11 views

Uploaded by AshrafNamamuTeratas

- KNC 1101 Chemical Engineering Laboratory I Experiment Manual (1)
- Methods for Vortex
- 08 Heat 4e Chap08 Internal Forced Convection
- Turbulence y+
- Fluids Case Study on Head Loss
- BlasiusEquations.pdf
- Expt 7. Reynolds Number
- DDA Book 10 Numerical Models
- Full Text 2
- Disk in Flight Euler
- Tips Olga
- Sep_2015_Gas-Liquid-Separators-Sizing-Parameter-MM083015.pdf
- 31-Vallee
- Flow condensation in parallel micro-channels – Part 1: Experimental results and assessment of pressure drop correlations
- back blasüus cu.pdf
- Fine Marine Innovsail_2010
- Seyed Mostafa Ghiaasiaan -Convective Heat and Mass Transfer-Cambridge University Press (2011).pdf
- Table of Contents
- Env Final Modeling
- Chapter 01

You are on page 1of 26

Most wells produce more than one phase. Oil and gas usually flow together, and often also with

water and solid particles. Figure 9.1 illustrates the typical flow patterns. Simplified sets are 3

main patterns of vertical flow:

- Continuous fluid, with gas bubbles / fast particles

- Continuous gas, with drops of liquid / solid particles and liquid film along the walls

- Discontinuous flow: liquid plugs, broken up by large gas accumulations

In horizontal flow, flow patterns will be similar, but with a tendency to stratification because of

density difference. At the relative low velocity, gas and oil may flow in separate, stratified

layers

Figure 9.1 Typical flow patterns of liquid and gas

9.1 Rising and sinking of particles/drops/bubbles in static fluid

Particles, droplets, or bubbles in a continuous fluid will rise or sink. This provides a basis for

multi-phase flow calculations.

9.1.1 Sinking velocity for solid particles

When a particle sink with a constant velocity, the gravity force acting upon the particle has to be

as large as the friction force. That gives the flow balance outlined below

Figure 9.2 Solid particle that falls in continuous gas or liquid

For a spherical particle, the volume and cross-sectional area relate to particle diameter: V

s

=

d

3

/6, and A

s

= d

2

/4 . By putting F

g

= F

f

, we can express sinking speed

5 . 0 5 . 0

3

4

,

_

,

_

s

s

s

f

gd

v (9-1)

:density of the fluid

s

: Density of particle

d : Diameter of the particle

f

s

: Friction factor between the particle and the surrounding fluid

Friction factor depends on the Reynolds number of the border layer between the particle and

fluid

d v

s

s

Re (9-2)

: viscosity of the fluid surrounding

Figure 9.3 shows the correlation between friction factor and Reynolds number, Lydersen /1976 /.

Correlation for spherical particles can also be expressed analytically

Reynolds Number Friction Factor Flow Ratio

500 < Res < 2

.

10

5

fs = 0.44 Turbulent boundary layer

2 < Res < 500 fs = 18.5

Res

-0.6

Transition

10

-5

< Res < 2 fs = 24

Res

-1

Laminar boundary layer

Figure 9.3 Friction Factor for solid particles in static fluid

If sinking velocity of sand particles is greater than the flow velocity in a vertical well, then sand

will fall down and gradually fill up well. In an inclined well the falling velocity will drag

particles against the lower portion of the pipe cross-section. Turbulence will help to keep the

particles in dispersion. Transportation of particles further depends on whether sedimentation or

dispersion dominate.

9.1.2 Sinking velocity of small drops

In a swarm of falling drops, the drops will continuously coalesce and break up. Turbulent forces

tend to break up, while surface tension keeps drops together. This will be a continuous process,

as indicated in Figure 9.4.

Consider a drop with circumference: S

d

, the surface tension will provide a force: F

=

S

d

. The turbulent forces can be represented by the friction force: d d d f

A v f F

2

2 1

It seems reasonable to relate the maximum drop size to the ratio of these forces. This provides

the critical Weber number. For a round drop, this can be expressed as

d v

We

F

F

d

f

2

*

*

max

(9-3)

: Surface tension (N / m)

v

d

*

: sinking velocity of the largest drops

Experiments indicate largest achievable (critical) Weber number in the range of 20-30. By

setting (9-3) in relation with sinking velocity (9-1), we can express maximum sinking velocity as

( )

25 . 0

2

*

1

1

]

1

g

g l

d d

g

K v

(9-4)

K

d

: dimensionless parameter group:

25 . 0

*

3

4

,

_

d

d

f

We

K

K

d

is dimensionless and can be considered as constant. For droplets that drop in static gas, this

has been experimentally determined as K

d

= 2.75 - 3.1.

Figure 9.4 Drop size in continuous gas

The majority of gas wells also produce some liquid, water and / or condensate. Velocity of small

droplets are often used as a criterion for flow velocity to prevent fluid collection in the well,

Turner & al / 1969 /. The idea is that if liquid largely exist by itself as a film along the well wall,

it will still mainly be transported as droplets. If the gas velocity is greater than sinking velocity

for the largest liquid drops, the liquid droplets will be transported out of the production pipe.

9.1.3 Rise velocity for small bubbles

Small bubbles that rise in the continuous liquid are subjected to similar forces as liquid droplets

in the gas. Stability consideration and the formula for maximum velocity for the rising gas

bubbles are similar

( )

25 . 0

2

*

1

]

1

l

g l

b b

g

K v

(9-5)

Flow conditions around a gas bubble that rises in viscous liquid will be different from a liquid

drop that falls in small viscous gas, so the friction factor will be different. For gas bubbles the

rise in the stagnant liquid is found by Harmathy / 1960 /: Kb = 1.53.

9.1.4 Rising velocity for big bubbles

If bubbles are so large that they fill the entire cross-section of the pipe, (figure 9.5), they will be

stabilized by the pipe wall. Rise of large air bubbles in the water is primarily governed by liquid

flow around the bubble front. After passing the bubble front, the liquid will flow along the pipe

wall as a free-falling film, which has no influence on the rise velocity. Rise velocity has been

derived theoretically by Dumitrescu / 1943, (9-6). Dimension Analysis and measurements of

Davis & Taylor / 1950 / gave nearly identical results.

Figure 9.5 Large bubble in the pipe (Dumitescu bubble " / "Taylor bubble")

,

_

l

g

D

D g v

1 347 . 0 (9-6)

v

D

: rise velocity of large bubbles in the vertical pipe

D : inner diameter of pipe

The sinking liquid film will mix with gas bubbles in boom, as illustrated above. By comparing

(9-5) and (9-6), we find that small air bubbles rise faster than the large ones if pipe diameters are

less than 50 mm. This means that the small bubbles in the small pipe will have the tendency to

collide and coalesce with large bubbles. While in large pipes, small bubbles that separate from

the end of a larger one will trail behind. Based on this, it has been argued that Dumistrecsu

bubbles are not stable when the pipe diameter is greater than 50 millimeters.

Zukoski / 1966 / explored the rising velocity of the large bubbles for different surface tensions,

viscosity and pipe inclinations. Surface tension appeared to have some effect on small pipe

diameters. The effect of viscosity attributed to the Reynolds Number defined by fluid density,

liquid viscosity and the rising viscosity of the bubble: Re = v

D

D/. Viscosity had little

significance for Reynolds Number above 20. Zukoski found that the bubble velosity reach a

maximum at pipe slope around 35

o

compare to the horizon (inclination 55

o

)

Rise velocity for large oil accumulations in inclined pipe filled with water has been

experimentally found to be in reasonable compliance with Zukoskis results. In the vertical well,

oil was found to disperse.

9.1.5 Bubbles and droplets of flowing fluid

Turbulence forces due to flow will also break up drops and bubbles. Hinze / 1955 / considered

the relationship between the turbulent forces and surface forces as a Weber Number.

d u

We

2

(9-7)

Break up forces are due turbulent velocity fluctuation:

2

u This can be relatioed to energy

dissipation

( )

3

2

2

d u

(9-8)

Energy dissipation may have different causes: the flow through nozzle, mechanical stirring, wall

friction, pumping. For flow in the pipe energy dissipation per mass unit relates to friction loss

3

1

2

1

v

D

f

dx

dp v

(9-9)

By putting (9-8), (9-9) into the relationship between the turbulent forces and surface forces into

the Weber number (9-7), we can associate the maximum droplet size to the fluid in flow

conditions

5

3

5

2

*

1

,

_

C d

(9-10)

The dimensionless constant relates to the critical Weber number of (9-7):

( )

5

3

*

We C

.

Experimentally the constant has been determined as

C =0.725.

Figure 9.6 below shows the maximum bubble size predictions, using the methods above, for the

parameters :

g

= 200 kg/m

3

,

l

= 900 kg/m

3

, f =0.02, = 40

.

10

-3

N/m, D = 0.1 m.

Figure 9.6 Bubble Size Estimates

The figure shows that when the velocity is less than 0.2 m / s, the bubble size in the flowing

liquid larger than the size of the bubble in the stagnant fluid. Thus, it may be expected that the

size is controlled by turbulence in the boundary layer due the bubble rise. So a maximum bubble

size of about 27 millimeter may be expected. At higher velocity, the turbulence generated by the

overall flow will control the bubble size. So the maximum bubble size will decrease with rising

flow velocity. (To estimate the drop size more realistically, we should to "add" turbulence

contributions from buoyancy and flow.)

The relations above may also be useful for separator design. Well and valves ahead of the

separator should be arranged and dimensioned so that high turbulence and fine dispersion are

avoided .

9.2 Fluid

9.2.1 Mass flow and superficial velocity

Consider a pipe segment in a well where oil and gas flows: Fig 9.7.

Figure 9.7 Steady-state multi-phase flow

Under stationary (steady-state) conditions, the mass flow is constant through any cross section

along the pipe. Knowing production rates at standard conditions: q

g

, q

o

, q

w

, we can express

volume streams down in the well by using the black oil model. It is convenient to represent the

volume streams by superficial velocities: flow rate/ pipe cross-section

( )

4 /

2

d

B R R q

A

Q

v

g s t o g

sg

(9-11)

4 /

2

d

B q B q

A

Q

v

w w o o l

sl

+

(9-12)

sl sg

g l

m

v v

A

Q Q

v +

+

(9-13)

9.2.2 Fluid velocity, volume fractions and two-phase flow

Flow velocity in the pipe, defined as the flow rate divided by cross-sectional area. Then flow

velocities can be linked to superficial velocity and fraction

g

sg

g

g

g

g

g

y

v

A A

A Q

A

Q

v

(9-14)

l

sl

l

l

l

l

l

y

v

A A

A Q

A

Q

v

(9-15)

y

g

: gas fraction

y

l

: liquid fraction

Average density of fluid mixture in a pipe segment can be linked to fluid densities and fractions

l l g g

l l g g

TP

y y

A

A A

+

+

(9-16)

Gas and liquid fractions can be measured indirectly, e.g.: by measuring the electrical impedance

for the mixture flowing. Since the bubble and the gas usually have different impedance, such

measurements indicate fractions of gas and liquid.

Since the ability to absorb the gamma rays is also different for liquid and gas, gamma absorption

can also be used for measuring in situ fractions. A more direct method is to close a pipe segment

and measure the volumes of liquid and gas. Liquid fraction is equivalent to the fluid volume,

divided by the volume of the pipe segment.

9.2.3 Flux fractions and flow density

Flux fractions set flow rate for each fluid in relation to the total flow volume. Flux fractions can

be linked to superficial velocity

m

sg

l g

g

g

v

v

Q Q

Q

+

(9-17)

m

sl

l g

l

l

v

v

Q Q

Q

+

(9-18)

Average density can be attributed to the flux fractions

l l g g

l g

l l g g

m

Q Q

Q Q

+

+

+

(9-19)

From the definitions (9-17), (9-18) follows that when fluid velocity approaches the velocity of

gas, the volume fractions, for example, liquid, approach flux fraction

l

v v

l

g

l

g

l

l g

l

l

g l

Q

v

v

Q

Q

A A

A

y

+

(9-20)

9.2.4 Slip

Gas has less density and viscosity than the liquid and will usually flow faster. Zuber & Findlay /

1965 / proposed to link gas velocity to total superficial velocity

d m o g

v v C v +

(9-21)

C

o

: distribution parameter for bubbles in flow, usually: 1.0 <C

o

<1.2

v

o

: Buoyancy velocity of the gas bubbles, or sink velocity for droplets

By combining (9-13) and (9-14), we can express the liquid fraction directly

( )

d sl sg o

sg

l

v v v C

v

1 y

+ +

(9-22)

Z & F model has been widely used, but is misleading in many cases. Asheim /1986 / relates

gas velocity directly to the velocity surrounding liquids

o l o g

v v C v +

(9-23)

By combining the relationship between velocity and superficial velocity to the drop relationship

(9-23), the liquid fraction is expressed as

,

_

+ +

,

_

+ t 1

2

1

4 1

2

1

2

o

sl

o

o

sg

o

sl

o

o

sl

o

o

sg

l

v

v

C

v

v

v

v

C

v

v

C

v

v

y

(9-24)

Relationship (9-24) is more complicated than (9-22), but avoids most shortcomings of the Z

& F model.

If the gas flows up and the liquid down, equation (9-24) gives one, two, or no solutions. One

solution predicts stable counter current flow. No solutions imply that counter-flow at the

given rates is impossible. Two solutions imply transition between continuous liquid and

continuous gas. One of these solutions will then usually be unstable, such that the flow

regimes will change

9.3 Pressure and flow capacity

9.3.1 Flow equations for gas and liquid

To start, we may assume that the phase flows in stratified channels, as outlined in Figure 9.8 below. The

gas flow equation becomes

0 + + + + dx S dx S dv v A dx g A dp A

i i gw gw g g g g x g g g

(9-25)

A

g

: gas-filled cross-sectional area

S

gw

: contact length (perimeter), gas against pipe wall

gw

: shear stress, between gas and pipe wall

S

i

: contact length between gas and liquid

i

: shear stress, between gas and liquid

The flow equation for the liquid channel becomes

0 + + + dx S dx S dv v A dx g A dp A

i i lw lw l l l l x l l l

(9-26)

Figure 9.8 Gas and liquid flow with different rates

For horisontal pipes, flow with small velocity will be stratified. Taitel & Dukler /1976 /

predicted velocity and fractions of stratified flow and used as stability analysis to assess whether

the stratified solutions were physically realistic, or whether the gas and liquid would be divided

in any way in the pipe.

9.3.2Mixed-flow

If gas and liquid flow together, we need a flow equation for mixture. We

find it by putting: A

g

/A = y

g

, A

l

/A = y

l

into (9-25) and (9-26), and

adding them. This eliminates the interphasial shear. The mixed flow

equation becomes

( ) 0

+

+ + + + + dx

A

S S

dv y v dv y v dx g y y dp

lw lw gw g

l l l l g g g g x l l g g

(9-27)

The last part in (9-27) contains shear stresses and wetted perimeters. If we

presume that perimeter is proportional with fractions (S

gw

=y

g

S=y

g

d), and

represent the velocity by (9-11), (9-12), we can develop shear contribution as

,

_

,

_

+

+

l

sl

sl l l

g

sg

sg g g

l

sl

sl l l

g

sg

sg g g 2

lw l gw g

y

v

v f

y

v

v f

d 2

1

d

y

v

v f

8

1

d

y

v

v f

8

1

4 / d

1

A

S S

When gas and liquid flow in the same direction, we can ignore the absolute values. It is useful to

relate shear to rate and flux density (9-17), (9-18). If we also assume equal friction factors for

liquid and gas : f

g

= f

l

=f

o

, we get

2

m

l

2

l

l

g

2

g

g

o lw l gw g

v

y y d

1

f

2

1

A

S S

,

_

+

+

(9-28)

Often the shear contribution (9-28) expressed as for flow of homogeneous mixture

2

m m TP

lw l gw g

v

d

1

f

2

1

A

S S

+

(9-29)

Here f

TP

is thetwo phase friction factor, estimated from the correlation for single-phase flow,

with a correction factor for the drop:

TP

o

TP

c f f

(9-30)

The comparable single phase friction factor f

o

is estimated by standard single-phase correlation

(for example : f

o

=0.16/Re

m

0.172

) with Reynolds Number for the homogeneous mixture, usually

defined as

l l g g

m m

m

d v

+

Re

(9-31)

From (9-28), (9-29) follows the slip correction factor then becomes

( )

( )

l l m

2

l g l

2

l l g

l

2

l

m

l

g

2

g

m

g

TP

y 1 y

y 1 y

y y

c

+

+

(9-32)

With this theoreteical basis, we can express and calculate the pressure gradient

0 v

d

f

2

1

dx

dv

v

dx

dv

v g

dx

dp 2

m

m

TP

l

sl l

g

sg g x TP

+ + + +

(9-33)

The theory above involved many assumptions and approaches. Published models for steady-

state two phase flow may deviations somewhat from the basis outlined above.

9.3.2 Pressure and flow conditions along the pipe

Relations above are apply to steady-state flow at a given pressure, temperature and flow rate.

Along the well pipe we will then have constant mass flow, while pressure and temperature will

change. Equation (9-33) enables calulation of pressure changes along the pipe, and thus also

phase relationships, viscosity, volume and velocity.

A common task is that we know the expected well pressure: p

w

, for given reservoir pressure and

rate, and need to estimate the tubing head pressure: p

th

. We can formally approach this as

w

p

w th

L

dx

dp

p p

T

+

(9-34)

where:

L

w

: length along well pipe

T

p

dx

dp

: Average pressure gradient, estimated from (9-31),

Well pressure:

2

p p

p

th w

+

, And temperature:

2

T T

T

th w

+

Since we do not know the average pressure in the well before we have estimate the pressure,

iterations are required: we may estimate the pressure gradient at the bottom, solve (9-34), and

then use the solutions to estimate the average pressure. In many cases it provides pretty good

estimate of pressure. Such step will be called a single-step Runge-Kutta solution.

If the pressure gradient change much, it would be desirable to assume the pressure and flow

conditions at intervals along the pipe. The algorithm can then formally be expressed as

( )

i 1 i

p

i 1 i

L L

dx

dp

p p

5 . 0 i T

5 . 0 i

+

+ +

+

+

(9-35)

Figure 9.9 shows the estimated pressure profiles. The parameters for calculation are: p

R

= 310

bar, J = 20 Sm

3

/d/bar, R

t

= 200, d = 0.1 m,

o

= 0.9,

g

= 0.58, C

o

= 1.1, v

o

=0.1 m for parameters: p

R

= 310 bar, J = 20 Sm

3

/d/bar, q

o

= 200 Sm

3

/d, R

t

=

200, d = 0.1 m,

o

= 0.9,

g

= 0.58, C

o

= 1.1, v

o

=0.1 m . At low pressure,

pressure gradient will decline significant. This is because the gas is released and is expanding, so

that the average density of the fluid mixture is declining. We observe that the pressure at

production rate 200 Sm3/d is larger than at smaller rates .

Figure 9.9 Pressure, estimated with the flow model outlined above

Figure 9.10 below shows how the liquid fraction changes along the pipe, from 0.9 at the bottom,

to 0.1 near the top ,with the production 200 Sm3/ d.

Figure 9.10 The estimated liquid fraction along the production pipe

Figure 9.11 shows the superficial velocity along the pipe.

Figure 9.11 Superficial velocity (flux volume) along the pipe

Superficial velocity for liquid decreases with increasing pipe diameter, because disolved gas

evaporates. Actual velocity of gas and liquid can be estimated by (9-14) and (9-15). The actual

flow velocity of gas will be slightly over the sum of superficial velocity; for liquid, a little bit

smaller

9.4 Optimal flow conditions

For single phase flow, larger pipe diameter always means less flow resistance. When several

phases flow, there usually exists an optimal diameter that provides favorable flow conditions:

least pressure gradient, proper sand transport, small corrosion due to flow.

The assessments below includes not really optimization, but addresses the effect of different

measures and flow conditions on pressure loss. It assumes constant diameter pipe along well.

(Large diameter in the upper part of the well is often favorable.)

9.4.1 Impact of production rate

Figure 9.12 shows measured pressure differences, between the bottom and top of the well 40 on

the Ekofisk field. The data is previously provided as attachments to exercise 6 (Observation and

the plot is made by Zenit Federico, a student in 2000.) We see that pressure loss smallest when

the production is 600-700 Sm3 / d.

Figure 9.12 Measured pressure in the production pipe at different rates;

Ekofisk well 40

At low flow velocity, liquid accumulates in the production pipe. In such case average density

approaches liquid's density, while wall friction approaches zero.

At high flow increases, the average density of the mixture approaches the average for flow, while

the friction loss increases with the square of the velocity. Between these two limits, the pressure

losses has a minimum value.

Figure 9.13 shows the pressure for different rates, based on the data set previously applied for

Figure 9.9. We observe that the highest tubing head pressure is estiamted at the production rate

of about 180 Sm3 / d.

Figure 9.13 Wellhead pressure characteristics of the well which produces oil

and gas

The figure above shows that for the 10 bar pressure, rate can be both 50 Sm3/d and 400 Sm3/d.

Probably the well head rate will be stable only at the separator pressure of 10 bar. It will be

difficult to start well, with separator pressure 10 bar

9.4.2 Effect of pipe diameter

Larger pipe diameter means less flow velocity. For one phase flow, this will always reduce the

flow resistance and provide less pressure drop. For multi-phase flow, the low velocity means that

the gas bubbles rise through the liquid, so that the average density approaches the density of the

liquid. Therefore, in multi-phase flow, large diameter may imply higher pressure gradient. Figure

9.14 shows the pressure characteristics for different rates and diameters.

Figure 9.14 The effect of pipe diameter

In gas wells, it is quite common to have larger pipe diameter in the upper part of the well, where

the velocity will be the highest. Old gas wells may sometimes be refurbished with smaller

diameter (velocity string) to prevent the accumulation of fluid.

9.4.3 Impact of the pressure

When the pressure drops, the gas releases and expands. Falling pressure will provide greater

fraction of gas, lighter fluid mixture and greater velocity. Reduced pressure will reduce the static

pressure loss contribution. However, the reduced pressure also means greater flow rate and

greater velocity, which will increase the wall friction contribution. We may therefore expect an

optimum pressure (providing least pressure gradient), for a given rate and diameter

9.4.4 Impact of gas / oil ratio (GOR)

All reservoir fluids have their natural gas / oil ratio. Sometimes we inject gas into the production

pipe, to reduce the average density of the mixture, doing that we usually increase GOR. Figure

9.15 illustrates the tubing head pressure characteristics as a function of gas / oil ratio.

Figure 9.15 Well head pressure as a function of gas / oil ratio

The figure shows that under given conditions, the pressure will reach a maximum gas / oil ratio:

2500 Sm3/Sm3. With oil production: 200 Sm3 / d and natural gas / oil ratio: 200 Sm3/Sm3. Gas

injection required will be (2500 - 200) * 200 = 4.5.105 Sm3 / d.

9.5 Flow regimes

Flow slippage will depend on the flow conditions: In a flow with, for example, 5% gas and

liquid, bubbles will rise. In a flow with 95% gas and 5% liquid, droplets will sink relative to the

gas velocity. To estimate rising or sinking velocity, we need to know wheter gas or liquid is

continuous.

Figures 9.16 and 9.17 below illustrates flow regimes. A main classification principle is wheter

liquid or gas flow is the larger. The relationship: v

sg

= v

sl

has been drawn into

both figure 9.17 and 9-17,, and we see that both regime maps relate to this.

Figure 9.16 Regime Map for horizontal gas flow, Duns & Ros / /

Regime map shown in Figure 9.16 is based on measurements. Expressing the map in terms of

dimensionless variables, surface tension and liquid density variations are in principle included

Figure 9.17 Regime Map for vertical two phase flow, atmospheric pressure

Regime map shown in Figure 9.17 is based on simple criteria related to the liquid fraction,

densities and velocity. The criteria are linked together by Kabir & Hasan / 1990 /.

Regimes based models should provide better connection to flow mechanisms. However it is not

always so that regime based models offer better prediction. Theses at this institute have

shown that, for example, Kabir & Hasan model applied to the Ekofisk data, prediction of

pressure drop less accurately than a homogenous flow model neglecting regime

transitions.

9.5 References

1943 Dumitrescu, DT: "Strmung an einer Luftblase in senkrecthen Rohr"

Z. angew. Math. Mech., 1943, vol. 23, no. 3, pp 139-149

1950 Davis, R.M., Taylor, G.I.:

"The Mechanics of Large Bubbles Rising Trough

Extended Liquids and Through Liquids in tubes "

Proc. Royal Soc., London, vol. 200 series A, 1950, pp 375-390.

1955 Hinze, J.O.:

"Fundamentals of the Hydro Dynamic Mechanisms of

Splitting in Dispersion Processes ",

AICHE J. (Vol 1, No. 3), 1995, pp 289-295

1960 Harmathy, T.Z.:

"Velocity of Large Drops and Bubbles in Media

Of Infinite or Restricted Extend "

AICHE, no. 6, p. 281, 1960.

1962 Nicklin, DJ, Wilkes, JO, Davidson, JF: "Two Phase Flow in Vertical tubes"

Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs. Vol 40, 1962, pp 61-68.

1965 Zuber, N. & Finlay, J.:

"Average volumetric concentration in two-phase flow systems"

Trans ASME, J. Heat Transfer. C87, 453-468

1966 Zukoski, EE: "Influence of viscosity, surface tension and inclination

Wednesday angle motion of long bubbles in closed tubes "

Journet. of Fluid Mechanics 1996, vol. 25, p. 4, pp 821-837.

1974 Ashford, FE: "An Evaluation of Critical Multi-Phase Flow Performance

Through Well Head Chokers "

JPT, Aug. 1974, p. 843.

1976 Taitel, Y., Dukla, A.E. : "A Model for predicting Flow Regime Transitions

in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow "

AICHE Journet., Vol 22, No. 1, Jan. 1976, pp 47-55.

1976 Campbell, JM: Gas Conditioning and Processing. (Vol 1)

Campbell Petroleum Series, 121 Collier Drive, Norman, OK

1977 Kubi, J., Gardner, GC: "Drop sizes and Drop Dispersion in

Straight Horizontal tubes and Helical Coil "

Chem.Engr.Sci., Vol 32, 1977, pp 195-202.

1978 Karabelas, A.J. "Droplets Size Spectra Generated in turbulent Pipe

Flow-Dilute of Liquid / Liquid Dispersions "

AICHE Journal, Vol 24, No. 2, March 1978, p 170

1986 Asheim, H.:

"MONA, An Accurate Two-Phase Well Flow Model Based on Phase Slip Page"

SPE Production Engineering, May 1986, pp 221-230

1990 Kabir, C.S. and Hasan, A.R.:

"Performance of two-phase gas / liquid flow model in vertical wells"

J. of Petroleum Sci. and Engr, 4, 1990, 273

1991 Basniev, K.S. & Many others:

"Thermal Dynamic model for the provision of the flow capacity of gas wells" (in Russian)

Gasprom 1991

- KNC 1101 Chemical Engineering Laboratory I Experiment Manual (1)Uploaded byIzzatiHazwani
- Methods for VortexUploaded byQuike Flores Suárez
- 08 Heat 4e Chap08 Internal Forced ConvectionUploaded byGun Dek
- Turbulence y+Uploaded bykakadeabhi
- Fluids Case Study on Head LossUploaded byJosh Jacoboski
- BlasiusEquations.pdfUploaded byyavercan
- Expt 7. Reynolds NumberUploaded byPiyush Bhandari
- DDA Book 10 Numerical ModelsUploaded byErick Cruz
- Full Text 2Uploaded byЗоран Хајдуковић
- Disk in Flight EulerUploaded byapoorvs75
- Tips OlgaUploaded byArlen Zapata
- Sep_2015_Gas-Liquid-Separators-Sizing-Parameter-MM083015.pdfUploaded byvenkatesh801
- 31-ValleeUploaded byramihey
- Flow condensation in parallel micro-channels – Part 1: Experimental results and assessment of pressure drop correlationsUploaded bymustafa10ramzi
- back blasüus cu.pdfUploaded byvtn_sever
- Fine Marine Innovsail_2010Uploaded byPavel Remmy
- Seyed Mostafa Ghiaasiaan -Convective Heat and Mass Transfer-Cambridge University Press (2011).pdfUploaded byNgọc Vi Cao
- Table of ContentsUploaded byWageeh El-Askary
- Env Final ModelingUploaded byRahul Deka
- Chapter 01Uploaded byStandartuye
- 150Uploaded byBashar Al Zoobaidi
- Aerodynamic-Fundamentals1.pdfUploaded byAtilio Pedro Silva
- flow in pipe bab 19...Uploaded byPutra
- 10.1021%2Fes0605927Uploaded byHotib Perwira
- AE 233 (Chapter 3) Fluid Mechanics for Chemical EngineeringUploaded bytsegay
- WJUploaded byNrl Syafini
- Steady-state Laser Cutting ModelingUploaded byXuan Phuong Huynh
- ME403 - Lec10.pdfUploaded byahgz96
- Quiz Rce 309Uploaded byabhi
- 30761Uploaded byJeff Anderson Collins

- Rivet: The Effect of Surface Modification on Tribological PerformancesUploaded byAshrafNamamuTeratas
- Rivet: The Effect of Surface Modification on Tribological PerformancesUploaded byAshrafNamamuTeratas
- CNG_introUploaded byAshrafNamamuTeratas
- CNG_introUploaded byAshrafNamamuTeratas
- AbstractUploaded byAshrafNamamuTeratas
- exp 3 weirsUploaded byAshrafNamamuTeratas
- Lab Report Marking Scheme KMEM2172Uploaded byAshrafNamamuTeratas
- 1-s2.0-S0167779908001121-mainUploaded byAshrafNamamuTeratas
- exp 5 surface roughnessUploaded byAshrafNamamuTeratas
- Complete Report Control2Uploaded byAshrafNamamuTeratas

- Beam Design 3 (Unrestrained Beam)Uploaded byMike Matshona
- Ronald W. Armstrong and Wayne L. Elban- From Intermolecular Shearing to Composite Behavioral Predictions for Initiation of Energetic MaterialsUploaded byPomaxx
- [Bernoulli Principle K-4]Principles of FlightUploaded bybb06412000
- Eulerian Model Fluent TutorialUploaded bybjhamnani
- Froude ScalingUploaded bySai Nithin Krishna J
- IS 1893 - TANKS & WATER RETAININGUploaded bySwagat Mohapatra
- 02-01Uploaded byAlejandro Epuyao
- Assignment 16 the Ideal GasUploaded bybob jizzle
- Cracker Oven Reducing Gas CostsUploaded byandresfel47
- Solar CollectorUploaded byKee-Hyeon Cho
- Huang 2010Uploaded byYahia Raad Al-Ani
- Cow Dung Power GenerationUploaded byKailas Nimbalkar
- Ideal CstrUploaded byBleeding Dirk
- Ed Herba Class LectureUploaded byNagaraj Ramachandrappa
- Impact of Jets on fluid sectionsUploaded byGlenPalmer
- 20060519Uploaded byMusa Mohammad
- IsentropicUploaded byBane Barrion
- Strength of Materials (9024).pdfUploaded byzaman
- Development of a Condenser for Marine Florae Pyrolysis ReactorUploaded byRichard Jess Chan
- Pole Foundation Excel SheetsUploaded bycoolkaisy
- Fib Bulletin 65 ContentsUploaded byMarko Ćećez
- C9_Part3_V2Uploaded byEmin Çelik
- A Numerical Investigation of a Diffuser Onboard a 1-8th Scale on-road Racing CarUploaded byNicolas Martin
- Evaporation vs BoilingUploaded byJagdeep Sekhon
- DscUploaded byThanh Nguyên
- IntroTHT 2e Chapter1Uploaded bycse0909
- Fral FD360 and FD520 Spec SheetUploaded bymoisturecarevids
- Chilled Water Terminal Systems TARNEUploaded byfarshan296015
- Wind Pressure Distribution on Canopies Attached to Tall BuildingsUploaded byNgoc Ba Nguyen
- Fluid MechanicsUploaded byMohammad Hosein Khanesaz