Drift-Flux Modeling of Transient Countercurrent Two-phase Flow in Wellbores

H. Shi1, J.A. Holmes2, L.J. Durlofsky1, K. Aziz1

1

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2220, USA

Schlumberger GeoQuest, 11 Foxcombe Court, Wyndyke Furlong, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 1DZ, UK
Abstract

Drift-flux modeling techniques are commonly used to represent multiphase flow in pipes and wellbores. These
models, like other multiphase flow models, require a number of empirical parameters. In recent publications we
have described experimental and modeling work on steady-state multiphase flow in pipes, aimed at the
determination of drift-flux parameters for large-diameter inclined wells. This work provided optimized drift-flux
parameters for two-phase water-gas and oil-water flows and a unified model for three-phase oil-water-gas flow for
vertical and inclined pipes. The purpose of this paper is to extend this modeling approach to transient countercurrent
flows, as occur in pressure build-up tests when the well is shut in at the surface. The experiments on which the
steady-state models are based also include transient flow data obtained after shutting in the flow by fast acting
valves at both ends of the test section. We first compare predictions from the existing steady-state drift-flux model
to transient data and show that the model predicts significantly faster separation than is observed in experiments. We
then develop a two-population approach to account for the different separation mechanisms that occur in transient
flows. This model introduces two additional parameters into the drift-flux formulation the fraction of
bubbles/droplets in each population and a drift velocity multiplier for the small bubbles/droplets. It is shown that the
resulting model is able to predict phase separation quite accurately, for vertical and inclined pipes, for both watergas and oil-water flows. Finally, the model is applied to interpret a well test in which transient countercurrent
wellbore flow effects are important. It is demonstrated that (to be added by Jon).

Keywords: Transient, Drift-flux, Countercurrent, Two-phase, Three-phase, Large diameter, Inclined, Steady state,
Water-gas, Oil-water, Oil-water-gas, Wellbore, Bubble, Shut-in, Phase redistribution, well testing, two-population
model

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

Introduction

In this paper we revisit the two-phase experiments

The drift-flux technique is well-suited for modeling

to investigate the ability of the drift-flux formulation

multiphase wellbore flow in reservoir simulators.

to model the transient flow that occurs after the test

This is because the calculation of phase velocities is

section is closed at both ends by fast-acting valves.

relatively simple and efficient and the equations are

During

continuous and differentiable, as required by

countercurrent flow. This phenomenon is similar to

simulators. However, the drift-flux model includes a

the flow that occurs when a well is shut in (as in a

number of empirical parameters, which need to be

well test), so the ability to model it could improve

tuned to the particular conditions being modeled.

numerical well test interpretation procedures. The

this

period,

phases

separate

through

Prior to our recent work, the parameters reported

drift-flux formulation is capable of modeling

in the literature and used in commercial simulators

countercurrent flow as it describes the slip between

were (typically) determined from experimental data

two fluids as a combination of a profile effect and a

in small-diameter pipes (5 cm or less) and might

drift velocity. Our previous analysis was for steady-

therefore not be appropriate for large-diameter

state cocurrent flow, but by modeling phase

wellbores. In previous publications1,2,3, we described

separation we can test the applicability of the drift-

experimental and modeling work in which we

flux formulation to countercurrent flow.

parameters

Although steady-state countercurrent flows (for

appropriate for large-diameter vertical and deviated

example, flooding phenomena in countercurrent gas-

wells. This was based on steady-state in situ volume

liquid

fraction data for a variety of water-gas, oil-water and

previously4,5, compared to steady-state cocurrent

oil-water-gas flows in a 15 cm diameter, 11 m long

flow, relatively few studies involving countercurrent

pipe at 8 deviations ranging from vertical to near-

flow have been conducted. Transient cocurrent flows

horizontal1.

optimized

have not received very much attention either.

parameters significantly improved in situ volume

Therefore, not surprisingly, available data for

fraction predictions for two and three-phase flows2,3

transient countercurrent multiphase flow in large-

compared to predictions based on parameters derived

scale systems are essentially nonexistent. Following

from small-diameter experiments.

is a review of the literature for steady-state

determined

optimized

We

showed

drift-flux

that

the

annular

flow)

have

been

investigated

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

countercurrent and transient cocurrent flows, with

liquid-gas countercurrent flows for stratified and slug

emphasis on large-diameter systems.

flow (as occurs in horizontal and near-horizontal

pipes). The pipe diameter was in the range of

Steady-state countercurrent flows. Taitel and

5.712.1 cm and the maximum pipe inclination was

Barnea6 proposed models for three typical (bubble,

xxx from horizontal. Ghiaasiaan et al.15 conducted

slug and annular) vertical gas-liquid countercurrent

vertical and deviated gas-liquid experiments in a 1.9

flow patterns. An additional flow pattern (semi-

cm diameter pipe. The deviations were set to be 0,

annular) was subsequently reported by Yamaguchi

7,8

and Yamazaki

from their experiments with vertical

water-air systems in 4 and 8 cm diameter pipes.

28-30, and 60-68 from vertical. In an attempt to

apply the drift-flux model for hold up calculations for
slug flow, they adjusted both the profile parameter C0

Hasan et al. developed a drift-flux model for

vertical countercurrent bubble and slug flow. The
value of the profile parameter C0 (discussed in detail
below) was found to be 2.0 for bubble flow. They
concluded

that

the

10

Harmathy

and

Nicklin

and the drift velocity Vd for different liquid

viscosities to match their data.
Zhu and Hill16 and Zavareh et al.17 performed oilwater tests in an 18.4 cm diameter acrylic pipe at

11

correlations for small bubbles and Talyor bubbles

were valid for countercurrent flows. However, these
conclusions were based on experimental data with
maximum mixture velocities of only 0.5 m/s. Kim et

deviations of 0, 5, and 15 from upward vertical.

