*
SPE 26521
Friction Factor of Perforation Roughness in Pipes
28 Su and J.S. Gudmundsson, Norwegian Inst. of Technology
SPE Membere
Cepyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers. Inc.
This paper was p~eparad for presentation at the S&h Annual Technical CMerence and Exhbitlon
Thl$ paper was selected for pr~ntatton by an SPE Pregrem Commmee Iollowmg review of Informahon Centelned In an abstract submitted by the euthor(s.) Contents of the paper,
es Dresentad. heve not been reviewed by lha Society of Petroloum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The materiel, es presented, does nol necessarily reflect
any wsltlon of the Society of Petroleum En@noere, its offlwre, or membore. Papers pre8enltJd at SPE meetings are subject to publlcallon review by Editorial Commltteos of the Soctety
of Petroleum Englneare. Permission to copy IS raatricted to an abauact of not more than 300 woras. Illustrations may not be cupled The abstract shoulri contain consplcuoua acknowh?dgment
of where and by whom the paper is prciaemed. Write I.lbrarlan, SPE. P.O. Sox W3S38, Richardson. TX 7608S4S3S, U.S A. Telex, 1S3245 SPEUT.
ABSTRACT
The friction factor of perforation roughness was measured in
pipes geometrically similar to casing used in horizontal
welle. There was no fluid flow through the perforations in
the work reported. The experimental data were smalyzed
using the universal velocity distribution law and the concept
of roughness timction. It was found that the roughuess
function increased linearly with the Perforation/casing
diameter ratio. An empirical relationship was obtained to
estimate the friction factor in pipes with perforation
roughness.
INTRC)I9UCTION
What friction fitctor should be used in pressure drop
calculations for horizontal wells? The work repofied in this
paper is the first phase of experiments on perforated pipes
that me geometrically similar to pwforated liners used in
horizontal wells. There was no flow through the
perforations in the experiments, The perforations act as
roughness elements and increase the friction factor of the
pipe. It was decided to investigate first how perforation
roughness affects the pressure drop in normal pipe flow,
before investigating the more complex situation of pipe flow
with radial inflow through the perforations.
Despite the many papers on pressure drop in horizontal
wells that have appeared in the open literature in recent
years, most authors have proceeded to apply the same kind
of friction factors that are used for steady-state flow in
ordinary steel pipes (see Table 1).‘-’s This despite the fact
that the pipe wall has perforation roughness; and despite the
fact that the flow increases axialSy; and @s@e the fact that
fluid enters radially through the perforations.
151
Sodetv of PetroleumEndrww I
II
01 the Socte!y of Pe!rclaiim Engineers held {n Houston. Texa9. 3-S October 1993.
The work presented here addressee only the first part of the
complexity of fluid flow in horizontal wells; the effect of
perforation roughness. Only one paper in the open literature
has addressed the second and third part of the complexity of
flow in horizontal wells. Asheim et al.’6 reported
experimental work on the pressure drop across an active
(flowing) perforation in an otherwise smooth pipe,
BACKGROUND
Fluid flow in pipes with perforation roughness can be
described as complex. The main reason for this is the
discrete nature of the roughness elements; the perforations.
The flow field is three-dimensional in character. The body
of knowledge for such flows has been organized in the
literature within what is called boundary layer theory. It
deals with flow in pipes in terms of what happens near the
wall of the pipe, in the boundary layer.
The friction factor of a pipe wall can be obtained from at
least two types of experiments, First, the pressure drop
along the pipe can be measured and the friction factor
calculated from the pressure drop equation
fM=~ (1)
——
D2
where fMis the commonly used Moody friction factor.’7
Second, the velocity profile near the wall can be measured
and the universal velocity distribution law (from boundary
layer thecq) used to calculate the friction velocity u*, which
in turn can be used to calculate the wall shear stress ~.,
from which the friction factor can be calculated as foilows

