SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 20630

A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-Phase Flow

in Wellbores
A.M. Ansari, Pakistan Petroleum Ltd.; N.D. Sylvester, U. of Akron; and O. Shoham and
J.P. Brill, U. of Tulsa

II

SPE Members

Copyright 1990, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in New Orleans, LA, September 23-26, 1990.
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,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are sUbject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented. does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT

Recently the trend has shifted towards the modeling

approach. The fundamental postulate of the modeling
approach is the existence of flow patterns or flow
configurations. Various theories have been developed for the
prediction of flow patterns. Separate models were
developed for each flow pattern to predict the flow
characteristics such as holdup and pressure drop. By
considering flow mechanics, the resulting models can be
applied to flow conditions other than used for their
development with more confidence.

A comprehensive model is formulated to predict the

flow behavior for upward two-phase flow. The
comprehensive model is 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 flows.
The comprehensive model is evaluated by using a
well databank that is composed of 1775 well cases covering
a wide variety of field data. The performance of the model
is also compared with the six commonly used empirical
correlations.

The only studies pUblished on comprehensive

mechanistic modeling of two-phase flow in vertical pipes
are by Ozon et al. l and Hasan and Kabir2 Nevertheless,
more work is needed in order to develop models which
describe the physical phenomena more rigorously.

The overall performance of the model is in good

agreement with the data. In comparison with the empirical
correlations, the comprehensive model performs the best,
with the least average error and the smallest scattering of
the results.

The purpose of this study is to formulate a detailed

comprehensive mechanistic model for upward two-phase
flow. The comprehensive model first predicts the existing
flow pattern and then calculates the flow variables by taking
into account the actual mechanisms of the predicted flow
.pattern. The model is evaluated against a wide range of
experimental and field data available in the updated TUFFP
well databank. The performance of the model is also
compared with six empirical correlations used in the field.

INTRODUCTION
Two-phase flow is commonly encountered in
petroleum, chemical and nuclear industries. The frequent
occurrence of two-phase flow presents engineers with the
challenge of understanding, analyzing and designing twophase systems.

FLOW PATTERN PREDICTION

The basic work on mechanistic modeling flow of
pattern transitions for upward two-phase flow was
presented by Taitel et al. 3 They identified four distinct flow
patterns, and formulated and evaluated the transition

Due to the complex nature of two-phase flow, the

problem was first approached through empirical methods.
References and illustrations at end of paper.

151

A COMPREHENSIVE MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR UPWARD

TWO- PHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

boundaries among them. The four flow patterns are bubble

flow, slug flow, churn flow and annular flow, as shown in
Fig.1. Later, modifications of transitions were made by
Barnea et al. 4 to extend the applicability of the model to
inclined flows as well. In a relatively recent work, Barnea s
combined flow pattern prediction models applicable to
different inclination angle ranges into one unified model.
Based on these different works, flow pattern can be
predicted by defining transition boundaries among bubble,
slug and annular flows.

Transition to Annular Flow:

The transition
criterion for annular flow is based on the gas phase velocity
required to prevent fall back of the entrained liquid droplets
in the gas stream. This gives the transition as,

VSG =3.1

+ 0.333 VSL

HLF> 0.24..

= 1.53

y _
-

(3)

2 - 1.5 HLF

X-

HLF = 4 Qrnn (1 - Q.mn)

(HLF + ALCAc/A) > 0.24

(9)

(10)

FLOW BEHAVIOR PREDICTION

This is shown as transition B in Fig. 2.

Following the prediction of flow patterns, the next

step is to develop physical models for the flow behavior in
each of the flow patterns. This resulted in separate models
for bubble flow, slug flow and annular flow. Churn flow has
not yet been modeled due to its complexity, and is treated
as a part of slug flow. The models developed for other flow
patterns are discussed in the following sections.

At high gas velocities this transition is governed by

the maximum packing of bubbles to give coalescence. This
occurs at a void fraction of 0.52, giving the transition for
no-slip dispersed bubble flow as,

(8)

In Eq. 8, X and Y must be redefined in terms of the

core parameters instead of the gas parameters to account
for the entrainment.

(VSL + VSGf(3.nYs = 0.725 + 4.15 ( VSG )o.s ...... (4)

VSG + VSL

(7)

To account for the effect of the liquid entrainment

in the gas core, Eq. 7 is modified in this study as,

2 [ 0.4 0 ]1/2 (PL)3/5 [CL(Q)n]2/S

(PL-PG)g
0
0
VL

where HLF can be expressed in terms of minimum film

thickness, ~n as,

At high liquid rates, turbulent forces break down

large gas bubbles into small ones, even at void fractions
greater than 0.25. This yields the transition to dispersed
bubble flow given by Barnea et al. 2 as,

K'LF(1 - 1.5 HLF)

This is shown as transition A in Fig. 2.

VSG = 1.08 VSL

The mechanism of film instability can be expressed

in terms of the Lockhart and Martinelli parameters, X and Y,

(2)

[gO(~-PG)r4

..

where HLF is the fraction of pipe cross-section occupied by

the liquid film, assuming no entrainment in the core.

where Vs is the slip or bubble rise velocity given by

Harmath y 6 as,

Vs

(6)

The same transition was modified by Barnea s by

considering the effects of film thickness on the transition.
One effect is bridging of the gas core by a thick liquid film at
high liquid rates. The other effect is instability of the liqUid
film causing downward flow of the film to occur at low
liqUid rates. The mechanism of bridging is governed by the
minimum liquid holdup required to form a liquid slug,

For pipe sizes larger than this, the basic transition

mechanism for bubble to slug flow is coalescence of small
gas bubbles into large Taylor bubbles. Experimentally this
was found to occur at a void fraction of approximately 0.25.
Using this value of void fraction, the transition can be
expressed in terms of superficial and slip velocities as,

= 0.25 Vs

[gO(~-PG)r/4

and is shown as transition D in Fig. 2.

