OTC 23968

Large Diameter Riser Laboratory Gas-Lift Tests

G. Zabaras, Shell International Exploration and Production Inc.; R. Menon, Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd;W.
Schoppa; M. Wicks III, Shell International Exploration and Production Inc.

Copyright 2013, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 69 May 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
An experimental program was carried out to support the application of riser-base gas injection for deepwater production
risers. The experimental equipment consisted of a 40 ft-tall, 11 ID vertical riser connected to a 25 ft-long flowline section of
the same inside diameter. The motivation for this work was the significant uncertainty that exists as to the behavior of
vertical gas-liquid flow in large diameter pipes. Scarce published information exists for such flows and no known records of
flow regime observations are available from the published literature.
Riser-base gas-lift has been identified by various deepwater project teams as a key operability element that can address
three major project objectives:
a)flow assurance requirements necessitate the evacuation of the riser during an extended shut-down by using injection gas.
As a result of riser evacuation, the hydrostatic pressure at the base of the riser is reduced to a level below the pressure
required for hydrate formation at the ambient seawater temperature of between 37 and 40 F, b)production economics for
many deepwater projects relies on riser-base gas-lift as an artificial lift method and, c)riser-base gas injection will be
necessary for alleviating severe slugging problems in deepwater flowline-riser systems.
In order to verify the ability of gas-lift to fulfill the stated objectives for large diameter risers, a variety of air-water flow
tests were carried out in the 11 transparent riser system built at Shells Houston Technology Center. The flow tests included
transient and steady-state gas-liquid flow and flow regime visualization. Measured riser pressure drop data were used to
compare with 1-dimensional flow model predictions. Serious model limitations were found as the models failed to accurately
capture churn flow effects that appeared to dominate over the range of conditions studied. Steady-state pressure drops were
underpredicted by more than 25%. Riser evacuation predictions indicated continued liquid removal whereas the data showed
that liquid is expelled as an initial slug with no additional carry over.
To overcome the shortcomings of 1-dimensional models, rigorous analyses using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
simulations were performed. A full 3-dimensional CFD model of the flowline-riser system was used in FLUENT with the
volume of fluid (VOF) method to predict both steady-state and transient behavior. In all cases simulated, CFD results
compared well with the experimental data.

Introduction
An experimental program was carried out to support the application of riser-base gas injection for deepwater risers. The
experimental equipment consisted of a 40 ft-tall, 11 ID vertical riser connected to a 25 ft-long flowline section of the same
inside diameter. The motivation for this work is the significant uncertainty that exists as to the behavior of vertical gas-liquid
flow in large diameter pipes. Not much published information exists for such flows and no known records of even observed
flow regimes are available from the published literature for diameters larger than 10 inches.
Early work by Cheng, Hills and Azzopardi (1998) in a 150 mm diameter riser reported that unlike small diameter vertical
pipes, traditional slug flow does not exist but instead a gradual transition occurs from bubble flow to churn flow. Gas-liquid
flow patterns in a 52 m high, 189 mm vertical pipe were reported by Omebere-Iyari, Azzopardi and Ladam (2007) for a
naptha-nitrogen mixture at pressures of 20 and 90 bar. Peng, Ahmad, Hale, Matar and Hewitt (2010) suggested that in large
diameter pipes, the bubble/slug and slug/churn transitions appear to be by-passed in favour of a direct transition from bubble
to churn flow with increasing gas mass flux. Their work aimed at developing a phenomenological understanding of the
bubble/churn and churn/annular transition regions in large diameter pipes. Ali and Yeung (2010) carried out an experimental
investigation and a simulation study with the program OLGA of a 254 mm inside diameter horizontal flowline with a vertical
riser. The behavior of elongated bubbles in the same 254 mm ID riser was studied by Lao, Xing and Yeung (2012) who
2 OTC 23968

found out that a Taylor bubble could form in stagnant or low liquid rate conditions. However, their work did not experiment
with continuous gas flow but instead air bubbles were released into the riser from a pressurized air supply by opening/closing
manually a valve. Early work by Katakoa and Ishii (1987) suggested that Taylor bubbles cannot be sustained in gas-liquid
vertical flow for pipe diameters larger than

