Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
C
Surface tension: 35.75 dynes/cm at 19.8
C
Interfacial tension with water: 30.4 dynes/cm at 19.8
C
Pour and ashpoint temperatures: 15 and 266
C, respectively.
Test Matrix. On the basis of the research objectives and facility
limitations, high-viscosity oil/water/gas three-phase tests have
been carried out for both horizontal and upward vertical ows.
The experimental ranges are as following:
Supercial oil velocity: 0.1 to 1 m/s
Supercial water velocity: 0.1 to 1 m/s
Supercial gas velocity: 1 to 5 m/s
Water cut: 17 to 77%
On the basis of a rheological study, Li (2009) determined that
the oil/water-phase inversion point for the Lubsoil ND-50 occurs
between 15 to 20% water cut. When the water-ow rate is low
and oil is continuous in the ow loop, it is hard to maintain a sta-
ble water ow rate because of the high discharge pressure. Thus,
most tests were conducted within the water-continuous region.
Live-oil viscosities with dissolved natural gas are 0.15, 0.28, and
0.57 Pas, corresponding to temperatures of 37.8, 26.7, and
15.6
S
L
(
m
/
s
)
SG
(m/s)
0.01
0.1
1
10
0.1 1 10 100
S
L
(
m
/
s
)
SG
(m/s)
IN-WC
ST-ST
ST-WC
Oil/Gas
Water/Gas
DB
SLUG
ANN
Oil/Gas
Water/Gas
INT(O/W-S&SOW-F)
INT(O/W-S&O/W-F)
STR(O/W-F)
DB
SLUG
ANN
Fig. 13Three-phase ow pattern comparison between Keskin (2007) observations and current study for horizontal ows with
50%water cut. (a) Keskin (2007) observations; (b) current study (l
o
50.15 Pas).
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
d
p
/
d
L
F
,
E
x
p
(
P
a
/
m
)
Water Cut
V
sg
= 1 m/s
V
sg
= 2 m/s
V
sg
= 5 m/s
SO
= 0.5 m/s
Fig. 14Three-phase frictional pressure-gradient measure-
ments in horizontal ow at l
o
50.15 Pas.
0
1000
2000
3000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
d
p
/
d
L
F
,
E
x
p
(
P
a
/
m
)
Water Cut
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Cut
(a) (b)
V
sg
= 1 m/s
V
sg
= 2 m/s
V
sg
= 5 m/s
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
d
p
/
d
L
G
,
E
x
p
(
P
a
/
m
)
V
sg
= 1 m/s
V
sg
= 2 m/s
V
sg
= 5 m/s
SO
= 0.5 m/s
SO
= 0.5 m/s
Fig. 15Three-phase pressure-gradient measurements in upward vertical ow at l
o
50.15 Pas. (a) Frictional pressure gradient
vs. water cut; (b) gravitational pressure gradient vs. water cut.
August 2013 SPE Production & Operations 311
pressure drop, which is measured by the differential pressure
transducer. At the same supercial oil velocity and water cut, the
higher the supercial gas velocity, the lower the gravitational
pressure gradient, as shown in Fig. 15b. This is caused by the
lower liquid holdups at higher gas velocities. Because the gravita-
tional pressure gradient term is dominant in upward vertical ow,
the total pressure gradient shows the same trend as the gravita-
tional pressure gradient.
Comparison With Two-Phase Flow. Horizontal oil/gas two-
phase data were acquired in the current study. Vertical oil/gas
two-phase ow data were collected by Akhiyarov (2010) for his
MS thesis using the same ow loop, with the same uids and sim-
ilar test conditions. These data are used to study the water-lubrica-
tion effect for oil/gas two-phase ow and the gas-injection effect
for oil/water two-phase ow, respectively, in Figs. 16 and 17.
As shown in Fig. 16, the same supercial gas and total super-
cial liquid velocities are used to compare oil/water/gas three-
phase ow and oil/gas two-phase ow results in horizontal pipes.
At low water cut (e.g., 17% with oil/water either stratied or
water in oil dispersed), the three-phase frictional pressure gra-
dients are comparable or slightly higher than the correspondent
two-phase frictional pressure gradients. This suggests that water
injection does not help to reduce pressure gradient in oil continu-
ous region. By increasing water cut to 23, 38, and then 50%, fric-
tional pressure gradient is signicantly reduced to as low as 30%.
After water cut is higher than 50%, further increasing the water
ow rate will not produce any more benet.
Fig. 17 presents current oil/water/gas three-phase pressure gra-
dients compared against Akhiyarov (2010) oil/gas two-phase
upward vertical ow pressure gradients. The supercial liquid ve-
locity is the same for both current three-phase ow and Akhiyar-
ovs two-phase ow. Due to different test matrices and insufcient
data, only 50% water cut three-phase ow pressure drop experi-
mental results are used to compare with oil/gas two-phase ow. It
can be observed when water is used to replace part of the oil in the
upward vertical oil/gas ow that the frictional pressure gradient is
greatly reduced. However, the gravitational pressure gradients are
close between two-phase and three-phase ows. In upward vertical
pipe with medium ow rates, the gravitational pressure gradient is
usually much higher than the correspondent frictional pressure
gradient. As a result, the reduction on the total pressure gradient is
limited with water injection based on the observations in this
study. In upward vertical ow, water is mixed with oil and some
entrained gas. As long as the water remains continuous, water cut
change may not affect the overall liquid holdup, which determines
the gravitational pressure gradient.
Comparison With Model Predictions. The measured three-
phase pressure gradients are compared with the predictions in the
Zhang and Sarica (2006) UM in Figs. 18 and 19. Zhang and Sarica
developed the UM based on slug dynamics. Both slug characteris-
tics and transitions from slug ow to other ow regimes can be pre-
dicted by solving the continuity and momentum equations of slug
ow. It can be seen that there is signicant scatteredness in the
comparisons. Most of the overpredictions correspond to horizontal
0
1000
2000
3000
0 1000 2000 3000
d
p
/
d
L
F
,
T
h
r
e
e
(
P
a
/
m
)
dp/dL
F, Two
(Pa/m)
WC = 17%
WC = 23%
WC = 38%
WC = 50%
WC = 63%
WC = 77%
+50%
70%
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
d
p
/
d
L
F
,
T
h
r
e
e
/
d
p
/
d
L
F
,
T
w
o
Water Cut
(b) (a)
INT(O/W-S&SOW-F)
INT(O/W-S&O/W-F)
STR(O/W-F)
Fig. 16Oil/water/gas frictional pressure gradient compared with oil/gas frictional pressure gradient (current study) in horizontal
ow at l
o
50.15 Pas, various water cut, same v
SL
and v
SG
. (a) Three-phase vs. two-phase pressure gradient; (b) pressure-gradient
ratio vs. water cut.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
d
p
/
d
L
T
h
r
e
e
(
P
a
/
m
)
dp/dL
Two
(Pa/m)
Gravitational
Frictional
Total
+10%
35%
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
8 6 4 2 0 10 12
d
p
/
d
L
T
h
r
e
e
/
d
p
/
d
L
T
w
o
M
(m/s)
Gravitational
Frictional
Total
(a) (b)
Fig. 17Three-phase pressure gradient compared with Akhiyarov (2010) oil/gas pressure gradient in upward vertical ow at
l
o
50.15 Pas, 50% water cut, same v
SL
and v
SG
, all corresponding to INT(O/W-S&O/W-F). (a) Three-phase vs. two-phase pressure
gradient; (b) pressure-gradient ratio vs. mixture velocity.
312 August 2013 SPE Production & Operations
slug ows with oil in water slug and stratied oil water lm INT(O/
W-S&SOW-F). For vertical ow, the UM can predict the positive
frictional pressure gradient because the liquid lm falling back is
allowed in the momentum equations. The gravitational pressure
gradient is underpredicted. This is caused by the underprediction of
the liquid holdup by the model. The UMalso underpredicts the ver-
tical frictional pressure gradient as a general trend.
Holdups. Three-Phase Holdup. Fig. 20 shows the oil and water
holdups in horizontal ows. It is shown that with the increase of
water cut, oil holdup decreases while the water holdup increases.
With the combined effect, the total liquid holdup in the pipe is rel-
atively stable, with a small dip at around 4050% water cut corre-
sponding to all supercial gas velocities. Holdups in upward
vertical pipes exhibit similar trends.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
d
p
/
d
L
F
,
U
M
(
P
a
/
m
)
dP/dL
F, Exp
(Pa/m)
0.28 Pas Vertical
0.15 Pas Vertical
+40%
90%
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
d
P
/
d
L
G
,
U
M
(
P
a
/
m
)
dP/dL
G, Exp
(Pa/m)
0.28 Pas Vertical
0.15 Pas Vertical
50%
(a) (b)
Fig. 19Measurements of pressure gradient compared with Zhang and Sarica (2006) UM predictions in upward vertical three-
phase ows. (a) UM predictions vs. frictional pressure gradient; (b) UM predictions vs. gravitational pressure gradient.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
d
p
/
d
L
F
,
U
M
(
P
a
/
m
)
dp/dL
F, Exp
(Pa/m)
0.57 Pas Horizontal
0.28 Pas Horizontal
0.15 Pas Horizontal
+300%
40%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
p
/
d
L
M
o
d
e
l
/
d
p
/
d
L
E
x
p
M
(m/s)
0.57 Pas Horizontal
0.28 Pas Horizontal
0.15 Pas Horizontal
(a) (b)
Fig. 18Measurements of frictional pressure gradient compared with Zhang and Sarica (2006) unied model (UM) predictions in
horizontal three-phase ows. (a) UM predictions vs. frictional pressure gradient; (b) pressure-gradient ratio vs. mixture velocity.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
H
O
Water Cut
(a)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
H
W
Water Cut
(a)
V
sg
= 1 m/s
V
sg
= 2 m/s
V
sg
= 5 m/s
SO
= 0.5 m/s
V
sg
= 1 m/s
V
sg
= 2 m/s
V
sg
= 5 m/s
SO
= 0.5 m/s
Fig. 20Measured holdups in oil/water/gas horizontal ows for l
o
50.15 Pas. (a) Oil holdup vs. water cut; (b) water holdup vs.
water cut.
August 2013 SPE Production & Operations 313
Comparison With Two-Phase Flow. Approximately 50 hori-
zontal oil/gas ow experiments were performed using the same
uids and facilities along with the three-phase ow study. At the
same total supercial liquid velocities, experimental results show
liquid holdups in horizontal oil/water/gas ow are generally lower
than horizontal oil/gas ow (Fig. 21). This suggests that in hori-
zontal three-phase ow, the liquid phase ows faster because of
water lubrication. In upward vertical ow, liquid holdups are gen-
erally the same between the two-phase and three-phase ows, as
shown in Fig. 22.
Comparison With Model Predictions. The three-phase hold-
ups are compared with Zhang and Sarica (2006) UM predictions
in Fig. 23. As a general trend, the UM underpredicts most of the
oil and water holdups. The discrepancy between the predicted val-
ues and experimental results is likely caused by the closure rela-
tionships used within the UM. These correlations were developed
on the basis of low-viscosity oil multiphase ow experimental
results. Correlations suitable for both low- and high-viscosity oil
multiphase ows are needed to improve the model performance.
Conclusions
Experiments on high-viscosity oil/water/gas ows in horizontal
and upward vertical pipes have been carried out. Four three-phase
ow patterns are identied by combining gas/liquid ow pattern
and oil/water mixing status within experimental range. Compared
with low-viscosity multiphase ow, the slug ow region expands
signicantly due to high oil viscosity and low liquid lm velocity.
Water injection can lubricate the ow and signicantly reduce the
frictional pressure gradient. This is most benecial for horizontal
ows. The maximum reduction of horizontal oil/gas pressure gra-
dient occurs at approximately 4050% water cut. For upward ver-
tical ow, the water injection effect on total pressure gradient is
limited due to the dominance of gravitational pressure gradient.
The Zhang and Sarica (2006) UM gives reasonable predictions
for water continuous ow. However, the pressure drop and hold-
ups are underpredicted as a general trend. The closure relation-
ships (such as slug liquid holdup, slug translational velocity,
interfacial friction factor, and entrainment fraction) used in the
unied model were developed on the basis of low-viscosity multi-
phase ow experimental results. They need to be modied, or
new closure relationships need to be developed, to fully incorpo-
rate the viscosity effect.
Nomenclature
dp/dL
F
frictional pressure gradient, Pa/m
dp/dL
G
gravitational pressure gradient, Pa/m
dp/dL
T
total pressure gradient, Pa/m
Exp experimental results
G-L SEP gas/liquid separator
H
L
total liquid holdup
H
O
oil holdup
H
W
water holdup
UM Zhang and Sarica (2006) unied model
v
M
mixture velocity, m/s
v
SG
supercial gas velocity, m/s
v
SL
supercial liquid velocity, m/s
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
H
L
,
T
h
r
e
e
H
L, Two
0.15 Pas Horizontal
+15%
25%
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
0 2 4 6 8
H
L
,
T
h
r
e
e
/
H
L
,
T
w
o
M
(m/s)
0.15 Pas Horizontal
(a) (b)
Fig. 21Three-phase total liquid holdups compared with current oil/gas liquid holdup in horizontal ows for l
o
50.15 Pas, same
v
SL
and v
SG
. (a) Three-phase vs. two-phase liquid holdup; (b) holdup ratio vs. mixture velocity.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
H
L
,
T
h
r
e
e
H
L, Two
0.15 Pas Vertical +20%
10%
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
0 2 4 6 8
H
L
,
T
h
r
e
e
/
H
L
,
T
w
o
M
(m/s)
0.15 Pas Vertical
(a) (b)
Fig. 22Three-phase total liquid holdup compared with Akhiyarov (2010) oil/gas liquid holdup in upward vertical ows for
l
o
50.15 Pas, same v
SL
and v
SG
. (a) Three-phase vs. two-phase liquid holdup; (b) holdup ratio vs. mixture velocity.
314 August 2013 SPE Production & Operations
v
SO
supercial oil velocity, m/s
v
SW
supercial water velocity, m/s
l
o
oil viscosity, Pas
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the TUHOP member companies
for supporting this research project.
References
Acikgoz, M., Franca, F., and Lahey Jr, R.T. 1992. An experimental study
of three-phase ow regimes. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 18 (3): 327336.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0301-9322(92)90020-H.
Akhiyarov, D.T., Zhang, H.-Q., and Sarica, C. 2010. High-Viscosity Oil-
Gas Flow in Vertical Pipe. Presented at the Offshore Technology Con-
ference, Houston, 36 May. OTC-20617-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.4043/20617-MS.
Akhiyarov, D.T. 2010. An Experimental Study on High-Viscosity Oil/Gas
Upward Flow in Vertical Pipes. MS thesis, the University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Bannwart, A.C., Rodriguez, O.M.H., Trevisan, F.E. et al. 2009. Experi-
mental investigation on liquidliquidgas ow: Flow patterns and
pressure-gradient. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 65 (12): 113. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.petrol.2008.12.014.
Bannwart, A.C., Vieira, F., Carvalho, C.-H.M. et al. 2005. Water-Assisted
Flow of Heavy Oil and Gas in a Vertical Pipe. Presented at the SPE/
PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium, Calgary, 13 November. SPE-97875-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/97875-MS.
Hewitt, G.F. 2005. Three-phase gasliquidliquid ows in the steady and
transient states. Nucl. Eng. Des. 235 (1012): 13031316. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2005.02.023.
Keskin, C., Zhang, H.-Q., and Sarica, C. 2007. Identication and Classi-
cation of New Three-Phase Gas/Oil/Water Flow Patterns. Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, Cali-
fornia, USA, 1114 November. SPE-110221-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/110221-MS.
Langsholt, M. and Holm, H. 2001. Oil-Water-Gas in Steeply Inclined
Pipes. Presented at the 10th International Conference (Multiphase
01), Cannes, France, 1315 June.
Li, M. 2009. High-Viscosity Oil/Water Emulsion Rheology. Presented at
the 4th Advisory Board Meeting of Tulsa University High-Viscosity
Oil Projects (TUHOP), Tulsa, 24 March.
Pan, L., Jayanti, S., and Hewitt, G.F. 1995. Flow Patterns, Phase Inversion
and Pressure Gradient in Air-Oil-Water Flow in a Horizontal Pipe.
Presented at the 2nd International Conference on Multiphase Flow:
95 Kyoto, Kyoto, Japan, 37 April.
Poesio, P., Strazza, D., and Sotgia, G. 2009. Very-viscous-oil/water/air
ow through horizontal pipes: Pressure drop measurement and predic-
tion. Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (6): 11361142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ces.2008.10.061.
Sridhar, S., Zhang, H.-Q., Sarica, C. et al. 2011. Experiments and Model
Assessment on High-Viscosity Oil/Water Inclined Pipe Flows. Pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Den-
ver, 30 October2 November. SPE-146448-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/146448-MS.
Trevisan, F. and Bannwart, A.C. 2006. Three-Phase Flow Patterns and
Pressure Drop for Heavy Crude Oil-Water-Gas Horizontal Flow. Pre-
sented at the 13th International Heat Transfer Conference, Sydney,
Australia, Paper IHTC 13-1322.
Vuong, D.H., Zhang, H.-Q., Sarica, C. et al. 2009. Experimental Study on
High Viscosity Oil/Water Flow in Horizontal and Vertical Pipes. Pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, 47 October. SPE-124542-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
124542-MS.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
H
O
,
U
M
0.57 Pas Horizontal
0.28 Pas Horizontal
0.15 Pas Horizontal
0.28 Pas Vertical
0.15 Pas Vertical
+100%
80%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
H
O
,
U
M
/
H
O
,
E
x
p
0.57 Pas Horizontal
0.28 Pas Horizontal
0.15 Pas Horizontal
0.28 Pas Vertical
0.15 Pas Vertical
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
H
W
,
U
M
H
W
,
Exp
0.57 Pas Horizontal
0.28 Pas Horizontal
0.15 Pas Horizontal
0.28 Pas Vertical
0.15 Pas Vertical
+15%
60%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 2 4 6 8
H
W
,
U
M
/
H
W
,
E
x
p
M
(m/s)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
H
O
,
Exp
0 2 4 6 8
M
(m/s)
0.57 Pas Horizontal
0.28 Pas Horizontal
0.15 Pas Horizontal
0.28 Pas Vertical
0.15 Pas Vertical
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 23Measured holdups compared with Zhang and Sarica (2006) UM predictions in three-phase ow. (a) UM predictions vs. oil
holdup experimental results; (b) oil holdup ratio vs. mixture velocity; (c) UM predictions vs. water holdup experimental results; (d)
water holdup ratio vs. mixture velocity.
August 2013 SPE Production & Operations 315
Woods, G.S., Spedding, P.L., Watterson, J.K. et al. 1998. Three-Phase
Oil/Water/Air Vertical Flow. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 76 (5): 571584.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1205/026387698525252.
Zhang, H.-Q. and Sarica, C. 2006. Unied Modeling of Gas/Oil/Water
Pipe FlowBasic Approaches and Preliminary Validation. SPE Proj
Fac & Const 1 (2): 17. SPE-95749-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
95749-PA.
Shufan Wang is currently a Flow Assurance Consultant with
MSi Kenny. email: shufan.wang@woodgroupkenny.com. His
research interests include oil/water/gas multiphase flow, high-
viscosity oils, and slug-flow modeling. Before joining the Univer-
sity of Tulsa (TU), he focused mainly on CO
2
pipeline corrosion.
He holds a BS degree in materials science and engineering
from the Beijing University of Chemical Technology, an MS
degree in chemical engineering from Ohio University, and a
PhD degree in petroleum engineering from TU.
Hong-Quan Zhang is an Associate Professor of Petroleum Engi-
neering at TU, and serves as the director of the universitys Arti-
ficial Lift Projects (TUALP, www.tualp.utulsa.edu). email: hong-
quan-zhang@utulsa.edu. From 19982003, he was a senior
research associate of the Tulsa University Fluid Flow Projects
(TUFFP). From 20032012, he served as the Associate Director
of TUFFP and principal investigator of the Tulsa University High-
Viscosity Oil Projects (TUHOP). Before joining TU in 1998, he was
an Associate Professor and Professor at Tianjin University. In
1993 and 1994, as an Alexander von Humboldt Research Fel-
low, he conducted research at the Max Planck Institute of
Fluid Mechanics and the German Aerospace Research Estab-
lishment in Go ttingen, Germany. Zhang holds BS and MS
degrees from Xian Jiaotong University and a PhD degree from
Tianjin University, China.
Cem Sarica is currently a Professor of Petroleum Engineering
and the director of three industry-supported consortia at TU:
Fluid Flow, Paraffin Deposition, and Horizontal Well Artificial Lift
Projects. He was an Associate Professor of Petroleum and Nat-
ural Gas Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University and
an Assistant Professor of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineer-
ing at Istanbul Technical University (ITU) before joining TU. He
has over 100 publications, mostly in SPE journals and proceed-
ings, and his research interests include production engineer-
ing, multiphase flow in pipes, flow assurance, and horizontal
wells. He holds BS and MS degrees in petroleum engineering
from ITU and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from TU.
He currently serves as a member of SPE Projects, Facilities and
Construction Advisory Committee and a member of the SPE
Production and Operations Award Committee. He has previ-
ously served as a member of the SPE Production Operations
and Books Committees, and was a member of the SPE Journal
Editorial Board between 19992007. He is also the recipient of
the 2010 SPE International Production and Operations Award,
and was recognized as a Distinguished Member of SPE in 2012.
Eduardo Pereyra is a research associate with the Fluid Flow
Project at TU. His research interests include multiphase flow sys-
tems and transport, flow assurance, and separation technolo-
gies. Pereyra has appeared in several refereed journals and
has written conference papers in these areas. Pereyra holds
two BE degrees, one in mechanical engineering and one in
systems engineering, from the University of Los Andes, Vene-
zuela, and MS and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering
from TU.
316 August 2013 SPE Production & Operations