The Multiphase Flow of Gas, Oil, and Water Through

Vertical Flow Strings with Application to the Design

of Gas-lift Installationst
AND PAULG. CARPENTER*
FREDH. POETTMANN
ABSTRACT
A method for predicting the pressure traverse of pressure, and rate at which to inject gas, the ideal
flowing oil wells and gas-lift wells is described. horsepower requirements necessary to lift the oil,
The method is based on field data from 49 flowing and the effect of production rate and tubing size on
and gas-lift wells operating over a wide range of these quantities.
conditions. Data available in the literature on air lifting of
The procedure developed permits the calculation water through short lengths of glass tubing are
of the bottom-hole pressure of flowing oil wells shown to be correlative by use of an equation simi-
knowing only surface data; and, in the case of gas- lar to that for the multiphase flow of oil, water, and
lift wells, it i s possible to calculate the depth, gas through vertical tubing.
INTRODUCTION g a s through vertical flow s t r i n g s in the Anglo-Per-
The industry h a s long been in need of s i a n Oil Company's klasjed-i-Sulaiman F i e l d . Gos-
a general method for predicting and analyzing the line,' Uren," and o t h e r s made laboratory s t u d i e s
flow of oil, g a s , and water through vertical tubing. of the of multiphase flow through vertical
T h e ability to predict t h e variation of p r e s s u r e with tubing. Of t h e procedures available in the litera-
elevation along t h e length of the tubing for known ture, that of T. V. Moore, e t al.899 offers the
conditions of flow wouldprovide a m e a n s of evalua- c l o s e s t approach t o t h e solution of t h i s problenl.
ting the e f f e c t s of tubing s i z e , flow r a t e , and a h o s t T h e y developed a n empiricai expression, based on
of other v a r i a b l e s on flowing w e l l s and would be laboratory experiments, for evaluating energy l o s s -
particularly useful in designing gas-lift installa- e s resulting from s l i p p a g e or liquid hangup. T h i s
tions. In the c a s e of gas-lift installations, it would energy l o s s , when combined with frictional l o s s e s
provide information for determining where to inject and the general flow equation, gave a procedure for
t h e g a s , the p r e s s u r e a t which t o inject t h e g a s , calculating pressure drops. T h e procedure i s com-
the rate a t which to inject the g a s , the ideal horse- plicated, however, by t h e fact that the liquid p h a s e
power requirements to lift the oil, and t h e effect of i s assumed t o be in the form of a foam; and, of the
production r a t e and tubing s i z e on t h e s e quan- t o t a l g a s present, t h a t a s s o c i a t e d with t h e foam i s
tities. T h e purpose of t h i s paper i s t o describe, unknown. T h e procedure a l s o requires estimation
b e means of a correlation based on field d a t a of t h e p h y s i c a l properties of the foam phase. T h e
from both flowing oil w e l l s and gas-lift wells, difficulties encountered in h'loore's procedure a r e
how t h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s c a n be made. characteristic of a l l methods which attempt t o
Considerable work h a s been done on the l a w s e v a l u a t e t h e various components making up the
governing t h e niultiphase flow of liquid and g a s total energy l o s s e s in t h e multiphase flow of liquid
mixtures in vertical tubing, but no s a t i s f a c t o r y and g a s through vertical tubing. T h e type of flow
general solution h a s been found applicable t o flow- involved, i.e., whether the g a s or liquid p h a s e i s
ing oil w e l l s and gas-lift well^.'^^-'^ T h e methods continuous or whether slug-type or annular ring-
developed, unfortunately, are ungainly or are liniit- type flow, or a n y combination e x i s t s , i s difficult to
e d in their range of application. V e r s l ~ ~ spre- '~ determine. It i s particularly difficult to imagine
s e n t e d a theoretical treatment of the flow of oil and annular ring-type flow in an oil well when g a s i s
g a s mixtures through vertical tubing. May6,' pre- continually being evolved from t h e liquid p h a s e ,
s e n t e d an e x c e l l e n t a n a l y s i s of t h e flow of oil and keeping it in a high degree of turbulence. One thing
t Presented by F. H. Poettmann at t h e sprlng meetlng of t h e i s certain-the multiphase vertical flow of oil,
of Production, W ~ c h ~ t a ,
hlld-Cont~nent D l s t r ~ c t , D ~ v l s ~ o n water, and g a s t a k e s p l a c e in a highly turbulent
K a n s a s , blarch 1952.
* P h l l l ~ p sPetroleum Company, B a r t l e s v ~ l l e ,Okla.
manner. A s a r e s u l t , energy l o s s e s resulting from
R e f e r e n c e s are at the end of the paper. v i s c o u s s h e a r within the Bowing fluids are neglig-
258 F R E D H. POETTMANN AND P A U L G. C A R P E N T E R
I
ible, making flow independent of v i s c o s i t y effects.
T h i s should not come a s a surprise, inasmuch a s
it i s a l s o true that for single-phase turbulent flow,
the energy l o s s e s are independent of the p h y s i c a l
properties of the flowing fluid.' Many man hours
have been s p e n t , from the evidence in the litera-
ture, in attempting t o e v a l u a t e a n "effective" v i s -
c o s i t y of a multiphase mixture of oil, water, and
gas.
T h e approach used in t h i s study differs from
t h o s e previously u s e d by other investigators in t h a t :
1. T h e correlation i s based on field d a t a cover-
ing a wide range of operating conditions. U s e
of field d a t a e l i m i n a t e s the of extra-
.polating laboratory d a t a t o field conditions.
T h e ~ h ~ s i c properties
al of the produced fluids
were determined in the laboratory and a r e
t h o s e usually obtained on reservoir fluids.
2. No attempt w a s made to evaluate t h e various
components making up t h e total energy l o s s
resulting from irreversibilities of the flowing
fluids. T h e flowing fluid w a s treated a s though
i t were a s i n g l e honiogeneous p h a s e and the
energy l o s s e s were correlated on t h i s b a s i s .
3. T h e total flowing d e n s i t y or flowing specific
volume w a s u s e d rather than an "in situ"
d e n s i t y or s p e c i f i c volun~e.Under s t e a d y - s t a t e
conditions, a given amount of liquid and g a s
e n t e r s and l e a v e s the tubing per unit of time.
When liquid hangup or slippage occurs, g a s
flows a t a greater linear velocity than the liq-
uid. A s a result, the m a s s of liquid in t h e tub-
ing a t a n y instant, relative to that of the g a s
in the tubing a t t h e s a m e instant, i s greater
t h a n the relative m a s s of liquid t o g a s a s both
coniponents e n t e r and l e a v e the tubing. A s a
result, the "in situ" specific volume i s small-
e r than t h e flowing specific volume. It i s from
t h e flowing s p e c i f i c volume t h a t the energy
n e c e s s a r y t o overcome the irreversibilities in-
herent in fluid flow i s obtained. T h e energy
entering and leaving the tubing by virtue of
the flowing fluid i s a function of the pressure-
volunie properties of the fluid entering and
leaving the tubing, and not of the pressure-
volume properties of t h e fluid in place.
4. In c a l c u l a t i n g t h e flowing density or flowing
specific volume, m a s s transfer between t h e
flowing p h a s e s i s taken into consideration a s
well a s the entire m a s s of the g a s and liquid
p h a s e s . No assumptions are made a s t o t h e
type of flow e x i s t i n g in the flow string, other
than t h a t the fluid flowing in t h e vertical flow
s t r i n g i s in a high degree of turbulence. Be-
c a u s e of this, energy l o s s r e s u l t i n g from vis-
c o u s s h e a r i s negligible, and flow i s independ-
e n t of v i s c o s i t y effects. T. V. Moore and co-
worker~',~ have made a similar observation.
T h e problenl of correlating multiphase vertical
flow i s complicated when conlpared with s i n g l e -
p h a s e flow. Any r e a s o n a b l e solution for a given
problem will depend upon a considerable amount of
reasonably accurate d a t a , which i s often difficult
t o obtain in practice. F i e l d d a t a will not have t h e
a c c u r a c y and precision inherent in laboratory d a t a ;
and, on t h e other hand, it i s often impractical t o
cover the range of field operating conditions with
laboratory data. T h i s correlation i s based on d a t a
obtained from the Bureau of Mines, Bartlesville,
Okla., and on d a t a f r o m , t h e files of the P h i l l i p s
Petroleum Company.
Application of t h e correlation t o ,calculation of
flowing bottom-hole p r e s s u r e s and t o the design of
gas-lift i n s t a l l a t i o n s i s d i s c u s s e d . Generalized
curves for various tubing s i z e s are developed, from
which can be calculated the pressure t r a v e r s e s of
flowing and .gas-lift w e l l s .
1. Theoretical Development of Correlation
T h e b a s i s of a n y fluid-flow calculation c o n s i s t s
of an energy balance on the fluid flowing between
a n y two points of t h e systeni under consideration.
T h e energy entering t h e s y s t e m by virtue of the
fluid flowing a t point 1 must e q u a l the energy leav-
ing the s y s t e m a t point 2, p l u s the energy inter-
changed between the fluid in flow and i t s surround-
ings. T h i s energy balance, based on one pound of
flowing fluid, i s e x p r e s s e d by t h e well-known gen-
e r a l flow equation:
P
PIS V d P + Ah + A + Wf + Ws = 0 (1)
wherein:
V = s p e c i f i c volume of flowing fluid, in
cubic f e e t .per . pound.
P = pressure, in pounds per s q u a r e foot
absolute.
Ah = difference in height - above datum plane,
in feet.
r - 1
A- = d ifference in kinetic energy of one
[g:] pound of flowing fluid between initial
and final s t a t e of flow; v e q u a l s veloc-
ity, in feet per s e c o n d ; and gc e q u a l s
32.175.
= energy l o s s e s r e s u l t i n g from irrevers-
W,
i b i l i t i e s of t h e fluid in flow s u c h as..
slippage or liquid hangup; frictional
e f f e c t s c a u s e d by t h e s u r f a c e of the
tubing; change in s u r f a c e a r e a s be-
tween the mixture of liquid and g a s
flowing in t h e tubing; combinations of
a n y of t h e s e e f f e c t s ~ l u other
s effects.
Ws = work done by the fluid while in flow.
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 259
T h i s equation contains no limiting assumptions
andcan be made the b a s i s of any fluid-flow relation-
ship.
Assuming homogeneous steady flow of the mix-
ture of g a s and liquid between any two points in
the tubing (Fig. l ) , the external work ITIS done by
the fluid in flow i s zero. The value of the kinetic
energy function i s small a s conlpared to the other
functions in the energy balance equation and can
be neglected. T h i s then leaves:

Assuming that the energy l o s s e s K', for multi-

phase flow can be correlated by the well-known
Fanning equation, then:
f = 2gc WfD (3)
4v2Ah
wherein: f i s used in this development a s the
corrkIating function for total energy loss, whether
the result of friction or otherwise. The velocity F
i s assumed constant and equal to the integrated
average value between the pressure liniits PI and
P2
By substituting and rearranging equations (2)
- F constant:
and (3), assuming
- p2 sP1VdP ,'

Ah = (4)

In terms of units readily obtained from field data: T h e volume Vm associated with one barrkl'bf
stock-tank oil can be calculated from a knowledge
of the formation-volun~e factor of the oil, the g a s
solubility in the oil, the producing gas-oil ratio,
and the producing water-oil ratio:
1+
7.313 x 101D5
wherein:
Vm = cubic feet of mixed gas, oil, and water a t
pressure P per barrel of stock-tank oil wherein:
based on the ratio of the fluids flowing F = formation-volunle factor of the oil at
into and out of the flow string.
u
pressure P, barrels of reservoir oil per
M = total mass of gas, oil, and water, in barrel of stock-tank oil.
pounds, associated with one barrel of S g I o = producing gas-oil ratio, cubic feet per
stock-tank oil flowing- into and out of the barrel of stock-tank oil.
-
flow string. Ss = solubility of g a s in oil a t pressure P,
= barrels of stock-tank oil produced per day. cubic feet per barrel of oil. .

= arbitrarily defined a s constant and equal
to the integrated average value of Vm be-
tween pressure limits of PI and P2.
D_ = inside diameter of tubing, in feet.
P = arbitrarily defined a s constant and equal
to the integrated average value of veloc-
ity between the pressure limits of PI and
5, where v i s based on the ratio of fluids
flowing into and out of the flow string.
Vw = cubic feet of water produced per barrel
of stock-tank oil.
Tavg= arithmetic average temperature in the
in the flow string, in degrees Rankine.
P = pressure
Pa = basepressure a t which gas i s measured.
Tg = base temperature at which g a s i s meas-
ured.
Z = compressibility factor of the g a s in the
 tubing at temperature T a V gand pressure
n
- .

