aTC 6414

A New Approach for Finger Storage Slug Catcher Design

c. Sarica, O. Shoham, and J.P. Brill, U. of Tulsa
Copyright 1990, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was presented at the 22nd Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 7-10, 1990.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submiUed by the author(s}. Contents of ~ paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The matenal, as presented, does not necessardy reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Permission to copy isrestricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper IS presented.
ABSTRACT
Two options are available for separating the
gas liquid mixture at the exit of a two phase flow
pipeline operating under slug flow conditions.
These are a traditional vessel type separator and a
finger storage type slug catcher. Use of a vessel
separator is usually due to space limitations that
exist, for example, on offshore platforms. Finger
storage slug catchers are the obvious choice for
long, large diameter pipes, especially those which
undergo pigging. They are more cost effective and
more simple to construct and operate.
In the past, sizing of finger storage slug
catchers were based primarily on experience and
rules of thumb. Not surprisingly, most of the
existing slug catchers have been oversized. With
the recent trend of using a subsea compact finger
storage slug catcher upstream of the platform
riser, the need for more accurate design methods
is even more crucial.
This paper presents a new, innovative
approach for the prediction of the reqUired
dimensions of slug catcher fingers. The approach
is based on the effect of the finger pipe diameter
and inclination angle on the transition boundary
between slug flow and stratified flow. Prediction
of the slug characteristics at the slug catcher
inlet, under normal flow or pigging conditions,
are incorporated. Based on the new approach,
the reqUired length and optimal downward
inclination angle of the fingers can be
determined.
The new approach has been used to design
a finger storage slug catcher for actual field
References and illustrations at end ofpaper.
639
conditions. The effect of operational conditions,
e.g. pipeline diameter and finger inclination angle
on the reqUired slug catcher dimensions is
demonstrated.
INTRODUCTION
Pipelines can be operated under two phase
flow conditions for several reasons. In hostile
environments such as arctic and offshore fields,
oil and gas are often transported in a single
pipeline to reduce the construction cost. In
natural gas transportation, due to pressure and
temperature drop during flow in the pipeline,
condensation causing two phase flow may occur.
Depending upon the operating conditions, normal
or terrain induced slug flow, may develop. Also,
artificial slugs, possibly the largest ones, can be
created dUring the removal of accumulated liqUid
by a pigging (sphering) operation in gas pipelines.
It is a common practice to install a slug catcher to
accommodate liqUid slugs at the exit of a pipeline.
A slug catcher can serve as both a separator and
as temporary storage.
There are several unconventional slug
catcher types, such as a prorock slug catcher
1
, a
self supporting fluid separator
2
, and a flexible
subsea slug catcher
3
. However, the vessel and
finger storage types of slug catchers are the most
widely used in the petroleum industry.
Use of traditional vessel type separators as
slug catchers are mainly dictated by space
limitation and relatively small slug sizes. A
number of studies have been conducted to design
such catchers
4
,5,6.7.8.9.1O. In references 4, 5, and
6 the acceleration of the sluga during their
production into the catcher and resultant loads
on bends, fittings and slug catcher internals have
been investigated for a specific slug catcher
A New Approach for Finger Storage Slug Catcher Design
where, vd is the drift velocity given by,
OTC 6414
for normal slug flOW) ..(2)
for pigging
Vd =(0.35 yg
[
LiqUid Input] _[LiqUid Discharge] =[UqUid Accumulation]
Mass Rate Mass Rate Mass Rate
L
savg
= + 4.859 [In d]O.s}", .......(4)
v
t
=1.2 V
m
+ Vd (l)
Estimation of maximum liqUid accumulation
The accumulation rate of liqUid in the
catcher can be given by a liqUid mass balance
between the inlet and outlet of the catcher, as
follows
(L
p
L
srnax
= EpdL (8)
V
s
= Yl.. (7)
E
s
For large diameter pipelines, the Prudhoe Bay
correlation16 can be used to obtain the average
slug length and the maximum anticipated slug
length.
VL = A'JOr.. EpdL (6)
Lsrnax=exp{ 1.54 + In LsavgL (5)
For pigging applications, a conservative estimate
of the volume of the liqUid in front of the pig can
be obtained by integration of the liqUid holdup
along the pipeline, assuming no liqUid shedding
at the back.
