Leporini 2019

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 175 (2019) 519–535
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol
On the numerical simulation of sand transport in liquid and multiphase T

pipelines
Mariella Leporinia,∗, Alessandro Terenzib, Barbara Marchettic, Francesco Corvarod,
Fabio Polonarad,e
a
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
b
Saipem, SpA, Italy
c
University degli Studi e-Campus, Como, Italy
d
University Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
e
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Construction Technologies Institute, Viale Lombardia 49, San Giuliano Milanese, (MI), 20098, Italy
A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Sand deposition in pipelines represents one of the problems that can arise in oil and natural gas production and
Sand deposition transport. The main problems that sand can cause include the pipeline obstruction with the relative production
Flow assurance loss, the increase of the lines erosion and corrosion and the compromising of the structural integrity. Moreover,
Oil and gas there is a limit in the amount of sand that can be separated and removed. Therefore, methods and strategies to
Multiphase
reduce the production of sand are key factors for safety and economic risks. In general sand deposition problems
occur in different flow systems such as sand–multiphase mixtures of gas-oil-water or two-phase mixtures. In
order to elaborate an effective method able to predict the amount of sand and to have a reliable prediction of
sand transport velocity and entrainment processes, several factors requires to be considered, including sand
characteristics, sand concentration, flow regimes, fluid properties and pipe properties.
This paper presents the results of a detailed testing on the performance of a new sand transport model
implemented in one-dimensional dynamic multiphase code, performed by comparing numerical results with
experimental data. This study deals with both liquid-solid flow as well as gas-liquid-solid flow. The results
demonstrate a good agreement between numerical and experimental data for the sand-liquid flow and sand
transport in stratified gas-liquid flow, while show that for the sand transport in gas-liquid slug flow improve-
ments are necessary.
1. Introduction formation sand grains, pore pressure reduction could lead to disin-
tegration of sand particles (Dabirian et al. 2016a,b). Sand deposition
In oil and gas field operations, deposition of solid particles and/or can occur both in single phase (oil or gas) and multiphase (oil-gas)
water into transport pipelines is very common and can cause significant pipelines (Zorgani et al., 2018).
flow assurance problems during the production phase (Giacchetta et al., The principal strategies implemented in the oil and gas industry to
2017). In particular, the deposition of any form of products can lead to resolve the problem of sand deposition in pipelines can be categorized
the pipeline section reduction with a significant loss of production into two main groups: sand deposit removal and sand deposition pre-
(Dall’Acqua et al., 2017). One typical kind of deposit which causes flow vention (Rahmati et al., 2013). The removal is carried out through
assurance problems is sand normally produced from near wellbore mechanical devices called pig, a solid object with the diameter smaller
formation when the forces binding the sand particles are lessened or than the pipeline inner diameter, which passes through the pipeline to
absent. Various causes of sand production can be identified: sand pro- scrape off the sand deposit driven by the pressure difference between its
duction in a well depends on the degree of consolidation of the sand head and tail. However, mechanical pigging can not be utilized without
particles, high reservoir fluid viscosity flowing into a well may lead to a proper sand deposition prediction: if the deposit thickness is too thick,
sand production due to the frictional drag force being applied to the the pig can go stuck inside the pipeline making the situation worse,
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mariella.leporini@polimi.it (M. Leporini), Alessandro.Terenzi@saipem.com (A. Terenzi), barbara.marchetti@uniecampus.it (B. Marchetti),
f.corvaro@univpm.it (F. Corvaro), f.polonara@univpm.it (F. Polonara).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.12.057
Received 1 March 2018; Received in revised form 3 December 2018; Accepted 20 December 2018
Available online 26 December 2018
0920-4105/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Leporini et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 175 (2019) 519–535
2. Mathematical modelling
The most common transient thermo-hydraulic simulation program

for multiphase flow in pipelines used in the Oil and Gas field, named
OLGA (by Schlumberger) (Giacchetta et al., 2014), implements a new
model of solid transport in multiphase flow. This model incorporates
the physics of suspended particle load, as well as the bed load for
particle balance, concentration, velocity, and mass suspension. It con-
siders formation of a bed as well as cross-sectional distribution of the
particles between the different fluid layers, in addition to the axial
particle transport (Schlumberger, 2016).
In this model, conservations equations are solved for the mass of
particles in two fields: the particles suspended in the fluid layers, and
the particles in the bed. The bed layer consists of two sub-layers: a static
Fig. 1. Sand flow regime in horizontal pipelines. part (called stationary bed) and a moving part (called moving bed or
bed load).
while if the deposit is too thin, the mechanical pigging can not scrape For the suspension, conservation equations are solved for the total
off all the precipitated wax. Another removal technique to avoid the mass of suspended particles. This makes it possible to account for
intrusion of sand into the pipeline is the use of down-hole sand exclu- mixing of particles between the oil, water and gas layers. The en-
sion systems such as gravel packs and screens; however, these techni- trainment and deposition rates of the particles determine the size of the
ques may cause a significant loss in productivity. For these reasons, the bed, while the porosity of the bed (available as user input) determines
development of sand deposition prevention strategies has become a the amount of fluid trapped in the bed. It is suggested by code devel-
conventional method for the exploitation of the oil & gas resources. opers to use a bed porosity value equal to 0.35 (Schlumberger, 2016).
A good sand deposition prevention technique is, of course, based on The model assumes that the fluid does not flow through the stationary
the proper prediction of the behavior of the sand particles in single and bed. Particles are assumed to be fully dispersed in the three phases (gas
multiphase conditions in order to properly predict the sand transpor- layer, oil layer and water) at pipeline inlet. The particles velocity is
tation flow regime and the critical sand deposition velocity. In fact, a defined using a drift velocity or slippage defined as the velocity of the
production system affected by sand and correctly designed operates particles relative to the velocity of the carrier phase. Only gravity in-
above the critical sand deposition velocity, and solid particles are dis- duced slippage is considered, and therefore particles flowing horizon-
persed in fluid phases (considering the critical sand deposition velocity tally will move with the velocity of the carrier phase if no deposition is
defined as the mean stream velocity required to prevent the accumu- considered. The vertical slippage between particles and fluid, Vsl, is
lation of a layer of sliding particles at the bottom of horizontal pipe). calculated depending on the Reynolds number; for laminar flow
Basically, four flow regimes can be identified for the solid-liquid slurry (Re < 3), Eq. (1) is solved (Schlumberger, 2016).:
flows in horizontal pipe (Fig. 1): static bed (stationary bed), moving bed 2
(moving dunes), saltation (heterogeneous flow), suspension (homo- Vsl = 0.32673 (ρs − ρf ) ⎛ ds μ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
f (1)
geneous flow). ⎝ ⎠
According to Dabirian et al. (2015), the same classification can be where ds is the particle diameter, ρs is the density of the solid particles,
adopted also for multiphase pipelines under stratified flows, with two ρf is the density of the fluid, μf is the viscosity of the fluid, Vsl is the slip
additional sub-patterns of dilute solids at the walls and concentrated velocity (Bourgoyne et al., 1991). The Reynolds number for particles is
solids at the wall. However, the four classic sand flow regimes remain based on Vsl and particle diameter: Re= (ρf Vsl ds/μf). For transitional
the predominant. The transition between the flow regimes is identified flows (3 < Re < 300), the empirical correlation for Vsl is defined by
by a critical velocity. Different definitions of the critical velocity exist. Eq. (2), while for fully developed turbulent flows (Re > 300), the
Thomas (1964) introduced the minimum transport condition (MTC) as empirical correlation for Vsl is represented by Eq. (3):
“the mean stream velocity required to prevent the accumulation of a
Vsl = 0.7086 ds (ρs − ρf )0.667 (ρf μf )−0.333 (2)
layer of sliding particles at the bottom of horizontal pipe”. Wood (1979)
and other authors defined the deposit velocity as the limit velocity for
the stationary bed. Various authors like Stevenson and Thorpe (2003), ⎡ (ρs − ρf ) ⎤ 0.5
Vsl = 2.9452 ⎢ds ⎥
such as Salama (2000), Dabirian et al. (2016a), defined the critical ρf (3)
⎣ ⎦
deposition velocity as the transition velocity between the deposit and
The particles velocity in a layer is linearly scaled down to zero when
non-deposit flow regimes. The various definitions of the critical velocity
the concentration in the layer is between 0.7 and 0.8. The viscosity of
have been introduced by many authors on their classification of sand
the fluid is corrected due to the suspended particles. For this, the
flow patterns. The standard classification used in the oil and gas in-
Krieger-Dougherty correction (Krieger and Dougherty, 1959) factor is
dustry is the one proposed by Thomas (1964). In general, the transition
used:
velocity depends on main factors, including, sand characteristics (size
and shape), pipeline properties (diameter, inclination and roughness), μf θ ⎞ −2.0025
= ⎛1 −
flow regimes, and fluid properties. μ0 f ⎝ 0.75 ⎠ (4)
The present study presents a numerical sensitivity on the main
factors influencing sand transport in solid-liquid flow, a reproduction of where θ is the volume fraction of suspended particles in the fluid.
the liquid-solid flow regime map including reference transition velo- As introduced, there are three equilibrium conditions of the particle
cities and a detailed multiphase solid-gas-liquid flow modelling. In transport mode: static bed (particles do not move at all), bed load (some
particular, this paper reports the results of a detailed testing on the of the bed is moving but no particles entrained in the fluid layer above
performance of a new sand transport model implemented in one-di- the bed), and suspended load (some or all of the particles are entrained
mensional dynamic multiphase code, performed by comparing numer- in the fluid layers). The code models the incipient condition of sus-
ical results with experimental data. pension as the point where the shear velocity at the bed surface be-
comes greater than the settling velocity of the particles in the fluid in
contact with the bed:
520
1
2
⎡ 4gdp ⎛ ρp ⎞⎤
VM 2 = 17 ⎢ − 1⎟ ⎥
3CD ⎜ ρf (12)
⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦
where the subscript p refers to the particle.
In addition, it is very close also to the definition of critical sus-
pension velocity UC proposed by Danielson (2007):
5
9
⎡ ⎛ ρp ⎞⎤
UC = Kv−1/9dp1/9 ⎢gD ⎜ − 1⎟ ⎥
ρf (13)
⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦
where D is the pipe diameter and K is an experimentally determined
constant, equal to approximately 0.23 based on SINTEF data.
3. Simulated cases description
In this section, the studies relating to both sand-liquid and sand-gas-

