Sei sulla pagina 1di 33

Background

Slug flow can pose serious problems to the designer and operator of two-phase flow
systems. Large and fluctuating rates of gas and liquid can severely reduce the production
and in the worst case shut down or damage topside equipment like separator vessels and
compressors. As a result, prediction of slug characteristics is essential for the optimal,
efficient and safe and economical feasible design and operation of two-phase gas-liquid
slug flow systems.

Abbreviations
Word

Explanation

Slug

A slug consists of a gas pocket and a liquid slug

Terrain slug

Long slug caused by a dip in the flowline

Hydrodynamic slug

Slug caused by hydrodynamic instabilities

Severe slugging

Usually used for terrain and riser-induced slugging

OLGA

Transient multiphase flow simulator developed by IFE and


Scandpower

Transient Flow

Time-dependent Flow

Slugging caused by operations


1 Slugging caused by pigging
Pigs are run through pipelines for a variety of reasons including: liquid inventory
control, maintenance and data logging, pipeline cleaning and de-waxing, and
inhibitor application. Baker and McDonald developed a quasi-transient model for
pigging in which the lengths and pressure drops were estimated and tracked with
time. Several investigators have modified the model, and these are again
included in the commercial steady state flow programs. The transient simulators
model the physics of pigging more rigorously and accurate than the steady state
simulators. The simpler models, however, give pretty good predictions.
To estimate the slug volume by hand, the designer can use the method
presented here. The pig and the slug in front of it move at a velocity that is equal
to the gas velocity behind the pig. When the liquid exits the line, the volume of
liquid ahead of the pig is equal to the liquid holdup in the line minus the amount
of leakage past the pig minus the amount of liquid produced while the pig is
traversing the pipeline.

2 Slugging at startup and blow-down


When a line is shut down, the liquid will drain to the low points in the line, and
when the line is restarted, this liquid may exit the line in the form of slugs. Slugs
may also form during depressurization due to high gas velocities. Transient
simulations can be used to estimate both of these types of slugs.
3 Slugging produced by transient effects
In addition to the mechanisms already discussed, slugs may be produced as a
result of transient effects such as pressure or flow rate changes. For example, if
a line operating in stratified flow is subjected to an increase in gas flow rate or
total production rate, one or more slugs may be produced as the equilibrium level
drops towards a new steady state condition. A transient multiphase flow program
must be used to estimate such transient effects.

Problems related to slugging


Problems that can be caused by slugging are:
1. Liquid overflow, separator
2. High pressure, separator
3. Overload on gas compressors
4. Rupture due to sudden opening of valves (waterhammer)
5. Pigging
6. Fatigue caused by repeating impact
7. High frictional pressure drop for hydrodynamic slugging
8. End of production when low flow rates
9. Production slop due to high static pressure changes due to long slugs.
These are treated below.
1 Liquid overflow
Liquid overflow in the separators can be a serious problem. The liquid level rises faster
than the separator can purge the liquid. The problem is connected to large-diameter, low
velocity pipelines.
2 High pressure
High pressure in the separator or near the outlet can be a serious safety problem. Large
amounts of gas can give high pressure in a small vessel/separator, and shutdown due to
overpressure.
3 Overload on gas compressors

Downstream components, like a compressor, might require steady gas flow rate. Slug
flow typically gives an oscillating gas flow rate, with very high rates at times. This is the
main reason for shutdown on Vallhall where the gas compressors need a relatively steady
inflow of gas.
4 Large pressure impacts
Slugs can create large pressure impacts, especially passing through valves or bends. If the
orifice is half the pipe-area, the slugs can cause pressure fifteen times higher than the tank
pressure. This can eventually lead to rupture.
Special care must be taken during start-up since liquid can be stored in the dips of the
pipeline. During start-up these liquid plugs will be blown towards the outlet and can
cause severe damage to the process equipment.
5 Pigging problems
A pig sweeps liquid in front, and can bring large amounts of liquid into the slug catcher
or separator, depending on the pipeline geometry and the pig velocity.
6 Fatigue
Mechanical fatigue is another problem. Repetitive slugs can cause mechanical failure at a
significantly lower impact than the maximum mechanical load [8]. Slug-loading data
coupled with S-N curves can determine fatigue life.
7 High frictional pressure loss
The slug flow regime (hydrodynamic) has a high frictional pressure loss compared to the
other flow regimes. Thus, a change in flow regime in long flow lines might give
increased flow capacity. Note, however, that hydrodynamic slugging in a flowline or riser
might reduce the danger of severe slugging.
8 End of production when low flow rates
At the end of the field life the production rates often go down. Since terrain slugging is
more likely to occur for low flow rates, slugging is especially a problem at the end of the
lifetime of a production system. An example is the Ekofisk line.

Slug phenomena
When liquid and gas are flowing together in a pipeline, the liquid can form slugs
that are divided by gas pockets. The formation of liquid slugs can be caused by a
variety of mechanisms:

1. Hydrodynamic effects (surface waves)


2. Terrain effects (dip in pipe layout)
3. Pigging
4. Startup and blow-down
5. Flow rate or pressure changes
Hydrodynamic slugs, in horizontal and near horizontal pipes, are formed by
waves growing on the liquid surface for a height sufficient to completely fill the
pipe. In vertical pipes the hydrodynamic slugs are ascociated with Taylor
bubbles. The hydrodynamic slugging is difficult to prevent since it occurs over a
wide range of flow conditions. The repeating impacts of hydrodynamic slugging
can cause fatigue. It can therefore be useful to predict the slug volume, velocity,
and frequency of such slugs. Furthermore, several hydrodynamic slugs can
gather together due to terrain effects, creating larger slugs.
Terrain slugging is typically created near a dip in a flowline, well, or riser, and can
in principle only occur if there is downward flow. For purely riser-induced
slugging, the liquid does not move until gas pressure behind the blockage builds
up high enough to push the liquid out of the low spot as a slug. Large flow rates
initiated by severe slugs can cause major problems for topside equipment like
separator vessels and compressors. Understanding and controlling the
phenomena might prevent shutdowns and lost production.
Initially, hydrodynamic slugs are relatively short, however, the slugs can gather
together to form longer slugs, and terrain slugs can be hundreds of meters long.
During the life span of a pipeline riser-pipe system, both hydrodynamic slugs and
terrain slugs can be present. Usually, in the early and the large stages of
production, terrain slugging would be expected because of low flow rates, while
normal slug flow would be expected for the rest of the time.
Other types of slugging are initiated by pipeline operations. Pigging of a pipeline
causes most of the liquid inventory to be pushed from the line as a liquid slug
ahead of the pig. Shut down of a line will drain the liquid that is left in the line
down to the low points. During restart the accumulated liquid can exit the pipeline
as a slug. Also, increasing or decreasing the flow rate of either gas or liquid leads
to a change in liquid holdup. This can come out in the form of a slug, depending
on the flow rate.

