Proceedings of the ASME 2016 35th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2016
June 19-24, 2016, Busan, South Korea
MULTIPHASE TRANSIENT SLUGGING FLOW IN SUBSEA OIL AND GAS
PRODUCTION
Zhenhua Zhang
School of Marine Science & Technology
Newcastle University
Newcastle Upon Tyne, England,NE17RU, UK
ABSTRACT
Slug flow in horizontal pipelines and riser systems in deep sea
has been proved as one of the challenging flow assurance issues.
Large and fluctuating gas/liquid rates can severely reduce
production and, in the worst case, shut down, depressurization or
damage topside equipment, such as separator, vessels and
compressors.
Previous studies are primarily based on experimental
investigations of fluid properties with air/water as working
media in considerably scaled down model pipes, and the results
cannot be simply extrapolated to full scale due to the significant
difference in Reynolds number and other fluid conditions. In this
paper, the focus is on utilizing practical shape of pipe, working
conditions and fluid data for simulation and data analysis. The
study aims to investigate the transient multiphase slug flow in
subsea oil and gas production based on the field data, using
numerical model developed by simulator OLGA and data
analysis.
As the first step, cases with field data have been modelled
using OLGA and validated by comparing with the results
obtained using PIPESYS in steady state analysis. Then, a
numerical model to predict slugging flow characteristics under
transient state in pipeline and riser system was set up using
multiphase flow simulator OLGA. One of the highlights of the
present study is the new transient model developed by OLGA
with an added capacity of newly developed thermal model
programmed with MATLAB in order to represent the large
variable temperature distribution of the riser in deep water
condition. The slug characteristics in pipelines and temperature
distribution of riser are analyzed under the different temperature
gradients along the water depth. Finally, the depressurization
during a shut-down and then restart procedure considering
1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/89858/ on 05/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
OMAE2016-55137
Longbin Tao
School of Marine Science & Technology
Newcastle University
Newcastle Upon Tyne, England, NE17RU,UK
hydrate formation checking is simulated. Furthermore, slug
length, pressure drop and liquid hold up in the riser are predicted
under the realistic field development scenarios.
1 INTRODUCTION
Flow assurance refers to ensure the safe, and uninterrupted
transport of complex fluids from the reservoir to the processing
facilities. Potential problems include hydrate formation, wax
deposition and slug flow which are the main flow assurance
issues for long tiebacks. Due to the Joule –Thomson cooling
effect caused by gas cubic expansion, hydrate tends to generate
at the base of the riser where liquid will accumulate during shut-
in. In order to prevent hydrate formation, if the time taken to
undertake any maintenance operations is longer than the natural
cool down time, depressurization will be an option [1]. Severe
slug development and transmission or liquid surge in the riser
caused by high fluctuating flow rates of gas and liquid could
damage the topside processing equipment, if some parameters
exceed any upper limits set by the capabilities of the topside
separator during transient operational scenarios. It is crucial to
be able to correctly predict the flow characteristics within a riser
for a given set of operational conditions.
For severe slug formation, no reliable technique exists for
determining slug size and velocity [2]. A flow regime map is hard
to develop for accurately predicting the flow pattern transitions
in the pipeline, especially in deep cold water where the fluid
behavior in the riser, particularly in a complex S-bend riser,
become more complicated along the depth of the sea. Moreover,
with the Joules-Thompson effect, the expanding gas causes extra
cooling effects in the riser and there is the potential to form
hydrate in the regime at the base of riser during shut-in or restart
operations, which is also very difficult to predict and prevent.
 Reservoir driver mechanism, fluid compositions, field layout
will determine the subsea production system deliverability [3].
In deep seas, the riser lengths have increased to several thousand
feet compared to those in shallow water. The length of a liquid
slug and size of the gas bubble can be several times the height of
the riser, depending on flowing GOR and other fluid physical
and compositional properties. Previous slugging studies were
primarily based on experimental investigations of multiphase
fluid properties with air/water as the working media and carried
out at room temperature. Normally, the experimental results are
reasonable for the oil with a low viscosity coefficient of around
0.1. However for oil with a viscosity coefficient larger than 0.5
(or heavy oil), the results are not reliable with water/air as
working media [4] .
For the CFD simulation of slug flow, several challenges exists.
Modelling the hydraulic and thermal relationships between
fluids and gases in a production environment can be an inexact
science [5]. As systems become more complicated, determining
the impact of various factors or certain transient events within oil
and gas pipelines and infrastructure becomes more challenging.
The primary aim of this study is to utilize industry field data
in order to further understand the occurrence of transient
slugging flow in tiebacks during production and maintenance
operations. The research is based on the modelling by using
OLGA software with large diameter pipelines that are
geometrically similar to practical offshore pipeline and riser
systems. Moreover, the working media in the case study is
intended to employ fluid sample data from a real oil reservoir.
Additionally, the ambient thermal environment for the pipeline
and riser systems is considered in the case study.
Table 1. Pipeline geometry
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Background
The data is supported by a real oil field located off the
coast of Angola in West Africa [6]. The overall reservoir
production system consists of 3 wellheads, 5 flowlines and
2 manifolds. A single flow path is shown in Table 1 and
Figure 1, where the overall pipeline contains 1000 meters
of sea bed horizontal flowline, a vertical riser and a U-
shaped flexible pipe at the top side.
The local flow into the overall pipeline is assumed in
steady state condition and the production rate from
reservoir is 26 kg/s, with a gas-oil ratio of 2740-3030
SCF/STB. The sea water temperature is assumed to be
constant from sea bed to the surface.
The flow lines and hybrid risers have inner diameters of
8 inches, and 10 inches respectively, and they are insulated.
A schedule 40 grade steel pipe is used throughout, and all
sea bed flow lines are buried at a depth of 1.3 meters [6].
2.2 The three-phase model, flow regime and slug
tracking module in OLGA
OLGA is commercial multiphase flow software that is
widely used in the oil and gas industry. There are two main
models Two-Fluid (Separated Flow) and the Drift –flux.
OLGA uses a similar approach to the separated models,
along with a database of correlations for different flow
regimes [7]. Therefore, the flow regime data used in OLGA
is more accurate and has been collected from a wide range
of experiments. Multiphase flow Simulator OLGA uses
pressure (P), temperature (T), and fluid composition, as the
principal independent variables, meaning that all the
thermodynamic and transport properties for the fluid are
given as functions of P and T. OLGA is based on the
equations of mass, momentum and energy conservation [8].

