived relations of the
local phenomena with the two-fluid set of equations. As a
result, this study utilizes a Lagrangian simulation approach for V f ,i =
(U s,i Rs ,i − U f , i −1R f ,i −1 )
slug flow. (R s,i − R f ,i −1 )
Slug Flow Model
The slug flow model used in the development of the simulator  dRs ,i dR f ,i −1 
is based on Taitel and Barnea's 1 modifications to the  Ls ,i + L f ,i −1 
dt dt
− 
mechanistic model presented by Dukler and Hubbard 4. The
model is one-dimensional and assumes isothermal conditions.
They considered a horizontal pipe containing N slug units as (Rs ,i − R f ,i−1 ) (4)

shown in Figure 2. Each slug unit is characterized by three

regions; (i) a high liquid holdup region commonly referred to The liquid slug velocity is calculated with Eq. 5.
as the liquid slug, (ii) a liquid film region, and (iii) a gas
4 Y. SHARMA, M. IHARA, AND R. MANABE SPE 74359

  The set of closure and constitutive relations that are currently

  L f,i α f,i   d   being implemented in the slug tracking simulator can be found
U =U −
s,i + 1  
  ρ g,f,i  in the report by Sharma13.
s, i   
 
dt
ρ
  g,f,i  
Slug Tracking Algorithm
 
α During a time level ∆t, the back of the slugs would be
1    s,i + 1 s,i + 1   d 
L
 
−    ρ  propagated to,
 2   ρ   dt  g , s , i + 1 
 
  g,s,i + 1  
{Y } = {Yi } + ∆t {Vt ,i }
n+1 n n
  i (11)
α
1    s , i s , i   d 
L
 
−    ρ 
 2   ρ   dt  g , s , i  and the front of the slugs would be propagated to,
 
  g , s , i  
(5) {X } + = {X } +∆t {V
i
n 1
i
n
f ,i
}
n
(12)
The sets of liquid slug lengths, liquid film lengths, and unit
lengths for slug units i = 1, N, at time (n+1)∆t, are defined At time (n+1) ∆t, the locations of the propagated interfaces
respectively by Eqs. (6), (7), and (8). will determine if the n-th time level slugs (i) dissipate, (ii)
shrink, (iii) grow, or (iv) exit the pipeline. New slugs may
{L }s ,i
n+1
= {X i } − {Yi }
n+1 n+1
(6) also enter the pipe during the time increment. Hence, it is
possible to determine the positions and characteristics of the
slug units at the new time.
{L } + = {Y } + − {X + } +
f ,i
n 1
i
n 1
i 1
n 1
(7)
Results
Experimental Data
{L }u,i
n +1
= {Ls , i } + {L f , i }
n +1 n +1
Data collected in a large scale multiphase flow loop were used
to validate the slug tracking simulator. A description of the test
= {Xi } − {Xi+1}
n+1 n+1 facilities and the experimental program were presented by
(8)
Yoshida et al 14. A summary of the experimental conditions is
shown in Table 1.
The pressure drop across the i-th liquid slug is calculated with,
The maximum slug lengths measured at 63.0m, 86.5m and
4τ L 91.4m in the horizontal and hilly-terrain test pipelines were
ws, i s, i
∆P = + ρ g Sinθ L (9) compared with the predictions of the slug tracking simulator.
s, i D s, i s, i These locations were chosen since they are close to the exit of
the pipe. Information on the maximum slug length exiting the
The pressure drop across the i-th liquid film is determined by, pipeline is valuable, and is required for designing downstream
processing facilities such as slug catchers and separators.
Figure 3 shows a good comparison between the measured and
τi,i Si, i L τ S L computed data. The average percent error and the average
f , i wl, i l, i f , i
∆P = ρ g Sinθ L − + absolute percent error in predicting the maximum slug length
f ,i l, i f ,i A A
l,i l,i at these locations in the pipe for 30 data points were –0.11
and 12.61 respectively. The standard deviation was 16.11 %.

τi,i Si, i L τ S L A comparison of pressures recorded during the experiments

f , i wg, i g, i f , i
= ρg, i g Sinθ L + + and the predictions of the slug tracking simulator is shown in
f ,i Ag,i Ag,i Table 2. The pressures were recorded at the first transducer
located 70.3 ft downstream of the first holdup sensor. In the
(10) simulations the first holdup sensor is considered the inlet of
the pipe. There is good comparison of the average measured
Additional relations are required to close the set of equations and average calculated pressures at that location. The average
defined above. These are provided by empirical models and percent error and average absolute percent error were
relations for the slug holdup and translational velocity. In evaluated as -0.47 and 0.47 respectively with a standard
addition to the closure relations, constitutive equations, a deviation of 0.41 %.
model for prediction of fluid properties, initial condition, and
boundary conditions are necessary to complete
the formulation.
SPE 74359 SIMULATING SLUG FLOW IN HILLY-TERRAIN PIPELINES 5