Hydrodynamic slugging

Figure 1: Schematic view of a slug system with gas pocket, liquid slug, and total
slug unit.
Gas and liquid flowing slowly in a horizontal pipe will flow in a stratified pattern.
Increasing the flow rates, waves will be created, and the liquid might touch the
top of the pipe creating liquid slugs separated by gas pockets (Figure 1). The gas
can also be dispersed as bubbles. In vertical flow the liquid can flow like a thin
annular film on the pipe wall. Different flow patterns occur for different flow rates
of gas and liquid, depending on the density, the pipe inclination, the diameter,
and the pressure. Flow-pattern maps are treated in the Flow regime map
section.
Hydrodynamic or normal slug flow occurs at moderate gas and liquid flow rates,
and hence is commonly encountered in multiphase pipelines. Hydrodynamic
slug-flow is characterized by a series of Taylor bubbles (gas pockets) separated
by liquid slugs as shown in Figure 1. In upward flow, the Taylor bubbles are
symetrical.
The average slug length is a complex function of many variables: the diameter
and length of the pipeline, the topography of the line, the gas and liquid
velocities, the liquid physical properties, and the gas density. Here we will
discuss the phenomena. See the Slug-length model section for model
recommendations.
A rule of thumb says that the slug length is equal to 32 times the pipe diameter D
[10]. This is the minimum stable slug length. Experimental work [10] found slug
lengths between 12 to 30 times the pipe diameter, and showed how the slug
length decreased with superficial air velocity and pressure. Dukler found slug
length to be 20 times the pipe diameter.
Geometrical effects can make the slugs grow or disappear. Most of the
correlations for slug flow are based solely on laboratory data, which means they
are of limited use in design of pipelines in the field. A few correlation methods are
based on field data. Two of those, the Brill et al. correlation and the Hill and
Wood method, have been widely used for slug length predictions. The Brill
correlation gives a slug length of about 300-350 times the pipe diameter.
Experiments have shown that the maximum slug length depends on where in the
slug regime the flow is. Near the elongated bubble transition the maximum slug

lengths are ca. 2 times the mean, while it is 4-5 times the mean near the stratified
wavy boundary.
The slug velocity can be calculated from gas and liquid flow rates if the void
fraction is known which is usually not the case. However, in a horizontal line the
mean velocity of the liquid in the body of the slug is approximately equal to the
mixture velocity, see Slug-load model section for calculation details, while near
the outlet (separator) the slug velocity can vary significantly, and the variations
increase with decreasing slug length.
The void content of the liquid slug (Figure 1) can be as high as 0.5 volume
fraction down to 0.1. There are a number of approximate correlations for the
liquid hold-up in slugs. Some of these are presented in the Slug-load model
section, but none of these are accurate, and this is still an area of research.
The slug void (volume) fraction or amount of gas in the liquid slug increases
appreciably with the gas density [21]. Also the liquid viscosity is important. Oil
slugs will usually contain more gas than water slugs. An exception is low velocity
flow in large diameter pipes (D>0.1 m).
The length of the gas pocket increases with increasing gas superficial velocity
and pressure [10], and the total unit length can be from 50 to 1000 pipe
diameters. Thus the gas pocket varies much more in length than the liquid slug.
The void fraction in gas bubble is between 0.9-0.3 [11]. For the slug unit: the
higher viscosity, the lower average void fraction [11].
Water in the oil has an effect on the slug frequency of gas-liquid flow. Herm,
Stapelberg, and Mewes [6] measured this in a horizontal loop keeping the liquid
flow rate constant but varying the relative amount of oil and water. The slug
frequency was three times lower in water-oil-gas flow compared to only oil-gas.
For water-gas flow the slug frequency was also low, but generally higher than for
the three-phase mixture.

Riser instability
The following instability phenomena can occur in a riser

Sever slugging (Type A)


Transitonal severe slugging, which includes two types (Type B-C)
Quasi-stable or oscillation flow (Type D)
Casing-heading instability
Well instability or instabilities caused by oscillating inlet rates

The severe slugging cycle is characterized by a noticeable period of constant liquid


production followed by a large transient as the liquid column is blown out. Requirement
for existence is that the liquid penetrates into the pipeline.
The transitional severe slugging includes Type B and Type C. Type B is qualitatively
similar to the severe slugging Type A, but without the constant production period and
often an incomplete blowdown of the riser. During Type C transitional slugging the riser
base is penetrated by gas prior to the liquid filling the whole riser. These instability
phenomena can only exist if the flow is unstable as defined by the B criterion.
The oscillation flow is a result of oscillatory void fraction in the riser and flowline. This
process does resemble severe slugging, but lacks the spontaneous vigorous blowout
which is characteristic of severe slugging. The requirement of existence is that the flow is
quasi-stable.
The casing-heading instability is related to gas injection. The volume of gas can be large,
and the pressures in the riser and gas line (often annulus) are coupled dynamically.
Well instability will give varying inlet rates in the riser, and this can resemble severe
slugging.
The three slug phenomena were also described by Taitel (1996) who draw the flow map
in Figure 2. The map displays for which flow rates there can be instabilities in a riser with
water and air at near atmospheric conditions. The lines A to D represent the flow ratelimits (superficial velocities) for the instability phenomena. Riser instability can occur to
the left and below the lines A to D; or more precisely to the left of Line A, below Line B,
left of Line C, and below Line D. The flow map in Figure 2 indicates that riser
instabilities occur for low gas flow rates and moderate liquid flow rates.

Figure 2: Occurrence of severe slugging in an air-water system at 25 C; PS=0.1Mpa,


D=2.54 cm, l_9.1 m, L=5.1m, h=3 m, =-5 deg.
The severe slugging that consists of one riser and one pipeline is perhaps one of the
simplest examples of slug flow under non-steady conditions. A summary of the stability
analysis is presented using an example of a typical flow map shown in Figure 2. This map
contains four boundaries A-D:

A-the B criterion,
B-the stability criterion,
C-the steady-state stability criterion, and
D-the transition to steady flow inside the B criterion.

The B criterion differentiates quite well between steady and cyclic operations with two
exceptions. At high liquid flow rates a steady flow can also exist within the severe
slugging region predicted by the Boe criterion (above boundary D). Also there is a region
outside the B criterion that is an unsteady state and leads to unsteady oscillations
(between boundaries C and A).
In real production systems and long risers the stability criteria (A-D) have shown their
limited applicability, particularly as pressure increases. The only condition that seems to
be rigid is the stratified condition saying that there cannot be riser-induced slugging
unless there is stratified flow in the pipeline just upstream of the riser.

Terrain-induced slugging

Figure 3. Terrain-induced slugging.


Terrain-induced slugging and riser-induced slugging are both classified as severe slugging, and
characterized by liquid accumulation at low points. The gas upstream is compressed until it
overcomes the gravitational head of the liquid, thereby creating a long liquid slug that is pushed in
front of the expanding gas upstream.
To obtain terrain slugging, the flow must be stratified in a downward inclined pipe before a low
point. This is because the slug phenomenon is dependent on a large, compressible volume.
Further, the pipeline must have downward flow at some location. It is also worth noticing that
terrain slugging occurs for relatively low liquid and gas flow rates [17,19]. Criteria for when you
will get severe slugging are presented in the Criteria section.
Slug formation will, on average, occur when the depth of liquid in the low point of the dip exceeds
a certain critical value (depending on the gas flow rate). The frequency of severe slugging will
also depend on the length of the upstream pipeline. It takes a relatively long time to compress the
gas in a long pipeline [8].
For riser-induced slugging, a rough rule says that the slug length is equal to one to three riser
depths. However, this is probably not correct for deep water down to 2000 meter. See the Slug
length model section for model recommendations.
During production the length and velocity of a slug can be estimated by monitoring the pressure
variation at the outlet of the pipeline [2]. Measurements have shown that the flow velocities vary
significantly during severe slugging, yet, the velocity follows a symmetrical normal distribution [8].
The void fraction of a terrain slug can be very low and much lower than for hydrodynamic
slugging due to the different mechanisms creating the two types of slugging. I.e. assume zero
void fraction for design purpose.

In a riser, the slug will decelerate as the line upstream of the slug packs up to provide the
pressure to overcome the increasing hydrostatic head in the riser. As the slug leaves the riser the
hydrostatic head loss in the riser reduces so that the upstream gas bubble expands and
accelerates the slug into the separator.
Figure 4 presents the volume flow at the outlet of a riser. There is no liquid flow while the slug is
generated. Figure 5 shows the pressure for the same case. The pressure builds up during slug
generation, and goes down during bubble penetration. The last peak is caused by the gas in
solution. Moving towards lower pressure, gas comes out of solution and gives a lift effect. Vertical
forces on a bend are shown in Figure 6. These forces are large during bubble penetration.

Figure 4: Liquid volume produced and gas-flow rate during a severe slug cycle for a full-scale
pipeline riser-pipe system [17].

Figure 5: Average pipeline pressure during a severe slug flow cycle for a full-scale pipeline riserpipe system [17].

Figure 6: Pressure and force on a bend caused by severe slugging [8].

Procedure for slug prediction


1. Secure information on pipe profile, fluid (density, GOR, etc.), and production profile
(Pressure, flow rates, temperature). See Slug criteria and Slug growth further down for
terrain slugging explains and the importance of pipe profile.
2. Define system boundaries for analysis, definition of problems and selection of problem
solutions. For example is it important to determine whether the wells and the near well
inflow must be included to understand the behavior of the system.
3. Find if there is both gas and liquid at operating conditions. If there is no gas anywhere
in the pipe, there is (off course) no gas-liquid slug.
4. Explore the flow regimes at different locations and instances in the pipe and production
profile. This can be done using Flow-regime maps. Remember that it is required to have
stratified flow upstream the riser to get severe slugging in the riser.
5. Choose cases where the flow-regime map has stratified flow in a downward section,
and continue exploring these. Stratified flow before a dip shows that there can be terrain
slugging, and also that several hydrodynamic slugs can gather together to longer slugs.
Watch therefore also up for hydrodynamic slug flow using the Flow regime map tool.
6. Check stability

a) For a riser or similar: In case of stratified flow in a downward part just before
the riser, check the Stability criterion. Notice that the B stability criterion is
very conservative.
b) Check if hydrodynamic slugs can grow. Hydrodynamic slugs can gather
together in a downward section and create large slugs. If it is likely that the slugs
can grow, perform transient calculations (OLGA) for flow rates and pressures in
the critical zone.

7. Check for Unstable flow. A well or riser is stable when the frictional forces is larger
than the hydrodynamic.
8. Check for other types of slugging (Pigging, shutdown, startup, and transient). Again,
the flow-regime diagrams can be of use to understand the problem. Then perform
transient simulations only of cases with a potential slugging problem.
9. If slugging, check if the slugs can be handled by the existing design. Calculate Slug
lengths, Slug frequencies, and Slug loads at critical locations (near the outlet or near
fragile elements).
10. If the slugs cannot be handled

List alternative solutions, see Slug mitigation and prevention.


Determine if the slugging problem can be solved solely by slug control without
any design impacts. This requires solely software, i.e. not even new control
valves, and no reduction in production.
Investigate an alternative design repeating from Point 1 or 3.

Slug criteria
Riser-induced slugging can only occur if there is:
1. Downward section with Stratified flow right upstream the riser (upward
section).
2. Slug growth possible in the upward section
3. Unstable flow in the upward section
4. No annular flow in the upward section
All of these four points must be satisfied for a terrain slug to occur. Note that
these criteria holds locally, thus if you are investigating at a location far away
from the separator, slugs can still grow or dissipate before reaching the
separator.
A stability map is based on criterias for slugging as shown in the figure below,
figure 7. This stability map, developed by Schmidt et al. [17] is a combination of a
regular flow-regime map and stability analysis.Severe slugging can only occur
below Line 1 and to the left of both Lines 3 and 2, thus for this example to the left
of Line 2. The lines represent the three first Slug criteria: stratified flow, slug
growth, and unstable flow, respectively.

Figure 7: Riser-pipe flow pattern map for a downward pipeline inclination of 2


percent, and with analytical predicted boundaries. Superficial gas and liquid
velocities were measured at separator condition of 1.93 bar [17].

Stratified flow
Severe slugging will (usually) only occur if there is stratified flow in a downward section
just upstream of an upward section or riser. This criterion should be checked using a
flow-regime map.
Notice that hydrodynamic slugging in the downward section prevents riser-induced
slugging since it is caused by gas compression before the riser. Hydrodynamic slugs have
small continuous gas volumes. This prevents the buildup of terrain slugs.

