Sei sulla pagina 1di 15

A

Comprehensive

Upward

Two-Phase

Mechanistic

Flow

in

Model

Wellbores

for

A.M.

Anssri,

Pakistan

Petroleum

Ltd.;

N

.D.

Sylvester,

U.

of

Akrow

and

C.

Sarioa,

O.

Shoham,

and

J.P.

Brill,

U.

of

Tulsa

s

%

40630

Summary.

A

comprehemive

model

is

formulated

to

predict

the

flow

behavior

for

upward

two-phase

 

flow.

mechanistic

models

for

predicting

such

flow

 

model

is

evaluated

by

using

a

well

data

is

also

compared

with

six

commonly

good

agreement

with

the

data.

In

 

of

about

0.25.

Using

this

vatuc

transition

in

terms

of

superficial

 

VSg=0.25V,

+0.333USL,

 

used

comparison

of

.

void

and

.

slip

.

where

v,

This

=

is

v.

is

1.53

shown

the

slip

or

gc7L(pL-pG)

[1

-’--r

bubble-rise

%

as

Transition

A

in

velocity

Fig.

2.

Dispersed

breakkwge

exceeding

Bubble

gas

0.25.

ltansition.

bubbles

This

down

yields

the

Athigh

into

small

transition

This

model

is

up

as

of

composed

holdup

1,712

of

and

well

the

the

a

model

for

flow-pattern

prediction

 

and

a

set

of

independent

pressure

dmp

in

bubble,

slug,

and

annul=

flow.

‘fbe

comprehensive

cases

covering

a

wide

variety

of

field

data.

Model

pei’fortnance

characteristics

bank

empirical

made

with

correlations

other

and

methods,

Hasan-Kabr

mechanistic

 

model.

Overall

model

performance

 

is

in

comprehensive

 

model

performed

the

best.

Introduction

 

Two-ph.a.se

flow

is

commonly

encountered

 

in

the

PeVO1eum,

 

chefi-

cal,

and

nuclear

indushies.

This

frequent

occurrence

presents

 

the

challenge

of,

understanding,

analyzing,

 

and

designing

 

two-phase

systems.

Because

of

the

complex

nature

of

two-phase

 

flow,

the

problem

 

was

first

approached

 

through

empirical

 

methods.

The

trend

has

shifted

recently

to

the

modeling

approach,

Tbe

fundamental

 

postu-

late

of

the

modeling

approach

is

the

existence

 

of

flow

patterns

or

flow

configurations.

Vwious

theories

have

been

developed

 

to

pre-

dict

flow

patterns.

Separate

mcdels

were

developed

for

each

flow

pattern

topredictflow

 

characteristics

 

like

holdup

and

pressure

drop.

By

considering

 

basic

fluid

mechanics,

the

resulting

models

can

be

applied

with

more

confidence

to

flow

condkions

other

than

those.

used

for

their

development.

 

Only

Ozon

et

al.]

and

Hasan

and

Kab@

published

 

studies

on

comprehensive

mechanistic

modeling

of

two-phase

 

flow

in

vertical

fraction,

velocities

.

given

.

we

by

liquid

ones,

to

rates,

even

dispersed

can

express

 

tbe

 

(2)

 

.

.

.

.

(3)

turbulent

forces

at

void

fractions

 

bubble

flows:

pipes.

More

work

is

needed

to

develop

models

that

describe

the

physical

phenomena

 

more

rigorously.

 

The

purpose

of

this

study

is

to

formulate

 

a

detailed

 

comprehen-

 

sive

mechanistic

 

model

for

upw%d

two-phase

 

flow.

The

 

compre-

 

hensive

model

fmt

predicts

the

existing

flow

patm’n

 

and

 

then

 

calcu-

lates

the

flow

vtiables

 

by

taking

 

into

account

 

the

actu.at

mechanisms

 

of

the

predicted

flow

pattern.

The

model

 

is

evaluated

 

against

a

wide

range

of

experhhental

 

attd

field

data

available

 

in

the

updated

Tulsa

U,

Fluid

Ftow

Projects

 

(TUFFP)

 

weU

 

data

 

bank.

 

The

performance

of

the

mcdel

is

also

compared

 

with

six

empirical

 

cor-

relations

and

one

mechanistic

model

 

used

in

the

field.

 

FlowPattern

Prediction

 

Taitd

et

al?

presented

 

the

basic

work

on

mechanistic

 

modeling

 

of

flow-pattern

Wmsitiom

forupwardtwo-phme

 

flow.

