Chapter Outline

 Review of single phase flows

 Pressure drop in multiphase flows
 Pressure profile in wellbore: Pressure traverse curve
 Empirical correlations for multiphase flow in wells

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 103
Review of Single-Phase Flow Calculations

• Flow regime and pressure gradient along the flow path

are of primary interests in single-phase flow
calculations;

• Flow regime can be predicted based on Reynolds

number Re;

• Pressure gradient can be estimated according to the

specific flow regime.

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 104
Single-Phase Flow Regime Prediction
Reynolds number:
𝜌𝑣𝐷
𝑅𝑒 =
𝜇
In field unit: : Fluid density, lbm/ft3
𝑞𝜌
𝑅𝑒 = 1.48 q: Flow rate, bbl/d
𝐷𝜇
D: Outer diameter, in
: Fluid viscosity, cp

Range Flow Regime

𝑅𝑒 < 2000 Laminar flow
4000 < 𝑅𝑒 Turbulent flow
2000 ≤ 𝑅𝑒 ≤ 4000 Transition flow

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 105
Moody Diagram

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 106
Moody Friction Factor Model

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 107
 Colebrook & White Correlation for
Friction Factor in Single-Phase Flow

1  2 18.7 
 1.74  2log10   
fM D N fM
 Re 

fM  4 fF

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 108
Chen’s Correlation of Friction Factor
for Gas Flows

1 
  5.0452   1.1098
 7.149 
0.8981
 
 4  log   log    
fF  3.7065 N Re  2.8257  N Re   



D

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 109
Single-Phase Pressure Gradient Calculation

𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑝
= + +
𝑑𝐿 𝑑𝐿 𝑑𝐿 𝑑𝐿

 dp  2 f F v2  dp  g  dp  
       sin     u 2

 dL  fric gc D  dL  elev g c  dL  acc 2 g c

2/20/2025 Mai Cao Lan, Faculty of Geology & Petroleum Engineering, HCMUT, Vietnam 110
Exercise 5: Single-phase flow calculation
Fluid Data
Fluid type Brine
Brine specific gravity 1.02
Brine viscosity 1.2 cp
Fresh water density at the standard 62.4 lbm/ft3
condition

Flowline Data
Horizontal distance 20,000 ft
Elevation difference 1,000 ft
Inner pipe diameter 3 in
Wall thickness 0.5 in
Roughness 0.0015 in ∆Pfrictional (psi) ?
Ambient temperature 600F

Inlet Data
∆Pelevational (psi) ?
Inlet temperature 600F
Outlet pressure (psia) ?
Inlet pressure 1,200 psia
Brine flow rate 6,000 bbl/d

2/20/2025 Mai Cao Lan, Faculty of Geology & Petroleum Engineering, HCMUT, Vietnam 28
Multiphase Flow & Pressure Loss in
Inclined Pipes

h

After Brown, Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, Vol 4, p. 71

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 112
Pressure Loss Components

dP g fm  v  m vm dvm 2
  m sin    m m

dL g c 2 gc d g c dZ

Elevation
Friction
Acceleration
2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 113
Liquid Holdup

VL
HL 
Vg VL  Vg

VL  m  H L  L  1  H L  g

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 114
 Tubing Curve
3500

Tubing Curve
3000
Flowing bottomhole pressure, psi

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Production rate, STB/D

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 115
 Pressure 100 psi

Pwf

Depth, 12000 ft

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 116
 Pwh

Depth, 1000 ft

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 117
Exercise 6
Find Pwf using the following data

• Tubing inner diameter: ID=3.958 in

• Producing liquid rate: qL=1000 bbl/day
• Oil gravity: 35 oAPI
• Gas specific gravity: 0.65
• Water specific gravity: 1.07
• Water cut: WCT=50%
• Average flowing temperature: Twf=150 oF
• Gas-Liquid ratio: GLR=600 scf/bbl
• Well head pressure: Pwh=200 psig
• Depth 8000 ft
2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 118
 Correlations for Multiphase Flow in
Tubing
Three groups of empirical methods:

• Group A: No phase slippage nor flow regime is considered; Ex:

Poettman & Carpenter

• Group B: The slippage between liquid and gas phase is taken

into account. The flow regime, however is not. Ex: Hagedorn &
Brown

• Group C: Both phase slippage and flow regime are taken into
account in the flow calculations. Ex: Beggs & Brill

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 119
Poettman and Carpenter Method
• Published in 1952
• Based on field data from 49 wells
– 34 flowing wells, 15 gas-lift wells
• Tubing size: 2 3/8” and 2 7/8” OD
• Total liquid rate: 300 - 800 STB/D
• Gas-liquid ratio: 100 - 800 scf/STB
• Allow to estimate the pressure drop between a pipe
segment.
• Belonging to Group A (no phase slippage nor flow regime
is considered)

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 120
 Poettman and Carpenter Method

 k  h
p      ,
   144
1   2 2
f 2 F qo M 2
 ,k 
2 7.4137  10  D
10 5

: Oil density at the two ends of the pipe segment, lbm/ft3
qo: Oil flow rate, stb/d;
D: Tubing inner diameter, ft
M: Total mass associated with 1 STB of oil produced on the surface, lbm/stb
h: Length of the pipe segment in vertical direction, ft
f2F: Fanning friction factor for two phase flows

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 121
 Poettman and Carpenter Method
M  350.17( o  WOR  w )  GOR  air  g

1.4737 105 Mqo

 D v  
D
1.444  2.5 log  D  v 
f 2 F  4  10

gw: Specific gravity of oil, gas and water, respectively

air: Density of air at standard condition, air=0.0764 lbm/ft3
D: Tubing inner diameter, ft
WOR: Water-Oil ratio, dimensionless
GOR: Gas-Oil ratio, scf/stb

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 122
 PVT Properties
g: Gas specific gravity
1 .2048 t: Fluid temperature, oF
 p 10 0.0125 API

Rs   g  0 .00091 t  T: Fluid temperature, oR
 18 10 
Rs: Solution gas – oil ratio (scf/stb)
1.175 o: Oil specific gravity
 g 
0 .5

Bo  0 .971  0 .000147  R s    1.25t  Bo,Bw: Oil and water formation
   o  
volume factor, bbl/stb

Vm: Volume of produced mixture associated with 1 STB oil on the surface:

Vm  5.615( Bo  WOR Bw )  (GOR  Rs ) 14p.7    

T
520
z
1.0

M

Vm
2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 123
 Empirical Correlations for Pseudo-
Critical Pressure & Temperature

Ppc  678  50   g  0.5  206.7 yN2  440 yCO2  606.7 yH 2 S

Tpc  326  315.7   g  0.5  240 yN2  83.3 yCO2  133.3 yH 2 S

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 124
 Brill & Beggs Correlation for Deviation
Factor Z
1 A T p
Z  A  C  p pr
D
T pr  ; p pr 
exp( B) T pc p pc

A  1.39 Tpr  0.92   0.36Tpr  0.10

0.5

 0.066  2 0.32 p 6pr

B   0.62  0.23Tpr  p pr    0.037  p pr 
 Tpr  0.86  10 E
 
C  0.132  0.32log10 Tpr  ; D  10 F ; E  9 Tpr  1
F  0.3106  0.49Tpr  0.1824T 2
pr

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 125
Exercise 7: Calculate the bottom-hole pressure by using
Poettman & Carpenter and dividing the tubing into 10 pipe segments
No Item/Quantity Value Unit
1 Tubing inner diameter: D 1.66 in
2 Wellhead pressure: Pwh 500 psia
3 Liquid production rate: qL 2000 stb/d
4 Producing gas-liquid ratio: GLR 1000 scf/stb
5 Water cut: WCT 25 %
6 Oil gravity: API 30 oAPI

7 Water specific gravity: W 1.05 1 for fresh water

8 Gas specific gravity: G 0.65 1 for air

9 N2 content in gas: yN2 0 mole fraction
10 CO2 content in gas: yCO2 0 mole fraction
11 H2S content in gas: yH2S 0 mole fraction
12 Water formation volume factor: Bw 1.2 rb/stb
13 Wellhead temperature: Thf 100 oF

14 Tubing shoe depth: L 5000 ft

15 Bottom hole temperature: Twf 150 oF

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 126
Wellbore Correlations for Oil
Generalized Empirical Models

• Duns and Ros (1963)

• Hagedorn and Brown (1965)
• Orkiszewski (1967)
• Beggs and Brill (1973)
• Mukherjee and Brill (1983)

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 127
Duns and Ros (DR)
• Published in 1963
• Identified 10 dimensionless groups
• Selected 4 dimensionless groups as important in
multiphase flow based on extensive experimental data
• Defined “liquid holdup”

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 128
 Hagedorn and Brown (HB)

• Published in 1963
• Widely accepted throughout industry
• Based on data from 1500’ test “well”
• Tubing size: 1”, 1 1/4”, and 1 1/2” nominal
• Different liquids: water, oil: 10 - 110 cp

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 129
Orkiszewski (ORK)
• Published in 1967
• Extension of previous work by Griffith and Wallis
• Based on data from 148 pressure gradient surveys
• Pressure gradient based on flow regime
• Oil rate: 175 - 3166 STB/D
• GOR: 185 - 6450 scf/STB

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 130
 Beggs and Brill

• Published in 1973
• Based on experimental data from inclined 90’ long acrylic
pipe
• Pipe size: 1” and 1 1/2”
• Gas flow rate: 0-300 Mscf/D
• Liquid flow rate: 30-1000 bbl/D
• Inclination: ±90, 85, 75, 55, 35, 20, 15, 10, 5, 0°

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 131
Mukherjee and Brill

• Published in 1983
• Based on data from 1 1/2” ID inclined pipe
• Developed three separate correlations
– Uphill and horizontal flow
– Downhill stratified flow
– Other downhill flow regimes

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 132
 Mechanistic Models for Oil Flow

Pressure losses can be predicted in mechanistic models by

incorporating important variables and rigorous description
of physical processes

• MONA (1986)
• Sylvester & Yao (1987)
• Ansari (1987)

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 133
 Wellbore Correlations
Low GLR Gas Wells

• Gray (1974)
– useful for wet gas or gas condensate wells
• Ros and Gray (1961)
• Oil well correlations may also be used
– Duns and Ros (1963)
– Hagedorn and Brown (1963)

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 134
 WellboreCorrelation
High GLR Gas Wells

• Cullender and Smith (1956)

– For dry gas well only
• Fundamental flow model:
– For dry gas well only
• Adjusted Fundamental Flow Model
– For gas wells with GLR > 50,000

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 135
 Single-Phase Gas Flow:
Cullender & Smith Method
Mechanical balance equation derived from the first law of
thermodynamics for gas flow in tubing is as follow:

Since , we have

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 136
Cullender & Smith Method for Gas Flow

Re-arranging the mechanical balance equation and taking an

integration both sides yield:

In US field units (qmsc: MMscf/d; di: in; L: ft; p: psi; T: oR):

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 137
Cullender & Smith Method for Gas Flow

Let I be the integrant,

the previous equation has the form as follow:

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 138
 Cullender & Smith: Main Idea
Error of the
Error of the trapezoidal method in
trapezoidal method in calculating S2
calculating S1
I

Imf Iwf
S
Ihf S1 S2 S1  S2 
2

p
phf pmf pwf

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 139
Cullender & Smith Method for Gas Flow
Using the numerical integration (trapezoidal method) with the
previous equation yields

where Ihf, Imf and Iwf are the values of I at phf, pmf and pwf. The
unknowns pmf and pwf can be solved by the following system of
equations:

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 140
 Correlations of Friction Factor for
Fully Turbulent Gas Flows
Correlation for typical tubing strings (Katz and Lee, 1990)

0.01750
fM  0.224
for di  4.277 in.
di
0.01603
fM  0.164
for di  4.277 in.
di

Correlation for rough pipes (Guo & Ghalambor, 2002)

2
 
 
1
fM   
  2 
 1.74  2 log   
  di 
2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 141
Exercise 8: Calculate bottom-hole pressure with
Cullender & Smith method for a gas production well with
fully turbulent flow

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 142
HB Method – The Original Formula
dp f F M t2 (um2 )
144  m  
dz 7.413  10 D  m
10 5
2 g c z
dp psi
: Pressure drop through pipe segment of length z ,
dz ft
lb m
M t : Total mass flow rate,
d
lb m
 m : Average mixture density, 3
ft
ft
um : Mixture velocity,
s
f F : Fanning friction factor
D : Tubing/ Pipe inner diameter, ft
2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 143
PVT Fluid Propety Calculations
Quantity Meaning Unit
 m1   m 2
m  Average mixture density
2 lbm/ft3
 m  H L  L  1  H L   g Mixture density at a certain position

M t  M L  M g   L qL   g q g Mass flow rate lbm/d

 L1   L 2  g1   g 2 Average density of liquid & gas in a

L  ; g 
certain tubing segment
lbm/ft3
2 2
 L  (1  WCT ) o  WCT  w Density of produced liquid lbm/ft3

o   ob exp co  p  pb  
350.17 o  0.0764 g Rs Density of oil lbm/ft3
o 
5.615Bo
28.97 g p  wsc Density of gas and water
g  ; w  R=10.73 ft3.psi/oR.lbm.mol (gas lbm/ft3
ZRT Bw universal constant)
qo  qosc Bo ; qw  qwsc Bw
Volumetric flow rates of water, oil
qg   qgsc  qgs  Bg   GOR  Rs  qosc Bg
bbl/d
and gas at a certain depth

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 144
 Calculating HL with HB Method
1. Define 4 dimensionless numbers (NvL, NvG, ND, NL)
2. Calculate CNL
3. Calculate HL/
4. Calculate  => HL

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 145
Definition of Dimensionless Numbers

 NvL: Liquid velocity number

N vL  1.938usL 4 L
 Nvg: Gas velocity number
ND: Diameter number
 NL: Liquid viscosity number
N vg  1.938usg 4 L

usL : superficial velocity of liquid, ft/s
L usg : superficial velocity of gas, ft/s
N D  120.872 D ρL : Liquid density, lbm/ft3

σ : surface tension, dyne/cm
1 μL: Liquid viscosity, cp
N L  0.15726 L 4 D: Pipe inner diameter, ft
 L 3

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 146
 Calculation of CNL

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 147
 Calculation of HL/

HL / 

𝑁 𝑝 . 𝐶𝑁
. .
𝑁 𝑝 𝑁

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 148
 Correlation for 

.
𝑁 𝑁
.
𝑁

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 149
 Correlation for CNL

 CN L   10 Y

Y  2.698511  0.15841X 1  0.55100 X 1

2

0.54785 X  0.12195 X 3
1 1
4

X 1  log  N L  3

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 150
 Correlation for HL/

HL
 0.10307  0.6177  log  X 2   6  0.63295  log  X 2   6
2


0.29598  log  X 2   6  0.0401  log  X 2   6
3 4

N vL p 0.1  CN L 
X2 
N v0.575
G
p 0.1
a ND

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 151
  Correlation
0.38
N N vG L
If 2.14
 0.01 then
N D

  0.91163  4.82176 X 3  1232.25 X 2

3

22253.6 X 33  116174.3 X 34
0.38
N N vG L
X3  2.14
N D

otherwise,  =1.0

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 152
 Friction Factor in HB Method
In HB method, the two phase friction factor could be
predicted using Chen’s correlation, except that the Reynolds
number is calculated for 2-phase flow

1 
  5.0452   1.1098
 7.149 
0.8981
 
 4  log   2F
log    2F  
fF  3.7065 N Re  2.8257  N Re   
: Relative roughness of pipe wall
2F
2
N Re : Reynolds number for 2-phase flow,
2.2  10 M t dimensionless
N 2F
 D: Tubing inner diameter, ft
D LH L G(1 H L )
Re
L: Liquid viscosity, cp
G: Gas viscosity, cp
HL: Liquid holdup
Mt: Mass flow rate, lbm/d
2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 153
The Modified HB Method

Hagedorn & Brown method has been improved with the

following main modifications:

1. If HL < L then HL = L

qL usL
L  
qL  qg usL  usg

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 154
The Modified HB Method
2. Griffith correlation is used for bubble flow regime

Bubble flow regime exists when

qg
g  LB ; g 
qL  qg
  um 
2

 LB  1.071  0.2218   , LB  0.13

 D
 LB  0.13 , otherwise


2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 155
The Modified HB Method
Griffith Correlation for Bubble Flow Regime:

2
dp fF M
144  m  L
dz 7.413 1010 D 5  L H L2
  um 
2
usg 
1  um 
HL  1 1  1    4
2  us  us  us 
 
lb m
M L : Mass flow rate of liquid only,
d
ft
 L : Average liquid density,
s
us : Slip velocity, us ~ 0.8 ft/s

2/20/2025 Dr. Mai Cao Lan, Dept. of Drilling & Production Engineering, GEOPET, HCMUT 156
Exercise 9: Estimate fluid pressure along the wellbore
using modified HB method with the given data below.
Parameter Value Unit
Depth (L): 9,700 ft
Tubing inner diameter (ID): 2.875 in.
Oil gravity (API): 30 oAPI

Oil compressibility (co) 2.3e-5 1/psi

Bubble-point pressure (Pb) 2,105 psi
Production GLR (GLR): 75 scf/bbl
Gas specific gravity (g): 0.7
Flowing tubing head pressure (phf): 750 psia
Flowing tubing head temperature (thf): 80 oF

Flowing temperature at tubing shoe (twf): 180 oF

Liquid production rate (qL): 758 stb/day

Water cut (WCT): 0.3 fraction
Interfacial tension (): 30 dynes/cm
Specific gravity of water (w): 1.05