Slug growth
Several criteria for slug growth in a riser have been developed. They are based on
balancing the gravitational forces against the pressure in the bottom and top part of a
riser.
The criteria of B is the simplest, and a very conservative criteria saying that slugging
can occur if:

Equation 1
ULS and UGS represent superficial liquid and gas velocities, Pp is the upstream pressure,
alpha is the average upstream void fraction (in the stratified part), L is the length of the
pipe, and beta is the inclination angle of the upward riser. This criterion is usually very
conservative, and should be used as a first check. Be aware that the system does not
necessarily slug although the B criterion is satisfied.
Fuchs [2] developed a more refined criterion. Like B he uses the pressure balance over
the riser in his analysis, but then he differentiate this. His analysis shows that the slugging
tendency of pipeline-riser systems is in general governed by a non-dimensional terrainslugging parameter that combines the pressure with the relevant system and fluid
properties. As the pressure increases, the terrain slugging region in the flow map shrinks
and the slugging mechanism changes.
The criterion of Fuchs for slug growth says that terrain slugging can occur if:

Equation 2
where
: terrain slugging parameter
: pressure upstream
: pressure downstream
: volume gas upstream
: volume gas downstream
: riser-pipe cross section
: riser angle to the horizontal
: density gas

: liquid hold-up in slug


: liquid hold-up in riser entrance section
: superficial gas velocity at riser base
: superficial liquid velocity at riser base
: superficial gas velocity in feed stream
: superficial liquid velocity in feed stream
This criterion is less conservative, but require more input parameters than the B
criterion. It should be tested when the B criterion predicts possible slugging. Other
criteria, like the one developed by Taitel, are more conservative than the one of Fuchs,
but less than the B criterion, and can also be used as a check.

Unstable flow
Slugging can occur due to unsteady flow in a riser, well or similar. Then, an increase in
gas flow-rate results in an increase in pressure. This is the case if the system pressure-loss
becomes dominated by hydrostatic head loss, rather than by friction. This is usually the
case for the non-choked pipeline-riser. In order to establish a stable, friction-dominated
system, a choke near the top of the riser can provide a pressure drop comparable to the
hydrostatic head loss over the riser when full of liquid.

Figure 8: Stable and unstable regions of well performance with and without choke.

Producing wells need sufficient reservoir pressure in order to produce with liquid in the
upward section. The well-performance relationship (pressure plotted as a function of flow
rate) has an unstable region for low flow rates and a stable region for high flow rates. The
well performance is the solid line in Figure 8. From the shape of this well-performance
curve, we see that two different pressures can give the same wellhead pressure. The high
flow rate implies steady flow, while a low flow rate will give an unsteady solution with
pressure diverging away from the original solution. This can result in slugging or a dying
well. A wellhead choke will alter the well performance such that the unstable region gets
smaller as shown by the dashed line in Figure 8.

The limit for unstable flow can be found calculating the gas flow rate corresponding to
the minimum pressure drop for different liquid flow rates (including the choke). An
expression or correlation for the pressure drop is needed. In general the well is stable if,
[4]:

Equation 3

No annular flow
The Taitel-Dukler-Barnea criterion for the onset of annular flow provides a good estimate
of the quantity of gas required eliminating severe slugging. This criterion can be used for
gas-lift calculation. The method predicts that the transition from annular flow occurs at
superficial velocities in excess of a critical value given by

Equation 4
Where is the surface tension, g is the gravity, G and L are the gas and liquid densities.

Slug lengths
This guideline gives recommendations for how to predict the slug length of slugs
created by

Hydrodynamic effects
Terrain

Riser
Pigging
Start-up and transients

Average slug length is a complex function of many variables: the diameter and
length of the pipeline, the topography of the line, the gas and liquid velocities, the
liquid physical properties, and the gas density.
Slug length is an important quantity in separator design and control. A usual
design practice is to find the volume of the large slugs and design a separator or
slug catcher able to handle this.
Hydrodynamic slugs have a length of about 32 times the pipe diameter. This
should be used to estimate the slug length in a straight, completely horizontal
pipeline. See the section Hydrodynamic slug phenomena. Note that the terrain
will make the slugs grow or dissipate.
In flowlines in the terrain there will be geometrical effects that can make the
slugs grow or disappear. For example, several slugs can gather together in a
downward part of the pipe and create longer slugs.
Most correlations for slug prediction are based solely on laboratory data, which
means they are of limited use in design of pipelines in the field. A few correlation
methods have been presented based on field data. Two of those, the Brill et al.
correlation and the Hill and Wood method, have been widely used for slug length
predictions.
Hill and Wood developed a formula for a near horizontal pipeline, making the
conservative assumption that all the liquid flows in the slug unit. This assumption
lead to the result:

Equation 5
Where

is the superficial liquid velocity HS is the holdup in the liquid slug, and

is the slug frequency from Equation 9 measured in Hz.


Brill and Scott [10,20] analyzed tests in large diameter pipelines at Prudhoe Bay
and found the mean slug length to be:

Equation 6

This gives a slug length of Ls=300-350 times the pipe diameter. The formula is
based on field tests at Prudhoe Bay Field with pipes with inner diameter D=24
combined with lab tests. The above slug-length correlation has become the
industry standard design method, and has been used extensively by oil
companies and contractors since 1979.
Maximum slug length and statistical variations are important parameters. Using
the limited PBU data, Brill et al. had concluded that slug lengths followed a
lognormal distribution. Hence the Brill correlation always calculates the maximum
slug length to be 4.7 times the mean. However, near the elongated bubble
transition maximum slug lengths are only ca. 2 times the mean while it is 4-5
times the mean near the stratified wavy boundary. A distribution that has shown
to be good is the lambda distribution with a power of 0.8.
Riser-induced slugs are usually between one to three times the riser depth.
However, this might not be the case for very deep water down to 2000 meter, nor
for wells.
The available design methods for slug phenomena are known to significantly
over-predict the slug size. A mechanistic model or a transient program can be
used in the more detailed design phase.
Pigging can be estimated by commercial available programs, like Olga. To
estimate the slug volume by hand, the designer can use the following method.
The pig and the slug in front of it move at a velocity that is equal to the gas
velocity behind the pig. For a first approximation, this velocity can be assumed to
be equal to the mixture velocity. The export time of the pig would therefore be:

where ttrans is the transit time for the pig, L is the pipeline length, and
is the
average mixture velocity. This assumes that the pigging is performed during
production. The value for
given an appropriate value.

when the flow is stoped is an unknown that must be

When the liquid exits the line, the volume of liquid ahead of the pig is equal to the
liquid holdup in the line minus the amount of leakage past the pig minus the
amount of liquid produced while the pig is traversing the pipeline or:
,
Equation 7
resulting in a liquid slug length LS=Vslug/A. The value of fleak is dependent on
the type of pig and the pig velocity. In lack of better data use fleak=0.02.

Start-up and transient slugging can be found using a transient program. But
first, study whether such slugging can occur.
OLGA slug tracking model reproduces slug length distributions similar to those
obtained in field measurements [15], however somewhat shorter [8]. The
multiphase flow simulator OLGA can also be used to predict hydrodynamic slugs,
but gives too small slug length, or about 40 % smaller than real. Use flow-regime
map and stability criteria to study whether the case is slugging before running
Olga.

