You are on page 1of 11

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 26182
An Evaluation of Recent "Mechanistic" Models of Multiphase Flow
for Predicting Pressure Drops in Oil and Gas Wells
J.K. Puckne,lI, J.N.E. Mason, and E.G. Vervest, BP Exploration
SPE Members
Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum En9ineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore European Conference held in Aberdeen, 7-10 September 1993.
This paper was seillcted for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The matenal, as presented: does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are to pubitcatlon review by EditOrial of the Society
of Petroleum Engine,ers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. illustratIOns may not be copied. The abstract should contam conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3838, U.S.A. Telex 163245 SPEUT.
ABSTRACT
The reliable of tubing pressure drops in oil and gas
wells is important for the most cost effective design of well
completions. Noneofthetraditional multiphase flowcorrelations
works well across the full range of conditions encountered in oil
and gas fields. Consequently, two of the recently published
"mechanistic" models, one by Ansari, the other by Hasan &
Kabir, were The performance of these methods was
compared against traditional correlations in three ways:
1) Thepredictedagainst measuredpressuredrops werecompared
for stable flow conditions using 246 data sets collected from
8 producing fields, including a gas and gas-condensate field.
None of these data were available to the developers of any of
the multiphase flow models evaluated.
2) Suitable methods should reliably predict the "lift curve
minima". This determines when a well may need to be
"kicked off', artificially lifted or recompleted.
3) The multiphase flow model must not contain discontinuities
or be subject to convergence problems.
No single traditional correlation method gives good results in
both oil and gas wells. In fact, most of the traditional methods
which workreasonablyin oil wells give very poor predictions for
gas wells.
Hasan & Kabir's mechanistic method was generally found to be
no better than the traditional correlation methods. However, the
Ansari mechanistic model gave consistently reasonable
performance. Although it did not give the most accurate results
in every field, it gave reasonable results across the complete
References at end of paper
range of fields studied. The Ansari method also gives a reliable
prediction of the lift curve minima. Areas in which it needs
improvement were identified.
By comparison the best of the traditional methods, the Hagedorn
& Brown correlation, gave goodresults for stableflowconditions
in oil wells, but it does not correctlypredict the lift curve minima
Afieldexample shows howthis canleadtoerroneousconclusions.
INTRODUCTION
Background
Flow up the tubing in oil and gas wells is usually multiphase.
Calculation of pressure drops in upward multiphase flow is not
simple, due to the slippage of gas past liquid, along with the
changing temperature and pressure conditions. Nevertheless,
PetroleumEngineers need to predict pressure drops inoil andgas
wells for the following reasons:
I) Toconstruct"liftcurves", whichare tablesorplots offlowrate
versus bottom hole pressure, used to predict well flowrates.
2) To select the appropriate tubing size. Ifthe tubing diameter is
too large, the well acts as a gas-liquid separator and a flow
conduit, and the excessive slippage results in needlessly high
bottom hole pressures. However, tubing which is too small
will cause excessive frictional pressure drops.
3) Todesignartificial lift completionssuchas electricsubmersible
pumps, jet pumps or gas lift
Several multiphase flow correlations are available for predicting
tubing pressure drops. The most widely used are the methods of
109
2
AN EVALUATION OF RECENT "MECHANISTIC" MULTIPHASE FLOW
MODELS FOR PREDICTING PRESSURE DROPS INOIL AND GAS WELLS SPE26682
Aziz et al),2, Beggs & Brm
3
, Duns & Ros4, Hagedorn &
BrownS and Orkiszewski
6
. Although each of these gives good
results under someconditions, such as for stableflowinoil wells,
none ofthemareaccurateright across therangeofflowrate, GOR
and water cut conditions found in oil and gas wells.
The most recent of the above correlations was publishedin 1975.
Attempts to improve on them have been made recently, in the
publicationofa series of"mechanistic" multiphase flow models.
"Mechanistic" is a somewhat misleading term, since the earlier
methods were, to a degree, based on the mechanisms involved in
multiphase flow. For example the more sophisticated of the
traditional models, such as Duns & Ros, consider the "flow
regime" inthetubing, anduse different pressure dropcalculations
according to the flow regime. However, the newer methods go
muchfurther ineliminatingempirical relationships. Inparticular,
the boundaries of the different flow regimes are dermed using
mechanistic considerations, following the pioneering work of
Taitel, Dukler and Bamea7.
Models tested
Details of a number of mechanistic models have been
published
8
-
14
. Two of these models, one by Ansari
8
and the
other by Hasan & Kabir
lO
,l1,12, are evaluated in this paper.
These were chosen because:
I) All the theory and equations usedin these models havebeen
published.
2) The Fortran code for the Ansari method was available from
the Tulsa University Fluid Flow Project
3) Hasan & Kabir presented the equations for their model in a
form which could be readily translated into computer code.
Unfortunately, several equations in Hasan & Kabir's papers
contained typographical errors. Through discussions with Prof.
A.R. Hasan, our best efforts were made to ensure that the method
was coded as the authors intended.
Criteria for evaluation
The objective of this work was to compare the Ansari and Hasan
& Kabir methods against the traditional multiphase flow
correlations. The following performance measures were used,
based on the practical application of these models:
1) When predicted pressure drops are compared with
measurements made in oil and gas fields, the multiphase
model should give accurate results across the full range of
producing conditions.
2) In combination with other information, the method should
accurately predict when a well will cease to flow stably. In
some cases, the requirements for "kicking off', adding
artificial lift or recompleting with smaller tubing later in the
well's life can be very important
3) The method should not contain any discontinuities which
result in sudden changes in pressure as a result of small
changes in flowrate or some other parameter.
4) The model should not be prone to numerical c:onvergence
problems.
The Ansari and Hasan & Kabir methods were evaluated using
each of these criteria, as described in the following sections.
COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED
BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURES
In general, the oil flowrate, water cut, GOR and pressure at the
wellheadarereadilyavailable, along with a well deviationsurvey
andcompletiondiagram. Inaddition, abottomholepressuremust
be obtained to test a multiphase flow correlation. These are
measured during well tests, usually just prior to a pressure build
up, andalsoduringproductionlogging. Bothsourcesofdatawere
used in this study.
246measurementsofbottomholeflowing pressure
togetherwiththerequiredancillarydata, from8producing fields.
Virtually all the data were from deviated wells with tubing of
between 3 1{2" and 7" and so the findings are particularly
applicable toNorth Seawells. Results ofthe evaluation are given
in Tables 1 to 9, which also give a summary of the producing
conditionsineach field. Noneofthesemeasurementswas available
during the development of any of the multiphase models
considered, so their use represents a completelyinde]pendent test
Efforts were made to ensure that the data were as accurate as
possible. Inparticular, onlystablewell conditions wereevaluated.
As noted later, this has implications for the type of data obtained.
To predict PVT properties in oilfields, "black oil" correlations
were used. The correlation was chosen to give the most accurate
predictions of known PVT properties, such as the bubble point.
To provide additional accuracy, the correlations were often
"tuned" toPVTproperties measuredinlaboratory studies. For the
gas and gas condensate fields, PVT data were deJived from a
compositional, equation of state, model. The equation of state
used was selected by its accuracy in predicting pvr properties.
In all cases, the multiphase methods were used to calculate
bottom hole pressures from wellhead pressures. Although this
giveslarger errors than calculations in thereverse direction, most
engineeringcalculations areactually performedin the downward
direction because wellhead pressures are more easily measured
than bottom hole pressures.
The flowing temperatures in the tubing were specified by linear
interpolation between wellhead and bottom hole conditions.
More sophisticated methods were not used as past experience
suggests that it does not materially increase the ac(;uracy of the
pressure drops.
Most of the multiphase methods tested were based on Fortran
codes supplied by the Tulsa University Fluid Flow Project The
methods were as originally published, except for Hagedorn &
Brown, which was modified as described in 15. The
"Aziz" correlationreferred to in theTables is the original model1
110
SPE26682 J.K. PUCKNELL, J.N.E. MASON AND E.G. VERVEST 3
using the same correlation as Duns & Ros in mist flow. The
"Aziz, o v i ~ r & Fogarasi" method is identical except for using
Govier & Fogarasi's equations
2
in mist flow.
To evaluate the accuracy of each multiphase flow model, the
percentage error was defined as follows:
% error = .c..ft!::dicted pressure drop - Measured pressure drop) x 100
Measured Pressure Drop
Tables 1to 9 report the mean value and standarddeviation of this
error, and in addition the mean of the absolute values ofthe error.
Some of the ,errors are due to the multiphase models, but part of
the errors will alsobe due to inaccuracy in the measured flowrate,
GOR, water cut, bottom hole pressure etc.
Discussion pf the results
The best mulltiphase model results for each field are highlighted
inTables 1t09. No model gives thebest results for all fields. The
variability in performance can beextreme. For example, Duns &
Ros gives goodresults in oilfield B with absolute errors of under
3%, however the same methodgives anerror of 119%in gasfield
A.
The results support the accepted practice of determining which
correlation gives the most accurate predictions of bottom hole
pressure in each field. That method is then used to predict future
field performance. The disadvantages of this approach are:
1) Field conditions change with time. In particular, water cuts
rise, wellhead pressures fall, well rates drop and GOR' s may
increase. The multiphase flow method which gives good
results illi the early life of a field may give inaccurate results
later on.
2) Thecritical time tohaveaccuratepredictions is whendeciding
on a field development scheme, before any production wells
are drilled. At this stage, there are very few data to check
which multiphase flow method gives the best results.
Therefore, a multiphase flow prediction which works well over
a very wide range of conditions is desirable.
The 246 data sets were split into oil and gas wells, as shown on
Table 1. This was done because many methods gave reasonable
results in oil wells but gave very poor results in gas wells. For the
oil wells tested, Orkiszewski gives the lowest average error.
However, as Figure 1 shows, Hagedorn and Brown performs
better as it has a low absolute error and the lowest standard
deviation. For these gas wells, the Gray method outperforms all
other approaches, as shown on Figure 2. Gray's method
16
is a
correlation designedfor gas wells. For these oil wells, the Ansari
method would be second choice after Hagedorn and Brown, and
possibly also the second choice for the gas wells. Hasan &
Kabir's performance in these oil wells is no better than the
traditional c:orrelations, but in the gas wells tested it is more
accurate than most of the older methods.
111
The averages in Table 1 include both good and bad results. The
statistics can be misleading since it is usually more important to
be sure that the error is within certain limits than to use a method
which may give some very good and some quite poor results. To
clarify this, the models were ranked according to the %ofresults
within certain error limits. Table 10 and Figure 3 show this
ranking, which indicates that three methods Ansari, Duns & Ros
and Aziz, Govier & Fogarasi, give good results (within +/- 6%)
in the majority of oil wells (62%). For the gas wells, plotted on
Figure 4, both the Ansari and Gray methods give the best results.
The percentage of good predictions (within 6%) was only 35%.
The accuracyofgas well predictions is generallypoorer, because
the pressure drops are much lower. The actual psi error in the
bottom hole pressure is somewhat smaller than these results
imply.
The only methodthat gave reasonable results in both oil and gas
wells is the Ansari method.
