Experimental Investigation of Frictional
Pressure Losses in Coiled Tubing
Idir Azouz, SPE, S.N. Shah, SPE, and P.S. Vinod, SPE, U. of Oklahoma, and D.L. Lord, SPE,
Halliburton Energy Services
Summary
liz This paper presents an experimental investigation of tubular fric-
tional pressure loss in coiled tubing (CT) and straight sections of
seamed and seamless tubing. Fluids investigated include water,
linear guar gum and hydroxypropyl guar (HPG), and borate-
crosslinked guar gum and HPG, under conditions typically encoun-
tered in many CT field applications. The equipment used includes
a system of one 1000-ft and two 2000-ft CT reels that can be
arranged to provide total CT lengths of 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000,
and 5,000 ft. The system also includes straight sections of seamed
and seamless tubing with the same nominal diameter (11⁄2 in.) and
wall thickness (0.156 in.) as that of the CT. The investigation
focuses mainly on the effects of CT curvature, tubing seam, fluid
pH, and shear history on frictional pressure loss. Results obtained
with water indicate that curvature, as well as the seam inside the CT,
significantly affect the frictional pressure losses. Results obtained with
various polymer solutions and gels, however, suggest that tubing
curvature has a more significant effect on the frictional pressure losses
than the tubing seam. Moreover, it is observed that, for borate-
crosslinked HPG, the pressure gradient is dependent on both the fluid
pH and the length of CT across which it is measured. However, for
borate-crosslinked guar gum, the pressure gradient is a function
of pH and is not very sensitive to the length of tubing along
which it is measured.
Introduction
CT is used in many engineering applications, including heating and
refrigeration processes, bioengineering, and as chemical reactors.
More recently, CT has gained increased importance because of its
numerous potential applications in the petroleum industry.1 The
majority of these applications involve the flow of a fluid, and
require accurate assessment of frictional pressure losses in the
tubing. Accordingly, the flow through CT has been under extensive
investigation, most of which is aimed at explaining its complex nature.
Flow through CT is uniquely different from that in a straight pipe
because of the secondary flow pattern induced by the imbalance
between the forces acting in the radial direction of the pipe coil.
This secondary flow pattern is composed of counterrotating vor-
tices, commonly called Dean vortices, that cause an increase in
frictional pressure loss. Early studies of the flow through CT
include that of White,2 who investigated the influence of curvature
upon the flow resistance of water for Reynolds numbers up to
9,000. He made the important observation that the flow can be
maintained laminar for a much higher Reynolds number than is
possible in straight pipes. This claim was later verified by Taylor3
in his experimental investigation of the turbulent flow of water in
curved pipes. Ito,4 on the other hand, proposed empirical friction-
factor formulas derived from his experimental study of turbulent
flow of Newtonian fluids in curved pipes. Other studies dealing
with Newtonian fluids flowing in CT include the experimental
investigation conducted by Sreenivasan and Strykowski5 on stabi-
lization effects in coiled-pipe flow, and that of Webster and Hum-
phrey,6 who performed an experimental investigation of flow
instability in a helical coil.
Although the flow of Newtonian fluids in curved pipes has been
the subject of numerous technical publications and seems to be well
Copyright 1998 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 11 September 1996. Revised manu-
script received 10 July 1997. Paper peer approved 18 December 1997. Paper (SPE
37328) first presented at the 1996 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Columbus,
Ohio, 23–25 October.
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1998
understood, information on the corresponding flow of non-New-
tonian fluids is rather scarce. Among the very few reported studies
on this subject, those of Mashelkar and Devarajan7–9 are worth
mentioning. They conducted extensive experimental and theoret-
ical studies of laminar flow of non-Newtonian, viscous, and vis-
coelastic fluids and turbulent flow of non-Newtonian, viscoinelastic
fluids through coiled tubes. However, the proposed empirical
friction-factor correlations for turbulent flow of non-Newtonian
fluids have a very limited range of engineering applicability. Conse-
quently, more exhaustive work needs to be perfomed in this area.
The objective of current experimental investigation is to con-
tribute to a better understanding of turbulent flow in CT by
extending the studies performed by past researchers to non-New-
tonian, viscoelastic fluids, and by introducing another complexity
to the flow geometry, namely the CT seam. The study focuses
mainly on fluids that are typically encountered in hydraulic
fracturing, including water and linear and borate-crosslinked
guar gum and HPG.
Experimental Equipment and Procedure
Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the layout of the experimental equip-
ment used to investigate tubular frictional losses. The equipment
consists of a system of a 1,000-ft and two 2,000-ft CT reels that can
be arranged to provide lengths of 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, and
5,000 ft of CT. Furthermore, the CT reels can be bypassed if
desired. In this way, the test fluid can be sheared for various lengths
of time, at the desired nominal shear rate. The nominal shear rate
in the CT is 1,400 sec21 at 60 gal/min. The residence time at this
shear rate is approximately 1 minute per 1,000 ft of CT. The system
also includes straight sections of seamed and seamless tubing (Fig.
2) with the same nominal diameter (11⁄2 in.) as that of the CT. The
inside diameter of the seamless tubing and the hydraulic diameter
of the seamed tubing were determined (from volumetric measure-
ments) to be approximately 1.1817 and 1.1752 in., respectively. omar
During any test, only one section is used, which is located down-
stream of the CT reels. The use of the straight sections allows the
study of the effect of the seam on frictional pressure loss, whereas
CT was used for both shear preconditioning and the study of the
effect of pipe curvature on frictional pressure.
Fluids investigated include water, linear guar gum and HPG, and
borate-crosslinked guar gum and HPG, under conditions typically
encountered in stimulation operations. The degree of crosslinking
is dependent on the pH of the fluids. The crosslinked fluids were
evaluated at pH values of 9, 10, and 11, which are typical values
used in stimulation treatments. A 12% equivalent solution of boric
acid was used as crosslinking agent. The test fluids cover a wide
range of fluid-rheology types and exhibit strong drag-reducing char-
acteristics. The linear polymer solutions and gels exhibit non-Newto-
nian behavior of the power-law type. The crosslinked structure of the
crosslinked fluids gives viscoelastic characteristics to the fluid. These
fluids have a gel structure and are best approximated by the yield
power-law model. However, in the range of shear rates considered,
they exhibit power-law-type behavior. The n and K values are obtained
from measurements performed with a Fann model 35 rheometer.
The linear polymer solutions are prepared in batches of 100 bbl.
The fluid is pumped at the desired flow rate using a triplex pump.
A centrifugal pump, positioned downstream of the fluid-storage
tank, is used to prime the triplex pump. During tests with
crosslinked fluids, the crosslinker is added through the eye of the
centrifugal pump to achieve optimum mixing. Crosslinker is added
at a rate that varies with the tubing flow rate in such a way that
91
 Fig. 1—Layout of the experimental equipment.
Fig. 2—Flow geometries considered.
concentrations of 0.05 and 0.15 wt% are obtained for the guar gum
and HPG polymer gels, respectively. At 60 gal/min the crosslinker
addition rate is 398 mL/min and 1,192 mL/min for guar and HPG
solutions, respectively. Crosslinker is added using two syringe
pumps in tandem.
Results and Discussion
Figs. 3 through 15 summarize results of the experimental inves-
tigation graphically. Data obtained with water are discussed first,
followed by those obtained for the stimulation fluids.
Water. Friction factor vs. Reynolds number data are presented in
Fig. 3 for the straight sections of seamed and seamless tubing, for
a range of Reynolds number varying from 1.3 3 105 to 3.2 3 105
(turbulent flow). Computed smooth-pipe results based on the fol-
lowing Prandtl’s equation are also plotted for comparison
1 must be present in the seamed tubing used in this study. Otherwise,
5 2 log~NRe Î f ! 2 0.8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
Îf
Notice that the seamless tubing exhibits friction-factor values that
are higher than those for the smooth pipe, which is an indication that
some roughness is present in the seamless tubing. This is not very
surprising. Alternatively, the results shown for the seamed tubing
are rather interesting. Indeed, two features are noteworthy. First, the
friction factor for the seamed tubing is lower than that for the
seamless tubing, with the difference increasing with increasing
92
Fig. 3—Friction factor for water flowing in straight sections of
seamed and seamless tubing.
Reynolds number (as much as 9% for the highest Reynolds-number
value considered). Second, the seamed tubing yields results that are
very close to the smooth-pipe results, which would seem to suggest
that it does not have any roughness. Although this may or may not
be the case, its lower friction factor, compared to that of the
seamless tubing, is more likely the result of the presence of the
seam. Indeed, instead of acting as an added roughness, the seam
alters the turbulence spectrum by damping the high-turbulence
frequencies and, thus, causing a decrease in the turbulent frictional
pressure drop. The seam and the roughness have opposing effects
on the friction factor. This, in turn, suggests that some roughness
the friction-factor values would be lower than those of a smooth
pipe. The experimental results suggest that the friction factor for the
seamed tubing is related to that of the seamless tubing by an
expression of the form
fseamed 5 1.667 ~N20.049
Re ! fseamless. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
Fig. 4 illustrates the effect of CT curvature on frictional pressure
loss, which shows results obtained with water in CT and water in
a straight section of seamed tubing, for the same range of Reynolds
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1998

Fig. 4 —Friction factor for water flowing in CT and in a straight
section of seamed tubing.
Fig. 5—Rheogram for determination of power-law parameters
for linear 40-lbm HPG/1,000 gal and linear 35-lbm guar/1,000 gal
solutions.
Fig. 6 —Friction factor for linear 35-lbm guar/1,000 gal solution.
number as before. The results indicate that curvature of the CT has
a significant effect on frictional pressure loss. Results for CT are
much higher than for seamed tubing. The relative increase in the
friction factor, because of curvature, increases with increasing
Reynolds number, from 31 to 44%. Relationships between fric-
tional pressure losses in CT and straight-pipe sections were derived
and are of the form
nassi fCT 5 0.6~N0.068
Re ! fseamed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
and fCT 5 1.017~N0.019
Re ! fseamless. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
Results obtained for the 1,000- and 2,000-ft CT, as shown in Fig.
4, suggests that the number of turns on the reel has no effect on the
frictional pressure loss. However, the reader should be cautioned
that the reel diameters for the 1,000- and the 2,000-ft CT’s are not
significantly different, resulting in approximately the same value
for the Dean number, ND (see Nomenclature).
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1998
Fig. 7—Friction factor for linear 40 lbm HPG/1,000 gal solution.
Fig. 8 —Pressure drop in seamed and seamless tubing for bo-
rate-crosslinked 35-lbm guar/1,000 gal gel, at pH 5 9,
Q 5 60 gal/min.
Fig. 9 —Pressure drop in seamed and seamless tubing for bo-
rate-crosslinked 35-lbm guar/1,000 gal gel, at pH 5 10,
Q 5 60 gal/min.
Linear 35-lbm Guar Gum/1,000 gal Polymer Solution. Results
obtained for a linear 35-lbm guar/1,000 gal polymer solution
(n 5 0.53, K 5 0.0112 lbf-secn/ft2, see rheogram in Fig. 5) are
presented graphically in Fig. 6, for a range of Reynolds numbers
from 2.0 3 103 to 3.36 3 104. Laminar and smooth-pipe flow
results are also plotted for comparison. It can be observed that the
friction-factor values obtained for the polymer solution are much
lower than those obtained with water. In the range of Reynolds
number considered, drag reduction varying from 29 to 78% is
obtained with the polymer solution. As expected, curvature of the
CT has a significant effect on frictional pressure loss. Indeed, it can
be observed that the friction-factor values determined for the CT are
higher than those obtained for the straight sections. Interestingly,
unlike for water, tubing seam does not seem to have any effect on
the friction factor. Because, as stated earlier, the seam tends to
93
Fig. 10 —Pressure drop in seamed and seamless tubing for bo-
rate-crosslinked 35-lbm guar/1,000 gal gel, at pH 5 11,
Q 5 60 gal/min.
Fig. 11—Pressure drop in CT for borate-crosslinked 35-lbm
guar/1,000 gal gel.
Fig. 12—Pressure drop in seamed and seamless tubing for
borate-crosslinked 35-lbm HPG/1,000 gal gel, at pH 5 9,
Q 5 60 gal/min.
suppress the high-turbulence frequencies, the results suggest that,
for the drag-reducing fluid under investigation, the turbulence
spectrum is composed mainly of low-turbulence frequencies, on
which the tubing seam has no effect. Examination of the experi-
mental data suggests that CT friction factor is related to straight-
pipe friction factor by the following relationship:
fCT 5 0.747~NRe
0.015
G
! fSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
Linear 40-lbm HPG/1,000 gal Polymer Solution. Fig. 7 sum-
marizes the results obtained for a linear 40-lbm HPG/1,000 gal
polymer solution (n 5 0.42, K 5 0.034 lbf-secn/ft2, see rheogram in
Fig. 5) for several flow rates in the range of 40 to 100 gal/min,
corresponding to Reynolds numbers from 2.16 3 103 to 1.5 3 104.
94
Fig. 13—Pressure drop in seamed and seamless tubing for borate-
crosslinked 35-lbm HPG/1,000 gal gel, at pH 5 10, Q 5 60 gal/min.
Fig. 14 —Pressure drop in seamed and seamless tubing for borate-
crosslinked 35-lbm HPG/1,000 gal gel, at pH 5 11, Q 5 60 gal/min.
Fig. 15—Pressure drop in CT for borate-crosslinked 35-lbm
HPG/1,000 gal gel.
Again, the same observations made earlier for linear guar, regarding
the effects of the tubing seam and the curvature of the CT, can also
be made for linear HPG. It is noteworthy that results obtained for
linear HPG indicate that it has better drag-reducing capabilities than
linear guar. However, this could be because of the higher concen-
tration of HPG (40 lbm/1,000 gal) as compared to the previous case
involving guar. Again, as for the case of linear guar, the following
equation relating CT friction factor to that in straight pipe was
derived based on the experimental results:
fCT 5 0.596~NRe
0.135
G
! fSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
It must be emphasized that the effect of coil (reel) diameter is not
taken into account. In principle, the correlations should be ex-
pressed in terms of the Dean number instead of the Reynolds number.
Unfortunately, only one reel diameter was available during the course
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1998
 of this investigation. These correlations are unique to the specific fluid
system under investigation and should be used with caution.
In the case of crosslinked fluids, no equation was derived. This
is because the straight sections and the CT have different lengths.
Consequently, it is impossible to distinguish between the effects of
curvature and those associated with shear history. This shortcom-
ing, as well as that discussed earlier in connection with the Dean
number, will be corrected in the future and findings will be
reported soon.
Borate-Crosslinked 35-lbm Guar Gum/1,000 gal Polymer Gel.
Figs. 8 through 10 show pressure-drop results obtained for borate-
crosslinked 35-lbm guar/1,000 gal polymer gel from measurements
performed on straight-seamed and seamless-tubing sections. The
figures illustrate the effects of pH, shear history, and the presence
of a seam. Several features are noteworthy. It can be observed that
the effect of shear history is strongly dependent on the fluid pH. For
pH 5 9, the pressure drop decreases continuously with increasing
shear history, as expected. On the other hand, for pH 5 10 and
pH 5 11, the frictional-pressure drop first decreases to a minimum
value, corresponding to a shear history of 1 minute, then starts
increasing with increasing shear history. This intriguing behavior
can be explained to some extent in terms of the different mecha-
nisms that are present as the fluid flows in the tubing, namely,
breaking of the crosslink bonds because of shearing, formation of
new bonds, and rehealing of some of the broken bonds with time.