(2)
The universal velocity distribution law is discussed in
Appendix A, as are the above-mentioned variables. The
appentlx material illustrates how the key concepts and
variables of this law are tied together and how they were
used in the present study of perforation roughness.
The universal velocity distribution law is valid for smooth
surfaces and also for many surfaces having uniform
roughness. For example, the law is valid for most
commercial pipes and for pipes with sand grain roughness,
as discussed by Schlichting.** The universal velocity
distribution law representa the velocity profile of a fluid
flowing over a surface. The velocity profile of a unifonrdy
rough surface, exhibits a parallel shift away from the
sutiace, compared to the velocity profile of a smooth
surface, as reported by Hama. 19 This parallel shift can be
expressed as Au/#=, and is commonly cakd the roughness
fimction, as shown in Fig. 1. The roughness function is
normally a constant and independent of Reynolds number
for fully turbulent flow over surfaces with uniform
roughness, such as aand grain roughness. When this is the
wise, the universal velocity distribution law is valid for the
rough surface. When the roughness fimction depends on the
Reynolds number, however, the velocity profile does not
folfow the universal velocity distribution law.
In Appendix A, the velocity profile of the universal velocity
distribution law equation is integrated to obtain the average
fluid velocity in a circular pipe. Tbis makes it possible to
incorporate the Reynolds number and the friction factor into
the universal velocity distribution law. The Reynolds
numiwr and the friction factor are based on the average fluid
velocity and properties. And by including the roughness
function the following relationship results
EXPEI@lENTS
The experimental apparatus was designed to make it possible
to obtain highquality flow data at low cost. A gravity flow
arrangement and an electronic bench scale were used to
achieve this purpose. A schematic diagram of the
experimental appiiratua is shown in Fig. 2. The apparatus
had a circulation loop where liquid water was pumped from
a storage tank to a level tank above. The height of the
water in the level tank determined the flowrate through the
test section below. The water from the test section flowed
into a weighing tank sitting on the scale. The experimental
work has been described by Su and Gudmrmdsson,m’2i
152
‘SPE26521 ‘ w
The details of the friction factor calculations are given in
Appendix B. The pipe Reynolds number in the experiments
ranged from 30,000 to 100,000. The diameter of the level
tank was much larger thsm the diameter of the pipes. A
flow stabilizer was instded at the bottom of the level tank
to provide for a smooth flow transition and small pressure
drop into the test pipes. The entrance pressure drop,
however, was cancelled out in the method used to obtain the
correlation for friction factor in perforated pipes. This
because the method used was based on the increase ia
friction factor above that found experimentally in the same
pipe before adding the perforations.
Acrylic pipes were used in the experiments. The test pipes
were 2 m long and had inner diameters of 12, 14, 16 and 19
mm, The length of the perforated section was 1.8 m and
perforation diameters in the range 1.0 to 5.0 mm were used.
Each test pipe was tested before it was perforated to
establish ita natural roughness. The perforations were then
drilled and the pipes enclosed in a heat-shrinkable tube.
The perforation holes were therefore sealed and acted as
perforation roughness in the experiments reported in this
paper.
The geometry of the test pipes used in the main experiments
is shown in Table 2. The geometry of typical pertiorated
casings used in horizontal wells is shown in Table 3.= The
geometry of the acrylic test pipes used in the main
experiments was taken to be geometrically similar to that cf
a 4-1/2” casing with 12 shots-per-foot (SPF) perforations
having 60° phasing. The number of pipes tested with this
perforation density and phasing was 13. Additional
experiments were also carried out on pipes with 4, 6 and 8
shots-per-foot and 45°, 90° and 120° phasing.
RESULTS
Blasiwtype curve fitting
The friction factor of a smooth pipe carI be expressed by the
Blasius equation’s
0.3164 (4)
fH=—&o.23
The friction factors in the current experiments were found to
vary with the Reynolds number and the wall roughness of
I
the perforated pipes. Fig. 3 shows the friction factors
obtained from the experimental results for a 14 mm inner
diameter test pipe with 2 mm and 2.5 mm perforation
diameters. The friction factor decreases while the Reynolds
number increases. Larger friction factor were obtained for
a larger perforation diameter.
Best fitting curves were made through the experimental
points as shown irr Fig. 3 using the Blasius-type equation
,
*