Table 11 analyses the errors according to the water cut in the data
sets. The performance of multiphase flow predictions does not
decrease in any significant way as water cut rises. This is despite
the fact that none of the methods accounts for slippage between
oil and water, and emulsion formation is ignored
Gas oil ratio has a more profound effect on accuracy. In general,
all methods showa decreasein accuracy above 1000scf/stb. This
may be because at lower GOR's, much of the well is in single
phase flowandprovidedthatPVTproperties arecorrect, pressure
drops insinglephase flowshouldbepredictedwithgoodaccuracy.
Neither mechanistic model showed any loss of accuracy when
compared with other methods at a particular water cut or gas oil
ratio.
Predicting when a well dies
Tables 1 to 9 and Figures 1 and 2 show that the Hagedorn &
Brown method gives very good results in many cases, which is
consistent with its widespread use. However, as shown on Figure
5, the minimum in the Hagedorn & Brown lift curve (at least in
the larger tubing sizes considered here) occurs at a much lower
flowrate than predicted by other widely used methods. The
original Hagedorn & Brown correlation only has a minimum
because it has been modified to use the Griffith correlation in
bubble flow
l5
.
The minimum in a lift curve occurs when the reduction in
hydrostatic head caused by reduced slippage balances with the
increase in frictional pressure drop. The location ofthe minimum
determines when a well will cease production. The assumption
that a well will not flow at rates below the lift curve minimum is
a valid "rule of thumb", but is only occasionally accurate.
Figure 6 shows a well in stable flow. The stable flowrate occurs
where the lift curve intersects the inflow performance curve. In
the Figure 6 example, the bottom hole flowing pressure is above
the bubble point pressure, so the inflow performance curve is
4
AN EVALUATION OF RECENT "MECHANISTIC" MULTIPHASE FLOW
MODELS FOR PREDICTING PRESSURE DROPS IN OIL AND GAS WELLS SPE26682
DISCONTINUITIES AND CONVERGENCEPROBLEMS
Hagedorn & Brown Ansari
This result is more qualitative than quantitative, but it does show
a reason why a mechanistic method such as Ansari ils preferred.
Well Xprovides ararecomparisonbetweenAnsari andHagedorn
and Brown for flowrates around the minimum. Both methods
gavegoodresults in the fIeld whenpredictingpressuresmeasured
at higher rates.
2303
0.51
1079
630
1900
1359
0.29
1159
60
Gas lift at 2.2 MMscfld
Predicted bottom hole pressure (psia)
Predicted flowrate increase (bpd)
Actualflowrate increase (bpd)
An ideal multiphase flow model would predict pressures which
changed smoothly when some other variable, such as flowrate,
was changed. In reality, sudden changes in pressures are often
predicted across flow regime boundaries or where the model
changes from one set of equations to another. For example,
Orkiszewski provided a set of equations for continuous oil flow
and another set when water was the continuous phase. The
change from one set of equations to another is commonly fIxed
at a water cut of between 50% and 70%. This causes a pressure
discontinuity in larger tubing sizes.
Discontinuities and other irregular behaviour are undesirable
since:
Naturalflow
Predicted bottom hole pressure (psia)
Productivity index estimated (bpd/psi)
Well Xwas reluctant to flow and a decision onwhether to install
gas lift was required. Atest rate of640 bpd was obtained, which
is lowfor the4 1/2" tubingcompletion. Basedonthe flowrate and
wellheadpressure, thebottomholeflowingpressurewas predicted,
and from this the productivity index. Using this productivity
index, the effect of gas lift was predicted. As shown below,
Ansari predicted a much larger increase in production rate than
Hagedorn & Brown, but even this was less than what the well
actually produced. A larger increase was predicted by Ansari
because it correctly predicted that prior to gas lift, the well was
flowing at less than the lift curve minimum, as shown on Figure
12.
Field example
However, more confIdence can be placed in mechanistic models
than in empirical correlations such as Hagedorn & Brown. A
consideration of theory, rather than analysis of test data, guided
the workers who constructed the Ansari method. For this reason,
ifitgives goodresults where test data is available, it is reasonable
to assume that the theory is sound and that it will give reliable
results at low fluid velocities where there is no measured data.
Correlations derived empirically are only reliable within the
range of data on which they are based.
1) As shown on Figure 7, high productivity index wells will not
flow in this region, sono measuredpressures canbe obtained.
2) Where wells do flow at rates below the minimum, flow is
often unstable. The use of bottom hole pressure recordings,
such as those shown in Figure 9, cannot be used to check the
pressures predicted by multiphase flow correlations.
Althoughthe locationofthelift curve minimumandthepressures
at lower rates can be very important, comparisons of actual and
predictedpressure drops in this region arerarely possible for two
reasons:
1) Awell with a high productivity index, as shown in Figure 7,
will cease to flow at a flowrate just below the lift curve
minimum.
2) Figure 8 shows a well with moderate productivity index
which will flow at rates below the lift curve minimum. If the
reservoir pressure is greater than the hydrostatic pressure of
the liquid column plus the wellheadpressure, some flow will
always occur but may not be stable. Figure 9 shows a fIeld
example ofbottom hole flowing pressures recorded in such a
well. Since the lift curve and PI line intersect at a shallow
angle, a stable flowrate cannot be maintained.
3) If the reservoir pressure is very high and the productivity
index is very low, as shown in Figure 10, the angle of
intersection is much larger and stable flow will occur.
4) Figure 11 shows a well that flows at the point of intersection
to the right of the lift curve minimum. However, some means
of "kicking the well off' may be required, such as gas lifting
with coiledtubing. Theintersection tothe left ofthe minimum
is 'metastable', and will not allow stable flow.
As reservoir pressure falls or the water cut rises, four situations
can arise:
accurately described by a straight line fIxed by the reservoir
pressure and the formation's productivity index.