Ouyang18,19 classified oil-water countercurrent flow
into five categories and developed models to compute
the phase in situ volume fractions and pressure drop.
His model predictions agreed well with the

12

al. also found that their experimental data from a 2

cm diameter vertical pipe were well fitted with the
drift-flux

model

with

11

Nicklins

correlation.

However, we are not aware of any published studies

10

validating the Harmathy

11

and Nicklin

correlations

for large-diameter, high flow rate liquid-gas systems.

Inclined countercurrent data are very limited.
13,14

Johnston

developed a semi-empirical model for

experimental data from Zhu and Hill16.

Almehaideb et al.20 presented

coupled

wellbore/reservoir model to simulate three-phase oilwater-gas countercurrent flow in multiphase injection

processes. Both a two-fluid model and a simple
mixture/homogeneous model were implemented for
wellbore flow. This comprehensive model considered
a black-oil system, in which the oil and water phases

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

multiphase flows.

are immiscible and gas is soluble in oil.

In previous studies, when drift-flux models were

Transient cocurrent flows. Asheim and Grdal21

applied to countercurrent steady-state or transient

used a modified steady-state drift-flux model to

flow, specific flow regimes, such as bubble and slug

predict holdup in a transient vertical oil-water

flow, were considered. Thus, a comprehensive drift-

system. The pipe used in the experiment was 4.3 cm

flux model for such systems has yet to be presented.

in diameter. To investigate the performance of two-

Furthermore, the Harmathy10 correlation, which is

phase transient flow models, Lopez et al.22,23

based on the single bubble rise velocity in a stagnant

considered

numerical simulations using OLGA

liquid, is commonly used to calculate drift velocity.

(based on a two-fluid model), TACITE (based on a

In this type of correlation, all the gas bubbles/oil

drift-flux model) and TUFFP (based on a two-fluid

droplets are considered to rise at the same velocity. In

model) against both laboratory and field data. They

practical cases, however, all flow regimes can exist

concluded that all three models could match the

simultaneously in the wellbore, with more than one

transient data from laboratory tests. However, only

population of bubbles and droplets. We would expect

OLGA and TACITE were capable of simulating real

different

transient flows in long, large-diameter pipelines, with

bubbles/droplets of different sizes. To apply the drift-

TACITE providing more accurate predictions than

flux concept to transient countercurrent flows,

OLGA.

therefore, it is useful to consider bubbles/droplets of

As

indicated

above,

models

for

transient

countercurrent phase separation are useful for the

drift

velocity

mechanisms

for

different sizes, as we will demonstrate below.

This paper proceeds with a brief description of the

of

experimental setup and some sample transient data

Almehaideb et al.20 and Hasan and Kabir24 can be

for two-phase water-gas and oil-water systems and

applied under limited conditions). However, the

three-phase oil-water-gas flows. The drift-flux model

amount of published transient countercurrent data for

used in this work is then reviewed. It is shown that

small-diameter, vertical pipes is quite limited. To our

predictions of water-gas and oil-water separation

knowledge, there has been no published data for

during transient flow are not adequately modeled

large-diameter, inclined pipe, transient countercurrent

using the steady-state drift-flux parameters. A two-

interpretation

of

well

tests

(the

models

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

population drift-flux model is then proposed and

ends with fast-acting valves. These two-valves,

evaluated

the

which were normally open, were simultaneously

application of the transient model to phase separation

closed to trap the fluid instantaneously (the incoming

in a well during a build-up test is discussed.

fluids were led to a bypass system to minimize water

for

two-phase

flows.

Finally,

hammer). Ten electrical conductivity probes were

Experimental procedure

installed along the test section to measure in situ

The detailed experimental work was described in

water fraction. The probes were placed perpendicular

Oddie et al.1 Sample data for steady-state two-phase

to the pipe axis and positioned at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

water-gas and oil-water flows, and three-phase oil-

7.75, 9 and 10 m along the test section. These probes

water-gas systems were shown in our previous

were one source for determining the steady-state in

modeling work2,3. In this paper we briefly explain the

situ volume fraction. This quantity was also

experimental

determined

setup

and

present

representative

through

gamma

densitometer

transient data, which will be used for the transient

measurements and measurement of the final position

flow model.

of the interface after the fluids settled to their final

positions.

Experimental setup. The test apparatus used in this

The probes also provided the transient

flow data during phase separation after shut-in.

investigation is an 11 m long inclinable pipe with a

diameter of 15 cm. Experiments were performed with

Transient data. In this study, vertical flows are

kerosene, tap water and nitrogen. The viscosity of

emphasized in this study because separation of the

the oil is 1.5 cP at 18C and the density is 810 kg/m3.

phases is generally the slowest in vertical pipes,

Tests were conducted with pipe inclinations of 0

though deviations of 5, 45, 70, 80, 88 are also

(vertical), 5, 45, 70, 80, 88, 90 (horizontal), and

considered. The flow rate ranges for the water-gas

92 (downward 2). Data at 90 and 92 flows were

tests are: 2.0 m3/h Qw 100.0 m3/h and 2.6 m3/h

strongly impacted by end effects1 and were therefore

Qg 72.2 m3/h. The tests for oil-water flow were

not used for the determination of model parameters.

conducted in the range of 2.0 m3/h Qo 40.0 m3/h

The test section, shown schematically in Fig. 1,

and 2.0 m3/h Qw 130.0 m3/h. For oil-water-gas

was of clear acrylic pipe that could be closed at both

flow, the data are in the range of 2.0 m3/h Qo 40.0

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

m3/h, 2.0 m3/h Qw 40.0 m3/h, and 1.8 m3/h Qg

register nonzero h/D at the end of the transient. This

38.7 m3/h.