D 30
g (l g )
where is the surface tension and l and g are the liquid and gas densities. For air-water at near atmospheric pressure, the
diameter calculated from the above equation is ~81 mm.
Riser-base gas-lift is seen as a key design element and flow assurance tool that can successfully address three major
requirements in deepwater subsea tie-back projects:
a)riser evacuation during an extended shut-down by using injection gas is necessary for the hydrostatic pressure at the base of
the riser to be reduced below the pressure required by thermodynamics for hydrate formation at the ambient seawater
temperature of approximately 40 F,
b)improved production economics for several deepwater projects using continuous riser-base gas-lift as an artificial lift
method,
c)alleviation of severe slugging problems in deepwater flowline-riser systems by use of riser base gas-lift.
In view of the above requirements, the knowledge of multiphase flow behavior in large diameter riser systems is of
significant economic and technological importance. As a result, a research project was undertaken to verify the ability of
gas-lift to fulfill the project objectives. In particular, an air-water transparent riser system was built, to carry out a variety of
flow tests such as:
Transient and steady-state gas-liquid flow
Visual observations of flow regimes during riser evacuation and during steady-state flow of both gas and liquid
Riser evacuation for various gas rates (single gas rate or progression of different rates)
Steady-state pressure drop measurements
OLGA model prediction comparisons with experimental data.
Note that the initial phase of experimentation and model comparison focused on the evacuation of a liquid-filled riser by gas-
lift which is relevant to the (transient) riser blowdown scenario. The experimental facility was designed so that it could also
be used to study normal production issues such as steady-state flow regimes, holdup, pressure drop, and terrain slugging.
Experimental Equipment
The experimental flow loop included a 25-ft long 11 ID transparent plexiglass flowline of 1 wall thickness which was
connected to a 40-ft tall vertical riser of similar material via a long radius 90-degree elbow made out of opaque ABS plastic
of 11 ID. Structural supports were provided for both the flowline and riser. The wall thickness was chosen as to provide a
maximum operating pressure of 40 psig. Water flow was pumped into the flowline inlet from a large storage tank via a
centrifugal pump and was metered with a turbine flow meter. Air was supplied from the in-house compressed air flow system
and was metered with an orifice plate prior to entering the flowline. Both air and water entered the flowline through a pipe
tee. A total of four orifice plates of different size were used to provide high measurement accuracy over the entire range of
gas rates utilized. Water flow was limited to about 200 gpm and air flow to 1200 scf/m at 100 psig. The riser top was
connected to a gas-liquid separator via a long radius 90-degree elbow identical to the one used to connect the flowline and the
riser base. The separator was sized to have a large liquid storage (~equal to the combined flowline and riser volume).
Validyne, variable reluctance differential pressure transducers were installed along the flowline and riser with one side
exposed to atmospheric pressure. Thermocouples were also installed at the same location as the pressure transducers. In
addition to pressure and temperature transducers at the flowline inlet, a total of six pairs of pressure and temperature
teansducers were placed on the riser section every 6 ft starting at the bottom flange. Schematics of the various flow loop
components are shown in Figures 1-3 and a photograph of the system is presented in Figure 4. Table 1 presents a summary
of the measured test parameters, the data acquisition and data reduction specifics.

Operational Procedures for the Riser Tests

There were two operating phases planned:
1. Gas flowing into an initially liquid-filled system, and
2. Gas and liquid flowing at steady rates.

Measurements in Phase 1
The test section including approach piping, vertical test section, and exit elbow at the top was filled brim-full with water, and
the water inlet then turned off. With the separator drain valve closed, a small flow rate of air was introduced into the system
by pinching down on the air control valve and opening the air on-off valve. With introduction of air into the liquid-filled
OTC 23968 3

pipe, water began to flow out of the test section and into the separator. Liquid level in the separator was measured indirectly
by a pressure transducer located at its base. Air rate is logged frequently for later calculation off-line. Pressures and
temperatures at the entry and at each of six points along the riser are also similarly measured. Final water levels in the
separator and test section are noted. The drain valve on the separator is then opened, allowing water to return to the supply
tank for use in the next test.

