OTC 11965

Flow Management: Steady-State and Transient Multiphase Pipeline Simulation

Thomas J. Danielson, Lloyd D. Brown, and Kris M. Bansal / Conoco Inc.

Copyright 2000, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, 1–4 May 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented.
Abstract
Multiphase production systems are quite complex; however, a
priori prediction of their behavior is essential for successful
design and operation of offshore facilities. Steady-state and
transient simulators can be viewed as complementary rather
than competitive, and there are specific situations where each
would be greatly favored over the other. This paper will
examine the strengths and weaknesses of both steady-state and
transient simulators, and recommend best practices for when
and how each should be applied, based upon validation against
laboratory data and field experience. The ultimate objective is
reliable flow management design and operation through the
complementary use of both steady-state and transient
multiphase simulations.
Introduction
Both steady-state and transient multiphase flow simulators
have found wide use in the design and operation of offshore
facilities. However, informed application of these tools is
made difficult both by the wide variety of steady-state
correlations available, and by the complexities arising from
fully transient simulation. Also, there is little guidance as to
when steady-state correlations will suffice, and when transient
simulations will be required. This paper attempts to address
itself to these issues, and provide reasonable guidelines for the
use of both steady-state and transient models, based on
validation against laboratory data and field experience.
Benchmarking studies of steady state and transient models
was done against the SINTEF large-diameter (8”), high-
pressure (20 to 90 bar) Tjiller flow loop database, used to
develop OLGA. The focus of this paper is on horizontal and
near-horizontal pipelines.
At first glance, the decision whether to use steady-state or
transient models might seem a simple one. Clearly, there are
many events that are inherently time-dependent, e.g., pipeline
start-up and shutdown; obviously, in order to properly capture
these events, a transient model must be employed. Likewise,
there are multiphase flows that are clearly steady-state, for
example, steady annular or bubble flow, for which a steady-
state correlation would suffice.
In fact, the picture is not that simple. There are instances
where multiphase flow into a pipeline is steady, but where the
flow behavior within the line has a strongly transient
character, e.g., terrain slugging. Experience has shown that
terrain slugging cannot be adequately modeled with a steady-
state approach. On the other hand, hydrodynamic slugging
has an inherently transient character, but with well-defined
average behavior, and, in many instances, can be successfully
modeled with a steady-state approach. Further, there are many
steady flows, e.g, near-horizontal stratified flow, that are
simply not well-modeled by most steady-state correlations.
Lastly, there are inherently transient phenomena, e.g. pigging,
that can be successfully modeled with steady-state models
under the proper circumstances.1
The three key components in any multiphase study are
accurate prediction of flow regime, liquid hold-up, and
pressure drop, determined as a function of production rate. It
is difficult to separate these three, as each is coupled to the
other two, implying a simultaneous solution for all three
components. However, as a practical matter, regime
determination is often done first, followed by liquid hold-up,
and finally pressure drop.2 This is the order in which each
component is treated in this paper.
Multiphase Flow Models
Multiphase models can be broken down into three distinct
categories: steady-state correlational, steady-state mechanistic,
and transient mechanistic. Steady-state correlational models
have the advantage that they are based on parameters which
are easy to measure, e.g., the superficial gas and liquid
velocities, but which are difficult to relate to a force balance.
Mechanistic models, since they derive more directly from first
principles, are generally believed to extrapolate better to
conditions far from where the model was benchmarked
(although there is no strong evidence that this is the case).
However, they involve terms such as the ‘interfacial friction
factor’, which cannot be measured directly, and must be
inferred from the experimental data.
2 THOMAS J. DANIELSON, LLOYD D. BROWN, AND KRIS M. BANSAL
The flow models are applied to a discretized topography;
both steady state and transient models reduce a complex
pipeline profile to a series of straight pipes at constant angle.
In order to properly capture temperature and pressure
gradients, these straight pipes are further discretized into a
number of sections (Figure 1). Each pipe section can be
considered as a separate ‘tank’ of volume V, with mass and
momentum flowing in and out across boundaries between
adjacent pipe sections. The system is then solved in a classic