nonzero h/D is due to the probe calibration procedure

Three sets of transient data are shown in Figs. 2-4

to illustrate the probe response with time for vertical

and provides an estimate of the error associated with

the probe data.

flows of water-gas, oil-water and oil-water-gas,

Fig. 3 shows the transient profile of a vertical oil-

respectively. The figures show dimensionless water

water test. The water and oil flow rates are almost the

depth (h/D) with h/D = 0 corresponding to the bottom

same for this test (Qo =40.2, Qw =40.4), and the flow

of the pipe and h/D = 1 to the top of the pipe. Each

rates are relatively high. For this case, oil and water

figure represents the probe responses for a particular

were observed to be totally mixed to form a

set of Qo, Qw, Qg.

homogeneous phase. The shut-in water volume

Both steady-state pre-shut-in and transient data

fraction

value

is

51%,

which

confirms

for a water-gas test are plotted in Fig. 2. Fig. 2 (a)

homogeneous flow pattern with the flowing volume

shows steady state data over a ten second interval.

fraction equal to the in situ volume fraction. An

The response from each probe varies in time as the

interesting phenomenon is apparent in Fig. 3.

probe is subjected to different flow conditions. The

Though the pipe is eventually half filled with water

observed flow pattern for this test is elongated

(water at the bottom and oil at the top), probes 15,

bubble. The flow is statistically steady and most of

which are eventually immersed in water, reach their

the oscillations are around an h/D value of 0.40.5.

final state more quickly than probes 610, which are

The shut-in water volume fraction ( w ) is 49% for

finally immersed in oil. This phenomenon occurs due

this case.

to the different behaviors of water-in-oil emulsions

Fig.2 (b) shows the electrical probe signals from

the time of shut-in to a time after the phases are

compared to oil-in-water emulsions, as discussed in

Oddie et al.1

completely settled. The settling time for this case is

An oil-water-gas test is displayed in Fig. 4. The

around 50 seconds. Since w = 49%, the profiles of

water and oil flow rates are the same for this test as

probes 15 reach h/D = 1.0 as they are fully

immersed in water, while probes 610 are totally in
the gas phase. Note that signals from probes 610

for the oil-water test shown in Fig. 3. The flow

pattern

here

was

elongated

bubble/slug.

The

relatively high gas flow rate (26.2 m3/h) has very

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

little effect on the overall flow. Compared with the

review both the original26 and optimized liquid-gas

oil-water vertical flow case (Fig. 3), the settling time

and

is almost the same for this three-phase flow case. The

performance of the steady-state models for transient

expectation was that the settling time for this three-

flows. The emphasis here is on vertical flows, though

phase transient process would be longer due to the

deviated flows are also considered.

oil-water

models

before

illustrating

the

gas entrainment in the oil-water mixture leading to

smaller droplets. Similar setting times may be

Liquid-gas flow. Zuber and Findly25 correlated

observed because of complex emulsion behaviors

actual gas velocity Vg and mixture velocity Vm using

that occur for the oil-water system around the phase

two parameters, C0 and Vd:

inversion point, which for this case is expected to be

Vg =

around 50% water (based on an analysis of the probe

V sg

= C 0V m + Vd

(1)

phase

where Vsg is the gas superficial velocity (gas flow rate

inversion point are more difficult to separate, leading

divided by total pipe area) and g is the gas in situ

to longer settling times.

volume fraction. The accuracy of the predicted g

response).

Tight emulsions

around

the

From the sample data discussed above, we can

conclude that transient countercurrent flows are
extremely complicated, especially for oil-water and
oil-water-gas systems. Our goal is to develop a

depends on the use of appropriate values for C0 and

Vd.
In the original (Eclipse26) model, C0 generally
varies from 1.0 to 1.2, so we have
1.0 C 0 1.2

relatively simple model for these systems that is

consistent with our previous models for steady-state

(2)

and Vd is computed via:

flow.

Vd =

(1 g C 0 ) C 0 K ( g ) Vc

g Co
Steady-state drift-flux models

g
l

K ( g ) = 1.53 C0

m( )

(3)

g a1

and

+ 1 g C0

The original26 and optimized steady-state drift-flux

where

models for two-phase water-gas, oil-water and three-

K ( g ) = K u ( D ) when g a2 . Parameters a1 and a2

phase oil-water-gas flows have been discussed in

when

are the two gas volume fractions which define the

2,3

detail in our previous publications . Here, we briefly

transition from the bubble flow regime. Ku ( D ) is the

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

critical Kutateladze number, which is a function of

Vo = C0 Vl + Vd

(6)

the dimensionless pipe diameter D . The dependency

where Vo is the in situ oil velocity and Vl is the liquid

K u ( D ) on D is given in Shi et al.2 Vc is called the

mixture velocity. The original value for C0 is in the

characteristic bubble rise velocity, which was

same range as C0 for liquid-gas flows:

determined by Harmathy26, and is the density.

1.0 C 0 1.2

The parameter m( ) , where is the deviation

from vertical, is very important for modeling flow in

(7)

and Vd is calculated by27,

Vd = 1.53Vc (1 o ) n m ( )

(8)

deviated pipes, as it accounts for the deviation from

vertical through a multiplier to Vd. In the original

where, as before, V c is also determined by the

Harmathy17 correlation, except that the gas in the

model,

m( ) = m(0)(cos ) 0.5 (1 + sin ) 2

(4)

correlation is replaced by oil.

In the original oil-water model27, n = 2.0 and

where m(0) = 1.00 .

m (0) = 1.0

for

vertical

flow.

The

optimized

oil-water

flow

are2:

C0 = 1.0 ,

In the optimized model, based on the large

parameters

for

diameter data, the values for both C0 and Vd are

significantly different. The first major difference is
the profile parameter, for which we obtain C 0 = 1.0 .

n = 1.0 and m (0) = 1.07 . Unlike for the liquid-gas

flow, the optimized value of m(0) is not much

This lower value of C0 directly leads to a much

different from its original value of 1.0. However, the

higher Vd value. For example, the optimized

value of the exponent n is reduced from 2.0 to 1.0.

Compared with the original model, this makes Vd

deviation effect is
m( ) = m(0)(cos ) 0.21 (1 + sin ) 0.95

(5)

and for vertical liquid-gas flow, m(0) = 1.85 . Thus

the optimized Vd value is 1.85 times higher than the
original Vd for vertical liquid-gas flow.

decrease linearly and much more rapidly with

increaseing o .
During transient flow after shut-in, there is no net
flow, so Vm = 0. Hence there is no effect of the profile
parameters C0 or C0 and the gas or oil velocity

Oil-water flow. The general form of the drift-flux

depends only on the drift velocity. Therefore, the key

model applied to oil-water flows is:

to modeling the transient process is to model the drift

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

velocity accurately.

reasonably well, but the predicted speed of the water

interface is higher that that observed. The optimized
observations.

model predicts even higher velocities for both the gas

Eclipse26 applies the same drift-flux models (the

and water interfaces. This is perhaps surprising, since

original steady-state models) for both steady-state

the optimized model is more accurate for steady-state

and transient multiphase flow. This is based on the

predictions.

Comparison

with

experimental

assumption that transient flow can be represented by

a sequence of steady-state flows. One of the

Oil-water vertical flow. A sample comparison for

objectives of our work is to test the validity of this

model predictions with experimental data for vertical

assumption.

oil-water flow is illustrated in Fig. 6. Again the

We proceed by identifying two interfaces for two-

volume of the two fluids in the system is about the

phase flows. The gas interface is the interface

same. As in the previous case, the speed of the water

between the pure gas and the mixture of gas and

interface with the original model is much higher than

liquid. Similarly, the liquid interface is defined as the

that observed in the experiment. Furthermore, the

interface between the pure liquid and the mixture of

optimized model yields even higher velocities for

gas and liquid. Therefore, during the transient

both oil and water interfaces.

process, the gas interface moves down and the liquid

An explanation for the disagreement between

interface moves up. The two interfaces meet when

transient

experiments

and

steady-state

model

the phases are completely separated.

predictions can be offered by considering the driftflux model parameters. For liquid-gas systems,

Liquid-gas vertical flow. Fig. 5 shows a sample

C 0 = 1.0 for the optimized model, i.e., there is no

comparison of experimental data with predictions for

profile slip. Hence m( ) , the Vd multiplier, must

vertical water-gas flow. Both the original and

optimized steady-state models are considered. In this
case the volume of gas and water in the system is

increase accordingly, and for vertical flow, it is

almost twice the value as in the original model.
Therefore the optimized model predicts much faster

25

almost the same. We see that the original model

predicts the speed of the gas interface height

settling. For oil-water flow, the major reason for the

prediction of faster separation by the optimized

10

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

model compared to the original model is the

velocity used in both steady-state models (original

reduction in the exponent n from 2.0 to 1.0.

and optimized) does distinguish between large and

From these comparisons of experimental data

small bubbles/droplets. Fig. 7 (a) shows that a linear

with model predictions, we see that our steady-state

interpolation is used to connect the bubble flow

models do not fully capture the mechanics of

regime and liquid flooding curve2 over the range

countercurrent transient flows. These findings are

a1 < g < a2 . Since bubble size increases with g at

consistent with earlier work by King et al.28, who

tried to capture the characteristics of transient slug
flows. They conducted water-air tests in a 36 m long,
7.6 cm diameter stainless steel horizontal pipe. The
experimental results demonstrated that generally
transient slug flow cannot be modeled by the quasisteady-state approach. In order to overcome the
limitations of the sequence of steady-states approach,
we will now consider a two-population model.

this range, the small bubbles will have a drift velocity

equal to the value at the bottom of the ramp, and the
large bubbles will have a drift velocity equal to the
value at the top of the ramp.
The values of a1 and a2 are optimization
parameters in our steady-state modeling procedure.
The original values of a1 and a2 were 0.2 and 0.4
respectively, based on the work of Zuber and
Findlay25. However, our steady-state optimization
results provide a1 = 0.06 and a2 = 0.21. The steady-

Two-population model
Our water-gas transient experiments show that some

state flow experiments confirmed that elongated

bubble flow occurred at g 0.12 . This implies that

small gas bubbles are entrained in the water and

in most of our steady-state experiments the gas is in
move with the water phase at the beginning of the
large bubbles.
settling process. Similarly, for oil-water flow, some
However, when the pipe is shut-in, the quickly
small water droplets are entrained in oil and move up
closing valves cause disturbances which break the
with the oil phase at the beginning of the separation.
large bubbles into small bubbles. Thus the effective
These small bubbles/droplets separate from the phase
values of a1 and a2 should increase, and we could
in which they are entrained later in the separation
assume that all of the bubbles are small during the
process.
transient process. The solid line in Fig. 7 (b) displays
As illustrated in Fig. 7, the model of drift-flux
the situation when there are only small bubbles in the

11

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

11

system. In fact, in reality there will exist a

bubble separation ( C 0 S = 1.0 ) due to the large bubble

distribution of bubble sizes, with the smaller bubbles

separation with the mixture, a general drift-flux

having even lower drift velocity4. The dashed line in

model is obtained (see Appendix A for details):

Fig. 7 (b) illustrates this.

g V g = [1

From Fig. 7, we see that by shifting a1 and a2, we

(1 g )(1 gL C 0 L )
1 gL

(1 g ) gL

can potentially represent both steady-state and

1 gL

]V m

(10)

V dL + gS V dS

transient flows using one drift-flux model. The two-

Here C 0 L is the profile parameter for the separation

population model discussed below is a unified model

of large bubbles from the mixture of small bubbles

for steady-state and transient flows. This unification

and liquid. V dL and V dS define the drift velocity of

is especially important for reservoir simulation, in

large bubbles and small bubbles respectively. This

which a smooth transition between steady-state and

equation reduces to the original form when there is

transient flows is required.

only one kind of bubble and there is no profile slip

for small bubbles.

Model development. Based on our observations of

steady-state and transient flows we can conclude that

Two-population model for oil-water systems. The

in the separation of water and gas, two processes

two-population oil-water model is similar to the

occur. First, large gas bubbles separate from the gas-

liquid-gas model, but the mechanisms involved in

water mixture, and next the entrained small gas

oil-water separation are different. Specifically, large

bubbles separate from the water. This can be modeled

water droplets move down while the small water

by dividing the total gas fraction into two parts,

droplets entrained in the oil move up with the oil

corresponding to large bubbles and small bubbles:

phase. This is also consistent with the observation by

g = gL + gS

(9)

Zhu and Hill16 and Zavareh et al.17. In addition, the

where subscript L represents the large bubbles and S

entrained small water droplets further separate from

the small bubbles.

the oil.

We can apply the drift-flux model, Eq. (1), for

large and small bubbles separately. With the
assumption that there is no profile slip for small

We

divide

the

water

droplets

into

two

populations:
w = wL + wS

(11)

12

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

and apply the oil-water drift-flux model, Eq. (8), to

These are the fraction f of large bubbles/droplets to

both settling processes with the assumption that the

the total bubbles/droplets in the system and the drift

profile slip of small droplets is 1.0 due to the

velocity multiplier mS for small bubbles/droplets

disruption of large water droplets separating with the

(where VdS = mSVdL( g = 0 )). These parameters

mixture. The resulting two-population model for oil-

depend, in general, on the shut-in holdup, though in

water separation is (see Appendix A):

many cases constant values suffice. Using the two-

wV w = V m (1 wL wS )( C 0 LV m + V dL + V dS )

(12)

population model with these two parameters, we can

where C 0 L is the profile parameter for the separation

achieve close matches to the transient experimental

of large water droplets from the mixture of oil and

data. In the following figures, the model results are

water. V dL and V dS represent the drift velocity of the

shown in terms of interface height. Predictions by the

oil when separating with large and small water

optimized steady-state parameters are also shown.

droplets respectively.
We note that the two-population model described
here represents a considerable simplification of the

Vertical water-gas flow. For all water-gas cases, a

single

set

of

optimized

parameter

values

true transient process, in which a continuous

(independent of g and w) was determined:

distribution of bubble or drop sizes presumably

f = gL g = 0.3 and m S = 0.3 . These values indicate

exists. Nonetheless, as shown below, this model does

that most (70%) of the gas bubbles in the water-gas

appear to capture the key transient effects observed in

systems are small bubbles.

the experiments. This is likely because the two

The water-gas results are illustrated in Figs. 7-9.

populations of bubble/drop sizes (and corresponding

Each figure corresponds to a particular value of

adjustable parameters) represent, in some sense, an

g (as indicated in the figure). The first example is

appropriate

for a relatively low g ( g = 0.18 ). We see from Fig.

sampling

of

the

true

continuous

distribution.

8 that the optimized steady-state model predicts very

fast separation, while the new two-population model

Results and discussion

To implement the two-population model, we
introduce two additional adjustable parameters.

matches the data much more closely. Fig. 9 shows

similar results for a gas volume fraction of 0.32.

13

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

The amount of water and gas in the system is

( m S = 0.03 ). We attribute this to our expectation

about the same for the last example displayed in Fig.

that the phase inversion point is around 50% for this

10. The results from the steady-state models for this

oil-water system (the fine oil and water droplets

case were presented in Fig. 4. Here the movement of

separate very slowly around the phase inversion

the gas interface is predicted by the two-population

point). Table 1 gives m S values for seven oil-water

model to be too slow at the beginning of the

tests. It clearly demonstrate that m S reaches a

separation but overall the results for both the gas and
water interfaces are in reasonable agreement with the

minimum at around w = 50%. Accurate results are

also obtained in the case of high oil fraction, as

experiments.

shown in Fig. 13.

Vertical oil-water flow. The tuning of the two
parameters f and m S is more complicated for the

Deviated two-phase flows. We now briefly consider

the applicability of the two-population model to

oil-water system than for the water-gas system. The

deviated wells. For these cases, we use the m( )

optimized value for f is found to be 0.2 for all of the

determined in the steady-state optimizations (Eq. (8)
oil-water transient data. However, in contrast to the
water-gas system, a single value for mS could not be
obtained. This is a result of the formation of oil-water
1

emulsions. Furthermore, small droplet behavior can

for liquid-gas systems).

Results for water-gas and oil-water systems are
shown in Figs. 14 and 15 respectively. For liquid-gas
flow, we present an example at a 5 deviation. We

29

be very different from small bubble behavior .

The oil-water model results are shown in Figs. 1012. We see that for low oil fractions the new model
represents the data very well, as shown in Fig. 11.
The data in Fig. 12 were also shown in Fig. 5 along

select this deviation because the settling process for

our water-gas tests is very fast at the higher
deviations (recall that there is no data available
between 5 and 45). For the oil-water system,
however, the settling time for a deviation of 45 (as

with steady-state model predictions. Again the match

considered in Fig. 15) is long enough to illustrate the
between the experimental data and model predictions
results. As displayed in Figs. 14 and 15, transient
is very close. In this case, the m S value is very small

data for both deviated water-gas and oil-water

13

14

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

systems are represented very well by the two-

A new unified two-population drift-flux model

population models. We again emphasize that the

was developed for transient two-phase flows.

models in this case are consistent with the steady-

The model reduces to the steady-state model in

state models, as m( ) is the same in both cases.

appropriate limits. The model predictions match

transient experimental data reasonably well for

Application to well testing

both vertical and deviated water-gas and oil-

(Jons contribution)

water flows.

* Why phase redistribution can be important

Application to well testing (Jons contribution)

* Hallmarks of phase redistribution

* Simulation results

A concern with this model (or many wellbore flow

* What tweaks to d-f are necessary to match the

models) is that the model parameters are based on

observations

transient data collected in a relatively short pipe (11

m). In addition, the disturbances caused by the fast-

Conclusions and recommendations

acting valves may not represent actual conditions in

From this study, we can draw the following

the field. It is therefore possible that the model

conclusions:

parameters

The drift-flux model is well suited for steady-

applications. This can only be gauged by testing the

state concurrent flows as well as transient

model against other experimental data sets, which are

countercurrent flows in wellbores and pipes.

not currently available. Even though the model

Experimental data from large-diameter pipes

parameters may require tuning for a particular

suggest that wellbore transient flow cannot be

application, it is still reasonable to expect that the

represented by a series of steady-state flows.

two-population model presented here (or a very

Experimental observations show that gas exists

similar model) can be used to represent transient

as large and small bubbles during the settling

countercurrent wellbore flows.

process

for

water-gas

flow.

In

may

require

tuning

for

specific

oil-water

separation, water exists as large and small water

Acknowledgments

droplets.

The support from Schlumberger and the other

15

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

industrial affiliates of the Stanford Project on the

Productivity and Injectivity of Advanced Wells
(SUPRI-HW) is greatly appreciated.

Nomenclature

a1 =

drift velocity ramping parameter

a2 =

drift velocity ramping parameter

a3 =

gas effect parameter

profile parameter term, value in bubble/slug

m =

drift velocity multiplier for oil-water flows

mS =

drift velocity multiplier for small buubbles

m S =

drift velocity multiplier for small water droplets

drift velocity exponent for oil-water flows

volumetric flow rate

velocity

Vc =

characteristic velocity for liquid-gas flows

Vc =

characteristic velocity for oil-water flows

regimes for liquid-gas flows

Vd =

gas-liquid drift velocity

A =

profile parameter term for oil-water flows

Vd =

oil-water drift velocity

B =

profile parameter term, gas volume fraction

Vm =

mixture velocity

at which C0 begins to reduce

Vs =

superficial velocity

B1 =

B2 =

profile parameter term, oil volume fraction

at which C0 begins to reduce

Subscripts

profile parameter term, oil volume fraction

gas

at which C0 falls to 1.0

liquid

large bubbles/droplets

mixture

oil

small bubbles/droplets

water

Co =

profile parameter

pipe internal diameter

fraction of large bubbles/droplets

gravitational acceleration

Ku =

Kutateladze number

test section length

drift velocity multiplier for water-gas flows

Greek

in situ fraction or holdup

interfacial tension/surface tension

15

16

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

density

deviation from vertical

Water Flows in Vertical Tubes, J. Nucl. Sci.

Technol., (1984) 21, 321-327.
9.

Hasan, A.R., Kabir, C.S., and Srinivasan, S.:

Countercurrent Bubble and Slug Flows in a Vertical

References
System, Chem. Engng Sci. (1994) 49, 2567-2574.
1.

Oddie, G., Shi, H., Durlofsky, L.J., Aziz, K., Pfeffer,

10. Harmathy, T.Z.: Velocity of Large Drops and
B. and Holmes, J.A.: Experimental Study of Two and
Bubbles in Media of Restricted Extent, AIChEJ
Three Phase Flows in Large Diameter Inclined Pipes,
(1960) 6, 281-290.
Int. J. Multiphase Flow, (2003) 29, 527-558.
11. Nicklin, D. J., Wilkes, J. O. and Davidson, J.F.: Two-

2.

Shi, H., Holmes, J.A., Durlofsky, L.J., Aziz, K., Diaz,

Phase Film Flow in Vertical Tubes, Trans. Inst.
L.R., Alkaya, B. and Oddie, G.: Drift-Flux Modeling
Chem, (1962) 40, 61-68.
of Two-Phase Flow in Wellbores, SPE Journal,
12. Kim, H.Y., Koyama, S. and Mastumoto, W.: Flow
(March, 2005) 10, 24-33.
Pattern and Flow Characteristics for Counter-current

3.

Shi, H., Holmes, J.A., Diaz, L.R., Durlofsky, L.J.,

Two-phase Flow in a Vertical Round Tube with WireAziz, K.: Drift-Flux Parameters for Three-Phase
coil Inserts, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, (2001) 27, 2063Steady-State Flow in Wellbores, SPE Journal, (June,
2081.
2005) 10, 130-137.
13. Johnston, A.J.: An Investigation into Stratified Co-

4.

Wallis, G. B.: One Dimension Two-Phase Flow,

and Countercurrent Two-Phase Flow, SPEPE (Aug.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969.
1988) 393-399.

5.

Zabaras, G.J. and Dukler, A.E.: Countercurrent Gas14. Johnston, A.J.: Controlling Effects in Countercurrent
liquid Annular Flow Including the Flooding Modeling
Two-Phase Flow, SPEPE (Aug. 1988) 400-404.
State, AIChEJ (1988) 34, 389-396.
15. Ghiaasiaan, S.M., Wu, X., Sadowski, D.L., and Abdel-

6.

Taitel, Y., and Barnea, D.: Counter Current GasKhalik,

S.I.:

Hydrodynamic

Characteristics

of

Liquid Vertical Flow, Model for Flow Pattern and

Counter-Current Two-Phase Flow in Vertical and
Pressure Drop, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, (1983) 9,
Inclined Channels: Effect of Liquid Properties, Int. J.
637-647.
Multiphase Flow, (1997) 23, 1063-1083.
7.

Yamaguchi, K. and Yamazaki, Y.: Characteristics of

16. Zhu, D., and Hill, A.D.: The Effect of Flow from
Coutercurrent Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Vertical
Perforations on Two-Phase Flow: Implications for
Tubes, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol., (1982) 19, 985-996.
Production Logging, SPE paper 18207 presented at

8.

Yamaguchi, K. and Yamazaki, Y.: Combined Flow

the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Pattern Map for Cocurrent and Countercurrent Air-

17

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

Exhibition, Houston, TX, 2-5 October.

17. Zavareh, F., Hill, A.D. and Podio, A.: Flow Regimes
in Vertical and Inclined Oil/Water Flow in Pipes,

presented at the

1998

International

17

Petroleum

Conference and Exhibition of Mexico, Villahermosa,

3-5 March.

SPE paper 18215 presented at the 1988 SPE Annual

24. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: Modeling Changing

Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX,

Storage During a Shut-in Test, SPEFE (1994) 9, 279-

2-5 October.

284.

18. Ouyang, L.B.: Mechanistic and Simplied Models for

25. Zuber, N. and Findlay, J.A.: Average Volumetric

Countercurrent Flow in Deviated and Multilateral

Concentration in Two-Phase Flow Systems, J. Heat

Wells, SPE paper 77501 presented at the 2002 SPE

Transfer, Trans. ASME, (1965) 87, 453-468.

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San

Antonio, TX, 29 Sept2 Oct.

26. Schlumberger

GeoQuest,

ECLIPSE

Technical

Description Manual, 2001.

19. Ouyang, L.B.: Mechanistic and Simplied Models for

27. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: A Simplified Model for

countercurrent flow in deviated and multilateral

Oil/Water Flow in Vertical and Deviated Wellbores,

wells, Petroleu Sci.& Tech, (2003) 21, 2001-2020.

SPE Prod. & Fac. (February 1999) 56-62.

20. Almehaideb, R.A., Aziz, K. and Pedrosa, O.A.: A

28. King, M.J.S., Hale, C.P., Lawrence, C.J., and Hewitt,

Reservoir/Wellbore Model for Multiphase Injection

G.F.: Characteristics of Flow Rate Transients in Slug

and Pressure Transient Analysis, SPE paper 17941

Flow, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, (1997) 24, 825-854.

presented at the 1989 SPE Middle East Oil Technical

29. Pal, R.: Pipeline Flow of Unstable and Surfactant-

Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, 11-14

Stabilized Emulsions, AIChE J.(1993) 39, 1754-

March.

1764.

21. Asheim, H. and Grodam, E.: Holdup Propagation

Predicted by Steady-State Drift Flux Models, Int. J.
Multiphase Flow, (1998) 24, 757-774.
22. Lopez, D., Dhulesia, H., Leporcher, E. and DuchetSuchaux, P.: Performances of Transient Two-Phase
Flow Models, SPE paper 38813 presented at the 1997
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Anitonio, TX, 5-8 October.
23. Lopez, D. and Duchet-Suchaux, P.: Performances of
Transient Two-Phase Flow Models, SPE paper 39858

18

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

electrical probes temperature

inlet

valve
differential
pressure

gamma
densitometer pressure

outlet

valve

Fig. 1: Schematic of the test section of the flow loop

19

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

(a)

(b)
Fig. 2. Water-gas data for =0, Qw= 40.4 m /h, Qg= 58.0 m /h
(w=52%).
3

19

20

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

Fig. 3. Oil-water data for =0, Qo=40.2 m /h, Qw=40.4

3
m /h (w =51%).
3

21

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

Fig. 4. Oil-water-gas data for =0, Qo=40.2 m /h,

3
3
Qw=40.4 m /h, Qg=26.2 m /h (w =44%, o=42%).
3

21

Interface Height (m)

22

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Experiment_gas
Original_gas
Optimized_gas
Experiment_water
Original_water
Optimized_water
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Time (s)

Fig. 5. Water-gas interface height for =0, Qw=2.0 m /h,

3
Qg=60.2 m /h (w =49%).
3

23

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

11

Interface height (m)

10

Experiment_oil

Original_oil

8
7

Optimized_oil

6
5

Experiment_water

Original_water

3
2

Optimized_water

1
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Time (s)

Fig. 6. Oil-water interface height for =0, Qw=40.4 m /h,

3
Qo=40.2 m /h (w =51%).
3

23

24

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

0.7

large bubbles
0.6

Vd

0.5

small
bubbles

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

(a) Original drift velocity for liquid-gas system

0.7
0.6
0.5

Vd

0.4

small bubbles

0.3
0.2

smaller bubbles

0.1

a1

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

a2
1

g
(b) Small bubble drift velocity for liquid-gas system
Fig. 7. Drift velocity mechanism in two-population for
liquid-gas system

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

Interface Height (m)

25

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Experiment_gas
Optimized_gas_ss
Optimized_gas_t
Experiment_water
Optimized_water_ss
Optimized_water_t
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Time (s)

Fig. 8. Water-gas interface height for =0, Qw=2.0 m /h,

3
Qg=11.4 m /h (w =82%).
3

25

26

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

11

Experiment_gas

Interface Height (m)

10
9

Optimized_gas_ss

8
7

Optimized_gas_t

6
5

Experiment_water

4
3

Optimized_water_ss

Optimized_water_t

1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Time (s)

Fig. 9. Water-gas interface height for =0, Qw=2.0 m /h,

3
Qg=28.6 m /h (w =68%).
3

27

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

11

Interface Height (m)

10

Experiment_gas

9
Optimized_gas_ss

8
7

Optimized_gas_t

6
5

Experiment_water

4
3

Optimized_water_ss

2
1

Optimized_water_t

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time (s)

Fig. 10. Water-gas interface height for =0, Qw=2.0

3
3
m /h, Qg=60.2 m /h (w =49%).

80

27

28

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

11

Interface Height (m)

10

Experiment_oil

9
Optimized_oil_ss

8
7

Optimized_oil_t

6
5

Experiment_water

4
Optimized_water_ss

3
2

Optimized_water_t

1
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Time (s)

Fig. 11. Oil-water interface height for =0, Qw=100.0 m /h,

3
Qo=40.2 m /h (w =72%).
3

Interface Height (m)

29

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

11
10
9

Experiment_oil

Optimized_oil-ss

7
6

Optimized_oil-t

5
4

Experiment_water

Optimized_water_ss

2
1

Optimized_water_t

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Time (s)

Fig. 12. Oil-water interface height for =0, Qw=40.4

3
3
m /h, Qo=40.2 m /h (w =51%).

800

29

30

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

11

Interface Height (m)

10

Experiment_oil

9
Optimized_oil-ss

8
7

Optimized_oil_t

6
5

Experiment_water

4
3

Optimized_water_ss

2
Optimized_water_t

1
0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Time (s)

Fig. 13. Oil-water interface height for =0, Qw=2.0 m /h,

3
Qo=10.0 m /h (w =27%).
3

Interface Height (m)

31

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Experiment_gas
Optimized_gas_ss
Optimized_gas_t
Experiment_water
Optimized_water_ss
Optimized_water_t
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Time (s)

Fig. 14. Water-gas interface height for =5, Qw=10.1 m /h,

3
Qg=58.8 m /h (w =52%).
3

31

32

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

Fig. 15. Oil-water interface height for =45, Qw=100.0

3
3
m /h, Qo=40.2 m /h (w =72%).

33

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

TABLE 1SUMMARY OF PARAMETER

m S

FOR OIL-WATER SYSTEMS

0.27

0.51

0.60

0.72

0.82

0.85

0.93

m S

0.05

0.03 0.07

0.10

0.50

0.80

0.95

33

34

H. SHI, J.A. HOLMES, L.J. DURLOFSKY, K. AZIZ

gS V gS = gS C 0 S V mS + gS V dS

Appendix A

(A-5)

Derivation of two-population drift-flux

models

Assuming that there is no profile slip for small

Liquid-gas flow. Because of small gas bubbles that

bubbles, C 0 S = 1.0 , Eqn (A-5) becomes:

are entrained in the water phase, while the overall,

gas is rising a mixture of water-gas is sinking.

bubbles since the profiles are disrupted by large

V gS = V mS + V dS

(A-6)

The mixture velocity for small bubbles and liquid

This system could be model with two populations

of bubbles: large bubbles with volume fraction of

can be written as:

(1 gL )V mS = g S V gS + (1 g )Vl

(A-7)

gL , and small bubbles with volume fraction of gS .

where Vl is the liquid velocity. We can rearrange the

g = gL + gS

(A-1)

The fraction of gL and gS depends on the relative

above expression for Vl:

Vl =

1 gL
1 g

V mS

gS
1 g

(A-8)

V gS

densities of large and small bubbles.

Since large bubbles separate from the mixture of
liquid and entrained small bubbles, we first apply the
drift-flux model to large bubbles:

and combining Eqn (A-4), (A-6) and (A-8), to obtain:

Vl =

1 gL C 0 L
1 gL

gL

Vm

1 gL

V dL

gS
1 g

V gS

(A-9)

For the liquid-gas system we:

V gL = C 0 LV m + V dL

(A-2)

The total mixture velocity is:

V m = g V g + (1 g )V l

(A-10)

where Vg is the average gas velocity of both large

V m = gLV gL + (1 gL )V mS

(A-3)

bubbles and small bubbles . By combining Eqn (9)

where VmS is the mixture velocity of the small

and (10), we can obtain the general two-population

bubbles and liquid. From Eqn (A-2) and (A-3), we

model for liquid-gas flow:

obtain,
V mS =

1 gL C 0 L
1 gL

Vm

gL
1 gL

g V g = [1
V dL

(A-4)

(1 g )(1 gL C 0 L )
1 gL

(1 g ) gL
1 gL

]V m

(A-11)

V dL + gS V dS

In this small bubble and liquid mixture, the small

bubbles travel with a velocity VgS, which can also be

Oil-water flow. Our experiments show that water

computed by drift-flux model:

entrained in the oil phase, and the water-in-oil

35

DRIFT-FLUX MODELING OF TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES

dispersions/emulsions separated much slower than

where Vw is the average water velocity of both large

pure phases. Therefore, we can assume that in the

water droplets and small water droplets .

overall system mixture of oil and small water

droplets rises while large water droplets sink.

Combining Eqn (A-12), (A-13), (A-14) and (A15), and assuming that the profile slip for the oil and

Similarly to the treatment of the liquid-gas

small water droplets system is disrupted by large

system, let there be two populations of water

water droplets ( C 0 S = 1.0 ) we obtain the following

droplets: large water droplets with volume fraction of

two-population model for oil-water flow:

wL , and small dropllets with volume fraction of

wS .
w = wL + wS

(A-12)

The fractions wL and wS depends on the relative

densities fluid properties and flowing conditions.
Since large water droplets separate from a mixture
of oil and entrained small water droplets, we first
apply the drift-flux model to the system of the rising
oil-water mixture and sinking large water droplets:
Vom = C 0 LV m + V dom

(A-13)

where Vom is the in situ velocity of the mixture of oil

and the small droplets, and Vdom is the drift velocity
of the mixture.
In the rising mixture, the velocity of pure oil can
be determined from:
Vo = C 0 S Vom + V do

(A-14)

For an oil-water system, we have the following

relationship:
V m = wV w + (1 w )Vo

(A-15)

wV w = V m (1 wL wS )( C 0 LV m + V dL + V dS )
(A-16)

35