Simulation of Multiphase Fluid-Hammer Effects During Well Startup and Shut-In
Simulation of Multiphase Fluid-Hammer Effects During Well Startup and Shut-In
Simulation of Multiphase Fluid-Hammer Effects During Well Startup and Shut-In
=−
1 (
∂ AVg ρ gν g )− 1 ∂ ( AVL ρ Lν L )
2
Riser Configure/update
model
Wellhead Flowline
Seabed
Qg,o,w pbh
pbh Qg,o,w
Reservoir/Completion
No
Generic Offshore Production System If converged?
A typical offshore production scheme, as shown in Fig. 1, is used
in the study. It consists of a topside platform, riser, flowline, tubing Yes
(wellbore), and well completion. The flow system in the study
takes the following into consideration: Finish
• Three locations are available for choke installation: the plat-
form, the wellhead, and the bottom hole. Fig. 2—Explicit coupling of subsurface and surface models.
• Packers are usually installed to avoid the produced hydro-
carbon flowing through the annulus.
• A long transportation flowline might exist between the well- ervoir model, and the reservoir model calculated the flow rate of
head and the topside platform. each phase at the interface. The flow rates could be positive or neg-
ative depending on the flow directions. The setup enabled a cyclic
To describe the inlet boundary condition accurately and to jus- pressure to be present in the wellbore once the fluid flowed back
tify the advantage of using an integrated approach for simulation and forth in the near-wellbore region (Zhang et al. 2009, 2010).
of various well flow transients, Hu et al. (2007) dynamically cou- A flow model (shown in Fig. 3) with the input data presented
pled a wellbore flow model with a near-wellbore reservoir model, in Table 1 is used in this study. Taking into account that packers
and presented an iterative simulation workflow, as shown in Fig. 2. are generally installed in a typical offshore production system, the
Bottomhole pressure is represented as pbh, and Qg,o,w represents the annulus flow is not considered in this work. The side of the valve
flow rates of gas, oil, and water, respectively. During the simula- connecting to the reservoir is referred to as the “front side,” and the
tion, the wellbore model provided the pressure boundary to the res- side of the valve connecting to the separator/platform is referred
to as the “backside.” Further, the valve is placed at the platform, if
not specified.
Platform Valve
Modeling Well Startup and Shut-in
Test
In the well shut-in process, the valve front-side pressure increases
Separator suddenly until it reaches a balance with the reservoir static pressure.
Wellhead
Pipeline
Wellhead
Valve
Water cut 0%
bo
ell
4.5 900
4.0 600
3.5 300
Startup Setting pressure
3.0 0
6.5 2100
6.0 1800
5.5 1500
5.0 1200
4.5 900
Pressure, front of valve
4.0 600
Pressure, back of valve
3.5 300
Flow rate
3.0 0
17,999.8 18,000 18,000.2 18,000.4 18,000.6 18,0008.8 18,001
(b)
Time, seconds
Fig. 4—(a) Typical in-situ pressure/flow-rate trends near valve vs. time in well-start-up process, and (b) amplification of plots of in-
situ pressure/flow-rate trends near valve vs. time during the pulse.
On the backside of the valve, because the valve cuts off the supply, valve is opened and lasts less than 0.5 seconds), the front-side pres-
the pressure increases suddenly as the choke closes, and then it de- sure decreases monotonically, whereas the backside pressure in-
creases continuously as momentum removes the fluid downstream. creases monotonically until it balances the front-side pressure.
A pressure wave (depending on the lengths of flowline and riser Afterward, both the front-side and backside pressures decline si-
downstream) can be observed. This leads to a pressure difference multaneously (i.e., after a time of 18,000.2 seconds), as illustrated
on both sides of the valve. In the well-startup process, the backside in Fig. 4b.
pressure reaches a peak value close to simultaneously, which leads Identifying the Impacting Factors. Taking the same generic
to a maximum flow rate. As the front-side pressure decreases grad- model, we perform sensitivity analysis on parameters of flow rate,
ually, the pressure difference of the valve reduces gradually, and gas/oil ratio (GOR), pressure drawdown, and operation period. The
eventually stabilizes. The flow rate declines correspondingly, and results are summarized in Table 2, which shows that
it finally reaches a stable value. This process starts from a transient • The valve pressure difference reaches its peak simultaneously
condition and ends as a steady-state scenario. with well startup.
In the well-startup process, the fluid-hammer effect is not as se- • The amplitude is proportional to the pressure drawdown in a
vere as in the well-shut-in process, because the unsteady-state flow ratio range of 0.6 to 0.7.
rate acts as the kicking factor in the transient period. On the con- • Correspondingly, the flow rate reaches its peak once the valve
trary, in the well-shut-in process, the kicking factor is the pressure pressure difference is at maximum. The amplitude can be up
difference between the two sides of the valve. to 20+ times greater than the stabilized rate. As the drawdown
or GOR increases, the ratio of flow-rate peak/stabilized values
Well-Startup Process. Characteristics of Well Startup. Taking the increases.
previously developed model, after we shut in the well for 5 hours • Because the operation time of well startup is shorter, the pres-
with the valve installed at the wellhead, a stabilized system is es- sure peak and flow-rate peak are higher. However, once the op-
tablished. Next, the well starts production in a short time period of eration time is larger than a tolerance value (20 seconds in this
10 seconds. The production pressure drawdown is 2.5 MPa. The case), the influence is not dominant.
steady production rate is calculated to be 600 m3/d. The valve pres- • Because the values for flow rate, fluid GOR, operation time,
sure and flow rate vs. time, which were measured at the wellhead, and pressure drawdown are greater, the stabilization time is
are shown in Fig. 4a. longer.
When the valve is first opened, the flow rate reaches the peak
value, and the amplitude is approximately two times greater than Well-Shut-In Process. Characteristics of Well Shut-In. Unlike
that of the stable rate. During the pulse (which occurs when the the well-startup process, an afterflow effect can be observed in the
Stabilization Time
Pressure Peak/ Flow-Rate Peak/ After Startup
Drawdown Setting Flow Rate (seconds) Remarks
3 3 3
Flow rate, Q (m /d) 100 0.71 12.43 1100 GOR=0 std m /std m
Δt=10 seconds
666 0.62 2.07 1100 Δp=1.2 MPa
3 3
GOR (std m /std m ) 0 0.62 3.64 400 Δp=2.18 MPa
3
10 0.66 14.01 2500 Q=100 m /d Δt=10 seconds
Valve operation time, 1 0.72 9.42 2500 3 3
GOR=10 std m /std m
Δt (seconds)
20 0.68 8.42 2500 Δp=2.18 MPa
3
30 0.66 8.25 2500 Q=100 m /d
40 0.64 8.00 2500
60 0.64 7.75 2500
120 0.62 7.57 2500
3 3
Drawdown, Δp (MPa) 1.2 0.704 2.33 350 GOR=0 std m /std m
3
2.18 0.701 4.12 366 Q=666 m /d
12.22 0.588 22.9 450 Δt=1 second
well-shut-in process. This flow is associated with wellbore stor- When the valve is first closed, the backside pressure has a cyclic
age. When a well is first shut in, flow from the formation into the pattern of pressure surge, and the amplitude is less than that of the
wellbore bottom hole continues (even unabated) until compression front-side pressure shock. After 5 minutes (300 seconds), the front-
of the fluids in the wellbore causes the bottomhole pressure to rise. If side pressure stabilizes. For the backside pressure oscillation, the
the wellbore fluid is highly compressible and the well rate is low, the amplitude decreases gradually, and disappears completely after a
afterflow period can be long. Conversely, high-rate wells producing longer period―10 minutes (600 seconds).
