Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

SPE-175805-MS

Proper Selection of Multiphase Flow Correlations


Mohamed. A. Abd El Moniem, Amal Petroleum Company; Ahmed H. El-Banbi, Cairo University

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Cairo, Egypt, 14 16 September 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Multiphase pressure drop calculations represent a challenge for petroleum engineers. We normally rely on
multiphase flow correlations to calculate pressure traverses through tubing from the sand face to the
wellhead. Although there are many multiphase flow correlations covering most flow conditions; there are
still no clear criteria to select appropriate correlations in absence of flowing gradient survey data.
The objective of this work is to help petroleum engineers select the most accurate multiphase flow
correlation(s) for any flow conditions, fluid properties, and well configuration.
The method depends on analyzing a large database of pressure drop data from many wells. Our
database is composed of more than 3,200 measured pressure points taken from survey and single point
measurements on 879 wells representing large variations of flow conditions (oil rate ranges from very low
rate to 31,000 BBL/D, water cut from 0 to 98%, gas-oil ratio from 0 to 20,000 SCF/STB, gas rate from
very low rate to 200 MMSCFD, water gas ratio from 0 to 200 BBL/MMSCF, condensate gas ratio from
0 to 200 BBL/MMSCF for vertical, deviated and horizontal wells with different tubing sizes).
We built models for all these wells and tested many available multi-phase flow correlations and
recorded the error in their prediction against the actual measurements of pressure points. We then
classified the large database into groups and found all multi-phase flow correlations within this group that
have the lowest error. For every group, we can now identify the best correlation(s) with their estimated
error value. We also defined a term to reflect the strength of the appropriate correlation(s) (how many
times this particular correlation was best in each group of data) to help engineers select appropriate
correlation for each well and its flowing conditions.
The strength term for all groups varies from 100 % to 30% which indicates that for several groups we
can now select the multiphase flow correlation with significant accuracy. The expected error for all
correlations is also reported. The parameters that mostly affect each correlation are also highlighted so
engineers would know which parameters need to be accurate in using the recommended correlations.

Introduction
Prediction of multiphase flow pressure drops in tubing and flowlines usually presents a challenge for
forecasting well performance. The ideal case is the flow of single phase of hydrocarbon in the tubing to
easily predict the pressure drop occurring through the tubing section, but in case of appearance of
multiphases, the flow will turn from single homogeneous fluid to flow of free gases and liquids in the
2 SPE-175805-MS

pipes. In this case, different flow patterns may be present depending on the nature of flow of these fluids
and the quantity of each phase.
Generally, multiphase flow can occurs in different well geometries, and it can be classified into three
main categories:
a. Vertical Multiphase flow
b. Inclined Multiphase flow
c. Horizontal Multiphase flow
In this work, we will focus on multiphase flow in the tubing section so we will emphasize how the
pressure drop can be calculated when the fluid enters the wellbore and until it reaches the surface.
Prediction of multiphase pressure drop is an old problem. Therefore, many attempts were made to solve
this problem by many investigators. Some investigators relied on energy balance form like Hagedorn and
Brown, and others used a pressure balance form like Duns and Ros.
All multiphase flow correlations were developed from the general energy equation which expresses an
energy balance between two points in a fluid flow system. It follows the law of conservation of energy,
which states that the energy of a fluid entering section 1 of a pipe, plus any additional work done on the
fluid between sections 1 and 2, minus any energy losses by the system between sections 1 and 2, is equal
to the energy of the fluid leaving section 2 (Brown 1977). The energy balance equation is given in the
following form:
(1)

The above equation can be manipulated and written in terms of pressure drop per unit length of pipe
as follows:
(2)

We can, therefore, state the equation in terms of pressure gradient (psi/ft.) as follows:
Total gradient Elevation gradient Friction gradient Acceleration gradient
Or:
(3)