The location of the lift curve minimum predicted by Ansari (and
indeed Hasan &Kabir) compares favourably with Duns &Ros,
as shown on Figure 5. The Orkiszewski method predicts the
minimum to occur at a slightly lower rate. Hagedorn &Brown
is considered to be very unreliable at lower flow rates, yet good
at higher rates.
1) They often have no physical basis.
2) They can cause convergence problems when thlt: lift curves
are used in a reservoir simulator.
3) Theycan giveincorrectconclusions whencomparingdifferent
development or completion options, which involve similar
bottom hole flowing pressures.
112
SPE26682 J.K. PUCKNELL, J.N.E. MASON AND E.G. VERVEST 5
Figure 13 shows a case in which Hasan & Kabir predicted a
double minimum, which is considered improbable. Ansati
performedsomewhatbetteralthough, asFigure 14shows, smooth
lift curves are not always obtained. In general Ansari performs as
well as many of the traditional methods in producing "smooth"
lift curves, Illevertheless, there is scope for improvement.
To calculate the pressure drop in multiphase flow, various
equations r ~ solved iteratively and in some cases, convergence
on the correct answer is not achieved. When testing against the
dataset usedto construct Tables 1to 9, no convergence problems
were encountered with either of the mechanistic models tested.
Somedatasets for thegas condensate wells were omittedbecause
most of the models failed to converge. The problems arose
because the equation of state model predicted that pure gas
changed to pure condensate in the supercritical region, in an
erratic manl1ler across small pressure variations.
Whenexamininglarger datasets, convergenceproblems occurred
with the Ansari method. These appeared no more common than
similar problems with many of the traditional methods such as
theOrkiszewski, Duns & Ros.and Aziz methods. However, work
is needed to eliminate them all together. Few problems of this
nature occurred with the Hasan & Kabir model.
FURTHER STUDY OF THE ANSARI METHOD
As the AnsaJi method appeared to hold most promise, addi tional
investigations were performed.
Therewas a GOncern that the theory used within the Ansari model
was unsouml when applied to deviated weIls. Oilfield F was
selectedfor special examinationas multiphaseconditions existed
down to the bottom of the wells in this field due to the high
GOR' s. Contrary to expectations, Table 7 shows that the Ansari
method actually gave better results in the high angle wells.
To establish the conditions at which Ansari performed poorly,
only data sets giving more than +/-6% error were considered.
Smaller errors could easily be due to measurement errors in
flowrate, PVT properties, et:e.
Clear trends were difficult to find. An increasing error with an
increase in GORwas observed, but the same trendis seen inother
methods, as shown in Table 12. Some semblanceofa pattern was
found by plotting liquid velocity against gas velocity. As shown
byFigure 15, Ansari appears to predict pressuredrops lower than
actual (negative errors) at the lower liquid and gas velocities at
the bottom I(:ft of the graph. This is also the region most prone to
pressure drop predictions of over 20% more than measured.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Despite the development of new mechanistic models, no
single method gives accurate predictions of bottom hole
flowing pressures in all fields.
2) Traditional methods ofpredictingpressure drops, such as the
Duns & Ros method, which give goodresults in oil wells can
give very poor results in gas wells. The new mechanistic
models are different in that they give reasonable results in
both oil and gas wells.
3) Overall the Ansari mechanistic method gives the best results
of all the methods evaluated, both new and old. 62% of the
pressure drops in oil wells were predicted with errors ofless
than +/-6%. In gas wells, 68% of the pressure drops were
calculated to within+/-15%. These conclusions were derived
from deviated wells with larger tubing sizes, typical ofNorth
Sea wells.
4) To predict when a well will "die" or flow in an unstable
fashion, the minimum in the lift curve must be accurately
predicted. This is difficult as stablebottom hole pressures are
rarely measured at rates below the minimum. Nevertheless,
the Ansari method appears to predict the correct minimum
point location. Hagedorn & Brown, one of the traditional
methods, should therefore only be used with great caution as
it gives good results under stable flowing conditions, but
wrongly predicts the location of this minimum.
5) Ansari and Hasan & Kabir behave no better than many of the
traditional methods in predicting erroneous discontinuities.
6) Reliable convergence is desirable in any multiphase flow
model. Ansari performedonlyas well as theexistingmethods,
but Hasan & Kabir performed rather better.
7) The Ansari model shows promise, but further development is
needed. Large errors were found at some conditions, in
particular when both liquid and gas velocities were in the
moderate to low range. Use of a larger dataset and the
investigationoferroras afunctionofanumberofdimensionless
groups may be useful. Additional work is also needed to
ensure "smooth" lift curves and to minimize convergence
problems.
113
6
AN EVALUATIONOF RECENT "MECHANISTIC" MULTIPHASE FLOW
MODELS FOR PREDICTING PRESSURE DROPS INOIL AND GAS WELLS SPE26682
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study presented here is the culmination of a great deal of
workbypastandpresent employees ofBP, including: S. Cooper,
G. Elliot, C. Selmer, N. Whitehead, G. Makin, P. Bainbridge, P.
Newberry, C. Elliot, A. Geddes, P. Jenkins, R. Zamarripa, G.
Stewart, R. Lee, and I. Mackley.
REFERENCES
1) Aziz, K., Govier, G.W. & Fogarasi, M.:''Pressure drop in
wells producing oil and gas", J. Can.Pet.Tech. (July-Sept
1972). 38-48.
2) Govier, G.W. & Fogarasi, M.: "Pressure drop in wells
producing gas and condensate", J.Can.Pel.Tech. (Oct-Dec
1975),28-41.
3) Beggs. H.D. & Brill, J.P.: "A study of two-phase flow in
inclined pipes", JPT (May 1973),607-617.
