Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Modelamiento de Sistemas Multifasicos
Modelamiento de Sistemas Multifasicos
This paper was prepared for presentation at the PSIG Annual Meeting held in Palm Springs,
California, 20 October – 22 October 2004. THE STEADY STATE APPROACH
This paper was selected for presentation by the PSIG Board of Directors following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The material, as presented, Two distinct approaches are available to the petroleum engineer in
does not necessarily reflect any position of the Pipeline Simulation Interest Group, its officers,
or members. Papers presented at PSIG meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial accounting for the behavior of multiphase flow systems. The first is a
Committees of the Pipeline Simulation Interest Group. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or global approach that relies on empiricism in developing simplified
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of PSIG
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 models that contain parameters which are evaluated from
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous experimental data. The second is a continuum approach in which
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, Pipeline
Simulation Interest Group, P.O. Box 22625, Houston, TX 77227, U.S.A., fax +1-713-586-5955. more complex physically-based models are used to describe the flow
phenomena.
Some authors of empirical correlations select an appropriate For vertical flow, the stratified flow regime cannot exist as there is no
functional form for equation 1, and proceed to back calculate a preferred direction for the liquid to settle. An empirical flow regime
holdup function that best fits experimental data for two-phase map developed by Aziz, et al, [6], for vertical upward flow is shown
pressure drop. The Hagedorn and Brown, [1], correlation for flow in in Figure 3.
vertical pipes is based on such an approach. Other investigators such
as Beggs and Brill, [2], and Dukler, [3], have correlated both The coordinates used in this vertical map are:
variables (fm, θl) as functions of gas and liquid flow rates, pipe
geometry, fluid PVT and transport properties, among other variables. Nx = VsgXA (5) NY = VsLYA (6)
0.333 0.25
Empirical correlations have been successful in terms of: ⎛ ρg ⎞ ⎛ρ σ ⎞
XA = ⎜ ⎟ YA (7) YA = ⎜ L wa ⎟ (8)
1. Enabling models for particular flow conditions to be formulated ⎝ ρa ⎠ ⎝ ρ wσ ⎠
quickly.
Pressure Drop
2. Being amenable to tuning to yield results of reasonable accuracy
over well-defined ranges of operating conditions. Calculation of pressure drop in two-phase flow lends itself better to
3. Being relatively easy to employ as design tools. computer than hand calculation. A method suggested by the
American Gas Association, [7], can serve as a basis for hand
Table 1 lists some of the more successful and widely-used calculation generated by Dukler, [8], with elevation pressure drop
correlations with recommended areas of application. The limitations correlation by Flanigan, [9].
of empirical techniques stem from some or all of the following:
Frictional Component
Individual equations tend not to apply with sufficient accuracy Using the Dukler frictional pressure drop calculation method, the
to the broad range of flow conditions usually encountered in frictional pressure drop is given by the equation:
practice.
f n f tpr ρ kVm Lm
2
The use of a number of different correlations to predict the ∆Pf = (9)
hydraulic conditions of the dominant flow regimes in a pipeline (0.14623)d
system can result in numerical difficulties and/or discontinuous where
predictions.
ρ g (1 − λ )
2
ρLλ 2
Because empirical techniques do not address the complex ρk = + (10)
physical phenomena that can occur during multiphase flow, H Ld (1 − H Ld )
extrapolation beyond the specific conditions for which the and
correlations were developed may render them unreliable. QL
λ= (11)
Empirical techniques were an improvement on the earlier QL + Qg
homogeneous methods, [4], in so far as they provided a basis for:
The single phase friction factor, fn, can be obtained from the
1. The generation of flow regime maps. correlation:
f n = 0.0056 + 0.5 ( Re y )
2. The development of regime-specific correlations for liquid hold- −0.32
(12)
up and pressure loss prediction.
The mixture Reynolds number, Rey, is calculated according to the
Flow Regime Determination equation:
Several empirical flow regime maps have been presented that (124.0 ) ρkVm d
determine vapor-liquid flow patterns as a function of fluid properties Re y = (13)
and flow rates. Figure 1 shows schematics of these flow patterns. µn
Calculation of this Reynolds number requires determination of a
One map commonly used was developed by Mandhane, et al, [5], mixture velocity, Vm, and mixture viscosity µn. These quantities can
Figure 2. The coordinates for the map are: be determined from:
VsL = superficial liquid velocity = QL/A (3) Vm = VsL + VsG (14)
Vsg = superficial liquid velocity = Qg/A (4)
µn = µ L λ + µ g (1 − λ ) (15)
Care should be taken in the interpretation of these flow maps as the
regime boundaries are strongly affected by pipe inclination. In The two-phase friction factor ratio, ftpr representing a two-phase
particular, horizontal flow regime maps must not be used for vertical frictional efficiency can be determined by reference to Figure 4 or by
flow and vice-versa. the equation:
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 3
⎡ y ⎤ ⎛ρ ⎞
0.50
ftpr = 1 + ⎢ 4⎥
(16) N d = 10.073d ⎜ L ⎟ (23)
⎣1.281 − 0.478 y + 0.444 y − 0.094 y + 0.00843 y ⎦ ⎝σ ⎠
2 3
Elevation Component The liquid holdup fraction, HLe , is the fraction of the flow area of the
pipe occupied by the liquid. To calculate the liquid inventory of the
The elevation component of pressure drop can be found using the pipe, IL, the pipe internal volume is multiplied by this holdup
Flanigan method. In this method, the elevation component is fraction.
calculated using the equation:
I L = (28.80) H Le d 2 Lm (25)
ρ L H Lf
∆Pe = ΣZ e (17) As is the case with the pressure drop calculations, holdup fractions
144
should be calculated on a segment-by-segment basis.
where HLf is determined from Figure 6 or calculated according to the
formula:
Mechanistic Methods
1
H Lf = (18) The development and application of a phenomenological description
1 + 0.3264 (Vsg )
1.006
of the individual phases constituting a multiphase mixture generally
requires that a mechanistic transport equation be written for each of
The term Ze is the vertical elevation rise of a hill. The rises are the phases within the system, [11]. Best estimate sub-models are used
summed, no elevation drops are considered. One should keep in mind for parameters which are substituted into these equations. The
that this may lead to errors in downhill sections of pipelines. The number of sub-models differs for each flow regime, and the sub-
overall two-phase pressure drop is given by: models may be mechanistic or correlational, [12].
∆Pt = ∆Pe + ∆Pf (19)
The advantages claimed for this approach include:
Accuracy of calculation is improved if the above calculations are
performed on a segment-by-segment basis. 1. The transitions in flow regime maps have an analytical basis and
are more successful in facilitating comparisons with a wide
range of data.
Liquid Holdup
2. Flow regime models are particularly useful for treating effects of
The liquid holdup correlation given in Figure 5 is intended only for pipe inclination.
use in the Dukler friction pressure drop calculation. A correlation by 3. In general, mechanistic formulations provide a means to assess
Eaton et al, [10], is better suited for liquid holdup determination in the uncertainty in the predictions of the analysis.
liquid inventory calculations.
4. The models, being closer to first principles, are not only more
The correlation is shown in Figure 7. In this figure, the holdup widely applicable than the empirical correlations currently
fraction, HLe , is plotted as a function of the dimensionless group, NE. available but are also easier to upgrade/amend as, and when,
improved sub-models (e.g., for wall-liquid, interfacial shear)
0.05 become available.
⎛ Pavg ⎞
1.84 ( N Lv ) ( NL )
0.575 0.1
⎜ ⎟ 5. Mechanistic modeling can incorporate all of the significant
NE = ⎝ Pb ⎠ (20) variables identified via the observation, study, and mathematical
N gv ( N d )
0.0277
modeling of the physical mechanisms governing multiphase
flow in pipes.
The cost associated with the use of these methods is attributable to:
0.25
⎛ρ ⎞
N Lv = 1.938VsL ⎜ L ⎟ (21) The greater amount of understanding / knowledge needed to
⎝σ ⎠ apply them.
⎛ρ ⎞
0.25 The increased complexity of formulation and implementation
N gv = 1.938Vsg ⎜ L ⎟ (22) and consequent implications for solution speed.
⎝σ ⎠
The mechanistic formulation commonly proceeds along the following
solution sequence:
4 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403
1. Predict the flow regime corresponding to the expected / actual Combined Momentum Balance
operating conditions of the pipeline.
2. Employ specific mechanistic models / sub-models to predict:
SG S ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
Liquid holdup τ wG − τ wl L + τ i Si ⎜ + ⎟
AG AL ⎝ L
A AG ⎠
Interfacial friction factor (28)
and pipeline integrity analysis [16] and [17], as well as the emergence present, liquid droplets, and a separate one for the liquid film. One
of complex operational situations that demand such technology [18]. energy conservation equation is employed.
where α is the pipe inclination to the vertical. SG, SL, and Si are the
The conservation equations that comprise the OLGA model are wetted perimeters for the gas, the liquid and the interface
derived in two-fluid format. Separate (three) continuity equations are respectively. The velocity, va, is equal to the liquid, droplet or gas
written for the gas, liquid bulk, and liquid droplets. Two momentum velocity depending on whether evaporation or condensation occurs.
equations are implemented; one combined equation for the gas and, if The relative velocity, vR, is defined by a distribution slip formula
6 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403
given in reference [23]. The interphase velocity, vi, is approximated Interfacial Mass Transfer
by vL.
Phase transfer is a function of pressure and temperature:
⎡⎛ ∂Rs ⎞ ∂p ⎛ ∂Rs ⎞ ∂p ∂z ⎤
ρ f = ρ f ( p, T , Rs ) (37) ⎢⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎝ ∂p ⎠T ∂t ⎝ ∂p ⎠T ∂z ∂t ⎥
ψG = ⎢ (mG + mL + mD )
⎛ ∂R ⎞ ∂T ⎛ ∂Rs ⎞ ∂T ∂z ⎥
(42)
mG
Rs = (38)
mG + mL + mD ⎛ ∂R ⎞ ∂p
The term ⎜ s ⎟ represents the mass transfer from a mass
⎝ ∂p ⎠ T ∂t
present in a section due to pressure change in that section. The term
mG, mL, and mD are the specific mass of gas, liquid film, and liquid
droplets respectively. ⎛ ∂Rs ⎞ ∂p ∂z
⎜⎝ ∂p ⎠⎟ ∂z ∂t represents mass transfer due to mass flowing from
T
Using the continuity equations (32) to (34) together with equations one section to the next.
(37) and (38), one derives a single equation for pressure for the
system. The interface mass transfer model takes into account condensation,
evaporation as well as retrograde condensation.
⎡ f ⎛ ∂ρ ⎞ 1 − fG ⎛ ∂ρ L ⎞ ⎤ ∂p
⎢ G⎜ G⎟ + ⎥ =
⎢⎣ ρG ⎝ ∂p ⎠T , Rs ρ L ⎜⎝ ∂p ⎟⎠T , Rs ⎥⎦ ∂t CASE STUDY
1 ∂ ( AfG ρG vG ) 1 ∂ ( Af L ρ L vL )
− − (39)
System Description
AρG ∂z Aρ L ∂z
1 1 1 Located in a water depth of 500 ft., a host platform is to receive gas
+GG + GL + GD from three remote platforms and export the mixture 100 mi. to shore.
ρG ρL ρL
Figure 13 provides a schematic of the pipeline system with Figures
14 to 17 depicting the profiles of each branch in the pipeline system.
The contract delivery pressure for the onshore terminal is set at 1000
Equation (39) together with the momentum equations (35) and (36) psia and the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure in the export
are discretized and solved simultaneously for pressure and phase line is 1500 psia. All compression will occur at the remote platforms
velocity. This is done sequentially allowing for step-wise time with a maximum discharge pressure of 2000 psia. A brief description
integration. of the 3 source platforms is given in Table 5 with expected gas
compositions presented in Table 6.
The Energy Equation During Phase 1 of the development, the host platform will receive
An energy conservation equation for the mixture is derived as fluids from Platform C, with Platforms A and B coming online in the
follows: future. Since the gas arriving from Platform C has the highest
condensate yield, and the initial phase of development will entail the
lowest gas rates in the export line, the liquids handling capacity on
∂⎡ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ the onshore receiving plant will be most constrained during the initial
mG ⎜ EG + vG2 + gh⎟ + mL ⎜ EL + vL2 + gh⎟ + mD ⎜ ED + vD2 + gh⎟⎥ =
∂t ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦ phase. Thus, the design of the slug catcher will consider only fluids
produced through the export line originating from Platform C. The
∂⎡ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤
− mGvG ⎜ HG + vG2 + gh⎟ + mLvL ⎜ HL + vL2 + gh⎟ + mDvD ⎜ HD + vD2 + gh⎟⎥ (40) required export pipeline size will, however, need to consider the
∂z ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦ anticipated gas rates during phase 2 of the development, when
+HS + Q Platforms B and C are brought online.
Steady State Analysis The average liquid rate during the transition period can be determined
as follows:
Export Line Sizing
The required export pipeline diameter was evaluated with several Q Lt = Q Lf +(HL tot-i - HL tot-F )/ t r (43)
multiphase flow models for a gas flowrate of 1000 mmscfd,
representing a combined fluid mixture from the three platforms. The t r = HL /Q (44)
tot-F Lf
design is based on a delivery pressure of 1000 psia and a maximum
allowable line operating pressure of 1500 psia. Where:
Ramp- Up Pigging
During Phase 1, the steady-state liquid rate at the receiving terminal The volume of liquid expelled at the receiving terminal as a result of
will be 9,080 STBPD based on a gas production rate of 500 mmscfd pigging the export line can be estimated using steady-state analysis as
from platform C. For Phase 2, the steady-state liquid rate at the a first order approximation.
receiving terminal increases to 10,000 STBPD based on a gas
production rate of 1000 mmscfd from all 3 incoming pipelines. When a sphere (pig) is introduced into the line, it will gather in front
of itself a liquid slug comprised of the liquid that is flowing slower
It is anticipated that the gas rate from Platform C may occasionally be than the mean fluid flowrate in the pipeline at any given point. Thus
reduced to 300 mmscfd with a corresponding liquid rate of 5430 the crucial value that determines Sphere Generated Liquid Volume
STBPD. Therefore, the onshore facility will be sized to (SGLV) is the Slip Ratio (SR), which is the average velocity of the
accommodate a ramp-up scenario using Cunliffe’s method [24] based fluid divided by the velocity of the liquid. If the liquid and gas move
on the results from steady-state simulation. This approximation is at the same velocity, the slip ratio will be 1, i.e. there is 'no slip'
later compared to the more rigorous calculation of surge rate between the phases. In this situation the sphere will not collect any
performed with transient simulation. liquid, so the SGLV will be zero. Since the liquid flows slower than
the gas, i.e. the slip ratio is greater than 1, some of the liquid in the
Cunliffe’s method applies a simple material balance to predict the pipeline will collect in front of the sphere to form the SGLV. The
liquid surge rate due to an overall gas rate change for condensate amount of liquid that accumulates is summed for each segment of
pipelines. For ramp-up cases, as the gas rate increases, the total pipe, and the duration of the liquid expulsion can be calculated
liquid holdup in the line will drop owing to less slippage between the assuming that the liquid velocity ahead of the pig is equal to the
gas and liquid phases. The liquid residing in the line is therefore steady-state mixture velocity at the outlet.
accelerated to the equilibrium velocity at the final gas rate and thus
expelled at a rate higher than the final equilibrium liquid rate for the This steady-state approach is based on two key assumptions: 1) The
duration of the transition period. The transition period is assumed to sphere travels at the mixture velocity of the fluid, and 2) no leakage
be equal to the residence time at the final gas rate, that is, the time it of liquid occurs behind the sphere (ie. Liquid displacement is 100%
takes the liquid to travel from one end of the line to the other. efficient). These assumptions will tend to overestimate the SGLV,
yielding a conservative prediction.
Calculations are performed in terms of actual volumetric flowrates,
while the results are presented in terms of standard conditions. In In the current example, the SGLV is calculated for the phase 1
this example, approx. 20% of the liquid volume at onshore terminal turndown rate of 300 mmscfd with the sphere introduced at the host
conditions (1000 psia and 65F) will flash to the gaseous phase at platform. The velocity of the sphere is nearly constant thoughout the
standard conditions. export line at approx. 8 ft/s. The total volume of liquid swept by the
8 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403
sphere is 24,690 STB corresponding to a surge time of 52 min. at the As expected, the required slug catcher size is dependent on the
slug catcher. Given a drainage rate of 12,500 STBD at the slug manner in which the flow is ramped-up. The faster the flow is
catcher, the required volume at flowing conditions is 24,315 bbl increased, the larger the slug catcher needs to be. The results from
(20,178 STB). this analysis are shown in Figures 28 to 31. As seen in these figures,
the required slug catcher is approximately 20,700 STB for the ramp-
Transient simulations up time of 12 hours, and approximately 19,900 STB for the ramp-up
time of 24 hours.
The system described in the current case study will be investigated
from a transient perspective. Two cases will be presented:
Pigging
1. Flow is deriving from Platform C at 300 mmscfd and on through Pigging is performed on the export flowline. Prior to pigging, the
the export line. After a long period of steady flow, the flow is export flowline has been flowing with gas from Platform C at 300
ramped up to the design flowrate of 500 mmscfd. mmscfd. The pig is inserted at 12 hours, and the gas flowrate is kept
steady at 300mscfd. The liquid drainage flowrate from the slug
2. The export flowline is pigged after it has been flowing at 300 catcher is 12,500 STBD. Figures 32 to 34 depict such dynamic
mmscfd with fluid from Platform C only elements as gas and liquid flow rate into the slug catcher during the
The network is designed for a gas flowrate of 1000 mmscfd, and pigging cycle as well as the actual pigging velocity. Figure 35 shows
10,000 STBD of condensate. The slug catcher liquid handling is 25% the total liquid content in the export flowline.
over the condensate design flowrate, i.e. 12,500 STBD. Parameter
sensitivity analysis was performed to study the influence on the slug As seen in Figure 36, the slug catcher needs to have a working
catcher size of varying liquid off take flowrates. volume of 30,700 STB or more to handle the liquid pushed out by the
pig when the pig is arriving.
Ramp up
This exercise is performed mainly to determine the size of the slug DISCUSSION
catcher at the land terminal, and the sensitivity of this size to some of
the main operational variables. In analyses involving multiphase flow calculations one has to be
highly cognizant of the tools and methodology adopted and ensure
As seen in Figure 22, when the gas flowrate is increased, the higher that they are fit-for purpose. For example, let us consider the
gas velocity will sweep the lines for excess liquid content. As a calculation of slug catcher size using a number of steady-state
result, a total of approx. 31,500 BBLS of liquid will be expelled from methods.
the flowline. Figure 23 shows the total liquid contents of the flowline
from Platform C, and the export flowline. In Figure 24 the resulting Figure 37 shows the calculated slug catcher size requirement
liquid flowrate into the slug catcher is shown. The peak flowrate is expressed in terms of STB of condensate. The OLGA-S correlation
approx. 38,000 STBD. With a design flowrate of 12,500 STBD, the predicts a volume requirement for the ramp-up of about 19,530
liquids must be stored in the slug catcher for a period of time before STBD and 19,450 for the pigging case, whereas the Xiao mechanistic
they can be processed in the downstream process plant. model suggests a smaller slug catcher volume requirement. The
Beggs-Brill correlation indicates a required slug catcher volume of
Based on the simulator results, the slug catcher must have a minimum approx 37,800 STBD for the pigging case, but does not predict that
working volume of approx. 21,100 STB. the surge associated with the ramp-up is beyond the drainage capacity
of the separator. Similar results are suggested by the Dukler-AGA-
If the liquid off take flowrate was different, it is expected that the Flanigan method using the Eaton holdup correlation; a slug catcher
slug catcher size will be different as well. To investigate, two size of approx. 23,260 STBD is calculated for the pigging case, but
additional off take flowrates were run, one at 10,000 STBD and one the surge resulting from ramp-up is minimal.
at 20,000 STBD.
These results suggest that the empirical methods predict higher
amounts of slip, resulting in higher total holdup volumes in the
The required slug catcher sizes based on the maximum liquid
pipeline, and thus higher pigging volumes. However, the liquid
volumes shown in Figure 26 are plotted as a function of the off take
holdup predictions made by the empirical methods are less sensitive
flowrate in Figure 27. As seen in these figures, the required slug
to changes in gas rate than the mechanistic models, and therefore do
catcher is approximately 26,000 STB for the off take flowrate of
not predict high surge rates for ramp-up scenarios. This example
10,000 STBPD, and approximately 10,500 STB for the off take
illustrates the difficulty in modeling slip effects for low-liquid
flowrate of 20,000 STBPD.
loading situations (no-slip liq. Vol ~ 1% in this case) as observed by
previous investigators [25].
Another parameter sensitivity that was studied relates to the slug
catcher size for various ramp-up scenarios. The case shown above is A more rigorous transient analysis predicts a required slug catcher
based on an instantaneous ramp-up from 300 to 500 mmscfd at volume of 21,100 STBD for the ramp-up case, which is
Platform A. Two additional cases were run: approximately 8% larger than that predicted using Cunliffe’s method
applied to the OLGA-S model. However, the required volume from
1. One where the ramp-up was over 12 hours, and transient pigging analysis suggests that a slug catcher volume of
2. One where the ramp-up was executed over 24 hours 30,700 STB is required, which is 58% larger than the 19,450 STB
calculated using a steady-state approach.
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 9
Steady-state analysis can provide a first order approximation for studies and developments. He has knowledge and skills in process
estimating liquids handling capacity under various operating simulation with a strong understanding of PVT behavior.
scenarios. This is particularly useful for evaluating a number of field
development options with parametric studies and identifying future Mack E. Shippen is a senior petroleum engineer with
situations where capacity constraints will be most limiting. Schlumberger Information Solutions in Houston, where he provides
However, a more rigorous transient analysis is required to more user support, training, and consulting services for PIPESIM. He holds
accurately ascertain capacity requirements and account for time- BS and MS degrees in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M
dependent operating practices used to manage liquids. For example, University where his research focused on multiphase flow modeling.
transient analysis is needed to quantify the reduction in the required He has performed a number of well and surface network simulation
slug catcher size resulting from a graduated, rather than studies, including dynamic coupling of reservoir and surface
instantaneous, ramp-up of production. simulation models. An active SPE member, he is currently serving as
an editor of the SPE Reprint Series on Offshore Multiphase
Figure 38 illustrates the sensitivity of flowline size as a function of Production Operations.
LGR expressed in terms of the ratio of calculated pipe diameter using
a 2-phase correlation to the caculated pipe diameter for no-slip
(D/Dns). The design rate 1000 mmscfd for the export line is
considered as the basis for the gas flowrate. Even for low LGR’s, the
required line size increases significantly when 2-phase slip effects are
considered.
CLOSURE
This paper paper presents a summary of the technology behind the
simulation of multiphase flow in pipelines. This technology is
classified into steady state and transient approaches and the
underlying methodology has been presented for both.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Ivor R. Ellul began his career in the oil and gas industry in
1980, in West Germany, as a design engineer on pipeline and storage
tank systems. After specializing in the modeling of multiphase flow
in pipelines, he worked for a number of years in the area of numerical
modeling of single and multi-phase pipelines under steady-state and
transient conditions. He has been involved in various pipeline
simulation studies for clients worldwide. Recent experience includes
various executive positions in the upstream area of the oil and gas
industry. Dr. Ellul is industry lecturer to the Petroleum Engineering
Department of Imperial College, University of London where he
lectures the M.S. course on pipeline and process engineering. He is
also a member of the advisory board of the Faculty of Petroleum
Engineering of the University of Houston. Dr. Ellul holds a BS in
Mechancal Engineering from the University of Malta and MS, and
PhD degrees in Petroleum Engineering from the University of
London. Dr. Ellul is a registered Chartered Engineer in the United
Kingdom and a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Texas.
TABLES
Correlation For Based Upon Comments
Eaton Liquid Holdup Water-gas data (2”, Correlation is free from abrupt discontinuities
4” pipe sizes) Valid only for horizontal pipes
Eaton Pressure Water-gas and May produce unreliable results for very low or very high
Gradient distillate data (2”, 4”, volume fractions
17” pipe sizes) May be unreliable for liquid viscosities above 12-15 cP.
Neglects pipe roughness effects
Valid only for horizontal pipes
Hughmark Liquid Holdup Air-liquid data (0.63”, Developed for vertical up flow systems
2.5” pipe sizes) Over predicts liquid holdup at low liquid volume fractions
Dukler Pressure Field data Similarity analysis employed to develop correlation
Gradient Makes no distinction between flow regimes
Best results obtained for pipelines with moderate to high
liquid volume fractions and limited elevation changes
Flanigan Liquid Holdup Field data (16” pipe Applies only to uphill inclined pipe segments
size) Liquid holdup (uphill sections) correlated with superficial gas
velocity
Flanigan Pressure Field data (16” pipe Applies only to uphill inclined pipe segments
Gradient size) Applies only to gravitational component of pressure gradient
Pressure recovery in downhill sections is neglected
Beggs and Pressure Laboratory data (1”, Original correlation based on smooth friction factors
Brill Gradient 1.5” pipe sizes) Applicable to all ranges of pipe inclination
Flow regimes considered: segregated, intermittent, distributed
Predictions for downhill sections frequently too low
Hagedorn Liquid Holdup and Experimental well Applies only to vertical upward flow
and Brown Pressure (1500’) Makes no distinction between flow regimes
Gradient Liquid holdup merely a correlating factor
Pressure gradient predictions not accurate for bubble flow
Gives best results for wellbores with high gas-liquid ratios and
relatively high mixture velocities
Orkiszewski Liquid Holdup and Hybrid method which uses three different correlations for
Pressure vertical upflow
Gradient Convergence problems owing to discontinuities across flow
regime boundaries
Table 1
12 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403
-80o to -70o E B B
-70o to -10o A B B
Table 2
Key: A: Taitel-Dukler (1976a)
B: Barnea et al (1980)
C: Taitel et al (1980)
D: Mishima et al (1984)
E: Barnea et al (1982a)
F: Barnea et al (1982b)
G: Ferschneider et al (1985)
H: Martin (1973)
Table 3
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 13
Interfacial Shear A or B B or F - - -
Liquid Holdup A F - - K or M
Slug Frequency - - G or J - -
Slug Velocity - - G or K - -
Acceleration Effects F F F F F
Table 4
FIGURES
Figure 4
Figure 5
16 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403
Figure 6
Figure 9
Figure 7
SG
VG AG
D Si
VL
hL AL
α
SL
Figure 10
Figure 8
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 17
Figure 11
Figure 14: Tieback A pipeline profile
Figure 12
25000
20000
10000
5000
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Time (days)
Figure 17: Export pipeline profile
Figure 20: Liquid rate at plant vs. Time used for ramp-up
scenario (steady-state approach)
25000
20000
10000
5000
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Time (days)
45000 500
40000
450
35000
MMscf/d
400
30000
350
25000
300
20000
300 350 400 450 500
250
Gas Rate (mmscfd) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time [d]
PSIG 2004 - Ramp-up
Figure 19: Total Holdup vs. gas rate for Tieback C and
Export line during phase 1 Figure 22: Gas flowrate into the land terminal
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 19
55000 25000
50000
20000
40000 15000
Offtake=10,500 STB/d
Offtake=12,500 STB/d
bbl
25000 5000
20000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
15000
Time (d)
10000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Figure 26. Slug catcher inventory for different liquid off
PSIG 2004 - Ramp-up
Time [d]
take rates
30000
Trend data
LIQUID VOLUME FLOW AT STOCK TANK CONDITION EXPORT,PIPE-24,2 [STB/d]
25000
40000
35000 20000
Slug catcher size (STB)
30000 15000
25000
10000
STB/d
20000
5000
15000
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
10000 Liquid offtake flowrate (STB/d)
5000
Figure 27. Slug catcher size for different drainage
0 flowrates
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time [d]
PSIG 2004 - Ramp-up
Trend data
Instantaneous ramp-up
Figure 24. Liquid flowrate into the land terminal Ramp-up over 12 hrs
Ramp-up over 24 hrs
550
500
Slug catcher liquid inventory
25000
450
MMscf/d
20000
400
15000
350
Liquid volume (STB)
10000
300
250
5000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Time [d]
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (d)
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Figure 28. Gas flowrate into the slug catcher for different
ramp-up times
Figure 25. Slug catcher inventory
20 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403
500
35000
450
30000 400
350
25000
MMscf/d
300
STB/d
20000
250
15000 200
150
10000
100
5000 50
0
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Time [d]
Time [d]
PSIG 2004 - Pigging
Figure 29. Liquid flowrate into slug catcher for different Figure 32. Gas flowrate at slug catcher
ramp-ups
Trend data
Slug catcher liquid inventory PIG/PLUG VELOCITY PLUG-1 [ft/s]
Different ramp-up rates
15
25000
20000
10
Liquid volume (STB)
15000
ft/s
Instantaneous ramp-up
Ramp-up over 12 hrs
10000
Ramp-up over 24 hrs
5
5000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
0
Time (d) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Time [d]
PSIG 2004 - Pigging
Figure 30. Slug catcher inventory for different ramp-up
rates Figure 33. Pigging velocity
Required slug catcher size for various ramp-up rates
22000
Trend data
21000
Slug catcher size (STB)
20500
1e6
20000
STB/d
19500
19000
500000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ramp-up time (hrs)
Trend data
TOTAL LIQUID CONTENT IN A BRANCH EXPORT [bbl] 1.25
40000 OLGA-S
BBR
35000
DAF (Eaton)
1.20
30000
25000
1.15
bbl
20000
D/Dns
15000
10000 1.10
5000
0 1.05
0 50 100 150
Time [h]
PSIG 2004 - Pigging
1.00
Figure 35. Liquid content in export flowline 0 20 40 60 80 100
LGR (STB/mmscfd)
Slug catcher liquid inventory during pigging
Figure 38. Line size as a function of LGR and correlation
35000
30000
25000
Liquid volume (STB)
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (d)
40000
35000
Ramp-up
Required Volume (STB)
30000
Pigging
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Beggs & Dukler, Xiao OLGA- OLGA
Brill AGA & Steady Transient
Flanigan State
(Eaton
holdup)