length Elevation length of Diam Rough- Wall

X Y #section
Pipe sections eter
(m) (m) (m) (m) s ness(m) (mm)
list(m) (m)
Start
0 -1239
Point
PIPE-1 650 -1253 650.157 -14.3 25 25-26.006 0.2 4.57E-05 9.271,40
4-25,3-30,
PIPE-2 1000 -1261 350.085 -7.7 10 0.2 4.57E-05 9.271,40
35,50,75.085
PIPE-3 1011 0 1261.05 1261 17 17-74.179 0.25 4.57E-05 9.271,40
PIPE-4 1101 -79 119.754 -79 4 4-29.938 0.25 4.57E-05 9.271,40
PIPE-5 1191 150 174.929 150 5 5-34.986 0.25 4.57E-05 9.271,40

2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/89858/ on 05/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 OLGA V7.3.4 is a three-fluid model, i.e. separate
continuity equations are applied for the gas, for the oil (or
condensate) and water liquids and also for oil (or
condensate) and water droplets.
The flow regime map determination can be seen by
referring to the multiphase flow assurance book [9]. The
transition between the different regime classes is
determined by the program on the basis of a minimum slip
concept combined with additional criteria (OLGA manual).
model is assumed to be a pressure-driven node with an
arrival temperature of 52 °C and arrival pressure of 111.67
bar connected to flow lines through a valve.
In the simulation, the thermal boundary conditions are
assumed to be 4 °C constant ambient temperature and
WATER for HOUTEROPTION (Option for ambient heat
transfer coefficient). The boundary conditions of the
different temperature gradients along the water depth will
be introduced in the thermal model of section 2.4.

OLGA Model Description Table 2. Properties of Risers

Property Value Unit
The model described in section 2.1 for the flow of crude
Density 7850 kg/m3
oil from one wellhead through the flow lines to topside
platform has been developed by using OLGA as shown in Thermal
Figure 2. It comprises of a close inlet node, a mass type 45 W/m·K
Conductivity
source, flow lines, a valve and one pressure-driven node
with the buried horizontal flow lines developed in Outer 273.05 mm
FEMTherm module. The valve is fully opening in steady Diameter
state simulation, while its opening is controlled of time Wall
9.271 mm
series on occasion of transient operational simulation. The Thickness
pipeline geometry used in OLGA is shown in Figure 1 and Absolute
the component details over the pipe length, the inner 4.57E-02 mm
Roughness
diameter and thickness of pipelines material and insulations
are as above given in Table 1. The properties of the riser
used in the simulation are provided in Table 2. In OLGA, hydrodynamic slugs, terrain slugs and start-
up slugs can be detected. Inside the individual slug the
bubble flow regime is applied.

Slug tracking module is only activated in the transient

simulations．If the HYDRODYNAMIC OPTION is ON,
two criteria must be met before a hydrodynamic slug is
initiated in a section：

 The distance to the closest slug must exceed a

minimum distance.
 The time elapsed since a slug was either
generated in or passed through the section must
be larger than a specified minimum time.

Figure 1. OLGA Model developed for case study[6]
Figure 2. Pipeline geometry arrangement
Boundary Conditions
The wellhead of the field is assumed to be of a closed
node with a mass flow rate of 26 kg/s and the inlet
temperature from wellhead is 68.19 °C. The topside of the
Using the slug initiation frequency, the minimum
distance is calculated as U B / Fi , where U B is the bubble nose
velocity of the new slug, Fi is the slug initiation frequency.
The idle time required before generating a new slug at any
section boundary is specified through the delay constant,
DC, which is defined as the minimum number of pipe
diameters between the new slug and the slug that last
occupied the same section. The idle time is calculated as
(OLGA Manual),
D
tidle  DC  (1)
Ul
Where,

3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/89858/ on 05/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 D is the pipe diameter
U l is the average liquid velocity
After initiation of a slug, the front and the tail positions
Zf Z t , are changing in according with,
and
Z new
f  Z old
f  U f t
(2)
Ztnew  Ztold  Ut t (3)
Uf Ut
where and are the front and tail velocities
respectively, and t is the time step.
The transition between the front and tail is dynamic and
is governed by the pipe inclination angle, propagation flow
direction and the liquid velocity in the liquid portion of the
slug [10].
2.3 Fluid sample simulation
PVTsim package is a commercially available programs
which is used for fluid property table compilation
(densities, viscosities, gas fraction, enthalpies etc. as a
function of pressure and temperature) generated for input
to OLGA [11], using the EOS models in the PVTsim
package such as the Peng-Robinson Peneloux EOS model.
In flow assurance analysis, the following two approaches
are typically used to simulate hydrocarbon fluid [1],
Black oil model is adopted when the detail of fluid
property cannot be obtained from laboratory. It defines the
oil as a liquid phase that contains dissolved gas. For a given
mole fraction of the fluid mixture of volatile oil and
condensate fluids, vapor/liquid equilibrium calculation
determines the amount of the feed that exists in the vapor
and liquid phases and composition of each phase.
A compositional oil model given in Table (A) in
appendix is used to simulate the reservoir production oil.
The oil elements are imported into PVTsim for physical
characterization, where the molar concentration of the
characterized fluid is obtained.
The phase envelope of the oil generated by PVTsim is
shown in Figure 3. The Peng-Robinson equation of state [6]
was used to generate the characteristics model of the
reservoir fluid. It represents a critical point which is the red
dot of 215°C at 280 bar. The location and shape of the phase
envelope is determined by fluid compositions. The curve
on the left upside is bubble curve, which intersects with the
dew point curve at the critical point. Inside the two curves
represents the regime where both gas and liquid coexist,
4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/89858/ on 05/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
and conversely, outside the curves means where only gas or
liquid single phase exists.
Figure 3. Phase envelope of oil
2.4 Riser thermal model
Thermal transferring from the internal flow to the cold
sea water which leads to heat energy loss and production
fluid behavior transition along the pipelines is a key issue
especially for long distance tieback oil transportation in
deep sea oil field.
Considering the environment temperature distribution
from sea bottom to topside is linear, the temperature data
along the riser could be obtained by linear interpolation
from OLGA assuming environment temperature range
from the bottom of riser T1  4 C to the top side
T2  32 C . Based on the 1D multiphase flow model of
pipeline and riser in OLGA, the convective empirical
coefficient is adopted on condition of ignoring the complex
thermal convective effect between the oil production fluid
and inner pipe wall.
For the inclined horizontal buried pipeline, FEM
Thermal module of OLGA is applied to calculate the
temperature distribution over the cross sections as well as
the interaction between fluid temperatures in buried pipes.
For the riser part, there is no thermal component could
be applied to “riser” model in FEM thermal module of the
version of OLGA7.0 available at Newcastle University.
Therefore, standard OLGA is utilized to calculate the key
parameters of internal flow in the riser such as internal
pressure, temperature and HOL etc. The outside boundary
temperature conditions of riser are considered as following,
T1  4  C , T2 32C For varied ambient temperature
along riser
T1  T2  4C For constant ambient temperature along riser
 With the above temperature boundary conditions and
internal fluid temperatures calculated by standard OLGA,
Flourier Law of thermal conduction Eq. (4) is applied for
calculating the temperature distribution along the thickness
of the riser wall, which is programmed by MATLAB.
dQ
   A d T / dX (4)
dt
 , is thermal conductivity of the material.
In addition, as it shown in Figure 4, overall heat transfer
coefficient is calculated for temperature distribution of riser
wall as:
1
UO 
rO rO ln(r1 / ri ) rO ln(r2 / r1) rO ln(rO / r2 ) 1
   
rh
i i k1 k2 k3 hO
(5)
Figure 4. Cross-section of insulated pipe and
temperature distribution
3 MODEL VALIDATION
Validation of slug flow model is carried out using the above
field data from a typical of subsea pipeline and riser system at
the steady state.
Figure 5 shows the comparison of the liquid and gas
superficial velocities profiles along the riser systems which are
obtained from the model developed by PIPESYS [6] and OLGA.
It depicts that the result of gas superficial velocities trend from
OLGA has a deviation of around 10% compared to the result
from PIPESYS. The reason for the deviation could be the
inaccurate oil simulation made by PVTSim due to lack of
complete data and in thermal property correlations. Furthermore,
the prediction methods in OLGA and PIPESYS are slightly
5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/89858/ on 05/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
different in flow pattern transition. The results for the liquid
superficial velocities are closely similar for the two methods and
models. Both of the results show the similar trends along the
pipeline. As can be observed, the superficial velocities for both
the gas and liquid suddenly drop as fluid enters the riser. Then
the gas velocity increases rapidly as the liquid velocity reduces
slightly as they travel up along the riser. This increase in gas
velocity is due to the release of Taylor bubbles from the fluid.
COMPARISON OF SUPERFICAL 
VELOCITIES 
GasSV_OLGA Liquid SV_OLGA
GasSV_PS LiquidSV_PS
1.6
1.4
SUPERFICAL V  ( M/S)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1000 2000 3000
DISTANCE (M)
Figure 5. Comparisons of Superficial velocity profiles
along the pipeline and riser system from OLGA and
PIPESYS
The flow regimes determined by OLGA during the whole
steady state simulation time are compared to that developed by
PIPESYS. It reveals that the flow regimes are stratified flow
along the horizontal pipeline, slug flow in the most of the riser
length, stratified flow and then slug flow along the top of riser.
The flow regime is almost consistent with that result of model
developed by PIPESYS [6] except for the short length of
stratified flow occurring close to the riser outlet. The reason is
that the criteria for flow pattern transition in OLGA and
PIPESYS are different. When applied to distributed/separated
flow transition cases, OLGA determines the flow pattern by
checking which gives the lower HOL (Liquid filled Area /Cross
section area of the inside of the pipeline), using a method called
the Minimum Slip Principle, while the Boe criterion is applied
in PIPESYS.
In summary, the steady state simulation results of the baseline
test case modelled using OLGA agrees well with that in the
reference for profile of the liquid and gas superficial velocities
and the flow regimes.
 4 INTERNAL FLOW WITH DIFFERENT EXTERNAL
TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS OVER THE WATER
DEPTH
4.1 Fluid components, Definition of terms in PVTsim
and System Description
Figure 6. Pipeline geometry arrangement for basic
case
The pipeline geometry is modified at the top of the riser
as in Figure 6, however the other parameters are the same
as those in Section 2 for the initial test basic case. The
changes have been made at the top of the riser in order to
reduce analytical issues when slug tracking is activated
when using OLGA. The problems are usually caused by
back-flow in the riser.
Transient simulation cases are carried out with slug
tracking module in OLGA. The boundary conditions of
Figure 7. HOL profile in transient status under constant and varied environmental T at 210
6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/89858/ on 05/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
transient simulation is based on the values of parameters
from steady state simulation. The constant DC is assumed
to be 150 and VOIDINSLUG is selected for
GASENTRAINMENT, with HYDRODTNAMIC ON in
slug tracking module. The result of the slug tracking
module is sensitive to the size of the analysis grids setting
for the pipeline and riser. After a relative independence
checking, the section length of grid size is assumed to 6
meters because the results start to converge between the
total grid numbers value 318 and 426 (i.e., A Grid size
between 8 and 6 m) by comparing with the data of cycle
time and pressure drop amplitude between the base and the
top of riser on condition of different total grid
numbers value.
4.2 Slug Characteristics Comparisons with Different
External Temperature Gradients over the Water
Depth
Figure 7 and 8 show the HOL profile and flow regime
profile at the 210th minute of simulation under the
conditions of different environment temperature along the
riser respectively. The trends are almost the same, stratified
flow and stable HOL value are represent at the horizontal
pipeline which is inclined to the riser, slug flow and
fluctuated HOL value are shown in the riser and topside
pipeline. When the slug tracking module is activated, the
flow regime indicator never shows slug flow as it shown in
standard OLGA, whereas the individual slugs are forced to
bubbly inside liquid slugs and stratified in slug bubbles in
the flow regime profile as observed in Figure 8. Therefore,
the total slug number along the pipeline and riser could be
identified as approximately 15-16 at the 210th minute in
Figure 7 and Figure8. Due to the temperature, inner
diameter of pipeline and pipeline
 Figure 8. Flow regime in transient status under constant/varied environmental T at 210

(Flow regime: 1=Stratified,2=Annular,3=Slug,4=Bubble)

Figure 9. The slug length at base, top of riser and outlet under constant and varied environmental T

Figure 10. Local expanded view of slug length at top of riser under constant and varied environmental T

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/89858/ on 05/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Pressure Drop of the riser under cons. and varied Env.T
V_DP C_DP

39.8

39.6

39.4

39.2

39

38.8
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Figure 11. Pressure drop of the riser under constant and varied environmental T

layout direction change, the undulation of HOL value can

be observed at the base or top of the riser as shown in Figure
7. The largest slug length 223 meters occurs at the top of
riser according to Figure 9, while no slug appears at base of
riser in Figure 9. The trends of slug length varied with time
are similar in Figure 10. The pressure drop along the riser
under different environmental temperature along the riser
is shown in Figure 11 within the range of 38.9-39.8 bar. The
pressure drop value under varied environmental
temperature fluctuated more severely than that under
constant environmental temperature.

4.3 Temperature Distribution along riser Comparisons

with Different External Temperature Gradients over
the Water Depth

A new thermal transfer model is developed in MATLAB Figure 12. Temperature distribution of riser with
in order to represent a large external variable temperature varied environment temperature along the height
distribution in the riser at a particular time. Considering the
heat transfer from the internal fluid to sea water out of rise
wall is circular symmetrical, the riser wall including steel
and insulation layers.Two scenarios of external temperature
gradients over riser height have been introduced in
Section2.4.

Figure 12 and 13 present the surface graphs of

temperature distribution along the riser thickness and riser
height under varied and constant environment temperature
respectively.

The main feature in Figure 12 and Figure 13 is that the

heat loss is not obvious at the steel part (0-9.271mm) of
riser wall in the radial direction due to the thick insulation.
The differences of temperature distributions can be
observed between the two graphs. The temperature tends to
increase along the height of riser as the point is close to the Figure 13. Temperature distribution of riser with
outer of riser wall constant environment temperature along the height

8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/89858/ on 05/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo


in figure 12, however, the heat loss occurs and temperature
decreases as the point located at top and outer of riser wall
in Figure 13.
Figure 14 Temperature distribution at different
positions along the thickness of riser with varied
environmental T
Figure 15. Temperature distribution at different
positions along the thickness of riser with constant
environmental T
Figure 14 and Figure 15 represent temperature
distribution at different positions (bottom, middle and top
of riser) along the thickness of riser with varied and
constant environmental temperatures. The temperature
distributions at the steel part along the wall thickness both
keep stable due to the effect of heat insulator.
Figure 14, the trends of temperature drop are different,
the temperature along the riser wall at top of riser drop
slightly, while the temperature drops significantly at the
bottom of riser due to the outer temperature distribution
9 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/89858/ on 05/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

from 4 to 32 C . The temperatures at different location all

drop to 4 C as shown in Figure 15.
5 SEVERE SLUG PREDICTION DURING
OPERATION
Due to the Joule–Thomson cooling effect caused by gas
volumetric expansion reducing the temperature, hydrate is
inclined to form at the base of riser where liquid specially the
water component is accumulated during shut-in. In order to
prevent hydrate formation, if the time taken for the activities that
required shut-down is anticipated to be longer than the cool down
time, then depressurization will be the most effective hydrate
prevention method. Severe slugging or water surges in the riser
caused by high fluctuating rates of gas and liquid will damage
the equipment, if some parameters exceed any upper limit set by
the top side separator design criteria during transient operational
scenarios.
In this section, dynamic simulation of the cases are aimed to
investigate slugging flow characteristics in long tieback in deep
water during a series of operations which include hydrate
management, shut-in, depressurization and start-up.
The workflow for the shut-down and subsequent restart
procedure is that shutting down the system after 2 hours of
continuous working, then to allow to cool down the system for
at least 8 hours in order to check DTHYD parameter output from
OLGA. The DTHYD can be interpreted as being the temperature
difference between the temperature at which hydrates start to
form at the current pressure and the current temperature locally
in the pipe section, in which a regime value that is smaller than -
5 is the area avoiding hydrate formation. And then next step is to
decide whether it is necessary to blow down the system or restart
it again.
Based on the transient cases of constant environmental T in
Section 3, the result of DTHYD after shut down for 60 hours is
observed that the fluid is still in the hydrate formation avoidance
regime (smaller than -5 degrees) after shut-in such a relatively
long time duration. Therefore, it is not necessary to blow down
if the shut-in and restarting is carried out in this particular case
of operation as the cooling down time is usually about 12 to 24
hours. The adequate level of insulation of whole systems and
overall buried horizontal pipeline could be the deciding point.
In order to investigate the slug behavior during the blow-down
period, the OLGA model has been tuned and modified. The
horizontal pipeline is placed above the seabed, not buried in the
soil, and the temperature, flow rate and pressures of both inlet
and outlet are tuned in order to make the cases converge.
The new model has been arranged so that after 48 hours of
shut-in and with no blow- down taking place that hydrate will
 start to form at a location close to the inlet. The combined
complete procedure from initiation of shut-in, through a blow
down stage to full restart actions for the elapsed time of 72 hours.
This is broken down into 1.25 hours for completion of shut-
down, followed by a cooling down period of 22 hours , then 24
hours to allow for the blow-down to reduce the outlet pressure of
pipeline to 6 bar and finally followed by a 24 hour period in
which all of the restart activities are undertaken and completed.
Figure 16. Temperature trends of initial fluid at
various locations during the shut-in, blow-down and
restart
Figure 17. Slug length trend at the base of riser during
shut-in, blow-down and restart procedure
10
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/89858/ on 05/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
As shown in Figure 16, the temperature changed appreciably
during the shut-in, blow down and restart operations. The
temperature at the base of riser is higher than that of other
locations in Figure 16. The liquid tends to accumulate at the base
of the riser during the whole procedure, and the heat capacity of
liquid is larger than that of gas, therefore, the temperature at the
base of riser keeps relatively high. It can be clearly seen that the
temperature at the outlet drops sharply in the period of blow-
down operation, due to the gas expanding dramatically at the
outlet that causes the temperature decreasing.
Figure 17shows the slug length trend at the whole procedure
of shut-down, blow- down and restart. The slug length at the base
of the riser is about 750 m after shut-down, and then changes to
approximately 500 m with high frequency during blow-down
operation, followed by a 450 m length peak value after restart
with several approximately 50 m small slugs displaying. The
slug length changing at the base of the riser could be well
matched by the pressure varying in Figure 18. However, the slug
length at the top of riser is quite different. At the outlet of
pipeline and riser system, no slug appears during the whole
procedure. It presents that the long length slug is more likely to
occur at the base of the riser during the whole procedure.
Figure 18. Pressure trends of the top and base of the
riser during shut-down, blow-down and restart
operations
Figure 18 presents the pressure trends at the base and top of
the riser, the max. pressure drop of the riser occurs at the point
of restart, which is about 40 bars. During other operations, the
pressure drops are seen in the range of 20-35 bars. The pressure
drop at the normal running with steady flow rate in Figure 11 is
considerably lower than other operational scenarios.
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
 6 CONCLUSION
The focus of this paper has been on the numerical simulation
based on practical operational data and fluid samples to
investigate and predict complex transient slug flow
characteristics in subsea oil and gas production systems. The
followings main conclusions have been drawn from this
research.
 The slug characteristics in pipeline and risers under
the different temperature gradients along the water
depth are analysed in cases of steady internal flow
rate. The environmental temperature along the riser
has a slight effect on the slug behaviour. However,
the temperature tends to be an important factor
influencing the HOL value fluctuation at the outlet of
riser and the slug length statistic distribution in
transient state cases.
 The temperature, pressure trends at different
locations, especially at the base of the riser, of the
practical operational models differ sharply compared
to the results of cases with steady flow rate. While
the slug length could be 1000 m at the base of the
riser, they are much longer than that of cases with
steady flow rate.
 The depressurization operation was simulated
considering hydrate checking. The temperature drops
the sharpest at the outlet of the riser. Due to the
pressure drop in the riser, the pressure of the base of
the riser drops dramatically followed by sudden
ascends at the initial time of restart. The relative high
slug density and pressure drop could be the concerns
of damage pipeline and equipment during
depressurization.
7 RECOMENDATONS
Though considerable effort has been made in acquiring
complete field data, the present study are based on only partial
field data from a company and the numerical model is validated
by comparison of the steady flow case developed with same data
from PIPSYS. Further study is warranted especially in the
following aspects:
 More field data or experimental data are required,
especially for the practical operational cases;
 Parametric studies on individual slug tracking and
attempt and methodology development to mitigate
slug considering T.P controlling, time series of DEH
in the pipeline and riser system;
11
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/89858/ on 05/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
 Structural response analysis, thermal stress and
buckling analysis and riser displacement or
oscillation calculation to estimate the severe slug
behaviour influence on the base or top of the riser;
 Slug characteristics on S shape riser or other
complex riser configurations.
NOMENCLATURE
A Area
Specific heat capacity
Cp
 Thermal conductivity
 Density
Trans_ConTenv Constant environmental temperature along the
height of riser
Trans_VTenv Varied environmental temperature along the
height of riser
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Schlumberger for the
software support for academic use.
REFERENCES
[1] Bai, Y., and Bai, Q., 2005, "Subsea pipelines and risers,"
Ocean engineering series, Elsevier,, Amsterdam ; Boston, pp. 1
online resource (xxvii, 812 p.).
[2] Schmidt, Ž., 1977, Experimental study of two-phase slug
flow in a pipeline-riser pipe system.
[3] Nikhar, H. G., 2009, "Flow assurance and multiphase
pumping."
[4] Yx, W., Ly, L., and Yx, M., 2000, "Experimental study and
simulation principles of an oil-gas multiphase transportation
system."
[5] Smith, C., 2013, "A dynamic approach to flow assurance
modelling," Technical Paper, Xodus Group.
[6] Mustafayev, N., 2014, "Flow Assurance Challenges in
Deepwater Production Risers-A Case study," MSc, Newcastle
University.
[7] Rao, I., 2013, Multiphase flow modeling and deposition of
hydrates in oil and gas pipelines, Colorado School of Mines.
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
 [8] Heskestad, K. L., 2005, "Field Data Analysis Using the
Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA 2000," Diploma Thesis,
NTNU, Stavanger, Trondheim.
[9] Bratland, O., 2010, "Pipe Flow 2: Multi-phase Flow
Assurance," Ove Bratland.
[10] Nordsveen, M., and Haerdig, A., 1997, "Simulations of
severe slugging during depressurization of an oil/gas pipeline,"
Modeling, identification and control, 18(1), p. 61.
[11] Krogh, E., Nilsen, R., and Henningsen, R., 2012, "Liquefied
CO 2 Injection Modelling," Energy Procedia, 23, pp. 527-555.

APPENDIX

Table (A) Oil Components List

Component Mole fraction

Methane 0.65585
Ethane 0.08173
Propane 0.03925
I-Butane 0.01170
B- Butane 0.01725
n- Butane 0.01725
I-Pentane 0.00656
n-Pentane 0.00686
n-Hexane 0.00938
n-Heptane 0.01463
n-Octane 0.02018
n-Nonane 0.01392
n-Decane 0.01110
Nitrogen 0.00746
CO2 0.00626
n-C11 0.01544
n-C12 0.01271
n-C13 0.01302
n-C14 0.01181
n-C15 0.00696
n-C16 0.00656
n-C17 0.00463
n-C18 0.00353
n-C19 0.00303
C20+ 0.02018

12 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/89858/ on 05/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo