Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines

TK-4090 JOB TRAINING
SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT
ANALYSIS OF SAND TRANSPORTABILITY IN PIPELINES
By:
Laras Wuri Dianningrum
13007075
Advisor:
Dr. Yazid Bindar
Ir. Patria Indrayana
1st SEMESTRE – 2010/2011
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM OF STUDY
FACULTY OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
i
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
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LEMBAR PENGESAHAN ......................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................ .. iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. viii
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 ....................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER III LITERATURE STUDY ...................................................................................... 9
3.1 Multiphase Flow in Pipeline......................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Multiphase Flow Properties ....................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Flow Regimes Determination in Multiphase Flow (Gas and Liquid System)............ 11
3.1.3 Experimental Correlation in Horizontal Pipe ........................................................... 13
3.1.4 Empirical Correlation in Vertical Pipe ..................................................................... 15
3.1.5 Beggs and Brill Correlation ..................................................................................... 19
3.2 Sand Transportability in Pipe ..................................................................................... 23
3.3 Critical Flow Velocity in Sand Transport ................................................................... 28
3.3.1 Horizontal Pipe ........................................................................................................ 28
3.3.2 Vertical Pipe ............................................................................................................. 30
CHAPTER IV BEKAPAI OBSERVATION ............................................................................. 32
4.1 Bekapai Production Network Configuration and Gas Lift ............................................ 32
iii
4 .2 Pipeline and Flow Condition ....................................................................................... 33
4.3 Deposit Particle Analysis .......................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER V BASIC CALCULATION FOR FLOW REGIME PREDICTION (COMPARISON

OF METHOD) ......................................................................................................................... 34
5.1 Empirical Correlation(Mandhane, Aziz et al. versus Beggs & Brill) .......................... 34
5.2 OLGA versus Beggs & Brill ....................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER VI RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................ 40
6.1 Analysis of Sand Behavior in Correlation with Flow Regime ....................................... 42
6.1.1 Experimental Correlation (Mandhane, Aziz et al. versus Beggs & Brill)................... 43
6.1.1.1 Horizontal Pipe ............................................................................................ 43
6.1.1.2 Vertical Pipe/Upflow Risers......................................................................... 48
6.1.2 OLGA versus Beggs & Brill..................................................................................... 51
6.1.2.1 Oil-Gas Flow ............................................................................................... 53
6.1.2.1.1 8” BK-BP1 ................................................................................ 53
6.1.2.1.2 12” BB-BP1 .............................................................................. 57
6.1.2.1.3 6” BF-BL .................................................................................. 60
6.1.2.1.4 6” BH-BG ................................................................................. 63
6.1.2.1.5 12” BL-BA ................................................................................ 66
6.1.2.2 Water-Gas Flow............................................................................................ 68
6.1.2.2.1 12” BL-BA ................................................................................. 69
6.1.2.2.2 6” BH-BG .................................................................................. 72
6.1.2.2.3 6” BF-BL ................................................................................... 74
6.1.2.2.4 6” BJ-BB .................................................................................... 77
6.1.2.2.5 8” BK-BP1 ................................................................................. 80
6.1.2.2.6 12” BB-BP1 ............................................................................... 82
iv
6.1.3 Main Finding............................................................................................................. 84
6.1.3.1 Experimental Correlation (Mandhane, Aziz et al. versus Beggs & Brill) ........ 84
6.1.3.2 OLGA versus Beggs & Brill .......................................................................... 84
6.2 Analysis of Sand Settling Condition .......................................................................... 86
6.2.1 Horizontal Pipe ........................................................................................................ 88
6.2.2 Vertical Pipe ............................................................................................................ 93
6.2.3 Main Finding............................................................................................................ 94
CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 96
7.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 96
7.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 96
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 Pipelines and wellheads in Bekapai area .................................................................. 6
TABLE 3.1 Multiphase flow correlations ................................................................................. 20
TABLE 4.1 Pipelines and flows condition ................................................................................ 33
TABLE 5.1 Average pressures and temperatures in Bekapai pipelines ...................................... 34
TABLE 5.2 Pipeline geometry data .......................................................................................... 36
TABLE 5.3 Oil composition in OLGA ..................................................................................... 37
TABLE 5.4 Gas composition in OLGA .................................................................................... 37
TABLE 5.5 Flow Properties in each Bekapai pipeline .............................................................. 38
TABLE 6.1 Flow regimes of Bekapai pipelines from Mandhane’s map .................................... 44
TABLE 6.2 Horizontal flow regimes in Bekapai pipelines by Beggs & Brill correlation (revised)
................................................................................................................................................. 45
TABLE 6.3 Horizontal flow regimes in Bekapai pipelines by Beggs & Brill correlation (1973) 47
TABLE 6.4 Flow regimes of vertical Bekapai pipelines based on Aziz and Beggs & Brill
correlation ................................................................................................................................ 50
TABLE 6.5 GWR, GOR, and water cut values of Bekapai pipelines ......................................... 51
TABLE 6.6 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs &
Brill in oil-gas flow (8” BK-BP1) ............................................................................................. 56
Brill in oil-gas flow (12” BB-BP1) ........................................................................................... 59
Brill in oil-gas flow (6” BF-BL) ............................................................................................... 62
Brill in oil-gas flow (6” BH-BG) .............................................................................................. 65
Brill in oil-gas flow (12” BL-BA) ............................................................................................. 68
vi
Brill in water-gas flow (12” BL-BA) ........................................................................................ 71
Brill in water-gas flow (6” BH-BG) .......................................................................................... 74
Brill in water-gas flow (6” BF-BL) ........................................................................................... 76
Brill in water-gas flow (6” BJ-BB) ........................................................................................... 79
Brill in water-gas flow (8” BK-BP1) ......................................................................................... 81
Brill in water-gas flow (12” BB-BP1) ....................................................................................... 84
TABLE 6.17 Salama versus Bekapai case ................................................................................. 87
TABLE 6.18 Flow critical velocity in several Bekapai pipelines using Salama equation ........... 89
TABLE 6.19 Actual mixture velocity in vertical Bekapai pipeline for each particle .................. 93
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1 Bekapai pipeline system ........................................................................................ 6
FIGURE 3.1 Experimental correlation catagories ..................................................................... 12
FIGURE 3.2 Mandhane’s map .................................................................................................. 14
FIGURE 3.3 Regime characteristics in horizontal pipe ............................................................. 14
FIGURE 3.4 Multiphase flow regime in vertical pipe .............................................................. 16
FIGURE 3.5 Duns and Ros flow regime map ........................................................................... 17
FIGURE 3.6 Aziz et al. map ..................................................................................................... 18
FIGURE 3.7 Flow pattern in slurry flow ................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 3.8 Multiphase flow regime consist of liquid, gas and solid ........................................ 25
FIGURE 3.9 Schematic sand behaviors in slug with low gas superficial velocity ...................... 26
FIGURE 3.10 Sand behaviors in smooth stratified regime ....................................................... 27
FIGURE 3.11 Sand dune formation behaviors .......................................................................... 27
FIGURE 3.12 Sand behaviors in stratified-wavy regime ........................................................... 27
FIGURE 3.13 Sand behaviors in plug regime ........................................................................... 28
FIGURE 3.14 Sand behaviors in slug regime ............................................................................ 28
FIGURE 3.15 FL value vs. particle diameter, concentration as parameter .................................. 30
FIGURE 4.1 Particles sieve analysis ......................................................................................... 33
FIGURE 5.1 OLGA model view for gas-water case .................................................................. 38
FIGURE 6.1 Factors affeted sand transportation in pipeline ...................................................... 40
FIGURE 6.2 Flow regime determination used in this analysis ................................................... 42
FIGURE 6.3 Mandhane’s map of Bekapai pipelines ................................................................. 44
FIGURE 6.4 Beggs & Brill map (1973) of Bekapai pipelines ................................................... 46
FIGURE 6.5 Aziz et al. map of Bekapai pipelines .................................................................... 49
viii
FIGURE 6.6 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 8”BK-BP1 (oil-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 53
FIGURE 6.7 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 8”BK-BP1 (oil-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 54
FIGURE 6.8 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 8”BK-BP1 (oil-gas flow)54
FIGURE 6.9 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 12”BB-BP1 (oil-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 57
FIGURE 6.10 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 12”BB-BP1 (oil-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 57
FIGURE 6.11 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 12”BB-BP1 (oil-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 58
FIGURE 6.12 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6”BF-BL (oil-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 60
FIGURE 6.13 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6”BF-BL (oil-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 60
FIGURE 6.14 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6” BF-BL (oil-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 61
FIGURE 6.15 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6”BH-BG (oil-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 63
FIGURE 6.16 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6”BH-BG (oil-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 63
FIGURE 6.17 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6”BH-BG (oil-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 64
FIGURE 6.18 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 12”BL-BA (oil-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 66
FIGURE 6.19 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 12”BL-BA (oil-gas
flow)......................................................................................................................................... 66
ix
FIGURE 6.20 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 12”BL-BA (oil-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 67
FIGURE 6.21 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 12”BL-BA (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 69
FIGURE 6.22 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 12”BL-BA (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 69
FIGURE 6.23 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 12”BL-BA (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 70
FIGURE 6.24 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6”BH-BG (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 72
FIGURE 6.25 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6”BH-BG (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 72
FIGURE 6.26 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6”BH-BG (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 73
FIGURE 6.27 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in6”BF-BL (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 74
FIGURE 6.28 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6”BF-BL (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 75
FIGURE 6.29 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6”BF-BL (water-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 75
FIGURE 6.30 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6”BJ-BB (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 77
FIGURE 6.31 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6”BJ-BB (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 77
FIGURE 6.32 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6”BJ-BB (water-gas flow)
................................................................................................................................................. 78
FIGURE 6.33 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 8“BK-BP1 (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 80
x
FIGURE 6.34 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 8”BK-BP1 (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 80
FIGURE 6.35 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 8”BK-BP1 (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 81
FIGURE 6.36 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 12”BB-BP1 (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 82
FIGURE 6.37 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 12”BB-BP1 (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 83
FIGURE 6.38 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 12”BB-BP1 (water-gas
flow) ......................................................................................................................................... 83
FIGURE 6.39 Critical velocity profiles in 6” BJ-BB, BF-BL, and BH-BG ................................ 92
FIGURE 6.40 Range of critical velocity in several Bekapai pipelines based on particle diameter
................................................................................................................................................. 93
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
In recent years, sand behavior along oil and gas pipelines is one of the major problems
as a consequence of sand production. Once sand is detached, it follows the fluid stream
through the perforations and into the well. Phenomena such as sand deposition can lead
to partial or complete blockage of flowlines, enhanced pipe bottom corrosion, and
trapping of pigs. These failures can cause unexpected downtime and risk to equipment
as well as personnel.
Bekapai production network includes several pipelines located under the sea to connect
each platform with Bekapai production platform (BP1). Sand particles are investigated
due to corrosion enhanced caused by bacteria in two Bekapai pipeline’s surface.
Indirectly, they have supported the existence of bacteria by creating a layer that protects
bacteria from corrosion inhibitor released. This layer is called sand bed that comes from
the sand settling along pipe. When multiphase flow in pipe reaches below its critical
value, solid particles carried by flow begin to settle and form sand bed in the bottom.
Therefore, sand control management which consists of an accurate study of the

parameters such as flow rates of gas and oil, flow patterns, pressure drop, geometry and
inclination design of pipelines, etc. is required in order to develop better understanding
of the problem (e.g. sand behavior with fluid flow inside the pipeline). It must be done
to overcome the lack of information available about sand behavior in flow, especially
the relationship between flow regime and sand settling condition. However, these things
are closely related in determining sand transportation, in order to prevent the early sand
accumulation before it has an impact on the pipeline’s performance and overall systems.
1.2 Objectives
This present study is going to investigate the sand behavior in Bekapai pipelines by
finding the flow critical velocity to keep sand particles moving along the pipe and its
relationship with flow regimes as multiphase flow. The other parameters influenced the
1
Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 2
phenomena such as holdup, liquid and gas velocities, inclination and sand properties
(diameter and density) are also observed in general.
1.3 Methodology
This study was performed in the frame of 2 months on the job training using following
methods:
 Literature studies
 OLGA training
 Cases studies
1.4 References
This study was performed using following references and information:
A. From internal of TOTAL E&P INDONESIE

1. Bekapai IP Inspection Summary Report 2007
2. ST-SNP-08-002 RVP Simulation During Senipah-Peciko Local Control Network
Modification
3. Bekapai Wellhead Platform Operating Manual
4. Peciko Pigging Instruction Summary (revision)
5. PRODEM Section No. V, “Fluid Flow in Pipes”
6. Bekapai Potential (Status: June 24th, 2010)
7. Bekapai Production Network Configuration and Gas Lift (Status: August 25 th,2006)
8. Bekapai Production Test Summary (Status: June 24th, 2010)
9. Deposit BG-3 LS 241105 (A)
10. Deposit of ex pigging BKP to SNP_051006 (B)
11. Sieve Analysis BL 14
12. Sieve Analysis BL-6_03 May 2009 (C)
13. Sieve analysis_BK 2 S 18052009
14. Sieve analysis_BL-10LS_29.05.09
15. Sieve analysis_V-100 & 120 (LP Separator)
16. DKE/PRO Method Section, “Introduction to Multiphase Flow” by Bambang

Yudhistira and Zaki Hatmanda
17. Oil and Gas Processing Plant Design and Operation Training Course,
DGEP/SCR/ED/ECP, March 22nd – April 2nd , 2004
B. From external source (books, journals, articles, etc.)

1. Aggour, M. A.; Al-Yousef, H. Y.; Al-Muraikhi, A. J., “Vertical Multiphase Flow
Correlations for High Production Rates and Large Tubulars”, SPE Production
& Facilities, 1996.
2. Anselmi, Ruth; Baumeister, Alberto J.; Marquez, Katiuska C., “Review of
Methods and Correlations for the Analysis of Transport Lines with Multiphase
Flow”, XVIII Gas Convention, AVPG, Caracas, Venezuela, May 27 – 29th,
2008.
3. Beggs, H. Dale; Brill, James P., “A Study of Two Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes”,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1973, pp. 607-617.
4. Boriyantoro, Niels H.; Adewumi, Michael A.,”An Integrated Single-Phase/Two-
Phase Hydrodynamic Model for Predicting The fluid Flow Behavior of Gas
Condensate in Pipelines”
5. Bremer, Jeff, "Pipeline Flow of Settling Slurries", Sinclair Knight Merz, 2008.
6. Brennen, C.E. 2005. Fundamentals of Multiphase Flow. UK: Cambridge
University Press.
7. Campbell, John M. 2004. Gas Conditioning and Processing Vol.1. Oklahoma,
USA: John M. Campbell Company.
8. Chang, Yvonne S.H.; Ganesan, T; Lau, K. K.,”Comparison between Empirical
Correlation and Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation for the Pressure
Gradient of Multiphase Flow”, World Congress on Engineering 2008 Vol.1,
2008.
9. Chen, R. C., “Analysis of Homogeneous Slurry Pipe Flow”, Journal of Marine
Science and Technology Vol.2 No. 1, pp. 37-45.
10. Chien, Sze-Foo, “Settling Velocity of Irregularly Shaped Particles”, SPE
Drilling and Completion, 1994.
11. Danielson, Thomas J., ”Sand Transport Modeling in Multiphase Pipelines”,
OTC 18691, 2007.
12. Doan, Q. T.; Doan, L. T.; Ali, S. M. Farouq; Oguztoreli, M.,”Sand Deposition
Inside a Horizontal Well –A Simulation Approach”, Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Techology, Vol. 30, No. 10, 2000.
13. Escobedo, Joel; Mansoori, G. Ali., “Surface Tension Prediction of Liquid
Mixture”, AlChE Journal, Vol. 44, No. 10 1998, pp.2324-2332.
14. Gas Processors Suppliers Association. 2004. Engineering Data Book 12th
Edition. Tulsa: Gas Processors Suppliers Association.
15. Gorji, M.; Rostamian, M., “Analyzing the Influences of Different Parameters on
Terminal Deposit in Hydrate Slurry”, International Journal of Dynamics of
Fluids Vol.2 No.1 2006, pp. 99-109.
16. Hameed, Abdul, “Pipeline Pulsing Flow of Slurries”, Open Dissertation and
Theses, 1983.
17. Jimenez, Jose A.; Madse, Ole S.,"A Simple Formula to Estimate Settling Velocity
of Natural Sediments", ASCE 0733-950X, 2003, 129:2 (70).
18. Kovacs, Laszlo; Varadi, Standor, "Two Phase Flow in the Vertical Pipeline of
Air Lift", Periodica Polytechnica ser. Mech. Eng. Vol. 43, no. 1, 1999, pp. 3–18.
19. Lahiri, S.K.;Glasser, Benjamin J., "Minimize Power Consumption in Slurry
Transport”, Hydrocarbon Processing, 2008.
20. Lee, M. S.; Matousek, V.; Chung, C. K.; Lee, Y. N., ”Pipe Size Effect on
Hydraulic Transport of Jumoonjin Sand-Experiments in a Dredging Test Loop”,
Terra et Aqua No.99, 2005.
21. Liss, Elizabeth, D.; Conway, Stephen L.; Zega, James A.; Glasser, Benjamin J.,
"Segregation of Powders during Gravity Flow Through Vertical Pipes",
Pharmaceutical Technology, 2004.
22. Maurer Engineering Inc., "Multiphase Flow Production Model, Theory and
User’s Manual", DEA 67, Phase 1, 1994.
23. McLaury, B. S.; Shirazi, S. A., “Generalization of API RP 14E for Erosive
Service in Multiphase Production”, SPE 56812, 1999.
24. Rao, Bharath, “Multiphase Flow Models Range of Applicability”, CTES, L.C.
Tech Note, 1998.
25. Ruano, Angel Perez, “Sand Transportation in Horizontal and Near Horizontal
Multiphase Pipelines”,M.Sc. Thesis, Carnfield University, 2008.
26. Salama, Mamdouh M., “Sand Production Management”, OTC Proceedings,

