PETROLEUM

SCIENCE &
ENGINEERING
ELSEVIER Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 14 (1996) 137- I58

Steady-state gas flow in pipes

Liang-biao Ouyang **I, Khalid Aziz ’
Petroleum Engineering Department, Stanford &ice&y, Stanford, CA 94305-2220, USA

Received 1 April 1995; accepted 15 May 1995

Abstract

New general Bow equations of simple form are developed to account for the pressure drops due to friction. elevation and
kinetic energy change. Simplified forms are also presented for new flow equations for gas flow in pipelines or wells where
the kinetic energy term can be neglected. The new general flow equations and their simplified forms are compared with the
widely-used AGA equations and tested with field data. Results show that the new equations make excellent predictions of
flow rates or pressure drops, and that they are applicable over a much broader range of gas types and gas flow rates than the
AGA equation and old simplified flow equations. In addition, different empirical explicit correlations for the Fanning
friction factor are compared. It is found that different correlations give quite different values of the friction factor. For
smooth pipes, modified 1/9th power law, Blasius, Drew et al., and Panhandle equations are recommended for different
Reynolds number ranges. For rough pipes, Serghides (I) and (II), Zigrang-Sylvester (I) and (II), Chen. and Haaland
equations can be employed with confidence. Other friction factor correlations reported in the literature should be avoided
because they can result in large errors.

1. Introduction pressure drop along the pipe and the quantity of

natural gas that flows through the pipe are the most
Many factors must be considered in designing a important of the first items of information required
modern pipeline system or a gas well. These include for design.
the nature and the volume of gas to be transmitted, Flow of natural gas in wells and pipelines is
the length and the size of the pipeline, the depth of dependent upon Reynolds number, friction factor,
the well, the operating temperature and pressure, the pipe roughness, pipe diameter, pipe length, tempera-
type of terrain to be crossed, the capacity of produc- ture, pressure, pressure drop and gas properties. Ac-
ing wells, the type of gas produced, process plant curate predictions are required for optimum design.
operating conditions, plant location, the elevation During more than 100 years of gas production and
change over the route, and so on. Among these, the transportation in pipes, dozens of flow equations
(e.g., AGA, Weymouth, Panhandle, Modified Pan-
handle, IGT, Cullender and Smith, Sukker and Cor-
* Corresponding author.
nell equations, etc.) have been proposed to relate the
’ E-mail: ouyang@pangea.stanford.edu. Phone: (415) 725-2730.
Fax: (415) 725-2099.
gas volume transmitted through pipes to the various
’ E-mail: aziz@pangea.stanford.edu. Phone: (415) 723-9116. factors that influence this rate. Many of the equations
Fax: (415) 725-2099. _ and methods presented in the literature have been

0920.4105/96/$15.00 0 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDI 092Ob4105(95)00042-9
138 L.-b. Ouyang, K. Aziz/Journal of Petroleum Science and En@wering 14 (19961 137-158
oversimplified by assumptions and approximations
as well as by inclusion of inaccurate friction factor
correlations. These simplified equations can lead to
nontrivial errors, which are not justified in this day
and age of easy access to computers. Furthermore,
they are constantly introduced in textbooks and
widely used in industry without regard to their ranges
of applicability (Katz et al., 1959; Institute of Gas
Technology, 1965; Ikoku, 1980; Beggs, 1984).
Towler and Pope (1994) tried to clarify the applica-
tion ranges of some of these equations. Unfortu-
nately, it seems that this publication resulted in
additional confusion, partly due to some typographi-
cal errors that appeared in their paper.
New general flow equations which take the pres-
sure drops due to potential energy change (elevation),
kinetic energy change, and frictional pressure drop
into account, are proposed in the present paper to
describe the gas flow in pipes. They can be reduced
to the AGA equation and other simplified flow equa-
tions by applying certain simplifications and assump-
tions. The calculation of friction factor, which can be
a source of great confusion among engineers, is
discussed in detail and applicable ranges of Reynolds
number and pipe roughness are identified for differ-
ent correlations. Comparison and analysis are also
performed for various methods used by industry.
2. Pressure or flow rate calculation method
2.1. General flow equation in differential form
The general flow equation can be derived from a
total momentum balance around an element of fluid
flowing through a differential length of pipe under
the following assumptions:
1. Newtonian fluid,
2. Single phase flow,
3. Steady-state flow,
4. Isothermal flow,
5. No heat transfer to and from the gas to the
surroundings, and
6. No mechanical work done on or by the fluid
during its passage through the pipe (No shaft
work or work of compression).
The resulting general flow equation is of the
form:
dp udu fu?
-+Rdz+-+2-dL=0 (1)
P g, ‘Yg, Q?,
where the correction factor (Y is introduced to com-
pensate for the variation of gas velocity over the pipe
cross-section. Its value depends upon the velocity
profile and ranges from 0.75 for laminar flow to
about 1.O for fully developed turbulent flow (White.
1986) ‘. Aziz (1962) suggested that a value of 0.9 be
used for practical gas flow problems. The correction
factor is ignored in some textbooks and technical
papers (such as in Economides et al., 1994; Tian and
Adewumi, 1992; Young, 1967).
The assumption of isothermal flow is used in the
solution of Eq. 1. However, in some cases it is
important to perform simultaneous temperature and
pressure profile calculations. This can be done by
considering the energy balance equation in addition
to Eq. 1 (Gregory et al., 1979).
2.2. Method qf solution
Eq. 1 can be applied to determine the natural gas
flow rate in pipes by means of three different meth-
ods, i.e., the multi-step method (the segmented de-
sign method), the numerical integration method, and
the analytical integration method (single-step
method).
2.2.1. Multistep or segmented design method
The differential form of Eq. 1 can be used directly
for numerical calculation along the pipe without
making any further assumptions. This is accom-
plished by dividing the pipe into small increments
and evaluating the gas properties according to the
pressure and the temperature at each segment.
2fPU2
-Ap=pgAz+KAu+ -AL (2)
gc ‘yg, Dg,
The procedure for calculating the pressure drop
over a pipe using the multistep method can be
outlined as follows (Beggs, 1984):
’ For 1/7th power-law velocity profile, cy = 0.9804. For
1/8th power-law profile, LY= 0.9843. The (Y value is taken as
0.98 for all the calculations in this paper.
 L.-O. Ouyang, K. Aziz/ Journal
Step I Starting with the known pressure, p,, at
location L, = 0, select a length segment, AL.
Step 2 Estimate a pressure increment, Ap, for the
pipe segment AL.
Step 3 Compute the average pressure and the aver-
age temperature in the segment.
Step 4 Determine density, viscosity and other prop-
erties of the gas at average pressure and
temperature of the segment.
Step 5 Compute the pressure gradient in the segment
at the average conditions.
Step 6 Compute the pressure increment in the se -
lected segment.
Step 7Compare the estimated and the calculated
values of the pressure increment obtained in
step 2 and step 6. If they are not sufficiently
close, choose a new pressure increment and
return to step 3. Repeat steps 3 through 7
until the error between the estimated and
calculated values are within the tolerance.
Step 8 Set L = L, + XAL and p =p, + 2Ap.
Step 9 If ZAL is less than the total pipe length,
return to step 2.
Multistep methods require that calculations be
performed over very small segments of the pipe and
that iterations be employed to obtain the change in
pressure and temperature over each segment. The
segment lengths can be chosen such that their sum is
exactly equal to the total pipe length and so interpo-
lation is not necessary in the last step. Every segment
length can be adjusted to ensure that the pressure
drop over the segment is below a specified maxi-
mum. The integration is easy to program and can be
made as precise as desired by reducing the segment
length and the tolerance for the iterative process. The
procedure can be applied from upstream to down-
stream or in the reverse direction.
2.2.2. Numerical integration method
Eq. 1 can be expressed in integral form provided
the kinetic energy term can be neglected (see Ap-
pendix Al:
of Petroleum Science and Engineering 14 (1996) 137-158 139
This is the form used by Cullender and Smith (1956).
It cannot be integrated analytically because of the
interdependence of the variables p, Z, p, p and T.
There are many numerical integration methods avail-
able to calculate pressure changes in wells and
pipelines using this form of the flow equation (e.g.,
Aziz, 1967). It is also possible to simplify the inte-
grand by making different assumptions. Rzasa and
Katz (1945) integrated Eq. 3 by assuming that the
gas deviation factor is a constant evaluated at aver-
age pressure and average temperature. Sukker and
Cornell (19551, and Poettmann (1951) integrated the
equation based on the assumption that the gas devia-
tion factor varies only with pressure. More widely-
used approaches are those of Cullender and Smith
(19561, and Crawford and Fancher (19591, where the
gas deviation factor is taken as a function of both
pressure and temperature.
It should be noted that all methods mentioned
above are fairly accurate for natural gas flow calcula-
tions in pipes.
2.2.3. Single-step or analytical integration method
It is possible to integrate Eq. 1 analytically if one
assumes that the temperature, the compressibility
factor, the friction factor as well as the gas viscosity
can be assumed constant at some average values, but
updated iteratively. This method is called the single-
step method. A number of single-step methods have
been published in the literature based on different
assumptions (refer to the series of articles by Aziz,
1962-1963). One of the assumptions, which is em-
ployed by most of these methods, is that the change
in kinetic energy can be neglected. This assumption
may lead to significant errors for some special gas
flows in pipes (Young, 1967) though it is valid for
most engineering applications.
New general flow equations and their simplified
forms are presented later in this paper. At this stage,
we will discuss different forms of the friction facto1
correlation that are used in the gas industry.
2.3. Friction ,factor
The Fanning friction factor, one of the most im-
(3) portant variables in flow equations, is used to deter-
mine the pressure loss due to friction in pipes. The
variation of the friction factor with Reynolds number
140 L.-b. Ouyang, K. Aziz/ Journul of Petroleum Science and Engineering 14 (1996) 137-158