Quite often the formation-volume factor and the

g a s solubility are straight-line functions of pres-
sure over the range of pressure under consideration.
If this i s the c a s e T/, can be calculated a s follo\vs:

loherein:
n , = slope of formation-volume factor curve
(Fig. 2).
F = intercept of line on formation-volume fac-
tor curve(Fig. 2).
n s = slope of solubility curve (Fig. 3).
S 1 = intercept of solubility curve (Fig. 3).
The total mass of flowing fluid associated with
one barrel of stock-tank oil can be calculated from
the Follo\ving expression:

Fig. 3
wherein:
Gsto = specific gravity of stock-tank oil.
Gg = separator-gas gravity (air = 1).
Gb = specific gravity of produced water.
In establishing the value of the term p J'P1 V d P

of equation (4) or p J'P1 VmdP of equation (5), 1'or

2
I
.i s plotted vs. the absolute pressure and the
area under the curve between the pressure limits
PI and P2 determined either mathematically or g a p h -
ically. In graphical integration, it i s often of suffi-
cient accuracy to divide the curve into a s e r i e s of
trapezoids and determine their areas by multiply-
ing their width by the arithmetical average of the
length of the two-sides.
The value of Vm i s determined from the expres-
sion: P
P

In determining the specific volume of the flowing

fluid a s a function of pressure, the most accurate
procedure i s to use direct laboratory measurements.
When these data are not available, resort must be
Fig. 2 made to formation-volume factor and solubility data.
>
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 26 1
I
If the formation-volume factor and the g a s solu- By arbitrarily setting a lower pressure limit of
bility can be expressed a s a straight-line function Zd?
of pressure over the range of pressure under ? of 0.2, values of JPr -- and JC Zdq
consideration, the value of the integral p J P1 V,dP
0.2 4 0.2
2 can be determined a s functions of pseudo-reduced
can be determined analytically. By substituting the pressure and tempezature. T a b l e s of these functions
value of Vm of equation (7) JP] VmdP can then have been prepared. These tables, along with equa-
' tions (12) and (13), make it possible to evaluate
be written a s follows:
P P the value of PI VmdP from equation (11) directly
p2J VmdP=5.61 n J P PdP + 5.61 Fi 5 J dP p2
' P2 without resorting to graphical integration.
11. Correlation
Having available production data and PVT data
on a flowing or gas-lift well, along with a proce-
dure for establishing f, the difference in elevation
between a given pressure difference can be calcu-
lated by use of equation (5). However, in order to
establish the values of f a s some function of the
variables involved in the flow of oil, water, and
g a s in the tubing, the reverse calculation was
made. T h i s involved making use of field data in
the form of production data, PVT data, and pres-
sure and temperature traverses. Values of f were
Integrating and collecting common terms we ob- calculated in this manner from the field data and
tain: were found to correlate Lest a s a function of the
product of the inside diameter of the tubing and the
VmdP=?.805 nf (P: -P:) + (5.61 Fl+Vw)(Pl - % ) mass velocity of the fluid Ilowing in the tubing
(Fig. 4). In terms of units obtained fro111field data:

It will be noted that this corresponds to the

numerator of the well-known Reynolds'nunlber. The
fact that viscosity i s not one of the variables in-
The integrals involving the compressibility fac- volved in the vertical mnltiphase flow i s both for-
tor of the natural g a s can be evaluated in terms of tunate and to be expected. This i s because of the
the pseudo-reduced pressure. fact that the degree of turbulence i s of such a
magnitude that, of the total energy loss [I/ that
f'
portion resulting from viscous shear i s n e g l ~ ~ i b l e .
T. V. Rloore and c o - w o r k e r ~made
~ ~ ~ the same ob-
servation.
The correlation shown on Fig. LE is based on
field data obtained from the Bureau of and
1
and Phillips Petroleum Company. The use of accurate

,.
2
JPi ZdP = P Jpr
42
ZdS = PCLe2
Jprl ZdPr
and reliable field data cannot be over emphasized.
I n applying the energy balance shown in equation
(2)) the absolute value of the tern, pljP2 I,'dP must

-I
always be greater than or equal to All, for vertical
wherein: upward flow. It cannot be less. T h i s means that I",
must always be zero or positive. If the reverse i s
fohnd true, then obviously the held data or PVT
d a t a , u s e d in the calculations do not apply to the
PC = f>seudo-criticalpressure. system under consideration. The ratio of All, the
Fig. 4 -Correlation of Field Data on Flowing and Gas-lifi Wells
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND h'ATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS
difference in elevation, t o t h e a b s o l u t e v a l u e of
p $ Pz VdP, t h e internal energy of the flowing fluid
1
resulting from compression e f f e c t s between the
5
p r e s s u r e limits and P2 corresponding to Ah can
be defined a s the "thermodynamic flow efficiency".
In other words, i t i s t h e fraction of t h e internal
energy change t h a t i s transformed into potential
energy of position. T h e difference between t h e
thermodynamic flow efficiency and 1.0 i s the frac-
tion of the internal energy change used to overcome
t h e r e s i s t a n c e s t o flow c a u s e d by irreversibilities
in the flowing system.
In order t o e s t a b l i s h an i d e a of t h e deviation of
t h e calculated r e s u l t s from field measurements,
Fig. 5 w a s drawn. It s h o w s a p l o t of t h e calculated
vs. field-measured overall gradient. AP i s the differ-
e n c e between the flowing bottom-hole pressure and
t h e tubing pressure, and Ah i s t h e well depth. In
t h e c a s e of gas-lift w e l l s , AP i s t h e difference be-
tween injection p r e s s u r e a t the point of injection
into the flow s t r i n g and t h e tubing pressure, and Ah
i s the d e p t h a t which the g a s i s injected. T h e devi-
a t i o n s are t o a large e x t e n t indicative of the accu-
racy of t h e d a t a used. T h i s can b e s e e n when com-
paring the Bureau of hlines d a t a with the P h i l l i p s
Petroleum Company data, which were taken for pur-
p o s e s other than a s u s e d in t h i s study. T h e algeb-
r a i c average deviation for t h e 4 9 w e l l s shown w a s
a +1.8 percent, and t h e standard deviation a from
t h e algebraic average w a s 8.3 percent. F o r t h e
Bureau of Mines d a t a the algebraic average devia-
tion w a s a l s o +1.8 percent, but t h e standard devia-
tion a from t h e algebraic average w a s 5.8 percent;
w h e r e a s for the P h i l l i p s d a t a t h e algebraic average
w a s a l s o +1.8 and t h e P h i l l i p s a w a s 9.5 percent.
T h e Bureau of Mines d a t a h a s a much narrower
spread than the P h i l l i p s data. T h e algebraic aver-
a g e deviation r e p r e s e n t s the b i a s of the correlation.
F o r a normal distrihution, 68.26 percent of t h e
v a l u e s will be included within p l u s or minus one
standard deviation; 95.46 percent within p l u s or
minus two standard deviations; 99.73 percent with-
in p l i ~ sor minus three standard deviations.
T a b l e 1 summarizes some of the d a t a employed
in t h e correlation shown in Fig. 4. T h e correlation
i s based on w e l l s having 2-, 2%-, and 3-in. nominal
s i z e tubing diameters; gas-liquid r a t i o s up to 5,000
c u ft per barrel of total liquid; r a t e s from 6 0 bbl t o
1,500 bbl of total liquid per day; water-oil ratio up
to 56, oil gravities from 3 0 API t o 5 4 API; and
well d e p t h s to 11,000 ft. T h e thermodynamic flow
e f f i c i e n c i e s indicated in T a b l e 1 are for the length
of tubing over which the overall pressure g a d i e n t
l i s t e d in the table w a s calculated. It i s interesting
263
Fig. 5 -Calculated vs. Field-measured Overall
Gradient
t o note that t h e flow e f f i c i e n c i e s of the flowing
wells, with but few exceptions, a r e high; and t h o s e
of t h e gas-lift wells, with the exception of w e l l s
4 4 through 4 7 a r e low. In the c a s e of t h e gas-
lift wells, there i s no reason why the flow elficien-
c i e s cannot be a s high a s in the c a s e of the flow-
ing wells, when operated under proper conditions.
F i g . 6 s h o w s some typical pressure-depth
curves. T h e smooth c u r v e s are t h e field-measured
values, w h e r e a s t h e c i r c l e s are the calculated
points.
Inasmuch a s t h e inside diameter of the tubing D
e n t e r s into the factor f a s the fifth power, it i s im-
portant t o know both the weight and nominal s i z e
of the tubing used s o the e x a c t inside diameter
can be e s t a b l i s h e d . T a b l e 2 l i s t s the pertinent
d a t a of the various tubing s i z e s .
In 1914, G. J. D a v i s and C. K. 'Aeidner of t h e
University of b i s c o n s i n published the r e s u l t s of a
large number of laboratory t e s t s on a i r lifting water
through short l e n g t h s of 1'4-in. g l a s s tubinR4 T h e y
attempted to correlate a ''coefficient of pipe fric-
tion and s1ip"which would correspond to the f - f a c -
tor of F i g . 4 , but were not s u c c e s s f u l . T h e i r failure
to correlate the f d a t a w a s probably b e c a u s e of t h e
f a c t t h a t they did not take into consideration the
total flowing density, but used the d e n s i t y of water
instead. T h e i r d a t a were carefully recorded; and by
u s i n g an equation similar to equation (5), where
t h e base w a s o n e barrel of water instead of oil, and
estimating t h e average flow-string temperature and
atmospheric pressure, f factors were calculated
 Table 1
Summary of D a t a
T o t a l Gas-
Total Gas- Liquid Gravity
Tubing Oil. Oil Ratio. Ratio. Water-Oil I
Tubing
Well Size. Bbl per Cu Ft per Cu Ft Ratio. Bbl 011. Water Pressure.
N 0. Inches Day Bbl per Bbl per Bbl D e g API (Specific) Gas Psia
A . Flowing Oil U'ells
1 2.5
2 2.5
3 3.0
4 30.
5 2.5
V)
6 2.5
2 7 2.5
8 2.5
2 9 2.5
1 10 2.5
a
2 11 2.5
12 2.5
4 13 2.5
j14 2.5
15 2.5
16 2.0
17 2.5
18 2 .0
19 2.0
20 2.0
21 2.5
22 20.
23 2.0
2 24 2.0
E 25 2.0
. 26
e 27
2.0
2.0

.
a 28
.
-430
29
2.5
2.5
2.5
31 2.0
a 32 2.0
33 2.0
33 2.0

35 2.0
36 2 .0
37 2 .0
d 38 20.
.
2.
U
39 20
40 2.5
--, 4 1 2.0
s 4.2 20.
z 43 2.0
44 2.0
.
1= 45 2.0
;; 2 .0
2 .0
48 2.0
49 2.0
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FI,OW STRINGS 265
Table 1
Summary of D a t a
Thermo-
Well or P r e s s u r e Difference dynamic
Injection AP, Psia A ~ / h h Psi
, per F t Flow
Well Depth, 1 / \ Deviation, Deviation, Efficiency,
No. Ft, A h Calculated Observed Calculated Observed PSI per F t Percent Percent
A. Flozuing Oil R'ells
1,147 1,175 0.276 0.283
1,221 1,248 0.293 0.300
1,042 1,064 0.252 0.257
1,002 1,031 0.242 0.249
2,293 2,178 0.333 0.223
2,240 2,300 0.211 0.217
1,760 1,580 0.186 0.168
1,641 1,601 0.180 0.175
1,790 1,730 0.187 0.180
2,213 2,343 0.216 0.228
2,326 2,531 0.218 0.236
2,562 2,571 0.237 0.238
1,877 1,872 0.268 0.267
1,861 1,840 0.266 0.263
1,670 1,670 0.254 0.244
1,890 1,845 0.273 0.266
1,823 1,823 0.261 0.261
1,535 1,655 0.206 0.222
1,385 1,655 0.188 0.226
1,715 1,910 0.178 0.199
1,201 1,157 0.267 0.258
2,275 2,200 0.290 0.280
1,650 1,680 0.251 0.256
1,475 1,890 0.225 0.288
1,900 1,880 0.244 0.241
1,970 1,970 0.354 0.244
2,180 2,030 0273 0.254
1,710 1,770 0.363 0.272
1,320 1,605 0 203 0.247
1,100 1,180 0.169 0.182
1,755 1,595 0.207 0.188
1,090 1,374 0.247 0.289
735 908 0.245 0.303
1,085 1,124 0.246 0.255
B. Gas-lift IVells
0.134 0.148
0.149 0.149
0.146 0.146
0.147 0.160
0.158 0.172
0.0957 0.0809
0.135 0.151
0.144 0.151
0.126 0.128
0.228 0.238
0.342 0.291
0.266 0.274
0.269 0.277
0.134 0.125
0.139 0.127
Algebraic average d e v ~ a t ~ o+ n
l . 8 , standard d e v ~ a t ~ ofrom
n algebra~caverage, a,8.3.
266 - F R E D H. POETTMANN AND P A U L G. C A R P E N T E R

Table 2
Tubing Data
Nominal A PI Weight Outside Inside
Size, Rating, Per Diameter, Diameter,
Inches Inches Foot, Lb Inches Inches
2.0 - 2.041
2.0 1.995
2% . 2.469
2
3 .O
:: '