1998.
27. Salama, Mamdouh M., “Influence of Sand Production on Design and Operating
of Piping Systems”, Corrosion 2000 Paper No. 80, 2000.
28. Sutton, Robert P., “An Improved Model for Water-Hydrocarbon Surface Tension
at Reservoir Conditions”, SPE 124968, 2009.
29. Taitel, Yehuda, “Flow Pattern Transition in Two Phase Flow”, 2nd Annual
Meeting of the Institute of Multifluid Science and Technology, 1999.
30. Tronvoll, J.; Dusseault, M.B.; Santarelli, F. J., "The Tools of Sand Management",
Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc., 2001.
31. Yuan, Hong; Zhou, Desheng, “Evaluation of Two Phase Flow Correlation and
Mechanistic Models for Pipelines at Horizontal and Inclined Upward Flow”,
SPE 120281, 2009.
32. http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/10809/Mine%20Ventilation%20and
%20Fluid%20Flow%20Applications/Fluid%20Applications/Slurry%20Flow.pdf
33. http://www.csupomona.edu/~tknguyen/che435/Notes/P4-fluidized.pdf
34. http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/tr2000263/tr2000263.html
CHAPTER II
BEKAPAI OVERVIEW
The Bekapai Field lies offshore about 15 km from the mouth of the Mahakam River
delta in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. In partnership with Pertamina and Inpex, Total
Indonesie has operated the field since production began in 1974. The field itself is in
relatively calm water of 35 m depth and extends over an area approximately 3 x 6 km.
In 2004, this field produced 2,600 BOPD oil, 10 MMSCFD associated gas, and 8,250
BWPD water. In the recent update (June 2010), Bekapai still has potential to deliver
6,361 STBD of oil, and 18.8 MMSCFD gas.
Figure 2.1 Bekapai pipeline system
There are several manifold well head platforms in this field: BA, BB, BE, BF, BG, BH,
BJ, BK, and BL. The Central Complex consists of the set of: a well-head platform,
named BA, jacket with 9 slots, a production platform, named BP, a living quarter
platform named BQ, and a remote flare on a tripod, with an additional tripod
intermediate platform. The well heads are in low pressure (LP) condition. They consist
of some wells that three of them are gas lift sources (BJ-4-SS, BF-1-SS, and BL-10-LS)
and gas lift wells (BJ-3-LS, BA-9-LS, BL-7-LS, BG-1-LS, and BF-2-SS).
6
The five different platforms in the central complex are interconnected by bridges. The
general arrangement is in a East-West direction so that the prevailing wind is
perpendicular and provides the best natural ventilation and so that the risks of gas cloud
propagation and liquid spillage at sea are minimised, with the living quarters platform
LQ upwind the platforms handling hydrocarbons. The central complex is permanently
manned, with a maximum POB of 72. It is fitted with three boat landings, on the South
sides of BA and BP, and on the East side of LQ, and a helideck (without any stand-by or
refuelling facility) on LQ. BA is served by the control and safety systems, and the
utilities of the central complex.
Table 2.1 Pipelines and wellheads in Bekapai area

Pipeline Connected Well Diameter (inches)
BK-BP1 BK-2-SS 8
BJ-BB BJ-4-SS 6
BB-BP1 BB-6-LS, BB-9-LS, BJ-4-SS 12
BE-BA BE-3-SS 6
BF-BL BF-1-SS, BF-2-LS 6
BH-BG BH-1-SS, BH-1-LS, BH-3-S 6
BG-BL BG-6-S, BG-10-S 6
BG-BL BG-6-S, BG-10-S (oil-water only) 12
BL-BA BG-6-S, BG-10-S (gas only) 12
BL-BA BG-6-S, BG-10-S, BL-1-S, BL-6-S, 6
BL-9-S, BL-14-S (oil-water only)
Bekapai production platform (BP1) collected the oil and gas from satellites. In this
platform, water is separated and then disposed to sea. Gas and oil mixture are separated,
they go then to compression and pumping and mixed thoroughly before sent to Senipah
by 12” multiphase sea line.
Detail of the process consists of three main steps: separation, oil pumping, and gas
compression. Incoming LP well effluent from MWP is received by two separators (V
100 and V 120). V 100 acts as flow dampener only. Since the gas outlet is being closed,
oil and gas leaves this vessel through oil outlet line. Then the second separator (V 120)
will make a further separation to split the oil, gas, and water stream. Gas released from
this vessel is compressed into HP level by turbine driven two-stage centrifugal
compressor (K 3020 and K 3050). Besides, oil is also pumped by series of booster (MP
210-220-230) and transfer pumps (MP 240, 250, 260) before mixed with compressed
gas and delivered to Senipah terminal.
Produced water obtained from V-120 is treated in Oily Water Treatment Unit before
being discharged to the sea. Bekapai OWTU is equipped with two skimmer tanks
operating in series (T 3800 and T 3810). A cyclone (F 3850) is used to enhance oil
removal of skimmer tank (T 3800) water discharge and can be used for direct cleaning
of separator (V 120) water effluent. Final oil removal takes place in a floatator, named
Wemco depurator (V 3870) which can reduce oil content to less than 50 ppm and the
water is finally disposed to the sea.
CHAPTER III
LITERATURE STUDY
3.1 Multiphase Flow in Pipeline
The most commonly employed method of transporting fluid from one point to another is
to force the fluid to flow through a piping system. Pipe of circular section is most
frequently used because that shape offers not only greater structural strength, but also
greater cross sectional area per unit of wall surface than other shape. Pipe always refer
to a closed conduit of circular section and constant internal diameter.
The same thing occurred in oil and gas transportation. The flow is classified as
multiphase flow which generally located in the part of the installations between the
reservoir and the process units. Multiphase flow are first found in wells, whether
production be carried out through the tubing or through the annulus. There is also
multiphase flow in the flow lines transferring the production from the wellheads to the
primary separator or the test separator. Multiphase flow may also occur in plant piping
downstream of control valves or through heat exchanger tubes where condensation or
vaporization is achieved (Prodem V).
Multiphase flow is defined as flow in which several phases are present. The phases
which can be in presence in multiphase flow are: gas, oil or condensate, free water,
methanol, glycols, additives such as corrosion inhibitors dissolved in water, solids (sand,
clay).
3.1.1 Multiphase Flow Properties

 Liquid mixture density (Campbell, 2004)
For determining liquid mixture density, the below equation is used.
𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑥 = 𝑥𝑖 𝑣𝑖
Where 𝑥𝑖 = mol fraction of each component

𝑣𝑖 = molar volume of each component
𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑥 = molar volume of the mixture
9
 Liquid mixture viscosity (Campbell, 2004)
For determining liquid mixture viscosity, the below equation is used.

3
𝜇𝑚𝑖𝑥 = 𝑥𝑖 (𝜇𝑖 )1/3
Where 𝑥𝑖 = mol fraction of each component

𝜇𝑖 = component viscosity
𝜇𝑚𝑖𝑥 = viscosity of mixture in centipoise
 Liquid mixture surface tension (Sutton, 2007)
For determining liquid mixture surface tension, the below equation is used.
4
1.58 𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌𝑕 + 1.76
𝜎𝑕𝑤 =
𝑇𝑟 0.3125
Where 𝜌𝑤 = water density
𝜌𝑕 = oil density
𝜎𝑕𝑤 = liquid mixture surface tension
𝑇𝑟 = reduced temperature
 Gas density
Compressibility factor (Z) for determine the non ideal gas is gained via S. Robertson
method:
𝑥 = 𝑃𝑝𝑟 /𝑇𝑝𝑟 2
𝑎 = 0.1219𝑇𝑝𝑟 0.638
14.75
𝑏 = 𝑇𝑝𝑟 − 7.76 +
𝑇𝑝𝑟
𝑐 = 0.3𝑥 + 0.441𝑥 2
𝒁 = 𝟏 + 𝒂 𝒙 − 𝒃 (𝟏 − 𝒆𝒙𝒑 −𝒄 )
Where 𝑃𝑝𝑟 = reduced pressure
𝑇𝑝𝑟 = reduced temperature
Then the actual density of gas can be found from the following equation:
𝜌 = (𝑃)(𝑀𝑟)/(𝑍 𝑅 𝑇)
Where 𝑍 = compressibility factor
𝑅 = universal gas constant
𝑃 = absolute pressure
𝑇 = absolute temperature
𝑀𝑟 = 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, 𝑽𝒔𝒍 [m/s] (it is customary to use the superficial
velocity instead the flow rate).
b) The gas superficial velocity, 𝑽𝒔𝒈 [𝒎/𝒔].
c) Liquid density, 𝝆𝒍 [𝒌𝒈/𝒎𝟑].
d) Gas density, 𝝆𝒈 [𝒌𝒈/𝒎𝟑].
e) Liquid viscosity, 𝝁𝒍 [𝑷𝒂. 𝒔].
f) Gas viscosity, 𝝁𝒈 [𝑷𝒂. 𝒔].
g) Pipe diameter, 𝑫 [𝒎].
h) Acceleration of gravity, 𝒈 [𝒎/𝒔𝟐].
i) Surface tension, 𝝈 [N/m].
j) Pipe roughness, e [m].
k) Pipe inclination, 𝜽 (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).
Experimental
correlation
Catagory A Catagory B
Catagory C
(No slippage and no (Slippage considered,
(Slippage and flow
flow pattern no flow pattern
pattern consideration)
consideration) consideration)
Pettmann&Carpenter,B
Hagedorn&Brown,Gray, Dun&Ros,Orkiszewski,A
axendel&Thomas,Fanch
Asheim ziz,etc
er&Brown
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
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
The characteristic of each regime explained as follows:
Dispersed Segregated Intermittent

Flow Flow Flow
Stratified
Bubble
(high gas-liquid ratio, Slug
(Small gas -liquid ratio,
medium gas flow rate, the (medium gas-liquid ratio,
continuous phase: liquid,
fraction of each section is high liquid flow rate)
very low slip velocity)
remain constant)
Plug
Annular
Mist/Spray (more transition regime
(very high gas-liquid ratio,
(Very high gas flow rate, between stratified wavy and
high gas flow rate, annular
very high gas-liquid ratio, slug flow/annular flow,
film on the wall is thickened
continuous phase: gas) derived from stratidied
at the bottom of pipe)
wavy)
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.
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:
 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.
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.
The coordinates used in the Aziz vertical map are:

𝑁𝑥 = 𝑉𝑠𝑔 𝑋𝐴
𝑁𝑦 = 𝑉𝑠𝑙 𝑌𝐴
𝜌𝑔 0.333
𝑋𝐴 = 𝑌𝐴
𝜌𝑎
𝜌𝑙 𝜎𝑤𝑎 0.25
𝑌𝐴 =
𝜌𝑤 𝜎
Where 𝑁𝑥 , , 𝑁𝑦 , 𝑋𝐴 and 𝑌𝐴 are dimensionless number
𝜎𝑤𝑎 = interfacial tension of air and water at 60oF
𝜌𝑎 = air density at 60oF and 14.7 psia
3.1.5 Beggs and Brill Correlation
In fact, Beggs and Brill (1973) correlation is one of many correlations used to predict
the pressure loss in multiphase flow. Each multiphase correlation makes its own
particular modifications to the hydrostatic pressure difference and the friction pressure
loss calculations, in order to make them applicable to multiphase situations. The range
of applicability of the multiphase flow models is dependent on several factors such as,
tubing size or diameter, oil gravity, gas-liquid ratio, and two-phase flow with or
without water-cut. The effect of every factor on estimating the pressure profile in a
well is discussed separately for all the multiphase models considered. A reasonably
good performance of the multiphase flow models is considered to have a relative error
(between the measured and predicted values of the pressure profile) less than or equal to
20% (Rao, 1998).
In general, all multiphase correlations are essentially two phases (gas-liquid) and not
three phases (gas, water, liquid). Accordingly, the oil and water phases are combined,
and treated as a pseudo single liquid phase, while gas is considered a separate phase.
The Beggs & Brill correlation is developed for tubing strings in inclined wells and
pipelines for hilly terrain. This correlation resulted from experiments using air and water
as test fluids over a wide range of parameters.
Table 3.1 Multiphase flow correlations

Correlation Notes
Vertical Upward Flow
Duns & Ros Good in mist and bubble flow regions.
Angel-Welchon-Ross Applicable for high flow areas and annulus flow.
Recommended for high volume wells and low gas/oil ratios
Hagedorn & Brown Best available pressure drop correlation for vertical upward flow
Most accurate for angles of inclination greater than 70 degrees
Orkiszewski Result reliable for high gas/oil ratios
Generally slightly overpredicts pressure drop; other correlation
Aziz tend to underpredict.
This fact can be used to bracket the solution.
Beggs & Brill Good for all angles of inclination.
Predicts the most consistent results for wide ranges of
conditions.
Gray Specifically designed for condensate wells (high gas/oil ratios)
Recommended ranges: velocity< 15 m/s
Horizontal Flow
Lockhart-Martinelli Widely used in the chemical industry.
Applicable for annular and annular mist flow regimes if flow
pattern is known a priori.
Do not use for large pipes
Generally overpredicts pressure drop
Eaton Do not use for diameters<50 mm [2 in]
Do not use for very high or very low liquid holdup.
Underpredicts holdup for Hl<0.1. Works well for 0.1<HL<0.35
Dukler Good for horizontal flow
Tends to underpredict pressure drop and holdup
Recommended by API for wet gas lines
Beggs&Brill Use the no-slip option for low holdup
Underpredicts holdup
Inclined Flow
Mukherjee-Brill Recommended for hilly terrain pipelines
New correlation based heavily on in situ flow pattern
Only available model that calculates flow patterns for all flow
configurations and uses
Beggs and Brill model has been identified to be applicable in this study as it exhibits
several characteristics that set it apart from the other multiphase flow models:
a) Slippage between phases is taken into account

Due to the two different densities and viscosities involved in the flow, the lighter phase
tends to travel faster than the heavier one – termed as slippage. This leads to larger
liquid hold-up in practice than would be predicted by treating the mixture as a
homogeneous one.
b) Flow pattern consideration

Depending on the velocity and composition of the mixture, the flow behavior changes
considerably, so that different flow patterns emerge. Depending upon the flow pattern
established, the hold-up and friction factor correlations are determined.
c) Flow angle consideration

This model deals with flows at angles other than those in the vertical upwards direction
(Chang et al., 2008).
A little different from another correlation, Beggs and Brill need early determination of
flow regime to calculate pressure drop. This part is used in this report for mechanistic
models. These can be classified as three types of regimes: segregated flows, in which the
two phases are for the most part separate; intermittent flows, in which gas and liquid are
alternating; and distributive flows, in which one phase is dispersed in the other phase.
 Segregated flow is further classified as being stratified smooth, stratified wavy (ripple
flow), or annular. At higher gas rates, the interface becomes wavy, and stratified wavy
flow results. Annular flow occurs at high gas rates and relatively high liquid rates and
consists of an annulus of liquid coating the wall of the pipe and a central core of gas
flow, with liquid droplets entrained in the gas.
 The intermittent flow regimes are slug flow and plug (also called elongated bubble)
flow. Slug flow consists of large liquid slugs alternating with high-velocity bubbles of
gas that fill almost the entire pipe. In plug flow, large gas bubbles flow along the top
of the pipe.
 Distributive flow regimes described in the literature include bubble, mist, and froth
flow.
Beggs & Brill determine the flow regime and liquid hold up as follow:
𝐿1 = 316𝐶𝐿 0.302
𝐿2 = 0.0009252𝐶𝐿 −2.4684
𝐿3 = 0.1𝐶𝐿 −1.4516
𝐿4 = 0.52𝐶𝐿 −6.738
L1, L2, L3, L4 are dimensionless numbers where can be determined if CL is known.
Theoretically, Cl is input volume fraction of liquid that defined as the ratio of liquid
superficial velocity and mixture velocity. The other dimensionless number that used to
determine flow regime is Fraude number. It may be written as
𝐹𝑟 = 𝑣 2 /𝑔𝐷
Based on above equations, the flow regimes are classified into four areas:
1. Segregated flow
𝐶𝐿 < 0.01 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹𝑟 < 𝐿1
𝑜𝑟
𝐶𝐿 ≥ 0.01 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹𝑟 < 𝐿2
2.Intermittent Flow
0.01 ≤ 𝐶𝐿 < 0.4 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐿3 < 𝐹𝑟 ≤ 𝐿1
𝑜𝑟
𝐶𝐿 ≥ 0.04 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐿3 < 𝐹𝑟 ≤ 𝐿4
3.Distributed Flow
𝐶𝐿 < 0.4 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹𝑟 ≥ 𝐿1
𝑜𝑟
𝐶𝐿 ≥ 0.4 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹𝑟 > 𝐿4
4.Transition Flow (not as an actual regime, only presents the existence of regime
boundaries)
0.01 ≤ 𝐶𝐿 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐿2 < 𝐹𝑟 ≤ 𝐿3

