SPE 56520
A Unified Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow in Wellbores and
Pipelines
L. E. Gomez, SPE, O. Shoham, SPE, and Z. Schmidt, SPE, The University of Tulsa, R. N. Chokshi, SPE, Zenith ETX Co.,
A. Brown, BP Exploration and T. Northug, StatOil.
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3–6 October 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A unified mechanistic model for the prediction of flow
pattern, liquid holdup and pressure drop in wellbores and
pipelines is presented. The model is based on two-phase flow
physical phenomena, incorporating recent developments in
this area. It consists of a unified flow pattern prediction model
and unified individual models for stratified, slug, bubble,
annular and dispersed bubble flow, applicable to the entire
range of inclination angles, from horizontal (00) to upward
vertical flow (900). The model can be applied to vertical
wellbores, directional wells, horizontal wells, and pipelines,
under normal production operation or artificial lift. The
proposed model implements new criteria for eliminating
discontinuity problems, providing smooth transitions between
the different flow patterns.
The new model has been initially validated against existing,
various, elaborated, laboratory and field databases. Following
the validation, the model is tested against a new set of field
data, from the North Sea and Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, which
includes 86 cases. The proposed model is also compared with
other 6 most commonly used models and correlations. The
model showed an outstanding performance for pressure drop
prediction, with –1.3% average error, 5.5% absolute average
error and 6.2 standard deviation. The proposed model
provides the state-of-the-art of two-phase flow mechanistic
modeling and design for the industry.
Introduction
Earlier predictive means for two-phase flow were based on the
empirical approach. This was due to both the complex nature
of the system and the need for design methods for the
industry. The most commonly used correlations have been the
Dukler et al. (1964) and Beggs and Brill (1973) correlations
for flow in pipelines, and the Hagedorn and Brown (1965) and
Ros (1961)/Duns and Ros (1963) correlations for flow in
wellbores. This approach was very successful for solving two-
phase flow problems for more than forty years with an
updated performance of ±30% error. However, the empirical
approach has never addressed the "why" and "how" problems
for two-phase flow phenomena. Also, it is believed that no
further or better accuracy can be achieved through this
approach.
A new approach has emerged in the early 80’s, namely, the
mechanistic modeling approach. This approach attempts to
shed more light on the physical phenomena. The flow
mechanisms causing two-phase flow to occur are determined
and modeled mathematically. A fundamental postulate in this
method is the existence of various flow configurations or flow
patterns, including stratified flow, slug flow, annular flow,
bubble flow, churn flow and dispersed bubble flow. These
flow patterns are shown schematically in Figure 1. The first
objective in this approach is, thus, to predict the existing flow
pattern for a given system. Then, a separate model is
developed for each flow pattern, for predicting the
corresponding hydrodynamics and heat transfer. These
models are expected to be more reliable and general as they
incorporate the mechanisms and the important parameters of
the flow. All current research is conducted through the
modeling approach. Application of models in the field is now
underway showing the potential of this method.
The mechanistic models developed over the past two
decades have been formulated separately for pipelines and
wellbores. Following is a brief review of the literature for
these two cases.
Pipeline Models. These models are applicable for horizontal
and near horizontal flow conditions, namely, ±100. The
pioneering and most durable model for flow pattern prediction
in pipelines was presented by Taitel and Dukler (1976). Other
studies have been carried out for the prediction of specific
transitions, such as the onset to slug flow (Lin and Hanratty,
1986) or different flow conditions, such as high pressure (Wu
et al., 1987). Separate models have been developed for
2 L. E. GOMEZ, O. SHOHAM, Z. SCHMIDT, R. N. CHOKSHI, A. BROWN, T. NORTHUG SPE 56520

stratified flow (Taitel and Dukler, 1976; Cheremisinoff and Unified Flow Pattern Prediction Model. The Barnea (1987)
Davis, 1979; Shoham and Taitel, 1984; and Issa, 1988), slug model is applicable for the entire range of inclination angles,
flow (Dukler and Hubbard, 1975; Nicholson et al., 1978; and namely, from upward vertical flow to downward vertical flow
Kokal and Stanislav, 1989), annular flow (Laurinat et al., (-900 ≤ θ ≤ 900). The corresponding generalized flow pattern
1985; and James et al., 1987) and dispersed bubble flow map is shown in Figure 2. Below is a summary of the
(homogeneous no-slip model, Wallis, 1969). A applicable transition criteria for this study, including the
comprehensive mechanistic model, incorporating a flow stratified to non-stratified, slug to dispersed bubble, annular to
pattern prediction model and separate models for the different slug, bubble to slug flow.
flow patterns, was presented by Xiao et al. (1990) for pipeline Stratified to Non-Stratified Transition. The criterion for
design. this transition is the same as the original one proposed by
Wellbore Models. These models are applicable mainly for Taitel and Dukler (1976), based on a simplified Kelvin-
vertical flow but can be applied as an approximation for off Helmholtz stability analysis given by
vertical sharply inclined flow also. A flow pattern prediction
~ ~
model was proposed by Taitel et al. (1980) for vertical flow,  1 vG2 dAL / dhL 
~
which was later extended to sharply inclined flow by Barnea F2 ~ 2 ~  ≥1 (1)
et al. (1985). Specific models for the prediction of the flow  ( 1 − hL ) AG 
behavior have been developed for bubble flow (Hasan and
Kabir, 1988; and Caetano et al., 1992), slug flow (Fernandes where F is a dimensionless group
et al., 1983; Sylvester, 1987; and Vo and Shoham, 1989) and
annular flow (Oliemans et al., 1986; and Alves et al., 1991). ρG v SG (2)
F=
Comprehensive mechanistic models for vertical flow have
been presented by Ozon et al. (1987), Hasan and Kabir (1988),
(ρ L − ρ G ) d g cosθ
Ansari et al. (1994) and Chokshi et al. (1996).
Unified Models. Attempts have been made in recent years to Slug to Dispersed Bubble Transition. This transition occurs
develop unified models that are applicable for the entire range at high liquid flow rates, where the turbulent forces overcome
of inclination angles, between horizontal (00) and upward the interfacial tension force, dispersing the gas phase into
vertical (900) flow. These models are practical as they small bubbles. The resulting maximum bubble size can be
incorporate the inclination angle. Thus, there is no need to determined from
apply different models for the different inclination angles
encountered in horizontal, inclined and vertical pipes. A  v 
0.5
  σ  0.6  2 f v 3 
−0.4

unified flow pattern prediction model was presented by d max = 4.15  SG  + 0.725    M M  (3)
  vM  ρ
  L   d 
Barnea (1987). Felizola and Shoham (1995) presented a
unified model for the slug flow pattern. A unified mechanistic
model applicable to horizontal, upward and downward flow Two critical bubble diameters are considered. First is the
conditions has been presented by Petalas and Aziz (1996), critical diameter below which bubbles do not deform,
which was tested against a large number of laboratory and avoiding agglomeration or coalescence, yielding
field data. Recently, Gomez et al. (1999) presented a unified
1
correlation for the prediction of the liquid holdup in the slug  0.4σ  2
body. d CD =2 
(4)
The above literature review reveals that separate  (ρ L − ρ G )g 
comprehensive mechanistic models are available for pipeline
flow and wellbore flow. Also, only very few studies have The other critical diameter is applicable to shallow
been published on unified modeling. The objective of this inclinations, where due to buoyancy bubbles might migrate to
paper is to present a systematic, comprehensive and unified the upper part of the pipe causing “creaming” and transition to
model applicable for the entire range of inclination angles slug flow, as follows
between horizontal (00) to vertical (900). This will provide
more efficient computing algorithms, as the model can be 3 ρL f M v M2
d CB = ⋅ (5)
applied conveniently for both pipelines and wellbores, without 8 (ρ L − ρ G ) g cosθ
the need to switch among different models. The proposed
model will be evaluated against new field data, along with
Transition to dispersed bubble flow will occur when the
other published models and correlations.
maximum possible bubble diameter, given by equation (3), is
less than either critical diameters given by equations (4) or (5),
Unified Model Formulation
namely
The unified model consists of a unified flow pattern
prediction model and separate unified models for the
different existing flow patterns. These are briefly described d max < d CD or d CB (6)
below.
SPE 56520 A UNIFIED MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR STEADY-STATE TWO-PHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES AND PIPELINES 3

The transition boundary given by equation (6) is valid for varies over the entire range of inclinations, or when a change
α ≤ 0.52, which represents the maximum possible packing of occurs in the operational conditions.
bubbles. For larger values of void fraction, agglomeration of Bubble to Slug Transition. The transition from bubble to
bubbles occurs, independent of the turbulence forces, resulting slug occurs at low liquid flow rates. Under these conditions
in a transition to slug flow. This criterion is given by the turbulent forces are negligible, and the transition is caused
by coalescence of bubbles at a critical gas void fraction of α =
v SG 0.25, as follows
α= = 0.52 (7)
v SG + v SL 1
1−α  g (ρ L − ρ G ) σ  4

Annular to Slug Transition. Two mechanisms are v SL = v SG − 1.53 ⋅(1 − α ) 0.5   sinθ (13)
α  ρ L2 
responsible for this transition from annular flow to slug flow,
causing blockage of the gas core by the liquid phase. The two
mechanisms are based on the characteristic film structure of The bubble regime can exist at low liquid flow rates as given
annular flow: by equation (13), provided that the pipe diameter is larger
0.5
1) Instability of the liquid film due to downward flow near    


the pipe wall. The criterion for the instability of the film than d > 4.36 2   ρ L − ρG σ  and only for sharply inclined
is obtained from the simultaneous solution of the  ρ L2 g 
following two dimensionless equations: pipes with inclination angles between 600 and 900.
Elimination of Transition Discontinuities. Mechanistic
1 + 75 H L 1 models for the prediction of pressure traverses in multiphase
Y= − X2 (8)
(1 - H L ) 2.5
HL H L3 flow are notorious for creating discontinuities. This is the
result of switching from one flow pattern model to another as
the transition boundary is crossed. Different models are used
2 - 32 H L for different flow patterns to predict the liquid holdup and
Y≥ (9)
( )X
2

H L3 1 − 32 H L pressure drop, which might result in a discontinuity. In order

to avoid this problem in the proposed model, the following
criteria have been implemented to smoothen the transitions
where X is the Lockhart and Martinelli parameter and Y
is a dimensionless gravity group defined respectively by between the different flow patterns.
Bubble to Slug and Slug to Dispersed Bubble Transitions.
−n Near the transition boundaries from slug to bubble or
4C L  ρ L v SL d  ρ L v SL
2
 dp 
    dispersed bubble flow, the liquid film/gas pocket region
X2 =
d  µL  2
=
 dL  SL (10) behind the slug body, namely LF, becomes small. The short
−m
4CG  ρ G v SG d  ρ v 2  dp  film/gas length can cause the slug flow model not to converge.
  G SG   Thus, to solve this problem, when slug flow is predicted near
d  µG  2  dL  SG
these transition boundaries, the following constraints have
been developed:
(ρ L − ρ G ) g sin θ (11)
Y= If LF ≤ 1.2d and v SL ≤ 0.6 m / s ⇒ Bubble Flow
 dp 
  If (14)
 dL  SG
LF ≤ 1.2d and v SL ≥ 0.6 m / s ⇒ Dispersed Bubble Flow
Note that equation (8) yields the steady-state solution for
the liquid holdup HL, while equation (9) yields the value Slug to Annular Transition. A twofold problem is
of the liquid holdup that satisfies the condition of the associated with this transition boundary. First, a discontinuity
film instability. in the pressure gradient between slug flow and annular flow
2) Wave growth on the interface due to large liquid supply occurs. Also, if slug flow is predicted near this transition
from the film. If sufficient liquid is provided, the wave boundary, due to the high gas rates, the film/gas zone becomes
will grow and bridge the pipe, resulting in slug flow. long, resulting in a very thin film thickness, approaching zero.
The condition for occurrence of this mechanism is This can cause the slug flow model not to converge. To
alleviate the two problems, a transition zone is created
H L ≥ 0.24 (12) between slug flow and annular flow, based on the superficial
gas velocity. The transition zone is predicted by the critical
Transition from annular to slug flow will occurs whenever velocity corresponding to the droplet model used by Taitel et
one of the two criteria is satisfied. A smooth change between al. (1980), as follows
the two mechanisms is obtained when the inclination angle
4 L. E. GOMEZ, O. SHOHAM, Z. SCHMIDT, R. N. CHOKSHI, A. BROWN, T. NORTHUG SPE 56520

σ g sinθ ( ρ L − ρ G ) 
0.25 equation provides the frictional and the gravitational pressure
v SG ,crit = 3.1  
(15) losses, and neglects the accelerational pressure losses.
 ρ G2  Closure Relationships. The wall shear stresses
corresponding to each phase are determined based on single-
For a given gas and liquid superficial velocities, if slug flow phase analysis utilizing the hydraulic diameter concept, as
is predicted in the transition zone when the superficial gas follows (Fanning friction factor formulation)
velocity is greater than the critical superficial velocity given
above, the pressure gradient is averaged between the pressure ρL vL2 ρ G v2G
gradient under slug flow (at the given superficial liquid τ WL = f L and τ WG = f G (20)
2 2
velocity and the critical superficial gas velocity) and the
pressure gradient under annular flow (at the given superficial The respective hydraulic diameters of the liquid and gas
liquid velocity and the corresponding superficial gas velocity phases are given by
on the transition boundary to annular flow). This averaging
eliminates numerical problems and ensures a smooth pressure 4AL and 4 AG
gradient across the slug to annular boundary. dL = dG = (21)
SL SG + S I
Unified Stratified Flow Model. The physical model for
stratified flow is given in Figure 3. A modified form of the The Reynolds numbers of each of the phases are
Taitel and Dukler (1976) model is used here. Two
modifications are introduced: The liquid wall friction factor is d L vL ρ L and Re = d G vG ρ G
ReL = (22)
µL µG
G
determined by Liang-Biao and Aziz (1996) and the interfacial
friction factor by Baker et al. (1988).
Momentum Balances. The momentum (force) balances for Taitel and Dukler (1976) proposed that both the liquid and gas
the liquid and gas phases are given respectively by wall friction factors, fL and fG, can be calculated using the
standard Moody chart. However, Liang-Biao and Aziz (1996)
dP
− AL − τ WL S L + τ I S I − ρ L AL g sinθ = 0 (16) found this procedure to be appropriate for the gas phase only.
dL This is due to the fact that the liquid wall friction factor can be
affected significantly by the interfacial shear stress, especially
dP for low liquid holdup conditions. Thus, fG is determined from
− AG − τ SG − τ I S I − ρG AG g sinθ = 0 (17)
dL WG the standard Moody chart, while fL is determined by a new
correlation developed by Liang-Biao and Aziz (1996),
Eliminating the pressure gradient from equations (16) and incorporating the gas and liquid flow rates, as given below
(17), the combined momentum equation for the two phases is
obtained, as follows 16
fG = for ReG ≤ 2300 (23)
ReG
 1 1 
 + (ρ L − ρG ) g sinθ = 0 (18)   106  
SL S 1/ 3
τ WL − τ WG G − τ I S I  + 4 ε
AL AG  AL AG  fG = 0.0013751 + 2 x10 +   for ReG > 2300
  d ReG  

0.0926
The combined momentum equation is an implicit equation for 1.6291  v 
hL (or hL/d), the liquid level in the pipe. Solution of the f L = 0.5161  SG  (24)
equation, carried out by a trial and error procedure, requires
Re L  v SL 
the determination of the different geometrical, velocity and The interfacial shear stress is given, by definition, as
shear stress variables. Under high gas and liquid flow rates,
ρ G (vG − v I )
2
multiple solutions may occur. It can be shown that, in this
case, the smallest of the three solutions is the physical and τ I = fI (25)
2
stable solution.
Once the liquid level hL/d is determined, the liquid holdup, HL, The interfacial friction factor for stratified smooth flow is
can be calculated in a straightforward manner from taken as the friction factor between the gas phase and the wall.
geometrical relationships, as follows However, for stratified wavy flow, as suggested by Xiao et al.
(1990), the interfacial friction factor is given by Baker et al.
2
 h   h   h  (1988).
π −cos −1  2 L − 1 +  2 L − 1 1 −  2 L − 1 Unified Slug Flow Model. A unified and comprehensive
 d   d   d  (19)
HL = analysis of slug flow was presented by Taitel and Barnea
π (1990), which is utilized in the present study with the
following features:
Once the liquid holdup is determined, the pressure gradient 1. A uniform film along the liquid film/gas pocket zone.
can be determined from either equation (16) or (17). Either
SPE 56520 A UNIFIED MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR STEADY-STATE TWO-PHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES AND PIPELINES
2. A global momentum balance on the slug unit for pressure
drop calculations.
3. A new correlation (Gomez et al., 1999) for the liquid
holdup in the slug body.
The original model was extended all the way to vertical flow
by assuming a symmetric film around the Taylor bubble for
inclination angles between 860 and 900.
With the above characteristics, the original model is
simplified considerably, as given below, avoiding the need for
a numerical integration along the liquid film region. The
proposed simplified model is considered as sufficiently
accurate for practical applications. Refer to Figure 4 for the
physical model for slug flow.
Mass Balances. An overall liquid mass balance over a slug
unit results in
LS L regions, as discussed below equation (29).
v SL = v LLS H LLS + v LTB H LTB F (26)
LU LU
A mass balance can also be applied between two cross
sectional areas, namely, in the slug body and in the film
region, in a coordinate system moving with the translational
velocity, vTB, yielding
(vTB − v LLS )H LLS = (vTB − v LTB )H LTB (27)
A continuity balance on both liquid and gas phases results in
a constant volumetric flow rate through any cross section of
the slug unit. Applying this balance on cross sections in the
liquid slug body and in the liquid film region gives,
respectively
v M = v SL + v SG = v LLS H LLS + vGLS (1 − H LLS ) (28)
v M = v LTB H LTB + vGTB (1 − H LTB )
(29)
Equation (28) can be used to determine vLLS, the liquid
velocity in the slug body, as the other variables are given in
the form of closure relationships. Following, the liquid film
velocity, vLTB, can be determined from equation (27) for a
given liquid holdup in this region, HLTB. Also, from equation
(29) it is possible to determine vGTB, the gas velocity in the gas
pocket.
The average liquid holdup in a slug unit is defined as
H LLS LS + H LTB LF
H LSU = (30)
LU
Using equations (26), (27) and (28), the expression for the
liquid holdup becomes
vTB H LLS + vGLS (1 − H LLS ) − v SG
H LSU = (31)
vTB
5
Equation (31) shows an interesting result, namely, that the
average liquid holdup in a slug unit is independent of the
lengths of the different slug zones.
Hydrodynamics of the Liquid Film. Considering a uniform
liquid film thickness, a combined momentum equation, similar
to the case of stratified flow, can be obtained for the film/gas
pocket zone, as follows
τ WF S F τ WG S G  1 1 
− − τ I S I  +  + (ρ L − ρ G ) g sin θ = 0 (32)
AL AG  AF AG 
Solution of equation (32) yields the uniform (equilibrium) film
thickness or the liquid holdup in this region, HLTB. This value
can be used, in a trial and error procedure, to determine the
gas and liquid velocities in the slug and film/gas pocket
The liquid film length can be determined from
LF = LU − LS (33)
The slug length, LS, is given as a closure relationship while
the slug unit length, LU, can be determined from equation (26),
as follows
v LLS H LLS − v LTB H LTB
LU = LS (34)
v SL − v LTB H LTB
Pressure Drop Calculations. The pressure drop for a slug
unit can be calculated using a global force balance along a
slug unit. Since the momentum fluxes in and out of the slug
unit control volume are identical, the pressure drop across this
control volume for a uniform liquid film is
dP τ π d LS τ WF S F + τ WG S G LF
= ρU g sinθ + S + (35)
dL A LU A LU
where ρU is the average density of the slug unit given by
ρU = H LSU ρ L + (1 − H LSU )ρ G (36)
The first term on the right-hand side of equation (35) is the
gravitational pressure gradient, whereas the second and third
terms represent the frictional pressure gradient, resulting from
the frictional losses in the slug and in the film/gas pocket
regions. No accelerational pressure drop occurs in the slug
unit control volume formulation.
Closure Relationships. The proposed model requires two
closure relationships, namely, the liquid slug length, LS, and
the liquid holdup in the slug body, HLLS.
A constant length of LS = 30d and LS = 20d is used for fully
developed and stable slugs in horizontal and vertical pipes,
respectively. For inclined flow, an average slug length is used
based on inclination angle. However, for horizontal and near
horizontal (θ = ± 10) large diameter pipes (d > 2 inch), the
6 L. E. GOMEZ, O. SHOHAM, Z. SCHMIDT, R. N. CHOKSHI, A. BROWN, T. NORTHUG SPE 56520

Scott et al. (1989) correlation is used, as given below

v F = vSL
(1 − E ) d 2 (43)
4δ (d − δ )
ln( LS ) = −25.4 + 28.5 [ln( d )]0.1 (37)
where d is expressed in inch and LS is in ft.
vC =
(vSG + vSL E ) d 2 (44)
The liquid holdup in the slug body, HLLS, is predicted using
the recently developed unified correlation by Gomez et al. (d − 2δ )2
(1999), given by
The gas void fraction in the core and the core average
−( 0.45 θ R + 2.48⋅10−6 ReLS ) density and viscosity are given, respectively, by
H LLS = 1.0 e 0 ≤ θ R ≤ 1.57 (38)
v SG
where θR = (π/180)∗θ is the inclination angle in radians and αC = (45)
v SG + v SL E
the slug Reynolds number is calculated as

ρ L vM d ρ C = ρ G α C + ρ L (1 − α C ) (46)
ReLS =
µL (39)
µ C = µ Gα C + µ L (1 − α C ) (47)
Unified Annular Flow Model. The model of Alves et al.
(1991) developed originally for vertical and sharply inclined Closure Relationships. The liquid wall shear stress is
flow has been extended in the present study to the entire range determined from single-phase flow calculations, based on
of inclination angles from 00 to 900, as given below. The hydraulic diameter concept.
physical model for annular flow is given in Figure 5. The most difficult task in modeling annular flow is the
The annular flow model equations are similar to the stratified determination of the interfacial shear stress, τI, and the
flow model ones, as both patterns are separated flow. The entrainment fraction, E. By all means this is an unresolved
differences between the two models are the different problem even for vertical or horizontal flow conditions.
geometrical and closure relationships, and the fact that the gas The definition of the interfacial shear stress for annular flow
core in annular flow includes liquid entrainment, as shown is
below.
Momentum Balances. The linear momentum (force) (vC − v F )2
balances for the liquid and gas core phases are given, τ I = f I ρC (48)
2
respectively, by
As suggested by Alves et al. (1991), the interfacial friction
SF S  dP  factor can be expressed by
− τ WF + τ I I −   − ρ L g sin θ = 0 (40)
AF AF  dL  F
f I = f CS I (49)
S I  dP 
−τ I − − ρ C g sinθ = 0 (41)
AC  dL  C where fCS is the friction factor that would be obtained if only
the core (gas phase and entrainment) flows in the pipe.
Calculation of fCS should be based on the core superficial
Eliminating the pressure gradients from the equations results
velocity (vSC = vSG + E vSL) and the core average density and
in the combined momentum equation for annular flow, namely
viscosity given, respectively, by equations (46) and (47). The
interfacial correction parameter I is used to take into account
SF  1 1 
τ WF −τ I SI  +  + (ρ L − ρ C )g sinθ = 0
(42) the roughness of the interface. Different expressions for I are
AF  AF AC  given by Alves et al. (1991) for vertical flow only. In the
present study, the parameter I is an average between a
Equation (42) is an implicit equation for the film thickness δ horizontal factor and a vertical factor, based on the inclination
(or δ/d), that can be solved by trial and error, provided the angle, θ , as follows
proper geometrical, velocity and closure relationships are
provided. These are described below. I θ = I H cos 2 θ + I V sin 2 θ (50)
Mass Balances. The velocities of the liquid film and the
gas core can be determined from simple mass balance The horizontal correction parameter is given by Henstock and
calculations yielding, respectively Hanratty (1976)

I H = 1+ 800 FA (51)
SPE 56520 A UNIFIED MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR STEADY-STATE TWO-PHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES AND PIPELINES 7

where (Wallis, 1969) is used. Details of this simple model are

omitted here for brevity.

FA =
[( 0.707 Re 0.5
SL )2.5 + ( 0.0379 ReSL
0.9 2.5
) ]
0.4

 
0.5
 vL  ρ L  (52)
 Results and Discussion
 vG  ρ G 
0.9
ReSG This section includes the validation of the developed unified
model with published laboratory and field data, and the
and ReSL and ReSG are the liquid and gas superficial Reynolds performance of the model with new field data.
numbers, respectively. The vertical correction parameter is Unified Model Validation. Initially, the individual flow
given by Wallis (1969) pattern models for slug flow, stratified flow, bubble flow and
annular flow have been validated against several sets of
δ available laboratory and limited field data. These data are
I V = 1 + 300 (53)
d summarized in Table 1.
The entrainment fraction, E, is calculated by the Wallis Unified Slug Model. The validation of the proposed slug
(1969) correlation, given by flow model has been carried out utilizing the following sets of
data:
E = 1 − e− [0.125 (φ −1.5)] (54) a) The Felizola and Shoham (1995) data provide
detailed slug characteristics, liquid holdup and
pressure drop, for the entire range of upward
where
inclination angles between 10º to 90º at 10º
1
increments.
vSG µG  ρG  2
b) The Nuland et al. (1997) data for 10º, 20º, 45º, 60º
φ = 104   (55)
σ  ρ L  and 80º including liquid holdup and pressure drop.
c) The Schmidt (1977) data for vertical flow with liquid
holdup only.
Unified Bubble Flow Model. The extension of the Hasan and Figure 7 presents a typical comparison of the predictions of
Kabir (1988) bubble flow model for the entire range of
the Gomez et al. (1999) slug body liquid holdup correlation
wellbore inclination angles was carried out by taking the
with published experimental data (including additional data
component of the bubble rise velocity in the direction of the
other than the above mentioned three sets). As can be seen,
flow, as given below (see Figure 6 for the bubble flow
physical model). the correlation follows the trend of decreasing slug liquid
The gas velocity is given by holdup as the inclination angle increases.
Comparisons between the predictions of the unified slug
model and the experimental data were carried out for both the
vG = C0vM + v0 ∞ sin θ H L0.5 (56)
average liquid holdup in a slug unit, HLSU, and the pressure
gradient. The comparison with the Nuland et al. (1997) data
where vM is the mixture velocity, C0 is a velocity distribution reveal an average error and an average absolute error of –6.7%
0.5
coefficient, v 0∞ is the bubble rise velocity and H L is a and 9.6% for the liquid holdup and 7.5% and 10.2 % for the
correction for bubble swarm. In the present study, the velocity pressure gradient, respectively. Similar comparisons with the
distribution coefficient C0 = 1.15, as suggested by Chokshi et Felizola and Shoham (1995) data show an average error and
al. (1996), and the bubble rise velocity is given by Harmathy an average absolute error of 0.6% and 13.2% for the liquid
(1960) (in SI units), as follows holdup and 20.6% and 25.0 % for the pressure gradient. The
upward vertical flow data of Schmidt (1977) for the average
0.25 liquid holdup are predicted with an average error of –9.3% and
 gσ ( ρ L − ρG )  an average absolute error of 15.0%.
v 0∞ = 153
.   (57)
 ρ L2  Unified Bubble Model. The data of Caetano et al. (1992)
were utilized to test the model for bubble flow. Note that the
Caetano data were acquired in an annulus configuration with a
Substituting for the gas velocity in terms of the superficial
3 inch casing ID and 1.66 inch tubing OD. For this reason the
velocity results
comparison was carried out only for the liquid holdup. An
equivalent diameter was used that provides the same cross
vSG
= C0vM + v0 ∞ sinθ H L0.5 (58) sectional area and superficial velocities occurring in the
1− HL annulus. The results show an excellent agreement with an
average error and an average absolute error of –2.3% and
Equation (58) must be solved numerically to determine the 2.7%, respectively.
liquid holdup, HL. Once the liquid holdup is computed, the Unified Stratified Model. The stratified flow model was
gravitational and frictional pressure gradients are determined tested against the liquid holdup data of Minami (1982). The
in a straightforward manner. data were collected for air-water and air-kerosene. The model
For dispersed bubble flow, the homogeneous no-slip model systematically under predicted the data, with an average error
8 L. E. GOMEZ, O. SHOHAM, Z. SCHMIDT, R. N. CHOKSHI, A. BROWN, T. NORTHUG
and average absolute error of –20.8% and 33.5%, respectively.
Note that as reported by Minami (1982), the Taitel and Dukler
(1976) model performed poorly against his data. The
modification of both the liquid wall friction factor and the
interfacial friction factor implemented in the present study
model improve the predictions of the stratified model
considerably.
Unified Annular Model. As shown in Table 1, Alves et al.
(1991) provided 2 new field data points, for which the
parameters in the table refer to, and additional 75 data points
taken from a database, for which the wells are under annular
flow. The model of Alves et al. shows an excellent agreement
with the data: For the 2 data points the average absolute error
is 1.5%. For the 75-database points the average error is –0.9%
and the average absolute error is 9.8%.
Entire Unified Model Validation. Following the validation
of the individual flow pattern models, the entire unified model
was evaluated against the Tulsa University Fluid Flow
Projects (TUFFP) wellbore databank, as reported by Ansari et
al. (1994). The databank includes a total of 1723 laboratory
and field data, for both vertical and deviated wells. The data
cover a wide range of flow conditions: pipe diameter 1 to 8
inch; oil rate 0 to 27,000 bbl/d; gas rate 0 to 110,000 scf/d and
oil gravity 8.3 to 112 oAPI. Additionally, 6 most commonly
used correlations and models have been evaluated against the
databank. These are Ansari et al. (1994), Chokshi et al.
(1996), modified Hagedorn and Brown (1965), Duns and Ros
(1963), Beggs and Brill (1973) and Hasan and Kabir (1988).
The modifications of the Hagedorn and Brown are the Griffith
and Wallis (1961) correlation for bubble flow and the use of
no-slip liquid holdup if greater than calculated liquid holdup.
Note that except for the Beggs and Brill correlation, the other
5 methods were developed for vertical upward flow only.
These methods are adopted in this study for deviated well
conditions by incorporating the inclination angle in the
gravitational pressure gradient calculations. The proposed
unified model is the only model applicable to all the
inclination angle range, from horizontal to vertical.
The performance comparison of all the methods with the
databank revealed that the proposed unified model converged
for the most number of wells. It did not converge for 60 out of
the 1723 wells (the same for Duns and Ross). The other
methods did not converge for a larger number of cases, up to
510 cases. The overall performance of the unified model
showed an average error of -3.8% and an absolute average
error of 12.6%. Also, the performance of the new model is
comparable to the other models and correlations evaluated.
One must realize that some of the models or correlations were
developed based on data included in the TUFFP databank. For
example, the databank includes about 400 data points
collected by Hagedorn and Brown (1965) to develop their
correlation, which shows the minimum average error and
absolute average error of 1.2% and 9.3%, respectively. An
objective comparison should exclude these data points from
the databank. Nevertheless, the databank comparison
validates the accuracy and convergence of the proposed
unified model.
SPE 56520
Unified Model Performance and Results. The ultimate goal
of any model is to predict the flow behavior under field
conditions. The performance of the proposed unified model
under field conditions was evaluated by comparison between
its predictions and directional well field data provided by
British Petroleum and Statoil. Two sets of data were
provided. The first data set includes 21 data points while the
second data set includes 65 cases. The data include wells with
different flow conditions: pipe diameter 2-7/8 to 7 inch;
inclination angles 00 to 900; oil rate 79 to 2658 bbl/d; gas rate
42 to 23045 Mscf/d, and water cut 0 to 80 %. Of total cases,
59 wells were producing naturally and the remaining 27 were
on artificial lift. Each data point included, in addition to the
geometrical and operational variables, the well head pressure,
the well head and bottom hole temperatures and the total
pressure drop.
Physical Properties. The Glaso correlation was used for the
prediction of the solution gas/oil ratio, oil formation volume
factor and oil viscosity. The Standing z factor was used in the
calculations of the gas phase properties. The Lee et al.
correlation was used for the gas viscosity. The gas/oil surface
tension was predicted by the Baker and Swereloff correlation.
The liquid phase (oil and water) properties, namely, density,
viscosity and surface tension, are calculated based on the
volume fraction of the oil and water in the liquid phase. The
volume fractions were calculated based on the in-situ flow
rates, assuming no slip between the oil and water.
For the gas lift wells, the gas properties are calculated as
follows. Up to the point of gas injection, the calculations are
performed utilizing the flow rate and specific gravity of the
formation gas. At the point of gas injection, the formation gas
flow rate is combined with the injection gas rate to give the
total gas flow rate, with a weighted average specific gravity
based on the two flow rates at standard conditions. From the
point of injection and up to the surface, the PVT properties,
including the solution gas oil ratio (and hence free gas
quantity), are determined based on the combined total gas
specific gravity. No tuning of the PVT data has been done.
Results and Discussion. Table 2 reports the pressure drop
prediction performance of the unified model, along with that
of Chokshi et al. (1996), Hagedorn and Brown (1965) and
Ansari et al. (1994), against the first data set (21 data points).
Note that the table includes, in addition to the pressure drop,
the gas/liquid ratio and the water cut. The comparison shows
a good agreement, with an average error of -5.2% (and a
corresponding standard deviation, s.d., of 14.7) and an average
absolute error of 13.1% (with a s.d. of 8.1) for the unified
model. Corresponding errors for the other methods are as
follows: -10.5% (s.d. 12.2) and 12.3% (s.d. 10.3) for Chokshi
et al., -11.7% (s.d. 12.1) and 14.5% (s.d. 8.3) for Hagedorn
and Brown, and -16.1% (s.d. 14.0) and 17.5% (s.d. 12) for the
Ansari et al. model.
Figure 8 shows a comparison between the predicted results
of the unified model and measured pressure drops for the 65
cases of the second data set. The predictions of the proposed
unified model show an excellent agreement against this data
set, with an average error of 0% (s.d. 3.9), as compared to
SPE 56520 A UNIFIED MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR STEADY-STATE TWO-PHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES AND PIPELINES 9

4.5% (s.d. 4.5) for the Chokshi et al. model. The average those of the Chokshi et al. (1996) and Ansari et al. (1994)
absolute error for the unified model and the Chokshi et al. models and the Hagedorn and Brown (1965) correlation. This
model are 3.0% (s.d. 2.5) and 5.5% (s.d. 3.2), respectively. comparison shows a good agreement for the unified model,
The overall performance of the model was evaluated against with an average error of -5.2% (s.d. 14.7) and an absolute
the combined two data sets, including all 86 well cases. The average error of 13.1% (s.d. 8.1). Corresponding errors for the
results were compared with the predictions of only the other methods are -10.5% (s.d. 12.2) and 12.3% (s.d. 10.3) for
Chokshi et al. (1996) model. In addition, sensitivity analysis Chokshi et al.; -11.7% (s.d. 12.1) and 14.5% (s.d. 8.3) for
was carried out based on maximum deviation angle of the Hagedorn & Brown; and -16.1% (s.d. 14.0) and 17.5% (s.d.
well, production method (natural or artificial lift) and tubing 12) for the Ansari et al. model. Also, sensitivity analysis of
diameter. All the results are summarized in Table 3. the model was conducted with respect to tubing diameter,
For the combined data sets the unified model shows an method of lift and maximum wellbore inclination angle. The
excellent performance, with an average error of -1.3% (s.d. unified model showed a superior performance except for a
8.2) and absolute error of 5.5% (s.d. 6.2). These results are limited number of small diameter wells.
also shown graphically in Figure 9. The Chokshi et al. (1996) The predictions of the unified model were carried out
model shows average error and absolute error of 0.9% (s.d. without any tuning of either the model or the PVT data. It
9.6) and 7.1% (s.d. 6.4), respectively. As can be seen from the provides the state-of-the-art of two-phase flow mechanistic
table, except for the 3 small diameter well cases, the unified modeling for research and design for the industry.
model shows a better performance than Chokshi et al. model,
especially for large diameter tubing and deviated wells. It is Nomenclature
believed that the unified slug flow model is the main reason A = area (ft2)
for this behavior, since it is more suitable for directional flow. d = diameter (ft)
Both models perform equally well for the entire range of water E = entrainment fraction
cuts. F = dimensionless group
FA = annular flow parameter
Conclusions f = friction factor
A unified mechanistic model for the prediction of liquid g = acceleration due to gravity (ft/s2)
holdup and pressure drop distributions in directional wells has h = liquid level height (ft)
been developed. The model is applicable to the entire range of H = liquid holdup
well bore inclination angles, namely, from horizontal to I = interfacial annular parameter
upward vertical flow. The model consists of a unified flow L = length (ft)
pattern prediction model and 5 individual unified models for P = pressure (lbf/ft2)
the stratified, slug, bubble, annular and dispersed bubble flow Re = Reynolds number
patterns. S = perimeter (ft)
Initially, the individual unified flow pattern models have v = velocity (ft/s)
been validated against several sets of available laboratory data, v0∞ = single bubble rise velocity (ft/s)
showing a good agreement. Next, the entire unified model X = Lockhart and Martinelli parameter
was evaluated and compared to other 6 most commonly used Y = dimensionless group
models or correlations. This was carried out by running the
unified model and the other methods against the TUFFP Greek Letters
wellbore databank, as reported by Ansari et al. (1994). The α = void fraction
databank includes a total of 1723 laboratory and field data for δ = film thickness
both vertical and deviated wells. The overall performance of
µ = viscosity (lbm/ft s)
the unified model showed an average error of -3.8% and an
π = 3.1415926
absolute average error of 12.6%. The performance of the new
unified model is comparable or better than the other 6 models φ = annular entrainment parameter
and correlations evaluated. θ = inclination angle measured from horizontal
ρ
3
The performance of the proposed unified model was = density (lbm/ft )
evaluated against 86 directional well field data cases provided τ = shear stress (lbf/ft2)
by British Petroleum and Statoil. The predictions of the σ = surface tension (lbf/ft)
unified model show an excellent agreement with data, with an
average error of -1.3% and an absolute average error of 5.5%, Subscripts
with respective standard deviations, s.d., of 8.2 and 6.2. For c = core
the same comparison, the Chokshi et al. (1996) model shows C = coefficient
an average error of 0.9% (s.d. 9.6) and an absolute average C0 = flow distribution coefficient
error of 7.1% (s.d. 6.4). CB = critical buoyancy
For part of the directional well field data (only 21 cases), the
predictions of the proposed unified model were compared with
10 L. E. GOMEZ, O. SHOHAM, Z. SCHMIDT, R. N. CHOKSHI, A. BROWN, T. NORTHUG SPE 56520

CD = critical diameter 10. Dukler, A.E., Wickes, M. III and Cleveland, R.G.:
E = entrainment fraction “Frictional Pressure Drop in Two-Phase Flow: B. An
F = film Approach Through Similarity Analysis”, AIChE J., 10,
G = gas No. 1, pp. 44-51 (1964).
H = horizontal 11. Dukler, A. E. and Hubbard, M. G.: “A Model For Gas-
I = interface Liquid Slug Flow In Horizontal And Near Horizontal
LS = liquid slug Tubes”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund., 14, pp. 337-347, (1975).
L = liquid 12. Duns, H. Jr. and Ros, N.C.J.: “Vertical Flow of Gas and
M = mixture Liquid Mixtures in Wells”, Proceedings of the 6th World
max = maximum Petroleum Congress, pp. 451 (1963)
R = radians 13. Felizola, H. and Shoham, O.: "A Unified Model for Slug
S = slug body Flow in Upward Inclined Pipes," ASME J. Energy
SC = superficial core Resources Technology, 117, pp. 1-6 (March 1995).
SL = superficial liquid 14. Fernandes, R. C., Semiat, R. & Dukler, A. E.:
SG = superficial gas “Hydrodynamic Model For Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in
TB = Taylor bubble Vertical Tubes”, AIChE J., 29, 981-989 (1983).
U = total slug unit 15. Gomez, L. E., Shoham, O. and Taitel, Y: “Prediction of
V = vertical Slug Liquid Holdup – Horizontal to Upward Vertical
W = wall Flow”, in press, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, (1999).
16. Griffith, P. and Wallis G.B.: “Two-Phase Slug Flow”, J.
References Heat Transfer, 83, pp. 307 (1961).
1. Alves, I. N., Caetano, E. F., Minami, K. and Shoham, O.: 17. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: “Experimental Study of
"Modeling Annular Flow Behavior for Gas Wells," SPE Pressure Gradient Occurring During Continuous Two-
Production Engineering, pp. 435-440 (November 1991). Phase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits”, J. Pet.
2. Ansari, A.M., Sylvester, N.D., Sarica, C., Shoham, O. and Tech., pp. 475-484 (April, 1965).
Brill, J.P.: “A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for 18. Harmathy, T.Z.: “Velocity of Large Drops and Bubbles in
Upward Two-Phase Flow in Wellbores”, SPE 20630, Media of Infinite or Restricted Extent”, AIChE J., 6, pp.
presented at the SPE 65th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, 281 (1960).
September 23-26, (1990), SPE Production Engineering, 19. Hasan, A., R. and Kabir, C., S.: “A Study of Multiphase
pp. 143-152 (May 1994). Flow Behavior in Vertical Wells”, SPE Production
3. Baker, A., Nielsen, K. and Gabb, A.: “Pressure Loss, Engineering, AIME, 285, pp. 263-272, (May 1988).
Liquid Holdup Calculations Developed”, Oil and Gas J., 20. Henstock, W.H. and Hanratty, T.J.: “The interfacial Drag
pp. 55-59, (March 14, 1988). and the Height of the Wall Layer in Annular Flow”,
4. Barnea, D.: "A Unified Model for Predicting Flow Pattern AIChE J., 22, No. 6, pp. 990-1000 (Nov. 1976).
Transitions for the Whole Range of Pipe Inclinations", 21. Issa, R.I.: “Prediction of Turbulent Stratified Two-Phase
Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 13, No. 1, pp. 1-12 (1987). Flow in Inclined Pipes and Channels”, Int. J. Multiphase
5. Barnea, D., Shoham, O., Taitel, Y. and Dukler, A. E.: Flow, 14, No. 21, pp. 141-154, (1988).
"Gas Liquid Flow in Inclined Tubes: Flow Pattern 22. James, P.W., Wilkes, N.S., Conkie, W. and Burnes, A.:
Transition for Upward Flow," Chem. Eng. Sci., 40, pp. “Developments in the Modeling of Horizontal Annular
131-136 (1985). Two-Phase Flow”, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 13, No. 2, pp.
6. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: “A Study of Two-Phase Flow 173-198, (1987).
in Inclined Pipes”, Trans. AIME, pp. 607 (1973). 23. Kokal, S.L. and Stanislav, J.F.: “An Experimental Study
7. Caetano, E.F., Shoham, O. and Brill J.P.: "Upward of Two-Phase Flow in Slightly Inclined Pipes II: Liquid
Vertical Two Phase Flow through an Annulus Part II: Holdup and Pressure Drop”, Chem. Eng. Sci., 44, No. 3,
Modeling Bubble, Slug and Annular Flow,” Proceedings pp. 681-693 (1989)
of the BHRA Fourth International Conference on 24. Laurinat, J.E., Hanratty, T.J. and Jepson, W.P.: “Film
Multiphase Flow, Nice, France, June 19-21, 1989. ASME Thickness Distribution for Gas-Liquid Annular Flow in a
J. Energy Resources Technology, v. 114, (March 1992) Horizontal Pipe”, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 6, No. 1/2, pp.
13-30. 179-1956 (1985).
8. Cheremisinoff, N.P. and Davis, E.J.: “ Stratified 25. Liang-Biao, Q. and Aziz, K.: “Development of New Wall
Turbulent-Turbulent Gas-Liquid Flow “, AIChE J., 25, Friction Factor and Interfacial Friction Factor
No. 1, pp. 48-56 (1979). Correlations for Gas-Liquid Stratified Flow in Wells and
9. Chokshi, R.N, Schmidt, Z. and Doty, D.R.: “Experimental Pipes”, SPE 35679, presented at the Western Regional
Study and the Development of a Mechanistic Model for Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, May 22-24, 1996.
Two-Phase Flow through Vertical Tubing”, SPE 35676, 26. Lin, P.Y. and Hanratty, T.J.: “Prediction of the Initiation
presented at the Western Regional Meeting, Alaska, May of Slug Flow with Linear Stability Theory”, Int. J.
22-24, (1996). Multiphase Flow, 12, No. 1, pp. 79-98 (1986).
SPE 56520 A UNIFIED MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR STEADY-STATE TWO-PHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES AND PIPELINES 11

27. Minami, K.: “Liquid Holdup in Wet Gas Pipelines”, M.S. Horizontal Pipe”, Proceedings of the 3rd International
thesis, The University of Tulsa, 1982. Conference on Multiphase Flow, The Hague, Holland, pp.
28. Nicholson, K., Aziz, K. and Gregory, G.A.: “Intermittent 13-21 (May18-20, 1987).
Two Phase Flow In Horizontal Pipes, Predictive Models”, 44. Xiao, J. J., Shoham, O. and Brill, J. P.: "A
Can. J. Chem. Eng., 56, pp. 653-663 (1978). Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase Flow
29. Nuland, S., Malvik, I. M., Valle, A. & Hende, P.: “Gas in Pipelines," SPE 20631, presented at the SPE 65th
Fractions In Slugs in Dense-Gas Two-Phase Flow From Annual Meeting, New Orleans, September 23-26, (1990).
Horizontal to 60 Degrees of Inclination”, Proceedings of
the ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting
(June 1997). SI Metric Conversion Factors
30. Oliemans, R.V.A., Pots, B.F.M. and Trompe, N.:
“Modeling of Annular Dispersed Two-Phase Flow in bbl x 1.589 873 E-01 = m3
Vertical Pipes”, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 12, No. 5, pp. ft x 3.048* E-01 = m
711-732 (October 1986). ft2 x 9.290 304* E-02 = m2
31. Ozon, P.M., Ferschneider, G. and Chwetzof, A.: “A New ft3 x 2.831 684 E-02 = m3
Multiphase Flow Model Predicts Pressure and in. x 2.54* E+00 = cm
Temperature Profiles”, SPE 16535, presented at the lbf x 4.448 222 E+00 = N
European Offshore Conference, Aberdeen, September 8- lbm x 4.535 924 E-01 = kg
11, (1987). psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
32. Petalas, N. and Aziz, K.: “Development and Testing of a
New Mechanistic Model for Multiphase Flow in Pipes”, * conversion is exact
proceedings ASME, Fluid Eng. Division, 236, No. 1, pp.
153-159 (1996).
33. Ros, N., C., J.: "Simultaneous Flow of Gas and Liquid As
Encountered in Well Tubing," J. Pet. Technology, pp.
1037-1049 (October 1961).
34. Schmidt, Z.: “Experimental Study of Two-Phase Slug
Flow in a Pipeline - Riser Pipe System”, Ph.D.
dissertation, The University of Tulsa, 1977.
35. Scott, S. L., Shoham, O. and Brill, J. P.: "Prediction of
Slug Length in Horizontal Large-Diameter Pipes," SPE
Production Engineering, pp. 335-340 (August1989).
36. Shoham, O. and Taitel, Y.: "Stratified Turbulent-
Turbulent Gas Liquid Flow in Horizontal and Inclined
Pipes," AIChE J., 30, pp. 377-385, (1984).
37. Sylvester, N. D.: “A Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase
Vertical Slug Flowin Pipes”, ASME JERT, 109, pp. 206-
213 (1987).
38. Taitel, Y. and Dukler, A. E.: "A Model for Predicting
Flow Regime Transition in Horizontal and Near
Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow", AIChE J., 22, No. 1, pp.
47-55 (1976).
39. Taitel, Y. Barnea, D. and Dukler, A. E.: "Modeling Flow
Pattern Transition for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in
Vertical Tubes," AIChE Journal, 26 No. 3, pp. 345-354
(1980).
40. Vo, D. T. and Shoham, O.: "A Note on the Existence of a
Solution for Upward Vertical Two-Phase Slug Flow in
Pipes," ASME J. Energy Resources Technology, 111, pp.
64-65 (June 1989).
41. Taitel, Y. and Barnea, D.: "Two Phase Slug Flow"'
Academic Press Inc. (1990).
42. Wallis, G. B.: " One Dimensional Two Phase Flow",
McGraw-Hill (1969).
43. Wu, H.L., Pots, B.F.M., Hollenberg, J.F. and Meerhoff,
R.: “Flow Pattern Transitions in Two-Phase
Gas/Condensate Flow at High Pressure in an 8-Inch
12 L. E. GOMEZ, O. SHOHAM, Z. SCHMIDT, R. N. CHOKSHI, A. BROWN, T. NORTHUG SPE 56520

Table 1. Database for Individual Flow Pattern Models Validation

Data Source Flow Pattern Inclination Pipe Diameter Fluids Liquid Density Pressure Data Points
inch lbm/ft3 psia
θ=0
o
Minami (1982) Stratified 3 Air - Kerosene/Water 50/62.4 50 100
Nuland et al. (1997) Slug 10o < θ < 60o 4 Dense Gas (SF6) - Oil 51 145 52
Felizola & Shoham (1995) Slug 0o < θ < 90o 2 Air-Kerosene 50 250 72
θ = 90
o
Schmidt (1977) Slug 2 Air-Kerosene 50 225 15
θ = 90
o
Caetano et. al. (1992) Bubble Annulus Air - Kerosene/Water 50/62.4 45 19
θ = 90
o
Alves et. al. (1991) Annular 2.5 Natural Gas - Crude 27 1750 2 (75)

Total = 260
o
Table 2. Performance of Unified Model and Other Methods for Data Set N 1 (21 cases)
GOR Water Cut Present Study Chokshi et al. (1996) Hagerdon and Brown (1965) Ansari et al. (1994)
Case [scf/stbl] [%] ∆P Measured ∆P Calculated Error (%) ∆P Calculated Error (%) ∆P Calculated Error (%) ∆P Calculated Error (%)
1 336 68.0 1851 1743 -5.8 1826 -1.4 1684 -9.0 1819 -1.7
2 1747 20.2 1282 1325 3.4 1333 4.0 1161 -9.4 1219 -4.9
3 537 87.0 1990 1842 -7.4 1885 -5.3 1804 -9.3 1837 -7.7
4 511 5.0 2220 2308 4.0 2479 11.7 2261 1.8 2554 15.0
5 1044 45.0 1518 1650 8.7 1405 -7.4 1349 -11.1 1260 -17.0
6 527 60.0 2588 2146 -17.1 2444 -5.6 2265 -12.5 2448 -5.4
7 1841 0.0 1540 1094 -29.0 1105 -28.2 1189 -22.8 1012 -34.3
8 1135 36.9 1371 1319 -3.8 1383 0.9 1338 -2.4 1223 -10.8
9 1196 59.2 1386 1268 -8.5 1100 -20.6 1120 -19.2 948 -31.6
10 894 62.3 1817 1496 -17.7 1413 -22.2 1289 -29.1 1284 -29.3
11 344 80.0 2998 2539 -15.3 2783 -7.2 2579 -14.0 2881 -3.9
12 1490 0.2 1160 908 -21.7 791 -31.8 815 -29.7 703 -39.4
13 1758 55.6 1638 1240 -24.3 1301 -20.6 1145 -30.1 1290 -21.2
14 1898 0.3 840 722 -14.0 743 -11.5 787 -6.3 676 -19.5
15 1494 27.0 1016 1136 11.8 1041 2.5 876 -13.8 966 -4.9
16 1382 70.2 1199 1267 5.7 1076 -10.3 1078 -10.1 960 -19.9
17 5716 33.1 802 716 -10.7 512 -36.2 659 -17.8 469 -41.5
18 872 66.7 2006 1664 -17.0 1883 -6.1 1751 -12.7 1822 -9.2
19 2118 26.7 767 973 26.9 678 -11.6 821 7.0 592 -22.8
20 1498 0.3 1221 1249 2.3 1153 -5.6 1036 -15.2 1090 -10.7
21 2847 9.0 680 813 19.6 632 -7.1 820 20.6 562 -17.4
Average Error [%] -5.2 -10.5 -11.7 -16.1
Std. Dev. Avg. Error 14.7 12.2 12.1 14.0
Average Absolute Error [%] 13.1 12.3 14.5 17.5
Std. Dev. Abs. Avg. Error 8.1 10.3 8.3 12.0

Table 3. Overall Performance of Unified Model and Sensitivity Analysis Results

Database Diameter Inclination Oil Rate Gas Rate Water Cut

0 < θ < 90 79 -2658 bpd
o o
86 cases 2 7/8" - 7" 42 - 23045 Mscfd 0 - 80 %

Present Study Chokshi et. al (1996)

o Average Standard Absolute Average Standard Average Standard Absolute Average Standard
N of Wells Classification
Error [%] Deviation Error [%] Deviation Error [%] Deviation Error [%] Deviation
3 Vertical
1.7 2.7 2.5 1.3 7.4 4.0 7.4 4.0
θ = 90
o
Inclination

19 Horizontal to Vertical
-2.2 5.1 4.2 3.4 0.4 5.2 4.0 3.3
0o< θ < 90o
64 Deviated Wells
-1.1 9.1 6.0 6.9 0.7 10.7 8.1 6.9
45o< θ < 90o
59
Production

Naturally Flowing 0.1 4.1 3.2 2.5 4.6 4.7 5.7 3.4
27
Gas Lifted -4.3 13.0 10.5 8.7 -7.2 12.4 10.5 9.6

3 Tubing
-3.3 5.8 5.5 2.1 -0.9 4.6 3.5 2.0
d = 2 7/8"
24 Tubing
Diameter

-0.1 10.8 5.9 9.0 1.7 9.5 7.3 6.1

d = 4 1/2"
28 Tubing
-3.3 8.8 6.7 6.4 -3.3 12.0 8.7 8.8
d = 5 1/2"
31 Tubing
-0.1 4.9 4.0 2.7 4.1 5.7 6.0 3.7
d = 7"
Overall

86 All Database -1.3 8.2 5.5 6.2 0.9 9.6 7.1 6.4
SPE 56520 A UNIFIED MECHANISTIC MODEL FOR STEADY-STATE TWO-PHASE FLOW IN WELLBORES AND PIPELINES 13

Figure 1: Flow Patterns in Pipelines and Wellbores –

Horizontal to Vertical
CURVE: a and b
CORDINATE: Y vs. X

Figure 3: Physical Model for Stratified Flow

Figure 2: Unified Flow Pattern Map (Barnea, 1987)

Figure 4: Physical Model for Slug Flow

14 L. E. GOMEZ, O. SHOHAM, Z. SCHMIDT, R. N. CHOKSHI, A. BROWN, T. NORTHUG SPE 56520

Figure 6: Physical Model for Bubble Flow

Figure 5: Physical Model for Annular Flow

4000

1.0

Data 0 deg.

Calculated Pressure Drop [Psi]

Prediction 0 deg. 3000
0.8 Data 50 deg.

Prediction 50 deg.

Data 90 deg.

Prediction 90 deg. 2000

0.6
HLLS

0.4 1000

0.2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Measured Pressure Drop [Psi]

0.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

ReLS*10-4
Figure 8: Comparison between Unified Model Predictions
and Data Set No 2 (65 cases)
Figure 7: Comparison between Predicted and Measured
Slug Liquid Holdup (Gomez et. al., 1999)
4000
Calculated Pressure Drop [Psi]

3000

2000

1000

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Measured Pressure Drop [Psi]

Figure 9: Overall Performance of Unified Model against

Entire New Database (86 cases)