2.441
3.068
3 .O 3.018
3 .O 2.992
3.0 2.922
from a random sampling of their data to s e e if a
correlation could be obtained. The results are
shown in Fig. 7. Correlation using a form of equa-
tion (5) i s possible. For low values of Dpv the f
factor curve for air-lift lies to the left of the f fac-
tor curveforflowing and gas-lift wells. T h i s may be
caused by the fact that there. i s l e s s friction l o s s
in smooth g l a s s tubing than in oil-well tubing. At
high values, the calculated f data for the air-lift
fall i s in the same range a s the gas-lift data. T h i s
may be a result of the fact that the gas-lift d I I I I I I I I I 110
DEPTH IOOO FEET PER DIVISION
wells, in most cases, flowed over 90 percent water.
In order to simplify the calculations, the f factor Fig. 6 - T y p i c a l Pressure Traverses
curve shown in F'ig. 4 can be combined with equa- gas) flowing per day. On the horizontal a x i s i s
tion (5). By dividing equation (5) into AP or writing plotted:
it in differential form and dividing into d P , the
following expressions for pressure gradient results:
in units of pounds per square inch per foot of depth.

or:
dP
-- - p + Kp
dh
wherein: ii i s the integrated average density be-
tween the pressure difference 3.1, and p i s the
density a t the pressure P . K and K can be express-
ed mathematically a s follows:

-
For a constant tubing size, k and li are functions
only of 9111 and p or?, inasnluch a s f i s a function
of Qhl only. Thus, in order to simplify the calcula-
tions, Fig. 8, 9, and 1 0 were constructed for given
tubing s i z e s by combining the f factor data shown
on Fig. 4 with equation (15) and (16). On the verti-
cal axis i s plotted the product of (2 and dl, which Fig. 7-Correlation of a Random Sampling of Uni-
i s equivalent to the pounds'of fluid (oil, water, and versity of Wisconsin Data on Air Lift
MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 267
MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 269
270 FRED H. POETTMANN AND PAUL G. CARPENTER

The curves plotted on the diagram are for constant slippage or liquid hangup exists in the flow strings.
integrated average density between the pressures The energy lost under these conditions i s primarily
PI and 5or density p corresponding to a given a result of the slippage effects; and a s velocity i s
P, - P" decreased, slippage increases which, in turn, in-
pressure P. T h e values of correspond to c r e a s e s the energy l o s s e s . T h e combination of
h2 - h l these two effects for a gas-liquid mixture of con-
dP stant density results in the curvature indicated by
values of ,F, and values of - to p. The integrated
dh the lines of constant density shown on the figures.
average value of density ,F can be calculated from HI. Discussion and Application of Correlation
the expression: The correlation developed provides a means of
M M predicting the pressure traverses of flowing oil
wells and gas-lift wells, knowing only surface data.
In the c a s e of gas-lift wells, it permits the calcula-
tion of the depth, pressure, and rate at which to in-
and the density p corresponding to a given pressure ject the gas, the ideal horsepower requirements to
P by: lift the oil, and the effect of production rate and
M tubing s i z e on these quantities. Itprovides a means
P=. (20) of systematically studying the effects of the differ-
... ent variables upon one another, which i s impracti-
dP
By determining the density at any pressure, - cal to carry out in the field. It i s in this that the
dh greatest value of the correlation lies.
can be evaluated for that pressure. Plotting- the
In applying the correlation to gas-lift calcula-
dP tions, the pressure traverse below the point of g a s
reciprocal of - vs. the pressure and integrating,
dh injection i s first calculated. The various traverses
the pressure traverse can be established. Another above the point of g a s injection are then calculated
procedure for establishing the pressure traverse i s for different injection gas-oil ratios starting either
to determine the integrated average density be- with a given tubing pressure, Fig. 11, or injection
p1 - p2
tween the pressure limits Pl and P ;-can
h 2 -hl
P,1 - P,L
then be determined. Dividing this value of-
h2 - h ,
into PI - P2, the limits used in evaluating ,F, the
difference in elevation between ' these pressure
limits i s determined. In this manner the complete
pressure traverse can be constructed.
Additional curves for tubing diameters other than
those of Fig. 8, 9, and 10 can be constructed.
T h e curves are useful in other ways a s well a s
simplifying the rigorous calculation of the pressure
traverse. For example, in the case of a flowing well
for which the ;..-ssure traverse i s available, the
value of ,F between two pressures and $ may be
evaluated from this traverse and flow rate. Assum-
ing that this flowing density i s not going to change
with flow rate, a new pressure traverse can be
estimated a t a different rate of flow.
The curvature of the lines i s significant. At high
rates of flow, high velocities and no slippage or
liquid hangup exists. The energy loss in this region
i s primarily the result of frictidnal effects; and a s
velocity i s decreased, these l o s s e s decrease. At
I /
DEPTH -I I

low rates of flow and low velocities, considerable Fig. 11 -Pressure Traverse in Gas-lift Well
 ..
:.
, .._ .

MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 27 1

pressure. From these data the horsepower require-

ments, injection pressure, and depth of injection or
tubing pressure for a given injection pressure can
be determined for the dilferent injection gas-oil
ratios, when production rate and tubing s i z e are
held constant.
The use of the correlation can perhaps be best
explained by means of typical example calcula-
tions.
Problenl I. An oil well i s flowing at the rate of
6 0 I b l per day through a %,-in. choke. The s t a t i c
bottom-hole reservoir pressure i s 4.578 psia. T h e
producing formation i s at a depth of 10,961 ft. Cal-
culate thk flowing bottom-hole pressure and produc-
tivity index of the well. ..\dditional pertinent data
are :
Flowing tnLing pressure ...................1,265 p s i a
Tubing inside diameter (?'/,-in.,
6.25 Ib per ft) ...............................
2.451 in.
Gas-oil ratio ................................ 3,250 cu ft
.............
per bbl.
Formation-volume factor of oil ..............
Fig. 1 2
Solubility ........................................
Fig. 13
Gravity of stock-tank oil a t 60 F'......... 49.4 API
Separator-gas gravity (air = 1 ) .................
0.796
Heservoir temperature ..........................189 F.
Tubing temperature ...............................
75 F.

Fig. 13 - S o l u b i l i t y C u r v e - Problem I
Fig. 1 5 shows the pressure traverse calculated
for the foregoing problem.The pressure at 10,941 ft
is 3,780 psia. T h e productivity index was calculat-
ed to be 0.0860 bb1 of oil per day per pound per
s l u a r e inch pressure drop.
Probleln 11. It i s desired to produce a well by
means of g a s lift. The well has a productivity index
of 1.036 ILI of total liquid produced per day per
porlntl per s q u a r e inch pressure drop. The static
reservoir pressure i s 3,304 psia. The water-oil
ratio i s 18.33. The midpoint of the perforations is
8,663 ft.
The formation-volume factor and solubility d a t a
in this c a s e are of such a nature that they may be
expressed a s straight-line functions of pressllre.
F = 0.0000723 P + 1.114
S s = 0.1875 P + 17
luh ereit/:
P is in psia.
Gravity of stock-tank oil at 60 F ......... 0.8390
Gravity of separator g a s and injected
.................................
g a s (air = 1 ) 0.635
Gravity of produced water ....................
1.15
Bottom-hole temperature ................... 500 F.
Tubing- temperature
. a t the surface .......
140 F.
mumm.mu
I Formation g a s .............................
600 cu ft
Fig. 12 - Formation-volume Factor-Problem I per bbl
 Fig. 1 5 shows a plot of the pressure traverses
c a l c ~ ~ l a t efor
d various injection gas-oil ratios for
a tubing pressure of 100 psia. Similar curves were
constructed for tubing pressures of 20 and 60 psia.
The same curves were a l s o constructed for r a t e s
of 10 and 40 bbl per day of oil. Fig. 16 and 17
show the results of the calculations. Fig. 16 shows
the injection gas-oil ratio a s a function of tubing
pressure and injection pressure. Fig. 17 shows the
theoretical adiabatic horsepower required to coni-
press the injected g a s between the injection pres-
sure and tubing pressure for the production of
21.06 bbl of oil per day having a water-oil ratio of
18.33 and flowing through ?'/,-in. tubing. T h e mini-
mum value of horsepower and i t s corresponding in-
jection pressure, injection g a s o i l ratio, and in-
jection depth represents the optimum condition of
lift for the stated conditions of flow and tubing
pressure and i s the answer to part a of the prob-
lem.
Fig. 1 8 shows the variation of total liquid pro-
duction with g a s rate for injection depths of 4,000
and 5,000 ft and a trlbine pressure of 100 psia.

Fig. 1 4 - S o l u t i o n t o Problem I
a. Calculate the optimum conditions of lift
for the rate of 21.06 bbl of oil per day through
2%-in. (6.25 lb per ft) tubing for various tub-
ing pressures.
b. Calculate the variation of total liquid
production with g a s rate when g a s i s injected
a t 4,000 ft and a t 5,000 ft.
The pressure traverse below the point of injec-
tion i s first calculated. T h e various traverses above
the point of injection are then calculated for differ-
ent injection gas-oil ratios holding tubing pressure
constant. From these data the horsepower require-
ments, injection pressure, and depth of injection
can be determined for the different i n j e c t ~ o ngas-oil
ratios. Fig. 15 - Pressure vs. Depth
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS
Fig. 16- lniection Gas-oil Ratio vs. lniection Pressure
T h i s i s the type of curve commonly obtained in
field t e s t s . F o r comparison purposes, it i s often
very difficult in field t e s t s t o maintain constant
water-oil r a t i o s and tubing p r e s s u r e s ; and t h u s the
calculated c u r v e s and field t e s t s are not a l w a y s
directly comparable.
During t h e course of making numerous gas-lift
calculations, t h e condition occasionally a r o s e
where the calculated p r e s s u r e traverse near the
surface, in t h e low-pressure range, would be con-
cave downward in t h e extreme and would not agree
with the measured traverse in t h i s range, although
a t higher p r e s s u r e s t h e agreement w a s good. When
t h i s happens, the curve through t h e calculated
higher-pressure points should be extrapolated to
t h e top-hole conditions. Rhen t h i s abnormal be-
havior near t h e surface occurred, it w a s usually for
high gas-oil ratio s y s t e m s and w a s probably caused
by inaccurate P V T d a t a a t low p r e s s u r e s , inaccu-
r a t e integration a t low p r e s s u r e s , or u s i n g the a s -
sumption of straight-line variation of forrnation-
volume factor and solubility with pressure in a
region where t h i s assumption w a s not valid. An-
other very probable reason for t h i s behavior in
high gas-oil ratio s y s t e n l s with low tubing pres-
s u r e s i s t h a t the kinetic energy tern1 i s omitted in
t h e derivation. Under t h e s e conditions of flow, t h e
273
kinetic energy term c a n be appreciable and the
simplifying assumption i s not valid. F o r high tub-
ing p r e s s u r e s t h i s abnormality never occurred.
T h e r e are two p o s s i b l e r a n g e s of operation in
g a s lifting reservoir fluids. One i s an inefficient
range in which large quantities of g a s are literally
blown through the tubing in order to lift the oil.
T h i s range i s naturally characterized by high gas-
oil r a t i o s and high horsepower requirements. T h e
efficient range of operation i s characterized by low
gas-oil r a t i o s and low horsepower requirements. In
order to show more clearly t h e s e r a n g e s of opera-
tion, Fig. 19 w a s drawn. It s h o w s qualitatively a
plot of injection p r e s s u r e vs. injection gas-oil
ratio. T h e efficient range i s t o the left of the mini-
mum injection p r e s s u r e and the inefficient range to
the right. F i g . 20 s h o w s qualitatively a plot of
horsepower required to lift the oil vs. injection
pressure. T h e horsepower p a s s e s through a mini-
mum value which r e p r e s e n t s the maximum eff'icien-
cy of the lifting operation, t h i s efficiency d o e s not
n e c e s s a r i l y correspond t o the maximum thermodyna-
mic flow efficiency a s previously defined. T h e s e in-
efficient and efficient r a n g e s of operation have been
observed on experimental g a s lift and a i r l i f t s in-
volving short lengths of tubing by Gosline,' and
Sha\v,1 a n d D a v i s and 'A e i d r ~ e r~. ~a b s o n developed
'
empirically s e t s of curves, similar to Fig. 16, from
field data from the Uominguez, Long Beach, and
Kettlenian Hills F i e l d s of California. T h e s e curves
were developed for each field from a large amount of
data from that field. No general method of predict-
ing these curves for any field or s e t of conditions
where no production data were available was devel-
oped.
One of the most interesting u s e s of this correla-
tion has been a study of the effect of production
- -
r- OP w ~ nrr & r r n M"
c w~roru
Fig. 1.8-Variation of Total Liquid Production with
Gas Rate
rate and tubing s i z e on the horsepower required to
lift the reservoir fluid. If minimum horsepower re-
quired to lift the reservoir fluid i s plotted vs. pro-
duction rate for lines of constant tubing size,
curves of the type shown on Fig. 21 are obtained.
The difference between 2'L- and 3-in. i s much l e s s
I I
~ ..
INJECTION GAS- OIL RATIO c
Fig. 19 -Effect of lniection Pressure on Injection
Gas-oil Ratio
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 275

very low rate, 2-in. would probably be better than

2'4- or 3-in. a s shown qualitatively on Fig. 23.
Some field experiences have shown that for fairly
high rates of flow, 2-in. tubing required l e s s horse-
power than 2'4- or 3-in. tubing, an observation just
contrary to the results shown on Fig. 21. T h i s i s
because of the fact that the field observations
were made on gas-lift wells operating in the in-
efficient range of operation; and in this region 2-in.
i s more efficient than 2'4- or 3-in. tubing, a s i s
seen qualitatively on Fig. 24. Another point of
interest, a s can be seen from Fig. 17, i s that the
lower the tubing pressure can be maintained con-
sistent with efficient surface operations, the l e s s
will be the horsepower required to lift the reservoir
INEFFICIENT RANGE fluid.
Field experience h a s shown that, in the case of
flowing wells having relatively high gas-oil ratios,
the wells will die if they are flowed a t too low a