staggered-grid, finite-difference scheme.3
Transient Multiphase Models
A mass, momentum, and energy balance over a pipe section of
volume V yields the following:
d(VHi ρi)/dt = (AHi ρiUi)in - (AHiρiUi)out + ψ
d(VHi ρiUi)/dt = (AHi ρiUi2)in - (AHiρiUi2)out + ΣF
d[VρG(eG+UG2/2 +gy) + VρL(eL+UL2/2+gy)]/dt =
(AρGUG(hG+UG2/2+gy) in +
(AρGUL(hL +UG2/2+gy) in -
(AρGUG(hG+UG2/2+gy) out -
(AρGUL(hL+UL2/2+gy) out - Q
where Equation 1 is a statement of conservation of mass,
Equation 2 is a statement of conservation of momentum, and
Equation 3 is a statement of conservation of energy. Here the
subscript i can mean either gas or liquid. The ψ term in the
mass balance equation is the mass rate of change due to
condensation or evaporation. The ΣF term in the momentum
balance is the sum total of pressure, gravitational, and
frictional forces acting on the fluid. Lastly, Q is the rate of
heat loss across the pipeline wall to the surroundings.
All transient multiphase models are semi-empirical in
nature, in that they start from first principles with Equations 1-
3, but rely on a number of empirical ‘closure’ relationships to
solve for the ψ, ΣF, and Q terms in the momentum and energy
balance equations. In OLGA, for example, calculation of ψ is
done from a look-up table dreived from a thermodynamic
empirical relationship – usually the Suave-Redlich-Kwong or
Peng-Robinson equation. Calculation of the frictional forces
in ΣF is done using the Moody equation at the wall, and an
empirical correlation for the gas-liquid interfacial friction
factor which depends upon flow regime. The heat loss term Q
is presently calculated as a volume-averaged Dittus-Boelter
correlation.4
It is a characteristic of empirical modeling that the closer
experimental conditions upon which the models are based are
to field conditions, the better the models will perform. As with
any empirical relation, care should be taken when applying the
model far outside the range of the data upon which it is based.
In OLGA, for example, closure relationships for ΣF are based
on data taken at the SINTEF high-pressure (up to 90 bar),
large-diameter (8-inch) loop, for liquids of moderate viscosity
OTC 11965
(0.2 to 30 centipoise), and for angles between –1o and 1 o. It
is widely believed that the high quality of the SINTEF dataset
is largely responsible for the greater accuracy of OLGA,
particularly for gas-condensate systems.
Steady-State Multiphase Models
Steady-state multiphase models assume that the flow is either
steady in time, or that the transient behavior can be adequately
described by a time-averaged solution. Under these
conditions, the time derivatives are set to zero, and Equations
1-3 become
(AHiρiUi)in = (AHi ρiUi)out + ψ (4)
(AHiρiUi2)in = (AHiρiUi2)out + ΣF (5)
(1)
(AρGUG(hG+UG2/2+gy) in +
(2) (AρGUL(hL +UG2/2+gy) in =
(AρGUG(hG+UG2/2+gy) out +
(AρGUL(hL+UL2/2+gy) out + Q (6)
Steady-state mechanistic models would begin from Equations
4-6, using empirical closure laws for ψ, ΣF, and Q. In the case
(3)
of OLGAS (OLGA steady-state mechanistic model), the
empirical relations used would be the same as those in the
transient model. In the case of the Xiao steady-state
mechanistic model, the closure relationships are determined
from the TUFFP (University of Tulsa Fluid Flow projects) and
AGA databases, which include both black oil and
compositional fluid systems.
Steady-state correlational models do not solve Equations 4
and 5 directly, but rely on a strictly empirical approach, based
on curve-fitting data against experimental data using a limited
number of (usually dimensionless) parameters. Correlations
are based on the superficial gas and liquid velocities, fluid
properties, and pipe diameter. Given that most of these
steady-state correlations are based upon data taken in small-
diameter (1-2 inches), low-pressure (atmospheric), air-water
systems, it is quite surprising that these empirical models often
perform adequately enough for design purposes.
Which description - transient or steady-state - is more
appropriate depends largely on the size of the time-dependent
terms in Equations 1-3. In many instances, this determination
can be made a priori, based on the expected flow regime.
Flow Regime
Flow regime is the large-scale variation in the physical
distribution of the gas and liquid phases in a flow conduit5,6.
The structure of multiphase flow is generally considered to fall
into four basic flow regimes:
• stratified flow: a continuous liquid stream flowing at
the bottom of the pipe, with a continuous stream of
gas flowing over;
OTC 11965 FLOW MANAGEMENT: STEADY-STATE AND TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE PIPELINE SIMULATION
• slug flow: stratified flow, punctuated by slugs of
highly turbulent liquid;
• annular flow: a thin liquid film adhering to the pipe
wall, and a gas stream containing entrained liquid
droplets;
• bubble flow: a continuous liquid flow with entrained
gas bubbles.
In most steady-state models, flow regime selection is done
against an experimentally constructed flow regime map.
Generally, the superficial liquid velocity is plotted against the
superficial gas velocity (for example, see Figure 2, taken from
Mandhane et al.7). For a given pipe diameter and inclination
angle, the flow regime is a uniquely determined function of
superficial gas and liquid velocities. Transitions from one
regime to another are determined by a series of curves, based
on a variety of dimensionless parameters. In Beggs & Brill,
for example, flow regime transitions are determined from the
no-slip liquid hold-up
λL = USL/(USL + USG) (7)
and the mixture Froude number,
FrM = (USL + USG)2/Dg (8)
A second approach for flow regime determination was
outlined by Taitel & Duckler.8 For horizontal or near-
horizontal flow, stratified flow is assumed as a base case, then
perturbed slightly by introducing an infinitesimal wave to the
smooth interface. Stability analysis of the perturbation yields
the following condition,
UG > (1–δL/D){(ρL–ρG)gcosθ AG/ρGdAL/dhL}1/2 (9)
When UG exceeds the right hand side of Equation 9, the flow
undergoes a transition from stratified to either slug (HL > 0.5)
or annular (HL < 0.5) flow. The Taitel-Duckler criterion has
proved fairly accurate against low-pressure, air-water data, but
does not capture the stratified-slug boundary accurately for
higher pressures.9
The OLGA transient program selects flow regime based
upon the so-called ‘minimum slip’ criterion.10 For a given
pressure drop, OLGA selects the flow regime which gives the
lowest difference between the gas and liquid linear velocities –
hence, ‘minimum slip’. The minimum slip condition also
corresponds to the regime which gives the lowest liquid hold-
up for a given pressure drop. This is a purely empirical
criterion; however, it seems to work.
While the minimum slip criteria has proven quite accurate
at high pressures, there is evidence to suggest that it does not
3
accurately capture flow regime when benchmarked against
low-pressure, air-water data. There is no clear guidance as to
when the Taitel-Duckler criterion applies, and when the no-
slip criterion is correct, but clearly there is a transition
between the two that appears to be a function of pressure (i.e.,
gas density).
There is evidence to suggest that the no-slip criterion does
not select the correct flow regime for downward-directed
flows. This is discussed more fully in the Pressure Drop
Prediction section.
Stratified Flow
Stratified flow is the prevailing regime in many of Conoco’s
multiphase trunklines. Unfortunately, stratified flow tends to
be the most sensitive to pipeline angle, and to 3-phase effects
when water is present as a separate liquid phase.
Horizontal Stratified Flow
Because of the steady nature of horizontal, stratified flow, one
could draw the conclusion that a steady-state model would
suffice. In fact, in the benchmarking studies, most of the
steady-state correlations perform reasonably well against the
SINTEF database for horizontal, stratified flow. Figure 3
gives the performance of Lockhart & Martinelli11, Beggs &
Brill12, Oilemans13, Duns & Ros14, and OLGA-2000 against
the SINTEF database at 20 bar, for superficial gas velocities
from 0.5 to 12.5 m/s, and a superficial liquid velocity of 0.15
m/s. At these conditions, the experimentally determined flow
regime is stratified-wavy over the entire range of gas
superficial velocities. Table 1 defines the identifiers used to
indicate predicted flow regime.
Table 1: Regime Identifiers used in Figures 3-6
Flow Regime Indentifier
Stratified-Smooth SM
Stratified-Wavey SW
Transition TR
Slug SL
Annular AN
Note that Lockhart & Martinelli greatly under-predicts
liquid hold-up at all superficial liquid velocities (this trend
holds for all superficial liquid velocities in the SINTEF
database). The Beggs & Brill liquid hold-up is low for USG <
4 m/s (stratified flow), but high for USG > 4 m/s, where the
regime is incorrectly predicted to be annular. This same
pattern holds true for Oliemans (a pipeline model developed
against field data), which also incorrectly identifies the flow
regime as annular for USG > 4 m/s. Duns and Ros predicts
slug or transition flow over the entire range of USG’s, but
actually does a rather good job of predicting liquid hold-up, at
least at these conditions. OLGA-2000 performs quite well
against the SINTEF database; however, it should be noted that
OLGA was benchmarked against these data, and so it stands to
reason that it should outperform all other models when
compared to it.
4 THOMAS J. DANIELSON, LLOYD D. BROWN, AND KRIS M. BANSAL
Conoco benchmarking studies also evaluated the
performance of the Xiao mechanistic model15, Beggs & Brill,
Oliemans, Duns & Ros, and OLGA-2000 against the SINTEF
database at 90 bar (Figure 4). Again, the experimentally
determined flow regime indicates that the flow was stratified-
wavy regime over the entire range of superficial gas velocities.
The Xiao model underpredicts liquid hold-up quite
severely in the stratified regime – by as much as 50% in some
instances. The performance of Beggs and Brill eroded
somewhat, particularly at high superficial gas velocities,
where the hold-up is over-predicted by as much as a factor of
3. Again, the predicted flow regime at USG > 4 m/s is
incorrectly identified as annular. Oliemans shows very much
the same pattern. While somewhat disconcerting, a relative
difference in hold-up is much less important in the annular
regime than it would be in the slug or stratified regime, as the
total amount of liquid is much smaller and presents no special
operational consequences. However, incorrect prediction of
liquid droplet fraction will impact pressure drop (this topic is
covered in the Pressure Drop Prediction section).
The performance of Duns & Ros, among the best of the
steady-state correlations at 20 bar, has eroded considerably
against the 90 bar dataset. The model now over-estimates the
liquid hold-up at USG < 4 m/s by nearly a factor of 2. It should
be noted that Duns & Ros also incorrectly identifies the flow
regime as slug over the entire range of USG. Lastly, the
performance of OLGA-2000 was adequate over the entire
range of USG, both in hold-up and regime prediction.
A key weakness in many steady-state correlations (e.g.,
Beggs & Brill and Duns & Ros) is the lack of a gas density
dependence in the liquid hold-up determination. It is known
that the gas density plays a key role in the interfacial friction
factor, which in turn determines liquid hold-up. Given this, it
is not surprising that the performance of these models
degrades at higher pressures.
Inclined Stratified Flow
If multiphase lines were completely horizontal, perhaps any
number of models would suffice for hold-up prediction.
However, this is not the case in practice. Figure 5 gives a
histogram of the fraction of pipeline at a particular angle, as a
function of angle, for both the Conoco Caister-Murdoch
(Northern North Sea) and LOGGS (Southern North Sea)
multiphase trunklines. Note that both histograms exhibit a
bell-shaped curve, the maximum of which is displaced roughly
0.1o to the right, indicating an average pipeline inclination of
0.1o.
Data taken at IFE (Conoco internal report) indicates that
there is an extreme sensitivity of liquid hold-up to angles from
0o to 0.5o for stratified flow, particularly for low superficial
liquid velocities (USL < 0.02 m/s) – conditions quite common
in multiphase trunklines. Unfortunately, little or no data has
been taken at these very small positive angles for
benchmarking purposes. The result is that all models –
OTC 11965
including OLGA – do not have a sharp enough dependence for
hold-up as a function of pipe angle, and can significantly
under-predict liquid hold-up in slightly-inclined, stratified
flow.
The Xiao, Beggs & Brill, Oilemans, Duns & Ros, and
OLGA-2000 models were benchmarked against the 90 bar, 1o
inclined SINTEF data, again for USL = 0.15 m/s (Figure 6).
Surprisingly, the Xiao model actually improves at very low
USG, but degrades significantly at USG > 2 m/s (where the flow
regime is incorrectly identified as annular). The performance
of Beggs and Brill has eroded significantly over the horizontal
case, particularly at low USG. The same is true of Oliemans.
A comparison of the 20 bar - horizontal, 90 bar – horizontal,
and 90 bar – 1o incline cases indicates that there is little or no
angle or pressure dependence present in Duns & Ros. There is
a slightly greater dependence on pressure and angle for Beggs
& Brill and Oliemans.
Experimentally, the effect of increasing pressure in
stratified flow reduces the liquid hold-up somewhat (although
the effect is small). The effect of increasing angle of
inclination has a much larger effect on liquid hold-up,
increasing it significantly for all superficial gas velocities. A
general observation is that none of the steady-state models
benchmarked here had a stiff enough angle dependence, or a
stiff enough pressure dependence to match the experimental
results. As a consequence, there is an under-prediction of
liquid hold-up at small USG as pressure and inclination
increase.
Against stratified field data, particularly for small
inclinations, none of the models, including OLGA-2000,
which under-predicted hold-ups by as much as 50% in the
stratified regime, were particularly accurate.16 However,
OLGA performed significantly better than any alternative.
Three-Phase Stratified Flow
Three phase flow, i.e., flow of gas, condensate, and water, is
also a common occurrence in subsea tiebacks and multiphase
trunklines. Stratified three-phase flow has been found to have
a much higher liquid hold-up than a corresponding two-phase
flow with the same volumetric liquid rate. This is due to the
fact that the condensate forms a lubricating layer between the
gas and water phases. The net result is that the water tends to
move at much smaller linear velocities than either the gas or
the condensate, which in turn leads to much higher hold-ups.
A further complication arises in the calculation of the
interfacial friction between the water and condensate phases.
Unlike the gas-liquid interface, which tends to be rather well-
defined, the small density difference between the liquid phases
can lead to large distortions in the water-organic liquid
interface. If shear forces are sufficient, an emulsion layer – a
fourth phase - will be created between the water and organic
liquid phase. This makes characterization of the slip between
the liquid phases difficult or impossible from first principles.
At present, OLGAS is only one model commercially
available which has a three-phase capability, and the three-
phase model can only be accessed through the larger OLGA-
OTC 11965 FLOW MANAGEMENT: STEADY-STATE AND TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE PIPELINE SIMULATION
2000 transient code. Even this model should be used with
some skepticism, as there has been very little data taken in the
three-phase, mildly-inclined, stratified regime.
Slug Flow
Slug flow can be divided into three distinct types:
hydrodynamic slugging, terrain slugging, and ramp-up
slugging. Each presents its own unique computational
challenges.
Hydrodynamic Slugging
Hydrodynamic slugs are formed in horizontal and near-
horizontal lines, when waves at a stratified gas-liquid interface
gain enough height to bridge the pipe. When this occurs, the
packets of fluid, or slugs, are pushed through the pipeline by
the gas. Liquid is constantly picked up at the front of the slug,
and dropped at the slug tail. Depending on the balance
between these two processes, the slug either grows or
dissipates. Hydrodynamic slugs can grow to great lengths in
long, near-horizontal lines. Field studies have shown
hydrodynamic slugs to have a log-normal distribution with a
tail of extremely long slugs (over 1000 diameters).17
Presently, there are no good models for estimating the size of
these largest slugs.
Hydrodynamic slugs are the only slugs capable of being
effectlively modeled with a steady-state correlation. The
assumption in the model is that the pipe section is filled with a
train of liquid slugs, each containing a small amount of
entrained gas, separated by regions of stratified/stratified-mist
flow. As long as this assumption is not violated by the
creation of very long slugs, most steady-state models should
do an adequate job of predicting hold-up.
Terrain Slugging
Terrain slugs are formed when liquid collects in a dip in the
line. When enough liquid has accumulated to bridge the pipe,
the gas flow is suddenly greatly reduced or stopped. As liquid
continues to collect, the pressure in the gas upstream of the
blockage builds until it is great enough to overcome the
pressure head of the trapped liquid, which is then pushed out
as a large slug.
Because of the inherent transient nature of terrain slugging,
it must be modeled as a time-dependent process. Terrain slugs
are very well-defined, sharp events which tend to pose the
greatest operational difficulties. Terrain slugging is very
much influenced by the details of the pipeline profile, and
adequate modeling will require a transient code with some
facility for tracking individual slugs through the pipeline.
Alternatives include Lagrangian slug-tracking in OLGA, or
adaptive Lagrangian grid slug-tracking in Statoil’s in-house
PETRA code.18
Though terrain slugging often represents the most difficult
operational environment, the evidence seems to suggest that
current transient codes do an adequate job of predicting terrain
slugging so that separators sizes and gas lift rates can be set
with a certain degree of confidence
5
Ramp-up Slugging
Ramp-up slugging is a rather mild phenomenon when
compared to terrain slugging. Ramp-up slugs are formed
during gas blowdown, i.e., when the gas throughput is
suddenly raised for an extended period of time; thus ramp-up
slugs are created operationally, and are more subject to
operational control (for example, controlling ramp-up rate)
than terrain slugs.
The situation is best described by reference to Figure 7,
which shows the liquid inventory in a typical wet gas pipeline
as function of wet gas rate. If the line is suddenly ramped
from a low gas flowrate to a higher rate, a large amount of
liquid must be removed from the line (in this case, just under
3000 bbl) in order to achieve the new steady-state.
Conversely, as the gas rate drops (ramp-down), the liquid
inventory increases over time, ultimately reaching its steady-
state value. For large wet gas trunklines, the time to reach a
steady-state hold-up after a ramp-down could be many days,
or even weeks. Pigging is often employed as a method to keep
the liquid inventory from ever reaching steady-state, thus
minimizing the size of the primary separator on the platform.
Annular Flow
Annular flow occurs when the gas rate is high enough to shear
droplets from the liquid bulk and carry a significant portion of
them in the gas phase. In fact, there is a smooth transition
between stratified-mist flow and annular flow.
As can be seen from Figures 3-6 in the Stratified Flow
section, all models tend to over-predict the liquid hold-up in
the annular regime. This indicates that the droplet field is
either not accounted for in the modeling, or is underestimated.
An examination of the data indicates that the performance of
all models would be considerably enhanced in the annular
regime merely by assuming that the liquid hold-up equal to the
no-slip hold-up λL.
Recent experiments at SINTEF indicate that the droplet
field is, in fact, not uniform in annular flow.19 Most of the
droplets are quite close to the gas-liquid interface, and almost
none – apart from a fine mist – rise above the pipeline
midpoint. Unless a model accounts for this effect, it cannot
get both the hold-up and the pressure drop correct. If a
uniform droplet field is assumed (as is the case in OLGA),
then the pressure drop will be over-estimated. There is
evidence from pressure measurements on Conoco’s Britannia
field which supports this finding.20 Droplet field distribution
is important not just for the correct modeling of the multiphase
flow itself, but also critical, for example, in the distribution of
corrosion inhibitor.
While most models tend to over-predict the liquid hold-up
in the annular regime, the total amount of liquid is small, and
the operation of the line does not present any special
challenges.
6 THOMAS J. DANIELSON, LLOYD D. BROWN, AND KRIS M. BANSAL
Bubble Flow
Bubble flow occurs when a large amount of liquid carries a
small amount of gas as entrained bubbles. Usually, bubble
flow results due to pressure drop in a liquid-phase line,
resulting in gas breakout.
Like annular flow, bubble flow is characterized by very
little slip between the phases. However, unlike annular flow,
the liquid hold-ups are very high – generally 95% or more.
Bubble flows can be successfully modeled by assuming that
the liquid hold-up is equal to the no-slip. Pressure drops can
be calculated from a Moody chart, using a mixture density and
liquid viscosity.
All models do a reasonable job in describing bubble flow.
Pressure Drop Prediction
The pressure drop in a multiphase pipeline can be separated
into three distinct components: gravitational pressure gradient,
frictional pressure gradient, and accelerational pressure
gradient.
dP/dz = (dP/dz)grav + (dP/dz)fric + (dP/dz)accel (10)
The gravitational pressure gradient for all models is given by
(dP/dz)grav = ρMg (11)
where,
ρM = HL ρL + (1 – HL) ρG (12)
Thus, in steady-state correlations, the liquid hold-up must be
calculated prior to pressure gradient determination.
The frictional pressure gradient is calculated from the
Moody chart, using a modified Reynolds number based on a
combination of slip and no-slip mixture properties. In general,
for even mildly inclined pipelines, the gravitational pressure
gradient quickly exceeds the frictional pressure gradient.
The accelerational pressure gradient becomes important if
there is a sudden change in pipeline diameter (for example, a
choke), or if the gas density is changing very rapidly, resulting
in a large change in gas velocity. The acceleration of liquid
into a slug can also be an important source of accelerational
pressure drop, but which is presently ignored in all steady-
state and transient models.
For horizontal and inclined flows, all steady-state
correlations tend to give reasonable predictions for pressure
drop (generally within 20% of measured values, and often
much better than that). This performance is roughly
equivalent to mechanistic models such as OLGA. In
downward (negative angle) flow, however, there are
indications that steady-state correlations such as Beggs and
Brill outperform OLGA. There are instances where OLGA
underpredicts the pressure recovery in downward directed
OTC 11965
flow by several orders of magnitude. Figure 8 gives the
performance of OLGA against the Beggs and Brill database.
Note the collection of points along the zero pressure gradient
axis.
It is believed that this discrepancy is caused by OLGA
selecting annular flow, when in fact the flow is bubble or slug.
This weakness is currently under review. 21
Conclusions
Major conclusions include the following:
• Transient mechanistic models (e.g. OLGA 2000), that
attempt to simulate the actual mechanism of multiphase
flow, still require empirical correlations and simplified
closure relationships for the solution of mass, momentum,
and energy conservation equations.
• All steady-state correlations have weaknesses in the
stratified flow regime, particularly at high pressure and
small inclination angles common in multiphase trunklines
• Many steady-state correlations do not have a gas density
dependence, and consequently do worse as pressure
increases.
• Models for simulation of 3-phase stratified flow are few
and have not been adequately benchmarked.
• Hydrodynamic slugging can be successfully modeled
using steady-state correlations. Transient models (OLGA
2000) work well for modeling terrain slugging.
• Steady-state and transient models work equally well for
modeling of steady annular and bubble flow regimes.
• There is a large discrepancy in predicted and measured
pressure drop between OLGA-2000 and the Beggs & Brill
negative-angle data. This discrepancy is currently under
review.
• Time-dependent (e.g. pipeline start-up and shut-down)
and transient phenomena (such as depressurization) can
only be modeled using transient models.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Conoco Inc. for permission to publish this
paper.
OTC 11965 FLOW MANAGEMENT: STEADY-STATE AND TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE PIPELINE SIMULATION 7

Nomenclature 7. Mandhane, J.M., Gregory,G.A., Aziz, K., “A Flow Pattern Map

for Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipelines”, Int. J. Multiphase
A = pipe cross-sectional area (m2) Flow, 1, 537-553, 1974.
AL = pipe cross-sectional area occupied by liquid (m2) 8. Taitel, Y., and Dukler, A. E., “A Model for Predicting Flow
AG = pipe cross-sectional area occupied by gas (m2) Regime Transitions in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas –
D = pipe diameter (m) Liquid flow”, AICHE, Vol. 22, No. 1, 47-55, January 1976.
eL = liquid internal energy (Joules/kg)
eG = gas internal energy (Joules/kg) 9. Hewitt, G.F., “Gas-Liquid-Liquid Flow: A Phase Too Far?”, in
ΣF = forces on phase i (N) 8th International Conference on Multiphase ’97, BHR Group
FrM = mixture Froude number (-) Ltd, Cannes, 1997.
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
10. Bendiksen, K., Malnes, D., Moe, R., and Nuland, S., “The
hL = liquid enthalpy (Joules/kg)
Dynamic, Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and Application:,
hG = gas enthalpy (Joules/kg) Technical Report SPE-19451, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
HL = liquid hold-up (-) March 1990.
HG = gas hold-up (-)
Hi = hold-up of phase i (-) 11. Lockhart, R. W., and Martinelli, R. C., “Proposed Correlation of
i = arbitrary phase (-) Data for Isothermal Two-Phase, Two-Component Flow in
P = pressure (N/m2) Pipes”, Chem. Eng. Progress, Vol. 45, pages 39-48, Jan. 1949.
Q = heat loss (watts)
UL = liquid velocity (m/s) 12. Beggs, H. D., and Brill, J. P., “A Study of Two Phase Flow in
UG = gas velocity (m/s) Inclined Pipes,” J. Pet. Tech., 607 – 617 (May 1973).
USL = superficial liquid velocity (m/s)
13. Oliemans, R. V. A., “Two Phase Flow in Gas Transmission
USG = superficial gas velocity (m/s) Pipelines”, ASME paper 76-Pet-25, presented at Pet. Div.
UM = mixture velocity (m) ASME meeting, Mexico City, Sept. 1976.
V = pipe section volume (m3)
y = vertical position of pipeline (m) 14. Duns, H., and Ros, N. C. J., “Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid
z = axial distance through pipeline (m) Mixtures in Wells”, Proc., 6th World Pet. Congress, 451, (1963).
δL = liquid film depth (m)
λL = no-slip liquid hold-up (-) 15. Xiao, J.J., “A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Two-
Phase Flow in Pipes”, Masters Thesis, University of Tulsa,
µL = liquid viscosity (kg/m-s) 1990.
µG = liquid viscosity (kg/m-s)
ρL = liquid density (kg/m3) 16. Shea, R.H., Song, S., Rasmussen, J., Nossen, J., Langsholt, M.,
ρG = liquid density (kg/m3) Lunde, K., “OLGA Verification and Improvement Project”,
ψ = rate of change due to condensation/evaporation (kg/s) Final Report – TR4/54.16.18, 1998.

17. Brill, J.P., Schmidt, Z., Coberly, W.A., Herring, J.D., and
References Moore, D.W., “Analysis of Two-Phase Tests in Large-Diameter
Flow Lines in Prudhoe Bay Field”, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., June 1981.
1. Xiao, J.J., and Shoup, G., “Sizing Wet-Gas Pipelines and Slug
Catchers with Steady-State Multiphase Flow Simulations”, 18. Hedne, P., Private Communication.
Transactions of the ASME, 120, 1998.
19. Hedne, Pal, and Meland, B., “Detailed Measurements in Large
2. Brill, J. P., and Beggs, H. D., “Two-Phase Flow in Pipes”, Sixth Scale High Pressure Two-Phase Pipe Flow”, International
Edition, 1998. Symposium on Two-Phase Flow Modeling and
Experimentation, Rome, October 9-11, 1995.
3. Patankar, S.V., “Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow”,
Harper & Row, 1980. 20. Joosten, M., Private Communication.
4. Kreith, F., and Black, W.Z., “Basic Heat Transfer”, Harper & 21. Bansal, K.M., and Danielson, T.J., “Benchmarking of PIPESIM
Row, 1980. and OLGA against the SINTEF Large-Diameter, High-Pressure
Database”, Conoco Internal Report 2725-1-99, September 1999.
5. Bradley, H. B., “Petroleum Engineering Handbook”’ Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Chapter 34, First Printing, (1987).

6. Perry, R. H., “Chemical Engineers Handbook”, 6th Edition,

Chapter 5, (1984).
8 THOMAS J. DANIELSON, LLOYD D. BROWN, AND KRIS M. BANSAL OTC 11965

Figure 1: Example pipeline profile.

7
Figure 2: Typical flow regime map, taken from Mandhane et al.
OTC 11965 FLOW MANAGEMENT: STEADY-STATE AND TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE PIPELINE SIMULATION 9

Figure 3: Plot of liquid hold-up versus superficial gas velocity at 20 bar, USL = 0.15 m/s, for the SINTEF 8-inch flow loop. Here, the y-axis hold-
up values have been removed to preserve the proprietary data. The axes for Figures 4 and 6 are identical, and so the three figures can be
compared one-to-one.

Figure 4: Plot of liquid hold-up versus superficial gas velocity at 90 bar, USL = 0.15 m/s. Note that the experimentally determined liquid hold-
up is lower at the same USG than was the case at 20 bar, although the steady-state correlations are almost identical to those predicted at 20
bar.
10 THOMAS J. DANIELSON, LLOYD D. BROWN, AND KRIS M. BANSAL OTC 11965

o
Figure 5: Histogram of pipeline angle for two typical North Sea Trunklines. Average pipeline angle is roughly 0.1 , and flow is tyipcally three-
phase, stratified – the area of greatest weakness in the models currently available.

o
Figure 6: Liquid hold-up as a function of superficial gas velocity for USL = 0.15 m/s, 90 bar, 1 inclination. Note that even a small change in
angle can increase liquid hold-up significantly. While OLGA-2000 does a reasonable job of capturing this change, the steady-state
correlations underpredict the influence of pipe angle on hold-up.
OTC 11965 FLOW MANAGEMENT: STEADY-STATE AND TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE PIPELINE SIMULATION 11

Figure 7: Pipeline liquid inventory as a function of flowrate for a typical wet gas pipeline. Note that the increase in liquid hold-up for
decreasing wet gas rate mirrors the SINTEF data plotting liquid hold-up vs superficial gas velocity. Here, when the wet gas rate is increased
from 50 to 80 mmscfd, 2960 bbl of liquid must be pushed from the line to achieve the new steady-state liquid inventory.

Figure 8: Predicted vs. measured pressure drop for OLGA-2000 against the Beggs & Brill declined flow database. OLGA under-predicts
o o
pressure recovery for large negative inclinations (-60 to –90 ). Correct prediction of pressure recovery will be critical in proper design of
platforms with large downcomers.