Once the flow type has been determined then the liquid holdup can be calculated. Beggs
and Brill divided the liquid holdup calculation into two parts. First the liquid holdup for
horizontal flow, EL(0), is determined, and then the result is modified for inclined flow.
EL(0) must be ≥ CL and therefore when EL(0) is smaller than CL, EL(0) is assigned a
value of CL. There is a separate calculation of liquid holdup (E L(0)) for each flow type.
1. Segregated flow
0.98𝐶𝐿 0.4846
𝐸𝐿 (0) =
𝐹𝑟 0.0868
2. Intermittent Flow
0.845𝐶𝐿 0.5351
𝐸𝐿 (0) =
𝐹𝑟 0.0173
3. Distributed Flow
1.065 𝐶𝐿 0.5824
𝐸𝐿 0 =
𝐹𝑟 0.0609
4. Transition Flow
𝐸𝐿 0 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝐴𝐸𝐿 0 𝑠𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 + 𝐵𝐸𝐿 0 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡
Where
𝐿3 − 𝐹𝑟
𝐴= 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐵 = 1 − 𝐴
𝐿3 − 𝐿3
If all of the steps have been completed, then the liquid hold up can be determined. This
information will be used to find the actual liquid and gas velocity along the pipeline.
3.2 Sand Transportability in Pipe
Sand transportation in multiphase pipelines depends on several factors. Some of these

factors are: Flow regime, hold up, fluid properties (such as viscosity), inclination of
the pipe in hilly terrains, particle size distribution, relation between the superficial
velocity of the liquid phase (Vsl) and the superficial velocity of the gas phase (Vsg),
pipeline diameter, friction factors, etc. For example, a change of inclination implies a
change in the flow pattern, and therefore, a change in the sand transportation and sand
behavior. The same happens for the viscosity. If the viscosity of the liquid phase
changes, the energy distribution of the gas and liquid phases is going to change,
conditioning the geometrical distribution of both phases in the pipeline, which means
changing the flow pattern.
Angelsen in 1989 found that sand transport in horizontal pipelines has four main
patterns depending on the fluid flow rate (Salama, 1998). Basically, four flow regimes
can be identified for the solid-liquid slurry flow in horizontal pipe; those are saltation
static bed (sand bed), saltation moving bed (moving dunes), heterogeneous flow
(scouring), and homogeneous flow (dispersed) (Chen, 1994).
Figure 3.7 Flow pattern in slurry flow
However, sand transportation in pipe concludes of more complex fluid composition:

water, oil, and gas. The flow regime determined before only told about the gas-liquid
phase distribution, so that the behavior and flow pattern map is a combination from gas-
liquid and slurry flow.
Figure 3.8 Multiphase flow regimes consist of liquid, gas and solid
In annular flow, the sand particles can be transported in the water firm and in the gas
core. In this flow regime, since the velocities are high, the main concern is not the sand
accumulation but the erosion rate produced by the aggressive sand particles movement.
In low hold up wavy flow, the liquid is transported in a thin film on the bottom of the
line, where the sand concentration may be high, enhancing the creation of a settled sand
bed.
In plug flow, gas pockets move along the top of the pipe having little effect upon the
solid behavior. As long as the gas velocity is increased, the gas pocket gets depth and
the fluctuating velocities affect the sand transportation similar to described at next in
slug flow. Under this flow regime, for upwardly inclined pipes, it can be seen that either
the sand is transported in the plug body and in the film region, or the sand particles settle
in the gas plug zone (film region), and are only transported into the plug body, or
clusters of collided sand particles are formed, moving backwards in the gas pocket (film
region) and only moving forwards in the liquid plug body.
In slug flow, the sand particles behavior is complicated since the solids may be settled
during the film region and transported in the slug body; the sand movement is always
intermittent and gas pockets moving along the pipe have high effect upon the solid
behavior. There can be a large diameter effect as the depth of the film varies and shields
the pipe bottom from the turbulence of the slug. Moreover, the slug frequency is an
important factor in sand transportation (Ruano, 2008).
Figure 3.9 Schematic sand behaviors in slug with low gas superficial velocity
Ruano in 2008 came with his observation about sand behavior in multiphase horizontal
and near horizontal (+5 o) pipelines for his magister thesis. He tried to find the
correlation between sand behavior and flow pattern and vice versa. Flow regime
analysis is conducted through the measured hold up by capacitance instrumentation, for
its comparison with the visual observation, and a relation between flow pattern and sand
transportation is pointed up. The real sand transportation in multiphase oil pipelines is
studied here by using water/air flows which contain different loads of sand, by means of
conducting sand settling experiments in the 4” (0.1 m) facility loop of Process and
System Engineering Department at Cranfield University, for a liquid superficial velocity
interval from 0.55 to 0.15 m/s, for a gas superficial velocity range from 2.5 to 0.02m/s
and for three sand production rates: 0.04275, 0.57 and 1.425kg/m3.
It has been found that the sand transportation strongly depends upon the flow regime
and, however, upon each and every parameter which affects the flow pattern, such as
inclination or, even, sand production. It has been seen that the flow regime observed
mainly depends upon the inclination, showing big differences between horizontal and
near horizontal (+5 o). Therefore, the sand behavior observed in horizontal pipe is
completely different that in the upwardly inclined pipe.
First, Ruano identified the flow regime without any sand load to study how sand
concentration affects the flow pattern. For a certain value of Vsl, Vsg values are varied
until all the regimes are concluded. Then he replied those methods with different sand
production rates; a recorded video from the bottom of the pipe is conducted.
a. Smooth Stratified Flow
 No obvious sand particles movements in liquid film zone
 Sand settled in the bottom, sand dune formation in higher sand concentration
Figure 3.10 Sand behaviors in smooth stratified regime
Figure 3.11 Sand dune formation behaviors

b. Stratified-Wavy Flow
 Formation of the big waves
 Sand are seen to settle along the flow direction
 Enough energy for sand to be transported
Figure 3.12 Sand behaviors in stratified-wavy regime

c. Plug Flow
 High value of Vsl and low Vsg
 Sand is not transported to barely move sliding in a plug body and settle in the
film zone
 Sand is encountered to be rolling or creeping
Figure 3.13 Sand behaviors in plug regime

d. Slug Flow
 Facilitate sand transportation
 As soon as the turbulent energy reaches the sand settled on the pipe well, the
sand will be carried and lifted into the slug body
Figure 3.14 Sand behaviors in slug regime
3.3 Critical Flow Velocity in Sand Transport

3.3.1 Horizontal Pipe
The critical flow velocity, Vc, is defined as the minimum velocity demarcating flows in
which the solids (sand particles) form a bed at the bottom of the pipe from fully
suspended flows. It is also referred to as the minimum-carrying or limiting-deposition
velocity. Below this velocity, solids will settle out and slurry flow cannot be maintained.
Below a critical velocity, sand will drop out of the carrier fluid and form a stable,
stationary sand bed. As the sand bed builds over time, the fluid above the bed is forced
into a smaller cross-sectional area, causing the fluid velocity to increase. When the
velocity reaches a critical value, sand is transported in a thin layer along the top of the
sand bed. A steady-state is reached, such that the sand eroded from the top of the bed
is replaced by new sand production from upstream. At higher velocities, the sand bed
begins to break up into a series of slow-moving dunes, with sand particles transported
from the upstream to the downstream side of the dune. As the flow velocity increases
still further, the dunes break up entirely, and the sand forms a moving bed along the
bottom of the pipe. At liquid velocities above the critical sand-carrying velocity, the
sand is fully entrained in the fluid phase, and potentially entrained into the gas phase in
multiphase flow (Danielson, 2007).
 There are some theories from such as Durand-Condolios (1952) and Newitt et al.
(1955) that used to calculate Vc. Durand-Condolios classified the flow of
slurries according to particle size. Newitt suggested that it also depends on the
density of material, the mean velocity, and the pipe diameter. He also derived the
evaluation of the energy losses due to flow of the fluid and solid particles.
𝑉𝑐 = 𝐹𝐿 [2𝑔𝐷(𝑠 − 1)]0,5
Where D = pipe diameter; FL is a numerical constant depending on solids

concentration and particle size and is determined from Figure 3.15 ; (s-1) is
𝜌 𝑠 −𝜌 𝑤
equivalent to also = SGsoIids- 1.
𝜌𝑤
Sand
Concen-
tration
Figure 3.15 FL value vs. particle diameter, concentration as parameter
 Salama, M. M. (1998) combine the correlation developed by Oroskar and Turian

(1980) with predictions made by the DNV Carroline software for predict sand-
settling in both single and two-phase flows.
0,53 0,55
𝑉𝑠𝐿 0,17 0,09
∆𝜌
𝑉𝑚 = 𝑑 𝑣 𝐷0,47
𝑉𝑚 𝜌𝑓
Where Vm : mininum mixture flow velocity to avoid sand settling, m/s
VsL : ratio between liquid superficial velocity and mixture velocity
D : pipe diameter, m
∆𝜌 : density difference between sands and liquid, kg/m3
𝜌𝑓 : liquid density, kg/m3
𝑣 : kinematic viscosity, m2/s
3.3.2 Vertical Pipe
To determine sand settling velocity in sand transportability through vertical pipe, a

model developed by Chien (1994) can be used.
2
𝜇𝑒 𝜌𝑝 𝑑𝜌𝑓
𝑉𝑚 = 120 1 + 0.0727 𝑑 −1 −1
𝑑𝜌𝑓 𝜌𝑓 𝜇𝑒
Where Vm : miminum mixture flow velocity to avoid sand settling, m/s

𝜇𝑒 : effective viscosity at various shear rates, Pa.s
d : particle diameter, m
𝜌𝑝 : particle density, kg/m3

𝜌𝑓 : liquid density, kg/m3
The above models do not account for the impact of condensate and added chemicals on
sand behavior and sand settling predictions. It is, however, expected that the above
equation can lead to conservative results because oil wetted sand should be expected to
settle at a lower velocity than the water wetted sand (Salama, 1998).
CHAPTER IV
BEKAPAI OBSERVATION
4.1 Bekapai Production Network Configuration and Gas Lift
32
4.2 Pipeline and Flow Condition
Table 4.1 Pipelines and flows condition
Pipeline P(bar) T (oC) Q Oil (STBD) Q Gas (MSCFD) Q Water (BWPD)

8 inch BK-BP1 10 60 1 960 68
6 inch BJ-BB 56 60 0 1302 1
12 inch BB-BP1 10 60 339 1608 2152
6 inch BF-BL 11 60 175 1712 1177
6 inch BH-BG 13 60 422 1239 478
12 inch BL-BA 10 60 5011 9540 4263
4.3 Particle Sieve Analysis
50
45
40
35
30
% Weight
Particle B
25 Particle C
20 Particle D
15 Particle E
10 Particle F
5 Particle G
0 Particle H
Diameter (mm) *Particle A has no sieve analysis
Figure 4.1 Particles sieve analysis
There are eight samples of sand particles that have been found in most area in Bekapai
wells and separators (V 100 and V 120) since 2006 until 2009. For this analysis, those
particles are used to identify the flow critical velocity in Bekapai pipelines.
CHAPTER V
BASIC CALCULATION FOR FLOW REGIME PREDICTION
(COMPARISON OF METHOD)
5.1 Empirical Correlation (Mandhane, Aziz et al. versus Beggs & Brill)
This calculation has been applied in Microsoft Excel 2007 for all pipelines in Bekapai
(except 6” BE-BA, 6” BL-BA, 6” BG-BL, 12” BG-BL because the flow are in single
phase).
 Objectives
a. Determine the flow regime for each pipeline
b. Comparative analysis between methods that used in determining flow regime
 Variations
Variation used in this calculation is pipe geometry (horizontal or vertical).
 Assumptions
a. Steady state flow
b. There is not an inter-phase mass or energy transfer
c. Temperature and pressure are constants along pipeline
Table 5.1 Average pressures and temperatures in Bekapai pipelines

Average
Pressure Temperature
Pipeline (bar) (oC)
8 inch BK-BP1 10 60
6 inch BJ-BB 56 60
12 inch BB-BP1 10 60
6 inch BF-BL 11 60
6 inch BH-BG 13 60
12 inch BL-BA 10 60
34
5.2 OLGA versus Beggs & Brill
The calculation has been applied for some case studies in Microsoft Excel 2007 and OLGA.
OLGA was originally developed as a dynamic one dimensional modified two fluid model
for two-phase hydrocarbon flow in pipelines and pipeline networks, with processing
equipment included. Later, a water option was included which treats water as a separate
liquid phase. OLGA was developed by IFE in 1983 for the Norwegian State Oil Company,
Statoil.
This comparison analysis is based from the main background to know how accurate the
prediction made by mechanistic model such OLGA compared with Beggs & Brill, which is
really helpful to solve kind of situations such as lack of appropriate data when a new well or
pipeline is being designed, “Industry Standard” correlations do not fit the available test
data for some or all wells, different correlations are used to match similar wells, or the same
correlation yield incomparable results in different application.
 Objectives
The objective of this analysis is to compare flow regime, actual liquid and gas
velocity, and also holdup results between OLGA and Beggs & Brill model at
Bekapai pipelines.
 Variations
a. Pipe geometry (horizontal or vertical)
b. Flow mixture (gas-water or gas-oil)
 Assumptions
a. Steady state flow
b. There is not an inter-phase mass or energy transfer
c. Temperature and pressure are constant along pipeline
First, the representative pipeline models for this analysis are created. In most cases, the
wellhead located under sea level and linked to the platform with subsea pipeline. Therefore,
the geometry of the pipeline includes horizontal line and riser in order to reach the
production deck located above sea level. The horizontal lengths follows real conditions in
Bekapai, with riser are assumed 35 m height. Pipeline is divided into 100 horizontal and 10
vertical sections.
In real situation, the physical structure of pipe would follow the seabed contour. Moreover,
the flow regime performance is really sensitive to the inclination angle; defined as angle
between pipeline and the ground. In these following cases, inclined angles factor along the
pipe are ignored.
Table 5.2 Pipeline geometry data

Pipeline d (inch) Length (m) Wall thickness
(mm)
BB-BP 12 1660 9.52

BH-BG 6 1900 9.52
BF-BL 6 1000 9.52
BJ-BB 6 850 9.52
BK-BP 8 1900 9.52
BL-BA 6 1530 9.52
In order to determine the fluid regime in multiphase flow, the input and output data are
identified. Fluid data like composition and phase mixture are created in another program
(PVT SIM) because OLGA is not applicable to build its own fluid data source. For case
studies applied, the gas and oil composition can be seen in the next page.
Table 5.3 Oil composition in OLGA

Molecular
Components Mol fraction weight 𝜌 (kg/m3)
C6 0.33 84 685
C7 0.12 96 722
C8 0.005 107 745
C9 0.04 121 764
C10 0.14 134 778
C11 0.16 147 789
C12 0.07 161 800
C13 0.005 175 811
C14 0.1 190 822
C15 0.03 206 832
Table 5.4 Gas composition in OLGA

Molecular
Components weight Yi
C1 16.043 0.75
C2 30.07 0.21
C3 4.097 0.04
OLGA provides an option to activate “NO SLIP” indicator. If it is turned off, slip between
phases is calculated. In the other words, the actual liquid velocity between gas and liquid
phase are become different each other (like the real situation). The other option is
“STEADYSTATE”, indicator used to establish the steady state condition instead of
transient.
Heat transfer is neglected for simplicity, and the wall temperature is assumed constant in
60oC. The other parameters like pressure, GOR (gas oil ratio), GWR (gas water ratio), pipe
diameter, and standard gas flow rate follows data in Bekapai so that the model remains as
close as possible to the actual circumstances. Nevertheless, in order to analyze the effect of
fluid properties through flow regime, there are two variations in fluid flow applied: gas-
water and gas-oil flow.
Table 5.5 Flow properties in each Bekapai pipeline
Gas std
Pressure GWR GOR flow rate
Pipeline (bar) (m3/m3) (scf/STB) (Mscfd)
8 inch BK-BP1 10 277.82 720676.32 960
6 inch BJ-BB 56 5220.60 - 1302
12 inch BB-BP1 10 14.76 4742.69 1608
6 inch BF-BL 11 26.07 9781.97 1712
6 inch BH-BG 13 39.15 2953.69 1239
12 inch BL-BA 10 44.22 1903.88 9540
Figure 5.1 OLGA model view for gas-water case

It must be noticed that the output in OLGA are presented in two different ways, in
TRENDPLOT and PROFILEPLOT. TRENDPLOT shows the behavior of variables versus
time in constant position (called “section”). In the other hand, PROFILEPLOT shows the
variable profile along the pipe in certain range of time. So the results are not constant
toward two variables, location and time.
CHAPTER VI
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
According to the previous explanation about the theory and calculation used in this report, it
was a great challenge to make an analysis and summary about many parameters concluded
in sand transportability behavior. In the beginning, it was only to find the relation between
flow regime and sand settling, but the phenomena are not as simple as ever thought.
Multiphase flow regime, in fact, has not been really understood by researchers until now,
since most of multiphase models are based on only two phase, single liquid and gas. Many
assumptions are made to generalize its application in complex flow like in oil-gas industry,
but the real problem are too many parameters have been identified without sufficient
correlation made.
In such a complex situation engineers avoid the mathematical difficulties by resorting to

experimental methods and develop "correlation" for engineering application. These
correlations are based on experimental results but, when the number of parameters that
control the flow pattern is large, than even this basic problem has its difficulties.
Holdup
Fluid
properties
Flow
regime
Sand (Vsl,Vsg,ᵨ,
σ,µ)
Transportation in
Further Pipeline
analyzed in
this report (critical flow velocity and
Pipeline sand behavior)
properties Inclination
(D,roughness) (θ)
Particle
properties
ᵨ
(Dp, )
Figure 6.1 Factors affected sand transportation in pipeline

40
To overcame this problem, this report only focused on the relationship between flow regime
and sand transportation, especially sand behavior along pipeline. The other parameters such
as inclination, hold up, etc. are discussed in general due to Bekapai flow as long as they
have connection with flow regime determination.
A comparative study has been chosen to determine multiphase flow regime in Bekapai
pipelines, due to various models that have been found so far. Inclination is the main issue in
experimental/empirical correlation because of only one map accepted for a certain
inclination angle. This is why the experimental correlation is not used in practice. There are
several empirical used in this analysis, such as Taitel & Dukler and Duns & Ros map which
widely used today, but they failed to describe flow regime because of the difficulty level
applied in manual calculation and unclear boundaries between each regime. The others are
not really accurate and not considered the slippage between phases.
Therefore, a different approach is introduced by another experimental correlation such as

Duns & Ros, Hagedorn & Brown, Orkiszewski, and Beggs & Brill. They are based on
experiments and used commonly to determine pressure drop in multiphase flow. From those
ones, Beggs and Brill was chosen in this analysis because some advantages like liquid hold
up and slippage consideration, relatively easy to use, and applicable in all inclination. But
somehow it has some limitations in the application that explained below:
1. It has an increasing error if GLR (gas liquid ratio) above 5,000.
2. The experimental investigation was conducted for tubing size between 1 and 1.5 in. Any
further increase in tubing size tends to result in an over prediction in the pressure loss.
3. The accuracy has been tested only for water-gas flow.
Hence, it can be concluded that all models that explained above are not recommended to
use in a different situation from which the experiment was done.
Then OLGA comes as one dimensional model of multiphase flow that capable to determine
the sand behavior included its flow regime. OLGA has many improvements and makes
multiphase flow analysis becoming easier to apply in industry. It can be used to make a
prediction of oil-gas-flow behavior along pipeline in steady state or transient condition,

something that have never investigated before.
A comparative study between these models is further investigated in this report. A block
diagram in the following page shows the general mechanism of flow regime determination.
Flow Sand
regime Behavior
Mechanistic
Experimental Model
Correlation
(all inclinations)
Horizontal Pipe Vertical Pipe All inclinations

OLGA
(Mandhane Map) (Aziz Map) (Beggs &Brill)
Figure 6.2 Flow regime determination used in this analysis
Sometimes a very careful choice must be considered due to the percentage differences
between the results. Even when the value is large, it means nothing related to the validity
because the main focus of this analysis is “how closed”, not “how accurate”. In this
chapter, the results of calculation described in chapter V will be analyzed further. This
chapter will be divided into two sections: analysis of sand behavior and the flow critical
velocity in vertical and horizontal pipe.
6.1 Analysis of Sand Behavior in Correlation with Flow Regime
Essentially, flow regime defined as the physical distribution of the phases in flow,
especially the distribution of energy. It has great effect to the sand transportation because
the energy of flow has able to move sand and avoid its settlement as long as the velocity of
mixture is not achieve the flow critical velocity. Every pattern occurred in flow has certain
characteristics which depend on the superficial velocity of liquid and gas.
It is not an easy task to predict the sand behavior from the flow regime and vice versa.
Ruano (2008) has analyzed this subject comprehensively in his thesis and found that in each
regime occurred, sand settling phenomena are possibly happened based on the rate of sand
production and flow velocity. According to this, the only information gathered is about the
sand behavior, not the sand settling condition. Thus, the main factor used to decide
whether sand particles are settled or not is still the flow critical velocity.
It is important to note that all flow regime model used here are able to explain only two
until three phases consist of single liquid-gas or gas-water-oil types. It will be described in
the next section.
6.1.1 Experimental Correlation (Mandhane, Aziz et al. versus Beggs & Brill)
The main reason to choose Beggs & Brill than the other map is its simplicity. In this model
the dimensionless number equations are used to substitute the boundaries between each
flow regime. Consequently, the flow regime map is not required anymore. In application,
this method is preferable although the whole calculation is more difficult than empirical
correlation.
6.1.1.1 Horizontal Pipe
There are some maps that can be used to determine the flow pattern in horizontal pipe, but
Mandhane’s map is the one that widely used. This method is reported to give an overall
accuracy of about 70% when compared to the full data bank on which it is based (6000 flow
pattern observations).
Figure 6.3 Mandhane’s map for Bekapai pipelines
Blue node locations show the regime for each pipeline flow. This method is quite easy
because it is only based on superficial velocity of gas and liquid. As summary, the regime
for each pipelines are represented in table below.
Table 6.1 Flow regimes of Bekapai pipelines predicted using Mandhane’s map
Gas superficial velocity Gas-oil superficial velocity
Pipeline (ft/s) (ft/s) Regime
8 inch BK-BP1 3.64 0.0134 Stratified
6 inch BJ-BB 1.41 0.0003 Stratified
12 inch BB-BP1 2.71 0.2126 Stratified
6 inch BF-BL 10.48 0.4616 Slug
6 inch BH-BG 6.39 0.3074 Stratified
12 inch BL-BA 16.09 0.7916 Slug
The Mandhane map given in Fig. 6.3 was developed for horizontal lines flowing air and
water at near atmospheric pressure. Inclinations in the range of 0.1-1.0 degrees can cause
substantial regime boundary movement. With an assumption that Bekapai pipelines are
straight horizontal in geometry (riser is not included), results above can be accepted.
Besides, flow regime boundary adjustment has been observed due to fluid pressure, pipe
diameter, and surface tension in this method. Because of three parameters above are
assumed constant in these cases, the remaining problem is how if these results are being
compared with Beggs & Brill correlation.
Table 6.2 Horizontal flow regimes in Bekapai pipelines predicted using by Beggs & Brill
correlation (revised)
Pipeline Regime
8 inch BK-BP1 segregated
6 inch BJ-BB segregated
12 inch BB-BP1 segregated
6 inch BF-BL unknown
6 inch BH-BG unknown
12 inch BL-BA unknown
For 8”BK-BP1, 6”BJ-BB and 12”BB-BP1 pipelines, the flow regimes are matches with
Mandhane so it can be concluded that the flow regimes for those pipelines are
segregated/stratified. Segregated includes annular and stratified in Beggs & Brill’s terms, so
explicitly it can be said that the regimes are stratified, according to the Mandhane’s results.
Beggs & Brill correlation, same with Mandhane, is based on water-air flow in early
investigated. For 6”BF-BL, 6”BH-BG and 12”BL-BA, it does not show any information
about the regime. One only reason is one or more requirements used to determine flow
regime are out of boundaries.
Nevertheless, the Beggs & Brill correlation originally based from Beggs & Brill map. When
a problem like “undefined regime” happened, it is better to ensure the results using this
map. One disadvantage of this model is the uncertainty of regime location related to the
others. It does not give any information about how close or how far the flow from the other
regimes or relative position between flows. This map below illustrated more clearly about
some information that are not provided by Beggs & Brill correlation.
Figure 6.4 Beggs & Brill map (1973) of Bekapai pipelines
Flow in 12”BL-BA, 6”BF-BL and 6” BH-BG are showed in transition and near transition
regime. Their positions are quite far from other three (6”BJ-BB, 8”BK-BP1 and 12”BB-
BP1). However, these results show different prediction from Beggs & Brill correlation that
has been revised. With assumption that there is nothing wrong in calculation, it should be
corrected once more to find another comparator.
Using the correlation which was published in 1973, Bekapai flow regime can be seen in
Table 6.3. The results are same with Beggs & Brill map in original line.
Table 6.3 Horizontal flow regime in Bekapai pipelines by Beggs & Brill correlation (1973)
Pipeline Regime
8 inch BK-BP1 Segregated
6 inch BJ-BB Segregated
12 inch BB-BP1 Segregated
6 inch BF-BL Segregated
6 inch BH-BG Segregated
12 inch BL-BA Segregated
Finally, all flow regimes in Bekapai pipelines are determined. These results seem
reasonable according to fluid velocity data. As known earlier, fluid velocity values (see
Appendix A) between BB-BP1, BF-BL, and BH-BG are not very different each other. Only
12”BL-BA has high rate of gas (tenth times higher than 6”BH-BG; 269,501 m3/d). Hence,
its gas velocity only approximately 5.15 m/s, a little bit larger than the others (0.43, 0.89,
1.12, 2.04, 3.34 m/s). Logically, it was not usual for Beggs & Brill to fail predicting the
flow regime in this range. In order to make things clear, for all next cases the correlation
from the origin paper will be used.
According to sand behavior in each pipeline, stratified flow is occurred in relatively low
liquid and gas velocity, so that the sand particles have consistent behavior in this regime.
From wellheads, sand concentration in liquid phase tends to be higher than gas phase
because the gravity factor. Liquid phase remains in the bottom and there is only little mass
transfer between gas and liquid phase. In this situation, whether sand particles will be
carried away or settled along the pipe depends on the liquid velocity. If the velocity is lower
than the flow critical one, the sand will settle and in higher concentration, they will form
sand dunes. But, the other hand, sand will be carried away by flow and there will be no sand
accumulation in 8”BK-BP1, 6”BJ-BB, and 12”BB-BP1.
Refer to Mandhane’s method, slug flow are occurred in 6”BF-BL and 12”BL-BA.
Theoretically, slug regime is avoided in field because it introduces a flow rate and pressure
intermittency that may be troublesome to process control, in example the flow can change
from near 100% liquid to 100% vapor. High liquid rates may fill separators causing process
trips due to high level. High vapor rates can lead to flaring or temporarily overload
compressors causing trips due to compressor instability and/or high pressure.
Nevertheless, the main focus in this section is the sand behavior in this regime which
become more complex because of slug phenomenon. Mixing zone that occurred is very
effective to move sand particles in the bottom. If pipe diameter is smaller, slug body can
reach the bottom of pipe and wipe the sand dunes into it. Slug frequency is the important
factor for sand transportation in this regime. In general, sand has much less possibility to
settle in slug flow than stratified one.
6.1.1.2 Vertical Pipe/Upflow Risers
In vertical flow, gravity is a main force in the flow behavior. The less dense fluid will flow
up faster than the dense liquid and create swirling patterns much like a milk shake mixer.
The dense liquid will tend to flow downwards giving rise to what is defined as liquid
holdup. For vertical flow, the stratified flow regime cannot exist as there is no preferred
direction for the liquid to settle. An empirical flow regime map developed by Aziz et al. for
vertical upward flow is shown in chapter 3. The coordinates for this flow map are the same
as for the Mandhane map in Fig. 6.3 except that fluid property corrections are used.
Figure 6.5 Aziz et al. map of Bekapai pipelines
Until now, vertical map that can be used in various inclination angles does not exist. Aziz
et al. has made some correction in his method but in some situations it can make large error.
Aggour et.al. (1996) from Saudi Aramco proved that this method provides better
predictions for lower GLR values and higher water cuts (water volume fraction in oil/water
mixture). In general, Aziz et al. tends a good precision for larger tubing sizes and may be
greatly improved by implementing Orkiszewski’s flow pattern transition criteria.
In Bekapai cases, slug flow dominates all upflow risers, while Beggs & Brill provides
different predictions. According to Beggs & Brill, in vertical flow, the regimes are same as
horizontal because they follow same calculation rules. Thus, information about the results
has been explained in horizontal section.
Table 6.4 Flow regimes of vertical Bekapai pipelines based on Aziz and Beggs & Brill
correlation
Regime
Pipeline Aziz Beggs & Brill
8 inch BK-BP1 Slug Segregated
6 inch BJ-BB Slug Segregated
12 inch BB-BP1 Slug Segregated
6 inch BF-BL Slug Segregated
6 inch BH-BG Slug Segregated
12 inch BL-BA Slug Segregated
As can be seen from Table 5.8, Aziz et al. and Beggs & Brill methods are not in agreement
each other to determine vertical flow in Bekapai pipelines so there must be chosen between
both of them. It may be not the main focus in this report, but when there is something like
this happen in field; engineers are encouraged to find the best choice. If there is nothing
wrong with calculation, Beggs & Brill has found to be better than Aziz et al. in accuracy
with average percentage error about 6.72% (based on the present 414 data sets that cover a
wide range of tubing size, production rate, water cut, and GLR,[Aggour, 1996]). Aziz et al.
only achieved 15.5 % approximately. There are some cases like BK-BP1 and BJ-BB where
GWR values are too high compared with Aziz et al. effective range or the water cut are too
low (BL-BA and BH-BG). More details for GWR, GOR, and water cut values of each
pipeline can be seen in Table 5.9.
Table 6.5 GWR, GOR, and water cut values of each Bekapai pipelines
GWR GOR Water
3 3
Pipeline (m /m ) (scf/STB) cut
8 inch BK-BP1 277.82 720676.32 0.98
6 inch BJ-BB 5220.60 - 1.00
12 inch BB-BP1 14.76 4742.69 0.86
6 inch BF-BL 26.07 9781.97 0.87
6 inch BH-BG 39.15 2935.69 0.53
12 inch BL-BA 44.22 1903.88 0.46
Granular materials like sand particles are known to show complex dynamical behavior,
such as convection, size segregation, bubbling, standing waves, etc. in vertical pipe. Sand is
impossible to settle under this condition, but much more effective to increase the pressure
drop and erosion rates, especially for annular (segregated) flow in Bekapai pipelines.
Annular flow exists at high superficial gas velocity and low superficial liquid velocity. The
gas flows in the core region at high velocity and the liquid flows as a thin annular film
around inside the pipe wall and partially in the form of liquid droplets entrained in the gas
core. The droplet entrainment from a liquid film by a streaming gas flow is of considerable
importance because the same mechanism that causes liquid droplets to be entrained can
cause sand particles also to be entrained and contribute to the erosion/corrosion process in
BK-BP1, BJ-BB, and BB-BP1.
6.1.2 OLGA versus Begs & Brill
This section will explain further about flow regime in Bekapai pipelines by two different
categories: mechanistic models (OLGA) and experimental correlation (Beggs & Brill).
Beggs & Brill has been proved as the most accurate correlation for pressure drop prediction
(Aggour et. al., 1996), while OLGA has known widely as multiphase flow simulator used
in many fields. A little different with previous section, the fluid actual velocity and liquid
holdup will be discussed since they have close relation with flow regime determination.
Sand behavior in each pipeline will not be explained related to the objectives of this
analysis.
In fact, flow regime detected in pipe at a certain time and location should be different with
another situation. So far, experimental correlation and Beggs & Brill have not yet
considered effect of two dimensional parameters, time period and location. For example,
sand bed formation for long period can cause smaller cross-sectional area for oil-gas flow
and increase the flow velocity. It could change the flow pattern actually. Along pipeline,
there will be a different concentration of sand, so that the flow regimes in pipe section are
vary according to the location.
OLGA seems to pay attention more to those parameters. Besides, it has successfully
generalized the flow pattern of horizontal and vertical flow into only four: stratified (1),
annular (2), slug (3), and dispersed (4). BB has three different patterns (segregated,
intermittent, and distributed) that also used for all inclined angles. The most difficult
problem to solve in this case is how to compare such flow regime, holdup, and fluid
velocity profiles which strongly depend on period and physical parameters in OLGA
(dynamic model) with Beggs & Brill correlation.
To overcome this problem, there are three sections which become the main concern of this
analysis: one in horizontal section (50th section), in the bottom of riser (101th section), and
in the pipe outlet (110th section). The parameters observed are the pressure, liquid
volumetric flow rate, flow regime, hold up, liquid and gas actual velocity. The profiles will
be investigated in 48 hours for every 10 minutes. Start from these, the comparative study
with Beggs & Brill can be studied further, especially to predict the sand behavior.
In order to simplify the cases, water-oil-gas flow is divided into two types of flow: oil-gas
and water-gas flow. Two phases flow phenomenon has been studied in many papers from
various fields. In Bekapai, the flow is more complex; three phases flow (gas-oil-water)
include solid or other deposits. This time, these are purely comparative studies between
mechanistic model with experimental correlation with an assumption if there are only two
phases exist (e.g. gas-oil or gas-water case). GOR values still follows the real condition in
Bekapai.
Liquid holdup is that fraction of a pipe segment which is occupied by liquid. An estimation
of liquid holdup is vital to analyzing two-phase flow systems because the liquid holdup not
only determines the cross sectional area available for gas flow, but also determines the
liquid inventory in the line. This is also associated with sand behavior and estimation of
slug size. It is important to be noticed that liquid holdup is not the same as inlet liquid
content in this case. If both values are similar, the method relies on the assumption that the
gas and liquid travel through the pipe at the same velocity (no slip occurred between the
phase). Beggs & Brill has considered the slippage in its correlation, while OLGA has
provided alternatives to facilitate the requirements.
6.1.2.1 Oil-Gas Flow

