The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA:

Theory and Application

Kjen H. Bendlk.en, Dag Maine., Randl Moe, and Sven Nuland, Inst. for Energy Technology

SPE 19451
Summary. Dynamic two-fluid models have found a wide range of application in the simulation of two-phase-flow systems, particu-
larly for the analysis of steam/water flow in the core of a nuclear reactor. Until quite recently, however, very few attempts have been
made to use such models in the simulation of two-phase oil and gas flow in pipelines. This paper presents a dynamic two-fluid model,
OLGA, in detail, stressing the basic equations and the two-fluid models applied. Predictions of steady-state pressure drop, liquid hold-
up, and flow-regime transitions are compared with data from the SINTEF Two-Phase Flow Laboratory and from the literature. Com-
parisons with evaluated field data are also presented.

Introduction
The development of the dynamic two-phase-flow model OLGA Conservation of Mass. For the gas phase,
started as a project for Statoil to simulate slow transients associat-
ed with mass transport, rather than the fast pressure transients well
a 1 a
-{VgPg)=---(AVgPgvg)+tg+Gg . .............. (1)
known from the nuclear industry. Problems of interest included ter- at A oz
rain slugging, pipeline startup and shut-in, variable production rates,
and pigging. This implied simulations with time spans ranging from For the liquid phase at the wall,
hours to weeks in extreme cases. Thus, the numerical method ap-
plied would have to be stable for long timesteps and not restricted
a 1 a VL
-(VLPL)=---(AVLPLVL)-tg te+td+GL'
by the velocity of sound. at A oz VL+VD
A first version of OLGA based on this approach was working .................................... (2)
in 1983, but the main development was carried out in a joint re-
search program between the Inst. for Energy Technology (!FE) and For liquid droplets,
SINTEF, supported by Conoco Norway, Esso Norge, Mobil Ex- a 1 a VD
ploration Norway, Norsk Hydro A/S, Petro Canada, Saga Petro- -(VDPL)=---(AVDPLVD)-tg +te-td+GD'
leum, Statoil, and Texaco Exploration Norway. In this project, the at A oz VL +VD
empirical basis of the model was extended and new applications
.................................... (3)
were introduced. To a large extent, the present model is a product
of this project. In Eqs. 1 through 3, Vg,VVVD=gas, liquid-film, and liquid-
Two-phase flow traditionally has been modeled by separate em- droplet volume fractions, p=density, v=velocity,p=pressure, and
pirical correlations for volumetric gas fraction, pressure drop, and A = pipe cross-sectional area. t g = mass-transfer rate between the
flow regimes, although these are physically interrelated. In recent phases, te, td=the entrainment and deposition rates, and Gf =
years, however, advanced dynamic nuclear reactor codes like possible mass source ofPhasef Subscripts g, L, i, andD indicate
TRAC,l1 RELAP-5,2 and CATHARE3 have been developed and gas, liquid, interface, and droplets, respectively.
are based on a more unified approach to gas fraction and pressure Conservation of Momentum. Conservation of momentum is ex-
drop. Flow regimes, however, are still treated by separate flow- pressed for three different fields, yielding the following separate
regime maps as functions of void fraction and mass flow only. In ID momentum equations for the gas, possible liquid droplets, and
the OLGA approach, flow regimes are treated as an integral part liquid bulk or film.
of the two-fluid system. For the gas phase,
The physical model of OLGA was originally based on small-
diameter data for low-pressure air/water flow. The 1983 data from a
-(VgPgVg ) = - Vg -
(op) ---(AVgPgVi)-Ag-PglvgIVg
1 a 1
the SINTEF Two-Phase Flow Laboratory showed that, while the at oz A oz 2
bubble/slug flow regime was described adequately, the strati-
fied/annular regime was not. In vertical annular flow, the predicted Sg 1 Sj
pressure drops were up to 50% too high (see Fig. 1). In horizontal x - -Aj-Pglvrlvr- +VgPgg cos a+tgva-FD. ..... (4)
flow, the predicted holdups were too high by a factor of two in 4A 2 4A
extreme cases.
These discrepancies were explained by the neglect of a droplet For liquid droplets,
field, moving at approximately the gas velocity, in the early model.
This regime, denoted stratified- or annular-mist flow, has been in-
a
-(VDPLVD)=-VD -
(op) ---(AVDPLVD)+VDPLg
1 a
cos a
2

corporated in OLGA 84 and later versions, where the liquid flow at oz A oz

may be in the form of a wall layer and a possible droplet flow in
the gas core. VD
This paper describes the basic features of this extended two-fluid -tg Va +teVj-tdVD+FD ...... (5)
VL+VD
model, emphasizing its differences with other known two-fluid
models. Eqs. 4 and 5 were combined to yield a combined momentum equa-
tion, where the gas/droplet drag terms, FD , cancel out:
OLGA-The Extended TwoFluld Model
Pbysical Models. Separate continuity equations are applied for gas, a
-(V P v +VDPLvD)=-(V +VD) -
(op) ---(AV
1 a
P v2
liquid bulk, and liquid droplets, which may be coupled through in- atg g g g oz A oz g g g
terphasial mass transfer. Only two momentum equations are used,
however: a combined equation for the gas and possible liquid 2 1 Sg 1 Sj
+ AVDPL vD) - Ag - Pg Ivg Ivg - - Aj- Pg Ivrl vr -
droplets and a separate one for the liquid film. A mixture energy- 2 4A 2 4A
conservation equation currently is applied.
VL
+ {VgP g + VDPL)g cos a+tg va+t~Vi-tdvD' ... (6)
Copyright 1991 Society of Petroleum Engineers VL+VD