little gas have negligible afterflow periods, and, consequently, could Identifying the Impacting Factors. Taking the same generic
introduce a strong hammer effect. This pressure surge transmits from model, we perform sensitivity analysis on parameters of flow rate,
both sides of the valve. For a producer, the shock is absorbed in large GOR, pressure drawdown, and operation period. The results are
part by the reservoir tank; therefore, the front-side hammer effect is summarized in Table 3, which shows that
not as cyclic as the backside effect, but it is much stronger. • After the shut-in, the front-side pressure increases quickly;
Taking the previously developed model, after the well produces however, the backside pressure increases gradually in a cyclic
for 2 hours, it establishes a stabilized production system. Next, this pattern caused by the afterflow effect. The maximum ratio of
well is shut in by the valve at the wellhead for a short period of the surge peak is approximately 1.0 to 1.5 times that of the
10 seconds. The production pressure drawdown is 2.18 MPa. The pressure drawdown.
steady production rate is calculated to be 600 m3/d. The valve pres- • The operation period of shut-in has a strong influence on
sure and flow rate vs. time are shown in Fig. 5. hammer effects. The faster the shut-in period, the worse the
Stabilization Time
Pressure Peak/ After Startup
Drawdown (seconds) Remarks
3 3 3
Flow rate, Q (m /d) 100 1.22 650 GOR=0 std m /std m
Δt=10 seconds
666 1.52 650 Δp=1.2 MPa
3 3
GOR (std m /std m ) 0 1.12 650 Δp=2.18 MPa
3
10 1.04 650 Q=100 m /d Δt=10 seconds
Valve operation time, 1 1.18 600 3 3
GOR=10 std m /std m
Δt (seconds)
20 1.02 650 Δp=2.18 MPa
3
30 1.01 650 Q=666 m /d
40 1.01 650
60 1.01 650
120 1.01 650
3 3
Drawdown, Δp (MPa) 1.2 1.44 600 GOR=0 std m /std m
3
2.18 1.27 600 Q=666 m /d
12.22 1.05 600 Δt=1 second
0.9
0.7
18,000 18,002 18,004 18,006 18,008 18,010
Time, seconds
Fig. 5—Typical in-situ pressure trends near valve vs. time in well-shut-in process.
pressure surge will be. However, in this case, once the time the ratio of pressure peak to drawdown decreases as the draw-
is longer than 20 seconds, the pressure surge does not play down increases, the pressure peak still increases.
a role.
• A period of 10 minutes is required for production-system stabi- Modeling Well Startup and Shut-in With a Different
lization in the typical production system. Well Scheme
• Because the values for fluid GOR, operation time, and pres- Different Valve Locations. A valve can be placed at different lo-
sure drawdown are greater, the stabilization time is longer. The cations: bottom hole, wellhead, or platform. Using the previous
results are similar to those of the well-startup study, but high model, the hammer effects can be compared in Figs. 6 through 9.
flow rates lead to severe hammer effects. Note that although The study shows that
6.5 700
6.0 600
Pressure, front of valve
4.0 200
3.5 100
3.0 0
7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000
Time, seconds
Fig. 6—Pressure surge at separator upon different location of the valve (well startup).
17
Bottomhole Pressure, MPa
15
14
18,000 18,020 18,040 18,060 18,080 18,100
Time, seconds
Fig. 7—Bottomhole-pressure surge upon different location of the valve (well startup).
0.95
Shutin at bottom hole
0.9 Shutin at wellhead
Shutin at platform
0.85
0.8
7,200 7,220 7,240
Time, seconds
Fig. 8—Pressure surge at separator upon different location of the valve (well shut-in).
17.5
Bottomhole Pressure, MPa
16.5
14.5
7,200 7,700 8,200 8,700 9,200 9,700
Time, seconds
Fig. 9—Bottomhole-pressure surge upon different location of the valve (well shut-in).
