SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME

6200 North Central Expressway

Dallas, Texas 75206

THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

A Comparison of Existing Mult iphase Flow

Methods for the Calculation of
Pressu re Drop in Vertical Wells
By

J. H. Eapanol, Superior Oil Co., C. S. Holmes, Cities Service Oil Co.

and K. E. Brown.. U. of Tulsa.. Members AIIvC3
@ Copyright1969
American Institute
of Mining,MetalIurgieel,
and Petroleum Engineers,Inc.

This paper was prepared for the bbth Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
of AIME, to be held in Denver, Colo., Sept. 28-Ott.1, 1.969.Permission to copy is restricted to an
-r....-L-- L: .-. -----.4 k. .—< .A ml....-h.+
. ...+ .hfi.,1 A nnm+eikl
abstraci of not more t’nan jOO words. LJ-J-usl/ruL.Lullti may Ilub Uc LupLcu. ALJG auau.a~u C3LL”IAJ-U L“..”UALI

conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Publication elsewhere after
publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JCURNAL is
usually granted upon reauest to the Editor of the appropriate journal provided agreement to give
nvnno~ rvedi+ i ~ maii-
y.”y... ------ -., ...-=-.

Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent to the
c-,,:
e+.,m? D-+-,.,.1 0...,, 17mm;rl*c,v.
IJUL1.CtiJ W. LCI/.V.LCUtt1
-f’P; 7!0 C,,oh A< cc,,..inn
UL1~&LIGG.O
m.v ~~
“A.J.LG.
p~~~~pa~~~
“ub..
~’t ~~.~ ~~~~~
UAULL4.JU4.”L.
rn.~~~.~~g ~~.d.
...=.? ,

with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two SPE magazines.

ABSTRACT simultaneously being produced with the gaa-

oil mixture.
The estimation of pressure drop for multi-
phase flow in a vertical pipe is one of the INTRODUCTION
more complex problems in oil field practice.
The most successful solutions tc)this orob- Accurate prediction of the pressure drop
----
lem involve trial and error calculations in to be encountered during the multiphase flow
subdivided sections of flow patterns. No of fluids in a vertical well is desired for
t~~ mothndn
...- -.. --., ~i~~~ {da=ti-sl Y=d.,lt@ f-- = good engineering data. The lack of reliable
------------ .-”=..” .“.