E - 1
s-( 1 + (--!nL)1.39) (3)
28.4
The slug volume and the maximum slug length
can be expressed as
Slug liqUid holdup can be predicted by the
Gregory et a1 correlation
15
.
include slug length, slug holdup, slug velOCity, and
the translational velocity. The slug velocity is
equal to the mixture velocity under steady state
flow conditions. The translational velocity is
expressed as,
640
characteristics
A proper design of any slug catcher requires
apriori information about the characteristics of
the slugs at the pipeline exit conditions, either
normal or artificially created by pigging. These
design. Giozza
7
has modified a model given by
Schmidt et alB to simulate vessel type separator
behavior under slug flow conditions to handle
variable slug characteristics. Later, Miyoshi et al
9
modified Giozza's model to incorporate severe
slugging effects, and proposed a procedure to
predict separator foam layer thickness. Gencell et
al
lO
have developed a model utilizing linear
control theory to optimize the gains and reset
times of separator controllers and ensure stable
system operation.
A finger storage type slug catcher is
preferable to the vessel separator type for two
reasons. First, it is cost effective when large
volumes of liqUids must be handled. Secondly,
although more space is required compared to the
vessel separator type, it causes less operational
problems. Very few studies have been conducted
for designing finger type slug catchers. Bos and
du Chatinier
11
have investigated two phase flow
behavior (I.e. slug distribution and liqUid carryover
mechanism) in a high-pressure multiple-pipe slug
catcher, simulated by a two-liquid (kerosene/zinc
chloride) laboratory facility at atmospheric
conditions. They claimed that the observed
maldistribution of the liqUid slug among the
fingers can be corrected by properly instalIin.s:r
downcomer constrictions in the facility.
presented an application of both platform and
onshore finger type slug catchers. Later, Oranje
13
reported that the application of different slopes
for the separation and storage sections presents
considerable improvements in the storage
capacity of the catcher, while achieving
significant reduction in installation cost. He
recommended that countercurrent flow in a slug
catcher, which may result in severe carryover,
should be eliminated by providing gas escape
headers along the fingers to ensure cocurrent
flow conditions. Contrary to Oranje's13
recommendations, in most of the existing finger
type slug catchers, counter current flow occurs.
One of the crucial problems in countercurrent
flow type slug catchers is liqUid carryover
(flooding). A flooding diagram has been proposed
by Senni et al 14. However, there is not enough
information about the diagram development, and
how one should use the diagram to size a slug
catcher properly.
In this paper, a new approach based on two
phase flow hydrodynamics is presented for the
design of a finger type slug catcher. The effect of
the finger inclination angle on the slug catcher
dimensions is emphaSized.
ANALYSIS
2
ocr 6414
Cem Sanca. Ovadia Shoham. James P. Brill 3
Assuming a constant liquid density in the catcher.
and no acceleration dUring the slug production.
the liquid accumulation rate can be written as,
qaccum = vmEsAp - qdis (9)
The accumulated liquid volume can be stated as.
the available volume to handle the liqUid
accumulation in the catcher. Thus. for a particular
catcher diameter. the catcher length can be
obtained by.
L - Vaccum ( 13)
catc - A rE E ] .
catcl tran- oper
641
or
Vaccum = tsp qaccum ( 10)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The proposed model is applied for
designing a slug catcher for a typical field case. All
relevant information is given in Table 1. The
results in this section are for the example case.
Fig. 1 shows a flow pattern map for a 20-in.
diameter horizontal slug catcher (same diameter
as the pipeline). Shown on the map is the
operation point for the exit conditions of the
pipeline. The flow pattern in both the pipeline.
and the slug catcher is intermittent or slug flow.
Transition from slug flow to the stratified flow
pattern can be achieved by increasing the slug
catcher diameter. The minimum slug catcher
diameter which will cause stratification under the
same flow conditions is 26 in.. as shown by the
flow pattern map in Fig. 2. This is based on the
average flow rates of the gas and the liquid phases
at the slug catcher. However. due to the
intermittent nature of slug flow. the liquid and
gas flow rates into the slug catcher are not
constant. but vary signIficantly when the slug body
or the gas pocket are produced. Thus. one must
use a larger slug catcher diameter to ensure
stratification dUring the production of the liquid
slug body. Once the stratification is ensured. the
available space and the cost will be the dominant
factors in sizing the slug catcher. The flow
pattern map for a 52 in. diameter slug catcher is
shown in Fig. 3. The map shows that the
operation point for the same inlet flow condition
is located in the stratified flow regime. The
difference between the operational and transition
superficial liquid velocities and corresponding
liquid holdups determines the volume of the
The model involves two significant conservative
assumptions. First. dUring the production of the
liquid slug body, liquid continues to be shed into
the trailing liquid film below the gas pocket. The
volume of the liquid accumulation is thus less
than calculated by Eq. (11). Second, it is assumed
that the liquid in the slug catcher prior to the
slug production is E
oper
. In reality, the liqUid level
in the catcher will fall during the production of
the gas pocket and film. Both of these
assumptions result in predicting slightly larger
slug catcher dimensions than needed and
introduce a safety factor.