\ '
EFFICIENT RANGE

.
I
rate; or, if flowing a t high rates, attempts to in-
crease the rate by lowering the tubing pressure
will result in no increase. If production rate vs. the
gradient A P / A h i s plotted for flow through a given
I-
'-POINT OF MAXIMUM
EFFICIENCY
, Ig
I
I I I
INJECTION PRESSURE

Fig. 20-
. E f f e c t of lniection Pressure on Horse-
.
power Requirements
than between 2- and 2'4-in. At zero flow rate the
horsepower requirement per barrel per day produc-
tion would be infinite. At some very low rate the . TUBING SIZE
INCHES
curves cross over, below which point 2-in. tubing
would require l e s s horsepower than 2'4- or 3-in. TUBING PRESSURE
A lot of energy l o s s or horsepower required to
lift the oil vs. superficial fluid velocity in the flow
string for a fixed rate of production i s shown quali-
tatively on Fig. 22. Very high velocities corre-
spond to small tubing s i z e s ; low velocities would
correspond to casing s i z e s . At very high velocities
we have no liquid hangup or slippage, and energy.
l o s s e s are primarily caused by frictional effects of
the surface of the tubing under the high-velocity
conditions. As velocity i s decreased (larger tubing
s i z e s ) the energy l o s s decreases. Finally the
velocity decreases to a point where liquid-hangup
effects (i.e., slippage effects) start entering into
the picture. Increased liquid hangup (slippage)
means increased energy loss. Liquid hangup and
velocity have opposing effects on one another.
I
R A T E OF PRODUCTION -
Energy l o s s e s then increase a s velocity further
decreases (tubing s i z e increases). For the partic-
ular rate of production depicted on Fig. 22, 2%- Fig. 21 - Effect of- R a t e and Tubing. Size on Mini-
and 3-in. tubing i s thus better than %in. At some mum Horsepower Requirement
 f
I-
i
E!
0
CONSTANT HIGH w
PRODUCTION RATE L
S
I CONSTANT COW
S PRODUCTION RATE
Z ',
P
vl
'.'.\-3.0 INCH

8
K '\

'.---------+.o INCH
2
9
> I
X 0'
-
W
W
FLUID VELOCITY FI 111n VFL M l T V -.-

Fig. 22 Fig. 23
Effect of Fluid Velocity or Tubing Size on Energy Loss for Given Production Rate

tubing size, a curve of the nature shown in Fig. 25
i s obtained. The curvature of the line i s significant.
At high rates, a high gradient i s required; and a t
low rates, a high gradient i s required. At some in-
2.0
CONSTANT :
OIL R A T E
WATER-OIL RATIO
i come practically vertical.
termediate point, there i s a minimum value in the
gradient. If the required gradient becomes too large,
the well will die or will not produce a t the desired
rate. At high rates of flow very high velocities and
no liquid hangup or slippage exists. T h e energy
l o s s in this region i s primarily caused by hictional
effects, and a s velocity i s decreased these l o s s e s
decrease. At low rates of flow low velocities and
considerable liquid hangup in the tubing results.The
energy l o s s i s primarily the result of the liquid
hangup or slippage effect; and a s velocity i s de-
creased, slippage increases which, in turn, in-
c r e a s e s the energy losses. F o r low gas-oil ratio
wells the curvature disappears and the curves be-

TUBING PRESSURE

CONSTANT:
GAS-OIL RATIO
--f ------
INEFFICIENT RANGE TUBING SIZE

2.0

TUBING SIZE
I EFFICIENT INCHES

- - -

INJECTION PRESSURE

Fig.24-Effect of Tubing Size on Horsepower

Requirements I Fig.25- Effect of Rate on Overall Gradient for a
High Gas-oil Ratio Flowing Well
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS
I
Fig. 26 should explain more readily why a high
gas-oil ratio well will die if flowed at too low a
rate and why the well cannot be produced at too
high a rate. It i s a plot of pressure vs. depth. If
attempts are made to flow the well a t too high or
too low a rate, too high a gradient i s required to
force the fluid through the tubing and fluid will not
come to the surface. At some intermediate rate the
well will flow, inasmuch a s the gradient required i s
l e s s and the fluid will come t o the surface.
A only for the multiphase flow of gas and liquid
CONSTANT :
GAS OIL RATIO
TUBING SIZE
&I
Y
3
n the ideal horsepower requirements necessary to
n lift the oil, and the effect of production rate and
d
L tubing s i z e on these quantities.
L
Fig.26- Effect of Rate on Overall Gradient for
I and gas through vertical tubing.
High Gas-oil Ratio Flowing Wells.
The correlation developed i s not a simple one.
There are a t least 14 variables involved in the flow
of oil, gas, and water through vertical tubing and
the variation of any one will affect the others. The
large number of variables involved make it d a n g e r
ous to attempt to draw general conclusions based
on a few field observations.
In addition to gas-lift calculations of oil wells,
the correlation h a s a l s o been applied to the design
of gas-lift installations for water wells.
SUMMARY
A method of predicting the pressure traverse of
flowing oil wells and gas-lift wells i s described.
T h e method i s based on field data from a large
277
number of flowing and gas-lift wells operating over
a wide range of conditions. A s in any correlation,
there are definite limitations and ranges of opera-
tion to which the correlation can be applied. The
correlation i s based on 2-, 2'4-, and 3-in. diameter
nominal s i z e tubing; gas-liquid ratios up to 5,000
cu ft of g a s per barrel of total liquid; liquid rates
from 60 bbl to 1,500 bbl of total liquid per day;
water-oil ratios up to 56 bbl of water per barrel of
oil; oil gravities from 30 API to 56 API; and well
depths to 11,000 ft. The correlation should be used
through vertical tubing. It should not be extended
to flow through casing or to flow involving very
high gas-oil ratios such a s those approaching con-
densate wells. Any reasonable solution to a prob-
lem will depend upon accurate and reliable field
data. T h i s point cannot be over-emphasized.
The procedure developed permits the calcula-
tion of the bottom-hole pressure of flowing oil wells
knowing only surface data; and, in the c a s e of gas-
lift wells, it permits calculation of the depth at
which to inject the gas, the pressure at which to
inject the gas, the rate at which to inject the gas,
In order to establish an idea of the reliability of
the correlation, comparison of overall pressure
gradients with field-measured gradients was made.
The agreement between observed and calculated
results was ,good. The algebraic average deviation
for all the data was +1.8 percent and the standard
deviation from the algebraic average was 8.3 per-
cent.
Data available in the literature on air-lifting
water through short lengths of g l a s s tubing were
shown to be correlative by use of an equation simi-
lar to the one for the multiphase flow of oil, water,
NOMENCLATURE
V = specific volume of flowing fluids, in cubic
feet per pound.
P = absolute pressure in consistent units.
h = height above datum plane, in feet.
v = velocity of flowing fluid, in feet per second.
gc = constant = 32.174
WB = work done by the fluid while in flow (similar
to shaft work in driving a turbine).
Vif = energy l o s s e s resulting from irreversibili-
ties of the fluid in flow, such a s slippage
or liquid hangup; frictional effects resulting
from the surface of the tubing; change in
surface areas between the mixture of liquid
and g a s flowing in the tubing; combinations
-
of a n y of t h e s e p l u s other effects. I ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
v = arbitrarily defined a s c o n s t a n t and e q u a l to
T h e authors w i s h t o thank t h e Bureau of Mines,
t h e integrated average v a l u e of velocity be-
Bartlesville, Okla., and Alton Cook of the Bureau
tween t h e pressure limits of P and P2,where
for providing some e x c e l l e n t d a t a on flowing wells.
v i s b a s e d on the ratio of fluids Rowing into
Gratitude i s expressed to A. F. Bertuzzi, who aid-
and out of t h e flow string.
ed n ~ a t e r i a l l yin some of t h e calculations; t o R. G.
D = i n s i d e diameter of tubing, in feet. Nisle, who helped s e t up the t a b l e s of the integral
f = d i m e n s i o n l e s s correlating function. functions of t h e compressibility factors; a n d t o
= c u b i c feet of mixed g a s , oil, and water a t t h o s e of t h e production department -of P h i l l i p s
Vm
p r e s s u r e P per barrel of stock-tank oil, Petroleum Company who a t one time or another
based on the ratio of the fluids flowing into during the course of t h i s work provided information
and out of the flow strings. for the correlation.
M = t o t a l m a s s of gas, oil, and water,in pounds,
a s s o c i a t e d with one barrel of stock-tank REFERENCES
oil flowing into and out of t h e flow string.
Q = barrels of stock-tank oil produced per day. Babson, E. C: The Range of Application of Gas-lift .
Methods, D r i l l i n g a n d P r o d u c t i o n P r a c t a c e , 266, (1939).
Vm = arbitrarily defined a s constant and e q u a l t o
2'
t h e integrated average value of Vm between Brown, G. G. and associates: ( / n i t Operations, John
p r e s s u r e limits of Pl and 5.
' Wiley and Sons, New York, 1950.

F = formation-volume factor of t h e oil a t pres- Brown, G. G; Katz, D. L; Oberfell, G. G; and Alden,

- s u r e P; barrels of reservoir oil per barrel .R. C: N a t u r a l G a s o l i n e ' a'nd t h e V o l a t i l e H y d r o c a r b o n s , ,
Natural Gasoline Association of America, Tulsa, 1948.
of stock-tank oil.
SgIo = producing gas-oil ratio, cubic f e e t per 4Davis, G. J. and Weidner, C. E: Bul. o f the University
o f Wisconsin No. 667.
barrel of stock-tank oil.
Ss = solubility of g a s in oil a t p r e s s u r e P. ' ~ o s l i n e , J. E : Experiments on the Vertical Flow of
Gas-liquid Mixtures in Glass Pipes, T r a n s A m . I n s t .
Vw = cubic feet of water produced per barrel of hlinzng M e t . E n g r s . ( P e t r o l e u m D e v e l o p m e n t a n d l ' e c h -
stock-tank oil. n o l o g y ) 118, 56 (1936).
= arithmetric average temperature in t h e tub- 6 May, C. J . and Laird, A: The Efficiency of Flowing
vg
ing, in d e g r e e s Hankine. wells, J o u r . I n s t . P e t . T e c h . 2 4 214 (1934).
- = b a s e temperature.
Pa = b a s e pressure. 'May, C. J: Efficiency of Flowing Wells, Trans. Am.
-
I n s t . h!rning Met. E n g r s . ( P e t r o l e u m D e v e l o p m e n t a n d
Z = compressibility factor of g a s . T e c h n o l o g y ) 114, 99 (1935).
nr = s l o p e of formation-volume factor curve.
, V. aLd Wilde, H. D: Experimental Measure-
~ o o r e T.
= intercept of formation-volume factor curve.
ments of Slippage in Flow through Vertical Pipe,
= s l o p e of solubility curve. T r a n s . A m . I n s t . dirning d i e t . E n g r s . ( P e t r o l e u m D e v e l -
ns
= intercept of solubility curve. o p m e n t and T e c h n o l o g y ) 92,'296 (1931).
S,
G s,o = specific gravity of stock-tank oil;
'Moore, T. V. and Schilthius, R., J: Calculatioi of re's-
= separator-gas gravity (air = 1) sure Drops in Flowing Wells, T r a n s . A m . I n s t . !\lining
Gg
= s p e c i f i c gravity of produced water. M e t . E n g r s . ( P e t r o l e u m D e t ~ e l o p m e n t and T e c h n o l o g y )
Gb 103, 170 (1933).
,F = integrated average density, in pounds per
cubic foot. 'O~haw,S. F . B u l . N o . 113, Texas A & M College, Col-
lege Station, Texas.
p = d e n s i t y a t pressure.^, i n r o u n d s cubic
foot. l1 Uren, L. C. e t al: 011 G a s J . 28, 148, Oct. 3 (1929).
PC = p s e u d o c r i t i c a l p r e s s u r e of gas.
12
Tc = p s e u d o critical temperature of g a s . Versluys, J: Mathe.matica1 Development of the Theory
of Flowing Oil Wells, T r a n s . A m . I n s t . Minrng M e t .
'Ir , = p s e u d o reduced temperature;
E n g r s . ( P e t r o l e u m D e v e l o p m e n t and T e c h n o l o g y J 8 6 ,
Pr = p s e u d o reduced pressure. 192 (1930).
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 279

APPENDIX
TABLES O F COMPRESSIBILITY FACTORS AND INTEGRAL FUNCTIONS FOR NATURAL GAS AS
FUNCTIONS O F PSEUDO-REDUCED PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE
T h i s appendix presents a convenient collection pressure must first be determined. T h i s may be
of tables involving the compressibility factor of calculated directly from the g a s composition a s the
natural gases. molal average critical temperature and pressure.
The compressibility factor of a natural g a s i s a Quite often the composition of the g a s i s not avail-
dimensionless number defined by the expression: able and it becomes necessary to estimate the'
pseudo-reduced pressure and temperature by means
of the gravity of the natural gas. T h i s can be ac-
complished by use of Fig. 3 0 . ~
P = absolute pressure
Any calculations involving the PVT properties
V = molar volume
of a natural g a s necessitate use of Table 3.
R = g a s constant
T = absolute temperature T o determine the absolute value of p JP2 ZdP
It i s a measure of the deviation of a gas from for any natural g a s a t a constant temperature in-
ideal g a s behavior and i s used to determine correct- volves the pseudo-critical pressure of the gas ex-
ly the density or specific volume of the gas. Func- ~ r e s s e din the desired units. a s follows:
tions of the compressibility factor are used in fluid
flow and thermodynamic calculations involving
natural gases.
Using the theorem of corresponding states, viz.,
wherein:
q = -
Pz
that "all substances have the same relationship 2 P,
between reduced volume, reduced pressure, and
reduced temperature", the compressibility factors
q = -
T
of natural g a s e s have been correlated a s functions 1
of the pseudo-reduced temperature and pressure.3 The factors listed in Table 5 can be used wher-
The pseudo-reduced temperature or pressure i s the
ratio of the actual temperature or pressure to the ever the value of p
1
/ P2 VdP i s to be determined for
molal average (pseudo) critical temperature or pres- a natural gas a t a constant or average temperature,
sure, respectively. since:
Table 3 i s a tabulation of the compressibility
factor Z a s a function of pseudo-reduced pressure
and temperature. The values of Z were read direct-
ly from a large scale drawing of Fig.
Table 4 i s a tabulation of 0.2 $? Z d e a s a func-
tion of the pseudo-reduced pressure and tempera- Since the preparation of T a b l e s 4 and 5 , it h a s
ture. Table 4 was obtained by using the values been discovered that values of these functions at
of Z listed in Table 3 and performing the integra- pseudo-reduced pressures below 0.2 frequently
tion by use of an IBM machine (Type 602A Calcu- occur in gas-lift calculations. In order to meet
lating Punch). Fig. 28 shows the nature of the this requirement, Table 6 was constructed. Table 6
curves representing the data tabulated in Table 4. tabulates values of
9
J0m2 Zdq and JO.'L
P,
dq.
z
Table 5 i s a tabulation of values of o.2 fr -dc
If the lower limit of P, i s l e s s than 0.2 then:
9
a s a function of the pseudo-reduced pressure and
temperature. The table was prepared by direct
reading from a large-scale drawing of Fig. 29. and
Fig. 29 was prepared by graphically integrating,
with a planimeter, a large-scale drawing of a plot
?
Z / q vs. at a constant temperature.
q
1
P2
1. Discussion of T a b l e s
In order to determine the pseudo-reduced proper-
t i e s of a gas, the pseudo-critical temperature and S e e ref. 3 of paper.
 FRED H. POETTMANN AND PAUL G. CARPENTER

Table 3
Values of Z
Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-reduced Temperature, T-
Pressure,
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS

Table 3
Values of Z
Pseudo-
reduced Pse,udo-reduced Temperature,
Pressure, h *r
9 '1.60 2 .OO 2.20 2.40
0.20 0.984 0.993 0.995 0.998
0.25 0.980 0.992 0.995 0.998
0.30 0.976 0.990 0.994 0.997
0.35 0.972 0.989 0.994 0.997
0.40 0.968 0.987 0.992 0.996
0.45 0.964 0.985 0.991 0.995
0.50 0.960 0.983 0.990 0.994
0.55 0.956 0.982 0.989 0.994
0.60 0.952 0.981 0.988 0.993
0.65 0.949 0.980 0.987 0.993
0.70 0.945 0.978 0.986 0.992
0.75 0.942 0.977 0.985 0.992
0.80 0.938 0.975 0.984 0.991
0.85 0.935 0.974 0.983 0.991
0.90 0.931 0.972 0.983 0.990
0.95 0.927 0.971 0.982 0.990
1.OO 0.923 0.970 0.981 0.989
1.05 0.920 0.969 0.980 0.989
1.10 0.917 0.967 0.979 0.988
1.15 0.913 0.966 0.979 0.988
1.20 0.909 0.964 0.978 0.987
1.25 0.905 0.963 0.978 0.987
1.30 0.901 0.962 0.977 0.987
1.35 0.898 0.961 0.976 0.986
1.40 0.895 0.960 0.975 0.986
1.45 0.892 0.959 0.975 0.986
i 1.50
1.55
0.889
0.886
0.957
0.956
0.974
0.973
0.985
0.985
1.60 0.882 0.954 0.972 0.984
1.65 0.880 0.953 0.972 0.984
1.70 0.877 0.952 0.971 0.983
1.75 0.874 0.951 0.971 0.983
1.80 0.871 0.950 0.970 0.983
1.85 0.869 0.949 0.970 0.983
1.90 0.866 0.948 0.969 0.982
1.95 0.864 0.948 0.969 0.982
2 .OO 0.861 0.947 0.968 0.982
2.05 0.859 0.946 0.968 0.982
2.10 0.856 0.945 0.%7 0.981
2.15 0.854 0.945 0.967 0.981
2.20 0.851 0.944 0,966 0.981
2.25 0.850 0.943 0.966 0.981
2.30 0.848 0.942 0.965 0.980
2.35 0.846 0.942 0.965 0.980
2.40 0.843 0.941 0.964 0.980
2.45 0.842 0.941 0.964 0.980
2.50 0.840 0.941 0.963 0.980
2.55 0.839 0.941 0.963 0.980
2.60 0.837 0.940 0.963 0.980
2.65 0.835 0.940 0.963 0.980
2.70 0.833 0.939 0.962 0.980
2.75 0.832 0.939 0.962 0.980
2.80 0.830 0.938 0.962 0.980
2.85 0.829 0.938 0.962 0.980
2.90 0.828 0.938 0.962 0.980
 FRED H. POETTMANN AND PAUL G. CARPENTER

Table 3 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-reduced Temperature, Tr
Pressure,
9
2.95
3.00
3 .'05
3 .'1'0
3.15
3.20
3.25
3.30 *
3.35
3.40 .
3.45
3.50
3I.55
3.60
3.65
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS
-- -

Table 3 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced P s e u d o - r e d u c e d Temperature,
Tr
Pressure, A

9
 FRED H. POETTMANN AND PAUL G. CARPENTER

Pseudo-
Table 3 (Cont'd)
reduced Pseudo-reduced Temperature,
Pressure, A
1.20 1.25 1.30
0.760 0.769 0.777
0.764 0.773 0.781
0.769 0.778 0.785
0.774 0.782 0.789
0.779 0.787 0.794
0.784 0.792 0.798
0.790 0.797 0.803
0.795 0.801 0.807
0.800 0.805 0.812
0.805 0.809 0.816
0.810 0.814 0.820
0.815 0.818 0.824
0.820 0.823 0.829
0.825 0.828 0.833
0.830 0.833 0.838
0.835 0.837 0.842
0.840 0.842 0.847
0.845 0.846 0.851
0.851 0.851 0.855
0.856 0.856 0.859
0.861 0.861 0.863
0.866 0.865 0.867
0.872 0.870 0.872
0.877 0.875 0.877
0.881 0.881 0.881
0.885 0.885 0.885
0.890 0.890 0.890
0.895 0.894 0.894
0.900 0.899 0.899
0.905 0.903 0.903
0.910 0.908 0.907
0.915 0.912 0.910
0.920 0.917 0.914
0.924 0.921 0.918
0.929 0.926 0.923
0.934 0.930 0.927
0.939 0.935 0.932
0.944 0.939 0.936
0.949 0.944 0.941
0.954 0.949 0.945
0.959 0.954 0.950
0.963 0.958 0.954
0.968 0.962 0.959
0.973 0.966 0.963
0.978 0.970 0.968
0.983 0.974 0.972
0.988 0.979 0.977
0.993 0.983 0.982
0.998 0.987 0.987
1.002 0.991 0.991
1.007 0.996 0.996
1.012 1,000 1 .ooo
1.017 1.005 1 .004
1.021 1.010 1.008
1.026 1.015 1.012
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS

Pseudo- Table 3 (Cont'd)

reduced Pseudo-reduced Temperature, T~
Resswe, /2
9 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80
5.70 0.877 0.905 0.935 0.955 0.976 1.006 1.028 1.042 1.053
5.75 0.879 0.907 0.937 0.957 0.977 1.007 1.029 1.043 1.054
5.80 0.882 0.909 0.939 0.959 0.979 1.008 1.031 1.045 1.055
5.85 0.884 0.911 0.940 0.961 0.980 1.009 1.032 1.046 1.056
5.90 0.887 0.913 0.942 0.963 0.982 1.011 1.033 1.048 1.057
5.95 0.889 0.915 0.944 0.965 0.984 1.012 1.034 1.049 1.058
6.00 0.892 0.918 0.946 0.967 0.986 1.013 1.036 1.050 1.059
6.05 0.894 0.920 0.948 0.968 0.987 1.015 1.037 1.051 1.060
6.10 0.897 0.922 0.950 0.970 0.989 1.017 1.038 1.052 1.061
6.15 0.899 0.924 0.952 0.971 0.991 1.018 1.039 1.053 1.062
6.20 0.902 0.927 0.954 0.973 0.993 1.019 1.041 1.055 1.063
6.25 0.904 0.930 0.956 0.975 0.995 1.020 1.042 1.056 1.064
6.30 0.907 0.93 1 0.958 0.977 0.997 1.022 1.043 1.057 1.065
6.35 0.909 0.932 0.960 0.979 0.998 1.023 1.045 1.058 1.066
6.40 0.912 0.936 0.962 0.981 1 .OOO 1.025 1.047 1.059 1.067
6.45 0.915 0.938 0.%4 0.983 1.001 1.026 1.048 1.060 1.068
6.50 0.918 0.941 0.966 0.985 1.003 1.028 1.049 1.062 1.069
6.55 0.920 0.943 0.968 0.987 1.005 1.029 1.050 1.063 1.070
6.60 0.923 0.945 0.970 0.989 1.007 1.031 1.052 1.064 1.072
6.65 0.925 0.947 0.972 0.991 1.008 1.032 1.053 1.065 1.073
6.70 0.928 0.950 0.974 0.993 1.010 1.034 1.054 1.067 1.074
6.75 0.930 0.952 0.976 0.995 1.011 1.036 1.055 1.068 1.075
6.80 0.933 0.955 0.979 0.997 1.013 1.038 1.057 1.069 1.077
6.85 0.936 0.957 0.981 0.998 1.015 1.040 1.058 1.070 1.078
6.90 0.939 0.960 0.983 1.OOO 1.017 1.041 1.059 1.071 1.079
6.95 0.941 0.962 0.985 1.002 1.018 1.042 1.060 1.072 1.080
7 .OO 0.944 0.965 0.988 1.004 1.020 1.044 1.062 1.073 1.081
7.05 0.947 0.967 0.990 1.006 1.022 1.045 1.063 1.075 1.082
7.10 0.950 0.970 0.992 1.008 1.024 1.047 1.065 1.077 1.083
7.15 0.953 0.972 0.994 1.010 1.026 1.048 1.066 1.078 1.084
7.20 0.956 0.975 0.997 1.012 1.028 1.050 1.067 1.079 1.086
7.25 0.959 0.977 0.999 1.014 1.029 1.051 1.068 1.080 1.087
7.30 0.962 0.980 1.001 1.017 1.031 1.053 1.070 1.081 1.088
7.35 0.965 0.982 1.003 1.019 1.033 1.055 1.071 1.082 1.089
7.40 0.968 0.985 1.005 1.021 1.035 1.057 1.073 1.084 1.091
7.45 0.970 0.988 1.007 1.023 1.037 1.058 1.074 1.085 1.092
7.50 0.973 0.991 1.010 1.025 1.039 1.060 1.076 1.087 1.093
7.55 0.976 0.993 1.012 1.027 1.041 1.061 1.077 1.088 1.094
7.60 0.979 0.996 1.015 1.029 1.043 1.063 1.079 1.089 1.096
7.65 0.981 0.998' 1.017 1.031 1.045 1.065 1.080 1.090 1.097
7.70 0.984 1.001 1.019 1.033 1.047 1.067 1.082 1.092 1.098
7.75 0.987 1.003 1.021 1.035 1.049 1.068 1.083 1.093 1.099
7.80 0.990 1.006 1.024 1.038 1.051 1.070 1.084 1.095 1.100
7.85 0.993 1.009 1.026 1.040 1.053 1.071 1.085 1.096 1.101
7.90 0.997 1.012 1.029 1.042 1.055 1.073 1.087 1.098 1.103
7.95 0.999 1.015 1.03 1 1.044 1.057 1.075 1.088 1.099 1.104
8.00 1.001 1.018 1.033 1.047 1.059 1.078 1.090 1.100 1.106
8.05 1.OM 1.020 1.035 1.049 1.060 1.079 1.091 1.101 1.107
8.10 1.008 1.022 1.038 1.051 1.062 1.081 1.093 1.lo2 1.109
8.15 1.011 1.025 1.040 1.053 1.064 1.082 1.095 1.103 1.110
8.20 1.014 1.028 1.043 1.055 1.066 1.084 1.097 1 .lo5 1.111
8.25 1.017 1.030 1.045 1.057 1.068 1.086 1.098 1.106 1.112
8.30 1.021 1.033 1.048 1.060 1.070 1.088 1.100 1.lo8 1.113
8.35 1.024 1.036 1.050 1.062 1.072 ., 1.089 1.101 1.109 1.115
8.40 1.027 1.039 1.052 :1.064 1.074 1.091 1.102 1.111 1.117
 -Table 3 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced - Pseudoqed uced Te mperature, T
Pressure,
 MULTIPHASE now OF GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS

Table 3 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced P s e u d o - r e d u c e d Temperature,
Pressure.
 Table 3 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced P s e! u d o i e d uced T e m p e r a t u r e ,
Pressure, A =r
/ 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35
9
11.20 1.289 1.273 1.257 1.245
11.25 1.294 * 1.277 1.261 1.249
11.30 1.299 1.282 1.265 1.253
11.35 1.303 1.286 1.269 1.257
11.40 1.308 1.291 1.273 1.261
11.45 1.313 1.295 1.277 1.265
11.50 1.318 1.300 1.282 1.269
11.55 1.322 1.304 1.286 1.273
11.60 1.327 1.309 1.291 1.277
11.65 1.331 1.3 13 1.295 1.281
11.70 1.336 1.317 1.300 1.286
11.75 1.340 1.321 1.305 1.288
11.80 1.345 1.326 1.309 1.294
11.85 1.350 1.330 1.313 1.298
11.90 1.355 1.335 1.318 1.3 02
11.95 1.359 1.339 1.322 1.306
12.00 1.364 1.344 1.327 1.310
12.05 1.368 1.348 1.33 1 1.314
12.10 1.373 1.353 1.335 1.318
12.15 1.378 1.357 1.339 1.322
12.20 1.383 1.362 1.344 1.326
12.25 1.388 1.366 1.348 1.330
12.30 1.392 1.371 1.353 1.334
12.35 1.397 1.3 75 1.357 1.338
12.40 1.402 1.380 1.362 1.342
12.45 1.407 1.384 1.366 1.346
12.50 1.411 1.389 1.370 1.350
12.55 1.416 1.394 1.3 74 1.354
12.60 1.420 1.399 1.379 1.358
12.65 1.425 1.404 1.383 1.362
1.430 1.409 1.388 1.367
1.435 1.4 13 1.392 1.371
1.439 1.418 1.397 1.375
1.444 1.422 1.401 1.379
1.449 1.427 1.405 1.383
1.454 1.431 1.409 1.387
1.458 1.436 1.4 14 1.391
1.463 1.440 1.418 1.395
1.468 1.445 1.422 1.399
1.473 1.449 1.426 1.403
1.453 1.43 1 1.408
1.458 1.435 1.412
1.463 1.440 1.416
1.467 1.444 1.420
1.472 1.449 1.424
1.476 1.453 1.428
1.481 1.457 1.432
1.485 1.461 1.436
1.490 1.466 1.440
1.494 1.470 1.444
1.499 1.475 1.448
1.503 1.479 1.452
1.508 1.483 1.456
1.513 1.487 1.460
1.517 1.492 1.465
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS

Table 3 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-reduced Temperature, T-
Pressure,
9
11.20
11.25
11.30
11.35
11.40
11-45
11.50
11.55
11.60
11.65
11.70
11.75
11.80
11.85
11.90
11.95
12.00
12.05
12.10
12.15
12.20
12.25
12.30
12.35
12.40
12.45
12.50
12.55
1 2.60
12.65
12.70
12.75
12.80
12.85
12.90
12.95
13.00
13.05
13.10
13.15
13.20
13.25
13.30
13.35
13.40
13.45
13.50
13.55
13.60
13.65
13.70
13.75
13.80
13.85
13.90
 290 FRED H. POETTMANN AND PAUL G. CARPENTER

Table 3 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-reduced Temperature, <
Pressure,
9
13.95
14.00
14.05
14.10
14.15
14.20
14.25
14.30
14.35
14.40
14.45
14.50
14.55
14.60
14.65
14.70
14.75
14.80
14.85 -
14.90
14.95
15.00

Table 4

Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo+educed Temperature, Tr
Pressure,
9
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1 .oo
1.05
1.10
1.15
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 29 1

Table 3 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
Pseudo-reduced Temperature, T,
reduced
Pressure,
9
13.95
14.00
14.05
14.10
14.15
14.20
14.25
14.30
14.35
14.40
14.45
14.50
14.55
14.60
14.65
14.70
14.75
14.80
14.85
14.90
14.95
15.00

Table 4

Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-red uced Temperature, Tr
Pressure, A

9 /1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 ' 2.80 3 .00'
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.oo
1.05
1. l o
1.15
 F R E D H. POETTMANN AND P A U L G. C A R P E N T E R

Table 4 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-reduced Temperature,
Pressure,
9
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
1.70
1.75
1.80
1.85
1.90
1.95
2.00
2.05
2.10
8.15
2.20
2.25
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS

Table 4 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-reduced Temperature, T
Pressure, A r

Pr
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
1.70
1.75
1.80
1.85
1.90
1.95
2 .oo
2.05
2.10
2.15
 F R E D H. POETTMANN AND P A U L G. C A R P E N T E R

Table 4 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced rnperature
Pressure,
9
3.95
4.00
4.05
4.10
4.15
4.20
4.25
4.30
4.35
4.40
4.45
4.50
4.55
4.60
4.65
4.70
4.75
4.80
4.85
4.90
4.95
5 .OO
5.05
5.10
5.15
5.20
5.25
5.30
5.35
5.40
5.45
5.50
5.55
5.60
5.65
5.70
5.75
5.80
5.85
5.90
5.95
6.00
6.05
6.10
6.15
6.20
6.25
6.30
6.35
6.40
6.45
6.50
6.55
6.60
6.65
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS

Table 4 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-reduced Temperature, T
Pressure, A
9 /1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80
3.95 3.2710 3.3791 3.4650 3.4994 3.5737 3.6441 3.6951 3.7392 3.7777
4.00 3.3119 3.4219 3.5096 3.5452 3.6206 3.6924 3.7446 3.7896 3.8288
4.05 3.3528 3.4647 3.5542 3.5911 3.6676 3.7408 3.7941 3.8399 3.8800
4.10 3.3938 3.5075 3.5988 3.6370 3.7145 3.7893 3.8437 3.8904 3.9312
4.15 3.4348 3.5504 3.6435 3.6829 3.7615 3.8377 3.8933 3.9408 3.9824
4.20 3.4759 3.5933 3.6882 3.7288 3.8086 3.8863 3.9430 3.9914 4.0337
4.25 3.5170 3.6362 3.7330 3.7747 3.8556 3.9348 3.9927 4.0419 4.0850
4.30 3.5582 3.6792 3.7778 3.8207 3.9027 3.9835 4.0425 4.0926 4.1363
4.35 3.5995 3.7223 3.8227 3.8667 3.9498 4.0321 4.0923 4.1432 4.1877
4.40 3.6407 3.7653 3.8676 3.9128 3.9969 4.0808 4.1422 4.1939 4.2391
4.45 3.6820 3.8084 3.9125 3.9589 4.0441 4.1295 4.1921 4.2446 4.2905
4.50 3.7234 3.8516 3.9575 4.0050 4.0912 4.1783 4.2421 4.2954 4.3420
4.55 3.7649 3.8948 4.0025 4.0512 4.13850 4.2272 4.2921 4.3462 4.3935
4.60 3.8064 3.9381 4.0476 4.0974 4.1857 4.2760 4.3422 4.3971 4.4451
4.65 3.8480 3.9815 4.0927 4.1437 4.2331 4.3250 4.3923 4.4480 4.4967
4.70 3.8897 4.0249 4.1379 4.1900 4.2804 4.3740 4.4425 4.4990 4.5484
4.75 3.9315 4.0684 4.1831 4.2364 4.3279 4.4230 4.4927 4.5500 4 . 6 0 0 1
4.80 3.9734 4.1119 4.2284 4.2828 4.3753 4.4722 4.5430 4.6011 4.6519
4.85 4.0153 4.1556 4.2738 4.3293 4.4229 4.5213 4.5934 4.6522 _ 4.7037
4.90 4.0574 4.1993 4.3192 4.3759 4.4704 4.5706 4.6438 4.7034 4.7556
4.95 4.0995 4.2431 4.3647 4.4225 4.5181 4.6198 4.6943 4.7546 4.8075
5.00 4.1418 4.2870 4.4103 4.4692 4.5657 4.6692 4.7448 4.8059 4.8594
5.05 4.1841 4.3309 4.4560 4.5159 4.6135 4.7186 4.7954 4.8573 4.9114
5.10 4.2266 4.3750 4.5017 4.5627 4.6613 4.7681 4.8460 4.9087 4.9634
5.15 4.2691 4.4191 4.5475 4.6096 4.7091 4.8176 4.8967 4.9602 5,0155
5.20 4.3117 4.4634 4.5934 4.6565 4.7571 4.8672 4.9475 5.0117 5.0676
5.25 4.3544 4.5077 4.6394 4.7035 4.8051 4.9168 4.9983 5.0633 5.1198
5.30 4.3972 4.5521 4.6854 4.7506 4.8532 4.9665 5.0492 5.1149 5.1720
5.35 4.4402 4.5966 4.7315 4.7978 4.9014 5.0163 5.1001 5.1666 5.2243
5.40 4.4832 4.6512 4.7777 4.8451 4.9496 5.0661 5.1511 5.2183 5.2766
5.45 4.5264 4.6859 4.8240 4.8924 4.9980 5.1161 5.2022 5.2701 5.3290
5.50 4.5697 4.7307 4.8704 4.9398 5.0464 5.1660 5.2533 5.3219 5.3814
5.55 4.6132 4.7756 4.9168 4.9873 5.0948 5.2161 5.3045 5.3739 5.4339
5.60 4.6567 4.8206 4.9633 5.0348 5.1434 5.2662 5.3557 5.4258 5.4864
5.65 4.7004 4.8656 5.0099 5.0824 5.1920 5.3163 5.4070 5.4779 5.5390
5.70 4.7441 4.9108 5.0566 5.1301 5.2408 5.3666 5.4584 5.5299 5.5916
5.75 4.7880 4.9561 5.1034 5.1779 5.2896 5.4169 5.5098 5.5821 5.6443
5.80 4.8321 5.0015 5.1503 5.2258 5.3385 5.4673 5.5613 5.6343 5.6970
5.85 4.8762 5.0470 5.1973 , 5.2738 5.3875 5.5177 5.6129 5.6865 5.7498
5.90 4.9205 5.0926 5.2443 5.3219 5.4365 5.5682 5.6645 5.7389 5.8026
5.95 4.9649 5.1383 5.2915 5.3701 5.4857 5.6188 5.7162 5.7913 5.8555
6.00 5.0094 5.1841 5.3387 5.4184 5.5349 5.6694 5.7680 5.8438 5.9084
6.05 5.0541 5.2301 5.3861 5.4668 5.5843 5.7201 5.8198 5.8963 5.9614
6.10 5.0988 5.2761 5.4335 5.5153 5.6337 5.7709 5.8717 5.9489 6.0144
6.15 5.1437 5.3223 5.4811 5.5638 5.6832 5.8218 5.9236 6.0015 6.0675
6.20 5.1888 5.3686 5.5287 5.6124 5.7328 5.8727 5.9756 6.0542 6.1206
6.25 5.2339 5.4150 5.5765 5.6611 5.7825 5.9237 6.0277 6.1070 6.1738
6.30 5.2792 5.4615 5.6243 5.7099 5.8323 5.9747 6.0798 6.1598 6.2270
6.35 5.3246 5.5081 5.6723 5.7588 5.8821 6.0259 6.1320 6.2127 6.2803
6.40 5.3701 5.5548 5.7203 5.8078 5.9321 6.0771 6.1843 6.2656 6.3336
6.45 5.4158 5.6016 5.7685 5.8569 5.9821 6.1283 6.2367 6.3186 6.3870
6.50 5.4616 5.6586 5.8167 5.9061 6.0322 6.1797 6.2891 6.3716 6.4404
6.55 5.5076 5.6957 5.8651 5.9554 6.0824 6.2311 6.3416 6.4258 6.4939
6.60 5.5536 5.7429 5.9135 6.0048 6.1327 6.2826 6.3941 6.4779 6.5475
6.65 5.5998 5.7902 5.9621 6.0543 6.1831 6.3342 6.4467 6.5312 6.6011
 F R E D H. POETTMANN AND P A U L G. CARPENTER

Pseudo-
reduced
Pressure,
9
6.70
1.20
4.4212
-
Table 4 (Cont'd)
P s e u dlo-reduced Te

1.25
4.6203
6.75 4.4644 4.6635
6.80 4.5078 4.7069
6.85' 4.55 16 4.7505
6.90 4.5955 4.7944
6.95 4.6397 4.8385
7.00 4.6840 4.8829
7.05 4.7287 4.9275
7.10 4.7735 4.9723
7.15 4.8187 5.0174
4.8640 5.0627
4.9097 5.1082
4.9555 5.1539
5.0016 * 5.1998
5.0480 5.2460
5.0945 5.2924
5.14 14 5.3390
5.1884 5.3859
5.2358 5.4330
5.2833 5.4 803
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS

Table 4 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-red uced Temperature, T
Presswe,
9
6.70
6.75
6.80
6.85
6.90
6.95
7.00
7.05
7.10
7.15
7.20
7.25
7.30
7.35
7.40
7.45
7.50
7.55
7.60
7.65
7.70
7.75
7.80
7.85
7.90
7.95
8.00
8.05
8.10
8.15
8.20
8.25
8.30
8.35
8.40
8.45
8.50
8.55
8.60
8.65
8.70
8.75
8.80
8.85
8.90
8.95
9.00
9.05
9.10
9.15
9.20
9.25
9.30
9.35
9.40
 F R E D H. POETTMANN AND P A U L G. C A R P E N T E R

Pseudo-
reduced
Pressure,
Pr
9.45
9.50
/l.05
6.4870
6.5458
-
Table 4 (Cont'd)
P s e u d o- r e d u c e d T e m p e r a t u r e ,

1.25
7.3338
7.3896
1.30
7.4918
7.5472
9.55 6.6048 7.4456 7.6027
9.60 6.6640 7.5018 7.6585
9.65 6.7236 7.5583 7.7145
9.70 6.7835 7.6150 7.7707
9.75 6.8436 7.6720 7.8272
9.80 6.9040 7.7292 7.8838
9.85 6.9646 7.7866 7.9407
9.90 7.0255 7.8442 7.9977
9.95 7.0867 7.9020 8.0550
10.00 7.1481 7.9601 8.1124
10.05 7.2098 8.0184 8.1701
10.10 7.2717 8.0769 8.2280
10.15 7.3339 8.1357 8.2861
10.20 7.3 964 8.1946 8.3445
10.25 7.4591 8.2538 8.4030
10.30 7.5221 8.3132 8.4619
10.35 7.5854 8.3728 8.5209
10.40 7.6490 8.4326 8.5802
10.45 7.7128 8.4926 8.6397
10.50 7.7769 8.5529 8.6994
10.55 7.8413 8.6134 8.7593
10.60 7.9059 8.6741 8.8194
10.65 7.9708 8.7351 8.8797
10.70 8:0360 8.7963 8.9402
10.75 8.1015 8.8577 9.0010
10.80 8.1673 8.9194 9.0619
10.85 8.2333 8.9813 9.1231
10.90' 8.2996 9.0434 9.1845
10.95 8.3662 9.1057 9.2462
11.OO 8.4330 9.1683 9.3080
11.05 8.5001 9.231 1 9.3701
11.10 8.5674 9.2941 9.4325
11.15 8.6350 9.3574 9.4950
11.20 8.7029 9.4209 9.5578
11.25 8.7710 9.4847 9.6207
11.30 . 8.8394 9.5487 9.6839
11.35 . 8.9080 9.6129 9.7472
11.40 8.9769 9.6773 9.8108
11.45 9.0461 9.7419 9.8745
11.50 , 9.1155 9.8068 9.9385
11.55 - 9.1852 9.8719 10.0027
11.60 . 9.2552 9.9372 10.0671
11.65 . 9.3254 10.0028 102318
11.70' 9.3959 10.0685 10.1966
11.75 ' 9.4666
11.80 9.5376
11i85 9.6089
11.90 . 9.6804
11.95 9.7522
12.00 9.8242
12.05 9.8965
12.10 9.9691
12.15 10.0419
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTIC AL FLOW STRINGS 299

Table 4 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo
Pressure
S
9.45
9.50
9.55
9.60
9.65
9.70
9.75
9.80
9.85
9.90
9.95
10.00
10.05
10.10
10.15
10.20
10.25
10.30
10.35
10.40
10.45
10.50
10.55
10.60
10.65
10.70
10.75
10.80
10.85
10.90
10.95
11.00
11.05
11.10
11.15
11.20
11.25
11.30
11.35
11.40
11.45
11.50
11.55
11.60
11.65
11.70
11.75
11.80
11.85
11.90
11.95
12.00
12.05
12.10
12.15
 F R E D H. I'OETTMANN AND P A U L G. C A R P E N T E R

Table 4 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
Pseudo-reduced Temperature, Tr
reduced
Pressure,
4
12.20
12.25
12.30
12.35
12.40
12.45
12.50
12.55
12.60
12.65
12.70
12.75
12.80
12.85
12.90
12.95
13.00
13.05
13.10
13.15
13.20
13.25
13.30
13.35
13.40
13.45
13.50
13.55
13.60
13.65
13.70
13.75
13.80
13.85
13.90
13.95
14.00
14.05
14.10
14.15
14.20
14.25
11.30
14.35
14.40
14.45
14.50
14.55
14.60
14.65
14.70
14.75
14.80
14.85
14.90
14.95
15.00
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS

Table 4 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
P s e udo-reduced Temperature
reduced
Pressure, /
9 1.60

12.20 11.6772
12.25 11.7412
12.30 11.8055
12.35 11.8699
12.40 11.9345
12.45 11.9992
12.50 12.0641
12.55 - 12.1292
12.60 12.1944
12.65 12.2599
12.70 12.3255
12.75 12.3912
 FRED H. POETTMANN AND PAUL G. CARPENTER

PSEUDO REDUCED PRESSURE

0 I 2 3 4 5

Fig. 27 - Values of Compressibility Factor Z (See Table 3)

MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 303
- 304 FRED H. POETTMANN AND PAUL G. CARPENTER

Table 5

Values of J Pr z
- dPr
o.a q
Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-red uced T e m p e r a t u r e , Tr
Pressure,
9 '
1.05 1.20 1.25
A
1.30 1.35
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 305

Table 5

Pseudo-
reduced P s e u d o - r e d u c e d T e m p e r a t u r e , T-
Pressure,
7 f1.60

0.2 0
0.3 0.350
0.4 0.636
0.5 0.860
0.6 1.049
0.7 1.210
0.8 1.347
0.9 1.462
1.0 1.568
1.1 1.653
1.2 1.737
1.3 1.810
1.4 1.882
1.5 1.938
1.6 1.993
1.7 2.043
1.8 2.093
1.9 2.136
2.0 2.178
2.1 2.2 15
2.2 2.252
2.3 2.288
2.4 2.325
2.5 2.362
2.6 2.3 92
2.7 2.423
2.8 2.453
2.9 2.484
3 .O 2.514
3.1 2.540
3.2 2.565
3.3 2.591
3.4 2.616
3.5 2.642
3.6 2.664
3.7 2.686
3.8 2.708
3.9 2.730
4.0 2.752
4.1 2.771
4.2 2.789
4.3 2.808
4.4 2.826
4.5 2.845
4.6 8.863
4.7 2.881
4.8 2.899
4.9 2.917
5.0 2.935
 F R E D H. POETTMANN AND P A U L G. CARPENTER

Table 5 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-reduced Temperature, T
Pressure, A

S / 1.05
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS

Table 5 (Cont'd)
Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-reduced T e m p e r a t u r e ,
'r
Pressure A
1.90 2.00 2.20 2.40
'r
 FRED H. POETTMANN*AND PAUL G. CARPENTER

Table 5 (Cont'd)

Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-reduced Temperature, Tr
Pressure,
9 1.05
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 309

Table 5 (Cont'd)

Pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-reduced Temperature, Tr
Pressure,
9
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
11.0
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8
11.9
12.0
 Table 6

pseudo-
reduced Pseudo-reduced Pressure, P- Pseudo-reduced Pressure, P
Temperature,
Tr
/ 0.2 / 0.2 0.15
A
0.10 0.05 '
0.0 0.275 0.666 1.333
0.0 0.276 0.670 1.338
0.0 0.277 0.674 1.342
0.0 0.278 0.677 1.346
0.0 0.279 0.679 1.349
0.0 0.280 0.681 1.352
0.0 0.280 0.683 1.355
0.0 0.281 0.685 1.358
0.0 0.282 0.687 1.360
0.0 0.283 0.688 1.361
0.0 0.284 0.690 1.365
0.0 0.285 0.691 1.367
0.0 0.285 0.692 1.368
0.0 0.286 0.693 1.370
0.0 0.286 0.693 1.371
0.0 0.286 0.693 1.372
0.0 0.286 0.693 1.373
0.0 0.286 0.693 1.373
0.0 0.286 0.693 1.373
0.0 0.286 0.693 1.373
MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 3 11

Fig. 29-Variation of fPr dP, w i t h Pr

0.2' pr
3 12 F R E D H. POETTMANN AND P A U L G. C A R P E N T E R

GAS GRAVITY (AIR- I )

Fig. 30-Pseudo-critical Properties of Condensate Well Fluids and Miscellaneous Natural Gases
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 313

DISCUSSION 1 pvd, i. e., d e n s i t y times velocity times diameter.