Slug frequency and slug loads


This section shows alternative models for slug frequency both

for hydrodynamic slugging, and


in real flowlines in the terrain

For hydrodynamic slugging there are several formulas for the frequency. The
OLGA manual [23] gives a formula by Shea for predicting the slug frequency:

Equation 8
where L = slug unit length, D is the inner diameter, and USL is the superficial
liquid velocity. This formula is derived for slug generation in straight pipelines.
In real flowlines in the terrain the slug frequency is also dependent on the
geometry and slug growth. T.J. Hill and D.G. Wood [1] presented a method to
predict slug frequency. This model is applicable to near horizontal systems. The
resulting best-fit average slug frequency equation, equation (3), was
determined using a double exponential bounded approach. This proved to be the
most suitable of a number of equation-forms investigated on the combination of
different data sets. This method should also be used in the Hill and Wood sluglength estimate.

Equation 9
where
: equilibrium stratified liquid-holdup
Equation 10
Zabaras [5] examined various methods proposed in the literature for predicting
the slugging frequency in horizontal and inclined pipes. These included both
empirical correlations as well as mechanistic models. A total of eight published
methods were compared to slug flow frequency data but none was found
satisfactory.
For this reason the mechanistic slug frequency model of Taitel and Dukler (1977)
was investigated in detail. The calculations according to this model required the
solution of unsteady-state equations for mass and momentum by a finite
difference technique. This numerical model gave satisfactory results at the
expense of computer CPU time. For faster slug frequency calculations a new
correlation, Equation 11, was developed using all the data points. It represents
significant improvement in slug frequency prediction accuracy over the other
methods studied and is therefore recommended for routine slug frequency
calculations.

Equation 11
where
: superficial gas velocity
: pipe inclination angle (positive for upward inclined pipelines)

: gravity constant
The Taitel and Dukler model is recommended for calculating slug frequencies
particularly so for flow conditions outside the available slug flow data (i.e.
diameter larger than 8 inches, liquid viscosity larger than 10 cp, etc.).
Riser-induced slug frequency is extremely dependent on the geometry
upstream of the riser. Formation of terrain slugs will, on average, occur when the
depth of liquid in the low point of the dip exceeds a certain critical value
(depending on the gas flow rate). The frequency of severe slugging will also
depend on the length of the upstream pipeline. This is shown by the B sluggrowth criteria Equation 1, which is dependent on the pipeline length. Typical
slugging periods are some minutes to several hours. It takes a relatively long
time to compress the gas in a long pipeline [8].
Pigging, start-up, and transient slugs are caused by operations. Thus, the slug
frequency depends on how often the well or pipeline is exposed to start-up,
pigging, or rate changes.
OLGA slug-tracking model gives a higher slug frequency than observed in
measurements [8]. Note also that OLGA is appropriate for near horizontal cases,
however, in general the model is not as good for vertical and deviated wells due
to limited empirical data.
Three parameters are important when calculating the slug load. That is

the slug length,


the slug velocity, and
the density or holdup of the slug.

The two later will be discussed here.


Hydrodynamic slug velocity can be calculated from gas and liquid flow rates if
the void fraction is known (which is usually not the case). However, in a
horizontal line the mean velocity of the liquid in the body of the slug is
approximately equal to the mixture velocity, hence the slug velocity is:

Equation 12
A more refined formula, including slip and buoyancy effects, is

Equation 13

One of these two equations should be used when evaluating the forces imposed
by a slug as it travels through a bend. Note, however that near the outlet
(separator) the slug velocity can vary significantly, and the variations increase
with decreasing slug length.
In a riser, the slug will decelerate as the line upstream of the slug packs up to
provide the pressure to overcome the increasing hydrostatic head in the riser. As
the slug leaves the riser the hydrostatic head loss in the riser reduces so that the
upstream gas bubble expands and accelerates the slug into the separator. This
can be modeled in a dynamic program.
The void content of a liquid slug can be as high as 0.5 volume fraction down to
0.1. This has implications for the slug impact. There are a number of approximate
correlations for the liquid hold-up in hydrodynamic slugs. One of the most
common is that of Gregory

Equation 14
This formula can have an error of about 50%.
The slug void fraction or amount of gas in the liquid slug increases appreciably
with the gas density [21]. Also the liquid viscosity is important. Oil slugs will
usually contain more gas than water slugs. An exception is low velocity flow in
large diameter pipes (D>0.1 m).
Note that for terrain slugging the void fraction of the liquid slug is much lower
than for hydrodynamic slugging due to the different mechanisms creating the two
types of slugging. A conservative approach is to assume only liquid in a terrain
slug.

Effect of fluid composition


Gas-liquid ratio
GOR (Gas-Oil ratio) is defined as the volume of gas produced at STP (15 C and 1
atmosphere) per volume of oil produced also at STP. When the pressure is increased gas
is dissolved into the oil. The amount of dissolved gas depends on the pressure (the higher
pressure the more gas is dissolved), the temperature (the higher temperature, the less gas
is dissolved) and the type of oil (the heavier oil, the less gas is dissolved).
In the reservoir, the oil is either saturated or under-saturated. If it is saturated, the oil is at
its bubble point and a small drop in pressure or a small increase in temperature will give

formation of bubbles. If there is a gas cap over the oil, the oil in the reservoir will be near
to saturated. If there is no gas-cap, the oil may be highly under-saturated such that the
pressure is much higher than the bubble point pressure of the oil. Liberation of free gas
may then not occur before the oil has reached the riser. In this situation, there is little
chance of getting severe slugging in the riser. This is the case for shallow oil reservoirs in
deep water.
If there is a gas cap present, gas production may occur from gas coning in addition to
the gas dissolved and liberated from the oil. In this case the GOR can be up to many
thousand, while with only dissolved + liberated gas (sometimes called associated gas)
GOR is normally in the range of 50-150 Sm/Sm. Heavy oils like Troll and Dalia has
GOR of 55-70 Sm/Sm.
When water production starts, the fraction of is reduced and as a result the volume of gas
is reduced too. With 100 % watercut (defined as the volume of water produced at STP per
volume of liquid (water + oil) produced at STP). With 100 % watercut, and no coned gas
from a gas-cap, then only water is produced plus the small volume of gas dissolved and
liberated in the water. As a rough rule of thumb, the dissolved volume of gas in water is
P/100 Sm gas per Sm of water, with P the pressure in bara.
The possibility of severe slugging is highly related to the gas-liquid ratio (GLR) and to
the pressure P. The ratio GLR/P indicates volume fraction gas and liquid. With mainly
liquid present it is low chance of getting severe slugging, because the system will be to
stiff. With mainly gas it is also low chance of getting severe slugging. This is understood
from the Boe-criterion. However, although severe slugging does not occur with high
volume fraction, fluctuations in holdup and/or hydrodynamic slugging may still be a
problem.
Flashing
Gas liberation (flashing) has major effects on the severe slugging behavior during the
different cycles as described in the following: During the liquid build-up phase the liquid
sees constant pressure as it flows up in the riser because of constant liquid column above.
When the riser is filled with liquid, the liquid from the flowline continues to flow into the
riser, but as this liquid is rising it does not have a constant height of liquid column above
itself. It sees a reducing pressure during the rising, thus flashing will occur. The liberated
gas bubbles soon fills the whole riser such the density of the fluid in the riser and the
back-pressure will fall. Then the liquid in the flowline also starts to flash giving
additional gas-lift effect.
For deep risers this gaslift effect gives a rapidly increasing flowrate. This gives a rapid
expansion in the flowline such that shortly after, the reducing flowline pressure more than
counteracts the increasing gas-lift effect and the flowrate starts to drop again. Hence a
first peak in outlet flowrate occurs, as seen in the Example Case. This first peak of the
liquid blowout is suggested called "flashing blowout".

