Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

Field experience and analysis of hydrodynamic slugging

Arne Valle Flow Assurance and Dynamic Simulation Seminar 21.10.2010


1Classification: Internal 2010-10-20

Contents Introduction Field descriptions Field data Flow analysis Conclusions

2-

Classification: Internal

2010-10-20

Hydrodynamic slugging
Increasing flow rates: Q1 Stratified

Q2 > Q1 Stratified wavy

Q3 > Q2 Hydrodynamic slug

3-

Classification: Internal

2010-10-20

Why is hydrodynamic slugging a problem?


The slugs are formed and will grow
The production exceeds a critical rate

When the slug accelerates through the riser


Liquid loading on 1. stage separator increases Followed by high gas loading

Topside facilities influence


Reduced capacity with respect to the compressor trains Poor oily water treatment Shut-downs caused by too high or low liquid levels Liquid carryover in the separator

Consequence:
Reduced production Reduced NPV

4-

Classification: Internal

2010-10-20

Field description
10

Riser
8 (6 (-0.108)

8 inch 14 km flow line


Riser base

(-0.067)

Vertical distance (m)

(0.720) (0.169) 4

(0.061)

Low viscosity; low density (35 API)


8

subsea-template
(0.005) 0

(0.137)

0
(-0.065) -2

2
(0.212)

10

12

14

16

7 (0.117) 6 (0.229) 5 (-0.033)

Outlet riser

Vertical distance (m)

-4

(0.062) 4

Horizontal distance (km)

Inlet riser
3 (0.0) (0.229) 1 (0.086) 0 (0.0) (-0.076) (-0.286) (0.286)

(0.085)

(-0.315)

14 inch 15 km flow line Low viscosity and density ( 35 API)


5Classification: Internal 2010-10-20

(0.143)

0
-1

(-0.095) (0.0)

10

12

14
(-0.286)

-2

Inlet riser base Horizontal distance (km)

Outlet riser base

Time serie 8 inch flow line


68 PZI-18-5122B.txt

P r e s s u r e

66

64

62

l = vmt

60

58

56
10

54
8

Riser

52

43.8 min
50 41 41.5 42

26.5 min
42.5

42.5 min
43

33.3 min
6

(-

(-0.108)

(-0.067)

Vertical distance (m)

43.5

44

(0.720) (0.169) 4

Time (hrs)

Time (hrs)

(0.061)

Riser base

Production rate: 3800 SCMD Inlet pressure: 95 bara Outlet pressure: 52-64 bara
6Classification: Internal 2010-10-20

subsea-template
(0.005) 0

(0.137)

0
(-0.065) -2

2
(0.212)

10

12

14

16

-4

Horizontal distance (km)

Time serie 8 inch flow line


72 70

P r e s s u r e

PZI-18-5122B.txt

l = vmt

68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54
10

Riser
8

31 min

40 min
76

Vertical distance (m)

52 75

30
75.5

26 min 26
76.5

48 min
77 77.5

23 min
78

(6 (0.720) (0.169) 4

(-0.108)

(-0.067)

(0.061)

Riser base

Time (hrs)

Time (hrs)

Production rate: 4000 SCMD Inlet pressure: 105 bara Outlet pressure: 55-70 bara
7Classification: Internal 2010-10-20

subsea-template
(0.005) 0

(0.137)

0
(-0.065) -2

2
(0.212)

10

12

14

16

-4

Horizontal distance (km)

Onset of instability; 14 inch flowline


500

Onset of instability
450 400 350 GLR (SCM/SCM) 300 250 200
6 7

Unstable production

Angle: 0.3 (close to maximum)


Stable production
ONSET INSTABILITY (FROM FIELD DATA)
n

150

Superficial gas velocity (m/s)

100 50 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Liquid production rate (SCMD)

p = 80 bara p = 85 bara p = 90 bara p = 95 baran890

STRATIFIED
3

SLUG
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

SLUG/BUBBLE

2.5

3.5

4.5

Superficial liquid velocity (m/s)

8-

Classification: Internal

2010-10-20

Flow analysis Dynamic simulations


Use of OLGA2000 by different boundary conditions:
Specified inlet flow rates and outlet pressure downstream the choke Specified pressure for both inlet and outlet positions

The simulations are done both by standard simulations and use of slug tracking option.

Conclusion:
OLGA2000 is not able to reproduce the data, neither the recorded time series nor the onset of instability.
9Classification: Internal 2010-10-20

Flow analysis Flow pattern map


7

P = 80 bara Rev map

Onset instab

Superficial gas velocity (m/s)

STRATIFIED

SLUG/BUBBLE

The flow map is revised by multiplying the void in slug correlation in OLGA by a factor of three.
Inclination angle: 0.13

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Superficial liquid velocity (m/s)

OLGA severely under predicts the void fraction in the slug The slug flow area is under predicted
10 - Classification: Internal 2010-10-20

Flow analysis Flow pattern map

High pressure: No slug flow Stable flow

Slightly reduced pressure: High slug growth rate for some positions Low slug frequencies

Reduced pressure: Medium slug growth rate Shorter slugs


11 - Classification: Internal 2010-10-20

Low pressure: Low slug growth rate Short slugs small instabilities

Consistencies in field data


Onset instab., adjusted rel. to flow pattern transition Onset instab. from field data14 inch pipeline Angle: 0.13; p: 80 bara
6 5

Procedure: Investigate similarities between the two systems Plot flow pattern maps for the two pipelines Plot the onset data for 14 inch pipe Shift the onset curve rel. to the flow pattern boundaries

Superficial gas velocity (m/s)

SLUG/BUBBLE STRATIFIED

SLUG
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

14 inch pipe 8 inch pipe

Superficial liquid velocity (m/s)


12 - Classification: Internal 2010-10-20

Consistency between 14 and 8 inch pipeline


6

Superficial gas velocity (m/s)

Onset of instability 8 inch pipeline: Field data for 8 pipe 3200 SCMD Transformation based on 14 pipe: 3100 SCMD
SLUG
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

SLUG/BUBBLE STRATIFIED

0 0 0.5

Superficial liquid velocity (m/s)

Flow pattern map for 14 and 8 inch pipeline. Inclination angle: 0.13; Pressure: 80 bara
13 - Classification: Internal 2010-10-20

The methodology is working with respect to the 8 inch pipeline

Conclusions
Hydrodynamic slugs:
Very high pressure: No instabilities
Intermediate pressure: Long slugs problems for high flowrates Low pressure: Small instabilities (no problem)

Hydrodynamic slugs can not be predicted by OLGA2000 dynamic simulator:


Limitation in the closure relations and the slug initiation algorithms

A methodology using field data in combination with flow pattern predictions is proposed
Predict onset of hydrodynamic slugging Certain similarities are required to use this approach
14 - Classification: Internal 2010-10-20

Reference
Valle A.; Utvik O.H.: Field tests and analysis of hydrodynamic slugging in multiphase crude oil flow lines, BHR Group 2005 Multiphase Production Technology 12, Barcelona.

15 - Classification: Internal

2010-10-20

Thank you
Arne Valle www.statoil.com

16 - Classification: Internal

2010-10-20