MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019156765 · doi:10.4043/25729-ms

Multiphase Flow Modeling for Gas Hydrates in Flow Assurance

2015· article· en· W2019156765 on OpenAlexaff
Govind A. Hegde, Amadeu K. Sum, Thomas J. Danielson

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow assuranceMultiphase flowSlug flowPetroleum engineeringSluggingFlow (mathematics)SubseaClathrate hydrateTwo-phase flowMechanicsHydrateGeologyThermodynamicsEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiphase flow is a central component in all flow assurance strategies in oil and gas production. The risk of plugging of flowlines due to hydrate formation is also one of the most prevailing flow assurance problems in subsea deepwater oil and gas operations. Hence, it is critical to develop a model to account for the inter-coupling of hydrates and multiphase flow. We present a new framework to model the effect of multiphase flow on hydrates and vice-versa. In the current work, we use a two-phase (gas/liquid) hydrodynamic slug flow model and explicitly incorporate hydrates as a third phase. The model is based on fundamental multiphase flow concepts and has the capability of predicting hydrodynamic slug formation and propagation in three-phase flow. The utility of this tool is demonstrated in the modeling of hydrate formation in gas-water and gas-oil-emulsified water systems by comparing the multiphase flow behavior in terms of flow regime, slug length distribution, number of slugs, and slug frequency. For the gas/oil system with emulsified water, we perform a systematic study on the aggregation of hydrate particles and the subsequent viscosification of the slurry, and its impact on the multiphase flow behavior of the system. The results reveal that hydrate formation has a significant effect on the slugging exhibited by the system, suggesting that one may be able to infer hydrate formation from the changes in the flow characteristics. As part of the validation of this model, we have performed an extensive comparison of the two-phase flow regime predictions of our model with available experimental data, as well as with a number of models available in literature. The results show that our model predictions are in good agreement with literature and the prediction accuracy of our model is higher than all the models compared. This establishes our model as a viable multiphase flow modeling tool to predict the flow behavior in oil and gas pipelines. Hence, in this work, we demonstrate the capabilities of the model to perform transient simulations of two-phase and three-phase flow. This is the first step in the development of the model, with the ultimate goal being completely understanding the interdependence of hydrates and multiphase flow, hence enabling flow assurance engineers to develop better hydrate management strategies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOffshore Technology ConferenceSame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207