Bubble-Slug Transition: The minimum diameter at

which bubble flow occurs is given by Taitel et al. 3 as,

VSG

SPE20630

..

(5)

This is shown as transition C in Fig. 2.

Bubble Flow Model:

152

SPE 20630

M, Ansari

N D, Sylyester

+ IlG

(:~t = PTP g sine " .. ",

(:~)f = fTP ~T~ Vfp "",."""""

"""""

" .. " (21)

"""""", .. , .. " (22)

(13)

The explicit expression given by Zigrang and Sylvester9 can

be used to define fTP as,

VSL
"""""" .. """"" ..... "."",." ...... ' (14)
(VSL + VSG)

_1_

=-2

log

Yhp

For bubbly flow, the slippage is considered by

taking into account the bubble rise velocity relative to the
mixture velocity. By assuming a turbulent velocity profile
for the mixture with the rising bubble concentrated more at
the center than along the wall of the pipe, the slip velocity
can be expressed as,

_5,02
[(10)
3.7
R9Tp

log

((/0)
3,7

+ 13,0.)t"""...... ", (23)

R9Tp IJ

where,

R
Vs = VG -

" .. ,

The friction component is given by,

where,

f.L

The elevation pressure gradient is given by,

(1 - Ad... """" ... " .. ""." ..... ",,, (12)

= VM = VSL + VSG """" ...... """ ....... """"""

Brill

= PL At. + pG (1 - AL).. """" ..... ", .. ,,,,, ........ ,, (11)

IlTP = ilL AL

and J

= (dP) + (dP) + (d P)'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' (20)

(dP)
dL dL e dL dL a

Due to the uniform distribution of gas bubbles in the

liquid, and no slippage between the two phases, dispersed
bubble flow can be approximated as a pseudo-single phase,
Due to this simplification, the two-phase parameters can be
expressed as,

VTP

Shoham

The two-phase pressure gradient is comprised of

three components, Thus"

The bubble flow model is based on the work by

Caetano? for flow in an annulus, The two bubble flow
regimes, viz, bubbly flow and dispersed bubble flow, are
considered separately in developing the model for the bubble
flow pattern,

PTP

_ PTP

VTP

9Tp -

1 ,2VM""" .... """, .. " .. "" .. " .... ",,,, .... (15)

0
"'"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' (24)

IlTP

An expression for the bubble rise velocity was given by

Harmath y6, To account for the effect of bubble swarm, this
expression was modified by Zuber and Hench 8 as follows

The acceleration pressure gradient is negligible

compared to the other pressure gradients.
Slug Flow Model:
The first thorough physical model for slug flow was
developed by Fernandes et al. lO A simplified version of this
model was presented by Sylvester 11 . The basic
simplification made was the use of a correlation for slug
void fraction, An important assumption of fUlly developed
slug flow was used by these models. The concept of
developing flow was introduced by McQuillan and Whalley 12
during their study of flow pattern transitions, Due to the
basic difference in the geometry of the flow, fUlly developed
and developing flow are treated separately in the model.

where the value of n' varies from one study to another. In

the present study, a value of 0.1 for n' was found to give
the best results. Thus, Eq. 15 yields,

This gives an implicit equation for the actual holdup for

bubbly flow, The two-phase flow parameters can now be
calculated from,
PTP = PL H L + pG
IlTP = ilL HL

+ flG

For a fUlly developed slug unit, as shown in Fig.

3(a), the overall gas and liquid mass balances, respectively,
give,

(1 - HL)""".".""""."""".""" (18)

(1 - Hd"""""" .... """" ...... ,,

(1 - ~) VGLS (1 - HLLS) "." . """""" .. """"""",

(19)

153

(25)

A COMPREHENSIVE MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR UPWARD

TWO-PHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

VSL = (1 -

~) VLLSHLLS - ~

To model developing slug flow, as shown in Fig.

3(b) it is necessary to determine the existence of such flow.
This requires calculating and comparing the cap length with
the total length of a developed Taylor bubble.
The
expression for the cap length, as developed by McQuillan and
Whall ey 1o, is given as,

(26)

VLTBHLTB

where,

~=LTB

(27)

lsu

l: =

Mass balances for liquid and gas from liquid slug to Taylor
bubble, respectively, give,
(VTB - VLLS)HLLS

= [VTB

SPE20630

+ VNGTB (1 - HNLTB) _ ~]2

-1-[VTB
2g

H!'l.TB

(35)

HNLTB

where vNGTB and HNLTB are calculated at the terminal film

- (- VL TB)]HLTB ........... (28)

thickness ON (called Nusselt film thickness) given by,

(VTB - VGLS)

(1 - HLLS) =

(VTB - VGTB)

(1 - HLTB)

ON =

The Taylor bubble rise velocity is equal to the centerline

velocity plus the Taylor bubble rise velocity in a stagnant
liquid column, Le.,

VTB = 1.2 VM

0.35

9 D (PL
[

PL

-(1 -2~Nr

(36)

....................... (37)

To determine vNGTB, the net flow rate at

used to obtain,

v
where the second term on the right hand side represents the
bubble rise velocity as defined earlier in Eq (16).

- v

NGTB -

TB

- (v

TB

_v

ON can

(1 - HLLS))

GLS (

1 - H NLTB

be

(38)

The length of the liquid slug can be calculated

empirically from,

velocity vL B T of the falling film can be

correlated with the film thickness

expression,
VLTB =

ILd

1 - HNLTB)]1/3
g(PL-PG)

HNLTB = 1
....... (30)

Similarly, the velocity of the gas bubbles in the liquid slug is

The

D VNLTB

The geometry of the film flow gives HNLTB in terms of ON

as,

1/2

pG)

[a
4

(29)

OL using the

-J 196.7 g CL

Brotz 1 3

LLS

[9 D(1 - y~)r'2

bB = (1 ~~)

0.425

VSG
2.65 VM

(40)

From the comparison of Lc and LTB, if Lc > LTB, the

flow is developing slug flow. This require new values for
LTBo, HLTBo and vL TBo calculated earlier for developed
flow.

(33)

The liquid slug void fraction can be obtained by the

correlation developed by Sylvester 11 from Fernandes et
al. 10 and Schmidt 14 data,

Has =

(39)

where C' was found by Dukler et al. 15 to vary from 16 to

45. It is taken as 30 in this study. This gives Taylor bubble
length as,

(32)

where OL is the constant film thickness for developing flow,

and can be expressed in terms of Taylor bubble void fraction
to give,
VLTB = 9.916

= C'D

For LTBo, Taylor bubble volume can be used,

.
t A~B (L) dL
VGTB = Jo

(34)

TB

Equations 25-26, 28-31, and 33-34 can be solved

iteratively to obtain all eight unknowns that define the
developed slug flow model.

154

(41)

SPE 20630

A. M. Ansari- N.

p.

Sylvester. 0

- (VTB

~)HLLS]

V2gL

"".""

(50)

In calculating pressure gradients, the effect Qf

varying film thickness is considered and the effect Qf
frictiQn alQng the TaylQr bubble is neglected.

A."".".".""." (42)

FQr develQped flQw, the elevatiQn compQnent

occurring across a slug unit is given by,

The vQlume VGTB*(L) can be expressed in term of

f1QW geQmetry as,
,

h~TB (L) = (VTB - VLLS) HLLS

where ATB*(L) can be expressed in terms Qf local holdup

h L T B (L), which in turn can be expressed in terms of
velQcities by using Eq. 28. This gives,

A~B (L) = [1

ShQham. and J. P. Brill

(.dP) = [(1

VGTB = Vsu - V LS .. " .. "" ... " ... " ....... " ....... " ... ". (43a)

dL

- 13) PLS + 13 PG]g

sin9....... " .. " .... "" (51)

or
where,

V~TB = VSG JL~B + LLS)

'\

VGLS A

PLS

VTB

(1 - HLLS) ks ""

"..""

= PL HLLS + pG (1 - HLLS) ...."" ... "." ... " .. " ...

(52)

The elevation component fQr develQping slug flQW is

given by,

(43b)

VTB
SubstitutiQn of Eqs. 42 and 43 into Eq. 41 gives,

P
( d ) = [( 1 dL 9

) -LLS =
VSG (LTB + LLS) - VGLS (
1H
- LLS
VTB
VTB

13 *) PLS

13*

PTBA]g sin9"" .. " .. ". (53)

where PTBA is based Qn average VQid fractiQn in the TaylQr

bubble sectiQn with varying film thickness.
PTBA = PL HLTBA + pG

It is given by,

(1 - HLTBA)"" .. " .... """"". (54)

where HLTBA is obtained by integrating Eq. 50 and dividing

by LTB* giving,
EquatiQn 44 can be integrated and then simplified to
give,

HLTBA = 2 (VTB - VLLS)HLLS""." ... " .. "" .. " ... "" .. (55)
'2
LTB
+

[-2ab _ 4c 2 ]
a2

,
LTB
+ -b

a2

~2gL~B

-_ 0 .. " .. "" ...... " ... (45)

The frictiQn cQmpQnent is the same fQr bQth the

developed and developing slug flQWS as it occurs Qnly across
the liquid slug. This is given as,

where,

= 1 - VSG """""... " .... """"".. """"".. """"" (46)

(:~t = fLS ~L~ V~ (1

VTB

- 13 L""""".""..."....."...

(56)

b = VSG - VGLS (1 - HLLS) LLS"""'''''''''''''''''''''' (47)

VTB

c --

where fLS can be calculated by using,

VTB - VLLS H
2G
LLS

"

"".. "

". (48)

eLS =

0 PLS VM

.. ""." .. """ .. "" .. " .... " ..""..".". (57)

ilLS
After calculating LTB, the other local parameters
can be calculated from,
VLTB (L)

= V2gL

For stable slug flow, the acceleratiQn cQmpQnent Qf

pressure gradient can be neglected.

- VT B ......... """.... " .. " .. "." ..... (49)

Annular FIQW Model:

A discussion Qn the hydrQdynamics Qf annular flow
was presented by Wallis 16 . Along with this, Wallis also

155

A COMPREHENSIVE MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR UPWARD

TWO- PHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

'tF-- -1 fSL (1 - FE)2-n

VSL
J PL[
(
)J2
2
4~1-~

presented the classical correlations for entrainment and

interfacial friction as a function of film thickness. Later,
Hewitt and Hall-Taylor 17 gave a detailed analysis of the
mechanisms involved in an annular flow. All the models that
followed later are based on this approach.

(ddLP) -'tl SI - pc Ac 9sine = 0

(68)

where,

fSL = CF[VS~LDJn

A fully developed annular flow is shown in Fig. 4.

The conservation of momentum applied individually to the
core and the film yields,

Ac

SPE 20630

(69)

Using the definition of superficial frictional pressure

gradient for liquid, Eq. 68 reduces to,

(58)

AF

(dP) + 'tl S, - 'tF SF - PL AF 9sine = 0

dL

(59)

For the shear stress at the interface, exactly the

same approach can be adopted to give,

The core density

Pc

't1=~(1 ~~t (:~L

is given by,

pc = PL ~c + pG (1 - A.Lc)

(60)

where Z is a correlating factor for interfacial friction and

the film thickness. Based on the performance of the model,
the Wallis expression for Z works well for thin films or high
entrainments, whereas the Whalley and Hewitt 18 expression
is good for thick films or low entrainments. Thus,

where,

ALc = 1 -

VSG
VSG + FE VSL

(61)

Z = 1 + 300 Qfor FE > 0.9 (72)

FE is the fraction of the total liquid entrained in the core,

given by Wallis as,

FE = 1 - exp [-0.125 (v crit - 1.5)].

PL)1/3

Z = 1 + 24 (PG

(62)

where,

FE < 0.9

(73)

(63)

(1 -

The shear stress in the film can be expressed as,

'tF = fF PL V~
2

~ for

The pressure gradient for annular flow can be

calculated by substituting the above equations into Eqs. 58
and 59. Thus,

where,
IlG (PG)1/2
VCrit. -_ 10000 VSG
-cr-~

(71)

(64)

\5

P)
(ddL

+ pc 9 sine

2~JSC

(1 - FErn

(74)

(dP)

64 ~3 (1 _ ~t dL SL

fF = CF [DH:LVF

Z
4

(65)

VF _ QL (1 - FE) _ VSL (1 - FE)

AF
- 4 ~ (1 _ ~)

(66)

DHF=4.Q.(1 - li)D

(67)

~ (1

~)( 1

2~)

P)
(ddL

+ PL 9 sine

sc

(75)

The basic unknown in the above equations is the

dimensionless film thickness, ~. An implicit equation for ~
can be obtained by equating Eqs. 74 and 75. This gives,

(1 - 2~)5

This gives,

156

(dP )
dL sc

+ pc 9 sine _

SPE 20630

Ansari

(d

N D Sylvester

(d

Shoham. and J

Brill

the exchange of liquid droplets between the core and the film
is negligible.

(1 - FErn
P)
Z
P)
3
64 li (1 - lif dL SL + 4 li (1 - li)( 1 - 2lif dL sc

EVALUATION

PL 9

sine = 0 .. ".".""."""""""""."."."."""".""."" (76)

The evaluation of the comprehensive model is
carried out by comparing the pressure drop from the model
with the measured data in the updated TUFFP well databank
that comprises 1775 well cases with a wide range of data
as given in Table 1. The performance of the model is also
compared with that of the six commonly used correlations in
the petroleum industry.

To simplify this equation, the dimensionless

approach developed by Alves et al. 19 is used. This approach
defines the following dimensionless groups,

~ _ (dp/dLht-

- (dp/dL)sc "".""."""""".""""""".""""" (77)

Criteria for Comparison with pata

cl>c

cl>F

sine (PL - pc)

(dp/dL)sc

(dp/dLk - 9 pc
(dp/dLhc

.. ""

" .. "

(78)

The evaluation of the model using the databank is

based on the following statistical parameters,

sine

(dp/dL~ - 9 PL sine
(dp/dLh

"

"".""

Average percent Error

(79)

E1 =

[l-

eri] X 100..... """" ......." ......" .." .. (84)

N 1-1

.... "" .... """"" ......."" (80)

where,

By using these dimensionless groups, Eq. 76 reduces to,

e . _ L\pi

(1 - FEf - n

[1 - (1 - 2lif]3
Z

calc -

L\pI

L\pi

meas

n -

[1-(1-2~f](1-2~t

meas

"."

"""

(85)

E1 indicates the overall trend of the performance.

+ YM - 0

Absolute Average percentage Error

- ....."".."..... (81)

The above equations can be solved iteratively to obtain

E2 =

li.

Once li is known, the dimensionless groups "F and "c can be

obtained from the dimensionless form of Eqs. 74 and 75. By
using the definitions of "F and "c' the total pressure
gradient can be obtained as,

[l-

fieri
N 1-1

I] X 100"...... """" ...... " ......... (86)

E2 indicates how large the errors are on the average.

percent Standard Deviation

(:~t = cI>~ (:~tc + 9 pc sine """..""." .."""" .. (82)

E3 = f

(eri - E1

i _ 1

N - 1

f """

"

(87)

E3 indicates the degree of scattering of the error about its

average value.

or

P
(d )

dL F

= cI>~ (dP )

+ 9 PL sine

""

(83)

Average Error

dLsL

E4 =

The two pressure gradients calculated from the above

equations should be equal.

[l- f
N

el]

""

"

(88)

i-1

where,

It is important to note that the above calculated

total pressure gradient does not include accelerational
pressure gradient. This is based on results found by Lopes
and Dukler20 indicating that, except for a limited range of
high liqUid flow rates, the accelerational component due to

ei = L\pi calc - L\PI meas

" .. """"." .. "
(89)
E4 indicates the overall trend independent of the measured
pressure drop.

157

A COMPREHENSIVE MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR UPWARD

TWO-PHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

used before for the evaluation of any correlations.

results are shown in Tables 2 to 5.

Absolute Average Error

E5 =

[i f Iad]
N

ja

SPE 20630
The

Evaluation of Individual Elow Pattern Models:

(90)

E6 indicates the scattering of the results, independent of the

measured pressure drop.

The performance of individual flow pattern models

is based on sets of data that are dominant in one particular
flow pattern. Eor the bubble flow model, well cases with
bubble flow over 75%, or more, of well length are
considered in order to have an adequate number of well
cases, whereas for slug and annular flow models, well cases
with 100% slug and annular flows, respectively, are
considered. The performance of the slug flow model is also
checked for all vertical well cases as well as for vertical
well cases without Hagedorn and Brown data, which is onethird of all the vertical well cases. The statistical results
are shown in Tables 6 to 9.

