First presented at BHR Groups Multiphase Production Technology Conference in Cannes 2011 Comparison of commercial multiphase flow simulators

with experimental and field databases

R Belt 1, B Djoric 2, S Kalali 2, E Duret 1, D Larrey 1 1 Process Department, Total EP, France 2 Stavanger Research Centre, Total EP, Norway

ABSTRACT Two commercial multiphase pipe flow simulators, OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow, have been tested on laboratory and field data. Regarding the laboratory data, the results are comparable, however, two weak points have been identified: an overprediction of the liquid hold-up in stratified flow and a relative error up to 70% on the pressure-gradient in intermittent flow. Two field cases, one oil-dominated and the other gas-dominated, have been tested. The predictions show very good agreement with the available field measurements of pressure drop and temperature. In the gas-condensate case, similar turndown and liquid accumulation curves are obtained.

INTRODUCTION

Pipelines in the oil-and-gas industry often transport oil and gas at the same time. The configuration in which the two phases flow can be quite complex (separated flow, dispersed flow, intermittent flow) and depends on the flow rates, pipe diameter and inclination. This makes the prediction of the pressure-drop and liquid hold-up in the pipe using a 1D approach complicated. Nevertheless, accurate predictions are crucial for the design of the pipeline in order to have the desired pressure drop over the pipeline and the liquid amount recovered at the exit for further processing. The multiphase flow simulator OLGA 5.3 is well established commercial software and most commonly used by the oil-and-gas companies for design purposes. LedaFlow is another multiphase flow simulator developed by Sintef in Norway in partnership with Total and ConocoPhillips as the code owners. A Customer Acceptance Test (CAT) was conducted from 1st April until 30th June 2010 by both companies in Houston, Stavanger and Paris. For this purpose, Total developed a methodology including statistical analysis where LedaFlow was extensively tested on a large number of experimental databases and field data. The objective of this paper is to present a comparison of the results obtained by both commercial software packages on selected experimental databases and field data to illustrate advantages and shortcomings of both tools. The experimental databases that have been used for tests in Total are obtained among others from the Tiller loop, the Boussens loop, the Porsgrunn loop and the IFE downward loop. Those tests sum up to too many results to present in one paper. Therefore, in this paper, mostly results from the Boussens loop are presented. We note, however, that the qualitative trends in the predictions of other databases are also found in the Boussens database, the most important observation being that the results obtained

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

413

with LedaFlow are very similar to those obtained with OLGA 5.3. The Boussens database is interesting, since it was not made available to the software developers of LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3, hence testing the Boussens database corresponds to a good a posteriori validation. The field data correspond to measured data in one gas-dominated and one oil-dominated field case. This will show how both prediction tools behave for real applications. Note that LedaFlow is currently still in development, and models are updated regularly. The comparison to the experimental data is made using the LedaFlow Point-Model version 2.30, which is the latest available version for this paper. The comparison to the field data was made by slightly older versions of the transient code, version 2.23 and 2.27, however, the updates in the models are small and no noticeable impact is expected on the results for the field cases. Regarding OLGA, version 5.3 (for the Point-Model) and version 5.3.2.4 (for the transient code) are used, since those versions correspond to the latest OLGA versions that are validated within Total and used for design purposes. 2 BOUSSENS DATABASE

The Boussens database was measured in the flow loop of Elf, which consisted in two inclinable pipes of different diameters. The pipe diameter was equal to 3 and 6 (internal diameter of 0.074 m and 0.146 m, respectively), and therefore the database may show some upscaling effects. Measurements were done at pipe angles of 90, 75, 45, 15, 4, 1.1, 0, -0.6 and -2.9 from horizontal. Note that the measurements in the small diameter pipe were done only at inclinations above 15. Two-phase flow measurements were performed: natural gas was used for the gas phase, and gasoil, condensate or water was used for the liquid phase. The pressure in the experiments was between 5 and 50 bar. In total, the Boussens database consists of 1845 points for which are reported: x the measured pressure-gradient, x the measured liquid volume fraction and x the flow regime (bubbly, intermittent, stratified or annular). It is noted that intermittent flow corresponds to slug flow in nearly horizontal pipes and in nearly vertical pipes of small diameter. On the contrary, in nearly vertical pipes with a diameter larger than roughly 4, it is known that slug flow with Taylor type of bubbles does not occur (1). Instead, churn flow is observed. Consequently, in the Boussens experiments, intermittent can also refer to churn flow. The churn flow regime is not predicted by OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow, and it is possibly denominated by slug flow by the two software packages. This database is interesting, since many experiments are performed in the intermittent flow regime, which is the most important regime from the operation point of view. Furthermore, the flow conditions are as close as it can be obtained experimentally to conditions in real pipelines. Since the database is not made available to LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3, it is ideally suited for an a posteriori validation. Since the models in LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 are different for each flow regime, it does not make sense to compare the predictions to the experimental values for all the flow regimes together. Therefore, the results will be discriminated per flow regime, and only the most interesting results are highlighted. Next, the pipe inclination plays an

414

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

important role. For example, for a large pipe inclination and a large liquid volume fraction, the gravitational pressure-gradient is predominant with respect to the frictional one. Therefore, in the analysis, the results will be presented for a given flow regime and pipe inclination. Note that some prediction results for the Tiller database are shown in the paper, when it is required to show that the Boussens and Tiller databases have the same qualitative trends. The large scale SINTEF Tiller loop consists of a 1 km long pipe of 8 and 12 diameter, operated with nitrogen and a light oil at pressures between 20 and 90 bars (2). The longest part can be inclined by angles between -10 and 10, and the loop ends with the vertical riser. Note that the measurement points used here have been collected during the Leda R&D program experimental campaign that started in 2001. 2.1 Nearly vertical slug flow In this section, the points of the Boussens database are considered for which intermittent flow is experimentally reported in the pipes inclined by 90 and 75 (in total 234 data points). Note that globally no differences were observed between 75 and 90. On the other hand, a diameter effect may be expected, since slug flow occurs in the 3 pipe and churn flow in the 6 pipe. The total pressure-gradients predicted by LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 are compared to the experimental values in Figure 1. The relative error distribution is shown in Figure 2. It can be observed that LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 provide similar predictions. The errors are more or less symmetrically distributed around a zero error. However, the relative error distribution is quite large, and errors with an amplitude up to roughly 70% can be observed (the error in percentage is defined as (xpred - xmeas)/xmeas100, with xpred and xmeas the predicted and measured values, respectively). Figure 3 shows that the largest errors occur for low liquid superficial velocities. It is noted that such large errors are not specific to the Boussens database. Indeed, it has been observed that large errors were also observed for the Tiller database, especially for OLGA 5.3 (Figure 4). However, for the Tiller database, the large errors were mostly positive, up to 80% for OLGA 5.3 and 50% for LedaFlow, for pressure-gradients between roughly 2000 and 3000 Pa/m.

LedaFlow

OLGA 5.3

Figure 1: Predicted pressure-gradient as a function of the experimental one, by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), for points in the Boussens database in nearly vertical pipes and for which upward slug flow is reported. The lines correspond to an error of 0%, 30% and -30%.

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

415

OLGA 5.3

Figure 2: Distribution of the relative error in the prediction of the pressuregradient by LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3, for points in the Boussens database in nearly vertical pipes and for which upward slug flow is reported.
LedaFlow

OLGA 5.3

Figure 3: Relative error of the pressure-gradient predicted by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), as a function of the experimental liquid superficial velocity, for points in the Boussens database in nearly vertical pipes and for which upward slug flow is reported.

OLGA 5.3

Figure 4: Relative error distribution for the pressure-gradient predicted by LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3, for points of the Tiller database in vertical pipes. Since the flow regime has not been reported, the error distribution for LedaFlow is made for the points for which LedaFlow predicts slug flow. The error distribution for OLGA 5.3 is for points for which OLGA 5.3 predicts slug flow.

416

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

In vertical pipes of small diameter, slug flow is the flow regime intermediary of bubbly flow and churn/annular flow, and it is characterized by large Taylor bubbles with a welldefined shape. For this type of flow, a drift flux model can provide an accurate prediction of the velocity of the gas bubbles, and using mass balances, a good prediction of the liquid volume fraction and total pressure-gradient (3). However, Omebere-Iyari et al. (1) showed experimentally that Taylor bubbles do not occur in vertical pipes of large diameter and the flow regime changes directly from a chaotic bubbly flow to a chaotic churn flow. In churn flow, the drift flux model based on slug flow can fail, since the model is based on Taylor bubbles. Therefore, to account for churn flow, LedaFlow uses a modified drift flux model for pipes with a diameter larger than 4. The modification is partly tuned on the Tiller database. This could be the explanation for the smaller error in the LedaFlow predictions compared to the OLGA 5.3 predictions on the Tiller database. We do not know whether in OLGA 5.3 the modeling of slug flow has been adapted to large diameter pipes. For the Boussens database, large errors are found, while part of the database is measured in a small diameter pipe (0.074 m). Therefore, churn flow cannot be the only explanation for the large errors. Figure 3 shows that the error is the largest for small liquid superficial velocities ULS. At those low ULS, the liquid volume fraction is smaller than 0.3 (Figure 5). In that case, it is likely that the flow regime is churn-annular like, with a continuous gas core (4), (5), (6). Then, the flow configuration is annular, with a liquid film flowing downward but with large waves characteristic of churn flow moving upward. For this flow configuration, a drift flux model is likely to fail in any case, and a modeling based on an annular flow configuration together with the results of Zabaras et al. (6) would perhaps be more appropriate. Note that the predictions of the liquid volume fraction in Figure 5 shows that the largest errors occur for low values, i.e. low ULS, which is in accordance with the results on the pressure-gradient.
LedaFlow

OLGA 5.3

Figure 5: Predicted liquid volume fraction as a function of the experimental one, by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), for points in the Boussens database in nearly vertical pipes and for which upward slug flow is reported. The lines correspond to an error of 0%, 30% and -30%. It is also noted that the flow regime prediction is not always accurate. This has been reported before by Helgeland Sanns and Johnson (7). In this case, at low ULS, annular flow is sometimes predicted for intermittent flow. However, the closures for upward annular flow are not better adapted to churn/annular flow than the slug flow drift flux model.

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

417

2.2

Nearly horizontal slug flow

2.2.1. In pipes with a small positive inclination The pressure-gradient predictions by LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 in slug flow at small and positive inclination angles are compared to the experimental values in Figure 6. The angles are between 0 and 4, hence horizontal slug flow is included (in total 407 data points). The predictions at small negative angles are shown in next section. It can be seen that the error for both LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 is smaller than 30%, except for a small number of points. This error is significantly smaller than that observed for nearly vertical slug flow. Comparing LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3, the error distribution in Figure 7 shows that LedaFlow is more symmetric and centred on zero error than OLGA 5.3. With OLGA 5.3, a positive error between 10 and 15% is most likely to occur in the Boussens dataset. Furthermore, OLGA 5.3 has a larger amount of outliers than LedaFlow, although that amount remains small.

LedaFlow

OLGA 5.3

Figure 6: Predicted pressure-gradient as a function of the experimental one, by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), for points in the Boussens database in pipes with a small and positive inclination for which slug flow is reported. The lines correspond to an error of 0%, 30% and -30%.

OLGA 5.3

Figure 7: Distribution of the relative error in the prediction of the pressuregradient by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), for points in the Boussens database in pipes with a small and positive inclination and for which slug flow is reported.

418

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

The predictions of the pressure-gradient for slug flow at small positive angles are much better than the results shown in Section 2.1 for nearly vertical slug flow. This can look remarkable, since the contribution of the frictional pressure-gradient to the total pressuregradient increases with decreasing angles, and its modeling is more complex than that of the gravitational component. On the other hand, in nearly horizontal pipes for the pipe diameter under consideration, there is no question about the flow regime as it was the case for vertical pipes, since intermittent flow corresponds to slug flow. For slug flow, a drift flux model is accurate, and a good prediction of the gas bubble velocity can be obtained. Furthermore, in slug flow, most of the wall friction occurs in the liquid slug, because of the higher density and viscosity. With an accurate prediction of the liquid slug velocity, it is likely that the wall friction in a liquid plug with bubbles can be predicted accurately (the uncertainty remaining in the entrainment of bubbles in the slug). Note that the pressure-gradient predictions in horizontal bubbly flow are also very good, especially for LedaFlow (not shown in the paper). Hence, the better prediction in nearly horizontal slug flow compared to nearly vertical slug flow is probably related to the flow regime in nearly vertical pipes and to the fact that one drift flux model cannot be used at the same time for slug flow, churn flow and churn/annular flow. 2.2.2. In pipes with a small negative inclination The pressure-gradient predictions by LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 in slug flow at small and negative inclination angles are compared to the experimental values in Figure 8 (in total 114 data points). As for small positive inclination angles, the error for both LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 is smaller than 30% for most of the points. However, it is now OLGA 5.3 which is more symmetric and centred on zero compared to LedaFlow which has a positive error in the order of 10% (Figure 9). Furthermore, LedaFlow has more outliers than OLGA 5.3.

LedaFlow

OLGA 5.3

Figure 8: Predicted pressure-gradient as a function of the experimental one, by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), for points in the Boussens database in pipes with a small and negative inclination for which slug flow is reported. The lines correspond to an error of 0%, 30% and -30%.

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

419

OLGA 5.3

Figure 9: Distribution of the relative error in the prediction of the pressuregradient by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), for points in the Boussens database in pipes with a small and negative inclination and for which slug flow is reported. 2.3 Separated flow in horizontal pipes The predictions in separated flow, either stratified or annular, are important, since it is the flow regime that occur most in pipelines, the largest part of the pipelines being nearly horizontal. In this section, only strictly horizontal flow is considered. This simplifies the analysis, because it allows separating the effects of the frictional and gravitational pressure-gradients. Indeed, in stratified flow, a small inclination can already have a large effect on the total pressure-gradient due to the gravitational component. Note that in horizontal pipes, OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow do not distinguish between stratified and annular flow, while in the Boussens database a distinction is made. Therefore, the points of the database, for which stratified or annular flow are reported, are considered in this section (in total 91 data points). The predictions with OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow of the pressure-gradient in separated flow are shown in Figure 10 and 11. The points at large pressure-gradients in Figure 10 correspond to data points for which annular flow is reported. For those points, it can be seen that the relative error is mostly between 30% for LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3.

LedaFlow

OLGA 5.3

Figure 10: Predicted pressure-gradient as a function of the experimental one, by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), for points in the Boussens database in strictly horizontal pipes for which separated flow is reported. The lines correspond to an error of 0%, 30% and -30%.

420

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

LedaFlow

OLGA 5.3

Figure 11: Predicted pressure-gradient as a function of the experimental one, by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), for points in the Boussens database in strictly horizontal pipes for which separated flow is reported (zoom of figure 9). The lines correspond to an error of 0%, 30% and -30%. However, it is more probable to have a positive error for both prediction tools, and to have a larger error with OLGA 5.3 than with LedaFlow. The points at small pressuregradients in Figure 10 correspond to data points in the stratified flow regime, and the results are magnified in Figure 11. Except for very small pressure-gradients (roughly up to 20 Pa/m), the relative error is again mostly between 30% for both prediction tools. The predicted pressure-gradient by LedaFlow is systematically larger than that predicted by OLGA 5.3. The relative error obtained with LedaFlow is often positive for the Boussens database, while the error with OLGA 5.3 is more broadly distributed between roughly 30%. The liquid volume fraction predictions in OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow are shown in Figure 12. It is remarkable to observe that the liquid volume fraction is mostly overpredicted by both prediction tools, with relative errors that can be very high. The predicted liquid volume fraction is systematically larger with OLGA 5.3 compared to LedaFlow. For OLGA 5.3, almost no negative relative errors are found. Note that the overprediction is not specific to the Boussens database; it is also observed in the Tiller database (Figure 13), although here some negative errors can be observed with OLGA 5.3. Therefore, the overprediction is unlikely to be caused by measurement errors. The fact that OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow have a similar error in the liquid volume fraction is probably due to the fact that both software packages use the same kind of modeling. It is possible that the overprediction in the liquid volume fraction is introduced in OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow in order to get the liquid accumulation and turndown curves of field cases close to measurements. Indeed, in field cases, the grid size can be quite large, in the order of 100 m. The pipeline can be horizontal on average over the length of the grid cell, however, it will have small fluctuations in the inclination due to terrain inclinations on scales smaller than the length of the grid cell. Gravitational effects already have an impact at small inclinations, therefore, a pipeline is expected to accumulate faster liquid compared to strict horizontal pipes as in laboratory experiments, because of the small positive slope fluctuations on scales smaller than the grid cell length. Note that from the users perspective doing a design, an overprediction of the liquid volume is preferred compared to an underprediction.

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

421

LedaFlow

OLGA 5.3

Figure 12: Predicted liquid volume fraction as a function of the experimental one, by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), for points in the Boussens database in strictly horizontal pipes for which separated flow is reported. The lines correspond to an error of 0%, 30% and -30%.

OLGA 5.3

Figure 13: Relative error distribution for the liquid volume fraction predicted by LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3, for points of the Tiller database in vertical pipes. 2.4 Separated flow in pipes with a small positive inclination In this section, data points of the Boussens database are considered for which separated flow (stratified and annular flow) is reported in pipes with an inclination of 4 and 1.1 (in total 112 data points). Although the angles are small, the gravitational pressuregradient can have an impact on the total pressure-gradient, for instance in stratified flow at low velocities. Indeed, as an order of magnitude for oil with a density of 700 kg/m3, a liquid volume fraction of 0.1 in a pipe inclined by 4, the gravitational component is equal to 49 Pa/m. Note also that these angles are common in real pipelines. The total pressure-gradient predicted by LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 for separated flow in pipes inclined by 1.1 and 4 are shown in Figure 14 and 15. As in strictly horizontal flow, for high pressure-gradients, i.e. in the annular flow regime, most of the predictions are between 30% for LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 (Figure 14). However, the predictions by OLGA 5.3 show that a positive error is more probable for the Boussens database, while the predictions by LedaFlow are more centred on zero error. This result was also obtained for strictly horizontal flow, which is simply explained by the fact that the gravitational pressure-gradient has a small impact at high pressure-gradients.

422

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

LedaFlow

OLGA 5.3

Figure 14: Predicted pressure-gradient as a function of the experimental one, by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), for points in the Boussens database in pipes inclined by 1.1 and 4 and for which separated flow is reported. The lines correspond to an error of 0%, 30% and -30%.

LedaFlow

OLGA 5.3

Figure 15: Predicted pressure-gradient as a function of the experimental one, by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), for points in the Boussens database in pipes inclined by 1.1 and 4 and for which separated flow is reported (zoom of figure 13). The lines correspond to an error of 0%, 30% and -30%. For small pressure-gradients (Figure 15), it can be seen that LedaFlow performs better than OLGA 5.3. One could think that the better pressure-gradient prediction at small values in LedaFlow is caused by a better prediction of the liquid volume fraction. However, Figure 16 shows that the predictions of the liquid volume fraction by both tools are quite similar. The predictions by LedaFlow are systematically slightly smaller compared to OLGA 5.3. Similarly to strict horizontal pipes, Figure 16 shows that the liquid volume fractions tend to be overpredicted by both tools. OLGA 5.3 does almost not predict liquid volume fractions smaller than the experimental values, which is remarkable. It can be noted that the better predictions of the total pressure-gradient with LedaFlow come from the fact that the errors of the frictional and gravitational pressuregradients cancel each other.

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

423

LedaFlow

OLGA 5.3

Figure 16: Predicted liquid volume fraction as a function of the experimental one, by LedaFlow (left) and OLGA 5.3 (right), for points in the Boussens database in pipes inclined by 1.1 and 4 and for which separated flow is reported. The lines correspond to an error of 0%, 30% and -30%. 3 FIELD DATA

In addition to the comparisons performed between LedaFlow predictions and experimental data, comparisons were also performed against field data during the CAT process. The comparison between LedaFlow predictions against field data has been done for various types of fields ranging from low liquid loading gas condensate fields, to oil wells and high liquid loading flow-lines. In this paper, the comparison results for only one oil well case and one gas condensate transport line case are presented. 3.1 Field case 1 Field case 1 is an oil well, the true vertical depth (TVD) is about 900 m and the measured depth (MD) is 1700 m. The well profile is shown in Figure 17. x x x Fluid properties: o Single phase oil out of the reservoir (oil and gas at surface) o 2 phase Well properties: o MD=1700 m, TVD=900 m o Diameter: 7 Inlet conditions (Reservoir data): o Pressure = 226.5 bara o Temperature = 52.5C o Productivity Index = 1.035 10-5 kg/s/Pa o Uniform inflow distribution along bottom screen zone (length 140 m) o Geothermal gradient: linear from 52.5C (reservoir depth) to 4C at wellhead o Overall heat transfer coefficient (U-value) = 5 W/m2/K

LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 models were developed to simulate the flow in the well for the conditions given above. Pressure and temperature predictions from the two codes at the wellhead and at the gauge were compared to field measurements. The results are summarized in Table 1. Figure 18 shows pressure and temperature profiles given by LedaFlow v2.23 and OLGA 5.3.

424

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

The profiles for OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow are identical. At the gauge and at the well head, both LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 give very close predictions to the measured values (less than 2% error). Table 1: Well measurements and simulation results P at gauge (bara) T at gauge (C) P at wellhead (bara) T at wellhead (C) Measured 189.8 54.0 128.9 49.2 LedaFlow 187.3 53.5 128.7 49.3 OLGA 5.3 187.8 53.5 128.9 49.2

Figure 17: Well profile of field case 1.

Figure 18: Well pressure profile (left) and temperature profile (right) for LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 for field case 1. 3.2 Field case 2 Field case 2 consists of a 150 km long, 22 pipe. The pipe is mostly flat with both downward (inlet) and upward (outlet) riser. It connects two offshore platforms at a water depth of about 120 m. This is a three phase system with possibility of MEG injection. x Fluid properties: o Gas/Condensate/Water transport line o Design rate: 7-14 MSm3/d

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

425

x x

Pipe properties: o Diameter: 22 o Length: 150 km Operating conditions: o Outlet pressure: 100 bara o Inlet fluid temperature: 38C

LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 models were developed to simulate the operation of the pipeline at different flow rates. Figure 19 shows results for pressure drop and liquid holdup predictions. Pressure drop values were also compared to field measurements.

Figure 19: Pressure drop vs. gas flow-rate (left) and total liquid content vs. gas flow-rate (right) for field case 2. It can be seen that the pressure drop predictions by both codes in the friction dominated region (gas flow rate above 6 MSm3/d) are comparable within 10% uncertainty in comparison with field data. In the gravity dominated region (gas flow rate below approximately 5 MSm3/d), both OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow are significantly overestimating the pressure drop. However, very few good quality field measurements exist in this region due to the large instabilities. Furthermore, since it is not desired to operate in this region, it is possible that the pipeline has not been operated over a period long enough to obtain a steady-state situation and a stabilized liquid content. Thus, the results cannot be objectively compared with the field data for gas flow rates below approximately 5 MSm3/d. However, the performance of both codes in this region is very similar. Unfortunately, no field measurements of liquid holdup were available for comparison. Comparison of LedaFlow v2.27 and OLGA 5.3 predictions show very similar trends at high flow rates. However, at low turndown rates, LedaFlow predicts slightly more liquid accumulation than OLGA 5.3. At the lowest simulated flow rate (2 MSm3/d), the holdup predicted by LedaFlow is about 13% larger than that predicted by OLGA 5.3.

CONCLUSIONS

Two commercial multiphase pipe flow prediction tools, OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow, have been extensively tested on laboratory and field data during the CAT process conducted by Total. The analysis based on two selected sets of data (experimental and field data) is presented in this paper with the objective to highlight performance

426

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

differences between two codes. The conclusion from this analysis is that predictions from both codes are comparable for the presented cases. Moreover, the same conclusion was reached based on the larger test matrix not presented in this paper. The experimental database in the current paper corresponds to the data obtained in the Boussens loop. The database was not made available to the developers of OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow, and therefore it consists in a good a posteriori test. The analysis performed for this selected dataset shows that OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow are of the same level. Apart from minor differences, both codes perform equally well when they are expected to provide good results, and equally poor in complicated cases. For instance, in vertical slug flow, the predictions are not good, but this can be explained by the fact that part of the measurements were done in churn flow and churn/annular flow, which is not modelled accurately in both tools. On the other hand, both tools show good results in nearly horizontal slug flow. In nearly separated flow (stratified and annular flow), the total pressure-gradient is well predicted by OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow, with the slight advantage to LedaFlow. On the other hand, both tools do not predict the liquid volume fractions correctly in separated flow. Two field cases are used for the comparison between OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow. They consist of an oil-dominated flow in a well, and of a gas-condensate flow between two platforms. For both cases, LedaFlow and OLGA 5.3 predictions show very good agreement with the available field measurements of pressure drop and temperature. In the gas-condensate case, similar turndown and liquid accumulation curves are obtained, which are crucial parameters for design purposes. Therefore, the selected field cases also confirm that OLGA 5.3 and LedaFlow predictions are of the same level.

5 (1)

REFERENCES Omebere-Iyari, N.K., Azzopardi, B.J., Lucas, D., Beyer, M. and Prasser, H.-M., 2008, The characteristics of gas/liquid flow in large risers at high pressures. Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 34, pp. 461-476. Kjlaas, J., Johansen, S.T., Ladam, Y., Belt, R., Danielson, T.J. and Stinessen, M., 2011, Modelling of the droplet field in near-horizontal low liquid loading flows. Submitted to: 15th Conf. Multiphase Prod. Tech, Cannes, France. Guet, S., Decarre, S., Henriot, V. and Lin, A., 2006, Void fraction in vertical gasliquid slug flow: influence of liquid slug content. Chem. Eng. Sci., 61, pp. 73367350. Vant Westende, J.M.C., Kemp, H.K., Belt, R.J., Portela, L.M. and Oliemans, R.V.A., 2007, On the role of droplets in concurrent annular and churn-annular pipe flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 33(6), pp. 595-615. Vant Westende, J.M.C., 2008, Droplets in annular dispersed gas-liquid pipe flows. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology. Zabaras, G., Dukler, A.E. and Moalem-Maron, D., 1986, Vertical upward concurrent gas-liquid annular flow. AIChE J., 32(5), pp. 829-843. Helgeland Sanns, B. and Johnson, G.W., 2010, A comparison of OLGA 5.3 with two- and three-phase high pressure pipe flow experiments: flow regime prediction. Proc. 7th North American Conf. Multiphase Prod. Tech., Banff, Canada.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

427