You are on page 1of 17

# Tubing Performance

Relation (TPR)

James A. Craig

## fluids to the surface at a given rate is one of

the
major
factors
affecting
Well
Deliverability.
Up to 80% of the total pressure loss may occur.
Part

## of the loss in the tubing includes

completion equipment, e.g. profile nipples,
sliding sleeves, subsurface flow-control devices,
etc.
Additionally, tubing string may be composed of
multiple tubing diameters.

## configuration of the wellbore, the properties of

the fluids, and the production rates.
Determination of this pressure drop is based on
the mechanical energy equation for flow
between two points in a system:

P1 g
v12
P2 g
v22
Z1
Z2
W El
gc
2 gc gc
2 gc

El

## = Irreversible energy losses (viscous &

friction)
Practically:
1
kinetic energy correction,
W
no work done
the fluid,
v 2 by or ondP
g

P g
Z
El

gc
2 gc

v dv f v 2

sin

dL g c
g c dL 2 g c d

Procedure:
We either fix the wellhead or bottomhole flowing

## pressure at a given rate.

The pressure drop along the tubing can be
calculated by charts or correlations.
The resulting flowing pressure at the other end
of the tubing can then be determined.
The resulting relationship between bottomhole
flowing pressure and production rate is called
Tubing Performance Relationship (TPR), and
it is valid only for the specified wellhead
pressure.
Other names include:
Vertical Lift Performance
Wellbore Flow Performance

IPR

## & TPR curves can be

combined
to
find
the
Stabilized Flow Rate (Point
of Natural Flow).
The tubing shoe reaches the
perforation depth.
Wellbore flowing pressure and
tubing intake pressure are
considered at the same depth.
At a specific rate when these
two pressures are equal, the
flow system is in equilibrium
and flow is stable.

## Pressure Loss Estimation in Fluid

Types
Single-Phase Liquid Flow

## This type of fluid flow is generally of minor

interest to the petroleum engineer, except for
the cases of water supply or injection wells.
Single-Phase Vapour Flow

## For dry gas wells there are several correlations

to calculate pressure drop in single-phase gas
flow. They include:
Average temperature and compressibility method
Original Cullendar and Smith method

## simplified method by Katz et al (1959)

assumes an average temperature and average
compressibility over the flow length

SD P e P

qg 200, 000
S
gTZLf M e 1
5

2
in

2
wh

gL
S 0.0375
TZ

3.71
2 log

/ D

fM

0.5

## qg gas flow rate, scf/d

D tubing ID, in.
Pin flowing tubing intake pressure, psia

## g gas gravity (air = 1)

T average temperature, o R
Z average gas compressibilty factor
L vertical depth, ft
f M Moody friction factor

Multiphase Flow

## Pressure drop in multiphase flow is more

complex than that of a single-phase flow
because parameters such as velocity, friction
factor, density, and the fraction of vapour to
liquid change as the fluid flows to the surface.
Pressure drop can be determined either by
correlations or by gradient curves. Some of
the correlations are:
Duns and Ros (1963)
Dukler (1964)
Orkiszewski (1967)
Hageborn and Brown (1965)
Beggs and Brill (1973)
Mukherjee and Brill (1985)

Application

## of multiphase flow correlations

requires an iterative, trial-and-error solution to
account for changes in flow parameters as a
function of pressure.
The calculation is intensive and is best
accomplished with computer programs.
curves) are developed as alternatives to the
correlations. They are computer generated.
These curves are developed for series of gasliquid ratios (GLRs) and provide estimates of
pressure as a function of depth.
Recent developed curves are based on the flow
regime correlations, and not on field data as was
originally done.

References
Joe Dunn Clegg (Editor): Petroleum

## Engineering Handbook, Vol. IV Production

Operations Engineering, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 2007.
Michael Golan and Curtis H. Whitson: Well
Performance, Tapir Edition, 1996.
William Lyons: Working Guide to Petroleum
and Natural Gas Production Engineering,
Elsevier Inc., First Edition, 2010.
Schlumberger: Well Performance Manual.