Unied Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow: Horizontal to Vertical Upward Flow

L.E. Gomez, SPE, Ovadia Shoham, SPE, and Zelimir Schmidt,* SPE, U. of Tulsa; R.N. Chokshi,** SPE, Zenith ETX Co.; and Tor Northug, Statoil Summary A unied steady-state two-phase ow mechanistic model for the prediction of ow pattern, liquid holdup and pressure drop is presented that is applicable to the range of inclination angles from horizontal (0) to upward vertical ow (90). The model is based on two-phase ow physical phenomena, incorporating recent developments in this area. It consists of a unied ow pattern prediction model and unied individual models for stratied, slug, bubble, annular and dispersed bubble ow. The model can be applied to vertical, directional and horizontal wells, and horizontal-near horizontal pipelines. The proposed model implements new criteria for eliminating discontinuity problems, providing smooth transitions between the different ow patterns. The new model has been initially validated against existing, various, elaborated, laboratory and eld databases. Following the validation, the model is tested against a new set of eld data, from the North Sea and Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, which includes 86 cases. The proposed model is also compared with six commonly used models and correlations. The model showed outstanding performance for the pressure drop prediction, with a 1.3% average error, a 5.5% absolute average error and 6.2 standard deviation. The proposed model provides an accurate two-phase ow mechanistic model for research and design for the industry. the mechanisms and the important parameters of the ow. All current research is conducted through the modeling approach. Application of models in the eld is now underway, showing the potential of this method. The mechanistic models developed over the past two decades have been formulated separately for pipelines and wellbores. Following is a brief review of the literature for these two cases. Pipeline Models. These models are applicable for horizontal and near horizontal ow conditions, namely, 10. The pioneering and most durable model for ow pattern prediction in pipelines was presented by Taitel and Dukler.6 Other studies have been carried out for the prediction of specic transitions, such as the onset of slug ow,7 or different ow conditions, such as high pressure.8 Separate models have been developed for stratied ow,6,9-11 slug ow,12-14 annular ow15,16 and dispersed bubble ow the homogeneous no-slip model17. A comprehensive mechanistic model, incorporating a ow pattern prediction model and separate models for the different ow patterns, was presented by Xiao et al.18 for pipeline design. Wellbore Models. These models are applicable mainly for vertical ow but can be applied as an approximation for off-vertical sharply inclined ow (60 90) also. A ow pattern prediction model was proposed by Taitel et al.19 for vertical ow, which was later extended to sharply inclined ow by Barnea et al.20 Specic models for the prediction of the ow behavior have been developed for bubble ow21,22 slug ow23-25 and annular ow.26,27 Comprehensive mechanistic models for vertical ow have been presented by Ozon et al.,28 by Hasan and Kabir,21 by Ansari et al.29 and by Chokshi et al.30 Unied Models. Attempts have been made in recent years to develop unied models that are applicable for the range of inclination angles between horizontal (0) and upward vertical (90) ow. These models are practical since they incorporate the inclination angle. Thus, there is no need to apply different models for the different inclination angles encountered in horizontal, inclined and vertical pipes. A unied ow pattern prediction model was presented by Barnea31 that is valid for the entire range of inclination angles ( 90 90). Felizola and Shoham32 presented a unied slug ow model applicable to the inclination angle range from horizontal to upward vertical ow. A unied mechanistic model applicable to horizontal, upward and downward ow conditions was presented by Petalas and Aziz,33 which was tested against a large number of laboratory and eld data. Recently, Gomez et al.34 presented a unied correlation for the prediction of the liquid holdup in the slug body. The above literature review reveals that separate comprehensive mechanistic models are available for pipeline ow and wellbore ow. Only very few studies have been published on unied modeling. The objective of this paper is to present a systematic, comprehensive, unied model applicable for the range of inclination angles between horizontal (0) and vertical (90). This will provide more efcient computing algorithms, because the model can be applied conveniently for both pipelines and wellbores,
1086-055X/2000/53/339/12/$5.000.50 339

Introduction Early predictive means for two-phase ow were based on the empirical approach. This was due to both the complex nature of two-phase ow and the need for design methods for industry. The most commonly used correlations have been the Dukler et al.1 and Beggs and Brill2 correlations for ow in pipelines, and the Hagedorn and Brown3 and Ros4/Duns and Ros5 correlations for ow in wellbores. This approach was successful for solving twophase ow problems for more than 40 years, with an updated performance of 30% error. However, the empirical approach has never addressed the why and how problems for twophase ow phenomena. Also, it is believed that no further or better accuracy can be achieved through this approach. A new approach emerged in the early 1980s, namely, the mechanistic modeling approach. This approach attempts to shed more light on the physical phenomena. The ow mechanisms causing two-phase ow to occur are determined and modeled mathematically. A fundamental postulate in this method is the existence of various ow congurations or ow patterns, including stratied ow, slug ow, annular ow, bubble ow, churn ow and dispersed bubble ow. These ow patterns are shown schematically in Fig. 1. The rst objective of this approach is, thus, to predict the existing ow pattern for a given system. Then a separate model is developed for each ow pattern to predict the corresponding hydrodynamics and heat transfer. These models are expected to be more reliable and general because they incorporate
*Deceased. **Now with TanData Corp.
Copyright 2000 Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper (SPE 65705) was revised for publication from paper SPE 56520, presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, 5 8 October. Original manuscript received for review 20 October 1999. Revised manuscript received 20 May 2000. Manuscript peer approved 9 June 2000.

SPE Journal 5 3, September 2000

d CD 2

0.4 L G g

1/2

The other critical diameter is applicable to shallow inclinations ( 10) where, due to buoyancy, bubbles larger than this diameter migrate to the upper part of the pipe causing creaming and transition to slug ow as follows: d CB f M v2 L 3 M . 8 L G g cos 5

Transition to dispersed bubble ow will occur when the maximum possible bubble diameter, given by Eq. 3, is less than both critical diameters given by Eqs. 4 or 5, namely, d max d CD and d CB . 6

Fig. 1Flow patterns in pipelines and wellbores for horizontal to vertical ow patterns.

The transition boundary given by Eq. 6 is valid for 0.52, which represents the maximum possible packing of bubbles for a cubic lattice conguration. For larger values of void fraction, agglomeration of bubbles occurs, independent of the turbulence forces, resulting in a transition to slug ow. This criterion is given by

NS
without the need to switch among different models. The proposed model will be evaluated against new eld data, along with other published models and correlations. Unied Model Formulation The unied model consists of a unied ow pattern prediction model and separate unied models for the different existing ow patterns. These are briey described below. Unied Flow Pattern Prediction Model. The Barnea31 model is applicable for the entire range of inclination angles, namely, from upward vertical ow to downward vertical ow ( 90 90). Below is a summary of the applicable transition criteria for this study, including the stratied to nonstratied, slug to dispersed bubble, annular to slug and bubble to slug ow. Stratied to Nonstratied Transition. The criterion for this transition is the same as the original one proposed by Taitel and Dukler,6 based on a simplied KelvinHelmholtz stability analysis given by F
2

v SG 0.52. v SG v SL

Annular to Slug Transition. Two mechanisms are responsible for this transition from annular ow to slug ow, causing blockage of the gas core by the liquid phase. The two mechanisms are based on the characteristic lm structure of annular ow: 1. Instability of the liquid lm due to downward ow near the pipe wall. The criterion for the instability of the lm is obtained from the simultaneous solution of the following two dimensionless equations: Y Y 1 75H L
1 H L 2.5H L

1
3 HL

X 2,

8 9

2 3/2 H L
3 HL 1

3/2 H L

X2

where X is the Lockhart and Martinelli parameter and Y is a dimensionless gravity group dened respectively by 4 C L L v SL d d L 4 C G G v SG d G

1 hL2 1

2 L / dh L dA vG

AG

1,

X 2

where the superscript tilde symbol represents a dimensionless parameter length and area are normalized with d and d 2 , respectively, and the phase velocity is normalized with the corresponding supercial velocity. F is a dimensionless group given by F

2 L v SL 2 2 d m G v SG 2

dp dL dp dL

SL

10

SG

L G g sin . dp dL SG

11

G v SG . L G dg cos

Slug to Dispersed Bubble Transition. The slug to dispersed bubble transition occurs at high liquid ow rates, where the turbulent forces overcome the interfacial tension forces, dispersing the gas phase into small bubbles. The resulting maximum bubble size can be determined from
v SG d max 4.15 vM

Note that Eq. 8 yields the steady-state solution for the liquid holdup H L , while Eq. 9 yields the value of the liquid holdup that satises the condition of the lm instability. 2. Wave growth on the interface due to large liquid supply from the lm. If sufcient liquid is provided, the wave will grow and bridge the pipe, resulting in slug ow. The condition for occurrence of this mechanism is H L 0.24. 12

0.5

0.725 L

0.6

2 f M v3 M d

0.4

Two critical bubble diameters are considered. The rst is the critical diameter below which bubbles do not deform, avoiding agglomeration or coalescence, given by
340

Transition from annular to slug ow will occur whenever one of the two criteria is satised. A smooth change between the two mechanisms is obtained when the inclination angle varies over the entire range of inclinations, or when a change occurs in the operationing conditions.
SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2000

Gomez et al.: Unied Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow

Bubble to Slug Transition. The transition from bubble to slug ow occurs at relatively lower liquid ow rates compared to the transition from slug to dispersed bubble ow. Under these conditions the turbulent forces are negligible, and the transition is caused by coalescence of bubbles at a critical gas void fraction of 0.25, as follows:
v SL

1 g L G v SG 1.53 1 0.5 2 L

1/4

sin .

13

The bubble regime can exist at low liquid ow rates as given by Eq. 13, provided that the pipe diameter is larger than 2 g 0.5 and only for sharply inclined pipes d 19 ( L G ) / L with inclination angles between approximately 60 and 90. Elimination of Transition Discontinuities. Mechanistic models for the prediction of pressure traverses in multiphase ow are notorious for creating discontinuities. This is the result of switching from one ow pattern model to another as the transition boundary is crossed. Different models are used for different ow patterns to predict the liquid holdup and pressure drop, which might result in a discontinuity. In order to avoid this problem in the proposed model, the following criteria were implemented to smooth the transitions between the different ow patterns. Bubble to Slug and Slug to Dispersed Bubble Transitions. Near the transition boundaries from slug to bubble or dispersed bubble ow, the liquid lm/gas pocket region behind the slug body, namely, L F , becomes small. The short lm/gas length can prevent the slug ow model from converging. Thus, to solve this problem, when slug ow is predicted near these transition boundaries, the following constraints were developed: if L F 1.2d and v SL 0.6 m/s bubble ow, if L F 1.2d and v SL 0.6 m/s dispersed bubble ow. 14 The value L F / d 1.2 is based on the mechanism that once the Taylor bubble length approaches the pipe diameter, it becomes unstable and might break into small bubbles. Under these conditions, for high supercial liquid velocities, due to turbulence intensity and bubble breakup and dispersion, the resulting ow pattern will be dispersed bubble ow. However, for low supercial liquid velocities, due to low turbulence intensity and coalescence of the small bubble to larger ones, the resulting ow pattern will be bubble ow. Slug to Annular Transition. A two-fold problem is associated with this transition boundary. First, a discontinuity in the pressure gradient between slug ow and annular ow occurs. Also, if slug ow is predicted near this transition boundary, due to the high gas rates, the lm/gas zone becomes long, resulting in a very thin lm thickness, one approaching zero. This can prevent the slug ow model from converging. To alleviate the two problems, a transition zone is created between slug ow and annular ow based on the supercial gas velocity. The transition zone is predicted by the critical velocity corresponding to the droplet model used by Taitel et al.19 as follows:

Fig. 2Physical model for stratied ow.

liquid velocity and the supercial gas velocity on the transition boundary to annular ow, predicted by the Barnea model.31 This averaging eliminates numerical problems and ensures a smooth pressure gradient across the slug to annular boundary. Unied Stratied Flow Model. The physical model for stratied ow is given in Fig. 2. A modied form of the Taitel and Dukler6 model is used here. Two modications are introduced: the liquid wall friction factor is determined by Ouyang and Aziz35 and the interfacial friction factor is given by Baker et al.36 Momentum Balances. The momentum force balances for the liquid and gas phases are given, respectively, by AL AG dp WL S L I S I L A L g sin 0, dL dp WG S G I S I G A G g sin 0. dL 16 17

Eliminating the pressure gradient from Eqs. 16 and 17, the combined momentum equation for the two phases is obtained as follows:

WL

1 SL SG 1 WG IS I L G g sin 0. AL AG AL AG

18

The combined momentum equation is an implicit equation for h L or h L / d , the liquid level in the pipe. Solution of the equation, carried out by a trial and error procedure, requires the determination of the different geometrical, velocity and shear stress variables. Under high gas and liquid ow rates, multiple solutions can occur. It can be shown that, in this case, the smallest of the three solutions is the physical and stable solution. Once the liquid level h L / d is determined, the liquid holdup, H L , can be calculated in a straightforward manner from geometrical relationships as follows:

cos 1 2
H L

g sin L G v SG , crit 3.1 2 G

0.25

15

hL hL 1 2 1 d d

1 2

hL 1 d

. 19

Thus, for a given supercial liquid velocity, the transition region is dened when the supercial gas velocity is greater than the critical gas velocity given in Eq. 15 and less than the supercial gas velocity on the transition boundary to annular ow predicted by the Barnea model31. Hence, when slug ow is predicted in the transition zone, the pressure gradient is averaged between the pressure gradient under slug ow and annular ow conditions. The corresponding slug ow pressure gradient is calculated at the given supercial liquid velocity and the critical supercial gas velocity, given by Eq. 15. Similarly, the corresponding pressure gradient under annular ow is calculated at the given supercial
Gomez et al.: Unied Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow

Once the liquid holdup is determined, the pressure gradient can be determined from either Eq. 16 or 17. Either equation provides the frictional and the gravitational pressure losses, and neglects the accelerational pressure losses. Closure Relationships. The wall shear stresses corresponding to each phase are determined based on single-phase analysis using the hydraulic diameter concept, as follows Fanning friction factor formulation:

WL f L

2 L vL 2

and

WG f G

2 G vG . 2

20
341

SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2000

The respective hydraulic diameters of the liquid and gas phases are given by d L 4AL SL and d G 4AG . S G S I 21

The Reynolds numbers of each of the phases are N ReL dL vL L L and N ReG dG vG G . G 22

Taitel and Dukler6 proposed that both the liquid and gas wall friction factors, f L and f G , can be calculated using a standard friction factor chart. However, Ouyang and Aziz35 found this procedure to be appropriate for the gas phase only. This is due to the fact that the liquid wall friction factor can be affected signicantly by the interfacial shear stress, especially for low liquid holdup conditions. Thus, f G is determined from a standard chart, while f L is determined by a new correlation developed by Ouyang and Aziz35 that incorporates the gas and liquid ow rates, given as f G 16 N ReG for N ReG 2,300,
6

23

10 f G 0.001 375 1 2 104 d N ReG for N ReG 2,300,

1/3

Fig. 3Physical model for slug ow.

unit. Applying this balance on cross sections in the liquid slug body and in the liquid lm region gives, respectively,
v M v SL v SG v LLS H LLS v GLS 1 H LLS ,

f L

1.6291 v SG 0.5161 v SL N Re
L

0.0926

28 29

24

v M v LTB H LTB v GTB 1 H LTB .

The interfacial shear stress is given, by denition, as

G v G v L v G v L I f I . 2

25

The interfacial friction factor for stratied smooth ow is taken as the friction factor between the gas phase and the wall. However, for stratied wavy ow, as suggested by Xiao et al.,18 the interfacial friction factor is that given by Baker et al.36 Unied Slug Flow Model. The unied and comprehensive analysis of slug ow, presented by Taitel and Barnea,37 is used in the present study with the following features: a uniform lm along the liquid lm/gas pocket zone; a global momentum balance on a slug unit for pressure drop calculations, and a new correlation Gomez et al.34 for the liquid holdup in the slug body. The original Taitel and Barnea37 model was extended to vertical ow by assuming a symmetric lm around the Taylor bubble for inclination angles between 86 and 90. With the above characteristics, the original model is simplied considerably, as given below, avoiding the need for numerical integration along the liquid lm region. The proposed simplied model is considered to be sufciently accurate for practical applications. Refer to Fig. 3 for the physical model for slug ow. Mass Balances. An overall liquid mass balance over a slug unit results in LS LF v LTB H LTB . v SL v LLS H LLS LU LU 26

Eq. 28 can be used to determine v LLS , the liquid velocity in the slug body, since the other variables are given in the form of closure relationships. Then, the liquid lm velocity, v LTB , can be determined from Eq. 27 for a given liquid holdup in this region, H LTB . Also, from Eq. 29 it is possible to determine v GTB , the gas velocity in the gas pocket. The average liquid holdup in a slug unit is dened as H LU H LLS L S H LTB L F . LU 30

Using Eqs. 2628, the expression for the liquid holdup becomes H LU
v TB H LLS v GLS 1 H LLS v SG . v TB

31

Eq. 31 shows an interesting result, namely, that the average liquid holdup in a slug unit is independent of the lengths of the different slug zones. Hydrodynamics of the Liquid Film. Considering a uniform liquid lm thickness, a combined momentum equation, similar to that in the case of stratied ow, can be obtained for the lm/gas pocket zone as follows: 1 WF S F WG S G 1 IS I L G g sin 0. AL AG AF AG

32

A mass balance can also be applied between two crosssectional areas, namely, in the slug body and in the lm region, in a coordinate system moving with the translational velocity, v TB , yielding
v TB v LLS H LLS v TB v LTB H LTB .

27

Solution of Eq. 32 yields the uniform equilibrium lm thickness or the liquid holdup in this region, H LTB . This value can be used, in a trial and error procedure, to determine the gas and liquid velocities in the slug and lm/gas pocket regions, as discussed below Eq. 29. The liquid lm length can be determined from L F L U L S . 33
SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2000

A continuity balance on both liquid and gas phases results in a constant volumetric ow rate through any cross section of the slug
342

Gomez et al.: Unied Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow

The slug length, L S , is given as a closure relationship while the slug unit length, L U , can be determined from Eq. 26, as follows: L U L S
v LLS H LLS v LTB H LTB . v SL v LTB H LTB

34

Pressure Drop Calculations. The pressure drop for a slug unit can be calculated using a global force balance along a slug unit. Since the momentum uxes in and out of the slug unit control volume are identical, the pressure drop across this control volume for a uniform liquid lm is dp S d L S WF S F WG S G L F U g sin , dL A LU A LU where U is the average density of the slug unit given by 35

U H LU L 1 H LU G .

36

The rst term on the right-hand side of Eq. 35 is the gravitational pressure gradient, whereas the second and third terms represent the frictional pressure gradient that results from the frictional losses in the slug and in the lm/gas pocket regions. No accelerational pressure drop occurs in the slug unit control volume formulation. Closure Relationships. The proposed model requires four closure relationships, namely, the liquid slug length, L S , the liquid holdup in the slug body, H LLS , the slug translational velocity, v TB , and the gas velocity of the small bubbles entrained in the liquid slug, v GLS . The closure relationships are given below. A constant length of L S 30d and L S 20d is used for fully developed and stable slugs in horizontal and vertical pipes, respectively. For inclined ow, an average slug length is used based on inclination angle. However, for horizontal and near horizontal ( 1) large diameter pipes ( d 2 in.), the Scott et al.38 correlation is used, as given below ln L S 25.4 28.5 ln d 0.1, 37

Fig. 4Physical model for annular ow.

WF

SF SI dp I AF AF dL

L g sin 0,
F

41

SI dp AC dL

C g sin 0.
C

42

where d is expressed in inches and L S is in feet. The liquid holdup in the slug body, H LLS , is predicted using the Gomez et al.34 unied correlation, given by H LLS 1.0e (7.85 10
3 2.48 10 6 N ReSL )

Eliminating the pressure gradients from the equations results in the combined momentum equation for annular ow, namely,

0 900 ,

38

WF

where the slug supercial Reynolds number is calculated as N ReSL

SF 1 1 IS I L C g sin 0. AF AF AC

43

Lv M d . L

39

The slug translational velocity is determined from the Bendiksen39 correlation, given by
v TB 1.2v M 0.542gd cos 0.351gd sin .

40

Eq. 43 is an implicit equation for the lm thickness or / d that can be solved by trial and error, provided the proper geometrical, velocity and closure relationships are provided. These are described below. Mass Balances. The velocities of the liquid lm and the gas core can be determined from simple mass balance calculations yielding, respectively,
v F v SL 1E d2 , 4 d

The gas velocity of the small bubbles entrained in the liquid slug, v GLS , can be determined in the manner suggested by Hasan and Kabir,21 given in a later section by Eqs. 57 and 58. Note that for this case the liquid holdup in the slug body, H LLS , should be used. Unied Annular Flow Model. The model of Alves et al. developed originally for vertical and sharply inclined ow has been extended in the present study to the entire range of inclination angles from 0 to 90, as given below. The physical model for annular ow is given in Fig. 4. The annular ow model equations are similar to the stratied ow model ones, since both patterns are separated ow. The differences between the two models are the different geometrical and closure relationships, and the fact that the gas core in annular ow includes liquid entrainment. Momentum Balances. The linear momentum force balances for the liquid and gas core phases are given, respectively, by
Gomez et al.: Unied Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow
27

44

v C

v SG v SL E d 2 . d2 2

45

The gas void fraction in the core and the core average density and viscosity are given, respectively, by

v SG , v SG v SL E

46 47 48
343

C G C L 1 C ,

C G C L 1 C .
SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2000

Closure Relationships. The liquid wall shear stress is determined from single-phase ow calculations based on the hydraulic diameter concept. The most difcult task in modeling annular ow is the determination of the interfacial shear stress, I , and the entrainment fraction, E . By all means this is an unresolved problem even for vertical or horizontal ow conditions. The denition of the interfacial shear stress for annular ow is

I f I C

v C v F v C v F . 2

49

As suggested by Alves et al.,27 the interfacial friction factor can be expressed by f I f SC I , 50

where f SC is the friction factor that would be obtained if only the core gas phase and entrainment ows in the pipe. Calculation of f SC should be based on the core supercial velocity ( v SC v SG E v SL ) and the core average density and viscosity given, respectively, by Eqs. 47 and 48. The interfacial correction parameter I is used to take into account the roughness of the interface. Different expressions for I are given by Alves et al.27 for vertical ow only. In the present study, the parameter I is an average between a horizontal factor and a vertical factor, based on the inclination angle, , as follows: I I H cos2 I V sin2 . 51

The horizontal correction parameter is given by Henstock and Hanratty41 as I H 1 850F A , where
0.5 2.5 0.9 2.5 0.4 0.0379N Re 0.707N Re vL SL SL F A 0.9 vG N Re
SG

52

Fig. 5Physical model for bubble ow.

L G

0.5

53

and N ReSL and N ReSG are the liquid and gas supercial Reynolds numbers, respectively. The vertical correction parameter is given by Wallis17 as I V 1 300 . d

angles was carried out by taking the component of the bubble rise velocity in the direction of the ow, as given below see Fig. 5 for the bubble ow physical model. The gas velocity is given by
0.5 , v G C 0 v M v 0 sin H L

57

54

The entrainment fraction, E , is calculated by the Wallis17 correlation, given by E 1 e [0.125( 1.5)] , where
v SG G G L

where v M is the mixture velocity, C 0 is a velocity distribution 0.5 is a correction coefcient, v 0 is the bubble rise velocity and H L for bubble swarm. In the present study, the velocity distribution coefcient C 0 1.15, as suggested by Chokshi et al.,30 and the bubble rise velocity is given by Harmathy41 in SI units as follows:
v 0 1.53

55

104

g L G
2 L

0.25

58

1/2

56

Substituting for the gas velocity in terms of the supercial velocity yields
v SG 0.5 C 0 v M v 0 sin H L . 1HL

Unied Bubble Flow Model. Extension of the Hasan and Kabir21 bubble ow model for the entire range of wellbore inclination

59

TABLE 1 DATABASE FOR INDIVIDUAL FLOW PATTERN MODELS VALIDATION Data Source Minami (Ref. 44) Nuland et al. (Ref. 42) Felizola and Shoham (Ref. 32) Schmidt (Ref. 43) Caetano et al. (Ref. 22) Alves et al. (Ref. 27) Flow Pattern Inclination Stratied Slug Slug Slug Bubble Annular Pipe Diameter (in.) 3 4 2 2 Annulus 2.5 Fluids Air-kerosene/water Dense gas (SF6)-oil Air-kerosene Air-kerosene Air-kerosene/water Natural gas-Crude Liquid Density Pressure (psia) Data Points (lbm/ft3) 50/62.4 51 50 50 50/62.4 27 50 145 250 225 45 1750 100 52 72 15 19 2 (75) Total 260 344 Gomez et al.: Unied Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2000

0 10 60 0 90 90 90 90

TABLE 2 INDIVIDUAL FLOW PATTERN MODELS VALIDATION RESULTS Pressure Gradient Data Source Minami (Ref. 44) Nuland et al. (Ref. 42) Felizola and Shoham (Ref. 32) Schmidt (Ref. 43) Caetano et al. (Ref. 22) Alves et al. (Ref. 27) Flow Pattern Stratied Slug Slug Slug Bubble Annular (2 points) Annular (75 points) Inclination Average Error (%) 7.5 20.6 1.5 0.9 Abs. Average Error (%) 10.2 25.0 1.5 9.8 Liquid Holdup Average Error (%) 20.8 6.7 0.6 9.3 2.3 Abs. Average Error (%) 33.5 9.6 13.2 15.0 2.7

0 10 60 0 90 90 90 90 90

Eq. 59 must be solved numerically to determine the liquid holdup, H L . Once the liquid holdup is computed, the gravitational and frictional pressure gradients are determined in a straightforward manner. For dispersed bubble ow, the homogeneous no-slip model17 is used. Details of this simple model are omitted here for brevity. Results and Discussion This section includes the validation of the developed unied model with published laboratory and eld data, and the performance of the model with new eld data. Unied Model Validation. Initially, the individual ow pattern models for slug ow, stratied ow, bubble ow and annular ow were validated against several sets of available laboratory and limited eld data. Tables 1 and 2 present the range of data and the validation results, respectively. Unied Slug Model. Validation of the proposed slug ow model was carried out using the following sets of data: 1. the Felizola and Shoham32 data provide detailed slug characteristics, liquid holdup and pressure drop, for the entire range of upward inclination angles between 10 and 90 at 10 increments; 2. the Nuland et al.42 data for 10, 20, 45, 60, and 80 including liquid holdup and pressure drop; 3. the Schmidt43 data for vertical ow with liquid holdup only. Fig. 6 presents a typical comparison of the predictions of the Gomez et al.34 slug body liquid holdup correlation with published experimental data including additional data other than the above mentioned three sets. As can be seen, the correlation follows the trend of decreasing slug liquid holdup as the inclination angle increases. Comparisons between the predictions of the unied slug model and the experimental data were carried out for both the liquid

Fig. 6Comparison between predicted and measured slug liquid holdup Ref. 34. Gomez et al.: Unied Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow

holdup ( H LU ) and the pressure gradient, averaged over a slug unit. The results for the different data sources are given in Table 2. Unied Bubble Model. The data of Caetano et al.22 were used to test the model for bubble ow. Note that the Caetano et al. data were acquired in an annulus conguration with a 3-in. casing inner diameter ID and 1.66-in. tubing outer diameter OD. For this reason the comparison was carried out only for the liquid holdup. An equivalent diameter was used that provides the same cross-sectional area and supercial velocities that occur in the annulus. The results show excellent agreement with an average error and an average absolute error of 2.3 and 2.7%, respectively. Unied Stratied Model. The stratied ow model was tested against the liquid holdup data of Minami.44 The data were collected for air-water and air-kerosene. The model systematically underpredicted the data, with an average error and average absolute error of 20.8 and 33.5%, respectively, as shown in Table 2. Note that, as reported by Minami,44 the original Taitel and Dukler6 model performed poorly against his data. Modication of both the liquid wall friction factor and the interfacial friction factor, implemented in the present study model, improves the predictions of the stratied model considerably. Unied Annular Model. As shown in Table 1, Alves et al.27 provided 2 new eld data points, in addition to the 75 data points taken from the Tulsa U. Fluid Flow Projects TUFFP database, in which the wells are under annular ow. The model of Alves et al. shows excellent agreement with the data: For the 2 data points the average error and average absolute errors are 1.5%. For the 75 database points the average error is 0.9% and the average absolute error is 9.8%. Entire Unied Model Validation. Following validation of the individual ow pattern models, the entire unied model was evaluated against the TUFFP wellbore databank, as reported by Ansari et al.29 The databank includes a total of 1,723 laboratory and eld data, for both vertical and deviated wells. The data cover a wide range of ow conditions: pipe diameter of 1 to 8 in.; oil rate of 0 to 27,000 B/D; gas rate of 0 to 110,000 scf/D and oil gravity of 8.3 to 112API. Additionally, six commonly used correlations and models have been evaluated against the databank. They are those of Ansari et al.,29 Chokshi et al.,30 Duns and Ros,5 Beggs and Brill,2 Hasan and Kabir,21 and the modied Hagedorn and Brown.3 The modications of the Hagedorn and Brown correlation are the Grifth and Wallis45 correlation for bubble ow and the use of no-slip liquid holdup if greater than the calculated liquid holdup. Note that, except for the Beggs and Brill2 correlation, the other ve methods were developed for vertical upward ow only. These methods are adopted in this study for deviated well conditions by incorporating the inclination angle in the gravitational pressure gradient calculations. The proposed unied model is the only mechanistic model applicable to all of the inclination angle range, from horizontal to vertical. The overall performance of the unied model showed an average error of 3.8% and an absolute average error of 12.6%. The Hagedorn and Brown3 correlation showed a minimum average
SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2000 345

346 TABLE 3 PERFORMANCE OF UNIFIED MODEL AND OTHER METHODS FOR DATA SET No. 1 Ref. 3 Present Study P Measured Error (%) 5.8 3.4 7.4 4.0 8.7 17.1 29.0 3.8 8.5 17.7 15.3 21.7 24.3 14.0 11.8 5.7 10.7 17.0 26.9 2.3 19.6 1,826 1,333 1,885 2,479 1,405 2,444 1,105 1,383 1,100 1,413 2,783 791 1,301 743 1,041 1,076 512 1,883 678 1,153 632 10.5 12.2 12.3 10.3 1,684 1,161 1,804 2,261 1,349 2,265 1,189 1,338 1,120 1,289 2,579 815 1,145 787 876 1,078 659 1,751 821 1,036 820 5.2 14.7 13.1 8.1 1.4 4.0 5.3 11.7 7.4 5.6 28.2 0.9 20.6 22.2 7.2 31.8 20.6 11.5 2.5 10.3 36.2 6.1 11.6 5.6 7.1 Error (%) 1,851 1,282 1,990 2,220 1,518 2,588 1,540 1,371 1,386 1,817 2,998 1,160 1,638 840 1,016 1,199 802 2,006 767 1,221 680 1,743 1,325 1,842 2,308 1,650 2,146 1,094 1,319 1,268 1,496 2,539 908 1,240 722 1,136 1,267 716 1,664 973 1,249 813 P Calculated P Calculated P Calculated Chokshi et al. (Ref. 30) Hagerdon and Brown (Ref. 3) Error (%) 9.0 9.4 9.3 1.8 11.1 12.5 22.8 2.4 19.2 29.1 14.0 29.7 30.1 6.3 13.8 10.1 17.8 12.7 7.0 15.2 20.6 11.7 12.1 14.5 8.3 Ansari et al. (Ref. 29) P Calculated 1,819 1,219 1,837 2,554 1,260 2,448 1,012 1,223 948 1,284 2,881 703 1,290 676 966 960 469 1,822 592 1,090 562 Error (%) 1.7 4.9 7.7 15.0 17.0 5.4 34.3 10.8 31.6 29.3 3.9 39.4 21.2 19.5 4.9 19.9 41.5 9.2 22.8 10.7 17.4 16.1 14.0 17.5 12.0

Gomez et al.: Unied Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow

Case

Gas/Oil Ratio (scf/stbl)

Water Cut (%)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

336 1,747 537 511 1,044 527 1,841 1,135 1,196 894 344 1,490 1,758 1,898 1,494 1,382 5,716 872 2,118 1,498 2,847

68.0 20.2 87.0 5.0 45.0 60.0 0.0 36.9 59.2 62.3 80.0 0.2 55.6 0.3 27.0 70.2 33.1 66.7 26.7 0.3 9.0

SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2000

Average error % Std. dev. avg. error Average absolute error % Std. dev. abs. avg. error

error and absolute average error of 1.2 and 9.3%, respectively. However, the databank includes about 400 data points collected by Hagedorn and Brown3 to develop their correlation. An objective comparison should exclude these data points from the databank. Unied Model Performance and Results. The ultimate goal of any model is to predict the ow behavior under eld conditions. The performance of the proposed unied model under eld conditions was evaluated by comparison between its predictions and directional well eld data provided by British Petroleum and Statoil. Two sets of data were provided. The rst data set includes 21 data points while the second data set includes 65 cases. The data include wells with different ow conditions: pipe diameter of 7 2 8 to 7 in.; inclination angles of 0 to 90; oil rate of 79 to 2,658 B/D; gas rate of 42 to 23,045 Mscf/D, and water-cut of 0 to 80%. Of the total cases, 59 wells were producing naturally and the remaining 27 were on articial lift. Each data point included, in addition to the geometrical and operational variables, the wellhead pressure, the wellhead and bottomhole temperatures and the total pressure drop. Physical Properties. The pressure/volume/temperature PVT properties used were summarized by Brill and Beggs.46 The Glaso correlation was used for the prediction of the solution gas/oil ratio, oil formation volume factor and oil viscosity. The Standing z factor was used in the calculations of the gas phase properties. The Lee et al. correlation was used for the gas viscosity. The gas/oil surface tension was predicted by the Baker and Swerdloff correlation. The liquid phase oil and water properties, namely, density, viscosity and surface tension, are calculated based on the volume fraction of the oil and water in the liquid phase. The volume fractions were calculated based on the in-situ ow rates, assuming no-slip between the oil and water. For the gas lift wells, the gas properties are calculated as follows. Up to the point of gas injection, the calculations are performed using the ow rate and specic gravity of the formation gas. At the point of gas injection, the formation gas ow rate is combined with the injection gas rate to give the total gas ow rate, with a weighted average specic gravity based on the two ow rates at standard conditions. From the point of injection to the surface, the PVT properties, including the solution gas oil ratio and hence free gas quantity, are determined based on the combined total gas specic gravity. No tuning of the PVT data was done. Results and Discussion. Table 3 reports the pressure drop prediction performance of the unied model, along with that of Chokshi et al.,30 Hagedorn and Brown3 and Ansari et al.,29 vs. the rst data set 21 data points. Note that Table 3. includes, in addition to the pressure drop, the gas/liquid ratio and the water cut. The comparison shows good agreement, with an average error of 5.2% and a corresponding standard deviation s.d. of 14.7 and an average absolute error of 13.1% with a s.d. of 8.1 for the unied model. Corresponding errors for the other methods are as follows: 10.5% s.d. 12.2 and 12.3% s.d. 10.3 for Chokshi et al.,30 11.7% s.d. 12.1 and 14.5% s.d. 8.3 for Hagedorn and Brown,3 and 16.1% s.d. 14.0 and 17.5% s.d. 12 for the Ansari et al.29 model. Fig. 7 shows a comparison between the predicted results of the unied model and measured pressure drops for the 65 cases of the second data set. The predictions of the proposed unied model show excellent agreement vs. this data set, with an average error of 0% s.d. 3.9, as compared to 4.5% s.d. 4.5 for the Chokshi et al.30 model. The average absolute error for the unied model and the Chokshi et al.30 model are 3.0% s.d. 2.5 and 5.5% s.d. 3.2, respectively. The overall performance of the model was evaluated vs. the combined two data sets, including all 86 well cases. The results were compared with the predictions of only the Chokshi et al.30 model. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was carried out based on the maximum deviation angle of the well, production method natural or articial lift and tubing diameter. All the results are summarized in Table 4.
Gomez et al.: Unied Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow

Fig. 7Comparison between unied model predictions and data set No. 2 65 cases.

For the combined data sets the unied model shows excellent performance, with an average error of 1.3% s.d. 8.2 and absolute error of 5.5% s.d. 6.2. These results are also shown graphically in Fig. 8. The Chokshi et al.30 model shows an average error and absolute error of 0.9% s.d. 9.6 and 7.1% s.d. 6.4, respectively. As can be seen from Table 4, except for the three small diameter well cases, the unied model shows better performance than the Chokshi et al. model, especially for large diameter tubing and deviated wells. It is believed that the unied slug ow model is the main reason for this behavior, since it is more suitable for directional ow. Both models perform equally well for the entire range of water cuts.

Conclusions A unied steady-state two-phase ow mechanistic model for the prediction of ow pattern, liquid holdup and pressure drop was presented that is applicable to the range of inclination angles from horizontal (0) to upward vertical ow (90). The model consists of a unied ow pattern prediction model and ve individual unied models for the stratied, slug, bubble, annular and dispersed bubble ow patterns. The proposed unied model was evaluated and compared to the other six most commonly used models or correlations. This was carried out by running the unied model and the other methods against the TUFFP wellbore databank.29 The databank includes a total of 1,723 laboratory and eld data for both vertical and deviated wells. The overall performance of the unied model showed an average error of 3.8% and an absolute average error of 12.6%. The performance of the unied model and of other models and correlations was evaluated against 86 new directional well eld data cases provided by British Petroleum and Statoil. The predictions of the unied model show excellent agreement with data, with an average error of 1.3% and an absolute average error of 5.5%, with respective standard deviations of 8.2 and 6.2. A sensitivity analysis of the model performance was conducted with respect to tubing diameter, method of lift and maximum wellbore inclination angle. The unied model showed superior performance except for a limited number of small diameter wells. The predictions of the unied model were carried out without any tuning of either the model or the PVT data. It provides an accurate two-phase ow mechanistic model for research and design for the industry.
SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2000 347

348 TABLE 4 OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF UNIFIED MODEL AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS Present Study Average Error (%) 1.7 2.2 5.1 9.1 6.0 6.9 0.7 4.2 3.4 0.4 1.1 2.7 2.5 1.3 7.4 4.0 5.2 10.7 Standard Deviation Absolute Average Error (%) Standard Deviation Average Error (%) Standard Deviation Chokshi et al. (Ref. 30) Absolute Average Error (%) 7.4 4.0 8.1 Standard Deviation 4.0 3.3 6.9 0.1 4.3 3.3 5.8 10.8 8.8 4.9 4.0 6.7 5.9 5.5 0.1 3.3 0.1 2.1 9.0 6.4 2.7 4.1 13.0 3.2 10.5 2.5 8.7 4.6 7.2 0.9 1.7 3.3 4.1 4.7 12.4 4.6 9.5 12.0 5.7 5.7 10.5 3.5 7.3 8.7 6.0 3.4 9.6 2.0 6.1 8.8 3.7 1.3 8.2 Oil Rate 79 to 2,658 B/D Inclination 0 90 5.5 Gas Rate 42 to 23,045 Mscf/D 6.2 Water Cut 0 to 80% 0.9 9.6 7.1 6.4

No. of Wells

Classication

Inclination 3

19

64

Vertical 90 Horizontal to vertical 0 90 Deviated wells 45 90

Production 59 27

Naturally owing Gas Lifted

Gomez et al.: Unied Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow

Diameter 3

24

28

31

Tubing 7 d2 8 in. Tubing 1 d4 2 in. Tubing 1 d5 2 in. Tubing d 7 in.

Overall 86

Entire Database

Database

Diameter

SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2000

86 cases

7 28

to 7 in.

max NS R S SC SL SG TB U V W

maximum no-slip radians slug body supercial core supercial liquid supercial gas Taylor bubble total slug unit vertical wall

Superscripts dimensionless m , n Blasius equation exponents Acknowledgment This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Zelimir Schmidt. References
Fig. 8Overall performance of the unied model vs. the entire new database 86 cases. 1. Dukler, A.E., Wickes, M. III, and Cleveland, R.G.: Frictional Pressure Drop in Two-Phase Flow: B. An Approach Through Similarity Analysis AIChE J. 1964 10, No. 1, 44. 2. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes, JPT May 1973 607; Trans., AIME, 255. 3. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: Experimental Study of Pressure Gradient Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits, JPT April 1965 475; Trans., AIME, 234. 4. Ros, N.C.J.: Simultaneous Flow of Gas and Liquid as Encountered in Well Tubing, JPT October 1961 1037; Trans., AIME, 222. 5. Duns, H. Jr. and Ros, N.C.J.: Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells, Proc., Sixth World Petroleum Congress, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany 1963 451. 6. Taitel, Y. and Dukler, A.E.: A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transition in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow, AIChE J. 1976 22, No. 1, 47. 7. Lin, P.Y. and Hanratty, T.J.: Prediction of the Initiation of Slug Flow with Linear Stability Theory, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1986 12, No. 1, 79. 8. Wu, H.L. et al.: Flow Pattern Transitions in Two-Phase Gas/ Condensate Flow at High Pressure in an 8-Inch Horizontal Pipe, Proc. 3rd Intl. Conference on Multiphase Flow, The Hague 1987 13. 9. Cheremisinoff, N.P. and Davis, E.J.: Stratied Turbulent-Turbulent GasLiquid Flow, AIChE J. 1979 25, No. 1, 48. 10. Shoham, O. and Taitel, Y.: Stratied Turbulent-Turbulent GasLiquid Flow in Horizontal and Inclined Pipes, AIChE J. 1984 30, 377. 11. Issa, R.I.: Prediction of Turbulent Stratied Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes and Channels, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1988 14, No. 21, 141. 12. Dukler, A.E. and Hubbard, M.G.: A Model For Gas-Liquid Slug Flow In Horizontal And Near Horizontal Tubes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1975 14, 337. 13. Nicholson, K., Aziz, K., and Gregory, G.A.: Intermittent Two Phase Flow In Horizontal Pipes, Predictive Models, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1978 56, 653. 14. Kokal, S.L. and Stanislav, J.F.: An Experimental Study of TwoPhase Flow in Slightly Inclined Pipes II: Liquid Holdup and Pressure Drop, Chem. Eng. Sci. 1989 44, No. 3, 681. 15. Laurinat, J.E., Hanratty, T.J., and Jepson, W.P.: Film Thickness Distribution for Gas-Liquid Annular Flow in a Horizontal Pipe, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1985 6, Nos. 1/2, 179. 16. James, P.W. et al.: Developments in the Modeling of Horizontal Annular Two-Phase Flow, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1987 13, No. 2, 173. 17. Wallis, G.B.: One Dimensional Two Phase Flow, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City 1969. 18. Xiao, J.J., Shoham, O., and Brill, J.P.: A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines, paper SPE 20631 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2326 September. 19. Taitel, Y., Barnea, D., and Dukler, A.E.: Modeling Flow Pattern Transition for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in Vertical Tubes, AIChE J. 1980 26, No. 3, 345. SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2000 349

Nomenclature A C C0 d E F FA f g h H I L N Re p S v v 0 X Y area, L2, ft2 Blasius equation coefcient ow distribution coefcient diameter, L, ft entrainment fraction dimensionless group annular ow parameter Fanning friction factor acceleration due to gravity, L/t2, ft/sec2 liquid level height, L, ft liquid holdup interfacial annular parameter length, L, ft Reynolds number pressure, M/Lt2, lbf/ft2 perimeter, L, ft velocity, L/t, ft/sec single bubble rise velocity, L/t, ft/sec Lockhart and Martinelli parameter dimensionless group

Greek Letters

void fraction lm thickness viscosity, M/Lt, lbm/ft-sec 3.141 5926 annular entrainment parameter inclination angle measured from horizontal density, M/L3, lbm/ft3 shear stress, M/Lt2, lbf/ft2 surface tension, M/t2, lbf/ft

Subscripts c crit CB CD F G H I LS L M core critical critical buoyancy critical diameter lm gas horizontal interface liquid slug liquid mixture

Gomez et al.: Unied Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow

20. Barnea, D. et al.: Gas Liquid Flow in Inclined Tubes: Flow Pattern Transition for Upward Flow, Chem. Eng. Sci. 1985 40, 131. 21. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: A Study of Multiphase Flow Behavior in Vertical Wells, SPEPE May 1988 263; Trans., AIME, 285. 22. Caetano, E.F., Shoham, O., and Brill, J.P.: Upward Vertical TwoPhase Flow through an Annulus Part II: Modeling Bubble, Slug and Annular Flow, ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol. 1992 114, 13. 23. Fernandes, R.C., Semiat, R., and Dukler, A.E.: Hydrodynamic Model for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Vertical Tubes, AIChE J. 1983 29, 981. 24. Sylvester, N.D.: A Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase Vertical Slug Flow in Pipes, ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol. 1987 109, 206. 25. Vo, D.T. and Shoham, O.: A Note on the Existence of a Solution for Upward Vertical Two-Phase Slug Flow in Pipes, ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol. 1989 111, 64. 26. Oliemans, R.V.A., Pots, B.F.M., and Trompe, N.: Modeling of Annular Dispersed Two-Phase Flow in Vertical Pipes, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1986 12, No. 5, 711. 27. Alves, I.N. et al.: Modeling Annular Flow Behavior for Gas Wells, SPEPE November 1991 435. 28. Ozon, P.M., Ferschneider, G., and Chwetzof, A.: A New Multiphase Flow Model Predicts Pressure and Temperature Proles, paper SPE 16535 presented at the 1987 Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, 811 September. 29. Ansari, A.M. et al.: A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-Phase Flow in Wellbores, SPEPE May 1994 143; Trans., AIME, 297. 30. Chokshi, R.N, Schmidt, Z., and Doty, D.R.: Experimental Study and the Development of a Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase Flow Through Vertical Tubing, paper SPE 35676 presented at the 1996 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, 2224 May. 31. Barnea, D.: A Unied Model for Predicting Flow Pattern Transitions for the Whole Range of Pipe Inclinations, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1987 13, No. 1, 1. 32. Felizola, H. and Shoham, O.: A Unied Model for Slug Flow in Upward Inclined Pipes, ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol. 1995 117, 1. 33. Petalas, N. and Aziz, K.: Development and Testing of a New Mechanistic Model for Multiphase Flow in Pipes, Proc., ASME, Fluid Engineering Div. 1996 236, No. 1, 153. 34. Gomez, L.E., Shoham, O., and Taitel, Y.: Prediction of Slug Liquid HoldupHorizontal to Upward Vertical Flow, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 2000 26, No. 3, 517. 35. Ouyang, L.B. and Aziz, K.: Development of New Wall Friction Factor and Interfacial Friction Factor Correlations for Gas/Liquid Stratied Flow in Wells and Pipes, paper SPE 35679 presented at the 1996 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, 2224 May. 36. Baker, A., Nielsen, K., and Gabb, A.: Pressure Loss, Liquid Holdup Calculations Developed, Oil & Gas J. 14 March 1988 55. 37. Taitel, Y. and Barnea, D.: Two Phase Slug Flow, Academic Press Inc., New York City 1990. 38. Scott, S.L., Shoham, O., and Brill, J.P.: Prediction of Slug Length in Horizontal Large-Diameter Pipes, SPEPE August 1989 335; Trans., AIME, 287. 39. Bendiksen, K.H.: An Experimental Investigation of the Motion of Long Bubbles in Inclined Tubes, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 1984 10, 467. 40. Henstock, W.H. and Hanratty, T.J.: The Interfacial Drag and the Height of the Wall Layer in Annular Flow, AIChE J. 1976 22, No. 6, 990. 41. Harmathy, T.Z.: Velocity of Large Drops and Bubbles in Media of Innite or Restricted Extent, AIChE J. 1960 6, 281. 42. Nuland, S. et al.: Gas Fractions in Slugs in Dense-Gas Two-Phase Flow From Horizontal to 60 Degrees of Inclination, Proc., ASME, Fluids Engineering Div. Summer Meeting June 1997. 43. Schmidt, Z.: Experimental Study of Two-Phase Slug Flow in a PipelineRiser Pipe System, PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma 1977. 44. Minami, K.: Liquid Holdup in Wet Gas Pipelines, MS thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma 1982. 45. Grifth, P. and Wallis, G.B.: Two-Phase Slug Flow, J. Heat Transfer 1961 83, 307.

46. Brill, J.P. and Beggs, D.H.: Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, sixth edition, third printing January 1991.

SI Metric Conversion Factors bbl 1.589 873 ft 3.048* ft2 9.290 304* ft3 2.831 684 in. 2.54* lbf 4.448 222 lbm 4.535 924 psi 6.894 757
*Conversion factors are exact.

E01 E01 E02 E02 E00 E00 E01 E00

m3 m m2 m3 cm N kg kPa SPEJ

Luis E. Gomez a member of Sigma Xi, is a PhD-degree candidate at the U. of Tulsa in Tulsa, Oklahoma. e-mail: luis-gomezmorillo@utulsa.edu. He previously taught in the Mechanical Engineering Dept. of the U. de Los Andes. Gomez holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering from the U. de Los Andes and an MS degree in petroleum engineering from the U. of Tulsa. Ovadia Shoham is Professor of Petroleum Engineering and Director of the Separation Technology Projects at Tulsa U. in Tulsa, Oklahoma. e-mail: os@utulsa.edu. He teaches and conducts research in modeling of two-phase ow in pipes and its applications in oil and gas production, transportation, and separation. Shoham holds BS and MS degrees in chemical engineering from the Technion, Israel, and the U. of Houston, respectively, and a PhD degree in mechanical engineering from Tel Aviv U., Israel. He served as a 198992 and 19982000 member of the Production Operations Technical Committee and as a 199192 member of the Forum Series in North America Steering Committee. Zelimir Schmidt, deceased, was Professor of petroleum engineering and Director of Articial Lift Projects at the U. of Tulsa, Oklahoma. He spent 10 years as a production engineer with INA-Naftaplin in the former Yugoslavia and served as a consultant to various companies before joining the U. of Tulsa faculty. Schmidt held an engineering degree from the U. of Zagreb and MS and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering form the U. of Tulsa. He served as a 198788 Distinguished Lecturer and was a 199495 Forum Series in South America and Caribbean Steering Committee member, a 199195 Editorial Review Committee member, and 198182 and 199496 U. of Tulsa Student Chapter Faculty Sponsor. Rajan N. Chokshi is a program project manager with TanData Corp. in Tulsa, Oklahoma. e-mail: chokshir@hotmail.com. His current interests are change management, enterprise software architecture, and emerging technologies in computing. He has more than 15 years experience in research and design of uid-ow and articial-lift problems. He has developed software for and taught professional courses in these areas and managed consulting projects in the U.S., Canada, Venezuela, and India. Chokshi holds BS and MS degrees in chemical engineering from Gujarat U., India, and Indian Ints. of Technology, Kanpur, respectively, and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from the U. of Tulsa. Tor Northug is a principal engineer in the R&D Dept. of Statoil in Trondheim, Norway. e-mail: THUG@statoil.com. His research interests include multiphase ow, uid mechanics, leak detection, and gas leakage/subsea blowouts. He previously worked for Technical U. of Trondheim, Sintef Hydrodynamic Laboratory, and Reinertsen Engineering Co. Northug holds a BS degree in civil engineering from Technical U. of Trondheim and an MS degree in uid mechanics from Norwegian U. of Science and Technology.

350

Gomez et al.: Unied Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow

SPE Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2000