Criteria for Comparison with other Correlations:

CONCWSIONS

The correlations used for the comparison are

modified Hagedorn and Brown 26 , Duns and ROS34,
Orkiszweski 3o with Triggia correction 35 , Beggs and Brill 36
with Palmer correction 37 , Mukerjee and Brill 36 , and Aziz et
a1. 39 . The comparison is accomplished by comparing the
statistical parameters. The parameter E1 was found to give
very small values for the well cases within the range of the
data used in developing empirical correlations. To remove
this biasing effect, E1 is not considered in the comparison of
the model with the correlations.
However, its effect is
considered through E4. The comparison involves the use of
a relative performance factor (RPE) which is obtained by
dividing each statistical parameter for each correlation and
the model by the minimum values of the respective
parameter and then adding all the fractions together.
Mathematically,

From Tables 2 - 9, the performance of the model

and other empirical correlations indicates that,

E5 is also independent of the measured pressure drop and

indicates the magnitUde of the average error.
Standard Deviation

E6 =

f
i.1

y(a

E4f

(91)

N - 1

RPF = E2/E2 MN + E3/E3 MN + E41 /

E5/E5MN + E6/E6MN

-The overall performance of the comprehensive

model is superior to all the correlations. This
superiority is further improved when only
vertical data without Hagedorn and Brown well
cases are considered. In fact, for the latter two
sets of data (Tables 4 and 5) the performance of
the model is the best in all respects.
-The performance of the bubble flow and the
annular flow models are exceptionally better
than all the correlations for all the variety of
data in the databank.
-The performance of the slug flow model is
exceeded by the Aziz et al. correlation for nonvertical well cases. This is due to the fact that
the model is valid only for vertical flow, and
does not include the mechanisms related to
directional wells.
Indeed, for the vertical well
cases, the performance of the model is improved.
The best performance of the model is obtained
when Hagedorn and Brown data are not included.

I E4MN I +
(92)

The minimum possible value for RPE is 5 indicating the best

performance in all respects.
Oyerall Evaluation:

RECOMMENDATIONS

The overall evaluation involves the entire

comprehensive model so as to study the combined
performance of all the independent flow pattern behavior
models together. The evaluation is first done by using the
entire databank. The performance of the model is also
checked for vertical well cases only.
To make the
comparison unbiased with respect to the correlations, two
different sets of well cases are considered. One such set is
composed of all vertical well cases excluding 331 well
cases from the Hagedorn and Brown data. The other set is
composed of all new vertical well cases that were never

Based on the above conclusions, the following

recommendations are suggested.
-The entire comprehensive model should replace all
existing empirical correlations used to predict
two-phase flow behavior in wells.
-The slug flow model should be modified to include
flow mechanisms related to directional wells.

158

SPE 20630

Ansari. N D Sylyester

The degree Qf emplClClsm in the cQmprehensive

mQdel shQuld be reduced tQ further imprQve the
model.

ShQham

and J

Brill

11 Sylvester, N. D.: "A Mechanistic MQdel fQr TWQ-Phase

Vertical Slug FIQW in Pipes," ASME J. Energy Resources
Tech. (1987), .1Q2., 206-213.

As a final remark, it shQuld be mentiQned that the

present study is Qnly a first step tQwards develQping a
cQmprehensive mQdel that shQuld replace existing pressure
gradient cQrrelations for the entire range of operating and
design parameters.

12McQuillan, K. W., and Whalley, P. B.: "FIQW Patterns in

Vertical Two-Phase FIQw," Int. J. Multiphase Flow
(1985), 11., 161-175.
13 BrQtz, W.: "Uber die VQrausberechnung der
AbsQrptiQnsgesch- windigkeit VQn Gasen in StrQmenden
Flussigkeitsschichten," Chern. Ing. Tech. (1954), .2..2.,
470.

REFERENCES

10ZQn, P. M. , Ferschneider, G., and Chwetzoff, A.: "A New

Multiphase FIQW Model Predicts Pressure And
Temperature Profiles," paper SPE 16535 presented at the
OffshQre EurQpe CQnference, Aberdeen, Sept. 8-11,
1987.

14Schmidt, Z.: Experimental Study of Gas-Liqujd FIQW in a

Pipeline-Riser
System. M. S. Thesis, The University
Qf Tulsa (1976).

2Hasan, A. 8., and Kabir, C. S.: "A StUdy of Multiphase FIQW

Behavior in Vertical Wells," SPE Prod. Eng. J. (May
1988). 263-272.

.15Dukler, A. E., MarQn, D. M., and Brauner, N.: "A Physical

MQdel fQr Predicting the Minimum Stable Slug Length,"
Chern. Eng. Sci. (1985), 1379-1385.

3Taitel, Y., Barnea, D., and Dukler, A. E.: "MQdelling FIQW

Pattern TransitiQns for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid FIQW in
Vertical Tubes," AIChE J. (1980),
345-354.

16Wallis, G. B.: One-DimensiQnal

McGraw-Hili (1969).

.aa.,

TWQ-phase

FIQw,

17Hewitt, G. F., and Hall-TaylQr, N. S.: Annular TWQ-phase

~, PergamQn Press (1970).

4 Barnea, D., ShQham, 0., and Taitel, Y.: "Flow Pattern

TransitiQn fQr Vertical DQwnward TWQPhase FIQw,"
Chern. Eng. Sci. (1982),li, 741-746.

18Whalley, P. B., and Hewitt, G. F.: "The Correlation of

Liquid Entrainment FractiQn and Entrainment Rate in
Annular TWQ-Phase FIQw," UKAEA RepQrt, AERER9187, Harwell (1978).

5Barnea, D.: "A Unified MQdel fQr Predicting FIQw-Pattern

Transition for the Whole Range of Pipe InclinatiQns," Int.
J. Multiphase Flow (1987), ll, 1-12.
6Harmathy, T. Z.: "VelQcity Qf Large DrQPs and Bubbles in
Media of Infinite or Restricted Extent," AIChE J. (1960),
2., 281.

19A1ves, I. N., CaetanQ, E. F., Minami, K., and Shoham, 0.:

"MQdeling Annular FIQW BehaviQr for Gas Wells,"
presented at the Winter Annual Meeting Qf ASME,
ChicagQ, Nov. 27 - Dec. 2, 1988.

7Caetano, E. F.: Upward Vertjcal TWQ-phase FIQW ThrQugh

an Annulus, Ph.D. DissertatiQn, The University Qf Tulsa
(1985).

20LQpes, J. C. B., and Dukler, A. E.: "Droplet Entrainment in

Vertical Annular FIQW and its CQntributiQn tQ MQmentum
Transfer," AIChE J. (1986), 1500-1515.

8Zuber, N. and Hench, J.: "Steady State and Transient VQid

Fraction Qf Bubbling Systems and Their Operating Limits.
Part 1: Steady State OperatiQn," General Electric RepQrt,
62GL100 (1962).

21 Brill, J. P., and Beggs, H. D.: TWQ-phase FIQW in Pipes,

The University Qf Tulsa, 1988.
22GQvier, G. W., and Fogarasi, M.: "Pressure Drop in Wells
Producing Gas and Condensate," J. Can. Pet. Tech.
(Oct.-Dec. 1975), 28-41.

9Zigrang, D., and Sylvester, N. D.: "Explicit ApprQximatiQn

tQ the SQlutiQn Qf ColebrQok's FrictiQn factQr Equation,"
AIChE J. (1982), .2..a, 514.

23Asheim, H.: "MONA, An Accurate TWQ-Phase Well FIQW

Model Based Qn Phase Slippage," SPE Prod. Eng. J. (May
1986), 221230.

10Fernandes, R. C., Semait, T., and Dukler, A. E.:

"HydrQdynamic MQdel for Gas-Liquid Slug FIQW in
Vertical Tubes," AIChE J. (1986), ZQ, 981-989.

24Reinicke, K. M., Remer, R. J., and Hueni, G.: "CQmparison

Qf Measured and Predicted Pressure DrQps in TUbing fQr

159

10

A COMPREHENSIVE MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR UPWARD

TWO- PHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES
High-Water-Cut Gas Wells; SPE Prod. Eng. J. (Aug.
1987), 165-177.

Pressure Gradients in Wells,"

111 , 34 - 3 6, (M ar ch, 1 9 89) .

SPE 20630
ASME JERT,

25Chierici, G. L., Cuicei, G. M. ,and Sclocci, G.: "Two-Phase

Vertical Flow in Oil Wells -- Prediction of Pressure
Drop," SPE J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1974), 927-938.

36Beggs, H. D. and Brill, J. P.:

"A Study of
Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes," J. Pet.
ilQ..b., 607 - 617, (May, 1973).

26Poettmann, F. H., and Carpenter, P. G.: "The

Multiphase Flow of Gas,Oil and Water
Thr ough
Vert i cal
Flow
Str ings
wit h
Application to the
Design
of
Gas-Lift
Installations," API Drilling and Production
Practices, 257 - 317 (1952).

37palmer, C. M.:
"Evaluation of Inclined Pipe
Two- Phase Liquid Holdup Correlations Usi ng
Experimental
Data,"
M.
S. Thesis, The
University of Tulsa (1975).
38Mukherjee, H. and Brill, J. P.:
"Pressure
Drop Corr elations for
Inclined Two- Phase
Row," Trans. ASME, JERT (Dec., 1985).

27Fancher, G. H., and Brown, K. E.: "Prediction

of Pressure Gradients for Multiphase Flow in
Tubing," Trans. AIME(1963), 2...2..a, 59-69.

39Aziz, K., Gov ier, G. W. and Fogar asi, M.:

"Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil and
Gas," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech .. 38 - 48, (July September, 1972).

28Hagedorn,
A.
R.:
Experimental Study of
Pressure
Gradients
Occurring
during
Continuous
Two-Phase
flow
in
Small
Diameter
Vertical
Conduits,
Ph.D.
Dissertation, The University of Texas at
Austin (1964).

NOMENCLATURE

Descrjption
a
A
b
c
C

29Baxendell, P. B.: "The Calculation of Pressure

Gradients in High Rate Flowing Wells,"
SPE
J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1961), 1023.
300rki szew ski,
J.:
"Pr edict ing
Two- Phase
Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipes," SPE J.
Pet. Tech. (J une 1967), 829- 838.

C'
d
D
e
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
f
FE
g
h
H
L
n

31Espanol, H. J. H.:
Comparison of
Three
Methods for Calculating a Pressure Traverse
in Vertical Multi-Phase Flow, M. S. Thesis
The University of Tulsa (1968).
32Messulam,
S.
A.
G.:
Comparison
of
Correlations
for
Predicting
Multiphase
Flowing Pressure Losses in Vertical Pipes,
M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa (1970).
33Camacho, C. A.: Comparison of Correlations
for Predicting Pressure Losses in High GasLiQujd Ratio Vertical wells. M.S. Thesis, The
University of Tulsa (1970).

n'
34Duns, H., Jr. and Ros, N. C. J.:
"Vertical
Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells,"
Proc.
6th
World
Pet.
Congress,
451,
(1963) .

N
p
Q
Re
RPF
S

35Brill,
J.
P.:
"Discont inui ties
in
the
Orkiszewski
Correlation
for
Predicting

160

coefficient defined in Eq. 46

cross-sectional area of pipe, m2
coefficient defined in Eq. 47
coefficient defined in Eq. 48
constant factor relating friction factor to Reynolds
number for smooth pipes
coefficient defined in Eq. 39
differential change in a variable
pipe diameter, m
error function
average percentage error, %
absolute average percentage error, %
standard deviation, %
average error, psi
absolute average error, psi
standard deviation, psi
friction factor
fraction of liquid entrained in gas core
gravity acceleration, m/s 2
local holdup fraction
average holdup fraction
length along the pipe, m
exponent relating friction factor to Reynolds
number for smooth pipes
exponent to account for the swarm effect on bubble
rise velocity
number of well cases successfully traversed
pressure, psi [ N/m2 ]
flow rate, m3 /s
Reynolds number
Relative Performance Factor, defined in Eq. 92
wetted perimeter, m

SPE 20630

v
V
X
Y
Z

Ansar

Sy Iy est er

velocity, m/s
volume, m3
Lockhart and Martinelli parameter
Lockhart and Martinelli parameter
empirical factor defining interfacial friction

Greek letters

p
1)

length ratio, defined in Eq. 27

film thickness, m
ratio of film thickness to diameter

,1.

difference

absolute pipe roughness, m

dimensionless groups, defined in Eqs. 79 and 80
no-slip holdup fraction
dynamic viscosity, kg/m-s
kinematic viscosity, m2 /s
angle from hortizontal, rad or deg
density, kg/m 3
surface tension, dyne/cm
shear stress, N/m 3

cjl

"
Il
v
8
p
cr
't

Subscripts
a
acceleration
A
average
c
Taylor bubble cap, core
crit critical
e
elevation
f
friction
F
film
G
gas
H
hydraulic
ith element
I
interfacial
L
liquid
LS
liquid slug
M
mixture
mn
minimum
N
Nusselt
r
relative
s
slip
S
superficial
SO
slug unit
t
total
1B
Taylor bubble
TP
two-phase
Superscript

developing slug flow

161

Shoham. and J

Br ill

11

Nom. Dia
(in.)
Old TUFFP'
Databank

1-8

Govier &
Fogarasi 22

2-4

2~-6

Asheim 23

TABLE 1

TABLE 3

RANGE OF WELL DATA

STATISTICAL RESULTS USING ALL VERTICAL WELL CASES

Oil Rate
(STBO/D)

Gas Rate
(MSCF/D)

0-10150

1.5-10567

8-1600

114-27400

720-27000

740-55700

E2

E3

("Al)

("Al)

HAGBR

10.8

15.1

MODEL

14.5

AZIZ

14.0

DUNROS

14.7

BEGBR

16.7

ORKIS
MUKBR

Oil Gravity

E4
(psi)

RFP

E5
(psi)

E6
(psi)

-7.5

95.9

173.9

5.380

19.2

-17.7

81.3

144.9

6.987

19.3

-18.6

98.4

182.5

7.542

21.9

23.2

102.0

176.3

8.392

23.0

52.0

121.7

199.5

12.913

21.1

39.5

50.9

154.9

298.8

15.374

20.9

22.0

78.0

147.2

211.0

17.122

(- )

(0 API)

9.5-70.5
17-112
35-86

Reinicke &
Remer 24

2~-7

0.3-5847"

448-44980

Chierici et al 25

2~-5

0.3-69

6-27914

8.3-46

Prudhoe Bay

5~-7

600-23000

200-110000

24-86

TABLE 4
STATISTICAL RESULTS USING ALL VERTICAL
WELL CASES WITHOUT HAGEDORN AND BROWN28 DATA

'Includes data from Poettmann and Carpenter26. Fancher and Brown27,

Hagedorn and Brown 2 8, Baxendell and Thomas29, Orkiszewski30,
Espanol 31 , Messulam 32 , and Camach033 field data from several oil
companies.
"Water flow rate

E3

("Al)

(%)

MODEL

10.1

14.8

-6.4

HAGBR

12.2

17.0

-12.2

AZIZ

12.8

18.0

-21.9

("Al)

(%)

E4
(psi)

97.8

172.2

5.000

130.6

207.2

6.801

126.3

216.1

8.459

(- )

15.0

22.8

33.1

135.2

209.2

10.814

18.2

23.3

81.2

167.2

235.6

19.168

MUKBR

20.6

22.6

92.5

181.9

239.5

21.301

ORKIS

27.4

46.8

77.5

223.4

362.4

22.400

TABLE 5

E5
(psi)

E6
(psi)

STATISTICAL RESULTS USING

ALL NEW VERTICAL WELL CASES

RFP
(- )

MODEL

12.1

17.1

9.3

101.3

163.9

5.573

AZIZ

12.2

16.8

-20.8

116.6

190.4

7.049

HAGBR

RPF

DUNROS

STATISTICAL RESULTS USING ENTIRE DATABANK

E3

E6
(psi)

E5
(psi)

BEGBR

TABLE 2

E2

E4
(psi)

E2

9.2

13.6

-28.5

102.8

178.4

7.101

DUNROS

12.2

18.5

33.4

110.9

177.7

8.470

ORKIS

16.1

32.2

12.2

151.3

273.3

8.653

BEGBR

14.4

20.2

41.3

134.9

207.9

10.102

MUKBR

17.6

20.2

78.7

159.8

217.2

14.751

E2

E3

(%)

("Al)

MODEL

8.6

12.3

HAGBR

10.6

14.8

DUNROS

18.1

27.1

AZIZ

10.2

MUKBR

18.2

BEGBR

24.5

25.7

ORKIS

60.7

E5
(pSi)

E6
(pSi)

-3.0

109.0

164.4

5.000

13.1

122.1

166.2

8.934

-6.4

165.8

216.7

9.281

14.7

-90.9

154.6

280.5

35.685

19.8

110.3

176.5

191.3

43.140

152.6

215.9

198.0

58.808

453.5

539.1

118.515

71.9

E4
(psi)

295.6

RPF
(- )

TABLE 6

TABLE 7

STATISTICAL RESULTS USING ALL WELL CASES

WlTH OVER 75% BUBBLE FLOW

STATISTICAL RESULTS USING ALL

WELL CASES WlTH 100% SLUG FLOW

E5
(psi)

E6
(psi)

RPF
(- )

-25.3

67.0

76.9

5.000

3.7

-30.3

68.9

79. I

3.3

4.3

-26.9

69.4

DUNROS

3.6

4.0

-47.9

77.5

HAGBR

3.8

4.3

-44.9

BEGBR

3.8

4.8

-46.6

E2
(%)

E3
(%)

MODEL

3.2

3.7

AZIZ

3.2

ORKIS

MUKBR

7.3

3.8

E4
(psi)

-154.0

E2
(%)

E3
(%)

E4
(psi)

E5
(pSi)

E6
(psi)

RPF
(- )

AZIZ

14.8

19.8

5.6

102.9

173.8

6.016

5.286

MODEL

16.2

20.4

13.0

101.2

160.8

7.413

90.6

5.493

HAGBR

10.1

14.8

-19.7

90.4

176.8

7.605

8.2

6.374

ORKIS

14.6

26.3

17.4

116.3

212.9

8.920

78.7

90.1

6.511

BEGBR

15.5

21.3

43.7

114.8

184.9

13.181

79.2

102.6

6.842

DUNROS

15.1

21.4

56.6

108.2

170.7

15.276

83.3

12.852

MUKBR

21.5

21.3

99.1

153.2

197.2

24.146

155.6

en

'"
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
STATISTICAL RESULTS USING ALL VERTICAL
WELL CASES WITH 100% SLUG FLOW WITHOUT
HAGEDORN AND BROWN28 DATA
E2
(%)

E3
(%)

E4
(psi)

E5
(pSi)

E6
(psi)

STATISTICAL RESULTS ALL WELL CASES

WITH 100% ANNULAR FLOW
RPF
(- )

E2
(%)

E3
(%)

E4
(psi)

E5
(pSi)

E6
(psi)

RPF
(- )

MODEL

16.2

20.3

-7.9

10.7

198.7

5.331

MODEL

9.7

12.4

-21.8

90.7

132.9

5.000

AZIZ

19.1

24.1

5.9

126.7

226.3

5.696

AZIZ

12.4

16.5

22.3

106.1

145.4

5.896

HAGBR

17.0

21.1

14.4

140.5

252.6

7.118

HAGBR

15.1

16.4

70.6

128.7

148.2

8.652

DUNROS

24.3

29.3

100.0

169.4

241.9

22.694

DUNROS

20.0

24.8

-79.0

174.9

223.1

11.293

ORKIS

29.6

43.5

101.3

199.8

321.2

24.619

MUKBR

25.5

19.9

202.1

219.9

196.7

17.409

BEGBR

24.7

26.3

118.9

177.0

251.2

25.873

BEGBR

32.2

18.0

250.7

261.9

180.2

20.515

MUKBR

33.2

24.2

152.3

215.4

253.3

32.319

ORKIS

78.7

68.2

504.0

544.9

407.9

45.810

0 00

0
0
0000
00
0

000

.03 00
0000 0

o0 00
()
O()Oo

o 0000
0

0 00

0
o000
0

0 0

t
0

000~0
a 000

Oc?080 0

20
10

>l-

008

BARNEA
TRANSITION

BUBBLY

...J

LlJ

00 000

>

0 0 0 0 0.
0 0 0 0

00

:::i

00

Ogo~o

.. ..

SLUG OR CHURN

I
I

u..

0::
LlJ

ll.

I
I

0.01

::>

00

I
I

(/)

BUBBLE
FLOW

SLUG
FLOW

CHURN
FLOW

0.002 .
0 02

ANNULAR
FLOW

ANNULAR

0.1

...J

000

,
I

000 00

I
I
I

I
I

0'boooo

I
I
I

Ul

"-

0.1

10

SUPERFICIAL GAS VELOCITY (m/s)

Fig. 2-Typical flow pattern map for wellbores.

Fig. 1-Flow patterns in upward two-phase flow.

I
VTB

DEVELOPED
TAYLOR

BUBBLE--~

DEVELOPING
TAYLOR
BUBBLE

(o) DEVELOPED SLUG UNIT

(b) DEVELOPING SLUG UNIT

Fig. 3-Schernatic diagram of slug flow.

164

100

10.

+ CALCULATED PRESSURE
9.0

8.0

'1

LIQUID FILM

UJ
UJ
lJ..

ENTRAINED
LIQUID DROPLET

.j-

....

.'1
V

6.0
.

t vF

. H LC

TF

4"'1' I

SLUG

VF

7.0

0
0
0

. C

MEASURED PRESSURE

GAS CORE

ANNULAR

~
~

0
CD

5.0

UJ

:c

T I'

'.' . '.- i..'

TF

4.0

c:

lJ..

UJ

u
<::

3.0

"'ic

"-

'\)

...

(f)

Cl

2.0

"'"""......

. "-

~~

1.0

0.0
0.0

500.0

Fig. 4-Schematic diagram of annular flow.

1500.0

1000.0

PRESSURE

2000.0

PSI

Fig. 5-Performance of the comprehensive model-typical pressure profile.

165