PSIG 0403

The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient

Conditions – A Tutorial
Ivor R. Ellul, Geir Saether, Knowledge Reservoir, L.P., Mack E. Shippen, Schlumberger

© Copyright 2004, Pipeline Simulation Interest Group

This paper was prepared for presentation at the PSIG Annual Meeting held in Palm Springs,
California, 20 October – 22 October 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by the PSIG Board of Directors following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). The material, as presented,
does not necessarily reflect any position of the Pipeline Simulation Interest Group, its officers,
or members. Papers presented at PSIG meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial
Committees of the Pipeline Simulation Interest Group. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of PSIG
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, Pipeline
Simulation Interest Group, P.O. Box 22625, Houston, TX 77227, U.S.A., fax +1-713-586-5955.
THE STEADY STATE APPROACH
Two distinct approaches are available to the petroleum engineer in
accounting for the behavior of multiphase flow systems. The first is a
global approach that relies on empiricism in developing simplified
models that contain parameters which are evaluated from
experimental data. The second is a continuum approach in which
more complex physically-based models are used to describe the flow
phenomena.

ABSTRACT Empirical Methods

The search for oil and gas continues to progress towards increasingly An empirical approach to the problem primarily aims to produce a
hostile environments. Environments such as found in deepwater correlation valid at least over the entire range of measured data (and
preclude the ability to efficiently separate the fluid phases prior to hopefully beyond this range). The parameters of the model are
export. As a result, multiphase transportation has become derived from the measured data. The selection of correlating
commonplace with systems being designed using integrated flow variables is often decided on the basis of dimensional analysis. For
assurance techniques. example, the pressure drop in two-phase flow may be expressed as a
function of at least six dimensionless variables, one set of which
Additionally, pipelines that had been designed for single phase flow includes:
are now expected to cope with the transport of multiple phases. With
the continuous variation in production, these pipelines tend to operate
under both steady-state and transient conditions. The requirement to Froude Number - NFr V Weber V 2l ρ
model these systems is, therefore, critical for adequate field Number- NWe
development planning.
gl σ
Reynolds Number - Re VD ρ Density Ratio ρl
This paper will present a tutorial focusing on the complex analysis of µ ρg
multiphase flow in pipelines with an emphasis on the tools currently
available for modeling purposes. Viscosity Ratio µl Flow rate Ml
Ratio
µg Mg
The tools selected for use during the tutorial include Pipesim and
OLGA.
The functional form of the two-phase friction factor, thus, may be
expressed as follows:
INTRODUCTION ⎛ ρ µ M ⎞
f n ⎜ N Fr , Re, NWe , l , l , l ⎟ = 0 (1)
The analysis of multiphase flow phenomena in pipeline systems is ⎜ ρ g µ g M g ⎟⎠
⎝
usually classified along two levels of complexity. The first is that
associated with steady state flow where there are no major changes Empirical methods usually involve the prediction of mixture density
transgressing the pipeline network. The second related to transient or ρm and a representative friction factor, fm. The mixture density may be
dynamic flows where the flow behavior is changing on a regular and defined in terms of the in-situ volume fraction of liquid θl as follows:
significant basis. These situations will be dealt with in turn.
ρ m = ρlθ l + ρ g (1 − θ l ) (2)
2 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403

Some authors of empirical correlations select an appropriate For vertical flow, the stratified flow regime cannot exist as there is no
functional form for equation 1, and proceed to back calculate a preferred direction for the liquid to settle. An empirical flow regime
holdup function that best fits experimental data for two-phase map developed by Aziz, et al, [6], for vertical upward flow is shown
pressure drop. The Hagedorn and Brown, [1], correlation for flow in in Figure 3.
vertical pipes is based on such an approach. Other investigators such
as Beggs and Brill, [2], and Dukler, [3], have correlated both The coordinates used in this vertical map are:
variables (fm, θl) as functions of gas and liquid flow rates, pipe
geometry, fluid PVT and transport properties, among other variables. Nx = VsgXA (5) NY = VsLYA (6)

0.333 0.25
Empirical correlations have been successful in terms of: ⎛ ρg ⎞ ⎛ρ σ ⎞
XA = ⎜ ⎟ YA (7) YA = ⎜ L wa ⎟ (8)
1. Enabling models for particular flow conditions to be formulated ⎝ ρa ⎠ ⎝ ρ wσ ⎠
quickly.
Pressure Drop
2. Being amenable to tuning to yield results of reasonable accuracy
over well-defined ranges of operating conditions. Calculation of pressure drop in two-phase flow lends itself better to
3. Being relatively easy to employ as design tools. computer than hand calculation. A method suggested by the
American Gas Association, [7], can serve as a basis for hand
Table 1 lists some of the more successful and widely-used calculation generated by Dukler, [8], with elevation pressure drop
correlations with recommended areas of application. The limitations correlation by Flanigan, [9].
of empirical techniques stem from some or all of the following:
Frictional Component
ƒ Individual equations tend not to apply with sufficient accuracy Using the Dukler frictional pressure drop calculation method, the
to the broad range of flow conditions usually encountered in frictional pressure drop is given by the equation:
practice.
f n f tpr ρ kVm Lm
2
ƒ The use of a number of different correlations to predict the ∆Pf = (9)
hydraulic conditions of the dominant flow regimes in a pipeline (0.14623)d
system can result in numerical difficulties and/or discontinuous where
predictions.
ρ g (1 − λ )
2
ρLλ 2
ƒ Because empirical techniques do not address the complex ρk = + (10)
physical phenomena that can occur during multiphase flow, H Ld (1 − H Ld )
extrapolation beyond the specific conditions for which the and
correlations were developed may render them unreliable. QL
λ= (11)
Empirical techniques were an improvement on the earlier QL + Qg
homogeneous methods, [4], in so far as they provided a basis for:
The single phase friction factor, fn, can be obtained from the
1. The generation of flow regime maps. correlation:

f n = 0.0056 + 0.5 ( Re y )
2. The development of regime-specific correlations for liquid hold- −0.32
(12)
up and pressure loss prediction.
The mixture Reynolds number, Rey, is calculated according to the
Flow Regime Determination equation:
Several empirical flow regime maps have been presented that (124.0 ) ρkVm d
determine vapor-liquid flow patterns as a function of fluid properties Re y = (13)
and flow rates. Figure 1 shows schematics of these flow patterns. µn
Calculation of this Reynolds number requires determination of a
One map commonly used was developed by Mandhane, et al, [5], mixture velocity, Vm, and mixture viscosity µn. These quantities can
Figure 2. The coordinates for the map are: be determined from:
VsL = superficial liquid velocity = QL/A (3) Vm = VsL + VsG (14)
Vsg = superficial liquid velocity = Qg/A (4)
µn = µ L λ + µ g (1 − λ ) (15)
Care should be taken in the interpretation of these flow maps as the
regime boundaries are strongly affected by pipe inclination. In The two-phase friction factor ratio, ftpr representing a two-phase
particular, horizontal flow regime maps must not be used for vertical frictional efficiency can be determined by reference to Figure 4 or by
flow and vice-versa. the equation:
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 3

⎡ y ⎤ ⎛ρ ⎞
0.50
ftpr = 1 + ⎢ 4⎥
(16) N d = 10.073d ⎜ L ⎟ (23)
⎣1.281 − 0.478 y + 0.444 y − 0.094 y + 0.00843 y ⎦ ⎝σ ⎠
2 3

where y = - ln(λ) 0.25

⎛ 1 ⎞
The remaining quantity to be calculated is an estimate of the liquid N L = 0.15726 µ L ⎜ 3 ⎟
(24)
holdup, HLd. This holdup can be estimated using Figure 5. This ⎝ ρ Lσ ⎠
figure gives liquid hold-up as a function of λ and Rey. The Rey line
can be used as a first estimate in the iteration process.

Elevation Component The liquid holdup fraction, HLe , is the fraction of the flow area of the
pipe occupied by the liquid. To calculate the liquid inventory of the
The elevation component of pressure drop can be found using the pipe, IL, the pipe internal volume is multiplied by this holdup
Flanigan method. In this method, the elevation component is fraction.
calculated using the equation:
I L = (28.80) H Le d 2 Lm (25)
ρ L H Lf
∆Pe = ΣZ e (17) As is the case with the pressure drop calculations, holdup fractions
144
should be calculated on a segment-by-segment basis.
where HLf is determined from Figure 6 or calculated according to the
formula:
Mechanistic Methods
1
H Lf = (18) The development and application of a phenomenological description
1 + 0.3264 (Vsg )
1.006
of the individual phases constituting a multiphase mixture generally
requires that a mechanistic transport equation be written for each of
The term Ze is the vertical elevation rise of a hill. The rises are the phases within the system, [11]. Best estimate sub-models are used
summed, no elevation drops are considered. One should keep in mind for parameters which are substituted into these equations. The
that this may lead to errors in downhill sections of pipelines. The number of sub-models differs for each flow regime, and the sub-
overall two-phase pressure drop is given by: models may be mechanistic or correlational, [12].
∆Pt = ∆Pe + ∆Pf (19)
The advantages claimed for this approach include:
Accuracy of calculation is improved if the above calculations are
performed on a segment-by-segment basis. 1. The transitions in flow regime maps have an analytical basis and
are more successful in facilitating comparisons with a wide
range of data.
Liquid Holdup
2. Flow regime models are particularly useful for treating effects of
The liquid holdup correlation given in Figure 5 is intended only for pipe inclination.
use in the Dukler friction pressure drop calculation. A correlation by 3. In general, mechanistic formulations provide a means to assess
Eaton et al, [10], is better suited for liquid holdup determination in the uncertainty in the predictions of the analysis.
liquid inventory calculations.
4. The models, being closer to first principles, are not only more
The correlation is shown in Figure 7. In this figure, the holdup widely applicable than the empirical correlations currently
fraction, HLe , is plotted as a function of the dimensionless group, NE. available but are also easier to upgrade/amend as, and when,
improved sub-models (e.g., for wall-liquid, interfacial shear)
0.05 become available.
⎛ Pavg ⎞
1.84 ( N Lv ) ( NL )
0.575 0.1
⎜ ⎟ 5. Mechanistic modeling can incorporate all of the significant
NE = ⎝ Pb ⎠ (20) variables identified via the observation, study, and mathematical
N gv ( N d )
0.0277
modeling of the physical mechanisms governing multiphase
flow in pipes.
The cost associated with the use of these methods is attributable to:
0.25
⎛ρ ⎞
N Lv = 1.938VsL ⎜ L ⎟ (21) ƒ The greater amount of understanding / knowledge needed to
⎝σ ⎠ apply them.

⎛ρ ⎞
0.25 ƒ The increased complexity of formulation and implementation
N gv = 1.938Vsg ⎜ L ⎟ (22) and consequent implications for solution speed.
⎝σ ⎠
The mechanistic formulation commonly proceeds along the following
solution sequence:
4 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403

1. Predict the flow regime corresponding to the expected / actual Combined Momentum Balance
operating conditions of the pipeline.
2. Employ specific mechanistic models / sub-models to predict:
SG S ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
ƒ Liquid holdup τ wG − τ wl L + τ i Si ⎜ + ⎟
AG AL ⎝ L
A AG ⎠
ƒ Interfacial friction factor (28)

ƒ Slug/bubble characteristics + ( ρ L − ρ G ) g sin α = 0

3. Employ mechanistic model to predict total pressure gradient.

Flow Regime Determination

The shear stress terms may be evaluated using the following
constituitive equations:
The prediction of flow regime transitions is a central element of the
mechanistic modeling approach. Taitel and Dukler[13] were the first Gas-Wall shear:
to propose horizontal and near-horizontal flow regime transition
criteria based on physical mechanisms governing the flow geometry.
Their method involves the development of a series of dimensionless ρ G vG2
groups representing the force balances acting on each fluid phase. τ wG = f G (29)
Mechanisms for transitions based on stability analysis coupled with 2
closure relationships allows for the determination of flow regime in
terms of these dimensionless groups.
Liquid-Wall Shear:
More recently, Zhang et al [14] proposed another approach based on
the premise that slug flow incorporates and shares transition ρ Lv2
boundaries with all other flow regimes. Transitions are determined τ wL = f L L (30)
hydrodynamically by treating the slug film zone as the control 2
volume when solving the continuity and combined momentum
equations. Interfacial Shear:
Table 2 summarizes a series of suggested mechanistic methods for
ρ G (vG − vi )2
flow regime determination
τ i = fi
(31)
Table 3 lists the individual flow regime transitions employed to
identify any one of the four main flow regimes for the given range of 2
inclination.
A number of methods have been proposed to evaluate the friction
Liquid Holdup and Pressure Gradient factor terms appearing in the shear stress equations. Taitel and
Dukler assumed the interfacial friction factor to be equal to the gas-
The Taitel and Dukler model constructs momentum balances for the wall friction factor, though more recent models treat this term
gas and liquid phases comprising stratified flow, incorporating shear independently.
stress terms based on the defined flow geometry in Figure 8. By Subsequent studies have expanded on the work of Taitel and
equating the pressure gradient terms, a combined momentum balance Dukler to formulate models for calculating liquid holdup and
can be formulated, yielding an implicit model for liquid holdup. The pressure losses for other flow regimes. While these models apply the
pressure gradient may then be determined from the momentum same concept of solving a combined momentum balance, they require
balance equation for either phase. new definitions for flow geometry and updated closure relationships.
Such models are presented by Zhang et al [14] and Xiao, Shoham,
and Brill [15].
Liquid Phase Momentum Balance:
The suggested mechanistic methods for the prediction of the
parameters of the liquid holdup and pressure gradient models for each
⎛ dP ⎞
− AL ⎜ ⎟ − τ wl S L + τ i S i + ρ L AL g sin α = 0 (26) flow regime are summarized in Table 4.
⎝ dX ⎠

Gas Phase Momentum Balance: THE TRANSIENT APPROACH

Formulation
⎛ dP ⎞
− AG ⎜ ⎟ − τ wg S G + τ i S i + ρ G AG g sin α = 0 (27)
The dynamic modeling of two-phase flow systems has, over recent
⎝ dX ⎠ years, become commonplace. This has been a direct result of
stringent requirements to adopt the latest technology in health, safety,
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 5

and pipeline integrity analysis [16] and [17], as well as the emergence present, liquid droplets, and a separate one for the liquid film. One
of complex operational situations that demand such technology [18]. energy conservation equation is employed.