Many correlations with varying degree of sophistication (Ansari 1990) have been presented in the
literature.
History of Multiphase Flow in Pipes
The multiphase flow correlations have been used for many years to calculate the pressure drop in tubing
and flow lines. They started with simple modifications of pressure drop calculations for single phase flow,
moved to 2-phase flow correlations that did not take into considerations flow pattern maps or slip velocity,
to more sophisticated 2-phase models that accounted for slip and flow pattern maps, to more sophisticated
2 and 3-phase mechanistic models (Ansari 1990).
The idea for each correlation was based on defining some parameters that affect the multiphase flow
pressure drop (e.g. mixture properties instead of single phase properties such as density) and correlate
those parameters with the pressure drop. Also, and due to the mixture phenomena, new parameters have
appeared like slippage and holdup to accurately predict the pressure drop resulting from multiphase flow.
In contrast to single phase flow, the pressure losses in multiphase flow are attributed to the presence
of the gas phase which tends to slip by the liquid phase without contributing to its lift. Therefore, many
investigators have attempted to correlate both the slippage and friction losses by means of a single energy
loss factor to the one used in the single phase flow problem. Other investigators have chosen to measure
the liquid holdup, and this allowed them to correct the static gradient portion of the total gradient for the
SPE-175805-MS 3

effects of slippage. The remaining losses were attributed to friction, and friction factors were usually
calculated from the test data.
In the following paragraphs, the main ideas and data used to derive different multiphase flow
correlations are summarized for the most widely used correlations, or the most known correlations:
Gilbert (1930) Gilbert eliminated the necessity of complex mathematical formulas by establishing,
empirically, pressure traverses for production rates up to 600 BBL/D in five different tubing sizes and a
wide range of gas oil ratios.
Poettmann and Carpenter (1952) It was the first attempt to derive a multiphase flow correlation. The
correlation is based on relatively low flow rate data 300 800 BBL/D with low GLR 100 800
SCF/BBL in and inches tubing outside diameter. The correlation is based on a database of 49
wells (34 flowing and 15 gas lifted).
Baxendell and Thomas (1961) They worked on data with rates up to 5,000 BBL/D of light and medium
crude oil. The correlation provided good results at rates above 900 BBL/D for tubing outside
diameter with accuracy 5% for gradient calculations, but for low rates below 300 BBL/D in inches
tubing OD; the accuracy was 10% in the reported data.
Fancher and Brown (1963) Using an 8,000 ft experimental well, they conducted flowing pressure
gradient tests under continuous multi-phase flow through inches tubing OD. The tests were performed
at flow rates from 75 to 936 BBL/D with GLR from 105 to 9,433 SCF/BBL. The data were then used to
develop the correlation.
Duns and Ros (1963) They performed experiment based on a vertical well with depth 10,000 ft and
GOR 750 SCF/BBL and Tubing size 3.5 OD. Flow of both air and oil through 8 cm vertical pipe was
conducted to measure liquid holdup. They introduced flow pattern maps to characterize the flow regime
(bubble, slug. . ..etc) and included calculation of slip velocity to define the flow regime. Calculation of
friction, acceleration and static pressure gradient in each regime was achieved through different equations.
Hagedorn and Brown (1964) They used an experimental test well to conduct flow experiments using
four liquids of widely different viscosities. The fluids were produced by means of air lift through
inches tubing in a 1,500 ft well to determine the effect of liquid viscosity on two phase flowing
pressure gradients. The test was at liquid flow rate range from 30 to 1,680 BBL/D with GLR from 0 to
3,270 SCF/BBL. The conclusion was that the viscous effects are negligible for liquid viscosities less than
12 cp, but must be taken into account when the liquid viscosity is greater than this value. The reported
accuracy of this correlation (which is widely used) was around 1.2% with 10.3% standard deviation.
Orkiszewski (1967) Data from Venezuelan heavy oil wells and 126 points from Poettmann and Car-
penter, Baxendell and Thomas, Fancher and Brown, and Hagedorn and Brown were used to test the
correlation to study the effects of liquid holdup and slippage through different flow regime zones. The
reported accuracy was around 0.8 % with 10.3% standard deviation.
Beggs and Brill (1973) In this other widely used multiphase flow correlation; the authors studied the
effect of pipe inclination angle on liquid holdup and pressure loss. An experimental apparatus was
designed and built so that flow rates, pressure gradient, inclination angle and liquid holdup could be
measured. The data was taken in transparent acrylic pipes 90 ft long with gas rates from 0 to 300 Mscf/D
and liquid rate from 0 to 1,029 STB/D through pipe with nominal diameters 1 and 1.5 using air and water
as reference fluids. 584 two-phase flow tests were conducted under different conditions of rates, liquid
holdup and pipe inclination. The reported accuracy of the correlation was around 1.11 % with 9.3 %
standard deviation.
4 SPE-175805-MS

Mukherjee and Brill (1983) The authors worked to predict liquid holdup for two phase flow in inclined
pipes. They used an experimental setup with kerosene and lube oil as the liquid phases with air on 1.5
ID nominal steel pipe for 56, 22 and 32 ft long inverted U shape.
Aziz and Govier (1972) The authors developed a sound mechanistically based prediction method for the
flow pattern commonly encountered in oil wells. They worked on data collected from 48 test wells (38
from Espanol, 1 from Orkiszewski, 1 from Poettmann and Carpenter and 7 from Energy resources
conservation board files). The accuracy was around 8.9% absolute errors.
Cornish (1976) The author used a vertical well with flow rate above 5,000 BBL/D in large diameter
tubing, casing and casing-annulus. Oil and gas were allowed to flow simultaneously. The reported
accuracy of the correlation was around 0.84 % with 2.06% standard deviation.
Minami and Brill (1987) A study for mechanistic model for stratified flow in horizontal pipes with
tubing ID 3.068 to predict liquid holdup in wet gas pipelines was applied. Kerosene and water were used
as a liquid plus air as a gas source. 57 data points for kerosene/air, 54 data points for water/air, and 8 points
for water plus surfactant/air mixture were used to investigate the effect of surface tension on liquid holdup
which was found to be negligible.
Ansari (1990) Another mechanistic model composed of a model for flow pattern prediction and a set of
independent models for predicting the flow characteristics such as holdup and pressure drop in bubble,
slug and annular flow was developed. The database used was composed of 1,775 well cases covering a
wide variety of field data as oil rate was from 0 to 27,000 bbl/d and gas rate from 0.0015 to 110 MMscf/D.
The performance of the model was also compared with six commonly used empirical correlations. The
reported accuracy was around 12.1% average absolute error with 17.1% standard deviation.
GRE (1994) BP exploration team over 8 years collected slug flow characteristics data from many lines
to develop this correlation. The correlation takes into consideration the velocity, length and holdup
parameters.
Modified Duns and Ros This correlation represents modifications of the original Duns and Ros corre-
lation. The modifications include:
1. Use of a different flow map (by Gould et al).
2. Addition of the Beggs and Brill correction to modify the holdup correlation to allow for well
deviation.
3. Use of a modified friction factor (Kleyweg 1983).
Gray (1978) Grays correlation was developed for gas wells producing small amounts of liquid (water
and/or condensate). This correlation stood the test of time and it usually gives good results in gas wells
for condensate-gas ratios up to around 50 STB/MMscf and high produced water ratios.
Petroleum Experts Correlations (Prosper Software Help Manual, Petroleum Experts, 2013) In a se-
ries of correlations, Petroleum Experts incorporated techniques from different correlations to improve the
predictability of their correlations. They also incorporated mechanistic model approaches in some of their
more recent correlations.
Table 1 shows a summary of data used in developing the historical empirical correlations and the error
reported in the original reference detailing the correlation. It also summarizes pertinent information on the
each correlation.
SPE-175805-MS 5

Table 1Summary of Data Used for Developing Historical Empirical Multiphase Flow Correlations

Many comparison studies between the multiphase flow correlations are found in the literature, with
misleading (due to the use of limited dataset) and sometimes confusing results. However, to the best of
our knowledge, no comprehensive guidelines are given to show which correlation(s) should be used under
certain conditions of flow rates and pipe geometry and size. In this current work, our objective is to help
engineers select appropriate multi-phase flow correlation(s) in absence of flowing gradient surveys and
downhole pressure gauge data. Our approach is based on finding the best correlation(s) for each data
cluster (group) and estimating the expected error for each correlation.