0.004-
0.004 -
0.0035 - 0.0002
0.003 - 0.0001
0.0025- QOOOOS
0.00225-
0.002 -t+f++t+-
I03 2 3456B 104

Reynolds Number, Re

Fig. 1. Regimes of laminar and turbulent tlows (after Govier and Ark, 1972).

and pipe roughness for circular pipes can be divided
into different regimes (Govier and Aziz, 1972; see
Fig. 1): laminar flow, smooth wall turbulent flow,
partially rough wall turbulent flow and fully rough
wall turbulent flow 4. Transitions from smooth wall
turbulent flow to partially rough wall turbulent flow
and from partially rough wall turbulent flow to fully
rough wall turbulent flow are determined by the
roughness Reynolds number Re, which is defined as
follows:
Re,=
d
$Re i
For laminar flow, the friction factor can be shown
turbulent flow, whereas it depends upon both the
Reynolds number and relative pipe roughness in
partially rough wall turbulent flow.
In most practical situations, gas flow in pipes is
turbulent. Different formulae have been reported to
determine the Fanning friction factor for turbulent
pipe flow. These methods can be classified as smooth
pipe correlations and rough pipe correlations.
3. Friction factor calculation
3. I. Smooth pipes

to be a simple function of Reynolds number: From an examination of the measurements then

16 available, Blasius (19 11) proposed:

f=Re f’= 0.079&-” 2s

(6)
The friction factor is only a function of Reynolds and showed that this equation correlates pressure
number for smooth wall turbulent flow, and a func- loss data up to Reynolds numbers of approximately
tion of relative pipe roughness for fully rough wall 10”. Since then, several modifications of Eq. 6,
including 1/7th power law (Ward-Smith, 19801,
1/8th power law (Ward-Smith, 1980), 1/9th power
law (Ward-Smith, 19801, modified 1/9th power law
’ Partially rough wall turbulent flow and fully rough wall
turbulent flow are also named as partially developed turbulent (Knudsen and Katz, 1958), l/lOth power law
flow and fully developed turbulent flow. (Ward-Smith, 1980), Panhandle equation (also known
 L.-h. Ouynng, K. Aziz/Journal of Petroleum Science and En,qineering 14 (19961 1.37-158 141

Table 1
Constants r and t in Eq. 7
Equation Blasius 1/7th l/‘&h 1/9th Mod. 1/9th I/lOth Panhandle Mod. Panhandle IGT -

,- 0.079 0.0763 0.0563 0.0437 0.046 0.0347s 0.02118 0.003678 0.04675

t 02.5 0.25 0.222 0.20 0.20 0.182 0.1461 0.03922 0.20

as Panhandle A equation) (Institute of Gas Technol- 11.5.88/rrR, and for the field and SI units in the
ogy, 1965; Beggs, I984), modified Panhandle equa- Nomenclature the constant becomes 0.7104 and
tion (also known as Panhandle B equation) (Institute 4.4364 X lo-?, respectively.
of Gas Technology, 1965; Beggs, 1984), IGT (Be- Though the Blasius forms or the power-law rela-
ggs, 1984), have been used. All of them are known tionships have the merit of simplicity, they also have
as the Blasius form or power-law relationships, and certain disadvantages, one of which being that the
can be expressed as follows: relations can only be applied over a limited range of
Reynolds numbers. Extrapolations beyond this range
,f = rRe_’ (7)
cannot be made with confidence. Another criticism is
where the values of r and t are listed in Table 1, and that the Blasius forms or the power-law relationships
the Reynolds number can be calculated from: do not adequately describe the conditions that arise
in real situations with flow either close to the wall or
(8) near the pipe axis (Ward-Smith, 1980).
Two additional equations of this type are also
for any consistent units. The constant b = reported in the literature:

I
b
,.;;

_ (4 /”
-7
,,‘i
_,_,_.... . ..- ..._..._._ ,’ i
,__--~.y.z?. --,~+_-.---“-- ..__ _-_. .. .. . *’ -’ ,i
o_,
,,_,.;;::’
:: _ ...., .-;~;;_---7--__ --_
_ ;” 7. _/- . .. I
,.(~.’ . . ‘.f
.. ,’ ;,<
i::::_..,,
,’ .‘L.,
,.,,.’ /’ .., ,l’ “.:;..
..I..,
g b: /’ “.\ .’ “+.,
- ;Z.’ ‘... ,I ‘..‘..
8
1
-
-20 ~ ,I’ .“.;(
,f ” ..
.:..
.....
s I’
s
:
I
/’ ,/ “...
” . ,,
,/.’ .’ .,

./ ..,

“.....
,i’ “.....,,
,/’ “...,

.,.’ “I. ,.