Figure 1. Test Section Layout

Measurements in Phase 2
Beginning with a small water flow rate, air was injected at a given flow rate. Holding both air and water flow at constant
settings, average pressures and temperatures along the test section were measured. Test runs were carried out over a
combination of test conditions utilizing the full capacity of laboratorys air and water flow rates dictated by the constraints of
operating pressure or available flow rates, whichever controlled. Visual observation of flow patterns were manually recorded
for each steady-state condition. Pressure gradient data were compared to OLGA model predictions.
Phase 1: Riser Evacuation Tests
Unloading of large diameter risers via gas injection was questionable due to lack of prior industry and academic work in this
fluid mechanics area. Transient design programs such as OLGA predicted that gas injected at the base of a large diameter
riser will expel most of the liquid held up in the flowline/riser system. However, it is common knowledge that gas-lift is not a
very efficient method especially in large diameter pipes due to the opportunity that the gas has to bypass the liquid and flow
through it instead of effectively pushing the liquid upwards. A number of riser unloading tests runs were conducted and the
results obtained were compared to the predictions of the OLGA program. An OLGA model was built to describe the
experimental set-up as follows:
Air & Water physical properties
No mass transfer
11 ID pipe
Pipe profile as in Figure 5
4 OTC 23968

Figure 2. Gas-liquid Separator for two-phase tests

Figure 3. Plexiglass Pipe Flange Configuration

Figure 4. Photograph of 11 Gas-Liquid Flow Loop

OTC 23968 5

Table 1. Details on Parameters Measured

Figure 5. Experimental facility dimensions used in OLGA model

Figures 6-14 present the riser evacuation data comparison with OLGA program predictions for a)low gas rate (i.e. 0.29
MMSCFD air), b)high gas rate (i.e. 1.0 MMSCFD air), and c)step change in gas rate from 0.22 to 0.43 MMSCFD. The
conclusions drawn from these tests are as follows and represent significant new information into the flow mechanics
phenomena that have not been published before for large diameter risers. In summary:
6 OTC 23968

Riser totally evacuated even at low gas rates

Most of near-horizontal flowline section evacuated
All liquid removed as single initial slug which is important to the prediction of instantaneous blowdown liquid rates.
A single Taylor bubble was seen rising through the stagnant liquid column. No other Taylor bubbles were observed
once a continuous gas flow was established.
OLGA accurately captures the initial slug
However, after the initial slug, the experiments show that a churn flow pattern is established with zero net liquid
outflow (i.e. a certain amount of liquid is trapped in the riser). In contrast, OLGA predicts slug flow after the initial
slug with additional liquid carryover. The OLGA results are the same whether its slug-tracking feature is used or
not.

Effect of OLGA Simulator Version on Predictions of Liquid Removal

The comparisons of the OLGA model results with the measured data shown in Figures 6-14 were based on OLGA2000
version 2.02. Figure 15 displays the predictions of the amount of liquid removed from the riser for the case of gas rate of 200
scf/m (0.29 MMSCFD) for various OLGA program versions. While there are differences among the predictions for the
different program versions, all OLGA versions predict that a larger amount of liquid removal occurs than measured. The
same conclusion also applied to the more recent version 6.2.3 as shown in Figure 16. The pressure predictions vary among
the different program versions (for example compare Figure 17 with Figure 8). When the slug tracking feature is on, the
frequency of predicted pressure fluctuations by OLGA appeared to be in the same order of magnitude as in the measured
data.

Scaling-up from low-pressure air-water to high-pressure oil-gas

The riser evacuation flow conditions are gravity and inertia dominated flow phenomena (liquid fallback, near zero average
wall shear). Therefore, the gas-based Froude Number Frg defined as the ratio of inertial to gravity forces can be used as the
scaling rule:
g
Frg U sg
( l g ) gD
As Figure 18 indicates, a complete riser volume was unloaded was with 300 scf/min (0.43 MMSCFD). The Froude Number
Frg for air-water at ~15psig (riser base) =0.0325. This value of the Froude number can be used for deriving the minimum gas
injection rate needed for one-riser volume evacuation. The gas rate corresponding to Frg=0.0325 for a typical deepwater riser
(1423 psig, 40F) is about equal to 3.5 MMSCFD. This rate is a fraction of the gas injection rate typically designed for steady-
state gas lift of produced fluid rates larger than 10000 BPD.
In terms of geometrical scaling, the most critical dimension influencing the riser evacuation is the riser diameter (which
directly influences the gas velocity), which is captured in these experiments at full-scale. Regarding the overall lengths of the
downhill flowline and vertical riser, the scaled-down lengths will cause some entrance and development lengths, expected to
contribute holdup and pressure uncertainties on the order of 15%.