• In the well-startup process, opening the valve at the platform Figs. 11 and 12 further illustrate that the lengths of the riser
could create a large cyclic pressure pulse. While placing the and the flowline, respectively, have a stepwise effect on atten-
valve at the well bottom hole or the wellbore could also intro- uating pressure oscillations because of the increased system
duce a cyclic pressure shock, it is relatively compromising in volume. Therefore, the damping effect is proportional to the
these locations. length of the riser or the flowline. Comparing Figs. 11 and 12
• In the well-shut-in process, placing the valve at the platform confirms that the presence of a flowline can help reduce pres-
creates the greatest negative impulse on the separator. On the sure shock by diverting and buffering the shock wave. The kinks
contrary, placing the valve at the well bottom hole or the well- shown in Fig. 12 demonstrate that the diverting effect dominates
head provides a tolerable pressure shock, which has less possi- for a short flowline (i.e., with a length less than 1 m), while the
bility to damage equipment. Because the afterflow effect plays buffering effect becomes more predominant for a long flowline
a role wherever the valve is placed, the bottomhole pressure al- (i.e., with a length greater than 100 m) with the same riser con-
ways builds up monotonically and reaches the balance quickly. dition. For flowline with length ranging between 1 to 100 m, the
diverting effect is the dominant factor in shock attenuation. We
Different Flowline Setups. The design of a long distance flowline believe this observation is a result of the special diverting ef-
on a seabed is a major challenge of offshore production systems. fect arising from the perpendicular angle of the fluid-flow direc-
Apart from fluid-hammer effects, other flow-assurance aspects tion and the original hammer transmission direction. As shown
have been well noticed compared with onshore completions. These in Fig. 12, the diverting effect has a steeper slope than that of
aspects include mineral (inorganic) scaling, gas hydrates/wax/as- the buffering effect. Figs. 10 and 12 suggest that even the pres-
phaltenes organic scaling, liquid loading/slugging, pipeline pig- ence of a relatively short flowline can effectively reduce water-
ging, and emulsion. hammer effect.
Simulating the previous case with the flowline deactivated and
activated helps to identify how the presence of a flowline can affect Packer Effects. Packers are installed commonly as a characteristic
the amplitude of the pressure peak and its attenuation time. Figs. 10 of an offshore production system. Taking the same model from Fig.
through 12 demonstrate that the presence of a flowline can reduce 6, we uninstall the packer. The investigation of the pressure at the
the hammer effect dramatically. This supports the concept that a same location is shown in Fig. 13.
flowline can work as a special pressure oscillation “damper” during Comparing Fig. 13 with Fig. 8, it is clear that the pressure oscil-
well startup or shut-in. The longer the flowline is, the more signifi- lation becomes attenuated in connecting with the annulus, which
cant the damping effect, as presented in Fig. 10. develops a large system volume as a buffer to absorb the oscil-
0.6
18,000 18,010 18,020 18,030 18,040 18,050 18,060
Time, seconds
Fig. 10—Sensitivity study of horizontal-flowline length to impact pressure oscillation at separator (shut-in).
lations. The gas occupying the annulus is the key factor in ab- Conclusions
sorbing pressure shock resulting from sudden shut-in. It is also A dynamic, integrated wellbore/flowline (and riser) flow model
found that the setting of the valve location does not affect the pres- was built and used to study the flow-assurance aspect of fluid-
sure oscillations. hammer effects, which requires attention especially for offshore
1.2
1
Pressure at Separator, MPa
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Length of Riser, m
Fig. 11—Pressure shock variations at different riser lengths. The valve is placed at the platform (shut-in).
1.6
1.4
Pressure at Separator, MPa
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Length of Flowline, m
Fig. 12—Pressure shock variations at different flowline lengths. The valve is placed at the platform (shut-in).
1.24
7,200 7,220 7,240
Time, seconds
Fig. 13—Pressure surge at separator upon different location of the valve without packers installed (shut-in).