Lagrangian slug ow modeling and sensitivity on hydrodynamic slug initiation

methods in a severe slugging case

T.K. Kjeldby
a,
, R.A.W.M. Henkes
b
, O.J. Nydal
a
a
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Kolbjrn Hejes vei 1B, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
b
Delft University of Technology, Laboratory for Aero and Hydrodynamics, Leeghwaterstraat 21, 2628 CA Delft, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 12 July 2012
Received in revised form 11 January 2013
Accepted 15 January 2013
Available online 8 February 2013
Keywords:
Two-phase ow
Severe slugging
Slug tracking
Two-uid model
Slug capturing
Slug ow
a b s t r a c t
Severe slugging is a dynamic two-phase ow phenomenon with regular liquid accumulation and blow-
out in ow-line riser geometries. This paper discusses the applicability of a slug tracking model on a case
where hydrodynamic slug initiation in a horizontal part of the pipeline upstream the riser base affects the
severe slugging cycle period. The given experimental case is from the Shell laboratories in Amsterdam:
airwater ow in a 100 m long pipe (65 m horizontal and 35 m 2.54 downwards) followed by a
15 m long vertical riser.
A Lagrangian slug and bubble tracking model is described. A two-uid model is applied in the bubble
region and the slug region is treated as incompressible ow, with an integral momentum equation. Slug
initiation from unstable stratied ow can be captured directly by solving the two-uid model on a ne
grid (a hybrid capturing and tracking scheme). Alternatively, slug initiation can be made from sub grid
models, allowing for larger grid sizes. The sub grid models are based on the two established ow regime
transition criteria derived from the stability of stratied ow and from the limiting solution of the unit
cell slug ow model.
Sensitivity studies on hydrodynamic slug initiation models on the severe slugging characteristics are
presented. No hydrodynamic slug initiation (e.g. large grid size in the capturing scheme) overestimates
the severe slug period compared with the experiments. Slug capturing and sub grid initiation models
both give good predictions for small grid sizes (provided the detailed inlet conguration is included in
the capturing case). Good predictions are also shown for larger grid sizes (factor of 50) and sub grid ini-
tiation models.
The numerical tests show that correct prediction of the severe slugging cycle is sensitive to the initia-
tion of upstream hydrodynamic slugs, but less sensitive to the local structure of the slug ow (frequencies
and lengths) in the upstream region.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The slug ow regime occurs in a wide range of industrial mul-
tiphase pipe ow applications. Slug ow represents a particular
challenge in the oil and gas industry where large scale ow insta-
bilities may occur in pipeline-riser systems.
The modeling of slug ow may be approached on different time
and length scales. A common procedure is to solve the two-uid
equations (mass and momentum conservation equations for each
phase) on an Eulerian grid. This is a procedure typically used by
nuclear safety codes like CATHARE and RELAP (Bestion, 1990;
Umminger et al., 2002), as well as by oil and gas pipeline simula-
tors like OLGA (Bendiksen et al., 1991).
Small scale slug ow is then treated as an averaged ow
whereas the large scale severe slug ow phenomenon is captured
by the two-uid model. This gives a computationally efcient
model, but requires implementation of averaged hydrodynamic
slug ow models and criteria for ow regime transitions from
stratied ow.
Some studies have demonstrated the capability of the two-uid
model to also resolve small scale slug ow, without the need for
transition models (Issa and Kempf, 2003; Bonizzi et al., 2009).
These slug capturing methods rely on a ne grid spacing to resolve
the sharp discontinuities in holdup at bubble noses and slug fronts.
One way of reducing the need for a ne grid spacing when a sta-
tionary grid is utilized is to apply higher order mass-and momen-
tum ux functions (see Fltten, 2003; Wangensteen, 2010; Loilier
et al., 2005).
Another approach is to formulate a Lagrangian model. This al-
lows for tracking of fronts with a moving grid and elimination of
0301-9322/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseow.2013.01.002

Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 98646395.

E-mail address: tor.kjeldby@ntnu.no (T.K. Kjeldby).
International Journal of Multiphase Flow 53 (2013) 2939
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Multiphase Flow
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ i j mul ow
numerical diffusion at discontinuities. Such concepts have been
tested with different discretization and solution procedures (Nydal
and Banerjee, 1996; Leebeeck and Nydal, 2010; Renault, 2007;
Kjls, 2007).
The slug tracking model version by Kjls (2007) is extended
here, and applied as a computational framework to investigate
the coupling of the initiation of hydrodynamic slugs and severe
slugging cycles as observed experimentally.
2. The model
The discretization of the governing conservation equations is
implemented in terms of a hybrid two-uid and slug tracking mod-
el formulation. The object oriented design is illustrated in Fig. 1,
where the computational objects are referred to as borders, sec-
tions and units. A section can either be a bubble or a slug, while
a unit consists of a list of sections of equal type. Two sections are
always separated by a border, which can either be stationary or
moving. The computational grid is shown in Fig. 2.
In bubble sections the full two-uid model is solved. A slug unit
is assumed to be incompressible, which allows for the application
of a single momentum balance over each slug unit.
The mass balance for phase k is obtained by integration over the
section control volume:
d
dt
_
V
k;J
q
k
dV
_
L
J
@q
k
u
k
u
b

@x
A
k
dx
_
M
s
k;J
1
Here, q denotes density, u velocity, A cross section area and V vol-
ume. The term
_
M
s
k
is a possible mass source. The border velocity
is denoted as u
b
. Mass balances are solved for all sections in the
pipe. The mass balances are discretized by the upwind donor cell
principle and they are integrated implicitly in time.
The pressure equation is written as:
@p
J
@t

k
@q
k;J
@p
V
k;J
q
k;J
_ _

@V
J
@t

k
1
q
k;J
_
L
J
@q
k
u
k
u
b

@x
A
k
dx
_ _

k
_
M
s
k;J
q
k;J
_ _
2
This equation is obtained by adding the mass conservation equa-
tions for each phase and by expanding the time derivative term
by the product rule together with the introduction of an equation
of state for the gas. The pressure equation is solved for all bubble
sections. The pressure in a slug section is not a computational var-
iable, but it follows from the computed frictional and gravitational
contributions along the slug unit.
The momentum equation for phase k is obtained by integration
of the momentum balance over the momentum control volume j:
d
dt
_
V
k;j
q
k
u
k
dV
_
L
j
@q
k
u
k
u
k
u
b

@x
A
k
dx

_
V
k;j
@p
@x
dV
_
V
k;j
q
k
g cos h
@h
k
@x
dV
_
V
k;j
s
k
S
k
A
k
dV

_
V
k;j
s
i
S
i
A
k
dV
_
V
k;j
q
k
g sinhdV 3
The pipe inclination is given by h and the height of the liquid lm is
given by h
l
. The gravitational acceleration is denoted by g. This
momentum control volume is staggered relative to the mass bal-
ance and pressure control volume J.
The shear stress between phase k and the pipe wall is denoted
as s
k
while the interface shear stress is denoted as s
i
. The friction
factor between the wall and phase k is obtained from the Blasius
model:
k
k
0:316Re
0:25
k
4
Here, Re
k
is the Reynolds number of phase k. There are numerous
empirical expressions for the interface friction in the literature.
For test purposes, we determine k
i
as the product of an Interface
Friction Multiplier (IFM) and the gas friction factor, as shown in
Eq. (5). IFM = 1 often leads to acceptable holdup predictions for
smooth stratied ows:
k
i
IFM k
g
5
The momentum equations are solved at bubblebubble borders and
in slug units. The single momentum balance applied for each slug
unit in combination with zero gas fraction in slugs implies that
the liquid phase velocity u
l
is the same within all sections in a slug
unit, given that the pipe diameter is constant.
An important closure model is the one for the bubble nose
velocity u
b
:
u
b;j
C
0;j
u
l;j
U
0;j
6
Fig. 1. Units, sections and borders.
Fig. 2. Computational grid.
30 T.K. Kjeldby et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 53 (2013) 2939
Several experimental investigations have been made to establish
empirical correlations for the distribution coefcient C
0
and for
the drift velocity U
0
, where Dumitrescu (1943) and Davies and Tay-
lor (1950) were some of the earlier ones. The coefcients by Bendik-
sen (1984) apply for all pipe angles:
C
01
1:05 0:15sin
2
h
C
02
1:2
U
0v
0:35

gD
_
sinh
U
0h
0:54

gD
_
cos h
7
C
0
C
01
U
0
U
0v
U
0h
if ju
m
j 6 u
lim
C
0
C
02
U
0
U
0v
if ju
m
j > u
lim
8
u
lim

U
0h
C
02
C
01
9
A transition to laminar ow needs to be included for more viscous
systems. To allow the model to decide whether a bubbleslug dis-
continuity is a slug front or a bubble nose, a bubble turning criterion
is needed. The criterion used in the model is that a bubble nose al-
ways travel in the direction of lower pressure. A gradual transition
relation has also been included in the model to avoid discontinuities
at the point of bubble turning.
If a slugbubble border is not a bubble nose, it is treated as a
slug front. The velocity of the slug front border is determined from
a liquid mass balance across the front as given by Eq. (10). The spa-
tial indexes are dened in Fig. 3. From the mass balance Eq. (10) a
corresponding set of slug front velocity coefcients is obtained
similar to the bubble nose coefcients given by Eq. (8):
u
b;j

A
l;J1
u
l;j1
A
l;J
u
l;J
A
l;J1
A
l;J
10
3. Experiments and simulation setup
Four experimental cases from a severe slugging experimental
facility described in Seim et al. (2011), have been compared with
simulations. The combinations of gas and liquid mass ow rates
and the corresponding supercial velocities are given in Table 1.
The pipeline geometry is shown in Fig. 5 which is a screenshot
from the dynamic animation of the simulation results. Thebdimen-
sions of the setup are given in Table 2. The simulation geometry
closely resembles the experimental geometry. The large diameter
pipe in the leftmost part of the conguration has been included
to simulate a 250 l air buffer tank at the inlet. This tank provides
the upstream compressibility which is needed for the severe slug-
ging cycle to occur.
The option to dene a curved pipe geometry with a bend has
been implemented in the model. This enables a continuous change
in the gravity term as slugs and bubbles pass the bend. This has
proved to be particularly useful for a numerically well behaved
bubble turning process. The curved pipe geometrical denitions
used in Table 2 are illustrated in Fig. 4.
A closed inlet and an open outlet at xed atmospheric pressure
is applied. A fully open valve is connected to the end of the riser
(PIPE 10 in Table 2). Air is supplied to the system by a gas mass
source at the inlet, while liquid enters from a liquid mass source
slightly downstream from the inlet (PIPE 2 in Table 2).
The experimental time series shown in Fig. 6a and b are the
pressure at the riser base for Case 1 and 3, respectively. Case 1
shows large variations in the pressure. There is a well dened per-
iod of severe slugging, with liquid accumulation in the riser. Case 3
shows only very small pressure variations which represent stable
ow.
The experimental pipeline is constructed from steel, which
makes visual inspection of the ow difcult. The shape of the time
series shown in Fig. 6a, however, and in particular the quick pres-
sure recovery at the location denoted (4), indicates the generation
of hydrodynamic slugs upstream of the riser base during the blow-
out. Liquid is accumulating in the horizontal part of the pipeline
(PIPE 4 in Table 2) during the severe slug build-up (1) and this li-
quid is transported to the bend during the blowout (3).
A fairly close agreement between experiment and simulation
was obtained without inclusion of the valve for Case 1. For the sta-
ble Case 3 inclusion of the valve in the model was needed in order
to obtain stable ow. Both a stratied and a mixed ow valve for-
mulation were tested.
The stratied valve model was implemented by using equiva-
lent friction factors for both phases based on a provided valve coef-
cient of C
v
= 12 [gal min
1
psi
1/2
]. This was observed to give a too
low friction for the gas phase in the two uid region, resulting in
too high gas ow through the valve and severe slugging behavior
in Case 3 where stable ow was expected.
Fig. 3. Slug front.
Table 1
Experimental cases.
Case U
sl
(m/s) U
sg
(m/s) _ m
l
kg=s _ mg kg=s Type
1 0.20 1.80 0.399225 0.004438 Severe slugging
2 0.11 0.90 0.218253 0.002216 Severe slugging
3 0.40 3.60 0.806991 0.008881 Stable ow
4 0.24 0.90 0.483247 0.002216 Severe slugging
Table 2
Simulation geometry with pipes numbered from 1 at the inlet to 10 at the outlet.
Pipe L (m) D (m) h () h
in
() h
out
() R(m)
1 7.958 0.2000 45.00
2 2.100 0.0508 45.00
3 0.157 0.0508 45.00 0.00 0.2
4 65.000 0.0508 0.00
5 35.000 0.0508 2.54
6 0.323 0.0508 2.54 90.00 0.2
7 2.500 0.0508 90.00
8 13.000 0.0450 90.00
9 0.314 0.0450 90.00 0.00 0.2
10 6.000 0.0450 0.00
Fig. 4. Curved pipe geometrical denitions.
T.K. Kjeldby et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 53 (2013) 2939 31
A mixed ow valve model based on no slip with the provided
valve C
v
was observed to perform better, i.e. giving a reduced
amplitude in the pressure oscillations. Tuning of the valve coef-
cient, however, was found necessary to obtain stable ow as in
the experiments. A valve model based on the non-dimensional
pressure loss coefcient K for mixture ow assumption has been
applied. The pressure drop across the valve is then written as:
Dp
m

Kq
m
u
2
m
2
11
where q
m
and u
m
are dened as:
q
m
q
l
a
l
q
g
a
g
12
u
m
u
l
a
l
u
g
a
g
13
Fig. 5. Simulation geometry. Diameter to length ratio is exaggerated.
800 850 900 950 1000
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
5
1
2
3
4
(a) Pressure recordings for severe slugging - Case 1
800 850 900 950 1000
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
5
(b) Pressure recordings for stable ow - Case 3
Fig. 6. Experimental pressure time series at the riser base from Seim et al. (2011).
(a) 1 - Liquid column in riser is growing and pressure at riser base increases
(b) 2 - Liquid column accelerates up the riser. This gives a sudden upstream pressure drop and an increase in gas velocity
(c) 3 - The increase in gas velocity gives hydrodynamic slug initiation in the upstream horizontal pipe
(d) 4 - Rapid pressure recovery at riser base due to arrival of hydrodynamic slugs which increase hydrostatic pressure as
they propagate into the vertical riser
Fig. 7. Severe slugging inducing hydrodynamic slug initiation. Diameter to length ratio is exaggerated.
32 T.K. Kjeldby et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 53 (2013) 2939
The volume fraction of phase k is here given as a
k
. This pressure
drop is set equal to the pressure drop of each phase k in the two-
uid model:
Dp
k

q
k
k
k
u
2
k
S
k
8A
k
Dx 14
Here, A
k
is the cross section area and S
k
the wetted perimeter of
phase k. Eqs. (11) and (14) then gives the friction factor for a pipe
section of length Dx to which the valve is connected:
k
k

q
m
u
2
m
4A
k
K
q
k
u
2
k
S
k
Dx
15
To approach no-slip conditions in a pipe segment with a valve, the
interface friction factor is set to a high value:
k
i
1000 k
g
16
A pressure loss coefcient K = 136 was found to give good results for
both Case 1 and Case 3, see Fig. 9 and Fig. 13. Fig. 7 contains a set of
screenshots from the Case 1 simulation showing the different stages
of the severe slugging cycle. The numbers given in the gure cap-
tions are comparable with the numbers shown in Fig. 6a.
4. Slug initiation models
The capability of slug capturing models to initiate hydrody-
namic slugs directly from the two-uid model has been demon-
strated by Issa and Kempf (2003) and Bonizzi et al. (2009) as
well as by others. This approach requires the application of a very
ne grid. If a coarse grid is applied, these small scale ow dynamics
are not resolved and sub-grid slug initiation models must be ap-
plied. Two such slug initiation models are tested in this study:
One is based on the instability of stratied ow and the other on
the existence of slug ow.
The initial length of a slug created by one of the models is de-
noted as L
init
, while the minimum slug length needed to survive
during a simulation is set to 1D. Slugs shorter than this length
are removed and their liquid is redistributed across neighboring
bubble sections.
4.1. Hydrodynamic slug initiation at the stratied ow stability limit
The Stratied Stability criterion, from now on indicated as SS, is
derived from a stability analysis of the two-uid model (see among
others Barnea and Taitel (1993)), and it is given by Eq. (17):
q
l
q
g
g cos h
A
l
q
l
@A
l
@h
l