(5)
The values of coefficient a and exponent m for ail the tests
are plotted versus the ratio of perforation diameter over pipe
inner diameter, dli), in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, Although the
values of exponents m are fairly close to each other, the
coefficients a are quite scattered and no correlation could be
found.
Equivalent sand grain roughness
All the friction factor data are plotted against Reynolds
number in Fig. 6. They fall in the transition region between
the hydraulic smooth and completely rough. Although the
individual perforation sire”is much larger than the normal
sand grain roughness, the friction factors are close to the
hydraulic smooth line. This may be because cavities in the
wall give less resistance to the main flow than protrusions
and are much less densely distributed than the general sand
grain roughness.
It is possible to use experimental results to calculate the
equivalent sand grain roughness of the test pipes. The
Haahmd equationa was used for this purpose
—= - l,810g[: +(*)1”11] (6)
;,
Friction factors under different Reynolds numbers were
obtained from the experiments for each perforated pipe. By
substituting a ftiction factor and the corresponding Reynolds
number into the above equation, a relative roughness was
calculated. Because the relative roughness for a particular
pipe should be a constant, an average value was used for its
relative roughness.
The calculated relative roughness values are plotted against
the ratio of perforation diameter over pipe inner dimneter,
dlZ?, in Fig. 7. Ao exponential best fitting curve was drawn
through the data points. An average relative error of about
60% was obtained when the data points with d/D <0.25
(same as used in universal velocity distribution law analysis)
were considered.
Universal velocity distribution
The universal velocity distribution law was employed to
analyz+ the experimental data. It was assumed that
perforations affect the flow in the same way as sand grain
roughness. Since the original smooth pipes were not
perfectly smooth, they were all tested, and the constant A in
the universal velocity distribution law was computed by
using the measured smooth friction factors. As shown in
Fig. 8, the value of A was constant for a smooth pipe. The
values of A for aIl the test pipes are shown in Table 4.
153
SPE26521
The rmtghness function of a pipe with cavities was
calculated by equations de+zribed in Appendix A. It was
almost a constant for a pipe with cavities up to a certain
limit. This limit can be determined by perforation diameter
to pipe inner diameter ratio d/D. It was found from
experimental results that when d/D >0.25, the roughness
function was no longer a constant. AD example is shown in
Fig. 8 for the 12 mm imer diameter pipe with 2.0 mm
cavity diameter, where B= A-Au/:#”. Table 5 shows the
values of the roughness function for those testa where the
roughness function was constant,
Roughness functions are no longer constants in the region
where the diameter ratio dLDis larger than 0.25. TMs
indicates that the roughness fimction is not oniy a ftrnction
of pipe geometry, but also a function of Reynolds number in
this region. The assumption that perforated pipe flow
behaves in the same way as pipe flow with sand grain
roughness on the pipe wall is no longer valid for large
perforations, Fortunately, the perforation to pipe diameter
ratios of real perforated casings are always less than 0.25.
Experimental data of pip with large perforations were
therefore excluded in further ~“alysis.
Larger cavity diameter gives larger relative roughness. It is
evident that the magnitude of roughness function for a
particular pipe should increase while the size of the cavities
increases, Roughness functions are shown in Table 5. The
values of the roughness function are not reasonable for 12
mm imer diameter pipe with 1.0 mm cavity diameter, 16
mm inner diameter pipe with 3.5 mm cavity diameter and
16 mm inner diameter pipe with 3.5 mm cavity diameter.
This indicates that experimental errors were involved in
these tests. These three results were therefore excluded in
further analysis.
Roughness functions are plotted versus cavity to pipe
diametet ratios in Fig, 9. By considering the fact that the
roughness function should be zero for a smooth pipe,a best
fitting line was drawn through the data points. A linear
correlation was obtained as
An average relative error of 20% was obtained.
The roughness fimction of a given perforated casing with
60° and 12 SPF can be calculated by the above correlation,
The constant A can be computed from the friction factor-
Reynolds number relation provided by the manufacturer for
the casing before it is prforated. Then the friction factor
can be calculated by Eq. (A-11) for a given Reynolds
number. An example of such calculation is shown irr
Appendix C.
Experiments were carried out for perforated pipes with 12
SPF and 45”, 90° and 120° phasing. Friction factors
against Reynolds numbers are plotted in Fig. 10. The data
points are very close to each other. The differences of the 2. Universal velocity distribution law-was us&l tq anal~ze ‘“
friction factors are within the range of experimental the experimental data. It was demonstrated that the “
tolerance, so that friction factor are not influenced by the roughness function is only a function of geometrical
cbaoges of perforation phasing under the same perforation parameters of the pipe and perforations. An empirical
density, correlation was obtained to calculate the roughness timction.
Friction factor can then be calculated for a given Reynolds
Experiments for perforated pipes with 60° phasing and 4, 6 number.
and 8 SPF were also carried out. The roughness functions
are plotted against perfomtion density in Fig. 11. They 3, Friction factor of perforation roughness is independent of
increase linearly with perforation density. In order to perforation phasing and increases linearly with perforation
calculate the friction factor of a casing with N SPF, a 12 density when there is no interference between two
SPF casing with the same inner diameter and perforation neighboring perforations.
diameter can first be calculated. The roughness function of
N SPF casing will then be obtained by multiplying N/12 to ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
the roughness ftmction of 12 SPF casing.
This experimental work has been financed and performed as
Effect of perforation depth part of the Program for Research On Field Oriented
Improved ,Recovery Technology (PROFIT), which is a joint
The depth of cavity (perforation) will influence the Norwegian research program between Amoco Norway Oil
resistance to the main flow. This is due to the stability of Company, BP Norway Limited U.A, Conoco Norway Inc,
the vortex flow inside the cavity. The boundary Iayw will Dwninex (Norge) A/S, Elf Petroleum Norge AA, Fina
not be much affected once the eddies inside the cavity are Exploration Norway u.a.s, Norsk Agip AM, Norsk Hydro
stabilized. The characteristic of the internal flow within the as, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Petrobras Norge
cavities are heavily dependent upon the ratio of cavity depth A/S, Phillips Petroleum Company Norway, Saga Petroleum
to its diameteq that is, the relative shape of the cavity. Any A.S, StatOil and Total Norge AN. We thank the PROFIT
single size scale of the cavity cannot solely determine the Board for permission to present this work. We thank H.
eddy flOW. Hustoft and K. Stene for the experimental work on the
effects of perforation phasing and density.
Experim@a were conducted by WieghardV to analyze the
resistance of a circular cavity of varying depth in a flat plate NOMENCLATURE
wall to the external flow, It was concluded that the flow
resistance depends not only on the cavity depthldiameter coefficient in Blasius-type equation
mtio, but also on the cavity depthhoundary layer thickness, : constant in the universal velocity distribution law
as shown in Fig. 12. (smooth wall)
B constant in the universal velocity distribution law
The flow resistance becomes larger for higher ratio of cavity (rough wall)
depth to Immdary layer thickness. It can be seen from Fig. ACd drag coefficient
12 that the peak values of the flow resistance are located d perforation diameter, (m)
around x/d=O.46 and do not change much when x/d> 0.65. inner diameter of test pipe, (m)
Cavity depth plays more pronounced role to the resistance ; Moody friction factor
on main flow when its depth over diameter ratio is less than fm rough friction factor (Moody) for pipe flow
0.65. Perforation depths are usually 6“ to 12”. fMS smooth friction factor (Moody) for pipe flow
Perforations are shot not only through the casing wall, but AF additional drag force (N)
also into the formation. Perforation diameters are uswd!y g gravitational constant, (m/s2)
from 0.2W to 1.0”, so that the depth/diameter ratio is much H height (m)
larger than 0.65. It is therefore reasonable to assume that L pipe length (m)
the frictional resistance of perforation roughness is m exponent in Blasius-type equation ~~
independent of perforation depth. n number of perforations
N perforation density
CONCLUS1ONS P pressure, (Pa)
APf frictional pressure drop (Pa)
1. Experiments were carried out to analyze the friction R radius of pipe (m)
factor of perforation roughness of perfomted pipes. Pipe Re Reynolds number
flow Reynolds number were between 30,000 and 100,000. u local velocity, (m/s)
Inner diameters of the tested pipes were 12 mm, 14 mm, 16 ii average velocity, (m/s)
mm and 19 mm. Perforation roughness of the test pipes u* friction velocity, (m/s)
were geometrically similar to a casing with 12 SPF and 60° Auh” roughness function
phasing. w mass flow rate (kg/s)
x cavity depth (m)

154
 ,
distance from wall (m)
“; ‘ elevation (m)
a perforation phasing (0)
b boundary layer thickness (m)
P density, (kg/m’)
P absolute viscosity, (Pas)
v kinematic viscosity, (m2/s)
‘rW wall shear stress, (N/m2)
K von K&rn4n constant
c roughness height (m)
REFERENCES
1. Collins, D. A., Nghiem L. X., Sharma, R., Agarwal,
R.K. & Jha, K. N., “Field-Scale Simulation of Horizontal
Wells With Hybrid Grids”, SPE 21218, presented at 1lth
Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Anaheim, California,
USA, February 17-20, 1991.
2. Dikken, B.J., “Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells and
Its Effect on Production Performance”, JPT, November,
1990, p. 1426-1433.
3. Folefac, A. N., Archer, J. S., Issa, R.L & Arshad,
A. M., “Effkct of Pressure Drop Along Horizontal
Wellbores on Well Performance”, SPE 23094, presented at
Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, UK, September
3-6, 1991.
4. Ihara, M., Furukawa, H., Takao, S. & Yanal, K.,
“Experimental Investigation on the Interaction between the
Fluid Influx from the Reservoir and the Pressure
Distribution Along a Horizontal Well Configuration”,
presented at 9th Conference & Exhibition of Offshore South
East Asia, Singapore, December 1-4, 1992.
5. Islam, M.R. & Chakma, A., “Comprehensive Physical
and Numerical Modeling of a Horizontal Well”, SPE 20627,
presented at 65th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the SPE, September 23-26, 1990.
6. Joshi, S.D. Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell
Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 1991.
7. Korady, V., Renard, G. & Lemonnier, P., “Modelling
of Pressure Drop for Three-Phase Flow in Horizontal
Wells”, presented at 6th. European IOR-Symposium,
Stavanger, Norway, May 21-23, 1991.
8, Landman, M.J. & Goldthorpe, W. H., “Optimization of
Perforation Distribution for Horimntal Wells”, SPE 23005,
presented at SPE Asia Pacific Conference, Perth, Western
Australia, 1991.
9. Marett, B.P. & Landman, M.J., “Optimal Perforation
Design for Horizontal Wells in Reservoirs With
Boundaries”, SPE 25366, presented at SPE Asia Pacific Oil
& Gas Conference & Exhibition, Singapore, February 8-10,
1993.
155
‘SPE26521
10. Nghiem, L., Collins, D.A. & Sharma, R., “Seventh
SPE Comparative Solution Project: Modelling of Horizontal
Wells in Reservoir Simulation”, SPE 21221, prese~ted at
1lth SPE Symposium on Resewoir Simulation, Anaheim,
California, USA, February 17-20, 1991.
11. Novy, R. A., “Pressure Drops in Horizontal Wells:
When can They be Ignored?”, SPE 24941, presented at 67th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE,
1992.
12. Ozkan, E., Sarica, C., Haciislamoglu, M. &
Raghavan, R., “The Inference of Pressure Drop Along the
Wellbore on Horizontal Well Productivity”, SPE 25502,
presented at Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma
City, OK, USA, March 21-23, 1993.
13. Seines, K., Aavatsmark, L, Lien, S.C. & Rushworth,
P., “Important Reservoir Considerations for Planning
Horizontal We!ls; A Field Example”, presented at SPE
Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, October 14-19, 1990.
14. Stone, T.W., Edmunds, N.R. & Kristoff, B.J., “A
Comprehensive Weilbore/Reservoir Simulator”, SPE 18419,
presented at SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
Houston, Texas, USA, February 6-8, 1989.
15. Sundal, L., Kossack, C.A. & Kleppe, J., “Numerical
Simulation of Oil Production From Horizontal Wells in the
Troll Field: A Sensitivity Study”, presented at Seminar on
Recovery of TMn Oil Zones, Stavanger, Norway, April
21-22, 1988.
16, Asheim, H., Kolnes, J. & Oudeman, P., “A Flow
Resistance Correlation for Completed Wellbore”, Journal of
Petro!eum Science and Engineering, VO1.8,no.2, 1992, p.
97-104,
17. Moody, L. F., “Friction Factors for Pipe FIow”, ASME
Trans., VO1.66,pp.671-684, 1944.
18. Schlichting, H., Boundary-Layer Theory, Seventh
Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1979.
19. Hams, F. R., “Boundary-Layer Characteristics for
Smooth and Rough Surfaces”, Trans. Sot. Nav. Arch. Mar.
Engrs,, no.62, 1954, p.333-351.
20. Su, Z. & Gudrnundsson, J.-S., “Friction Factor in
Pipes With Circular Cavities Experimental Work”, PROFIT
Technical Report, Division of Petroleum Engineering and
Applied Geophysics, Norwegian Institute of Technology,
June 1992.
21. Su, Z. & Gudmundsson, J.-S., “Friction Factor for
Pipes With Circular Cavities in the Wall”, PROFIT
Technkxd Report, Division of Petroleum Engineering and
Applied Geophysics, Norwegian Institute of Technology,
 :,

October 1992. SPE26521 * . I

22. Schlumberger Educational Services, ~pical Gun and
Explosive Packagts for Tubing Conveyed Fe#orating,
Scblumberger Technical Data Sheet TC 0112, 1987. The mean flow velocity can be obtained by integrating Eq.
(A-4) for the whole pipe cross sectional area
23. Haaland, S.E,, “Simple and Explicit Formulas for the
Friction Factor in Turbulent Pipe Flow, ” Journal of Fluids -1 2 Ru” (A-5)
=-u*(—hl—- +24-2~-:)
Engineering, vol. 105, March 1983. ‘2 K v u*

24. Wieghardt, K., “Erh6hung des turbulenten so that

Reibungswiderstamles durch 0berfMchenst6nmgen”, Techn.
Berichte 10, Heft 9, 1943.

25. Nikuradse, J., .“Tubulente Stromung in nicht

kreisflhvnigen Rohren”, Ing.-Arch. 1, 306-332, 1930. Give the value 0.4 to x and 5.5 to A, we obtain

26. White, F. M., Fluid Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,

1986.

APPENINX A Universal Velocity Distribution

Combine with the definitions of the Moody friction factor
Velocity distribution in turbulent boundary layer of pipe
flow can be expressed by a logarithmic law.’8 For a smooth (A-8)
pipe

and friction velocity, the following results

where x is the von K&mdn constant and A a constant (A-9)

determined by experiments. Baaed on the experiments
carried out by Nikuradse,= over the full r~ge of ~rbulent
wall flows the two dimensionless constants in the above
equation were found to have the approximate values ~= 0.4
and A= 5.5.18 Equation (A-1) is also called the universal Substituting Eq. (A-9) and pipe flow Reynolds number
velocity dktribution &w. i?e=piiD/p into universal velocity distribution law, the
expression for smooth pipe flow is obtained
The u* in the universal velocity distribution law is called
friction velocity. It is defined as

J
%W (A-2)
u’= —
P
and for rough pipe flow

where ~Wis wall shear stress, which relates to the pipe flow
pressure drop as

D dp (A-3]
Tw=—-—
4tf.x
APPENDIXB Friction Factor Calculation
The wall shear stress can be calculated by measuring the
pressure drop in a pipe flow test. The friction velocity will The friction factor can be calculated from measured mass
then be computed from the wall shew stress based on its flow rates and water column heights. For stabilized flow,
definition. Bernoulli’s equation can be related to levels 1 and 2 as
shown in Fig. 2
The universal velocity distribution law also holds for rough -2
pipe surfaces and be expressed as p;; (B-1)
P2+pgz2+ ~= P1+pt/zl+y+APf

156
since~ = Pz=Pw, H== Zz-Z1iutdi7z=0, we can Reynolds number of pipe flow SPE26521
write
poim
Re=— =8.6 XI@
(B-2) P.

Pipe friction factor before pwforation can be calculated by

the Haaland cquation”
The cross sectionalareaof test pipe was much smaller than
that of the level tank. It can be assumed that the water in &={-1.810g[: +(-# ’1]]-2=0.0188
the level tank did not move, so that all the frictional .
P~ drop was caused by the roughness of the test pipe. I
Pmsswe drop is related to the friction factor by the
equation” The value of A in the universal velocity distribution law can
be calculated by Eq. (A-1O)
(B-3)
A=&.2,5h,$~,+3.7,=,.27

where L and D are the length and inner diameter of the test Roughness timction cau be calculated from the empirical
pipe, respectively. Combining Eqs. (B-2) and (B-3) correlation Eq. (7)

(B4)
u* D ()
~ =7.0x ~ =0.s83

The friction factor of perforation roughness at Re= 8.6 X ld

The outlet mean flow velocity ii, can be calculated from the can be calculated by Eq. (A-11). In this example, it was
measured mass flow rate w calculated

fMR =0.0198
—w
i77————— (M-J
;PD2

The friction factor of the perforated pipe is 5.3 % higher

than that of the original pipe before perforation.
APPENDIX C

An example is given here for calculating the friction factor

of perforation roughness to estimate the frictional pressure
drop of a perforated pipe without fluid flowing through
perforations. The geometrical parameters of the perforated
pipe and fluid properties used were

casing innerdiameterD =6”

perforation diameter d=O.5”
perforation density N= 12 (SPF)
oil density pO=800 (kg/m3)
oil viscosity p.= 1.34 (cp)
production rate q= 1500 (m3/d)
relative roughness for commercial steel pipe c/D =0.0001

Average flow velocity

157
e
N
I
H?
.

m
Q
C’%1
LLl

158
●
●
SPE26521

Table 3. Gend Geometries for Real Caaing Table 4. Mean value of A for Smooth Pipes

casing wall biner Ferrolation

Size ThMuless Mameter D&uMer dill Test P@ No. Man Value of A
(Lo) (ho (id (in)
12-1 5.35
4)/5- SO.337 z3.826 s0.63 s0.165 12-2 5.25
7“ 0.54 5,92 0.49 0.083 12-3 5.29
9%” =0.281 S9.063 20.38 20.042 12-4 5.29
14-1 5.27

14-2 5.49
14-3 5.36
14-4 5.36
Table 5. Roughness Function for Test Pipes 5.24
16-1
162 5.04

Icdtwl Pipe I&ner DiBmwer (Em) I 16-3 5.01

164

1-”-1
12 I 14 I 16 I 19 5.54
hmd Slmwbnm function I 19-1 5.17
,
Lo 1.46 0.44 0.54 0.31
1.5 1.06 0.97 0,61
2.0 L25 0.74 0.93” 0.80

2s 1.04 1.29 0.77

3.0
3s
4,0

“o 0.5 : 1 1.5 ;2 2.5 3 3.5 4

- Iam.sub-lsyaf+ trnnsltkm~ WY developedtu!bulenk

I@ure 1. TypicalVelorityI%ofdefor RouglISurface(Ham, 19S4).1’

1. smooth,Iaminaraublayer
2. smooth, turbulent
3. w@, twbukmt

159
 SPE26521 ● .

—
Level Tank

Test Pipe
2— “

B Level Control

l— Water SupplyHose
Measure Tank i !

Filter

Fp 2. Schematicof ExperimentalAWK@JS.

O.o!a
:. Hy.drwwm@h ....... ..

‘a
0.02?

““’’””””’”
i Cwityaimeter=O.O(mm)
..... . ...
0.020 .......... . .i. . . .... ......... ................ .......- . ....... .

, =;.’.’”’”?~gi~

0.02

0.019
t 1 I 4

10 40,am 70,000 80,000 m,ooo

Reyn~~s hlum%~

F-3. FrictionFactorvs. ReynoMaNumberfor Test Pipe 14-2.

160
 SPE2652i
0.5

... . . . . .. . ...... ... ..... .. ..... . .... ...... D=l$nrn,,

0.4
D=l:mm

0.3
............. ...E
..
al 0;
o
. ... .... .
0.2

.0.
~ .* 0:

0.1
* *:
1 1 1 1 *
a 1
0.4
0.1 0.2 0.3
d/1)

Flgwre 4. Coef3’icients of Tsst DataI@rsssion Curvss.

0.5

0.4

0.3

E
0,2

0.1

d/D

F-5. Exponentsof Test DataRegressionCurves.

0.1

-.= :
0.07 -.-.-..-..*-.<:< .''''''''"~"""'""'"""""""""";""""""""""'"""""""'"''"
;“”’’””””””””””””
“’”””””:
””””””””””””””:’”””””””””””’””””

Trarrsitio~ -- + S ; Complat~ly rough ~ :

b 0.05- ....................... ................... . .. .......................... ....................................... ..... .....
‘Cl
12

IL

1 I t 1 I 1
0.01 ●
200,0003WOO0 WMoO
10,WO 20,LWI30,W0 Wim Ioo,ooo
Reynolds Number
Figure6. TestedFrictionFactorsw. ReynoldsNumber.

161
 I
‘sPE26521 “ “

0.01

Iu.:
.............j”””””
.Dmp. .!......... ...~.............! .......... . . A. .. ~.. .. ... . .... . .. .
0.W9
D-l&m : ...........; ... . .....*.
=....... ....... i ,: .. .. . . .
O.(XI8

0.007 .D?.’A!?!.M..
........................ .:.. .. ;...... .*- .... .‘ .... . . .
D=lO~m ~ ~
Oooo
o,&* E ............. ................. ;............; ..;......... ........./.. ... .. ... .......’.

0.001

0
I
Figure 7. Relative Roughness of Perforated Test Pipes.

10
9 .l-qq. . ...................... ............... .. . . ... . .
8

m6

a4 ... ... .. .... . .. ... . .

1
1 1 1

00 4oAmo So,ooo 7(
Reyrmlds Nu;~er
Figure 8. Constants A and B for Test Pipe 12-2.
(B=A-Au/u?
t?
1.0
. ... . .............

# 1.4 .. . . .. .. . ... .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. . .

c
3 1.2
u.
31

0
. . . .. . . .. . .. .
E
m
... .. ....... . .................

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
d/D
F-9. RoughnassFunctionvs. Perforationto Pipe InnerDiameterRatio.

162
 ✎
., ●

✎
0.024

0.023 .. ....... .. . .... ... ...... ...........m

.?...
.w-amng.
B 0.022
to-f
0
If!
~ 0.021

.-
.. . . .... ..... ......... .

IL
. ... . . .. . . .
0.019 -.’. . .. . . ...’’’.’’!’”’”’”””””””’”””””””””””””””?’” ““””’

I 1 I I
0.018
40SW0 So,ooo 80,000 @

Reynoi;swNumb;r’
Fimre 10. FrictionFactorsfor PerforatedTest PipesWith DifferentPhasing
(PerforationDemitiesare the Same).

0.9 . . . .. ......i..- ............. .... ......... .....

I

0.1

Perforation Density (shots/m)

Figure IL RoughnessFunctionvs. PerforationDensity
(PerforationPhasingare the Same).

0.05

0.045 . . .. ...... .................... ...... ...

0.02

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.00!

[
0.2 0.4 0.s 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Cavity Depth/Cavity Diameter

F- 12. ResistanceCoetlkientof Cmu!ar Cavitiesof Vary~@ Depth
in a Flat Wall, as Measuredby Wieghardt(1943)X
A x16u2.9, ● x/h=O.6.

163