Suppression of liquid slugs and phase separation through pipeline bends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines the suppression of liquid slugs in the transport and separation of multiphase flows in pipelines. Two well‐known slug control approaches are evaluated in this paper. The methods are employed to control and stabilize an undesired and unstable flow regime, optimize flow production, reduce operating costs, and in general, improve overall safety requirements of oil and gas pipelines. Unlike designs with an additional flowline to separate gas upstream, this study shows that active topside choking can suppress slugs and stabilize the system flowrates and pressures without the requirement of separation upstream of the topside valve. Careful choking is required to minimize production losses that can result from excess back pressure. A riser‐based, gas‐lift method reduces system instability and increases production. This study also reveals that negligible improvement in stability is achieved when large volumes of gas are injected. The system shifts into an annular flow regime when the injection is further increased. A large separator may be required to accommodate high gas volumes. This study shows that gas‐lift not coordinated with choking is not effective for slug mitigation through pipeline bends. This paper also presents and discusses new non‐dimensional correlations, including slug control inputs in the pipelines such as choke openings, based on new experimental data.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".