192 December 2010 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction

A Conceptual Study of Finger-Type Slug

Catcher for Heavy-Oil Fields
J. Mrquez, C. Manzanilla, and J. Trujillo, PDVSA Intevep
Copyright 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 122829) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Cartagena, Bolivar, Colombia, 31 May to
03 June 2009, and revised for publication. Original manuscript received 19 February 2009.
Revised manuscript received 23 December 09. Paper peer approved 20 January 2010.
Summary
The gas/liquid-separation processes in heavy- and extra-heavy-oil
fields are performed mainly with gravity conventional separators.
However, the separation efficiency of this equipment depends on
the operating conditions, an appropriate design, and the proper-
ties of the fluids. Therefore, the separation efficiency is affected
mainly by the high liquid viscosity, low pressures, and the low
gas-flow rate that are present in heavy- and extra-heavy-oil fields.
Additionally, these conditions increase the probability of slug-flow
formation through pipelines, which causes operational problems,
mainly in the separation process.
This situation raises the need to design a gas/liquid separator
able to handle viscous liquid, reduce the effects of slug flow, and
perform an efficient separation. There are different technologies
that can help improve gas/liquid separation, among them the
finger-type slug catcher. This technology is usually used in gas
fields or light- and medium-oil fields as a flow conditioner and
slug-flow mitigator. However, this paper has changed that focus
toward considering a heavy-oil design.
This paper presents an improvement in the methodology of
Sarica et al. (1990), predicting the dimensions of a finger-type
slug catcher for heavy-oil fields. It is derived from the effect from
the transition of stratified flow to nonstratified flow when the liq-
uid phase is viscous and only considers slug-flow characteristics
under normal flow; on the basis of the improvement, the required
diameter and length of the finger are determined.
This improvement is used to design a finger-type slug catcher for
heavy-oil fields in the Orinoco belt. An economic comparison against
conventional separators is presented, demonstrating the finger-type
slug catcher to be more economical than the conventional separator.
Introduction
Multiphase flow through pipelines in heavy-oil fields is a daily
occurrence, and the slug-flow pattern is promoted because of the
high oil viscosity, the low pressure, and the low gas flow. In fact,
the envelope of slug flow in a gas/liquid flow-pattern-transition
map is increased with an increase in liquid viscosity or liquid-flow
rate. Pipelines transport the production streams to the processing
facilities where the separator is the initial receiving process device.
Separators could be affected by severe operational conditions
caused by slug flow. Therefore, it is necessary to use an adequate
gas/liquid separator to mitigate the slug-flow effects and perform
an efficient separation.
Although several gas/liquid-separation technologies have been
available for many years, a study was conducted to identify the
more-suitable technologies for heavy-oil applications. This study
concluded that conventional separators are widely used in heavy-
oil-field developments and that there are preseparators that can be
used as flow conditioners to improve the separation. However, the
preseparators also could be used as a primary separator. Among the
found technologies, there are conventional separators, slug catch-
ers, T-junctions, ultrasonic equipment, and others, but through a
selection process the finger-type slug catcher was chosen to make
a conceptual design that considers the viscous-liquid effects.
The traditional design of conventional separators is based on
typical residence time, depending on the oil density, and does
not consider the liquid-viscocity effects on the rise velocity of
gas bubbles entrained in the liquid. Even when considering the
bubble velocity, traditional design derived simplifications do not
reproduce accurately the hydrodynamic behavior of the gas/liquid
separation in the equipment when the liquid is viscous.
The desired hydrodynamic behavior in a gas/liquid separator
is achieved when the gas and liquid phases are stratified, but if
slug flow arrives to the separator, the ideal situation is achieved
when the effective area of flow is sufficiently increased to reduce
the velocity and mitigate the slug affect. Thus, the inviscid Kel-
vin-Helmholtz (IKH) instability criterion enables identifying if
stratified flow can exist under the given conditions, including
the pipeline geometry. On the basis of the IKH criterion that was
used by Taitel and Dukler (1976), which is widely used in the oil
industry to predict the stratified/nonstratified transition, Sarica et
al. (1990) proposed a design methodology for sizing a slug catcher.
However, according to Lin and Hanratty (1986) and Barnea (1990),
the IKH criterion does not properly predict the transition when the
liquid phase is viscous. On the other hand, Barnea and Taitel (1993)
proposed a criterion called viscous Kelvin-Helmholtz (VKH)