Approach
The first step was to collect as many reliable pressure points as we can. We collected a large database from
many wells as well as the literature representing a variety of well and flow conditions. Table 2 shows the
description of our database which consists of around 880 wells with 3,250 flowing pressure points. Some
of these pressure points were taken from flowing pressure gradient surveys and others were taken from
downhole pressure gauge data. We only included the pressure points that have high confidence and
associated reliable production test information.
6 SPE-175805-MS

Table 2 Pressure Data Points Classification Database


Production Type Number of Pressure Points No. of surveys survey points single points

Natural Flow Oil 2,165 225 1,700 465


Natural Flow Gas 555 2 15 540
Gas Lift 231 18 189 42
ESP 299 2 15 284

The range of input parameters to the correlations in our database is shown in Table 3. The table shows
that the database includes large variation of parameters.

Table 3Range of Data Used in the Pressure Points Database


Property / Fluid Type Oil Property / Fluid Type Gas

Qo, STB/D 5 36,800 Qg, MMSCFD 0.24 157


GOR, SCF/STB 0 40,000 CGR, BBL/MMSCF 0 616
W.C., % 0 98 WGR, BBL/MMSCF 0 2,338
BHT, F 82 370 BHT, F 96 331
API, 8 60 API, 41 117
g 0.57 1.81 g 0.52 0.94
Depth, FT 250 14,358 Depth, FT 443 21,453

We classified the data into clusters (groups) depending on fluid type (oil and gas), well type (vertical,
deviated and horizontal), depth (2,000, 2,000 9,000, and 9,000 ft), and Tubing ID (2.99,
2.99) as shown in Fig. 1.
SPE-175805-MS 7

Figure 1Classification of the data clusters (groups) according to well geometry.

Tables 4 and 5 show the criteria which we used to further classify the pressure data in each cluster
according to flow conditions for oil (Table 4) and gas wells (Table 5).

Table 4 Classification of Oil Data for Each Cluster (Group) in


the Database
Qo, STB/D W.C., % GOR, SCF/STB

2,500 5 1,000
2,500 10,000 5 30 1,000 5,000
10,000 30 70 5,000
70
8 SPE-175805-MS

Table 5 Classification of Gas Data for Each Cluster (Group) in


the Database
Qg, MMSCFD WGR, BBL/MMSCF CGR, BBL/MMSCF

10 0 30
10 30 0 100 30 100
30 100 100 100
100

We then used a commercial software program to construct well models for all cases (nearly 1,580
models) and run all available correlations to predict the 3,250 pressure points. A comparison between
different multiphase flow correlations was performed in each case to select the most suitable correlation(s)
for each case (based on the error between measured and predicted pressure points). The correlations used
in this work include:
1. Duns and Ros Modified
2. Hagedorn and Brown
3. Fancher and Brown
4. Mukherjee and Brill
5. Beggs and Brill
6. Petroleum Experts
7. Orkiszewski
8. Petroleum Experts 2
9. Duns and Ros Original
10. Petroleum Experts 3
11. GRE
12. Petroleum Experts 4
13. Hydro
14. Petroleum Experts 5
The following equation was used to compute the error between measured (observed) and predicted
pressure points for each correlation.
(4)

All these results were loaded into a database and queries were run to investigate the best results and
to establish the correlations errors for each cluster. Fig. 2 illustrates the error database configuration.
SPE-175805-MS 9

Figure 2Structure of error database

An average error and average absolute error was measured for each cluster by the following equations:
(5)

(6)

Table 6 shows the error by each correlation for the entire database:

Table 6 Errors per each correlation in the full Database


Correlation Average Absolute Error % Average Error %

Duns and Ros Modified 19.98 12.21


Hagedorn and Brown 12.99 3.23
Fancher and Brown 14.26 9.38
Gray* 5.65 1.51
Mukherjee and Brill 16.85 6.94
Beggs and Brill 13.67 8.01
Petroleum Experts 12.24 1.04
Orkiszewski 22.76 4.81
Petroleum Experts 2 11.34 1.15
Duns and Ros Original 14.04 4.91
Petroleum Experts 3 11.77 4.79
GRE 12.77 0.86
Petroleum Experts 4 13.06 1.35
Hydro 3P 50.51 42.75
Petroleum Experts 5 11.89 0.21

*used for gas cases only.