SPE Production Engineering, May 1991 171

 The droplet velocity is similarly defined by
104~-----------------r--~ vD=Vg-VOD cos a, .............................. (10)
"'E /
--
z:
/
/
/
where vOD is the fall velocity of droplets. The interphase velocity,
Vj, is approximated by vL'
Pressure EqUlJlion. OLGA reformulates the problem before dis-
a. / cretizing the differential equations to obtain a pressure equation.
o
L- / This equation, together with the momentum equations, may be
"0
(II
+ 50 Ofo // solved simultaneously for the pressure and phase velocities and thus
L-
:J
VI
""'-./
/
allow a stepwise time integration.
The conservation-of-mass equations (Eqs. 1 through 3) may be
VI /
(II expanded with respect to pressure, temperature, and composition,
L- / assuming that the densities are given as
a. /
"0 / Pf =Pf(P, T, Rs), ................................ (11)
+-
(II /
u / where the gas mass fraction, R s ' is defined by Eq. 17.
"0
(II
For the gas equation (Eq. I), the left side may be expressed as
L-
a.. avgPg=p aVg+VOPg=p aVg+v[(a pg ) ap
at g at g at g at g ap T,Rs at
104
pg pg s
Measured pre ssure drop (N I~) +(a ) aT+(a ) aR ] .................. (12)
aT p, R s at aRs p, T at
FIg. 1-Predlcted pressure drops compared with SINTEF Two- Dividing the expansions (Eq. 12) for each phase by the densities
Phase Flow Laboratory data. Annularmlst diesel/nitrogen and adding the three equations yields a volume-conservation equa-
flow at 9 MPa vertical. () original OLGA; (X) OLGA Includ tion (neglecting the last two terms in Eq. 12 because they normally
Ing a droplet field. are negligible in pipeline transport problems owing to the slow tem-
perature development):
For the liquid at the wall,
Vg (a pg ) 1- Vg (a PL ) ] ap I am g
a
-(VLPLvL)=-V (ap ) ---(AVLPLVl)
L -
1 a
[
-;; a;; T,Rs + --;;;- ap T,Rs a; = a;-
Pg

at az Aaz 1 amL I amD

+ - - + - - ............................ (13)
PL at PL at
Inserting the mass-conservation equations for each phase and ap-
plying Va +VL +VD=l gives

~ a~ Vg (a pg ) + 1- Vg (a PL ) ] ap = __1_ a(AVgPgvg)
-1/Ig va-1/IeVj+1/IdvD-VLd(PL -Pg)g--sin a. [
~+~ Pg ap T,Rs PL op T,Rs at APg az
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
In Eqs. 4 through 7, a = pipe inclination with the vertical and
1 a(AVLPLvL) _1_ a(AVDPLvD) +1/Ig(~-~)
S , SL, and Sj=wetted perimeters of the gas, liquid, and interface. ApL az ApL az Pg PL
the internal source, Gf , is assumed to enter at a 90 angle to the
pipe wall, carrying no net momentum. 1 1 1
+Gg-+GL-+GD- . ........................ (14)
va=vL for 1/Ig>O ................................ (8a)
Pg PL PL
(and evaporation from the liquid fllm),
Eq. 14 provides a single equation for the pressure and phase flux-
va=vD for 1/Ig>O ............................... (8b) es. Note that if the phase transfer term, 1/Ig' is a function of pres-
sure, temperature, and composition,
(and evaporation from the liquid droplets),
1/Ig=1/Ig(p,T,Rs )' ................................ (15)
and va=Vg for 1/Ig<O ............................... (8c)
then 1/1~ may be expanded by a Taylor series in p, T, and RS' as
(condensation).
shown m Eq. 18. A strong effect of pressure on the phase transfer
The above conservation equations can be applied for all flow re-
(boiling) may then be incorporated into Eq. 14.
gimes. Observe, however, that certain terms may drop out for cer-
Energy EqUlJlion. A mixture energy-conservation equation is
tain flow regimes; e.g., in slug or dispersed bubble flow, all the
applied:
droplet terms disappear.
For slug flow, the frictional pressure-drop terms are composite.
They consist of three terms, owing to the liquid slug, the slug bub- :t [mg~g+~vi+gh)+mL(EL +~vl+gh)
ble and the fllm under it, and the liquid-fllm-acceleration pressure

+mD(ED+~VE+gh)]=- :z [mgVg(Hg+~Vi+gh)
drop.
The relative velocity, vr ' is defined by the following slip
equation:
vg=RD(VL +vr ), ......................... (9)
where RD is a distribution slip ratio caused by an uneven distribu- +mLVL(HL +~vl+gh)+mDvD(HD+~VE+gh) ]+Hs+U,
tion of phases and velocities across the pipe cross section, as out-
lined in the next section. ................................... (16)

172 SPE Production Engineering, May 1991

where E=internal energy per unit mass, h=elevation, Hs=
enthalpy from mass sources, and U=heat transfer from pipe walls.
Thermal Calculations. OLGA can simulate a pipeline with a to-
tally insulated wall or with a wall composed of layers of different
thicknesses, heat capacities, and conductivities. The wall descrip-
tion may change along the pipeline to simulate, for instance, a well
surrounded by rock of a certain vertical temperature profile, con-
nected to a flowline with insulating materials and concrete coat-
ing, and an uninsulated riser.
OLGA computes the heat-transfer coefficient from the flowing
fluid to the internal pipe wall; the user specifies the heat-transfer
coefficient on the outside. Circumferential symmetry is assumed;
if this is broken, for example, with a partly buried pipe on the sea
bottom, average heat-transfer coefficients must be specified.
Special phenomena, such as the Joule-Thompson effect, are in-
cluded, provided that the PVT package applied to generate the fluid-
property tables can describe such effects.
Ruid PropertUs and Phase Transfer. All fluid properties (den-
sities, compressibilities, viscosities, surface tension, enthalpies, heat
capacities, and thermal conductivities) are given as tables in pres-
sure and temperature, and the actual values at a given point in time
and space are found by interpolating in these tables.
The tables are generated before OLGA is run by use of any fluid-
properties package, based on a Peng-Robinson, Soave-Redlich-
Kwong, or another equation of state, complying with the specified
table format.
The total mixture composition is assumed to be constant in time
along the pipeline, while the gas and liquid compositions change
with pressure and temperature as a result of interfacial mass trans-
fer. In real systems, the velocity difference between the oil and gas
phases may cause changes in the total composition of the mixture.
This can be fully accounted for only in a compositional model.
Interfacial Mass Transfer. The applied interface mass-transfer
model can treat both normal condensation or evaporation and retro-
grade condensation, in which a heavy phase condenses from the
gas phase as the pressure drops. Defining a gas mass fraction at
equilibrium conditions as
Rs=mgl(mg+mL +mD), ........................... (17)
we may compute the mass-transfer rate as
t/lg=[(iJRs) iJp +(iJRs) iJp iJz
iJp r iJt iJp r iJz iJt
+ (iJRs) iJT + ( iJRs) iJT iJz ](m g+mL +mD)' ...... (18)
iJT p iJt iJT p iJz iJt
The term (iJRsliJp)T(iJpliJt) represents the phase transfer from
a mass present in a section owing to pressure change in that sec-
tion. The term (iJR/iJP)r(iJpliJz)(iJzliJt) represents the mass trans-
fer caused by mass flowing from one section to the next. Because
only derivatives of Rs appear in Eq. 18, errors resulting from the
assumption of constant composition are minimized.
Numerical Solution Scheme. The physical problem, as formulat-
ed previously, yields a set of coupled first-order, nonlinear, ID
partial differential equations with rather complex coefficients. This
nonlinearity means that no single numerical method is optimal from
all points of view. In fact, the codes TRAC,l RELAP, 2
CATHARE,3 and OLGA all use different solution schemes. De-
tails are presented elsewhere. 4
Most two-fluid models, including those listed above, apply fmite-
difference staggered mesh, donor cell methods. In explicit integra-
tion methods, the timestep, ilt, is limited by the Courant Friedrich
Levy criterion based on the speed of sound:
ilt:sminVj{Jlzj/Ivfj cfj I} ......................... (19)
Implicit methods are not limited by Eq. 19, but for dynamic prob-
lems a mass-transport criterion applies:
Jlt:Sminvj{Jlzj/lvfj I} ............................. (20)
SPE Production Engineering, May 1991
. . .:.!!..
Strutified Annular
~
"0
...-----.- ~
2..
Slugl Bubble
v..
Fig. 2-Schematlc of stratified annular mist and slug flow.
Because the speed of sound typically is about 102 to 10 3 times
larger than the average phase velocities, explicit integration methods
require timesteps up to 10 3 times smaller than implicit methods.
Traditionally, most nuclear reactor safety analysis codes (e.g.,
NORA5) applied explicit methods because they are simpler to for-
mulate and code, and the time scales of interest for typical prob-
lems (pressure transients) were given by the speed of sound. Because
of stability problems, however, and the need to simulate slow, small
breaks, implicit methods are now favored.
Flow-Regime Description
The friction factors and wetted perimeters depend on flow regime.
Two basic flow-regime classes are applied: distributed, which con-
tains bubble and slug flow, and separated, which contains stratified-
and annular-mist flow. Because OLGA is a unified model, it does
not require separate user-specified correlations for liquid holdup,
etc. Thus, for each pipeline section, a dynamic flow-regime pre-
diction is required, yielding the correct flow regime as a function
of average flow parameters.
Separated Flow. Stratified- and annular-mist flows are character-
ized by the two phases moving separately (Fig. 2). The phase dis-
tributions across the respective phase areas are assumed constant.
The distribution slip ratio, RD , in Eq. 9 then becomes 1.0. The
transition between stratified and annular flow is based on the wet-
ted perimeter of the liquid film; annular flow results when this
perimeter becomes equal to the film inner circumference.
Stratified flow may be either smooth or wavy. An expression for
the average wave height, hw, may be obtained by assuming that
the mass flow forces in the gas balance the gravitational and sur-
face tension forces, or
(lI2)P g(V g -VL)2=h w(PL -Pg)g sin ex+(u/hw) ......... (21)
1[ piVg-VL)2
orh =-
w 2 2(PL -Pg)g sin ex
4u } ....... (22)
(PL -Pg)g sin ex
When the expression in the square root is negative, hw is zero and
stratified smooth flow is obtained.
The onset of waves starts with capillary waves with wavelengths
of about 2 to 3 mm. As the mass-flow forces increase, surface ten-
sion becomes negligible and gravity dominates, resulting in longer
wavelengths. For air/water pipe flow at 1 bar, the onset of2D waves
corresponds very well with the data of Andreussi and Persen 6
(Fig. 3).
Friction Factors. The applied wall friction factors for gas and
liquid are those of either turbulent or laminar flow (in practice, the
maximum one is chosen), given as
106 )v,]
A1 =0.0055 [ 1+ ( 2X104~
d h
+-
N
................ (23)
Re
173
 0.8.---~--~---r---r--~--~r---~~

400 Val =0.028 m/sec

o Andreussi & Persen'
OLGA
0.6
200 a.
:>
I
"C
'0
.c

zi"'e 100 "C

':;
.!:!'
0.4

~I~
40
0.2

20
O~ __L -__L -__L -__ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __- L__ ~

10~~~--~--~~--~----~ o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

100 Measured liquid hold - up
Vog (m/sec)

Fig. 4-Comparlson between measured and predicted liquid

Fig. 3-Presaure gradient at the transition to 20 waves holdup [diesel and nitrogen horizontal stratified flow at
=
IlL L 0.001 kg/(sec' m), a =-
0.65]. 3 x 10 8 Pa and 30C; (X) OLGA].

and At = 64/NRe , ..... (24) Distributed Flow. As Malnes 11 showed, in the general bubble-
or slug-flow case, the average phase velocities satisfy the follow-
where e=absolute pipe roughness and dh=hydraulic diameter. ing slip relation:
For stratified-mist flow, the wall liquid fraction, wetted
perimeters, and other flow parameters are defined by the wetted vg=RD(VL +vr ), .... (30)
angle, (3, as indicated in Fig. 2. where vr and RD are determined from continuity requirements. For
Wallis 7 proposed the following equation for interfacial friction Vgs=O, Eq. 30 reduces to the general expression for pure slug
in annular flow: flow:
Ai =0.02[1 +75(1- Vg )] , ..... (25)
1- Vg [ VOb]
which has been applied for vertical flow. For inclined pipes, Eq. vg = (lIC )- Vg vL + C (l- V ) .................. (31)
26 is used for annular-mist flow: o o g
Ai=O.02(1+KVL ), ............................... (26) For fully developed turbulent slug flow with sufficiently large
slug lengths (~ lOD), Bendiksen 12 showed that the velocity of slug
where K is an empirically determined coefficient of the form (or Taylor) bubbles, Vb, may be approximated for all inclinations
by
K=K[ ~ '[g(PL ~pg)]J .......................... (27) VB =CO(VsL +Vsg)+VOb, ............................ (32)
_[ 1.05+0.15 cos 2 a for N Fr <3.5
For stratified smooth flow, the standard friction factors with zero where Co - .......... (33)
pipe roughness are used; for wavy flow, the minimum value of Eq. 1.20 for N Fr > 3.5
26 and
Aj=hw/dhj ...................................... (28) _[ vov cos a+vOH sin a for N Fr < 3.5
and vOb - , ........ (34)
are used because Eq. 26 is assumed to yield an upper limit for wavy vov cos a for N Fr > 3.5
flow. Eq. 28 then provides an improved description in the region
where vov and vOH are the bubble velocities in stagnant liquid (ne-
from smooth flow to higher velocities, where Eq. 26 applies.
glecting surface tension) in vertical and horizontal pipes, respec-
Entrainment/Deposition. A droplet field was not incorporated tively:
into the original version of OLGA. Compared with the SINTEF
Two-Phase Flow Laboratory data, the predicted pressure drops in vov=0.35.Jgd ................................... (35)
vertical annular flow were up to 50% too high (Fig. 1). In horizontal
and vOH=0.54.Jgd . ................................ (36)
flow, the pressure drop was well predicted, but the liquid holdup
was too high by a factor of two in extreme cases. For pure bubble flow, Eq. 30 reduces to
For droplet deposition, the following equation for vertical flow Vg=R(VL + VOS) , .... (37)
may be obtained from Andreussi's8 data:
where R= (1- Vg)/(K - Vgs ) .......................... (38)
1/td=~ VDPL2.3XlO_4(PL)0.8(1+ 1 ) ...... (29) and K = 11 Co is a distribution parameter.
d Vg Pg O.I+vsL Malnes 13 gives the average bubble-rise velocity as

For inclined pipes another, extended correlation is applied. gC1(PL -P )] \4

A modified expression is proposed for liquid entrainment based vos=1.18 [ pi g [(1-Vg)lcos al]~ .......... (39)
on that of Dallman et al. 9 for vertical flow and Laurinat et al. 10
for horizontal flow. with positive values upward.

174 SPE Production Engineering, May 1991

 - -lines of constant ap/az 9 o Stratified flow
x Slug flow
20r-----r---------,----------.--------,-,
10r---~-------+-------+~~---r_;
V Annular flow
4.0
.
]
I:. Dispersed flow

>-
!::
u
o..J
W
>
o
:::J
o
:::; 0.1 1-~-+--__n ___+_,.....rw-+,.tT----____1___t
..J
<
U
u:
Q:
w
a..
:::J
Superficial gas velocity Imlsl Cf)

00
FIg. S-Pressure gradient (- - -) and slug-flow boundaries com- o.0020'-:.0~2----:0:L.l:--------~----.lL...--!;10:---lL...----l~OO:;;-;:;l200
pared with OLGA predictions (-ClpIClz: -'- slug-flow bound-
aries) for horizontal flow. (Diesel and nitrogen at 3 MPa and SUPERFICIAL GAS VELOCITY (m(s)
30C.)
Fig. 6-Flow-reglme transitions from Ref. 17 compared with
Using Gregory and Scott's14 data, Malnes ll proposed the fol- OLGA [2 upward InClination, 2.5-cm 10: (-) OLGA flow-
lowing equation for the void fraction in liquid slugs: regime transition].

Vsg+VsL
Vgs= , ............................... (40)
C+Vsg+VsL
where C is a constant detennined empirically and the void fraction
is limited upward.
This correlation (Eq. 40) is applied for small-scale systems only.
For high-pressure, large-diameter pipes, another set of empirical
correlations based on the data from the SINTEF Two-Phase Flow
Laboratory was used.
The total pressure drop in slug flow consists of three terms:
(iJzliJp) = (lIL)(i1ps +i1pb +i1pac), ................... (41)
where i1ps=frictional pressure drop in the liquid slug, i1pb=
frictional pressure drop across the slug bubble, and i1pac=acceler-
ation pressure drop required to accelerate the liquid under the slug
bubble, with velocity vLb up to the liquid velocity in the slug, vLS
(i1pac=O at present). L is the total length of the slug and bubble.
These terms are dependent on the slug fraction, the slug bubble
void fraction, and the fIlm velocity under the slug bubble. The void
fraction in the slug bubble, Vgb, is obtained by treating the flow
in the fIlm under the slug bubble as stratified or annular flow. This
is further described by Malnes, 11 who gives additional equations.
For slug flow, the wall friction terms will be more complicated
than shown in Eqs. 6 and 7 because liquid friction will be depend-
ent on Vg and the gas friction on vL'
Flow-Regime Transitions. As stated, the friction factors and wet-
ted perimeters are dependent on flow regime. The transition be-

Val = 0.0083 m/s

=0.0083 m/s
,,
Val I
a =0 a = 1.15
400 400 I
,
I
0.20
I
I

-
I
,
-
I I
...E
-
I
...E 300 0.15

-c.1
I
/0 I
,
,,
z I ~ Z I 0 ~
I ...
I

c.IN
I

N
-0 .0 ,i>
0.10 '0-0
200 I
I
.10
r;f I
I

I 0
I
/
0.05 / 0.05
0"

O~~~ _____~~_____~~~O
10 20 30 o 10 20 30
Vog (mi.)
Vog (mi.)

Fig. 7-Comparlsons of pressure and liquid holdup-OLGA Fig. a-Comparisons of pressure and liquid holdup-OLGA
predictions (-) and Crouzler's measurements (10 0.045 m: = predictions (-) and Crouzler's measurements (10 0.045 m; =
stretlfled pressure drop: slug pressure drop; 0 strati- stretlfled pressure drop: slug pressure drop: 0 stretl-
fied holdup; t. slug holdup). fled holdup; t. slug holdup).

SPE Production Engineering, May 1991 175

 Fig. 4 (from Ref. 16) compares predicted and measured holdup
for stratified flow for diesel and nitrogen at 3 x 10 6 Pa and 30C.
The predictions are generally within 10 %.
V. L =0.0083 m/s I Fig. 5 compares OLGA-predicted pressure gradients and slug-
a =2.86- I
I
flow boundaries with data from the SINTEF Two-Phase Flow Lab-
400 0.20 oratory. The predictions are quite good, although the pressure drop
I " 0 in the aerated slugs is somewhat low.
I
10
I
Barnea et al. 17 measured flow patterns for air/water flow in
horizontal and inclined tubes at near-atmospheric conditions for
...E I

-z
0.1 N
0,'
I
I
I
I 0.15
.;
-
I
1.95- and 2.55-cm diameters. Fig. 6 shows a typical example of
predicted flow regime transitions compared with the experimental
flow map for +r inclination .
Crouzier 18 measured pressure drop and holdup in horizontal and
-0 -0
200 I 0.10 upwardly inclined pipes for air/water at near-atmospheric pressures
I in a 4.5-cm tube.
01
I In Figs. 7 through 9, OLGA predictions are compared to Crou-
0/ zier's data. The calculated and measured pressure drop and hold-
100 0,.' 0.05 up generally agree quite well, considering the spread in data. The
o " flow-regime transitions are observed when the holdup calculations
" for slug flow cross the predictions from stratified/annular mist. The
regime with minimum holdup is that predicted by OLGA, and the
o 0 agreement is quite good.
o 10 20 30 The pressure drop from sluglbubble to stratified-/annular-mist
V", (m/s) flow experiences a discontinuity at upsloping angles, which is justi-
fied partly by the experiments.

Fig. 9-Comparlsons of pre88ure and liquid holdup-OLGA
predictions (-) and Crouzler's measurements (10 0.045 m;
stratified pre88ure drop; A slug pre88ure drop; 0 strati-
fied holdup; I::.. slug holdup).
tween the distributed and separated flow-regime classes is based
on the assumption of continuous average void fraction and is deter-
mined according to a minimum-slip concept. That is, the flow re-
gime yielding the minimum gas velocity is chosen. Wallis 15
empirically found a similar criterion to describe the transition from
annular to slug flow very well. This criterion covers the transitions
from stratified to bubble flow, stratified to slug flow, annular to
slug flow, and annular to bubble flow.
In distributed flow, bubble flow is obtained continuously when
all the gas is carried by the liquid slugs (when the slug fraction,
F s, approaches unity). This occurs when the void fraction in the
liquid slug, VgS ' becomes larger than the average void fraction, Vg
The stratified-to-annular flow transition is obtained when the wave
height, hw (Eq. 22) reaches the top of the tube (or SL =71-D).
Comparison With Steady.Stat. Experiments
OLGA has been compared with data from different experimental
facilities, covering a wide range of geometrical sizes, fluid types,
pressure levels, and pipe inclinations. The bulk of the data was ob-
tained from experiments at the SINTEF Two-Phase Flow Labora-
tory. These unique data have increased our confidence in the applied
two-phase models. A detailed description of the experimental fa-
cilities is presented in Bendiksen et al. 16
Comparison With Dynamic Experiments
= The OLGA model has been compared with data from two differ-
ent types of experimental setups. Schmidt et al. 19 performed ex-
periments at laboratory conditions with a pipeline ID of 5.08 cm
at atmospheric pressure. The SINTEF Two-Phase Flow Labora-
tory has been producing data for gas and oil in 19-cm-1D pipes with
total lengths of 450 m at pressures up to 10 MPa (Fig. 10).
Terrain-Slugging Data. Terrain slugging is a transient flow type
associated with low flow rates. It may, for instance, be observed
in pipelines where a downsloping pipe terminates in a riser. The
slugging is initiated by liquid accumulating at the low point. Refs.
19 and 20 give more detailed descriptions of the phenomenon.
SINTEF Two-Phase Row Laboratory Data. The test section of
the SINTEF laboratory is sketched in Fig. 10; further details are
given in Refs. 16 and 21. In the reported experiments, the fluids
applied were diesel oil and nitrogen.
One terrain-slugging flow map obtained with OLGA is shown
in Fig. 11 for a system pressure of 3 MPa. The agreement with
the experimental map is quite good, although the OLGA predic-
tions are somewhat conservative for low liquid superficial veloci-
ties. Note that OLGA can properly distinguish between the two types
of terrain slugging (1, II) with or without aerated slugs.
Data of Schmidt et aI. This nitrogen/kerosene low-pressure loop
included a nearly horizontal pipe and a vertical riser test section
of 30- and 15-m lengths, respectively, and 5-cm diameters. Schmidt
et al. 's19 test matrix was reproduced for downsloping pipes, par-
ticularly for -5, inclination. The results are shown in Fig. 12,
where the solid lines are the results of the OLGA simulations. Fig.

Mixing
point Pressure reference (ine

1
334m

Fig. 10-Plpe geometry of the SINTEF Two-Phase Flow Laboratory (1983) (. single-beam
densitometer; differential pressure transmitter).

176 SPE Production Engineering. May 1991

 3.0
o Terrain slugging I N
240
~ 4 AI E
E 2.5 x
t:. TerrQin slugging II --z 210
-
.g
"ii
>-
2.0 0 -- "-
8,x
x No terrQin slugging "'0

X I
/
I
,,
,.

>
t:. '4x a.. 180 ,I
I
"0
.:;
.2"
1.5 ,
'x llJ
a:: I
I
I

0 A' => I
'\i (/)
(/)
150 I
I

u1:1 1.0 i J X llJ

a::
,
I

...
00-

XI
I a.. 120
I

8.
.... " '"
::I
(/) 0.5
_)So ....
x

0 380 400
0 3.0
SuperficiQI gQS velocity (m/s)

FIg. 11-Terraln-slugglng flow map from the SINTEF Two- 225

Phase Flow Laboratory. TerraIn sluggIng I (-) and II (- --)
boundarIes predIcted by OLGA. NE
--
z
"'0
)(

1~~--------------------~ a..
SEVERE SlUGGING 1 llJ
o SEVERE SLUGGING 11 a::
A TRANS TO SLUGGING =>
(J)
~ (J)
z CJ 0 w
..... CJ CJ a::
to + +++ ..... a..
.0 10
E
::I
c::: Il. + + M

>- 75
..
:t:
0
u 300
>
II
::I FIg. 13-Pressure oscillatIons of severe sluggIng 19 for flow
.Il" rates-N II" = 1.5 and N to = 3.6, the upper In the horIzontal
~
line and the lower In the rIser (- - experImental values; -
0. + + M M M M OLGA; _.- OLGA predIctIon wIth refined mesh).

able to simulate the time evolution of holdup and the pressure

response to the inlet conditions (Figs. 16 through 20). The pre-
Ga. velocity number, N.. dicted time response is good, but slightly too slow.

FIg. 12-Rlser flow-pattern map wIth - 5 pIpeline Inclina-
tIon 18 ( - OLGA predIctIons).
13 compares experimental and predicted pressure oscillations in
the horizontal line and at the bottom of the riser for one particular
experiment.
Transient Inlet-Flow Data. The dynamic experiments in the SIN-
TEF laboratory with time-dependent inlet flow rates were performed
with a completely horizontal flowline terminating into the riser22
(see Fig. 14). The fluids were naphtha and nitrogen. The inlet liq-
uid superficial velocity was kept constant at 1.08 mis, while the
superficial gas velocity was increased from 1.0 to about 4.2 mls
in a period of 20 seconds (Fig. 15).
The increase in the gas flow rate results in a decrease in the liq-
uid holdUp. This discontinuity in liquid holdup tends to be smeared
out and broken up into slugs as it travels along the pipeline. The
OLGA model applies a mean-slug-flow description but clearly is
Excerpts of Comparisons Against Field Data
To test the extrapolation capabilities of OLGA, a separate study
was performed, comparing this model with evaluated field data. 4
The results of one of these studies, the Vic Bilh-Lacq oil/associated-
gas line, are presented here. This is an onshore field of relatively
heavy crude in southwestern France.
The pipeline is 43.8 km long and has a 25 .1-cm ID, and an ab-
solute roughness of 0.03 mm. Flow conditions are characterized
by low superficial liquid velocities of about 0.17 mls and superfi-
cial gas velocities ranging from 0.02 to 0.4 mls. See Refs. 23 and
24 for further details. The inclines are very steep, resulting in up-
sloping sections almost filled with oil and downsloping ones near-
ly filled with gas. Because of the very low velocities, the pressure
drop is dominated by gravity in the upsloping parts, with a slight
recovery in the downsloping parts.
Pressure-drop data are reported along the pipeline at four loca-
tions for a pressure at Lacq of 1.7 MPa and a flow rate of 700
m 3 /d, which has been assumed to represent a total mass flow of
7.28 kg/so In Table 1, the results from OLGA (Version 87.0) and

SPE Production Engineering, May 1991 177

 (""I --457
Distance from
mixing point
rml Ap
4 --429
0I 10I 49
I
130 178 299 328
I
I
.
I I I
I
I

-
I
.:. ~
-
I
'-:J -~07
l .......
)

Ap

Fig. 14-Test section of the SINTEF TwoPhase Flow Laboratory for the dynamic Inlet ex
perlments (. liquid holdup measurements; A absolute pressure recordings).

:2:::: :::1
600 620 6'1>
TIME IS)
660 680 700
li~E~"~~
580 600 620 640
TIME IS I
660 680 700

Fig. 15-Superflclal-gas-veloclty recordings for the dynamic

i{l~~~~'~~
Inletflow experiments at the SINTEF Two-Phase Flow Labo-
ratory (-applied In OLGA).

i~1;~'~S;;~
580 600 620 640 660 680 700
TIME 151

Fig. 17-L1quldholdup racordlngs In the riser compared with

OLGA (-) at locations 7 and 29 m from the riser bottom.
0.1 L---L_L--'--_'---'-----''---'----'_--'---'_--L---l
580 600 620 640 660 680 700
TIME IS)

;j:f:~:Sq;,&;d i!tl~lj~ "~,,.,.~ 6 3 . 0 ' - - - - ' - - - - - ' ' - - - - - '_ _---..1_ _---..1_ _--..1
500 550 600 650 700 750 800
TIME lSI
580 600 620 640 660 680 700
TIME 151
Fig. 18-Absolute pressure recorded 10 m from the mixing
point compared with OLGA (-).

..
::>
1.2
10
sure drop from PEPITE is even lower than the OLGA values, or
~
0
:I: 28% too low.
Q The discrepancies were found to result from the terrain profIle
::>
0
::; 02
reported by Lagiere et al. being too coarse. Table 2 shows new,
0
substantially improved results from OLGA based on a more de-
580 600 620 640 660 680 700 tailed pipeline profIle obtained from TOTAL.
TIME lSI

Fig. 16-l.lquldholdup recordings In the horizontal compared
with OLGA (-) at locations 49, 178, and 299 m from the mix
Ing point.
the steady-state model PEPITE23 are compared with the measured
values using the terrain profJIe reported by Lagiere et al. 23
The pressure drop calculated by OLGA is 15 % too low, whereas
the reported PEPITE calculations are extremely good. To check
the input data, an available PEPITE version was run with the same
input data used in OLGA. As can be seen from Table I, the pres-
Conclusions
The OLGA model was presented, with emphasis on the particular
two-fluid model applied and the flow-regime description. The im-
portance of including a separate droplet field was discussed. Ne-
glecting the droplet field in vertical annular flow was shown to
overpredict pressure by 50% in typical cases.
Closure laws are still, at best, semimechanistic and require ex-
perimental verification.
The OLGA model has been tested against experimental data over
a substantial range in geometrical scale (diameters from 2.5 to 20
cm, some at 76 em; pipeline length/diameter ratios up to 5,000;

178 SPE Production Engineering, May 1991

 45.!
40.
35.
oS 30. 0

.8 25.
20.
15.
10.
500 550 600 750 800
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 TIME (51
TIME (51

Fig. 20-The pressure difference over the riser compared with

Fig. 19-Pressure difference over a part of the horizontal line OGLA (-) (the pressure difference Is recalculated as equiva-
compared with OLGA (-). lent liquid height).

and pipe inclinations of -15 to +90), pressures from 100 kPa R = slip ratio
to 10 MPa, and a variety of different fluids. RD = distribution slip ratio
The model gives reasonable results compared with transient data Rs = gas/oil mass ratio
in most cases. The predicted flow maps and the frequencies ofter- S = perimeter, m
rain slugging compare very favorably with experiments. Sf = wetted perimeter, Phase J, m
The model was also tested on a number of different oil and gas t = time, seconds
field lines. The OLGA predictions are generally in good agreement !J.t = timestep, seconds
with the measurements. The Vic Bilh-Lacq oil/associated-gas line T = temperature, C
was a good test case because of the extremely hilly terrain and low U = heat transfer per unit volume, J/m 3
flow rates, which imply that, to obtain a correct pressure drop, the v = velocity, m/s
liquid holdup prediction must be very accurate. The pressure drop Vb = velocity of large slug bubble, m/s
predicted by OLGA was 6.85 MPa compared with a measured drop VF = volumetric fractions (F=g, L, D)
of 6.8 MPa. z = length coordinate, m
The actual number of available field lines where the fluid com-
!J.z = mesh size, m
position and line profIle are sufficiently well documented for a
a = angle with gravity vector, rad
meaningful comparison is, however, stilllirnited. Further verifi-
(3 = angle, rad
cation of this type of two-phase flow models is clearly needed.
e = absolute roughness, m
Nomenclature A = friction coefficient
p. = viscosity, kg/m' s
A = pipe cross-sectional area, m 2 P = density, kg/m3
c = speed of sound, mls q = surface tension, N/m
C = constant if; = mass-transfer term, kg/m 3 . s
Co = distribution slip parameter Subscripts
d = diameter, m ac = acceleration
E = internal energy per unit mass, J Ikg b = bubble
FD = drag force, N/m 3 d = droplet deposition
Fs = slug fraction, Ls/(LB+Ls) D = droplet
g = gravitational constant, mls 2 e = droplet entrainment
G = mass source, kg/sm 3 f = Phase f(G,L,D)
h = height, m F = friction
hf = average fIlm thickness, m g = gas
H = enthalpy, J/kg h = hydraulic
Hs = enthalpy from mass sources, J/kg H = horizontal
K = coefficient, distribution slip parameter hi = hydraulic, interfacial
L = length, m i = interfacial
mD = VDPL> kg/m3 = laminar
mg = VgP g , kg/m3 L = liquid
mL = VLPL' kg/m3 r = relative
N = number s = superficial
N Fr = Froude number S = slug
N Re = Reynolds number t = turbulent
p = pressure, N/m 2 V = vertical
IIp = pressure drop, N/m 2 w = wave

TABLE 1-COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED PRESSURE DROPS

ON THE VIC BILH-LACQ PIPELINE

Length Measurement PEPITE OLGA

Section (km) (bar) Reported (bar) Actual (bar) (bar)
--- 17.7
Vic Bilh-Claracq 8.7 18 16.9 15.5
Claracq-Morlanne 21.1 31 30.9 22.0 24.4
Morlanne-Lacq 14.0 19 18.4 12.7 15.9
Vic Bilh-Lacq 43.8 68 66.2 50.2 58.0
Terrain profile from Laglere et 81. 23

SPE Production Engineering, May 1991 179

 Authors TABLE 2-COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED
PRESSURE DROPS ON THE VIC BILH-LACQ PIPELINE
K.H. Bencllksen Is WITH NEW PROFILE
head of the Dept.
for Fluid Flow and Length Measurement OLGA
Gas Technology at Section (km) (bar) (bar)
IFE at Kjeller, Nor ---
Vic Bilh-Claracq 8.7 18 18.6
way. He holds an Claracq-Morlanne 21.1 31 32.4
MS degree In phys- Morlanne-Lacq 14.0 19 17.5
Ics and a PhD Vic Bilh-Lacq 43.8 68 68.5
degree In fluid
mechanics from
the U. of Oslo, 10. Laurinat, J.E., Hanratty, T.J., and Dallman, J.C.: "Pressure Drops
Maines Bendlksen where he Is also a and Film Height Measurements for Annular Gas-Liquid Flow," Inti.
professor of ap- 1. Multiphase Flow (1984) 10, No.3, 341-56.
plied fluid mechan- 11. Maines, D.: Slug Flow in Vertical, Horizontal and Inclined Pipes,
Ics. His technical IFEIKRIE-83/002 (1983).
Interests Include 12. Bendiksen, K.H.: "An Experimental Investigation of the Motion of Long
research, develop- Bubbles in Inclined Tubes," Inti. 1. Multiphase Flow (1984) 10, No.
ment, and promo- 4,467-83.
tion of multlphase 13. Maines, D.: "Slip Relations and Momentum Equations in Two-Phase
transportation Flow," IFE Report EST-I, Kjeller (1979).
technology In the 14. Gregory, G.A. and Scott, D.S.: "Correlation of Liquid Slug Velocity
offshore 011 and gas and Frequency in Horizontal Co-Current Gas-Liquid Slug Flow, AlChE.
Industry. He has 1. (1969) 15, No.6, 933.
been In charge of 15 . Wallis, G.B.: One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow, McGraw Hill Book
Moe Nuland the OLGA devel- Co. Inc., New York City (1969).
opment project 16. Bendiksen, K. et aI. : "Two-Phase Flow Research at SINTEF and IFE.
since Its start In 1980. D Maine., a senior research scien- Some Experimental Results and a Demonstration of the Dynamic Two-
tist at IFE, has been working with two-phase flow, heat trans- Phase Flow Simulator OLGA," paper presented at the 1986 Offshore
fer, and dynamic simulation for 30 years. He holds MS and Northern Seas Conference, Stavanger.
Dr. Ing. degrees In mechanical engineering from the Nor- 17. Bamea, D. et al.: "Flow Pattern Transition for Gas-Liquid Flow in
wegian Inst. of Technology. Randl Moe Is a senior physicist Horizontal and Inclined Pipes," IntI. 1. Multiphase Flow (1980) 6,
at IFE, working on physical and numerical modeling of mul- 217-26.
tlphase flow. She holds an MS degree In fluid flow from the 18. Crouzier, 0.: "Ecoulements diphasiques gaz-liquides dans les conduites
U. of Oslo. Sven Nuland Is chief engineer at IFE, where he faiblement inclinees par rapport a I'horizontale," MS thesis, I'Univer-
Is working on multlphase flow problems, both experiments sit6 Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris (1978).
and modeling. He has been working on the OLGA project 19. Schmidt, Z., Brill, J.P., and Beggs, H.D.: "Experimental Study of
since 1980. He holds an MS degree from the U. of Oslo. Severe Slugging in Two-Phase-Flow Pipeline-Riser System," SPEI (Oct.
1980) 407-14.
20. Bendiksen, K., Maines, D., and Nuland, S.: "Severe Slugging in Two-
W = wall Phase Flow Systems," paper presented at the third Lecture Series on
o = relative zero liquid flow at infInity Two-Phase Flow, Trondheim, IFE Report KRIE-6, Kjeller (1982).
21. Norris, L. etal.: "Developments in the Simulation and Design of Mul-
Reference. tiphase Pipeline Systems," paper SPE 14283 presented at the 1985 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
1. TRAC-PFI An Advanced Best Estimate Computer Program for Pres- 22. Linga, H. and 0stvang, D.: "Tabulated Data From Transient Experi-
surized Water Reactor Analysis, NUREG/CR-3567, LA-994-MS (Feb. ments With Naphtha," SINTEFIIFE project, Report No. 41 (Feb. 1985).
1984). 23. Lagiere, M., Miniscloux, C., and Roux, A.: "Computer Two-Phase
2. RELAP51MODI Code Manual Volume 1: System Models and Numeri- Row Model Predicts Pipeline Pressure and Temperature Profiles, " Oil
cal Methods, NUREG/CR-1826, EGG-2070 (March 1982). and Gas 1. (April 1984) 82-92.
3. Micaelli, J.C.: 1987 CATHARE an Advanced Best-Estimate Codefor 24. Corteville, J., Lagiere, M., and Roux, A. : "Designing and Operating
PWR Safety Analysis, SEThiLEML-EM/87-58. Two-Phase Oil and Gas PipeIines," Proc., 11th World Pet. Cong., Lon-
4. Bendiksen, K., Espedai, M., and Maines, D.: "Physical and Numeri- don (1983) SP 10.
cal Simulation of Dynamic Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines with Appli-
cation to Existing Oil-Gas Field Lines," paper presented at the 1988 81 Metric Conversion Factors
Conference on Multiphase Flow in Industrial Plants, Bologna, Sept.
27-29.
bar x 1.0* E+05 Pa
5. Maines, D., Rasmussen, J., and Rasmussen, L. : A SOOrt Description bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol m3
of the Blowdown Program, NORA SD-129, IFE, Kjeller (1972). ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
6. Andreussi, P. and Persen, L.N.: "Stratified Gas-Liquid Flow in Down- ft2 x 9.290 304* E-02 m2
wardly Inclined Pipes," Inti. 1. Multiphase Flow (1987) 13, 565-75. ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 m3
7. Wallis, G.B.: "Annular Two-Phase Flow, Part I: A Simple Theory," OF (OF-32)/1.8 C
1. Basic Eng. (1970) 59. in. x 2.54* E+OO em
8. Andreussi, P.: "Droplet Transfer in Two-Phase Annular FloW," Inti. lbf x 4.448222 E+OO N
1. Multiphase Flow (1983) 9, No.6, 697-713. Ibm x 4.535 924 E-Ol kg
9. Dalhnan, J.C., Barclay, G.J., and Hanratty, T.J.: "Interpretation of
Entrainments in Annular Gas-Liquid Flows," Two-Phase Momentum, Converslon factor is exact. SPEPE
Heat and Mass Transfer, F. Durst, G.V. Tsildauri, and N.H. Afgan Original SPE manuscript received for review Jan. 4, 1989. Paper (SPE 19451) accepted
(eds.). for publication Dec. 11,1990. Revised manuscript received April 30, 1990.

180 SPE Production Engineering, May 1991