liquid flow simulated in this study and, therefore, the main input data
Fig. 2. Forces acting on a particle (Schlumberger, 2016). for the OLGA model are described.
3.1. SINTEF data

τf
v∗ = > Vsl cos(α )
ρf (5) Danielson's (Danielson, 20017) experimental work aimed to study
∗ the critical condition of sand slurry flow under different fluid condi-
where τf is the shear stress and v is the shear velocity of the fluid at the
tions:
bed surface. On the other hand, the incipient condition of bed load is
• Gas phases: air, nitrogen, SF6

calculated doing a balance of the forces acting on a particle as shown in
• Liquid phases: Exxsol D80, water. Table 1 gives the properties of

Fig. 2.
In Fig. 2, FL is the lift force, FD is the drag force, FB is the buoyancy
Exxsol D80 and water at experimental conditions.
force, FG is the gravity force, α is the pipe inclination and Φ is the angle
of repose. The effects of normal (Ni) and friction (fi) forces are neglected
Table 2 presents the test matrix of the study.
at the initiation of the rolling of the particle. The angle of repose is
defined as the steepest angle of descent or dip relative to the horizontal
3.2. Cranfield data
plane to which a material can be piled without slumping (usually taken
equal to 30°).
Yan (2010) and Al-lababidi et al. (2012) presented experimental
For the particle to move upwards, the following condition needs to
works to investigate the sand transport characteristics and identify the
be satisfied at the contact point P1:
sand minimum transport condition (MTC) in sand–water and sand–
FL sin(Φ) + FD cos(Φ) > (FG − FB )sin(Φ+α ) (6) air–water flows in horizontal and +5 deg inclined pipelines at Cran-
field University.
For the particle to move downwards, the following condition needs The used sand volume fraction, Cv, ranged from 1.61 × 10−5 up to
to be satisfied at the contact point P2: 5.38 × 10−4. These are typical sand concentrations experienced in oil
pipelines (0.000005–0.00005 v/v, 5lb/1000bbl―50lb/1000bbl).
FL sin(Φ) + FD cos(Φ) < − (FG − FB )sin(Φ−α ) (7)
Sometimes, the maximum sand concentration can reach 200lb/1000bl
The forces are calculated as follows: (i.e. 0.0002 v/v) and even 500 lb/1000bbl (i.e. 0.0005 v/v) due to shut
down or maintenance.
1 Two pipe sizes have been tested: 2in and 4in. The 2 inch sand-air-
FG = ρ gπ ds 3
6 s (8)
water facility is designed and constructed using ABS plastic (Class E)
pipe of 50 mm inner diameter (2 inch). The pipe length is 17 m. The 4
1
FB = ρ gπ ds 3 inch multiphase test facility is designed to operate under different
6 f (9)
multiphase flows, with and without sand. For the experimental in-
vestigations conducted, air-water is used as the test fluid with and
du
FL = 1.615uds 2 μf ρf without sand. The test section is made of 4 inch (ID = 0.1 m) stainless
dy (10) steel (SS316 L) pipes totaled 40 m in length. Table 3 presents the test
matrix of the studies.
1 Yan (2010) and Al-lababidi et al. (2012) conducted experiments
FD = CD ρf u2ds 2
8 (11)
with different liquids: water, CMC (Carboxy Methyl Cellulose) solutions
where u is the fluid velocity in the velocity sub-layer above the bed and (7, 20 cP) and oil (105, 200, 300 cP). CMC is a water-soluble polymer
CD is the drag coefficient. Here, the Saffman's model (Johnson, 1998) is used in synthetic detergents, drilling fluids, textiles, cosmetics, etc.
used for the lift force.
It should be noticed that the physical meaning of v* is the same of Table 1
the VM2 defined by Govier & Aziz (Govier and Aziz, 1972) as the ve- Measured fluid properties for Exxsol D80 and water.
locity at and above which the mixture flows in the asymmetric sus- Density (kg/m3) Viscosity (cP) Surface Tension (mN/m)
pension pattern; the velocity below which solids form a moving bed on
Exxsol D80 Water Exxsol D80 Water
the bottom of the pipe. In particular, VM2 is calculated by the authors
through the following Eq. (12) based on the semi-theoretical analysis of 795.3 999.8 2.17 1.33 34.4
Newitt et al. (1955):
521
Table 2 available in literature relating to the solid-gag-liquid flow regime. Task

SINTEF experimental test matrix. 1 has been carried out in order to verify the model with respect to solid-
Variable Range Units liquid mixtures pipeline flow data. In particular the Task 1 has been
split into two sub-activities: Task 1.1 and Task 1.2.
Pipe inner diameter 0.069 m
Loop length 215 m
4.1.1. Task 1.1. sensitivity on main factors influencing sand transport
Particle size 280 μm
Sand concentration, Cv 0.3 v/v
On the basis of the considerations made above, a sensitivity on the
Superficial gas velocity, uSG 0.1–8.0 m/s main factors influencing the sand transport has been carried out. To do
Superficial liquid velocity, uSW 0.01–2 m/s this, experimental data found in literature have been used. In parti-
Maximum pressure 8 bara cular, the following parameters have been investigated:
1 Sand concentration
Table 3
2 Pipeline properties: diameter, inclination
Cranfield experimental test matrix.
3 Fluid flow rate
Variable Range Units 4 Sand properties (size)
5 Transporting medium properties: viscosity and density
Pipe diameter 2, 4 in
Particle size 200 μm
Particle density 2650 The studies of Danielson (2007) and Yan (2010) have been con-
Sand concentration, Cv 0.000005–0.00005 v/v sidered complete and suitable for the scope of Task 1.1 and they have
Superficial gas velocity, uSG 0.02–10 m/s been reproduced by OLGA code.
Superficial liquid velocity, uSW 0.05–1 m/s
4.1.2. Task 1.2. reproducing liquid-solid flow regime map including

3.3. Tulsa data reference transition velocities
During the Task 1.2, the liquid-solid flow regime map including
Dabirian et al. (2016a,b; 2017) presented a comprehensive study of reference transition velocities has been reproduced on the basis of the
sand flow regimes in air e PAC (Polyanionic cellulose) water stratified simulations carried out in Task 1.1. In particular, the generalized phase
flow in horizontal pipelines for various sand concentrations up to diagram for suspension transport in liquid-solid flow shown in Fig. 3
10000 ppm. Six sand flow regimes have been observed, namely, fully and reported in the fundamental book of Govier and Aziz (1972) has
dispersed solid flow, dilute solids at wall, concentrated solids at wall, been reproduced.
moving dunes, stationary dunes and stationary bed. Critical sand de-
position velocities have been determined based on the transition be- 4.2. Task 2. multiphase solid-gas-liquid flow regime
tween moving (concentrated solids at wall/moving dunes, as appro-
priate) and stationary (stationary dunes/bed, as appropriate) sand Task 2 has been devoted to the simulations of the multiphase solid-
particles. The viscosity of water has been increased to 5 cP by using PAC gas-liquid flow regime. In order to do this, the main experiment relating
to investigate the effect of viscous sublayer. The experiments have been to the sand transport and deposition in multiphase lines have been si-
carried out in a multiphase flow loop with 0.097-m PVC pipe, built at mulated. In particular, the following works have been considered sui-
the University of Tulsa, which utilizes glass beads representing the solid table for Task 2:
particles. The experimental conditions have been selected to ensure that
the particles are transported in the 0.097-m pipe in a stratified flow • Yan (2010) and Al-lababidi et al. (2012). Yan's work is the PhD
regime. To ensure stratified flow, the experiments are conducted at
superficial liquid velocities of 0.05, 0.1 and 0.12 m/s and superficial gas
velocities ranging from 6 m/s to 15.5 m/s. Table 4 presents the test
matrix of the studies.
4. Materials and methods
In this section, the main important tasks carried out during the
present activity are summarized.
4.1. Task 1. solid-liquid flow regime
Task 1 covers the study of the solid-liquid flow regime. In fact, it

was decided to investigate also this important aspect of the sand
transport and deposition in addition to the simulation of the data
Table 4
Experimental test matrix.
Variable Range Units
Pipe inner diameter 0.097 m

Particle specific gravity 2.475 –
Particle size 45-90, 125–250, 425-600 μm
Sand concentration, Cv 250–10000 ppm
Superficial gas velocity, uSG 5.5–15.5 m/s
Superficial liquid velocity, uSW 0.05, 0.1, 0.12 m/s
Liquid viscosity 5 cP
Fig. 3. Usual solid/liquid two phase flow patterns (Govier and Aziz, 1972).
522
From the above results, it is possible to note that there is very little
influence of pipe angle on sand bed hold-up in the sand-liquid flow, as it
was found also by other authors (Yan, 2010).
It is important to point out that the default values of the OLGA sand
transport model have been used for the angle of repose (30°) and fluid
diffusivity factors and a bed porosity value equal to 0.35 has been as-
sumed, as suggested by OLGA developers. Due to the fact that the bed
porosity affects the volume of the bed, the sand holdup has been
evaluated in two ways: it has been plotted the relative OLGA output
variable (volume fraction of bed layer calculated by OLGA) and has
been calculated through the output variable height of the bed (h in
Fig. 5) by applying Eq. (14):
AS
HS =
APIPE (14)
Fig. 4. Danielson (2007) sand-water experiments. OLGA results vs experi- where HS is the sand holdup, AS is the area occupied by the sand and
mental data. sand holdup vs superficial water velocity. APIPE is the pipe section area. AS has been evaluated by Equations (13)
and (14) depending on the cases shown in Fig. 5. The same results have
thesis on which Al-lababidi's work is based. Al-lababidi's study has been obtained.
been indicated as an open data set used by OLGA's developers to As = r2 (π-2δ) + r sinδ (h-r) (15)
validate the sand transport model implemented in the code
• As = δ r - r sinδ (r-h)
2
University of Tulsa (Dabirian et al. (2016a,b; 2017) (16)
The SINTEF solid-liquid experiments also include pressure gradient

5. Results and discussion information. A plot of the measured vs. predicted pressure gradient by
OLGA is given in Fig. 6; a good fit to experimental data can be observed.
In this section, the results obtained for the Tasks indicated in pre- As outlined also by Danielson (2007), Fig. 6 shows an interesting
vious paragraph are presented. feature, which is that the slope pressure gradient with respect to flow
rate is negative from USL = 0, where USL is the superficial water ve-
5.1. Task 1. solid-liquid flow regime locity, to roughly USL = 0.47, i.e. the transition velocity (equivalent
pressure drop concept (Yan, 2010). When USL increases above 0.47,
5.1.1. Task 1.1. sensitivity on main factors influencing sand transport then the slope pressure gradient becomes positive. A negative slope of
5.1.1.1. SINTEF data. Danielson (2007) reported sample data obtained pressure gradient with respect to flow rate is known to cause unstable
at SINTEF laboratory for sand hold-up as a function of superficial water behavior in multiphase flow, resulting in what is called terrain slugging
velocity, at inclination angles of −1.35°, 1.00°, and 4.00° from – the periodic accrual of liquid which is then pushed out of the system
horizontal. Measurements of both the sand bed height and the as a large slug. This has obvious analogy to the formation of moving
pressure drop have been reported by Danielson. The same dunes in sand-liquid flow. At very low rates of USL (about USL = 0.2 m/s
experimental conditions have been simulated by OLGA sand transport in the SINTEF data), the sand bed stabilizes, perhaps due to the tran-
model. sition from turbulent to laminar flow above the bed.
Fig. 4 shows the comparisons between experimental data and pre- It can be concluded that the experimental data presented in the
dictions from OLGA. The numerical results obtained by OLGA of the Danielson work and obtained at SINTEF multiphase laboratory, relating
sand-hold up for different liquid velocities are in excellent agreement to sand-liquid transport, are in perfect agreement with the numerical
with the experimental data. From Fig. 4, it can be seen that the sand bed results obtained by OLGA sand transport model.
begins to form at the critical carrying velocity of the liquid, which
appears, from the figure, to be at approximately 0.47 m/s. It is apparent
5.1.1.2. Cranfield data. In Yan (2010) and Al-lababidi et al.’s (2012)
from Fig. 4 that once the sand bed starts to form, the increase in sand
works, experimental complex data related to both sand-liquid and sand-
hold-up as a function of decreasing water velocity is quite linear.
gas-liquid flow in 2inch and 4inch pipes are presented. In this section,
Table 5 shows the comparisons between experimental data and
the comparisons between OLGA numerical results and experimental
predictions from OLGA for the horizontal pipe case. Also in this case,
data are presented for the sand-liquid case.
the calculated values agree well with the experimental ones.
Before to show the results, it is important to point out that Yan
(2010) and Al-lababidi et al. (2012) adopted the definition of King et al.
Table 5
Danielson (2007) sand-water experiments. OLGA results vs experimental data.
(2000) for the sand minimum transport condition (MTC): “the mean
horizontal case. sand holdup for various superficial water velocity. stream velocity required to prevent the accumulation of a layer of
sliding particles on the bottom of horizontal pipe”. This definition is
usw h (OLGA) HOLs (OLGA) HOLs (EXP) Δ
different from the one provided by Salama (2000) and Govier and Aziz
m/s m – – % (1972) for the suspension or deposition critical velocity. Yan (2010)
0.10 0.047 0.75 0.77 2.60 and Al-lababidi et al. (2012) evaluated the MTC by visual method.
0.15 0.042 0.65 0.68 4.41 Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9 show the comparisons be-
0.20 0.038 0.58 0.58 0.00
tween experimental data and predictions from OLGA in terms of sand
0.25 0.032 0.47 0.47 0.00
0.30 0.027 0.38 0.38 0.00 flow regimes for different sand concentrations (5, 15, 50, 100, 200 and
0.40 0.017 0.20 0.19 5.26 500 lb/bbl) for the 2inch case. Both the numerical and experimental
0.47 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 results are related to both horizontal and +5° inclined pipes as a con-
0.50 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 firm that in gas-liquid flow there is very little influence of the pipe
0.60 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
inclination. OLGA always predict a transition between suspension flow
0.70 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.80 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 regime to moving bed flow regime at a liquid velocity of 0.29–0.30 m/s
and this one can be considered the critical velocity, different from the
523
Figure 5. Cases for the calculation of HOLs.
Table 7, Tables 8 and 9, it can be observed that for liquid velocities

equal to 0.29–0.30 m/s, i.e. the critical suspension velocity predicted by
OLGA, the experiments show the transition from “Scouring sand dunes
with less particles moving” to “Less particles moving”, a transition very
close to the one simulated by OLGA from suspension to moving load.
Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12 show the comparisons between
experimental data and predictions from OLGA in terms of sand flow
regimes for the 4inch case and for the same sand concentrations (5, 15,
50, 100, 200 and 500 lb/bbl) of the 2inch case. Also in this case, the
numerical and experimental results are the same for both the horizontal
and +5° inclined pipes as a confirm that in gas-liquid flow there is very
little influence of the pipe inclination. For the 4inch case, OLGA always
predict a transition between suspension flow regime to moving bed flow
regime at a liquid velocity of 0.32–0.33 m/s and this one can be con-
sidered the critical velocity, different from the MTC definition (see
Table 13).
Fig. 6. Danielson (2007) sand-water experiments. OLGA results vs experi- Once again, there is not correspondence between the experimental
mental data. horizontal case. pressure gradient vs superficial water velocity. data and the numerical results because they refer to different meanings
of the transition velocity. However, it can be observed that OLGA
Table 6 predicts that the critical velocity increases slightly for uphill flows,
Cranfield data. Experimental results 1. 2in sand-water horizontal and +5° in- according to what experimentally found by Shook and Roco (1991).
clined flow. OLGA results vs experimental data. Flow regime vs liquid super- In order to investigate the liquid viscosity effect on sand transport
ficial velocity. characteristics, Yan (2010) conducted experiments with different li-
quids: water, CMC (Carboxy Methyl Cellulose) solutions (7, 20 cP) and
usw Sand Concentration = 50 lb/1000 bbl
oil (105, 200, 300 cP).
OLGA Sand Regime Exp Sand Regime Table 14 shows the comparisons between experimental data and
predictions from OLGA in terms of experimental observed sand
m/s – –
minimum transport velocities (MTC) and numerical critical deposition
1 Suspension Suspension
0.90 Suspension Suspension velocity predicted by OLGA for the 4inch case and for different sand
0.80 Suspension Suspension concentrations (50 and 200 lb/bbl) and fluid viscosities. From Table 14,
0.70 Suspension Suspension it can be seen that there is not agreement between the experimental
0.60 Suspension Suspension MTC and the numerical critical velocity for the motivation explained
0.55 Suspension Moving streaks (MTC)
0.47 Suspension Dense sand streaks
above. Moreover, it can be noticed that critical velocity predicted by
0.45 Suspension Small dunes OLGA is the same for the cases with water and CMC solutions (all cases
0.40 Suspension Developed sand dunes with turbulent flow).
0.35 Suspension – When the flow became laminar (three cases with oil), the sand
0.30 Suspension –
minimum transport velocity and the critical velocities decrease as the
0.29 Moving bed –
0.25 Moving bed – fluid viscosity increase. This is due to the increasing shear force acting
0.20 Moving bed – on the sand particles from the liquid and the decreasing settling velocity
0.15 Moving bed – of sand particles due to the high viscous fluid. In particular, the main
0.10 Stationary bed – reason for decreasing the critical velocity with increasing viscosity is
0.05 Stationary bed –
the effect of the drag force. Under laminar flow, increasing the viscosity
is resulted to increasing the drag coefficient, correspondingly increasing
MTC definition. the drag force. Therefore, lower critical velocity is required to maintain
From Table 6, it seems that there is no agreement between experi- moving the particle along the pipe. This finding is also consistent to
mental data and OLGA numerical results. But this is not true. In fact, as similar work done by Gillies et al. (1997) which using water (1 cP) and
described in section 2, the moving bed regime predicted by OLGA oil (78 cP) and with the experimental results of Yan (2010).
means that some of the bed is moving but no particles are entrained in From Table 14, it is also possible to see that, at the same liquid
the fluid layer above the bed. The experimental data show that for viscosity, the sand minimum transport velocity have been observed
velocities lower than the observed MTC, dunes continue to develop and, always increased with the increase of sand concentration unlike the
therefore, particles continue to move above the bed. By analyzing also critical velocity predicted by OLGA which is the same with the increase
of sand concentration, as it can be found applying the models of
524
Table 7
Cranfield data. Experimental results 2. 2in sand-water horizontal and +5° inclined flow. OLGA results vs experimental data. Flow regime vs liquid superficial
velocity.
usw Sand Concentration = 5 lb/1000 bbl Sand Concentration = 15 lb/1000 bbl
OLGA Sand Regime Exp Sand Regime OLGA Sand Regime Exp Sand Regime
m/s – – – –
1 Suspension – Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks

0.95 – – Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks
0.90 Suspension – Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks
0.65 Suspension MTC Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks
0.50 Suspension – Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks (MTC)
0.40 Suspension – Suspension Scouring sand dunes
0.30 Suspension – Suspension Scouring sand dunes with less particles moving
0.29 Moving bed – Moving bed –
0.25 Moving bed – Moving bed Less particles moving
0.20 Moving bed – Moving bed Less particles moving
0.15 Moving bed – Moving bed Few particles moving
0.10 Stationary bed – Stationary bed –
0.05 Stationary bed – – –
Danielson (2007) and Salama (2000) models to this case. This is ex- Unlike experimental data, OLGA predicted that the critical velocity
plained below. steeply increases with the increase of sand particle diameter as sug-
In the end, the particle size effect on the sand transport character- gested also by previous works (Durand and Condolios, 1952).
istics has been studied. The particle size effect on MTC in water flow From the previous results, some interesting observations can be
was preliminarily experimentally studied by Yan using two types of drawn:
sand particles with average size of 200 μm and 750 μm respectively.
Table 15 shows the comparisons between experimental data and pre- 1 SAND CONCENTRATION EFFECT. All the Tables above show that
dictions from OLGA in terms of experimental observed sand minimum the suspension critical velocities predicted by OLGA are not influ-
transport velocities (MTC) and numerical critical deposition velocity enced by sand concentrations; instead, Yan (2010) concluded that
predicted by OLGA for the 4inch case and for different particle sizes and the experimental minimum transport velocity (MTC) increases with
sand concentrations. the sand concentration; however, from Yan's experiments, it is
Table 8
velocity.
m/s – – – –

0.65 Suspension MTC Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks (MTC)
0.55 Suspension MTC Suspension Scouring sand dunes
0.30 Suspension – Suspension Scouring sand dunes with less particles moving
525
Table 9 Table 11
Cranfield data. Experimental results 4. 2in sand-water horizontal and +5° in- Cranfield data. Experimental results 2. 4in sand-water horizontal and +5° in-
clined flow. OLGA results vs experimental data. Flow regime vs liquid super- clined flow. OLGA results vs experimental data. Flow regime vs liquid super-
ficial velocity. ficial velocity.
m/s – – Sand Concentration = 50 lb/1000 Sand Concentration = 100 lb/1000 bbl
bbl
Sand Concentration = 500 lb/1000 bbl
usw OLGA Sand Regime Exp Sand Regime usw OLGA Sand Exp Sand OLGA Sand Exp Sand
1 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks Regime Regime Regime Regime
0.95 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks
0.90 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks m/s – – – –
0.85 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks
0.80 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks 1 Suspension – Suspension –
0.75 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks (MTC) 0.95 Suspension – Suspension –
0.60 Suspension Sliding sand layer 0.80 Suspension – Suspension –
0.55 Suspension Scouring sand dunes 0.75 Suspension – Suspension –
0.50 Suspension Scouring sand dunes 0.70 Suspension – Suspension MTC
0.45 Suspension Scouring sand dunes 0.65 Suspension – Suspension MTC
0.40 Suspension Scouring sand dunes 0.60 Suspension MTC Suspension MTC
0.35 Suspension Scouring sand dunes 0.55 Suspension MTC Suspension –
0.30 Suspension Scouring sand dunes with less particles moving 0.50 Suspension MTC Suspension –
0.29 Moving bed – 0.45 Suspension – Suspension –
0.25 Moving bed Less particles moving 0.40 Suspension – Suspension –
0.20 Moving bed Less particles moving 0.35 Suspension – Suspension –
0.15 Moving bed Few particles moving 0.33 Suspension – Suspension –
0.10 Stationary bed – 0.32 Moving bed – Moving bed –
evident that the velocities at which the moving bed starts to develop
are equal to the critical suspension velocities predicted by OLGA and
notice how some models (OLGA, Danielson, Al-Mutahar, Wicks) do not
also independent of the sand concentration.
take into account the dependence on the sand concentration, while
Turian and Oroskar and Turian's model, like also the Yan's experimental
In order to investigate the influence of the sand concentration,
data, show an increase of the transition velocity with the increase of the
different correlations for the critical transition velocity calculation
sand concentration. It seems that Turian and Oroskar and Turian's
available in literature have been applied to both the cases with 2 inch
model predict a trend consistent with the MTC experimental trend
and 4 inch pipes. The following correlations have been implemented:
obtained by Yan; in fact, the Turian and Oroskar and Turian's model are
Wicks (1971), Oroskar and Turian (1980), Turian et al. (1987), Al-
the only models that take into account the sand contrantion effect;
Mutahar (2006), Danielson (2007), Yan (2010). Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show
however, it has been shown above how the MTC observed by Yan is not
the comparison between experimental critical transition velocity for 2
a real transition velocity between suspension regime to moving bed
inch and 4 inch pipes respectively. The wide deviations of the transition
regime, while both Turian and Oroskar and Turian's model consider the
velocities velocity predictions could be indicative of the variation of
transition velocity as “the minimum velocity demarcating flows in
interpretation for critical sand transport conditions. It is important to
which the solids form a bed at the bottom of the pipe from fully
Table 10
velocity.
Sand Concentration = 5 lb/1000 bbl Sand Concentration = 15 lb/1000 bbl
m/s – – – –
usw OLGA Sand Regime Exp Sand Regime OLGA Sand Regime Exp Sand Regime
0.45 Suspension MTC Suspension Sand amount observed decreased due to accumulation upstream
0.40 Suspension – Suspension Sand amount observed decreased due to accumulation upstream
0.35 Suspension – Suspension Sand amount observed decreased due to accumulation upstream
0.33 Suspension – Suspension –
0.30 Moving bed – Moving bed Sand amount observed decreased due to accumulation upstream
0.15 Moving bed – Moving bed Few sand particles observed
526
Table 12
velocity.
m/s – – – –
1 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks
0.95 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks
0.90 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks
0.85 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks (MTC)
0.80 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks (MTC)
0.75 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks (MTC) Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks (MTC)
0.70 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks (MTC) Suspension Sand amount observed decreased due to accumulation
upstream
0.65 Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks (MTC) Suspension Sand amount observed decreased due to accumulation
upstream
0.60 Suspension Sand amount observed decreased due to accumulation Suspension Sand amount observed decreased due to accumulation
upstream upstream
0.55 Suspension Sand amount observed decreased due to accumulation Suspension Sliding sand layer observed
upstream
0.50 Suspension Sand amount observed decreased due to accumulation Suspension Scouring dunes observed
upstream
0.45 Suspension Scouring dunes observed Suspension Scouring dunes observed
0.33 Suspension – Suspension –
0.30 Moving bed Stationary sand dunes Moving bed Stationary sand dunes
The experimental observed sand minimum transport velocities (MTC) and numerical critical deposition velocity predicted by OLGA for sand-water flow at different
inclinations in the 4inch pipe are shown Table 11.
Table 13
Cranfield data. 4inch sand-water for different pipe inclination. OLGA results vs experimental data. MTC and critical deposition velocity vs pipe inclination and sand
concentration.
4in OLGA Results 4in Yan Experimental Data
Critical Velocity (m/s) MTC (m/s)
Sand Concentration (lb/bbl) Sand Concentration (lb/bbl)
Inclination (°) 15 200 500 15 200 500

0 0.32–0.33 0.32–0.33 0.32–0.33 0.50–0.60 0.65–0.75 0.75–0.85
5 0.32–0.33 0.32–0.33 0.32–0.33 0.50–0.60 0.65–0.75 0.75–0.85
10 0.33–0.34 0.33–0.34 0.33–0.34 0.50–0.60 0.65–0.75 0.75–0.85
20 0.34–0.35 0.34–0.35 0.34–0.35 0.50–0.60 0.65–0.75 0.75–0.85
suspended flows”, like the critical transition velocity implemented in 2 PIPE DIAMETER EFFECT. It can be seen from both OLGA numerical
OLGA code. results and experimental data that the transition velocity in the
It is necessary to point out that the correlations implemented by the 4inch pipe is slightly higher than that for the 2inch pipe. This
various models have been developed based on the experimental data for conclusion agrees with the scientific literature.
high sand concentration (Cv > 0.01v/v) in conventional slurry sys- 3 PIPE INCLINATION EFFECT. OLGA predicts that the critical velocity
tems. Instead, as aforementioned, the Yan's work is based on typical increases slightly for uphill flows, according to what experimentally
sand concentration experienced in oil pipelines (0.000005–0.0005 v/v). found by Shook and Roco (1991).
Although, these are still extremely low compared with those found in 4 LIQUID VISCOSITY EFFECT. The critical velocity predicted by
slurry pipelines. OLGA is the same for the cases with water and CMC solutions (all
The author of the present study with other colleagues drawn an cases with turbulent flow). When the flow became laminar (three
interesting conclusion from an experimental activity carried out at cases with oil), the sand minimum transport velocity and the critical
Università Politecnica delle Marche (Leporini et al., 2018) which could velocities decrease as the fluid viscosity increase. This is due to the
explain the effect of the sand concentration on the critical velocity: they increasing shear force acting on the sand particles from the liquid
found that for low sand concentrations, the critical velocity is not in- and the decreasing settling velocity of sand particles due to the high
fluenced by the sand properties (size and concentration) while for high viscous fluid. This finding is also consistent to similar work done by
Cv,the critical velocity is greatly influenced only by the sand con- Gillies et al. (1997) which using water (1 cP) and oil (78 cP) and
centration. with the experimental results of Yan.
5 PARTICLE SIZE EFFECT. OLGA predicted that the critical velocity
527
Table 14
Cranfield data. 4inch sand-water for different liquid fluid viscosities. OLGA
results vs experimental data. MTC and critical deposition velocity vs liquid
viscosity and sand concentration.
Sand Concentration 50lb/1000bbl
Fluid Liquid Pipe Diameter Exp OLGA Critical

Viscosity (cP) (in) MTC Velocity (m/s)
(m/s)
Water 1 4 0.5 0.32–0.33
CMC solution 7 4 0.7 0.32–0.33
CMC solution 20 4 0.75 0.32–0.33
Oil 105 3 0.35 0.006–0.007
Oil 200 3 0.25 0.005–0.006
Oil 340 3 0.07 0.003–0.004
Sand Concentration 200lb/1000bbl
Fluid Liquid Pipe Exp OLGA Critical

Viscosity Diameter MTC Velocity (m/s) Fig. 8. Transition velocity comparison with other correlations for 4inch pipes.
(cP) (in) (m/s)
Water 1 4 0.7 0.32–0.33 5.1.2. Task 1.2. reproducing liquid-solid flow regime map including
CMC solution 7 4 0.75 0.32–0.33 reference transition velocities
CMC solution 20 4 0.72 0.32–0.33 The liquid-solid flow regime maps including reference transition
Oil 105 3 0.45 0.006–0.007
velocities of the cases investigated in Task 1.1 are shown here below. In
Oil 200 3 0.30 0.005–0.006
Oil 340 3 0.20 0.003–0.004 particular, the generalized phase diagram for suspension transport in
liquid-solid flow shown in Fig. 3 and also reported in the fundamental
book of Govier and Aziz (1972) is reproduced.
Table 15 Figs. 9 and 10 show the pressure gradient as function of fluid ve-
Cranfield data. 4in Sand-water for different sand sizes. OLGA results vs ex- locity for both Danielson (horizontal pipe) and Yan (4 in horizontal
perimental data. MTC and critical deposition velocity vs particle size and sand pipe) cases. The trend for both the cases is in perfect agreement with
concentration. the trend presented by Govier and Aziz (1972) and the minimum point
4in Yan Experimental Data 4in OLGA Results of each curve corresponds to the critical velocity predicted by OLGA.
MTC (m/s) Critical Velocity (m/s) 5.2. Task 2. multiphase solid-gas-liquid flow regime
Particle Size (microns) Particle Size (microns)
5.2.1. Cranfield data
Sand Concentration 200 750 200 750 The gas-liquid-sand data taken at Cranfield University Laboratory
(lb/100bbl) (Yan, 2010; Al-lababidi et al., 2012) are extremely complex and, in
5 0.45–0.50 0.25–0.30 0.32–0.33 1.6 some instances, difficult to interpret. First of all, it is important to point
15 0.45–0.50 0.40–0.45 0.32–0.33 1.6
out that Yan (2010) and Al-lababidi et al. (2012) do not use a unique
definition of the minimum transport conditions in sand-gas-water flow
but they classified the minimum transport conditions according to the
gas-water regime flow:
• “for slug flow regime: the condition at which the sand particles will
continue to be energetic enough to keep moving and not deposit in
the slug body
• for terrain flow regime in +5° inclined pipeline: condition for
Fig. 7. Transition velocity comparison with other correlations for 2inch pipes.
steeply increases with the increase of sand particle diameter as

suggested also by previous works. Different results have experi-
mentally found by Yan, but they concluded that this was pre-
liminarily study and more work is needed to be done to examine the
particle size effect.
Fig. 9. SINTEF Sand-water experiments. OLGA results vs experimental data.

Horizontal case. Pressure gradient vs superficial water velocity.
528
pipe
• Str + RW: Stratified + Roll wave, stratified wavy flow with high
amplitude waves
• Str + R: Stratified + Ripple, stratified flow with stable waves
• Str: Stratified flow
• Str + LRW: Stratified + Large roll wave, stratified wavy flow with
highest amplitude
• MB: Moving Bed
• SB: Stationary Bed
• SUSP: Suspension regime
Some interesting conclusions can be drawn from Fig. 11 and
Table 15, Tables 16 and 17:
• OLGA does not consider the concentration effect on the transition

velocity at low sand concentrations; however, in section 5.1.1.2 it
Fig. 10. Cranfield sand-water experiments. OLGA results vs experimental data. has been stated that the experimental results of Yan (2010) also do
4in horizontal case. Sand concentration = 15 lb/1000 bbl. Pressure gradient vs not show any sand concentration's influence on the critical transi-
superficial water velocity. tion velocity, unlike what stated by Yan; for high concentrations,
since the resulting mixture viscosity is affected by solid concentra-
which sand particles will be moving backward in the liquid film tion, the critical velocity is affected also as cascade effect; it would
zone due to the pipe inclination, therefore, the sand critical be interesting to experimentally investigate the sand concentration
transport condition is approached when the sand particles will not effect on the critical transition velocity;
deposit in the liquid slug body”. • according to experimental observation, for a constant sand con-
centration, as the liquid superficial velocity decreases the gas su-
Of course, OLGA code implements a single definition for the critical perficial velocity required to reach the transition velocity increases;
transition velocity, as explained in section 2. Hence, the definitions • contrary to what has been experimentally observed by Yan (2010),
adopted for transition velocities are different also in this case. at constant liquid superficial velocity, OLGA predicts the transition
Table 14 shows the comparisons between experimental data and from sand suspension regime to moving bed as the gas superficial
predictions from OLGA in terms of sand flow regimes for different sand velocity increases; probably this is due to Eq. (6) and its extension to
concentrations (15, 200 and 500 lb/bbl) for the 2 inch case at a con- the gas-flow. This behavior will be deeply investigated in the future.
stant liquid superficial velocity equal to 0.07 m/s.
Yan (2010) and Al-lababidi et al. (2012) observed a stratified flow In order to study the pipe inclination effect on the MTC in sand-gas-
regime at water superficial velocity, uSW, of 0.07 m/s and gas super- water flow, Yan et al. performed some tests on a +5° inclined pipe. In
ficial velocity, uSG, below or equal to 1 m/s. By increasing the gas su- fact, in air-water flow, limited data can be found for the inclination
perficial velocity to above 1 m/s, the stratified wavy flow was observed. effect on sand transport. Danielson (2007) noticed that sand bed for-
OLGA does not distinguish between stratified and stratified wavy flow mation could be strongly correlated to the pipe angle due to the fact
regime and stratified regime is predicted for all the gas superficial ve- that the liquid velocity is a strong function of pipe angle without any
locities investigated. further information.
Yan et concluded that in stratified flows, sand particles deposit on In the present work, the same experimental conditions of Yan
the bottom of the pipe for all the sand volume fractions tested in the (2010) have been simulated by OLGA in order to investigate the pipe
experiments. However, for wavy stratified flows and sand volume inclination effect. The simulated conditions are reported in Table 20.
fraction higher than 100lb/1000 bbl, higher gas superficial velocity is For all the investigated cases, OLGA always predicts suspension
required in order to reach the MTC. From Table 16, it can be seen that sand regime at gas superficial velocity. The regime flow is always slug
the results predicted by OLGA are in perfect agreement with this flow. As anticipated by Yan (2010), this could be due to the fact that
statement because the critical deposition velocity obtained for the case terrain slugs have a slug body longer than the body of the hydro-
with a sand concentration equal to 15lb/1000 bbl (5–5.5 m/s) is lower dynamic slug and then they can result more energetic.
than the critical transition velocity obtained for both the cases with Various conclusions can be drawn from the simulation of the Yan
sand concentrations equal to 200lb/1000bbl and 500 lb/1000bbl experimental data regarding the sand-gas-water transport:
(5.5–6.0 m/s). Again, this observation is in perfect agreement with
what found by Leporini et al. (2018) in their experimental activity. • OLGA does not consider the concentration effect on the transition
For what concerns the slug flow, Yan (2010) conducted experiments velocity as per the sand-liquid flow; however, it was not experi-
in a 4in horizontal pipes at various liquid superficial velocities and gas mentally demonstrated that the transition velocity depends on the
superficial velocities by defining the MTC as aforementioned: “the sand concentration; it would be interesting to experimentally in-
condition at which the sand particles will continue to be energetic vestigate the sand concentration effect on the critical transition
enough to keep moving and not deposit in the slug body”. velocity;
Fig. 11 and Table 17, Table 18 and Table 19 show the comparison • according to experimental observation, OLGA predicts that for a
between experimental data and predictions from OLGA in terms of sand constant sand concentration, as the liquid superficial velocity de-
flow regimes and critical transition velocities. creases the gas superficial velocity required to reach the transition
In Table 16, Tables 17 and 18, the following acronyms have been velocity increases;
used: • contrary to what has been experimentally observed by Yan (2010),
at constant liquid superficial velocity, OLGA predicts the transition
• Str + BTS: Stratified + Blow through slug, pseudo slug without from sand suspension regime to moving bed as the gas superficial
velocity increases; probably this is due to Eq. (6) and its extension to
bridging the top of the pipe
• Str + IW: Plug flow, the liquid almost fully bridge the top of the the gas-flow. This behavior will be deeply investigated in the future;
• it seems that OLGA cannot properly simulate the transport and
529
Table 16
Cranfield results. 2in sand-gas-water horizontal flow. OLGA results vs experimental data. Flow regime vs gas superficial velocity at constant liquid superficial
velocity.
usg OLGA Flow Regime Exp Flow Regime usw = 0.07 m/s
OLGA Sand Regime Exp Sand Regime
m/s – –
0.80 Stratified Str Stationary Bed No particles are observed not moving
1.00 Stratified Str Moving Bed No particles are observed not moving
2.00 Stratified Str Wavy Moving Bed Several streaks of sand particles are observed
4.00 Stratified Str Wavy Moving Bed All sand particles were obsreved to move in the for of streaks at the bottom of the pipe
5.00 Stratified Str Wavy Moving Bed
5.50 Stratified Str Wavy Suspension –

usg OLGA Flow Regime Exp Flow Regime OLGA Sand Regime Exp Sand Regime
m/s – –
2.00 Stratified Str Wavy Moving Bed Most of the particles are observed not moving
6.00 Stratified Str Wavy Suspension Sand dunes were formed in the water layer
8.00 Stratified Str Wavy Suspension Sand dunes were getting bigger
10.00 Stratified Str Wavy Suspension All the sand particles were observed moving at the pipe bottom

usg OLGA Flow Regime Exp Flow Regime OLGA Sand Regime Exp Sand Regime
m/s – –
6.00 Stratified Str Wavy Suspension Sand dunes were formed in the water layer
8.00 Stratified Str Wavy Suspension Sand dunes were getting bigger
10.00 Stratified Str Wavy Suspension All the sand particles were observed moving at the pipe bottom
sedimentation of sand under slug flow; instead OLGA can properly bubble”. Most likely, in order to properly reproduce the sand
simulate the transition between sand flow regimes under stratified transport under slug flow, the model must be modified. In fact, ac-
flow; in fact, the OLGA Customer Care Center confirmed to the cording to what reported by Al-lababidi et al. (2012) and Stevenson
author of the present activity that “The model is implemented for and Thorpe (2003), the mechanisms of sand transportations in slug
three phase flows. For slug flow, the current model does not con- flow are very different from the ones developed for single phase flow
sider effects of changes of velocities between the slug body and slug or stratified flow. They tried to explain these mechanisms of
Fig. 11. Cranfield data. 4in sand-gas-water horizontal flow. OLGA results vs experimental data. Transition velocity vs gas superficial velocity and liquid superficial
velocity for different sand concentrations on the Taitel-Duckler map (1976).
530
Table 17
Cranfield results. Sand behavior in air-water flow in 4inch horizontal pipe (uSW = 0.55 m/s). OLGA results vs experimental data.
M. Leporini et al.
usw = 0.55 m/s
15 lb/1000 bbl 200 lb/1000 bbl 500 lb/1000 bbl
usg OLGA Flow Exp Flow Regime OLGA Sand Exp Sand Regime OLGA Sand Exp Sand Regime OLGA Sand Exp Sand Regime
Regime Regime Regime Regime
m/s – – – – – –
3 Slug Str + BTS MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body
body and film region and film region and film region
2.50 Slug Str + BTS MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body
2.00 Slug Str + BTS MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body
1.50 Slug Slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body
0.70 Slug Slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in the slug body
531
body and film region and film region
0.40 Slug Slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug body SUSP Sand was energetic to move in the slug body
body and film region and film region (MTC)
0.35 Slug Slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug body SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating
body and film region and film region accumulation started upstream
0.20 Slug Slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating
body and film region body and film region (MTC) accumulation started upstream
0.15 Slug Slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating
body and film region accumulation started upstream accumulation started upstream
0.10 Slug Str + IW SUSP Sand was energetic to move in the body SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating
of inertial wave accumulation started upstream accumulation started upstream
0.05 Slug Str + IW SUSP Sand was energetic to move in the body SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating
of inertial wave accumulation started upstream accumulation started upstream
0.02 Slug Str + IW SUSP Sand was energetic to move in the SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating
body of inertial wave (MTC) accumulation started upstream accumulation started upstream
Table 18
M. Leporini et al.
usw = 0.45 m/s
m/s – – – – – –
3 Slug Str + BTS MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both
and film region and film region slug body and film region
2.50 Slug Str + BTS MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both
2.00 Slug Str + BTS MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both
1.50 Slug Slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both
0.80 Slug Slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in the slug
and film region and film region body
532
0.50 Slug Slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in the
and film region and film region slug body (MTC)
0.45 Slug Slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug body SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug body SUSP Sand was observed forming a sliding
and film region and film region layer
0.40 Slug Slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug body SUSP Sand was energetic to move in the slug body SUSP Sand was observed forming a sliding
and film region layer
0.35 Slug Slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug body SUSP Sand was energetic to move in the slug body SUSP Sand was observed forming a sliding
and film region (MTC) layer
0.30 Slug Slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug body SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP Sand was observed forming a sliding
and film region accumulation started upstream layer
0.15 Slug Slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug body SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP A stationary sand layer observed
and film region accumulation started upstream
0.10 Slug Str + IW SUSP Sand was energetic to move in the body of SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP A stationary sand layer observed
inertial wave (MTC) accumulation started upstream
0.05 Slug Str + IW SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP A stationary sand layer observed
accumulation started upstream accumulation started upstream
0.02 Slug Str + IW SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP A stationary sand layer observed
accumulation started upstream accumulation started upstream
Table 19
M. Leporini et al.
usw = 0.35 m/s
m/s – – – – – –
3 Slug Str + BTS MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body
and film region and film region and film region
2.50 Slug Str + BTS MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body
2.00 Slug Str + BTS MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body
1.50 Slug Slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in the slug body
and film region and film region
0.90 Slug Slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in the slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in the slug
and film region body (MTC)
0.80 Slug Slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand was energetic to move in the slug MB Sand amount observed decreased, indicating
and film region body (MTC) accumulation started upstream
533
0.70 Slug Slug MB Sand was energetic to move in both slug body MB Sand amount observed decreased, indicating MB Sand amount observed decreased, indicating
and film region accumulation started upstream accumulation started upstream
0.50 Slug Slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug body SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating
0.30 Slug Slug SUSP Sand was energetic to move in both slug SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating
body and film region (MTC) accumulation started upstream accumulation started upstream
0.25 Slug Slug SUSP Sand amount observed decreased with low SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating
slug frequency accumulation started upstream accumulation started upstream
0.10 Slug Str + R SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating SUSP Sand amount observed decreased, indicating
accumulation started upstream accumulation started upstream accumulation started upstream
Table 20
Investigated cases for sand-air-water flow in 4 inch + 5° inclined
pipe.
Sand Concentration (lb/1000 bbl) USL (m/s)
15 0.55
15 0.35
15 0.15
500 0.55
500 0.35
500 0.15
Fig. 13. Tulsa experimental results. 4in solid-gas-water horizontal flow. OLGA
results vs experimental data. Critical deposition velocity vs sand concentrations
for different particle sizes. Liquid superficial velocity = 0.05 m/s.
Fig. 12. Schematic of sand particles motion in slug flow proposed by Al-laba-
bidi et al. (2012).
transportation dividing the slug into two zones (Fig. 12): the slug
body, a very energetic zone where the sand particles start to move
and gain a great amount of energy that derives from the turbulence Fig. 14. Tulsa experimental results. 4in solid-gas-water horizontal flow. OLGA
of the slug front, and the film zone, in which sand particles velocity results vs experimental data. Critical deposition velocity vs sand concentrations
starts to decrease. Sand particles are transported in an intermittent for different particle sizes. Liquid superficial velocity = 0.12 m/s.
way; a sand flow regime similar to the suspension can be seen
during the passing of the slug body and a sand flow regime similar to for different liquid superficial velocities, sand concentrations and sand
moving bed or stationary bed can be seen between two consecutive sizes. The flow pattern is always stratified flow, for all the investigated
slug fronts (film zones). velocities.
Various conclusions can be drawn:
The results predicted by OLGA (it predicts the transition from sand
suspension regime to moving bed as the gas superficial velocity in- • OLGA predicts very well the critical sand deposition velocity in the
creases) can be due to the mechanism shown in Fig. 12: an increase of stratified gas-liquid flow, as also found in section 5.2.1;
the superficial gas velocity can cause an extension of the film zone and,
as a consequence, there is an increase of the sand deposition thickness
• also in this case, as found also by Yan (2010) and by Leporini et al.
(2018) in their experimental activity, it has been observed that for
in this area. However, this behavior must be deeply investigated. low sand concentrations, the critical velocity is not influenced by
the sand concentration, contrary to what happens for high sand
5.2.2. Tulsa data concentration.
Dabirian et al. (2016a,b; 2017) presented a comprehensive study of
sand flow regimes in air e PAC (Polyanionic cellulose) water (5 cP) 6. Conclusions
stratified flow in horizontal pipelines for various sand concentrations
up to 10,000 ppm. They experimentally observed the critical sand de- A detailed testing of the performance of a new sand transport model
position velocity to characterize the sand-liquid-gas transport in a 4inch implemented in the one dimensional multiphase dynamic simulator
horizontal pipe for various sand concentrations (250, 500, 1000, 2000, OLGA (by Schlumberger), performed by comparing OLGA results with
4000, 6000, 8000 and 10000 ppm) for different liquid superficial ve- experimental and field data has been performed.
locities (0.05 and 0.12 m/s), by varying the gas superficial velocity. The following activities have been carried out:
Different particle sizes have been used in order to investigate its effect
on the critical transition velocity. Dabirian et al. defined the critical • the OLGA sand transport model has been verified with respect to
sand deposition velocity as the one that keeps particles moving all the solid-liquid mixtures pipeline flow data and a sensitivity on the
time at the pipe bottom, and it is determined based on the transition main factors influencing the sand transport has been carried out;
between moving bed/dunes and stationary bed/dunes. This transition • the liquid-solid flow regime map including reference transition ve-
velocity is the deposition velocity also identified by OLGA when the locities has been reproduced on the basis of the simulations carried
transition between moving bed and stationary bed occurs. out;
Due to the fact that in OLGA code it is possible to insert just one • the OLGA sand transport model has been verified with respect to
particle size as input, three average values have been used (70, 190 and solid-gas-liquid mixtures pipeline flow data and a sensitivity on the
515 μm). main factors influencing the sand transport has been carried out;
Fig. 13 and Fig. 14 show the comparison between experimental data • in particular different gas-liquid regime flows have been in-
and predictions from OLGA in terms of critical sand deposition velocity vestigated: stratified and slug flow.
534
Interesting conclusions can be drawn: doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.12.057.
1 the experimental data presented by Danielson (2007) and obtained References

at SINTEF multiphase laboratory, relating to sand-liquid transport,
are in perfect agreement with the numerical results obtained by Al-lababidi, S., Yan, W., Yeung, H., 2012. Sand transportation deposition characteristics
OLGA sand transport model; in multiphase flows in pipelines. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 134, 1–13.
Al-Mutahar, Faisal, 2006. Modeling of Critical Deposition Velocity of Sand in Horizontal
2 it has been seen from both OLGA numerical results and experi- and Inclined Pipes. MSc Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The
mental data that the transition velocity in the 4inch pipe is slightly University of Tulsa, Tulsa.
higher than that for the 2inch pipe. This conclusion agrees with the Bourgoyne, A.T., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E., Young, F.S., 1991. Applied Drilling
Engineering. SPE Textbook Series, vol. 2 Society of Petroleum Engineers, Second
scientific literature; Printing ISBN 1-55563-001-4.
3 PIPE INCLINATION EFFECT in sand-liquid flow. OLGA predicts that Dabirian, R., Mohan, R.S., Shoham, O., Kouba, G., 2015. Sand transport in stratified flow
the critical velocity increases slightly for uphill flows, according to in a horizontal pipeline. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society
of Petroleum Engineers.
what experimentally found by Shook and Roco (1991); Dabirian, R., Mohan, R., Shoham, O., Kouba, G., 2016 (a)a. Critical sand deposition ve-
4 LIQUID VISCOSITY EFFECT in sand-liquid flow. The critical velocity locity for gas-liquid stratified flow in horizontal pipes. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 33,
predicted by OLGA is the same for the cases with water and CMC 527–537.
Dabirian, R., Mohan, R.S., Shoham, O., Kouba, G., 2016 (b)b. Solid-particles flow regimes
solutions (7 cP and 20 cP, all cases with turbulent flow). When the
in air/water stratified flow in a horizontal pipeline. Oil and Gas Facilities 5 (06).
flow became laminar (three cases with oil, 105, 200 and 340 cP), the Dabirian, R., Mohan, R.S., Shoham, O., 2017. Mechanistic modeling of critical sand de-
sand minimum transport velocity and the critical velocities decrease position velocity in gas-liquid stratified flow. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 156, 721–731.
as the fluid viscosity increase. This is due to the increasing shear Dall'Acqua, D., Benucci, M., Corvaro, F., Leporini, M., Grifoni, R.C., Del Monaco, A., et al.,
2017. Experimental results of pipeline dewatering through surfactant injection. J.
force acting on the sand particles from the liquid and the decreasing Petrol. Sci. Eng. 159, 542–552.
settling velocity of sand particles due to the high viscous fluid. This Danielson, T.J., 2007. Sand transport modeling in multiphase pipelines. In: Offshore
finding is also consistent to similar work done by Gillies et al. Technology Conference, OTC Paper 18691.
Durand, R., Condolios, E., 1952. The Hydraulic Transportation of Coal and Solid Material
(1997) which using water (1 cP) and oil (78 cP) and with the ex- in Pipes. Processing of Colloquium on Hransport of Coal National Coal Board,
perimental results of Yan; November 5, London, UK.
5 PARTICLE SIZE EFFECT in sand-liquid flow. OLGA predicted that Giacchetta, G., Leporini, M., Marchetti, B., Terenzi, A., 2014. Numerical study of choked
two-phase flow of hydrocarbons fluids through orifices. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 27,
the critical velocity steeply increases with the increase of sand 13–20.
particle diameter as suggested also by previous works. Different Giacchetta, G., Marchetti, B., Leporini, M., Terenzi, A., Dall'Acqua, D., Capece, L., Grifoni,
results have experimentally found by Yan, but they concluded that R.C., 2017. Pipeline Wax Deposition Modeling: a Sensitivity Study on Two
Commercial Software. Petroleum.
this was preliminarily study and more work is needed to be done to Gillies, R.G., McKibben, M.J., Shook, C.A., 1997. Pipeline flow of gas, liquid and sand
examine the particle size effect; mixtures at low velocities. J.Can.Pet.Tech 36, 36–42.
6 PIPE DIAMETER EFFECT in sand-liquid flow. It has been seen from Govier, G.W., Aziz, K., 1972. The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company.
both OLGA numerical results and experimental data that the tran-
Johnson, R.W., 1998. The Handbook of Fluid Dynamics, first ed. CRC Press3-540-
sition velocity in the 4inch pipe is slightly higher than that for the 2 64612-4.
inch pipe. This conclusion agrees with the scientific literature; King, M.J.S., Farhurst, C.P., Hill, T.J., 2000. Solids transport in multiphase flows appli-
7 the liquid-solid flow regime maps including reference transition cation to high viscosity systems. In: Energy Sources Technology Conference, New
Orleans, pp. 14–17.
velocities have been developed for the two sand-liquid transport on Krieger, I.M., Dougherty, T.J., 1959. A mechanism for non‐Newtonian flow in suspensions
the base of the pressure gradients predicted by OLGA. Perfect of rigid spheres. Trans. Soc. Rheol. 3 (1), 137–152.
agreement was found with the curves reported by Govier and Aziz Leporini, M., Marchetti, B., Corvaro, F., di Giovine, G., Polonara, F., Terenzi, A., 2018.
Sand transport in multiphase flow mixtures in a horizontal pipeline: an experimental
(1972); investigation. Petroleum. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petlm.2018.04.004.
8 both for solid-liquid and solid-gas-liquid, the results predicted by Newitt, D.M., Richardson, J.F., Abbott, M., Turtle, R.B., 1955. Hydraulic conveying of
OLGA shown that for low sand concentrations, the critical velocity solids in horizontal pipes. Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 33 (2), 93–113.
Oroskar, A.R., Turian, R.M., 1980. The critical velocity in pipeline flow of slurries. AIChE
is not influenced by the sand properties (size and concentration) J. 26, 550–558.
while for high sand concentrations, the critical velocity is greatly Rahmati, H., Jafarpour, M., Azadbakht, S., Nouri, A., Vaziri, H., Chan, D., Xiao, Y., 2013.
influenced only by the sand concentration; this is in perfect agree- Review of sand production prediction models. Journal of Petroleum Engineering
2013.
ment with what found by Leporini et al. (2018) in an experimental
Salama, M.M., 2000. Sand production management. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 122,
activity; of course, it would be interesting to experimentally in- 29–33.
vestigate the sand concentration effect on the critical transition Schlumberger, 2016. OLGA 2016.1 User Manual.
Shook, C.A., Roco, M.C., 1991. Slurry Flow – Principles and Practice. Butterworth-
velocity;
Heinemann series in chemical engineering, pp. 116–118.
9 good agreement between OLGA numerical predictions and experi- Stevenson, P., Thorpe, R.B., 2003. Energy dissipation at the slug nose and the modeling of
mental observations. can be observed in gas-liquid stratified flow; solids transport in intermittent flow. J. Can. Chem. Eng. 81, 271–278.
10 it seems that OLGA does not properly predict the critical superficial Taitel, Y., Dukler, A.E., 1976. A model for predicting flow regime transitions in horizontal
and near-horizontal gas-liquid flow. AIChE J. 22, 47–54.
velocity in slug flow; on contrary to what has been experimentally Thomas, D.G., 1964. Transport characteristics of suspensions part IX. The representation
observed by Yan, at constant liquid superficial velocity, OLGA of periodic phenomena on a flow regime diagram for dilute suspension transport.
predicts the transition from sand suspension regime to moving bed AIChE J. 10, 303–308.
Turian, R.M., Hsu, F.L., Ma, T.W., 1987. Estimation of critical velocity in pipeline flow of
as the gas superficial velocity increases. This behavior can deeply slurries. Powder Technol. 51, 35–47.
investigate in the future; in fact, it can be due to the complex me- Wicks, M., 1971. Transport of solids at low concentrations in horizontal pipes. In: Zandi, I.
chanism of the sand in the slug flow. (Ed.), Advances in Solid-liquid Flow in Pipes and its Applications. Pergamon Press,
pp. 101–123.
Wood, D.J., 1979. Pressure gradient requirements for re-establishment of slurry flow. In:
Acknowledgements Proc. Sixth International Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes,
pp. 217–228 Canterbury, England, Paper D4.
Yan, W., 2010. Sand Transport in Multiphase Pipelines (PhD Thesis). .
The authors wish to acknowledge Saipem SpA for the support given
Zorgani, E., Al-Awadi, H., Yan, W., Al-lababid, S., Yeung, H., Fairhurst, C.P., 2018.
to this research work. Viscosity effects on sand flow regimes and transport velocity in horizontal pipelines.
Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 92, 89–96.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
535

Leporini 2019

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Leporini 2019

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 175 (2019) 519–535

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

On the numerical simulation of sand transport in liquid and multiphase T

The most common transient thermo-hydraulic simulation program

3. Simulated cases description

In this section, the studies relating to both sand-liquid and sand-gas-

3.1. SINTEF data

• Gas phases: air, nitrogen, SF6

• Liquid phases: Exxsol D80, water. Table 1 gives the properties of

Table 2 available in literature relating to the solid-gag-liquid ﬂow regime. Task

4.1.2. Task 1.2. reproducing liquid-solid ﬂow regime map including

4. Materials and methods

4.1. Task 1. solid-liquid ﬂow regime

Task 1 covers the study of the solid-liquid ﬂow regime. In fact, it

Pipe inner diameter 0.097 m

The SINTEF solid-liquid experiments also include pressure gradient

Figure 5. Cases for the calculation of HOLs.

Table 7, Tables 8 and 9, it can be observed that for liquid velocities

1 Suspension – Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks

1 Suspension – Suspension Sand transported in form of streaks

Critical Velocity (m/s) MTC (m/s)

Sand Concentration (lb/bbl) Sand Concentration (lb/bbl)

Inclination (°) 15 200 500 15 200 500

Fluid Liquid Pipe Diameter Exp OLGA Critical

Sand Concentration 200lb/1000bbl

Fluid Liquid Pipe Exp OLGA Critical

steeply increases with the increase of sand particle diameter as

Fig. 9. SINTEF Sand-water experiments. OLGA results vs experimental data.

• OLGA does not consider the concentration eﬀect on the transition

Sand Concentration = 15 lb/1000 bbl

OLGA Sand Regime Exp Sand Regime

Sand Concentration = 200 lb/1000 bbl

Sand Concentration = 500 lb/1000 bbl

usw = 0.55 m/s

15 lb/1000 bbl 200 lb/1000 bbl 500 lb/1000 bbl

usw = 0.45 m/s

15 lb/1000 bbl 200 lb/1000 bbl 500 lb/1000 bbl

usw = 0.35 m/s

15 lb/1000 bbl 200 lb/1000 bbl 500 lb/1000 bbl

Interesting conclusions can be drawn: doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.12.057.

1 the experimental data presented by Danielson (2007) and obtained References

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://

También podría gustarte