Although the model is given only for one
finger. it is capable of handling more than one
finger, prOVided that the liquid distribution
among the fingers is known.
(PL-Po) g cos ex Ao
dA
L
.... (12)
Po dhL
_ ( h
L
)
VOtran - l-d
Vaccum = [vmEsAp - qdiJ ............ ( 11)
When VG. the actual gas velocity. is less than
VGtran. stratification is expected to occur in the
catcher. Once the minimum slug catcher
diameter is obtained. the next step in the design
is to accommodate the incoming liquid flow. Due
to accumulation of the liquid. stratified flow can
not be maintained in the catcher at the above
mentioned minimum diameter. Therefore. the
catcher diameter should be increased to
accommodate the liquid in the catcher. and to
avoid liquid carryover. For an increased catcher
diameter and the same production conditions.
the operational liquid holdup based on the
average flow rates of the gas and the liquid phases
at the catcher. E
oper
. can be obtained by solving
the combined momentum equation under
stratified flow conditions. Also. for a given gas
superficial velocity. VSG, the maximum possible
superficial liquid velocity for stratified flow to
exist can be determined, using the transition
criterion given by Eq. (12). The corresponding
liquid holdup is the transition holdup. Etran. The
difference between the transition liquid holdup
and the operational liquid holdup will determine
type catcher
The present approach is based on the
criterion for the transition boundary between slug
and stratified flow. presented by Taitel and
Dukler17. This approach was originally proposed
by Machado
18
and modified recently. Following is
a detailed description of the new approach.
Transition from slug flow to the desired
stratified flow can be achieved by increasing the
slug catcher diameter and/or introducing a
downward inclination of the catcher. The
minimum slug catcher diameter which will cause
stratification can be determined using the
transition criterion given by Taitel and Dukler
17
If the discharge rate is expected to fluctuate. it is
recommended to use the minimum rate.
4 A New Approach for Finger Storage Slug Catcher Design OTC 6414
liquid that the slug catcher can handle. For the
example case, using Eqs. 11 and 13, and
assuming q~i~ = O, a 1458 ft. long 52 in. internal
diameter horizontal slug catcher length is
calculated.
Diameter effects
Fig. 4 presents the relationship between the
slug catcher diameter and both the operational
and the transition liquid holdups for a horizontal
slug catcher. For increasing slug catcher
diameter, the transition liquid holdup increases
while the operational holdup stays almost
constant. On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 5
for -5 downward inclined slug catcher, the
operational liquid holdup decreases significantly
when the catcher diameter increases, although
the transition holdup has the same trend as for
the horizontal case.
Do
Wnwar d inclinationn ande effec~
I
Fig. 6 shows the behavior of the transition
liquid holdup as a function of the slug catcher
diameter for four different inclination angles. As
shown, the effect of the inclination angle on the
transition holdup is insignificant because the
aCtual t.ranSit,iOngaS velocity, vctra~, given by Eq.
12 stays almost constant for the range of
inclination angles of interest.
The relationship between the operational
liquid holdup and the slug catcher diameter for
five different inclination angles is given in Fig. 7.
As can be seen, the operational liquid holdup
decreases significantly, even for small downward
inclination angles.
A typical plot of the inclination angle versus
the slug catcher length is given in Fig. 8. The
decrease in the slug catcher length is drastic
between 0 and -0.5 inclination angles, while it is
insignificant between -0.5 and -5 inclination
angles for all catcher diameters. Therefore, after a
certain increase in the downward inclination
angle, further increases do not yield the same
order of reduction in the slug catcher length. The
decrease in the operational liquid holdup, due to
downward inclination of the slug catcher, will
promote stratification and reduce the required
slug catcher length for a given sIug catcher
diameter, as shown in Fig. 9.
CONCLUSIONS
I
G A new innovative approach for the
prediction of the required dimensions of a slug
catcher is presented. The approach utilizes the
transition boundary criterion between the slug
and stratified flow regimes.
Proper design of a slug catcher requires
apriori information about the characteristics of
. ..
the design slugs, either normal or artificially
created during a pigging operation, at the
pipeline exit conditions.
G The analysis is given only for one finger.
The model is capable of handling multiple fingers
provided that the liquid distribution among
fingers is known.
. The larger the catcher diameter, the
smaller the catcher length that is required.
G Small downward inclination angles
reduce the slug catcher dimensions significantly.
After a certain increase in downward inclination
angIe, further increase does not yield the same
order of reduction tn slug catcher length.
G Once stratification is ensured in the
catcher, space limitation and cost are the main
factors in sizing slug catchers,
REFERENCES
1. Hubertz, T., et al.: A Cost Effective
Subsurface Concept for Onshore
Termination of Multiphase Export
Pipelines, Seventh International Conf. on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
Houston, TX, (Feb. 7-12, 1988), pp 291-
295.
2. Wheeler et al.: Hydrocarbon Fluid
Separation at an Offshore Site and Method,
United States Patent, No 4793418.
3. Huntley, A.I?.: Flexible Subsea SIug Catcher
is Designed for Use in North Seas Troll
Field, Oil & Gas J., Vol. 84, No 30, (July
28, 1986), pp 84-86.
4. Huntley, A.R. and Silvester, R. S.:
Hydrodynamic Analysis Aids Slug Catcher
Design, Oil & Gas J., Vol. 81, No. 38, (Sept.
19, 1983), pp 95-100.
5. Silvester, R. S.: Hydrodynamic Analysis Atds
Slug Catcher Design, 2nd International
BHRA Multiphase Flow Conf., London,
England, (June 19-21, 1985), pp 443-453.
6. Silvester, R.S. and Gordon, I.G.: Design of
Slug Catcher Systems for Dynamic Loading,
Offshore Separation Processes Symposium
Proc., Middlesbrough, England, (May 15,
1986), pp 33-45.
7. Giozza, W. F.: Simulation of Gas-Oil
Separator Behavior under Slug Flow
Conditions, M.S. Thesis, The University of
Tulsa
8. Brill Engineering Co.: Evaluation of
Prudhoe Bay Field Slug Attenuation Test
I
Data, Report to Prudhoe Bay Unit, (Sep.
1980), pp 61-79.
L Length (ft)
P
Pressure (psia)
9. Miyoshi, M., et al.:
q
Slug Catcher Design for ~p
Volumetric rate (ft3/s)
Dynamic Slugging in an Offshore production
t
Producing gas-oil ratio (SCF/STB)
Facility, SPE 1986 International Meeting
~
Time (s)
on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China,
Temperature (oF)
(March 17-20, 1986) SPE 14124, pp 119-
Velocity (ft/s)
135. ; Volume (ft3)
10. Genceli, H., et al.:
Dynamic Simulation of
Subscrit)ts
Slug Catcher Behavior, 63rd SPE Annual
Technical Conference, Houston, TX, (Oct. 2- accum Accumulation
5, 1988), SPE 18235, pp 549-562. catc Catcher
d Drift
11. Bos, A. and du Chatinier, J. G.: Simulation of dis Discharge
Gas/Liquid Flow in Slug Catchers, SPE
G
~7;~;~ Engineer~g. (August, 1987), pp
Gtran Gas transition
GSin Superficial gas input
L Liquid
12. Oranje, L.:
Handling Two-Phase Gas
LSin Superficial liquid input
Condensate Flow in Offshore Pipeline m Mixture
Systems, Oil & Gas J., Vol. 81, No. 16, 0 Oil
(Apr. 18, 1983), pp128-130. oper Operation
P
Pipe
13. Oranje, L.: Terminal Slugcatchers for Two- s slug
Phase Flow and Dense-Phase Flow Gas savg Slug average
Pipelines, J. Energy Resources Technology, Smax Slug maximum
Vol. 110, No.4, (Dec. 1988), pp 224-229. sp Slug passage
t Translational
14. Senni, S., et al.: The process Design of a tran Transition
Subsea Booster System (S. B. S): Problems
and Solutions Related to the Hydraulics of Greek Letters
Multiphase Flow,
Seventh International
Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
a
Engineering, Houston, TX, (Feb.7. 12,
Inclination angle (degree)
1988), pp 297-305.
v
viscosity (Cp)
P
Density (ibm/ft3)
15. Gregory, G.A., et al.: Correlation of the
a Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Liquid Volume Fraction in the Slug for
Horizontal Gas-Liquid Slug Flow, Int, J,
Multiphase Flow, 4., (1978), pp 33-39.
16. Norris, L.:
Correlation of Prudhoe Bay
Liquid SIug Lengths and Holdups Including
1981 Large Diameter Flow Line Tests,
Exxon International Report (October 1982).
17. Taitel, Y. and Dukler, A. E.: A Model for
Predicting Flow Regime Transition in
Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas Liquid
HOW, AIChE J., 22, (1976), pp 47-55.
18. Brill, J.P. and Beggs, H. D.: Two Phase FIOW
in piDes, The University of Tulsa (1983).
NOMENCLATURE
~L DESCRIPTION
A Area (ft2)
d Diameter (in.)
E
Liquid holdup
g
Gravity acceleration (ft/sZ)
Height (ft)
OCT 6414
Cem Sarica, Ovadia Shoham, James P. Brill
5
643

TABLE 1
TYPICAL FIELD DATA FGR FINGER TYPE SLUG CATCHER DESIGN
EXAMPLE
~o= 70.000 STWDAY
Rp = 1,000 SCF/STB
p = 450 paig
T=800F
PO= 45 lbm/tuft
pG = 2 lbm/tuft
%= lcp
vG= 0.01 Cp
a = 23 dynefcm
dp = 20 in,
VSI,M= 2.5 ftjs
Vwln = 5.5 ft/r+
_ = 550.6 ft.
krsx s 2568.4 ft.
102 Dis~med Buble
m
>
-
Or.cration Fuint
$5
& 101 ?
a
hrtenn[ttent
&
0
%
G
: 100?
Amlldar
~
a
%
~o-l
Stratltled Smcoth
i
& 1o
Z
~o-3
~:- ~o-l o 1
10= 103
Superfici&Gas Vef%ty (ft/s)
Fig. I: Ffow pattern Map for a 20 in. Horizontal Slug Catcher.
lo~
Dlsperaed Buble
z
~
-
Operation Point
~ 101
Itennittent
~
L
+ 100
~
~
l-l lo-l=
a Strattlkd Smcoth StratUlcd Wavy
4
g 10-!
$
,
l o- ~
~o- ~o-l o 1
10
Superffci~lGas Ve&ity (tl/s)
10s
Fig,2 : Flow Pattern Map for a 26 in. Horizontal Slug Catcher.
Intermittent
llansitlon Point
$
f
operation PQtnt
Stratloed wavy
StratlIlcd Smmtb
Fig.3 : Ffow Pattern Map for a 52 fn. Slug Catcher.
644
0,8
I
-------------
-------
-----
------
----
----
----
#-
. .
0.6
1
I
Operatton
-----S Transition
0,4 !
25 35
Diameter, in.
45
55
Fig.4: Liquid Holdup vs Diameter for a Horizontal Slug Catcher.
I
1
Operation
0,2
Transition
o.o~
25
35
45 . .
00
Diameter, in.
Fig. 5; Liquid Holdup vs Diameter for a -5 Inclined Slug Catcher.
1.C
0.8
~
z
z 0.6
~
~
3 fJ.4
0,2
0.0
25
a. ac)
a .-0,01
. . . . . . . .
a = -!3.03
C.-m
. . . . . . . . . .
a= -5.0
~
----------
----------
-----------
-------------------------- .. .. .. .. ..
35
45 55 . .
Diameter, in.
Ffg.7: Operational Holdup vs Diameter.
FJ
E
0.8-
m
~
3
0.7-
a= 0,0
a-o,rx
-. . . . ..-
a-os
E-s,o
0.6-
2s
35
45
Diameter, in.
Fig.& Transition Holdup va Diameter
&
1
d=36ti.
5mo d=40h.
------ d= 44 in.
?m
d=52in.
I
I
:.I
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Inclination Angle, degree
Fig.8: Slug Catcher Length w Inclination Angle.
10000-
a= 0.0
. 8000- a= -0.01
~
. . . . . . . .
--0,1
a= -5.0
J 6000-
g
g
% 4000-
0
.,
\
...
2000-
0-
25
35
45
55
Catcher Dimneter, III.
Ffg. 9: Effect of Inclination Angle
845
I
I
I