A
g
q
g
@Ag
@hg
_
_
_
_
u
g
u
l

2
> 0 17
Utilizing
@Ag
@hg

@A
l
@h
l
;
@A
l
@a
l
A and
@h
l
@a
l

@h
l
@b
l
@b
l
@a
l
together with a relation for
wetted angle b
l
derived by Biberg (2005)
b
l
pa
l

3p
2
_ _
1=3
1 2a
l
a
1=3
l
a
1=3
g
_ _
18
and the denition of stratied liquid height h
l
h
l

D
2
1 cos b
l
19
gives the slug initiation criterion depending on the wetted angle.
q
l
q
g
g cos h
a
l
q
l

a
g
q
g
_ _
@h
l
@b
l
@b
l
@a
l
> u
g
u
l

2
20
A hydrodynamic slug is created when this relation is satised. The
geometrical relations are shown in Fig. 8.
4.2. Hydrodynamic slug initiation at the slug existence limit
Another model used to predict the transition from stratied to
hydrodynamic slug ow is the Slug Existence criterion, from now
on termed SE. This criterion was derived by Bendiksen and Espedal
(1992) and is equivalent to the limiting solution of the unit-cell
slug ow model, when the slug fraction is zero. In our case of no
gas entrainment into the liquid slug, a hydrodynamic slug is cre-
ated when the following is satised:
u
g
> u
b
21
Here, u
m
is the local mixture velocity, u
b
is the slug bubble velocity
and u
g
the stratied ow gas velocity.
u
b
C
o
u
m
U
o
22
5. Selected time series
Experimental and simulated time series for Case 1, 2, 3 and 4
are presented in Figs. 913. The base case simulation parameters
are:
Hydrodynamic slug initiation from SE (Slug Existence criterion)
activated in the horizontal part of the pipeline (PIPE 4 in
Table 2), L
init
= 2D.
Interface friction multiplier, IFM = 3.
Valve coefcient, K = 136.
Inclination of inlet region (PIPE 2 in Table 2), h
2
= 45.
Inclination of horizontal part of the pipeline (PIPE 4 in Table 2),
h
4
= 0.
Comparison between the Dx = 21D and 81D time series from
Case 1 reveals small differences in shape as well as in the slugging
period. The amplitude of the local oscillations at the instant of the
pressure recovery, corresponding to (4) in Fig. 6a, however, is
slightly higher when a coarse grid is applied.
A good agreement between experiments and simulations for
the slugging cycle period, minimum pressure and maximum pres-
sure is found for both Case 1 and 2. Some larger deviation for the
slugging cycle period is observed in Case 4.
A close agreement between experiment and simulation for Case
3 was obtained by tuning of the valve coefcient K. The animation
in Fig. 14 shows the presence of short hydrodynamic slugs in the
horizontal part of the pipeline which die as they propagate into
the declining part of the pipeline.
Fig. 8. Stratied ow geometry.
T.K. Kjeldby et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 53 (2013) 2939 33
6. Sensitivity analysis for Case 1 and Case 3
Sensitivity simulations were carried out to assess the effects of
slug initiation methods, interface friction, pipe angles and grid
spacing.
Some of the simulations for Case 1 give time series with a non-
constant oscillation period as shown in Fig. 15, while other simula-
tions develop into stable ow as shown in Fig. 6b. Simulations
where these characteristics are observed have been used to dene
the outer limits of the range over which the sensitivity to a variable
0 100 200 300 400 500
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
5
Fig. 9. Pressure at the riser base for Case 1, Dx = 21D.
0 100 200 300 400 500
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
5
Fig. 13. Pressure at the riser base for Case 3, Dx = 21D.
0 100 200 300 400 500
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
5
Fig. 10. Pressure at the riser base for Case 1, Dx = 81D.
0 100 200 300 400 500
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
5
Fig. 11. Pressure at the riser base for Case 2, Dx = 21D.
0 100 200 300 400 500
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
5
Fig. 12. Pressure at the riser base for Case 4, Dx = 21D.
34 T.K. Kjeldby et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 53 (2013) 2939
is checked. Consequently, only simulations with constant ampli-
tude as shown in Fig. 16 have been presented in Figs. 18 and 20.
The standard simulation settings listed in Section 5 are applied.
The parameter to which sensitivity is checked is stated explicitly
in each sub-section.
The ow regime within PIPE 2 is not known from the experi-
ments. Only stratied ow has been found in PIPE 2 in the captur-
ing simulations.
6.1. Sensitivity to slug initiation model and bubble section grid spacing
Case 1
Hydrodynamic slugs can be formed in the horizontal pipe dur-
ing blowout of a severe slug. When a slug accelerates up into the
vertical riser, then the gas velocity increases, and hydrodynamic
slugs can be generated upstream. When a hydrodynamic slug is
formed it accelerates downstream and ushes liquid towards the
riser base. The location and time of slug initiation might thus inu-
ence on how much liquid is removed from the horizontal pipe dur-
ing each slugging cycle. This inuences the slugging cycle period.
Fig. 17 shows liquid holdup proles for the hydrodynamic slug
generation for Dx = 4.5, 21 and 161D. Each sequence of pictures
shows a staged process where the liquid level close to the inlet
of the horizontal part of the pipeline grows from low to high. Ulti-
mately a hydrodynamic slug is formed. For small Dx a distinct
hydraulic jump can be seen prior to slug initiation. At Dx = 4.5D
slug initiation is obtained directly from the two-uid model. At
Dx = 21 and 161D the grid is too large for slug capturing and slugs
are generated based on predictions made by the SS initiation
criterion.
The slug lengths grow when the grid spacing of the bubble sec-
tion is increased. This effect is due to the fact that only one slug can
be initiated in a bubble section at the time. Consequently, when a
ne grid spacing is utilized, hydrodynamic slug initiation can be
predicted by the slug initiation model in a high number of bubble
sections in the horizontal region at the same time. A similar mass
and momentum transfer in the horizontal part of the system can
however be obtained by a lower number of longer slugs. This is
why the resulting period of the severe slugging cycle, however,
hardly depends on the bubble section grid spacing, even if the
hydrodynamic slug frequency will be grid dependent.
The results presented in Fig. 18 show severe slugging cycle peri-
ods resulting from simulations where hydrodynamic slug initiation
from the SE criterion, from the SS criterion and from the two-uid
model (by slug capturing) have been compared. Hydrodynamic
slug generation directly from the two-uid model (by slug captur-
ing) is captured for a grid size Dx < = 8.5D when holdup waves
bridge the pipe. The predicted slugging period approaches the
experimental value when the grid spacing is reduced. For a grid
spacing above Dx = 8.5D hydrodynamic slug initiation is not cap-
tured by the two-uid model and the period becomes approxi-
mately 50% higher.
The two slug initiation criteria SS and SE give quite similar re-
sults for the slugging period. Both show only a minor grid depen-
dency. Based on the results given in Fig. 18, the SE model has
been chosen as the standard simulation setting.
6.2. Sensitivity to inclination of the inlet Case 1
A picture of the experimental inlet conguration is shown in
Fig. 19. Air arrives at the mixing point through a large diameter
pipe which is connected to the buffer tank, whereas water enters
via a smaller diameter pipe at an angle to the air pipe. When water
is pumped into the system at an angle it carries momentum. In the
Fig. 14. Case 3 animation. Diameter to length ratio is exaggerated.
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
5
Fig. 15. Case 1 with non-constant period during sensitivity tests.
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
5
Fig. 16. Case 1 with constant period during sensitivity tests.
T.K. Kjeldby et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 53 (2013) 2939 35
simulations, momentum contributions from the sources have not
been included.
The inuence of gravity and of gas drag on the water accelerates
the water to enter the horizontal part of the pipeline with a posi-
tive velocity. Simulations show that this gives a hydraulic jump
at the inlet of the horizontal pipe, as can be seen in Fig. 17. The
velocity at which water enters the horizontal pipe inuences the
precise location where the hydraulic jump occurs. Fig. 20a shows
a sensitivity analysis of how the angle of the inlet, denoted as h
2
,
inuences the slugging period.
Simulations performed at Dx = 161D appear to be more sensi-
tive to h
2
. At this grid spacing stable ow is found when h > 25.
For simulations with the slug capturing approach it turned out
the liquid source had to be included in the declining inlet (PIPE 2 in
Table 2). An attempt was made to position the liquid source at the
inlet of the horizontal pipe (PIPE 4 in Table 2), but this resulted in
rapid lling of the nearby short sections, slug formation and severe
slugging simulations with non-constant period as shown in Fig. 15.
Fig. 17. Examples of slug initiation sequences in the horizontal part of the pipeline (PIPE 4 in Table 2). Diameter to length ratio is exaggerated.
Fig. 18. Case 1 grid dependency of the slugging period.
Fig. 19. Experimental inlet conguration from Seim et al. (2011).
36 T.K. Kjeldby et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 53 (2013) 2939
Fig. 20. Case 1 sensitivity analysis results. SE denotes slug initiation from the slug existence model while SS denotes initiation at the stratied stability limit.
T.K. Kjeldby et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 53 (2013) 2939 37
This illustrates the dependency of the slug capturing approach on
an accurate simulation setup.
6.3. Sensitivity to inclination of the pipe downstream of the inlet
Case 1
A sensitivity analysis of the angle of the pipe downstream of the
inlet (the horizontal PIPE 4 in Table 2), denoted as h
4
, has been per-
formed to investigate the effect on the hydrodynamic slug genera-
tion and on the overall slugging cycle period. The results are
presented in Fig. 20b. For small negative angles hydrodynamic
slugs are generated, similarly to how they are generated when
the pipe is horizontal. When the angle is decreased further, hydro-
dynamic slugs are no longer formed, and liquid ows as a stratied
layer towards the riser base, where severe slugging without hydro-
dynamic slug initiation is obtained for D x = 21D. In the absence of
hydrodynamic slugs, the slugging period of the severe slugging cy-
cle has doubled. However, for a too coarse grid spacing with
Dx = 161D stable ow is found.
At small positive angles hydrodynamic slugs are formed similar
to the conguration with the horizontal pipe. When the angle is in-
creased further, liquid fallback contributes to the formation of
hydrodynamic slugs. Now such slugs are no longer generated
exclusively by the hydrodynamic mechanism and irregular slug-
ging cycle periods are obtained. This trend is observed for both
Dx = 21D and D x = 161D.
6.4. Sensitivity on L
init
Case 1
Slugs that are created based on one of the hydrodynamic initi-
ation criteria are set up with an initial length L
init
. The results from
the sensitivity analysis of this variable obtained with the SE
and the SS slug initiation models are shown in Fig. 20c and in
20d, respectively. The severe slugging frequencies are similar for
L
init
< 6D.
6.5. Sensitivity on interface friction factor Case 1
The sensitivity on the interface friction is checked through var-
iation of the variable IFM (Interface Friction Multiplier). The results
are presented in Fig. 20e. A relatively small inuence on the results
is observed for both Dx = 21D and Dx = 161D.
6.6. Sensitivity to hydrodynamic slug initiation model and bubble
section grid spacing Case 3
The sensitivity on the grid spacing of the bubble section and on
the hydrodynamic slug initiation model is checked for Case 3 and
presented in Fig. 21. The three methods give similar results for
small grid sizes. Capturing and the SS initiation methods fail for
larger grid sizes.
The results obtained with the SS model show the characteristic
large pressure oscillations similarly to what is observed in the se-
vere slugging Case 1. SE provides an earlier hydrodynamic slug ini-
tiation than SS and slug ow upstream the riser base stabilizes the
severe slugging.
7. Conclusion
Pipeline-riser ow loop experiments for severe slugging dem-
onstrate the coupling between hydrodynamic slug initiation and
the severe slugging frequency. Liquid accumulation in a horizontal
pipe segment upstream the riser base is propagated towards the
bend during the severe slug blowout, and affects the initiation of
the next severe slug at the riser base. The case has been computa-
tionally explored with a dynamic slug tracking model with three
slug initiation methods: slug initiation from a two uid model
(slug capturing on a ne grid), from a stratied ow stability crite-
rion and from a slug existence criterion (sub grid initiation mod-
els). The different initiation models give good correspondence
with the experimental results for small grid sizes. The slug captur-
ing method naturally has to fail for increasing grid sizes whereas
the sub grid initiation models give quite similar results also at lar-
ger grid sizes. Sensitivity tests on pipe inclinations shows that for
the capturing simulations it is also important to include a detailed
representation of the inlet geometries at the point of the mixing
section.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to O. Novak (NTNU), who has made improvements to
the animation tool that helped the interpretation of the predictions
by the slugging models.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseow.
2013.01.002.
References
Barnea, D., Taitel, Y., 1993. Kelvin-helmholtz stability criteria for stratied ow:
viscous versus non-viscous (inviscid) approaches. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 19 (4),
639649.
Bendiksen, K., 1984. An experimental investigation of the motion of long bubbles in
inclined tubes. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 10 (4), 467483.
Bendiksen, K., Espedal, M., 1992. Onset of slugging in horizontal gasliquid pipe
ow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 18 (2), 237247.
Bendiksen, K., Malnes, D., Moe, R., Nuland, S., 1991. The dynamic two-uid model
OLGA: theory and application. SPE Prod. Eng., 171180.
Bestion, D., 1990. The physical closure laws in the CATHARE code. Nucl. Eng. Des.
124, 229245.
Biberg, D., 2005. Mathematical Models for Two-Phase Stratied Pipe Flow. Ph.D.
Thesis. University of Oslo.
Bonizzi, M., Andreussi, P., Banerjee, S., 2009. Flow regime independent, high
resolution multi-eld modelling of near-horizontal gasliquid ows in
pipelines. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 35 (1), 3446. Fig. 21. Case 3 grid dependency.
38 T.K. Kjeldby et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 53 (2013) 2939
Davies, R.M., Taylor, G., 1950. The mechanics of large bubbles rising through
extended liquids and through liquids in tubes. Roy. Soc. Ser. A, Math. Phys. Sci.
200 (1062), 375390.
Dumitrescu, D.T., 1943. Strmung an einer luftblase im senkrechten rohr. Z. Angew.
Math. Mech 23 (3), 139149.
Fltten, T., 2003. Hybrid Flux Splitting Schemes for Numerical Resolution of Two-
Phase Flows. Ph.D. Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Issa, R., Kempf, M., 2003. Simulation of slug ow in horizontal and nearly
horizontal pipes with the two-uid model. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 29, 69
95.
Kjls, J., 2007. Plug Propagation in Multiphase Pipelines: Modeling and Small Scale
Experiments. Ph.D. Thesis. Norwegian University of Sceince and Technology.
Leebeeck, A.D., Nydal, O., 2010. Simulation of large amplitude waves in a slug
tracking scheme compared to roll wave experiments at high pressure. Int. J.
Multiphase Flow 36 (1), 4050.
Nydal, O., Banerjee, S., 1996. Dynamic slug tracking simulations for gasliquid ow
in pipelines. Chem. Eng. Commun., 1339.
Loilier, P., Omgba-Essama, C., Thompson, C., 2005. Numerical experiments of two-
phase ow in pipelines with a two-uid compressible model. In: 12th
International Conference on Multiphase Production Technology, Barcelona.
Renault, F., 2007. A Lagrangian Slug Capturing Scheme for GasLiquid Flows in
Pipes. Ph.D. Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Seim, J., van Beusekom, V., Henkes, R., Nydal, O., 2011. Experiments and modelling
for the control of riser instabilities with gas lift. In: 15th International
Conference on Multiphase Production Technology, Cannes, France.
Umminger, K., Mandl, R., Wegner, R., 2002. Restart of natural circulation in a PWR
PKL test results and s-relap5 calculations. Nucl. Eng. Des. 215 (12), 3950.
Wangensteen, T., 2010. Mixture-Slip Flux Splitting for the Numerical Computation
of 1d Two Phase Flow. Ph.D. Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and
Technology.
T.K. Kjeldby et al. / International Journal of Multiphase Flow 53 (2013) 2939 39