4) Duns, H. & Ros. N.CJ.: "Vertical flow of gas and liquid
mixtures in wells". Proc. of the Sixth World Petroleum
Congress, Vol 10 (1963), Section 2, Paper 22. PD6. 451-
465.
5) Hagedorn, A.R. & Brown, K.E.:"Experimentai study of
pressure gradients occurring during continuous two-phase
flowinsmall diameter vertical conduits", JPT(April 1965).
475-484.
6) Orkiszewski, J.:"Predicting two-phase pressure drops in
vertical pipe", JPT (June 1967),829-838.
7) Taitel, Y., Dukler. A.E. & Bamea, D.:''Modeling flow
pattern transitions for steady upward gas-liquid flow in
vertical tubes", AIChE J.(1980) 26, 345-354.
8) Ansari. A.M. Sylvester,N.D. Shoham.O. & Brill,J.P.:"A
comprehensive mechanistic model for upward two-phase
flow in wellbores", paper SPE 20630 presentedat the 1990
SPE Conference. New Orleans. September 23-26.
9) de A.Barbuto, F.A. & Filho. E.C.: "Performance of
mechanistic modelsappliedtomultiphaseflowintheCampos
Basin's Wells", Multiphase Flow - Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference, Ed. C.P.Fairhurst. Nice, 1989.
363-380.
10) Hasan,A.R. & Kabir.C.S.:"A study of multiphase flow
behaviourinvertical oil wells: Part 1-Theoretical treatment".
paper SPE 15138 presented at the 56th CaliforniaRegional
SPE Meeting. Oakland. April 2-4, 1986.
11) Hasan,A.R. & Kabir,C.S.:"Predicting multiphase flow
behaviour in a deviated well", paper SPE 15449 presented
at the 1986 SPE Conference, New Orleans, October 5-8.
12) Hasan,A.R. & Kabir,C.S.:"Performance of two-phase gasl
liquid flow model in vertical wells", Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, (1990) 4, 273-289.
13) O1;on, P.M, Ferschneider, G. & Chwetzoff, A.:"A new
multiphase flow model predicts pressure and temperature
profiles in wells", paper SPE 16535 presented at Offshore
Europe 1987, Aberdeen, September 8-11.
14) Stoisits, R.F.:"Mechanistic model for multi-phase flow
pressure loss calculation in wells", Multiphase Flow -
Proceedings of the 4th International Confc,rence, Ed.
C.P.Fairhurst, Nice, 1989.
15) Brown. K.E.:"The Technology of Artificial Lift" Volume
1.1977.
16) API Manual 14BM for "API 14B. Subsurface, controlled
subsurface safety valve sizing computer program". Second
Edition. January 1978.
114
SPE26682 J.K. PUCKNELL, IN.E. MASON AND E.G. VERVEST 7
IAmJil IADLIU
COMPARISONS OF ACfUA1. AND PREPIClIDJ
RFSU! IS FOR on FIElJ) B
BOTIOMHOLE PRESSURE
Numba' of points: 74
R08llits for all (212) 011 wells:
700scfJbbl
Oil/c:ondalsale gravity: 0.83
Method Average Average SlaDdud
Gugravity: 0.92
DepIbs (vertiCIl): 10000ft
Fzror Absolute Deviation
Wellhead pressures: 400 to 2687 psia
(%) Error(%)
Tubing size: 7"
Wal.a'cul: 0-1.7%
OIkiszewski 0.13 11.87 19.42 FIowrate I'8I1llO: 2900 - 37000 bpd Qiquid)
k:iz -8.63 14.01 18.38
k:iz. Govier and Fogussi 2.13 8.10 13.27
No._lIft
Be:88s & Brill 11.67 13.47 18.19
Duns&Ros 2.10 8.63 14.15
Mdhod Average Avenge Stsndud
Hllgedorn & Brown -4.02 7.60 U2
Error Absolute Deviation
Ha,san & Kabir -3.70 13.64 20.38
(%) Error (%)
Aa,sari 251 7.62 11.76
0.99 3.85 4.98
AzIz -7.40 8.61 9.08
R.,.ults for all (34) gas aDd aas condensate wells:
AzIz, Govi.. and Foguasi -us 3.00 3.72
Bqgs & Brill 3.33 4.91 5.56
Mllthod Average Average SlaDdud Duns & Ros -0.39 :U2 3.50
Fzror Absolute Deviation Hagedorn & Brown -4.83 5.6S 4.63
(%) Error(9O)
Hasan & Kabir -3.20 6.76 8.71
Ansari 1.87 3.91 4.64
OIldszewski 342.96 323.43 225.93
A2iz 52.33 54.25 45.99

A2iz. Govier and Fogussi 30.92 41.02 56.27
RESULTS FOR OILFIELD C
Be88s&Brill 30.21 31.13 18.32
D1Jns& Ros 101.46 10358 84.21
Number of points: 8
Hagedorn & Brown 15.32 20.65 20.48
Gas...i1 ratio: 360 scflbbl
Hasan & Kabir -19.12 20.02 14.71
OiVcondensate gravity: 0.84
An,sari 14.85 17.68 23.68 Gas gravity: 1.29
Guy 3.84 11.22 14.02 Depths (vertiCIl): 5200ft
Wellhead pressures: 162 to 309 psia
Tubing size: 27/8"-41/2"
Wal.a'cu!: 0-1.8,325
TABLE 2 Flowrate l'8I1lle: 500 - 6200 bpd Qiquid)
RESULTS FOR OIT.FIEI D A
No lI"sllft
Ntmber of datasets: 47
Avenge Average Standard
GIS-oil ratio: 3OOscf/bb1
Error Absolute Deviation
OiVcondensate gravity: 0.84
('I Error ('I
GIS gravity: 1.04
Orkiszewski 0.35 9.92 1295
Depths (vertical): 7000ft
Aziz 4.00 10.63 13.52
Wlillhead p_sures: 9410310 psia
Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi 5.17 9.57 1242
Tubing size: 4.5" - 7"
Beggs&BriU 6.23 9.26 11.87
W'llerCUt: 0-73%
Duns&Ros 4.45 9.00 12.20
