A Statistical Evaluation of Methods Used

To Predict Pressure Losses for Multiphase

Flow in Vertical Oilwell Tubing
J. David Lawson, SPE-AIME, Amoco Production Co.
James P. Brill, SPE-AIME, U. of Tulsa

Introduction
Several correlations have been published that can be
used to predict pressure losses in vertical oilwell
tubing for the simultaneous, upward, concurrent, continuous flow of oil, water, and gas. Because of the
extreme complexity of multiphase flow, the proposed
correlations are by necessity highly empirical. The
validity of the correlations is then somewhat limited
to the quality and scope of the data upon which they
are based. Therefore, some correlations perform
quite well for cases in the range of the data used
in developing the correlation but fail for other
applications.
The purpose of this study is to ascertain the
accuracy of several pressure-loss prediction methods
in terms of flow variables familiar to the practicing
engineer. The results of the study should assist the
petroleum production engineer in selecting the most
accurate method for his problem and also should
indicate the general accuracy to be expected from
the methods.
The correlations included in the study are those of
Poettmann and Carpenter,! Baxendell and Thomas,2
Duns and Ros,3 Fancher and Brown, 4 Hagedorn and
Brown, 5 and Orkiszewski. 6 Each of these correlations
was proposed specifically for predicting pressure losses
in vertical oilwell tubing for the upward flow of multiphase well fluids.
The pressure-loss prediction methods were programmed for the IBM 360 computer and tested
against 726 well tests from field and experimental

wells. A statistical analysis was made to find the most

acceptable method for different ranges of flow variables and also the method having the best over-all
performance for predicting the measured pressure
losses.

Pressure-Loss Prediction Correlations

The six correlations chosen for study will be discussed
briefly. A review of the history and content of multiphase flow literature and a more detailed discussion
of individual correlations may be found in Brown. 1
The correlation of Poettmann and Carpenter1 is
a relatively simple and practical one to predict pressure losses in flowing wells: However, its very simplicity limits its accuracy. The method was included
in this study for comparison, and because it served
as a starting point for later correlations..
Poettmann and Carpenter correlated the irreversible energy losses of 49 well tests with a Fanning-type
friction term. The friction term was related to the
numerator of the Reynolds number for the well fluid
mixture. No attempt was made to account for liquid
holdup (volume fraction liquid in a pipe section), but
rather an average density of produced fluids corrected
for down-hole conditions was used. The correlation
reproduced the measured pressure gradients to an
average deviation of 1.8 percent and a standard deviation from the average of 8.3 percent. It was later
discovered that this excellent performance did not
apply for the wide ranges of values of flow variables

Several methods for predicting pressure losses for upward, concurrent, continuous,
multiphase flow in vertical. ai/well tubing were tested against measured pressure losses
from 726 well tests. This comparison of well known pressure-loss correlations reveals
the relative strengths and weaknesses of each correlation and should be useful in
selecting satisfactory methods for various applications.
AUGUST. 1974

903

found in oil production problems. Other investigators,

therefore, attempted to modify the correlation to fit
broader ranges.
Baxendell and Thomas 2 extended the Poettmann
and Carpenter correlation to higher flow rates and
reported -+- 5 to -+- 10 percent accuracy for the higher
rates.
Fancher and Brown4 ,8 applied the Poettmann and
Carpenter approach to 94 tests from an experimental
well. Produced gas/liquid ratio (GLR) was introduced
as an additional parameter in the friction factor correlation. The Fancher and Brown method predicted
the measured pressure losses within about -+-10
percent.
The above correlations made no attempt to include
geometric flow configuration or "flow regime" to
characterize pressure losses. Also, liquid holdup, or
related slip velocity (velocity difference between gas
and liquid phases), for the various flow regimes was
not considered.
Ros9 and also Duns and Ros3 gathered laboratory
data on pressure losses for two-phase flow in transparent tubes. They observed the dependency of flow
regimes on dimensionless parameters. Correlations for
slip velocity also were derived. The correlation fitted
the measured pressure losses in the laboratory test
section to an average of -+- 3 to -+-10 percent, depending upon flow regime. Data were taken over quite
broad ranges of flow variables and the correlation was
thus expected to perform satisfactorily for most well
conditions.
Hagedorn and Brown 5,10 developed a correlation
from 475 tests in a 1,500-ft experimental well using
fluids having viscosities up to 110 cpo The Fancher
data also were used. An average mixture density corrected for down-hole conditions was used for calculating estimates of pressure losses caused by friction
and acceleration. Liquid holdup was then calculated
from the total measured pressure loss and the calculated values for friction and acceleration losses.
These holdup values were correlated with various flow
variables and fluid properties. Since liquid holdup was
not measured directly, values of holdup given by the
correlation are not always physically significant.
Calculated pressures from the Hagedorn and Brown
correlation matched measured pressures from the
Hagedorn study to an average of 1.5 percent, with
a stamlard deviation from the average of 5.5 percent.
Orkiszewski6 combined the work of Griffith l l for
bubble flow, that of Griffith and Wallis 12 for slug
flow, the Duns and Ros correlation for mist flow, and
new friction and density correlations for slug flow
based on a parameter named the "liquid distribution
coefficient." With the data of Hagedorn, this coefficient was correlated with pipe size, superficial mixture
velocity, and liquid viscosity. The composite correlation was tested against 148 well tests and was reported
to predict the measured pressure losses to 0.8 average
percent error and 10.8 percent standard deviation
from the average error. The proposed correlation
was reported to be superior to the Duns and Ros and
the Hagedorn correlations when all methods were
tested against the same well data.
Other correlations have been published that are
904

recommended for predicting pressure losses for multiphase flow, but for various reasons they were not
included in this study. The work of Griffith and
Wallis 12 was not considered separately because of its
application to only the slug flow regime. However,
it is partially included in the Orkiszewski method
along with the work of Griffith l l for the bubble flow
regime.
A correlation by Yocum 13 was not included
because it centered on the prediction of pressure
losses in horizontal flowlines. Baker and Keep14 did
not recommend their method for cases where there
was a likelihood of slip between gas and liquid.
The Tek15 correlation was not included in the
statistical study because it predicted unusually high
pressure losses for many of the well tests. A correlation by Hughmark and Pressburg16 was based on
data obtained using a relatively short tube. It was not
included in the study because it has been reported
that the correlation gives values for pressure loss that
are too high when applied to data taken from long
tubing strings. 7
The work of Gaither et alY was not included in
the statistical study, although it may perform well
for the small-diameter pipes from which the correlated data were taken.
An attempt was made to include those correlations
that have been considered most acceptable by oil
industry users for broad ranges of flow conditions.
Correlations that have not attained this degree of
general usage may be quite adequate for predicting
pressure losses in specific applications.

Well Test Data

Most of the well test data were obtained from publications on multiphase flow pressure-loss prediction
methods, but some field data were obtained from
unpublished sources. Only oilfield tests or tests on
experimental wells were considered. No "short tube"
data were included. Every effort was made to ensure
that the information was accurately transcribed to
computer storage by double-checking to eliminate
clerical errors.
Each of the well tests was examined for unreasonable values by comparing the measured pressure
losses for a well test with the pressure losses predicted
by all the multiphase flow correlations. However,
because of the rather wide range of answers given by
different correlations, none of the available well tests
could be ruled out by this technique. Therefore, all
the data used in the statistical study are probably
reasonably correct, although the absolute accuracy of
the well data remains unknown.
The following information was included in the
data storage for each well test:
1. Assigned well test number,
2. Data source code number,
3. Inside tubing diameter, in.,
4. Oil production rate, STB/D,
5. Water production rate, STB/D,
6. Produced GLR, standard cubic feet (60F,
14.7 psia) per STB of liquid,
7. Depth of pressure measurement, ft (tubinghead
depth = 0),
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

8. Measured flowing pressure at depth, psia,

9. Measured flowing pressure at the tubinghead,
psia,
10. Tubinghead temperature, of,
11. Temperature at depth, P,
12. Specific gravity of stock-tank oil, API,
13. Specific gravity of stock-tank water (pure water
at 60 0 P = 1),
14. Specific gravity of total produced gas (Air = 1
at 60 0 P and 14.7 psia),
15. Viscosity of stock-tank oil at 100 0 P and 14.7
psia, cp, and
16. Viscosity of stock-tank oil at 210 0 P and 14.7
psia, cpo
Some data were not available for well tests, so
the missing values were estimated. Tubinghead and
down-hole temperatures were estimated for many
tests, and. temperature profiles were always assumed
to be linear with depth. The roughness of the tubing
wall always was assumed to be 5 X 10- 5 ft. Oil
viscosities at 100 and 210 0 P were usually not available, so estimates were made using any available
viscosity data and the Beal correlation. IS The lack
of measured values for fluid properties and tubing
roughness is a drawback, but the increased number
of complete well tests available after the approximate
values were included was considered to be a valuable
addition to the well data.
Por some well tests, more information was available than Was used; e.g., formation volume factors,
solution GaR's, and temperature and pressure profiles. Rather than use the extra. information on fluid
properties, these values were estimated from various
physical property correlations that were programmed
along with each pressure-loss prediction correlation.
When pressure profiles were available, only the
deepest measurement was used. The exclusion of
some available i,nformation was a necessary compromise between exactness and standardization of datahandling and programming procedures.
The ranges of flow variables covered by the well
data and the arithmetic average of some of the values
for the well data are given in Table 1.
Eighty percent of the well tests were taken on wells
predicted to be in the slug flow regime by the flow
regime boundary definitions of Griffith and Wallis
for bubble flow and those of Duns and Ros for mist
flow. Pive percent of the well tests were predicted
to be in the bubble flow regime and 10 percent were
indicated to be in a combination of bubble flow and
slug flow. None of the tests ever entered the mist
flow regime, but 5 percent were predicted to be
in a combination of slug flow and the transition
region between slug and mist flow.
Brief descriptions of the groups of data and their
sources are given in Table 2. A substantial part
of the well test data used in this study was from
Hagedorn,lO which may give the Hagedorn and
Brown correlation a more favorable comparison.
However, the Hagedorn data were taken under carefully controlled conditions and therefore are considered accurate data that should be included in that
data bank.
Because of the length of the data list, it is not
AUGUST. 1974

included here. Copies of the data bank and calculated

results are available from the authors upon request.

Programming of Methods
A separate main program was written for each
pressure-loss prediction method, with fluid property
correlations handled as subroutines. Subroutines were
written for calculating values of formation volume
factor and solution GaR, oil and water viscosity, oil
and water surface tension, gas viscosity, and gas
compressibility.
Calculations were made for changes in tubing
depth corresponding to assigned pressure changes
starting with the measured tubinghead pressure. When
values of fluid properties representative of the average
conditions in the tubing section were needed, the subroutines were entered with arithmetic average pressure and temperature. When temperature varied with
depth, the calculation was by trial and error to match
the given temperature gradient. The gravity of the
free gas and that of the gas dissolved in the oil phase
at higher pressures were both set equal to the total
produced gas gravity.
The values of pressure, temperature, and other
fluid conditions calculated for the exit of the first
tubing section w~re used as inlet values for the next
length. The calculation proceeded in this incremental
manner until the total depth was reached or exceeded.
The bottom-hole pressure was then calculated by
linear interpolation of the last two pressure/depth
coordinates. It should be noted that calculations starting at the measured bottom-hole condition and ending
at the tubinghead would not necessarily give the same
pressure drop.
The pressure increment sizes were selected to be
between 5 and 10 percent of the absolute pressure to
minimize the inaccuracies of averaged physical properties and at the same time to maintain a reasonably
short computation time. The pressure-loss methods
studied required only a fraction of a second on the
IBM 360/85 co~puter to calculate a pressure
traverse.
Certain extensions were made to some correlations
to cover extremes encountered in analyzing the well
test data. When a dependent variable in a correlation
TABLE I-MINIMUM, MAXIMUM, AND AVERAGE
VALUES OF WELL DATA

Internal diameter, in.

Producing liquid rate, STB/D
Producing GLR, scf/STB
Well depth, ft
Measured bottom-hole
pressure, psia
Measured wellhead pressure, psia
Wellhead temperature, 0 F
Bottom-hole temperature, 0 F
Produced oil API gravity
Produced water gravity
Produced gas gravity
Viscosity of produced oil
at 100 OF, cp
Viscosity of produced oil
at 210 OF, cp

Minimum Maximum
8.760
1.049
5,082.0
1.0
788,000.
21.
12,458.
918.
5,140.
104.
20.
50.0
80.0
9.5
1.00
0.600
0.90

2,856.
180.0
330.0
56.2
1.15
1.400
20,000.00

0.26

140.00

Arithmetic
Average
1.878
395.2
3,993.
1,252.
518.
93.9
126.0
34.4
1.03
0.850

905

. was defined in only a certain range of the independent

variable, the range of defini!ion of the dependent
variable was extended to include these extreme
values of independent variable. For example, the
friction factor curves of the Poettmann and Carpenter, Baxendell and Thomas,and Fanher and Brown
correbltions Were extrapolated to the low and high
Reynolds-nllmber numerator ranges to cover all well
test conditions, The' extrapolation of these curves is
. considered to be of relatively minor importance to
the analysis of the different correlations since the great
majority of well test data were within the range of
the original curves. The extensions are explained in
t!J.e Appendix.
No part of the Duns and Ros correlation was extrapolated because of the unpredictable shape of the
regression coefficient curves. Only the well test data
within the range of the Duns and Ros correlation were
used in the statistical analysis.
It is emphasized that such extrapolations may not
always be advisable and no recommendation is given
for such extensions. For this study, the extensions
were necessary to reduce the handling of data and
to simplify the presentation of results.

Fluid Physical Property Correlations

All the pressure-loss prediction correlations require

values for fluid physical properties that are usually

not known and must therefore be estimated using
various empirical correlations. The physical property
correlations used in this study are presented in
Table 3.
The accuracy of the correlations is usually quite
good for the particular fluids and conditions used in
deriving them. However, their accuracy is unknown
when they are applied to various other hydrocarbon
mixtures. Additional uncertainties result from the
sometimes necessary extrapolation of the methods
beyond their originally defined ranges.
Proper use of the correlations for predicting solution GOR and formation volume factor in calculating down-hole volumes and specific gravities of oil
and gas phases requires that the gas and liquid phases
be in equilibrium. Actually, equilibrium does not
exist between oil and gas phases in the tubing because
of the effects of gas slippage. However, the assumption of equilibrium is probably the best approximation
that can be made.
Liquid-phase properties are especially difficult, if
not impossible, to predict when the liquid is a twophase mixture of oil and water. For this study an
arithmetic average value weighted on the basis of
volume fraction of oil and water in the liquid phase
was calculated from individual values of the property

TABLE 2-DESCRIPTION OF WELL TEST DATA

Data Source

Number
of
Tests

General Description

Comments on Estimated Quantities

Poettmann and
Carpenter1

49

Field data; mostly 2%- and 2'l's-in.-OD

tubing; medium flow rates; gas-oil and
gas-ail-water; low to medium pressures.

Surface temperature assumed to be

80F with 1.0F/100 ft temperature
gradient. Viscosities from Beal correiation. 18

Fancher8

83

One field well with gas injection; 2%-in.00 tubing; medium-high flow rates; 95
percent water cut; low pressures.

Produced gas gravity was taken to be

0.6 as an average between solution gas
gravity of 0.65 and injected gas gravity
of 0.57. Measured pressure at lowest
depth above gas injection depth was
used. Measured pressures were read
from plots in Appendix to MS thesis.

346

Experimental well with air injection; 1-,

1 1,4-, and 1 1h-in. nominal tubing; airwater and air-refined oil flow; oil viscosities from 10 to 110 cp; broad range
of flow rates; low pressures.

Temperature was set constant at 80 F.

Pressure measurement at lowest depth
above gas injection depth was used. Air
viscosity was set at 0.0185 cp; air compressibility factor at 1.0; solution GLR
at O. Surface tension and liquid phase
viscosity were set at values given in
PhD dissertation.

Baxendell and
Thomas 2

25

Field data from 2'l's - and 3% - in. - 00

tubing; high flow rates; gas-oil flow; low
to medium pressures.

Temperature was set constant at 180 F.

Oil viscosities estimated from data given
at 160 and 200 F. Deepest pressure
measurement was used.

Orkiszewski 6

22

Field data from 3 1h-in.-OD tubing with

two tests on 8.76-in.-ID tubing; medium
to high flow rates; heavy oils; moderate
pressures.

Fluids from all wells were assumed to

have same properties as those given for
Well 22 except for oil API gravities given
for each well. Well 22 temperature gradient was used for other wells.

Espanol Herrera23

44

Field data on 2%- and 2'l's-in.-OD tubing; mostly low flow rates; light oils;
high pressures.

Inside diameters of 1.996 and 2.376 in.

were used.

U. of Tulsa
Data Group 1

56

Field data on 2%- and 2'l's-in.-OD tubing; mostly low rates; low to medium
pressures.

Viscosities were estimated using Beal

correlation.

101

Field data on 2%- and 2'l's-in.-OD tubing; gas wells making low to medium
amounts of water; medium pressures.

Hagedorn 10

camach0 24

906

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

for each phase. Average values of liquid-phase surface

tension and liquid-phase density were calculated in
this manner. Average liquid-phase viscosity was calculated from values of oil and water viscosity weighted
by the volume fraction of each phase in the liquid
according to the Arrhenius formula 19 , as suggested
by Hagedorn and Brown. 5 The effects of oil-water
emulsions were not considered in this study.
Volume fradions of oil and water in the liquid
phase for down-hole conditions were calculated using
oil and water production rates and assuming no slip
between the oil and water phases. Actually, since
the oj! is usually less dense than the water, the oil
will tend to rise faster. Therefore the actual volume
fraction of oil in the liquid phase for down-hole conditions will usually be smaller than the calculated
volume fraction. The inaccuracies ,of estimating representative values of physical properties for oil-water
mixtures may be a serious limitation to the proper
use of multiphase pressure-10ss correlations for three,
phase oil, water, and gas flow.'
The inaccuracies of the physical property correla-:-

tions and the way in which they are used limit the
ability of a multiphase flow pressuure-loss correlation
to make an accurate prediction. Therefore, the
pressure-loss prediction method, made up of a combination of pressure loss correlation and fluid physical
property correlations, must be considered as a package when tested against measured pressure losses.

Validation of Programming
Because of the intricacy of some of the correlations
and the complexities of the programming involved,
pressure losses calculated by the computer program
for each pressure-loss prediction method were compared with calculated pressure losses available from
another source for the same well test data. Close
agreement between the calculated pressure losses
from this study and the independent calculation
indicates that the programming was done correctly.
Minor differences in calculated answers from different sources are to be expected because of the use
of different physical property correlations and programming techniques. However, it is difficult to

TABLE 3-FLUID PHYSICAL PROPERTY CORRELATIONS

Fluid Physical Property

Correlation Used

Comments

Pseudocritical temperature
and pressure of hydrocarbon gases

Katz25 ,26

The curve for miscellaneous gases was used.

Hydrocarbon gas compressibi lityfactor

Standing and Katz25,27

The correlation becomes more in error as the nonhydrocarbon content of the gases is increased, but may still be accurate to about 2% when only small amounts of nonhydrocarbons are present. z-factors for reduced temperatures less
thari 1.05 were calculated for reduced temperatures of 1.05.

Solution GOR

Lasater2s,29

Predicted values of gas mol fraction greater than 0.85 were

taken as 0.85. The API vs effective molecular weight of tank
oil correlation was extrapolated for oil API lower than 18 and
greater than 55. This correlation predi'cts the bubble-point
pressures of the mixtures used to generate the correlation
to an average of 3.8%. Accuracy for predicting solution GOR's
would be expected to be about 5% also forthe original data.

Oil formation volum.e..factor

Standing30,31

The correlation has an accuracy of 1.17% when applied to

mixtures IJsed to develop the correlation.

Hydrocarbon gas viscosity

Carr et al. 32

The correction factors for H2S, CO 2 and N2 were not used

since gas analyses were not available. Fortunately, corrections are small for nonhhydrocarbon content less than about
5%. Effect of water vapor on viscosity was not considered.

Oil viscosity

Bea1 1S,29 and Chew

and Connally29, 33

Beal's correlation was used to estimate "dead oil" viscosity

at 100 and 210 F as a function of API gravity. These values
may be in error several-fold, since oil composition also affects
oil viscosity. Temperature dependency of viscosity was assumed to follow the Beal correlation. When the range of the
Chew and Connally correlation was exceeded, values at 1,600
Scf/bbl were used.

Water viscosity

Beal iS

Data are for a specific gravity of 1.0. The curve was extrapolated to higher temperatures. No attempt was made to account for the effects of salt content, dissolved gas content,
or pressure.
'

Oil surface tension

Baker34,35

Values at 68F were used for temperatures below 68~F, and

values at 100 F were used for temperatures above 100 F.
The fractional change of surface tension with pressure was
taken as 0.1 for pressures over 3;900 psia.

Water surface tension

against air

Data of Ref. 36

Data for pure water against air were used. Surface tension
was assumed to vary linearly with temperature and have
values of 69.56 dyne/cm at 104F and 58.9 dyne/cm at
212F.

Water surface tension

against hydrocarbon gas

Data of Hough et a/. 37 ;

also Katz25

Surface tension values were found

between data for 74 and 280F in
tem. Values for temperatures below
were taken as the values at 74 and

AUGUST, 1974

by linear interpolation
the methane-water sys74F and above 280F
280F, respectively.

907

generalize as to exactly how much deviation in calculated pressure losses could be expected because of
those differences.
The programs developed for the Poettmann and
Carpenter, Baxendell and Thomas, Fancher and
Brown, and Hagedorn and Brown methods were
found to reproduce the pressure losses calculated by
each method quite closely. Comments on comparisons
for each method are given below.

TABLE 5-STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR ALL WELL TESTS

Poettmann and Carpenter: The computer program

of this work matched the 49 calculated pressure
gradients in the Poettmann and Carpenter paper to
an average of 2.6 percent and were generally within
10 percent.

"Results for the 427 well tests in the range of the correlation.

Baxendell and Thomas: No independently calculated

pressure gradients were available, but comparisons
of pressure gradients predicted by the computer program .of this work against measured pressure gradients
in the Baxendell and Thomas paper were generally
the same +5 to + 10 percent reported by Baxendell
and Thomas.
Fancher and Brown: The same general + 10 percent
differences between calculated and measured pressure losses originally found by Fancher were found
with the computer program of this study. The pressure losses calculated by Fancher were read from the
graphs in the Fancher MS thesis.
Hagedorn and Brown: The calculated pressure losses
from the computer program of this study agreed with
the pressure losses calculated originally by Hagedorn
as well as could be determined by reading the calculated pressure losses from graphs in the B:agedorn
dissertation.
Duns and Ros: The programming of the Duns and Ros
correlation was tested by comparing estimated pressure losses for the same input well data with the
program of the Duns and Ros correlation of D. R.
McCord and Associates, Inc. 20 Calculated pressure
losses for more than 100 different well tests were
compared. All the comparisons were within + 10

Method
Poettmann and Carpenter
Baxendell and Thomas
Fancher and Brown
Duns and Ros
Hagedorn and Brown
Orkiszewski
"no-slip" static head

Average
Percent
Standard
Difference Deviation
- 107.3
195.7
- 108.3
195.1

5.5
15.4*
1.3
8.6
53.5

36.1
50.2"
26.1
35.7
33.0

percent and most were within + 5 percent.

Orkiszewski: The predicted pressure losses for the
entire 726 well tests by the computer program of
this study for the Orkiszewski method were checked
against calculated pressure losses of the same correlation programmed by the Continental Oil Co: Research Dept., Ponca City, Okla. The average percent
difference. between calculated pressure losses of the
two different computer programs for the 726 well tests
was less than 2 percent. Larger discrepancies in calculated pressure losses occurred for wells producing
water and oil together, but the differences were traced
to the use of different techniques for calculating liquidphase average viscosity,2l
Statistical data on deviations between measured
and predicted pressure losses given by Orkiszewski6
for the Orkiszewski, Duns and Ros, and Hagedorn
correlations could not always be reproduced using the
computer programs of this study for the same sets of
well test data.. (Table 4 compares statistical results
calculated by Orkiszewski and statistical results calculated from the computer program estimates of this
study. Statistical parameters are defined in Discussion
of Results.) Part of the discrepancies could be caused
by the use of a different definition of average percent
error. Orkiszewski did not state his average error
formula. Although the statistical results of this work
were different froin those reported in the Orkiszewski
paper, agreement on the calculated pressure losses for
the example problem in Appendix D of the Orkiszewski paper was quite good. Orkiszewski calculated a

TABLE 4-ORKISZEWSKI'S STATISTICAL RESULTS COMPARED WITH THOSE OF THIS STUDY

Data Group
Orkiszewski data on heavy-oil wells
(22 well tests)

Orkiszewski
Orkiszewski Results of
Results
This Study

Prediction Method
Ros
Orkiszewski
Results of
Results
This Study

Hagedorn and Brown

Orkiszewski Results of
Results
This Study

Average error, percent

Standard deviation, percent

-1.2
10.4

-12.0
13.1

+22.7
18.7

-42.4
19.7

+ 16.4
41.4

-29.7
42.0

Baxendell and Thomas

(25 well tests)
Average error, percent
Standard deViation, percent

-2.1
11.1

-3.7
41.1

+2.3
20.0

-13.9
39.5

+8.7
12.7

+6.0
11.6

Poettmann and Carpenter

(49 well tests)
Average error, percent
Standard deviation, percent

-1.0
12.0

+3.7
13.7

+5.8
12.4

-4.8
15.1

-13.0
22.2

+22.8
24.7

908

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

pressure loss of approximately 850 psi (Fig. 14 of

Ref. 6); the computer program of this study calculated
870 psi; the Continental computer program calculated
872 psi.

Discussion of Results
The statistical results for the prediction methods
applied to all 726 well tests are given in Table 5.
Definitions of percent difference, PD, arithmetic
average of percent differences, APD, and standard
deviation of percent difference values from the average percent difference, SD, are given below.
PD = e:..pm - e:..pc 100 percent,
e:..pm
n

APD =

SD =

L PD i
~i=-.:1=---_

-/--.--:....i~--=l_(_PD_i_-,.-A_P_D_)_2
"

n- 1

where
APe = calculated pressure

e:..pm = measured pressure loss

n

= number of well tests.

An analysis of the equation for PD indicates that

the value of the percent difference between measured
and calculated pressure losses can be a large negative
number for overpredictionof pressure loss;' i.e"
e:..pc > > e:..pm, but is bounded by + 100 percent for
underprediction of pressure loss. The average percent
difference values in Table 5 therefore tend to emphasize more the errors for methods that grossly overpredict pressure loss. Likewise, the values of standard
deviation may emphasize more the scatter of grossly
overpredicted pressure losses.
Table 5 indicates that both the Poettmann and
Carpenter and the Baxendell and Thomas methods
overpredict the measured pressure losses on the average by a factor of two as indicated by the -107.3
and -108.3 values of average percent difference.
There is also considerable scatter of the percent difference values about their average as shown by the
high values of standard deviation.
The Fancher and Brown correlation is similar to
the Baxendell and Thomas and the Poettmann and
Carpenter correlations, but is based on a broader
range of well conditions. The Fancher and Brown
friction factor correlation usually predicts lower
values of friction factor and lower pressure losses as
shown by the lower values of average percent difference and standard deviation.
The pressure-loss predictions of some of the
methods in Table 5 show smaller values of average
percent difference and standard deviation. For example, the average percent difference and standard
deviation values for the Hagedorn and Brown correlation are -1.3 and 26.1 percent, respectively. This
implies that, if percent differences are normally distributed about their mean value, there is a 67 percent
AUGUST, 1974

probability that the measured pressure losses would

be predicted within +26.1 percent(l standard deviation) of the average percent difference and a 95
percent prdbability that the pressure losses would be
predicted within +52.2 percent (2 standard deviations) of the average percent difference. A normal
distribution would be expected for this large collection of data, and therefore the foregoing confidence
levels are probably suitable for drawing conclusions
as to the accuracy of predictions from each of the
methods.
Table 5 also includes satistical results for comparing measured pressure drop with that resulting from
a static head of the fluids if no gas slippage occurs.
As expected, this prediction method underpredicts
the pressure drop, since friction,acceleration, and
greater values of liquid holdup resulting from gas
slippage are not considered.
In addition to the over-all statistical results in Table
5, further information about the performance of the
pressure-loss prediction methods is shown in Figs. 1
through' 5. The figures illustrate the effects that internal tubing diameter, produced water / oil ratio
(WOR), produced GLR, produced oil API gravity,
and superficial liquid velocity at tubinghead conditions exert on the performance of each of the four
prediction methods that perform best over all. The
flow variables are in units familiar to the practicing
petroleum production engineec Since these flow variables have a major effect on the pressure gradients
in producing wells, an analysis of prediction errors
based on ranges of these variables should point out
some of~he strengths and weaknesses of the individualcorrelations.

40

'"
u

15 20

'"

'"
I

o FANCHER-

is
I-

0
15
u

'"
0'"
'"
'-"

ffi

-20

>
<

-40

,p.

BROWN

,.....

o~~
\0
\~

HAGEDOR
BROWN
DUNS"ROS
o
ORKISZEWSKI

60

z
0

;::

<

~
c

40

'"

<
c

z 20
;:!:

'"
1. 049
L 380
1. 610
1. 995
2.376 2.441 2.992
. (311
(175)
1140l
,(228)
(411
(60)
(46)
VALUES OF INSIDE TUBING DIAMETER, INCHES

( NUMBER OF WElL TESTS IN EACH GROUP IN PARENTHESES)

Fig. I-Statistical results for well data grouped by internal

tubing diameter.

909

Internal Tubing Diameter

Internal tubing diameter, besides establishing superficial gas and liquid velocities, would be expected to
be a factor in multiphase flow pressure losses. For
example, flow regimes are probably dependent on
4Or--,---,-----,-----.,----.------,
_ _0

LU

HAGEDORNBROWN

r:s

20

...""
LU

g OI-""""---------;H-.""".~:::__I_____7L---=-~---___4

""
"LU
LU

<:>

~ -20

LU

;::
-40

...
~- 40

~
~

c
c

<
""c
z

o
20

" 0/t::.-~
/ ~EDORN-BROWN
::e'o ~

6-

-~LS/

FA:BROWN
DUNS-ROS
ORKI SZEWSKI

t::.-;::?" "'~_O
o

OL......;*;;---~:;;--__:::.l.;;;_---::::_l:::--,.,...L------l
13-20
25-31
(20)
(54)
(1m
(52)
(49)

II>

RANGES OF PRODUCED OIL API GRAVITY

(NUMBER OF WELL TESTS I N EACH GROUP IN PARENTHESES)

Fig. 2-Statistical results for well data grouped by

produced oil API gravity.
LU

LU

20

...""
Ci

o FANCHERBROWN

LU

0
!Z
LU

""
"LU

LU

-20

""

t::.

t::.

~o-:----0

~.*
' \

LU

>
<

HAGEDORNo BROWN
\-DUNS-ROS

-40

...

z-

c
c

""

<
c 20
z
<
III>

ORKISZEWSKI

/0
/'0."",'"''
-/\

60

;:::
< 40

t::.

-/0
/

/~

L. ~O

~~

HAGEDORNBROWN
oFANCHER_ BROWN
DUNS-ROS

o'-----;;;;-';-,,;;---;;:;;;-'=;---;=I:=:--:=~:-::-::-----l
20-400
(2201
(226)
(167)
(113)
RANGES OF PRODUCING GAS/LIQUID RATIO, SCF/STB
(NUMBER OF WELL TESTS IN EACH GROUP IN PARENTHESES)

Fig. 3-Statistical results for well data grouped by

producing gas/liquid ratio.

910

the diameter that must be bridged to form and maintain a slug of liquid or gas. Fig. 1 shows a tendency
for some of the correlations to overpredict pressure
losses for the 2.992-in. tubing. Note that the Hagedorn and Brown and the Orkiszewski correlations do
quite well for 1- to 2-in. tubing.
Produced-On API Gravity
It has long been recognized that crude-oil properties
such as surface tension and viscosity can often be
correlated with their specific gravities. Even though
the properties of produced oil vary from the properties of oil flowing in the tubing, the produced-oil
gravity would still show some trends with prediction
accuracy. Fig. 2 indicates that the Hagedorn and
Brown method overpredicts pressure loss for heavier
oils and underpredicts pressure loss for lighter oils.
The Orkiszewski method seems to improve as oil API
gravity increases. No trend is indicated by the standard deviation plot.
Producing GLR
The producing GLR is an indication of the actual
GLR in the tubing; but, of course, the actual GLR
depends heavily upon tubing pressure as well as other
factors. The Hagedorn and Brown and the Orkiszewski correlations generally tend to show more scatter
in prediction accuracy and also to overpredict pressure loss for higher producing GLR's (see Fig. 3).
Also, the Duns and Ros correlation overpredicts as
GLR is increased. The Fancher and Brown correlation tends to underpredict pressure losses, yet outperforms other correlations at high producing GLR's.
This was also observed by Camacho. 20
Producing WOR
The presence of water in the production string can
have several effects upon the pressure gradient. Most
obvious is that because water is usually more dense
than the oil and gas phases it tends to increase the
pressure gradient. However, accurate representative
values of physical properties for a liquid made up of
a mixture of water and crude oil are not always possible to obtain by averaging separate water and oil
properties. This is because water-oil emulsions can
form that do not follow the averaging rwes.
Fig. 4 indicates that the correlations do a better
job of predicting pressure losses when little or no
water is present. Where the produced liquid is predominantly water, the correlations seem to overpredict pressure loss and exhibit more scatter in the
prediction errors. Duns and Ros did not recommend
using their prediction method with averaged physical
properties for the liquid phase, as was done in this
work, but instead recommended that two calculations
be performed, one with oil and one with water, each
at the same total liquid production rate. The gradients were then to be averaged to get an estimate for
the combined water and oil gradient.
Superficial Velocity of Produced Liquids
The definition of superficial velocity of produced
liquids used in this study is simply the production
rate of oil and water (in STBjD) divided by the crossJOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

sectional area of the tube times the appropriate constant to give units of feet per second. This quantity
is not normally used by petroleum production engineers but was included to show tr~nds based upon
the liquid-production-rate/tubing-area ratio. It is interesting to note that, as displayed in Fig. 5, the
pressure loss predictions generally improve as the
superficial velocity of produced liquids increases.
Also, although the average percent differences for
predictions at low superficial velocities for the Hagedorn and Brown and the Fancher and Brown correlations are quite low, there is still considerable scatter
in the prediction errors at low superficial velocities.
Apparently, as production rates increase, the gas and
liquid have a tendency to flow more predictably or
uniformly than at lower rates. The poorer predictions at lower liquid superficial velocities could be an
indication of a more cyclical or noncontinuous type
of flow, which would be expected to be more elusive
of being predicted by correlating techniques based
on continuous flow.
Use of Figures 1 through 5
Figs. 1 through 5 should be used cautiously for selecting a prediction method for a particular set of flow
variables. The trends in the statistical values they
show may not always be caused entirely by the particular flow variable against which the statistical
values are plotted because the data may have a statistical correlation between different flow variables.
For example, test data for wells having high produced GLR's were also those for wells having tubing
diameters between 1.995 and 2.992 in. Therefore,
the trends could be caused either by the range of
tubing diameter or by produced GLR, or by both.
Within these limitations, the figures may be used as
a guide to eliminate or select a particular correlation
in the absence of other information.

40,.--------.------,---.-----.-----.--------,

~~
e:::::==--==-~
O~H~GEDORN-BROWN
-

20 -

as

'-'

15

D..

~ORKISZlWSKI

e--e

'"

~~NCHER-BROWN -

~ -20 f-

15

;c

e e DUNS-ROS

-40f-

60
#-

z"

FANCHER-BROWN

~4O
~

%ORKI SZlWSKI

(;t;

~
/~
H
~O#~~
",C:>f/ / 0
~~/
.~~

'"
'"

IX

~20
z

;!:

lI'l

6_t:;

HAGEDORNBROWN

o l.-------7-0 -----:::::-'-:=-----=-:'-:--;;----:1"-;;.0'-;;-2:;;-0- - ; ; ; : ' - - - - - - - '

(292)

(8)

(9)

(92)

(325)

RANGES OF PRODUCING WATER/OIL RATIO, STB WATERISTB Oil

(NUMBER OF WElL TESTS IN EACH GROUP I N PARENTHESES)

Fig. 4--Statistical results for well data grouped by

producing water/oil ratio.

40

.----.-1----.1---..--1--'1------,

20

I-

....

(.)

Conclusions
1. A comparison study such as this one depends
a great deal on the quality and range of basic well
data. Different well data may result in different conclusions as to the method having the best over-all
performance.
2. Inaccuracies of fluid physical property correlations for predicting volumes and properties of downhole fluids have an unknown effect on the statistical
results. Each pressure-loss prediction method, which
combines a pressure loss correlation and fluid physical property correlations, must be considered as a
unit when tested against measured pressure losses.
3. No single pressure-loss prediction method was
found superior to all others considered for all ranges
of producing well flow variables. Over all, the Hagedorn and Brown method, when tested against all 726
well tests, performed best.
4. Figs. 1 through 5 may be used with caution to
eliminate or select methods for particular ranges of
producing well flow variables.
5. The inability of the methods to consistently predict producing well pressure gradients with accuracy
indicates the need for more research in the area of
vertical multiphase flow.
AUGUST, 1974

as

a:::
....
::::

7;::::><-

I-

as

(.)

....
....
C>
~
....
>

o
o

a:::
c..

-20 -

t::. ORKISZEWSKI

..............-~o FANCHER~ _oeBROWN

DuNS-ROS H~~O:N- _

<

-40-

l/<

:z
o

BD

DUNS-ROS
e

RKISZEWS~

FANCHER-I::.......... "
40 BROWN o~o

~. HAGEDOR~~~

BROWN

~~

V'l

0-.4
.4-1.0
1.0-2.0
>2.
(219)
(221)
(154)
(132)
RANGES OF SUPERFICIAL VELOCITY OF PRODUCED LIQUIDS, FTISEC

(NUMBER OF WELL TESTS IN EACH GROUP IN PARENTHESES)

Fig.

~Statistical

results for well data grouped by

superficial velocity of produced liquids.

911

Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Amoco Production Co. for releasing
this information for publication. Also, we wish to
acknowledge the assistance of Phil Reed of the Continental Oil Co. Research Dept. for his help in computer program comparisons.
References
1. Poettmann, F. H., and Carpenter, P. G.: "The Multiphase Flow of Gas, Oil, and Water Through Vertical
Flow Strings with Application to the Design of Gas
Lift Installations," Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1952)
257.
2. Baxendell, P. B., and Thomas, R.: "The Calculation of
Pressure Gradients in High-Rate Flowing Wells," J.
Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1961) 1023-1028; Trans., AIME, 222.
3. Duns, H., Jr., and Ros, N. C. J.: "Vertical Flow of Gas
and Liquid Mixtures in Wells," Proc., Sixth World
Pet. Cong., Frankfurt (1963) 11,451-465.
4. Fancher, G. H., and Brown, K. E.: "Prediction of
Pressure Gradients for Multiphase Flow in Tubing,"
Soc. Pet, Eng. J. (March 1963) 59-69; Trans., AIME,
228.
5. Hagedorn, A R., and Brown, K. E.: "Experimental
Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small-Diameter Vertical
Conduit,s," J. Pet. Tech (April 1965) 475-484; Trans.,
AIME,'234.
6.0rkiszewski, J.: "Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops
in Vertical Pipe," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1967) 829-838;
Trans., AIME, 240.
7. Brown, K. E.: Gas Lift Theory and Practice, PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J. (1967).
8. Fancher, G. H.: "An Investigation of Continuous Multiphase Flow in Vertical Tubing Strings," MS thesis U.
of Texas at Austin (1962).
'
9. Ros, N. C. J.: "Simultaneous Flow of Gas and Liquid
as Encountered in. Well Tubing," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct.
1961) 1037-1049; Trans., AIME, 222.
10. Hagedorn, A. R.: "Experimental Study of Pressure
Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase
Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits," PhD dissertation, U. of Texas at Austin (1964).
11. Griffith, P.: "Two-Phase Flow in Pipes," paper presented at Special Summer Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1962).
12. Griffiith, P., and Wallis, G. B.: "Two-Phase Slug Flow,"
J. Heat Transfer, Trans., ASME (1961) 307.
13. Yocum, B. T.: "Two-Phase Flow in Well Flowlines,"
Pet. Eng. (Nov. 1959)'B-40.
14. Baker, W. J:, and Keep, K. R.: "The Flow of Oil and
Gas Mixtures in Wells and Pipelines: Some Useful
Correlations," J~ Inst. of Pet. (May 1961) 47, No. 449,
162.
15. Tek, M. R: "Multiphase Flow of Water, Oil, and
Natural Gas Through Vertical Flow Strings," J. Pet.
Tech. (Oct. 1961) 1029-1036; Trans., AIME, 222.
16. Hughmark, G. A, and Pressburg, B. S.: "Holdup and
Ptessure Drop With Gas-Liquid Flow in a Vertical
Pipe," AIChE Jour. (Dec. 1961) 677.
17. Gaither, O. D., Winkler, H. W., and Kirkpatrick, C. V.:
"Single- and Two-Phase Fluid Flow in Small Vertical
Conduits Including Annular Configurations," J. Pet.
Tech. (March 1963) 309-320; Trans., AIME, 228.
18. Beal, C.: "The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas,
Crude Oil and Its Associated Gases at Oil Field Temperatures and Pressures," Trans., AIME (1!146) 165,
94-115.
19. Hatchek, E.: The Viscosity of Liquids, G. Bell and
Sons, London (1928).
20. Multiphase Flow Through Vertical or Horizontal Pipes
(With Segmenting Features), Program 1302, Users
Reference . Manual, D. R. McCord and Assoc., Inc.,
Dallas (Dec. 1970).
21. Production Research Div., Research and Development
Dept., Continental Oil Co.: Personal communication
(Nov. 19, 1971).
912

22. Hagedorn, A R.: Personal communication (Sept. 1965).

23. Espanol Herrera, J. H.: "Comparison of Three Methods
for Calculating a Pressure Traverse in Vertical Multiphase
Flow," MS thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Okla. (1968).
24. Camacho, C. A.: "Comparison of Correlations for
Predicting Pressure Losses in High Gas-Liquid Ratio
Vertical Wells," MS thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, Okla.
(1970).
.
25. Katz, D. L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R, Poettmann,
F. H., Vary, J. A., Elenbaas, J. R., and Weinaug, C. F.:
Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc., New York (1959) Chap. 4.
26. Brown, G. G., Katz, D. L., Oberfell, G. G., and Alden,
R. c.: "Natural Gasoline and Volatile Hydrocarbons,"
NGAA (1948) 38.
27. Standing, M. B., and Katz, D. L.: "Density of Natural
Gases," Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 140-149.
28. Lasater, J. A: "Bubble Point Pressure Correlation,"
Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 379-381.
29. Standing, M. B.: Petroleum Production Handbook,
T. C. Frick, Ed., Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
Dallas (1962) 2, Chap. 19.
30. Standing, M. B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of
Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems, Reinhold Publishing
Corp., New York (1952).
31. Standing, M. B.: "A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of California Oils and Gases"
Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1947) 275.
'
32. Carr, N. L., Kobayashi, R., and Burrows, D. B.:
"Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Gases 'Under Pressure,"
Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 264-272.
33. Chew, J. N., and Connally, C. A, Jr.: "A Viscosity
Correlation for Gas-Saturated Crude Oils," Trans.,
AIME (1959) 216, 23-25.
34. Baker, 0.: "Designing Pipelines for Simultaneous Flow
of Oil and Gas," Pipeline Engineer, Handbook Section
(Feb. 1960) H-67.
35. Baker, 0., and Swedloff, W.O.: "Finding Surface
Tension of Hydrocarbon Liquids," Oil and Gas J.
(Jan. 2, 1956) 54, 125.
36. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 48 ed., The
Chemical Rubber Co. (1967) F-29.
37. Hough, E. W., Rzasa, M. J., and Wood, B. B.: "Interfacial Tensions at Reservoir Pressures and Temperatures; Apparatus and the Water-Methane System," Trans.,
AIME (1951) 192, 57-60.

APPENDIX

Extensions to Correlations
Figure numbers and symbols referred to are those defined by the original publication for each correlation.
Poettmann and Carpenter
The friction factor for values of the Reynolds number numerator (abcissa of Fig. 4) less than 0.80 and
more than 170 were taken as 100 and 0.001, respectively.
Baxendell and Thomas
The lower limit on the Reynolds number numerator
and associated friction factor were taken as 100 and
0.8, respectively. The friction factor was taken as
0.0044 for values of the Reynolds number numerator
greater than 8,000,000.
Fancher and Brown
The < 1,500 GLR line (Fig. 6) was extrapolated to
the points (f = 7.0, dvp = 0.08) and (f = 0.002, dvp
= 170). The other two GLR curves were extrapolated linearly over the same range of dvp. The endpoint vall/es of f were used when dvp was less than
0.08 and greater than 170.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Duns and Ros

The range of definition of the dimensionless factors
F 1 - F 1 and 1 - 4 was exceeded on much of the
well test data. Because of the intricacy of the correlation, no attempt was made to extrapolate these curves.
Instead, for the Duns and Ros correlation, only the
data within the range of the correlation were considered in the statistical analysis.
Hagedorn and Brown
The product of viscosity number and the coefficient
C, CNL , was taken as 0.002 for N L values less than
0.002 and as 0.0115 for N L values greater than 0.50
(Fig. 12). It has been found that the CNL curve is
asymptotic to 0.0115 for greater values of N L .22 The
smoothness of the holdup curve (Fig. 13) suggested
extrapolation to (10- 7 ,0.). If the abcissa was greater
than 5 X to- 3 the holdup factor was taken as 0.984.

If the abcissa of the secondary correction factor, 'i,

(Fig. 9) was less than 0.011 or greater than 0.09, 'i
was taken as 1.0 and 1.85, respectively. Checks were
made to assure that the holdup value was always
less than 1.0.
Orkiszewski
Eq. C-9 was modified to read
13.59 ].tL]

PLy(l;.
to correct an apparent typographical error. 21
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office July 19, 1973. Revised' manuscript received Oct. 31, 1973.
Paper (SPE 4267) was first presented at the SPE-AIME 48th Annual Fall Meeting, held in Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 30-0ct. 3, 1973.
Copyright 1974 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
.
This paper will be printed in Transactions volume 257, which will
cover 1974.

Discussion
G. L. Chierici, SPE-AIME, AGIP Exploration & Production
G. M. Ciucci, SPE-AIME, AGIP Exploration & Production
G. Sc1occhi, AGIP Exploration & Production
The authors, Lawson and Brill, are to be commended
for trying to take a fix on a subject that is affected
by a multitude of proposed methods.
The following points deserve discussion.
Lawson and Brill have evaluated fluid properties
through standard correlations. This introduces errors
that, except for gas-water systems, are unpredictable
and mask the error inherent in the pressure-loss prediction method being evaluated. Since the authors
say that PVT data were available for some of the
cases, an additional comparison limited to those cases
in which actual PVT data were used in the calculations would have been of interest. There are serious
arguments that lead one to believe that calibration of
fluid characteristics against experimental PVT data
is a minimum requirement for the reliability of calculated pressure drops.
Moreover, all three-phase cases should have been
discarded from the comparison because none of the
methods considered is based on a theory or correlation accounting for three-phase flow. Empirical extensions to three-phase flow have been tentatively made
in some of the methods, only in order to handle cases
of low WOR's. Lawson and Brill's use of average

values for the physical characteristics of oil-water mixtures does not take into account slippage and emulsification phenomena, whose relevance has' been
pointed out by Ros1 and by Duns and Ros.2
The above considerations suggest that grouping the
results into three main categories - gas-oil, water-oil,
and three-phase - would make more significant the
comparison of the evaluated prediction methods.
In comparing the relative merits of the various
methods the authors should have eliminated the bias
the data bank has towards some of the methods. This
bias is originated by the inclusion in the data bank of
cases that had been used to develop the empirical
relationships related to some of the methods. Considering the gas-water cases only, for which the validity
of PVT data is not questioned, Table D-1 shows how
the comparison is affected by the bias contained in
the data bank.
References
1. Ros, N. C. J.: "Simultaneous Flow of Gas and Liquid
as Encountered in Well Tubing," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct.
1961) 1037-1049; Trans., AIME, 222.
2. Duns, H., Jr., and Ros, N. C. J.: "Vertical Flow of Gas
and Liquid Mixtures in Wells," Proc., Sixth World Pet.
Cong., Frankfurt (1963) 11,451-465.

TABLE D-1-EFFECT OF BIAS ON COMPARISON OF CORRELATIONS

All Cases as Presented in the Paper
Pressure-Loss
Prediction Method
Poettmann and Carpenter
Baxendell and Thomas
Fancher and Brown
Duns and Ros
Hagedorn and Brown
Orkiszewski

AUGUST, 1974

Number
of
Cases

Average
Percent
Difference

Standard
Df:JViation

318
318
318
102
318
318

-174.0
-174.7
18.4
41.3
10.7
13.5

247.5
247.0
42.8
84.2
22.6
43.1

Biasing Cases Backed Out

318
318
318
102
101
234

-174.0
-174.7
18.4
41.3
35.6
20.6

247.5
247.0
42.8
84.2
20.8
47.8
913

Authors' Reply
The reviewers have criticized the selection of well
test data used in the statistical analysis, the evaluation
of pressure-loss prediction methods for systems other
than gas-water, and the use of standard correlations
to generate needed values of fluid physical properties.
We agree that relying on standard fluid physical
property correlations introduces error into the analysis, but published oil and gas well test data having
complete fluid property definition are not available.
Limiting the analysis to mr-water test data eliminates
the problem of physical property estimation, but
weakens the analysis by greatly reducing the amount
and range of available well test data. Also, performing the analysis using oil and gas well test data is
supported by the common use of the methods for oil

914

and gas well pressure prediction.

The collection of data on gas-water flow used
in the comparison presented by the reviewers is
not unbiased. For example, the Hagedorn and Brown
method was tested on only 101 well tests having very
high values of produced GLR, and as Fig. 3 shows,
all methods perform poorly for high-GLR wells.
Much of the bias in the well test data and error
in the fluid physical property estimation could be
eliminated by repeating the study on a larger collection of high-quality well test data having adequate
fluid physical property definition. Until such data are
available, we suggest that the results of this study be
used for guidance in selecting a pressure-loss prediction method.
JPT

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY