ANALYSIS OF SAND TRANSPORTABILITY IN PIPELINES

STUDY REPORT

Author Check and Verify

Patria Indrayana
07/2010 Laras Wuri Dianningrum
FO/AMB/MTH
 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 ........................................................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of Study .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 References ................................................................................................................................ 2
CHAPTER II BEKAPAI OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER III LITERATURE STUDY ............................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Multiphase Flow in Pipeline ...................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Multiphase Flow Properties ................................................................................................... 8
3.1.2 Flow Regimes Determination in Multiphase Flow (Gas and Liquid System) .......................... 10
3.1.3 Experimental Correlation in Horizontal Pipe ........................................................................ 12
3.1.4 Empirical Correlation in Vertical Pipe ................................................................................... 13
3.1.5 Beggs and Brill Correlation................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Sand Transportability in Pipe .................................................................................................. 21
3.3 Critical Flow Velocity in Sand Transport .................................................................................. 26
3.3.1 Horizontal Pipe ..................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.2 Vertical Pipe .......................................................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER IV BEKAPAI OBSERVATION .................................................................................................... 29
4.1 Bekapai Production Network Configuration and Gas Lift......................................................... 29
4 .2 Well Head Data and Maximal Deliverable Potential in Bekapai ............................................... 30
4.3 Deposit Particle Analysis ........................................................................................................ 30
CHAPTER V BASIC CALCULATION FOR FLOW REGIME PREDICTION (COMPARISON OF METHOD) ......... 33
5.1 Empirical Correlation(Mandhane, Aziz et al. versus Beggs & Brill) .......................................... 33
5.2 OLGA versus Beggs & Brill ...................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER VI RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 38

iii
 6.1 Analysis of Sand Behavior in Correlation with Flow Regime ...................................................... 40
6.1.1 Experimental Correlation (Mandhane, Aziz et al. versus Beggs & Brill) .................................. 41
6.1.1.1 Horizontal Pipe ......................................................................................................... 41
6.1.1.2 Vertical Pipe/Upflow Risers....................................................................................... 46
6.1.2 OLGA versus Beggs & Brill..................................................................................................... 49
6.1.2.1 Oil-Gas Flow ............................................................................................................. 51
6.1.2.1.1 8” BK-BP1................................................................................................. 51
6.1.2.1.2 12” BB-BP1............................................................................................... 54
6.1.2.1.3 6” BF-BL ................................................................................................... 57
6.1.2.1.4 6” BH-BG .................................................................................................. 60
6.1.2.1.5 12” BL-BA ................................................................................................. 63
6.1.2.2 Water-Gas Flow ......................................................................................................... 65
6.1.2.2.1 12” BL-BA.................................................................................................. 66
6.1.2.2.2 6” BH-BG................................................................................................... 68
6.1.2.2.3 6” BF-BL .................................................................................................... 71
6.1.2.2.4 6” BJ-BB .................................................................................................... 73
6.1.2.2.5 8” BK-BP1 ................................................................................................. 76
6.1.2.2.6 12” BB-BP1 ............................................................................................... 78
6.1.3 Main Finding ......................................................................................................................... 80
6.1.3.1 Experimental Correlation (Mandhane, Aziz et al. versus Beggs & Brill) ........................ 80
6.1.3.2 OLGA versus Beggs & Brill ........................................................................................... 80
6.2 Analysis of Sand Settling Condition ........................................................................................ 82
6.2.1 Horizontal Pipe ..................................................................................................................... 83
6.2.2 Vertical Pipe ......................................................................................................................... 88
6.2.3 Main Finding ........................................................................................................................ 89
CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 91
7.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 91
7.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 91

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

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

TABLE 3.1 Multiphase flow correlations ................................................................................................. 17
TABLE 4.1 Deposit particles from bekapai area ...................................................................................... 31
TABLE 5.1 Average pressures and temperatures in Bekapai pipelines .................................................... 33
TABLE 5.2 Pipeline geometry data ......................................................................................................... 35
TABLE 5.3 Oil composition in OLGA ........................................................................................................ 35
TABLE 5.4 Gas composition in OLGA ...................................................................................................... 36
TABLE 5.5 Flow Properties in each Bekapai pipeline............................................................................... 36
TABLE 6.1 Flow regimes of Bekapai pipelines from Mandhane’s map..................................................... 43
TABLE 6.2 Horizontal flow regimes in Bekapai pipelines by Beggs & Brill correlation (revised) ............... 43
TABLE 6.3 Horizontal flow regimes in Bekapai pipelines by Beggs & Brill correlation (1973) ................... 45
TABLE 6.4 Flow regimes of vertical Bekapai pipelines based on Aziz and Beggs & Brill correlation.......... 48
TABLE 6.5 GWR, GOR, and water cut values of Bekapai pipelines........................................................... 48
TABLE 6.6 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in oil-
gas flow (8” BK-BP1) ............................................................................................................. 53
TABLE 6.7 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in oil-
gas flow (12” BB-BP1) ........................................................................................................... 56
TABLE 6.8 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in oil-
gas flow (6” BF-BL) ............................................................................................................... 59
TABLE 6.9 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in oil-
gas flow (6” BH-BG) .............................................................................................................. 62
TABLE 6.10 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in oil-
gas flow (12” BL-BA) ............................................................................................................. 65
TABLE 6.11 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
water-gas flow (12” BL-BA) ................................................................................................... 68
TABLE 6.12 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
water-gas flow (6” BH-BG).................................................................................................... 70
TABLE 6.13 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
water-gas flow (6” BF-BL) ..................................................................................................... 73
TABLE 6.14 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
water-gas flow (6” BJ-BB) ..................................................................................................... 75

v
TABLE 6.15 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
water-gas flow (8” BK-BP1) ................................................................................................. 78
TABLE 6.16 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
water-gas flow (12” BB-BP1) ............................................................................................... 80
TABLE 6.17 Salama versus Bekapai case ................................................................................................. 82
TABLE 6.18 Flow critical velocity in several Bekapai pipelines using Salama equation............................. 84
TABLE 6.19 Actual mixture velocity in vertical Bekapai pipeline for each particle ................................... 88

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 2.1 Bekapai pipeline system ....................................................................................................... 6

FIGURE 3.1 Experimental correlation catagories .................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 3.2 Mandhane’s map ................................................................................................................ 12
FIGURE 3.3 Regime characteristics in horizontal pipe ............................................................................. 13
FIGURE 3.4 Multiphase flow regime in vertical pipe .............................................................................. 14
FIGURE 3.5 Duns and Ros flow regime map ........................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 3.6 Aziz et al. map ..................................................................................................................... 16
FIGURE 3.7 Flow pattern in slurry flow................................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 3.8 Multiphase flow regime consist of liquid, gas and solid........................................................ 22
FIGURE 3.9 Schematic sand behaviors in slug with low gas superficial velocity........................................ 23
FIGURE 3.10 Sand behaviors in smooth stratified regime......................................................................... 24
FIGURE 3.11 Sand dune formation behaviors ......................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 3.12 Sand behaviors in stratified-wavy regime .......................................................................... 25
FIGURE 3.13 Sand behaviors in plug regime ........................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 3.14 Sand behaviors in slug regime ........................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 3.15 FL value vs. particle diameter, concentration as parameter ................................................ 26
FIGURE 4.1 Particles sieve analysis......................................................................................................... 30
FIGURE 5.1 OLGA model view for gas-water case................................................................................... 37
FIGURE 6.1 Factors affeted sand transportation in pipeline ................................................................... 38
FIGURE 6.2 Flow regime determination used in this analysis.................................................................. 40
FIGURE 6.3 Mandhane’s map of Bekapai pipelines ................................................................................ 42
FIGURE 6.4 Beggs & Brill map (1973) of Bekapai pipelines ..................................................................... 44
FIGURE 6.5 Aziz et al. map of Bekapai pipelines ..................................................................................... 47
FIGURE 6.6 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 8”BK-BP1 (oil-gas flow) ................ 51
FIGURE 6.7 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 8”BK-BP1 (oil-gas flow) ............... 51
FIGURE 6.8 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 8”BK-BP1 (oil-gas flow) ................. 52
FIGURE 6.9 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 12”BB-BP1 (oil-gas flow) .............. 54
FIGURE 6.10 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 12”BB-BP1 (oil-gas flow) ........... 54
FIGURE 6.11 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 12”BB-BP1 (oil-gas flow) ............. 55
FIGURE 6.12 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6”BF-BL (oil-gas flow) ................. 57

vii
FIGURE 6.13 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6”BF-BL (oil-gas flow) ............... 57
FIGURE 6.14 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6” BF-BL (oil-gas flow) ................. 58
FIGURE 6.15 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6”BH-BG (oil-gas flow) ............... 60
FIGURE 6.16 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6”BH-BG (oil-gas flow) .............. 60
FIGURE 6.17 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6”BH-BG (oil-gas flow) ................ 61
FIGURE 6.18 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 12”BL-BA (oil-gas flow) .............. 63
FIGURE 6.19 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 12”BL-BA (oil-gas flow) ............. 63
FIGURE 6.20 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 12”BL-BA (oil-gas flow) ............... 64
FIGURE 6.21 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 12”BL-BA (water-gas flow) ......... 66
FIGURE 6.22 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 12”BL-BA (water-gas flow) ........ 66
FIGURE 6.23 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 12”BL-BA (water-gas flow) .......... 67
FIGURE 6.24 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6”BH-BG (water-gas flow) .......... 68
FIGURE 6.25 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6”BH-BG (water-gas flow)......... 69
FIGURE 6.26 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6”BH-BG (water-gas flow) ........... 69
FIGURE 6.27 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in6”BF-BL (water-gas flow) ............ 71
FIGURE 6.28 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6”BF-BL (water-gas flow) .......... 71
FIGURE 6.29 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6”BF-BL (water-gas flow)............. 72
FIGURE 6.30 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6”BJ-BB (water-gas flow)............ 73
FIGURE 6.31 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 6”BJ-BB (water-gas flow) .......... 74
FIGURE 6.32 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6”BJ-BB (water-gas flow)............. 74
FIGURE 6.33 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 8“BK-BP1 (water-gas flow) ......... 76
FIGURE 6.34 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 8”BK-BP1 (water-gas flow)........ 77
FIGURE 6.35 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 8”BK-BP1 (water-gas flow) .......... 77
FIGURE 6.36 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 12”BB-BP1 (water-gas flow) ....... 78
FIGURE 6.37 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at riser bottom in 12”BB-BP1 (water-gas flow)...... 79
FIGURE 6.38 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 12”BB-BP1 (water-gas flow) ........ 79
FIGURE 6.39 Critical velocity profiles in 6” BJ-BB, BF-BL, and BH-BG....................................................... 88
FIGURE 6.40 Range of critical velocity in several Bekapai pipelines based on particle diameter ............. 88

viii
ix
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 1

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 phenomena such as holdup, liquid and gas
velocities, inclination and sand properties (diameter and density) are also observed in general.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 2

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 25th,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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 3

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 4

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 5

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).
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 7

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 8

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 10

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).
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 11

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 12

This is somewhat called “future generation” of multiphase flow modeling and until this day the
experiments and current studies are still performed.

So far those methods that had been explained are limited to the steady state flow condition. The
problem occurred when they need to be applied in real situation on field which is preferably
transient one. The mechanistic models for this case are developed by many universities and
companies like SINTEF, IFE, IFP, University of Tulsa, etc. Software like OLGA and TACITE are widely
known among the practices to solve determination of flow regime in transient flow.

3.1.3 Experimental Correlation in Horizontal Pipe

The Taitel & Dukler (1976) flow model seems the most accurate one, even if its accuracy is decreasing
for large pipeline diameters. The Taitel & Dukler approach is based on a combination of theoretical
considerations of classical fluid mechanics. But it is more difficult to solve in manual calculation, so
that this model required. Other map commonly used was developed by Gregory, Aziz, and Mandhane
for horizontal flow. It has accuracy about 70% approximately and has considered the liquid hold up
and pressure drop determination.

Figure 3.2 Mandhane’s map

 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 13

The characteristic of each regime explained as follows:

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 14

The gas-liquid of multiphase flow in vertical pipe are determined as follows:

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

Figure 3.4 Multiphase flow regimes in vertical pipe

Duns and Ros developed correlation for vertical flow of gas and liquid mixtures in wells. This
correlation is valid for a wide range of oil and gas mixtures and flow regimes. Although the
correlation is intended for using with dry oil/gas mixtures, it can also be applicable to wet mixtures
with a suitable correction. For water contents less than 10%, the Duns-Ros correlation (with a
correction factor) has been reported to work well in the bubble, slug (plug), and froth regions. The
pressure profile prediction performance of the Duns & Ros method is outlined below in relation to
the several flow variables considered:
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 15

 Tubing Size. In general, the pressure drop is seen to be over predicted for a range of tubing
diameters between 1 and 3 inches.
 Oil Gravity. Good predictions of the pressure profile are obtained for broad range of oil
gravities (13-56 °API).
 Gas-Liquid Ratio (GLR). The pressure drop is over predicted for a wide range of GLR. The
errors become especially large (> 20%) for GLR greater than 5000.
 Water-Cut. The Duns-Ros model is not applicable for multiphase flow mixtures of oil, water,
and gas. However, the correlation can be used with a suitable correction factor as mentioned
above (Rao, 1998).

Figure 3.5 Duns and Ros flow regime map

(N = Liquid Velocity Number, RN = Gas Velocity Number based on Eaton Correlation)

In Region I, at low gas numbers and high liquid numbers, one encounters a liquid with gas bubbles in
it, as long as the gas-oil ratio is relatively low and the flowing pressure gradient primarily is the static
head plus liquid friction loss.

For superficial liquid velocities less than 0,4 m/s (1,3 ft/s), increased gas flow causes the bubbles to
combine and form plugs. As gas flow increases further these plugs collapse and form slugs. In these
regions wall friction is rather negligible.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 16

If Vsl is still less than 0,4 m/s but Vsg is about 15 m/s, or greater, the slug flow of Region II changes to
mist flow in Region III.At this point the gas becomes the continuous phase with the liquid in droplet
form and as film along the wall. In Region III wall friction is a major factor in pressure loss.

Froth flow which occurs across the lines of Regions I and II occurs at high liquid velocities, Duns and
Ros expect it to occur when Vsl is greater then 1,6 m/s. At such rates no plug or slug flow was
observed. No set flow pattern can be discerned (Campbell, 2004).

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

Figure 3.6 Aziz et al. map

For manual calculation, Aziz is slightly more accurate than Duns and Ros due to the regime
boundaries and calculation steps. This method is similar with Mandhane et.al because only based on
superficial velocity of gas and liquid except it has been corrected for the fluid property by applying
dimensionless numbers.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 17

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 18

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
Most accurate for angles of inclination greater than 70 degrees
Generally slightly overpredicts pressure drop; other correlation
Aziz tend to underpredict.
This fact can be used to bracket the solution.
Most accurate for angles of inclination greater than 70 degrees
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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 19

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 20

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 C L 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

 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 21

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 (EL(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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 22

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 23

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 (+5o) 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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 24

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 (+5o). 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

 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 25

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 26

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 27

𝑉𝑐 = 𝐹𝐿 [2𝑔𝐷(𝑠 − 1)]0,5

Where D = pipe diameter; FL is a numerical constant depending on solids concentration and

𝜌 𝑠 −𝜌 𝑤
particle size and is determined from Figure 3.15 ; (s-1) is equivalent to 𝜌𝑤
also = SGsoIids- 1.

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 28

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).
 29
Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines
CHAPTER IV
BEKAPAI OBSERVATION
4.1 Bekapai Production Network Configuration and Gas Lift
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 30

4.2 Pipeline Data and Fluid Volumetric Flow Rate

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 33

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

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 34

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 35

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 below.

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 36

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 37

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 38

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 (Vsl,Vsg,ᵨ,
Sand σ,µ)
Transportation in
Further
analyzed in Pipeline
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

 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 39

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 40

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 41

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).
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 42

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 43

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 44

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 45

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 46

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 47

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 48

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 49

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 50

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 51

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 50 th 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)
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 52

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 53

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
(back flow)
Velocity

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 54

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)
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 55

Figure 6.11 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 12”BB-BP1 (oil-gas flow)

a. 50th Section (Horizontal Line)

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 56

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)
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 0.2-0.52
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)

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 57

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)
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 58

Figure 6.14 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6” BF-BL (oil-gas flow)

a. 50th Section (Horizontal Line)

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 59

Table 6.8 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in oil-gas
flow (6” BF-BL)
th
50 section Beggs & Brill 101th section 110th section Beggs & Brill
(horizontal line) (horizontal) (riser bottom) (pipe outlet) (vertical)
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)

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 60

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)
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 61

Figure 6.17 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6” BH-BG (oil-gas flow)

a. 50th Section (Horizontal Line)

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.

b. 101th and 110th Section (Riser)

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 62

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.

Table 6.9 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill (6” BH-
BG)
50th section Beggs & 101th section 110th section Beggs &
(horizontal line) Brill (riser bottom) (pipe outlet) Brill
(horizontal) (vertical)
Flow
Regime Stratified Segregated Annular Annular Segregated
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)

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 63

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)
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 64

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.

a. 50th Section (Horizontal Line)

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.

b. 101th and 110th Section (Riser)

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 65

is flowing to the outlet. It is the reason why liquid velocities in the bottom of riser are always
negative.

Table 6.10 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
oil-gas flow(12” BL-BA)
50th section Beggs & 101th section 110th section Beggs &
(horizontal line) Brill (riser bottom) (pipe outlet) Brill
(horizontal) (vertical)
Flow
Regime Stratified Segregated Annular Annular Segregated
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)

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.

6.1.2.2 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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 66

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)
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 67

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.

a. 50th Section (Horizontal Line)

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.

b. 101th and 110th Section (Riser)

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).
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 68

Table 6.11 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
water-gas flow(12” BL-BA)
th
50 section Beggs & 101th section 110th section Beggs &
(horizontal line) Brill (riser bottom) (pipe outlet) Brill
(horizontal) (vertical)
Flow
Regime Stratified Segregated Annular Annular Segregated
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)
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 69

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)

a. 50th Section (Horizontal Line)

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 70

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).

b. 101th and 110th Section (Riser)

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.

Table 6.11 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
water-gas flow(6” BH-BG)
50th section Beggs & 101th section 110th section Beggs &
(horizontal line) Brill (riser bottom) (pipe outlet) Brill
(horizontal) (vertical)
Flow
Regime Stratified Segregated Annular Annular Segregated
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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 71

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)
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 72

Figure 6.29 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at pipe outlet in 6” BF-BL (water-gas flow)

a. 50th Section (Horizontal Line)

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).

b. 101th and 110th Section (Riser)

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 73

Table 6.13 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
water-gas flow (6” BF-BL)
50th section Beggs & 101th section 110th section Beggs &
(horizontal line) Brill (riser bottom) (pipe outlet) Brill
(horizontal) (vertical)
Flow
Regime Stratified Segregated Annular Annular Segregated
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

From Table 6.11, 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.

6.1.2.2.4 6” BJ-BB

Figure 6.30 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity at 50th section in 6” BJ-BB (water-gas flow)
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 74

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 75

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.

Table 6.14 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
water-gas flow (6” BJ-BB)
50th section Beggs & 101th section 110th section Beggs &
(horizontal line) Brill (riser bottom) (pipe outlet) Brill
(horizontal) (vertical)
Flow
Regime Stratified Segregated Annular Annular Segregated
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

From Table 6.12, it can be concluded that Beggs & Brill has the same flow regime with 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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 76

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)
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 77

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 78

Table 6.15 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
water-gas flow(8” BK-BP1)
50th section Beggs & 101th section 110th section Beggs &
(horizontal line) Brill (riser bottom) (pipe outlet) Brill
(horizontal) (vertical)
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
Actual
Gas 1.19 m/s
0.99 m/s 0.99 m/s 0.93 m/s 1.23 m/s
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)
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 79

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 80

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.

Table 6.16 Flow regime, holdup, and fluid velocity comparisons between OLGA and Beggs & Brill in
water-gas flow(12” BB-BP1)
th
50 section Beggs & 101th section 110th section Beggs &
(horizontal line) Brill (riser bottom) (pipe outlet) Brill
(horizontal) (vertical)
Flow
Regime Stratified Segregated Annular Annular Segregated
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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 81

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 82

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)
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 83

Table 6.17 Salama versus Bekapai case (continued)

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 = 90o). 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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 84

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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 85

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
0.066<vm<0.070 2 vm<0.016 2 0.170<vm<0.180 2 0.053<vm<0.056 2 0.156<vm<0.165 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
0.065<vm<0.069 7.02 vm<0.016 7.02 0.17<vm<0.18 7.02 0.053<vm<0.056 7.02 0.156<vm<0.165 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
0.073<vm<0.076 15.81 0.016<vm<0.017 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
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
0.070<vm<0.074 17.24 0.015<vm<0.016 17.24 0.18<vm<0.191 17.24 0.056<vm<0.059 17.24 0.165<vm<0.175 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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 86

Table 6.18 Flow critical velocity in several Bekapai pipelines using Salama equation (continued)
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
0.065<vm<0.069 2.08 vm<0.016 2.08 0.17<vm<0.18 2.08 0.053<vm<0.056 2.08 0.156<vm<0.165 2.08 0.268<vm<0.284 2.08 0,038<d<0,063
0.069<vm<0.073 10.07 0.015<vm<0.016 10.07 0.18<vm<0.191 10.07 0.056<vm<0.059 10.07 0.165<vm<0.175 10.07 0.284<vm<0.301 10.07 0,063<d<0,106
0.076<vm<0.076 17.32 0.016<vm<0.017 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.

 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 87

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).
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 88

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
45 µm
µm<d<1 355µm<
50 µm 150
40 µm<d<2 d<600
50 µm µm
35
30 63
% weight

µm<d<1 250 particle B

25
06 µm µm<d<3
20 55 µm particle C
38
15 µm<d<6 particle D
3 µm
10 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
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 89

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 90

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 91

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.
 Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 92

 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.
Analysis of Sand Transportability in Pipelines 93