.I.’
.i’ - c-w
,/’
----,
_.-.-..
. . . . .
EL&us(l9rr,
.---.---,hfcditied lmhPoW*,Law
Panhmdis
hfomsd Panhandls
,GT
----- mewera,

Fig. 2. (a) Comparison of different formulae for calculating the smooth pipe friction factor with Prantdl’s equation. (b) Comparison of
different correlations for calculating the rough pipe friction factor (relative pipe roughness = O.OOOS).
Table 2
Re Range Drew Blasius 1/7th power I /Sth power I /9th power Mod. 1/9th 1 / 10th power Panhandle Modified IGT
et al. (1911) law law law power law law Panhandle

(a) Average deviation from the Prantdl’s Universal Fricfion Law for smooth pipes
2000-4000 1.190 2.366 5.703 13.060 19.608 15.377 26.292 40.168 75.669 13.997
4000- 1.Oe4 2.716 1.253 2.309 7.832 13.216 X.648 19.243 32.475 70.003 7.159
1.Oe4- 1.Oe5 1.795 1.288 2.672 3.044 4.703 1.919 X.137 17.559 54.662 2.850
l.Oe5-l.Oe6 0.422 9.387 12.484 7.071 3.961 1.179 3.541 6.045 34.056 2.742
I .Oe6- 1.Oe7 2.443 24.952 27.517 17.944 10.821 6.128 6.667 1.309 11.538 4.850
1.Oe7- I .Oe8 12.446 41.380 43.384 31.659 21.887 17.776 14.806 2.191 12.719 16.436
Average in the whole Rr range 3.502 13.438 15.678 13.435 12.366 8.505 13.114 16.624 43.108 8.006
(b) Maximum deviation from the Prandfl’s Uniurcwl Friction Law for smooth pipes
Re range Drew Blasius 1/7th power 1/Xth power 1/9th power Mod. 1/9th 1,’ 10th power Panhandle Modified IGT
et al. (1911) law law law power law law Panhandle
2000-4000 1.988 - 4.543 ~ 7.806 ~ IS.838 - 22.783 - 18.719 - 29.656 - 43.626 - 77.941 ~ 17.393
4000-I .Oe4 3.002 2.135 - 3.925 - 10.576 ~ 16.695 - 12.310 -23.157 - 36.965 - 73.396 - 10.881
1.Oe4- 1.Oe5 3.013 2.236 -4.661 - 5.706 - 10.369 - 5.652 - 15.947 - 28.632 -66.X33 -4.114
1.Oe5- I .Oe6 0.876 - 14.235 - 17.166 - 10.011 ~ 5.341 2.372 - 5.087 - 12.467 ~ 47.970 4.04 I
1.Oe6- 1.Oe7 4.574 ~ 30.680 - 33.049 - 22.422 - 14.155 - 9.637 - 8.839 ~ 3.393 - 26.553 -8.164
l.Oe7-l.OeX 17.404 -46.X27 - 48.644 ~ 36.529 -26.116 - 22.228 ~ 18.220 ~ 3.352 20.204 ~ 20.960
Maximum in the whole Re range 17.404 - 46.827 -4X.644 - 36.529 -26.116 - 22.228 - 29.656 - 43.626 ~ 77.94 I - 20.960
 L.-b. Ouyang, K. Aziz/ Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 14 (1996) 137-IS8 143

Weymouth equation (Weymouth, 1913): and McAdams equation for Re = 2000-4000 and
4.0 X lo”-4.0 X 106, and the IGT equation for 8.0
f= O.O08D-“” (9) X lo’-2.0 X 106. Although the IGT equation is very
where the units for pipe diameter are inches. close to the modified 1/9th power law, the latter is a
Drew et al. (1932): better approximation to the Prantdl’s universal fric-
,f= 0.00140 + O.l25Re-” ” tion law (Fig. 2a). Other equations should not be
(10)
used for any Reynolds number because of the high
The results of many measurements of the pressure
error involved.
drop in smooth wall turbulent pipe flow were ana-
Another correlation for calculating the friction
lyzed by Prandtl (1935). He found that the plot of
factor in smooth pipes is used in the literature (Brill
,f-” ’ against log{Ref0-5} is linear and can be repre-
and Beggs, 1991; Aziz, 1994):
sented by:
Re
,fO.’ = 41og{ Ref’,‘} - 0.4 (11) f”” = 410g
4.5223 log Re - 3.8215
Eq. 11 is known as Prantdl’s universal friction
law for smooth pipes and has been verified as the Re
= 410g -0.4 (12)
best correlation of the experimental data over the full 3.5922 log( 0.1429Re) I
Reynolds number range of turbulent flow (Ward-
This equation happens to be a very good approxima-
Smith, 1980).
tion to the Prantdl’s universal friction law, with the
Inasmuch as the friction factor is given implicity,
average error for the Reynolds number range of 2000
Eq. 11 is sometimes inconvenient for engineering
to 10’ of only 0.157%. But it seems impossible to
applications. To test the errors resulting from the use
derive the simplified flow equation based on this
of explicit equations, i.e., the Blasius form or the
correlation, so it will not be discussed in detail in
power-law relationships, we have calculated the Fan-
this paper.
ning friction factors based on different correlations
and compared the values obtained to those calculated
from the Prantdl’s universal friction law. Table 2 and 3.2. Rough pipes
Fig. 2a show the results. It is found that the 1/7th
power law. modified 1/9th power law, Blasius, The Colebrook-White equation (Colebrook and
Panhandle, IGT, and Drew, Koo and McAdams White, 1937; Colebrook, 1939) is widely used to
equations can all be used in place of Eq. 11 for predict the Fanning friction factor for rough pipes:
different ranges of Reynolds numbers, but none of 1.255
them is suitable for the full range (Table 3). In other
words, the Blasius equation should be used for Re =
2000-lo”, the modified 1/9th power law for Re =
j-o.5 = _410g
l E
3.70
~
’ f’,‘Re

IO”- lo”, the Pandhandle equation for Re = 106-lo8 =3.477-410g[;+$Z] (13)

(This is the range of Reynolds number most com-
monly encountered in gas pipelines), the Drew, Koo In some textbooks and technical papers (e.g.,

Table 3
Application range of Reynolds number for smooth pipes (accuracy = f 2%)
Equation Drew Blasius 1/7th 1/8th i/9th Mod. I /9th 1 /lOth Panhandle Modified IGT
et al. (I 9 1 I) power power power power iaw power Panhandle
law law law law
Reynolds 2000-4000 and 3000 7000 None None 20 000 None 2.0e + 6 None 8.Oe + 5 -
number 4.Oe + 4-4.0 -I.Oe + 5 -40 000 -1.Oe + 6 -l.Oe + 8 -2.Oe + 6
application C+6

range
144 L.-b. Ouyang, K. Aziz/Journal qf Petroleum Science and Engineering 14 (19961 137-15X

Govier and Aziz, 1972; Beggs, 1984; Baker et al., Jain (1976):
1988; El-Oun, 1990; Beggs, 1991), another form of
the Colebrook-White equation is employed:
,f”,” = 2.28 - 41og (DL + S) (18)
j-“~’ = 3.48 - 410g [D2E + $&) ( 14) Churchill (1977):

1
l/l?
Eq. 14 is slightly different from Eq. 13 and it is
named here as the “modified Colebrook-White (19)
equation’ ’ .
It is also worth noting that Eq. 11 is very close to
where:
the Colebrook-White equation applied to smooth
pipes (the average relative error for the Reynolds
number range of 2000 to 10’ is 0.068%). The only
A= {2.4571n](-7-~y+0.27tl:)‘6
difference is that the constant -0.4 changes to
-0.395 (if Eq. 13 is used) or - 0.403 (if Eq. 14 is
used).
The Colebrook-White equation and its modified
form are implicit in friction factor, and must be
solved by iteration. Though a solution can be ob-
Chen (1979):
tained easily and quickly by numerical methods to
any desired degree of precision, explicit formulae are 5.0452
more welcome and more likely to be used by engi- 0.2698; - 7
neers in industry.

