A

Comprehensive Two-Phase
Pakistan U. of Tulsa Petroleum Ltd.; N .D.

Mechanistic Flow
Sylvester, U. of Akrow

Model Wellbores
and C. Sarioa, O.
Shoham,

for

Upward
A.M. J.P. Anssri, Brill,

in

and

s
Summary. a model pressure cases for dmp covering A comprehemive prediction slug, variety model. performed and of model is and annul= field Overall the best. data. formulated a set flow. Model model of to predict the flow behavior models model is is in also good for for upward predicting by six using commonly the data. In two-phase such a well flow. flow data used

%
This

40630
model is composed as up of holdup 1,712 and methods, of and well the the

flow-pattern in bubble, a wide mechanistic model

independent fbe comprehensive peifortnance performance

mechanistic

characteristics bank empirical with made

is evaluated with with

compared agreement

correlations other

Hasan-Kabr comprehensive

comparison

Introduction Two-ph.a.se cal, and flow nuclear of, is commonly indushies. understanding, encountered This frequent in the PeVO1eum, presents two-phase VSg=0.25V, of the complex through modeling approach Vwious Separate is nature of empirical approach, the two-phase methods. Tbe flow, The fundamental of been developed holdup resulting and flow developed for each patterns to the problem trend has postuor preflow drop. can be Dispersed breakkwge and Hasan modeling to develop and Kab@ of published flow that studies in vertical describe the on exceeding Bubble gas 0.25. ltansition. bubbles This down yields the Athigh into small liquid ones, rates, even turbulent at void bubble forces fractions flows: This is shown gc7L(pL-pG) v, = 1.53 where v. is the +0.333USL, slip or bubble-rise . . . velocity . given by . (2) chefithe of about 0.25. Using of this vatuc of void and fraction, slip velocities we can express tbe

occurrence and designing

transition

in terms

superficial

challenge systems. Because was shifted late flow dict pattern By of first

analyzing,

approached recently to the

%
A in

the

modeling

existence have were like the

configurations. flow patterns. topredictflow basic more

theories mcdels

[1
---r as Transition Fig. 2. transition

(3)

characteristics fluid confidence mechanics, to flow

pressure models

considering with for their Ozon

applied used Only

condkions

other

than

those.

development. et al.]

to dispersed

comprehensive pipes. physical The sive hensive lates More

mechanistic work is needed more of this model fmt predicts vtiables the range U, of and one Fluid the mcdel mechanistic predicted of study for

two-phase models

phenomena purpose mechanistic model the flow of a wide Tulsa

rigorously. is to upw%d the by flow existing taking pattern. attd formulate two-phase flow into The field a detailed flow. patmn account model data weU with in the six field. sition for no-slip d%persed bubble flow as (5) is available data bank. comprehenThe and then the comprecalcuactu.at Thii At mum concluded The coris shown gas as = 0.725 + 4.15 0,5 vs. + SL B in this to Fig. 2. is governed Scott of 0.76, by and giving the maxiKouba7 the tram

()
.% bubbles occurs

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)

mechanisms against updated performance relations

evaluated in the

Transition

experhhental Ftow is Projects also

high packing

velocities, of

transition give

(TUFFP) compared used

mdcscence. fraction

empirical

that

this

at a void

model

%E=3J7%L. FlowPattern Taitd et al? Prediction presented Wmsitiom flow and et of the prediction into can one be slug, patterns evaluated al.4 model later the basic work on mechanistic flow. slug, transition the flows. chum, and modeling Theyidentiled annular among to then extend combined inclination works, !J~g = 3.1 flow) them the gives apphcabdity flow-pattern angle flow among ranges pattern bubble, to inclined models unified predicted and annular model. by Bamea5 to on different these transition different applicable Based detining flows. shown Bubble/Slug at which bubble Emsition.Taitel flow occurs as. et a[.3 gave the minimum diameter of fdm stability at dtin= 19.01 low Bamea5 film as the transition of This is shown as

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tramitio C in Fig. 2.

. .

flow-pattern four and Wig: distinct formulated 1).,Bamea

forupwardtwo-phme (bubble, tie

Transition
flow trained is based tiquid

to

Anmdar on the

FIow. gas-phase from. as

The velocity falling

transition required back into

criterion to tbe

for prevent

a.nnukm the enThis

boundaries transitions

droplets

gas

stream.

modified

%
(6) in Fig. same transition. at high which bridging required to 2. transition One liquid causes by effect rates. considering is that The other flow is liquid governed slug . . . . . ...(7) by mechanism Lockhart the liqof the a thick effect of the by effects liquid is inthe

boundaxks

[1
the liquid rates.

guL(pLpG) P:

Transition modified

thickness

on gas

the core film, The

bridged of liquid the

downw%d

film the

mechanism forma

[1
than this, tie coalescence was found of of Petr&a.m

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(1)

minimum HW> 0 HLF film,

liquid .12,

holdup

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fraction no can be of pipe cress in in and section the core. of the occupied The

For to

pipes slug

larger flow This is

basic small

transition gas

mechanism bubbles to occur into

for large

bubble Taylor fraction where uid film is the assuming entrainment expressed Q

bubbles.

experimentally

at a void

instability Martinelii

terms YM,

modified

C-2pyriaht

1994 SC&W

Engineers

and

parameters,

SPE

Production&

Facilities,

May

1994

143

tt
B:::&E _sLUG FLOW
Fig. lFlow patterns in upward

t
CHURN

. . . . . . . . . ,.. . D
To account for the

effect as

of the

liquid

enmainment

in

the

gas

core,

Eq.

7 is

modified

here

()

,zfw+aLc*

>0.12

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(12)

Annular by

flow

exists

if vsg

is greater criteria be

than am

that

at tbe

tmnsitio To for satisfy ~ti.

givthe Hm flow

en

Eq.

6 and

if the Eq.

two

Bamea first

satisfied. implicitly satisfied, using be

Bamea

criteria,

8 must Eq. be

solved

is then exists.

calculated Eq.

from

11; ifEq. solved Tbus, for

12 is not afin by can

annular a se.mnd-ordm as

8 cm

usually

Newton-Rapbso

approach.

EqT8

expressed

F&)

YM-

2-15H~ WJI1.5HH)

FM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(13)

and

. . .

1 .5HLWM

,.

IV&)

. ... .

. . .

wJ1-1.5ffu)

. .

(2-1.5HM)VwH~(~5.5HW)

. . . . . ..

(14)

Wm(l-1.5HW)2

FLOW
fwo-phase

ANNULAR FLow
flow.

The

minimum

dimensionless

film

thickness

is

then

determined

it-

eratively

from

F(laimj !lfij+, dtij-m J A good initial guess is C&

) . . . . . (15)

=0.25.

FIow-Sehavior After physical resulted Chum is treated patterns tbe flow models in flow as ze

Prediction patterns for the me flow predicted, behavior for modeled The the in each bubble, bemuse models next flow step is to develop This step flow. and flow

pattern. and annular complexity for

separate bas part not of yet

models been flow. below.

slug, of developed

its

slug

other

discussed

Bubble work flow the for

FlowModef.The flow in an are flow of slippage the anmdus.

bubble The

flow bubble

model flow in

is had and

on dispersed the

Caetanos8 bubble model for

regimes bubble

considered pattern. uniform between as the

separately

developing

Because and no

distribution two phases, phase. be

of

gas

bubbles

in bubble

the flow

liquid can

dispersed WLtb as this

0.01

be 0.1 1 10 VELOC3TY map for 100 the

approximated two-phase

a pseudmingle can

simptificmim,

pammetm

expressed

SUPERFICIAL 2~pical flow-patiern

GAS

(M/S)

PIP=PLh
Fig.

+P&aiL.......

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(l6)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (17) (18)

wellbores.
/%=#LaL+##-&).

YM

wJ1-1.5ffm)

2-15H~

x~,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(8)

andvrP=v~v~L+v~g,

where

).L=vJvm.

. .

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . ..

(19)

where

XH

J3SL
~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(9) Sc the ing

For

bubble

flow,

the

slippage relative profile center as

is considered to fortbe than the mixture mixture along the

by

taking velocity.

into By rising we

account assumbubble can ex-

bubble-rise a turbulent

velocity velocity more at the velocity

with pipe

the waif,

.[
~w = g sin O(p=-pd ,. dp () and

concentrated press the

slippage

. . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

(10)
To

%=vg-L2vm Hannathy6 account &is for gave tie

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. an expression of bubble for bubble-rise Zuber velocity and Hench9 @q.

(20) 3).

~c
Fem of minimum geometric dimensionless considerations, film ffLF thickness, can ~ti, be tied

effect

swarm,

mod~.

B=(lFE)2(fr&SL). in term

expression

expressed as

~~ Hm=@tin(l+tin). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (11)

153

[1
P;

WAPL-%)

%
H;,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)

144

(a)

DEVELOPED

SLUG Fig.

UNIT
S-Schematic of slug flow.

(b)

DEVELOPING

SLUG

UNIT

where study,

the

value

of n varies was used

from

one the

study

to another. Thus,

b Eq.

the 20

present yields

sion tion tion

of for of

this slug

model. void

Tbe fraction.

basic

simplification These slug models flow. used

was an

the

use

of

a correla8ssumpWhalley12 study of gesepa-

?/=0.5

%
@5

to give

best

results.

impo~t and their

fully the

developed concept of

McQui13an flow the basic and during difference developing

introduced
= k_l,2yM, . . . . . . . . . . . . (22

developing of developed

1.53

[1
gives The

g%(!%k)

flow-pattern P; L I-HL ometty, rately. an implicit flow equation Patzmeters for the can actual now holdup be cafctdated for bubble tlom For mass a fuly balances the

transitions. model keats

Because fully

in flow flow

This flow.

developed give

slug

unit

(Fig.

3a),

the

overall

gas

andfiqtdd

two-phase

P=P=P.H. md#=p=pLH+j@-ffJ.

+P,(l-HJ

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(23) (24) and

S$

&%rB(l-HLr?) = (l-/Y)vmHW where

k%s(%ts) -~VL#LrB, . .

. . .

. . . .

(29) (30)

v~L

The TbUs,

two-phase

pressure

gm.dient

is made

up

of three

components.

respectively,

B=.%JLsw

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(?1) forliquid and gas from liquid slug to Taylor bubble

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

Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (25) give

balances

(v,8cc-v~)Hm and (vwv8J(l-ffm) The plus the Taylor Taylor bubble-rise

=[vw(-VL,J]HL,J = (VTB-V8T.J(l-HLT,J. velocity velocily is equal

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . to the centerline liquid .

(32) (33)

()
z,

dp

=ppgsiutl.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(26)

velocity colutmu i.e.,

bubble-rise

in a stagnaut

()
&f where~p defined by N&r*.

=fTPPrP% , 2d

Um =
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (27) Similarly, from a Moody diagram for a Reynolds number gu=

,A
. 1/.

1.2vm

0.35

[1
= of -. [1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(34)

pL gas hubbies in the liquid slug is

the

veloci~

the

is obtained

1.2,,+

1.53

PA, P? tfte right side represents

. . . . . . . . . ..

(35)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(28) where velocity the s=ond defined in term Eq.21. falliigfimcanb+ the Brotz13 expression, correlatedwitbthe film on the bubble-rise

Because liquid ing phase, fluids.

bubble there This no

flow is no the

is dominated significant fluid drop drop is

by change

a relatively in tbe neady

incompressible density of the resulting Therefore, compared with flowin the the

fhevelocityofthe thickness with

keeps pressure

velocity owing safely to

constant,

es2entiaJly acceleration other pressure

acceleration.

VLm==, where pressed fiL, the constant of film Taylor

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. thickness bubble void for developed fraction to flow, give can be

(36) ex-

pressure drop

neglected,

components.

in terms

Slug physical

Flow

ModeI. model for

Fermndes slug flow.

et al.lo Sylvesterl

developed 1 presented

the

fmt

tbomugh vervm=9.916[gd(l-&) ]W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (37)

a simplified

SPE

Prodnctio

& Facilides,

May

1994

145

Tbeliquid relation and

slug fmm

void

fraction

can et al.

be slo

obtained and

by Schmidts

Sylvestersll 14 data,

cor-

TIE

geommy

of

the

film 2

flow

gives

HNUB

in

terms

of

8N

as

Femandes Vss

HNH. 2.65vm through eight V8TB, eight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (38) To

=l()

1-$

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(46)

Sm Eqs. to obtain

= 29

0.425 or the 30,31

35,37,

&d

38

can that

be Min. and be

solved the vrB. combined Vo

iteratively slug and flow Sho-

determine

vNgTB,

the

net

flowrate

of &

can

be

used

to obtain

following H81.s, that these

&mnvns VLTB, VgU,

modck ham15 ically

&

HLm,

VI,LS, can

Ngm=vrB_

(T8_gM)-.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(47)

showed to give

equations

algebraTbe length of the liquid slug can be calculated empirically from (48) this

(9.916

@)(l-_~H,,HVTB(l-H,TB)

+x=

0, (39)

LU=Cd, where study. C This was

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . found16to the Taylor vary from bubble 16t045. length as Weuse C=30 in

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

gives

Lm=[LH/(l#)I&

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. comparison flow. This emherfor bubble of& requires developed volume can and LTB, new if & values flow. be used ? LTB, for the L~, flow f&,

(49)

.[vm.HgH[l.53[-~(1-H,u)O}].
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . .. (40) With be with readily an VB and Hgf-s given from by Eq. method. Eqs. 40. 34 Eq. and 39 38, is then the left respectively, used side to fmd ~ can

From

the slug calcula~d L&.,

is develand

oping V&B For

Taylor

iB A~(L)dL, ~ . where A& i This turn gives can can be be expressed expressed in in tennsof terms of local velocities holdup by hLTB(L), using Eq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (50)

determined iterative then solution

HLm 39 as

De fting

of Eq.

F(ffLT,s),

F(HU,)

(9.916

@(

I--)05HLrurB(I-HLm)

+.l.

which 32.

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

(41)

F(ffm)

VTB

(9.916@

~JL)=[l-(vr=i (51)
The HLTB volume w be expressed in terms of flow gmmetry as .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(1--0+ 4J~

L% Grz= YsgAp () (42) Substitution L~ VS* () TB of + Eqs.51 LU ~

Lu -vgDAP(lHuJ:. (52)

md52into

Eq.50

gives

HLTB,

the

root

of

Eq.

39,

is

then

determined

iteratively

flom

LB -V@(lHIM) ~

F(HL@ H ErBj+L = LT8j-q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (43)

The ablesis

step-by-step as follows. WB

pmcedme

for

determining

all

slug

flow

vari-

1. Catculate Z. Using guess 3. 4, S. 6. 7. ,8. tion To the the The

and

HgLS

from 43,

Eqs. determine

34

and

38. A good initial

1[ .
F.q. 53 can where

~_
(v,,be

vu)Hm Jzz

do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
and then simplified to give . . . . . . ..

(53)

Eqs.40tbrough

H~TB.

integrated

is HLTB=O.15. Solve Solve Solve Solve Solve Assuming of~. model developing of such with for flow, the the total cap slug flow, This as requires length length of is12
2

Q. !3q. Eq. Eq. ~.

37 32 35 33 29

for for for for or

VLTB. v~. Vg=. vgTB. 30 forff. =30d,

Note Note

that that

HgTB=I-HLTB. HI,U=l-H8M. ~~+(yP~+5=054) u=-v~g~, . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (55)

~ calculate ,&u and LTB from the defini-

%-YSU(2-HJ LLS, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (56)

that&

in Fig.

3b,

we

must and Taylor

determine comparing bubble.

~nd

existence cap length

calculating a developed

%-vu Ifw. &

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(57)

expression

After lated from

calculating

L$8,

the

other

local

parameters

can

be

calcu-

LC=&II~a+_

[
where (called WgTB NusseIt and fhn

~NLm( ~L,B)-& 1, ..........(44)

I-H HNUB me cahlated given at the by d terminal film thickness thickness)

V:rB(O=

~-VIZ

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(58)

(vTrvU)HU . : In L; pressure and Jz gradiems, neglect the we effect consider of friction the effect the of varyTaylor . . . (59)

113
~N= ;dVNL.B#L(l-ffNLIB)

calculating film thickness

[
146

8(PL-P,)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(45)

ing

along

bubble.

SPE

production&Facilities,

May

1994

For slug

developed unit is given

flow, by

the

elevation

component

occurring

across

()
y dLe where The

=[(l-i$pts

+~pglgsinO,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(60)

ST
. 1.

pU=pLHm

+pJ1-Ifu).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(61)

GAS

CORE

elevation

component

for

developing

slug

flow

is

given

by

LIQUID

FILM

()
where section P,B.

A dLe

[(l~*)pU

+B*pm.lgsinO,

. . . . . . . . . . ..

(62)

prm witi

is based varying

on film

average Wlckness.

void

fraction It is given

in by

the

Taylor

bubble

ENTRAINED LIQUID DROPLET-

-.. . .-.. I. . . . . ... .. . . . . ~ ,

. . .

=p,HLm+P,(l-Hma),

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(63)

where giving

HLTLM

is obtained

by

integrating

Eq.

59

and

dividing

by

L*m,

VF

2(uTrYw)Hm HL7BA = &G%The veloping This is friction slug given component flows as because is the it same occurs for boththedeveloped only across the liquid and deslug. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (64)

rF
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (65)

dp

(.)
m, where calculated R,U

=f_(l~),

~should by

bereplaced using

by,O*for

developing

flow.

f~canbe

i
=pUvmd/pB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (66)

For @lm eration ity exits uid occur celeration flow stable eration pressure is of

the must

pressure be

gradient The velocity Iicpid with

due

to liquid

acceleration, in the slug to

he

velocity

in

the

considered. upward The sm. film

experiences a downward acceleration

decelvelocwhen moving liqit

as its VLTB. from slug of

of VLLS changes atso experiences VLTB two then tmh.f used of for a net no over into

the

a velocity the

an in

upward the

velocity the exists same over The so not the

VT-I-S. ff slug that

changes no net

liquid drop when is based due

velocity due tbe on to accelof Fig. 4-gchematic to acslug its

within

unit, slug

pressure

hishappens slug pressure acceleration unit. length drop

stable. length, does

correlation possibility Therefore,

-e
Dc i of annular flow. liquid enmined in the core, given 1.5)1, . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. can be expressed as diagram for a Reynolds
2

8
by (71) (72) (73) number (74)

exist.

component

gradient

is considwed

a slug

FE Annular h flow Flow was tie as gave flow. ModeL presented classic A discussion by Wallis. on the hydrodynamics with this, and and of WafIis interracial Hall-Tayin an on this anapannualso wallis

is the as =

fraction

of

the

total

17 Along for

FE

l-sxP[4.125(u.,+~

presentd friction lorlg nular proach. A fully tion of

correlations of film thickness. of that the

entrainment Later, Hewitt

a function a detailed AI1 the

where

uCtir=lO,

OOO~(~)fi.

analysis models

mechanisms later are

involved based

followed

The

shear

stress $

in

the

film

developed

annular applied

flow separately

is shown to the

in Fig core

4. The .amd the

conservafdm yields rF=f#L~. where f~

momentum

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. is obtained by pLvFdHF from a Moody

A.%

()
~ core

-zj~t-p.A.gsin6=0 c

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(67)

defined

and

AP

* ()
at the

N~t, +riSirpSF-pLAFg F where sin6= O. . . . . . (6g)

, ~L

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

vF=_=w

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(75)

The sidered flowing

density,

PO

is a no-slip mixture of Thus,

density gas and

because en fmined

the

core

is condroplets ~ddHF=@(14Jd This gives .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (76)

a homogeneous same

fiquid

velocity.

PC=

PL&C+P&aLC), FEv~L

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(69) f_

where

,IK

. SX

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (70)
+
EVSL

ZF=.

@-FJP~
[-

&4J

. .

. . . . . . . . . .

(77)

SPE

production&

Facilities,

May

t994

147

Eq.

77

reducks

to by

To

simplify et

this aL20 groups

equation, is used. in

the This addition

dimensiodess approach to XM defines previously and lM.

approach the &tined

developed following modified d~.

Alves

~F _

(l-FE)z

f~

4 [4C!(ldJ]2f~L

()
dL

d~

, ~L

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(78)

mensionless Lockhart

Mutinelli

parameters,

where

the

superfmid

liquid

friction

pressure

grad~ent

is

given

by

~;=

(dp/dL)c-gpcsin8 (dp/dL)xc

....... ......

..

(94)

dp

()
z
fiL

_ .fsLPLv& , 2d SL

.,, ,,, ,,, ,,, ..,,,,,

,,, .,,,,,

,,,

(79) (dp/dL)F -gPL (dp/dL)~L sin 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (95)

is the

fdiO.

f?iCtOr

for diagram

Supefi.ial for

liquid a Reynolds

velocity number

and

can

be by

and&

obtained

from

a Moody

defined

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

using to

the

moditied

Lockftart

MartineHi

parameters,

Eq.

93

re-

For

the

shear

stress

at the

interface,

Ti=~jPc!J~/8,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(81)

y~-4d(l&.5(14J]25 +
l%. above F(&), eqwtions then taking can the be 96 is derivative

WM =0. [Q(14J]3 iteratively of Eq. 96 to

. . . . . . ..

(96)

solved

obtain

&If

Eq. to ~

where

vC=v~c/(1-2c3)

z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(82)

with

respect

yields and~=fScZ, where thickness. p~ssion as low the for WhMey Z is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. a correlating Based Zworks and on the well factor for in ferfacial of films the friction model, tie aid the Wallis (83) .zt4(l-21)] fibn ex@ [@(14J12[14_(14JI~5 performance for thin

or high is

entminments, good for thick

wheretilnts or -4a(14J[l%_(14J] 2.5

Hewitt19 fbu.s,

expression

entittments. Z=l+300~ for

FE>

0.9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(84) 2.5Z[4( l-@] 3x;[4(~_@] . . . . . . . . . . . (97) [@(l+)]

mdZ=l+24($13~

for

FE

<0.9.

. . . . . . . . . . . . ..

(85)

-@(l-@

[14@d)]35-

Combining

Eqs.

81

through

83

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

~,_d

Z 4(1-2@4

()
~ friction

dp

. SC

. . . . . . . . . (86)

dj+, =b.-~.
-J F@j) Once &is from known, the the fained followhg

. .. .. .. . .. . .. . ... . .. .:
dimensionless form of Eqs. groups 91 and #F 92

. . . . . . ..

(98)

The

supetilcial

pressure

gradient

in the

core

is given

by andcjc can be ob-

(*)sc=fwherefSc defined by =pcv#i//4, ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. is obtained from a Moody diagram for a Reynolds N% vsc and#c=pJU Tbe stituting pressure the =

(87)

@~=_Z.number (1-tiJ5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(99)

(88)

FEW

VS8, +p,(l-,lLc),

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. for annulw into flow Eqs. 67 can and be 68. calculated llns, by

(89) (90) sub-

gradient above

equations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. {drz=l.
(100)
Alves20stated that Eq. 100canbe expresseda$

($JC=*(*),C
~d () @ dLF _ (1-FJ2 *-3(1~~3 f, f, ()()

+pwsin6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(9l)

~; = %+-YM
~
& d ~ The or 95 dp +p&slne. -4&f&@3 The film equating basic thickness, Eqs.91 unknown ~. An and92. () m in ,C the above equations for ~ is the can dimensionless be obtained by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (92) total pressure the

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(101)

gradient pressure

can

then

bc

obtained film

from and core

either must

F.q. be

94 the

because

gradient

in the

same.fhus,

implicit This

equation gives

dp 4XIJWW5

()
= fF dp W ()

Or(*)==($)F=@~(*)w+ gpsin6 (103)

,C-(p-pc)gsine Note clude that the above total pressure and liquid Dukfer21 flow rates, pressure gfadient. indicating the gradimt fhis that, equations is based for do on not results inaccelerational by Lopes

(l-FE)z _ 64d3(ldJ3fSL

=0.
~L

.. ... .... ... ...

. . . . . ..

(93)

found range

except

a limited result-

of high

accelerational

component

SPE

Production&

Facilities,

May

1994

TABLE Nominal Source Old Bank Govier Fogaras% Asheim23 Chierici Prudhoe .Includes
ESPmOl,m

lRANGE Oil

OF Rate

WELL

DATA Gas Rate Oil Gravity (API) 9.5

to

Diameter (in.)

(STBID) 01010,150

(MSCFID) 1,5 to 10,567

TUFFP

Data

I108

70,5

and

2t04

8 to 1,600

114

tO 27,400

17t0

112

2718 et aI,Z4 Bay

data from Poenmmn canacho,~

tO

720 0.3 600 Fmcher

dti from

to 27,000 to 69 to 23,000 Ha9edom,27

740

to 55,700 6 to 27,914

35 8.3 24
7homas,28

to S6 to 46 to 66
,29

27L3 to 5 5% to 7

200

to 110,000
and

and Catwnter,=
and field

and Brown,%
seveml 03

Baxendall

0rkiszews!4

MMSU18.M,3*

cnmPanias.

ing film

from is

the

exchange

of

liquid

droplets

between

the

core

and

the

E3 indicates value. Average

the

degree

of

scattering

of the

errors

shout

their

average

negligible.

ermc

Evahtation The evaluation tie updated with of another indus~. of pressure TUFFP a wide the model mechanistic range is the comprehensive drop well of also model from data data, compared tlmt am the bank as given with mcdel that in model with is the cank?d measured 1,712 1. six used The out hy data well perforwhere E4
dzop.

E,=

compming in the

()
}~ej e; =

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(108)

i= 1

comprises Table of

cases mance and leum

ApjCOIC-Api~,.r the overall trend

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. independent of the measured

(109)

that

correlations in the petroindicates pressure

commonty

Absolute

average

errcx

Criteria The lowing Average

for

Comparison of the model

with using

Data the databank is hazed on the folEs=

. -()
is ASO magnitude Standard
j

evaluation statistical percent

;~lefl
i= 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

(1 10)

parameters error: Es the x100, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (104)

E,=

. ()
+~eri r. , ed = Apiw the pressure average

independent of deviation the

of

the

measured error.

pressure

drop

and

indicates

average

E,=

,= , APM-APi. . . . where . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (105) E6 sured EI indicates overatt drop. percentage error trend of the perfommce, relative to the Criteria Correlations The

r
the

(e,;_J2 ..

. .

. .

(111)

indicates pressure

scattering drop.

of

the

results,

independent

of

the

mea-

measured Absolute

for

Comparison and and Bmwn,z7 Beggs Models models Duns and et al..

With

Other

ccmelations and

used

for

the

comparison

area

modified with TrigMukThe com-

Hagedorn x1OO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

andROS,330rkiszewski29 B2i1135 38 ad with Palmer and the of a relative correction,36 Kabir.239

E,=

()
.
~ j= I

~~le.1 i.1

........

(lo6)

gia heriee

correction,~ and is Brill.37

Aziz

RISLUI

pmison Ez indicates Percent how standard large the errors are on the average. The defined

accomplished involves

bycomp.ming the use

statistical performance

parameters. factor

comparison by

deviation

E3.

J__
n-1 EDB 1712

(eri

-El)z . . . . . . . . . . . (107) F. =

IE,I-IE,J 1?21
m

E2-E2 .1
nun

I-IE1

+-

TASLE
WV

2-RELATIVE VNH__@~ 755 0.081 0.B76 0.803 1.711 1.836 3,321 5,836 3,909 ANH 1381 0.000 0,774 1,062 1.792 1,780 3,414 4.688 4.601
VNH.VB,liC4 with slug 100% flow and slug Wm.! R..

PERFORMANCE AB 29 0.143 2.029 0.282 1.126 0.009 2.82s 1.226 4.463

wll 110!+ ea$e$ without

FACTORS SNH 1052 1.295 0.386 1.798 2.056 2,575 2,S83 3.12S 5,342
H.g8dom well cams dalx and and with Brown 100%

DW 626 1.378 0.919 2.085 1,678 2,201 3.445 2.322 6.000

caseq bubble Dw=detia!ed fluw wII .1. AS41 cases well well

VSNH 387 0.142 0.939 1.486 2.298 1,996 3,262 4.403 4.683
cases w.U Wi!hout Hagedorn s[ug

AAN 70 0.000 0,546 0,214 1.213 1.043 1.972 8..::

1086 1,121 0.600 1.108 1,678 2.005 2.906 5.273 4.647

VW..erma! well with dal% 75%

654 1.461 0.485 1.764 2.028 2.590 2.595 3.316 5.140

dam slug well ANH41 flow oases SNH=dl w%h modet

745 0.112 0.457 1.314 1.852 2,044 3.261 3.551 4.977

well

MO\EL HAGBR Azlz DUNRS HASKA BEGBR ORKIS MUKSR

!BD.e.tim 3mw Without I.gedom data

0.700 0.665 1.312 1.719 1.940 2,982 4,284 4.883

databank A&d wll and Brown

cases cams 100%

and flow

cams Brow. corrwti.n;

VS=vetical and

cases annular

wilh100% flow HAGBR. and .3rl!

Hagtiorn and

VSNH=vec7ica A217.=A2iz.! MUKBR=Mukherjee

with

Hagedorn com!atiow

Bmn

,&AN4] Kabir

100%

cormlatlm and 8till

DUNRS=Dun3 correlation.

HASKA=H.Sa.

mechmlstic

BEG8R=Bww

corml%x

)RKIS.OrWzews.ki

cerrela!iox

E,-E, + E3mm-E3dn +

IE41-IE4 IE4JIE,

I I

6.

Several and

variables film

in the thickness, to

mechanistic we

modeI, dependent

such cm pipe

as

bubble inclination on

rise

velocities angle. variables

nun

Modifications should fmther

include improve

inclination model

angle performance.

effects

these

ETE5mh + E5m-E5ti +

E=E6Mn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. E6muE6& We thank used Ltd. the TUFFP part fnancial member of fbis companies reseacb whose projecf, provided and A.M. membership Pakistan Ansari. fees Petrowere Ieum in TabIe 2, to fund for the (112) Acknowledgments

The

minimum the evacuation the best

and best

maximum and of the for worst model each

possible performances, in column terms

vafues

for

Fw

are

O and

6,

intilcating The with

respectively. of Fw is given

support

References L Ozon, Flow P.M., Model presented Sept. A.R. Ferschmider, Pdicm al the G., Resmre 1987 and and SPE Chwekoff, Temperature Offshore Emope A.: A New M.kiphme paper SPE Aber-

value

being

boldfaced. Profiles? Ccmference,

OveraU comprehensive all the

Evahmtion. model flow performed 2. Model

The so as

ov?rall to study

evaluation the combined

involves

the

entire of evalin

16535 deen, 2. Hamn, Verticaf 3. Taitel. Sitios J.

[1

petionnance together The resulting for deviated comparison datsba.w and vertical for 5 of combined Table 2. vertical

S1 1, 19S7. and Kabir, SPEPE D.. and C, S,:A Smdy 1988) of Mulfiphase 263. Moddline Flow in VeI%l Flow Paftem Tubes, TmnAIChE flow Behavior in

independent is first 1 of cases only, Table only,

pattern by using

behaviomnodels the entire is Table 2. also 2, To &ta

uation COL well cases unbiased created study. cases veticaf

bank, checked

VMts, Y.. Bamea. for Steady

26.345.

(M&y

performance in Col. CoL to fbe sets data 4 of 3 of 2 of Table

Dnkter.

A.E.:

resulting in

and make

for the

weU

Upward

Gas-Liquid

resulting with respect

. . .. . . . . .,-.. .
9$4)>

correlations, of data bank, Table are from the 2,

a second the Hagedorn for results COL all

was Brown well

4. Barnea, dcat 5. Bamea, for tie

D.,

Shoham,O..amlTahel, Two-Phase A Unified Raoge of t%w, Model Pipe for

Y:

F1.aw

PattemTnusitionfor E.g. Sci. (1982) 37,

VeI74I.

that For are

excluded this reduced in

331

Dowward D.: Whole 13,1. T.2

Chem Predicting

results and the in

Flow-Pattern Intl.

Tmnsiti.m Flow

shown and

Col. weil

inclinations;

J. Mulliphase

deviated

cases

shown

(1987) 6. Hammthy, nite

Velocity Extent, Kouba, and 1990 Sept.

of Lacge AJChEJ.

Drops (1960)

and

Bubbles 6,281. Flow P2P,,

i Media

of Inti-

m Remitted S.L. and

Evaluation of individual in described flow in

of Individual flow one pattern particular earlier. existing order for For

Ftow models flow the

Pattern is pattern, bubble than 75% based

ModeLs. on as flow of sets

~e of

perfmmance data by well length These of Rable for selected 9 and eliminated 10 the cases we that m

7. SCOR, for

G.E.:

Advances Imfimd

i Slug P@efines?

Characterization SPE 20628 pr-

Hmimrdat at the Odans, E.F.:

Slightly SPE

dominant tions bubble sidered are results tbe the 11 well entire were shown for

predicted model, the of welf cases. 10

bansiwifh con.

esented New

Annw.t

Technical

Cmference

and Exbibitim,

23-26. Vertical U. of Tulsa, L: Sfeady llvcHimse T!m, Stale and Limits. OK ROW T&o.gh an .&mu-

more an Table

8. Caetano, lus~ 9. Zuber, BubbtiE erafion, 10. Femandes, for PhO

Upward ion,

to have 6 of

adequate 2. Cols. to for the reduced which

rmmber 7 through slug 7.and used data is one-third

results 2 give 100% from and the well in the of

dissmta[

(1985). Void 1: Steady Fraction Mate of Op.

in COL well cases The bmk,

N. and

Hench, and

Transient par! (1962).

predicted cases whereas used

have COL cases

flow

exist

Systems Genemt R.C.,

2fmir

operating

fength. data selected and Finally,

8 were foc Cols. fhat of for a.mmlar all

Electric Setnaih Slug A Flow

Report T., and

62GL1OO Dukfer,

A.S.:

Hydmdynandc A{ChEJ. fWo-Phase (1986) Verdcaf 109,206.

Mcdel 29,981. Slug

Gas-Liquid N,D.:

in Vemicaf

Tubes, for

from Bmum Col. that

the data,

bank

IL

Sylvester, Flow Phase

Mechanistic

Model Rcwumes P.B.: Flow

Hagedorn cases. 10M of the

the those

vertical cases for

in Pipes; K.W. Flow W.: von

ASMEJ, and

Energy Whalley,

Tech. Patterns 32,

(1987) 161.

11 of Table were pmdkxed

2 gives m

results be in

12. McQnilIan,

Flow (1985) da

in Vecricd

Tvm-

data well

bank length.

flow

100%

1/1, J. Mdtiphas, VJber die

13. Brotz, results of each (El, model E6) are or correlation give in the 14. keit

Vmausberechmmg

Abmptiomgesch-windiSChem. Ire-. Tech,

Complete against supplement idvidual

to

performance statistical
this

Gasen 26,470.

in Stmrnemkm

Ftumiekeitsscbicbkn.

parameters

(1954) Schnd&, .fY.fm 15. Vo, D.T.

paper.m

Z.; Expenmnml MS and

fJmis.

Study

of Gas-L@td Tds. on Fipes? (1976). the

Flow

inaPipeline-Riser

U. of TM.% 0.:

Shoham, S1ug Ftow

*A Note

Existence ASME

of a Solution J. Energy Rexxoces

for

Conclusions From and Cofs. other 1. The rior a.nces Hasan the in last these to afl of 1 through empiricaf overall other the 11 of Table 2, the performance the fcdSowing, mcdel the aL, that of of by made and best Brown models results found The with model model slug flow when bank and well of methods the (Cols. Brow cases annufar (Col. 11). Brown tie to ovemfl and the is speperfofmRm, model. mechanisms Hagedorn data and used In are com 20. 19. and For of the mcdel 16.

Rvo-Fbase Tech (19S9)

i VertimJ

111,64. MaroD, D. M., Stable and Branmr, Slug La@? N.; C<APhysical Chem, E.g. Model Set. forpr~ (1985)

correlations perfomumce of considered. and are be Brown,

indicates the

Dukler,A,K, dictf.g ,.70 the

comprehensive However, Aziz et to the use

Minimum

me fhods Hage.dmn

. ...,
G.B.: New G.F. One-Dinemimxd York and Citv (1969). N.S.: Annular Two-Plw.w F@ PergaTwo-Phase Flow, McGmw-Hill Book Inc.,

Duns of flow the

17. Wallis, Co. 18, lfewi~

and three,

Kabir this

models can The can and

comparable to

ffall-~aylor, (1970). Hewitt, G.F.: Rate Harwell

attributed

mo

F?es$, H.mtm P.B. and and

methods. correlation development

excellent be explained modifications Hagedorn the and and

performance cmly

Whalley, Fracfim Repwi Alms, per

T&

Cormladmof

Liquid

Entrainment

Brown in fact, sidered, 2. ter of ifs

extmsive the wetl 4 and

Erdminmmt 187,

i Annular (1978).

Two-Phase

Flow

URAEA

correlation. cases 5). perfmmed wells,

AERE-R9 1.N. @taI,:

when the Although the me Only

the

data

without pmfonned Hagedorn correlations

ModdinS 19S8

AmmlarFlow Wimer Amual

BduwiorforGas Mee6m3 of ASMF&

WeJls,;,pa. Chicago,

model the other

(Cols.

pmsemc?d 27-Dee. J.C.B, and

m fbe 2. and

correlation for (Cccl. over75% performed for model the bubble is deviated 3),

betnone 21.

NOV. Lopes, IarFlow

than the 3.

Dukfer,

A.E.:

Droplet to Mommtwn

Entmimnmt Tram

in Verdcaf fer~A!ChEJ.

Aruu(1986)

fbods 29

gave well cases

satisfacto~ were flow.

Its Ccmtibution

of the

well

length best to 6). by fhe 23. 22.

15rNl Goviq and G.W. Codemate. H.: and Fogarasi, J, Cdn, M.: Pet. pressure Tech Dmp i Wells 1975) Well producing 28. Bawd Gas

predicted the 4. Efasan The

to be and

i bubble Kabir

second flow exceeded and The model (Col.

mechanistic of the

(OCt.-Dec. Tlvo-Pbaw 1986) Sclccchi, 221. G.:

petiotma.nce and imluded best when and all Bmvm i the

Ash.im, on Phase

MONA,

An Accurate SPSPE G.M., fhls.y and

FlowModel

Slippage, G,L., Ciucci,

Hagedorn &ta formed well 5. better are

correlation data

Hagedorn 8). not

Brown perfor all

24.

Chierici, Flow

Two-Phase

Vertical 1974) 927. Oil

7 and data are

in Oil

Wells-prediction F.H. and Carpenter, Vmdmf fnstallations~

of @ssure P.G.: Flow Drill. The

Dmp,JPT(Aug. Muldphax with Application Pmt., API, HOW

Hagedorn vertical

included 10). is

25.

Poemmmn, and

of Gas,

cases The than

(Ccds. flow

9 and models

W.mfTbrougb Gas-Lift

Strings

to the. Design Dallas (1952)

performance all other

significantly

and 257.

& Prod

150

26.

F?acher, Multiphase

G.H,,

and

Brown,

K.!2

TrvXctio. AfME

of pressure (1963) 2.%, Gradients Diameter (1964). Gradients

Gradiem$ 59. &curring Verticaf

for

NW= ~ =

Reynokk pressufe, flowrate, wetted velocity, volume, Lockhart Lockhart empirical Iengfb fdm ratio ratio,

number m/Lt2, L3{t perimeter, Ut L3, and and factor mls m3 Martielli hfardnelli defining in m to diameter parameter parameter interracial F.q. 31 friction psi m3fs L, m

F30W A.R.: Continuous PhD

in T.bing, E.qmimental fW*Phase

Tram..

27.

Hagedorn, during dubs,

SmdyofRessure Flow in Small Austin

q = s. v =

Con.

1
L, md or m &g

dissertation, P.B.: The JPT J.:

U. of Texas, Calculation (Oct. 1961)

28.

Baxendell, Flov?ig

of Pressure 1023. ~SSm

in High

Rate V= X= Y=

Wells;

29.

Grkiszewski, Pip.% JPF(Jme H.J.W

%edicdng 1967) 829.

Two-Phase

DrOPS

in

VtiCal

30.

f?.spanol, surehveme sa, OK

~cmnparisonof iVerticd Mulfi-Phase

Three

Methods
Flow,

fore?.lculating thesis.

aFms-

Z = ~ =

MS

U. of2Msa.Tul-

defined L, thickness

(1968). S.A.G.: Comparison f.nsms of Correlations in Verdcal PiF@s. for

MS

C5 = Redicting
thesis.

thickness, of fti

31.

Messufam, phase

MukiU. oPDd-

C3 = X s = =

3%wimgprewre OK C.A.: inHQh

OK

difference absolute angle no-slip dynamic kinematic density, Solace shear from pipe m@mss, horizontal, fraction kg/ins. L21t, kghr$ m21sq

S+ Ttdm, 32. Camach.a, Losws fuka, 33. Duns,

(1970) comparison Gas-Liquid Ratio of Correlations Vedicrd for PTedcdng fhesii. Ressure

@ = WelisYMS U. ofTulsa, A = Vertical Pet. in the in Wells, Con% Ftow of Gas and Liquid 451. Correlation Tech, (M.xch, for predict1989)41, Mixtures P = (1970).

holdup viscosity,

H. lr. and Ros, N.C.3.: Pmt.. 6fb World

in Wells. 34. Brill, J.P.:

(1963)

v = p = ~ r = =

viscosity, mJL3, Ensio, stiess, @Lt2, groups kg/m3 mltz,

Discontimilies

Orfi=wsid J. E.eqyRes.

ingpressure-enfs 34. 3S.

Beggs,

dynelcm Nlm3 defined in Eqs. 94 and 95

H.D.

and Bdll, 1973) .Evalua60n Using

J.P.:

Sfudy

of Two-Phase

Flow

in fnctiied

@ =

dimensionless

Pipes, - JPT(?vfay 36. Palmer, Correlations OK 37. (1975). H. and Flow, Govier, Gil C.P., Mcdel A.M. and and C.M.:

6+77. of fnclimd Data, Pipe MS Twc-Phase thesis, U. Liquid oflldsa. HoldIIp Tu@ Subscripts a = amelera,tion average Taylor critical elevation
friction

Expetimmcal

Muklmjee, IVc-Phase

Brill,

J. P.: Ressure Res. Fogarasi. P.L Tech. M.: Tech.

Drop fDec.

Correlations 1985). Drop 1972)

for

fnctined

J. Energy G.W., and J. Gin. AR.: Wells, ,Supplement

c = in Wells 38. GadLiquid Recrit = e =

bubble

cap,

core

38.

tiIz, ducing

K,

pressure (July-gept.

Gas, Hasan,

39.

Kabir, Flow

performance JPSE (1990)

of a TWo-Phase 4,273. SPE 20630, Flow

f.
F= g.ga3 H = i = I= L IS= =

i Vmical et d,:

40.

.4mari, sive per

to paper

A Comprehmin WeUbores,paTX.

film

Mechanistic SPE 28671

Mcdd

for UpwardTWc-Pba.$e at SPE headquarters,

available

Richardson,

hydraulic ith element

interracial liquid liquid . mixture modified maximum . Inil-hum Nimselt = pipe relative slip superficial slug total Taylor two-phase bubble unit slug

Nomenclature

m = = coefficient cross-sectional coefficient cceffkient constant number defined area defined defined factor for in of in in Eq. pipe, Eq. Eq. 56 57 factor to Reynolds 55 L, m2
M.

a A

mu= mill N= p

b = c-= C =

relating smoofh in m

friction pipes Eq. 48

r = s = S = SU = t. error, % 3B = TP.

C= d. e = El= E2 Es= E~ ES= Es= = =

coefficient pipe error average absolute standard average absolute standard friction . = fraction relative gravity local average Iengfb = number exponent rise diameter, function

defined L,

percentage average deviation, error, average deviation, factor of liquid miLt2,

error, percentage % psi

error, mlLt2,

mlL12, psi

psi Supermript * = developing slug flow

f=
FE FT

entrained f=tor, m.fs2

in

gas

core in Eq. 112 S1 Metric Conversion in. X2,54* Factor E+OO = cm

performance acceleration, holdup holdup along of the well fraction &action

defined

g = h = H. L. n z=

T.mvmhn

factor

is exact

SPRPF

pips, cases

m
OIIOi.4 SPE 2s, 1993. ma.u!ctipt Paw? 1990 SPE mceiv@d acmpted Annual lor for review Sept. DWC 2, 6, 1930. 1993. 4 Revb%d Fawr mm.szrht (SPE held 2Ce30) i New -bed fimt Orbs.,, Pr6-

to account velociw

for

the

swarm

effect

on

bubble

Sept. ~#:2~

Lmbl!cation

Tecim@d

Cnnfemnm

Ei+M+io

SPE

production.9

Facitides.

May

19P4

151

A CONL)REHENSIVE MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR UP WARD 10

High.Water.Cut Gas Wellst 1987), 165-177,
TWO . Pm SE FLOW I N WELL130RES Jwuu!UQ.

SPE Prod, Eng, J, (Aug.

Pressure 111, 34

Gradients in Wells-, . 36, (March, 1989).

ASME

JERT,

26Chlerlol, G. L,, Culeol, Q, M, ,and Soloccl, G,: Two.Phase Vertical Flow In 011 Wells . . Predlotlon of Pressure Drop, SPE J. Pet, Tech. (Aug. 1974), 927-938. 26 Poet? mann, Multlphase Tht ough Application Installations, Prlictlaes, F, H., and Car penter, P. G,: The Flow of Gas, 011 and Water Str Ings with Vertical Fiow Design of Gas. Lift to the API Drllllng and Produotlon 257317 (1962).

36 Beggs, H. D, and Two- Phase Fiow ~., 607.617, 37paimer , C, M,:

Briil, J. P.: A ir~ lnolined Pipes, (May, 1973),

Study Jilts

of

Evacuation of inc!!ned Two- Ph#jse Liquid Hoidup Correlations Experimental Data, M, S, Thesis, University of Tuisa (1975).

Pipe Using The

K. E,: Pr edlc4 Ion 27 Fanoher, G. H., and Brown, of Pressure Gradients for Multi phase Flew In Tubing, Trans. AM4E(1 963), u, 59-69. 28 Hagedorn, ~lRa.d ~, Dissertation, Austin (1964), Ph, D. Texas at A, R,: ~~

38 Mukherjee, H. and Brill, J. P.: Drop Correlatior?s for inclined ASM5 JERT (Dee., Flow, Trans.
3gAziz, Y.,

Pressure Two- Phase 1985).

Pressure @AS, ~= September, fWMENCiATURE

Govier, Drop 1972),

G. W, in Welis

and Fogar asi, M.: Produoing Oil and 48, (JuiY .

The

University

of

lWGr.@h a A b c

of Pr es$ure 28 Baxendell, P, B,: The Caloulatlon SPE Gradients in High Rate Flowing Well), J. Pet, Tech, (@S, 1961), 1023. 300rklszew sKI, ..t,: Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipes, SPE J. Pet, Tech. (June 1967), 829=838. 31 Espanoi, ~~
lRMLWU4ulikp~ZSe FI ou ,

c c
d D e El 132 B3 E4 Es E6 L 8 h If

H,

J.

H.:

Q21tlfJJf~ff M, S. Thesis

The University 32 Mes*uiam, ~=ELf@lQ~ ~* M*S. Thesi8, 33 Camaeho, ~&L&fit& ~ University C, S,

of Tuisa A,

(1968). Q,: ~ o~

The A,:

University @mg6111~

of Tuisa

(1970),

L
M.S* of Tulsa (1970), n Th@~is, The n

34 Duns, H,, Jr, FIGW of Gas ~Worid (1063), 35 Briii, J. Qkiczewski P,:

and Ros, N, C, J,: Vertiaal and Liquid Mixtures in Welis, pet, Congr es% 451,

N P

Dieoontinuitieo Oorreiat ion for

in the Predicting

Q Re RPF s

coefficient defined in Bq. 46 cross-sectional area of pipe, mz coefficient defined in Hq. 47 coefficient defined in Eq. 48 constan: factor reldtg friction factor to Reynolds number for smooth pipm coefficient defined in Eq. 3$ differential change in a variable pipe diameter, m error function avarago percentage error, % absolute average porcontage error, % standard deviation, % averago error, psi absoluto average error, psi standard deviation, psi friction factor fraction of liquid entrained in gas coro grswity aoceleratlon, m/s2 local holdup fractton averago holdup fraction longti~ along the pipe, m exponent relating friction factor to Reynolds numbu for smooth pipm expentmt to account for the swarm effect on bubble volooity number of well cases successfully traversed pressure, psi [ N/m2 1 flow rate, m9/s Reynolds number Rolat{vo Porfortnmtao Factor, defined in Iiq. 92 wetted porimotor, m
riso

180

v x
Y

velocity, mls volume, m Lockhart and Martinelli parameter Lockhart and Martinelli parameter 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, 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

79 and f?f)

.yw%m.ii
A c crit 9 f P o H i I L LS
M

mn N r s S w t m Tp

acceleration avorago Taylor bubble cap, com critical elevation friction film ga8 hydrauIie ith element interfacing liquid liquid slug mixture min{mum Nussolt relative slip sttporfioial slug unit total Taylor bubble two.phase

dtwelopin~

slug flow

TArKE MXGE

1 DiSVi

TABLE 3 STAT1871CAL RESUEE5 USING ALL VSKIICAL E2 w i3AGBR WIODEL 10.s 14.5 34.G Es WELL C!MES

OFWELL

mm.
OIL]

QLEak2 Smom

Gad@& @W/Dj

01 Grat&z

{%1
15.1 19-2 19.3 21.9

[&i)
-75 -17.7 -18-6 232 52-0 509 ?8.0

{Ril
959 81.3 98.4 102.0 121.7 154.9 1472

[Ri]
173.9 144.9 M2.5 176.3 Has 298.8 211.0

RFP (-1 5.380 6S87 7.542 8.382 12.913 15-374 17X2.2

A@n

1-8

0-10150

1-5-10567

9-5-70.5

Kuz

24 2:-8 Re&3cke & ~24

8-?600 720-27000

114-27400 740-55700

17-112 35-86 mum 16.7 21.1 20-9

23.0 38.5 22-0

2:-7 &5 5&-7

0-3-534702-68 600-23000

448-44960 6-27914 200-1 MIOOO

: 8.346

MUiiR

Uiitrmecal=

TABLE 4 24-86 !STATISTZCAL RE-SULX?5X7*SING ALL V8E?lTCAL WELL CASES WTHOUT HM3EDORW AN= BROWN= OATA E2 {%] MODEL %chadcs da?a&om Fmmmaml and &qxo*&r26. F~&a ~d ~27. Hagedmn amd Brmm~BaxcndeU arid 3bri9as29. OrEszewsl@O. E5pafio13u MeSSaam=. and ~cbc@ !Md data &om smera? oii HAGRR A212 DI)NROS 10.Z 12.2 128 15.0 182? MUR%R ORKIS 20-6 27.4 ES
~OAJ ~~i) [Ri)

g)
1722 207.2 216.1 209.2 2356 239.5 362-4

(-)
5.000 6.801 8.459 10.814 19-166 21s01 22.400

14.8 17.0 18.0 22.8 23.3 !XL6 46.8

-6.4 -122 -21.s 33.1 81S 92.5 77.5

!37-8 x3(L6 126.3 1352 1672 181-9 223.4

STA77S77CAL RES13Z3S USRIG N.Lmw VEm?ciLmm3. cAsEs E2 :%] MODEI. fmz Iz&Gss m?NiROs 0R81S 121 X22 92 122 16.1 14.4 17s 17.1 168 13.6 185 3+72 202 20.2 93 -20-8 -285 33-4 122 41-3 78.7 IOL3 116.S 10243 1109 XW3 1343 158s 163-2 190-4 37s.4 177.7 2733 207s 217-2 5373 MODEL 7349 HWBR 7-101 DWWROS 8.470 Jlz12 8X53 M3KSR 10.102 24.5 14.751 oRms 60-7 71.9 295.6 453-5 538.1 118.515 25.7 152.6 215S) 193.0 58.808 la2 19.8 110.3 176.5 191.3 43.140 102 14.7 -909 154.6 280.5 35-685 18.1 27.1 -6.4 165.8 216-7 9261 10.6 14-8 13.1 122.1 166.2 8334 8.6 12.3 -3.0 109.0 164.4 5.000 Es (%)

[Ei)

lsj)

(Ri)

(-- )

~ ~ Sl&k WnH

T=IS

--:1

~Z2S USKG ALL WELL CASES CmER 75% 3K?? FLOW

SrA=iXAI.. RESETS USING Ail. WELL CASES WITH K)(E% SLUG FLOW

.. .-

E2
[%] IKQDEL Aziz omaS 3-2 32 3-3 3.6 ~) 3.7 a7 42 40 (Ril -*kx-8 -30-3 -269 -47-8 (Ril 67-0 68S) 69-4 77.5 78.7 792 155.6

l%
[psi] 76-9 79-1 90.6 8.2 80-1 102-6 83-3 n 5.000 5286 5.493 6.374 6.511 6.842 12.852 IXmROS .

E2 [%] Az32
MODEL HAGBR 14.8 162 10-1 14.6 15.5 15-1 213 :9.8 20.4 14.8 26.3 21-3 21.4 213 5.6 13.0 -19-7 17.4 43.7 56.6 99-1 1023 1012 80.4 116.3 114.8 m82 153.2 173-8 160.8 176.8 212.9 184.9 170.7 1972

RPF (-1
6.016 7.413 7.CW5 8.820 13.181 15276 24.146

D?mRos HAG8Ra8
8EG3R MEKBR

Oms

4s
3-8 7-3 4.S 3-8

-44-9
46-6 -154.0

ii

TA%LE8
-MBLE 9

SBmSKXL

UELLCA6ESWTIH

ALL VEK7iCAL R8S?iEXS t.SIXG mLY%sLz??Fl nwwr7HoliT HAGEDmN A??= BRtwn.= Dfsm Es [%)
E4

SmnSTicilL WITH RPF (-) 5.s31 5.896 7.118 22.694 24.619 25.873 32.319 MODEL J!2Jz Z2 f%) 9.7 12.4

RESULTS ALL WELL. CaSES ml% Amn.rmR FiQw

E2
).

~o~)

Q-)
-7s 59 14.4 M3Lxo 101s 118-9 152.3

E5 rps) 10.7 126.7 140-5 1694 199s 177.3 2U5.4

& 198.7 226-3 252.6 241-9 321-2 ~~~ 253.3

%) 12.4 165 16.4 24.8 19.9 18.0 682

gi) -21.8 222 70.6 -79-0 202.1 250.7 504.0

[Ri) 80.7 108.1 128.7 174.9 219.9 261-9 544.9

gil 132-9 1Q5.4 148.2 223-1 196.7 180S 407.9

RPF (-)
5.000 5-896 8.652 11283 17.409 20.515 45.810

BIODEL

162 19.1 17-0

20S 24.1 21.1 28-3 43-5 262 242

A212

EL%G8R
DUNROS MUKBR SEE

1?5.1
20-0 2s-5 322 78.7

mmRos

242 28.6 24-7

ORKXS

KGK3R

332

or?ms

~
I

t.k ,w

t:

!
0000 0000
0:.:0:

t ~

t
..$. . . . . . . . $.. ,, . ,..
0,

.n {?=
201 I I I I [ I

u ,

Do o

Q:? 33.%7 ~o 00

!2 Q
3
z A a
6 ii

BUBBLT

BARNEA TRANSITION

0.1

/
0.1

I [ I
D I

ANNULAR

SLUGOR CHURN

.*

. .*

.$

K u.! o.

a u)

0.0

I
II
1 I

II
i
I

I I 1 I I

}
SLUG FLOW
Fig. l-Flow

t t C1-llol; A;lW&AR

0.00i

02

10

100

SUPERFICIAL
FIu. 2-Typlcel

GAS VELOCITY (m/S)

patterns in upward two.phase flow.

flow pattern map for wellborss.

,aso~
V~TB DEVELOPING J TAYLOR BUBBLE -

.-1
~
0

v L O?do

4L
GTB

LyB
1

NTGTB

(o) DEVELOPED SLUG UNIT

Fig, 3-Sohemetlo

(b) DEVELOPING SLUGUNIT

diagram of slug flow,

164

1, ,,, ,,.

I ,,
!. ,,

I :.

,
1

10

,
.

9.0
GAS CORE ,, LIQUID FILM ~ ENTRAINED LIQUID DROPLET ~ 1 _ ,, . ,, ., . .

I ?2(

+
x

CALCULATED

PRESSURE

ANNhLAFl

MEASURED PRJNWRE

J.

\
\

,, 1: I ::, ;:: ~F

. . IC

h
:,:
,4

,,

S1

,:

i, ,. i , ,,,

,.,
F19.4-Sc,hemellc diagram o! annular flow, ~ Fig. 5.-Performanoe

PRESSURE
of tho co~praltan$lve

( PSI ) :
model-typloal prenaure profile,
1

,,,

16s