instability that considers the effects of the shear stress but not the
interfacial-tension effects (i.e., the viscous effect is considered).
This paper proposes an improvement to the original methodol-
ogy of Sarica et al. (1990) to design a finger-type slug catcher. The
improvement considers the use of the VKH instability criterion
proposed by Barnea and Taitel (1993). In this way, the diameter
of the finger-type slug catcher is determined to guarantee stratified
flow through the device. This methodology was applied to design
a slug catcher for heavy oils, and an economic comparison against
conventional separators is presented.
Selection of Technology
On the basis of a technological survey carried out by Manzanilla
(2007), seven gas/liquid-separation technologies are identified that
could work properly in a heavy-oil field. In the study, the following
technologies were identified: conventional separator as the most
used in heavy-oil fields, double-helix separator, auger separator,
ultrasonic gas/liquid separator, T-junction, and slug catcher (con-
ventional and finger-type). The general characteristics related to
pros and cons of these technologies are given in the Table 1.
Derived from this survey, a preselection of two technologies is
made on the basis of the available technical information (Table 1).
Therefore, four of the technologies founddouble-helix, auger,
T-junction, and ultrasonicwere rejected for the following reasons:
The design does not consider handling slug-flow conditions.
There is no experience in Venezuelan oil fields with the
technology.
The technology is in the experimental development stage.
The technology operation is unstable.
Thus, conventional separators and slug catchers were consid-
ered as the preselected technologies. The final selection inherent
to these technologies was made using the criteria and solutions
weighting method proposed by Vilchez (2008). Therefore, seven
criteria and two solutions are considered. The criteria are priori-
tized below according to the level of importance.
1. Capacity to handle viscous liquids (C
1
)
2. Capacity to handle slug flow (C
2
)
3. Separation efficiency (C
3
)
4. Residence time (C
4
)
December 2010 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction 193
5. Operational stability (C
5
)
6. Complexity of construction (C
6
)
7. Process control levels (C
7
)
The criteria were evaluated hierarchically. The qualification
range was given between 1 and 7. The most important criterion
(C1) obtained the greater weighting (seven points), and the less
important criterion (C7) received the minimum value. The cor-
responding weighting is shown in Table 2.
The solutions are conventional separator (S
1
) and slug catcher
(S
2
), and because only two solutions are considered, the numerical
qualifying scale will range from 1 to 2. Thus, each criterion (C1
through C7) assesses for each solution, and the highest value (2) is
given to the solution that meets this criterion better (Table 3).
Derived from the assessment in Tables 2 and 3, the final value
of each probable solutionconventional separator (PS
1
) and slug
catcher (PS
2
)was calculated through the following equations:
PS C S C S C S
C C C 1 2 1 2 1 7 1
1 2 7
+ + + ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
PS C S C S C S
C C C 2 2 2 2 2 7 2
1 2 7
+ + + ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
Now, the values in Tables 1 and 2 are substituted into Eqs. 1
and 2 to obtain the algebraic value of each solution:
PS
1
7 2 6 1 5 2 4 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 42 + + + + + + * * , . . . . . . (3)
PS
2
7 1 6 2 5 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 47 + + + + + + * . . . . . . . (4)
According to the values of the probable solutions (PS
1
and
PS
2
), the applicable solution is PS
2
(i.e., the slug catcher is the
best solution to perform the gas/liquid separation in heavy-oil
fields). Relative to this solution, a conventional or a finger-type
slug catcher could be selected. According to detailed research,
a conventional slug catcher is more expensive than a finger-type
slug catcher (Vergara and Foucart 2007) designed for the same
operational conditions; therefore, the conventional slug catcher is
discarded and the finger-type slug catcher is selected.
TABLE 1CHARACTERISTICS OF SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES
Separator Type Separation Principle s c i t s i r e t c a r a h C r o t a r a p e S
Conventional horizontal Gravitational force It is commonly used for low gas/liquid ratios and heavy-oil fields
Great sizes and weight
Retention time increased to high viscosity
t c a p m o C s e c r o f l a g u f i r t n e c d n a r a e h S x i l e h e l b u o D
Technology in R&D stage
Separation efficiency is moderate
t c a p m o C e c r o f l a g u f i r t n e C r e g u A
Susceptible to erosion and plugging
Separation efficiency is low
Does not work in slug flow
s e v a w c i n o s a r t l U c i n o s a r t l U Promotes bubbles agglomeration
Generates mechanical vibration between 800 KHz and 20 KHz
Could be promoted cavitation phenomenon
Reqiures high control levels
Does not work in slug flow
Does not have experience in Venezuela
Juntion T It is used as a preseparator device
