A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for

Upward Two-Phase Flow in Wellbores

A.M. Anssri, Pakistan Petroleum Ltd.; N .D. Sylvester, U. of Akrow and C. Sarioa, O. Shoham, and
J.P. Brill, U. of Tulsa

s % 40630
Summary. A comprehemive model is formulated to predict the flow behavior for upward two-phase flow. This model is composed of

a model for flow-pattern prediction and a set of independent mechanistic models for predicting such flow characteristics as holdup and
pressure dmp in bubble, slug, and annul= flow. fbe comprehensive model is evaluated by using a well data bank made up of 1,712 well

cases covering a wide variety of field data. Model peifortnance is also compared with six commonly used empirical correlations and the

Hasan-Kabr mechanistic model. Overall model performance is in good agreement with the data. In comparison with other methods, the

comprehensive model performed the best.

Introduction

Two-ph.a.se flow is commonly encountered in the PeVO1eum, chefi- of about 0.25. Using this vatuc of void fraction, we can express tbe

cal, and nuclear indushies. This frequent occurrence presents the transition in terms of superficial and slip velocities

challenge of, understanding, analyzing, and designing two-phase

VSg=0.25V, +0.333USL, . . . . . (2)
systems.
Because of the complex nature of two-phase flow, the problem where v. is the slip or bubble-rise velocity given by
was

shifted
first approached

recently to the
through

modeling
empirical

approach,
methods.

Tbe fundamental
The trend

postu-
has

gc7L(pL-pG)
%
late of the modeling approach is the existence of flow patterns or

[1
v, = 1.53 . . . . (3)
flow configurations. Vwious theories have been developed to pre- ---r
dict flow patterns. Separate mcdels were developed for each flow

pattern topredictflow characteristics like holdup and pressure drop. This is shown as Transition A in Fig. 2.

By considering basic fluid mechanics, the resulting models can be

Dispersed Bubble ltansition. Athigh liquid rates, turbulent forces
applied with more confidence to flow condkions other than those.
used for their development. breakkwge gas bubbles down into small ones, even at void fractions

Only Ozon et al.] and Hasan and Kab@ published studies on exceeding 0.25. This yields the transition to dispersed bubble flows:

comprehensive mechanistic modeling of two-phase flow in vertical

pipes. More work is needed to develop models that describe the

physical phenomena more rigorously.

The purpose of this study is to formulate a detailed comprehen-

0,5
sive mechanistic model for upw%d two-phase flow. The compre-
vs.

()
hensive model fmt predicts the existing flow patmn and then calcu- = 0.725 + 4.15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)
lates the flow vtiables by taking into account the actu.at .% + SL

mechanisms of the predicted flow pattern. The model is evaluated

Thii is shown as Transition B in Fig. 2.
against a wide range of experhhental attd field data available in the
At high gas velocities, this transition is governed by the maxi-
updated Tulsa U, Fluid Ftow Projects (TUFFP) weU data bank. The
mum packing of bubbles to give mdcscence. Scott and Kouba7
performance of the mcdel is also compared with six empirical cor-
concluded that this occurs at a void fraction of 0.76, giving the tram
relations and one mechanistic model used in the field.
sition for no-slip d%persed bubble flow as

%E=3J7%L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
FlowPattern Prediction
This is shown as Tramitio C in Fig. 2.
Taitd et al? presented the basic work on mechanistic modeling of

flow-pattern Wmsitiom forupwardtwo-phme flow. Theyidentiled

Transition to Anmdar FIow. The transition criterion for a.nnukm
four distinct flow patterns (bubble, slug, chum, and annular flow)
flow is based on the gas-phase velocity required to prevent the en-
and formulated and evaluated tie transition boundaries among them
trained tiquid droplets from. falling back into tbe gas stream. This
Wig: 1).,Bamea et al.4 later modified the transitions to extend the
gives the transition as
apphcabdity
flow-pattern
angle ranges
of the
prediction
into one
model

unified
to inclined
models
model.
applicable
flows.

Based on
Bamea5
to different
these
then

different
combined
inclination
works, guL(pLpG)
%
[1
!J~g = 3.1 (6)
flow pattern can be predicted by detining transition boundaxks
P:
among bubble, slug, and annular flows.

shown as Transition D in Fig. 2.

Bamea5 modified the same transition by considering the effects
Bubble/Slug Emsition.Taitel et a[.3 gave the minimum diameter
of film thickness on the transition. One effect is that a thick liquid
at which bubble flow occurs as.
fdm bridged the gas core at high liquid rates. The other effect is in-

stability of the liquid film, which causes downw%d flow of the film
at low liquid rates. The bridging mechanism is governed by the
dtin= 19.01

[1 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) minimum

HW> 0
liquid

.12,
holdup required

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
to forma liquid slug

. . . . . ...(7)
For pipes larger than this, tie basic transition mechanism for bubble
where HLF is the fraction of pipe cress section occupied by the liq-
to slug flow is coalescence of small gas bubbles into large Taylor
uid film, assuming no entrainment in the core. The mechanism of
bubbles. This was found experimentally to occur at a void fraction
film instability can be expressed in terms of the modified Lockhart

C-2pyriaht 1994 SC&W of Petr&a.m Engineers and Martinelii parameters, Q and YM,

SPE Production& Facilities, May 1994 143

 ...... To account for the effect of the liquid enmainment in the gas core,

.
I
Eq. 7 is modified here as
t

.D .,..
,zfw+aLc* >0.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (12)

()

.
Annular flow exists if vsg is greater than that at tbe tmnsitio giv-
en by Eq. 6 and if the two Bamea criteria am satisfied. To satisfy the

Bamea criteria, Eq. 8 must first be solved implicitly for ~ti. Hm

is then calculated from Eq. 11; ifEq. 12 is not satisfied, annular flow
exists. Eq. 8 cm usually be solved for afin by using a se.mnd-ordm
Newton-Rapbso approach. Tbus, EqT8 can be expressed as

F&) = YM- 2-15H~ FM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (13)

WJI1.5HH)

and

.
1 .5HLWM
. . .
,. IV&) =
wJ1-1.5ffu)
. ... . .
. . .
.

+ (2-1.5HM)VwH~(~5.5HW)
. . . . . . . .. (14)

tt t 1 Wm(l-1.5HW)2

B:::&E _sLUG CHURN ANNULAR The minimum dimensionless film thickness is then determined it-
FLOW FLOW FLow eratively from

Fig. lFlow patterns in upward fwo-phase flow.

F(laimj )

!lfij+, dtij-m . . . . . (15)

A good initial guess is C& =0.25.

FIow-Sehavior Prediction

After tbe flow patterns me predicted, the next step is to develop

physical models for the flow behavior in each flow pattern. This step

resulted in separate models for bubble, slug, and annular flow.

Chum flow bas not yet been modeled bemuse of its complexity and
is treated as part of slug flow. The models developed for other flow
patterns ze discussed below.

Bubble FlowModef.The bubble flow model is had on Caetanos8

work for flow in an anmdus. The bubble flow and dispersed bubble
flow regimes are considered separately in developing the model for
the bubble flow pattern.

Because of the uniform distribution of gas bubbles in the liquid

and no slippage between the two phases, dispersed bubble flow can
be approximated as a pseudmingle phase. WLtb this simptificmim,
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
the two-phase pammetm can be expressed as

SUPERFICIAL GAS VELOC3TY (M/S)

PIP=PLh +P&aiL....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(l6)
Fig. 2~pical flow-patiern map for wellbores.
/%=#LaL+##-&). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (17)

YM = 2-15H~ x~, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) andvrP=v~v~L+v~g, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (18)

wJ1-1.5ffm)
where ).L=vJvm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (19)

where XH =
J3SL
~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(9)
For bubble flow, the slippage is considered by taking into account
the bubble-rise velocity relative to the mixture velocity. By assum-
ing a turbulent velocity profile fortbe mixture with the rising bubble
Sc
.[ concentrated more at the center than along the pipe waif, we can ex-

press the slippage velocity as

~w = g sin O(p=-pd
,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10) %=vg-L2vm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (20)
dp

z ~c Hannathy6 gave an expression for bubble-rise velocity @q. 3).

()
To account for tie effect of bubble swarm, Zuber and Hench9 mod~.

and B=(lFE)2(fr&SL). Fem geometric considerations, ffLF can be tied &is expression

expressed in term of minimum dimensionless film thickness, ~ti,

%
as
~~ = 153
WAPL-%) f

[1
H;, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
Hm=@tin(l+tin). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (11) P;

144
 (a) DEVELOPED SLUG UNIT (b) DEVELOPING SLUG UNIT

Fig. S-Schematic of slug flow.

where the value of n varies from one study to another. b the present sion of this model. Tbe basic simplification was the use of a correla-

study, ?/=0.5 was used to give the best results. Thus, Eq. 20 yields tion for slug void fraction. These models used an impo~t 8ssump-

g%(!%k)
% @5 = k_l,2yM, . . . . . . . . . . . . (22
tion

introduced
of fully

the
developed

concept of
slug

developing
flow. McQui13an

flow during
and

their
Whalley12

study of

[1
1.53 flow-pattern transitions. Because of the basic difference in flow ge-
P; L I-HL
ometty, the model keats fully developed and developing flow sepa-
rately.
This gives an implicit equation for the actual holdup for bubble For a fuly developed slug unit (Fig. 3a), the overall gas andfiqtdd
flow. The two-phase flow Patzmeters can now be cafctdated tlom mass balances give

P=P=P.H. +P,(l-HJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (23) S$ &%rB(l-HLr?) + k%s(%ts) . . . . (29)

md#=p=pLH+j@-ffJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (24) and v~L = (l-/Y)vmHW -~VL#LrB, . . . . . . . (30)

The two-phase pressure gm.dient is made up of three components. respectively, where

TbUs,
B=.%JLsw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(?1)

Mass balances forliquid and gas from liquid slug to Taylor bubble

(a ($). (J (d. + ~ + ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (25)

give

(v,8cc-v~)Hm =[vw(-VL,J]HL,J . . . . . . . . . . . .. (32)

and (vwv8J(l-ffm) = (VTB-V8T.J(l-HLT,J. . . (33)

dp

()z,
=ppgsiutl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (26)
plus
The

the
Taylor

Taylor
bubble-rise

bubble-rise
velocity

velocily
is equal

in a stagnaut
to the centerline

liquid colutmu
velocity

i.e.,

,A
Um
=
[1
1.2vm + 0.35 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (34)
p =fTPPrP% pL

()
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (27)
&f 2d
Similarly, the veloci~ of the gas hubbies in the liquid slug is

where~p is obtained from a Moody diagram for a Reynolds number 1/.

defined by
gu= 1.2,,+ 1.53 -. PA, . . . . . . . . . .. (35)
P?
[1
N&r*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (28)
where the s=ond term on tfte right side represents the bubble-rise

velocity defined in Eq.21.

Because bubble flow is dominated by a relatively incompressible
fhevelocityofthe falliigfimcanb+ correlatedwitbthe film
liquid phase, there is no significant change in tbe density of the flow-
thickness with the Brotz13 expression,
ing fluids. This keeps the fluid velocity neady constant, resulting in
es2entiaJly no pressure drop owing to acceleration. Therefore, the
VLm==, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (36)
acceleration pressure drop is safely neglected, compared with the

other pressure drop components. where fiL, the constant film thickness for developed flow, can be ex-

pressed in terms of Taylor bubble void fraction to give

Slug Flow ModeI. Fermndes et al.lo developed the fmt tbomugh

physical model for slug flow. Sylvesterl 1 presented a simplified ver- vm=9.916[gd(l-&) ]W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (37)

SPE Prodnctio & Facilides, May 1994 145

 Tbeliquid slug void fraction can be obtained by Sylvestersll cor- TIE geommy of the film flow gives HNUB in terms of 8N as
relation and fmm Femandes et al. slo and Schmidts 14 data,
2

Vss HNH. =l- 1-$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (46)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (38)
Sm = 0.425 + 2.65vm ()

Eqs. 29 or 30,31 through 35,37, &d 38 can be solved iteratively To determine vNgTB, the net flowrate of & can be used to obtain

to obtain the following eight &mnvns that Min. the slug flow

modck & HLm, H81.s, V8TB, VLTB, VgU, VI,LS, and vrB. Vo and Sho- Ngm=vrB_ (T8_gM)-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (47)
ham15 showed that these eight equations can be combined algebra-

ically to give Tbe length of the liquid slug can be calculated empirically from

(9.916 @)(l-_~H,,HVTB(l-H,TB) +x= 0, LU=Cd, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (48)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (39) where C was found16to vary from 16t045. Weuse C=30 in this

study. This gives the Taylor bubble length as

Lm=[LH/(l#)I& . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (49)

.[vm.HgH[l.53[-~(1-H,u)O}]. oping
From

slug
the comparison

flow. This
of&

requires
and LTB,

new
if &

values
? LTB,

for
the

L~,
flow

f&,
is devel-

and

V&B calcula~d emherfor developed flow.

For L&., Taylor bubble volume can be used
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . ....- . . .. (40)

iB
With VB and Hgf-s given by Eqs. 34 and 38, respectively, ~ can
be readily determined from Eq. 40. Eq. 39 is then used to fmd HLm A~(L)dL, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (50)
% =
with an iterative solution method. De fting the left side of Eq. 39 as ~
.
F(ffLT,s), then

where A& can be expressed in tennsof local holdup hLTB(L),

F(HU,) = (9.916 @( I--)05HLrurB(I-HLm) +.l.
which i turn can be expressed in terms of velocities by using Eq.

32. This gives

......... (41)

Taking the derivative of Eq. 41 with respect to HLTB yields

F(ffm) = VTB + (9.916@ ~JL)=[l-(vr=i

(51)
The volume w be expressed in terms of flow gmmetry as

HLTB

1
x (1--0+
L% + Lu
4J~ Grz= YsgAp ~ -vgDAP(lHuJ:. (52)
[ ()

Substitution of Eqs.51 md52into Eq.50 gives

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (42)

HLTB, the root of Eq. 39, is then determined iteratively flom L~ + LU LB

VS* -V@(lHIM) ~
() TB
F(HL@
H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (43)
ErBj+L = LT8j-q
%
~_ (v,,- vu)Hm
do.....................
ablesis
The

1. Catculate
step-by-step
as follows.
WB and
pmcedme

HgLS
for

from
determining

Eqs. 34 and
all

38.
slug flow vari-
1[
. Jzz
1 (53)

Z. Using Eqs.40tbrough 43, determine H~TB. A good initial F.q. 53 can be integrated and then simplified to give

guess is HLTB=O.15.
3. Solve Q. 37 for VLTB. Note that HgTB=I-HLTB.
4, Solve !3q. 32 for v~. Note that HI,U=l-H8M. ~~+(yP~+5=054)

S. Solve Eq. 35 for Vg=. where u=-v~g~, . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (55)

6. Solve Eq. 33 for vgTB.
7. Solve ~. 29 or 30 forff. ~ = %-YSU(2-HJ
LLS, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (56)
,8. Assuming that& =30d, calculate ,&u and LTB from the defini-
%
tion of~.

To model developing slug flow, as in Fig. 3b, we must determine ~nd ~ = %-vu
Ifw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (57)
the existence of such flow, This requires calculating and comparing
&
the cap length with the total length of a developed Taylor bubble.

The expression for the cap length is12 After calculating L$8, the other local parameters can be calcu-

lated from
2

LC=&II~a+_

[
~NLm(
~L,B)-&
1, ..........(44)
I-H
V:rB(O= ~-VIZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (58)

where WgTB and HNUB me cahlated at the terminal film thickness (vTrvU)HU
. . . . (59)
(called NusseIt fhn thickness) given by
d : L; Jz
113 In calculating pressure gradiems, we consider the effect of vary-
~N= ;dVNL.B#L(l-ffNLIB)

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (45) ing film thickness and neglect the effect of friction along the Taylor
8(PL-P,)
[ bubble.

146 SPE production&Facilities, May 1994

 For developed flow, the elevation component occurring across a

slug unit is given by

()y
dLe
=[(l-i$pts +~pglgsinO, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (60) ST
-.. . . 1. .

where pU=pLHm +pJ1-Ifu). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (61) GAS CORE

.-.. I. .
The elevation component for developing slug flow is given by
LIQUID FILM
. . . ...
..
() .~ . , . .
A [(l~*)pU +B*pm.lgsinO, . . . . . . . . . . .. (62)
dLe

where prm is based on average void fraction in the Taylor bubble

ENTRAINED
.
LIQUID DROPLET-
section witi varying film Wlckness. It is given by
.

P,B. =p,HLm+P,(l-Hma), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (63)

where HLTLM is obtained by integrating Eq. 59 and dividing by L*m,

giving
VF
F
2(uTrYw)Hm
HL7BA = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (64)

&G%-

The friction component is the same for boththedeveloped and de-

veloping slug flows because it occurs only across the liquid slug.
This is given as rF

8
dp
=f_(l~), , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (65)

(.) m,

where ~should bereplaced by,O*for developing flow. f~canbe

calculated by using

i
R,U =pUvmd/pB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (66)

-e
For the pressure gradient due to acceleration, he velocity in the

@lm must be considered. The liquid in the slug experiences decel-

eration as its upward velocity of VLLS changes to a downward veloc-
ity of VLTB. The sm. Iicpid atso experiences acceleration when it Dc -
exits from the film with a velocity VLTB into an upward moving liq-

uid slug of velocity VT-I-S. ff the two changes in the liquid velocity

occur within the same slug unit, then no net pressure drop due to ac-
celeration exists over that slug tmh.f hishappens when tbe slug
flow is stable. The correlation used for slug length is based on its i
stable length, so the possibility of a net pressure drop due to accel-

eration does not exist. Therefore, no acceleration component of Fig. 4-gchematic of annular flow.

pressure gradient is considwed over a slug unit.

FE is the fraction of the total liquid enmined in the core, given by

Annular Flow ModeL A discussion on the hydrodynamics of annu- wallis as

h flow was presented by Wallis. 17 Along with this, WafIis also FE = l-sxP[4.125(u.,+~ 1.5)1, . . . .; . (71)
presentd tie classic correlations for entrainment and interracial

friction as a function of film thickness. Later, Hewitt and Hall-Tay-

where uCtir=lO, OOO~(~)fi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (72)
lorlg gave a detailed analysis of the mechanisms involved in an an-

nular flow. AI1 the models that followed later are based on this ap-
The shear stress in the film can be expressed as
proach.

A fully developed annular flow is shown in Fig 4. The conserva- $

rF=f#L~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (73)
tion of momentum applied separately to the core .amd the fdm yields

where f~ is obtained from a Moody diagram for a Reynolds number

defined by
A.%
() -zj~t-p.A.gsin6=0
c
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (67)

pLvFdHF

* N~t, = , ~L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (74)

and AP
() ~
F
+riSirpSF-pLAFg sin6= O. . . . . . (6g)

where vF=_=w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(75)

The core density, PO is a no-slip density because the core is con-

sidered a homogeneous mixture of gas and en fmined fiquid droplets

~ddHF=@(14Jd .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (76)
flowing at the same velocity. Thus,

This gives
PC= PL&C+P&aLC), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (69)
2

FEv~L f_
where ,IK = .
SX + EVSL
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (70) ZF=. @-FJP~
[-
&4J
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (77)

147
SPE production& Facilities, May t994
Eq. 77 reducks to To simplify this equation, the dimensiodess approach developed

by Alves et aL20 is used. This approach defines the following d~.

~F _ d (l-FE)z f~ d~ mensionless groups in addition to previously &tined modified
4 [4C!(ldJ]2f~L
()
dL ~L
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (78)
Lockhart Mutinelli parameters, XM and lM.

where the superfmid liquid friction pressure grad~ent is given by ~;= (dp/dL)c-gpcsin8
....... ...... .. (94)
(dp/dL)xc
dp _ .fsLPLv&
, .,, ,,, ,,, ,,, ..,,,,, ,,, .,,,,, ,,,

() z
SL
2d
(79)

(dp/dL)F -gPL sin 9

and& = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (95)
fiL is the fdiO. f?iCtOr for Supefi.ial liquid velocity and can be (dp/dL)~L
obtained from a Moody diagram for a Reynolds number defined by

By using the moditied Lockftart MartineHi parameters, Eq. 93 re-

N ~$L=pLv,Ld/pP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (80)
duces to

For the shear stress at the interface,

WM
=0. . . . . . . .. (96)
Ti=~jPc!J~/8, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (81) y~-4d(l&.5(14J]25 + [Q(14J]3

l%. above eqwtions can be solved iteratively to obtain &If Eq.

where vC=v~c/(1-2c3) z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (82)
96 is F(&), then taking the derivative of Eq. 96 with respect to ~

yields
and~=fScZ, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (83)

.zt4(l-21)]
where Z is a correlating factor for in ferfacial friction aid the fibn
@ [@(14J12[14_(14JI~5
thickness. Based on the performance of the model, tie Wallis ex-

p~ssion for Zworks well for thin films or high entminments, where-

as the WhMey and Hewitt19 expression is good for thick tilnts or

low entittments. fbu.s, -4a(14J[l%_(14J] 2.5

Z=l+300~ for FE> 0.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (84)

3x;[4(~_@]
2.5Z[4( l-@]
. . . . . . . . . . . (97)
-@(l-@ [14@d)]35- [@(l+)]
mdZ=l+24($13~ for FE <0.9. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (85)

Combining Eqs. 81 through 83 yields

& the root of Eq. ;6. 77ftus,

~,_d Z dp
4(1-2@4
() ~ SC
. . . . . . . . . . . (86)
dj+, =b.-~.
-J F@j)
. .. .. .. . .. . .. . ... . .. .: . . . . . . .. (98)

The supetilcial friction pressure gradient in the core is given by

Once &is known, the dimensionless groups #F andcjc can be ob-
fained from the followhg form of Eqs. 91 and 92

(*)sc=f- (87)

@~=_Z.-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(99)
wherefSc is obtained from a Moody diagram for a Reynolds number (1-tiJ5

defined by

=pcv#i//4, ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (88)
N%

vsc = FEW + VS8, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (89)

and#c=pJU +p,(l-,lLc), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (90)

....................
{drz=l.
Tbe pressure gradient for annulw flow can be calculated by sub- (100)
stituting the above equations into Eqs. 67 and 68. llns,

Alves20stated that Eq. 100canbe expresseda$

($JC=*(*),C +pwsin6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(9l)

~; = %+-YM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(101)
~
~d @ _ (1-FJ2 f, &
dLF *-3(1~~3 f, d ~
() ()() The total pressure gradient can then bc obtained from either F.q. 94
or 95 because the pressure gradient in the film and core must be the

dp same.fhus,
+p&slne. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (92)
-4&f&@3 () m ,C

The basic unknown in the above equations is the dimensionless

film thickness, ~. An implicit equation for ~ can be obtained by

equating Eqs.91 and92. This gives

dp
Or(*)==($)F=@~(*)w+
gpsin6
(103)
4XIJWW5 ()= ,C-(p-pc)gsine
Note that the above total pressure gradimt equations do not in-
clude accelerational pressure gfadient. fhis is based on results
(l-FE)z fF dp
_ found by Lopes and Dukfer21 indicating that, except for a limited
=0. .. ... .... ... ... . . . . . .. (93)

64d3(ldJ3fSL ()W ~L range of high liquid flow rates, the accelerational component result-

SPE Production& Facilities, May 1994

 TABLE lRANGE OF WELL DATA

Nominal Diameter Oil Rate Gas Rate Oil Gravity

Source (in.) (STBID) (MSCFID) (API)

Old TUFFP Data I108 01010,150 1,5 to 10,567 9.5 to 70,5

Bank

Govier and 2t04 8 to 1,600 114 tO 27,400 17t0 112

Fogaras%

Asheim23 2718 tO 6 720 to 27,000 740 to 55,700 35 to S6

Chierici et aI,Z4 27L3 to 5 0.3 to 69 6 to 27,914 8.3 to 46

Prudhoe Bay 5% to 7 600 to 23,000 200 to 110,000 24 to 66

.Includes data from Poenmmn and Catwnter,= Fmcher and Brown,% Ha9edom,27 Baxendall and 7homas,28 0rkiszews!4 ,29
ESPmOl,m MMSU18.M,3* canacho,~ and field dti from seveml 03 cnmPanias.

ing from the exchange of liquid droplets between the core and the E3 indicates the degree of scattering of the errors shout their average
film is negligible. value.
Average ermc

Evahtation

The

compming
in the
evaluation

updated
tie pressure
TUFFP
of the comprehensive

drop
well
from
data
the
bank
mcdel
that
model

with
comprises
is

the
cank?d

measured
1,712
out

data
well
hy E,=

() }~ej
i= 1
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (108)

cases with a wide range of data, as given in Table 1. The perfor- where e; = ApjCOIC-Api~,.r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (109)
mance of the model is also compared with that of six correlations
and another mechanistic model tlmt am commonty used in the petro- E4 indicates the overall trend independent of the measured pressure

leum indus~. dzop.

Absolute average errcx

Criteria for Comparison with Data .

-()
Es= ;~lefl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1 10)
The evaluation of the model using the databank is hazed on the fol-
i= 1
lowing statistical parameters

Average percent error:

Es is ASO independent of the measured pressure drop and indicates

. the
Standard
magnitude
deviation
of the average error.

E,=

() +~eri
r. ,
x100, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (104)

APM-APi. . . .
E,= j

,= , r (e,;_J2
.. . . . . . . . (111)

where ed = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (105) E6 indicates the scattering of the results, independent of the mea-
Apiw
sured pressure drop.

EI indicates the overatt trend of the perfommce, relative to the

measured pressure drop. Criteria for Comparison With Other

Absolute average percentage error Correlations and Models

The ccmelations and models used for the comparison area modified
Hagedorn and Bmwn,z7 Duns andROS,330rkiszewski29 with Trig-
........
E,=

() ~~le.1
i.1
x1OO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (lo6) gia
heriee

pmison
correction,~
and

is
Brill.37

accomplished
Beggs
Aziz
and
et al..
B2i1135

bycomp.ming
38 ad
with
RISLUI
Palmer

the
and
correction,36
Kabir.239

statistical
The

parameters.
Muk-
com-

Ez indicates how large the errors are on the average. The comparison involves the use of a relative performance factor
Percent standard deviation defined by

. IE,I-IE,J E2-E2
(eri -El)z
E3. ~
j= I J__
n-1
. . . . . . . . . . . (107) F. =
1?21
m
I-IE1
nun
.1 +-

TASLE 2-RELATIVE PERFORMANCE FACTORS

EDB WV DW VNH__@~ ANH AB SNH VSNH AAN

1712 1086 626 755 1381 29 1052 654 745 387 70

MO\EL 0.700 1,121 1.378 0.081 0.000 0.143 1.295 1.461 0.112 0.142 0.000
HAGBR 0.665 0.600 0.919 0.B76 0,774 2.029 0.386 0.485 0.457 0.939 0,546
Azlz 1.312 1.108 2.085 0.803 1,062 0.282 1.798 1.764 1.314 1.486 0,214
DUNRS 1.719 1,678 1,678 1.711 1.792 1.126 2.056 2.028 1.852 2.298 1.213
HASKA 1.940 2.005 2,201 1.836 1,780 0.009 2,575 2.590 2,044 1,996 1.043
BEGBR 2,982 2.906 3.445 3,321 3,414 2.82s 2,S83 2.595 3.261 3,262 1.972
ORKIS 4,284 5.273 2.322 5,836 4.688 1.226 3.12S 3.316 3.551 4.403 8..::
MUKSR 4.883 4.647 6.000 3,909 4.601 4.463 5,342 5.140 4.977 4.683

!BD.e.tim databank VW..erma! well caseq Dw=detia!ed well cases VNH.VB,liC4 wll ea$e$ without H.g8dom and Brown dam ANH41 well cases Wi!hout Hagedorn and

3mw data A&d wll cams with 75% bubble fluw AS41 well cams with 100% slug 110!+ VS=vetical well cams with 100% slug flow SNH=dl w.U cases wilh100% s[ug flow

Without Hagtiorn and Brow. dal% VSNH=vec7ica wII cases with 100% slug flow Wm.! Hagedorn and Bmn dalx ,&AN4] well oases w%h 100% annular flow HAGBR.

I.gedom and Brown corrwti.n; A217.=A2iz.! .1. cormlatlm DUNRS=Dun3 and R.. com!atiow HASKA=H.Sa. and Kabir mechmlstic modet BEG8R=Bww and .3rl! corml%x

)RKIS.OrWzews.ki cerrela!iox MUKBR=Mukherjee and 8till correlation.

 E,-E, IE41-IE4 I 6. Several variables in the mechanistic modeI, such as bubble rise
- + m
velocities and film thickness, we dependent cm pipe inclination
+ E3mm-E3dn IE4JIE, I
nun angle. Modifications to include inclination angle effects on these
variables should fmther improve model performance.

ETE5mh E=E6Mn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. (112) Acknowledgments
+ E5m-E5ti + E6muE6&
We thank the TUFFP member companies whose membership fees
were used to fund part of fbis reseacb projecf, and Pakistan Petro-
The minimum and maximum possible vafues for Fw are O and 6,
Ieum Ltd. for the fnancial support provided A.M. Ansari.
intilcating the best and worst performances, respectively.

The evacuation of the model in terms of Fw is given in TabIe 2,

References
with the best value for each column being boldfaced.
L Ozon, P.M., Ferschmider, G., and Chwekoff, A.: A New M.kiphme
Flow Model Pdicm Resmre and Temperature Profiles? paper SPE
OveraU Evahmtion. The ov?rall evaluation involves the entire
16535 presented al the 1987 SPE Offshore Emope Ccmference, Aber-
comprehensive model so as to study the combined petionnance of deen, Sept. S1 1, 19S7.
all the independent flow pattern behaviomnodels together The eval- 2. Hamn, A.R. and Kabir, C, S,:A Smdy of Mulfiphase flow Behavior in
uation is first performed by using the entire &ta bank, resulting in Verticaf VMts, SPEPE (M&y 1988) 263.
COL 1 of Table 2. Model performance is also checked for vertical 3. Taitel. Y.. Bamea. D.. and Dnkter. A.E.: Moddline Flow Paftem Tmn-
well cases only, resulting in Col. 2 of Table 2, and for deviated weU Sitios for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in VeI%l Tubes, AIChE

cases only, resulting in CoL 3 of Table 2. To make the comparison . . .. . . . . .,-.. .

J. [1 9$4)> 26.345.

unbiased with respect to fbe correlations, a second datsba.w was 4. Barnea, D., Shoham,O..amlTahel, Y: F1.aw PattemTnusitionfor VeI-

created that excluded 331 sets of data from the Hagedorn and Brown dcat Dowward Two-Phase t%w, Chem E.g. Sci. (1982) 37, 74I.
5. Bamea, D.: A Unified Model for Predicting Flow-Pattern Tmnsiti.m
study. For this reduced data bank, the results for all vertical well
for tie Whole Raoge of Pipe inclinations; Intl. J. Mulliphase Flow
cases are shown in Col. 4 of Table 2, and the results for combined
(1987) 13,1.
veticaf and deviated weil cases are shown in COL 5 of Table 2.
6. Hammthy, T.2 Velocity of Lacge Drops and Bubbles i Media of Inti-
nite m Remitted Extent, AJChEJ. (1960) 6,281.
Evaluation of Individual Ftow Pattern ModeLs. ~e perfmmance 7. SCOR, S.L. and Kouba, G.E.: Advances i Slug Flow Characterization
of individual flow pattern models is based on sets of data that m for Hmimrdat and Slightly Imfimd P@efines? P2P,, SPE 20628 pr-
dominant in one particular flow pattern, as predicted by the bansi- esented at the 1990 SPE Annw.t Technical Cmference and Exbibitim,

tions described earlier. For the bubble flow model, well cases wifh New Odans, Sept. 23-26.

bubble flow existing for more than 75% of the welf length we con. 8. Caetano, E.F.: Upward Vertical llvcHimse ROW T&o.gh an .&mu-

sidered in order to have an adequate rmmber of cases. These results lus~ PhO dissmta[ ion, U. of Tulsa, T!m, OK (1985).

are shown in COL 6 of Table 2. Cols. 7 through 10 of Rable 2 give 9. Zuber, N. and Hench, L: Sfeady Stale and Transient Void Fraction of
BubbtiE Systems and 2fmir operating Limits. par! 1: Steady Mate Op.
results for well cases predicted to have slug flow exist for 100% of
erafion, Genemt Electric Report 62GL1OO (1962).
tbe well fength. The cases used for COL 7.and 8 were selected from
10. Femandes, R.C., Setnaih T., and Dukfer, A.S.: Hydmdynandc Mcdel
the entire data bmk, whereas the cases used foc Cols. 9 and 10 and
for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Vemicaf Tubes, A{ChEJ. (1986) 29,981.
11 were selected from the reduced data bank fhat eliminated the
IL Sylvester, N,D.: A Mechanistic Model for fWo-Phase Verdcaf Slug
Hagedorn and Bmum data, which is one-third of all the vertical well
Flow in Pipes; ASMEJ, Energy Rcwumes Tech. (1987) 109,206.
cases. Finally, Col. 11 of Table 2 gives results for those cases in the 12. McQnilIan, K.W. and Whalley, P.B.: Flow Patterns in Vecricd Tvm-
10M data bank that were pmdkxed m be in a.mmlar flow for 100% Phase Flow 1/1, J. Mdtiphas, Flow (1985) 32, 161.
of the well length. 13. Brotz, W.: VJber die Vmausberechmmg da Abmptiomgesch-windiS-
Complete performance results of each model or correlation keit von Gasen in Stmrnemkm Ftumiekeitsscbicbkn. Chem. Ire-. Tech,

against idvidual statistical parameters (El, E6) are give in the (1954) 26,470.

supplement to this paper.m 14. Schnd&, Z.; Expenmnml Study of Gas-L@td Flow inaPipeline-Riser

.fY.fm MS fJmis. U. of TM.% Tds. (1976).

15. Vo, D.T. and Shoham, 0.: *A Note on the Existence of a Solution for
Conclusions
Rvo-Fbase S1ug Ftow i VertimJ Fipes? ASME J. Energy Rexxoces

From Cofs. 1 through 11 of Table 2, the performance of the mcdel Tech (19S9) 111,64.

and other empiricaf correlations indicates the fcdSowing, 16. Dukler,A,K, MaroD, D. M., and Branmr, N.; C<APhysical Model forpr~

1. The overall perfomumce of the comprehensive mcdel is spe- dictf.g the Minimum Stable Slug La@? Chem, E.g. Set. (1985)

rior to afl other me fhods considered. However, the ovemfl perfofm-

. ...,
,.70

17. Wallis, G.B.: One-Dinemimxd Two-Phase Flow, McGmw-Hill Book

a.nces of the Hage.dmn and Brown, Aziz et aL, Duns and Rm, and
Co. Inc., New York Citv (1969).
Hasan and Kabir models are comparable to that of the model. For
18, lfewi~ G.F. and ffall-~aylor, N.S.: Annular Two-Plw.w F@ Perga-
the last three, this can be attributed to the use of flow mechanisms
mo F?es$, H.mtm (1970).
in these methods. The excellent performance of the Hagedorn and
19. Whalley, P.B. and Hewitt, G.F.: T& Cormladmof Liquid Entrainment
Brown correlation can be explained cmly by tie extmsive data used Fracfim and Erdminmmt Rate i Annular Two-Phase Flow URAEA
in ifs development and modifications made to the correlation. In Repwi AERE-R9 187, Harwell (1978).
fact, when the data without Hagedorn and Brown wetl cases are com 20. Alms, 1.N. @taI,: ModdinS AmmlarFlow BduwiorforGas WeJls,;,pa.
sidered, the model pmfonned the best (Cols. 4 and 5). per pmsemc?d m fbe 19S8 Wimer Amual Mee6m3 of ASMF& Chicago,
2. Although the Hagedorn and Brown correlation perfmmed bet- NOV. 27-Dee. 2.

ter than the other correlations and models for deviated wells, none 21. Lopes, J.C.B, and Dukfer, A.E.: Droplet Entmimnmt in Verdcaf Aruu-

of the me fbods gave satisfacto~ results (Cccl. 3), IarFlow and Its Ccmtibution to Mommtwn Tram fer~A!ChEJ. (1986)

3. Only 29 well cases were found with over75% of the well length 15rNl
22. Goviq G.W. and Fogarasi, M.: pressure Dmp i Wells producing Gas
predicted to be i bubble flow. The model performed second best to
and Codemate. J, Cdn, Pet. Tech (OCt.-Dec. 1975) 28.
the Efasan and Kabir mechanistic model for bubble flow (Col. 6).
23. Ash.im, H.: MONA, An Accurate Tlvo-Pbaw Well FlowModel Bawd
4. The petiotma.nce of the slug flow model is exceeded by fhe
on Phase Slippage, SPSPE fhls.y 1986) 221.
Hagedorn and Bmvm correlation when the Hagedorn and Brown
24. Chierici, G,L., Ciucci, G.M., and Sclccchi, G.: Two-Phase Vertical
&ta are imluded i the data bank (Cols. 7 and 8). The model per-
Flow in Oil Wells-prediction of @ssure Dmp,JPT(Aug. 1974) 927.
formed best when Hagedorn and Brow data are not included for all
25. Poemmmn, F.H. and Carpenter, P.G.: The Muldphax HOW of Gas, Oil
well cases and all vertical well cases (Ccds. 9 and 10). and W.mfTbrougb Vmdmf Flow Strings with Application to the. Design
5. The performance of the annufar flow models is significantly and Gas-Lift fnstallations~ Drill. & Prod Pmt., API, Dallas (1952)
better than all other methods (Col. 11). 257.

150
26.

27.
F?acher,
Multiphase
Hagedorn,
during
dubs,
G.H,,

Continuous
PhD
F30W
A.R.:
and

dissertation,
Brown,
in T.bing,
E.qmimental
fW*Phase
K.!2

U. of Texas,
Tram..
TrvXctio.

SmdyofRessure
Flow
AfME

in Small
Austin
of pressure
(1963) 2.%,
Gradients
Diameter
(1964).
Gradiem$
59.

Verticaf
&curring
Con.
for NW=
~

q =

s.
=
Reynokk
pressufe,

flowrate,

wetted
number
m/Lt2,

L3{t

perimeter,
m3fs
psi

L, m
1
v = velocity, Ut mls
28. Baxendell, P.B.: The Calculation of Pressure Gradients in High Rate
V= volume, L3, m3
Flov?ig Wells; JPT (Oct. 1961) 1023.
X= Lockhart and Martielli parameter
29. Grkiszewski, J.: %edicdng Two-Phase ~SSm DrOPS in VtiCal
Pip.% JPF(Jme 1967) 829. Y= Lockhart and hfardnelli parameter

30. f?.spanol, H.J.W ~cmnparisonof Three Methods fore?.lculating aFms- Z = empirical factor defining interracial friction

surehveme iVerticd Mulfi-Phase Flow, MS thesis. U. of2Msa.Tul- ~ = Iengfb ratio, defined in F.q. 31
sa, OK (1968). C5 = fdm thickness, L, m
31. Messufam, S.A.G.: Comparison of Correlations for Redicting Muki- C3 = ratio of fti thickness to diameter
phase 3%wimgprewre f.nsms in Verdcal PiF@s. MS thesis. U. oPDd-
X = difference
S+ Ttdm, OK (1970) s = absolute pipe m@mss, L, m
32. Camach.a, C.A.: comparison of Correlations for PTedcdng Ressure
@ = angle from horizontal, md or &g
Losws inHQh Gas-Liquid Ratio Vedicrd WelisYMS fhesii. U. ofTulsa,
A = no-slip holdup fraction
fuka, OK (1970).
33. Duns, H. lr. and Ros, N.C.3.: Vertical Ftow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures P = dynamic viscosity, kg/ins. kghr$
v = kinematic viscosity, L21t, m21sq
in Wells. Pmt.. 6fb World Pet. Con% (1963) 451.
34. Brill, J.P.: Discontimilies in the Orfi=wsid Correlation for predict- p = density, mJL3, kg/m3
~ = Solace Ensio, mltz, dynelcm
ingpressure-enfs in Wells, J. E.eqyRes. Tech, (M.xch, 1989)41,
34. r = shear stiess, @Lt2, Nlm3
3S. Beggs, H.D. and Bdll, J.P.: A Sfudy of Two-Phase Flow in fnctiied @ = dimensionless groups defined in Eqs. 94 and 95
Pipes, - JPT(?vfay 1973) 6+77.
36. Palmer, C.M.: .Evalua60n of fnclimd Pipe Twc-Phase Liquid HoldIIp
Correlations Using Expetimmcal Data, MS thesis, U. oflldsa. Tu@ Subscripts

OK (1975). a = amelera,tion

37. Muklmjee, H. and Brill, J. P.: Ressure Drop Correlations for fnctined A = average
IVc-Phase Flow, J. Energy Res. Tech. fDec. 1985). c = Taylor bubble cap, core
38. tiIz, K, Govier, G.W., and Fogarasi. M.: pressure Drop in Wells Re-
crit = critical
ducing Gil and Gas, J. Gin. P.L Tech. (July-gept. 1972) 38. e = elevation
39. Kabir, C.P., and Hasan, AR.: performance of a TWo-Phase GadLiquid
f. friction
Flow Mcdel i Vmical Wells, JPSE (1990) 4,273.
F= film
40. .4mari, A.M. et d,: ,Supplement to paper SPE 20630, A Comprehm-
g.ga3
sive Mechanistic Mcdd for UpwardTWc-Pba.$e Flow in WeUbores,pa-
per SPE 28671 available at SPE headquarters, Richardson, TX. H = hydraulic
i = ith element

I= interracial

L = liquid

IS= liquid slug

Nomenclature m . mixture

a = coefficient defined in Eq. 55 M. modified

A = cross-sectional area of pipe, L, m2 mu= maximum

b = coefficient defined in Eq. 56 mill . Inil-hum

c-= cceffkient defined in Eq. 57 N= Nimselt

C = constant factor relating friction factor to Reynolds p = pipe

number for smoofh pipes r = relative

C= coefficient defined in Eq. 48 s = slip

d. pipe diameter, L, m S = superficial

e = error function SU = slug unit

El= average percentage error, % t. total

E2 = absolute average percentage error, % 3B = Taylor bubble

Es= standard deviation, % TP. two-phase

E~ = average error, miLt2, psi

ES= absolute average error, mlL12, psi

Supermript
Es= standard deviation, mlLt2, psi
* = developing slug flow
f= friction factor

FE . fraction of liquid entrained in gas core

FT = relative performance f=tor, defined in Eq. 112

S1 Metric Conversion Factor
g = gravity acceleration, m.fs2
in. X2,54* E+OO = cm
h = local holdup fraction

H. average holdup &action

T.mvmhn factor is exact SPRPF
L. Iengfb along the pips, m
n = number of well cases OIIOi.4 SPE ma.u!ctipt mceiv@d for review Sept. 2, 1930. Revb%d mm.szrht -bed

Sept. 2s, 1993. Paw? acmpted lor Lmbl!cation DWC 6, 1993. Fawr (SPE 2Ce30) fimt Pr6-
z= exponent to account for the swarm effect on bubble
~#:2~ 1990 SPE Annual Tecim@d Cnnfemnm 4 Ei+M+io held i New Orbs.,,
rise velociw

SPE production.9 Facitides. May 19P4 151

 A CONL)REHENSIVE MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR UP WARD
10 TWO . Pm SE FLOW I N WELL130RES Jwuu!UQ.

High.Water.Cut Gas Wellst SPE Prod, Eng, J, (Aug. Pressure Gradients in Wells-, ASME JERT,
1987), 165-177, 111, 34 . 36, (March, 1989).

26Chlerlol, G. L,, Culeol, Q, M, ,and Soloccl, G,: Two.Phase 36 Beggs, H. D, and Briil, J. P.: A Study of
Vertical Flow In 011 Wells . . Predlotlon of Pressure Two- Phase Fiow ir~ lnolined Pipes, Jilts
Drop, SPE J. Pet, Tech. (Aug. 1974), 927-938. ~., 607.617, (May, 1973),

26 Poet? mann, F, H., and Car penter, P. G,: The 37paimer , C, M,:
Evacuation of inc!!ned Pipe
Multlphase Flow of Gas, 011 and Water Two- Ph#jse Liquid Hoidup Correlations Using
Tht ough Vertical Fiow Str Ings with Experimental Data, M, S, Thesis, The
Application to the Design of Gas. Lift University of Tuisa (1975).
Installations, API Drllllng and Produotlon
Prlictlaes, 257- 317 (1962). 38 Mukherjee, H. and Brill, J. P.: Pressure
Drop Correlatior?s for inclined Two- Phase
27 Fanoher, G. H., and Brown, K. E,: Pr edlc4 Ion Flow, Trans. ASM5 JERT (Dee., 1985).
of Pressure Gradients for Multi phase Flew In
Tubing, Trans. AM4E(1 963), u, 59-69. 3gAziz, Y., Govier, G. W, and Fogar asi, M.:
Pressure Drop in Welis Produoing Oil and
28 Hagedorn, A, R,: ~~ @AS, ~= 48, (JuiY .
~lRa.d September, 1972),

~, Ph, D. fWMENCiATURE
Dissertation, The University of Texas at
Austin (1964), lWGr.@h L

28 Baxendell, P, B,: The Caloulatlon of Pr es$ure a coefficient defined in Bq. 46

Gradients in High Rate Flowing Well), SPE A cross-sectional area of pipe, mz
J. Pet, Tech, (@S, 1961), 1023. b coefficient defined in Hq. 47
c coefficient defined in Eq. 48
300rklszew sKI, ..t,: Predicting Two-Phase
c constan: factor reldtg friction factor to Reynolds
number for smooth pipm
Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipes, SPE J.
Pet, Tech. (June 1967), 829=838.
c coefficient defined in Eq. 3$
d differential change in a variable
D pipe diameter, m
31 Espanoi, H, J. H.: Q21tlfJJf~ff
e error function
~~ El avarago percentage error, %
lRMLWU4ulikp~ZSe FI ou , M, S. Thesis 132 absolute average porcontage error, %
The University of Tuisa (1968). B3 standard deviation, %
E4 averago error, psi
32 Mes*uiam, S, A, Q,: ~ o~ Es absoluto average error, psi
~=ELf@lQ~ E6 standard deviation, psi
~* friction factor
M*S. Thesi8, The University of Tuisa (1970), L fraction of liquid entrained in gas coro
8 grswity aoceleratlon, m/s2
h local holdup fractton
33 Camaeho, C, A,: @mg6111~
If averago holdup fraction
~&L&fit& L longti~ along the pipe, m
~ M.S* Th@~is, The n exponent relating friction factor to Reynolds
University of Tulsa (1970), numbu for smooth pipm
n expentmt to account for the swarm effect on bubble
34 Duns, H,, Jr, and Ros, N, C, J,: Vertiaal riso volooity
FIGW of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Welis, N number of well cases successfully traversed
~Worid pet, Congr es% 451, P pressure, psi [ N/m2 1
(1063), Q flow rate, m9/s
Re Reynolds number
35 Briii, J. P,: Dieoontinuitieo in the RPF Rolat{vo Porfortnmtao Factor, defined in Iiq. 92
Qkiczewski Oorreiat ion for Predicting s wetted porimotor, m

180
v velocity, mls
v volume, m
x Lockhart and Martinelli parameter
Y Lockhart and Martinelli parameter
z empirical factor dcfinitig interfaclal friction

Icmgth ratio, defined in I@ 27

film thickness, m
ratio of fihn thickness to diwnetcr
dlfferenoe
aiwolute pipe roughness, m
dimensionless groups, defined in Eqs, 79 and f?f)
no-slip holdup fraction
dynamic viscosity, kg/m+i
kinematic viscosity, m2/s
angle from hortizontnl, rad or deg
density, kg/m3
surface tcttsion, dyntdcrn
shear stress, N/m9

.yw%m.ii
acceleration
A avorago
c Taylor bubble cap, com
crit critical
9 elevation
f friction
P film
o ga8
H hydrauIie
i ith element
I interfacing
L liquid
LS liquid slug
M mixture
mn min{mum
N Nussolt
r relative
s slip
S sttporfioial
w slug unit
t total
m Taylor bubble
Tp two.phase

* dtwelopin~ slug flow

 TArKE 1 TABLE 3

MXGE OFWELL DiSVi STAT1871CAL RESUEE5 USING ALL VSKIICAL WELL C!MES

E2 Es RFP
mm. m QLEak2 Gad@& 01 Grat&z w {%1 [&i) {Ril [Ri] (-1
OIL] Smom @W/Dj A@n
i3AGBR 10.s 15.1 -75 959 173.9 5.380

WIODEL 14.5 19-2 -17.7 81.3 144.9 6S87

1-8 0-10150 1-5-10567 9-5-70.5
Kuz 34.G 19.3 -18-6 98.4 M2.5 7.542

21.9 232 102.0 176.3 8.382

24 8-?600 114-27400 17-112
16.7 23.0 52-0 121.7 Has 12.913
2:-8 720-27000 740-55700 35-86
mum 21.1 38.5 509 154.9 298.8 15-374
Re&3cke &
~24 2:-7 0-3-5347- 448-44960 : MUiiR 20-9 22-0 ?8.0 1472 211.0 17X2.2

Uiitrmecal= &5 02-68 6-27914 8.346

TABLE 4
5&-7 600-23000 200-1 MIOOO 24-86
!STATISTZCAL RE-SULX?5X7*SINGALL V8E?lTCAL
WELL CASES WTHOUT HM3EDORW AN= BROWN= OATA

E2 ES
{%] ~OAJ ~~i) [Ri) g) (-)

MODEL 10.Z 14.8 -6.4 !37-8 1722 5.000

%chadcs da?a&om Fmmmaml and &qxo*&r26. F~&a ~d ~27.
Hagedmn amd Brmm~- BaxcndeU arid 3bri9as29. OrEszewsl@O. HAGRR 12.2 17.0 -122 x3(L6 207.2 6.801
E5pafio13u MeSSaam=. and ~cbc@ !Md data &om smera? oii
A212 128 18.0 -21.s 126.3 216.1 8.459

DI)NROS 15.0 22.8 33.1 1352 209.2 10.814

182? 23.3 81S 1672 2356 19-166

MUR%R 20-6 !XL6 92.5 181-9 239.5 21s01

ORKIS 27.4 46.8 77.5 223.4 362-4 22.400

STA77S77CAL RES13Z3S USRIG

N.Lmw VEm?ciLmm3. cAsEs

E2 Es
:%] (%) [Ei) lsj) (Ri) (-- )
MODEI. 121 17.1 93 IOL3 163-2 5373
MODEL 8.6 12.3 -3.0 109.0 164.4 5.000
fmz X22 168 -20-8 116.S 190-4 7349
HWBR 10.6 14-8 13.1 122.1 166.2 8334
Iz&Gss 92 13.6 -285 10243 37s.4 7-101
DWWROS 18.1 27.1 -6.4 165.8 216-7 9261
m?NiROs 122 185 33-4 1109 177.7 8.470
Jlz12 102 14.7 -909 154.6 280.5 35-685
0R81S 16.1 3+72 122 XW3 2733 8X53 u
M3KSR la2 19.8 110.3 176.5 191.3 43.140
14.4 202 41-3 1343 207s 10.102 c
24.5 25.7 152.6 215S) 193.0 58.808
17s 20.2 78.7 158s 217-2 14.751
oRms 60-7 71.9 295.6 453-5 538.1 118.515
 ~ 6 T=IS 7 --
-:1
Sl&k~ ~Z2S USKG ALL WELL CASES SrA=iXAI.. RESETS USING Ail. ..
.-
WnH CmER 75% 3K?? FLOW WELL CASES WITH K)(E% SLUG FLOW

E2 l% E2 RPF
[%] ~) (Ril (Ril [psi] n [%] (-1
IKQDEL 3-2 3.7 -*kx-8 67-0 76-9 5.000 Az32 14.8 :9.8 5.6 1023 173-8 6.016

Aziz 32 a7 -30-3 68S) 79-1 5286 MODEL 162 20.4 13.0 1012 160.8 7.413

omaS 3-3 42 -269 69-4 90.6 5.493 HAGBR 10-1 14.8 -19-7 80.4 176.8 7.CW5

D?mRos 3.6 40 -47-8 77.5 8.2 6.374 Oms 14.6 26.3 17.4 116.3 212.9 8.820

HAG8Ra8 4s -44-9 78.7 80-1 6.511 15.5 21-3 43.7 114.8 184.9 13.181

8EG3R 3-8 4.S 46-6 792 102-6 6.842 IXmROS 15-1 21.4 56.6 m82 170.7 15276
.
MEKBR 7-3 3-8 -154.0 155.6 83-3 12.852 213 213 99-1 153.2 1972 24.146

ii

TA%LE8
-MBLE 9
SBmSKXL R8S?iEXS t.SIXG ALL VEK7iCAL
UELLCA6ESWTIH mLY%sLz??Flnwwr7HoliT SmnSTicilL RESULTS ALL WELL. CaSES
HAGEDmN A??= BRtwn.= Dfsm WITH ml% Amn.rmR FiQw

E2 Es E4 E5 RPF Z2 RPF
). ~o~) [%) Q-) rps) & (-) f%) %) gi) [Ri) gil (-)
BIODEL 162 20S -7s 10.7 198.7 5.s31 MODEL 9.7 12.4 -21.8 80.7 132-9 5.000

A212 19.1 24.1 59 126.7 226-3 5.896 J!2Jz 12.4 165 222 108.1 1Q5.4 5-896

17-0 21.1 14.4 140-5 252.6 7.118 EL%G8R 1?5.1 16.4 70.6 128.7 148.2 8.652

mmRos 242 28-3 M3Lxo 1694 241-9 22.694 DUNROS 20-0 24.8 -79-0 174.9 223-1 11283

ORKXS 28.6 43-5 101s 199s 321-2 24.619 MUKBR 2s-5 19.9 202.1 219.9 196.7 17.409

24-7 262 118-9 177.3 ~~~ 25.873 SEE 322 18.0 250.7 261-9 180S 20.515

KGK3R 332 242 152.3 2U5.4 253.3 32.319 or?ms 78.7 682 504.0 544.9 407.9 45.810

~
I


t.k
,w

t:
u ,

! t t
~
t
.n
{?=
201 I I I I [ I
..$.
0000 . . . .
Do . . .
0000
o $..
,, . .

[II
0:.:0:
,..
Q:? 0,

33.%7~o BARNEA
BUBBLT / TRANSITION
!2
Q ANNULAR
00

.
.$
3
z
A
a
6
ii
0.1
A
/ SLUGOR CHURN
D
I
I
I
1
K
0 .*
.* u.! I
o. 0.0 I
a I
u) I II I

} t t 0.00i
02
II
0.1
1
1 10
I
i
100
I I I
SLUG C1-llol; A;lW&AR
FLOW SUPERFICIAL GAS VELOCITY (m/S)

Fig. l-Flow patterns in upward two.phase flow. FIu. 2-Typlcel flow pattern map for wellborss.

.-
-1
v
L O?do
~

0
Q
,aso~

V~TB 4L
r GTB
LyB
DEVELOPING
J TAYLOR NTGTB 1
BUBBLE -

i
(o) DEVELOPED SLUG UNIT (b) DEVELOPINGSLUGUNIT

Fig, 3-Sohemetlo diagram of slug flow,

164
 1,

,,, ,,.

I
,, I
!.
:.
,,

,
10 .

I , I

1 I ?2( T
+ CALCULATED PRESSURE

9.0 x MEASURED
PRJNWRE
ANNhLAFl

t
GAS CORE
J.
,, . .
LIQUID FILM ~ _
. ,,
,,
.,
ENTRAINED
LIQUID DROPLET \
~
1
\
,, S1

,,
1:
. . IC . h
I ~F
::, ;:: ,:
:,:

i, ,.
,4

I
i
,
,,,

,., PRESSURE ( PSI ) :

1
F19.4-Sc,hemellc diagram o! annular flow, ~ Fig. 5.-Performanoe of tho co~praltan$lve model-typloal prenaure profile,

,,,

16s