Nodal Analysis 4314: Flow in

Wells and Pipelines

Ekarit Panacharoensawad, Ph.D.

1
Objective
Students can do
No-slip approach calculation
Describe the flow pattern
Calculate flow pattern based on the mechanistic model chart
Students understand
Uncertainty in models
Category A, B, and C in empirical base model

2
Flow pattern (Horizontal)
Stratified flow
Stratified smooth
Stratified wavy
Elongated bubble flow
Slug flow
Annular flow
Annular
Wavy annular
Dispersed bubble flow
Show Video
3
Flow pattern (Vertical) Show Video Dispersed
bubble flow
Bubble flow
Slip occurs Slug flow Churn flow Annular flow No-Slip

4
 Oil-water flow pattern identification: Trallero (1995)
Stratified flow (ST)
Stratified flow with mixing at the interface (ST & MI)
Dispersion of oil in water & water (DO/W & W)
Dispersion of oil in water and water in oil (DW/O & DO/W)
etc.
ST DO/W

ST&MI DW/O &DO/W

DO/W & W DW/O

5
Oil-water flow pattern: Trallero (1995) prediction and measurement

Superficial water velocity: =


Superficial oil velocity: =

Trallero (1995) model prediction example Trallero (1995) Experimental data

= 0, = 850 3 , = 1000 3 , = 15
= 2 , = 1 , = 30 / 6
Gas-Liquid Flow: Slippage
Slippage between Gas and Liquid Phase
Let volumetric flow rates at the inlet remain constant
= constant at every
No-slip condition
INPUT IN-SITU
vg
vg
vL
lL vL HL

Slippage ( > ) v g=v L +v o

INPUT IN-SITU

vg
lL vL HL vL

7
Gas-Liquid Flow: Liquid Holdup
Superficial Velocity

= and =

Liquid Holdup: Fraction of the pipe filled with liquid

= =

No-Slip Holdup

= = =
+ +
> for > (for most cases)
< for < (such as downward flow)
8
Gas-Liquid Flow: Actual Velocity
Actual Velocity:

= =

=
Ag
Ag AP (1 H L )

=

=

=

AL
AL AP H L
(1 ) 1

Slip Velocity: Difference between the actual gas and liquid phase velocity
=

9
Pressure Gradient Prediction in Wells
Empirical Correlations
No Slip, No Flow Pattern (Category-A)
Homogeneous mixture
Mixture friction factor correlations
Slip, no flow pattern (Category-B)
Correlations for both liquid holdup & friction factor
Slip & flow pattern (Category-C)
Correlation for flow pattern
Correlations of both liquid holdup & friction factor for each flow pattern
Mechanistic Model: Xiao et al 1990,
A model is based on momentum/force balances equations. Closure
relationships are developed for unknown parameters in the model.
No-Slip Model (Category-A): =
Perfect for dispersed bubble flow regardless of the inclination angle
Use Single-Phase Equation but use the no-slip average fluid properties to
calculate , friction factor
Oil-Water Fluid Properties
= 1 +
In most cases, emulsion form when we have dispersed oil-water system
= 1 2.5
Brinkman (1951)
: mixture viscosity [Pas]
: continuous phase viscosity [Pas]
: dispersed phase liquid holdup [-]
for water in oil emulsion is lower than , true or false?
11
No-Slip Model (Category-A): =
Gas-Oil Dispersed Flow Mixture Fluid Properties
= 1 +
= 1 +
= 1 +

Pressure Drop Calculation: =
z z z z

Acceleration term is negligible except at low pressures (<100 psia) or

choke/expansion/turn
In Wells: Elevation term ~ 85 100%, Friction term ~ 0 15%
In Pipelines: Elevation term ~ 0 30%, Friction term ~ 70 100%
12
Pseudo-Single-Phase Pressure Drop Calculation

=





= pressure [Pa]
z z z z
2 2 4
= length coordinate in a flow
= = direction [m]
z
= Fanning friction factor [-]
=
z = fluid density [kg/m3]

= = fluid average velocity [m/s]
z z
What is the unit? (Ans: all SI unit) = Inner diameter [m]
Will downward flow gain pressure? = inclination angle [rad]
Not always, but it is possible, sin < 0 Horizontal flow = 0
This is for a dispersed flow that is Upward vertical flow = /2
equivalent to single-phase flow only.

13
Fanning Friction Factor (Category-A)

=

= +
1 1.256
= 4 log10 + for 4000 (Colebrook Eq)
3.7

1 1.11 6.9
= 1.8 log10 + for 4000 (Haaland Eq)
4 3.7
Dispersed gas-oil or oil-water flow cases
16
= for < 2100

Emulsion laminar flow cases

14
 Friction Factor Comparison
Haaland and Colebrook equations give almost identical results
Fanning Friction Factor

0.015

0.013
HL Eq, e/d = 0.0025
Fanning Friction Factor

CB Eq, e/d = 0.0025

0.011 HL Eq, e/d = 0.005
CB Eq, e/d = 0.005
0.009
HL Eq, e/d = 0.0125
CB Eq, e/d = 0.0125
HL Eq, e/d = 0.025
0.007 CB Eq, e/d = 0.025

0.005
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08
Reynolds number 15
Comprehensive pipeline model: Xiao et al. (1990)
Data bank for model
verification

16
Comprehensive pipeline model: Xiao et al. (1990)
Statistical parameter definition
Average absolute percent
error, 2 , and the average
absolute error, 5 , indicate the
performance of the model

17
Xiao et al. (1990): Stratified flow prediction performance
2 is minimum

18
Xiao et al. (1990): Intermittent flow prediction
performance
2 is minimum

19
Xiao et al. (1990): Annular flow prediction performance
2 is minimum

20
Xiao et al. (1990): Overall prediction performance
2 is minimum
Mechanistic
modeling approach
where separate
models are
developed for each
flow pattern is
better than the flow
pattern
independent
correlations.

21
Comprehensive Wellbore Model: Ansari et al. (1994)
In actual wellbore, pressure drop causes gas to evolves
out of the liquid phase. Therefore, the flow pattern can
change along the wellbore.
Gas well can have annular flow in the entire length
Oil well can have slug flow in the entire length
This means that the thermodynamics/phase envelop has
to be recalculated. The consideration of the fluid
properties as a function of pressure is a must.
Pressure-traverse computation algorithm code was used.
This iteration process can be improved significantly by
using Newton-Jacobian or RKF45 approach
22
Comprehensive Wellbore Model: Ansari et al. (1994)
Relative performance factor
is defined as
6

=

=1
The lower number is the
better performance
Col1 = Entire data bank
Col2 = Vertical-well cases
Col3 = Deviated-well cases
Col4 = Vertical No HAGBR
Col5 = All case No HAGBR
23
Comprehensive Wellbore Model: Ansari et al. (1994)
Col6 = All wells with 75%
bubble flow
Col7 = All wells with 100%
slug flow
Col8 = Vertical well with
100% slug flow
Col9 = All wells with 100%
slug without HAGBR
Col10 = Vertical wells with
100% slug without HAGBR
Col11 = All well cases with
100% annular flow
% = % of total length
24
 Shoham (1982) All angle map: = 0 (review)
Larger ID, SS and SW zone expand. Shoham (1982) used air-water STP
= 2.54 cm =5.1 cm

25
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 0.25 (review)
Larger diameter, Stratified wavy zone expand. SS is not observed
Slight increase in the angle expand the intermittent flow zone
significantly

= 5.1 cm
= 2.54 cm

26
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 0. 5 (review)
Larger diameter, Stratified wavy zone expand
Further increase of from 0.25 to 0.5 shrink SW region

= 5.1 cm
= 2.54 cm

27
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 1 (review)
Larger diameter, Stratified wavy zone expand
Further increase of from 0.5 to 1 shrink SW region

= 5.1 cm
= 2.54 cm

28
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 2 (review)
Larger diameter, Stratified wavy zone expand
Further increase of from 1 to 2 shrink SW region of 2.54 cm-ID
case

= 5.1 cm
= 2.54 cm

29
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 5 (review)
Larger diameter, Stratified wavy zone expand
Further increase of from 2 to 5 shrink SW region

= 5.1 cm
= 2.54 cm

30
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 10 (review)
Further increase of from 5 to 10 shrink SW
More fraction of the intermittent flow becomes slug flow as goes from
2 to 5 to 10 (more obvious in 5.1 cm-ID case)

= 5.1 cm
= 2.54 cm

31
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 15
Further increase of from 10 to 15 shrink SW
More fraction of the intermittent flow becomes slug flow as goes from
10 to 15

= 5.1 cm
= 2.54 cm

32
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 20
Further increase of from 15 to 20 shrink SW for 2.54 cm-ID (No SW in 5.1 cm-
ID case)
More fraction of the intermittent flow becomes slug flow as goes from 10 to 15

= 5.1 cm
= 2.54 cm

33
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 30
No stratified flow region in = 30
As increases from 20 to 30, elongated bubble flow region shrinks

= 5.1 cm
= 2.54 cm

34
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 50
No stratified flow region in = 50
As increases from 30 to 50, elongated bubble flow region shrinks

= 2.54 cm

= 5.1 cm 35
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 70
As increases from 50 to 70, elongated bubble flow region shrinks
for 2.54 cm-ID pipe. The churn flow pattern appear. Bubble flow
pattern appear for 5.1 cm-pipe (no Elongated bubble), but not for 2.54
cm-pipe.

= 2.54 cm

36
= 5.1 cm
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 80 and 85
= 5.1
Churn flow region increase as increases from 80 to 85

= 80 37
= 85
Shoham (1982) All angle map : = 90 (review)
Churn flow region is larger in a larger pipe diameter (lower L/D for the
same pipe length for a larger diameter)

= 2.54 cm, = 394 = 5.1 cm, = 196 38
 Shoham (1982) All angle map: = 0 (review)
Larger ID, SS and SW zone expand. Shoham (1982) used air-water STP
= 2.54 cm =5.1 cm

39
Shoham (1982) All angle map: = 1 (review)
As decreases from 0 to 1 SW region expand significantly
For = 1 SW region in 5.1 cm-ID pipe is larger than the one in 2.54
cm-ID pipe

= 2.54 cm =5.1 cm 40
Shoham (1982) All angle map: = 5 (review)
As decreases from 0 to 1, a stratified flow region expand more

=5.1 cm 41
= 2.54 cm
Shoham (1982) All angle map: = 10 (review)
No stratified smooth flow pattern was detected in both pipe ID cases

=5.1 cm 42
= 2.54 cm
Shoham (1982) All angle map: = 30
As decreases from 0 to 30, the slug flow region shrinks
continuously
No stratified smooth flow pattern was detected in both pipe ID cases

=5.1 cm 43
= 2.54 cm
Shoham (1982) All angle map: = 50
Annular flow pattern was detected in a low and high ( > 1)
for = 5.1 case but not for = 2.54 case

=5.1 cm 44
= 2.54 cm
Shoham (1982) All angle map: = 70
As decreases from 50 to 70, the low annular flow can form
at a lower . Low annular flow form on both ID cases for this
angle

=5.1 cm 45
= 2.54 cm
Shoham (1982) All angle map: = 80
As decreases from 70 to 80, the low annular flow can form
at a lower . SW region also shrinks.

=5.1 cm 46
= 2.54 cm
Shoham (1982) All angle map: = 90
At downward vertical flow, there is no stratified flow region.
Downward slug flow pattern was detected in both pipe sizes.

=5.1 cm 47
= 2.54 cm
Flow Pattern
Flow pattern map is dependent upon
Liquid and gas
Viscosity
Density
Interfacial tension
Pipe diameter
Length from the inlet
Very sensitive to inclination angle

48
Horizontal Flow: Taitel-Dukler (1976)
Calculation Step
Calculate and
2
4
2 2 ,
2
4
=
,
2
sin sin
4 2 ,=

2 ,

Subscript L and G is for Liquid and Gas (All SI Unit)

16 2100 1 2100
= ,=
0.046 > 2100 0.2 > 2100
49
 Use the smallest

50
General Case ( = )

51
Horizontal Case ( = ) 52
 Transition to Annular
flow: Valid for any angle

53
Near Horizontal Flow Pattern Determination
Calculate and
Determine from the chart
Determine the transition (STEP BY STEP, ABCD) ONLY
Transition A: Use versus or versus (perfect horizontal)
graphs
Transition B is at = 0.35 or = 0.65
Transition C: Use versus or versus (perfect horizontal)
graphs
In addition to C: Transition K need to be checked for downward flow
Transition D: Use versus or versus (perfect horizontal)
graphs
54
Dimensionless Quantity


cos
2

2
= 2
cos

=



,
2
cos
2
= 2 /, and =
,

> 1.5

Another sufficient condition to have the stratified-wavy in downward flow
55
Geometric relationship
2
= 0.25 arccos 2 1 2 1 1 2 1

2
= 0.25 arccos 2 1 2 1 1 2 1

= ,
= , = 2 , =
2

= = 1 2 1


= = arccos(2 1)

= = arccos(2 1)

56
Annular Flow (-10 to 90) Alves et al (1991)
Calculation Steps
= 1 exp 0.125 1.5
4 0.5
10

Wallis (1969) correlation
, ,
= ; , =
,
Entrainment fraction
Estimate Reynolds number of the film
4
= (1 )

57
Annular Flow (-10 to 90)
0.2
=

= 0.046

2
Check for and = 2


2 2
=

2
Calculate =

= =

+
2 2 2
= + (1 ) Calculate 0 = 1
sin
= + 1 Calculate =

= +

58
Annular Flow: Graphical Approach
Use and 0 previously

calculated to determine

59
Annular Flow: Graphical Approach
Determine
from this graph
based on the
obtained

60
 Annular Flow (-10 to 90)

C sin

C2 = 50.2

12


Obtain only is enough. =


sin

2



+ sin = 0


sin = 0

61
Summary
Flow pattern map is specific to the fluid properties and pipe geometry
Flow pattern map is very sensitive to the inclination angle
Pressure drop is flow pattern dependent
Empirical based model has a limitation in extrapolation
Mechanistic model can be used for the extrapolation better. Graphs
are based on the dimensionless parameter, derived from the flow
governing equation (not from the empirical dimensional analysis).
Flow pattern prediction for horizontal flow is covered.
Pressure drop calculation for the following flow patterns are covered;
Dispersed flow liquid-gas and oil-water
Near horizontal stratified flow (accurate) and slug flow (approximation)
Annular flow for 10 90 (very accurate)
62