After this first peak, an equilibrium situation occurs with a balance between the two
effects: reducing flowline pressure which gives reducing flow and increased volume
fraction of gas in the riser due to the gas liberation with reducing pressure. This gives a
fairly constant liquid rate out of the riser until the gas pocket reaches the riser bottom.
When this occurs, the remaining liquid in the riser is rapidly blown out giving the second
peak of the liquid blow-out phase.
Notice that a higher content of water implies less flashing.

Geometric effects
This section discusses how slugging is influenced by:

Flowline geometry
Riser height and shape
Diameter
Choking and friction

Flowline geometry
Severe slugging is likely to occur if there is:

Downward dip before the riser.


Long pipeline before the riser.

The stability analysis showed how the pipeline length was an important factor for
stability. The conclusion was that the deeper water, the longer pipeline is needed to get
severe slugging in the riser.
Furthermore, a downward slope with stratified flow upstream the riser is an absolute
requirement for severe slugging Type A. Severe slugging requires a liquid blockage,
which prevents the gas to flow up in the riser. The elevation profile must therefore be
such that a dip occurs in the system. On the other hand, the other types of riser-induced
slugging (B-D) can occur without this requirement. For example, especially in long
risers, at low flow rates liquid fallback that will resemble severe slugging may occur
regardless of a dip.
The worst location for a dip, with respect to severe slugging, is at the riser base. If the
wells are located near to the riser, a dip at the Xmastree is the same as a dip at the riser
base. Possible locations for a dip that may cause severe slugging are:

In the well (U-shaped or horizontal with dips upstream the vertical section)
On the Xmastree. Normally the piping on the tree is vertical downwards, i.e. a
dip, just after the production wing valve.
In the flowline or pipe between the tree and the manifold
On the manifold piping itself. Often the dispatcher valves (= well routing valves)
are located on high points above the manifold header (to ensure water drainage
and/or to get easy access with ROV). Consequently there is a vertical downward
pipe the dispatcher valve to the manifold header.
On the gathering line
On the riser base piping
In flexible risers
In flexible connection lines between a riser tower and a floating platform

Riser height and shape


Riser height will most certainly have an effect on the slugging phenomena as discussed
earlier The shape of the riser will also play a role. There are different riser shapes:
straight upright, S-shape, caternary with a long curvature, and hybrides that is a
combination. The sections on riser-stability treated straight upright risers showing that the
slugging phenomena were dependent on the riser height in combination with the length of
the pipeline upstream of the riser.
The caternary shape will most certainly influence on the stability-limits. Relatively longer
risers compared to a conventional riser at the same depth gives increased friction. There
will also be different slip between the phases in the bottom of the risers compared to a
vertical riser. A third effect is the effect of not having a steep angle of the riser at riser
base. These effects must be considered for slugging in steel-caternary risers.
In S-shaped risers the special shape will influence riser-induced slugs. Despite this fact,
instabilities in S-risers are classified in the same categorized as for vertical risers: Severe
slugging, Transitional severe slugging, which includes two types, and Oscillation flow
(Montgomery and Yeung 2000). The Severe slugging has the same characteristics as in
vertical risers. So does the Transitional severe slugging Type B. But in the Transitional
severe slugging Type C, there are a clear interaction between the two upward sections.
The same is the case for Oscillating flow that is a rather complex phenomenon in Sshaped risers.

Effect of riser diameter


As with oversized well tubing, too large riser give excess gravity pressured drop and
instability problems. In addition, riser induced severe slugging may be a result of too

large riser, but as described in the basic theory, large riser size can actually prevent severe
slugging (ref Boe criterion and the PI-ss criterion) on the cost of increased pressure drop
due to high liquid holdup.
The subject of multiphase flow in large diameter risers is not well understood with nearly
all of the available data having been collected from experiments with diameters less than
about 2 inches, and none above 6-8 inches. For the offshore oil and gas industry, current
design procedure relies on the tenuous extrapolation of correlations based on the results
from these small diameter pipes to the larger diameter risers used in practice.
As the industry moves into deeper waters the probable departure between the predictions
of the current models and physical reality casts significant doubt on the reliability of
future designs. The new systems may experience severe operability problems, or may
even be inoperable due to slugging, stability or pressure drop considerations.
It is reasonable to believe that large-diameter risers will give a different flow
characteristics than small ones. Professor Hewitt at Imperial College believes there will
be less hydrodynamic slugging and more annular flow in vertical large-diameter risers
than in smaller diameters, while Professor Nydal at NTNU claims more hydrodynamic
slugging. To find out more about this it is possible to either do large-scale experiments or
3-d simulations.

Effect of choking and increased friction


As mentioned slugging can occur due to unsteady flow in a riser, well or similar. Lines B
and C in Figure 5 represent stability limits. A more refined consideration would also
include friction and choke in the calculations. Then, an increase in gas flow-rate results in
an increase in pressure. This is the case if the system pressure-loss becomes dominated by
hydrostatic head loss, rather than by friction. This is usually the case for the non-choked
pipeline-riser. In order to establish a stable, friction-dominated system, a choke near the
top of the riser can provide a pressure drop comparable to the hydrostatic head loss over
the riser when full of liquid.
This can be illustrated by an example from well performance. Producing wells need
sufficient reservoir pressure in order to produce with liquid in the upward section. The
well-performance relationship (pressure plotted as a function of flow rate) has an unstable
region for low flow rates and a stable region for high flow rates. The well performance is
the solid line in Figure 8. From the shape of this well-performance curve, we see that two
different pressures can give the same wellhead pressure. The high flow rate implies
steady flow, while a low flow rate will give an unsteady solution with pressure diverging
away from the original solution. This can result in slugging or a dying well. A wellhead
choke will alter the well performance such that the unstable region gets smaller

Flow regime maps


The most commonly used flow-regime map was developed by Taitel and Dukler
[22], and has gas and liquid superficial velocities at the axis. The map is based
on transition laws between the flow regimes. It was first derived for horizontal
flow, and then extended to vertical and inclined flows by Barnea [1]. The flow
pattern is dependent on density, pressure, inclination angle, and diameter in
addition to gas and liquid velocities.
As mentioned, a flow-regime map is an excellent tool to test for hydrodynamic
slugging. Such a map should also be used to see whether there is stratified flow,
which again can lead to slug growth and terrain slugging.
Using a flow-regime map, you should also be aware of the weak points:

History effects are not included. This means, for example, that the flow
map will predict the same flow regime just after a bend, dip, or similar, as
in a straight pipeline.
Due to a lack of experimental data, a flow-regime map is neither very
accurate for negative pipe-inclinations, nor for positive inclinations
between 10-85 degrees.
Transient flow regimes are neither well understood, nor classified.
Transition zones between the flow regimes are uncertain. A reason for this
is that the flow patterns are usually categorized by visual observations.

ABB NOCRC has an inhouse program developed by Morud [13] and based on
the theory of Taitel, Dukler, and Barnea [1,22]. The program predicts the flow
regimes for different flow rates and inclination angles.

Figure 9: Flow-regime program of Morud for vertical flow.

Slug mitigation and prevention


Slug handeling methods are classified in the Description section and listed here:

1. Active slug control of surface chokes or control valves with Active Flowline Control
2. Active control of subsea chokes
3. Increasing the flowline pressure
4. Increasing the flow velocity
5. Riser base gas lift
6. Gaslift in the wells
7. Fixed topside choking
8. Modified flowline layout and/or riser base geometry to avoid a dip
9. Combined optimisation of geometry and active slug prevention control scheme
10. Changed geometry of flexible risers combined with dynamic positioning
11. Optimized well production and/or well routing
12. Pigging/sphering
13. Slug catchers
14. SepCon is a multivariable control method
15. Faster and better antisurge control
16. Slug damping by choking
17. Regular change of components
18. Increased process capacity

Note that the different slug prevention methods might only be useful to prevent one type
of slugging. For example, gas lift can prevent terrain slugging, but might even induce
more hydrodynamic slugging.
An obvious alternative to slug mitigation/prevention is simply to run the pipeline with the
slugs. This is an easy solution if the slugs are small enough so that the separator and
compressor system can handle the varying rates and the repeating impacts, or if there is a
slug catcher. Alternatively, the slug sizes can be reduced by changing pipe topology,
repeated pigging, gas lift, or by changing the flow conditions. Prevention of slugs is
another alternative. Changing the set point of the choke or using gas lift are two ways to
avoid terrain slugging.
In the early design, it is possible to influence on both the pipeline sizing and the layout.
However, at a later stage of the design phase there are fewer solutions to choose between.
Note that the problem with terrain slugging is often related to the start-up and the late
stage of the field production due to low flow rates. During the main production it is usual
to have a design away from this slug zone.

Descripiton
The following methods may totally prevent slugging or it may only reduce slugging:

Active slug control of surface chokes or control valves with Active Flowline
Control is a method that may totally prevent terrain slugging.
Active control of subsea chokes. The idea is to avoid severe slugging and/or
stabilize the wellhead pressure by frequent choke adjustments. The disadvantage
with this method is that the subsea actuator may wear out as a result of the
frequent actuation.
Increasing the flowline pressure. The operating envelope that gives slug-flow
decreases with increasing pressure and above a certain pressure slug flow does not
exist. This applies to both hydrodynamic and terrain induced slug-flow. The
reason for why increased pressure removes slugging is that the system becomes
less compressible, that the gas-liquid interfacial shear force and liquid droplet
entrainment rate increases. Another mechanism can be that the flow regime in the
pipeline section upstream the riser is changed from stratified to bubbly flow
(Noting again that stratified flow upstream the dip is required to get severe
slugging). To get this increased pressure extra choking topside must be done (see
point 7 on fixed topside choking). Extra choking topside has a negative effect on
separation due to formation of stable emulsions and/or small droplets with high
choke pressure drops.
Increasing the flow velocity, by increasing production or reducing the pipeline
size. This can be done using parallel pipelines to limit the turndown of a line.
When rates are low, the production can be fed to one of the lines to increase the
velocity and hence minimize slip and tendency for slugging. This requires that
excess pressure drop is available.

Riser base gas lift is a common technique to avoid slugging by continually lifting
liquid out of the riser, preventing the build-up of liquid and subsequent seal to the
gas flow. The location and geometry of the injection point is critical. If gas
injection is made on the horizontal section upstream the liquid blockage, the gas
may just flow backwards into the flowline. Then very high gas flowrates may be
required to prevent severe slugging (the GLR must be increased to get that a Boenumber > 1). It is normally better to inject gas on the vertical section downstream
the liquid blockage. Then the lift-gas rate must be sufficient that the liquid is
transported up the riser, but this rate is normally lower than to get a Boe-number >
1. Riser base gaslift will normally only prevent severe slugging. Hydrodynamic
slug will just be diluted and the massflow of liquid will be approximately the as
without gaslift. If the gas is injected through a large diameter and long pipe as
may be the case for deep risers, another type of instability may occur which is
similar to annulus heading in gas-lifted wells. On Dalia a 6 riser that could be
up to 3 km long with steel catenary risers was used for gaslift to one production
riser. This type of annulus-riser coupling may be controlled by ABB Industris
Active Well Control.
Gaslift in the wells can also be used to prevent slugging in the flowlines and riser.
The mechanism for slug prevention can be: a) increased velocity b) Increased
flowline pressure due to increased lift in the wells and c) Increased GLR such that
severe slugging can not occur according to the Boe criterion (Boe number > 1). If
there is a problem with "annulus heading" instability, active control by Active
Well Control should be considered.
Fixed topside choking can be used to prevent severe slugging by the following
mechanisms:
a) On closing the choke a position is reached whereby the frictional pressure drop
across the valve acts to stabilize the gas-liquid flow up the riser. Any acceleration
of liquid up the riser due to a decrease in liquid head in the riser caused the gas
bubble entering the base of the riser is counteracted by the increase in frictional
pressure drop across the valve as the liquid accelerates. The penalty of this way of
eliminating severe slugging is that the pressure drop across the valve will be of
the order of a riser height of liquid, thus imposing a significant extra backpressure on the system.
b) Increased pressure back-pressure (see point 3 above) to move out of the severe
slug flow region or such that the flow regime in the pipeline section upstream the
dip is changed from stratified to bubbly flow.
Modified flowline layout and/or riser base geometry to avoid a dip. Terrain
induced severe slugging in the riser can be prevented by avoiding a dip at the riser
base right upstream the upward sloping or vertical section. This can be achieved
by one of the following methods:
a) Route the flowline such that it slopes up-wards towards the base of the riser
over a distance at least equal to the riser height. This implies a longer pipeline
route than a direct route.
b) With a local dip e.g. due to piping arrangements on the riser-base or due to a
pockmark, remove the dip by either lifting the flowline (e.g. rock dumping under
it) or design the riser base piping without dips.

c) Optimize the geometry of the dip. The detailed geometry is critical with respect
to whether severe slugging occurs. From the Boe-criterion model, a slow change
in inclination from downwards to upwards, should give less tendency of severe
slugging than with a steep inclination change.
Combined optimisation of geometry and active slug prevention control scheme.
The geometry of the dip is also critical with respect to speed requirements of the
active slug prevention controller. With a steep inclination change, little liquid
volume is required to block/seal against gas flow. Then very rapid slug control
may be required. However, with a gradual inclination change, the front of the gas
bubble may move very fast backwards into the flowline such that it may not be
possible to reestablish gasflow into the riser.
Optimized well production and/or well routing. Adjusting the well production
rates and/or rerouting the wells from one flowline to another, may be a simple and
practical solution to the problem(s).
Pigging/sphering can be used to avoid hydrodynamic and/or severe slugging in
gas-condensate lines (very high GLR, i.e. small liquid loads) by removing liquid
accumulated in the line before slugging becomes a problem.

Mitigation
The following methods does not prevent slugging. They can only mitigate the effects of
the slugs e.g. by multivariable control of the main process train to avoid high level or
high load trips.

Slug catchers should be designed to take care of a slug before it enters the process
equipment. This can be both topside and subsea slug catchers. The sizing of slug
catchers is a subject on its own. Because slug-catching equipment can be a
substantial cost item, alternative operating-scenarios should be considered.
SepCon is a multivariable control method (MPC) to avoid trips e.g. due to
high/low liquid levels and/or high/low gas rates to the compressors.
Faster and better antisurge control. If compressor trip is the problem, then a better
anti-surge system can solve the problem.
Slug damping by choking. This method is based on reducing the topside choke
opening each time it is needed to avoid overloading the process facilities with
liquid or gas. If high liquid level is the problem, then the choke is reduced during
the slug blowout period. If high gas rate is a problem, then the choke opening is
reduced after the slug blowout (must be done before then tail of the slug has
entered the separator). If low gas rate is the problem, this method does not help
alone, but together with SepCon it may help.
Regular change of components if material fatigue is the problem.
Increased process capacity. Process capacity limitations can be compressors/gas
handling or separation capacity. The solution is to increase the capacity of the
prevailing bottleneck.

The following methods does not prevent slugging. They can only mitigate the effects of
the slugs e.g. by multivariable control of the main process train to avoid high level or
high load trips.

References
Previous slugging studies.
1. Barnea, D. et al., Gas-liquid flow in inclined tubes: Flow pattern transitions for
upward flow, Chem. Eng. Science, 1985, 40(1), pp131-136.
2. Dhulesion, H., Hustvedt. E., and Todal, O., Measurement and analysis of slug
characteristics in multiphase pipelines, Total and Statoil, BHR.
3. Fuchs, P., The pressure limit for terrain slugging, 3rd international conference
on Multiphase flow, BHR, 1987, pp65-71.
4. Golan, M. and Whitson, C. Well Performance, Second edition, Prentice Hall,
New Jersey, 1991.
5. Gregory, G.A., et al. Correlation of liquid slug velocity and frequency in
horizontal concurrent gas-liquid flow, AIChE J.
6. Herm Stapleberg, H. and Mewes, D., The pressure loss and slug frequency of
liquid-liquid-gas slug flow in horizontal pipes, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 1994,
20(2), pp.185-303.
7. Hill T.J. and Wood D.G., Slug Flow: Occurrence, Consequences, and
Prediction, SPE 27960, pp. 53-62, 1994
8. Hustvedt, E., Determination of slug length distributions by use of the OLGA
slug tracking model, Statoil Research center, BHR.
9. Jansen, F. E., Shoham, O, and Taitel, Y, The elimination of severe sluggingExperiments and modeling, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 1996, 22(6), pp. 1055-1072.
10. Manolis, Mendes-Tatsis, and Hewitt, Average length of slug region, film
region, and slug unit in high-pressure gas-liquid slug flow, International
Conference on Multiphase Flow, Lyon, 1998.
11. Manolis, Mendes-Tatsis, and Hewitt, Average liquid volumetric content of
slug region, film region, and slug unit in high-pressure gas-liquid slug flow,
International Conference on Multiphase Flow, Lyon, 1998.
12. McNulty, G., Wordsworth, C., and Das, I., Predicting, detecting, and
controlling slugs in pipeline-riser systems, BHR-Group Multiphase 1999, pp.
105-118.
13. Morud S., Excel Program Ansari&Xiao_dll, developed at ABB Corporate
Research, Billingstad 1999.
14. Multiphase Flow Manual
15. OLGA 2000 User Manual, Scandpower, 1998
16. Owen, I. and Hussein, I.B., The propulsion of an isolated slug through a pipe
and the forces produced as it impacts upon an orifice plate, Int. J. Multiphase

Flow, 1994, 20(3), pp.659-666.


17. Paglianti, A., Trotta, G., Andreussi, P., and Nydal, O.J., The effect of fluid
properties and geometry on void distribution in slug flow, BHR.
18. Schmidt, Doty, Dutta-Roy, Severe slugging in offshore pipeline riser-pipe
systems, Society of Petroleum Engineers J., February 1985, 27-38.
19. Schmidt, Brill, Beggs, Experimental study of severe slugging in offshore
pipeline riser pipe systems, Society of Petroleum Engineers J., October 1980,
407-414.
20. Scott, Shoham, Brill, Prediction of slug length in horizontal large diameter
pipes, SPE Annual California Regional Meeting, Oacland, California, April 1996.
21. Taitel, Y. Stability of severe slugging, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 1986, 12(2),
pp203-217.
22. Taitel and Dukler, A model for predicting flow regime transitions in horizontal
and near horizontal gas liquid flow, AIChE J. 1976, 22, 47-55.
23. Wei, Review and Guidelines of Dynamic Models: OLGA, TACITE, ProFES
Transient for Multiphase Pipeline Applications, Technical Report ABB, No.
SECRC/B/TR-2000/099E, Sweden, 2000. [link]
24. Xu, Z. G., Gayton, P., Hall, A., and Rambk, J., Simulation study and field
measurement for migration of slugging problem in The Hudson Transportation
Lines. BHR Group Multiphase 1997, pp197-512.
25. Zabaras G.J., Prediction of Slug frequency for Gas-Liquid Flows, SPE 56462,
pp. 1-8, 1999.

Potrebbero piacerti anche