摘要
为了对比国产化软件MPF与成熟商业软件OLGA和LedaFlow在多相流稳态、瞬态工况方面的预测能力,采用这3个软件模拟了不同生产工况下油气水管输稳态工况和严重段塞流瞬态工况,横向对比了3个软件在温度、压力、速度、持液率、段塞周期及液塞长度等方面的计算结果差异。结果表明:稳态工况下,3个软件水力计算结果与现场数据相对误差绝对值均在3%以内,MPF和LedaFlow热力计算模型能够精确到每一相,二者计算结果更为接近;气液相速度方面,MPF对水力段塞流形成过程的处理更符合实际物理过程。严重段塞流瞬态工况下,3个软件的持液率波动位置及频率变化较为吻合,MPF与OLGA预测的波动周期相差很小。由于MPF对严重段塞流模型进行了简化处理,故其对立管底部压力、最大液塞长度计算结果均高于OLGA和LedaFlow的计算结果,且其对立管底部气相速度波动的预测不够准确。建议后续研究中进一步完善MPF中的段塞流等模型,结合测试更新,全方位提升MPF的预测功能及可靠性。
In order to compare the prediction ability of the homemade software MPF with the mature commercial software OLGA and LedaFlow in the steady-state and transient conditions of multiphase flow,the three software are used to simulate the steady-state and severe slug flow transient conditions of oil and gas pipeline transportation under several production conditions.The calculation results of the three software in temperature,pressure,velocity,liquid holdup,slug period,and liquid plug length were compared.The results show that the relative errors between the hydraulic calculation results of the three software and the field data are all within 3%under the steady-state condition.The thermodynamic calculation models of MPF and LedaFlow can be accurate to each phase,and their calculation results are closer.In terms of gas-liquid phase velocity,the treatment of hydraulic slug flow formation process by MPF is more consistent with the actual physical process.Under the transient condition of severe slug flow,the fluctuation position and frequency change of the liquid holdup of the three software are consistent,and the fluctuation period of MPF differs little from that predicted by OLGA.Due to the simplified treatment of the severe slug flow model,the calculation results of the riser bottom pressure and the maximum liquid plug length of MPF are higher than those of OLGA and LedaFlow,and the prediction of gas phase velocity fluctuation at the bottom of the riser is not accurate enough.It is suggested to further improve the slug flow and other models of MPF and comprehensively improve the prediction ability and reliability of MPF in combination with testing and updating in future studies.
作者
陈宏举
王靖怡
康琦
吴海浩
宫敬
CHEN Hongju;WANG Jingyi;KANG Qi;WU Haihao;GONG Jing(China University of Petroleum,Beijing,Beijing 102249,China;CNOOC Research Iustitute Ltd.,Beijing 100028,China;China Petroleum Pipeline Engineering Corporation,Langfang,Hebei 065000,China;Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084,China;Research Instituse of Tsinghusa University in Shenzhen,Shenzhen,Gruangdong 518057,China)
出处
《中国海上油气》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2022年第6期168-176,共9页
China Offshore Oil and Gas