After that, the input data were used to check on best correlations (having minimum error) in each
cluster. Our initial investigation of results showed that some correlations were superior to others in certain
10 SPE-175805-MS

clusters, while some correlations are almost equally good predictors in other clusters. In more than one
occasion, it was necessary to refine the original clustering to group data with similar results, arriving at
the final clusters of data presented in the paper. For each case, we selected the best absolute error of all
the correlations and we increased this error value by 1% error over the best error to increase the error
band. We then selected all correlations within this new error band to be superior for this particular
cluster(s). We did this as a safety factor to overcome any error resulting from any misleading or
unrepresentative data of PVT, GOR or anything else, that can adversely affect the calculations and to
account for the fact that few correlations are nearly equally good in certain data clusters. We assigned
strength factor for each correlation as well. The strength factor for each correlation is simply a percentage
representing how many times this correlation appears to be the best correlation in a particular cluster. The
correlation strength factor is, therefore, an indicator for the degree of goodness of predictability of this
particular correlation at these flow and pipe conditions. Table 7 represents the classification of the data
in each cluster:

Table 7Detailed Pressure Records Classification in the Database


Type Points No. of Surveys Survey Points Single Points

Natural vertical oil 1,599 174 1,305 294


Natural vertical gas 265 0 0 265
Natural deviated oil 499 43 330 169
Natural deviated gas 290 2 15 275
Natural horizontal oil 67 8 65 2
Natural horizontal gas 0 0 0 0
Gas lift vertical oil 135 12 120 15
Gas lift vertical gas 0 0 0 0
Gas lift deviated oil 96 6 69 27
Gas lift deviated gas 0 0 0 0
Gas lift horizontal oil 0 0 0 0
Gas lift horizontal gas 0 0 0 0
ESP vertical oil 184 2 15 169
ESP deviated oil 115 0 0 115
ESP horizontal oil 0 0 0 0

Results
The results appeared to be very encouraging as the strength factor for all the groups varied from around
30% to 100%. The results of these comprehensive comparisons (in terms of best correlations and their
strength) are summarized in the following tables. The details for best correlations in every cluster and
associated error percentages are given in the two tables in the Appendix.

Oil Results
For vertical wells of shallow and moderate depth with Qo 2,500 STB/D, GOR 1000 SCF/STB and
W.C. 5%, there is no clear specific correlation with high strength factor maximum 37% but many
correlations can give the very similar results. Table 8 shows summary of oil wells results
SPE-175805-MS 11

Table 8 Summary of Oil Wells Results


Type of well Production type Qo BBL/D W.C. % GOR SCF/STB Best Correlation

Vertical Tubular 10,000 5 1,000 GRE & PET 5


2,500 5 30 ORK
2,500 30 70 MB & BEGG
Annular 2,500 5 1,000 DRM
Deviated Tubular 10,000 5 1,000 FB & ORK
2,500 30 70 1,000 DRO
2,500 5 1,000 5,000 DRM
2,500 10,000 5 1,000 5,000 HB
2,500 30 70 1,000 5,000 FB

Gas Results
Table 9 shows the summary of gas wells results.

Table 9 Summary of gas wells results


Type of well Production type Qg MMSCFD WGR BBL/MMSCF CGR BBL/MMSCF Best Correlation