The more widely accepted route to the derivation of the averaged

multiphase equations is that taken by such workers as Ishii, [19], Conservation of Mass:
Banerjee and Chan, [20], and Drew and Lahey [21], where the field Gas Phase
equations for the individual phases within the two-phase mixture are
∂ 1 ∂
[ AfG ρG vG ] + ψ G + GG
obtained by averaging of the respective local instantaneous equations
for each phase – Figure 9. ( f G ρG ) = − (32)
∂t A ∂z
As a consequence of the averaging of terms relating to the
instantaneous conditions across the interface between the phases – Liquid Film at the Wall
Figure 10, new expressions that lack formal description are
introduced. Closure models for such terms thus become necessary. ∂ 1 ∂ f
Once these terms are established the derivation of the individual ( fL ρL ) = − [ Af L ρ L vL ] −ψ G L −ψ e + ψ d + GL (33)
∂t A ∂z fL + fD
phase conservation is complete.

The Multifluid Model Liquid Droplets

∂ 1 ∂ f
The OLGA model, [22, 23] is based on an extension to the traditional ( fD ρD ) = − [ Af D ρ L vD ] −ψ G D + ψ e −ψ d + GD (34)
two-phase model. Separate continuity equations are written for: ∂t A ∂z fL + fD

ƒ the gas phase

where fG, fL, fD are the gas, liquid film, and liquid droplet volume
ƒ the liquid film phase
fractions, ρ, v, p are the density, velocity, and pressure, and A is the
ƒ the liquid droplets pipe cross-section. Subscripts G, L, i, and D indicate gas, liquid,
interface and droplets respectively. ψG is the mass transfer rate
Two momentum equations are, however, implemented:
between the phases, ψe, and ψd are the entrainment and deposition
rates and Gx relates to a source for phase x, if present.
ƒ A combined one for the gas and liquid droplet phase
ƒ A separate one for the liquid film.
Conservation of Momentum:
A mixture energy conservation equation is written for the overall Combined Gas/Droplets
mixture.
∂ ∂p 1 ∂
The system is, therefore, represented by – Figure 11: ( fG ρG vG + f D ρLvD ) = − ( fG + f D ) ⎛⎜ ⎞⎟ − ⎡⎣ AfG ρG vG2 + Af D ρ L vD2 ⎤⎦
∂t ⎝ ∂z ⎠ A ∂z
1 S 1 S
ƒ Cross sectional area, A −λG ρG vG vG G − λi ρG vR vR i + [ fG ρG + f D ρ L ] g cosα (35)
2 4A 2 4A
ƒ Void fraction, α fL
+ψ G va +ψ evi −ψ d vD
ƒ Liquid film fraction, β fL + fD
ƒ Liquid droplet fraction, γ

Interphase mass transfer – Figure 12 – is incorporated within the Liquid Film

system of equations: ∂ ∂p 1 ∂
( f L ρ L vL ) = − ( f L ) ⎜⎛ ⎟⎞ − ⎡⎣ Af L ρ L vL2 ⎤⎦
∂t ⎝ ∂ z ⎠ A ∂z
ƒ Droplet entrainment, ψe
1 S 1 S
ƒ Droplet deposition, ψd − λL ρ L vL vL L + λi ρ G vR vR i + f L ρ L g cos α (36)
2 4A 2 4A
ƒ Mass transfer (flashing), ψg fL ∂f
−ψ G va − f L d ( ρ L − ρ G ) g L sin α − ψ e vi + ψ d vD
fL + fD ∂z
ƒ Mass sources, Gl , Gg

The conservation equations that comprise the OLGA model are
derived in two-fluid format. Separate (three) continuity equations are
written for the gas, liquid bulk, and liquid droplets. Two momentum
equations are implemented; one combined equation for the gas and, if
where α is the pipe inclination to the vertical. SG, SL, and Si are the
wetted perimeters for the gas, the liquid and the interface
respectively. The velocity, va, is equal to the liquid, droplet or gas
velocity depending on whether evaporation or condensation occurs.
The relative velocity, vR, is defined by a distribution slip formula
6 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403

given in reference [23]. The interphase velocity, vi, is approximated Interfacial Mass Transfer
by vL.
Phase transfer is a function of pressure and temperature:

The Pressure Equation ψ G = ψ G ( p, T , Rs ) (41)

The properties of the fluid traversing the pipeline are assumed to
ψG may be expanded by a Taylor series in p, T, and Rs:
behave in accordance with an equation of state:

⎡⎛ ∂Rs ⎞ ∂p ⎛ ∂Rs ⎞ ∂p ∂z ⎤
ρ f = ρ f ( p, T , Rs ) (37) ⎢⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎝ ∂p ⎠T ∂t ⎝ ∂p ⎠T ∂z ∂t ⎥
ψG = ⎢ (mG + mL + mD )
⎛ ∂R ⎞ ∂T ⎛ ∂Rs ⎞ ∂T ∂z ⎥
(42)

where the gas mass fraction, Rs, is defined by: ⎢+ ⎜ s ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ ⎥

⎢⎣ ⎝ ∂p ⎠ p ∂t ⎝ ∂T ⎠ p ∂z ∂t ⎥⎦

mG
Rs = (38)
mG + mL + mD ⎛ ∂R ⎞ ∂p
The term ⎜ s ⎟ represents the mass transfer from a mass
⎝ ∂p ⎠ T ∂t
present in a section due to pressure change in that section. The term
mG, mL, and mD are the specific mass of gas, liquid film, and liquid
droplets respectively. ⎛ ∂Rs ⎞ ∂p ∂z
⎜⎝ ∂p ⎠⎟ ∂z ∂t represents mass transfer due to mass flowing from
T
Using the continuity equations (32) to (34) together with equations one section to the next.
(37) and (38), one derives a single equation for pressure for the
system. The interface mass transfer model takes into account condensation,
evaporation as well as retrograde condensation.
⎡ f ⎛ ∂ρ ⎞ 1 − fG ⎛ ∂ρ L ⎞ ⎤ ∂p
⎢ G⎜ G⎟ + ⎥ =
⎢⎣ ρG ⎝ ∂p ⎠T , Rs ρ L ⎜⎝ ∂p ⎟⎠T , Rs ⎥⎦ ∂t CASE STUDY
1 ∂ ( AfG ρG vG ) 1 ∂ ( Af L ρ L vL )
− − (39)
System Description
AρG ∂z Aρ L ∂z
1 1 1 Located in a water depth of 500 ft., a host platform is to receive gas
+GG + GL + GD from three remote platforms and export the mixture 100 mi. to shore.
ρG ρL ρL
Figure 13 provides a schematic of the pipeline system with Figures
14 to 17 depicting the profiles of each branch in the pipeline system.
The contract delivery pressure for the onshore terminal is set at 1000
Equation (39) together with the momentum equations (35) and (36) psia and the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure in the export
are discretized and solved simultaneously for pressure and phase line is 1500 psia. All compression will occur at the remote platforms
velocity. This is done sequentially allowing for step-wise time with a maximum discharge pressure of 2000 psia. A brief description
integration. of the 3 source platforms is given in Table 5 with expected gas
compositions presented in Table 6.
The Energy Equation During Phase 1 of the development, the host platform will receive
An energy conservation equation for the mixture is derived as fluids from Platform C, with Platforms A and B coming online in the
follows: future. Since the gas arriving from Platform C has the highest
condensate yield, and the initial phase of development will entail the
lowest gas rates in the export line, the liquids handling capacity on
∂⎡ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤ the onshore receiving plant will be most constrained during the initial
mG ⎜ EG + vG2 + gh⎟ + mL ⎜ EL + vL2 + gh⎟ + mD ⎜ ED + vD2 + gh⎟⎥ =
∂t ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦ phase. Thus, the design of the slug catcher will consider only fluids
produced through the export line originating from Platform C. The
∂⎡ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞⎤
− mGvG ⎜ HG + vG2 + gh⎟ + mLvL ⎜ HL + vL2 + gh⎟ + mDvD ⎜ HD + vD2 + gh⎟⎥ (40) required export pipeline size will, however, need to consider the
∂z ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦ anticipated gas rates during phase 2 of the development, when
+HS + Q Platforms B and C are brought online.

Where E is the internal energy per unit mass, H is the enthalpy, h is

the elevation, HS is the enthalpy from mass sources, and Q is the heat
transfer from the pipe walls.
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial
Steady State Analysis
Export Line Sizing
The required export pipeline diameter was evaluated with several
multiphase flow models for a gas flowrate of 1000 mmscfd,
representing a combined fluid mixture from the three platforms. The
design is based on a delivery pressure of 1000 psia and a maximum
allowable line operating pressure of 1500 psia.
As illustrated in Figure 18 and Table 7, assuming homogeneous
flow (no-slip model), the required pipeline diameter is 32”. The
OLGA-S and Xiao mechanistic models also indicate that a pipeline
ID of 32” is sufficient, while the empirical methods suggest larger
pipe sizes are required. The larger line size suggested by the
empirical correlations can be attributed to a higher predicted degree
of gas-liquid slip, resulting in higher liquid holdup and increased
pressure drop.
Tieback Line Sizing
The required pipeline sizes for the 3 pipelines flowing to the host
platform are calculated using the OLGA-S model. The OLGA-S
calculated pressure at the host platform is 1478 psia for 32 inch
export pipeline, which serves as the delivery pressure for each of the
lines flowing to the host platform assuming no pressure losses to
occur at the host platform. The required line sizes as shown in Table
8 represent the smallest possible diameter that results in a source
pressure of less than 2000 psia.
Ramp- Up
During Phase 1, the steady-state liquid rate at the receiving terminal
will be 9,080 STBPD based on a gas production rate of 500 mmscfd
from platform C. For Phase 2, the steady-state liquid rate at the
receiving terminal increases to 10,000 STBPD based on a gas
production rate of 1000 mmscfd from all 3 incoming pipelines.
It is anticipated that the gas rate from Platform C may occasionally be
reduced to 300 mmscfd with a corresponding liquid rate of 5430
STBPD. Therefore, the onshore facility will be sized to
accommodate a ramp-up scenario using Cunliffe’s method [24] based
on the results from steady-state simulation. This approximation is
later compared to the more rigorous calculation of surge rate
performed with transient simulation.
Cunliffe’s method applies a simple material balance to predict the
liquid surge rate due to an overall gas rate change for condensate
pipelines. For ramp-up cases, as the gas rate increases, the total
liquid holdup in the line will drop owing to less slippage between the
gas and liquid phases. The liquid residing in the line is therefore
accelerated to the equilibrium velocity at the final gas rate and thus
expelled at a rate higher than the final equilibrium liquid rate for the
duration of the transition period. The transition period is assumed to
be equal to the residence time at the final gas rate, that is, the time it
takes the liquid to travel from one end of the line to the other.
Calculations are performed in terms of actual volumetric flowrates,
while the results are presented in terms of standard conditions. In
this example, approx. 20% of the liquid volume at onshore terminal
conditions (1000 psia and 65F) will flash to the gaseous phase at
standard conditions.
7
The average liquid rate during the transition period can be determined
as follows:
Q Lt = Q Lf +(HL tot-i - HL tot-F )/ t r (43)
t r = HL /Q (44)
tot-F Lf
Where:
QLt average liquid rate during the transition period
QLf final liquid rate
HL tot- i total liquid holdup volume in line at initial gas rate
HL tot-F total liquid holdup volume in line at final gas rate
tr transition time ~ liquid residence time at final flowrate
As shown in Figure 19 the total liquid holdup in both the Tieback
connecting platform C to the host platform and the export line is
51,340 BBL at 300 mmscfd and 24,340 BBL for a gas rate of 500
mmscfd. The difference (27,000 BBL) will represent the total surge
volume associated with the ramp-up. Figure 20 displays the initial
liquid flowrate at the receiving facility, followed by the average
liquid flowrate during the transition period, and finally stabilized
flow at the higher gas rate. The transition period is calculated to last
approx. 53 hours during which the average liquid rate is estimated to
be 19,150 STBD. Figure 21 shows the slug catcher inventory during
the transition period assuming a drainage rate of 12,500 STBD. The
peak inventory occurs at the end of the transition period and indicates
that a slug catcher volume of approx. 23,530 BBL (19,530 STB
liquid) is required to handle the ramp-up surge.
Pigging
The volume of liquid expelled at the receiving terminal as a result of
pigging the export line can be estimated using steady-state analysis as
a first order approximation.
When a sphere (pig) is introduced into the line, it will gather in front
of itself a liquid slug comprised of the liquid that is flowing slower
than the mean fluid flowrate in the pipeline at any given point. Thus
the crucial value that determines Sphere Generated Liquid Volume
(SGLV) is the Slip Ratio (SR), which is the average velocity of the
fluid divided by the velocity of the liquid. If the liquid and gas move
at the same velocity, the slip ratio will be 1, i.e. there is 'no slip'
between the phases. In this situation the sphere will not collect any
liquid, so the SGLV will be zero. Since the liquid flows slower than
the gas, i.e. the slip ratio is greater than 1, some of the liquid in the
pipeline will collect in front of the sphere to form the SGLV. The
amount of liquid that accumulates is summed for each segment of
pipe, and the duration of the liquid expulsion can be calculated
assuming that the liquid velocity ahead of the pig is equal to the
steady-state mixture velocity at the outlet.
This steady-state approach is based on two key assumptions: 1) The
sphere travels at the mixture velocity of the fluid, and 2) no leakage
of liquid occurs behind the sphere (ie. Liquid displacement is 100%
efficient). These assumptions will tend to overestimate the SGLV,
yielding a conservative prediction.
In the current example, the SGLV is calculated for the phase 1
turndown rate of 300 mmscfd with the sphere introduced at the host
platform. The velocity of the sphere is nearly constant thoughout the
export line at approx. 8 ft/s. The total volume of liquid swept by the
8 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E.
sphere is 24,690 STB corresponding to a surge time of 52 min. at the
slug catcher. Given a drainage rate of 12,500 STBD at the slug
catcher, the required volume at flowing conditions is 24,315 bbl
(20,178 STB).
Transient simulations
The system described in the current case study will be investigated
from a transient perspective. Two cases will be presented:
1. Flow is deriving from Platform C at 300 mmscfd and on through
the export line. After a long period of steady flow, the flow is
ramped up to the design flowrate of 500 mmscfd.
2. The export flowline is pigged after it has been flowing at 300
mmscfd with fluid from Platform C only
The network is designed for a gas flowrate of 1000 mmscfd, and
10,000 STBD of condensate. The slug catcher liquid handling is 25%
over the condensate design flowrate, i.e. 12,500 STBD. Parameter
sensitivity analysis was performed to study the influence on the slug
catcher size of varying liquid off take flowrates.
Ramp up
This exercise is performed mainly to determine the size of the slug
catcher at the land terminal, and the sensitivity of this size to some of
the main operational variables.
As seen in Figure 22, when the gas flowrate is increased, the higher
gas velocity will sweep the lines for excess liquid content. As a
result, a total of approx. 31,500 BBLS of liquid will be expelled from
the flowline. Figure 23 shows the total liquid contents of the flowline
from Platform C, and the export flowline. In Figure 24 the resulting
liquid flowrate into the slug catcher is shown. The peak flowrate is
approx. 38,000 STBD. With a design flowrate of 12,500 STBD, the
liquids must be stored in the slug catcher for a period of time before
they can be processed in the downstream process plant.
Based on the simulator results, the slug catcher must have a minimum
working volume of approx. 21,100 STB.
If the liquid off take flowrate was different, it is expected that the
slug catcher size will be different as well. To investigate, two
additional off take flowrates were run, one at 10,000 STBD and one
at 20,000 STBD.
The required slug catcher sizes based on the maximum liquid
volumes shown in Figure 26 are plotted as a function of the off take
flowrate in Figure 27. As seen in these figures, the required slug
catcher is approximately 26,000 STB for the off take flowrate of
10,000 STBPD, and approximately 10,500 STB for the off take
flowrate of 20,000 STBPD.
Another parameter sensitivity that was studied relates to the slug
catcher size for various ramp-up scenarios. The case shown above is
based on an instantaneous ramp-up from 300 to 500 mmscfd at
Platform A. Two additional cases were run:
1. One where the ramp-up was over 12 hours, and
2. One where the ramp-up was executed over 24 hours
PSIG 0403
As expected, the required slug catcher size is dependent on the
manner in which the flow is ramped-up. The faster the flow is
increased, the larger the slug catcher needs to be. The results from
this analysis are shown in Figures 28 to 31. As seen in these figures,
the required slug catcher is approximately 20,700 STB for the ramp-
up time of 12 hours, and approximately 19,900 STB for the ramp-up
time of 24 hours.
Pigging
Pigging is performed on the export flowline. Prior to pigging, the
export flowline has been flowing with gas from Platform C at 300
mmscfd. The pig is inserted at 12 hours, and the gas flowrate is kept
steady at 300mscfd. The liquid drainage flowrate from the slug
catcher is 12,500 STBD. Figures 32 to 34 depict such dynamic
elements as gas and liquid flow rate into the slug catcher during the
pigging cycle as well as the actual pigging velocity. Figure 35 shows
the total liquid content in the export flowline.
As seen in Figure 36, the slug catcher needs to have a working
volume of 30,700 STB or more to handle the liquid pushed out by the
pig when the pig is arriving.
DISCUSSION
In analyses involving multiphase flow calculations one has to be
highly cognizant of the tools and methodology adopted and ensure
that they are fit-for purpose. For example, let us consider the
calculation of slug catcher size using a number of steady-state
methods.
Figure 37 shows the calculated slug catcher size requirement
expressed in terms of STB of condensate. The OLGA-S correlation
predicts a volume requirement for the ramp-up of about 19,530
STBD and 19,450 for the pigging case, whereas the Xiao mechanistic
model suggests a smaller slug catcher volume requirement. The
Beggs-Brill correlation indicates a required slug catcher volume of
approx 37,800 STBD for the pigging case, but does not predict that
the surge associated with the ramp-up is beyond the drainage capacity
of the separator. Similar results are suggested by the Dukler-AGA-
Flanigan method using the Eaton holdup correlation; a slug catcher
size of approx. 23,260 STBD is calculated for the pigging case, but
the surge resulting from ramp-up is minimal.
These results suggest that the empirical methods predict higher
amounts of slip, resulting in higher total holdup volumes in the
pipeline, and thus higher pigging volumes. However, the liquid
holdup predictions made by the empirical methods are less sensitive
to changes in gas rate than the mechanistic models, and therefore do
not predict high surge rates for ramp-up scenarios. This example
illustrates the difficulty in modeling slip effects for low-liquid
loading situations (no-slip liq. Vol ~ 1% in this case) as observed by
previous investigators [25].
A more rigorous transient analysis predicts a required slug catcher
volume of 21,100 STBD for the ramp-up case, which is
approximately 8% larger than that predicted using Cunliffe’s method
applied to the OLGA-S model. However, the required volume from
transient pigging analysis suggests that a slug catcher volume of
30,700 STB is required, which is 58% larger than the 19,450 STB
calculated using a steady-state approach.
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 9

Steady-state analysis can provide a first order approximation for
estimating liquids handling capacity under various operating
scenarios. This is particularly useful for evaluating a number of field
development options with parametric studies and identifying future
situations where capacity constraints will be most limiting.
However, a more rigorous transient analysis is required to more
accurately ascertain capacity requirements and account for time-
dependent operating practices used to manage liquids. For example,
transient analysis is needed to quantify the reduction in the required
slug catcher size resulting from a graduated, rather than
instantaneous, ramp-up of production.
Figure 38 illustrates the sensitivity of flowline size as a function of
LGR expressed in terms of the ratio of calculated pipe diameter using
a 2-phase correlation to the caculated pipe diameter for no-slip
(D/Dns). The design rate 1000 mmscfd for the export line is
considered as the basis for the gas flowrate. Even for low LGR’s, the
required line size increases significantly when 2-phase slip effects are
considered.
studies and developments. He has knowledge and skills in process
simulation with a strong understanding of PVT behavior.
Mack E. Shippen is a senior petroleum engineer with
Schlumberger Information Solutions in Houston, where he provides
user support, training, and consulting services for PIPESIM. He holds
BS and MS degrees in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M
University where his research focused on multiphase flow modeling.
He has performed a number of well and surface network simulation
studies, including dynamic coupling of reservoir and surface
simulation models. An active SPE member, he is currently serving as
an editor of the SPE Reprint Series on Offshore Multiphase
Production Operations.

CLOSURE
This paper paper presents a summary of the technology behind the
simulation of multiphase flow in pipelines. This technology is
classified into steady state and transient approaches and the
underlying methodology has been presented for both.

A case study is selected to illustrate the approach to the simulation of

both steady state and transient phenomena in a pipeline network
system and the appropriate industry tools are used in the process.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Ivor R. Ellul began his career in the oil and gas industry in
1980, in West Germany, as a design engineer on pipeline and storage
tank systems. After specializing in the modeling of multiphase flow
in pipelines, he worked for a number of years in the area of numerical
modeling of single and multi-phase pipelines under steady-state and
transient conditions. He has been involved in various pipeline
simulation studies for clients worldwide. Recent experience includes
various executive positions in the upstream area of the oil and gas
industry. Dr. Ellul is industry lecturer to the Petroleum Engineering
Department of Imperial College, University of London where he
lectures the M.S. course on pipeline and process engineering. He is
also a member of the advisory board of the Faculty of Petroleum
Engineering of the University of Houston. Dr. Ellul holds a BS in
Mechancal Engineering from the University of Malta and MS, and
PhD degrees in Petroleum Engineering from the University of
London. Dr. Ellul is a registered Chartered Engineer in the United
Kingdom and a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Texas.

Geir Saether has been involved in Flow Assurance Engineering in

the petroleum industry for over 17 years. His background includes
planning and development of oil and gas fields in the Gulf of Mexico,
North Sea, Barents Sea, at Grand Banks, offshore Malaysia, and off
the West African coast. He is a specialist in the characteristics of
multiphase flow related problems. His experience includes
significant work in the area of research and simulation of multiphase
flow in pipelines as well as developing multiphase flow simulators.
He has served as project manager and systems engineer, analyzing
risk and assessing operational constraints in large oil and gas field
10 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E.
REFERENCES
1. Hagedorn, A.R., Brown, K.E., “Experimental Study of Pressure
Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in
Small Diameter Vertical Conduits, J. Pet. Tech., April, 1965.
2. Beggs, H.D., Brill, J.P., “A Study of Two-Phase Flow in
Inclined Pipes”, J. Pet. Tech., May, 1973.
3. Dukler, A.E., “Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines Research Results”,
Project NX-28, AGA, May, 1969.
4. Brill, J.P., “Multiphase Flow in Wells”, J. Pet. Tech., January,
1987.
5. Mandhane, J.M., Gregory, G.A., Aziz, K., “A Flow Pattern Map
for Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes”, Int. J. Multiphase
Flow, Vol. 1, 1974, pp. 537 – 553.
6. Aziz, K., Govier, G.W., Fogarasi, M., “Pressure Drop in Wells
Producing Oil and Gas”, J. Cdn. Pet. Tech., July-Sept, 1972.
7. Baker, O., “Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines, II. Design Manual”,
AGA-API Project NX-28, October, 1970.
8. Dukler, A.E., Wicks, M., Cleveland, R.G., “Frictional Pressure
Drop in Two-Phase Flow: B. An Approach through Similarity
Analysis”, AIChE Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, January, 1964.
9. Flanigan, O., “Effect of Uphill Flow on Pressure Drop in Design
of Two-Phase Gathering Systems”, Oil and Gas Journal, March
10, 1958.
10. Eaton, B.A., Andrews, D.E., Knowles, C.R., Silberberg, I.H.,
Brown, K.E., “The Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid Holdup
and Pressure Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase
Flow in Horizontal Pipelines”, J. Pet. Tech., June 1967, pp 815 –
828.
11. Ellul, I.R., “The Prediction of Dispersed Gas-Liquid Flow in
Complex Pipe Geometries”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
London, 1989.
12. Finch, L., Ellul, I., Gochnour, R., “Implementation of
Mechanistic Flow Models in a Practical Multiphase Flow
Simulator”, Twenty-third Annual meeting of PSIG, October,
1991.
13. Taitel, Y. & Dukler, A.E.: “A Mechanistic Model for Predicting
Flow Regime Transitions in Horizontal and Near Horizontal
Gas-Liquid Flow,” AIChE Journal, 22 (Jan. 1976), 47-55.
14. Zhang, H.Q., Wang, Q., Sarica, C., Brill, J.P.: “Unified Model
for Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow Via Slug Dynamics - Part 1: Model
Development,” ASME Journal of Energy Resources
Technology, Vol.125 (December 2003) 274.
PSIG 0403
15. Xiao. J.J., Shoham, O., Brill, J. P.: “A Comprehensive
Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines,” paper
SPE 20631 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA., 23-25 Sept.
16. The Honorary Lord Cullen, “The Public Enquiry into the Piper
Alpha Disaster.” Report presented to the Parliament of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain, November 1990.
17. Rygg, O.B., Ellul, I.R., “The Dynamic Two-Phase Modeling of
Offshore Live Crude Lines Under Rupture Conditions.” OTC-
6747, 1991.
18. Ellul, I.R., King, P.E., Findlay, W.A., Delacroix, M.P., “The
Use of Dynamic Simulation in Offshore Multiphase Pipeline
Design.” 5th International Conference on Multiphase Production,
Cannes, June 1991.
19. Ishii, M., “Thermo-fluid Dynamic Theory of Two-Phase Flow”,
Eyrolles, Paris, 1975.
20. Banerjee, S., Chan, A.M.C., “Separated Flow Models I –
Analysis of the Averaged and Local Instantaneous
Formulations”, Int. Journal of Multiphase Flow, Vol. 6, pp. 1-
24, 1980.
21. Drew, D.A., Lahey, R.T., “Application of General Constitutive
Principles to the Derivation of Multidimensional Two-Phase
Flow Equations”, Int. Journal of Multiphase Flow, Vol. 5, pp.
243-264, 1979.
22. Bendiksen, K., Malnes, D., Moe, R., Nuland, S., “The Dynamic
Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and Application.” SPE-19451,
1989.
23. Bendiksen, K., Espedal, M., Malnes, D., “Physical and
Numerical Simulation of Dynamic Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines
with Application to Existing Oil-Gas Field Lines.” Conference
on Multiphase Flow in Industrial Plants, Bologna, September
1988.
24. Cunliffe, R., “Prediction of Condensate Flow Rates in Large
Diameter High Pressure Wet Gas Pipelines”, APEA Journal
(1978), 171-177.
25. Asante, B., “Two-Phase Flow: Accounting For The Presence Of
Liquids In Gas Pipeline Simulation”, Thirty-fourth Annual
meeting of PSIG, October, 2002.
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 11

TABLES
Correlation For Based Upon Comments
Eaton Liquid Holdup Water-gas data (2”, ƒ Correlation is free from abrupt discontinuities
4” pipe sizes) ƒ Valid only for horizontal pipes
Eaton Pressure Water-gas and ƒ May produce unreliable results for very low or very high
Gradient distillate data (2”, 4”, volume fractions
17” pipe sizes) ƒ May be unreliable for liquid viscosities above 12-15 cP.
ƒ Neglects pipe roughness effects
ƒ Valid only for horizontal pipes
Hughmark Liquid Holdup Air-liquid data (0.63”, ƒ Developed for vertical up flow systems
2.5” pipe sizes) ƒ Over predicts liquid holdup at low liquid volume fractions
Dukler Pressure Field data ƒ Similarity analysis employed to develop correlation
Gradient ƒ Makes no distinction between flow regimes
ƒ Best results obtained for pipelines with moderate to high
liquid volume fractions and limited elevation changes
Flanigan Liquid Holdup Field data (16” pipe ƒ Applies only to uphill inclined pipe segments
size) ƒ Liquid holdup (uphill sections) correlated with superficial gas
velocity
Flanigan Pressure Field data (16” pipe ƒ Applies only to uphill inclined pipe segments
Gradient size) ƒ Applies only to gravitational component of pressure gradient
ƒ Pressure recovery in downhill sections is neglected
Beggs and Pressure Laboratory data (1”, ƒ Original correlation based on smooth friction factors
Brill Gradient 1.5” pipe sizes) ƒ Applicable to all ranges of pipe inclination
ƒ Flow regimes considered: segregated, intermittent, distributed
ƒ Predictions for downhill sections frequently too low
Hagedorn Liquid Holdup and Experimental well ƒ Applies only to vertical upward flow
and Brown Pressure (1500’) ƒ Makes no distinction between flow regimes
Gradient ƒ Liquid holdup merely a correlating factor
ƒ Pressure gradient predictions not accurate for bubble flow
ƒ Gives best results for wellbores with high gas-liquid ratios and
relatively high mixture velocities
Orkiszewski Liquid Holdup and ƒ Hybrid method which uses three different correlations for
Pressure vertical upflow
Gradient ƒ Convergence problems owing to discontinuities across flow
regime boundaries

Table 1
12 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403

Range of FLOW REGIME TRANSITIONS

Inclination Stratified - Slug Slug - Annular Slug - Bubbly
-10o to +15o A or G B or A A

+15o to +60o No transition C C

+60o to +90o No transition C or D D or C

-90o to -80o No transition F F or H

-80o to -70o E B B

-70o to -10o A B B

Table 2
Key: A: Taitel-Dukler (1976a)
B: Barnea et al (1980)
C: Taitel et al (1980)
D: Mishima et al (1984)
E: Barnea et al (1982a)
F: Barnea et al (1982b)
G: Ferschneider et al (1985)
H: Martin (1973)

Range of FLOW REGIME TRANSITIONS USED TO DETERMINE ACTUAL FLOW

Inclination REGIME
Stratified Regime Annular Regime Slug Regime Bubbly Regime
-10o to +15o ST - SL ST – SL ST – SL ST – SL
SL - ANN SL – ANN SL – ANN
SL - BUB SL - BUB

+15o to +60o - SL – BUB SL – BUB SL – BUB

SL – ANN SL – ANN
o o
+60 to +90 - SL – BUB SL – BUB SL – BUB
SL – ANN SL – ANN
o o
-90 to -80 - SL – ANN SL – BUB SL – BUB

-80o to -70o SL – BUB SL – BUB SL – BUB SL – BUB

ST – SL ST – SL ST – SL
SL - ANN SL - ANN
o o
-70 to -10 SL – BUB SL – BUB SL – BUB SL – BUB
ST – SL ST – SL ST – SL
SL - ANN SL - ANN

Table 3
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 13

Submodel FLOW REGIME

for: Pressure Gradient and Liquid Holdup Methods
Stratified Annular Slug Slug Bubbly
Horizontal/Inclined Vertical
Wall – Gas Shear A or B - - - -

Wall – Liquid Shear B or C D - - -

Interfacial Shear A or B B or F - - -

Interfacial Friction Factor - B or F - - -

Wall – Liquid Friction Factor - - Blasius Blasius Blasius

Liquid Droplet Entrainment - G - - -

Liquid Holdup A F - - K or M

Liquid Holdup in Liquid Slug - - H or I - -

Slug Frequency - - G or J - -

Slug Velocity - - G or K - -

Carpet Velocity Gas Bubble - - G or L - -

– Slug Length
Liquid Holdup Correction - - - F -

Acceleration Effects F F F F F

Table 4

Key: A: Taitel-Dukler (1976b)

B: Laurinat-Hanratty (1984)
C: Chermisisnoff and Davis (1979)
D: Hewitt (1982)
E: Oliemans (1986)
F: Wallis (1969)
G: Creare, Inc. (1986)
H: Gregory et al (1978)
I: Fabre et al (1983)
J: Gregory-Scott (1969)
K: Zuber and Findlay (1965)
L: Dukler and Hubbard (1975)
M: Mishima and Ishii (1984)

Platform A Platform B Platform C

Fluid type dry gas wet gas wet gas
water depth (ft.) 600 1000 5000
Distance to host (mi) 20 30 50
Gas rate (mmscfd) 200 300 500

Table 5: Description of Source Platforms

14 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403

Platform A Platform B Platform C Export

Component Mole % Mole % Mole % Mole %
N2 0.1 0.19 0.19 0.17
CO2 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.06
C1 99.5 98.59 97.86 98.40
C2 0.25 0.41 0.41 0.38
C3 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.17
iC4 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04
nC4 0.11 0.11 0.09
iC5 0.04 0.04 0.03
nC5 0.04 0.04 0.03
C6 0.05 0.05 0.04
C7 0.038 0.12 0.07
C8 0.032 0.10 0.06
C9 0.028 0.09 0.05
C10+ 0.172 0.70 0.40
C10+ Molwt 221.585 241.67
Condensate yield (BBL/mmscf) none 3.8 18.1 9.9