given set of flow conditions as the multi- pressure drop data and experimental flow
phase flow problem is extremely difficult apparatus for correlation data gathering
represent the inherent problems of obtain-
to analyze. Fortunately the introduction
of the computer in the petroleum industry ing a general multiphaae flow model.
During multiphase flow in vertical tubing
has enhanced the investigation of the multi-
at least four distinct regimes of flow are
phase flow problem. Rapid computation pro-
identifiable. These are usually described
vides a means for comparison of individual
methods and an instrument for the develop- aa the bubble, slug, transition, and mist
ment of new correlations. flow regions. Figure 1 illuatratea the geo-
Three of the best correlations were chosen metrical configuration of the four regions
of flow. Bubble flow consists of a contin-
and evaluated; the Hagedorn and Brown, Duns
uous liquid phase with little free gas pre-
and Ros, and Orkiszewski methods. The accu-
—-—-- sent. Aa greater quantitlea of ~as evolve
racy Of these new correlations was deter-
from the liquid phase, the gas bubbles
mined against multiphase flow pressure drop
agglomerate, forming slug-like gas pockets
data from 44 wells. The best solution which
characteristic of the slug flow region. As
was both general and gave satisfactory accu-
still greater amounts of gas are released,
racy for all possible ranges of well condi-
the transition flow region forms in which
tions waa determined. The method of
droplets of liquid become entrained in the
Orkiazewski was found to be most accurate
gas pockets. The gas pockets become dis-
for engineering design usage and was the
only correlation which could evaluate a torted and approach a continuous gas form.
“–-
three phase flow condition when water is breater gas throughput restricts the
References and Illuatrationa at end of paper
 A COMPARISON OF EXISTING MULTIPHASE FLOW METHODS FOR THE
CALCULATION OF PRESSURE DROP IN VERTICAL WELLS
continuous liquid phase to the well walls
with a continuous gas phase fiowfrigwithiii
the annular liquid phase. This represents
the mist flow region in which the contin-
uous gas phase is saturated with a fine mist
of entrained liquid particles. The complex-
ity of the flow schemes adds to the correla-
tion difficulties.
Many experimental and theoretical studies
have been conducted to determine the laws
governing the flow of heterogeneous gas -
liquid mixtures in verticai weiis. However,
few correlations exist which may be used to
obtain data for engineering design calcula-
tions. This study was comnenced to evalu-
ate the best existing correlations for the
prediction of pressure drop during multi-
phase flow and to determine which, if any,
is most applicable for use in engineering
practice.
CORRELATIONS
The original work of Poettman and Carpen-
ter on the topic of multiphase vertical
flow has initi ted many additional correla-
tions.2~394~5~ 8 J7 Although there is only
one “Gradient Equation” each investigator
has placed emphasis on different variables.
The resultant solutions are somewhat dif-
ferent and require individual analysis. All
the correlations are based on the total
pressure drop in a vertical pipe being equal
to the sum of the effects of the energy lost
by friction, the change in potential energy
and the change in kinetic energy. Physically,
the pressure gradient can be expressed as
follows :
dp/dh = static gradient + friction
gradient + acceieratioii grad2-
ent (1)
The static gradient is that energy re-
quired to support the gas and liquid column
present in the well. The friction gradient
represents the energy required to overcmne
the drag of the fluids on the walls of the
well. Also included in the friction gradi-
ent is that energy required to overccme
sliovaee
,L—Q between the gas and liquid phases.
The acceleration gradient is generally neg-
ligible but becomes significant at high gas
. Ifithie region of high gas flow
t!ma.lgb.ptt
there exists a radical change in the kinetic
energy of the flowing fluids which must be
accounted for in the correlation.
Three correlations, thought to be the
best ❑odels of multiphase flow, were evalu-
ated in this study. The development of each
is presented with a description of the basic
assumptions and conclusions which may be
derived from each method. Since this devel-
opment is brief, reference to the original
presentation of each method is suggested for
SPE 2553
more detailed understanding.
Hagedorn and Brown Correlation
Hagedorn and Brown 5 developed their corre-
lation from an equation based on one pound
of flowing fluid:
.
144> Vdp + dh + ~+dWf+dWe=O (2)
where Wf and We are irreversible energy
m-t.vnnl
10ss:s ad -a =...=.~Qrk dQRe by the flowing
fluid respectively. Normally no work is re-
quired of the flowing fluid and We may be
neglected. Considering the mixture to be a
homogeneous fluid a two-phase friction fac-
tor was defined as:
2gd dwf
f.—— (3)
2 dh
T
m
A lj500-ft experimental well was used to
obtain the correlation data. The correla-
tion development yielded a workable equation
given as:
fqL%?
144~ .~m+ +
ma<..
c.yu A
1*1125:
J.vu p
m
where:
(5)
and~is liquid holdup. The friction factor
is the Darcy-Weiabach equation and is usually
plotted aa a function of the Reynolds Number.
Hagedorn and Brown calculated a two-phase
Reynolds Number assuming the mixture of liq-
uid and gas may be treated as a homogeneous
mixture. A friction factor correlation was
used to determine “f” as a function of two-
phase Reynolds Number, liquid velocity number
and gaa velocity number. A correction wae
introduced for the deviation between the pres-
sure at the well depth under consideration
and atmospheric pressure.
The conclusions made by Hagedorn and Brown
are:
1) Liquid viscosity has an effect on
the pressure losses occurring in two-phase
flow and in particular for liquid viscosi-
ties greater than 12 CP.
2) A more reliable holdup factor may
be defined for experimental studies with
long tubes than for short tubea.
3) It did not appear necessary to sep-
arate two-phaae flow into the varioua flow
patterns to prwide sufficient accuracy for
engineering purposes.
:PE 2553 .7.
E. Espanoi. C.s.
4) The change in kinetic energy can
account for an appreciable percentage of the
total pressure losses, particularly at the
wellhead where low tubing pressures are en-
countered.
5) The correlation is general and may
be applied wer a wide range of conditions.
mL .
~11= .A R-- ... ~Qr~~~~~~on
U-..AA--
a..--.
Saa S=uw&.. as used
in this paper was modified in two ways. The
holdup was corrected to be the holdup for no
aiippage, an6 the ~GZ~SIZtiG~. %’=S ZKdifid
to include the Griffith and Wallis correla-
tion for the slug flow regime. This method
is then a modification of the original
Hagedorn and Brown method.
Duns and Ros Correlation
This method is the result of laboratory
investigations with modifications and ad-
,juatmenta to the correlation by use of actu-
al field data. Duns and ROS3 arbitrarily
defined the static pressure gradient as a
function of a weighted density, and devel-
oped correlations for wall friction from
extensive laboratory data for each flow
region.
--.....1”+*-* itH4 4-
The GU&ACLaL&U&,m A.. t
-e -n
. ...- of e di~-en-
sionless gas velocity number, diameter num-
ber, liquid viscosity number and a dimen-
sionless mathematical expression. These
dimensional groups are the same as developed
in the work of Hagedorn and Browns. ROS2
also correlated slip velocity as a relation
k-+-e--
“.=-” -,. 14rI,.4A
. . . . . . h
. .~~~-up ~~~ ~h~ liquid tO ~&w3
holdup ratio. Presented were correlations
for each of the flow regions. The correla-
tions coupled with the previously mentioned
slip velocity correlations prwide a method
for calculating the total pressure gradient.
Duns antiRos assumed the ~C@l~=~tiuTa
g~ad~ent tO be negligible and presented the
energy balance as:
dp/dh = ~P# + HgPgt3 + friction gradient
(6)
If the pressure gradient dp/dh is expressed
aa a fraction of the static liquid gradient
~g, the equation becomes:
G = (l/pLg) dp/dh = ~+ (1-~) Pg/PL +
..4---
wu=~e :
G = dimensionless pressure gradient
The various flow regtons correlated were:
Region I. The liquid phase is continuous
and bubble, slug and part of the froth-flow
regime exist.
Region II. The phases of liquid and gas
alternate. The region cwers slug flow and
the remainder of the froth-flow regime.
Region III. The gas phase is the continu-
ous phase and the mist flow regime exists.
The nature of these three regions requires
a separate correlation for both friction and
holdup and in principle, six different corre-
lations are to be expected. The transition
flow region between slug and mist flow was
not correlated and the pressure gradient in
this region ts obtained by interpolation.
Equation 8 represents the useful form of the
Bans and Ros correlation:
G
G. St + ‘fr (8)
*- +pv /p)
(‘LVSL g Sg)(‘Sg
The basic conclusions which may be drawn
from the work of Duns and Ros are:
1) The pressure balance equation can be
solved by utilizing different correlations
for the various flw regimes.
2) Three flow regimes may be used to pre-