Dynamic separation process
Compact
Requires low control levels
Separation efficiency is low
Finger-type slug catcher Gravitational l e l l a r a p n i s e b u t f o s w o R e c r o f
It is commonly used as preseparator
Handles large amounts of liquid
Few operational problems
Requires low control levels
It is designed to handle slug flow
Conventional slug catcher Gravitational fo r o t a r a p e s e r p s a d e s u y l n o m m o c s i t I e c r
It can handle large amounts of liquid
Few operational problems
Requires low control levels
It is commonly used in places with limited space
It can be used as a gas-liquid-liquid separator
It is designed to handle slug flow
TABLE 2WEIGHTING OF CRITERIA
Criterion g n i t h g i e W
C
1
7
C
2
6
C
3
5
C
4
4
C
5
3
C
6
2
C
7
1
194 December 2010 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction
Finger-Type Slug Catcher. This slug catcher is dened as a gas/
liquid separator that performs primary separation of gas and liquid
and is commonly installed at the end the production lines (i.e., as
the rst process equipment at ow stations). There are two main
types of slug catchersconventional and nger.
Finger-type slug catchers function both as a gas/liquid separator
and as a slug-flow mitigator. They are designed to stratify the gas
and liquid phases and consist of four parts that are made mainly
of pipeline materials (Fig. 1). The different areas are inlet header,
separation, the gas- and liquid-outlet header, and they are shown
in Fig. 1 and will be explained in the following.
The inlet header takes the incoming gas/liquid main stream,
reduces its mixture velocity, and splits the main stream into a
number of smaller streams according to the size of the separation
pipe or finger. The inlet header should allow uniform distribution
of flow rate to the separation area.
The separation consists of several pipes where gas/liquid sepa-
ration is accomplished. Separation occurs because the diameter of
pipes is made to ensure stratified flow into them. Required design
of this part is a function of gas and liquid flow, fluid properties,
and other operational conditions to be specified.
The gas-outlet header gathers the separated gas to send it to
downstream processes. The liquid-outlet header gathers the sepa-
rated liquid to send it to downstream processes.
Design Methodology
The proposed conceptual design for a finger-type slug catcher for
heavy oil is based on the methodology proposed by Sarica et al.
(1990). The design requires information related to the characteristics
of slug flow determined at the slug-catcher inlet-pipeline conditions.
This also requires calculations of liquid accumulation to obtain the
main dimensions of the equipment: diameter and length.
The methodology assumes along with Sarica et al. (1990) the
following:
When the liquid slug is produced, some of this liquid is spilled
to the liquid film of the Taylor bubble because of the velocity dif-
ference between the slug and the Taylor bubble. For this reason, the
volume of liquid accumulation is less than that calculated.
It is supposed that before producing the liquid slug, the opera-
tional holdup is the minimum. In other words, the liquid level into
slug catcher is reduced when the Taylor bubble is produced.
These two assumptions provide a safety factor to the design of
the equipment that slightly increases the slug-catcher dimensions.
Another consideration is that the fingers must be in a horizontal
position because negative or positive inclinations generate waves
of high amplitude, producing early liquid carryover, and under
this condition, additionally, the criteria to predict the stratified/no
stratified transition do not work properly (Barnea 1990; Barnea
and Taitel 1994).
The methodology is given for one finger, but can be adapted to
more than one finger if the liquid distribution among the fingers
is considered.
Slug-Flow Characterization. A proper design of a slug catcher
requires predicting the characteristics of slug ow at the catcher
inlet with the least possible uncertainty. In this sense, a review
and selection of the best mathematical models and correlations to
predict these characteristics for heavy oil was made. The character-
istics include slug holdup, slug length, slug velocity, translational
velocity or Taylor-bubble velocity, and slug frequency and basic
TABLE 3ASSESSMENT OF SOLUTIONS BY EACH CRITERION
n o i r e t i r C
Solution (C
1
) (C
2
) (C
3
) (C
4
) (C
5
) (C
6
) (C
7
)
S
1Cn
2 1 2 1 1 2 1
S
2Cn
1 2 2 1 1 2 1
Separation area
Inlet header
Gas-liquid flow
Gas-outlet header
Separated gas flow
Separated liquid flow
Liquid header
Fig. 1Finger-type slug catcher.
December 2010 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction 195
parameters in multiphase ow. Some of these characteristics
can be represented through a schema of a slug unit, such as that
shown in Fig. 2. Selected mathematical models and correlations
are described later.
The slug holdup is the fraction of a volume element in the
two-phase flow field occupied by the liquid phase in the slug zone
(Fig. 2) and is determined according to the liquid viscosity. If the
viscosity is less than 500 cp, the holdup is calculated using the
Gregory et al. (1978) correlation as
H
v
LLS
M

