Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This paper was prepared for the bbth Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
of AIME, to be held in Denver, Colo., Sept. 28-Ott.1, 1.969.Permission to copy is restricted to an
-r....-L-- L: .-. -----.4 k. .—< .A ml....-h.+
. ...+ .hfi.,1 A nnm+eikl
abstraci of not more t’nan jOO words. LJ-J-usl/ruL.Lullti may Ilub Uc LupLcu. ALJG auau.a~u C3LL”IAJ-U L“..”UALI
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Publication elsewhere after
publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JCURNAL is
usually granted upon reauest to the Editor of the appropriate journal provided agreement to give
nvnno~ rvedi+ i ~ maii-
y.”y... ------ -., ...-=-.
Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent to the
c-,,:
e+.,m? D-+-,.,.1 0...,, 17mm;rl*c,v.
IJUL1.CtiJ W. LCI/.V.LCUtt1
-f’P; 7!0 C,,oh A< cc,,..inn
UL1~&LIGG.O
m.v ~~
“A.J.LG.
p~~~~pa~~~
“ub..
~’t ~~.~ ~~~~~
UAULL4.JU4.”L.
rn.~~~.~~g ~~.d.
...=.? ,
with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two SPE magazines.
given set of flow conditions as the multi- pressure drop data and experimental flow
phase flow problem is extremely difficult apparatus for correlation data gathering
represent the inherent problems of obtain-
to analyze. Fortunately the introduction
of the computer in the petroleum industry ing a general multiphaae flow model.
During multiphase flow in vertical tubing
has enhanced the investigation of the multi-
at least four distinct regimes of flow are
phase flow problem. Rapid computation pro-
identifiable. These are usually described
vides a means for comparison of individual
methods and an instrument for the develop- aa the bubble, slug, transition, and mist
ment of new correlations. flow regions. Figure 1 illuatratea the geo-
Three of the best correlations were chosen metrical configuration of the four regions
of flow. Bubble flow consists of a contin-
and evaluated; the Hagedorn and Brown, Duns
uous liquid phase with little free gas pre-
and Ros, and Orkiszewski methods. The accu-
—-—-- sent. Aa greater quantitlea of ~as evolve
racy Of these new correlations was deter-
from the liquid phase, the gas bubbles
mined against multiphase flow pressure drop
agglomerate, forming slug-like gas pockets
data from 44 wells. The best solution which
characteristic of the slug flow region. As
was both general and gave satisfactory accu-
still greater amounts of gas are released,
racy for all possible ranges of well condi-
the transition flow region forms in which
tions waa determined. The method of
droplets of liquid become entrained in the
Orkiazewski was found to be most accurate
gas pockets. The gas pockets become dis-
for engineering design usage and was the
only correlation which could evaluate a torted and approach a continuous gas form.
“–-
three phase flow condition when water is breater gas throughput restricts the
References and Illuatrationa at end of paper
A COMPARISON OF EXISTING MULTIPHASE FLOW METHODS FOR THE
CALCULATION OF PRESSURE DROP IN VERTICAL WELLS SPE 2553
4) The change in kinetic energy can Region III. The gas phase is the continu-
account for an appreciable percentage of the ous phase and the mist flow regime exists.
total pressure losses, particularly at the The nature of these three regions requires
wellhead where low tubing pressures are en- a separate correlation for both friction and
countered. holdup and in principle, six different corre-
5) The correlation is general and may lations are to be expected. The transition
be applied wer a wide range of conditions. flow region between slug and mist flow was
mL .
~11= .A R-- ... ~Qr~~~~~~on
U-..AA--
a..--.
Saa S=uw&.. as used not correlated and the pressure gradient in
in this paper was modified in two ways. The this region ts obtained by interpolation.
holdup was corrected to be the holdup for no Equation 8 represents the useful form of the
aiippage, an6 the ~GZ~SIZtiG~. %’=S ZKdifid Bans and Ros correlation:
to include the Griffith and Wallis correla-
tion for the slug flow regime. This method G
G. St + ‘fr (8)
is then a modification of the original *- +pv /p)
Hagedorn and Brown method. (‘LVSL g Sg)(‘Sg
Duns and Ros Correlation The basic conclusions which may be drawn
from the work of Duns and Ros are:
This method is the result of laboratory
1) The pressure balance equation can be
investigations with modifications and ad-
solved by utilizing different correlations
,juatmenta to the correlation by use of actu-
for the various flw regimes.
al field data. Duns and ROS3 arbitrarily
defined the static pressure gradient as a 2) Three flow regimes may be used to pre-
~i~t ‘----**-m 0T~A4~nt~.
function of a weighted density, and devel- lJ~=----- ~....---..-.-
.
oped correlations for wall friction from 3) The accuracy of the correlation is
extensive laboratory data for each flow
reasonable in the range of low gas through-
region.
--.....1”+*-* itH4 4- put.
The GU&ACLaL&U&,m A.. t
-e -n
. ...- of e di~-en-
sionless gas velocity number, diameter num- 4) ‘The correlation is not applicable to
ber, liquid viscosity number and a dimen- three phase calculations.
sionless mathematical expression. These
dimensional groups are the same as developed Orkiszewski Correlation
in the work of Hagedorn and Browns. ROS2
also correlated slip velocity as a relation This correlation is a composite of several
k-+-e--
“.=-” -,. 14rI,.4A
. . . . . . h
. .~~~-up ~~~ ~h~ liquid tO ~&w3 published methods. 0rkiszewski4 divided
holdup ratio. Presented were correlations previously published methods into three cat-
for each of the flow regions. The correla- egories noting whether the works were origi-
tions coupled with the previously mentioned nal or unique and as to whether they were
slip velocity correlations prwide a method developed from a broad base of data. The
for calculating the total pressure gradient. liquid holdup was derived frcm observed
Duns antiRos assumed the ~C@l~=~tiuTa ~h~~ic=l phemmem and the pressure gradient
g~ad~ent tO be negligible and presented the was related to the geometrical distribution
energy balance as: of the liquid and gas phase.
Based upon similarity in theoretical con-
dp/dh = ~P# + HgPgt3 + friction gradient cepts Orkiszewaki selected five methods and
(6) compared them by determining the deviation
between predicted and measured presstire drops
If the pressure gradient dp/dh is expressed He ~~~ected the best two of the five methods,
aa a fraction of the static liquid gradient
Duns and Ros and the Griffith and Wallisa
~g, the equation becomes:
upon which to base his correlation, Neither
method was found to be accurate over the
G = (l/pLg) dp/dh = ~+ (1-~) Pg/PL + entire flow range. The Griffith and Wallis
correlations was found to be reliable in the
●
lower Elow =Gt=. --..-. A: .AU*
&aL1~=WA .1..*FInu
..”- &J~ p-~~
..4---
wu=~e : accurate in the higher range. The Duns and
Ros method presented the same behavior ex-
G = dimensionless pressure gradient
cept that it was also inaccurate for the
The various flow regtons correlated were:
high viscosity oils in the low flow rate
Region I. The liquid phase is continuous range. Of the two methods Orkiszewaki pre-
and bubble, slug and part of the froth-flow ferred the form of the Griffith and Wallis
regime exist. correlation as it appeared to provide a suf-
Region II. The phases of liquid and gas ficient foundation for an imprwed general
alternate. The region cwers slug flow and solution. The Duns and Ros method, however,
the remainder of the froth-flow regime.
-- COMPARISON OF EXISTING MULTIPHASE FLOW METHODS FOR THE
A
CALCULATION OF PRESSURE
is based upon a complex set of interrelated and 10,OOO feet? SiX between 8~000 and I
parameters and was thought difficult to 9,OOO feet, four between 7,000and 8,OOO
relate to the physical phenomena occurring feet and the others to a depth of at least
inside the pipe. 3,800 feet. Table 2 depicts the calculated
Orkiszewski extended the Griffith and results from each method as compared to the
—..-..--A ..--”...”-
p~=mmu~=. The “=--------
A..Amtinn frmn the
waiiis correiatione c-o include the high ve- mrxi=uLuu ----- ----
locity flow range by incorporation of the measured pressure is presented for each meth-
work of Duns and Ros. A parameter was devel- od studied. These data were furnished
oped to account for: through the courtesy of A. F. Bertuzzi and
Shofner Smith of Phillips Petroleum Company.
1) Liquid distribution between the liquid The wells were grouped to study the
slug, the liquid film and entrained liquid
effects of gas-oil ratio on bottomhole
in the gas bubble, and pressure prediction. Six ranges were stud-
2) liquid at the higher flow velocities. ied; those wells with gas-oil ratios below
or above 1000 SCF/bbl, low oil flow and high
This parameter was used to calculate wall _.‘1c-----.-l 1- UblU
--.4S1-.....,4t. h g anmnrd lirmid
01.L Z1.UW WI=LJ.= LLUW WLtiaS ------- --x---
friction losses and flowing density as de- phase (water) present. The regions of fl~
rived from the published data of Hagedorn
represented by these groupings are depicted
and Brown.
in Table 3.
Orkiszewski concluded that the modified Table 4 presents the results of these
method was sufficiently accurate wer the
studies for the wells studied and depicts
entire range of studied conditions, and
the deviation of each correlation from the
accuracy could be imprwed by rigorous anal-
actual pressure drop measured. Table 5
ysis of the liquid phase distribution. summarizes the applicability of each correla-
The form of the Orkiszewski equation was
tion to the specific regions investigated.
presented as:
The results show the Orkiszewski method to
be superior in bubble and slug flow regions.
;+Tf
Ap.~ (8) The Hagedorn and Brown correlation appears
144 l-wtqgi4637Ap”+ ‘“ to be more accurate than the Oriiiszewski
correlation for high gas-oil ratios in this
low flow region. Orkiszewski agrees with
The flow regimes were related as a func-
Duns and Ros in these regions as they are
tion of total fluid velocity, liquid den-
essentially the same correlation. Study 3
sity, liquid surface tension, hydraulic ra-
reveals the Orkiszewski correlation to be
dius and volumetric flow rate of the liquid
the only method which adequately predicts
and gas. The flow regions correlated were
pressure drops during three-phase flow. The
bubble, slug, transition and mist.
Orkiszewski method with an average absolute
Orkiszewski concluded that the correlation
deviation of 15.5 per cent is about one per
was general and accurate for two and three-
cent more accurate than the Duns and Ros
phase calculations for most flow conditions.
correlation and considerably more accurate
than the Hagedorn and Brown results.
CORRELATION DEVELOPMENT
rviwrvnernuc
UU.lUU” “a.”..”
The three correlations discussed above
were programmed for use on a high speed dig- For the limited number of wells studied
ital computer. Each correlation was devel-
(44) the Orkiszewski method appears tobe
oped so as to require identical input data. superior to all previous prediction schemes.
The data required for a pressure drop cal- The method performs far superior in the
culation are depicted in Table 1. A pres- three phase region. The method is superior
sure increment of 50 psi was used in each to that of Duns and Ros in all regions and
model to calculate the pressure gradient. the method Hagedorn and Brown in all but the
..... -------
wlrn this pressure increment each prVKIaUI low flow-high gas-oil ratio range (mist and
required a similar computation time (approx- transition flow region). The methti has
imately one minute) on an IBM 360 model 40 been programmed and is readily adaptable to
digital computer to predict a pressure tra- predict pressure traverses in any well from
.,*wRn
------ ~.~~~~~g~ ~~~ ~QrrelatiQns my be -E d----- A-*.. ~~: or~i~-
a iimited amount ox LIIIJUL u=L=.
hand calculated, desk calculation is quite zewski method should be tested against more
tedious. data for wells of lower API gravity oil and
with a wider range of water-oil ratio.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 0rkiszewski4 has also shown his method to
give better results than either the Duns and
A total of forty-four wells were studied Ros or Hagedorn and Brown method. ~~ever,
by Espanol.9 Twenty-five wells had a depth and
private camnunication with both Ros
greater than 10,000 feet, five between 9,000
?E 2553 J. H. EsrJa
nol. C.S. H roes.K.E. Brown %
11 REFERENCES
Hagedorn has indicated that their method
is more accurate in certain ranges of flow.
This study therefore points up the fact that 1. Poettman, F. H. and Carpenter, P. G.
the comparison of these three methods should “The Multiphase Flow of Gas, Oil and
be continued with additional well data to Water Through Vertical Flow String with
establish their accuracy in all ranges of Application to the Design of Gas-Lift
flow. Installation. “ Drillin~ and Production
Practice 257, (1952).
NOMENCLATURE
2. Ros, N. C. J. “Simultanems Flow of
Gas and Liauid as Encountered in Well
A= cross-sectional area of tubing
Tubing.” jour. of Pet. Tech. 13,
dp = pipe diameters (October, 1961).
D = depth
3. Ros, N. C. J. and Duns, H. J. “Vertical
d hydraulic pipe diameter (4xAt/Wetted
hy = Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells.”
perimeter)
. moody friction factor Paper 22-PDCi ?roc. 6th World Pet. Con-
f
gress, Frankfort (June 19-26,1963),
g= acceleration of gravity
Section II.
gc = conversion constant (32.2)
4. Orkiszewski, J. “Predicting Two-phase
G= dimensionless pressure grad: ent
Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipe.” Paper
GLR = gas-liquid ratio
1546,Proc. hlst Annual Fall Meeting,
GOR = gas-oil ratio
Dallas, (October 2-5, 1966).
h = elevation
HL = liquid holdup factor 5. HagedornY A. R. and Brown, J. E. “Exper-
imental Study of Pressure Gradients
M. tQt~l mass Of oil; water and gas asso-
Occurring During Continuous Tvo-Fhase
ciated with one barrel of liquid
Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits.”
flowing into and out flow string
SPE940, (October 11-14, 1964).
Reynolds Number
%e =
P . pressure 6. Hagedorn, A. R. and Brown, K. E. “Exper-
imental Gas Lift Project - Experimental
i= average pressure for Increment Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring
volumetric gas flow rate During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in
‘g = Small Diameter Vertical Conduits.”
a. = liquid production rate
-L ‘i’echn%caiEepoTt to WL%S l?iigiii~~~iiig
q. = oil rate Corporation, (May, 1964).
v. volume 7. Hagedorn, R. H. and Brown, K. E. “The
v= fluid velocity Effect of Viscosic;~’in Two Phase Verti-
v= average fluid velocity cal Flow.” SPE 733, (October, 1563).
m
8. Griffith.P. and Wallis. G. B. “Two-
v average superficial gas velocity Phase Sl~g Flow.” Journal
‘ of Heat Trans-
Sg =
fer, 307, (August, 1961).
average superficial liquid velocity
‘sL = 9. Espanol, J. H. “Comparison of Three
total mass flow rate Methods-for Calculating a Pressure
‘t =
. density Traverse in Vertical Multiphase Flaw.”’
P
density of gas phase at flowing condi- M. S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa,
‘f3 = tion (1968).
—— Variable Units
Bottanhole Temperature OF
Gas-oil
Ratio SCF/Bbl
Surface Temperature ‘%
-. .-.
Lame
. . .–. . ..–= ..
d - measurea ana prealcr.eapressure arops.
1 1093 Y306 1913 6000 1&80 1629 Ipl +12.2 +11 L.8 +10.0
2 750 2720 1970 6225 191+3 1779 1994 + 1.4 +11.1 - 1.2
260 3950 y$)o 1CJ!50 3558 5262 3602 +k.1 +11.5 + 2.L
? 350 2985 2635 12024 2358 3050 ~qo +10. 5 -15.7 -17.3
175 1860 1685 11534 1178 19k-t 22’P +30. 1 -15.5 -35.0
520 2001 1681 11045 1262 2169 2465 +24 .9 -29.0 -L6.6
150 2040 1890 105z8 934 1918 23)+0 +50. 6 - 1.1 -23.8
275 2122 1847 10201 2555 2926 1933 -58.3 -58.5 - 4.6
9 450 2742 2292 10328 1642 2553 2596 +28 . b -11.3 -13.3
10 50 lC@J 10U b~ol! 395 K@ 1018 +61.7 - 1.8 - poll
11 220 1x8 1118 11308 1072 906 856 + ill +19.0 +23.4
12 440 k368 3928 12037 4019 3561 4001 - 2.3 + 9.4 - 1.9
1> 14aa 2662 2182 7214 1159 1990 1851 +JJ6.9 + 8.8 +15.2
14 360 1907 1547 8156 1022 2320 2425 +33.9 -49.7 -56.8
390 1563 11~ 8490 579 1116 148; +50.6 + 1+.8 +26 . L
:? 450 3695 3245 10553 2838 3009 3LW +12.5 + 7.3 + 5.6
l-r Wo 3339 2b39 8k72 21L9 2234 2159 +11.9 + e.4 +11.5
18 625 2986 2561 966k 26?4 2635 2599 -13.3 -11.6 -10.1
19 2965 22ko 9667 2618 2610 2565 -16.9 -16.5 -lh. y
20 % 3022 2397 9673 2M9 2588 2527 -3.0 - 8.o - 5.4
21 750 3044 229k 9667 2699 2152 2620 -17.5 + 6.2 -14.2
22 1750 :Oo# 1250 9665 1399 20h7 194k -11.9 -63.7 -55.5
23 85o 3872 12i!39 3721 3578 3475 + 3.9 + 7.6 +10.3
24 3656 7)586 12)+57 24@ 331b 3222 +30.6 + 7.6 +10.2
25 8$ 4887 J4037 12446 3727 36o6 361o + 7.7 +1o.6 +10.5
26 645 4508 3%3 12441 2516 36h5 5087 +3L.8 + 5.7 +20. 1
27 425 4801 4376 12453 25e5 3930 3685 +40.9 +10.2 +15.8
28 500 4440 3940 1244> 2536 3228 3028 +35.6 +18.0 +21 .k
29 1085 51bo )+055 12449 3751 3684 3694 + 7.5 + 9.0 + 8.9
jo 800 468> 3e83 12449 y@f 3205 3406 +10.2 +17. 5 +12.5
650 4967 4317 12k5J+ 3734 3570 3618 +13.5 +17.2 +16.2
;; 675 4875 4200 121A5 3782 3607 367o + 9.8 +14.1 +12.6
33 48 4339 I@ 1 12453 2066 3958 367o +51.9 + 7.8 +14. 5
34 50 4595 45h5 12k38 676 Wm 3786 +85. 1 - 7.5 +16. 7
1100 5137 4037 12451 5257 3246 >248 +19.3 +19.5 +19.5
;2 20 4675 h655 121i58 1227 I!797 1+036 +73.6 - 3.6 +13.3
37 3850 y300 12456 2198 5126 3112 +42.2 -35.0 +18. I
y3 9% k965 4005 12449 3771 3549 ;;;; + 5.8 +11.3 + 9.7
59 3?5 2232 1857 7’yxI 1308 1680 +29.6 + 9.6 + 0.3
Lo 495 1945 1450 -fp3 1903 2109 2185 -31.7 -45.4 -50.6
41 I!20 1905 1483 -@o 1>61 2850 1880 + 8.4 -24.7 -27,0
42 2$,2. 2350 2244 2257 2158 + IL.5 + 4.0 + 8.2
575 8k54
lb~ 950 3:?2 2432 8k56 2209 227’4 2212 + 9.3 + 6.5 + 9.1
44 835 32s0 2238 2150 *..
2425 8468 2?4JJ +11.’7 + 7.-7
>1OOO slug
‘Table b
STUDY OF RESULTS 1
STUDY OP SESULTS 2
sm OF RESULTS 3
No. Q Oil Q Water GO~IOOO GOFKIOCKJ $ Deviation
Bbl/Day B/Day I 11 III
I Hagedornand Brmm
11 Orkiazewski
III Dunsand ROE
Table 5- Comparisonof deviations betweer:
calculatedpressuredrops.
measuredand .,..
......
.
....
....
Ifxll.. .,,
...
,.,
....
,
““l
”..”
METHODS . . . . . D
.,, . .
Study of Results 1
Studvof Results2
,,
g
,.,
.a
Abs. Ave. % Error 22.2 15.2 23.5
i+
Ave.% ErrorGOD1OOO 28.5 17.6 35.1
IL
Ave.$ ErrorGOR<1OOO 13.7 12.2 10.8 o
Study of Results 3
B
Abs. Ave. % Error 53.1 9.1 21.5
SLUG
Ave. ~ Error GOIO1OOO 43.3 11.0 28.0
0°
3
0
0
0
A
*OG
BUBBLE
o 0
000
Fig. 1 - Geometricconfigurations
in verticalflow.