 

Theyidentiled

 

four

distinct

flow

patterns

(bubble,

slug,

 

chum,

 

and

annular

 

flow)

and

formulated

and

evaluated

tie

transition

 

boundaries

 

among

them

Wig:

1).,Bamea

et

al.4

later

modified

 

the

transitions

 

to

extend

 

the

apphcabdity

 

of

the

model

to

inclined

 

flows.

 

Bamea5

 

then

 

combined

flow-pattern

prediction

models

applicable

to

different

inclination

 

angle

ranges

into

one

unified

model.

Based

on

these

 

different

 

works,

flow

pattern

can

be

predicted

 

by

detining

transition

 

boundaxks

 

among

bubble,

slug,

and

annular

flows.

 

Bubble/Slug

 

‘Emsition.Taitel

et

a[.3

 

gave

 

the

minimum

 

diameter

 

at

which

bubble

flow

occurs

as.

dtin=

19.01

[1

-

 

‘.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(1)

For

pipes

larger

than

this,

tie

basic

transition

 

mechanism

 

for

bubble

to

slug

flow

is

coalescence

of

small

gas

bubbles

 

into

 

large

 

Taylor

bubbles.

This

was

found

experimentally

 

to

occur

at

a

void

 

fraction

C-2pyriaht

1994

SC&W

of Petr&a.m

Engineers

 

SPE

Production&

Facilities,

May

1994

 

0,5

 

vs.

 

=

0.725

+

4.15

 

 

(4)

 
     

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

‘.%

()

 

+

‘SL

 

Thii

is

shown

as

Transition

B

in

Fig.

 

2.

At

high

gas

velocities,

 

this

transition

 

is

governed

 

by

 

the

maxi-

mum

packing

of

bubbles

 

to

give

 

mdcscence.

 

Scott

 

and

 

Kouba7

concluded

 

that

this

occurs

at

a

void

fraction

 

of

 

0.76,

 

giving

 

the

tram

sition

for

no-slip

 

d%persed

bubble

 

flow

 

as

 

%E=3J7%L.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(5)

This

is

shown

as

Tramitio”

C

in

Fig.

2.

Transition

to

Anmdar

 

FIow.

The

 

transition

 

criterion

 

for

a.nnukm

flow

is

based

on

the

gas-phase

 

velocity

 

required

 

to

prevent

 

the

en-

trained

gives

!J~g

shown

tiquid

droplets

 

from.

falling

 

back

 

into

 

tbe

gas

stream.

 

This

the

transition

 

as

 

%

 
 

guL(pL–pG)

 

=

3.1

[1

P:

 

‘“””””’’’””””””’””’”””””’

 

(6)

 

as

Transition

 

D

in

Fig.

2.

 

Bamea5

modified

the

same

transition

 

by

 

considering

 

the

effects

of

film

thickness

 

on

the

transition.

 

One

 

effect

 

is

that

 

a

thick

 

liquid

fdm

bridged

the

gas

 

core

at

high

 

liquid

 

rates.

 

The

other

effect

is

in-

stability

 

of

the

liquid

film,

which

bridging

required

causes

 

downw%d

 

flow

 

of

the

film

at

low

liquid

rates.

 

The

   

mechanism

 

is

governed

 

by

the

minimum

 

liquid

 

holdup

 

to

forma

 

liquid

 

slug

 
 

HW>

0

.12,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(7)

where

HLF

is

the

fraction

of

pipe

cress

 

section

 

occupied

 

by

the

liq-

uid

film,

assuming

 

no

entrainment

 

in

the

core.

 

The

 

mechanism

 

of

film

instability

can

be

expressed

 

in

terms

 

of

the

modified

 

Lockhart

and

Martinelii

parameters,

 

Q

and

YM,

 
 

143

the modified   Lockhart and Martinelii parameters,   Q and YM,     143

t

I

Eq.

To

7

account

is

modified

for

the

here

effect

as

of

the

liquid

enmainment

in

the

gas

core,

tt

B:::&E

Fig.

_sLUG

l—Flow

0.01

FLOW

patterns

0.1

in

t

CHURN

FLOW

upward

fwo-phase

1

10

en

() ,zfw+aLc*

Annular

by

Eq.

6

flow

and

exists

the

if

>0.12

if

two

.

vsg

is

Bamea

.

.

.

.

.

.

greater

criteria

.

.

than

.

.

am

.

.

that

.

.

.

at

.

.

tbe

satisfied.

.

.

.

.

.

.

tmnsitio”

To

satisfy

(12)

giv-

the

.

.

.

Bamea

is

then

criteria,

calculated

Eq.

8

from

must

Eq.

D usually

“.

.

.

.

.

.

, .

,.

.

.

.

.

exists.

Eq.

Newton-Rapbso”

and

F&)

IV&”)

8

=

=

cm

YM-

be

approach.

2-1”5H~

WJI–1.5HH)

1 .5HLWM

wJ1-1.5ffu)

+

(2-1.5HM)VwH~(~5.5HW)

first

be

11;

ifEq.

solved

Tbus,

solved

for

12

is

afin

EqT8

FM

.

.

implicitly

for

~ti”.

not

by

can

satisfied,

using

a

be

expressed

annular

se.mnd-ordm

as

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Hm

flow

(13)

1

ANNULAR

FLow

flow.

100

The

eratively

minimum

from

A

!lfij+,

good

initial

Wm(l-1.5HW)2

dimensionless

dtij-m

guess

F(laimj

is

C&

J

film

)

.

=0.25.

.

thickness

.

.

is

.

then

.

.

.

.

.

.

determined

.

(14)

it-

(15)

FIow-Sehavior

Prediction

After

physical

resulted

Chum

is treated

patterns

tbe

flow

models

in

flow

as

patterns

the

yet

slug

me

flow

models

been

flow.

predicted,

behavior

for

modeled

The

each

bemuse

next

flow

slug,

of

step

developed

model

flow

is

had

and

in

developing

in

the

is

to

develop

This

step

flow.

other

and

flow

Caetano’s8

bubble

model

for

for

separate

not

part

discussed

of

bas

pattern.

and

its

annular

complexity

for

on

dispersed

the

bubble,

models

flow

bubble

ze

an

below.

bubble

anmdus.

The

considered

FlowModef.The

for

flow

regimes

in

are

bubble

flow

pattern.

Bubble

work

flow

the

separately

Because

of

and

be approximated

the

no

slippage

two-phase

the

uniform

distribution

between

a

as

pammetm

the

two

pseudmingle

can

be

phases,

phase.

expressed

of

gas

bubbles

dispersed

WLtb

this

as

in

bubble

the

flow

simptificmim,

liquid

can

SUPERFICIAL

GAS

VELOC3TY

(M/S)

Fig. 2—~pical flow-patiern map for wellbores. 2-1”5H~ YM = x~, . . . . .
Fig.
2—~pical
flow-patiern
map
for
wellbores.
2-1”5H~
YM
=
x~,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
wJ1-1.5ffm)
J3SL
where
XH
=
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sc
.[
~w
=
g
sin
O(p=-pd
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
dp
z
~c
()
and
B=(l–FE)2(fr&SL).
Fem
geometric
considerations,
ffLF
expressed
in
term
of
minimum
dimensionless
film
thickness,
as
Hm=@tin(l+tin).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
144

.

(8)

(9)

(10)

can

be

~ti,

(11)

PI’P=PLh

/%=#LaL+##-&).

+P&aiL

andvrP=v~v~L+v~g,

where

).L=vJvm.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(l6)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

For

the

ing

concentrated

press

bubble

bubble-rise

a

turbulent

the

flow,

the

the

velocity

slippage

relative

profile

center

as

velocity

velocity

at

more

slippage

is

to

considered

the

mixture

fortbe

than

mixture

along

the

by

with

taking

velocity.

the

pipe

waif,

into

By

rising

we

To

tied

%=vg-L2vm

Hannathy6

account

&is

gave

tie

for

expression

.

.

an

effect

~~

=

153

WAPL-%)

[1

P;

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

expression

of

bubble

%

f

H;,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

for

swarm,

bubble-rise

Zuber

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

velocity

and

Hench9

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(17)

(18)

(19)

account

assum-

bubble

can

@q.

ex-

(20)

3).

mod~.

.

.

(21)

. . velocity and Hench9 . . . . . . . . . . .
(a) DEVELOPED SLUG UNIT (b) DEVELOPING SLUG UNIT   Fig. S-Schematic of slug
(a) DEVELOPED SLUG UNIT (b) DEVELOPING SLUG UNIT   Fig. S-Schematic of slug

(a)

DEVELOPED

SLUG

UNIT

(b)

DEVELOPING

SLUG

UNIT

 

Fig.

S-Schematic

of

slug

flow.

where

the

value

of

n’

varies

study,

?/=0.5

was

used

to

g%(!%k)

@5

1.53

[1

 

P;

This

gives

an

implicit

 

flow.

The

two-phase

flow

P=P=P.H.

 

+P,(l-HJ

md#=p=pLH’+j@-ffJ.

 

%

L

The

TbUs,

two-phase

pressure

(a ‘($).

() dp

z,

() p

&f

where~p

defined

N&r*.

=ppgsiutl.

=fTPPrP%

by

is

—,

2d

obtained

.

.

.

from

one

study

to

another.

b

the

present

give

 

the

best

results.

Thus,

 

Eq.

20

yields

=

k_l,2yM,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(22

I-HL

.

.

for

.

.

.

.

is

.

.

the

can

.

.

.

.

.

.

made

actual

holdup

for

bubble

.

.

 

be

cafctdated

 

tlom

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(23)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(24)

 

of

three

components.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(25)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(26)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(27)

now

.

.

up

.

.

.

for

a Reynolds

number

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(28)

equation

Patzmeters

gm.dient

 

+

(J

~

 

+

(d.

~

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

from

 

a Moody

 

diagram

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Because

liquid

ing

es2entiaJly

acceleration

other

phase,

fluids.

bubble

there

This

no

keeps

pressure

pressure

drop

ModeI.

model

for

pressure

Flow

flow

is

no

the

is

significant

fluid

drop

dominated

drop

is

components.

Fermndes

slug

flow.

by

change

a

relatively

in

tbe

neady

incompressible

of

density

the

flow-

velocity

owing

safely

et

al.lo

Sylvesterl

constant,

resulting

Therefore,

compared

with

in

the

the

the

a

fmt

tbomugh

simplified

ver-

to

acceleration.

neglected,

developed

1 presented

Slug

physical

SPE

Prodnctio”

&

Facilides,

May

1994

sion

of

this

model.

Tbe

basic

simplification

 

was

the

use

of

a correla-

tion

for

slug

void

fraction.

These

models

used

an

impo~t

8ssump-

tion

of

fully

developed

 

slug

flow.

McQui13an

 

and

Whalley12

introduced

 

the

concept

of

developing

 

flow

flow-pattern

transitions.

Because

of

the

basic

ometty,

the

model

keats

fully

developed

and

rately.

For

a fuly

developed

slug

unit

(Fig.

3a),

the

mass

balances

give

‘S$ ‘&%rB(l-HLr’?)

+ k%s(%ts)

 

and

v~L

=

(l-/Y)vmHW

-~VL#LrB,

respectively,

B=.%JLsw

Mass

give

balances

(v,8cc-v~)Hm

and

(vwv8J(l-ffm)

where

.

.

.

.

forliquid

.

.

.

.

.

and

.

.

.

gas

.

.

.

.

from

.

=[vw(-VL,J]HL,J

=

(VTB-V8T.J(l-HLT,J.

.

.

.

liquid

during

difference

their

in

study

flow

of

ge-

developing

 

flow

sepa-

 

overall

 

gas

andfiqtdd

 

.

.

.

.

(29)

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(30)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(?1)

slug

 

to

Taylor

 

bubble

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(32)

 

.

.

(33)

plus

The

the

Taylor

Taylor

bubble-rise

bubble-rise

velocity

velocily

Um=1.2vm

+

0.35

[1

=

pL

Similarly,

the

veloci~

gu=

1.2,,+

1.53

where

the

s=ond

term

velocity

defined

in

Eq.21.

[1

on

of

-.

the

tfte

P?

gas

right

‘fhevelocityofthe

thickness

with

the

falliigfimcanb+

Brotz13

expression,

is

equal

a

to

in

stagnaut

,A

.

.

.

.

the

.

.

.

centerline

liquid

.

.

.

.

.

hubbies

side

1/.

PA,

in

the

.

.

represents

liquid

.

.

.

the

correlatedwitbthe

velocity

colutmu

i.e.,

.

.

.

.

.

slug

(34)

is

.

.

.

.

(35)

bubble-rise

film

VLm==,

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

where

fiL,

the

constant

film

thickness

 

for

developed

 

flow,

pressed

in

terms

of

Taylor

bubble

 

void

 

fraction

 

to

give

 

vm=9.916[gd(l-&)

 

]W.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.