SHIHUI SUN et al: A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR PRESSURE PREDICTION IN DEVIATED WELLS ...

A Mechanistic Model for Pressure Prediction in Deviated Wells During UBD

Operations

Shihui SUN*,1, Tie YAN1, Xueliang BI 1, Guoqing YU2

1
College of Petroleum Engineering, Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, Heilongjiang, 163318, P.R China
2
Daqing Oil Filed Co., Ltd. of PetroChina, Daqing, Heilongjiang, 163453, P.R China

Abstract —  Underbalanced drilling (UBD) offers a major advantage in increasing the rate of penetration and reducing lost
circulation. In order to improve recovery, drilling of deviated and horizontal wells increased. However, little data is available
regarding the effects of well deviation on the hydraulics of two phase flow in deviated and horizontal wellbores. Prediction of
flow and pressure profiles while drilling underbalanced in such wells will help in designing and planning of the well. The main
aim of this research is to develop a new mechanistic model to predict flow pattern and calculate flow behavior for each pattern
in deviated wells. The proposed model was evaluated against field measurements and compared with empirical models.
Simulation results show that the proposed model, which considering the effects of wellbore deviation, has an outstanding
performance.

Keywords ‐ mechanistic model; well deviation; flow pattern; pressure drop

I. INTRODUCTION
III. FLOW PATTERN PREDICTION MODELS
Under UBD conditions, two phase flow models are
used to predict flow characteristic, such as pressure drop, The following flow pattern models applied to both the
flow pattern, liquid holdup and other parameters. The drill string and the annulus with an inclination angle θ
models can be divided into two categories: empirical from horizontal.
correlations and mechanistic models. Although empirical A. Downward Flow through the Drill string Bubble to
models lead to acceptable results in certain wells, they Slug Transition
fail or over predict for both vertical and horizontal
operations sometimes[1]. Field applications show that Hasan proposed the following expression for
mechanistic models, rather than empirical correlations, transition boundary between bubble and slug flow [5].
are being used with increasing frequency for design of C v v
vsg  0 SL  sin  (1)
multiphase production system because of the better (1/  )  C0
accuracy[2]. Based on this trend of improvement, the Harmathy correlation is used to calculate the terminal
application of mechanistic models to predict wellbore rise velocity (ν∞) for upward flow in vertical and inclined
pressure and two phase flow parameters can increase the channels as follows [6].
success of UBD operations. Taking into account the
      g 
0.25
effects of well deviation, an improved mechanistic model
for pressure prediction through a deviated well is v  1.53  L 2G  (2)
 L 
presented in the paper.
Where,C0 is the velocity profile coefficient. When
II. DOMINANT UBD FLOW PATTERNS inclination is 10º-50º, C0=1.05; When inclination is
The major flow patterns that exist in multiphase flow 50º-60º, C0=1.15; When inclination is 60º-90º, C0=1.25.L,
are dispersed bubble, bubble, slug, churn and annular[3]. G is liquid density and gas density, respectively, kg/m3. g
In UBD, due to well control safety and surface fluid is the gravitational acceleration, m/s2.αis gas void fraction.
handling consideration, choke pressure increase would vSL is superficial liquid velocity, m/s. σ is liquid surface
drastically decrease superficial gas velocities and shift tension, N/m.
flow pattern from annular to churn or slug. In addition, 1) Bubble or Slug to Dispersed Bubble Transition
pressure and temperature change along with the wellbore Caetano model is recommended for the bubble or slug
of a typical UBD well. Churn and annular flow may occur to dispersed bubble flow transition [7-8], which is given
only at conditions close to the surface. Therefore, for the by:
0.4 0.5
upward flow in the annulus, UBD operations deal mostly  2 f 0.4   1.6    L 0.6
1.2
with dispersed bubble, bubble, and slug flow. v      
   L  G  g    
M
For downward flow through the drill string, slug,  DIT 
(3)
bubble, and dispersed bubble flow are also the dominant v 
0.5

flow patterns, depending on the combination of injected  0.725  4.15  SG 

gas and liquid flow rates[4].  vM 

DOI 10.5013/IJSSST.a.17.44.02 2.1 ISSN: 1473-804x online, 1473-8031 print

 SHIHUI SUN et al: A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR PRESSURE PREDICTION IN DEVIATED WELLS ...

Fanning friction factor, f, is calculated using the follow.

no-slip liquid holdup(HL) defined by: Dep  DIC  DOT (11)
v
H L  SL (4) 4) Churn to annular transition
vM Based on the minimum gas velocity required to
Where, DIT is the inner pipe diameter, m. vM is prevent the entrained liquid droplets from falling back
mixture velocity, m/s. vSG is superficial gas velocity, m/s. into the gas stream that would originate churn flow, Taitel
et al proposed the following equation to predict the
B. Upward Flow through the Annuli Bubble to Slug transition to annular flow [10].
Transition
      g 
0.25

During bubble flow, discrete bubbles rise with the vSG  3.1  L 2G  (12)
occasional appearance of a Taylor bubble. The discrete  G 
bubble rise velocity was defined in (2). Hasan and Kabir
stated that the presence of an inner tube tends to make the IV. FLOW BEHAVIOR PREDICTION MODELS
nose of the Taylor bubble sharper, causing an increase in For steady state flow, the total pressure gradient is
the Taylor bubble rise velocity [9]. As a result, Hasan and composed of gravity, friction, and convective acceleration
Kabir15 developed (5) where the diameter of the outer losses and is calculated as follows.
tube should be used with the diameter ratio K(DOT/DIC) to
 dp   dp   dp   dp 
get the following expression for the Taylor bubble rise         (13)
velocity in inclined annulus.  dZ T  dZ  Hy  dZ  Fric  dZ  Acc
 D    G  dp 
vTB   0.345  0.1 OT  sin  1  cos  
1.2
gDIC L Where   is the total pressure gradient, Pa/m;
 DIC  L  dZ T
 dp  (5)  dp 
Where, DOT is the outside pipe diameter and DIC is the   is the gravity pressure gradient, Pa/m;  
 dZ  Hy  dZ  Fric
inner casing diameter, m.
Hasan and Kabir stated that the presence of an inner  dp 
is the friction pressure gradient, Pa/m; and   is
tube does not appear to influence the bubble  dZ  Acc
concentration profile (C0) and thus, the bubble-slug the acceleration pressure gradient, Pa/m.
transition is defined by:
 4  C0  vSG A. Downward Flow through the Drill string Bubble
vSL   vTB (6) Flow Model for Drill string
sin 
1) Bubble or Slug to dispersed bubble transition The drift flux approach is used to calculate liquid
The hydraulic diameter (Dh) is substituted for the pipe holdup considering the slippage between the phases and
inside diameter (DIT) in (3), the transition from bubble or non-homogenous distribution of bubbles. The slip
slug to dispersed bubble flow is defined as follows. velocity using the drift flux approach can be expressed as
follows[12].
0.4  0.5
 2 f 0.4   0.6 v
1.2  1.6    vS  SG  C0 vM (14)
  L
v     1 HL
M  D 
 h  


  L  G g   
(7) With an inclination angle θ the proposed model as
0.5 shown below:
v 
 0.725  4.15  SG  vS  v H L sin  (15)
v  Combining (14) and (15) we get the following
 M 
expression:
The hydraulic diameter of the casing-tubing annulus is
given by: v
v H L sin   SG  1.2vM (16)
Dh  DIC  DOT (8) 1 HL
2) Dispersed bubble to slug flow transition Newton-Raphson method was used to solve for liquid
Taitel et al. determined that the maximum allowable holdup HL from (16).
gas void fraction under bubble flow condition is 0.52 [10]. The gravity component is given by:
Higher values will convert the flow to slug, hence the  dp 
transition boundary could be equated as follows.    M g sin  (17)
 dZ  Hy
vSL  0.923vSG (9)
Where,
3) Slug to churn transition
Tengesdal et al. stated that the slug structure will be M  L H L  G 1  H L  (18)
completely destroyed and churn flow will occur if the gas The frictional pressure loss is given by:
void fraction equals 0.78 [11]. Thus churn flow will occur.  dp  f M  M vM2
The transition from slug flow to churn flow can thus be    (19)
represented by:  dZ  Fric 2 DIT
vSL  0.0684vSG  0.292 gDep (10) Where fM is the Moody friction factor and is
calculated using Reynolds number NRE.
Where Dep is the equi-periphery diameter defined as

DOI 10.5013/IJSSST.a.17.44.02 2.2 ISSN: 1473-804x online, 1473-8031 print

 SHIHUI SUN et al: A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR PRESSURE PREDICTION IN DEVIATED WELLS ...

Moody friction factor is four times the Fanning  dp 

friction factor and it is calculated using the Colebrook    1    M LS  MTB  g (30)
function[13].  dL  Hy
1  0.269 1.255   dp  2 f FLs  M LS vM2
 4 log    (20)    1    (31)
fM  DIT N RE f M   dL  Fric DIT

Where, ε is tube roughness, mm. Where M LS is the mixture density in the liquid slug
The acceleration pressure gradient components is zone and the friction factor is calculated with Colebrook
calculated using Beggs and Brill approach as follow [14]. function using Reynolds number, kg/m3;  is the
 dp   M vM vSG dp
   (21) relative bubble length parameter, 1; MTB is the mixture
 dL  Acc p dL
density in the Taylor bubble zone, kg/m3; and vLTB is the
The acceleration term (Ek) is defined as follow.
 v v in-situ liquid velocity in the Taylor bubble zone, which
Ek  M M SG (22) are function of the slug flow conditions, m/s.
p For fully developed Taylor bubble slug flow:
Then the total pressure drop is calculated by (23) : L
 dp   dp 
  TB and MTB  G (32)
    LSU
 dp   dL  Hy  dL  Fric and for developing Taylor bubble slug flow:
   (23)
 dL T 1  Ek L
1) Dispersed bubble flow model for drill string
  dTB , mTB   L H LdTB  G 1  H LdTB ,
LdSU (33)
 
Since nearly a uniform bubble distribution in the
liquid, the flow can be treated as ahomogenous flow. and vLTB  vLdTB
Thus, the liquid holdup is very close to the no-slip holdup Since in UBD, the most common flow patterns in
HL. The pressure gradient components are calculated as downward flow are dispersed bubble and bubble, the
those in bubble flow. acceleration component in drillstring geometries is
2) Slug flow model for drill string relatively small and may be either neglected or calculated
Assuming that the liquid and gas phases in the liquid using the approach suggested for bubble flow, (23).
slug behave analogously to fully developed bubble flow
B. Upward Flow through the Annulus
and that the bubble swarm effect in downward flow is
negligible n 0[15], the liquid holdup in the liquid slug 1) Bubble Flow Model for Annular Geometries
can be calculated by: For a bubbly flow the holdup is calculated as reported
by Hasan and Kabir as follows [9].
vSG vSG
H LLS  1  (24) HL  1 (34)
C0 vM  v v  C0 vM
The liquid holdup in the Taylor bubble in downward The gravity pressure gradient is calculated using (17).
flow may be calculated by: For the frictional pressure loss is calculated from (19).
vSG Caetano suggested the use of the calculation developed
H LTB  1  (25)
C1vM  vTB by Gunn and Darling for a turbulent flow as follow:
0.5
After extensive validations, Hasan recommended   FP 
0.45 exp    N RE  3000  /106 
  
using C01.2and C11.12 f    
Considering a slug unit formed by a Taylor bubble   FCA  
 
and a liquid slug regions, the liquid holdup in the slug (35)
unit may be approximated to:    0.45 exp    N RE  3000  /106   
  FP   
   0.4
L  4 log N RE f  
L    FCA  
H L  1   TB 1  H L   LS 1  H L   (26)   
 LSU LSU
SU TB LS

The slug unit length can be calculated by the Where Fp and FCA are geometry parameters defined by
following expression based on the superficial gas (36) and (37).
velocity. FP  16 / NRE , M (36)
160DIT vSG
LSU  for vSG  0.4m/s (27) 16 1  K 
2
C0 vM  v FCA  (37)
64DIT 1  K 4 1 K 2 
LSU  for vSG  0.4m/s (28)   
C0 vM  v 1  K
2
ln 1 / K  
The liquid slug length is given by: The acceleration component is calculated using Beggs
LLS  16 Dh (29) and Brill approach using (23).
2) Dispersed Bubble Flow Model
Perez-Tellez showed that, for a fully developed Taylor The dispersed bubble holdup is assumed equal to the
bubble, the total hydrostatic and frictional pressure losses no-slip holdup (HL). The same equations as in the bubble
can be calculated by:

DOI 10.5013/IJSSST.a.17.44.02 2.3 ISSN: 1473-804x online, 1473-8031 print

 SHIHUI SUN et al: A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR PRESSURE PREDICTION IN DEVIATED WELLS ...

flow are used to calculate the total pressure gradient. 0.4


 0.707 N 2 2.5   0.0379 N 0.9 2.5  0.5
3) Slug Flow Model  RE , SL RE , SL
  vL    L 
The same model used by Perez-Tellez for the case of FA    
 vG   G 
0.9
N RE , SL
downward flow inside the drill string is used. The
hydraulic diameter is used instead of the inner tubing
diameter in (30) for calculating Reynolds number. Where NRE,SL and NRE,SG are the superficial liquid and
gas Reynolds number respectively. Both are calculated
In addition, the pressure drop due to acceleration below:
across the mixing zone at the front of the liquid slug by:
v D
H LLS  L N RE , SL  L SL e (48)
 dp 
  
 dZ  Acc LSU
 
vLLS  vLTB vT  vLLS (38)  L
G vSG De
The average holdup over the entire slug unit H LSU for N RE , SG  (49)
G
either developed of fully developing Taylor bubble can be
The vertical correction parameter is given by Wallis as
calculated by:
follow [19].
H LSU  1 

vSG  1  H LLS  v TB  vGLS  (39) IV  1  300  / De  (50)
vTB Considering that the liquid film thickness   is
Where vGLS is  in-situ gas velocity in the liquid slug, constant, the liquid holdup can be estimated by:
m/s.      2 
H L  4      (51)
4) Annular flow model  De  De  
As explained above, in common UBD operations, the
window of occurrence of annular flow is quite limited and
when it occurs, it takes place in the annulus at a few V. BIT MODEL
meters close to the surface. The simplified annular flow Using the mechanical energy balance along with the
model proposed by Taitel and Barnea was implemented gas weighting fraction and neglecting frictional pressure
only to avoid convergence problems during the drop, Perez-Tellez formulated the following expression
computations [16]. for calculating the pressure drop across the bit nozzles.
 dp  4 i
      L H L  G 1  H L   g sin  (40) 1  wG  wG zRT Pbh
dL
 T De  2
vn2 
L
P
bh  Pup  
MG
ln
Pup
 0 (52)
The annular film thickness  can be defined as
Where vn is the nozzle velocity, m/s; wG is the gas
follow:
1/3 0.6
weighting factor; Pbh is the bottom hole pressure, Pa; Pup
  L2    L vSL De  is the upstream pressure, Pa; MG is the gas nolecular
  0.115     (41)
 g   L  G   L    L 
weight, kg.
Using the continuity equation for the gas liquid
De is the equivalent pipe diameter and is calculated by: mixture the following expression is reached to express the
De  DIC2  DIT2 (42) conservation of mass
 M vM An  qL  L  qG G  constant (53)
The interfacial shear stress (  i ) is defined by:
And the nozzle velocity is calculated by:
0.5 f i G vSG
2
q   qL  L
i  (43) vn  G G (54)
1  2  / De  
4
An
The interfacial shear friction factor is calculated as The above three equations are solved numerically to
suggested by Alves et al as follows [17]. obtain the bit nozzle upstream pressure given the bottom
f i  f SC I (44) hole pressure.
Where fscis the superficial core friction factor (gas VI. MODEL VALIDATION
phase) and is calculated based on the core superficial In order to demonstrate the validity of the model, a
velocity, density and viscosity. The interfacial correction field case was simulated and results compared with
parameter I is used to take into account the roughness of measurements.
the interface. The parameter I is an average between the Injection and bottom hole pressure at depth 2308m
horizontal angle and the vertical angle and is calculated and 2328m was measured by a pressure recording tool,
based on an inclination θ. which is obtained from Table I. Drill string and operating
I  I H cos2   IV sin 2  (45) parameters for the above two depths are shown in Table
The horizontal correction parameter is given by II,III.
Henstock and Hanratty[18].
I H  1  800 FA (46) TABLEI.MEASURED PRESSUREAT 2308m AND 2328m

Where, Depth Parameters Value

2308 Injection Pressure Pin /MPa 11.7

DOI 10.5013/IJSSST.a.17.44.02 2.4 ISSN: 1473-804x online, 1473-8031 print

 SHIHUI SUN et al: A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR PRESSURE PREDICTION IN DEVIATED WELLS ...

Bottom hole Pressure Pbh /MPa 17.2 2081.49 19.66 2137.2 60.78 2193.61 89.81

Injection Pressure Pin /MPa 9.0 2084.28 21.72 2140.11 62.93 2196.56 89.9
2328
Bottom hole Pressure Pbh /MPa 16.8 2087.26 23.92 2143.01 65.08 2227.03 89.94

2090.25 26.13 2145.96 67.25 2230.04 89.97

TABLEII DRILLSTRINGAND ANNULAR
GEOMETRIESATTHETWO SIMULATED DEPTHS 2093.16 28.27 2148.88 69.41 2233.18 89.99

Run 1# 2096.27 30.57 2151.83 71.59 2263.66 90

Casing Pipe 2099.11 32.67 2154.85 73.82 2266.74 90

Depth/m ID/mm Depth/m OD/mm ID/mm 2102.11 34.88 2157.69 75.91 2297.22 90

0-2010 244.5 0-1380 88.9 68.3 2105.02 37.03 2160.62 78.07 2328 90

2010-2058 177.8 1380-1548 88.9 55.6 2107.95 39.19 2163.59 80.27

2058-2300 152.4 1548-2280 88.9 61.9 Hasan and Kabir, Beggs and Brill models were also
Total Depth 2308 2280-2300 88.9 57.2 tested in compare to the result of the new model. The error
of the developed model’s predictions, the empirical models’
Run 2#
results with filed measurements are shown in Table V. The
Casing Pipe average absolute error Ea is given by:
Depth/m ID/mm Depth/m OD/mm ID/mm P  Pmeas
Ea  calc  100% (55)
0-2010 244.5 0-1403 88.9 68.3
Pmeas

2010-2058 177.8 1403-1571 88.9 55.6 TABLE V COMPARISONOF ABSOLUTE AVERAGE ERROR
2058-2320 152.4 1571-2302 88.9 61.9
Run 1# Run 2#
Total Depth 2328 2302-2320 88.9 57.2
Comparison Calc. Pres Calc. Pres
Ea Ea
TABLE III OPERATING PARAMETERS /MPa /MPa

Developed Pin 13.0 10.7 8.3 7.9

Operating Parameters Run 1# Run 2#
Model Pbh 17.8 3.8 17.2 2.6
Depth /(m) 2308 2328
Beggs & Pin 14.1 20.1 11.1 24.2
Gas Flow Rate / (m3/min) 18 30
Brill Pbh 16.3 5.0 15.7 6.2
Liquid Flow Rate / (m3/min) 1.2 1.0
Hasan & Pin 11.5 1.5 9.5 5.5
Liquid Density / (kg/m3) 950 950
Kabir Pbh 18.6 8.2 18.1 7.8
Mud Viscosity / (mPa·s) 3 3
Table V shows that the results of the developed model
Inclination angles are read from survey file, which are
have a good match with the measured value where at the
shown in Table IV. In order to find the angle at any depth,
average absolute error Ea has an average value of less
linear interpolation is used.
than 10%. The Beggs & Brill, Hasan & Kabir models are
TABLE IV MEASURED INCLINATION ANGLE based on empirical correlations, the results shown in
Table V indicate that the empirical models predict the
Inc. Inc. Inc. bottom hole pressure reasonably, however the
Depth Depth Depth
Angle Angle Angle mechanistic model outperform both.
(m) (m) (m)
(°) (°) (°) VII. CONCLUSIONS
2054.86 0 2110.79 41.29 2166.56 82.46 A model is developed for the prediction of flow
pattern and flow behavior in deviated wellbores and
2057.81 2.18 2113.69 43.43 2169.46 84.61 pipelines under UBD conditions using mechanistic steady
2060.77 4.36 2116.56 45.55 2172.55 86.88 state model. In the annulus, dispersed bubble, bubble,
slug, churn, annular flow are considered. And three flow
2063.62 6.47 2119.56 47.76 2175.55 89.09
patterns (dispersed bubble, bubble, slug) are taken into
2066.57 8.65 2122.47 49.91 2178.37 89.23 account in the drill string.
The developed model has been validated against field
2069.63 10.9 2125.35 52.04 2181.42 89.33
data and existing empirical models. The model have a
2072.53 13.04 2128.31 54.22 2184.32 89.62 good match with the measured data, which has an average
absolute error of less than 10%.The model comparison
2075.39 15.16 2131.4 56.02 2187.4 89.73
shows that the developed model performs better than
2078.34 17.33 2134.32 58.66 2190.52 89.74 empirical models when trying to design UBD operation
within a pressure window.

DOI 10.5013/IJSSST.a.17.44.02 2.5 ISSN: 1473-804x online, 1473-8031 print

 SHIHUI SUN et al: A MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR PRESSURE PREDICTION IN DEVIATED WELLS ...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by Youth Science
Foundation of Northeast Petroleum University (No.
NEPUBS2014-08) and National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 51374077).
REFERENCES
[1]. Mousavi, H., Mostafavi, V.,“Modeling of Three Phase Flow in
the Annuli During UBD Operations”,SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control,
Louisiana, 13-15 Feb., 2008, doi:10.2118/112679-MS.
[2]. Perez-Tellez, C., Smith, J. R.,“A New Comprehensive,
Mechanistic Model for UBD Improves Wellbore Pressure
Predictions”, IPCEM, Mexico, 10-12 Feb,2002,
doi:10.2118/74426-MS.
[3]. Lage, A.C.V.M. and Time, R.W. “An Experimental and
Theoretical Investigation of Upward Two-Phase Flow in Annuli”,
SPE Journal, vol.7, 2002, pp.325-336.
[4]. Barnea, D., Shoham, O., and Taitel, Y. “Flow Pattern Transition
for Vertical Downward Two Phase Flow”, Chem. Engineering.
Sci.,vol. 37, 1982, pp.741-746.
[5]. Hasan, A.R. “Void Fraction in Bubbly and Slug Flow in
Downward Vertical and Inclined Systems”, SPE Production &
Facilities, vol.10, 1995, pp.172-176.
[6]. Harmathy, T.Z. “Velocity of Large Drops and Bubbles in Media
of Infinite or Restricted Extent”, AIChE J.,vol. 6, 1960, pp.
281-288.
[7]. Caetano, E.F., Shoham, O., and Brill, J.P. “Upward Vertical Two
phase Flow through Annulus Part I: Single-Phase Friction Factor,
Taylor Bubble Rise Velocity, and Flow Pattern Prediction”,
Journal of Energy Resources Technology, vol. 114,1992, pp. 1-12.
[8]. Caetano, E.F., Shoham, O. and Brill J.P. “Upward Vertical Two
Phase Flow through an Annulus Part II: Modeling Bubble, Slug
DOI 10.5013/IJSSST.a.17.44.02
and Annular Flow”. ASME J. Energy Resources Technology, vol.
114,1992, pp. 13-30.
[9]. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S. “Tow-Phase Flow in Vertical and
Inclined Annuli”, Intl. J. Multiphase Flow, vol.18,1992, pp.
279-293.
[10]. Taitel, Y., Barnea, D. and Duckler, A.E. “Modeling Flow Pattern
Transitions for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in Vertical
Tubes”, AIChE J., vol. 26,1980, pp.345-354.
[11]. Tengesdal, J. Ø., Kaya, A. S., and Sarica, C. “Flow Pattern
Transition and Hydrodynamic Modeling of Churn Flow”, SPE J.,
vol. 4, 1999, pp. 342-348.
[12]. Kaya, A.S., Sarica, C., and Brill, J.P. “Comprehensive
Mechanistic Modeling of Two phase Flow in Deviated Wells”,
Annual and Technical Conferences and Exhibition, Houston, 3-6
Oct., 1999, doi:10.2118/56522-MS.
[13]. Colebrook, C.F.“Turbulent Flow in Pipes With Particular
Reference to the Transition Region Between the Smooth and
Rough Pipe Laws”, J. Inst. Civil Eng., vol. 11,1939, pp. 133-156.
[14]. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P. “A Study of Two-Phase Flow in
Inclined Pipes”, Trans. AIME, vol.25, 1973, pp. 607-617.
[15]. Perez-Tellez, C. “Improved Bottomhole Pressure Control for
Underbalanced Drilling Operations”, D.S. thesis, Louisiana State
University,Louisiana State, USA, 2002.
[16]. Taitel, Y. nd Barnea, D. “Counter Current Gas-Liquid Vertical
Flow, Model for Flow Pattern and Pressure Drop”, Int. J.
Multiphase Flow, vol. 9, 1983, pp. 637-647.
[17]. Alves, I. M., Caetano, E. F., Minami, K., and Shoham, O.
“Modeling Annular Flow Behavior for Gas Wells”, SPE
Production Engineering,vol. 64,1991,pp. 435-440.
[18]. Henstock, W.H. and Hanratty, T.J. “The Interfacial Drag and the
Height of the Wall Layer in Annular Flow”, AIChE J., vol.
22,1976, pp. 990-1000.
[19]. Wallis, G.B, One Dimensional Two phase Flow, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1969.
2.6 ISSN: 1473-804x online, 1473-8031 print