The pressure-drop behavior of the fluid depends on the effect of
each of these mechanisms on the continual decrease in pressure loss
with increased shear history can be hypothesized to be the result of
crosslink bonds being destroyed more rapidly than they can reheal.
This results in a decrease in the viscosity of the fluid and, thus, in
geraldine the pressure drop. This same behavior is observed for pH 5 10 and
pH 5 11 for shear histories less than or equal to 1 minute. However,
for longer shear histories, the combined rate of formation of new
crosslinked bonds and the rehealing of some of the bonds broken
by shearing becomes higher than the rate at which the crosslinked
bonds are destroyed by shearing. This results in the presence of a
local minimum in the viscosity vs. shear-history curve and, thus, in
the pressure-drop vs. shear-history curve. Interestingly, the effect
of the seam on the pressure drop is significant only for pH 5 9 and
short shear histories. Although this may suggest that the seam may
have some effect on the structure of the crosslinked bonds network,
further investigation is required to qualify as well as quantify
this effect.
Fig. 11 illustrates graphically the effect of pH and CT length on
the pressure drop measured in CT of various lengths. As expected,
crosslinking increases the pressure gradient. Moreover, increasing
the pH results in lower values for the pressure gradient. The most
striking feature in this figure is the insignificant dependence of the
pressure gradient on the length of CT across which the pressure is
measured. At first, this may seem inconsistent with the earlier claim
regarding the effect of shear history on the pressure drop in
straight-tubing sections. However, although for this case, the use of
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF FRICTIONAL PRESSURE LOSSES OF
BORATE-CROSSLINKED GUAR AND HPG
Pressure Drop
(psi/1,000 ft)
CT Length Borate-Crosslinked
(ft) pH 35-lbm Guar/1,000 gal
1,000 9 626
10 484
11 453
3,000 9 623
10 475
11 439
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1998
the term shear history is adequate because all of the the fluid
particles in the straight section have been subjected to the same
shear history, it is not so in the case of the fluid flowing in the CT.
In this case, fluid particles in the exit region of the CT have
undergone much longer shear histories than those located in the
entrance region. This is because CT sections are much longer than
the straight sections. However, the trends of the pressure drop vs.
shear history observed earlier in the case of the straight sections can
still be noticed (although barely) in the pressure drop vs. coiled-
tubing length across which the pressure is measured. For instance,
the minimum pressure drop corresponds to that measured across
3,000 ft of CT, for pH 5 10 and pH 5 11.
Borate-Crosslinked 35-lbm HPG/1,000 gal Polymer Gel. Figs.
12 through 15 show pressure-drop results obtained for borate-
crosslinked 35 lbm HPG/1,000 gal polymer gels. Unlike for borate-
crosslinked guar, Figs. 12 through 14 show that for borate-
crosslinked HPG, the pressure drop in the straight-tubing sections
is a decreasing function of shear history for all pH values consid-
ered. This suggests that for all the shear histories considered, the
rate at which the crosslinked bonds are destroyed by shearing is
higher than the rate at which new bonds are formed or broken bonds
are healed. Again, this results in the viscosity of the fluid and, thus,
the pressure drop, being a decreasing function of shear history.
Interestingly, as for borate-crosslinked guar, the tubing seam seems
to decrease the pressure drop for pH 5 9 and no shear history.
Fig. 15 shows pressure-drop results measured in CT of various
lengths. Unlike for borate-crosslinked guar, the dependence of the
pressure gradient on the length of CT across which it is measured
is strikingly strong. The pressure gradient first decreases sharply as
the length across which it is measured is increased and then seems
to approach a limiting asymptote. However, this could be a local
minimum in the curve of pressure drop vs. CT length. Observations
made earlier for borate-crosslinked guar certainly tend to support
this claim.
Frictional pressure-loss results obtained with borate-crosslinked
35-lbm guar/1,000 gal and 35-lbm HPG/1,000 gal gels at 60
gal/min are compared in Table 1 for 1,000- and 3,000-ft lengths of
CT. Several observations can be made. First, HPG pressure losses
are significantly higher than those for guar at all pH values and for
all CT lengths, with the largest difference occuring at pH 5 10 for
the 1,000-ft CT and pH 5 11 for the 3,000-ft CT. Second, the
difference in pressure drop is lower for 3,000 ft of CT as compared
with 1,000 ft of CT. This is because of the longer shearing time to
which the fluids are subjected when flowing in the 3,000-ft CT.
This shearing tends to destroy the crosslink network that is respon-
sible for the higher frictional pressure losses of crosslinked fluids
compared to linear fluids. Consequently, it is expected that within
the limit of maximum shearing time, the difference between the
frictional pressure losses of the two fluids will be minimum.
Borate-Crosslinked Difference
35-lbm HPG/1,000 gal (%)
1,668 166
2,206 356
1,861 311
1,113 79
1,407 196
1,403 220
95
Conclusions
1. For water, the tubing seam decreases the frictional pressure
loss whereas CT curvature increases the frictional pressure drop,
with magnitude of the effect of curvature being much greater than
that of the seam.
2. While the tubing seam does not seem to have any effect on
frictional pressure loss for the linear solutions, the curvature of the
CT strongly affects the pressure drop.
3. For borate-crosslinked HPG the pressure gradient is a strong
function of pH and CT length across which this gradient is measured.
4. For borate-crosslinked guar the pressure gradient is pH-de-
pendent and is not affected in any significant manner by the length
of the CT across which it is measured.
5. For borate-crosslinked guar and HPG, the pressure-drop be-
havior is a function of pH and shear history.
Nomenclature
d 5 pipe diameter, in.
D 5 diameter of curvature, in.
f 5 Fanning friction factor, 2tw/rv2
fseamed 5 friction factor for seamed tubing
fseamless 5 friction factor for seamless tubing
K 5 fluid consistency index, lbf-secn/ft2
L 5 length of tubing, ft
n 5 flow behavior index
ND 5 Dean number 5 NReG=(d/D)
NRe 5 Reynolds number, rvd/m
NReG 5 generalized Reynolds number, rv22ndn/K8n21
q 5 volumetric flow rate, gal/min
v 5 average fluid velocity, ft/sec
Dp 5 pressure drop in tubing, psi
m 5 fluid viscosity, cp
r 5 fluid density, lbm/ft3
tw 5 wall shear stress, dDp/4L, psi
Subscripts
CT 5 CT
SP 5 straight pipe
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Gas Research Inst. (Contract No.
5091–211-2114), the U.S. Dept. of Energy (Contract No. De-
FC21–92 MC29077), the U. of Oklahoma, and Halliburton Energy
Services for their joint sponsorship of this work and for their
permission to prepare and present this paper. Many other people
from the technical staff of the Fracturing Fluid Characterization
Facility and Halliburton Energy Services have also contributed to
the completion of this work. We thank them all.
References
1. Sas-Jaworsky, A.: “CT, Operations and Services,” World Oil’s CT
Handbook, M.E. Teed (ed.), Series Parts 4 and 5, Gulf Publishing Co.,
Houston (1993).
2. White, C.M.: “Streamline Flow Through Curved Pipes,” Proc., Royal
Soc. (London), Series A, (1929) 123, 645.
3. Taylor, G.I.: “The Criterion for Turbulence in Curved Pipes,” Proc.
Royal Soc. (London), Series A, (1929) 124, 243–249.
4. Ito, H.: “Friction Factors for Turbulent Flow in Curved Pipes,” J. of
Basic Engineering, Trans., ASME (1959) 81, 123.
5. Sreenivasan, K.R. and Strykowski, P.J.: “Stabilization Effects in Flow
Through Helically Coiled Pipes,” Experiments in Fluids (1983) 1,
No. 1, 31.
6. Webster, D.R. and Humphrey, J.A.C.: “Experimental Observations of
Flow Instability in a Helical Coil,” Trans., ASME (September 1993)
115, 436.
96
7. Mashelkar, R.A. and Devarajan, G.V.: “Secondary Flows of Non-
Newtonian Fluids: Part I—Laminar Boundary Layer Flow of a Gen-
eralized Non-Newtonian Fluid in a Coiled Tube,” Trans., Inst. Chemical
Engineers (1976) 54, No. 2, 100.
8. Mashelkar, R.A. and Devarajan, G.V.: “Secondary Flows of Non-
Newtonian Fluids: Part II—Frictional Losses in Laminar Flow of Purely
Viscous and Viscoelastic Fluids Through Coiled Tubes,” Trans., Inst.
Chemical Engineers (1976) 54, No. 2, 108.
9. Mashelkar, R.A. and Devarajan, G.V.: “Secondary Flows of Non-
Newtonian Fluids: Part III—Turbulent Flow of ViscoInelastic Fluids in
Coiled Tubes,” Trans., Inst. Chemical Engineers (1977) 55, No. 1, 29.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
cp 3 1.0* E203 5 Pa z s
ft 3 3.048* E201 5 m
ft2 3 9.290 304* E202 5 m2
ft3 3 2.831 685 E202 5 m3
gal/min 3 6.309 020 E202 5 m3/s
in. 3 2.54* E100 5 cm
lbm/ft3 3 1.601 846 E101 5 kg/m3
lbf-secn/ft2 3 4.788 026 E101 5 Pa z sn
psi 3 6.894 757 E103 5 Pa
*Conversion factor is exact. SPEPF
Idir Azouz is an assistant professor of engineering at Southern
Utah U. in Cedar City, Utah, U.S.A. His areas of interest include
modeling of turbulent flows and drag-reducing fluids. Previ-
ously, he worked as a mechanical engineer and research
engineer in his home country of Algeria, and as a postdoctoral
fellow at the Fracturing Fluid Characterization Facility at the U.
of Oklahoma. He holds a BS degree in petroleum engineering
and an MS and a PhD degree in mechanical engineering, all
from the U. of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Subhash N. Shah is a Stephen-
son Chair Professor and the Director of the Fracturing Fluid
Characterization Facility in the School of Petroleum and Geo-
logical Engineering at the U. of Oklahoma (OU) in Norman,
Oklahoma, U.S.A. before joining OU in March 1994, he worked
for 17 years with Halliburton Energy Services, and 11⁄2 years with
Allied Corp. His research focuses on developing new methods
to characterize and understand the behavior of fluids under
reservoir conditions, and other related issues in well stimulation
and completion. He holds a BS degree from the U. of Baroda,
India, and an MS degree and a PhD degree from the U. of New
Mexico, all in chemical engineering. He has been a member of
the Editorial Review Committee since 1984. P.S. Vinod is a
development engineer at the Dowell R&D facility in Houston,
where he works in the area of fluid-loss control. He holds a BS
degree in chemical engineering from the U. of Calicut, India,
and a PhD degree in chemical engineering from Rice U. in
Houston. David L. Lord is a principal engineer in Production
Enhancement Products and Process at Halliburton Energy Ser-
vices’ Technology Center, Duncan, Oklahoma, U.S.A. His re-
search efforts have concentrated on the properties of hydrau-
lic fracturing fluids, and he has authored numerous papers and
patents on the subject. He holds a BS degree in chemical
engineering and an MS degree in petroleum engineering, both
from the U. of Oklahoma. He was a 1982– 83 member of the
Editorial Review Committee.
Azouz Shah Vinod Lord
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1998