~i~t ‘----**-m 0T~A4~nt~.
lJ~=----- ~....---..-.-
.
3) The accuracy of the correlation is
reasonable in the range of low gas through-
put.
4) ‘The correlation is not applicable to
three phase calculations.
Orkiszewski Correlation
This correlation is a composite of several
published methods. 0rkiszewski4 divided
previously published methods into three cat-
egories noting whether the works were origi-
nal or unique and as to whether they were
developed from a broad base of data. The
liquid holdup was derived frcm observed
~h~~ic=l phemmem and the pressure gradient
was related to the geometrical distribution
of the liquid and gas phase.
Based upon similarity in theoretical con-
cepts Orkiszewaki selected five methods and
compared them by determining the deviation
between predicted and measured presstire drops
He ~~~ected the best two of the five methods,
Duns and Ros and the Griffith and Wallisa
upon which to base his correlation, Neither
method was found to be accurate over the
entire flow range. The Griffith and Wallis
correlations was found to be reliable in the
●
lower Elow =Gt=. --..-. A: .AU*
&aL1~=WA .1..*FInu
..”- &J~ p-~~
accurate in the higher range. The Duns and
Ros method presented the same behavior ex-
cept that it was also inaccurate for the
high viscosity oils in the low flow rate
range. Of the two methods Orkiszewaki pre-
ferred the form of the Griffith and Wallis
correlation as it appeared to provide a suf-
ficient foundation for an imprwed general
solution. The Duns and Ros method, however,
 -- COMPARISON OF EXISTING MULTIPHASE FLOW METHODS FOR THE
A
CALCULATION OF PRESSURE
is based upon a complex set of interrelated
parameters and was thought difficult to
relate to the physical phenomena occurring
inside the pipe.
Orkiszewski extended the Griffith and
waiiis correiatione c-o include the high ve-
locity flow range by incorporation of the
work of Duns and Ros. A parameter was devel-
oped to account for:
1) Liquid distribution between the liquid
slug, the liquid film and entrained liquid
in the gas bubble, and
2) liquid at the higher flow velocities.
This parameter was used to calculate wall
friction losses and flowing density as de-
rived from the published data of Hagedorn
and Brown.
Orkiszewski concluded that the modified
method was sufficiently accurate wer the
entire range of studied conditions, and
accuracy could be imprwed by rigorous anal-
ysis of the liquid phase distribution.
The form of the Orkiszewski equation was
presented as:
;+Tf
Ap.~ (8)
144 l-wtqgi4637Ap”+ ‘“
The flow regimes were related as a func-
tion of total fluid velocity, liquid den-
sity, liquid surface tension, hydraulic ra-
dius and volumetric flow rate of the liquid
and gas. The flow regions correlated were
bubble, slug, transition and mist.
Orkiszewski concluded that the correlation
was general and accurate for two and three-
phase calculations for most flow conditions.
CORRELATION DEVELOPMENT
The three correlations discussed above
were programmed for use on a high speed dig-
ital computer. Each correlation was devel-
oped so as to require identical input data.
The data required for a pressure drop cal-
culation are depicted in Table 1. A pres-
sure increment of 50 psi was used in each
model to calculate the pressure gradient.
..... -------
wlrn this pressure increment each prVKIaUI
required a similar computation time (approx-
imately one minute) on an IBM 360 model 40
digital computer to predict a pressure tra-
.,*wRn
------ ~.~~~~~g~ ~~~ ~QrrelatiQns my be
hand calculated, desk calculation is quite
tedious.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of forty-four wells were studied
by Espanol.9 Twenty-five wells had a depth
greater than 10,000 feet, five between 9,000
and 10,OOO feet? SiX between 8~000 and I
9,OOO feet, four between 7,000and 8,OOO
feet and the others to a depth of at least
3,800 feet. Table 2 depicts the calculated
results from each method as compared to the
—..-..--A ..--”...”-
p~=mmu~=. The “=--------
A..Amtinn frmn the
mrxi=uLuu ----- ----
measured pressure is presented for each meth-
od studied. These data were furnished
through the courtesy of A. F. Bertuzzi and
Shofner Smith of Phillips Petroleum Company.
The wells were grouped to study the
effects of gas-oil ratio on bottomhole
pressure prediction. Six ranges were stud-
ied; those wells with gas-oil ratios below
or above 1000 SCF/bbl, low oil flow and high
_.‘1c-----.-l 1- UblU
--.4S1-.....,4t. h g anmnrd lirmid
01.L Z1.UW WI=LJ.= LLUW WLtiaS ------- --x---
phase (water) present. The regions of fl~
represented by these groupings are depicted
in Table 3.
Table 4 presents the results of these
studies for the wells studied and depicts
the deviation of each correlation from the
actual pressure drop measured. Table 5
summarizes the applicability of each correla-
tion to the specific regions investigated.
The results show the Orkiszewski method to
be superior in bubble and slug flow regions.
The Hagedorn and Brown correlation appears
to be more accurate than the Oriiiszewski
correlation for high gas-oil ratios in this
low flow region. Orkiszewski agrees with
Duns and Ros in these regions as they are
essentially the same correlation. Study 3
reveals the Orkiszewski correlation to be
the only method which adequately predicts
pressure drops during three-phase flow. The
Orkiszewski method with an average absolute
deviation of 15.5 per cent is about one per
cent more accurate than the Duns and Ros
correlation and considerably more accurate
than the Hagedorn and Brown results.
rviwrvnernuc
UU.lUU” “a.”..”
For the limited number of wells studied
(44) the Orkiszewski method appears tobe
superior to all previous prediction schemes.
The method performs far superior in the
three phase region. The method is superior
to that of Duns and Ros in all regions and
the method Hagedorn and Brown in all but the
low flow-high gas-oil ratio range (mist and
transition flow region). The methti has
been programmed and is readily adaptable to
predict pressure traverses in any well from
-E d----- A-*.. ~~: or~i~-
a iimited amount ox LIIIJUL u=L=.
zewski method should be tested against more
data for wells of lower API gravity oil and
with a wider range of water-oil ratio.
0rkiszewski4 has also shown his method to
give better results than either the Duns and
Ros or Hagedorn and Brown method. ~~ever,
and
private camnunication with both Ros
?E 2553 J. H. EsrJa
nol. C.S. H roes.K.E. Brown %
11 REFERENCES
Hagedorn has indicated that their method
is more accurate in certain ranges of flow.
This study therefore points up the fact that 1. Poettman, F. H. and Carpenter, P. G.
the comparison of these three methods should “The Multiphase Flow of Gas, Oil and
be continued with additional well data to Water Through Vertical Flow String with
establish their accuracy in all ranges of Application to the Design of Gas-Lift
flow. Installation. “ Drillin~ and Production
Practice 257, (1952).
NOMENCLATURE
2. Ros, N. C. J. “Simultanems Flow of
Gas and Liauid as Encountered in Well
A= cross-sectional area of tubing
Tubing.” jour. of Pet. Tech. 13,
dp = pipe diameters (October, 1961).
D = depth
3. Ros, N. C. J. and Duns, H. J. “Vertical
d hydraulic pipe diameter (4xAt/Wetted
hy = Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells.”
perimeter)
. moody friction factor Paper 22-PDCi ?roc. 6th World Pet. Con-
f
gress, Frankfort (June 19-26,1963),
g= acceleration of gravity
Section II.
gc = conversion constant (32.2)
4. Orkiszewski, J. “Predicting Two-phase
G= dimensionless pressure grad: ent
Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipe.” Paper
GLR = gas-liquid ratio
1546,Proc. hlst Annual Fall Meeting,
GOR = gas-oil ratio
Dallas, (October 2-5, 1966).
h = elevation
HL = liquid holdup factor 5. HagedornY A. R. and Brown, J. E. “Exper-
imental Study of Pressure Gradients
M. tQt~l mass Of oil; water and gas asso-
Occurring During Continuous Tvo-Fhase
ciated with one barrel of liquid
Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits.”
flowing into and out flow string
SPE940, (October 11-14, 1964).
Reynolds Number
%e =
P . pressure 6. Hagedorn, A. R. and Brown, K. E. “Exper-
imental Gas Lift Project - Experimental
i= average pressure for Increment Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring
volumetric gas flow rate During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in
‘g = Small Diameter Vertical Conduits.”
a. = liquid production rate
-L ‘i’echn%caiEepoTt to WL%S l?iigiii~~~iiig
q. = oil rate Corporation, (May, 1964).
v. volume 7. Hagedorn, R. H. and Brown, K. E. “The
v= fluid velocity Effect of Viscosic;~’in Two Phase Verti-
v= average fluid velocity cal Flow.” SPE 733, (October, 1563).
m
8. Griffith.P. and Wallis. G. B. “Two-
v average superficial gas velocity Phase Sl~g Flow.” Journal
‘ of Heat Trans-
Sg =
fer, 307, (August, 1961).
average superficial liquid velocity
‘sL = 9. Espanol, J. H. “Comparison of Three
total mass flow rate Methods-for Calculating a Pressure
‘t =
. density Traverse in Vertical Multiphase Flaw.”’
P
density of gas phase at flowing condi- M. S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa,
‘f3 = tion (1968).

average flowing density

10. Ros, N. C. J. Private communication.
i=
pL . density of liquid phase at flowing con- 11. Hagedorn, A. R. Private communication.
dition
Pm = density of gas-liquid rnixtur~ at flOw-
ing conditions

bm “ average density of gas-liquid mixtures

at flowing conditions
friction loss gradient
‘f =
 Table 1 - Well conditions and fluid properties
required for the correlations

—— Variable Units

Bottanhole Temperature OF

Gas-oil
Ratio SCF/Bbl

Oil Flow Rate Bbl/Day

Oil Gravity OAPI

Specific Gravity of Gas (Air = 1.0)

Surface Temperature ‘%

TubinR Roughness Factor

Viscosity of Oil at 60°F CP

Water-Oil Batio Bbl/Bbl

Well Oepth Ft.

Well Diameter (1.0.) Ft.

We! lhead Pressure Psia

-. .-.
Lame
. . .–. . ..–= ..
d - measurea ana prealcr.eapressure arops.

Well Head Bottcm

Pressure Pres8ure Measured Depth Calculated M (psi) QTfrror
No.
— &&.L M 4?F42&) & I 11 111 I II 111

1 1093 Y306 1913 6000 1&80 1629 Ipl +12.2 +11 L.8 +10.0
2 750 2720 1970 6225 191+3 1779 1994 + 1.4 +11.1 - 1.2
260 3950 y$)o 1CJ!50 3558 5262 3602 +k.1 +11.5 + 2.L
? 350 2985 2635 12024 2358 3050 ~qo +10. 5 -15.7 -17.3
175 1860 1685 11534 1178 19k-t 22’P +30. 1 -15.5 -35.0
520 2001 1681 11045 1262 2169 2465 +24 .9 -29.0 -L6.6
150 2040 1890 105z8 934 1918 23)+0 +50. 6 - 1.1 -23.8
275 2122 1847 10201 2555 2926 1933 -58.3 -58.5 - 4.6
9 450 2742 2292 10328 1642 2553 2596 +28 . b -11.3 -13.3
10 50 lC@J 10U b~ol! 395 K@ 1018 +61.7 - 1.8 - poll
11 220 1x8 1118 11308 1072 906 856 + ill +19.0 +23.4
12 440 k368 3928 12037 4019 3561 4001 - 2.3 + 9.4 - 1.9
1> 14aa 2662 2182 7214 1159 1990 1851 +JJ6.9 + 8.8 +15.2
14 360 1907 1547 8156 1022 2320 2425 +33.9 -49.7 -56.8
390 1563 11~ 8490 579 1116 148; +50.6 + 1+.8 +26 . L
:? 450 3695 3245 10553 2838 3009 3LW +12.5 + 7.3 + 5.6
l-r Wo 3339 2b39 8k72 21L9 2234 2159 +11.9 + e.4 +11.5
18 625 2986 2561 966k 26?4 2635 2599 -13.3 -11.6 -10.1
19 2965 22ko 9667 2618 2610 2565 -16.9 -16.5 -lh. y
20 % 3022 2397 9673 2M9 2588 2527 -3.0 - 8.o - 5.4
21 750 3044 229k 9667 2699 2152 2620 -17.5 + 6.2 -14.2
22 1750 :Oo# 1250 9665 1399 20h7 194k -11.9 -63.7 -55.5
23 85o 3872 12i!39 3721 3578 3475 + 3.9 + 7.6 +10.3
24 3656 7)586 12)+57 24@ 331b 3222 +30.6 + 7.6 +10.2
25 8$ 4887 J4037 12446 3727 36o6 361o + 7.7 +1o.6 +10.5
26 645 4508 3%3 12441 2516 36h5 5087 +3L.8 + 5.7 +20. 1
27 425 4801 4376 12453 25e5 3930 3685 +40.9 +10.2 +15.8
28 500 4440 3940 1244> 2536 3228 3028 +35.6 +18.0 +21 .k
29 1085 51bo )+055 12449 3751 3684 3694 + 7.5 + 9.0 + 8.9
jo 800 468> 3e83 12449 y@f 3205 3406 +10.2 +17. 5 +12.5
650 4967 4317 12k5J+ 3734 3570 3618 +13.5 +17.2 +16.2
;; 675 4875 4200 121A5 3782 3607 367o + 9.8 +14.1 +12.6
33 48 4339 I@ 1 12453 2066 3958 367o +51.9 + 7.8 +14. 5
34 50 4595 45h5 12k38 676 Wm 3786 +85. 1 - 7.5 +16. 7
1100 5137 4037 12451 5257 3246 >248 +19.3 +19.5 +19.5
;2 20 4675 h655 121i58 1227 I!797 1+036 +73.6 - 3.6 +13.3
37 3850 y300 12456 2198 5126 3112 +42.2 -35.0 +18. I
y3 9% k965 4005 12449 3771 3549 ;;;; + 5.8 +11.3 + 9.7
59 3?5 2232 1857 7’yxI 1308 1680 +29.6 + 9.6 + 0.3
Lo 495 1945 1450 -fp3 1903 2109 2185 -31.7 -45.4 -50.6
41 I!20 1905 1483 -@o 1>61 2850 1880 + 8.4 -24.7 -27,0
42 2$,2. 2350 2244 2257 2158 + IL.5 + 4.0 + 8.2
575 8k54
lb~ 950 3:?2 2432 8k56 2209 227’4 2212 + 9.3 + 6.5 + 9.1
44 835 32s0 2238 2150 *..
2425 8468 2?4JJ +11.’7 + 7.-7

I - Wauedorn and Brown

II - &~iszewski
III - Ourm and ROE
 Table 3 - Regionsof flow studied.

Oil Flow Rate Ph.eaes Gas-Oil Ratio Region of

5L4Y (Bbl/Day) Present (SCF/Bbl) Flow

1 <1oo 2 >1CN30 Mist

1 <1oo 2 <1OOO Transition

2 >200 2 >1OOO slug

2 >200 7? <1OOO Bubble

<Iooo Bubble and Slug

>1OOO slug

‘Table b

STUDY OF RESULTS 1

Q oil GOD1OOO GORC1OOO % Deviation

No. Bb 1/Day Scf/Bbl Scf/Bbl I 11 III

10 93 b43 +61.8 - 1.6 - 2.5

11 53 1460 + 4.1 +19.0 +23.4
17 1619 +11.8 + 8.b +11.5
18 ;; 897 -13.3 -11.6 -10.1
20 82 1112 - 3.0 - 8.o - 5.14
22 44 9975 +ii.~ -63.7 -55.5
42 1171 + 4.5 + 4.0 + 8.2
43 Z 1675 + 9.3 + 6.5 +9.1

STUDY OP SESULTS 2

No. Qt 400 GOIO1OOOGO=1OOO $ Deviation

~~ ~FJ() 162S + e.o -24.7 -27.0

7 246 1032 +5o.6 - 1.1 -23.8
5 242 1068 +~o.1 -15.5 -35.0
23I 1280 -24.9 -29.0 -46.6
; 282 699 +10.5 -15.7 -17.3
9 205 987 +28.4 -11.4 -13.3
12 218 171 - 2.3 + 9.4 - 1.9

sm OF RESULTS 3
No. Q Oil Q Water GO~IOOO GOFKIOCKJ $ Deviation
Bbl/Day B/Day I 11 III

6 223 8 1280 -24.9 -29.0 -46.6

196 5: 1032 +50.6 - 1.1 -23.8
1; 101 1069 +46.9 + 8.e +15.2
15 166 90 3550 +5o.6 + 4.8 +26.4
27 130 To 572 +40.9 +10.2 +15.8
33 164 43 333 +51.9 + 7.8 +14.5
34 81 112 675 +85.1 - 7.5 +16.7
36 71 70 389 +73.6 -3.6 +13.3

I Hagedornand Brmm
11 Orkiazewski
III Dunsand ROE
 Table 5- Comparisonof deviations betweer:
calculatedpressuredrops.
measuredand .,..
......
.
....
....
Ifxll.. .,,
...
,.,
....
,
““l
”..”
METHODS . . . . . D
.,, . .

Wagedorn-Brown Orkiszewski Duns-Ros . ..”. MIST

,,.
. .
44 Well Conditions
&
Average $ Error 2b. o 15.5 16.6

Study of Results 1

Abs. Ave. $ Error 14.9 lco~ 15.7

Ave.% ErrorGO~1000 7.4 18.5 21.8 c
AWS,$ GOR<1OOO TRANSITION
Error 37.5 6.6 6,3 t

Studvof Results2

,,
g

,.,
.a
Abs. Ave. % Error 22.2 15.2 23.5
i+
Ave.% ErrorGOD1OOO 28.5 17.6 35.1
IL
Ave.$ ErrorGOR<1OOO 13.7 12.2 10.8 o

Study of Results 3
B
Abs. Ave. % Error 53.1 9.1 21.5
SLUG
Ave. ~ Error GOIO1OOO 43.3 11.0 28.0

Ave.$ ErrorGOR<1OOO 62.9 7.3 15.1

0°

3
0
0
0
A
*OG
BUBBLE
o 0

000

Fig. 1 - Geometricconfigurations

in verticalflow.