Flowrate :range: 3800 - 19400 bpd (liquid)
Hagedorn & Brown G.l4 9.84 12.41
Hasan&Kabir 11.19 1234 10.53
N.'gullft Ansari 7.36 10.32 11.85
M,:thod Average Average Standard
Error Absolute Deviation I.AB.lJil
(%) Error(9O)
RFSULTS FOR OII.FlEID P
OJldszewski 2.34 4.12 5.15
A2iz -220 6.09 7.14
Number of points: 5
A2iz. Govier and Fogarasi 2.40 3.84 4.79
Gas...i1ratio: 650 scfJbbl
Beggs & Brill 659 6.82 4.36
OiVcondensste gravity: 0.82
Duns&Ros 1.80 3.61 4.70
Gas gravity: 0.96
Hagedorn & Brown -242 4.22 5.76
Depths (vertical): 11800 ft
Hasan & Kabir 5.51 5.87 5.52
Wellhead pressures: 441 to 810 psia
Ansari 2.05 3.92 4.96
Tubing size: 7"
Watereu!: o. 0.6, 20'1>
Ga.lln
Flowrate range: 6840 - 18500 bpd (liquid)
Muhod Average Average Standard
No pollft
Error Absolute Deviation
Method Average Avenge Standard
(%) Error (%) Error Absolute Deviation
('I Error (%)
Orldszewski 8.68 8.68 3.69
Aziz 250 3.52 3.06 Orkiszewski 3.20 6.18 8.18
Aziz. Govier and Fogarasi 1.10 1.20 1.80 Aziz -2.37 6.67 7.78
Beggs & Brill 6.92 6.92 2.30 Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi -0.02 6.09 7.08
DuIl8&Ros 1.78 1.78 1.28
Beggs & Brill 3.52 6.22 8.36
& Brown 0.18 0.95 1.26
Duns & Ros 0.51 6.58 7.82
H"l8l1&Kabir 5.50 5.50 3.81
Hagedorn & Brown -4.83 8.33 9.54
An,ari 2.20 2.20 0.89
Hasan & Kabir -0.50 5.95 7.07
Ansori 244 6.85 9.34
115
8
AN EVALUATION OF RECENT "MECHANISTIC" MULTIPHASE FLOW
MODELS FOR PREDICTING PRESSURE DROPS INOIL AND GAS WELLS SPE26682
RESULTS FOR OILFIElD E RESULTS FOR GAS FIELD A
Number of points:
Gas-oil ratio:
OiVcondensate gravity:
Gas gravity:
Depths (vertical):
Wellhead pressures:
Tubing size:
Watereu!:
FIowrate range:
19
280 to 5300 scflbbl
0.93 to 0.90
0.71
6000 ft
105 to 1245 psia
3.5"
o
260 - 3600 bpd (liquid)
Number of points:
Condensate-gas ratio:
Water-gas ratio:
OiVcondensate gravity:
Gas gravity:
Depths (vertical):
Wellhead pressures:
Tubing size:
Watercul:
FIowrate range:
29
\.5 bbVMMscf
0.3 bbVMMscf
0.75
0.60
6800-9300 ft
863 - 1941 psia
4" and 4.5"
0-73%
4.07 - 40.7 MMscfld
Nogaslln
Method
Orkiszewski
Aziz
Aziz. Govier and Fogarasi
Beggs & Brill
Duns & Ros
Hagedorn & Brown
Hasan & Kabir
Ansari
Average
Error
(%)
-33.4
-35.0
9.05
18.7
-9.84
-1.89
-24.2
-2.45
Average Standard
Absolute Deviation
Error(%)
35.2 28.9
41.4 29.4
23.0 27.1
28.2 275
21.6 23.8
14.4 16.9
42.5 42.2
23.4 28.8
Method
Orkiszewski
Aziz
Aziz. Govier and Fogarasi
Beggs & Brill
Duns&Ros
Hagedorn & Brown
Hasan & Kabir
Ansari
Gray
Average
Error
(%)
377.8
623
36.9
327
119.3
16.9
-20.7
17.3
4.66
Average Standard
Absolute Deviation
Error(%)
377.8 207.6
62.3 42.3
46.8 58.9
33.7 18.3
119.3 78.7
22.6 21.5
21.5 15.0
19.6 24.9
12.1 14.8
RESill.IS FOR OILFIELD F
RESIn.IS FOR GAS CONDENSATE FIELD E,
Number of datasets: 59
Gas-oil ratio: 600 to 27000 scflbbl (produced GOR)
OiVcondensate gravity: 0.90
Gas gravity: 0.80
Depths (vertical): 8900 ft
Wellhead pressures: 200 to 2400 psia
Tubing size: 3.5" - 7"
Watereut: 0 - 97%
FIowrate range: 200 - 12900 bpd (liquid)
Gas 11ft wells Included
Number of points:
Condensate-gas ratio:
OiVcondensate gravity:
Gas gravity:
Depths (vertical):
Wellhead pressures:
Tubing size:
Watereu!:
FIowrate range:
5
92 to 194 bbVMMscf
0.7
0.6
11400ft
1213 to 4320 psia
3.5"
0%
3.8 to 17.50 MMscf/d
Orkiszewski 6.11 8.03 1/i.43
Aziz -5.25 7.75 7.53
Aziz. Govier and Fogarasi -3.64 7.23 7.98
Beggs & Brill 15.91 16.50 11.12
Duns & Ros 1.75 15.71 17.79
Hagedorn & Brown 6.05 9.51 10.02
Hasan & Kabir -9.72 11.51 9.46
Ansari 1.97 7.5g 11.70
Gray -0.95 5.98 11.02
Lower deviation wells
Method Average Average Standard
Error Absolute Deviation
(%) Error(%)
Orkiszewski 15.66 23.59 24.41
Aziz -14.67 23.19 23.0
Aziz. Govier and Fogarasi 0.10 13.55 16.66
Beggs&BriU 28.98 28.98 18.28
Duns&Ros 8.69 17.89 2\.4
Hagedorn & Brown -5.67 10.27 10.38
Hasan & Kabir -14.16 20.62 20.60
Ansari 4.65 11.55 14.46
High angle wells (nollncluded in previous lable)
Method Average
Error
(%)
Average Standard
Absolute Deviation
ElTOr(%)
Method Average Average Standard
Error Absolute Deviation
(%) Error (%)
Orkiszewski
Aziz
Aziz. Govier and Fogarasi
Beggs &BriU
Duns&Ros
Hagedorn & Brown
Hasan & Kabir
Ansari
-11.44
2.95
11.27
17.08
9.86
-6.14
7.03
4.43
14.25
1206
1284
19.01
1285
11.19
18.52
6.74
11.08
16.04
18.59
3\.84
16.52
1\.50
24.15
8.08
High angle wells have deviations below kick off depth of
between 47 and 57 degrees.
116
SPE26682 J.K. PUCKNELL, J.N.E. MASON AND E.G. VERVEST 9
RANKING OF MULTIPHASE H.QW PREDICTION
MEJJ{ODS
SUMMARYOFPRESSUREDROP PREDICIJONS
AS A FUNCTION OF GOR
011 wells
Method Good Fair Poor
Orkiszewski 48 27 25
Aziz 39 26 35
JWz. Govier & Fogarasi 62 21 17
Beggs & Brill 44 29 27
Duns&Ros 62 19 19
Ha8edorn & Ilrown 49 36 15
Hasan & Kabir 43 28 29
Ansari 62 22 16
C;.sweUs
Method Good Fair Poor
Orkiszewski 0 9 91
Aziz 3 15 82
Aziz, Govier & Fogarasi 21 35 44
Beggs & Brill 12 9 79
Duns&Ros 0 9 91
Hagedorn & Brown 9 32 59
Hasan &Kabir 9 26 65
Ansari 35 33 33
Gray 33 35 33
The above scores show the percentage of predictions for each
..ethod which fall within the following three bands:
Hand Range of absolute errors
Good less than 6%
Fair 610 15%
Poor over 15%
Average % Jl'zror
Average ab,,,lute %error
Standard de,iation
Azjz
orkiszeWSkiiiiiiiiiiic:!:::
Beggs & Brill
Duns & Ros
Ansari
Hasan & Kabir
Average %Error
Average abl!<>lute % error
Standard deviation
Hagedorn & Brown
LowGOR(<1000 scrtbbl) 011 wells
ORK AZJZ AZJWAF B&B D&R H&B H&K Ansari
-0.32 -4.79 1.58 5.n 1.51 -3.95 2.50 2.29
6.54 9.55 4.95 7.08 4.61 6.34 9.00 4.80
9.32 12.91 7.43 8.05 7.30 7.27 13.60 6.43
HIgh GOR (>4000 scflbbl) 011 wells
ORK AZJZ AZJWAF B&B D&R H&B H&K Ansari
Average %Error 6.49 -17.88 5.48 33.22 6.76 -2.58 -28.45 1.88
Averageabl!<>lute %error 40.45 23.14 19.53 39.22 29.01 U.34 28.45 19.31
Standard deviation 46.79 25.80 26.61 34.81 33.48 14.26 22.64 24.52
Medium GOR(I000<G0R<4ooo scf/bbl) 011 wells
ORK AZJZ AZJWAF B&B D&R H&B H&K Ansari
Average %Error -1.94 -22.66 2.73 28.01 1.98 -5.41 -19.44 4.11
Averageabl!<>lute%error 20.31 31.36 16.87 29.5015.7910.98 28.04 14.48
Standard deviation 26.65 26.97 21.76 20.0119.1811.94 29.96 18.89
Note: ORK = Orkiszewski
AZJZ =Aziz
AZJWAF = Aziz, Govier & Fogarasi
B&B = Beggs & Brill
D&R = Duns & Ros
H&B Hagedorn & Ilrown
H&K =Hasan & Kabir
Ansari = Ansari
Aziz,Govier & Fogarasi
ORK AZJZ AZJWAF B&B D&R H&B H&K Ansari
-3,70 -9.42 3.26 10.51 1.22 -3.42 -5.32 2.03
12.35 14.02 8.73 12.99 8.45 7.36 14.27 8.62
21.30 19.17 15.23 19.08 14.38 9.01 22.35 13.49
SUMMARY OF PRESSURE DROP PREPICDONS
AS ABJNCDON OFWAIERCUf
Dry oil wells
Average %Jl'zror
Average abl!.olute % error
Standard de,iation
Low waler<:ut (<10%) 011 wells
ORK
1.26
10.68
16.71
AZJZ AZJWAF B&B D&R H&B H&K Ansari
-6.10 1.92 12.24 4.46 -6.04 -0.80 3.13
13.23 6.88 14.04 9.30 8.38 12.20 6.19
16.69 10.28 19.57 15.56 8.10 18.50 9.39
o 5 10 15 20 25
Fig. 1 Comparison or predicted and measured pressures for all oil wells
Average % Jl'zror
Average abl!"lute %error
Standard de,iation
Medium Wlltercut (10-50%) 011 wells
ORK AZJZ AZJWAF B&B D&R H&B H&K Ansari
5.44 -6.97 1.99 16.83 4.83 0.29 0.32 5.54
11.56 13.69 8.39 16.83 8.87 7.13 11.71 8.76
16.48 19.01 11.32 16.3211.00 10.30 14.59 11.39
Gray
Ansari
Hasan & Kabir
[] _'"DeWl (%)
__ ('14)
Average % Jl'zror
Average abl!.olute % error
Standard de,iation
AziZ
Orkiszewski
Duns & Ros
Beggs & Brjll
Hagedorn & Brown
AziZ,Govier & Fogarasi
ORK = Orkiszewski
AZJZ =Aziz
A'lJ'ZIJAF = Aziz, Govier & Fogarasi
B&B Beggs & Brill
D&R = Duns & Ros
H&B = Hagedorn & Brown
H&K Hasan & Kabir
Ansari = Ansari
High water-eut (>50%) 011 wells
ORK AZJZ AZJWAF B&B D&R H&B H&K Ansari
13.23 -14.19 -3.97 10.30 -3.74 -6.59 -8.34 -0A6
13.23 16.87 7.81 10.30 7.20 7.09 16.95 4.71
10.00 17.80 9.94 5.64 9.16 6.96 19.75 6.16
Note:
o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Fig. 2 Comparison or predicted and measured pressures for all gas wells
117
10
AN EVALUATION OF RECENT "MECHANISTIC" MULTIPHASE FLOW
MODELS FOR PREDICTING PRESSURE DROPS INOIL AND GAS WELLS SPE26682
70 60
~ l u n e
/
Choke chang.1ll to 116.0"
40 30 20 10
Bottom
hoi.
flowing
pr...ur.
Flowrete
Flg. 7 A well with a large Productivity Index this wl1il cease production
("die") at a Dowrate slightly less than the 11ft curve minimum
Flowrale
Flg.6 Well Dowlng In stable fashion
AUltcurve
Flowrat.
Flg.8 Well with a moderate Productivity Index this well will Dow In an
unstable fashion at rates lower than the 11ft curve minimum
375Ot::====:::::;-.==::::;--------------,
Bottom
hole
flowing
pressure
Bottom
hole
flowing
pressure
3500
3250
J
... 3000
i
I
2750
...
..
2500
.5
10
! 2250
t
...
2000
J1750
1500
1250
0
-0-- Ansari
--- Hagedom & Brown
-- Orkiszewski
.......<'-...... Duns&Ros
Begg.& Brill
AnSS'i
Duns & Ro.
Hasan & Kalir
2000
Hagedorn & Brown
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w
An....
Begg. &Brill
Gray
Hasan & Katir
1000 +--.......- .......- ......--..-.....---.-.......----,...---..---1
o 2 4 6 8
Flowrate, MIItbiday
Fig. 5 Comparison of Lift curves produced by different methods
4000 .---------------------,
Orki.z....ki
Hagedorn & Brown
Duns & Roo
Orkinowski
Aziz
i
i 3000
!
2'
I

:B
J
o 20 40 60 0 100
Flg.4 Scoring based on percentage of pressure drops predicted to within
6% All gas wells
o 20 40 60 80 100
Flg. 3 Scoring based on percentage of pressure drops predicted to within
6% of the measured traverse All 011 wells
Aziz,Govier" Fog..si
Aziz,Govier" Fogw_i
nm.. houra
Flg.9 An example of unstable Dow the well was completed with 4112"
tubing and was producing about 1000 bpd of 011
118
SPE 26682 J.K. PUCKNELL, J.N.E. MASON AND E.G. VERVEST 11
5
30
120
25
4
100
20
80 60
Flowrate, Mstblday
Flg.14.
- Orkiszewski
--- Ansari
10 15
40
Flg. 13 Oilfield E Lift Curve
.... -_ .... "
... ----
' ..........
5
20
0
A less Ihan -10%
-1010-6%
A 0
o 61010%

A 101020%
<> 201040%
0<>
A
0
0 D over4O%
OA
o
A

A
OAi
<>
D
'-A 0
A

0
A
A
It ... A
... A
o
o
2000
1800
i
1800
i
1400
I
... 1200
r
]
1000
i
800
J
800
400
200
0
0
3000
2900
2800
..
1
2700
rf
..
II
2600
!
A-
D>
c
2500
1
co

2400
j
E
0
2300

ID
2200
2100
2000
0
14
12
u
10

=
8

1.5

6
3!
..
:!
4
2
___ No gas lift
---.-- Gas lift
PI line
1.0 0.5
Flowrete, Mstbldey
o
2000
4000
Klckoll problems
indicated
Flowrete
Flg. 10 Well with a small Productivity Index but a high reservoir
pressure
exerted by full column of liquid in Ihe lubing
I pressure
Predicted f10wrale
gas lift
Fli:.12 Effect of gas 11ft on well X as predicted by Ansari
o-J---........--.,......--.....---.------.r----f
..
1
3000
!
..
I
A-
g'

.5!
o

E
i 1000 i .._"""""_--tI,.....-....... ...
Flowrete
Flg. 11 Wt!1I will flow stably at rates higher than the 11ft curve minimum
but may need to be "kicked off"
Bottom
hole
flowing
pressure
Bottom
hole
flowing
pressure
Gas velocity, ftIsec
Flg. 15 Error of Ansari pressure drop prediction as a Function of liquid
and gas velocities
119