Analysis of Sand Transportability in

Pipelines
Laras Wuri Dianningrum

Chemical Engineering Program of Study

Faculty of Industrial Technology
Bandung Institute of Technology

Balikpapan, July 2010

 Contents

 Background of Study
 Objectives
 Methodology
 Main Finding
 Recommendation

2 - Reference, date, place

Background of Study

Bekapai pipelines
Analysis of
Surface corrosion by bacteria sand
under sand layers How to transportability
-WHY
manage -WHEN
Sand accumulation ? -HOW

3 - Reference, date, place

Objectives

FLOW FLOW
SAND
REGIME CRITICAL
BEHAVIOR
VELOCITY

4 - Reference, date, place

Methodology (1)
MULTIPHASE FLOW
Further
analyze in
this study Holdup
Fluid
Flow properties
regime (Vsl,Vsg, ᵨ,σ,
µ)

Sand Transportation in
Pipeline
(critical flow velocity and sand
Pipeline behavior)
properties Inclination
(D,roughness) (θ)

Sand Particle
properties
Production
Rates (Dp,ᵨ)

5 - Reference, date, place

Methodology (2)
Critical velocity
VERTICAL and Particles
(Salama, 1989) and
HORIZONTAL Chien, 1994)
flow
COMPARATIVE
STUDIES
FLOW SAND
REGIME BEHAVIOR 1 Vs 3

2 Vs 3

Experimental Mechanistic Model 4 Vs 3

1 2
Horizontal Pipe
(Mandhane Map)
Correlation (all inclinations)
Actual liquid and
3 4
gas velocity, liquid
Vertical Pipe holdup comparison
Beggs & Brill OLGA
(Aziz Map)

Oil-gas-water flow oil-gas & water-gas flow

6 - Reference, date, place

Methodology (3)
Assumptions used:
a.Steady state flow
b.There is not an inter-phase mass or energy transfer
c.Temperature and pressure are constants along pipeline
Pipeline d (inch) Length (m) Wall thickness
(mm)
OLGA Spesifications: BB-BP 12 1660 9.52

a. 100 horizontal & 10 vertical sections BH-BG 6 1900 9.52

BF-BL 6 1000 9.52
b. Run period: 48 hours BJ-BB 6 850 9.52

c. No slip: OFF BK-BP 8 1900 9.52

BL-BA 6 1530 9.52
d. Steady-State: ON

Q Oil Q Gas Q Water

Pipeline P(bar) T (oC) (STBD) (MSCFD) (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

7 - Reference, date, place

Main Finding (1)
1 Vs 3 Horizontal pipe
Sand
Behavior
Beggs & Brill correlation
Stratified:
-constant behavior
-high concentration in liquid
CL, L1,L2,L3,L4,Fr phase
-sand dune formation
Slug:
Flow regime
-smaller D pipe, more effective
(segregated, distributed,
intermittent, transition) sand transport
Mandhane’s Map -slug body--turbulence

Ruano,2008
Regime
Pipeline vsg (ft/s) vsml (ft/s) (Mandhane) Regime (BB)
8 inch BK-BP1 3.64 0.0134 Stratified segregated
Stratified
6 inch BJ-BB 1.41 0.0003 Stratified segregated
12 inch BB-BP1 2.71 0.2126 Stratified segregated
6 inch BF-BL 10.48 0.4616 Slug segregated
6 inch BH-BG 6.39 0.3074 Stratified segregated Slug
12 inch BL-BA 16.09 0.7916 Slug segregated

8 - Reference, date, place

 Main Finding (2)
2 Vs 3 Vertical Pipe
Sand
Beggs & Brill correlation
Behavior
Annular:
-Entrained sand in gas and liquid
CL, L1,L2,L3,L4,Fr phase
-Increase pressure drop and
erosion risk
Slug:
Flow regime -more complex behavior
(segregated, distributed, -depends on slug frequency, slug
intermittent, transition)
length, pipe diameter, etc.

Regime
Aziz et al. Map Beggs & Annular-Segregated
(very high gas-liquid ratio, high gas flow
Pipeline Aziz Brill rate, annular film on the wall is thickened
at the bottom of pipe)
8 inch BK-BP1 Slug Segregated
6 inch BJ-BB Slug Segregated
Slug-Intermittent
12 inch BB-BP1 Slug Segregated
(medium gas-liquid ratio, high liquid flow
6 inch BF-BL Slug Segregated rate)

6 inch BH-BG Slug Segregated

12 inch BL-BA Slug Segregated

9 - Reference, date, place

 Main Finding (3)
4 Vs 3
Flow regime, holdup, fluid actual velocity

Outlet (110th Pipeline H R O H R O

section) (O) 8” BK-BP1 1 1,2,3,4 Mostly 2 1 2 Mostly 2
50th section 6” BJ-BB - - - 1 2 2
(H)
12” BB-BP1 1 1,2,3,4 Mostly 2 1 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4
6” BF-BL 1 2 2 1 2 2
Riser bottom 6” BH-BG 1 2 2 1 2 2
(101th section) (R)
12” BL-BA 1 2 2 1 2 2
Pipe geometry
Gas-Oil flow Gas-Water flow
1 Stratified
 OIL BLOCKAGESLUG  8”BK-BP1 and 12”BB-BP1
2 Annular  WATER BLOCKAGESLUG12”BB-BP1
OLGA
3 Slug
4 Dispersed
10 - Reference, date, place
 Main Finding (4)
50th section Beggs & Brill 101th section 110th section Beggs & Brill
(horizontal line) (horizontal) (riser bottom) (pipe outlet) (vertical) 12” BB-BP1
FLOW Stratified,
Mostly annular, (OIL-GAS
REGIME annular, slug,
Stratified Segregated dispersed
slug, dispersed Segregated FLOW)
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 (assumed zero),
VELOCITY (fluctuating, closer 0.08 m/s except in slug 0-(-1.5) m/s 0.14 m/s
to zero) regime (reach
1.5 m/s
ACTUAL
0.8-2.9 m/s (-4)-8 m/s -1.3-2.2 m/s
GAS 0.93 m/s 2.18 m/s
(fluctuating) (back flow) (back flow)
VELOCITY

Beggs &
50th section Beggs & Brill 101th section 110th section
Brill
6” BJ-BB (horizontal line) (horizontal) (riser bottom) (pipe outlet)
(vertical)
(WATER-GAS FLOW
REGIME Stratified Annular Annular
FLOW) HOLDUP 0.17
Segregated
0.02 m/s 0 0
Segregated
0.03
ACTUAL Too low, Too low,
LIQUID fluctuating, back 0.01 m/s back flow fluctuating, back 0 m/s
VELOCITY flow flow
ACTUAL GAS Too low, Too low, Too low,
VELOCITY fluctuating, 0.57 m/s fluctuating, back fluctuating, 0.58 m/s
back flow flow back flow

11 - Reference, date, place

 Main Finding (5)
Critical Velocity
Horizontal Pipe--Salama (1989)
0.07

Investigation 0.06

critical velocity (m/s)

by Salama Bekapai case 0.05
Particle A
(1989) Particle B
100, 280, x<38 micrometer until 0.04
Sand particle and 500 x>600 micrometer
Particle C
0.03 Particle D
micrometer
size Particle E
0.02
4 in 6, 8, 12 in
Pipe diameter 0.01
Particle F

Water, gas Water, oil, gas, sand Particle G

Media (CO2, N2, 0 Particle H
air), oil, 8.22E-05 9.38E-02 1.41E-01
inhibitors, liquid superficial velocity (m/s)
sand
Water cut
1%, 10%,
50%, and
46%, 53%, 86%, 87%,
98%, and 100%  minimal velocity to avoid sand settling (Vm)
100%
 sand settling  flow velocity<Vm
Pressures 4 and 8 bara 11, 12, 14 , 57 bara
 affected factors:
Temperature Ambient Wall (60oC)
1. particle properties
2. fluid properties
NO SAND SETTLING OCCURS IN 3. pipe properties
ALL INVESTIGATED PIPELINES!
12 - Reference, date, place
 Main Finding (6)
Critical Velocity
Vertical Pipe--Chien (1994)
50
106 d>600 µm
45 µm<d<15
0 µm 150 355µm<d<
40 µm<d<25 600 µm
0 µm
35

30 63
% weight

µm<d<10 250
25 6 µm µm<d<35 particle B
5 µm
20 38
particle C
µm<d<63 particle D
15 µm
particle E
10 d<38 µm particle F
5 particle G
particle H
0

critical velocity (m/s) SAND SETTLING IN 6”

 affected factors: BJ-BB
1. particle properties
2. fluid properties
13 - Reference, date, place
 Recommendation
 take a precaution over sand accumulation, especially at the riser bottom or another
transition section of pipelines due to analysis results. Fluid mixture velocity should be
enhanced until exceed the critical flow velocity to prevent initial sand bed formation.

Routine pigging should be done in pipelines that have been detected to experience sand
settling. Some pipelines which have low fluid mixture velocity (6” BJ-BB, 8” BK-BP1, and 12”
BB-BP1) should be placed at top priority.

Because sand settling phenomena strongly depends on the present data of fluid volumetric
rate in pipelines, this analysis is recommended to be routinely updated.

 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.

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).

use real model of Bekapai pipelines and fluid in order to be applied in the future.

14 - Reference, date, place

Thank you for your attention……………
Laras Wuri Dianningrum

Chemical Engineering Program of Study

Faculty of Industrial Technology
Bandung Institute of Technology

Balikpapan, July 2010