Upload
shybokx
View
234
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
1/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 1
Multiphase Pipeline Design Guide
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
2/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 2
PART I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective and Scope.....................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Definition of Terms........................................................................................................................................................1
SECTION 2.0 OVERVIEW OF MULTIPHASE FLOW FUNDAMENTALS
2.1 Design Criteria..............................................................................................................................................................11
2.2 Velocity Guidelines .......................................................................................................................................................11
2.3 Flow Regimes...............................................................................................................................................................13
2.4 Pressure Gradient.........................................................................................................................................................16
2.4.1 Frictional Losses..........................................................................................................................................16
2.4.2 Elevational Losses........................................................................................................................................17
2.4.3 Acceleration Losses......................................................................................................................................18
2.4.4 Allowable Pressure Drop...............................................................................................................................20
2.5 Pressure Gradient Calculations......................................................................................................................................20
2.6 Section Highlights.........................................................................................................................................................21
SECTION 3.0 STEADY STATE DESIGN METHODS
3.1 Pipeline Design Methods...............................................................................................................................................25
3.2 Steady State Simulators................................................................................................................................................26
3.2.1 Phase Equilibrium and Physical Properties.................................................................................................... 26
3.2.2 Pipeline Elevation Profile .............................................................................................................................. 28
3.2.3 Heat Transfer ............................................................................................................................................... 30
3.2.4 Recommended Methods for Pressure Drop, Liquid Holdup, and
Flow Regime Prediction................................................................................................................................ 33
3.2.5 Interpretation of Results................................................................................................................................35
3.3 Section Highlights.........................................................................................................................................................38
SECTION 4.0 TRANSIENT FLOW MODELING
4.1 Transient Flow Modeling (General) ................................................................................................................................41
4.2 Use of Transient Simulators........................................................................................................................................... 42
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
3/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 3
4.3 Section Highlights.........................................................................................................................................................43
SECTION 5.0 SLUG FLOW ANALYSIS
5.1 Slug Flow (General)......................................................................................................................................................45
5.2 Slug Length and Frequency Predictions.........................................................................................................................46
5.2.1 Hydrodynamic Slugging................................................................................................................................46
5.2.2 Terrain Slugging...........................................................................................................................................51
5.2.3 Pigging Slugs............................................................................................................................................... 53
5.2.4 Startup and Blowdown Slugs........................................................................................................................ 55
5.2.5 Rate Change Slugs ......................................................................................................................................56
5.2.6 Downstream Equipment Design for Slug Flow............................................................................................... 56
5.3 Section Highlights.........................................................................................................................................................59
SECTION 6 EXAMPLE PROBLEMS6.1 Example Problem 1 Low Gas/Oil Line Between Platforms ...... ...... ....... ....... ...... ....... ....... ...... ....... ....... ...... ....... ...... ..... 63
6.1.1 Line Size...................................................................................................................................................... 65
6.1.2 Slug Length Prediction .................................................................................................................................75
6.1.3 Slug Frequency and Length by Hill & Wood Method ......................................................................................80
6.2 Example Problem 2 Gas Condensate Line..................................................................................................................88
6.2.1 Table 1, Wellstream Composition.................................................................................................................89
6.2.2 Table 2, Pipeline Evaluation Profile ...............................................................................................................90
6.2.3 Pipeline Simulation Comparison ...................................................................................................................92
SECTION 7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 106
FIGURES
I: 1-1 Flow Regimes in Horizontal Flow...................................................................................................................................8
I: 1-2 Flow Regimes in Vertical Flow ......................................................................................................................................9
I: 2-1 Horizontal Flow Regime Map.........................................................................................................................................23
I: 2-2 Vertical Flow Regime Map.............................................................................................................................................24
I: 5-1 Taitel-Dukler Liquid Holdup Predictions..........................................................................................................................60
I: 5-2 Stages in Terrain Slugging............................................................................................................................................ 61
I: 5-3 Pipeline Slugging..........................................................................................................................................................62
I: 6-1 Liquid Holdup for Example 1, Year 12............................................................................................................................101
I: 6-2 Inlet Pressure for Example 1, Year 12............................................................................................................................102
I: 6-3 Liquid Flowrate Out of Line, Example 1, Year 12............................................................................................................ 103
I: 6-4 Gas Flowrate Out of Line, Example 1, Year 12............................................................................................................... 104
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
4/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 4
I: 6-5 Liquid Holdup Predictions for Example 2........................................................................................................................ 105
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
5/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 5
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective and Scope
The simultaneous flow of gas and liquid through pipes, often referred to as multiphase
flow, occurs in almost every aspect of the oil industry. Multiphase flow is present in well
tubing, gathering system pipelines, and processing equipment. The use of multiphase
pipelines has become increasingly important in recent years due to the development of
marginal fields and deep water prospects. In many cases, the feasibility of a design
scenario hinges on cost and operation of the pipeline and its associated equipment.
Multiphase flow in pipes has been studied for more than 50 years, with significant
improvements in the state of the art during the past 15 years. The best available methods
can predict the operation of the pipelines much more accurately than those available only
a few years ago. The designer, however, has to know which methods to use in order to
get the best results.
Part I of this guide consists of seven sections. The fundamentals of multiphase flow in
pipelines are discussed in Section 2.0. The third section describes the use of steady state
simulation methods. This section of the guide helps the designer choose the best methods
for the project, and it gives guidelines to use in designs. The fourth section of the reportbriefly describes transient flow modeling. The fifth section describes slug flow modeling,
giving suggestions on the best methods to use in slug flow simulation. The sixth section
includes two sample problems, based on actual designs, which illustrate the design steps
used in analyzing the pipeline designs.
1.2 Definition of Terms
In discussing the design of multiphase pipelines, it is necessary to define several terms
used repeatedly throughout this text.
Near Horizontal and Near Vertical Angles
The term "near horizontal" is used in this guide to denote angles of -10 degrees to +10
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
6/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 6
degrees from horizontal. The term "near vertical" denotes upward inclined pipes with
angles from 75 to 90 degrees from horizontal.
Flow Regimes
In multiphase flow, the gas and liquid within the pipe are distributed in several
fundamentally different flow patterns or flow regimes, depending primarily on the gas and
liquid velocities and the angle of inclination. Observers have labeled these flow regimes
with a variety of names. Over 100 different names for the various regimes and sub-
regimes have been used in the literature. In this guide, only four flow regime names will
be used: slug flow, stratified flow, annular flow, and dispersed bubble flow.
Figure I:1-1 shows the flow regimes for near horizontal flow, and Figure I:1-2 shows the
flow regimes for vertical upward flow. Descriptions of the flow regimes
1. Stratified Flow - at low flowrates in near horizontal pipes, the liquid and gas separate
by gravity, causing the liquid to flow on the bottom of the pipe while the gas flows
above it. At low gas velocities, the liquid surface is smooth. At higher gas velocities,
the liquid surface becomes wavy. Some liquid may flow in the form of liquid droplets
suspended in the gas phase. Stratified flow only exists for certain angles of inclination.
It does not exist in pipes that have upward inclinations of greater than about 1 degree.Most downwardly inclined pipes are in stratified flow, and many large diameter
horizontal pipes are in stratified flow. This flow regime is also referred to as stratified
smooth, stratified wavy, and wavy flow by various investigators.
2. Annular Flow - at high rates in gas dominated systems, part of the liquid flows as a
film around the circumference of the pipe. The gas and remainder of the liquid (in the
form of entrained droplets) flow in the center of the pipe. The liquid film thickness is
fairly constant for vertical flow, but it is usually asymmetric for horizontal flow due to
gravity. As velocities increase, the fraction of liquid entrained increases and the liquid
film thickness decreases. Annular flow exists for all angles of inclinations. Most gas
dominated pipes in high pressure vertical flow are in annular flow. This flow regime is
referred to as annular-mist or mist flow by many investigators.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
7/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 7
3. Dispersed Bubble Flow - at high rates in liquid dominated systems, the flow is a frothy
mixture of liquid and small entrained gas bubbles. For near vertical flow, dispersed
bubble flow can also occur at more moderate liquid rates when the gas rate is very
low. The flow is steady with few oscillations. It occurs at all angles of inclination.Dispersed bubble flow frequently occurs in oil wells. Various investigators have
referred to this flow regime as froth or bubble flow.
