PROPERLY DESIGN AND OPERATE MULTI-PIPE SLUG CATCHERS

A.Bashiri1, PhD Student, Iran University of Science and Technology L.Fatehnejad, Process Engineer, SAZEH Consultants Engineering & Construction N.Kasiri, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran
1

ABSTRACT A two-phase flow pipeline is intended for transporting the gas and liquid phases simultaneously. There are different modes under which liquid can be produced from the pipeline. These include: the continuous liquid flow production mode under normal steady flow conditions; the intermittent or transient liquid production mode occurring when flow rates are varied and the pigging or sphering mode when liquid is displaced within the pipeline in a relatively short time. These occasionally very large volumes of liquids encountered must be handled and stored as they emerge from the pipeline, preferably without any reduction in velocity, which would be reflected in the gas production. For this reason, a liquid-receiving facility known as a slug catcher is always connected to a twophase pipeline. In this paper, rigorous modeling of multiple-pipe slug catcher based on computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) Calculations with ANSYS CFXTM is presented, together with its application for debottlenecking of an existing multiple-pipe slug catcher.
KEYWORDS: Slug Catcher, CFD, CFX, Simulation, Design

INTRODUCTION A two-phase flow pipeline is intended for transporting the gas and liquid phases simultaneously. There are different modes under which liquid can be produced from the pipeline. These include: the continuous liquid flow production mode under normal steady flow conditions; the intermittent or transient liquid production mode occurring when flow rates are varied (Severe Slugging in Figure1); and the pigging or sphering mode when liquid is displaced from the pipeline into the slug catcher in a relatively short time [2]. These occasionally very large volumes of liquids encountered must be handled and stored as they emerge from the pipeline, preferably without any reduction in velocity, which would be reflected in the gas production. For this reason, a liquid-receiving facility known as a slug catcher is always connected to a two-phase pipeline [10]. In the past ten years, the range of application of two-phase pipeline transportation has broadened considerably. Conditions under which slug catchers are required to operate have extended to higher flowrates involving also mist and droplet flow conditions for which more stringent separation requirements have become necessary and in some cases very large liquid quantities have to be handled. This paper has combined existing design approaches with results based on an additional investigation of liquid separation under high velocity conditions so that the revised design requirements can be met [1].

1. To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Bashiri@cape.iust.ac.ir

Figure1: Severe Slugging in Platform Riser [10]

Figure2: Severe Slugging in Platform Riser [10] There are basically two types of slug catchers, the vessel and multiple-pipe types; multiple-pipe separators have been widely applied in facilities processing a gas condensate stream. For crude-oil stream, where foaming sometimes emerges as a major problem, a vessel type slug catcher is normally used. Such a slug-catching separator must be designed to process the incoming liquid slugs produced by normal pipeline slug flow and to perform an adequate initial separation of the gas and liquid phases. The geometry of the vessel type slug catcher could range from a simple knock out drum to a more sophisticated layout. Since the overall length of vessel type slug catchers is relatively short for a given volume this type is preferred in the case of limited plot sizes (e.g. offshore platforms). For larger liquid volumes accommodation (More than 100 m3) multiple-pipe slug catcher should be used [5]:

Figure3: General Configuration of Multiple-Pipe Slug Catcher GENERAL DESIGN ASPECTS OF MULTIPLE- PIPE SLUG CATCHER Multi-pipe slug catchers can be made of standard pipeline materials. Besides having a cost advantage over the high-pressure vessel design, this type allows for a greater flexibility in design possibilities to cope with wide ranges of flow situations and geometrical configurations with different shapes of the available ground area. In these slug catchers immediately at the inlet is a splitter to feed the two-phase stream into the inlet header from which connections are open to downcomers leading to parallel primary bottles. The first section of a primary bottle up to the gas riser is intended to allow for liquid settling and separation. The remaining part is intended for liquid storage [5]. Gas present in the bottles is displaced through the gas risers to the gas outlet header. This shunting action of the liquid and gas phases in the bottles assures an uninterrupted gas supply to downstream facilities during liquid slug arrival. The advantage of a multiple-pipe slug catcher is that it is easy to operate since no flow controls are required. One disadvantage, however, is the counter current gas-liquid flow in the bottles which may promote liquid carry-over if it is incorrectly designed. In a slug catcher the separation of liquid from the gas can occur in following manners [3]: Stratification in the inlet manifold, downcomer and primary bottle Droplet settling in the primary bottle Deposition in bends and primary bottle Tee- junction separation at inlet manifolds Tee- junction separation at entry into a gas riser

Figure4: General Configuration of Multiple-Pipe Slug Catcher

Figure5: Different Two Phase Pattern in Horizontal Pipe [10] Stratification is the flow pattern in which separation will happen. It generally occurs when velocity is reduced. This flow regime is encouraged to form when flowing over a declination. To create such conditions, the flow is often split into parallel passages of large diameter pipes. The passages are inclined downward whenever possible [5]. Settling of droplets can occur by gravitation in a primary bottle when flowing at low velocities, typically at less than 2 m/s, towards the gas riser, provided sufficient residence time is allowed for it to happen.

Settling velocity of a droplet decreases with its size so that smaller droplets need more time to settle. Therefore separation by settling due to gravity will become difficult at increased velocities. However, the effect due to turbulence at increased velocities can have a positive influence on the separation of smaller droplets. They tend to follow turbulent fluctuation paths, thus increasing the chances of collision with pipe walls for deposition. This can be expected to occur particularly in bends and where a downcomer expands into a primary bottle with the jet of flow impinging obliquely against a wall [5]. A downward inclined T-branch on a horizontal pipe can be an effective separator particularly if the mixture stream in the horizontal part is stratified [6]. While the gas flow will continue in the horizontal direction, most of the liquid will separate and go through the branch. When the tee-branch on a horizontal pipe is oriented in the upward direction, e.g. the gas riser on a primary bottle, efficient separation will be possible provided less than 80% of the gas exits through that branch [7]. It shows that no liquid will be carried up the riser if not more than 80% of the gas flow is directed through it (Figure7). Liquid in the horizontal pipe in the stratified pattern will continue in the horizontal direction. Entrained droplets will also continue with the remaining gas flow in the horizontal pipe. However, this separation tendency will be reduced when the gas flow through the riser is increased beyond 80% of the total. For this reason, two successive risers per primary bottle with a 70% / 30% gas flow distribution have been recommended to use recently to utilize these special separation characteristics [7]:

Figure6: Multiple-Pipe Slug Catcher with two successive risers [10] The size of a slug catcher is directly related to the maximum liquid volume it has to hold. It must be able to intercept the maximum possible slug size emerging from the two phase pipeline at any moment. It should also contain a buffer volume of condensate in order to guarantee liquid supply to treating facilities downstream of the slug catcher. The intercepting capacity of the slug catcher should allow for all modes of liquid production at the end of the pipeline. It is dependent on the maximum difference of liquid inflow from the pipeline and outflow to its downstream process.

0.5

Fraction of Liquid Take off

0.4 Air Water Experiment 0.3

0.2

0.1

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Fraction of Gas Take off

Figure7: Effect of Vertical Side Arm on Gas Liquid Separation The time over which such liquid surges have to be coped with is determined by the nature and operating philosophy of the system. For example, if the pipeline is to be sphered regularly, it can be sized according to the amount of liquid expected to accumulate between pigging intervals. For this operating scenario, the capacity of these liquid processing facilities should be based on slug volume, interval of pigging and a contingency volume. If pigging may be performed only occasionally, it will be necessary to know the lowest flow condition of the pipeline planned for a pigging operation [3]. The required slug catcher size to cope with that corresponding maximum sphere generated volume of liquid can be calculated by the computer program such as PipePhaseTM or PIPESYSTM [11]. In the case that pigging does not have to be allowed for but irregular liquid flows will be expected as a result of flow variation, the slug catcher should be sized to accommodate the differences between the steady state hold-up volumes predicted for the corresponding changes of flows. For long pipelines, sphere generated volumes based on equilibrium hold-up conditions can be very large and a special operating and pigging philosophy may have to be devised to limit the size of a slug catcher. For unusual pipeline profiles which may generate terrain slugs or tend to produce liquid surges when starting up from standstill, the transient simulation program such as OLGA2000TM, Aspen TraflowTM or TACITETM may be needed for sizing the slug catcher [1]. For efficient filling and maximum utilization of storage capacity of a multiple-pipe slug catcher, it is important to distribute gas and liquid flows equally between parallel bottles in the slug catcher. This can be achieved by splitters in the form of Tee-junctions with the flow impacting perpendicularly at the tee-junction before being divided into equal streams departing through the runs. Tee-junctions are often arranged in series to divide and subdivide flow into 2, 4 and 8 equal and parallel streams [9].

Gas risers are primarily intended for the separated gas phase to leave the unit. They should be capable of preventing liquid carry-over when large volumes of liquid flow pass the base region of the gas risers, e.g. when a sphered slug arrives in the slug catcher [7, 8]. Although desirable, it is essential for them to function as liquid separators when flow velocity is high since efficient separation should already have taken place upstream of these parts. There should not be more than two risers per bottle, especially if they are not sized to restrict and control the split of flow. Model tests have shown that downward and reverse flow in some risers can occur in such unnecessarily complicated systems.

Figure8: General View of Multiple-Pipe Slug Catcher The diameter of the gas outlet headers and gas outlets should not be made too small, because the pressure drop over the gas outlet system could become significant. The consequence of this is that after the slug has been received the liquid level in the bottles closest to the gas outlet will rise relative to the level in the other bottles (manometer effect). Therefore the pressure distribution in the gas outlet risers should be balanced symmetrically as far as possible. This can be achieved by allowing gas to exit from both ends of the gas outlet header or by placing diameter reducers at the top of each riser.

Figure8: Multiple-Pipe Slug Catcher with Equalizer Header [5]

An equalizer header originally intended to enable even distribution of liquid in the bottles. However, it was later found in model tests that the effect of an equalizer system on the slug catcher performance can be very sensitive to the slug catcher geometry and may not always be beneficial. Gas flowing from the primary to the secondary bottles through the equalizer system caused liquid carry-over into the secondary bottles [3]. Liquid outlet headers have commonly been designed with the same diameter as the bottles. A reduction in diameter (down to 75% of the bottle diameter) did not affect the slug catcher performance. It should not be reduced further due to the risk of blockage of the liquid outlet header by sludge or dirt which is always present in the lower part of the slug catcher. In relation to possible dirt accumulation it should be ensured that the header is accessible for cleaning [6, 7, and 8]. To prevent gas carry-under during liquid drainage of the slug catcher the liquid header should be below the lower end of the bottle. Control of level in the slug catcher is essential for safe operation of a pipeline system. Level indication of a slug catcher can be influenced by several factors such as the presence of water and glycol, blockage due to sludge and accumulation of condensed liquid in impulse lines. As the density of water and glycol can be at least 30% greater than that of condensate, not only erroneous indications but also different liquid levels of combinations of condensate and glycol can exist in adjacent bottles [6, 7, 8, and 10]. CONDITION OF LIQUID TO BE SEPARATED IN SLUG CATCHER Slug Catcher has to perform as a separator in following situations: Liquid arriving with sphere or pig: Depending on the condition before pigging, the quantity of liquid arriving can be large. The rate of liquid arrival is dictated by the speed of the pig, which may typically be between 2 and 5 m/s. As the liquid is separated from the gas by the pig or sphere, the amount of gas, either resulting from bubbles in the slug or flow bypassing the pig, will be relatively small and the mixture will generally be in the form of slug or bubble flow. Liquid arriving under steady flow condition: The ratio of liquid to gas arriving at the slug catcher will be the same as for the steady flow condition of the system and the liquid will be arriving at a continuous rate. It will be either in the form of entrained droplets, slugs or a steady stratified stream depending on gas/ liquid ratio, pipeline profile and the prevailing flow rate of the pipeline. If in the form of droplets, their sizes will be influenced by velocity and become smaller at higher velocities. Liquid produced as a result of flow rate increase: When the flow rate in the pipeline is being increased, the corresponding volume of liquid holdup under equilibrium will be reduced and the excess quantity will be displaced. It will arrive in the form of slugs or surges of droplets depending on the prevailing gas velocity. The instantaneous liquid- to-gas ratio at the outlet will be greater than the steady flow liquid to gas ratio.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CFD Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and process simulation are important tools for the design and optimization of chemical processes. CFD is a particularly powerful tool for the study of fluid dynamics and mixing processes within individual items of process equipment to avoid expensive experimentation and to use the information and insight gained in order to obtain a better design of the unit. Most of the models used by process simulation tools either ignore all spatial variations of properties within each unit operation or are limited to simple idealized geometries. As a result, process simulation may offer only an incomplete and unsatisfactory description of processes in which local interactions between mixing and other phenomena, and the way in which these interactions are influenced by equipment geometry, are significant. The CFD process begins with geometry, which has to be either created or imported from an external CAD package. The 3D CAD then forms the framework around which a mesh is constructed. The mesh is a set of small blocks, which fill the volume through which the fluid flows. Next, a CFD code applies the governing equations of fluid flow, the NavierStokes Equations, to each cell within the mesh. The computer process communicates information across all the cells and proceeds in an iterative manner towards solving the problem. Once the calculation is finished, the CFD solution contains all the pressures and velocities on off the surfaces of the object being studied, this is usually millions of numbers. Making sense of such a large data set is not a trivial task and the science of flow visualization has developed to deal with this challenge. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION In our study slug catcher receives a mixture of production gas and liquid condensate from the pipeline into six separation pipes or fingers, where gravity acts to separate the two phases: the gas passing upward to the gas outlet with the heavier liquid falling through short downcomers into long liquid fingers, where it is stored. If the surge of gas and liquid in the 20-minute period after daily cleaning (sphering) of the pipeline is too great, then liquid could overflow into the gas outlet causing problems downstream. So it was needed to know if the existing slug catcher has the capacity to cope with higher flows of gas and liquid. If not, then a new slug catcher would have to be built at an estimated capital cost of $20 million. To assess the capacity of the slug catcher, time dependent two-phase fluid flow in the system has been simulated using the Eulerian multiphase flow model in ANSYS CFX software by considering available configuration and aforementioned recommendations. To forecast liquid overflow reliably, the CFD model needed to track the motion of the gas-liquid interface accurately throughout the pipe system. Normally, the size of mesh required to do this would make a long transient simulation intractable but, by using transient mesh adaption to concentrate cells into the region around the interface, we were able to reduce the total mesh size by an order of magnitude.

Figure9: Slug Catcher Designed with ANAYS CFX The peak liquid levels were predicted for the original pipeline gas/liquid flow rate and for a flow rate increased by 45 percent. It was found that the maximum height of the liquid in the separation fingers increased significantly when the flow rate was increased but no catastrophic overflow of liquid into the gas outlet was found. As a result, it was concluded that the existing slug catcher will be able to cope with the increased pipeline capacity (blue represents gas and red represents liquid):

Figure10: Transient adaptive meshing to resolve the gasliquid interface, REFERENCES [1] Bendiksen, K.H., The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: theory and Application, SPE [2] [3] [4] [5]
Production Engineering, May 1992, Pages: 171-180 Norris, H.L, Simulation of Reveals Conditions for Onshore Arctic Gas-Condensate Pipeline, Oil and Gas Journal, Nov. 17, 2003, Pages: 68-73 Huntley, A.R., Hydrodynamic Analysis Aids Slug Catcher Design, Oil and Gas Journal, September 19, 1983, Pages: 95-100 Daniels, L., Dealing with Two-Phase Flows, Chemical Engineering Journal, June 1995, Pages: 70-78 Bos, A., Simulation of Gas/Liquid Flow in Slug Catchers, SPE Production Engineering, August 1987, Pages: 178-132

[6] Saba, N., and Lahey, R.T., The analysis of Phase Separation Phenomena in Branch
Conduits, International journal of Multiphase Flow, 1984, Volume 10, Pages: 1-10 [7] Azzopardi, B.J., The Effect of Flow Patterns on Two Phase Flow in T-Junction, International journal of Multiphase Flow, 1982, Volume 8, Pages 491-502 [8] Bernicot, M.F., A Slug-Length Distribution Law for Multiphase Transportation Systems, SPE Production Engineering, May 1991, Pages: 166-170 [9] Henry, J.R., Header Flow Maldistribution in Two-Phase Flow, HTFS Handbook, National Engineering Laboratory, July 1993 [10] Crowley, Ch.J, State of the Art Report on Multiphase Methods for Gas and Oil Pipelines, AGA Project, December, 1986 [11] Aspen HYSYS 2004 User Manual