Comparative Study of CFD and LedaFlow Models for Riser-Induced Slug Flow

Rasmus Thy Jørgensen, Gunvor Rossen Tonnesen, Matthias Mandø and Simon Pedersen
Additional contact information
Rasmus Thy Jørgensen: Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Niels Bohrs vej 8, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark
Gunvor Rossen Tonnesen: Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Niels Bohrs vej 8, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark
Matthias Mandø: Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Niels Bohrs vej 8, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark
Simon Pedersen: Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Niels Bohrs vej 8, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark

Energies, 2020, vol. 13, issue 14, 1-11

Abstract: The goal of this study is to compare mainstream Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) with the widely used 1D transient model LedaFlow in their ability to predict riser induced slug flow and to determine if it is relevant for the offshore oil and gas industry to consider making the switch from LedaFlow to CFD. Presently, the industry use relatively simple 1D-models, such as LedaFlow, to predict flow patterns in pipelines. The reduction in cost of computational power in recent years have made it relevant to compare the performance of these codes with high fidelity CFD simulations. A laboratory test facility was used to obtain data for pressure and mass flow rates for the two-phase flow of air and water. A benchmark case of slug flow served for evaluation of the numerical models. A 3D unsteady CFD simulation was performed based on Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) formulation and the Volume of Fluid (VOF) model using the open-source CFD code OpenFOAM. Unsteady simulations using the commercial 1D LedaFlow solver were performed using the same boundary conditions and fluid properties as the CFD simulation. Both the CFD and LedaFlow model underpredicted the experimentally determined slug frequency by 22% and 16% respectively. Both models predicted a classical blowout, in which the riser is completely evacuated of water, while only a partial evacuation of the riser was observed experimentally. The CFD model had a runtime of 57 h while the LedaFlow model had a runtime of 13 min. It can be concluded that the prediction capabilities of the CFD and LedaFlow models are similar for riser-induced slug flow while the CFD model is much more computational intensive.

Keywords: unsteady RANS simulation; two-phase flow; riser-induced slug flow; LedaFlow; VOF-model (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/14/3733/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/14/3733/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:14:p:3733-:d:387079

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().