Phase2. Steady-state gas-liquid flow tests

During this phase of testing, a series of flow conditions were studied for superficial liquid velocities ranging from 0.0844 to
0.5064 ft/s corresponding to liquid rates from 25 to 150 gpm. The purpose of these steady-state runs were to record flow
regime observations and measure the pressure gradient in the riser. Pressure gradient data in large diameter risers have been
scarce despite the need for accurate assessment of the riser-base gas-lift as an artificial lift method in deepwater production
systems.
Observed flow patterns in the test riser were in sharp contrast to those that have been observed in smaller ID vertical
pipes, typically of 1-4 ID. When gas was introduced into a flowing liquid stream, a single Taylor bubble was seen rising
and then a stable flow pattern was established that did not include Taylor bubbles or Taylor cap bubbles. For a given liquid
flow rate, the patterns observed for increasing gas flow are shown in Figure 19. Bubble flow consisted of swarms of small
bubbles rising in a zig-zag fashion. Once the gas void exceed some level, churn flow manifested which was characterized by
a chaotic and highly fluctuating movement of liquid up and down the riser. Liquid was seen falling down by several feet to be
lifted again upwards and eventually exit the riser in this up and down flow fashion. While churn flow looked very different
than slug flow observed in small ID pipes, it was still characterized by large pressure and rate fluctuations at the riser outlet.
Further increases of the gas rate resulted in a semi-annular flow pattern appearing at the top of the riser while churn flow was
still occurring in the bottom section of the riser. The semi-annular flow pattern was characterized by a falling wavy liquid
film and entrainment of large fragments of liquid moving upwards in a more or less straight line flow path.
The liquid entrainment was the only upward liquid transport mechanism since no liquid film upflow was observed for the
range of gas superficial velocities that were used in this work (<55 ft/s). Higher gas velocities above a critical limit would
OTC 23968 7

most likely result in uniform liquid film upflow as has been seen in smaller ID vertical pipes. Figure 20 shows a flow regime
map for the range of superficial liquid and gas velocities covered in this work. The dispersed bubble flow regime is notably
missing due to the experimental limit in liquid velocity.

Gas Injection Rate (Model Input)

400
OLGA Input
Expmt
300
Gas Rate [scfm]

200

100

0
0 50 100 150
time [sec]
Figure 6. Gas-injection rate matching (input for Olga model) for 200 scfm (0.29 MMSCFD)

Liquid Carryover
Total Liquid
OLGA
2500
Expmt
Liquid Removal [lb]

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 50 100 150
time [sec]
Figure 7. Liquid carryover comparison for 200 scfm (0.29 MMSCFD) case
8 OTC 23968

Inlet Pressure
20
18 OLGA
16 Expmt
14
Pressure [psig]

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150
time [sec]
Figure 8. Flowline inlet pressure evolution for 200 scfm (0.29 MMSCFD) case
Gas Injection Rate (Model Input)
800
OLGA Input
700
Expmt
600
Gas Rate [scfm]

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 50 100 150
time [sec]
Figure 9. Gas-injection rate matching (input for Olga model) for 700 scfm (1.0 MMSCFD)

Liquid Carryover
Total Liquid
OLGA
2500
Expmt
Liquid Removal [lb]

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 50 100 150
time [sec]
Figure 10. Liquid carryover comparison for 700 scfm (1.0 MMSCFD) case
OTC 23968 9

Inlet Pressure
20
18 OLGA
16 Expmt
14
Pressure [psig]

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150
time [sec]
Figure 11. Flowline inlet pressure evolution for 700 scfm (1.0 MMSCFD) case
Gas Injection Rate (Model Input)
400
OLGA Input
Expmt
300
Gas Rate [scfm]

200

100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
time [sec]
Figure 12. Gas-injection rate matching for 150 to 300 scfm (0.22 to 0.43 MMSCFD) ramp case

Liquid Carryover
Total Liquid
OLGA
2500
Expmt
2000
Liquid Removal [lb]

1500

1000

500

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
time [sec]
Figure 13. Liquid carryover comparison for 150 to 300 scfm (0.22 to 0.43 MMSCFD) case
10 OTC 23968

Inlet Pressure
20
18 OLGA
16 Expmt
14
Pressure [psig]

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
time [sec]
Figure 14. Flowline inlet pressure evolution for 150 to 300 scfm (0.22 to 0.43 MMSCFD)

Figure 15. Liquid carryover prediction by various OLGA program versions

Figure 16. OLGA Ver. 6.2.3 Liquid Removal Comparison with Data [Gas Rate=200 scf/m]

OTC 23968 11

Figure 17. OLGA Ver. 6.2.3 Inlet Pressure Comparison with Data [Gas Rate=200 scf/m]

Pressure gradient data are shown in Figures 21-24 as a function of the superficial gas velocity. Each graph corresponds to a
constant superficial liquid velocity. In addition to the measured data, predictions of the OLGA ver. 6.2.3 steady-state point
model are shown together with similar predictions from an in-house multiphase flow model. Neither the OLGA nor the in-
house model predictions are satisfactory as they are both significantly lower than the experimental data. The magnitude of
the underprediction is quite large and reflects modeling gaps as it cannot be solely justified on the lack of fully developed
flow due to low length to diameter ratio of the riser ( L/D=44) and potential flow entrance effects.

Figure 18. Liquid Removed versus Gas Rate (corresponding Gas Froude Number Range is 0.016-0.076)

12 OTC 23968

Figure 19. Flow Patterns Observed in 11 ID Riser

Figure 20. Flow Regime Map for Steady-state flow in the 11 Riser

Figure 21. Comparison of Riser Pressure Gradient for Usl=0.0844 ft/s
OTC 23968 13

Figure 22. Comparison of Riser Pressure Gradient for Usl=0.1688 ft/s

Figure 23. Comparison of Riser Pressure Gradient for Usl=0.3376 ft/s

Figure 24. Comparison of Riser Pressure Gradient for Usl=0.5064 ft/s

Three-dimensional CFD Simulation of Riser-base gas-lift

14 OTC 23968

This study is believed to be the first to analyze riser-base gas-lift using 3D CFD simulation tools. Firstly, a literature survey
was carried out to learn specifics on modeling details that others have used to simulate such gas-liquid flows. While
considerable modeling studies have been reported in the literature on two-phase flows in bubble columns and air-lift reactors,
very few studies have been reported on rigorous modeling of gas-liquid flows in production risers. The following is a
summary of literature that is relevant to modeling two-phase flows in large diameter risers.
The hydrodynamics of internal airlift reactors, with a riser diameter of about 8 inch operating with an air-water system,
have been experimentally investigated for a range of superficial gas velocities by van Baten et. al. (2003). The experimental
results were compared with a model using CFD with Eulerian descriptions of the gas and liquid phases. Interactions between
the bubbles and the liquid were taken into account by means of a momentum exchange, or drag, coefficient based on a
literature correlation. The turbulence in the liquid phase was described using the two-equation k-epsilon model. The CFD
model shows excellent agreement with the measured data on gas holdup, liquid velocity in the downcomer and in the riser.
Two and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) simulations of an airlift reactor under steady state conditions at low gas flow
rates have been reported by Mudde et. al. (2001). The simulations were based on a two-fluid model with a two-equation
closure model (k-epsilon) for the turbulence of the mixture and individual phases. The results were compared with a one-
dimensional mechanical energy balance and were found to be in good agreement. The 2D results showed sensitivity to the
gas inlet geometry: whether or not the gas was partially sparged into the liquid directly next to a wall affected the liquid
velocity distribution and thereby the gas disengagement at the top of the riser section. The three-dimensional calculations
make a more realistic geometry possible. The friction in the system is found to be about a factor of two larger in the 3D case
at the same gas inlet conditions. For a given gas flow rate, the average gas volume fraction in the riser is the same for the 2D
and 3D simulations, the liquid circulation rate is about 30% higher in the 2D case than in the 3D one. A comparison was
made with experimental data obtained in an airlift reactor of the same dimensions. The simulated overall gas fraction is in
agreement with the experimental findings. The simulated superficial velocity in the riser is compared to Laser Doppler
Anemometry (LDA) data. For the lowest superficial velocities the LDA data coincide with the results from the 2D
simulations. For higher gas flow rates the LDA results switch over towards the 3D results.
Gas-liquid flow in risers was modeled by Cockx et. al.(1997). The main objective of their study was to propose a new
model of the hydrodynamics in an air-lift internal loop reactor. The model was based on one-dimensional (1D) two-fluid
mass and momentum balances. It required closure relations for the slip velocity of the gas bubbles and both friction factors
and singular pressure drop coefficients. The 3D CFD simulations were first validated with experiments acquired in a
laboratory pilot plant. Then the numerical simulations were used to improve a more global modeling of the air-lift internal
loop reactor. In particular, it was found that one can space-average the local 3D results to obtain closure relations for the
simpler 1D models.
The feasibility of rigorously modeling the fluid mechanics of a Taylor bubble in a stagnant liquid filling a vertical pipe
was examined by Tomiyama and Sakaguchi (1996). The simulation was carried out using the volume of fluid (VOF) method.
Since there have been few quantitative experiments on Taylor bubble shape, physical experiments under a wide range of
Eotvos and Morton numbers were also conducted using sucrose solution and air at room temperature and atmospheric
pressure. It was confirmed by experiments that the bluntness of the nose of the bubble, the flatness of the tail and the liquid
film thickness around the bubble are strongly affected by the two dimensionless numbers. Calculated terminal rising
velocities and bubble shapes agreed fairly well with all the measured ones, which indicates that the effects of drag force,
buoyancy and surface tension force on the bubble were well predicted by the CFD simulations.
Krishna and Van Baten (1999) carried out simulations of rising gas bubbles in a rectangular column filled with water. The
simulations were carried out using the volume-of-fluid (VOF) technique developed by Hirt and Nichols (1981). They
developed their own bubble-tracking algorithm to capture "sinuous" bubble motions. Large lateral motions of the bubbles
were observed. The extent of lateral motion of the bubbles decreases with increasing bubble size. Bubbles larger than 20 mm
in size assume a spherical cap form and simulations of the rise characteristics match experiments well. These VOF
simulations appear to capture the morphology and rise characteristics of bubbles rising in a liquid remarkably well. Bubble-
bubble interactions have also been properly modeled by the VOF technique.

Summary of the CFD model

In order to determine that CFD models can adequately capture the dynamics of gas-liquid flows observed in gas lifted risers,
the large diameter flow loop was simulated in Fluent 6.2. The detailed geometry of the riser including the inlet mixing tee
and the 90 degree long radius elbow were used. Based on the literature survey, the transient Volume of Fluid (VOF) and
Eulerian- Eulerian two fluid models were used. The computational mesh used for these simulations was reasonably fine (~
2x106 nodes). As a result, the time steps to meet the CFL criterion (Courant-Friedrich-Lvy condition) were on the order of
10-4 sec. Typically time steps 1/5th of the CFL stability condition were used for these simulations. A higher order differencing
scheme (3rd order MUSCL) was used for spatial discretizations and turbulence (mixture) was modeled using the RNG (Re-
normalization Group) closure scheme. A user-defined subroutine was created in C code and linked to Fluent to model the real
gas behavior of the gas phase albeit at isothermal conditions.
OTC 23968 15

Validation against Taylor Bubble Experiment

The model validation was done in two steps. In the first step a single air bubble was released into the riser and its rise
velocity was compared with experiment and correlations reported in the literature. This Taylor Bubble experiment was
carried out in the 11 ID riser loop by quickly opening and closing the air inlet valve and releasing the air bubble into a liquid
filled riser. The rise velocity was computed from the time of flight of the bubble for an 8 ft riser segment length. The Taylor
bubble with smaller trailing bubbles from the CFD simulations is shown in Figure 25 in which also the 3D nature of the
bubble is shown. Figure 26 shows the velocity field at a mid-plane, which highlights the falling liquid film on either side of
the rising bubble. The rise velocity predicted from the CFD simulations is shown as a function of time in Figure 27 and is
compared in Table 2 with both the single bubble experiment and the universal correlation for rise velocity [Viana et al
(2003)]. The predicted rise velocity is in good agreement with both experimental data and that reported in the literature.

Figure 25. Simulation of the Taylor Bubble experiment

Validation Against Flow Loop Tests

The second part of the validation study consisted of modeling the transient riser evacuation experiments described earlier. In
this case an initially liquid filled riser is evacuated by injecting gas continuously. The CFD simulations were carried out by
initializing the computational domain with an air volume fraction equal to zero and then at time t > 0 s injecting air at a
prescribed flow rate through the inlet plane. A constant air injection rate of 200 scf/m was selected for this validation test. For
each time step, a surface average inlet pressure was computed at the inlet plane for comparison with experimental
measurements. The cumulative amount of liquid expelled was also computed and compared with the experimental data. The
predicted inlet pressure and amount of liquid expelled as a function of time was also compared with results of OLGA
(version 3.02) simulations. The comparisons are shown in Figures 28 and 29 for inlet pressure and amount of liquid expelled
respectively. The comparisons of the transient VOF CFD simulations are in very good agreement with the experimental
results. As in the experiments, the CFD simulations show that the liquid is expelled as an initial slug with no additional carry
over, whereas OLGA predicts continued entrainment with air injection. OLGA does not capture the inlet pressure transient
correctly and overpredicts liquid carry- over. However, the steady state inlet pressure predicted by OLGA is in close
agreement with the experimental
data and that predicted by CFD simulations (except for OLGA version 4.10.2). The effects of model differences associated
with the various versions of OLGA on the predicted inlet pressure are shown in Figure 30 and liquid carry-over were shown in
earlier in Figure 15.
The CFD simulations also appear to capture the large scale dynamics of the flow well. In the flowline, the flow is
stratified with waves being generated at the liquid interface. Visualization of the results shows the formation of slugs at the
riser base when the wave amplitude grows to the flowline ID. As the liquid slugs negotiate the large radius bend at the bottom
of the riser, a 3D flow pattern is seen with the slugs cork-screwing up the riser. This 3D flow is seen to persist beyond the
length of the riser section considered in these simulations.
16 OTC 23968

Figure 26. Velocity field in the mid-plane of the riser in the vicinity of the rising bubble

Figure 27. Bubble rise velocity as a function of time - CFD Results

OTC 23968 17

TABLE 2:

Table 2. Bubble Velocity Comparison

The CFD simulations for these validation tests were carried out on a Linux cluster (distributed memory) where the
computational domain is decomposed to a number of subdomains (equal to the number of parallel nodes). Despite this, the
compute intensive nature of the solution procedure resulted in long turn-around times (on the order of days per run). It was
therefore decided to carry out optimization of the numerical procedure before embarking on the next phase. Coarsening of
the mesh and the associated larger time steps yielded an order of magnitude reduction in solution times, without significantly
affecting accuracy. This was verified against the same experimental data set. Optimization of solver settings also resulted in
additional improvements. The riser loop unloading was simulated with a coarse mesh and larger time step to ensure
reasonable accuracy. The inlet pressure prediction as compared with experimental data and the OLGA simulation is shown in
Figure 31.
CFD Simulations of steady-state riser gas lift
18 OTC 23968

Upon completion of the successful validation tests, further steady-state CFD simulations of the laboratory riser were carried
out for a number of air injection rates and a given water flow rate. The exact experimental conditions were used to enable
comparison of results. In all cases the simulations were done in a transient mode until a steady state was achieved. Large time
steps were used for these simulations, as the transient behavior was not of interest. The results of the CFD simulations are
compared with the experimental data in Figure 32 in which the steady state pressure at the bottom of the riser (P1_Expmt) is
compared with the CFD result (P1_CFD). As seen there, the comparison of the predicted riser base pressure with measurement
is very good.

Figure 28. Comparison of inlet pressure at the riser base [200 scf/m injection]

Figure 29. Comparison of liquid carryover

OTC 23968 19

Figure 30. Comparison of Inlet pressure OLGA2000 Versions [200 scf/m injection]

Figure 31. Inlet pressure predicted using a coarse mesh to validate steady state results

The validated CFD methodology was subsequently used to simulate the test riser under real deepwater riser base
conditions using a typical reservoir fluid. For all cases simulated, significant discrepancy was found between the CFD results
and 1D model predictions. The 1D tools (OLGA and in-house programs) were found to underpredict the riser base pressure.
As a result, the riser pressure drop was underpredicted by the 1D tools by as much as 15-50% depending on the 1D tool used
and its version.
20 OTC 23968

Figure 32. Comparison of riser base pressure [Water Rate = 150 gpm]

Conclusions
In order to verify the effectiveness of riser-base gas-lift as an artificial lift method and as a flow assurance tool for large
diameter risers, a variety of air-water flow tests were carried out in the 11 transparent riser system. The flow tests included
transient and steady-state gas-liquid flow and flow regime visualization. Major conclusions of the study were:
Liquid-packed riser and most of the flowline were totally evacuated even at low gas rates. All liquid was removed as a
single initial slug pushed by a single Taylor bubble rising through the stagnant liquid column. No other Taylor bubbles
were observed once a continuous gas flow was established. After the initial slug no additional liquid carryover occurred
and a churn flow pattern is established with zero net liquid outflow (i.e. a certain amount of liquid is trapped in the riser).
The program OLGA accurately captures the initial slug but predicts slug flow with additional liquid carryover.
Although traditional slug flow was not observed, significant pressure and rate fluctuations were seen in the churn flow
regime. Increasing gas rate had a significant impact in reducing/eliminating gas-liquid surging conditions at the top of
the riser.
Steady -state flow regimes observed in large diameter risers significantly differ than those reported for smaller (less than
6) pipes. Namely, hydrodynamic slug flow does not exist as it is known from observations in small diameter pipes. The
predominant flow regime is churn flow, which is characterized by significant liquid fallback. The nature of this regime is
highly oscillatory and creates significant slug like disturbances at the top of the riser. An annular flow regime exists
but is characterized by mostly downward falling film and upward moving big lumps of liquid which are entrained off of
the crests of large waves on the falling liquid film. Upward film flow in the annular-mist flow regime was not observed
even at the laboratory gas rate limit of ~1.6 MMSCFD.
Steady-state liquid holdup appears to be larger than what OLGA as well as other in-house models predict. As a result,
steady-state pressure drop appears to be generally 30%-60% higher than predicted, at rates up to 7000 bbl/day. The
model deviation from the data is too large to be justified as due to small riser L/D and entrance flow effects.
The large diameter gas lift experiments carried out in a 40 ft tall riser were modeled in CFD to predict both steady state
and transient behavior. In addition, a "Taylor Bubble" was also simulated and compared with experiments and a
correlation reported in the open literature. In all cases simulated, the CFD results compared very well with the
experimental data. The validated CFD model of the experimental riser was used to predict multiphase pressure drop under
typical deepwater riser base conditions. Comparison of riser pressure drop predicted by CFD and 1D tools suggests that 1D
tools underpredict the riser pressure drop by as much as 15-50%.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Shell Projects & Technology management for granting permission to
publish this paper.

References
1. Cheng, H., Hills, J. H. & Azzopardi, B. J. (1998). A study to bubble-to-slug transitions in the vertical gas-liquid flow in
columns of different diameter. International Journal of Multiphase flow, Volume 24(3), pp. 431-452.
2. Omebere-Iyari, N. K., Azzopardi, B. J. & Ladam, Y. (2007). "Two-phase flow patterns in large diameter vertical
OTC 23968 21

pipes at high pressures", The AIChE Journal, Volume 53(10), pp. 2493-2504.
3. Peng, D.J., Ahmad, A., Hale, C.P., Matar, O.K. & Hewitt, G.F. (2010). Flow regime transition in large diameter pipes. 7th
International Conference on Multiphase Flow (ICMF 2010), Tampa, FL USA, May 30-June 4, 2010.
4. Ali, S. F. & Yeung, H. (2010). Experimental investigation and numerical simulation of two-phase flow in a
large-diameter horizontal flow line vertical riser, Petroleum Science and Technology, Volume 28 Issue 11,
pp 1079-1095.
5. Lao, L., Xing, L. and H. Yeung (2012). Behaviors of elongated bubbles in a large diameter riser. BHR Group
2012 Multiphase Technology Conference, Banf, Ca.
6. Kataoka, I. & Ishii, M. (1987). Drift-flux model for large diameter pipe and new correlation for pool void fraction. Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer 30, 1927-1939.
7. van Baten J, Ellenberger J, Krishna R, (2003). Hydrodynamics of internal air-lift reactors: experiments versus CFD simulations.
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING AND PROCESSING, 2003, Volume: 42, Number: 10 (OCT), Page: 733-742, October 2003.
8. Mudde RF, Van Den Akker HEA (2001). 2D and 3D simulations of an internal airlift loop reactor on the basis of a two-fluid
model. CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE, 2001, Volume: 56, Number: 21-22 (NOV), Page: 6351-6358, November 2001.
9. Cockx A, Roustan M; DoQuang Z; Lazarova V (1997). Numerical simulation and physical modeling of the hydrodynamics in an
air-lift internal loop reactor. CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE, 1997, Volume: 52, Number: 21-22 (NOV), Page: 3787-
3793, November 1997.
10. Tomiyama, A, Sou, A, Sakaguchi, T.(1996). Numerical simulation of a Taylor bubble in a stagnant liquid inside a vertical pipe.
JSME International Journal, Series B (Fluids and Thermal Engineering), vol.39, no.3, Page: 517-24.
11. Krishna R., and J.M. Van Baten (1999). Rise characteristics of gas bubbles in a 2D rectangular column: VOF simulations vs
experiments. International communications in heat and mass transfer, 1999, Volume: 26, Number: 7, Page: 965-974.
12. Hirt, C. W. and Nichols, B. D (1981). Volume of Fluid (VOF) Method for the Dynamics of Free Boundaries. Journal of
Computational Physics, 39, 201-225 (1981).
13. Viana, R. Pardo, R. Yanez, J. Trallero, and D. Joseph (2003). Universal Correlation for the Rise Velocity of Long Gas Bubbles in
Round Pipes. J. Fluid Mech. (2003) vol. 494, pp. 379-398.