+
j
(
,
\
,
(
1
1
8 66
1 39
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
The slug holdup for viscosity greater than 500 cp is determined
using a correlation obtained in experiments carried out a 2-in.-test-
loop facility at PDVSA Intevep. Lubrication oil and air were the
testing fluids, and lubrication-oil viscosities from 500 to 1,300 cp
were used. Data of slug-flow characteristics are collected through a
combination of high-speed video camera in the viewing section and
fast signal for pressure drops and wall pressure fluctuations. The
holdup is measured with a set of quick-closing valves. The correla-
tion is based on the Shoham (2000) model, and it is given by
H e
LLS
R
eL

( )
1 0046
0 0022
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
The holdup in the Taylor bubble (the film zone; see Fig. 2) is
determined using the equation obtained by Shoham (2000) as
H
v v H
v
LTB
TB L LLS
TB

( )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
The gas-void fraction is the fraction of a volume element in
the two-phase-flow field occupied by the gas phase in the slug
zone. It is expressed using the following equation proposed by
Beggs (1991):

S LLS
H 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
The film length of the slug unit (Fig. 2) is predicted by use of
a correlation developed from experiments conducted with a 2-in.-
test-loop facility at PDVSA Intevep using lubrication oil (480 cp)
and air as testing fluids. Slug-flow-characteristics data are acquired
in the same manner as for Eq. 6. This correlation is based on the
Taitel and Barnea (1990) model and is given by
L
F
SL
SL SG

+
j
(
,
\
,
(

0 0365
0 8606
.
Re
Re Re
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
The slug-length (Fig. 2) correlation is obtained by inserting L
F

into the correlation developed by Shoham (2000) to predict the film
length. This correlation considers only hydrodynamic slug flow.
L
v H
S
SL
SL SG
L LLS

+
j
(
,
\
,
(

0 0365
0 8606
.
Re
Re Re
.
vv
SL
1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
The next correlations require the estimations of velocities, such
as mixture velocity and liquid, and gas superficial velocities. Also,
prediction of the translational velocity (Taylor-bubble velocity) and
the drift velocity is required. Translational velocity is composed of
a superposition of the bubble velocity in stagnant liquid (i.e., the
drift velocity and the maximum velocity in the slug body), and it
is given by the Nicklin (1962) correlation as
v cv v
TB M D
+ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
where c is derived according to the flow type. If the flow is laminar,
c 2. If it is turbulent c 1 2 . . If flow lies between laminar and
turbulent, the Xiao et al. (1990) correlation is used:
c
L
CL
CL
L

+
j
(
,
\
,
(
+
+
j
(
,
\
,
(
2 0
1
1 20
1
2 2
.
Re
Re
.
Re
Re
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
The drift velocity is the velocity of a phase relative to a surface
moving at the mixture velocity and is calculated depending on the
pipe inclination, as follows.
For pipes slightly inclined, the drift velocity is estimated by the
Bendiksen (1984) correlation as
v v v
D D D
( ) ( ) +( ) ( )
horizontal vertical
cos sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
The following correlation is used for horizontal pipes:
v gD
D
( )
horizontal
0 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
And for vertical pipes,
v gD
D
( )
vertical
0 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
The slug frequency is the rate of recurrence of the slug through
the pipelines and is estimated using the correlation proposed by
Colmenares et al. (2001) as
f
v
L
S
TB
U
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)
where slug unit length is given by
L L L
U S F
+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
Other parameters of interest for slug-flow characterization are
the liquid and gas instantaneous flow at the inlet of the catcher.
They are calculated using the Miyoshi et al. (1988) model.
For the liquid,
Q v A H
p LLS insL Mins
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
And for the gas,
Q v A H
p LLS insG Mins
( ) 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
Prediction of Liquid Accumulation. The liquid accumulation
in the slug catcher is estimated by applying a liquid mass bal-
ance between the inlet and outlet of the equipment (Sarica et al.
1990), as
Liquid-input
mass rate
Liquid-discharge
,

,
]
]
]

mmass rate
Liquid-accumulation
mass rate
,

,
]
]
]

,,

,
]
]
]
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)
Slug zone Film zone
V
LLS
V
GLS
V
GTB
V
LTB
H
LTB
L
U
L
F
L
S
V
TB
Fig. 2Schematic for a slug unit (Colmenares et al. 2001).
196 December 2010 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction
The liquid-input mass rate is determined through the Miyoshi
et al. (1988) model, to calculate the liquid instantaneous flow,
whereas the liquid-discharge mass rate is related to the outlet liquid
flow that depends on the flow-control-valve size.
On the basis of the liquid mass balance presented by Sarica et
al. (1990), the accumulated liquid volume is given as,
V t Q
L
v
v H A Q
sp
S
TB
M LLS p accum acum dis
,

]
]
max
. . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
Finger-Type-Slug-Catcher Sizing. The most important param-
eter in the slug-catcher design is the diameter of the slug-catcher
ngers, which is calculated to obtain stratied ow. In this sense,
models to predict the transition from slug ow to stratied ow are
necessary, such as the IKH instability criterion, the VKH instability
criterion, and the Taitel and Dukler (1976) model.
To predict the transition, Sarica et al. (1990) used the IKH
criterion presented by Taitel and Dukler (1976). However, in this
work it is proposed to use the VKH criterion presented by Barnea
and Taitel (1993) to determine the transition from slug flow to
stratified flow because it better predicts transition for a larger range
of viscosities (100 to 5,000 cp). The criterion is expressed as
v K R R g
A
A
h
Gtran
V L G G L
L G
L G
P
L
+ ( )
j
(
,
\
,
(

LL
,

,
,
,
,
]
]
]
]
]
]
1 2 /
. . . . . . . . . (22)
In this expression, K
V
is a correction factor given as
K
C C
g
A
A
h
V
V IV
L G P
L
L

( )

1
2

cos
d
d
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
The VKH criterion provides minimum diameter from which
stratification is obtained. When the actual gas velocity is less than
the transition gas velocity, stratified flow is expected. Thus, the
catcher diameter should be bigger than the minimum diameter to
receive the incoming liquid. The catcher diameter is determined by
increasing minimum diameter until stratified flow into the equip-
ment is ensured. Also, one must consider the incoming-liquid flow,
available space for installation, and the costs.
For a given gas superficial velocity, there is a transition liquid
holdup and an operation liquid holdup. The first is given by the
maximum liquid superficial velocity for stratified flow and is cal-
culate using the VKH criterion. The second is given by the average
operation flow rates of liquid and gas at the slug catcher. The differ-
ence between these two holdups will provide the available volume
to handle the accumulation of liquid in the slug catcher; thus, the
catcher length for the designed diameter is given as
L
V
A H H
L L
finger
accum
finger trans oper

]
]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
Results and Discussion
The proposed methodology is used to design a finger-type slug
catcher for a heavy-oil field in the Orinoco belt. The designed
catcher was compared economically with the design of a con-
ventional horizontal separator that is commonly used in the field.
The field data for the design are given in Table 4. The calculated
procedure to design the catcher using the methodology presented
in the preceding is explained in following.
Procedure To Design a Finger-Type Slug Catcher. To obtain the
main dimensions of the nger-type slug catcher, a computational
procedure is elaborated that is derived from the equations presented
previously.
1. As input data are required operational conditions, properties
of the fluid and the geometry of the inlet pipeline are required,
such as temperature, pressure, API gravity, gas- and liquid-flow
rate, and pipeline diameter and roughness (Table 4).
2. The gas-liquid-flow pattern into the inlet pipeline of the
slug catcher is determined using the model proposed by Barnea
and Taitel (1993). In this sense, a gas/liquid flow-pattern map is
generated for the operational conditions given in Table 4. In the
map, the only areas represented are intermittent flow, annular flow,
and stratified flow. According to Fig. 3, the flow pattern in the
inlet line (pipe diameter is 10 in.) of the slug catcher is located
in the intermittent-flow area as a yellow point called operation
point (pipeline).
3. As detailed in the mapping (Fig. 3), the flow pattern is slug
flow. Therefore, a slug-catcher design is necessary. Without slug
flow, of course, the slug catcher is not necessary. The procedure to
determine the main dimensions of the slug catcher (diameter and
length of fingers) is the following.
a. Slug-flow characteristics are calculated according to correla-
tions and models discussed in this paper (Eqs. 5 through 17).
b. The diameter and quantity of fingers are assumed such that
diameter must be large enough that the quantity of fingers must
be greater than one. In this scenario, four fingers are considered
and an initial diameter of 10 in.
c. Gas- and liquid-flow rates through each finger are determined
considering an even flow distribution among the fingers.
d. The finger diameter is determined using the VKH crite-
rion through an iterative process in which the finger diameter is
increased until obtaining a stratified flow. Thus, minimum diameter
is obtained when the transition curve between stratified flow and
intermittent flow is reached. The point that represents this condi-
tion is shown superimposed on the transition curve in the Fig. 4
(green point), and it is called transition point. The minimum
diameter is increased to the next pipeline commercial diameter to
guarantee stratified flow. In this scenario, the operation point (blue
point) of the finger-type slug catcher is shown in Fig. 4, which
corresponds to a finger-design diameter calculated at 20 in.
e. The catcher length is determined by use of the accumulated
liquid volume and calculated diameter. In this scenario, the length
is 26.2 ft.
f. Finally, the catcher weight is determined considering all pipe
sections, such as inlet header, separation area, gas-outlet header,
and liquid-outlet header. The finger-type slug catcher weight is
7,887 lbm.
Economic Comparison. This subsection presents an economic
comparison between the designed catcher and a conventional
horizontal separator that is commonly used in eld applications
and is sized under the same conditions as those of the catcher. It is
necessary to clarify the cost estimation. It should be used only as
a reference point because it is made for a conceptual design.
Cost estimation is based on fabrication cost because opera-
tion costs are considered comparable because they operate under
the same working principle (gravitational sedimentation), use the
TABLE 4FIELD DATA
6 1 I P A
Temperature (F) 7295
Pressure (psig) 105.80
Q
L
5 5 . 3 4 3 , 4 1 ) D P B (
Q
G
6 5 5 , 8 ) D F S M M (
5 6 . 2 4 ) % ( W & S B
G
5 5 . 0
0 1 ) . n i ( p D
December 2010 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction 197
same process-control systems, and will require regular cleaning
because of solids accumulation. Therefore, the fabrication cost of
the catcher and conventional separator is estimated relating to the
vessel weight and steel price, as Powers (1990) proposed:
Cost Weight kg Steel price USD
estimated
kg ( )
( )
. . . . . . . . . (25)
The horizontal conventional separators diameter is 72 in., and its
length is 20 ft. The separator weight is approximately 10,214 lbm.
Steel price is considered approximately 30 USD. Using this
referenced price and Eq. 25, the cost of each separator is estimated
(Table 5).
According to Table 5, the fabrication cost of the finger-type
slug catcher is 23% less than that of the horizontal conventional
separator.
Conclusions
On the basis of the methodology of criteria and solutions weight-
ing proposed by Vilchez (2008), the finger-type slug catcher was
selected and designed as the separation technology for heavy-oil
fields.
The slug-flow characteristics must be known to carry out a
proper design for a finger-type slug catcher. Thus, various cor-
relations and models are selected in a rigorous manner to predict
slug-flow characteristics for heavy oil.
VKH HL/D=0.5 Operation point
Intermittent
10
10
VsG [ft/s]
V
s
L

[
f
t
/
s
]
100
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.01
Stratified
Annular
Fig. 3Flow-pattern map for the inlet conditions of the catcher.
Fig. 4Flow-pattern map for the designed slug catcher.
Intermittent
10
10
VsG [ft/s]
V
s
L

[
f
t
/
s
]
100
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.01
Stratified
Annular
VKH
Operation point
Transition point
HL/D=0.5
198 December 2010 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction
This work proposed an improvement on the Sarica et al.
(1990) methodology on the basis of the use of the VKH criterion
to predict the stratified/no-stratified transition in a more rigorous
way to determine the dimensions of a finger-type slug catcher to
handle viscous liquids. This improvement allows performing a
better design of the slug catcher to guarantee the segregation and
separation of the phases while slug mitigation is achieved for a
heavy-oil field.
Economic comparison demonstrates that the slug catcher costs
approximately 23% less than the conventional separator. Therefore,
it could be used as a separator in heavy-oil fields. However, further
studies conducted in laboratory-scale tests and in fluid-dynamics sim-
ulations have to be conducted before field applications are feasible.
Nomenclature
API API gravity
A cross-sectional area, m
2
C wave velocity
f
s
slug frequency, slugs/s
g gravity acceleration, m/s
2
H
LLS
liquid holdup in the slug zone
H
LTB
liquid holdup in the lm zone (Taylor Bubble zone)
K
v
coefcient of stability
L Length, m
Q ow rate, m
3
/s
Re Reynolds number
t time, s
velocity, m/s
V volume, m
3
Subscripts
accum accumulation
D drift
dis discharge
f liquid lm (Taylor bubble zone)
G gas
ins instantaneous
IV inviscid
M mixture gas-liquid
max maximum
oper operational
p pipe
S slug zone
sG supercial gas
sL supercial liquid
TB translational or Taylor-bubble zone
trans transition
U slug unit
V viscous

Greek Letters
specic gravity
inclination angle
density [kg/m
3
]
Acknowledgment
The authors want to express our gratitude to Joe Bradford and
Maite Bradford (Gazprom Latin America) and Alexis Gammiero
(PDVSA Intevep) for their help and collaboration in the structur-
ing of this work.
References
Barnea, D. 1990. On the effect of viscosity on stability of stratified
gasliquid flowapplication to flow pattern transition at various pipe
inclinations. Chemical Engineering Science 46 (8): 21232131. doi:
10.1016/0009-2509(91)80170-4.
Barnea, D. and Taitel, Y. 1993. Kelvin-Helmholtz stability criteria for strati-
fied flow: viscous versus non-viscous (inviscid) approaches. Int. J. Mul-
tiphase Flow 19 (4): 639649. doi: 10.1016/0301-9322(93)90092-9.
Barnea, D. and Taitel, Y. 1994. Interfacial and structural stability of sepa-
rated flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 20 (1): 387414. doi: 10.1016/0301-
9322(94)90078-7.
Beggs, H.D. 1991. Production Optimization Using NODAL Analysis. Tulsa,
Oklahoma: OGCIPetroskills.
Bendiksen, K.H. 1984. An experimental investigation of the motion of long
bubbles in inclined tubes. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 10 (4): 467483. doi:
10.1016/0301-9322(84)90057-0.
Colmenares, J., Ortega, P., Padrino, J., and Trallero, J.L. 2001. Slug Flow
Model for the Prediction of Pressure Drop for High Viscosity Oils in
a Horizontal Pipeline. Paper SPE 71111 SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Porlamar, Margarita Island,
Venezuela, 1214 March. doi: 10.2118/71111-MS.
Gregory, G.A., Nicholson, M.K., and Aziz, K. 1978. Correlation of the liq-
uid volume fraction in the slug for horizontal gas-liquid slug flow. Int. J.
Multiphase Flow 4 (1): 3339. doi: 10.1016/0301-9322(78)90023-X.
Lin, P.Y. and Hanratty, T.J. 1986. Prediction of the initiation of slugs with
linear stability theory. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 12 (1): 7998. doi:
10.1016/0301-9322(86)90005-4.
Manzanilla, C. 2007. Identificacin de tecnologas de separacin gas-
lquido para crudos pesados. Informe de pasanta, Universidad de
Carabobo, Valencia, Venezuela.
Manzanilla, C. 2008. Diseo conceptual de un equipo de separacin gas-
lquido para crudos de alta viscosidad. Trabajo de grado, Universidad
de Carabobo, Valencia, Venezuela.
Miyoshi, M., Doty, D.R., and Schmidt, Z. 1988. Slug-Catcher Design for
Dynamic Slugging in an Offshore Production Facility. SPE Prod Eng
3 (4): 563573. SPE-14124-PA. doi: 10.2118/14124-PA.
Nicklin, D.J. 1962. Two-phase bubble flow. Chemical Engineering Science
17 (9): 693702. doi: 10.1016/0009-2509(62)85027-1.
Powers, M.L. 1990. Analysis of Gravity Separation in Freewater Knock-
outs. SPE Prod Eng 5 (1): 5258; Trans., AIME, 289. SPE-18205-PA.
doi: 10.2118/18205-PA.
Sarica, C., Shoham, O., and Brill, J.P. 1990. A New Approach for Finger
Storage Slug Catcher Design. Paper OTC 6414 presented at the Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, 710 May. doi: 10.4043/6414-MS.
Shoham, O. 2000. Two-Phase Flow Modeling. Thesis, Department of
Petroleum Engineering. University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Taitel, Y. and Barnea, D. 1990. Two phase slug flow. In Advances in Heat
Transfer, ed. J.P. Hartnett and T.F. Irvine Jr., Vol. 20, 83132. San
Diego, California: Academic Press.
Taitel, Y. and Dukler, A.E. 1976. A model for predicting flow regime transi-
tions in horizontal and near horizontal gas-liquid flow. AIChE Journal
22 (1): 4755. doi: 10.1002/aic.690220105.
Vergara, M.A. and Foucart, N. 2007. Selection Slug Catcher Type.
Paper SPE 107293 presented at the Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, 1518 April. doi:
10.2118/107293-MS.
Vilchez, N. 2008. Estrategias creativas para el diseo mecnico. Disert-
acin, Escuela de Ingeniera Mecnica, Universidad de Carabobo,
Valencia, Venezuela.
TABLE 5FABRICATION-COST ESTIMATION

Separator Type Weight (lbm) Cost (USD)
0 0 . 8 1 8 , 5 3 2 0 0 . 7 8 8 , 7 r e h c t a c g u l s e p y t - r e g n i F
Conventional separator 0 0 . 2 8 3 , 5 0 3 0 0 . 4 1 2 , 0 1
December 2010 SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction 199
Xiao, J.J., Shonham, O., and Brill, J.P. 1990. A Comprehensive Mechanistic
Model for Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines. Paper SPE 20631 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
2326 September. doi: 10.2118/20631-MS.
Jos Mrquez is currently a research and development support
engineer at PDVSA Intevep, Los Teques, Venezuela. He joined
PDVSA Intevep in 2002 and has been working on the develop-
ment of phase-separation technologies and multiphase-flow
modeling. He works for the flow assurance and phase sepa-
ration research and development project of PDVSA Intevep,
focusing on multiphase technologies for heavy-oil applica-
tions. Also, he works in the engineering of surfaces facilities of a
pilot project of in-situ combustion. He holds an ME degree from
Universidad de Los Andes (ULA), Venezuela, and an MSc degree
from Universidad Central de Venezuela. Carlos Manzanilla is a
mechanical maintenance supervisor for Nestle of Venezuela. He
worked for PDVSA Intevep in the flow assurance and phase sep-
aration research and development project from 2007 to 2008.
Jorge Trujillo is currently a research and development associate
engineer at PDVSA Intevep, Los Teques, Venezuela. He joined
PDVSA Intevep in 2002 and since then has been working on the
development of high capacity/high efficiency phase-separa-
tion technologies and multiphase-flow modeling. He leads the
flow assurance and phase separation research and develop-
ment project of PDVSA Intevep, focusing on multiphase tech-
nologies for heavy-oil applications. He holds an ME degree from
Universidad Nacional Experimental Politecnica, Venezuela, and
an MSc degree from La Universidad del Zulia, Venezuela.