Ii(20)
Several explicit forms for computing friction fac- I.1098
5.8506
tors for rough pipes have been proposed. Some of +----
&,0.898’
them are derived based on approximations applied to
the Colebrook-White equation.
Moody (1947): Haaland (1981)

l/3

)
fos= -3.61og [ Re
6.9 + (&)’ “1 (21)
2 x 104; + g (15)
1
Zigrang and Sylvester (1982)(I):
Wood (1966):

+ O.,,,(i) + 22( $ j”“RF

(16) E 13.0
x log p+p
3.70 Re
(22)
where:
Zigrang and Sylvester (1982)(U):

5.02
f05 = -4.Olog & - ---&og
Eck (1973): i .

111
E 13.0
(17) x log -+-
3.70 Re
(23)
 L.-h. Ouyang, K. Aziz/Journul of Petroleum Science and Engineering 14 (1996) 137-1.58 145

Serghides (1984)(I): tion are very high for large Reynolds numbers or
large relative pipe roughness, whereas the errors by
the Wood equation are high for very large pipe
(24) roughnesses or for very small pipe roughnesses. For
the whole range of Reynolds numbers and relative
where: pipe roughnesses, the average errors are very small
for the Serghides(1) and (II) (1984), Zigrang-Sylves-
A= -2log[-&+;) ter (I) and (II) (19821, and Chen (1979) equations
(Table 4 and Fig. 2b). The average and the maxi-
mum errors for these methods are all less than 1%.
This is not surprising because both the Serghides
equations and the Zigrang-Sylvester equations are
actually obtained from the Colebrook-White equa-
tion by two or three iterations of direct-substitution
Serghides (1984MI): based on different accelerated-convergence tech-
niques. Noting the fact that the Colebrook-White
(A - 4.781)2 -’ equation is also an empirical approximation of exper-
.f= 0.25 4.781 - B _ 2A + 4,781 (25) imental data, it can be concluded that the equations
I
mentioned above [Serghides (I) and (II) (1984), Zi-
Most of the explicit equations listed above have grang-Sylvester (I) and (II) (1982), Chen (1979)].
their own validity range of Reynolds numbers and and the Haaland (1981) equation provide an ade-
relative pipe roughnesses (Zigrang and Sylvester, quate correlation for the Fanning friction factor for
1982; Serghides, 1984). Table 4 lists the overall turbulent flow in rough pipes.
average relative errors and the maximum errors of
the Fanning friction factor values obtained from
different explicit equations compared with those from 4. Flow rate equation
the Colebrook-White equation. The Reynolds num-
ber ranges considered are 2000-4000, 4000-104, New general flow equations (Eq. A8 for inclined
lo’-lo”, lo’-lo”, lo’-lo’, and lo’-lo*, and the pipes and Eq. A9 for horizontal pipes) which account
relative pipe roughness values considered are 10P6, for the pressure drop not only due to friction and
lo-“, lo-“, 5.0x 10-j, 0.001, 0.005, 0.01, 0.05 elevation, but also due to the kinetic energy change,
and 0.1 are derived in Appendix A. These equations can be
Calculations show that absolute relative devia- used to derive the AGA (Eq. A12), the Cullender
tions for different ranges of Reynolds number and and Smith (Eq. Al 2), and other commonly used
pipe roughness are within 5% except for the Moody, equations.
Wood, Churchill and Eck equations. The errors in If one substitutes different correlations for the
the friction factor calculated from the Moody equa- Fanning friction factor for smooth pipes in Eq. Al2

Table 4
Deviation from the Colebrook- White (1939) equations for rough pipes (For the whole range of Reynolds number and relative pipe
roughness)
Error Serghides Z-S (II) Serghides Chen Z-S (I) Haaland Jain Eck Churchill Wood Moody
(1) (1984) (1982) (II) (1984) (1979) (1982) (1981) (1976) (1973) (1977) (I 966) (1947)

Average 0.00037 0.0287 0.0359 0.137 0.234 0.582 0.929 3.010 4.092 5.107 6.276
Error
Maximum - 0.003 0.206 - 0.355 - 0.689 - 1.060 2.952 4.598 11.962 - 70.730 - 32.553 - 26.790
Error
146 L.-h. Ouyang, K. Aziz/Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 14 (1996) 137-158

and then solves the equation for flow rate, the sim-
plified form of the flow equation given below is
obtained (Institute of Gas Technology, 1965; Ikoku,
1980; Beggs, 1984):
(26)
where the efficiency factor, E, is introduced to ac-
count for the effect of pipe roughness, and the
constant c = 0.0375 for field units and c = 0.00697
for SI units. The values of the ai constants resulting
from various friction factor correlations (Panhandle,
modified Panhandle, Weymouth, and IGT) for both
field and SI units are given in Table 5a.
When the elevation term is neglected, Eq. 26
becomes:
Eqs. 26 and 27 are usually named as the Panhan-
dle equation, the modified Panhandle equation, the
IGT equation and the Weymouth equation according
to the values of the a, constants used (i.e., the
correlation chosen for calculating the friction factor).
In order to avoid confusion, they are all classified as
old simplified flow equations to distinguish from
new simplified flow equations to be presented later
in this paper.
Eqs. 26 and 27 are widely used in the gas industry
and in some textbooks (Katz et al., 1959; Institute of
Gas Technology, 1965; Ikoku, 1980; Beggs, 1984).
It appears that these simplified flow equations are
often used without regard to their ranges of applica-
bility. In fact, Eqs. 26 and 27 are based on the
Reynolds number obtained by (IGT, 1965; Ikoku,
1980; Beggs, 19841:
where with D in inches, q in scf/day, the constant
G = 1.91286; and with D in meters, q in m3/sec @
s. c., G = 1.4858 X 105. This constant is obtained by
taking pg = 0.0105 cP, p,, = 14.7 psia, T,, = 520”R
(Field units) or ~~ = 1.05 X 1O-5 Pa. s, p,, =
101,325 Pa, q, = 288.15”K (SI units).

Table 5
Friction factor a, (SI units) a, (Field units) a2
equation

(a) Values of coefficients in Eqs. 26 and 27 a

Panhandle 157.92 435.73 1.0788 0.5394 0.4604 2.6182
Mod Panhandle 152.92 737.50 1.0200 0.5100 0.4900 2.5300
IGT h 169.09 343.28 1.1110 0.5560 0.4444 2.6667
Weymouth 137.19 433.50 I .oooo 0.5000 0.5000 2.6667
(b) Values of coefficients in Eqs. 29 and 30 ’
Friction factor equation a, (SI units) a, (fields units) a2 a3 a4 a5
Blasius (1911) 17.1541 265.5812 0.5714 0.4286 2.7143 0.1429
i/7th power law 17.4983 270.9 114 0.5714 0.4286 2.7143 0.1429
1/8th power law 21.6136 295.871 I 0.5624 0.4376 2.6873 0.1249
1/9th power law 25.6034 3 19.0366 0.5556 0.4444 2.6661 0.1111
Modified 1/9th 24.8841 3 10.0735 0.5556 0.4444 2.6667 0.1111
I/ 10th power law 29.6754 342.9768 0.5501 0.4499 2.6502 0.1001
Panhandle 40.3120 402.7467 0.5394 0.4606 2.6182 0.0788 1
Modified Panhandle 108.1291 722.5812 0.5100 0.4900 2.5300 0.0200
IGT 24.6615 307.3000 0.5556 0.4444 2.6667 0.1111
Weymouth 137.1902 433.5065 0.5000 0.5000 2.6667 0.0000

a The values of a, will change slightly if different standard conditions and the general gas constant are used.
b a, and a4 are set as 337.90 and 0.4000 in Beggs (1984).
’ The values of a, will change slightly if different standard conditions and the general gas constant are used.
L.-b. Ouyang, K. Aziz/ Journal of Petroleum Science and Erqineering 14 (1996) 137-158 147

a) Change Pipeline Length

- Modified 1/9th
...’.‘. Panhandle
..---.-- ModPanhandls
---- IGT
-.-.-. Weymooth

b) Change Outlet Pressure

150 -
- Modified 147th
panhand,*
-...---. ModPanhandle
---- IGT
-.-.-. Weyrnouth
IW c

Fig. 3. Gas flow rate based on different friction factor formulae (horizontal pipeline #I).

- Modibed 1/9th
..... Panhandle
. ..-..... ModPanhandle

b) Change Welihsad Pmssure

- Modified V9h
..“’ Panhandle
..----. ModPanhandle
---- IGT
-.-.-. Weymouth

Fig. 4. Gas flow rate based on different friction factor formulae (vertical gas well #2).
148 L.-b. Ouyang, K. Aziz/Journal of’Petr&um Science and Engineering 14 (1996) 137-158

Table 6
Test data for gas pipelines and gas wells
Data set #l #2 #3 #4

Type Gas Pipeline Vertical Gas Well Gas Pipeline Slant Gus Well
Pipe ID (in) 15.437 2.992 4.0 4.0
Pipe roughness (micro-in) 0.0 0.0 600.0 600.0
Pipeline length (mile) 15.452 _ 0.568
Well depth (feet) 11029.0 _ 8000.0
Inclination angle 0.0 90.0 0.0 70.0
Gas gravity 0.57 0.6997 0.75 0.75
Gas Viscosity (cp) 0.0121 0.012 0.018 0.018
Pseudo-critical P (psia) 672.5 801.2 661.0 661.0
Pseudo-critical T CR) 350.0 410.9 411.0 411.0
Average temperature (“Fl 75.0 202.0 545.0 560.0
Inlet pressure (psia) 798.24 4123.2 200.0 600.0
Outlet pressure (psial 729.72 2990.4 30.0 63.0

Three aspects related to Eqs. 26 and 27 should be pipe flow where the gas has a viscosity of about
noted: 0.0105 CP or 1.05 X IO-” Pa. s.
(a) Eqs. 26 and 27 should be used only for gas (b) A specific value of the term T,,/p,, is used in

c &

80 _
a) tforizonfal Pipeline#I b) Gas Well #Z

- Eq.27 - Eq.26
....... Eq, 30, Mug=O.OiZCp
70 _
.............
Eq, 29, Mug=O.OlZcp
. ..----- Eq, 30, Mug=O.O2&4cp ----..--. Eq. 29, MJg=o.o24cp
- - - - Eq, 30, Mugd.036cp ----. Eq.8 Mug=O.O36cp

60_

2
2” so_
3 -
.Y
2
6 40
G
<
G -

30 _

20

IO

60 80 m m IGXO l2mJ I4003

Pipeline Length (miles) Well Depth (feet)

Fig. 5. Effects of viscosity on gas flow rates with changing pipeline length or well depth
 L.-h. Ouyang, K. A:iz/Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 14 (1996) 137-158 149

calculating constant G for the Reynolds number. When the elevation term is neglected, the simpli-
Using different values of this ratio in Eqs. 26 and 27 fied flow equation for horizontal pipes is obtained
can lead to errors. from Eq. 29:
(cl The widely-used correlations for the friction
factor (the Panhandle, the modified Panhandle, the 02
Pf-P22
IGT, and the Weymouth) are not the best choices to
calculate gas flow in a pipe. This observation results
from the comparison of friction factor calculations
I I i- TZL
(30)

for smooth pipes summarized in Table 2.

In fact. a more general form of simplified flow where the values of a, corresponding to different
equations can be derived from Eq. A10 by replacing friction factor correlations in both sets of units are
the Fanning friction factor with different correla- given in Table 5b (an equation of the same form as
tions: Eq. 30 was first published by Towler and Pope,
1994).
Eqs. 29 and 30 can be utilized for flow calcula-
tion with any type of gas and at any rate provided
that the correlation for the friction factor is selected
D”4 so that it applies for the Reynolds number range of
x- (29) interest (see Table 31, and the efficiency factor is
/q chosen to correctly account for pipe roughness.

70
1

- Eq. 26
................ Eq. 29, M,,@.O12cp
- Eq.27 ...-.--.. Eq. 29, Mug=O.O24cp
Eq. 30, Mug=O.OlZcp 20 1 ----. Eq. 29, Mug--o.O36cp
.----.-.. Eq, 30, Mug=O.O24cP
- - - -. Eq. 30, Mug=O.O%cp \

500 low I XXI 2m zsw 3m 3mJ

Wellhead Pressure (psia)

Fig. 6. Effects of viscosity on gas flow rates with changing outlet or wellhead pressure.
150 L.-b. Ouyang, K. Ariz/.lournal
5. Comparison of flow equations
5. I. Sensitiuity analysis
(a) Friction factor correlation
As stated in Section 3.1, the Fanning friction
factors obtained from different correlations can differ
greatly, thus the gas flow rates predicted will also be
different. Fig. 3 shows the gas flow rates for the
smooth pipeline # 1 in Table 6 with changing pipeline
length (Fig. 3a) and changing outlet pressure (Fig.
3b). The gas flow rates are computed from the new
simplified flow equation (Eq. 29) where the friction
factor is calculated from the modified 1/9th power
law, Panhandle, modified Panhandle, IGT, as well as
Weymouth equations. In both situations, there are
significant differences between the gas flow rates
from the Weymouth and other equations. The largest
difference is as high as 30%, which occurs in the
case of changing the outlet pressure (Fig. 3b). The
other four equations show only small differences in
gas flow rate with changing pipeline length, but still
Fig. 7. Kinetic energy and pipe roughness
of Petroleum Science and Engineering 14 (19%) 137-158
give appreciable differences for the case of changing
outlet pressure. Obviously, it is very important to
choose an appropriate correlation for the friction
factor. Otherwise, calculated gas flow rates can be in
error. Usually gas pipelines are designed for Reynolds
numbers in the range of lo6 to 107, so the Panhandle
equation is recommended for gas flow rate calcula-
tions in pipelines based on the comparison in Section
3.1. Because the gas flow rates change substantially
in gas wells, the correlation for Fanning friction
factor should be chosen according to the Reynolds
number as stated in Section 3.1. Calculation of gas
flow rates in a vertical well (Well #2 in Table 6)
supports this comment (Fig. 4).
(b) Gas uiscosi~
When the gas viscosity is altered, the gas flow
rates will change. Figs. 5 and 6 compare the gas flow
rates obtained from the new simplified flow equa-
tions (Eqs. 29 and 30) where viscosity affects flow
rates and from the old simplified flow equations
(Eqs. 26 and 27) which are independent of gas
viscosity for the gas pipeline # I and the gas well #2
effects (horizontal pipeline #3).
 L.-h. Ouyang, K. Aziz/Joumal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 14 (19961 137-158 151

(Table 6). The gas viscosity values of 0.012 cP,
0.024 CP and 0.036 CP are considered and the Pan-
handle equation is used for friction factor calcula-
tion. Recall that the gas viscosity is assumed to be
0.0105 CP and absorbed in Reynolds number calcula-
tion in the old simplified flow equation. The gas
flow rates based on Eqs. 29 and 30 for gas viscosity
= 0.012 CP are close to the values calculated from
Eqs. 26 and 27. With the increase in gas viscosity,
the differences between the gas flow rates predicted
by new simplified equations and by old simplified
equations become larger and larger. For gas flow
with viscosities different from 0.0105 cP, the old
simplified flow equations should not be used.
(cl Pipe roughness
In addition to the Reynolds number, the pipe
roughness also affects the Fanning friction factor for
turbulent Bow in rough pipes. The gas flow rates
calculated from the new general flow equation (Eq.
A8) are shown in Fig. 7 for horizontal pipeline #3 in
Table 6. The pipe roughness is 600.0 micro-inches
(relative roughness = 0.00015). The friction factor is
obtained directly by an iterative solution of the Cole-
brook-White (1939) equation. The gas flow rates
predicted by using new simplified flow equations
(Eqs. 29 and 30) and calculating friction factor from
the Panhandle equation with E = 1.0 and E = 0.92
are also plotted in Fig. 7. Obviously the differences
between the gas flow rates with and without the
consideration of pipe roughness are large, especially
for the case of changing outlet pressure, where the
maximum differences reach about 28%. Although
0.92 is a typical value for the efficiency factor E in
the Panhandle equation to account for the pipe
roughness effect, the gas flow rates predicted are still
much higher than those obtained from rough pipe
equations. The differences can be reduced if an
appropriate efficiency factor is used, but its value for
different practical pipe types and gas flow rates can
be quite different. Based on the Colebrook-White

--.______ .“.T

-...
-.
*\

‘\\ \
0.9 ~ \
‘\
\
\
\
‘\
‘\
‘\
‘\
‘\
‘\
‘\
‘\
‘\
‘\
$ ‘\.,

2
‘...
‘\ -..,
‘\ L.
‘\ ‘..
‘\ Y.
‘\ *...
‘\ *...
\
‘.\,
‘\ XI,
Relative Roughness ‘\
‘\
- 0 ‘\
,,0e_, ‘\
__ __----. ,,0e_6 ‘,
“\
----. l.Oe-5 ‘\
-._.-.. 0,000, ‘.
_._._._._.... 0.00, ‘\
_._.--._ 0.0, ‘.
xx.

Id 106
Reynolds Number

Fig. 8. Efficiency factor for the use of Panhandle friction factor correlation.
152 L.-b. Ouyang, K. Aziz / Journal of Petroleum Science
Fig. 9. Correction
equation, the authors have calculated the efficiency
factor value corresponding to the Panhandle friction
factor correlation (Fig. 8). Note that the efficiency
factor is very sensitive to both the pipe roughness
and the Reynolds number. For Re = 10h, the effi-
ciency factor decreases from 0.97 to 0.52 when the
relative pipe roughness increases from lop7 to 0.01.
Cd) Kinetic energy change
The effect of kinetic energy change on gas flow
rates in gas pipeline #3 are shown in Figs. 7 and 9
and 10. As expected, these results indicate that the
kinetic energy changes are very small (the correction
factor for the kinetic energy change E, is very close
to 1.0, see Fig. 9) and can be neglected in most
situations of practical interest. But there appears a
maximum gas production rate for horizontal pipeline
#3 with the change of outlet pressure if the kinetic
energy term is considered (Fig. 7b) ‘. In some cases,
the error caused by neglecting the kinetic energy
’ The maximum value observed in Fig. 7b when kinetic energy
term is included can be confirmed analytically.
and Engineering14 (I Y96i 137-158
factor for the kinetic energy change
change can reach about 3.37% (Fig. 9). Young (1967)
stated that the error may reach 9%. Tian and
Adewumi (1992) reported 28% and 43% errors in
outlet pressure calculation for special gas flow prob-
lems (the pressure drops due to the kinetic energy
change are 6.8% and 5.0% of the total pressure
drops) ‘. These conditions are, however, not likely to
be encountered in practice.
(e) Eleuation change
For gas flow in a slant well (gas well #4 in Table
6) with elevation change, the new general flow
equation (Eq. A8) and the AGA equation (Eq. A12)
are both employed to calculate gas flow rates (Fig.
10). The results are different. The deeper the well,
the larger the difference between them. This is rea-
sonable since the AGA equation is derived by as-
suming that p* in the elevation term remains un-
changed along the pipe, which is not true for gas
wells where the pressure may change rapidly.
hth Young (1967) and Tian and Adewumi (1992). the
correction factor u is ignored.
 L.-b. Ouyang, K. Azi:/Journal of Perroleum Science and Engineering 14 119961 137-158 153

New Eq., KE Change Neglected

- New Eq., KE Change Considered
--------. AGA Equation with Newtion Change

i
8000 lOax 12OiM 1400 16000
Well Length (feet)

Fig. 10. Comparison of results from new equation derived in this work (Eq. A8) and the AGA equation (Eq. AIZ) (slant gas well #4).

5.2. Application to field data
The new general flow equation (Eq. A8) and the
AGA general flow equation (Eq. A12), along with
the new simplified flow equation (Eq. 29) which
uses the Panhandle friction factor correlation, are
used to calculate the gas flow rates in practical gas
pipelines. The field data, Test A, Test C, Test F-l,
Test Q, Test YA-1, are chosen randomly from IGT
Report No. 10 (Institute of Gas Technology, 1965).
The pipe length, the pipe ID, the inclination angle
and the number of data points are listed in Table 7a.

Table 7
Source Test A Test C Test F- 1 Test Q Test V-l Test YA-I
(a) Test pipeline data distribution
Length (mile) 93.69 36.82 152.4 16.16 10.63 9.12
Pipe ID (inch) 12.0 15.375 19.44 29.3 I 25.5 25.375
Inclination (“1 0.076 0.067 - 0.09 0.019 -0.02 0.013
Number of data points II 8 11 10 9
(b) Average relative error (%o) between the predicted and the measured gas flow rates
Equation Test A Test C Test F-I Test Q Test V-I Test YA- I
New Panhandle (E = 0.92) 7.224 19.881 0.678 5.946 0.973 I I.023
AGA Equation 4.830 0.49 1 2.694 1.538 2.463 0.428
New Equation (No k term) 4.995 0.492 2.603 1.536 2.462 0.425
New Equation (With k term) 4.99 1 0.506 2.593 1537 2.461 0.422
154 L.-h. Ouyzq, K. Aziz/Journal of Petroleum
The pipe length varies from 9.12 miles to 152.4
miles, the pipe ID from 12.0 to 29.31 inches, and the
inclination angle from - 0.09” to +0.076”. All of
the results are obtained by iteration using the single-
step method. The compressibility factor is calculated
from the Dranchuk and Abou-Kassen (1975) method
at the average temperature and pressure. The average
pressure is updated during each iteration. Fig. 11
compares the calculated gas flow rates with mea-
sured values. The differences between the predicted
and the measured gas flow rates are quite small for
both the new equation and the AGA equation (Table
7b). Even for Test F- 1, where the pipeline length is
152.4 miles, the differences are only about 2.603%
and 2.694%. In general, the new equation (Eq. A8)
predicts a slightly better gas flow rate than the AGA
equation (Eq. A12). However, over the range of
Measured Gas Flow Kate (MMscf/D)
Fig. 11. Comparison
Science and Engineering 14 (19961 137-158
conditions considered, the AGA equation yields good
results. The main reasons for this are: (a) The pipe
inclination is very small (smaller than + 0.1 degree),
so the elevation term is much smaller than the
friction term and has little effect on the total pressure
drop. (b) The pressure change along the pipelines is
small. (c) The kinetic energy effects are insignifi-
cant. Notwithstanding these results, it must be em-
phasized that the equations based on approximate
expressions in the elevation term are not as reliable
as the equations where no such assumptions are
made.
As demonstrated earlier, the new simplified flow
equations (Eq. 29 with E = 0.92 and the Panhandle
correlation used for the friction factor calculation)
give poor predictions of the gas flow rates for some
pipelines but good predictions for other pipelines.
Unit S/me Straiaht Line
E9. 29 (Panhacdle, EzO.92)
New Eq., KE Change Considered
AGA Equation
zw AJU
of measured and calculated gas flow rates.
 L.-h. Ouyang, K. A&,/ Journal of PetroleumScience and Engineering 14 (19961 337-158 15s

The difficulty related to simplified flow equations is and smooth pipelines or wells, Chen (1979).
the selection of the efficiency factor and the friction Serghides (1984) (I) and (II), Zigrang and Sylvester
factor correlation. (1982) (I) and (II), as well as Colebrook-White
(1939) equations can be used. Because the Cole-
brook-White equation also gives good results of the
6. Recommendations and conclusions Fanning friction factor evaluation for smooth pipes.
it is strongly recommended to be used for both rough
The new general flow equations which account and smooth pipe flows.
for the effects of friction, elevation and kinetic en- Nomenclature
ergy change can be easily used for any single phase constant. Eqs. 26, 27, 29, 30
gas flow in pipelines and wells. It is more accurate constant, Eq. 8
than the AGA equation or other simplified forms. pipe diameter (m; inch)
The AGA equation with the elevation change efficiency factor, Eqs. 26, 27, 29, 30
introduces an error for gas flow calculations, espe- correction factor, Eq. A9
cially for the cases where the elevation change is Fanning friction factor
large. For slightly inclined gas pipelines, the AGA acceleration due to gravity (m/s’; ft/s’)
equation can be utilized provided the kinetic energy conversion factor
change is negligible. constant, Eq. 28
Kinetic energy change may be neglected for most pipe length (m; mile)
industrial applications. In some special cases, such as pressure (Pa; psia)
where pressure drop over the pipe is very large, the average pressure (Pa, psia)
kinetic energy change can lead to appreciable errors pressure at standard conditions (Pa; psia)
in gas flow rate and pressure drop calculations. For gas flow rate (m” /s @ s. c.; scf/day)
these cases, using an equation, such as the new constant. Eq. 7
general flow equations can lead to improved accu- universal gas constant (J . Kgmol~ ’ “K- ’ ;
racy. psi . ft’ lbmole- ’ . “R- ‘)
For gas flow where the kinetic energy change is Reynolds number, Eqs. 8 and 28
negligible, the new general flow equation can be dimensionless elevation factor with the kinetic
simplified into specific flow equations (Eqs. 29 and energy change ignored
30). The simplified flow equations thus derived can dimensional elevation factor
be used for steady-state gas flow with any flow rate dimensionless elevation and kinetic energy
and gas type, provided that the correct correlation for change factor
the friction factor and the correct value of the effi- constant, Eq. 7
ciency factor are chosen. In contrast, the old simpli- temperature (“K; “R)
fied flow equations can only be applied to gas flow temperature at standard condition (“K; “R)
with gas viscosities of about 0.0105 cP, and thus can gas velocity (m/s; ft/s)
lead to particularly large errors for dense phase flow elevation (m; ft)
in pipelines where the viscosity may be as high as compressibility factor
0.06 CP (Gregory et al., 1979). correction factor to compensate for variations
Correlation for the Fanning friction factor should in the velocity profile over the pipe cross-sec-
be selected according to the Reynolds number and tion
the relative pipe roughness of interest. For single specific gravity of gas, which is defined as the
phase gas flow in smooth pipelines or wells, the ratio of the density of the gas to the density of
Blasius equation can be used for the Reynolds num- dry air with both at standard temperature and
ber range of 3000 to lo”, the modified 1/9th power pressure
law for 2 X 10’ to IO”, the Drew et al. equation for absolute pipe roughness (m;inch)
2000 to 4000 and 4.0 X IO” to 4.0 X 106, and the gas viscosity (Pa . s, cP)
Panhandle equation for 2 X lo6 to 10’. For rough gas density (kg/m’ ; lbm/ft’)
156 L.-b. Oqang, K. Aziz/Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 14 (1996) 137-158

Appendix A. Derivation of the General Gas Flow

Equation

The momentum balance equation for natural gas 4fBC

A=-
flow in pipes has the following differential form:
DS,

dp udu
-+Ldz+- +2cdL=O
(A’) s’ = 2 B ?!-sin 8
P Rc a Tc, Dg, g,

There are four terms appearing in Eq. Al, i.e., the It is convenient to rewrite Eq. A5 as:
pressure drop term, the elevation term, the kinetic
energy term, and the frictional pressure drop term. p2 - (BC/ag,)
p2(s'p2+4 dp2= -dL W)
For real gases:

pV = nZRT This equation can be numerically integrated as dis-

cussed in Aziz (1967) for both wells and pipelines,
or: or it can be integrated analytically provide A, B and
C are assumed to be constant:
PM 28.97~~
P=E= -gjr~=B~ (‘42) A + s’pf
(A?
A + s’p;
where M is the gas molecular weight, and y,, is the
specific gravity of the gas.
with:
If 9 is the volumetric flow rate at standard condi-
tions, then the local gas velocity is: D
L-- lnPZ
2af PI
Sk =
(A31 1 D
-+-
S’ 4af
Often, the compressibility factor Z does not vary
greatly over the range of pressures and temperatures and:
existing in pipelines so that it can be assumed con- s = S’L
stant, thus yielding:
Eq. A7 can be rearranged to solve for the flow rate:

du= -yZ($j(~)($U’))‘dp= --$f

(Ad)
0.5
D2.5
Substituting Eqs. A2, A3 and Eq. A4 into Eq. Al,
(A81
the following equation can be obtained: ! i

2BC dp This equation is the most general integrated flow

2pdp- -- + ( s’p2 + A)dL = 0 (-45)
ag, P equation published so far. It accounts for the effects
of elevation, friction, and kinetic energy change.
where: Note that for horizontal flow:

28.97~~ s’ = 0 * s = 0 ads, = 0
B=---
ZRT This makes the last term in Eq. A8 singular. The
 L.-h. Ouyang, K. Aziz/ Journal of Petroleum Science and Er+wering
singularity can be removed with the application of
L’Hopital’s rule or by directly substituting s’ = 0 in
Eqs. A5 or A6. In either case the result is:
where E, is called the correction factor
kinetic energy change and it is defined by:
D
-0.5
E,=
i
l--
2a.P
lny’
PI I
Inasmuch as the kinetic energy effect is usually
small, it can often be neglected in Eq. Al, which is
equivalent to setting sk = s in Eq. A8:
0.5
Another approach is to neglect the kinetic energy
term and rewrite Eq. A5 as follows:
2pdp+(.+$,+A)dL=O
where the authors have assumed that the elevation
term can be evaluated by setting p2 to be constant at
its average value, pi”,. The resulting equation is the
well-known AGA equation (Institute of Gas Tech-
nology, 1965):
For horizontal pipes, with s = 0 and AZ = 0, both
Eqs. Al 0 and A12 reduce to:
14 (19961 137-158 157
It is also interesting to note that the widely-used
Cullender and Smith (1956) equation for use in
vertical wells can also be obtained by neglecting the
kinetic energy term in Eq. A6 and rewritting it as
follows:
(A91 (Al41
for the
where:
28.97g
c, = ~
Rg,
Other methods, such as Sukker and Cornell (19551,
Rzasa and Katz (1945), are all special cases of Eq.
A6
Note that the equations in this Appendix are valid
for any consistent set of units. For example, in the SI
(AlO) system, the units for mass, time, and length are
kilogram, second, and meter, respectively. The units
for all other quantities must be derived from these
three base units.
(All)
References
Aziz, K., 1962-1963. Ways to calculate gas flow and static head.
Petroleum Engineer, Series from Nov. 1962 through Sept.
1963. Vols. 34-35.
Aziz. K., 1967. Calculation of bottom-hole pressure in gas wells.
J. Pet. Technol.. 19(7): 897-899.
Aziz, K., 1994. Multiphase Flow Technology for the Development
of Oil and Gas Reservoirs. Course note, Stanford University.
Calif.
Baker, A.. Nielsen, K. and Gabb, A., 1988. Pressure loss. liquid
holdup calculations developed. Oil Gas J.. 86( 1 I J: 55-59.
Beggs, H.D., 1984. Gas Production Operations. Gulf Publishing
Co, Houston, Tex., 287 pp.
Beggs. H.D.. 1991. Production Optimization IJsing NODAL
Analysis. OGCI Inc.. Tulsa. Okla.. 41 1 pp.
Blasius, H., 1911. Das Ahnlichkeitsgesetr bei Reibuogsvorgan-
gen. Physik. Zeitschr., XII: 117.5-l 177.
Brill. J.P. and Beggs, D.P., 1991. Two-phase Flow in Pipes.
Course note, University of Tulsa, Tex.
Chen. N.H.. 1979. An explicit equation for friction factor in pipe.
(Al31 Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund., lS(3): 2966297.
158 L.-b. Ouyang, K. Aziz/ Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 14 (1996) 137-158
Churchill, S.W., 1977. Friction-factor equation spans all fluid
flow regimes. Chem. Eng., 84(24): 91-92.
Colebrook, C.F., 1939. Turbulent flow in pipes, with particular
reference to the transition region between the smooth and
rough pipe laws, J. Inst. Civ. Eng. London, 12: 133-156.
Colebrook, C.F. and White, CM., 1937. Experiments with fluid
friction in roughened pipes. Proc. R. Sot. London, 16lA:
367-38 1.
Crawford, P.B. and Fancher, G.H., 1959. Calculation of flowing
and static bottomhole pressures of natural gas wells from
surface measurements. Tex. Pet. Res. Comm., Austin, Tex.,
Bull. 72.
Cullender, M.H. and Smith, R.V., 1956. Practical solution of
gas-flow equations for wells and pipelines with large tempera-
ture gradients. Trans. AIME, 207: 281-287.
Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassen, J.H., 1975. Calculation of Z
factors for natural gases using equations of state. J. Can. Pet.
Technol., 14(31: 34-36.
Drew, T.B., Koo. E.C. and McAdams, W.H., 1932. The friction
factor for clean round pipes. Trans AIChE, 28: 56-72.
Eck. B., 1973. Technische Stromungslehre. Springer, New York,
N.Y.. 142 pp.
Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D. and Ehlig-Economides, C., 1994.
Petroleum Production Systems. PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 61 1 pp.
El-Oun, Z., 1990. Gas-liquid two-phase flow in pipelines. 65th
Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib., Sot. Pet. Eng. AIME. New Or-
leans, La., SPE 20645.
Govier, G.W. and Aziz, K., 1972. The Flow of Complex Mixtures
in Pipes. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.. New York, N.Y., 792
PP.
Gregory, G.A., Aziz. K. and Moore, R.G.. 1979. Computer design
of dense phase pipelines. J. Pet. Technol., 31(l): 40-50.
Haaland, S.E., 1981. Simple and explicit formula for the friction
factor in turbulent pipe flow including natural gas pipelines
IFAG B- 13 1. Div. Aero- and Gas Dynamics, The Norwegian
Inst. Technol.
Ikoku, C.U., 1980. Natural Gas Engineering: A System Approach.
Penn Well Publishing Co., Tulsa, Okla., 788 pp.
Institute of Gas Technology, 1965. IGT Report No 10: Steady
Flows in Gas Pipelines. PRC Project NB-13, Am. Gas Assoc..
Inc., New York. N.Y.
Jai”, A.K., 1976. Accurate explicit equation for friction factor.
ASCE Hydraul. Div. J., 102(HY5): 674-677.
Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Vary, J.A., Kobayashi, R., Elenbaas. J.R.,
Poettmann, F.H. and Weinaug, C.F., 1959. Handbook of Natu-
ral Gas Engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, N.Y..
802 pp.
Knudsen, J.G. and Katz, D.L., 1958. Fluid Dynamics and Heat
Transfer. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y., 576 pp.
Moody, M.L., 1947. An approximate formula for pipe friction
factors. Trans. ASME, 69: 1005- 1011,
Poettmann, F.H., 1951. The calculation of pressure drop in the
flow of natural gas through pipe. Tram AIME, 192: 3 17-326.
Prandtl, L., 1935. The mechanics of viscous fluids. In: W.F.
Durand (Editor). Aerodynamic Theory. III(Division G): 344
208.
Rzasa, M.J. and Katz, D.L., 1945. Calculation of static pressure
gradients in gas wells. Trans. AIME, 160: 100-l 13.
Serghides, T.K., 1984. Estimate friction factor accurately. Chem.
Eng., 91(5): 63-64.
Sukker. Y.K. and Cornell, D., 1955. Direct calculation of bottom-
hole pressures in natural gas wells. Trans. AIME, 204: 43-48.
Tian. S. and Adewumi. M.A., 1992. Development of analytical
design equation for gas pipelines. 67th Annu. Tech. Conf.
Exhibition, Sot. Pet. Eng. AIME., Washington, D.C.. SPE
24861.
Towler, B.F. and Pope, T.L., 1994. New equation for friction-fac-
tor approximation developed. Oil Gas J., 92(14): 55-58.
Ward-Smith. A.J., 1980. Internal Fluid Flow. Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 566 pp.
Weymouth, T.R.. 1913. Problems in natural gas engineering.
Trans. ASME, 34: 185-231.
White, F.M., 1986. Fluid Mechanics. McGraw-Hill Book Com-
pany. New York. N.Y.. 732 pp.
Wood. D.J., 1966. An explicit friction factor relationship. Civ.
Eng., 36( 12): 60-6 I.
Young, K.L., 1967. Effect of assumptions used to calculate bot-
tom-hole pressures in gas wells. J. Pet. Technol., 19(41: 547-
550.
Zigrang, D.J. and Sylvester, N.D., 1982. Explicit approximations
to the solution of Colebrook’s friction factor equation. AIChEJ,
2X(3): 514-515.