Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

ANALYSIS OF SAND TRANSPORTABILITY IN PIPELINES

STUDY REPORT
Author
Check and Verify
07/2010
Laras Wuri Dianningrum
Patria Indrayana
FO/AMB/MTH
ii
LEMBAR PENGESAHAN
Menerangkan bahwa :
Laras Wuri Dianningrum
13007075
Teknik Kimia
Fakultas Teknologi Industri
Institut Teknologi Bandung
Telah menyelesaikan,
Program On the Job Training
Di Departemen FO/AMB/MTH
TOTAL E&P INDONESIE
East Kalimantan District, Balikpapan
Telah disetujui dan disahkan
Di Balikpapan, tanggal 30 Juli 2010
Pembimbing
Patria Indrayana
Head of HRD Department
Bayu Parmadi
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LEMBAR
PENGESAHAN...........................................................................................................................
ii TABLE OF
CONTENTS..............................................................................................................................
iii LIST OF
TABLES......................................................................................................................................
.. v LIST OF
FIGURES................................ ................................................................ ..................................
.. vii CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of
Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2
Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.4
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...............................................................2
CHAPTER II BEKAPAI
OVERVIEW................................ ................................................................ ............. 5
CHAPTER III LITERATURE
STUDY............................................................................................................. 8
3.1
Multiphase Flow in
Pipeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.1 Multiphase Flow
Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.2 Flow Regimes Determination in Multiphase
Flow (Gas and Liquid System). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1.3 Experimental
Correlation in Horizontal Pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.4 Empirical Correlation in Vertical Pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1.5
Beggs and Brill Correlation................................................................................................... 17
3.2
Sand Transportability in
Pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3
Critical Flow Velocity in Sand Transport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3.1 Horizontal Pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..........................................................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3.2 Vertical
Pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
CHAPTER IV BEKAPAI
OBSERVATION................................................................ .................................... 29
4.1
Bekapai Production Network Configuration and Gas Lift.........................................................
29
4 .2
Well Head Data and Maximal Deliverable Potential in Bekapai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3
Deposit Particle
Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
CHAPTER V BASIC CALCULATION FOR FLOW REGIME PREDICTION (COMPARISON
OF METHOD)......... 33
5.1
Empirical Correlation(Mandhane, Aziz et al. versus Beggs &
Brill). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2
OLGA versus Beggs & Brill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
CHAPTER VI RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION................................................................ ................................ 38

iv
6.1 Analysis of Sand Behavior in Correlation with Flow
Regime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.1.1 Experimental Correlation (Mandhane, Aziz et al. versus Beggs &
Brill). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.1.1.1 Horizontal Pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.1.1.2 Vertical Pipe/Upflow Risers....................................................................................... 46
6.1.2 OLGA versus Beggs &
Brill..................................................................................................... 49
6.1.2.1 Oil-Gas Flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6.1.2.1.18” BK-BP1................................................................................................. 51
6.1.2.1.212” BB-BP1............................................................................................... 54
6.1.2.1.36” BF-BL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.1.2.1.46” BH-
BG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.1.2.1.512” BL-BA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.1.2.2 Water-Gas
Flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.1.2.2.1 12” BL-BA.................................................................................................. 66
6.1.2.2.26 ” BH-BG................................................................................................... 68
6.1.2.2.3 6” BF-
BL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 6.1.2.2.46 ” BJ-BB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.1.2.2.5 8” BK-
BP1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 6.1.2.2.61 2” BB-BP1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.1.3 Main
Finding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 6.1.3.1 Experimental
Correlation (Mandhane, Aziz et al. versus Beggs & Brill). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.1.3.2 OLGA versus Beggs & Brill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.2
Analysis of Sand Settling
Condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 6.2.1 Horizontal Pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..........................................................................
. . . . . . . . . 83 6.2.2 Vertical
Pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 6.2.3 Main Finding. . . . . . .
..........................................................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ ....... 91
7.1
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.2
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

= relative molecular weight
3.1.2 Flow Regimes Determination in Multiphase Flow (Gas and Liquid System)

The determination of the expected flow regime allows the proper selection of correlations or mechanistic

model for calculating the pressure gradient and liquid hold-up. In addition, for operating purpose it is

important to know which type of flow regime is predicted at various locations of the pipeline and obviously at

the outlet. Phenomena such as erosion, corrosion and vibration depend on the flow regime.

This object has been studied in wide range of fields and applied in many sectors especially in oil and gas

production. This is not an easy task, however, many researchers must find the exact correlation to relate

among not less than 11 parameters that affect flow regimes:


a) The liquid superficial velocity,


 [ m/ s] (it is customary to use the superficial velocity instead
the flow rate).
b) The gas superficial velocity,


 [


/


].
c) Liquid density,


 [


/

].
d) Gas density,


 [


/


].
e) Liquid viscosity,


Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines
10


.


].
f) Gas viscosity,


 [


.


].
g) Pipe diameter,


[


].
h) Acceleration of gravity,


[


/


].
i) Surface tension,


[N/m].
j) Pipe roughness, e [m].
k) Pipe inclination,


(Taitel, 1999) .
Theoretically, the method used for the prediction of flow pattern can be classified with respect
to
two categories:
 Experimental correlations

The first approach for the prediction of flow patterns is based on experimental data that are plotted on a flow

pattern map. The earliest flow regime map is attributed to Baker (1954). Many more have since been

suggested for horizontal, vertical and inclined pipes. Then they are divided into three main catagories based

on the basic assumptions and methods (Figure 3.8).

 [
Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines
11
Figure 3.1 Experimental correlation catagories
 Mechanistic model

In this procedure one should identify the dominant physical phenomena that cause a specific transition.

Then the physical phenomena are formulated mathematically and transition lines are calculated and can be
presented as an algebraic relation or with respect to dimensionless coordinates. It still needs correlation

and closure law for input some parameters to solve the momentum balance equation. However, there is no

guarantee that this method leads always to correct results, but the results based on this method then

extrapolation to different conditions is much safer than those based solely on experimental correlation

(Taitel, 1999).
The mechanistic model developments are divided into three categories:
a.Comprehensive Models (1st generation)
This model priors a separate prediction of flow pattern and pressure gradient prediction, for
example: Taitel & Dukler Flow pattern and Xiao et a.l (Taitel & Dukler modification).
b.Unified Models (2nd generation)
Different from the previous one, this model is considered to consist only one prediction for
determining flow pattern & pressure gradient. For example: TUFFP unified model (Zhang et
al.).
c. Integrated Unified Model of Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow
Experimental
correlation
Catagory A
(No slippage and no
flow pattern
consideration)
Pettmann&Carpenter,B
axendel&Thomas,Fanch
er&Brown
Catagory B
(Slippage considered,
no flow pattern
consideration)
Hagedorn&Brown,Gray,
Asheim
Catagory C
(Slippage and flow
pattern consideration)
Dun&Ros,Orkiszewski,A
ziz,etc
Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines
12
This is somewhat called “future generation” of multiphase flow modeling and until this day the
experiments and current studies are still performed.
So far those methods that had been explained are limited to the steady state flow condition. The problem

occurred when they need to be applied in real situation on field which is preferably transient one. The

mechanistic models for this case are developed by many universities and companies like SINTEF, IFE, IFP,

University of Tulsa, etc. Software like OLGA and TACITE are widely known among the practices to solve

determination of flow regime in transient flow.


3.1.3 Experimental Correlation in Horizontal Pipe

The Taitel & Dukler (1976) flow model seems the most accurate one, even if its accuracy is decreasing for

large pipeline diameters. The Taitel & Dukler approach is based on a combination of theoretical

considerations of classical fluid mechanics. But it is more difficult to solve in manual calculation, so that this

model required. Other map commonly used was developed by Gregory, Aziz, and Mandhane for horizontal

flow. It has accuracy about 70% approximately and has considered the liquid hold up and pressure drop

determination.Figure 3.2 Mandhane’s map


Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines
13
The characteristic of each regime explained as follows:
Figure 3.3 Regime characteristics in horizontal pipe

The boundaries between the various flow patterns in a flow pattern map occur because a regime becomes

unstable as the boundary (effect of shear force) is approached and growth of this instability causes

transition to another flow pattern.

The other side, there are other serious difficulties with most of the existing literature on flow pattern maps,

such Taitel-Duckler’s. One of the basic fluid mechanical problems is that these maps are

often dimensional and therefore apply only to the specific pipe sizes and fluids employed by the investigator.

Also there may be several possible flow patterns whose occurence may depend on the initial conditions,

specifically on the manner in which the multiphase flow is generated (Brennen, 2005).
3.1.4 Empirical Correlation in Vertical Pipe

In particular, horizontal flow regime maps must not be used for vertical flow, and vertical flow regime maps

must not be used for horizontal flow. In vertical flow the force gravity opposes the dynamic forces. This

result in slippage therefore it exhibits some different characteristics than horizontal flow and may be more

complicated.

Dispersed
Flow
Bubble
(Small gas -liquid ratio,
continuous phase: liquid,
very low slip velocity)
Mist/Spray
(Very high gas flow rate,
very high gas-liquid ratio,
continuous phase: gas)

Segregated
Flow
Stratified
(high gas-liquid ratio,
medium gas flow rate, the
fraction of each section is
remain constant)
Annular

(very high gas-liquid ratio,

high gas flow rate, annular

film on the wall is thickened


at the bottom of pipe)

Intermittent
Flow
Slug
(medium gas-liquid ratio,
high liquid flow rate)
Plug
(more transition regime

between stratified wavy and

slug flow/annular flow,

derived from stratidied

wavy)

Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines


14
The gas-liquid of multiphase flow in vertical pipe are determined as follows:
a. Bubble Flow
The gas phase is distributed in the form of bubbles immersed in a continuous liquid phase.
b. Bubble - Liquid Slug Flow
As the concentration of bubbles grows by the presence of a higher quantity of gas, bubbles
group or coalesce into one whose diameter approaches the pipe diameter.
c. Transition flow, Liquid Slug–Annular
With greater flow rate, the bubbles formed in the bubble flow collapse, resulting in a sparkling
and disorderly flow of gas through the liquid that is displaced to the wall of the channel.
d. Annular - Bubble Flow
The flow takes the form of a relatively thick liquid film on the pipe wall, along with a
substantial
amount of liquid carried by the gas flowing in the center of the channel.
e. Annular flow
The liquid film is formed on the wall of the tube with a central part formed by gas (Anselmi,
dkk.,
2008).
Figure 3.4 Multiphase flow regimes in vertical pipe
Duns and Ros developed correlation for vertical flow of gas and liquid mixtures in wells. This correlation is

valid for a wide range of oil and gas mixtures and flow regimes. Although the correlation is intended for

using with dry oil/gas mixtures, it can also be applicable to wet mixtures with a suitable correction. For water

contents less than 10%, the Duns-Ros correlation (with a correction factor) has been reported to work well

in the bubble, slug (plug), and froth regions. The pressure profile prediction performance of the Duns & Ros

method is outlined below in relation to the several flow variables considered:


Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines
15

Tubing Size. In general, the pressure drop is seen to be over predicted for a range of tubing
diameters between 1 and 3 inches.

Oil Gravity. Good predictions of the pressure profile are obtained for broad range of oil
gravities (13-56 °API).

Gas-Liquid Ratio (GLR). The pressure drop is over predicted for a wide range of GLR. The
errors become especially large (> 20%) for GLR greater than 5000.

Water-Cut. The Duns-Ros model is not applicable for multiphase flow mixtures of oil, water,
and gas. However, the correlation can be used with a suitable correction factor as mentioned
above (Rao, 1998).
Figure 3.5 Duns and Ros flow regime map
(N = Liquid Velocity Number, RN = Gas Velocity Number based on Eaton Correlation)

In Region I, at low gas numbers and high liquid numbers, one encounters a liquid with gas bubbles in it, as

long as the gas-oil ratio is relatively low and the flowing pressure gradient primarily is the static head plus

liquid friction loss.

For superficial liquid velocities less than 0,4 m/s (1,3 ft/s), increased gas flow causes the bubbles to

combine and form plugs. As gas flow increases further these plugs collapse and form slugs. In these

regions wall friction is rather negligible.


Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines
16

If Vsl is still less than 0,4 m/s but Vsg is about 15 m/s, or greater, the slug flow of Region II changes to mist

flow in Region III.At this point the gas becomes the continuous phase with the liquid in droplet form and as

film along the wall. In Region III wall friction is a major factor in pressure loss.

Froth flow which occurs across the lines of Regions I and II occurs at high liquid velocities, Duns and Ros

expect it to occur when Vsl is greater then 1,6 m/s. At such rates no plug or slug flow was observed. No set

flow pattern can be discerned (Campbell, 2004).


The other vertical regime map is presented by Aziz et al. This map can be seen below.
Figure 3.6 Aziz et al. map

For manual calculation, Aziz is slightly more accurate than Duns and Ros due to the regime boundaries and

calculation steps. This method is similar with Mandhane et.al because only based on superficial velocity of

gas and liquid except it has been corrected for the fluid property by applying dimensionless numbers.