Vertical Tubular 30 0 30 GRAY


Any 0100 30 GRAY, MB & BEGG
Deviated Any 0100 30100 PET 2 & FB **

**Gas condensate cases.

Discussion
The above work represents a comprehensive study of the multiphase flow correlations performance at
variety of well conditions. Our approach of clustering the input data to several groups proved to be very
valuable as the correlations with high strength often predict the pressure drop with much less error than
the error reported in the original paper explaining the correlation itself. This means that the practicing
engineer can rely on using the maps presented in this paper to select appropriate correlations for
multiphase flow. Also, the strength factor of each correlation within each cluster will give a very good
indication on how well the correlation is expected to perform in a particular cluster of data.
In the case of calculating the pressure drop along the tubing, the conditions may change and therefore
the appropriate correlation to use may consequently change. This idea has been in the literature for some
time now and there are some industry correlations that take this variation into consideration. Implemen-
tation of our multiphase flow correlations maps will be, therefore, straight forward in existing multiphase
flow programs.
We performed some sensitivity analysis on input data (rates, pipe sizes and geometry, and PVT data)
to test which data mostly affect our selection of best correlations. It was found that some PVT parameters
(e.g. gas specific gravity and stock tank oil API) may change the order of best correlations within a
particular cluster. It was also found that GOR (or GLR) affects the order of best correlations for low rate
wells.
Conclusions
Unlike the usual approach in the literature for selecting multiphase flow correlations based on testing with
a limited dataset, we utilized a large dataset in our work. We also used a new approach in assigning best
correlations based on data clusters. Based on the work performed in this research, the following
conclusions can be made:
12 SPE-175805-MS

1. For the entire oil well dataset, it was found that Fancher and Brown correlation gives the lowest
pressure drop, while the Modified Duns and Ros correlation gives the highest pressure drop.
2. The data clustering approach allows the engineer to select the best multiphase flow correlation that
will provide the lowest error. In certain clusters, few correlations are found superior (and not only
one correlation). The error is also quantified for every correlation in each data cluster so the
engineer would expect the accuracy of pressure drop prediction when utilizing this approach.
3. The overall error is around 11.34% for the best correlation in the entire dataset, while the range
of error for best correlation in different data clusters is from 0.01% to 3% for most cases with
accurate PVT. This error comparison proves the usefulness and applicability of our clustering
approach.
4. At very high rate oil wells, best correlation selection is not affected by changing GOR and
temperature. However; in low rate oil wells, best correlation selection is affected significantly by
GOR due to rapid change in flow regimes with increased GOR.
5. Best correlation selection is sensitive to gas specific gravity and stock tank oil API.
6. PVT data is probably the most important factor affecting the accuracy of the correlation. Care
should be taken in providing PVT input to best correlations identified in this work.
7. For the dataset tested here, tubing roughness was not found to have significant impact on changing
the best correlations for different clusters of oil data. However, tubing roughness has significant
effect on selection of best correlations for gas wells.
8. In practice, an accurate gas rate should be determined through production test separator especially
for low rate oil wells as GOR has important effect on pressure drop results.

Nomenclature
Angle from vertical
Begg Beggs and Brill correlation
BHT Bottom hole temperature
CGR Condensate gas ratio
gc Conversion Constant
Density
d Diameter
DRM Duns and Ros Modified Correlation
DRO Duns and Ros Original Correlation
FB Fancher and Brown Correlation
f friction factor
Qg Gas flow rate
GLR Gas liquid ratio
GOR Gas oil ratio
Gas specific gravity
GRE GRE Correlation
g Gravity Acceration
HB Hagedorn and Brown Correlation
HYDRO HYDRO Correlation
ID Inner diameter
in Inch
U Internal Energy
i iteration Number
SPE-175805-MS 13

Kinetic Energy

QL Liquid Flow Rate


HL Liquid Hold up
m mass
MB Mukherjee and Brill Correlation
n Number of Points
Qo Oil Flow Rate
ORK Orkiszewski Correlation
OD Outer Diameter
PET Petroleum Experts Correlation
PET 2 Petroleum Experts 2 Correlation
PET 3 Petroleum Experts 3 Correlation
PET 4 Petroleum Experts 4 Correlation
PET 5 Petroleum Experts 5 Correlation
Potential Energy

P Pressure
PV Pressure Volume Energy
q Transferred Heat
T.S. Tubing Size
v velocity
z vertical distance above some reference point
V Volume
W.C. Water Cut
WGR Water to gas ratio
W Work

References
1. Abd Elmoniem, Mohamed A. 2015. Proper Selection of Multiphase Flow Correlations, MS
Thesis, Cairo University, Egypt.
2. Ansari A. M., Sylvester N. D., Shoham O., and Brill J. P. 1990. A Comprehensive Mechanistic
Model for Upward Two Phase Flow in Wellbores, SPE 20630 Presented at the 65th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2326 September, 151165.
3. Ashiem H. 1986. MONA, An Accurate Two Phase Well Flow Model Based on Phase Slippage,
SPE 12989, SPE Production Engineering, May, 221230.
4. Aziz K., Govier G. W. and Fogarasi M. 1972. Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil and Gas,
J. Can. Pet., Montreal, July-September, 38 48.
5. Baxendell P. B. and Thomas R. 1961. The Calculation of Pressure Gradients in High Rate
Flowing Wells, J. Pet. Tech., October, 10231028.
6. Beggs H. D. and Brill J. P. 1973. A Study of Two Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes, J. Pet. Tech.,
May, 607617.
7. Brown K. E., Beggs H. D. 1977. The Technology of Artificial lift Methods.
8. Chierici G. L., Ciucci G. M. and Sclocchi G. 1974. Two Phase Vertical Flow in Oil Wells
Prediction of Pressure Drop, J. Pet. Tech., August, 927938.
9. Cornish R. E. 1976. The Vertical Multiphase Flow of Oil and Gas at High Rates, J. Pet. Tech.,
July, 825831.
14 SPE-175805-MS

10. Duns H. Jr., and Ros N. C. J. 1963. Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells, Section
II, Paper 22-PD 6, Proc. Sixth World Pet. Congress, Frankfurt, 19 26 June, 451465.
11. Fancher G. H.Jr., and Brown K. E. 1963 Prediction of Pressure Gradients for Multiphase Flow
in Tubing, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., March, 59 69.
12. Gould T. L., Tek M. R. and Katz, D.K. 1963. Two Phase Flow Through Vertical, Inclined, or
Curved Pipe, J. Pet. Tech., July, 915926.
13. Hagedorn A. R. and Brown K. E. 1964. The Effect of Liquid Viscosity in Two Phase Vertical
Flow, J. Pet. Tech., February, 203210.
14. Hagedorn A. R. and Brown K. E. 1965. Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients Occuring
during Continuous Two Phase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits, J. Pet. Tech., April,
475484.
15. Hill T. J. and Wood D. G. 1994. Slug Flow: Occurrence, Consequences, and Prediction, SPE
27960 Presented at the University of Tulsa Petroleum Engineering Symposium, OK, U.S.A.,
29 31 August, 5362.
16. Kleyweg D., Tiemann W. D. and Dalziel S.G. 1983. Gas Lift Optimization in the Claymore
Field, SPE 11885-MS Presented at Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, 06 09
September.
17. Minami K. and Brill J. P. 1987. Liquid Holdup in Wet Gas Pipelines, SPE Production
Engineering, February, 36 44.
18. Mukherjee H. and Brill J. P. 1983. Liquid Holdup Correlations for Inclined Two Phase Flow,
J. Pet. Tech., May, 10031008.
19. Orkiszewski J. 1967. Predicting Two Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipe, J. Pet. Tech., June,
829 838.
20. Peffer J. W., Miller M. A. and Hill A. D. 1988. An Improved Method for Calculating Bottomhole
Pressures in Flowing Gas Wells with Liquid Present, SPE Production Engineering, November,
643655.
21. Reinicke K. M., Remer R. J. and Hueni G. 1987. Comparison of Measured and Predicted
Pressure Drops in Tubing for High Water Cut Gas Wells, SPE Production Engineering, August,
165177.
22. Prosper Software Help Manual, Petroleum Experts, 2013.
SPE-175805-MS 15

Appendix

Table 10 shows the best correlations in each cluster (group) and their strength factors for oil wells.
The table for gas wells can be found in Abd Elmoniem, Mohamed A. 2015. Proper Selection of Multiphase Flow
Correlations, MS Thesis, Cairo University, Egypt.

Table 10 Best Correlations in Each Cluster (Group) for Oil Wells


16 SPE-175805-MS

Table 10 Continued
SPE-175805-MS 17

Table 10 Continued
18 SPE-175805-MS

Table 10 Continued
SPE-175805-MS 19

Table 10 Continued
20 SPE-175805-MS

Table 10 Continued

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi