Vi
Q.
The results of the study, summarized in Table 2, are
presented as the deviations between predicted and meas
ured values for the modified GriffithWallis, the Duns
Ros and the then recently published HagedornBrown
1
<l
methods. (The HagedornBrown method was included be
cause of the excellent accuracies reported and the broad
data range presented.) Plots of the individual predicted and
measured values for the three methods are shown in Figs.
3 through 5. When the three methods are compared
against the various grouped data sources (Table 2), only
the modified GriffithWallis method is sufficiently accurate
(average error) and precise (standard deviation) over the
entire. range of conditions, None of the 148 well condi
tions studied were in mist flow or wholly in (annularslug)
transition. The breakdown of wells by flow regimes in
cludes seven partly in slug and transition, 26 partly in
slug and bubble, four completely in bubble and 111 com
pletely in slug flow.
1200 r,r,
400
I 800 11
w
0::
::>
V)
V)
w
et.::
a.. 600f+
....
....
~
CONCLUSIONS
For general engineering work, the modified GriffithWal
lis method will predict pressure drops with sufficient ac
curacy and precision over a wide range of well conditions.
I recommend its use. However, the method should be used
with discretion for those well conditions which were not
negligible in the work, the method for predicting friction
losses is an approximation and therefore open to Limprove
ment. On the other hand, the Duns and Ros work in this
range (which they termed plug flow) is presented as a com
plex set of interrelated parameters and equations, and is
therefore difficult to relate to what physically occurs in
side the pipe.
The GriffithWallis work was extended to include the
highvelocity flow range. In modifying the method, a
parameter was developed to account for (1) the liquid dis
tribution among the liquid slug, the liquid film and en
trained liquid in the gas bubble and (2) the liquid holdup
at the higher flow velocities. This parameter served to
better approximate wall friction losses and flowing den
sity, and was principally correlated from the earlier pub
lished data of Hagedorn and Brown.
9
The data from Table
1 were also used to determine the effects of pipe diameter
on the parameter. The details of the parameter evaluation
are given in Appendix C and a brief description of the
modified GriffithWallis method is outlined in Appendix
A.
JUNE, 1967
881
veloped in this manner, are only useful in the range of
conditions from which they were developed.
NOMENCLATURE
A
p
= flow area of pipe, sq ft
B
o
= oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
C, C2 = parameters used to calculate bubble rise velocities
from Eq. C5, dimensionless, to be evaluated
from Figs. 8 and 9
dh = hydraulic pipe diameter (4 X Ap/wetted perime
ter), ft
D = depth from wellhead, ft
/::iD = increment of depth,ft
f =.. Moody friction factor, dimensionless, to be eval
uated from Fig. 6
F
g
= flowing gas fraction, dimensionless
g = accelerafon of gravity, ftl sec
2
gc = gravitational constant, ftlb(mass)/lb(force)sec
2
(Lh = bubbleslug boundary, dimensionless
(L)111 = transitionmist boundary, dimensionless
(L)s = slugtransition boundary, dimensionless
N b = 1,488 vbd" pLI,ILL, bubble Reynolds number, dimen
sionless
NEe = 1,488 V Dh P/IL, Reynolds number, dimensionless
p = pressure, psia
/::ip = pressure drop, psi
p = average pressure, psia
Ppc = pseudocritical pressure, psia
P" = reduced pressure, dimensionless
P = pressure, lb/sq ft
q = volumetric flow rate, cu ft/sec
qo = oll rate, B/D
R = produced GOR, scf/STB
R 8 = solution gas, scf/ STB
T
pa
= pseudocritical temperature, oR
Tr =reduced temperature, dimensionless
T = average temperature, of
v = fluid velocity, ft/sec
Vb = bubble rise velocity (velocity of rising gas bubble
relative to preceding liquid slug), ft/sec
Vbz = base bubble rise velocity for Eq. C9, ft/sec
V8 = slip velocity (difference between average gas and
liquid velocities), ft/sec
V
gD
= qg eVpdga)/A
p
, dimensionless gas velocity
z = gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
y = fluid specificgra"Vity, dimensionless
r = liquid distribution coefficient, to be evaluated from
Eqs. Cll through C16, dimensionless
M = viscosity, cp
D = Moody pipe relative roughness factor (Fig. 7) and
DunsRos mist flow factor (Eqs. C21 and C
22), dimensionless
p = density, lbl cu ft
p= average flowing density, lb/cu ft
7f = frictionloss gradient, lb/sq ft/ft
(J' = surface tension, Ib/sec
2
SUBSCRIPTS
g = gas
L = liquid
0= oil
t = total
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to thank the Creole Petroleum Corp.
for supplying data in Table 1 from 22 Venezuelan heavy
oil wells.
REFERENCES
1. Poettmann, F. H. and Carpenter, P. G.: "The Multiphase Flow
of Gas, on, and Water Through Vertical Flow Strings", Drill.
and Prod. Prac., API (1952) 257.
2. Duns, H., Jr., and Ros, N. C. J.: "Vertical Flow of Gas and
Liquid Mixtures from Boreholes", Proc., Sixth World Pet. Con
gress, Frankfort (Jnne 1926, 1963) Section II, Paper 22PD6.
3. BaxendeIl, P. B. and Thomas, R.: "The Calculation of Pres
sure Gradients in HighRate Flowing Wells", J. Pet. Tech.
(Oct., 1961) 10231028.
4. Tek, M. R.: "Multiphase Flow of Water, Oil, and Natural Gas
Through. Vertical Flow Strings", J. Pet. Tech. (Oct., 1961)
10291036.
5. Yocum, B. T.: "TwoPhase Flow in Well Flowlines", Pet. Eng.
(Nov., 1959) B40.
6. Fancher, G. H., Jr., and Brown, K. E.: "Prediction of Pressure
Gradients for Multiphase Flow in Tubing", Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
(March, 1963) 5969.
7. Baker, W. J. and Keep, K. R.: "The Flow of Oil and Gas
Mixtures in Wells and Pipelines: Some Useful Correlations",
J. of Pet. (May, 1961) 47, No. 449, 162169.
8. Hughmark, G. A. and Pressburg, B. S.: "HoldUp and Pres
sure Drop with GasLiquid Flow in a Vertical Pipe", AIChE J.
(Dec., 1961) 7, No.4, 677682.
9. Hagedorn, A. R. and Brown, K. E.: "The Effect of Liquid Vis
2000 3000 400 600 1000
MEASURED 6P PSI
200
100
100
3000
DATA SOURCE
o BAXENDELL et al.
. 2000
0 FANCHER et al.
A HAGEDORN et al.
POETTMANN et al.
THIS PAPER
[
v; 1000
J:l.
J:l.
..
<l
600
0
w
....
V
C
400
w
C'
J:l.
300
200
3000 200 400 600 1000
MEASURED .6P  PSI
100
100
400 Itn.=
300 f+.'
3000
o BAXENDELL at 01.
D FANCHER at 01.
l:. HAGEDORN at 01.
POETTMANN at 01.
THIS PAPER
2000
1000
0..
<1 600 f+j:
C
W
tJ
o
w
0::
0..
200
FIG. 4DuNS AND Ros PREDICTION.
2
FIG. 5HAGEDORN AND BROWN PREDICTION.
1o
332
JO"CHNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
where Ap = pipe area, sq ft,
':'This method is a composite of the following:
Method Flow Regime
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFIED GRIFITH AND
WALLIS METHOD*
(A3)
at in
APPENDIX B
DETERMINATION OF FLOW REGIME
W t = total mass flow rate, Ib/ sec, **
qy = gas volumetric flow rate, cu ftlsec.**
With the abO've conditions and Eq. A2, Eq. AI may
then be expressed in a more convenient form. ***
Griffith and Wallis have defined the boundary between
bubble and slug flow,l1 and Duns and Ros have defined
the boundaries for the remaining three regimes.
2
The flow
regime may be determined by testing whether the variables
qui qt or vyD, or both, fall within the limits prescribed.
':":'All volumetric (q) and mass (w) flow rates are those of the pro
duced fluids that are corrected f0'r temperature, pressure and gas solu
bility.
':":":'L",Z is taken as positive downward. The pressure should be made
discontinuous with depth should the denominator approach zero, or be
come negative. to estabish the shock front that characterizes sonic ve
locities.
t1Pk = [_1_ P+ T f 2 1 t1Dk,
144 1  Wt qy/4,637 A p p "
where for average temperaturepressure conditions
crement k,
p= average fluid density, Ib/cu ft,
b..p = pressure drop, psi,
p = average pressure, psia.
Since temperature is related to depth, Eq. A3 may be in
cremented by either fixing .6.D and solving for .6.p, or vice
versa. However, since pressure usually has a greater in
fluence on the average fluid properties than temperature,
6.p should be fixed because the change in average fluid
properties would then be more gradual in going from one
increment to another. The value of ,6.p should be around
10 percent of the absolute pressure, which is known for
one point in the increment, but should not be greater
than 100 psi for that increment.
Pressure drops can be calculated, using Eq. A3 in the
following manner.
L Pick a point in the flow string (e.g., wellhead or bot
tomhole) where the flow rates,fluidproperties, tempera
ture and pressure are known.
2. Estimate the temperature gradient of the well.
3. Fix the 16.P at about 10 percent of the measured or
previously calculated pressure, which may be at either the
top or bottom of the increment. Find average pressure of
increment.
4. Assume a depth increment ,6.D and find average depth
of increment.
5. From the temperature gradient, determine average
temperature of increment.
6. Correct fluid properties for temperature and pressure.
7. Determine the type of flow regime from Appendix B.
8. Based on Step 7, determine the average density (p)
and the friction loss gradient (Tf) from Appendix C.
9. Calculate ,6.D from Eq. A3.
10. Iterate, if necessary, starting with Step 4 until as
sumed ,6.D equals calculated t1D.
11. Determine values of p and D for that increment.
12. Repeat procedure from Step 3 until the sum of the
6.D's equals the total length of the flow string.
A detailed example of the above calculated procedure is
given ,in Appendix D.
(A2)
(AI)
Bubble
Slug (density term)
Slug (friction gradient term)
Transition
Annularmist
Griffith
l2
Griffith and Wallis
l1
This work
Duns and Ros2
Duns and Ros2
dP = TfdD + (gp/gc)dD + (pv/gc)dv ,
where P = pressure, Ib/sq ft,
Tf = frictionloss gradient, Ib/sq ft/ft,
D = depth, ft,
g = acceleration of gravity,ft/sec
2
,
gc = gravitational consant, ftlb(mass)/
Ib(force)sec
2
,
p = fluid density, Ib/ cu ft,
v = fluid velocity, ftl sec.
The procedure was credited to Griffith and Wallis because
slug flow occurred in 95 percent of the cases studied. Al
though the mistflow regime could not be evaluated, the
DunsRos method was used because it appeared to be
more accurate and logical than the Martinelli method rec
ommended by Griffith. In twophase flow, both Tf and p
are influenced by the flow regime type, and all three terms
are functions of temperature and pressure. Therefore, to
use Eq. AI, (1) the flow string must be incremented so
the fluid properties do not change markedly within any
of the increments, (2) the flow regime type and correspond
ing variables of p and Tf must be determined for each in
crement and (3) each increment must be evaluated by an
iterative procedure.
The kinetic energy term is significant only in the mist
flow regime.
2
In mist flow VL << V
y
, the kinetic energy
term may be expressed
1
more simply (using the gas law).
The fluid pressure drop in a vertical pipe is the sum ef
fect of the energy lost by f r i ~ i o n the change in potential
energy and the change in kinetic energy. This energy bal
ance, which is basic to all pressuredrop calculations, can
be generally written as
cosity on TwoPhase Flow", J. Pet. Tech. (Feb., 1964) 203
210.
10. Hagedorn, A. R. and Brown, K. E.: "Experimental Study of
Pressure Gradients Occurring During Continuous TwoPhase
Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits", J. Pet. Tech.
(April, 1965) 475484.
n. Griffith, P. and Wallis. G. B.: "TwoPhase Slug Flow", J. Heat
Transfer; Trans., ASME (Aug., 1961) 307320.
12. Griffith, P.: "TwoPhase Flow in Pipes", Special Summer Pro
gram, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
(1962).
13. Nicklin, D. J., Wilkes, J. O. and Davidson, J. F.: "TwoPhase
Flow in Vertical Tubes", Trans., AIChE (1962) 40, 6168.
14. Stanley, D. W.: "Wall Shear Stress in TwoPhase Slug Flow",
MS Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
(June, 1962).
15. Moody, L. F.: "Friction Factors in Pipe Flow", Trans., ASME
(1944) 66, 671684.
16. Frick, T. c.: Petroleum Production HandbookVol. II, Reser
voir Engineering, McGrawHill, New York (1962).
JUNE, 1967
833
The above variables are defined as
V
gD
= quC
4
y pdg u)/Ap
(Lh = 1.071  (0.2218 v//dh , with the limit
(L) 0.13
(L)s = 50 + 36 vgD qdqg
(L)1JI = 75 + 84 (vg qdqgt
75
,
where v
gD
= dimensionless gas velocity,
Vt = total fluid velocity (qt/Ap), ft/sec,
PL = liquid density, lb/cu ft,
u = liquid surface tension, Ib/sec
2
Limits
qg/qt < (Lh
qg/qt> (L)B, VgD < (L)s
(L)M > Vg > (L)s
VgD > (L)M
Flow Regime
Bubble
Slug
Transition
Mist
(B1)
(B2)
(B3)
(B4)
where r is a coefficient correlated from oilfield data.
Griffith and Wallis correlated the bubble rise velocity Vb
by the relationship
(C5)
where C
1
is expressed in Fig. 8 as a function of bubble
Reynolds number (Nb = 1,488 Vb dhPd,fLL) , and C
2
is ex
pressed in Fig. 9 as a function of both N
b
and liquid Rey
nolds number.
NRe = 1,488 pLdllvt/{LL (C6)
where Vt equals total velocity of liquid and gas (qt/Ap),
ft/sec.
Fig. 9 was extrapoiated* * so that Vb could be evaluated
at the higher Reynolds numbers. When C
2
cannot be read
parallel work of Nicklen, Wilkes and Davidson
13
provided the
basis for the extrapolation. It showed that bubble rise velocity was in
dependent of Nb in the Reynolds number range of 9 X 10
3
to 1 X 10
5
The correlation of bubble rise velocity was found comparable to Eq. 05
when Nb was around 8 X 10
3
The results were incorporated into the
above extrapolation.
BUBBLE FLOW (REF. 12)
The void fraction of gas (F
g
) in bubble flow can be ex
pressed as
APPENDIX C
EVALUATION OF AVERAGE DENSITY AND
FRICTION LOSS GRADIENT
where V
s
= slip velocity in ft/sec. Griffith suggested that
a good approximation of an average V
s
is 0.8 ft/sec. * Thus,
with Eq. C1, the average flowing density can be computed
as
0.05
0
0.04
.......
0.03 "v
0.02
VI
VI
0.015
Z
0.01 ::t:
0.008
Cl
0.006
::>
0.004 0
lll:
0.002
>
0.001
0.0008.
i=
0,0006
::3
0.0004
w
0.0002 lll:
0.0001
0.00005
2 3 4 6 10 20 3040 60 100
1=
l
f
' ..
I
,
,
;"
",
"
"
ASPHALTED CAST IRON _
" CAST IRON
0:' <t
C/ 'c
 < r\.
O..p
' ...
I
"'
"' ...c..p
,'1Jr.:
'y</
"

"
"
"\..
0.00001
1 234681 234681 234681 234681 234681
Ix 1031x 104+x 105fX 106rx 10
7
j
REYNOLDS NUMBER Re = 1488 d vp
f
FIG. 6MOODY FRICTION F ACTOR.
15

" :::::



"
:::



\
"'"
T
"

"<:::::::

r..:::
I..
l...
rto...
'"
r,..I,.
0.015
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.05
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
lll:
e 0.04
u
;:'f 0.03
0.025
6 0.02
(C4)
(C3)
(C2)
where
p= (1  Fg) PL + Fgpg
The friction gradient is
Tf = f
PL
VL
2
/2gcdh ,
SLUG FLOW (REF. 11)
The average density term is
Wt + PLvbA
p
+
P = r PL
qt + vbAp
F
g
= [1 +  (l + qt!v
e
A
p
)2  '
(Cl)
VL = qd[Ap(l  Fg)] .
The friction factor t is obtained from Fig. 6 by using a
Moody relativeroughness factor obtained from Fig. 7.
The Reynolds number is calculated as NRe = 1,488 pLdhvd
,{LL; where dh = hydraulic pipe diameter, ft, and{LL = liquid
v,iscosity, cpo
In the first four sections of this Appendix, the variables
pand Tf are defined for bubble flow, slug flow, transition
and mist flow. The second section, while the most complex,
is also the most important since slug flow had been en
countered in over 95 percent of the gaslift or flowing
wells studied. The last section of this Appendix describes
how Tf was developed for the slug flow regime.
':'Athough the method is simple, it is reasonably precise. For the four
wells that were whoIly in bubble flow, the standard deviation was 5.1
percent, whereas the deviation was 9.8 percent for those wells partly in
bubble and slug.
PIPE DIAMETER  INCHES
FIG. 7EFFECT OF PIPE DIAMETER AND MATERIAL ON
RELATIVE ROUGHNESS.
15
334 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
FIG. 8GRIFFITH AND WALLIS' Cl VS BUBBLE REYNOLDS NUMBER.
(C19)
(C20)
(C21)
(C22)
TRANSITION FLOW
Duns and Ros approximated pandT! for transition flow.
The method is first to calculate these terms for both slug
and mist flow, and then linearly weight each term with
respect to V
gD
and the limits of the transition zone (L)8
and (L)]I' The terms v
gD
' (L)M and (L)8 are defined in
Appendix B. The average density term would be
Duns and Ros express the frictionloss gradient as
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
(
1488 q d P )
REYNOLDS NUMBER  N
Re
h L
FIG. 9GRIFFITH AND WALLIS' C2 VS BUBBLE REYNOLDS
AND REYNOLDS NUMBERS.
  (L)M  vgD [_] + vgn  (L)8 [_j
P  (L)M  (L)8 P slug (L)M  (L)8 P mist
. . . . . . . . . . (C17)
The friction gradient term would be weighted similarly. A
more accurate frictionloss prediction is claimed if the gas
volumetric flow rate for mist flow is taken as
and when Vt > 10,
r >  voA
p
(1  p). . . . . (C16)
 qt + vbAp PL
The above constraints eliminate pressure discontinuities
between flow regimes.
N 1.41+_
u
I
u
B: 1.2
o
u
qg = Ap(L)]I (pL/gat
Y4
. . . . . . (C18)
MIST FLOW
The average flowing density for mist flow is given in Eq.
C2. Since there is virtually no slip between the phases,
F
g
is
where Vg is the superficial gas velocity, and f is again ob
tained from Fig. 6 as a function. of gas Reynolds number
(Nne = 1,488 pgdhvg/,fLg) and a correlated form of the
Moody relative roughness factor that was developed
by Duns and Ros. In their correlation, they limit to
being no smaller than 10
3
but no greater than 0.5. Be
tween these limits, is determined from Eq. C21 if N 10
is less than 0.005 and from Eq. C22 if N,e is greater than
0.005.
= 34 a/(pgv/dh )
= 174.8 a (N
w
)o.302/(p
g
v/d
n
) ,
where N
10
= 4.52 X 10
7
(vgfLda)2 Pg/PL'
DEVELOPMENT OF T!
FOR SLUG FLOW
A new method was developed to correlate the friction
loss gradient for slug flow because neither the Griffith and
Wallis method, nor the Stanlei
4
method (an outgrowth
of the GriffithWallis work) proved accurate for the well
conditions studied. (The GriffithWallis data were taken
Use Equation
ClI
C12
C13
C14
. . . . . . . (C15)
Vt
<10
>10
<10
>10
j..
IV
I
Water
Water
Oil
Oil
Continuous
Liquid
Phase
0.30
0.40
0.10
r 2 0.065 Vt
U
I
Z
w
0.20
u..
l.L.
W
o
u
from Fig. 9, the extrapolated values of V
o
may be calcu
lated from the following set of equations.
When No 3,000,
Vo = (0.546 + 8.74 X 10
6
Nne) Vgd
n
(C7)
When No 2 8,000,
Vb = (0.35 + 8.74 X 10
6
Nne) Vgd
h
(C8)
When 3,000 < No < 8,000,
Voi = (0.251 + 8.74 X 10
6
Nne) Vgd
n
,
1 J 2 13.59,fLL (C 9)
V
o
T
Vbi
+1Vbi + PL Vd
n

The wall frictionloss term, which has been independently
derived, is expressed as
T! = fPLVt[qL + VbAp + rj . . . . . (CI0)
2gcdn qt + VbAp
The friction factor .is obtained from Fig. 6 and is a func
tion of the Reynolds number given by Eq. C6 and the
_ obtained from Fig. 7. The liquid distribution coefficient r
may be determined by the equation which meets the fol
lowing conditions.
r = [(0.013 log ,fLL)/d
n
US
]  0.681 + 0.232 log Vt
 0.428 log d
n
(ClI)
r = [(0.045 log fLL)/dno.799]  0.709  0.162 log Vt
 0.888 log d
h
(C12)
r = [0.0127 log (fLL +1)/dnl.415]  0.284
+ 0.167 log V
t
+ 0.113 log dn (C13)
r = [0.0274 log (fLL +l)/dnl.371] + 0.161
+ 0.569 log d
n
 log V
t
{[O.Ollog (fLL + 1)/dn
1
.
571
]
+ 0.397 + 0.63 log d
n
} , (C14)
but .is constrained by the limits
00 10 20 30 40 50
(
1488 V d p )
BUBBLE REYNOLDS NUMBER  N
b
fL: h L
JUNE, 1967 835
FIG. lOEFFECT OF VELOCITY ON WATER DISTRIBUTION
COEFFICIENT.
FIG. llOIL DISTRIBUTION COEFFICIENT AFFECTED BY BOTH
VELOCITY AND VISCOSITY.
0.942
Dead Oil Viscosity:
at 100F 89 cp
at 210F 8.8 cp
126F
150F
1000L..10.L.0020'0030'004::'000
DEPTH  FT
The average temperature (T), read from Fig. 12 is 127.5F.
160
':'These are conveniently found in Frick's Petroleum Production Hand
booTe, Vol. II (Ref. 16).
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE OF TWOPHASE PRESSURE
DROP CALCULATION
FIG. l2TEMPERATURE VS DEPTH  WELL 22.
u..
o
I
1401t'=:;;;l:;;;;;;o.......,=jj
::>
l
e:(
D:::
1201ttjj
w
J
TABLE' 3  FLOW RATES AND PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
OF HEAVYOIL WELL 22
1,850 Oil Specific
STB/D (Yo)
Produced GOR (R) 575 scf/ Gas' Specific
STB Gravity (Yg) 0.75
3,890 ft Wellhead Pressure 670 psia
0.249 ft Tubing Area Ap 0.0488
l:iq ft
An example calculation of the modified GriffithWallis
method is presented to illustrate the details of the proce
dure outlined in Appendix A. In this example we will pre
dict the pressure drop for heavyoil Well 22 (Table 1). The
input well data required for the calculation are given in
Table 3. In addition, we will need the following correla
tions* that correct fluid properties for pressure and tem
perature:
Gas pseudocritical properties. (Katz et al.) Tpc , ppc.
Gas compressibility (Brown et al.) z.
Live oil viscosity (Chew and Connally) p,.
Oil formation volume factor (Standing) B
o
 oc'?
......
...........
[
p [:
0 0
,.oc

1', 00 "
[
......
....................
n
.....9,... ..P' 0
0 Act
1'............
A
0
......... :t:. 06..,
06. .
.(
i
It>.
,0 cy...
A
r",:::
1
'.,,;;.
i'.
HAGEDORN iNi BRiWi DATA
1W' PIPE I
z
o
i=
::>
Z 0.1
Iw
!:!!O
0Li:
o:i
50
o U .0.2
::::i
I
H
o
0.4
J
Z
w
o 0.3
i:i:
u..
w
8 0.2
Z
g 0.1
::>
I:Q
02 0
til
i5
c 0.
5
o
::::::i 0.2
I
0.3 1 2 3 4 5678910 20 30 40 60 80100
SUPERFICIAL FLOW VELOCITY  FT/SEC
2 3 4 68 10 20 30 40 60 80 100
SUPERFICIAL FLOW VELOCITY  FT/SEC
from lowflow velocity tests in which friction losses were
minor and liquid entrainment was negligible.) This new
method accounted for the complex nature of friction loss
in slug flow by the introduction of a correlated liquid dis
tribution function r (Eq. ColO) which implicitly accounts
for the following physical phenomena.
1. Liquid is distributed in three places: the slug, the
film around the gas bubble and in the gas bubble as en
trained droplets. A change in this distribution will change
the net friction losses.
2. The friction loss has essentially two contributions, one
from the liquid slug and the other from the liquid film.
3. The bubble rise velocity approaches zero as mist flow
is approached.
Values of the liquid distribution coefficient were calcu
lated from the data of Hagedorn and Brown
9
by using
Eq. A3 of Appendix A and Eqs. C4 through ClO of Ap
pendix C. (These data were selected because they covered
a wide range of conditions for each of the four liquids
used.) These values correlate with total fluid velocity an,d
liquid viscosity. Fig. 10 shows the results where the fluid
is water, and Fig. 11 shows the results where the fluids
are oil. Coefficients were also calculated for the heavyoil
wells shown in Table 1, but these values were small and
scattered because Tf was small in comparison to p: Never
theless, the results were sufficiently grouped to show that
pipe diameter (d
h
) is another independent variable.
Neither the reversal in slopes nor the data scatter as
seen in Figs. 10 and 11 can be resolved without additional
experimental work. It is probable, however, that the slope
reversal may be due to liquid entrained in the gas phase
836 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
FIG. 13DEAD OIL VISCOSITY VS TEMPERATURE  WELL 22.
indicate the page number in Frick's book
lG
, where the
various correlations are found.
':":'Live oil viscosity. Dead oil viscosity, a parameter in the correlation,
is read from Fig. 13.
2. With the condition determined in Step 1, the fluid
properties are corrected for temperature and pressure.
From Frick
lG
the following values are obtained.
R. = 115 scf/bbl (page 199).*
Ba = 1.073 bbl/STB (page 1925).
pp@ = 665 psia (page 176).
Tpo = 415R (page 176).
p" = 18 cp** (page 1940).
The gas compressibility c is determined as
T
r
= T + 460 = 587.5 = 1.42
Tpo 415
P 720
pr = Ppc = 665 = 1.08 ,
and from Frick (page 1715),
Z = 0.875.
(B2)
 0.097 ]
Evaluate Tl with Eq. ClO:
_ 0.034 (55.8) (6.72)2 [ 0.129 + 1.74 (0.0488)
Tj  64.4 (0.249) 0.328 + 1.74 (0.0488)
= 2.26 lb/ sq ftl ft.
5. The depth increment from Eq. A3 is
therefore, r =  0.097.
The value from Fig. 7 is 0.0006. With this value and
the calculated N
Re
of 7,720, a friction factor of 0.034 is
read from Fig. 6.
Evaluate p with Eq. C4:
7.77 + 55.8 (1.74) (0.0488)
0.328 + 1.74 (0.0488)
+ (0.097) (55.8) = 24.91b/cu ft.
(Lh = 22. Since (L)n has the limit of 0.13,
... (L)B = 0.13.
(L)8 = 50 + 36 (9.53) (0.129)/0.199 = 272. . (B3)
Because qy/qt > (L)B and V
UD
< (L)8' the fluids are in
slug flow.
4. The equations given in the Slug Flow section of
Appendix C are used to calculate pand TI'
Determine Reynolds number, bubble Reynolds number
and slip velocity (Vb)'
Nne = 1,488 (55.8) (0.249) (6.72)/18 = 7,720 . (C6)
Since the bubble rise velocity is a nonlinear correlation.
iteration is necessary. Therefore, assuming Vb = 1.75, bub
ble Reynolds number is
N
b
= 1,488 (55.8) (0.249) (1.75)/18 = 2,010.
C
2
cannot be read from Fig. 9. Thus the extrapolation
equation (Eq. C7) is used since N
b
< 3,000.

Vb = [0.546 + 8.74 X1O
G
(7,720)] Y32.2 (0.249)
== 1.74 ft/sec.
Determine liquid distribution coefficient r and friction
factor f. Eq. C13 is used to evaluate r since Vt < 10:
= [0.0127lc
g
(18 + 0] _0.284 + 0.16710 6.72
r (0.249y"4l5 g
+ 0.113 log 0.249 =  0.097,
Test limiting r with Eq. C15:
 0.097 2  0.065 (6.72)
2  0.436;
The corrected densities are
PL = WL/qL = 7.20/0.129 = 55.81b/cu ft
Pu  wyqr! = 0.565/0.199 = 2.84 Ib/ cu ft.
3. The variables described in Appendix B are calculated
and then are tested against the boundary limits to deter
mine the flow regime.
Test Variables:
V
t
= qtlA p = 0.328/0.0488 = 6.72 ft/sec.
qu/qt = 0.199/0.328 = 0.607.
V
UD
= 0.199 [\/0.534 (55.8)] /0.0488 = 9.53 . (B1)
Boundary Limits:
(
L) = 1 071 _ (6.72)2
B' 0.249
300 80 100 200
TEMPERATURE _ OF
\
i\.
'\
'\
'\
\
\
\
\
I\.
'"\.
I ' I
10
8
60
Q., 60
u
The corrected volumetric flow rates are
qL = 6.49 X lO5 qoB
a
= 6.49 X lO5 (1,850) (1.073)
= 0.129 cu ft/sec
7 (f + 460).
qy = 3.27 X lO z qo (R  R
s
) _
P
= 3.27 X lO7 (0.875) (1,850) (575115)
(587.5)/720
= 0.199 cu ftl sec
qt = 0.128 + 0.199 = 0.328 cu ft/sec.
The corrected mass flow rates are
WL = qo (4.05 X lO;3 Yo + 8.85 X lO7 yyR
8
)
= 1,850 [4.05 X lO3 (0.942) + 8.85 X 10
7
(0.75) (115)]
= 7.201b/sec
Wy = 8.85 X lO7 qoyy{R  R
8
)
= 8.85 X lO7 (1,850) (0.75) (575  115)
= 0.565 Ib/ sec
Wt = 7.20 + 0.57 = 7.771b/sec.
100
80
JUNE, 1967 837
FIG. 14CALCULATED VS MEASURED PRESSURE DROP  WELL 22.
\
o MEASURED
\
 CALCULATED
\
'"\
\
\
o
500
3500
1000
4000
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
PRESSURE  PSI A
3000
.... 1500
u..
P + Tf 1
7.77 (0.199) )]
4,637 (0.0488)2 (720) _.
24.9 + 2.3 1 529 ft.
The true value of .D.D
1
is near 529 ft. The calculation will
converge very closely to this value even when the assumed
!:::.Z is off by 1O percent of the assumed value (540 ft)
because, under these well conditions, the pressure gradient
is primarily controlled by the relatively temperatureinsen
sitive density head. However, under those circumstances
where the friction ,gradient, which is temperature sensitive,
is significant, iteration would be necessary should the cal
culated value of l::,.D differ from the assumed value by
+ 10 percent.
6. The top of the next increment is fixed at 529 ft and
770 psi, and Steps 1 through 6 are repeated for the new
conditions.
7. The procedure is continued until .!:::.D is equal to the
total depth. The calculated pressure profile is compared
against the measured profile in Fig. 14. ***
SlS8 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY