Design of Pipelines For The Simultaneous Flow of Oil and Gas
Design of Pipelines For The Simultaneous Flow of Oil and Gas
Design of Pipelines For The Simultaneous Flow of Oil and Gas
it:m~ 1323 - ;G
ABSTRACT
Measurements were made of pressure drops for
oil and gas flowing simultaneously through four to
t~n inch diameter pipelines.
These results were
:-related with data from the literature for one. .ua1f to three inch diameter pipelines. Previously
published data were used to construct a generalized
chart for predicting the type of flow pattern in the
pipeline. The floW patterns described are bubble
flow, plug flow, stratified flow, wavy flow, slug
flo.:, annular flow, and spray flow. Our experimental
data were shown to be consistant with the generalized flow pattern chart.
The calculation method proposed by Lockhart and
Martinelli12 for designing two-phase pipelines was
shown to be inadequate for larger diameter lines and
also for some flow patterns. Modifications of the
above method in the form of separate equations for
each type of flow pattern are presentedo
INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been an increasing
tendency to transport both oil and gas simultaneously through pipeline gathering systems. Trends toward central separator batteries, crme stabilizations, and total well stream processing in distillate type fields have emphasized the need for better
Feferences and ilhlstrations atthe enci" of paper
323-G
flow pattern regions as functions of G, the mass velocityof the gas phase, and L/G, the ratio of mass
veloci ties of the liquid and gas phase.
Since most of the ave.ila ble date. were for the airwater system at atmospheric pressure, correction factors have been introduced to gad just for other liquids
and gases. Holmes suggested these terms for correlating the flooding point in wetted wall distillation
columns. The gas mass velocity is divided by"
A =~ (~G/o.07S) (62o.3/f L)
0/
~1/.3
~~L + (~tJ
the gas and liquid densities at flowing cond1tions in pounds per cubic foot. The surface
tension of the liquid 'Y', is in dynes per centimeter
and the liquid viscosi ty,fi L, is in centipoise.
fXlb
ated from the above results. The two-phase pressure
drop is given by the equation:
,
,2
6. PTP = 6. PG G
(1)
where 6.PG is the pressure drop for the gas phase
calculated above and G is a i"unction of X. A similar equation
2
6. PTP
PL L
(2)
based on the pressure drop for the liquid phase may
be used. The multipliers fiG and fiL are functions of
the factor X. The terms are related by the equation:
=6
G = X L
(.3 )
Lockhart and Martinelli presented the relationship between X, fiL and G in 1/2 inch and one inch
pipe for four cases. These cases were: (1) liquid
turbulent and gas turbulent; (;:Z) liquid viscous and
gas turbulent; (.3) liquid turbulent and gas viscous;
and (4) liquid viscous and gas viscous. The Reynolds
number at which the flow changes from viscous to turbulent is uncertain but a value between 1000 and 2000
is used. We have arbitrarily used a value of 1000 in
323-0
OVID BAKER
this paper. Lockhart and Martinelli did not consider the effect of the various flow patterns in
their correlation although their basic assumptions
tended to limi t i t to annular flow.
Wh~nltheir paper was presented the data of
Jenkins 4 , 2 cited d'lU'ing the discussion, indicated
that additional terms would be required to accurate
17 predict ~ ~3essure drop. Later in 1949 Gazle7
and Bergelin '
at the UniverSity of Delaware pre
.ented data on stratified and wave flow in a two
inch pipe. They obtained pressure drops considerab17 lower than those predicted by the Lockhart and
Martinelli Clll"Ve. 'lbeir results suggested that the
Lockhart ana178is was not valid for stratified flow
or that two inch pipe had a different relationship
between G and X.
6. PG ::;; ,; L1fSTZ
20,000
A
~ PL -
n5Pavi
...
fL ' (Bbl/Da7)~Lb/Gal)
181,916
(5)
323-G
WAVE FLOW
22
,the fractional
satisfaotorily.
(7)
323-G
OVID BAKER
FWd
In this paper all the experimental data considered were for both gas and liquid phases in turbulent 'flow. This is the usual case in industrial
applications. For data oovering the ojher cases ~~
referenoes should be consulted. Alves and Gasley-U+
give helpful data for one and two inoh pipe sizes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank the ~gnolia Petroleum Company ana 'the Uontinental' Oil Company for permiSSion to publish this information. So many perThe modifications of the basic Lockhart and
..... nelli correlation proposed in this paper are proD- sons have contributed to this project that it would
be impractical to list them all. Magnolia personnel
)ly fairly reliable, but the similarity of new deincluded the following people. The equiIDent was insigns to our experimental condi tions should be considered carefully in each oase. The limits of error stalled and operated under the direction of J. Eo
Shannon, Superintendent, C. A. Nevels, Do M. Ball,
for the various equations should be studied before
a safety factor or load factor for the flowing quan- and C. C. Baird. B. C. Stone 'Was construction engineer for the project. W. H. Speaker supervised
tities is seleoted.
the test and planned the project. M. R. Hindes made
It will be noted that the measured pressure
many of the calculations. G. A. Lundberg, J. F.
drops were always small fractions of the total pres- Wright, Fred Wilson, C. O. Childress and Will GUl.ett
of Magnolia and C. E. Iamb of Continental made the
sure. It is suggested that i f the caloulated pressure drop is more than 10 per cent of the downstream tests with the help of those listed above. J. C. Vandaveer and R.S. Garvie prepared the figures. Anabsolute pressure the pipeline be calculated in two
alyses and viSCOSity measurements were made by the
or more sections. The magnitude of the errors involved for _gas flow are discussed by Poettmann23 and Magnolia Natural Gas and Field Research laboratories.
Clinedinst0Z4.
NOMENCLATURE
It should be emphasized that the quanti ties and
D Inside diameter of pipe, inches
physical properties of the fluids used in the calf
Friction factor for fluid flow - see Table 3
culations must be those at Pipeling oonditions.
G Mass velocity of the gas phase, pounds per hour
luilibrium flash calculations 25 ,2 or experimental
per square foot of total pipe cross section area
tlnase studies will provide the best volume data.
L Mass velocity of the liquid phase, pounds per
For quick preliminary estimates generalized correhour per square foot of total pipe cross section
lati~Bs of gas solubility and formation volume facarea
tors
are useful. Estimates of liquid viSCOSity
may be mad! with fair accuracy by the method of Katz LI= Length of pipeline in feet
and Bicher 8 if component c~mposi tion data is avail- Pavg = Average of inlet and outlet pressures of the
pipeline, psia
able, or by the Baal method 1 if it is not. For
surface tension values the Katz, Monroe and TrainPG
Pressure drop for the gas phase flowing in
er method19 is suggested.
the pipe. The full cross sectional area of the
pipe is used in evaluating the pressure 'drop, PSI
The data considered in this paper were taken on 6. pt = Pressure drop for the liquid phase flowing
horizontal pipes onlyo Additional pressure drop may
in the pipe. The full cross sectional area 01\
be eXpected in hilly country. The liquid being carthe pipe is used in evaluating the pressure drop.
ried along with the gas will tend to run back down
6.
PTP
Pressure drop for the two phases flowing
the hills and accumulate in the valleys. When the
simultaneously, pounds per square inch.
pipe gets full enough of liquid it will slug over
Q Gas flow rate, thousands of standard cubic feet
the hill and into the next valley. Considerable
of gas per day at 14.65 psi a and 60 F
pressure surges may be expected at this time.
Ra= Reynolds number, ~..:DG~-=--=-<"
12~ (2042)
It Seeme probable that lines in annular, froth, S = S ecitic gravity of flowing gas (Air = 1)
or dispersed flow will not allow the liquid to acPL (PSI)
cumulate in the valleys. Lines in stratified or
X=
wave flow probably allow liquid to accumulate until
I::::. FG (PSI)
slug flow starts, carrying the liquid over the hill. Z = Compressibility factor of flowing gas
DESIGN SmGFSTIONS
=
=
=
cas
AliD OIL
GTT
12.
~L
PTP
-~
G
lC
'?J.}L
=
2.
3.
Van Wingen, N.: "Pressure Drop for Oil-Gas Mixtures in Horizontal Flow Lines,. World Oil,
Production Section, (October 1949), 156
Moody, Lewis F.: "Friction Factors for Pipe
Flow," I!:!!!!. ASME, (1944) 66, 671.
"Tentative Standards of the Hydraulic Institute-Pipe Friction," (1948)
Alves, George
"Co-Curl'ent Liquid-Gas Flow
in a Pipe-Line Contactor Paper presented at
the San Francisco meeting of the .American Institute of Chemical Engineers, September 14
E.,
H~.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
16.
17.
REF'ERENCES
1.
15.
'
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
323-0
Table 2
Analysis of Fluid Streams from Outlet
Separator (Run No. .3)
Magnolia - Continental Teata
Mol ! Ga.s
0.10
95.0.3
.3.26
0.84
0.22
0.26
0.06
CO!!e2nent
C~
C!
C2
C.3
i04
n04
iC5
~**
C6+
100.00
Mol
C6+ :: 149.~
22.9 gallons/mol
16.677 gallons/mol
Liguid
22.95
4 .32
2.71
1.49
1.71
1.49
63.26*
100. CO
* MW
OVID BAKER
Table 2 (Cont.)
Viscosity of Liquid
(Composition Change With Pressure)
PSIG
600
700
800
900
1000
1070
Viscosity
Centipoise @ 77 F
0.657
0.635
0.614
0.59.3
0.572
0.557
Table .3
Friction Factors Used for Single
Phase Flow Calculations
Reynolds Number,
Be
1,000
2,000
.3,000
10,000
40,000
100,000
150,000
400,000
1,000,000
4,000,000
10,000,000
Table 1
Experimental Data
6
26,970
2
25,552
2
12,050
!t.
ll,886
6,474
4,348
26,970
514
5,484
4,167
6,592
4,970
5,420
514
11,317
11,317
ll,317
ll,317
~5,'34
ll,317
U,333
7.750
7.750
7.7;0
7.750
7.750
7.750
10.136
983
1,007
972
977
964-
940
964-
964
975
962
960
958
930
945
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0~59
0.59
0.59
3.42
3.48
3.38
3.32
3.38
3.28
3.36
6.499
6.499
6.525
6.499
6.53
6.103
16.499
Gas Viscosit.Y', op
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
Liquid Visoosit.y, op
0.577
0.574
0.58
0.578
0.58
0.587
0.577
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
1/1
4.27
4.27
4.27
4.27
4.21
4.5
4.27
?\
7.62
7.7
7.58
7.58
7.58
7.71
7.62
Line Temperature, OF
75
80
69
78
66
82
75
19.0
32
10
17
10
19
11.39
10.04
2.63
2.48
0.380
0.407
11.4?
0.0307
2.0
1.265
2.85
0.848
1.92
0.0322
0.0518
0.446
0.694
1.0725
1.494
2.17
0.0529
i GTT ,
1.292
1.786
1.948
2.62
3.98
4.96
1.288
ReG' Thousands
2,840
2,750
1,268
1,250
681
456.5
2,172
8.26
88.5
67.0
79.2
SO.3
6.31
G II/br /sq ft
155,500
147,307
69,500
68,500
37,400
25,000
90,500
#/br /sq
17:850
191,000
145,000
228,500
173,000
177,000
10,440
20,430
19,200
9,160
9,030
4,930
3,240
12,000
3.73
42.7
67.5
108
149.5
245
Annular
Annular
Annular
Slug
Slug
Experillent. No.
Run No.
MSCFD
l::::.
Gas
Liquid
P (PSI)
l::::.
P (PSI)
X=
APG
ReL~
Thousands
-XLay
G
Type Flow
ft.
105.5
Slug
3.70
Annular
10
11
12
13
14
Run No.
!%
:2
25,552
12,050
11,886
6,474
4,348
7,471.6
9,:338.4
5,484
4,167
6,592
4,970
5,420
627
721
41,333
31,115
41,333
41,333
41,333
3,666
3,666
10.136
10.136
10.136
10.136
10.136
4.026
4.026
975
962
960
952
930
1,087
1,096
946
948
936
936
912
1,067
1,075
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.625
0.625
3.37
3.38
3.32
3.32
3.28
4.31
4.31
6~499
6.525
6.499
6.53
6.103
5.11
5.11
Gas Viscosity, cp
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.0145
0.0145
Liquid Viscosity, cp
0.577
0.58
0.578
0.58
0.589
0.557
0.557
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
4.27
4.27
4.27
4.27
/.... 5
4.98
4.98
7.62
7.58
7.58
7.58
7.71
9.66
9.66
80
69
78
66
82
79
80
29
14
24
16
18
20
21
MSCFD
Bbls/Day
Liquid Density
II/Gal
Line Temperature, of
Two Hla,se
P (PSI)
P (PSI)
9.90
1.94
2.50
0.784
0.404
7.83
11.78
6.. P
2.08
.904
2.876
1.74
1.937
0.298
0.386
0.458
0.705
1.0725
1.49
2.19
0.195
0.181
1.71
2.685
3.1
4.52
6.59
1.60
1.335
ReG' Thousands
2,100
991
977
532
357
1,510
2,020
ReL' Thousands
67.6
51.1
80.7
60.6
61.2
15.8
18.2
14,600 158,000
210,000
Gas
Liquid
(PSI)
6..
~
X=
PG
GTT
G II/hr/sq ft
85,727
40,400
39,800
21,700
L II/hr/sq ft
111,400
84,500
133,300
101,000
110,000
63,600
76,500
11,400
5,320
5,250
2,790
1,890
16,300
21,700
42.3
67.7
108
151
262
21.6
17.55
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug Annular
Annular
?\
L" l(
G
Type' Flow
Annular
Table 1 (Cont)
Experimental Data
Experiment No.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
10
~,979.,~
9,3)8.4
11,767
6,483.5
4,440.7
6,483.5
6,668.0
627
721
192
136
76
136
107
14,790
14,790
11,427
11,427
11,427
10,617
10,617
5.937
5.937
7.750
7.750
7.750
7.750
7.750
1,070
1,076
712
705.5
1,075.5
703
1,067
1,055
1,060
703
703
1,075.0
701.5
1,065.6
0.625
0.625
0.62
.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
4.28
4.28
2.62
2.62
3.99
2.62
3.99
5.11
5.11
6.15
6.15
5.68
6.15
5.68
Gas Viscosity, cp
.0145
0.0145
.0143
.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
L1quid Viscosity, cp
0.557
0.557
0.63
0.63
0.557
0.63
0.557
16.7
16.7
18
18
15
18
15
4.98
4.25
5.17
4.25
5.17
9.66
6.86
6.86
8.82
6.86
8.82
72
73
65
65
69
65
70
15
16
2.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
3.51
6.70
3.50
1.1
0.354
1.022
0.701
0.1685
0.2165
0.00586
0.00328
0.00113 0.003045
0.0019
0.22
0.1795
0.0408
0.0545
0.0564
0.0545
2.06
1.543
1.605
1.506
1.19
1.212
1.462
Rea, Thousands
1,022
1,370
1,330
722
494
722
746
Re , Thousands
L
10.7
1,235
2.67
1.88
1.10
1.88
1.55
a l/br/sq tt
72,300
96,300
71,100
37,800
25,900
37,800
38,900
l/br/sq ft
29,200
35,100
6,310
4,470
2,310
. 4,470
3,250
7,480
10,000
10,350
5,500
2,940
5,500
4,410
Annular
Annular
Wave
Wave
stratified
Wave
Stratified
Run No.
MSCFD
Bb~/Day
Gas Gravi ty
(.A1r~1)
Line Temperature, of
Two Phase
Gas
6. P
P (PSI)
~OTT
/\
(PSI)
LAY
Type Flov
2;
26
27
879
23
Experiment No.
7
Run Noo
24
6,797.9
ll,950
9,476.7
6,483.5
ll,950
9,476.7
102
236
244
136
2.36
244
10,617
ll,313
11,313
22,044
41,317
41,317
7.750
7.750
7.750
7.750
10.136
10.136
1,07;
1,064
1,074
705.;
1,06.3
1,068
1,074
1,062
1,067
701.5
1p55.5
1,058
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.59
3.99
3.99
3.99
2.62
3.99
3.88
;.68
5.68
5.68
6.15
5.68
5.68
Gas Viscosity, cp
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
Liquid Viscosity, cp
0.557
0.557
0.557
0.63
0.557
0.557
15
15
15
18
15
16.7
;.17
5.17
5.17
4.25
5.17
4.65
8.82
8.82
8.82
6.86
8.82
8.7
69
70
69
66
70
69
1.0
2.0
7.0
7.5
10
2.22
1.38
2.12
2.195
0.0074
0.00784
0.00633
0.00791
0.00818
0.0576
0.0753
0.060
.076
1.179
0.95
2.25
1.85
2.66
ReG' Thousands
756
1,340
722
1,023
794
Re L , Thousands
1.48
1.88
2.62
2.71
MSCFD
Bb1s/DaY
Length Line, Ft.
Line Temperature, OF
Two Phase
b..
P (PSI)
0.721
Gas &(PSI)
Liquid
X
L. P
=It::;
6
(PSI)
0.00175
PL
P
G
G #/hr/sq ft
39,600
69,600
55,200
37,800
40,600
31,800
L #/nr/sq ft
3,090
7,150
7,400
4,470
4,170
4,320
4,500
7,900
6,260
5,500
4,610
Wave
Wave
l\
L1\ 1(
6.ll
Type Flow
Stratified Annular
Wave
Stratified
100
/1
tt
~"'d
10
1B2
u.
...J
ID
ID
a
0:: r0
W
f0- e>
f0- IL.
11.
-!
o.1
11.
0::
l&J
II
/
0::
::>
(/)
(/)
l&J
0::
11.
O. 01
0.00 5
0.00 2
0.00 I
20
I(}
1/
I
U.I_
a.
u...
OBSERVED PRESSURE DROPS
FOR OIL
GAS MIXTURES
IN 3" DtAM. FLOW LINES.
;(
I
100
1000
MSCF IN
I
10,000
GAS PHASE
f-IJ
;(
~-
<t
~~
=~~
1/1
)
1/
'-
~L
...J
0--
<t
0::
l-
(/)
..,
I
UJ
>
<t
r-
~
9
o
o
BUBBLE
SLUG
PLUG
ANNULAR
STRATIFIED
SPRAY
\I
f= <t:
z tv 0 <t:
u 0
e>_' "'"
....
....
(j)
.:.
"'W
11..11.
C:O:
- w : cc
~ f ...;"':
o..J
z<.!)
<{
FLOW
co
~
Q..<J
....,t-~
....
Q..
<J
..,
~
u.
o
o
jY
t-
1/
u.
~-il-
..J
I'
1\
0::_
II!
(/)
~I
0::-
::>
...J
~-e-I- ,...:j-
FIG. I
50
<{
/-
GASIONLYI1
0::
UJ
II
ci-
,kJ
-I
0::
...J
11.
II
')/
I 1'Z
::>
CI)
1/
::>
ID
(!)
l&J
I}; ,
0::
u.
0
Ii
oo
0::
l:f \1
~/
I.f-
I-
SS~S.PE~Q~
~!I\ I
I
~
FIG.2
glOO
:::> e
..J
~
al
C
lLJ
~
:::>
<.,)
1<.,)
,-\
FIG. 5
TESTs,~l~
LIQUID HOLD UP IN
TWO PHASE
PIPE LINES
8a'OTPEI~ -...--
-;7
~O
/"
lLJ
~
:::>
..J
>
-s'
10
e
6
y(
lLJ
~
a::
I
!
i
I
I
./
/.
/
<.,)
a::
~
CURVE OF LOCKHART
MARTINELLI FOR I"PIPE
IlLJ
/.
./
I.L.
~k
1~ll
1
.01
I
4
8.1
8 10
X~!:~
30
"kJ
20
FIG.6
SLUG FLOW
EFFE CT OF LIQUID RATE
~"s
f!J~
EI
~'i'--..
10
j'-..."
<t> GTT
0
0
,0.
;-....., . . . Kc?o
f'...- -t;:
1El....
,'=r
~1~
..
~
/,
~r&l
~"~~~
~
. I
~>~
~
.~
&~---1~
~~
~
I.r
10,000
3" PIPE
PI PE
10" PIPE
a"
~, ~B~/(HR)(SQ. FT.)
2
100,000
8 I,OOO,CXXJ
30
FIG. 7
/1
SLUG FLOW
~ f-f-
,r YL--V
/
0.5
~,X'
10
_,0':/ ~.,
000/
~Oy
;;;7
cDGTT
vY'
._-
!.--~
I--~
... /""1
--
.'"
V
7-
~~. ~
o~,
X=
8
0.1
f-
/i
./
00
./
/
~ ,;~~~'~~r,
'(ftr
1.0
Y-d/
1)
v~
;f-~
I/V
~-
/.
~A~L
1.0
)2tl
10.0
FIG. 8
ANNULAR FLOW
~GTT =(4.8-0.3125 D) X 0.343-0.0210
()
10
-1.0
1.0.
0.87"PIPE
4.026" PIPE
1.02"
"
5.937""
EI
3.068" "
7.75"
"
..
10.136" "
9 L -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~--~----~~~~-+-------~--~-~-r-1-~1-~
81--~-----r_-~--~--~_+~_+~~------+_---+_-+__+~~+_~~
7~------~--~1--~--~_+~_+_+1_-------+_---+_-+__+-~+_~~
.01
8 9.1
8 9 1.0
JIO 00
FIG. 10
PLUG FLOW
100
FIG. 9
FROTH OR BUBBLE
FLOW
J7Lt
14.2 X 0.75
L 0.1
(!) 0.87" PIPE
(!J
3" PIPE
Q>GTT-
$GTT=
L
br
/-1
27.315 X
0.855
L 0.17
O.S7"PI PE
I:l 3"
PIPE
-----;-
iJ?~L""'zr
.7P
1,0, ~
Vol
[!)
/ _ I , . - V 10 o
O+ly.~_/
00
~GTT
0
,00'
I~Z~O
00
'"~
.~~+,O,
/~/"
1/
1/1
V~ ./ ~ LOCKHART ~ MARTINELLI
,
i[;~.
I
10
X~APL
APG
-",
I~
'PoO/
~oo
~o~
~~:J-
CURVE
I.
0
07
0
,,00
84 1 //'~
GTT
7/-~/
r----
o+\-?-
~OO'
I!J,
0
'"
\04 d,,1--+t~
10 ,Z
,,"-h
~.
,,/'
~~
Io
LOCKHART
Ii MARTINELLI CURVE
10 o
r--
X -- ~l1PL
l1P
I I
G
10
10
100
FIG. II
WAVE FLOW
1.0.
T.02"
1.02"
"
e
I>
1.02" 56,200
2.068' 6I,OOO"9I,DOO
115" 4,500-7,400
REFEIENCE
31,200
46,100
10.136"
f~~=~~~J;;; ;;;:;J
4
14
STRATIFIED
. ....-
I)
.....
&.
TAILE I
GTT'
8
6
I---LOCKHART 8(rT'rfl'
:
=-
CURVE
.-r
0.1
/-
x~'i ::L
4
10
7,
/r
---- I--j-- - - - - 1---a MARTINELLI CURVE~
LOCKHAR7(
~. fl'"
y/
~-j
1.0
-.--
I.
/'
;/
0.01
6
\
'/
I"5"p:rl1"U.o
.
~".o ~,,~~
~ le&-n- r -e-.,,". :r
I "
I~-T Tff= I
0.01
.l.<
~ ~ "0
./--
fji-ii '::"::j
GTT
):"
1-.
I" PIPE
2"PIPE
8"PIPE
10" PIPE
I/!
1.--( ~
--
FLOW
t>
UtiLE 1
4,110 .
FIG. 12
10
"I
/-.
<j>
-11
.Y
/"
---0.1
--
---<!>
<3>
10