Field Data (i) developing new closure relations for slug

A series of flow tests, conducted on flow lines of a two-phase
gathering system in an existing field were reported by Brill et
al 15 . The data used in the validation of the slug tracking
simulator were obtained from one of these flow tests.
The profile of the pipeline is shown in Figure 4.
The flow test used in the validation of the slug tracking
simulator is shown in Table 3. An oil API gravity of 28.5o and
a gas gravity of 0.781 were used in the simulations. The
current version of the simulator specifies an empty pipeline as
the initial condition. The boundary conditions required are
flow rates of the phases at the inlet and pressure at the outlet.
The computer program was used to simulate 18 hours of real
time operation with boundary conditions as defined in Table 3.
translational velocity,
(ii) planning and implementing additional work on initiation
models for hydrodynamic slugs,
(iii) developing models for initiation of slugs at V-shaped
elbows and the relations to describe the characteristics of the
initiated slugs,
(iv) coupling severe slug generation and propagation with
hydrodynamic slug flow,
(v) specifying alternative initial and boundary conditions to
those used in the current study, and

Analysis of the inlet pressure indicated that after 6 hours of (vi) performing additional testing of the simulator with more
simulated behavior, stabilized conditions were present in the field data as they become available.
pipeline. During the simulated period 6 hours to 18 hours, data
on slug units were collected at the location 14, 700 feet in the Acknowledgment
pipe. This location was taken to represent the approximate This work represents the modelling and simulation tasks of a
position where slugs were recorded during the flow tests. A project on slug flow technology conducted at the Technology
comparison of the measured and calculated variables is shown Research Center of the Japan National Oil Corporation in
in Table 4. Chiba, Japan. The authors would like to thank this
organization for the opportunity to do this work and contribute
Conclusion to a state of the art method in multiphase flow technology.
A slug tracking simulator has been developed which yields
results that are in good agreement with measured data. The
average percent error and average absolute percent error in Nomenclature
predicting the maximum slug length were - 0.11 and 12.61
respectively. The standard deviation was 16.11 %. Good Variables
comparisons were also obtained between the average A Cross-sectional area
calculated pressure and average measured pressure. The d Derivative
testing revealed an average percent error and an average D Diameter of pipe
absolute percent error of - 0.47 and 0.47 respectively, with a L Length.
standard deviation of 0.41 %. P Pressure.
R Liquid holdup
Field data collected in a 14,762 feet long, 16 in. diameter S Perimeter or length
pipeline were also used to test the predictions of the simulator. t Time
A comparison of the maximum slug length measured near the U Velocity
outlet of the pipeline with gamma ray densitometers, and that V Velocity or Volume
predicted with the simulator, shows that this variable was X Position of liquid slug
predicted with an absolute percent error of 11.6. The inlet front
pressure was predicted with an absolute percent error of Y Position of liquid slug
4.3. back

The comparisons between measured and calculated data as Subscripts

stated above are good. These present evidence that the b Bubble
simulator has good potential to simulate slug tracking in hilly- f Liquid film, Liquid front
terrain pipelines. g Gas phase.
GS Superficial Gas
Recommendation
Encouraging results have been obtained in testing the current
version of the simulator. As a result it is recommended that i i-th slug unit,
work should continue on its enhancement. Areas suggested for liquid slug, liquid
future work include: film, or interface
l Liquid
6 Y. SHARMA, M. IHARA, AND R. MANABE
LS Superficial Liquid
M Mixture
N Number of slug units
s Slug
t Tail
wg Pipe wall---Gas Phase
wl Pipe wall---Liquid Phase
ws Pipe wall---Liquid slug
Superscripts
n Time step.
Greek Symbols
α Holdup or void fraction
θ Angle of inclination
ρ Density
τ Shear stress.
References
1. Taitel, Y. and Barnea, D.: “Effect of Gas Compressibility
on a Slug Tracking Model”, paper presented at a meeting
on planning of a Joint Industry Project on Slug Tracking
in Hilly-Terrain Pipelines, University of Tulsa,
August 1996.
2. Gilchrist, A., and Wong, T.N.: “Modelling of Slug Flow
Accounting for Slug Growth and Acceleration Effects”,
Multiphase Production, Burns, A. P. Editor, Elsevier
Science Publishers Ltd., London , 1991, 265-280.
3. Sakaguchi, T., Ozawa, M., Hamaguchi, H., Nishiwaki, F.,
and Fuji, E.: “Analysis of the Impact Force by a Transient
Liquid Slug Flowing out a Horizontal Pipe”, Nuclear
Engineering and Design (1987) 99, 63-71.
4. Dukler, A.E., and Hubbard, M.G.: “A Model for Gas-
Liquid Slug Flow in Horizontal and Near Horizontal
Tubes”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., (Nov., 1975) 14,
337-347.
5. Barnea, D., and Taitel, Y.: “A Model for Slug Length
Distribution in Gas-Liquid Slug Flow”, Int. J. Multiphase
Flow (1993) 19, 829-838.
6. Zheng, G., Brill, J.P., and Shoham, O.: “An Experimental
Study of Two-Phase Slug Flow in Hilly -Terrain
Pipelines”, paper SPE 24788, presented at the 67th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C.,
October 4-7, 1992.
7. Zheng, G., Brill, J.P., and Shoham, O.: “Hilly -Terrain
Effects on Slug Flow Characteristics”, paper SPE 26566,
presented at the 68th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, October 3-6, 1993.
SPE 74359
8. Straume, T., Nordsveen, M., and Bendiksen, K.:
“Numerical Simulation of Slugging in Pipelines”, ASME
Multiphase Flow in Wells and Pipelines, FED-Vol.,
(1992) 144, 103-12.
9. Ozawa, M., and Sakaguchi, T.: “Note on Modeling of
Transient Slug Flow in Multiphase Flow System”,
Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering, Kobe University
(1985) 32, 25-44.
10. Ozawa, M., Hamaguchi, H., and Sakaguchi, T.: “Gas-
Liquid Two-Phase Transient Slug Flow Modeling”,
Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering, Kobe University,
(1985) 32, 1-22.
11. Nydal, O.J., and Banerjee, S.: “Dynamic Slug Tracking
Simulations for Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines”, Chem.
Eng. Comm., (1996), Vol. 141-142, 13-19.
12. Nydal, O.J., and Banerjee, S.: “Object Oriented Dynamic
Simulation of Slug Flow”, Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Multiphase Flow ’95-Kyoto ,
Vol. 2, Kyoto, Japan (April 3-7, 1995) IF2-7-IF2-11.
13. Sharma, Y., Yoshida, Y., Miyata, K., and Ihara, M.: Slug
Tracking in Pipelines, TRC Report No. 28, Technology
Research Center, Japan National Oil Corporation, Chiba,
Japan (2000).
14. Yoshida, Y., Sharma, Y., Miyata, K., Manabe, R., Ikeda,
K., Takahashi, S., and Ihara, M.: ”Slug Tracking in
Pipelines: Part I- Experiments and Analysis”, paper SPE
59414 presented at the 2000 SPE Asia Pacific Conference
on Integrated Modeling for Asset Management held in
Yokohama, Japan, April 25-26, 2000.
15. Brill, J.P. and Schmidt, Z., Coberly, W.A. , Herring, J.D. ,
and More, D.W. : “ Analysis of Two - Phase Tests in
Large Diameter Prudhoe Bay Field Flowlines”, SPE
Journal (June 1981) 363-378.
SPE 74359 SIMULATING SLUG FLOW IN HILLY-TERRAIN PIPELINES 7

25

Calculated Max. Slug Length (m)

20

Figure 1: Slug Flow Pattern in a Horizontal or Near

Horizontal Pipeline 15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
M e a su re d M a x . S lu g L e n g th (m )

Figure 3: Comparison of Measured and Calculated

Maximum Slug Length

Figure 2: Simplified Slug Flow Structure in a Horizontal

Pipeline (after Taitel and Barnea1) M easured Calculated
Error
Pressure Pressure
(psia) (M pa) (psia) (M pa) (% )
372.87 2.673 372.13 2.668 -0.20
Fluids Nitrogen & Water 371.95 2.667 371.49 2.663 -0.12
Pipeline 100m Long, 106.3mm ID 373.78 2.680 368.69 2.643 -1.36
Inclination Angle of Hilly Section 0,1,3,5°
371.23 2.661 370.51 2.656 -0.19
Measurement Locations 63.0 m, 86.5m, 91.4m
373.34 2.677 371.67 2.665 -0.45
Length of Inclined Section 0 m -- Horizontal Pipe
20 m -- 1 Hill Pipe 372.60 2.671 372.15 2.668 -0.12
10 m -- 2 Hills Pipe 374.76 2.687 372.00 2.667 -0.74
Liquid Flow Rate 760 - 2,290 m3/d 372.41 2.670 371.83 2.666 -0.16
Gas Flow Rate 8,830 - 35,490 Sm3/d
373.18 2.675 370.04 2.653 -0.84
Separator Pressure 2.6 - 2.7 Mpa
373.74 2.679 371.75 2.665 -0.53
Table 1: Summary of Experimental Conditions
Table 2: Comparison of Measured and Calculated
Data for Pressure
8 Y. SHARMA, M. IHARA, AND R. MANABE SPE 74359

10

0
Elevation (ft)

-10

-20

-30
0 5,000 10,000
Distance (ft)

Figure 4: Profile of an Existing Multiphase Pipeline

Flow Pipe Oil Flow Gas Flow

Pattern I.D. Rate Rate
(inches) (STBO/D) (MSCF/D)

Slug 15.312 61,669 42,136

Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet

Pressure Pressure Temperature Temperature
(PSIG) (PSIG) (oF) (oF)

625 580 136 137

Table 3: Field Data Used to Validate Slug

Tracking Simulator

Absolute
Variable Measured Calculated Percent
Error

Maximum Slug
(ft) 1308 1459.3 11.6

Inlet Pressure
(Outlet Pressure Fixed) 639.7 612.5 4.3
(psia)

Table 4: Comparison of Measured Field Data with

Simulated Results