4. Slug Flow - for near horizontal flow, at moderate gas and liquid velocities, waves on
the surface of the liquid may grow to sufficient height to completely bridge the pipe.
When this happens, alternating slugs of liquid and gas bubbles will flow through the
pipeline. This flow regime can be thought of as an unsteady, alternating combination
of dispersed bubble flow (liquid slug) and stratified flow (gas bubble). The slugs can
cause vibration problems, increased corrosion, and downstream equipment problems
due to its unsteady behavior.
Slug flow also occurs in near vertical flow, but the mechanism for slug initiation is
different. The flow consists of a string of slugs and bullet-shaped bubbles (called
Taylor bubbles) flowing through the pipe alternately. The flow can be thought of as a
combination of dispersed bubble flow (slug) and annular flow (Taylor bubble). The
slugs in vertical flow are generally much smaller than those in near horizontal flow.
Slug flow is the most prevalent flow regime in low pressure, small diameter systems.
In field scale pipelines, slug flow usually occurs in upwardly inclined sections of the
line. It occurs for all angles of inclination. Investigators have used many terms to
describe parts of this flow regime. Among them are: intermittent flow; plug flow;
pseudo-slug flow, and churn flow.
Superficial Velocities
The velocities of the gas and liquid in the pipe are prime variables in the prediction of the
behavior of the multiphase mixture. Most multiphase flow prediction methods use the
superficial gas and liquid velocities as correlating parameters. The superficial velocities
are defined as the in situ volumetric flowrate of that phase divided by the total pipe cross-
sectional area. In oil field units, this corresponds to:
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
8/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 8
Vsg = Superficial Gas Velocity, ft/sec
= (actual ft3/sec of gas) / (pipe cross-sectional area, ft
2)
Vsl = Superficial Liquid Velocity, ft/sec
= (actual ft3/sec of liquid) / (pipe cross-sectional area, ft
2)
Mixture Velocity
The mixture velocity (Vm) is the volumetric average velocity of the gas-liquid mixture. It
is equal to the sum of the gas and liquid superficial velocities.
V V Vm sg sl= +
Slip and Liquid Holdup
Liquid holdup is defined as the volume fraction of the pipe that is filled with liquid. It is
the most important parameter in estimating the pressure drop in inclined or vertical flow.
It is also of prime importance in sizing downstream equipment, which must be able to
operate properly when the liquid holdup in the line changes because of pigging or rate
changes.
If there was no slip between the gas and liquid phases, both phases would move through
the pipe at the mixture velocity. The liquid would occupy the volume fraction equivalent
to the ratio of the liquid volumetric flowrate to the total volumetric flowrate. In
multiphase flow terminology, this equates to the liquid holdup being equal to the ratio
between the superficial liquid velocity and the mixture velocity:
Hlns = No-slip liquid holdup
= Vsl / Vm
Under most conditions, however, the liquid phase, which is more dense and viscous,
moves more slowly than the gas. When this occurs, the liquid holdup (Hl) is greater than
the no-slip holdup.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
9/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 9
H Hl s> ln
Under these conditions, the actual gas velocity is greater than the mixture velocity, and
the actual liquid velocity is smaller than the mixture velocity. The expressions for the
actual gas velocity (Ug) and actual liquid velocity (Ul) are:
UV
g
sg
l
=1 H
UV
Hlsl
l
=
For small diameter, low pressure piping, there is frequently a vast difference between Ug
and Ul. For field piping, there is generally less slip between the phases, and the flow may
approximate no-slip flow in dispersed bubble and annular flows.
It is possible to get conditions where the liquid holdup is less than no-slip, but this only
occurs over a small range of flowrates in downwardly inclined pipes.
Pressure Gradient
Two definitions of the term "pressure gradient" are used in the literature. In this guide, the
term "pressure gradient" will be used to describe the pressure drop per unit length of pipe,
(Pin - Pout)/L. In many papers, the term "pressure gradient" is used to denote the pressure
change per unit length (dp/dx = (Pout - Pin)/L). The magnitude of the pressure gradient is
the same in either definition, but the sign of the pressure drop per unit length is usually
positive, while the sign of dp/dx is usually negative. Most people prefer to work with
positive numbers, so the majority of people use the pressure drop per unit length
definition. The choice of the definition is somewhat arbitrary, but it should be noted when
reading the multiphase flow literature, and working with some of the available software.
3-Phase Flow vs. 2-Phase Flow
In most of this guide, the discussion will consider 2-phase flow, or gas-liquid flow. In the
majority of oil field applications, there will actually be 3 phases present (gas, oil, and
water). The rigorous prediction of 3-phase flow is in its infancy. 3-Phase flow methods
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
10/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 10
are not generally available, so most simulators use 2-phase models with a mixed liquid
stream using averaged properties for the oil and water. The use of 2-phase models with
averaged properties generally gives acceptable results unless either: emulsions are present;
or the flowrates are low enough to cause stratification of all three phases. These problemsare discussed in more depth in Section 3.2.1
Mechanistic Models vs. Correlations
The prediction of multiphase flow behavior has improved considerably during the 50+
years that the subject has been studied. For many years, multiphase flow prediction
methods were correlations, based on curve fits of experimental data. The correlations
frequently used arbitrarily selected variables and were based on limited databases,
consisting almost entirely of low pressure, small diameter data. Extrapolations of theseprediction methods to field conditions frequently proved to be seriously in error. In the
1960s and 1970s, several investigators undertook experimental studies to try to
understand the fundamental mechanisms of the various flow regimes. In the past 15 years
models have been developed, which are based on simulation of these mechanisms. These
models, referred to as mechanistic models, have proven to extrapolate best to field
conditions.
Newtonian vs. Non-Newtonian Fluids
Most condensates and crude oils follow Newtons law of viscosity, which is defined as:
yxxdv
dy=
where yx = shear stress
= viscosity
vx = velocity
y = distance
Some liquids, however, exhibit behavior that is very different from Newton's law. These
fluids are referred to as non-Newtonian. In the oil field, examples of non-Newtonian fluids
are drilling muds, polymeric additives, and crude oils below their cloud point.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
11/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 11
Flowline simulators are based on Newtonian fluids. If a non-Newtonian liquid is present,
the simulator must be tricked into giving a Newtonian viscosity equivalent to the actual
viscosity at the given temperature and shear stress. The methods of doing this are beyond
the scope of this guide.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
12/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 12
Figure I:1-1 Flow Regimes in Horizontal Flow
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
13/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 13
Figure I:1-2 Flow Regimes in Vertical Flow
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
14/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 14
SECTION 2.0 - OVERVIEW OF MULTIPHASE FLOW FUNDAMENTALS
2.1 Design Criteria
The majority of lines are sized by use of three primary design criteria: available pressure
drop; allowable velocities; and flow regime. In some cases, a more optimal line size may
be found that better suits the overall design of the pipeline system. These considerations
will be discussed later in the transient modeling section of the guide. A description of each
of the primary design criteria follows in Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4.
2.2 Velocity Guidelines
The velocity in multiphase flow pipelines should be kept within certain limits in order to
ensure proper operation. Operating problems can occur if the velocity is either too high
or too low, as described in the following sections.
It is difficult to accurately define the point at which velocities are "too high" or "too low".
This section of the guide will try to quantify limits, but these limits should be considered
as guidelines and not absolute values.
Maximum Velocity
For the maximum design velocity in a pipeline, API RP-14E recommends the following
formula:
VC
ns
max = (Eqn. 2.1)
where Vmax = Maximum mixture velocity, ft/sec
ns = No-slip mixture density, lb/ft3
=( ) ( ) g sg l sl
m
V V
V
+
g = Gas Density, lb/ft3
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
15/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 15
l = Liquid Density, lb/ft3
C = Constant, 100 for continuous service, 125 for intermittent service.
This equation attempts to indicate the velocity at which erosion-corrosion begins toincrease rapidly. Many people think this equation is an oversimplification of a highly
complex subject, and as a result, there has been considerable controversy over its use.
For wells with no sand present, values of C have been reported to be as high as 300
without significant erosion/corrosion. For flowlines with significant amounts of sand
present, there has been considerable erosion-corrosion for lines operating below C= 100.
The use of the API equation has been the subject of several research projects. It has been
generally agreed that the form of the equation is not sophisticated enough, and should
include additional parameters. Unfortunately, no other equation has been proposed which
has gained acceptance in the industry as an alternative to the API equation. As a result,
the recommended maximum velocity in the pipeline is the value calculated from Equation
2.1 with a Cvalue of 100.
It should be noted that Equation 2.1 is also used by many people as an estimate of the
maximum velocity for noise control.
For additional guidance on the use of the API equation, refer to Chevrons Piping Manual.
Minimum Velocity
The concept of a minimum velocity for the pipeline is an important one and should be
considered in the design of the line. Turndown conditions frequently govern the design of
the downstream equipment. Velocities that are too low are frequently a greater problem
than excessive velocities, so that the designers natural tendency to add "a bit of fat" to the
design by increasing pipe diameter can cause severe problems in the operation of the line
and the downstream facilities.
At low velocities, several operating problems may occur:
a) Water may accumulate at low spots in the line. If there is an appreciable amount of
CO2 or H2S in the well stream, this water may be very corrosive.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
16/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 16
b) Liquid holdup may increase rapidly at low mixture velocities. A large accumulation of
liquid may cause problems in downstream separators or slug catchers if the line is
pigged or the rate is changed rapidly.
c) Low velocities may cause terrain induced slugging in hilly terrain pipelines and
pipeline-riser systems.
It isnt possible to give a simple formula quantifying the velocity when the phenomena
discussed above will occur. The minimum velocity depends on many variables, including:
topography; pipeline diameter; gas-liquid ratio; and operating conditions of the line. A
ball-park value for the minimum velocity would be a mixture velocity of 5-8 ft/sec. The
actual value of the minimum velocity can only be quantified by simulation of the system
using the methods discussed in Section 5.2.2.
2.3 Flow Regimes
As discussed in Section 1, the gas and liquid in the pipe are distributed differently in each
of the four major flow regimes (stratified, annular, slug, and dispersed bubble flows). The
prediction of the correct flow regime is important for several reasons. The flow regime
prediction can show whether the line will operate in a stable flow regime or an unstable
regime. The prediction of liquid holdup and pressure drop are highly dependent on the
flow regime, with each regime exhibiting different behavior when the design variables are
changed.
The transitions between the flow regimes are frequently depicted in a flow regime map,
such as that shown in Figure I:2-1. The flow regime map typically has the superficial gas
velocity (Vsg) on the X-axis and the superficial liquid velocity (Vsl) on the Y-axis. As
discussed later in this section, the flow regime map is only valid for a single point in the
pipeline. As the angle of inclination, pressure and temperature change with position in the
pipeline, the flow regime map also changes.
Some general comments, however, can be made about the flow regime transitions.
Stratified flow occurs at low superficial gas and liquid velocities. Dispersed bubble flow
occurs at high superficial liquid velocities. Annular flow occurs at high superficial gas
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
17/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 17
velocities. Slug flow occurs at moderate superficial gas and liquid velocities. Figure I:2-2
shows a typical flow regime map for vertical flow.
Many experimental studies of the transitions between the flow regimes for various systems
have been made, and many flow regime transition prediction methods have been published.
Some of these methods work fairly well, but most are poor. The designer needs to
carefully choose the method that will work best for the set of conditions. The best
methods are discussed in the remainder of this section.
Experimental studies of flow regime transitions have shown that each of the flow regime
boundaries reacts differently to changes in the system variables. The following table shows
the sensitivity of the transitions to changes in the major system variables:
Transition
Variable
Slug to
Dispersed
Bubble
Slug to
Annular
Slug to
Stratified
Stratified to
Annular
Angle of
Inclination
Small Effect Moderate
Effect
Strong Effect Strong Effect
Gas Density Small Effect Strong Effect Strong Effect Strong Effect
Pipeline
Diameter
Small Effect Small Effect Strong Effect Moderate
Effect
Liquid Physical
Properties
Moderate
Effect
Small Effect Moderate
Effect
Moderate
Effect
Many people have attempted to develop simple flow regime maps, usually using some
arbitrary dimensionless parameter on each axis (e.g. Baker, Beggs & Brill). These
methods are inherently inaccurate since no single parameter can model the sensitivity
effects shown in the previous table. The only flow regime map prediction methods that
have been effective for a wide range of conditions are those using mechanistic models to
estimate the flow regime transitions.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
18/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 18
In 1976, Taitel and Dukler published a landmark article describing a method of predicting
flow regime transitions by modeling the mechanism of each transition. By modeling each
transition, this method can show the same type of behavior observed in the experimental
work. The original Taitel-Dukler paper covered flow regime transitions in near horizontalflow only, and one of the transitions (slug-dispersed bubble) is very much in error. Taitel
and his co-workers at the University of Tel Aviv have subsequently published several
articles that expand the range of angles of inclination and correct the errors in the original
paper. The Taitel-Dukler paper and the latest paper from Tel Aviv model flow regime
transitions for all angles of inclination.
The Taitel, et al. methods give reasonably good predictions of the various flow regime
transitions, and the accuracy of the predictions has improved with each revision.
Another approach to the modeling of flow regime transitions is the method used in the
OLGAS method. It employs mechanistic models of each flow regime and links the models
by the assumption that the flow regime giving the lowest liquid holdup is the correct one.
This assumption holds up well in practice. The OLGAS method predicts flow regime
transitions with similar accuracy to the Taitel, et al. models.
Within Chevron, there are several programs available for flow pattern prediction.
Pipephase will print a flow regime map based on the Taitel-Dukler method for near
horizontal flow and the Taitel-Dukler-Barnea model for near vertical flow. Unfortunately,
these methods are the oldest and weakest of this family of methods. Two programs are
available within CPTC that incorporate the latest versions of the Taitel, et al. models.
These programs are FLOPAT, developed by Tulsa University, and FLEX, developed by
Advance Multiphase Technology. CPTC should be consulted if it is desired to use these
programs.
As in many aspects of multiphase flow, the flow regime prediction methods are not exact.
Errors of +/- 25% for the transition velocities are typical, even for the best prediction
methods. If the Taitel-Dukler map is used, the designer should be aware of the gross
errors in the slug to dispersed bubble transition. The errors for this transition can be
1000%. The dispersed bubble to slug transition typically occurs at a superficial liquid
velocity of about 10 ft/sec. Taitel-Dukler frequently predicts this transition velocity to be
50-100 ft/sec.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
19/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 19
2.4 Pressure Gradient
In most pipelines, the pipeline diameter is determined by the allowable pressure drop in the
line. The overall pressure gradient is composed of three additive elements:
a) pressure drop due to friction;
b) pressure changes due to elevational effects;
c) accelerational losses.
The calculation of the constituent parts of the pressure gradient will be discussed in the
next three sections.
The Chevron Fluid Flow Manual contains a good discussion of these pressure loss terms
for single phase flow and can be consulted as a reference.
2.4.1 Frictional Losses
In multiphase flow, frictional losses occur by two mechanisms: friction between the gas or
liquid and the pipe wall; and frictional losses at the interface between the gas and liquid.
The friction calculations, therefore, are highly dependent on the flow regime, since the
distribution of liquid and gas in the pipe changes markedly for each regime.
In stratified flow, there is wall friction between the gas and the pipe wall at the top of the
pipe, and wall friction between the liquid and the wall at the bottom of the pipe. There is
also friction between the gas and liquid at the gas-liquid interface. The interfacial friction
can be similar in magnitude to the wall friction if the interface is smooth, or it can be
considerably higher if waves are present.
In annular flow, there is friction between the liquid film and the wall. There is also
considerable interfacial friction between the gas in the core of the pipe and the liquid film.
The interfacial friction is usually the larger component.
In dispersed bubble flow, friction occurs between the liquid and the wall. There is
negligible interfacial friction between the gas and liquid.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
20/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 20
Slug flow has several frictional components. In the slug, the friction losses are caused by
the friction between the liquid and the pipe wall. In the gas bubble, the frictional
components are the same as in stratified flow, namely gas and liquid friction with the pipe
walls and interfacial friction between the gas and liquid. The friction loss in the slug isusually much higher than the losses in the bubble.
2.4.2 Elevational Losses
Elevational losses may be the major pressure loss component in vertical flow and flow
through hilly terrain. The calculation of elevational losses is governed by the following
equation:
dp
dxelev
=
mix
c
g sin
144g
where: (dp/dx)elev = Pressure gradient due to elevation, psi/ft
mix = Mixture Density, lb/ft3
= (l) (Hl) + (g) (1-Hl)
Hl = Liquid Holdup
g = Acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 ft/sec2
= Angle of inclination
gc = Gravitational conversion factor, 32.2 lb-ft/(lbf-sec2)
In order to calculate the elevational gradient, the liquid holdup must be determined. The
holdup in each flow regime has its own sensitivity to the important operating variables. A
summary of the effect of the major operating variables on the liquid holdup is:
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
21/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 21
Slug Flow Annular
Flow
Stratified Flow Dispersed
Bubble Flow
Superficial Gas
Velocity
Strong Strong Strong Strong
Superficial Liquid
Velocity
Strong Strong Strong Strong
Gas Density Moderate Strong Strong None
Pipeline Diameter Moderate Weak Weak Weak
Angle of
Inclination
Moderate Weak Very Strong None
Liquid Properties Moderate Moderate Moderate Weak
As seen in the previous table, the influence of the major variables on the holdup is very
different for each of the flow regimes. As a result, it is impossible to develop a general
holdup correlation that will apply to all the flow regimes. Unfortunately, almost all of the
commonly used holdup methods available in commercial software try to do this. They
work poorly over much of the operating range as a result. The only way to accurately
predict liquid holdup is to use mechanistic models for each of the flow regimes. The
accuracy of available holdup methods is discussed further in Section 3.2.4.
2.4.3 Acceleration Losses
Although acceleration losses are present for all flow regimes, they are only significant for
two flow regimes: annular flow and slug flow. The mechanisms for the losses in these two
flow regimes are very different and will be discussed separately.
In single phase flow, acceleration losses can be calculated from Bernoullis equation.
Acceleration losses represent the change in kinetic energy as the fluid flows down the
pipe. The expression for acceleration gradient is:
dp
dx
V
g
dV
dxaccel c
=
144
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
22/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 22
where: = Density, lbm/ft3
V = Velocity, ft/sec
For multiphase flow, the same type of relationship holds except that it refers to the flowof the mixed phase fluid. Most methods assume a no-slip mixture and use the no-slip
mixture density (ns) and the mixture velocity (Vm) in the calculation of acceleration
losses.
The kinetic energy acceleration losses are small for most oil industry applications. The
main exception is high velocity flow through low pressure piping. Flare systems would be
an example of piping that has high acceleration losses. Acceleration may account for 30-
50% of the overall pressure loss in such lines. For a typical high pressure gathering system
line, acceleration is usually less than 1% of the total drop and is frequently ignored.
Please note that the present version of Pipephase, 6.02, does not properly account for
acceleration losses, and, as a result, is not suitable for use in flare system design.
In slug flow, another source of acceleration contributes significantly to the total pressure
drop. As a slug propagates down the pipeline, it overruns and entrains the slower moving
liquid from the film ahead of the slug front. Accelerating the liquid from the film velocity
to the slug velocity can produce significant pressure losses. The acceleration loss may be
anywhere from
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
23/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 23
flowrate, and composition that the gathering system must handle during the life of
the field.
c) If it isnt feasible to do the rigorous simulations for a gathering system, the allowable
pressure drop can be estimated from the initial wellhead pressure and the processing
plant inlet separator pressure. A rule of thumb to use for this method is to take 1/3
of the difference between the wellhead pressure and the separator pressure as the
allowable pressure drop in the pipeline. The remainder of the difference would equal
the initial choke pressure drop. This approach would allow for future operation at
reduced reservoir pressures.
d) A rule of thumb estimate of allowable pressure drop for long distance
gas/condensate pipelines is to allow 10-20 psi per mile for frictional pressure drop at
design rates.
2.5 Pressure Gradient Calculations
As indicated in sections 2.4.1 to 2.4.3, the calculation of the pressure gradient for
multiphase flow is very complicated. Hundreds of methods have been proposed to predict
pressure drops, but only a few methods work well over a wide range of conditions. The
best available methods are discussed in Section 3.2.4.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
24/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 24
2.6 Section Highlights
Points to remember from Section 2.0 -
No other equation has gained acceptance in the industry like the API equaton. Therecommended maximum velocity in the pipeline is the value calculated from Equation 2.1
with a Cvalue of 100.
The Taitel et al. Methods give reasonably good predictions of the various flow regimetransitions. The accuracy of the predictions has improved with each revision.
The OLGAS method predicts flow regime transitions with similar accuracy to the Taitel etal. methods.
If the Taitel-Dukler map is used, the designer should be aware of the gross errors in theslug to dispersed bubble transiton.
Overall pressure gradient is composed of three additive elements: pressure drop due to friction pressure changes due to elevational effects accelerational losses
Frictional calculations are highly dependent on the flow regime, since the distribution ofliquid and gas in the pipe changes markedly for each regime.
Elevational losses may be the major pressure loss component in vertical flow and flow
through hilly terrain.
Using mechanistic models for each flow regime is the only way to accurately predict liquidholdup.
Kinetic energy acceleration losses are small for most oil industry applications. The mainexception is high velocity flow through low pressure piping.
Pipephase 6.02 does not properly account for acceleration losses and is not suitable foruse in flare system design as a result.
For plant piping, rule of thumb values for pressure gradients, such as a frictional gradientof 0.2-0.5 psi per 100 ft. of equivalent length, are generally used.
The allowable pressure drop for a gathering system can be estimated from the initialwellhead pressure and the processing plant inlet separator pressure. The rule of thumb for
this method is to take 1/3 of the difference between the wellhead pressure and the
separator pressure as the allowable pressure drop in the pipeline.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
25/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 26
Figure I:2-1 Horizontal Flow Regime Map
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
26/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 27
Figure I:2-2 Vertical Flow Regime Map
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
27/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 28
SECTION 3.0 - STEADY STATE DESIGN METHODS
3.1 Pipeline Design Methods
As stated in the previous sections, the pipeline designer needs to estimate the pressure
drop, flow regime, and velocities in the line in order to select the proper line size. The
calculation of these parameters is laborious and is usually done by computer simulation.
Line sizing is usually performed by use of steady state simulators, which assume that the
pressures, flowrates, temperatures, and liquid holdup in the pipeline are constant with
time. This assumption is rarely true in practice, but line sizes calculated from the steady
state models are usually adequate.
Within Chevron, Pipephase and PIPEFLOW-2 are available for steady state pipeline
simulation.
For a more rigorous pipeline sizing, the simulations could be done using transient
simulators. Transient simulators allow changes in parameters such as inlet flowrate and
outlet pressure as a function of time, and calculate values for the outlet flowrates,
temperatures, liquid holdup, etc. as a function of time. If the line is operating in slug flow,
the line size calculated from the transient model may be different from that calculated
from a steady state simulator.
The principal uses of transient simulators are in the design of downstream equipment and
the development of operating guidelines. Transient simulators can model transient
behavior such as slug flow, pigging, rate changes, etc.
Transient simulators are quite new, developed in the last 10 years, and are not in general
use. Chevron has used the OLGA program for transient flowline analysis on several
projects, utilizing outside consulting services. CPTC developed an in-house transientsimulator, but it currently does not have as many features as the commercially available
codes.
The use of steady state models will be further discussed in Section 3.2, and transient
modeling will be briefly discussed in Section 4.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
28/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 29
3.2 Steady State Simulators
This section contains some general guidelines on the use of steady state simulators.
Although there are several steady state programs available, the discussion will center on
the use of Pipephase, which is Chevrons currently recommended simulator. The topics
covered include:
a) Phase Equilibrium and Physical Properties
b) Pipeline Elevation Profile
c) Heat Transfer
d) Recommended Methods for Pressure Drop, Liquid Holdup, and Flow Regime Prediction
e) Interpretation of Results
3.2.1 Phase Equilibrium and Physical Properties
Accurate prediction of the phase behavior and physical properties for the fluid flowing
through the pipeline is essential to a good simulation of the pipeline operation. The
estimates of these parameters depend in large part on the quality of the input data
available.
During conceptual design work, the only data available may be an estimate of the oil rate
and gas-oil ratio. After well tests have been performed, compositions of the wellstream
and PVT data may be available as well as projections of the flowrates of oil, gas and water
as a function of time. Obviously, as the accuracy of the input data improves, the quality of
the pipeline simulation improves.
Pipephase has two fundamentally different models available within it for estimation of
phase behavior and physical properties. The black oil model estimates the phase behavior
and physical properties by use of a series of correlations that are based on operating
temperature, pressure and some global parameters such as specific gravity of the oil and
gas. Compositional models use an equation of state to estimate the quantity of liquid and
gas at the operating conditions; then, correlations are used to estimate the physical
properties.
The decision on whether to use the black oil model or compositional modeling depends on
the available information and the type of system that is being modeled.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
29/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 30
The choice of models for gas-condensate and volatile oil systems is clear. Compositional
models should be used for any gas-condensate or volatile oil system. This recommendation
covers gas-oil ratios above about 3500 SCF/bbl.
For lower gas-oil ratios, the choice of models is more difficult. Compositional models
should give more accurate phase equilibrium results, but the physical property estimates
from the compositional models may not be as good as the black oil model. (Section 6-1
illustrates this point.) As a result, it cannot be stated categorically that either the black oil
model or the compositional model is superior for low gas-oil ratio systems. General
practice with Pipephase has been to use the black oil model for lower gas-oil ratio streams.
The accuracy of compositional modeling depends, in a large part, on the characterization
of the heavy ends of the well stream. The materials heavier than hexane (C6+) are usuallycharacterized by use of pseudo-components or cuts. The heavy ends could be
characterized by one C6+ cut, or by a series of cuts corresponding to various boiling
ranges. In general, the accuracy of the predictions increases when more cuts are used.
Pipephase requires two of the following parameters in order to characterize a cut: specific
gravity; molecular weight; or normal boiling point. In many cases, the mole fractions for
cuts heavier than C6 may have been measured in the PVT analysis, but cut properties
were not noted. In cases like this, the customary assumption is to use the properties of the
corresponding normal paraffin as the cut properties. This adds some error to the analysis,
but it is unavoidable in many circumstances.
If tests of the phase equilibrium and physical properties have been done as part of the
wellstream analysis, Pipephase allows the users of the black oil model to adjust the model
predictions for solution GOR, densities, and liquid viscosity to match experimental
values. The pipeline predictions after PVT matching should be considerably better than
those obtained with use of the standard correlations.
If the compositional model is used in Pipephase, the only variable that can be easily
manipulated to match experimental data is the liquid viscosity. Pipephase does not have an
option that will automatically adjust the phase equilibrium calculations to match
experimental data. It is possible to manually modify the phase equilibrium calculations, but
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
30/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 31
it requires considerable effort, and the methods to do this are beyond the scope of this
guide.
Although it is possible to get good estimates of the phase equilibrium for 3-phase (gas-oil-
water) systems, the available software does not allow rigorous simulation of threephase
flow. The models present in Pipephase can only do two-phase (gas-liquid) flow
calculations. Pipephase averages the properties of the liquid hydrocarbon and liquid
water, and uses those average in the two-phase flow methods. Volumetric averaging,
however, may not give good values for the viscosity and surface tension of the mixture. If
the oil and water form an emulsion, the viscosity estimate may be off considerably using
simple volumetric averaging, because the viscosity of an emulsion can be as much as 50
times as high as the viscosity of the oil or water. If it is likely that an emulsion will form,
the Woeflin method, which is available in Pipephase, should be used to estimate the
viscosity of the emulsion.
3.2.2 Pipeline Elevation Profile
The pipeline elevation profile used in the simulation can have a significant impact on the
calculated pressure drop. Because the liquid holdup in upwardly inclined flow is greater
than the holdup in downward flow, the elevational pressure drop in uphill legs is greater
than the pressure recovery in downhill legs. As a result, elevational losses can account for
much of the pressure drop in hilly terrain pipelines, even if the inlet and outlet of the line
are at the same relative elevation.
If the velocities in the line are high, the uphill and downhill holdups may be close. As the
mixture velocity decreases, there will be an increasing difference between uphill and
downhill holdups.
The following table illustrates how sensitive the liquid holdup is to mixture velocity at
various angles of inclination from horizontal. The feed stream is a gas-condensate with
about 4 bbl/mm SCF of liquid present. (The values shown are predictions of the OLGAS
model.)
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
31/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 32
MIXTURE VELOCITY FT/SEC
ANGLE,
DEGREES
2.7 4.1 5.4 8.1 16.2
-2.0 0.0041 0.0053 0.0064 0.0091 0.0115
-1.0 0.0052 0.0068 0.0085 0.0108 0.0122
-0.5 0.0068 0.0087 0.0108 0.0124 0.0126
0.0 0.0224 0.0218 0.0198 0.0156 0.0131
0.2 0.5797 0.4134 0.2249 0.0179 0.0134
0.5 0.5961 0.4988 0.3846 0.0317 0.0135
1.0 0.5997 0.5000 0.4314 0.3023 0.0144
2.0 0.6009 0.5024 0.4337 0.3428 0.0158
Using the values in the above table, a comparison of two models for a given section of a
pipeline has been made. In the first model, the pipeline segment consists of two equal
length sections of -0.5 degree and +0.5 degree each. The second model consists of a
single horizontal pipeline segment. The liquid holdups for the two models are:
MIXTURE VELOCITY,
FT/SEC
HOLDUP FOR -0.5
DEGREE AND +0.5
MODEL
HOLDUP FOR
HORIZONTAL MODEL
2.7 0.3015 0.0224
4.1 0.2538 0.0218
5.4 0.1977 0.0198
8.1 0.0221 0.0156
16.2 0.0131 0.0131
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
32/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 33
The liquid holdups are far apart at low velocities and are the same at higher velocities.
This comparison makes two points:
The pipeline profile must be realistic if the calculations of liquid holdup and pressuredrop are to be accurate.
Low velocities cause severe problems in prediction of the pipeline performance.
For very low velocities, it would be necessary to know the pipeline elevation profile
within an accuracy of about one pipe diameter in order to get accurate holdup predictions.
This is generally not practical.
In many cases, the pipeline topography is not known when the preliminary pipeline sizing
calculations are run. Frequently, in offshore pipeline design, the designer only knowswater depths at subsea wells or platforms. Instead of assuming a straight line pipeline
profile, it is recommended that the designer add some terrain features to the pipeline
profile to simulate hills and valleys that are inevitably present in the actual profile.
To improve the accuracy of the simulation, many calculation segments should be used in
simulating the pipeline. Increasing the number of calculation segments always improves
the accuracy of the simulation, but it increases the computer simulation time. The number
of segments required depends on how rapidly the temperature, pressure and holdup are
changing in the pipeline. For a system with rapid changes in pressure, e.g. flare systems,
the number of calculation segments should be greater. If the temperature and pressure are
changing slowly, a more coarse grid can be used to simulate the pipeline.
3.2.3 Heat Transfer
The temperature profile along the pipeline is important in many circumstances. The
amount of condensation of liquids along a gas-condensate line, for instance, has a large
impact on the pressure drop and liquid holdup in the line. Hydrate and wax deposition may
occur in the line, requiring accurate estimates of temperatures. Corrosion is a strong
function of temperature, so good heat transfer estimates are vital to corrosion prediction.
To properly model the heat transfer between the pipeline and the surroundings, it is
necessary to have information on the following:
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
33/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 34
thicknesses of the pipewall, pipeline coatings and insulation
whether the pipe is buried or exposed
the burial depth of the line
type of surroundings
ambient temperatures
thermal conductivities of the pipe, coatings and insulation.
With this information the programs can calculate heat transfer coefficients, which are then
used to calculate the temperature profile in the pipeline.
Values of the thermal properties for various materials can be read from the followingtable. Note that the Chevron Fluid Flow manual also has an extensive list of thermal
conductivities for various types of materials.
Material Thermal
Conductivity,
Btu/hr-ft-degF
Specific Heat,
Btu/lb-degF
Density, lb/ft3
Carbon Steel 26 0.11 490
Stainless Steel 8-13 0.11 488
Concrete
(Saturated)
0.75-1.2 0.10 147-200
Onshore Soil (Wet) 1.35 0.20 90-110
Subsea Sandy Soil 1.25-1.50 0.30 105-115
Coal Tar Epoxy 0.20 0.35 92
Fusion Bonded
Epoxy
0.15 0.32 75-90
Neoprene 0.12-0.15 0.50 90
Polyurethane Foam 0.011-0.022 0.38 2-12
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
34/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 35
At the early stages of a project, there may not be enough information to enable rigorous
calculation of the heat transfer coefficient.. The following are rule of thumb values for heat
transfer coefficients for subsea flowlines, which can be used in these instances:
Applications U Value, BTU/hr/ft2/degF
Wells 2
Risers 20-40
Buried Pipelines 1-3
Concrete Coated Nonburied Pipelines 3-5
Nonburied Pipelines without Concrete 5-10
For gas/condensate pipelines, temperature loss by the Joule-Thomson expansion (J-T)
effect can be significant. In many gas pipelines, the temperature of the gas leaving the
pipeline is less than ambient because of the J-T effect.
Several concerns arise when using Pipephase for heat transfer calculations:
a) Pipephase only estimates temperature loss by the Joule-Thomson expansion cooling
effect if the compositional model is used. The J-T effect is ignored in black oil
simulations.
b) The default velocity of water flowing past a pipeline is 10 miles per hour in
Pipephase. This velocity is generally too high. More typical values are 1 to 3 ft/sec
(0.7-2 mph).
c) The Pipephase viscosity routine does not estimate viscosities at temperatures below
60 degrees F. At lower temperatures, it uses the viscosity at 60 degrees F. This can
lead to errors for pipelines in deep water or cold climates.
d) The thermal conductivity for saturated concrete is much higher than that for dry
concrete. The saturated concrete value should be used for subsea pipelines with
concrete coating.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
35/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 36
e) Unless a value is entered for Hrad, radiation is ignored in the heat transfer calculations.
For subsea or buried pipelines, radiation is negligible, but it can be a significant effect
for surface flowlines.
f) The convective heat transfer routines in Pipephase are not very rigorous. Errors inheat transfer calculations can occur for systems in which convection is the prime
source of heat transfer.
3.2.4 Recommended Methods for Pressure Drop, Liquid Holdup, and Flow
Regime Prediction
There have been hundreds of multiphase flow design methods developed in the past 50
years. Most computer programs contain dozens of options to select for pressure drop,
liquid holdup, and flow regime predictions. Most of these methods only have small rangesin which their predictions are accurate. This section of the guide discusses this problem
and gives some recommendations on which methods to use for certain applications.
Most of the methods available in Pipephase are correlations based on data taken in small
diameter (0.5-2 inch) test loops having an air-water flow operating at nearly atmospheric
pressure. The correlations developed from these data sets frequently do not include the
effects of all the key variables, such as pressure, because changes in these variables were
not studied in the experimental work. These correlations extrapolate poorly from field
conditions.
In the past 10 years, the development of mechanistic modeling has created a marked
improvement in prediction capabilities. As noted in Section 1.2, mechanistic models
attempt to model the physical phenomena associated with each flow regime. Mechanistic
models solve a set of simultaneous equations developed for a specific flow regime.
Correlations for a few key parameters are required in order to solve the equation set.
Mechanistic models extrapolate to field conditions much better than correlations because
the mechanistic models account for the effects of all the major variables.
Several mechanistic models have been developed in the past few years. Tulsa University
has developed models for near vertical flow (Ansari) and a general model covering all
inclinations (Xiao). The physics in these models are good, but the correlations built into
them are based solely on small diameter, low pressure data. The OLGAS model is
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
36/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 37
currently the best available method for general multiphase flow calculations. OLGAS is
based on a wide range of data (diameter from 1 to 8 inches, pressures from atmospheric
to 1400 psi), and it extrapolates best to field conditions.
OLGAS is a proprietary program that has not been available within Chevron. As this
guide is being written, however, negotiations are underway to add OLGAS to Pipephase
and several other programs as options. If OLGAS becomes available, it is the
recommended method for prediction of pressure drop, liquid holdup and flow regime.
Methods are available that are as good or slightly better than OLGAS in certain ranges,
but they are not as good overall.
The following methods can be used in Pipephase as a check of OLGAS or as the design
method if OLGAS is not available:
a) Pressure Drop
1) Near Horizontal Low Gas-Oil Ratio - Beggs and Bril1 (Moody) is good.
2) Near Horizontal Gas/Condensate - Eaton-Oliemans is good for relatively high
velocities. All of the methods are poor for low velocities.
3) Near Vertical Gas/Condensate - Both Gray and Hagedorn-Brown are good.
4) Near Vertical Gas/Oil - Hagedorn and Brown is good.
5) Inclined Up - Nothing is good; Beggs and Brill (Moody) is fair.
6) Inclined Down and Vertical Down - Everything is poor. Use Beggs and Brill
(Moody), but answers may be suspect at times.
b) Liquid Holdup
1) Near Horizontal Low Gas-Oil Ratio - Beggs and Brill (Moody) is O.K.
2) Near Horizontal Gas/Condensate Lines - All available methods are poor. The
Eaton holdup correlation is better than the other methods.
3) Near Vertical Gas/Condensate - The most accurate method is no-slip.
4) Near Vertical Gas/Oil - Hagedorn and Brown is pretty good.
5) Inclined Up - Beggs and Brill (Moody) is usable for low GOR lines, nothing is
accurate for gas/condensate. If gas velocities are high, use no-slip; otherwise use
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
37/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 38
Beggs and Brill (Moody). The user must be careful because the holdups can be a
factor of 10 in error in some cases.
6) Inclined Down and Vertical Down - Everything is poor. Use Beggs and Brill
(Moody), but answers may be suspect.
c) Flow Regimes
1) The Taitel-Dukler flow regime map is as good as OLGAS for near horizontal
flow with the exception of the slug-dispersed bubble boundary. This boundary is
very poorly predicted. If this method is used, it is recommended that a value of
~10 ft/sec be used as the superficial liquid velocity for the slug-dispersed bubble
transition rather than the Taitel-Dukler prediction.
2) The Taitel-Dukler-Barnea map for near vertical flow is also as accurate as
OLGAS.
On occasion, the conditions for a simulation may cause otherwise good multiphase flow
methods to give erroneous results. It is usually a good idea to spot-check the results by
use of another method to ensure that the answers are reasonable. If there is a wide
variance in results, CPTC should be contacted for guidance.
3.2.5 Interpretation of Results
When a multiphase simulator such as Pipephase is run, the interpretation of the results canbe difficult. The following section provides assistance in understanding Pipephase output,
and ensuring that the design criteria for the line (velocities, flow regime, and allowable
pressure drop) are met.
As discussed in Section 2.2, the velocity in the pipeline should be kept within a limited
range. Calculation of the velocities from a Pipephase output is not straightforward. The
designers of Pipephase chose to include the actual gas and liquid velocities in their output
table rather than the superficial gas and liquid velocities which are needed in the erosional
velocity calculations. As discussed in Section 1.2, the superficial and actual velocities are
related by simple formulas:
( )V Ug 1 Hsg l=
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
38/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 39
and V U Hsl l= 1
The liquid holdup is read from the "slip holdup" column. This calculation is made more
difficult by the poor formatting of the liquid holdup in the Pipephase output table. (The
liquid holdup is shown to only two decimal places in the table. For gas-condensate lines, if
the liquid holdup is below 0.5 percent, the printout will show 0.00 for the holdup.)
A more accurate way of calculating the superficial velocities from the Pipephase output
tables which doesnt rely on reading the value for the liquid holdupis:( )( )
HU Vm
U Ul
g
g l
=
V U Hsl l l=
V V Vsg m sl=
To calculate the C value in the API-RP14E equation, the value of the no-slip mixture
density must be known. Pipephase apparently only calculates and tabulates this value in
the output table if the Beggs and Brill (Moody) method is used. If other methods are used,
a value of 0.00 is given in the output table for the no-slip mixture density. The no-slip
mixture density can be calculated, however, from the phase densities shown on the output
table and the superficial velocities calculated above:
( ) ( )
ns
g sg l sl
m
V V
V=
+
Pipephase allows the user to print a flow regime map based on either the Taitel-Dukler
map for near horizontal flow or the Taitel-Dukler-Barnea map for near vertical flow. The
flow regime map is printed only for the last "device" in a "link". If the "link" contains
several pipes with different inclinations, the flow regime map for some of these sections
may be quite different from the map at the last "device". The only way to print the flow
regime map at specific points along the line is to make these points ends of Pipephase
"links".
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
39/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 40
The "link" summary tables print the flow regime predictions for each pipeline segment.
The printout shows both the predictions of the multiphase flow design method (e.g. Beggs
and Brill) and the Taitel-Dukler method. If OLGAS is available, the flow regime
predictions of OLGAS can be compared directly with the Taitel-Dukler prediction, and theuser can feel confident that the predicted flow regime is valid if the two methods match. If
methods other than OLGAS are used, disregard their flow regime predictions and only
consider the Taitel-Dukler predictions as reasonable.
Once the flow regime is determined, the designer needs to decide if this flow regime is
acceptable. This decision is more difficult than it may appear. Ideally, the flow line should
not be in the slug flow regime. In practice, it may be very difficult to design a line to avoid
slug flow under all anticipated flow conditions. The only variables the designer can change
are diameter and operating pressure; the changes in these variables required to avoid slug
flow may be impractical. It should be pointed out that many pipelines operate successfully
in slug flow. As long as the pipeline and downstream equipment are designed with proper
consideration of slug flow effects, they can be successfully operated.
The flow regime analysis may show that the line is in stratified flow. In many instances,
this is an excellent flow regime in which to operate. At low flowrates, however, slugging
may occur in lines predicted to be in stratified flow, induced by the terrain. Terrain
induced slugs are generally much longer than the slugs in normal slug flow and can cause
severe operating problems. Terrain slugging is discussed in more detail in Section 5.2.2.
If the pressure drop and velocities for lines in dispersed bubble or annular flow are within
acceptable limits, these flow regimes are usually good regimes in which to operate.
The pressure drop in the line should be compared with the allowable pressure drop. The
pressure drop in the line can be read from the Pipephase "link summary" table. It should be
pointed out that pressure drop is not always a maximum at the highest flowrate. If the
pipeline contains inclined or vertical elements, it is possible that the highest pressure drop
may occur at a low flow condition due to high elevational losses at low flows.
It is worthwhile to emphasize the point that the pipeline design should be checked at off-
design points as well as the nominal design point. For most pipelines, worst case
conditions for liquid holdup and flow regime occur at turn-down conditions.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
40/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 41
3.3 Section Highlights
Points to remember from Section 3.0 -
Compositional models should be used for any gas-condensate or volatile oil system.This recommendation covers gas-oil ratios above 3500 SCF/bbl.
General practice with Pipephase: use the black oil model for lower gas-oil ratiostreams.
If it is likely an emulsion will form, the Woeflin method (available in Pipephase)should be used to estimate the viscosity of the emulsion.
The pipeline profile must be realistic if the calculations of liquid holdup andpressure drop to be accurate.
Low velocities cause severe problems in prediction of the pipeline performance.
If OLGAS becomes available, it is the recommended method for prediction ofpressure drop, liquid holdup, and flow regime.
Mechanistic models extrapolate to field conditions much better than correlations,since the mechanistic models account for the effects of all the major variables.
The following methods can be used in Pipephase as a check of OLGAS or as thedesign method if OLGAS is not available:
1. Pressure Drop
a) Near Horizontal Low Gas-Oil Ratio - Beggs and Brill (Moody) is good.
b) Near Horizontal Gas/Condensate - Eaton-Oliemans is good for relatively
high velocities. All of the models are poor for low velocities.
c) Near Vertical Gas/Condensate - Both Gray and Hagedorn-Brown are
good.
d) Near Vertical Gas/Oil - Hagedorn and Brown is good.
e) Inclined Up - Nothing is good; Beggs and Brill (Moody) is fair.
f) Inclined Down and Vertical Down - Everything is poor. Use Beggs and
Brill (Moody), but answers may be suspect at times.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
41/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 42
Liquid Holdup
g) Near Horizontal Low Gas-Oil Ratio - Beggs and Brill (Moody) is O.K.
h) Near Horizontal Gas/Condensate Lines - Nothing is accurate. The Eaton
holdup correlation is poor, but better than the other methods.
i) Near Vertical Gas/Condensate - The most accurate method is no-slip.
j) Near Vertical Gas/Oil - Hagedorn and Brown is pretty good.
k) Inclined Up - Beggs and Brill (Moody) issuables for low GOR lines,
nothing is accurate for gas/condensate. If gas velocities are high, use no-
slip; otherwise use Beggs and Brill (Moody). Be careful because the
holdups can be a factor of 10 in error in some cases.
l) Inclined Down and Vertical Down - Everything is poor. Use Beggs and
Brill (Moody), but answers may be suspect.
Flow Regimes
a) The Taitel-Dukler flow regime map is as good as OLGAS for near
horizontal flow with the exception of the slug-dispersed bubble boundary.
This boundary is very poorly predicted. If this method is used, it is
recommended that a value of ~10 ft/sec be used as the superficial liquid
velocity for the slug-dispersed bubble transition rather than the Taitel-
Dukler prediction.
b) The Taitel-Dukler-Barnea map for near vertical flow is also as accurate
as OLGAS.
The flow line should, ideally, not be in the slug flow regime. In practice, it may bevery difficult to design a line to avoid slug flow under all anticipated flow conditions.
At low flow rates slugging may occur in lines predicted to be in stratified flow,induced by the terrain.
If the pressure drop and velocity for lines in dispersed bubble or annular flow arewithin acceptable limits, these flow regimes are usually good regimes in which to
operate.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
42/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 43
SECTION 4.0 - TRANSIENT FLOW MODELING
4.1 Transient Flow Modeling (General)
Transient multiphase flow simulators have only been developed recently. The first widely
used commercial program, OLGA, began development in about 1983 and has been
commercially available since 1990. OLGAs only current competitor, PLAC, was
introduced to the market at about the same time. Chevron currently does not own either
program but has used OLGA for specific projects through consultants. Chevron internally
developed a transient code, Transpire, in the same time frame as OLGA. This program
has not been widely used, and it does not have as many features as the commercial codes.
Steady state simulators assume that all flowrates, pressures, temperatures, etc. are
constant through time. Inherently transient phenomena, such as slug flow, are modeled byuse of their average holdups and pressure drops. Transient models allow all the input
variables to change with time. Transient programs can model phenomena such as slug
flow and can show the variations in parameters such as outlet gas and liquid flowrates as a
function of time. Transient simulators, therefore, model the actual operation of pipelines
closer and with more detail than steady state simulators.
Transient simulators solve a set of equations for conservation of mass, momentum and
energy to calculate the liquid and gas flowrates, pressures, temperatures and liquid
holdups. These calculations are done at each time step. The programs utilize an iterativeprocedure, which ensures that a set of boundary conditions (such as inlet flowrates and
outlet pressures as a function of time) are met while solving the conservation equations.
Steady state modeling can be used to size pipelines, but the predicted size may be
inaccurate if the line is in slug flow. Transient simulators can size pipelines more
accurately, and they are valuable in several other areas such as the design of downstream
facilities, development of operating guidelines, and the diagnosis of operating problems.
Steady state simulators cannot properly address any of these other concerns.
4.2 Use of Transient Simulators
Because of their power, transient simulators have been used for a variety of purposes.
These uses include:
a) Slug flow modeling
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
43/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 44
b) Estimates of the potential for terrain slugging
c) Pigging simulation
d) Estimation of corrosion potential in low spots in the line
e) Startup, shutdown and pipeline depressuring simulations
f) Development of operating guidelines
g) Real time modeling, including leak detection
h) Operator training
i) Design of control systems for downstream equipment
j) Slug catcher design
A general guideline for the use of steady state and transient modeling would be to use
steady state modeling during the feasibility level design of a system but use transient
modeling in the final design of the pipeline and its associated equipment.
As transient simulators improve and computer power increases, it is likely that transient
simulators will eventually supplant steady state simulators.
Because Chevron does not own a transient simulator at this time, this guide does not
contain any guidelines for their use. Section 5.1 discusses the use of the OLGA programfor slug length prediction.
4.3 Section Highlights
Points to remember from Section 4.0 -
Transient simulators model the actual operation of pipelines much closer than steadystate simulators.
General guideline for the use of steady state and transient modeling: use steady statemodeling during the feasibility level design of a system, but use transient modeling in
the final design of the pipeline and its associated equipment.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
44/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 45
SECTION 5.0 - SLUG FLOW ANALYSIS
5.1 Slug Flow - General
The formation of slugs of liquid can be caused by a variety of mechanisms:
a) Hydrodynamic Slugging
b) Terrain Slugging
c) Pigging
d) Startup and Blowdown
e) Flowrate Changes
Each of the mechanisms will be briefly discussed here, and will be further discussed in
Section 5.2.
Hydrodynamic slugging refers to operating in the slug flow regime. In near horizontal
flow, slugs are formed by waves growing on the liquid surface to a height sufficient to
completely fill the pipe. When this happens, alternating slugs of liquid and bubbles of gas
flow through the pipe, as illustrated in Figure I:1-1.
Terrain slugging occurs when a low point in the line fills with liquid. The liquid does not
move until gas pressure behind the blockage builds high enough to push the liquid out of
the low spot as a slug. Terrain slugging can produce very long slugs in pipeline-riser
systems. Although terrain slugging occurs at low superficial gas and liquid velocities, the
actual velocities during slug release can be very high.
When a pipeline is pigged, most of the liquid inventory is pushed from the line as a liquid
slug ahead of the pig.
When a line is shut down, liquid that is left in the line will drain to the low points in the
line. When the flow is restarted, the accumulated liquid may exit the pipeline as a slug.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
45/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 46
When the flowrate is increased, the liquid holdup in the line decreases. This change in
holdup can either exit the line as a gradual increase in liquid flow, or it can come out in
the form of a slug, depending on the flowrate.
Each of the slug flow mechanisms is highly transient in nature. Steady state models cannot
properly simulate slug flow behavior and are very limited in their ability to predict slug
characteristics such as slug length and frequency. The next two sections of the guide
discuss the slug flow mechanisms in more detail, discuss available methods of predicting
slug flow behavior and give some recommendations on sizing of slug catchers and
separators.
5.2 Slug Length and Frequency Predictions
Although estimates of slug length and frequency are of prime importance in design of
pipeline system facilities, most of the prediction methods available are poor. Development
of prediction methods has been hampered by the difficulty of the problem and the meager
amount of available test data. This section discusses each of the mechanisms for slug flow,
discusses the available test data, and give recommendations on the best available
prediction methods.
5.2.1 Hydrodynamic Slugging
Experimental measurements of the slug length in hydrodynamic slug flow show several
interesting results:
a) The slug length is not constant. At a given point in the line, the slug length varies
greatly around an average value. Different investigators have characterized the slug
length distribution as log normal, truncated Gaussian, inverse Gaussian, or fractal
distributions. The maximum slug length may be several times greater than the
average.
b) The average slug length and the slug length distribution change with the position
down the pipe. Slugs may grow, dissipate, or merge as the flow continues down the
pipe. As a result, the average slug length usually increases with the position in the
pipe, while the standard deviation of the slug length distribution decreases.
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
46/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1994 47
c) Slugs in vertical pipes are much smaller than slugs in horizontal pipes.
d) The slug length in laboratory experiments can be fairly well correlated. These tests
show that the average slug length (in feet) is approximately 32 times the Pipe
Diameter (in feet) for horizontal pipes.
e) In the data base of published pipeline field test results, the average slug length is
much higher than the results observed in the laboratory. The field tests results show
average slug lengths of 300-2000 times the Pipe Diameter, with some slugs as long
as 10,000 times the Pipe Diameter.
The differences between laboratory and field data shown in points d) and e) above are due
to factors such as:
- terrain features have a large effect on the slug length and frequency;
- slug flow in the field can be combination of mechanisms such as hydrodynamic
slugging causing terrain slugging;
- field pipelines are much longer, allowing more time for slug growth.
Average slug length is a complex function of many variables: the diameter and length of
the pipeline; the topography of the line; the gas and liquid superficial velocities; the liquid
physical properties; and the gas density.
Several correlations have been presented for the prediction of slug length and slug
frequency for horizontal piping and pipelines. Most of these correlations are based solely
on laboratory data, which means they are of limited use in the design of pipelines in the
field.
A few correlation methods have been presented based on field data. Two of these
methods, the Brill, et al. Correlation and the Hill & Wood method, have been widely used
for slug length prediction. Both methods will be discussed in detail.
Brill, et al. took several sets of data on 12 and 16 inch pipelines at Prudhoe Bay in about
1978. They were the first experimentalists to report the wide disparity between the
extrapolation of lab results and field data. They developed a simple correlation for slug
8/22/2019 Multiphase Design Guide Part1
47/104
PART I - MULTIPHASE PIPELINE & SLUG CATCHER DESIGN GUIDE
CPTC NOVEMBER 1