6.1.2.1.1 8” BK-BP1
Figure 6.6 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 8” BK-BP1 (oil-gas
flow)
Figure 6.7 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in BK-BP1 (oil-gas
flow)
Figure 6.8 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 8” BK-BP1 (oil-gas flow)
a. 50th Section (Horizontal Line)
In horizontal line, OLGA illustrated the flow regime clearly in stratified flow. The pressure
fluctuates (increases for approximately 0.5 bar) because there is bulk of oil that accumulate
in riser bottom (effect of 90o elbow). It makes the liquid holdup increasing until close to
1,0. Then the pressure becomes very high to carry away the oil. The holdup range is
between 0.07 and 0.95. Actual liquid and gas velocity are unstable according to slug
formation.
b. 101th Section (Riser Bottom)
Flow regimes are varies between stratified, annular, slug, and even dispersed in riser
bottom. This is the first section of vertical pipe, and oil as heavy liquid become easier to
accumulate here before it flows back. At first, the liquid velocity is too small to carry away
oil through vertical section (<0.10 m/s). For a certain period (±50,000 s), gas is forced to
flow in smaller cross sectional area until the way is totally blocked by oil (holdup values are
between 0,0 until 1,0). Gas actual velocity reaches the highest value at this time. It can
achieve 5.5 m/s at highest peak.
c. 110th Section (Pipe Outlet)
Annular flow occurs within 48 hours at outlet pipe, except at T = 47,467 s and 132,670 s
when it becomes slug. Slug is caused by phenomenon that has been described early. When
oil blockage occurs, gas velocity in this section decreases drastically and reaches its
minimum value. Then the pressure along pipe becomes very high to anticipate the trapped
gas. As consequences, gas and liquid velocity increases sharply before it starts to move
back to lower values because pressure’s falling down.
Table 6.6 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs
& Brill in oil-gas flow (8” BK-BP1)
50th section Beggs & Brill 101th section 110th section Beggs & Brill
(horizontal line) (horizontal) (riser bottom) (pipe outlet) (vertical)
Flow Stratified, Mostly
Regime annular, slug, annular, slug,
Stratified Segregated Segregated
dispersed dispersed
Holdup 0.070-0.078
0.01 0-1 (slug) 0-0.15 (slug) 0.02
(fluctuating)
Actual Too low
Liquid Too low 0.01 m/s (assumed
0-(-1.3) m/s
Velocity (fluctuating, zero), except 0 m/s
closer to zero) in slug regime
(reach 1.5 m/s
Actual 0.75-2.25 m/s -1.3-(4) m/s
Gas 1.12 m/s (-3.6)-5.5 m/s
(fluctuating) (back flow) 1.13 m/s
Velocity (back flow)
Since OLGA has dynamic value, it is quite difficult to compare the results with Beggs &
Brill. Moreover, some results are too low and fluctuating because oil accumulation in
horizontal line. Oil accumulation is possibly occurred because there is not enough pressure
drop and pipe oversize. In the other hand, OLGA and Beggs & Brill still show similar
results in flow regime determination and most of Beggs & Brill predictions have been
included in OLGA results.
6.1.2.1.2 12” BB-BP1
Figure 6.9 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 12” BB-BP1 (oil-gas flow)
Figure 6.10 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 12”BB-BP1 (oil-gas flow)
Figure 6.11 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 12”BB-BP1 (oil-gas flow)
It can be seen in Figure 6.8 that stratified regime is occurred in 50th section although the
velocity of gas are varies from -0.79 until 2.25 m/s. Oil accumulation is still possible to
make the liquid holdup reach value of 0.5. It also causes actual velocity of gas to fluctuate
and reach its highest level.
b. 101th Section (Riser Bottom)
There is such a complex phenomenon occurred in BB-BP1 since it has slug regime. The
first slug-dispersed is identified in 22,203 s, caused by accumulation of oil in the bottom of
riser. The holdup in this section increases drastically from 0.19 until 0.723 before it
becomes slug. The pressure also rises up until 11.94 bar and becomes fluctuating. Oil is
carried away after 26,400 s approximately. Then the pressure is stable at 11.04 bar before
the next slug regime occurs.
Flow regimes change between stratified, slug, dispersed, and annular. Liquid velocity
fluctuates when flow become slug and dispersed. Period of each flow regime depends on
values of liquid and gas velocity. The negative value of liquid velocity causes the dispersed
regime while gas velocity is high. There is situation when gas velocity reach 8 m/s and flow
back at 4 m/s. Gas and oil create a serious turbulence that affect the outlet product of pipe.
c. 110th Section (Pipe Outlet)
In general, outlet section has annular regime, but there is one time when it becomes slug
and dispersed. It is very important to be noticed that this kind of situation should be avoided
in real situation. High pressure and high volumetric flow of oil should cause some problems
of stability and separator performance. For both regimes, liquid and gas velocity are very
high (4.05 and 3.65 m/s).
Table 6.7 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs &
Brill in oil gas flow(12” BB-BP1)
Flow Stratified, Mostly
Regime annular, slug, annular, slug,
Stratified Segregated Segregated
dispersed dispersed
Holdup 0.2-0.52
0.12 0-1 (slug) 0-0.25 (slug) 0. 15
(fluctuating)
Actual Too low
Liquid -0.79-2.25 m/s 0.08 m/s (assumed
0-(-1.5) m/s
Velocity (fluctuating, zero), except 0.14 m/s
closer to zero) in slug regime
(reach 1.5 m/s
Actual 0.8-2.9 m/s -1.3-2.2 m/s
Gas 0.93 m/s (-4)-8 m/s
(fluctuating) (back flow) 2.18 m/s
Velocity (back flow)
6.1.2.1.3 6” BF-BL
Figure 6.12 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6” BF-BL (oil-gas flow)
Figure 6.13 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6” BF-BL (oil-gas flow)
Figure 6.14 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6” BF-BL (oil-gas flow)
Interaction between gas and oil phase occur in horizontal section. Although OLGA predict
the flow regime is stratified, but it is not impossible for both phase to collide each other.
This is supported by backflow of oil in the riser and horizontal section. Its velocity is quite
high (>0.17 m/s). At the situation, gas also experiences flow back as consequences of liquid
turbulences. In the other hand, 1,177 bpd of oil keep moving into the pipeline and make
horizontal liquid holdup increases slowly from 0.17 until 0.18. Within 48 hours there is
only a little amount of liquid can reach pipe outlet (liquid velocity = 0.001 m/s). It comes
from water droplets carried by gas phase along the riser.
b. 101th and 110th Section (Riser)
At the very beginning (T = 0 s), the pressure is large enough to fill the riser with oil (holdup
= 1). The phenomena are actually same with BH-BG and BL-BA. Then liquid holdup will
reach the average value lower than 0.1. The liquid amount becomes very small in the riser.
Brill in oil-gas flow (6” BF-BL)
Flow
Regime Stratified Segregated Annular Annular Segregated
Holdup 0.17-0.18
0.06 0 0 0. 1
(fluctuating)
Actual Too low 0.28 m/s Negative (back
Liquid (fluctuating, flow) 0.001 m/s 0.18 m/s
Velocity closer to zero)
Actual Too low
Gas (fluctuating,closer 3.63 m/s 0.002 m/s 0.001 m/s
3.78 m/s
Velocity to zero)
6.1.2.1.4 6” BH-BG
Figure 6.15 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6” BH-BG (oil-gas flow)
Figure 6.16 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6” BH-BG (oil-gas flow)
Figure 6.17 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6” BH-BG (oil-gas flow)
Outlet pressure in the outlet of 6”BH-BG is assumed constant at 13 bar. OLGA simulates
the pressure inlet is 15.22 bar and create very high holdup in riser (1.0) and horizontal
section (0.54). The actual velocities of gas and liquid in T= 0 s are very low (close to zero).
Then the horizontal pressure fall down to 13.49 bar, makes oil back flowing down the riser.
The holdup in the 50th section becomes 0.4.
Turbulences occurred in horizontal section, creates little waves with constant frequency. As
consequences, liquid and gas velocities are unstable (their values changes between positive
and negative values). It means gas flow is also influenced by the oil back flow.
In general, the velocities of mixture are very low (0.00-0.02 m/s) because the pressure drop
between both of horizontal nodes are not high (only 0.01 bar). Oil is trapped in the
horizontal section and gas still moves forward very slowly because of turbulence. In the
riser bottom, oil is identified to flow back and has negative velocity. As consequences, there
is only a little gas flow at the outlet section. There is no oil remaining.
Flow regimes are identified as stratified at 50th section and annular at the riser. Based on the
explanation above, those results are the most suitable to describe the phenomena.
Brill (6” BH-BG)
50th section Beggs & 101th section 110th section Beggs &
(horizontal line) Brill (riser bottom) (pipe outlet) Brill
(horizontal) (vertical)
Flow
Holdup ±0.4, fluctuating 0.15 0 0 0.21
Actual Too low 0.28 m/s Negative (back Too low
Liquid (fluctuating, flow) (fluctuating, 0.2 m/s
Velocity closer to zero) closer to zero)
Actual Too low
Too low, close Too low, close
Gas (fluctuating,closer 2.01 m/s
to zero to zero 2.16 m/s
Velocity to zero)
6.1.2.1.5 12” BL-BA
Figure 6.18 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 12” BL-BA (oil-gas flow)
Figure 6.19 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in BL-BA (oil-gas flow)
Figure 6.20 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 12”BL-BA (oil-gas flow)
At time (T) = 0 s, 12”BL-BA pipeline has already fulfilled by water with horizontal and
vertical hold up for 0.83 and 1. The pressure is about 12.14 bar in the inlet before it falls
down to 10.13 bar within 160 s. Thus, oil will flow back into the horizontal section from
riser and fulfills the area of pipe. This phenomenon create negative value of liquid actual
velocity (-0.06 m/s) and also for gas. Hence, gas and oil is a little bit different. Oil will stay
in horizontal pipe, make waves with constant frequency between two directions of flow
while gas will continue to flow through the pipeline and the riser with average velocity
0.003 m/s.
Flow regime in horizontal pipe is stratified since most of oil are trapped, only a little
amount of it is carried away by gas so that in the outlet pipe there always be liquid with
actual velocity for 0.002 m/s (same with gas). Besides, the liquid holdup in the outlet
always zero, different with the horizontal section which has liquid holdup approximately for
0.33. This value is increasing through time until reach 0.39 within 48 hours.
Annular regimes are occurred in outlet and in the bottom of the riser. The phenomenon is
simply understood as follows: oil is flowing back through pipe wall while gas which carry
little oil droplets is flowing to the outlet. It is the reason why liquid velocities in the bottom
of riser are always negative.
& Brill in oil-gas flow(12” BL-BA)
Flow
Holdup ±0.35-0.4
0.12
(fluctuating) 0 0 0.19
Actual Too low 0.92 m/s Negative (back -2.5 -0 m/s

Liquid (fluctuating, flow) (back flow) 0.68 m/s
Velocity closer to zero)
Actual Too low
Too low, close Too low, close
Gas (fluctuating,closer 5.8 m/s
to zero to zero 6.08 m/s
Velocity to zero)
6.1.2.2 Water-Gas Flow

Water and gas mixture has different characteristics (density, viscosity, and surface tension)
from oil-gas in pipe flow. Basically, they will affect the sand behavior and flow pattern,
such as viscosity that related to the energy distribution and fluid velocity. Hence, the main
concern in this analysis is still comparative study between OLGA and Beggs & Brill,
whether they still fit each other or not in water-gas horizontal flow.
6.1.2.2.1 12” BL-BA
Figure 6.21 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 12” BL-BA (water-gas
flow)
Figure 6.22 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 12” BL-BA (water-gas
flow)
Figure 6.23 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in BL-BA (water-gas flow)
Water content in BL-BA is higher than any other Bekapai pipelines which are studied in
this report. Moreover, gas volumetric flow is also very high (9,540 bpd). Liquid holdups in
horizontal and vertical line are about 0.27 and 0.75. Then the values become low because
the pressure decreases until 10.03 bar from 12.71 bar. Water in the riser falls down and
creates turbulences with gas phase which flows in the opposite direction.
In stratified regime (horizontal line), water and gas are continuous phase. Since the liquid
velocity is only 0.02 m/s, the liquid holdup increases slowly from 0.26 until 0.3 within 48
hours. It means gas can always reach the top of the riser with average velocity of 0.01 m/s.
The pressure drop now is only about 0.006 bar between 50th section and bottom riser. In this
situation gas and liquid velocities are fluctuating. The gas velocity is relatively too low to
move water from horizontal area. Finally, liquid holdup in the riser is zero, but there is still
little water droplets that come out from pipe. Liquid and gas velocity in this section are
same (±0.01 m/s).
& Brill in water-gas flow(12” BL-BA)
Flow
Holdup ±0.35-0.4 0.12 m/s
(fluctuating) 0 0.01 1.443
Actual Too low, 0.92 m/s 0.015 m/s -2.5 -0 m/s

Liquid fluctuating,back fluctuating (back flow) 0.68 m/s
Velocity flow
Actual Too low
-0.00448,
Gas (fluctuating,closer 5.58 m/s 0.015
(fluctuating) 0.01 m/s
Velocity to zero)
From Table 6.6, it can be concluded that Beggs & Brill has the same flow regime with
OLGA although the other values are not match. The possible reasons to explain its
difference includes: the geometry of pipe, source location, and different principal between
OLGA and Beggs & Brill to determine holdup and velocity.
6.1.2.2.2 6” BH-BG
Figure 6.24 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6” BH-BG (water-gas flow)
Figure 6.25 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6” BH-BG (water-gas
flow)
Figure 6.26 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6” BH-BG (water-gas flow)
The phenomenon is exactly the same with 12”BL-BA. The flow at 50th section is predicted
as stratified flow, while the other two sections are annular. Holdup at T = 0 s in horizontal
and riser are 0.29 and 0.95. Before water can flow through the pipe outlet, the pressure
moves from 16.56 bar to 13.03 bar. It makes lower pressure drop and lower fluid velocity
(only 0.003 m/s average for gas and zero for liquid).
At the bottom of riser, water velocity is in negative value, means that water still flows back.
In this section, holdup is zero, same with pipe outlet. Instead of water, gas has positive
value in velocity even the velocity is very low (0.001 m/s). Gas and water has the same
velocity at 0.001 m/s at the outlet.
& Brill in water-gas flow(6” BH-BG)
Flow
Holdup 0
0 0.01 0.23
0.16
Actual -2.5 -0 m/s
Too low (close to Negative (back
Liquid 0.3 m/s (back flow) 0.22 m/s
zero) flow)
Velocity
Actual Too low (close -0.00448 ,/s
Gas 2.03 m/s 0.015
to zero, (fluctuating) 2.19 m/s
Velocity fluctuating)
From Table 6.7, it can be concluded that Beggs & Brill has the same flow regime with OLGA
although the other values are not match. The possible reasons to explain its difference includes:
the geometry of pipe, source location, and different principal between OLGA and Beggs & Brill to
determine holdup and velocity.
6.1.2.2.3 6” BF-BL
Figure 6.27 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6” BF-BL (water-gas flow)
Figure 6.28 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6” BF-BL (water-gas flow)
Figure 6.29 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6” BF-BL (water-gas flow)
The phenomenon is exactly the same with 12” BL-BA. The flow at 50th section is predicted
as stratified flow, while the other two sections are annular. Holdup at T = 0 s in horizontal
and riser are 0.36 and 0.95. Before water can flow through the pipe outlet, the pressure
moves from 14.41 bar to 11.03 bar. It makes pressure drop is low and so does the fluid
velocity (only 0.002 m/s average for gas and zero for liquid).
At the bottom of riser, water velocity is in negative value, means that water still flows back.
In this section, holdup is zero, same with pipe outlet. Instead of water, gas has positive
value in velocity even the velocity is very low (0.002 m/s). Gas and water has the same
velocity at 0.002 m/s at the outlet.
& Brill in water-gas flow (6” BF-BL)
Flow
Holdup 0.36 0.16 m/s 0 0 0.23
Actual Too low, 0.77 m/s Too low, Too low,
Liquid fluctuating,back fluctuating,back fluctuating,back 0.54 m/s
Velocity flow flow flow
Actual 0.004 m/s
Too low, Too low,
Gas (fluctuating, 4.04 m/s
fluctuating,back fluctuating,b 4.4 m/s
Velocity back flow)
flow ack flow
OLGA although the other values are not match. The possible reasons to explain its
difference includes: the geometry of pipe, source location, and different principal between
OLGA and Beggs & Brill to determine holdup and velocity.
6.1.2.2.4 6” BJ-BB
Figure 6.30 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6” BJ-BB (water-gas flow)
Figure 6.31 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6” BJ-BB (water-gas
flow)
Figure 6.32 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6” BJ-BB (water-gas flow)
In OLGA, 6”BJ-BB simulation was developed at lower value than the real liquid flow rate
in field (0.79 stb/d). Assuming that OLGA model is an exact representation of the flow data
set, the phenomenon is exactly similar with the others which have been described (see
Figure 6.29-6.31). Considering the value of liquid flow rate that is very low, the flow can be
assumed only composed by gas phase, so that the behaviour is closed to single flow.
As can be seen from Figure 6.29, the regime is stratified in horizontal line. Gas velocity in
this situation is very low, only for 0.0014 m/s while the liquid flow rate can be negligible.
In the outlet section, the gas volumetric flow rate can be represented by a value of 0.006
m3/s, since the velocity of gas is very low (0.0002 m/s). Annular regime is occurred along
the riser with liquid holdup is about zero. Water is likely to be coalesced in gas phase and
carried into the pipe outlet.
& Brill in water-gas flow (6” BJ-BB)
Flow
Holdup 0.17 0.02 m/s 0 0 0.03
Actual Too low, 0.01 m/s Too low,
Negative, back
Liquid fluctuating, back fluctuating, 0 m/s
flow
Velocity flow back flow
Actual Too low, Too low, Too low,
Gas 0.57 m/s
fluctuating, fluctuating, fluctuating, 0.58 m/s
Velocity back flow back flow back flow
OLGA although the other values are not match. The holdup values obtained from Beggs &
Brill are not as low as OLGA, moreover, the actual gas velocity are rather too high. The
possible reasons to explain its difference includes: the geometry of pipe, source location,
and different principal between OLGA and Beggs & Brill to determine holdup and velocity.
6.1.2.2.5 8” BK-BP1
Figure 6.33 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 8” BK-BP1 (water-gas
flow)
Figure 6.34 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 8” BK-BP1 (water-gas
flow)
Figure 6.35 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 8” BK-BP1 (water-gas flow)
In addition to compare results that obtained from OLGA with Beggs & Brill, there are three
sections which are observed further. The previous pipelines show significance values
change through time. Most of them are unstable due to the involvement of various factors
and effects of pipe geometry. Results of BK-BP1 have totally different characteristics based
OLGA simulation. Holdup, liquid velocity and gas velocity have reached steady state
within 14 minutes. Then their values are constant along 48 hours. The regimes are observed
as annular in the outlet pipe and stratified in riser bottom and horizontal section. The results
can be seen in Table 6.15.
& Brill in water-gas flow(8” BK-BP1)
Flow
Regime Stratified Segregated Stratified Annular Segregated
Holdup 0.093 0.06 0.025 0.019 0.1
Actual
Liquid 0.06 m/s 0.06 m/s 0.06 m/s Back flow 0.04 m/s
Velocity
& Brill in water-gas flow(8” BK-BP1) (continued)
Actual 0.99 m/s 1.19 m/s 0.99 m/s 0.93 m/s 1.23 m/s
Gas
Velocity
This time the comparison results show promising progress, since the flow regime and liquid
velocity for horizontal are similar. Holdup by Beggs & Brill seems too high for vertical
flow according to OLGA, but for horizontal the result is still allowable. Besides, gas
velocities are quite different between both of them. For pipe outlet, liquid velocity is
negative, means the water is move downhill through pipe wall.
6.1.2.2.6 12” BB-BP1
Figure 6.36 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 12” BB-BP1 (water-
gas flow)
Figure 6.37 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 12” BB-BP1
(water-gas flow)
Figure 6.38 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 12” BB-BP1 (water-
gas flow)
Slug and dispersed regimes dominates this pipeline flow until 48 hours. It is difficult to
obtain any information about liquid holdup and fluid velocity since the values are really
inconsistent. The pressure varies between 10.4-11.6 bar. Liquid holdup for horizontal
section fluctuates at average values of 0.4. The worst situation occurred in the bottom riser
which has zero holdup until 1.0. It means water has fulfilled the horizontal pipe, hindered
the gas path. As consequences, the pressure will arise drastically to escape gas from water
blockage. The maximum value of liquid and gas velocity in this section are 5.8 and 1.7 m/s
respectively. The flow regime changes almost every 2 hours.
In general, the outlet section shows the same trend with riser bottom. In this section, the
liquid and gas velocity are high enough to create some turbulences (see Figure 6.36 and
6.37). Holdup increases sharply when the flow regime turns into slug or dispersed.
& Brill in water-gas flow(12” BB-BP1)
Flow
Holdup 0.093 0.27 0.025 0.02 0.34
Actual 0.17 m/s
-0.28 m/s (back
Liquid 0.06 m/s 0.21 m/s 0.06 m/s
flow)
Velocity
Actual
Gas 1.28 m/s
0.99 m/s 1.16 m/s 0.99 m/s 0.93 m/s
Velocity
Both of them shows totally different for all variables observed. This may be accepted due to
some reasons that have been explained above.
6.1.3 Main Finding

6.1.3.1 Experimental Correlation (Mandhane, Aziz et al. versus Beggs & Brill)
Except OLGA, other model like Beggs & Brill and flow regime map depend strongly on the
origin fluid and situation which the experiment defined. Many correction have been built to
generalize such models, however, they were all developed and tested under limiting
operating conditions.
This is a very challenging subject because gas-liquid-solid flows are usually very complex,
due to the large number of variables involved in the transport processes, and typically
poorly understood interaction between the variables. Many of the earliest investigations of
this flow focused only on the settling tendency of solid particles without enough
consideration about the sand behavior.
Based on literature study and calculation that have been analyzed, Beggs & Brill is better
than Mandhane and Aziz et al. to predict the flow regime in Bekapai pipelines. According
to this, all of All Bekapai pipelines consist of stratified flow in horizontal sections. This
regime type is common in oil-gas transportation system in pipe. With gas and liquid
velocities which are low and separated phase existence between liquid and gas, favorable
condition for sand settling is likely created. Hence, in vertical pipe, slug and segregated
flow regime are predicted. Stratified is not possibly occurred in vertical flow so that annular
is estimated to occur in this position. Gas is the continuous phase in annular regime so that
gas behaviour will mostly affect the sand transportation in Bekapai pipelines.
6.1.3.2 OLGA versus Beggs & Brill
Comparative study between OLGA and Beggs & Brill has been done to learn the
performance of both methods to determine multiphase flow properties (flow regime, liquid
holdup, and fluid velocity) if they are applied in real cases in field. The flow regime results
are found match in 6”BF-BL, 6”BH-BG, 12”BL-BA, and 6”BJ-BB. In 8”BK-BP1 and
12”BB-BP1 pipelines, the similarity between OLGA and Beggs & Brill only exist in
horizontal line since more complicated regime are shown by OLGA at riser bottom and pipe
outlet. It is also proven that OLGA and Beggs & Brill prediction are found identical for
flow regime determination either in oil-gas or water-gas flow.
Liquid holdup and fluid actual velocity that obtained from OLGA simulation are rather
complex and dynamic. It makes own difficulties to compare them with Beggs & Brill. Thus,
both results are not closed each other for all pipelines in Bekapai. The main reason lies in
their different views of model application. Beggs & Brill indeed has different correlation for
each inclination angle, but it does not consider the effect of inclination change over flow
pattern itself. By the division of pipe into smaller segments including time consideration,
OLGA is one step ahead from Beggs & Brill in this case.
Slug is found in 12” BB-BP1 and 8” BK-BP1 (gas-oil flow). In the other hand, 6” BF-BL,
6”BH-BG, 12” BL-BA and 6” BJ-BB do not experience slug, but fluid velocity in their
horizontal section are unstable (turn into back flow within seconds). This turbulence or
wave will occur and make sand settling easier because flow do not tends go forward
smoothly.
Many factors or parameters that affect flow regime are included here, but for some reasons
they are not described further in this report. Sand behavior in this section is not completely
explained because the critical velocity to avoid sand settling has not been discussed.
6.2 Analysis of Sand Settling Condition
Sand settling is an issue of concern at low velocities of oil-gas mixture along pipeline.
Together with sand erosion and sand monitoring, sand settling is important elements of any
effective sand production management strategy. Many literatures that reported about sand
settling describe the phenomena as two phase flow of solid-liquid like Newitt, Stuhmiller,
and Nunziato. Studies about oil-gas-water phase flow with sand existences are very rare;
most of them used experimental investigation to determine critical flow velocity to avoid
sand settling. D.G. Thomas (1961) defined the critical velocity as the mean stream velocity
required to prevent the accumulation of a layer or either stationary or sliding particles on
the bottom of a horizontal conduit.
Salama (1989) reported his investigation about sand production management which define
sand settling as the transition between scouring and moving dunes (i.e. sand is on the
bottom of the pipe but moving along the pipe). The flow velocity at this condition would be
lower than the velocity to disperse the sand, but high enough to transport the sand through
the pipeline. In this analysis, critical flow velocity definition in horizontal pipe is based on
Salama. Comparative study between Salama and Bekapai cases can be seen in Table 6.14.
Salama was chosen because his investigation is most closely approximates the condition of
Bekapai.
Table 6.17 Salama versus Bekapai case

Investigation by Salama Bekapai case
(1989)
Sand particle size 100, 280, and 500𝜇m 140, 180, 240, 235, 240, 256, 264, and 1000
𝜇m
Pipe diameter 4 in 6, 8, 12 in
Media Water, gas (CO2, N2, air), Water, oil, gas, sand
oil, inhibitors, sand
Water cut 1%, 10%, 50%, and 100% 46%, 53%, 86%, 87%, 98%, and 100%
Pressures 4 and 8 bara 11, 12, 14 , 57 bara
Temperature Ambient Wall (60oC)
Liquid flow rate 0.03, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 m/s 0, 0.06, 0.09, 0.14, 0.24 m/s
Gas flow rate Varied during tests 0.43, 0.83, 0.1.11, 1.95, 4.91 m/s
Same with flow regime experimental correlation, Salama equation cannot be used in
vertical flow. Sand behavior observed in horizontal flow is completely different that in
vertical pipe. Chien (1994) developed new correlation to predict the settling velocity of
irregularly shaped particles in Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluid for all types of slip
regimes. This model is recommended for using in vertical case.
Even there is a relationship between flow regime and sand transportation, as stated earlier;
it does not mean that it will affect sand settling condition directly. Salama (2000) and
Newitt (1962) have already reported about four flow patterns defined in slurry flow,
however, they are different with flow patterns for multiphase flow as showed in previous
section. Ruano (2008) came with his thesis to understand the sand behavior in multiphase
flow in horizontal and near horizontal. He analyzed explicitly about flow regime relation
with flow critical velocity under various sand production rates. The results indicate that
there are always possible for sand to settle in each regime, depends on fluid velocity and
rates of sand production.
Therefore, “sand settling” subject in correlation with flow regime can only be investigated
by experiment until now. Hence, there are some other factors that also affect sand settling
phenomena. They will be analyzed further in this section.
6.2.1 Horizontal Pipe
This is easier to observe sand settling in horizontal line (inclination angle = 0 o) than vertical
one (inclination angle = 90 o). There are many papers reported about the phenomena
although only few of them fit with multiphase flow. Quantitatively, flow critical velocity in
Bekapai pipeline can be seen in table below.
Table 6.18 Flow critical velocity in several Bekapai pipelines using Salama equation
8" BK-BP1 6" BJ-BB 12" BB-BP1 6" BF-BL 6" BH-BG 12" BH-BG
Particle Vm range (m/s) %w Vm range %w Vm range %w Vm range %w Vm range %w Vm range %w d (mm
vm<0.066 1.2 vm<0.015 1.2 vm<0.171 1.2 vm<0.053 1.2 vm<0.157 1.2 vm<0.27 1.2 d<0,038
0.066<vm<0.07 0.1 0.015<vm<0.016 0.1 0.171<vm<0.181 0.1 0.053<vm<0.056 0.1 0.157<vm<0.167 0.1 0.27<vm<0.286 0.1 0,038<d<0,063
0.07<vm<0.074 14 0.015<vm<0.017 14 0.181<vm<0.192 14 0.056<vm<0.06 14 0.167<vm<0.177 14 0.286<vm<0.303 14 0,063<d<0,106
0.074<vm<0.077 26 0.016<vm<0.017 26 0.192<vm<0.2 26 0.06<vm<0.062 26 0.177<vm<0.183 26 0.303<vm<0.315 26 0,106<d<0,15
B
0.077<vm<0.081 44.5 0.017<vm<0.018 44.5 0.2<vm<0.211 44.5 0.062<vm<0.066 44.5 0.183<vm<0.194 44.5 0.315<vm<0.333 44.5 0,15<d<0,25
0.081<vm<0.084 9 0.018<vm<0.019 9 0.211<vm<0.22 9 0.066<vm<0.068 9 0.194<vm<0.202 9 0.333<vm<0.347 9 0,25<d<0,355
0.084<vm<0.09 3.9 0.019<vm<0.020 3.9 0.22<vm<0.233 3.9 0.068<vm<0.072 3.9 0.202<vm<0.214 3.9 0.347<vm<0.367 3.9 0,355<d<0,6
vm>0.09 vm>0.02 vm>0.233 vm>0.072 vm>0.214 vm>0.367 0,6<d
vm<0.067 6.98 vm<0.015 6.98 vm<0.175 6.98 vm<0.054 6.98 vm<0.16 6.98 vm<0.275 6.98 d<0,038
0.067<vm<0.071 6.7 0.015<vm<0.016 6.7 0.175<vm<0.185 6.7 0.054<vm<0.057 6.7 0.16<vm<0.17 6.7 0.275<vm<0.291 6.7 0,038<d<0,063
0.071<vm<0.075 13.36 0.016<vm<0.017 13.36 0.185<vm<0.196 13.36 0.057<vm<0.061 13.36 0.17<vm<0.18 13.36 0.291<vm<0.308 13.36 0,063<d<0,106
0.075<vm<0.078 23.59 0.016<vm<0.018 23.59 0.196<vm<0.203 23.59 0.061<vm<0.063 23.59 0.18<vm<0.187 23.59 0.308<vm<0.321 23.59 0,106<d<0,15
C
0.078<vm<0.083 22.29 0.017<vm<0.018 22.29 0.203<vm<0.215 22.29 0.063<vm<0.067 22.29 0.187<vm<0.198 22.29 0.321<vm<0.339 22.29 0,15<d<0,25
0.083<vm<0.086 5.15 0.018<vm<0.019 5.15 0.215<vm<0.224 5.15 0.067<vm<0.069 5.15 0.198<vm<0.206 5.15 0.339<vm<0.353 5.15 0,25<d<0,355
0.086<vm<0.091 7.51 0.019<vm<0.020 7.51 0.224<vm<0.237 7.51 0.069<vm<0.074 7.51 0.206<vm<0.218 7.51 0.353<vm<0.374 7.51 0,355<d<0,6
vm>0.091 vm>0.02 vm>0.237 vm>0.074 vm>0.218 vm>0.374 0,6<d
vm<0.066 0.06 vm<0.015 0.06 vm<0.172 0.06 vm<0.054 0.06 vm<0.158 0.06 vm<0.272 0.06 d<0,038
0.066<vm<0.070 0.87 0.015<vm<0.016 0.87 0.172<vm<0.182 0.87 0.054<vm<0.057 0.87 0.158<vm<0.167 0.87 0.272<vm<0.287 0.87 0,038<d<0,063
0.070<vm<0.074 6.16 0.016<vm<0.017 6.16 0.182<vm<0.193 6.16 0.057<vm<0.06 6.16 0.167<vm<0.177 6.16 0.287<vm<0.304 6.16 0,063<d<0,106
0.074<vm<0.077 39.2 0.016<vm<0.018 39.2 0.193<vm<0.201 39.2 0.06<vm<0.062 39.2 0.177<vm<0.184 39.2 0.304<vm<0.316 39.2 0,106<d<0,15
D
0.077<vm<0.082 14.5 0.017<vm<0.018 14.5 0.201<vm<0.212 14.5 0.062<vm<0.066 14.5 0.184<vm<0.195 14.5 0.316<vm<0.335 14.5 0,15<d<0,25
0.082<vm<0.085 17.11 0.018<vm<0.019 17.11 0.212<vm<0.221 17.11 0.066<vm<0.069 17.11 0.195<vm<0.203 17.11 0.335<vm<0.348 17.11 0,25<d<0,355
0.085<vm<0.090 22.1 0.019<vm<0.020 22.1 0.221<vm<0.234 22.1 0.069<vm<0.073 22.1 0.203<vm<0.215 22.1 0.348<vm<0.369 22.1 0,355<d<0,6
vm>0.090 vm>0.02 vm>0.234 vm>0.073 vm>0.215 vm>0.9369 0,6<d
Table 6.18 Flow critical velocity in several Bekapai pipelines using Salama equation (continued)
vm<0.066 0.48 vm<0.015 0.48 vm<0.170 0.48 vm<0.053 0.48 vm<0.156 0.48 vm<0.268 0.48 d<0,038
0.156<vm<0.165
0.066<vm<0.070 2 vm<0.016 2 0.170<vm<0.180 2 0.053<vm<0.056 2 2 0.268<vm<0.284 2 0,038<d<0,063
0.070<vm<0.074 3.91 0.015<vm<0.016 3.91 0.180<vm<0.191 3.91 0.056<vm<0.06 3.91 0.165<vm<0.175 3.91 0.284<vm<0.301 3.91 0,063<d<0,106
0.074<vm<0.077 4.61 0.016<vm<0.017 4.61 0.191<vm<0.198 4.61 0.06<vm<0.062 4.61 0.175<vm<0.182 4.61 0.301<vm<0.312 4.61 0,106<d<0,15
E
0.077<vm<0.082 6.52 0.017<vm<0.018 6.52 0.198<vm<0.21 6.52 0.062<vm<0.066 6.52 0.182<vm<0.193 6.52 0.312<vm<0.331 6.52 0,15<d<0,25
0.082<vm<0.085 3.73 0.018<vm<0.019 3.73 0.21<vm<0.218 3.73 0.066<vm<0.068 3.73 0.193<vm<0.2 3.73 0.331<vm<0.344 3.73 0,25<d<0,355
0.085<vm<0.090 35.22 0.019<vm<0.020 35.22 0.218<vm<0.231 35.22 0.068<vm<0.072 35.22 0.2<vm<0.212 35.22 0.344<vm<0.364 35.22 0,355<d<0,6
vm>0.090 43.54 vm>0.02 43.54 vm>0.231 43.54 vm>0.072 43.54 vm>0.212 43.54 vm>0.364 43.54 0,6<d
vm<0.065 4.36 vm<0.015 4.36 vm<0.17 4.36 vm<0.053 4.36 vm<0.156 4.36 vm<0.268 4.36 d<0,038
0.156<vm<0.165
0.065<vm<0.069 7.02 vm<0.016 7.02 0.17<vm<0.18 7.02 0.053<vm<0.056 7.02 7.02 0.268<vm<0.284 7.02 0,038<d<0,063
0.069<vm<0.073 19.13 0.015<vm<0.016 19.13 0.18<vm<0.191 19.13 0.056<vm<0.059 19.13 0.165<vm<0.175 19.13 0.284<vm<0.301 19.13 0,063<d<0,106
0.016<vm<0.017
0.073<vm<0.076 15.81 15.81 0.191<vm<0.198 15.81 0.059<vm<0.062 15.81 0.175<vm<0.182 15.81 0.301<vm<0.312 15.81 0,106<d<0,15
F
0.076<vm<0.081 17.34 0.017<vm<0.018 17.34 0.198<vm<0.21 17.34 0.062<vm<0.065 17.34 0.182<vm<0.193 17.34 0.312<vm<0.331 17.34 0,15<d<0,25
0.081<vm<0.084 13.08 0.018<vm<0.019 13.08 0.21<vm<0.218 13.08 0.065<vm<0.068 13.08 0.193<vm<0.2 13.08 0.331<vm<0.344 13.08 0,25<d<0,355
0.084<vm<0.089 21.55 0.019<vm<0.020 21.55 0.218<vm<0.231 21.55 0.068<vm<0.072 21.55 0.2<vm<0.212 21.55 0.344<vm<0.364 21.55 0,355<d<0,6
vm>0.089 1.71 vm>0.02 1.71 vm>0.231 1.71 vm>0.072 1.71 vm>0.212 1.71 vm>0.364 1.71 0,6<d
Table 6.18 Flow critical velocity in several Bekapai pipelines using Salama equation (continued)
vm<0.069 3.51 vm<0.015 3.51 vm<0.17 3.51 vm<0.053 3.51 vm<0.156 3.51 vm<0.268 3.51 d<0,038
0.066<vm<0.070 10.76 vm<0.016 10.76 0.17<vm<0.18 10.76 0.053<vm<0.056 10.76 0.156<vm<0.165 10.76 0.268<vm<0.284 10.76 0,038<d<0,063
0.015<vm<0.016 0.165<vm<0.175
0.070<vm<0.074 17.24 17.24 0.18<vm<0.191 17.24 0.056<vm<0.059 17.24 17.24 0.284<vm<0.301 17.24 0,063<d<0,106
0.074<vm<0.077 13.13 0.016<vm<0.017 13.13 0.191<vm<0.198 13.13 0.059<vm<0.062 13.13 0.175<vm<0.182 13.13 0.301<vm<0.312 13.13 0,106<d<0,15
G
0.077<vm<0.082 18.32 0.017<vm<0.018 18.32 0.198<vm<0.21 18.32 0.062<vm<0.065 18.32 0.182<vm<0.193 18.32 0.312<vm<0.331 18.32 0,15<d<0,25
0.082<vm<0.085 13 0.018<vm<0.019 13 0.21<vm<0.218 13 0.065<vm<0.068 13 0.193<vm<0.2 13 0.331<vm<0.344 13 0,25<d<0,355
0.085<vm<0.090 18.78 0.019<vm<0.020 18.78 0.218<vm<0.231 18.78 0.068<vm<0.072 18.78 0.2<vm<0.212 18.78 0.344<vm<0.364 18.78 0,355<d<0,6
vm>0.090 5.26 vm>0.02 5.26 vm>0.231 5.26 vm>0.072 5.26 vm>0.212 5.26 vm>0.364 5.26 0,6<d
vm<0.065 0.05 vm<0.015 0.05 vm<0.17 0.05 vm<0.053 0.05 vm<0.156 0.05 vm<0.268 0.05 d<0,038
0.156<vm<0.165
0.065<vm<0.069 2.08 vm<0.016 2.08 0.17<vm<0.18 2.08 0.053<vm<0.056 2.08 2.08 0.268<vm<0.284 2.08 0,038<d<0,063
0.015<vm<0.016 0.165<vm<0.175
0.069<vm<0.073 10.07 10.07 0.18<vm<0.191 10.07 0.056<vm<0.059 10.07 10.07 0.284<vm<0.301 10.07 0,063<d<0,106
0.016<vm<0.017
0.076<vm<0.076 17.32 17.32 0.191<vm<0.198 17.32 0.059<vm<0.062 17.32 0.175<vm<0.182 17.32 0.301<vm<0.312 17.32 0,106<d<0,15
H
0.076<vm<0.081 26.8 0.017<vm<0.018 26.8 0.198<vm<0.21 26.8 0.062<vm<0.065 26.8 0.182<vm<0.193 26.8 0.312<vm<0.331 26.8 0,15<d<0,25
0.081<vm<0.084 19.18 0.018<vm<0.019 19.18 0.21<vm<0.218 19.18 0.065<vm<0.068 19.18 0.193<vm<0.2 19.18 0.331<vm<0.344 19.18 0,25<d<0,355
0.084<vm<0.089 23.81 0.019<vm<0.020 23.81 0.218<vm<0.231 23.81 0.068<vm<0.072 23.81 0.2<vm<0.212 23.81 0.344<vm<0.364 23.81 0,355<d<0,6
vm>0.089 0.69 vm>0.02 0.69 vm>0.231 0.69 vm>0.072 0.69 vm>0.212 0.69 vm>0.364 0.69 0,6<d
*Particle A is not included in this calculation because it has no sieve analysis.

In general, sand will not settle in all Bekapai pipelines investigated here because actual
mixture velocity is larger than its critical value for each pipe. Fluid properties factor is
negligible since all flows are assumed to have same properties. The remaining factors are
pipe diameter, particle diameter, and liquid superficial velocity. These three parameters are
proportional with critical value. For example, the relationship between liquid superficial
velocity and critical flow velocity is illustrated in figure 6.17.
0.07
0.06
Particle A
critical velocity (m/s)
0.05
Particle B
0.04 Particle C
0.03 Particle D
0.02 Particle E
0.01 Particle F
Particle G
0
Particle H
8.22E-05 9.38E-02 1.41E-01
liquid superficial velocity (m/s)
Figure 6.39 Critical velocity profiles in 6” BJ-BB, 6”BF-BL, and 6”BH-BG
Figure 6.17 shows that larger liquid superficial velocity will produce larger critical velocity
(except for particle F because the values are too small). This value is specific for each liquid
superficial velocity. Besides, the larger particle diameter, the larger critical velocity occurs.
According to their low values, sand particles are predicted to still move through pipe.
Erosion risk will be greater in this condition refer to sand concentration and the mixture
velocity. Erosion is not main focus in this report, but it is included in sand transportability
phenomena along pipe. Erosion is closely related to corrosion, which is defined as the
phenomenon of a protective film of corrosion product being eroded away by the erosive
action of the process stream, exposing fresh metal which then corrodes (API 14 E).
6.2.2 Vertical Pipe
In his paper (1998), Salama suggested Chien’s model to predict sand settling velocity. This
model does not considered pipe diameter factor so that the critical velocity value is same for
each particle in all pipelines. Considering the diameter range of each particle, information
about flow critical velocity can be seen as also in ranges (Figure 6.40).
Table 6.19 Actual mixture velocity in vertical Bekapai pipeline for each particle
Liquid
velocity mixture
Pipeline (m/s) velocity (m/s)
8 inch BK-BP1 0.04 1.28
6 inch BJ-BB 0.0008 0.48
12 inch BB-BP1 0.67 1.59
6 inch BF-BL 1.64 5.14
6 inch BH-BG 1.14 3.26
12 inch BL-BA 2.21 7.72
50 d>600
106 µm
45 µm<d<1 355µm<
50 µm 150
40 µm<d<2 d<600
50 µm µm
35
30
% weight
63
25 µm<d<1 250 particle B
06 µm µm<d<3
20 55 µm
particle C
38
15 µm<d<6 particle D
10 3 µm particle E
d<38 µm
5 particle F
0 particle G
particle H
critical velocity (m/s)
Figure 6.40 Range of critical velocity in several Bekapai pipelines based on particle
diameter
Sand dune formation will be created if critical flow velocity is smaller than mixture
velocity. When particle diameter becomes larger, it has bigger possibility to settle down.
According to each particle size, one particle tends to have different critical velocity. Table
6.15 shows that only particle with diameter > 600 µm (particle E, F, G, and H) will settle
in 6”BJ-BB pipelines. Because the pipe position is vertical, most of the sand particles will
settle at 90O elbow before riser. Particle H seems to be found in high concentrate than the
others (43.5%).
Since particle size has not been known exactly except in range form, these particles still
have chances to settle among other pipelines. In pigging report during year 2010 in
Bekapai, sand has been found in 12” BL-BA, 12” BB-BP1, and 6” BF-BL. This has been
proven by fluid velocity in 12” BB-BP1 (1.28 m/s) which is not too high. In BF-BL and
12” BL-BA cases, settling phenomena may be came from particle size and high sand
concentration from wellbores.
Annular regime in vertical Bekapai pipelines indicates high gas velocity. This is may be a
good news to find that sand settling has not the main concern in oil-gas transportation
along sea line and riser yet because sand particles will easily be swept away. But sand
usually has higher concentration in liquid phase (liquid velocity in each pipeline can be
seen in Table 6.15). Sand particles (E, F, G, and H) are predicted to be found in 8” BK-
BP1 and 6” BJ-BB.
6.2.3 Main Finding
The important factors that affect sand settling phenomenon are particle diameter, fluid
density, liquid velocity, kinematic viscosity, and pipe diameter. Chien was not considered
the last two parameters in his correlation so that for same particle, it has the same critical
velocity although the pipeline properties are different. In Bekapai case, sand settling is
likely occurred in vertical flow than horizontal one. Only BJ-BB has sand settling problem
with particle E, F, G, and H while the others cannot be definitely decided. Sand possibility
to settle in the other pipelines is still need to be considered and anticipated seriously.
Since specific information of sand particles in each pipeline had not been received until this
report was finished (all particles used in this analysis are not the real particle found in those
pipelines), the above conclusions cannot be fully accepted. It means sand behavior in
Bekapai pipelines is still very complex and need to be studied further with the real model of
Bekapai pipelines and adequate data about specific sand particles.
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Conclusions
Oil-gas-water flow including sand transportation in pipeline is affected by many factors,

such as flow regime, liquid holdup, fluid velocity, fluid properties, pipe properties, etc.
Sand behavior and flow regime are interrelated but until now there is no exact correlation
made to wholly describe the sand settling phenomena in each regime.
In Bekapai case, parameters like pipe diameter and fluid properties should be put into sand
transport consideration. They give a big impact of flow regime and flow critical velocity
estimation. They may become a good reason why OLGA is chosen between the other
models to determine multiphase flow properties. Beggs & Brill and the other correlations
depend strongly on the fluid and pipe diameter in their origin experimental investigation.
Another important parameter in sand transportation is the effect of pipe geometry (i.e. pipe
diameter). This is the key to solve problem about flow critical velocity determination.
Salama and Chien provide correlation without sufficient attention about this (i.e. 90o elbow
between sea line and riser). As consequences, their results regarding critical velocity to
avoid sand bed formation must be ensured with another model that capable to illustrate
multiphase flow phenomena, especially in the transition section between sea line and riser.
In this analysis, only OLGA has powerful basic and applicable to be used in several
Bekapai pipelines which already oversized due to production decline. Prediction like oil
blockage and slug formation (8”BK-BP1 and 12”BB-BP1) can be used to support further
analysis of sand transportability in Bekapai pipelines.
7.2 Recommendations
 It is recommended to take a precaution over sand accumulation, especially at the riser

bottom or another transition section of pipelines due to analysis results. Fluid mixture
velocity should be enhanced until exceed the critical flow velocity to prevent initial
sand bed formation.
 Routine pigging should be done in pipelines that have been detected to experience sand
settling. Some pipelines which have low fluid mixture velocity (6” BJ-BB, 8” BK-BP1,
and 12” BB-BP1) should be placed at top priority.
 Because sand settling phenomena strongly depends on the present data of fluid
volumetric rate in pipelines, this analysis is recommended to be routinely updated.
 It is recommended to use OLGA instead of Beggs & Brill and experimental correlation
in application to determine multiphase flow properties, especially flow regime and
dynamic behavior of each parameter included.
 It is recommended to do further study and analysis about this topic, especially about the
other parameters correlation that affecting sand behavior (e.g. pipe geometry and fluid
properties).
 It is better to use real model of Bekapai pipelines and fluid in order to be applied in the
future.
APPENDIX A
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF BEKAPAI OIL, GAS, AND SAND
Table A.1 Bekapai oil composition
Component %-mol Component %-mol

C1 1.272 C11 16.575
C2 0.384 C12 14.339
C3 1.302 C13 7.996
C4 0.923 C14 3.792
C5 1.736 C15 2.444
C6 2.035 C16 1.242
C7 1.893 C17 0.889
C8 5.319 C18 0.107
C9 11.253 C19 0.196
C10 26.303
Table A.2 Bekapai gas composition
Component %-mol
N2 0.088
CO2 5.247
C1 86.957
C2 3.361
C3 2.235
i-C4 0.483
n-C4 0.647
i-C5 0.267
n-C5 0.18
C6+ 0.535
Table A.3 Bekapai oil physical properties
ρ oil 790 kg/m3

ρ water 983.2 kg/m4
µ oil 2.80E-03 Pa.s
µ water 4.67E-04 Pa.s
surf. Oil 2.17E-02 N/m
surf. water 6.62E-02 N/m
Table A.4 Sand properties
ρ diameter
Particle (kg/m3) (mm)
A 1481.45 1.00
B 1496.24 0.18
C 1529.98 0.14
D 1505.01 0.24
E 1481.45 0.64
F 1481.45 0.24
G 1481.45 0.26
H 1481.45 0.26
*Red color: assumption
Table A.5 Gas density for each pipeline

ρ gas
Pipeline Z (kg/m3)
8 inch BK-BP1 0.98 6.81
6 inch BJ-BB 0.88 42.52
12 inch BB-BP1 0.98 6.81
6 inch BF-BL 0.98 7.50
6 inch BH-BG 0.98 8.90
12 inch BL-BA 0.98 6.81
APPENDIX B
BEKAPAI PIPELINES MODELLING BY OLGA
B.1 Oil-gas Flow

B.1.1 12”BB-BP1
Figure B.1 Oil-gas flow regimes in 12” BB-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
Figure B.2 Pressure profile in 12” BB-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section for oil-
gas flow
Figure B.3 Oil volume flows in 12” BB-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
Figure B.4 Holdup profiles in 12” BB-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for oil-gas flow
Figure B.5 Liquid velocity profiles in 12” BB-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section for oil-gas flow
Figure B.6 Gas velocity profiles in 12” BB-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and
outlet section for oil-gas flow
B.1.2 8”BK-BP1
Figure B.7 Oil-gas flow regimes in 8” BK-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.8 Pressure profile in 8” BK-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
Figure B.9 Oil volume flows in 8” BK-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
Figure B.10 Holdup profiles in 8” BK-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
Figure B.11 Liquid velocity profiles in 8” BK-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and
Figure B.12 Gas velocity profiles in 8” BK-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and
B.1.3 6”BF-BL
Figure B.13 Oil-gas flow regimes in 6” BF-BL pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.14 Pressure profile in 6” BF-BL pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for oil-gas flow
Figure B.15 Oil volume flows in 6” BF-BL pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
Figure B.16 Holdup profiles in 6” BF-BL pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for oil-gas flow
Figure B.17 Liquid velocity profiles in 6” BF-BL pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
Figure B.18 Gas velocity profiles in 6” BF-BL pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
B.1.4 6”BH-BG
Figure B.19 Oil-gas flow regimes in 6” BH-BG pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.20 Pressure profile in 6” BH-BG pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for oil-gas flow
Figure B.21 Oil volume flows in 6” BH-BG pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
Figure B.22 Holdup profiles in 6” BH-BG pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for oil-gas flow
Figure B.23 Liquid velocity profiles in 6” BH-BG pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and
Figure B.24 Gas velocity profiles in 6”BH-BG pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
B.1.5 12”BL-BA
Figure B.25 Oil-gas flow regimes in 12” BL-BA pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.26 Pressure profile in 12” BL-BA pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for oil-gas flow
Figure B.27 Oil volume flows in 12” BL-BA pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
Figure B.28 Holdup profiles in 12” BL-BA pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for oil-gas flow
Figure B.29 Liquid velocity profiles in 12” BL-BA pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and
Figure B.30 Gas velocity profiles in 12” BL-BA pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
B.2 Water-gas Flow

B.2.1 8”BK-BP1
Figure B.31 Water-gas flow regimes in 8” BK-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.32 Pressure profile in 8” BK-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for water-gas flow
Figure B.24 Water volume flows in 8” BK-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.25 Holdup profiles in 8” BK-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for water-gas flow
Figure B.26 Liquid velocity profiles in 8” BK-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section for water-gas flow
Figure B.27 Gas velocity profiles in 8” BK-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
B.2.2 6”BJ-BB
Figure B.28 Water-gas flow regimes in 6” BJ-BB pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.29 Pressure profile in 6” BJ-BB pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for water-gas
flow
Figure B.30 Water volume flows in 6” BJ-BB pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.31 Holdup profiles in 6” BJ-BB pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for water-gas flow
Figure B.32 Liquid velocity profiles in 6” BJ-BB pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
Figure B.33 Gas velocity profiles in 6” BJ-BB pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
B.2.3 12”BB-BP1
Figure B.34 Water-gas flow regimes in 12” BB-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and
outlet section
Figure B.35 Pressure profile in 12” BB-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
Figure B.36 Water volume flows in 12” BB-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.37 Holdup profiles in 12” BB-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for water-gas flow
Figure B.38 Liquid velocity profiles in 12” BB-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
Figure B.39 Gas velocity profiles in 12’ BB-BP1 pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
3.2.4 6”BF-BL
Figure B.40 Water-gas flow regimes in 6” BF-BL pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.41 Pressure profile in 6” BF-BL pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for water-gas flow
Figure B.42 Water volume flows in 6” BF-BL pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure Holdup profiles in 6” BF-BL pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section for
water-gas flow
Figure B.44 Liquid velocity profiles in 6” BF-BL pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
Figure B.45 Gas velocity profiles in 6” BF-BL pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
3.2.5 6”BH-BG
Figure B.46 Water-gas flow regimes in 6” BH-BG pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and
outlet section
Figure B.47 Pressure profile in 6” BH-BG pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for water-gas flow
Figure B.48 Water volume flows in 6” BH-BG pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.49 Holdup profiles in 6” BH-BG pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for water-gas flow
Figure B.50 Liquid velocity profiles in 6” BH-BG pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
Figure B.51 Gas velocity profiles in 6” BH-BG pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and
outlet section for water-gas flow
B.2.6 12”BL-BA
Figure B.52 Water-gas flow regimes in 12” BL-BA pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.53 Pressure profile in 12” BL-BA pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for water-gas flow
Figure B.54 Water volume flows in 12” BL-BA pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
section
Figure B.55 Holdup profiles in 12” BL-BA pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet section
for water-gas flow
Figure B.56 Liquid velocity profiles in 12” BL-BA pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
Figure B.57 Gas velocity profiles in 12” BL-BA pipeline at horizontal, riser bottom, and outlet
APPENDIX C
CALCULATION STEPS
C.1 Beggs & Brill Correlation for Horizontal Bekapai Pipelines

C.1.1 Oil-gas Flow
gas
gas std flow liquid
P GOR flow rate rate flow rate hold ul ug
Pipeline (bar) (scf/STB) (Mscf/d) (m3/s) (m3/s) CL X L1 L2 Fr Regime up (m/s) (m/s)
8 inch BK-BP1 10 7.21E+05 960 0.03 2.45E-06 7.02E-05 -9.56E+00 2.27E+02 3.97E+01 8.39E-01 segregated 0.01 0.01 1.12
12 inch BB-
BP1 10 4.74E+03 1608 0.06 6.24E-04 1.06E-02 -4.55E+00 8.71E+01 7.46E+01 4.75E-01 segregated 0.12 0.08 0.93
6 inch BF-BL 11 9.78E+03 1712 0.06 3.22E-04 1.83E-02 -4.00E+00 5.67E+01 9.28E+01 6.74E-01 segregated 0.06 0.28 3.63
6 inch BH-BG 13 2.94E+03 1239 0.03 7.77E-04 1.36E-02 -4.30E+00 7.28E+01 8.12E+01 7.13E+00 segregated 0.15 0.28 2.01
12 inch BL-BA 10 1.90E+03 9540 0.35 9.22E-03 2.59E-02 -3.65E+00 4.03E+01 1.11E+02 1.72E+01 segregated 0.13 1.00 5.64
C.1.2 Water-gas Flow

gas
gas std flow liquid
P GWR flow rate rate flow rate hold ul ug
Pipeline (bar) (m3/m3) (Mscf/d) (m3/s) (m3/s) CL X L1 L2 Fr Regime up (m/s) (m/s)
8 inch BK-
BP1 10 277.82 960 0.03 1.26E-04 3.59E-03 -5.63E+00 1.45E+02 7.53E+01 8.45E-01 segregated 0.06 0.06 1.19
6 inch BJ-BB 56 5220.60 1302 0.01 1.45E-06 9.63E-05 -9.25E+00 2.13E+02 1.03E+02 4.95E-01 segregated 0.02 0.01 0.57
12 inch BB-
BP1 10 14.76 1608 0.06 3.96E-03 6.34E-02 -2.76E+00 1.24E+01 1.76E+02 5.30E-01 segregated 0.27 0.21 1.16
6 inch BF-BL 11 26.07 1712 0.06 2.17E-03 1.11E-01 -2.19E+00 4.61E+00 1.95E+02 8.23E-01 segregated 0.16 0.77 4.04
6 inch BH-BG 13 39.15 1239 0.03 8.80E-04 1.53E-02 -4.18E+00 6.60E+01 8.55E+01 7.16 segregated 0.16 0.30 2.03
12 inch BL-
BA 10 44.22 9540 0.35 7.84E-03 2.21E-02 -3.81E+00 4.74E+01 1.02E+02 0.17 segregated 0.12 0.92 5.58
C.1.3 Oil-water-gas Flow
Pipeline ʎL X L1 L2 N Fr Regime
8 inch BK-BP1 0.0037 -5.61 144.58 74.85 0.62 segregated
6 inch BJ-BB 0.0002 -8.56 196.15 283.00 0.12 segregated
12 inch BB-BP1 0.0727 -2.62 9.93 183.82 0.27 segregated
6 inch BF-BL 0.0422 -3.17 22.41 145.75 7.43 segregated
6 inch BH-BG 0.0459 -3.08 20.00 152.13 2.79 segregated
12 inch BL-BA 0.0469 -3.06 19.40 153.79 8.85 segregated
C.2 Beggs & Brill Correlation for Vertical Bekapai Pipelines

C.2.1 Oil-gas Flow
gas
std
flow gas hold hold
rate flow liquid up up ul
P GOR (Msc rate flow rate B (horiz (vert (m/ ug
3 3 o
Pipeline (bar) (scf/STB) f/d) (m /s) (m /s) CL X L1 L2 Fr Regime Nvl β (90 ) ontal) ical) s) (m/s)
8 inch 7.02E-
BK-BP1 10 7.21E+05 960 0.03 2.45E-06 05 -9.56 226.68 39.65 0.84 segregated 0.00 2.53 1.76 0.010 0.02 0.00 1.13
12 inch 1.06E-
BB-BP1 10 4.74E+03 1608 0.06 6.24E-04 02 -4.55 87.08 74.62 2.40 segregated 0.07 1.53 1.46 0.100 0.15 0.14 2.18
6 inch 1.83E-
BF-BL 11 9.78E+03 1712 0.06 3.22E-04 02 -4.00 56.70 92.78 0.67 segregated 0.06 1.20 1.36 0.146 0.10 0.18 3.78
6 inch 1.36E-
BH-BG 13 2.94E+03 1239 0.03 7.77E-04 02 -4.30 72.76 81.25 7.13 segregated 0.14 1.64 1.49 0.103 0.21 0.20 2.16
12 inch 2.59E-
BL-BA 10 1.90E+03 9540 0.35 9.22E-03 02 -3.65 40.26 111.42 17.25 segregated 0.43 1.61 1.48 0.130 0.19 0.68 6.08
C.2.1 Water-gas Flow

gas
std hold
flow gas up hold
rate flow liquid (hor up ul
GWR (Mscf rate flow rate izon (verti (m/ ug
Pipeline P(bar) (m3/m3) /d) (m3/s) (m3/s) CL X L1 L2 Fr Regime Nvl β B(90o) tal) cal) s) (m/s)
8 inch 4.17E-
BK-BP1 10 277.82 960 0.03 1.26E-04 03 -5.48 138.40 72.26 0.62 segregated 0.01 1.55 1.46 0.07 0.10 0.04 1.23
6 inch 9.63E-
BJ-BB 56 5220.60 1302 0.01 1.45E-06 05 -9.25 212.60 102.85 0.49 segregated 0.00 2.38 1.71 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.58
12 inch 6.34E-
BB-BP1 10 14.76 1608 0.06 3.96E-03 02 -2.76 12.39 175.63 0.53 segregated 0.18 0.85 1.25 0.27 0.34 0.17 1.28
6 inch 1.11E-
BF-BL 11 26.07 1712 0.06 2.17E-03 01 -2.19 4.61 194.58 0.82 segregated 0.40 0.75 1.22 0.34 0.23 0.54 4.40
6 inch 1.53E-
BH-BG 13 39.15 1239 0.03 8.80E-04 02 -4.18 65.98 85.50 7.16 segregated 0.16 1.61 1.48 0.11 0.23 0.22 2.19
12 inch 2.21E-
BL-BA 10 44.22 9540 0.35 7.84E-03 02 -3.81 47.38 102.25 17.11 segregated 0.36 1.65 1.49 0.12 0.18 0.62 5.99
C.2.3 Oil-water-gas Flow
Pipeline ʎL X L1 L2 N Fr Regime
8 inch BK-BP1 0.0037 -5.61 144.58 74.85 0.62 segregated
6 inch BJ-BB 0.0002 -8.56 196.15 283.00 0.12 segregated
12 inch BB-BP1 0.0727 -2.62 9.93 183.82 0.27 segregated
6 inch BF-BL 0.0422 -3.17 22.41 145.75 7.43 segregated
6 inch BH-BG 0.0459 -3.08 20.00 152.13 2.79 segregated
12 inch BL-BA 0.0469 -3.06 19.40 153.79 8.85 segregated
C.2 Mandhane’s Correlation
Pipeline vsg (ft/s) vsml (ft/s) Regime

8 inch BK-BP1 3.64 0.0134 Stratified
6 inch BJ-BB 1.41 0.0003 Stratified
12 inch BB-BP1 2.71 0.2126 Stratified
6 inch BF-BL 10.48 0.4616 Slug
6 inch BH-BG 6.39 0.3074 Stratified
12 inch BL-BA 16.09 0.7916 Slug
C.3 Aziz et al. Correlation
Regime
Pipeline Ya Xa Nx Ny (Vertical Pipe)
8 inch BK-BP1 1.112314 1.969513 1.235901 0.004535 Slug
6 inch BJ-BB 3.625053 0.477129 9.14E-05 Slug
12 inch BB-BP1 1.969513 0.919847 0.072129 Slug
6 inch BF-BL 2.034344 3.554493 0.156608 Slug
6 inch BH-BG 2.153571 2.168652 0.104292 Slug
12 inch BL-BA 1.969513 5.458272 0.268552 Slug
C.4 Critical Flow Velocity in Vertical Bekapai Pipelines
ρ particle
Particle diameter range d (m) (kg/m3) vm range % weight um (m/s)
d<0,038 0.000038 1496.239 vm<0,0024 1.2 1.28
0,038<d<0,063 0.000063 1496.239 0,0024<vm<0,00674 0.1 1.28
0,063<d<0,106 0.000106 1496.239 0,00674<vm<0,01993 14 1.28
0,106<d<0,15 0.00015 1496.239 0,01993<vm<0,03831 26 1.28
B
0,15<d<0,25 0.00025 1496.239 0,03831<vm<0,09948 44.5 1.28
0,25<d<0,355 0.000355 1496.239 0,09948<vm<0,18709 9 1.28
0,355<d<0,6 0.0006 1496.239 0,18709<vm<0,41304 3.9 1.28
0,6<d vm>0,41304 #REF!
d<0,038 0.000038 1529.983 vm<0,0024 6.98 0.48
0,038<d<0,063 0.000063 1529.983 0,0024<vm<0,00674 6.7 0.48
0,063<d<0,106 0.000106 1529.983 0,00674<vm<0,01993 13.36 0.48
0,106<d<0,15 0.00015 1529.983 0,01993<vm<0,03831 23.59 0.48
C
0,15<d<0,25 0.00025 1529.983 0,03831<vm<0,09948 22.29 0.48
0,25<d<0,355 0.000355 1529.983 0,09948<vm<0,18709 5.15 0.48
0,355<d<0,6 0.0006 1529.983 0,18709<vm<0,41304 7.51 0.48
0,6<d vm>0,41304
d<0,038 0.000038 1505.011 vm<0,0024 0.06 1.59
0,038<d<0,063 0.000063 1505.011 0,0024<vm<0,00674 0.87 1.59
0,063<d<0,106 0.000106 1505.011 0,00674<vm<0,01993 6.16 1.59
0,106<d<0,15 0.00015 1505.011 0,01993<vm<0,03831 39.2 1.59
D
0,15<d<0,25 0.00025 1505.011 0,03831<vm<0,09948 14.5 1.59
0,25<d<0,355 0.000355 1505.011 0,09948<vm<0,18709 17.11 1.59
0,355<d<0,6 0.0006 1505.011 0,18709<vm<0,41304 22.1 1.59
0,6<d vm>0,41304
d<0,038 0.000038 1481.454 vm<0,0024 0.48 5.14
0,038<d<0,063 0.000063 1481.454 0,0024<vm<0,00674 2 5.14
0,063<d<0,106 0.000106 1481.454 0,00674<vm<0,01993 3.91 5.14
0,106<d<0,15 0.00015 1481.454 0,01993<vm<0,03831 4.61 5.14
E
0,15<d<0,25 0.00025 1481.454 0,03831<vm<0,09948 6.52 5.14
0,25<d<0,355 0.000355 1481.454 0,09948<vm<0,18709 3.73 5.14
0,355<d<0,6 0.0006 1481.454 0,18709<vm<0,41304 35.22 5.14
0,6<d vm>0,41304 43.54
d<0,038 0.000038 1481.454 vm<0,0024 4.36 3.26

0,038<d<0,063 0.000063 1481.454 0,0024<vm<0,00674 7.02 3.26
0,063<d<0,106 0.000106 1481.454 0,00674<vm<0,01993 19.13 3.26
0,106<d<0,15 0.00015 1481.454 0,01993<vm<0,03831 15.81 3.26
F
0,15<d<0,25 0.00025 1481.454 0,03831<vm<0,09948 17.34 3.26
0,25<d<0,355 0.000355 1481.454 0,09948<vm<0,18709 13.08 3.26
0,355<d<0,6 0.0006 1481.454 0,18709<vm<0,41304 21.55 3.26
0,6<d vm>0,41304 1.71
d<0,038 0.000038 1481.454 vm<0,0024 3.51 7.72
0,038<d<0,063 0.000063 1481.454 0,0024<vm<0,00674 10.76 7.72
0,063<d<0,106 0.000106 1481.454 0,00674<vm<0,01993 17.24 7.72
0,106<d<0,15 0.00015 1481.454 0,01993<vm<0,03831 13.13 7.72
G
0,15<d<0,25 0.00025 1481.454 0,03831<vm<0,09948 18.32 7.72
0,25<d<0,355 0.000355 1481.454 0,09948<vm<0,18709 13 7.72
0,355<d<0,6 0.0006 1481.454 0,18709<vm<0,41304 18.78 7.72
0,6<d vm>0,41304 5.26
d<0,038 0.000038 1481.454 vm<0,0024 0.05 7.72
0,038<d<0,063 0.000063 1481.454 0,0024<vm<0,00674 2.08 7.72
0,063<d<0,106 0.000106 1481.454 0,00674<vm<0,01993 10.07 7.72
0,106<d<0,15 0.00015 1481.454 0,01993<vm<0,03831 17.32 7.72
H
0,15<d<0,25 0.00025 1481.454 0,03831<vm<0,09948 26.8 7.72
0,25<d<0,355 0.000355 1481.454 0,09948<vm<0,18709 19.18 7.72
0,355<d<0,6 0.0006 1481.454 0,18709<vm<0,41304 23.81 7.72
0,6<d vm>0,41304 0.69

Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

TK-4090 JOB TRAINING

ANALYSIS OF SAND TRANSPORTABILITY IN PIPELINES

Laras Wuri Dianningrum

Dr. Yazid Bindar

Ir. Patria Indrayana

1st SEMESTRE – 2010/2011

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM OF STUDY

FACULTY OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG

Laras Wuri Dianningrum

Telah disetujui dan disahkan

Head of HRD Department

LEMBAR PENGESAHAN ......................................................................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................ .. iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. viii

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 ....................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER III LITERATURE STUDY ...................................................................................... 9

3.1 Multiphase Flow in Pipeline......................................................................................... 9

3.1.1 Multiphase Flow Properties ....................................................................................... 9

3.1.3 Experimental Correlation in Horizontal Pipe ........................................................... 13

3.1.4 Empirical Correlation in Vertical Pipe ..................................................................... 15

3.1.5 Beggs and Brill Correlation ..................................................................................... 19

3.2 Sand Transportability in Pipe ..................................................................................... 23

3.3 Critical Flow Velocity in Sand Transport ................................................................... 28

3.3.1 Horizontal Pipe ........................................................................................................ 28

3.3.2 Vertical Pipe ............................................................................................................. 30

CHAPTER IV BEKAPAI OBSERVATION ............................................................................. 32

4.1 Bekapai Production Network Configuration and Gas Lift ............................................ 32

4.3 Deposit Particle Analysis .......................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER V BASIC CALCULATION FOR FLOW REGIME PREDICTION (COMPARISON

5.2 OLGA versus Beggs & Brill ....................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER VI RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................ 40

6.1 Analysis of Sand Behavior in Correlation with Flow Regime ....................................... 42

6.1.1.1 Horizontal Pipe ............................................................................................ 43

6.1.1.2 Vertical Pipe/Upflow Risers......................................................................... 48

6.1.2 OLGA versus Beggs & Brill..................................................................................... 51

6.1.2.1 Oil-Gas Flow ............................................................................................... 53

6.1.2.1.1 8” BK-BP1 ................................................................................ 53

6.1.2.1.2 12” BB-BP1 .............................................................................. 57

6.1.2.1.3 6” BF-BL .................................................................................. 60

6.1.2.1.4 6” BH-BG ................................................................................. 63

6.1.2.1.5 12” BL-BA ................................................................................ 66

6.1.2.2 Water-Gas Flow............................................................................................ 68

6.1.2.2.1 12” BL-BA ................................................................................. 69

6.1.2.2.2 6” BH-BG .................................................................................. 72

6.1.2.2.3 6” BF-BL ................................................................................... 74

6.1.2.2.4 6” BJ-BB .................................................................................... 77

6.1.2.2.5 8” BK-BP1 ................................................................................. 80

6.1.2.2.6 12” BB-BP1 ............................................................................... 82

6.1.3.2 OLGA versus Beggs & Brill .......................................................................... 84

6.2 Analysis of Sand Settling Condition .......................................................................... 86

6.2.1 Horizontal Pipe ........................................................................................................ 88

6.2.2 Vertical Pipe ............................................................................................................ 93

6.2.3 Main Finding............................................................................................................ 94

CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 96

7.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 96

7.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 96

TABLE 2.1 Pipelines and wellheads in Bekapai area .................................................................. 6