Table 6: Gas Compositions

Required pipe Ave Liquid

Method size Holdup (%)
no-slip 32" 1.0
OLGA-S 32" 5.9
Xiao (Taitel-Dukler model) 32" 3.4
Beggs & Brill 34" 10.3
Dukler, AGA & Flanigan (Eaton holdup) 36" 7.0

Table 7: Selected export pipeline diameter by various methods

Line Required pipe size

Platform A tieback 12"
Platform B tieback 16"
Platform C tieback 24"

Table 8: Selected tieback pipeline diameter using OLGA-S

PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 15

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Horizontal Flow Regimes

Figure 3 – Vertical Flow Regime Map

Figure 4

Figure 2 – Horizontal Flow Regime Map

Figure 5
16 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403

Figure 6

Figure 9

Figure 7

SG
VG AG
D Si
VL
hL AL
α
SL
Figure 10
Figure 8
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 17

Figure 11
Figure 14: Tieback A pipeline profile

Figure 12

Figure 15: Tieback B pipeline profile

Figure 13: Schematic of System

Figure 16: Tieback C pipeline profile

18 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403

25000

20000

Liquid Rate (STB/d)

15000

10000

5000

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Time (days)
Figure 17: Export pipeline profile
Figure 20: Liquid rate at plant vs. Time used for ramp-up
scenario (steady-state approach)
25000

20000

Liquid Volume (STB)

15000

10000

5000

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Time (days)

Figure 21: Slug Catcher Inventory vs. Time for ramp-up

Figure 18: Export line deliverability as a function of flow scenario (steady-state approach)
correlation and pipe diameter
55000 Trend data
GAS VOLUME FLOW AT STOCK TANK CONDITION EXPORT,PIPE-24,2 [MMscf/d]
50000 550
Total Holdup (BBL)

45000 500

40000
450

35000
MMscf/d

400

30000
350
25000

300
20000
300 350 400 450 500
250
Gas Rate (mmscfd) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time [d]
PSIG 2004 - Ramp-up

Figure 19: Total Holdup vs. gas rate for Tieback C and
Export line during phase 1 Figure 22: Gas flowrate into the land terminal
PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 19

Trend data Slug catcher liquid inventory

Different liquid offtake flowrates
TOTAL LIQUID CONTENT IN A BRANCH PLAT A [bbl]
TOTAL LIQUID CONTENT IN A BRANCH EXPORT [bbl] 30000
60000

55000 25000

50000
20000

Liquid volume (STB)

45000

40000 15000
Offtake=10,500 STB/d
Offtake=12,500 STB/d
bbl

35000 Offtake=20,000 STB/d

10000
30000

25000 5000

20000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
15000
Time (d)

10000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Figure 26. Slug catcher inventory for different liquid off
PSIG 2004 - Ramp-up
Time [d]
take rates

Figure 23: Liquid content in the two flowline branches

Required slug catcher size for various offtake flowrates

30000
Trend data
LIQUID VOLUME FLOW AT STOCK TANK CONDITION EXPORT,PIPE-24,2 [STB/d]
25000
40000

35000 20000
Slug catcher size (STB)

30000 15000

25000
10000
STB/d

20000
5000

15000
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
10000 Liquid offtake flowrate (STB/d)

5000
Figure 27. Slug catcher size for different drainage
0 flowrates
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time [d]
PSIG 2004 - Ramp-up
Trend data
Instantaneous ramp-up

Figure 24. Liquid flowrate into the land terminal Ramp-up over 12 hrs
Ramp-up over 24 hrs
550

500
Slug catcher liquid inventory

25000

450
MMscf/d

20000
400

15000
350
Liquid volume (STB)

10000
300

250
5000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Time [d]

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (d)
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Figure 28. Gas flowrate into the slug catcher for different
ramp-up times
Figure 25. Slug catcher inventory
20 ELLUL, I.R., SAETHER, G., SHIPPEN, M.E. PSIG 0403

Trend data Trend data

Instantaneous ramp-up GAS VOLUME FLOW AT STOCK TANK CONDITION EXPORT,PIPE-24,2 [MMscf/d]
Ramp-up over 12 hrs 600
Ramp-up over 24 hrs
40000 550

500
35000
450

30000 400

350
25000

MMscf/d
300
STB/d

20000
250

15000 200

150
10000
100

5000 50

0
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Time [d]
Time [d]
PSIG 2004 - Pigging

Figure 29. Liquid flowrate into slug catcher for different Figure 32. Gas flowrate at slug catcher
ramp-ups
Trend data
Slug catcher liquid inventory PIG/PLUG VELOCITY PLUG-1 [ft/s]
Different ramp-up rates
15
25000

20000

10
Liquid volume (STB)

15000
ft/s

Instantaneous ramp-up
Ramp-up over 12 hrs
10000
Ramp-up over 24 hrs
5

5000

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
0
Time (d) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Time [d]
PSIG 2004 - Pigging
Figure 30. Slug catcher inventory for different ramp-up
rates Figure 33. Pigging velocity
Required slug catcher size for various ramp-up rates

22000

Trend data

21500 LIQUID VOLUME FLOW AT STOCK TANK CONDITION EXPORT,PIPE-24,2 [STB/d]

1.5e6

21000
Slug catcher size (STB)

20500

1e6
20000
STB/d

19500

19000
500000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ramp-up time (hrs)

Figure 31. Slug catcher size for different ramp-up rates

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Time [d]
PSIG 2004 - Pigging

Figure 34. Liquid flowrate into slug catcher

PSIG 0403 The Modeling of Multiphase Systems under Steady-State and Transient Conditions – A Tutorial 21

Trend data
TOTAL LIQUID CONTENT IN A BRANCH EXPORT [bbl] 1.25
40000 OLGA-S
BBR
35000
DAF (Eaton)
1.20
30000

25000

1.15
bbl

20000

D/Dns
15000

10000 1.10

5000

0 1.05
0 50 100 150
Time [h]
PSIG 2004 - Pigging

1.00
Figure 35. Liquid content in export flowline 0 20 40 60 80 100
LGR (STB/mmscfd)
Slug catcher liquid inventory during pigging
Figure 38. Line size as a function of LGR and correlation
35000

30000

25000
Liquid volume (STB)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (d)

Figure 36. Slug catcher liquid inventory during pigging

40000

35000
Ramp-up
Required Volume (STB)

30000
Pigging
25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
Beggs & Dukler, Xiao OLGA- OLGA
Brill AGA & Steady Transient
Flanigan State
(Eaton
holdup)

Figure 37. Slug catcher sizing using various methods