T h e i r Fig. 4 corresponds t o t h e well-known Stanton
Arthur Lubinski (Stanolind Oil and G a s Co.,
diagram for the single-phase flow.
Tulsa)(written): E n g i n e e r s c a l c u l a t e with high ac-
From a theoretical standpoint, Fig. 4 might be
curacy the p r e s s u r e drop in t h o u s a n d s of miles of
criticized a s a plot of an e x p r e s s i o n which h a s a ,
a pipe line, but are unable to c a l c u l a t e exactly t h e
dimension. T h e s c h o o l of thought of c l a s s i c a l
pressure gradient in a few thousand feet of a well.
hydraulics w a s t o apply t h e dimensional a n a l y s i s
T h i s i s b e c a u s e of t h e f a c t t h a t in a well there a r e
t o all problems involving irreversibilities. T h u s ,
generally two or even three flowing p h a s e s i n s t e a d
the a b s c i s s a of the Stanton diagram-is not the pro-
of one p h a s e a s in the pipe line, viz., g a s , oil, and
duct pvd, but the ratio of t h i s product over the vis-
water.
c o s i t y p. T h i s ratio i s the Reynolds' number, which
In a single-phase flow, t h e head l o s s i s express-
i s dimensconless. T h e s l o p e of t h e Stanton diagram
e d a s a fraction, f, of t h e velocity head.* f d e p e n d s
curve i s small for turbulent flow and, consequently,
only upon the Reynolds' number, which i s a simple
t h e influence of v i s c o s i t y on t h e drop of pressure
function of density, velocity, and v i s c o s i t y of t h e
i s small. In the first approximation, the drop of
fluid and of the pipe diameter.
pressure i s proportional t o t h e fourth root of vis-
In all p a s t attempts a t calculating multiphase
cosity. T h u s , a 24 = 16 times greater v i s c o s i t y only
flow problems, s e p a r a t e e q u a t i o n s were used for
doubles the drop of pressure. T h e n it i s s e e n t h a t
e a c h phase. By s u c h means, the, flow may be s u c -
although t h e influence of v i s c o s i t y i s small, i t i s
c e s s f u l l y c a l c u l a t e d when t h e v e l o c i t i e s are high
incorrect to s a y , a s the authors s t a t e , that in high-
or when gas-oil r a t i o s a r e small. In t h e s e c a s e s ,
ly turbulent flow t h e influence of v i s c o s i t y i s nil.
t h e flow may be considered a s a s u c c e s s i o n of
It i s our belief that t h e s c a t t e r of experimental
s l u g s of liquid and s l u g s of g a s , b e c a u s e the effect
r e s u l t s of F i g . 4 i s t h e r e s u l t not only of the diffi-
of slippage i s negligible. Qn t h e other hand, for
culty of s e c u r i n g good data, but a l s o of omitting
low v e l o c i t i e s and a l s o for high gas-oil ratios, t h e
t h e viscosity. T h e product pvd should b e divided,
effect of slippage becomes very important, which
not by the v i s c o s i t y of liquid or g a s but by.some
complicates the formulation of the problem by the
function of many variables, the function having t h e
n e c e s s i t y of considering the energy l o s s e s c a u s e d
dimension of v i s c o s i t y , i. e., measured in u n i t s of
by f o r c e s between t h e p h a s e s . In s p i t e of many
viscosity. T h e s e v a r i a b l e s would probably be a s
attempts to calculate t h e solution, no s u c c e s s f u l
follows: v i s c o s i t i e s of a l l or some p h a s e s , their
r e s u l t s had been reached.
volumetric proportion, p e r h a p s surface. tensions,
T h u s , t h e situation seemed quite h o p e l e s s , and
and others. Versluys showed that a disc.ontinuous
the authors of t h i s paper should b e commended for
behavior of a heading well may be due t o the f a c t
having departed from a beaten and u s e l e s s path and
t h a t a t some depth the foam breaks into mist and
having adopted an altogether new approach to the
that in t h i s region neither foam nor mist condition
subject. I n s t e a d of applying known fornlulae t o e a c h
i s stable. According to t h e s u b j e c t paper, head
p h a s e , they apply t o the multiphase flow the s a m e
l o s s e s would be e q u a l in two flows on condition
line of fundamental thought a s w a s applied to
that, in both, v e l o c i t i e s a n d the products pvd a r e
~in~le-~hase in the c l a s s i c a l hydraulics
t h e same. Actually, the l o s s e s would not be the .
of Darcy, Fanning, Stanton, and others.
same if the two flows correspond to foam and mist
\\'hen in a single-phase flow we refer to the l o s s
condition, respectively.
of head, we d o not mean only the l o s s c a u s e d by
It might , p e r h a p s be p o s s i b l e to consider t h e
friction a g a i n s t the wall of t h e pipe, but a l s o t o a l l
v i s c o s i t y in a two-phase flow a s t h e v i s c o s i t y of an
t h e l o s s e s caused by friction between molecules
enlulsion. In the c a s e of foam, t h e liquid i s the
s u b j e c t e d to highly complicated turbulent motion.
continuous p h a s e and the g a s i s t h e d i s p e r s e d
T h i s l o s s of head corresponds t o an irreversible
phase. Conversely, in t h e c a s e of mist, the g a s i s
l o s s of energy. Poettmann and Carpenter include
t h e continuous phase and .the liquid i s the dis-
in t h i s irreversible l o s s a l s o t h e l o s s of energy
persed phase. T h e r e are theoretical fornlulae giving
resulting from slippage, that i s to s a y , t o the rela-
the v i s c o s i t i e s of emulsions, viz., E i n s t e i n ' s form-
tive fall of liquid with r e s p e c t t o t h e g a s . From
u l a and Hatschek's forn~ula.' Some d a t e concerning
now on, they treat t h e multiphase problem a s a
t h e v i s c o s i t y of crude-water emulsions have a l s o
s i n g l e - ~ h a s e one. From a multitude of field data,
been published.2
they found that the fraction f of velocity head l o s t
by a l l irreversibilities i s a function of the product I Hatschek, Ernll: The Vcscoscty of Lcguids, G . B e l l and Sons,
Ltd., London, 1928.
* More exactly, the v e l o c ~ t yhead should be understood here
Monson, L. T . : V ~ s c o s l t yof Petroleum Ernuls~ons,Industrcal
,as the product of v e l o c ~ t yhead b y the plpe length over the
plpe d~ameter. and Engrneercng Chemcstry, 30, 1287 (1938).
 T o sum up, it i s suggested that this research be
continued, with special considerations for dimen-
sional analysis.
For the sake of simplicity, the authors consider
the factor f a s a constant throughout the flow.
Actually, f i s a variable. It seems, however, that
f varies little and that the treatment used in the
paper i s sufficient for all practical purposes. It
would be desirable to calculate some extreme
c a s e s with f both variable and constant and to
check the validity of the simplifying assumption.
The authors assume that the increase of the
velocity head i s negligible, and such a.simplifying
assumption i s certainly well founded in niost cases.
In some c a s e s , however, the velocity may a t the
surface reach a quite appreciable value; and the
velocity head may beconie not a t all negligible.
Consider, for instance, the following case:
1)epth.............................................
5,700 ft
Liquid production
(94 percent water) ...............
1,000 bbl per day
Gas-oil ratio .........................
500 cu ft per bbl
Tubing ....................................... .....
; 2 '4 in.
Separator pressure ..............................
6 0 psig
In such a flow, a velocity of 60 ft per s e c would
be reached a t the surface; and, in the upper portion
of the flow, the drop of pressure per foot due to
velocity head would be more than 1 0 percent of the
total drop of pressure per foot. T h i s fact provides
perhaps an additional explanation of the behavior,
called abnormal by the authors, which occurs near
the surface for high gas-oil ratio systems.
We wish to ask the authors whether the lengthy
tables giving the values of two integrals needed
for calculations of Vm could not be given in a short-
e r graphical form. I s there any need to have these
integrals computed with s o niany decimals a s given
in 'the tables?
The paper i s certainly useful for solving niany
field problems. Expected improvements of the meth-
od will undoubtedly increase i t s accuracy still more
and, hence, i t s applicability. J. Zaba (Stanolind
Oil and Gas Company, Tulsa) contemplates i t s
application to the following problems:
1. Flowing wells: Assuming that the future res-
ervoir behavior i s given by reservoir engineers,
calculate the flowing life of the well. At present,
either the money i s often invested too early in
pumping or lifting equipment, or the well i s not
producing while this equipment i s not in place.
2. Flowing wells: May the flowing life of a well
be prolonged, and by how much, by changing the
rate of flow or the tubing s i z e ?
3. Continuously. gas-lifted wells: Design of the
most economical g a s l i f t system. Two separate-
c a s e s must be considered, viz.:
a. T h e g a s i s available under high pressure
and i t s price given per thousand cubic feet.
b. The g a s i s compressed and recycled.
Determine the tubing size, g a s pressure and volume,
injection depth, and separator pressure correspond-
ing to the most econoniical condition. The authors
showed that the expected improvement of efficiency
may be appreciable.
It should also be realized that only a very small
percentage of all the wells being gas lifted in the
United States are being operated on continuous
flow. Consequently, the logical continuation of this
research should be i t s extension to intermittent
lift problems.
hlessrs. Poettniann and Carpenter (written): We
appreciate very much Mr. Lubinslii's comnients
regarding our paper.
If the assumption, in the c a s e of multiphase
vertical flow in long flow strings, such a s oil wells,
that the flow i s in a high degree of turbulence holds
in the majority of c a s e s , then the flow should be
independent of viscosity effects. If the flow i s not
in a high degree of turbulence, then the viscosity
of the flowing fluids must be considered, the degree
in which the viscosity influences the flow character-
i s t i c s depending on the degree of turbulence. There
i s some good evidence for supporting the validity
of this assumption. I. Previous studies (references
8 and 9 of the paper) gave evidence that for highly
turbulent multiphase vertical flow, the flow was in-
dependent of viscosity effects. 2. In the c a s e of
single-phase homogeneous flow in a high degree of
turbulence, the flow i s independent of viscosity
effects. Moody1 introduced into the "Stanton dia-
gram", a s referred to by Mr. Lubinslii, the addition-
al variable of relative roughness JD, where 6 i s
the average pit depth and D i s the diameter of the
tubing, a dimensionless ratio. Moody's plot i s
shown on Fig. la. T o the right of the dotted line
shown on the plot, in the conipletely turbulent reg-
ion, f becomes constant for a given c / D . A plot of
f vs. JD in this region i s shown on Fig. 2a. Thus,
for complete turbulence in single-phase homogen-
eous flow, f becomes a function of JD only and i s
independent of the physical properties of the flow-
ing fluid. By analogy, we hope that this i s a l s o the
c a s e for complete turbulence in-multiphase flow.
Mr. Lubinski suggests that research be continued
along the lines of attempting to find the proper
dimensionless number by which to correlate the f
factor. We heartily concur in t h i s suggestion. How-
ever, for the reasons stated previously and for the
condition in which the flow i s in a high degree of
' Moody, L. F T r a n s . Am. Society hfech. Engrs., 66, 671
(1944).
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, OIL, AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS 3 15

Fig. l a - Friction Factor as a Function of Reynolds' Number with Relative Roughness as a Parameter

Fig. 2 a - F r i c t i o n Factor as a Function of Relative Roughness for Conditions of Complete Turbulence

3 16 FRED H. POETTMANN AND PAUL G. CARPENTER
turbulence, we hope that f will prove t o be some
function of a d i m e n s i o n l e s s number, which number
will be independent of t h e v i s c o s i t y of the flowing
fluid, j u s t a s f for single-phase flow becomes a
function of JD only (Fig. 2a). T h i s d i m e n s i o n l e s s
number will probably involve the volumes of the
flowing fluids, their s u r f a c e a r e a s exposed to one
another, their relative velocities, the roughness of
t h e pipe, and other factors.
We agree with hlr. L u b i n s k i that in t h e c a s e of
high gas-oil ratio s y s t e m s and low tubing p r e s s u r e s ,
the kinetic energy could be appreciable andneglect-
ing it in t h e derivation probably a c c o u n t s for some
of the abnormal c a l c u l a t e d r e s u l t s under t h o s e flow
conditions as well as d o t h e other explanations.
We are not aware of the f a c t t h a t the g r e a t e s t
number of gas-lift w e l l s in t h e United S t a t e s a r e on
intermittent flow. In our own experience, we have
very few w e l l s on intermittent flow; most of our gas-
lift w e l l s are being operated continuously.
Alton B. Cook (U. S. Bureau of Mines, Bartles-
ville, Okla.)(written): T h e authors are to be com-
plimented on preparing a good paper. T h e industry
h a s been in need of reliable methods of calculat-
ing: I, flow efficiency.and horsepower requirements
in gas-lift w e l l s ; 2, optimum tubing s i z e ; and 3,
p r e s s u r e g a d i e n t s in flowing wells. T h e authors
p r e s e n t simplified methods for fulfilling t h e s e n e e d s
which are based on p r e c i s e well-test data.
A u s e for t h i s paper, not pointed o u t by t h e au-
thors, would be that of calculating t h e flowing life
of oil wells. F a i r l y a c c u r a t e predictions of future
productivity indices, production gas-oil ratios, and
reservoir p r e s s u r e s c a n now be made; and t h i s
knowledge, p l u s t h a t obtained by calculating pres-
s u r e gradients by m e a n s of the method p r e s e n t e d in
t h i s paper, should permit reliable prediction of t h e
time when artificial lifting will be needed to s u s -
t a i n flow from wells.
T h e probable accuracy of c a l c u l a t i o n s of pres-
s u r e g a d i e n t s in flowing oil w e l l s may not be a s
favorable as i s indicated b y t h e 4 9 a p p l i c a t i o n s
shown in t h e authors' T a b l e 1, in which t h e average
error w a s 8.3 percent. T w e n t y of t h e s e comparisons
were made by u s i n g well-lest d a t a obtained by t h e
Bureau of Mines. T h e s e well t e s t s were made in
conjunction with reservoir-oil s t u d i e s , of fields in
which s u b s u r f a c e oil s a m p l e s w e r e ' obtained and
analyzed. All of t h e Bureau of Mines d a t a in T a b l e
1 were from w e l l s that produce no water and were
b e l i e v e d t o h a v e clean tubing. Also, flash g a s -
liberation d a t a on the reservoir oils, simulating
~ r o d u c i n gconditions, were available. One should
n o t e x p e c t , normally, t o find well conditions and
d a t a s o well s u i t e d t o making c a l c u l a t i o n s on pres-
s u r e gradients of flowing wells.
T h e Bureau of Mines made a large number of
p r e c i s e well t e s t s in reef fields in Scurry County,
T e x a s , during 1951. T h e w e l l s t e s t e d averaged
a b o u t 6,800 ft in depth. Example c a l c u l a t i o n s were
made u s i n g t h e Scurry County d a t a t o a s c e r t a i n
errors in calculated flowing bottom-hole p r e s s u r e s
t h a t would r e s u l t from maximum abnormal f a c t o r s
or conditions, s u c h a s extreme variations in sep-
arator p r e s s u r e s and 'temperatures and the accumu-
lation of paraffin and water in t h e tubing. Separator
p r e s s u r e and temperature affected materially t h e
amount and composition of t h e produced gas. T h e
c a l c u l a t e d v a l u e of flowing bottom-hole p r e s s u r e
could vary a s much a s 1 5 0 p s i , depending upon
how t h e gas-oil r a t i o w a s obtained for t h e calcula-
tions. P o s s i b l e variation in specific g r a v i t i e s of
t h e s e p a r a t o r g a s a l o n e could introduce c h a n g e s of
a s much a s 65 p s i in t h e c a l c u l a t e d bottom-hole
p r e s s u r e s . Reduction of the i n s i d e diameter of 2 % -
in. tubing by '4 in. of paraffin on t h e w a l l s could
change t h e calculated bottom-hole p r e s s u r e approxi-
mately 3 0 0 psi.
T h e velocity of fluid flow in t h e tubing and n e a r
t h e bottom of oil w e l l s may b e very low. T h e veloc-
i t y often i s l e s s than a foot per s e c o n d a t normal
production rates. T h i s low v e l o c i t y is not suffic-
ient to eliminate a c c u n ~ u l a t i o nof water in t h e tub-
ing. F o r example, one well in Scurry County w a s
t e s t e d t h a t produced only a t r a c e of water. T h e
static-pressure .gradient for t h i s w e l l showed the
.tubing t o contain 900 ft of water and t h e measured
flowing bottom-hole p r e s s u r e w a s 1 5 0 p s i $eater
than that calculated by u s i n g t h e method presented
by Poettmann and Carpenter.
T h e authors have performed a r e a l s e r v i c e in
'presenting methods of s o l v i n g s o m e of our major
flow problems. T h e value of their methods, however,
might b e increased s u b s t a n t i a l l y by t h e addition of
more well-test data, e s p e c i a l l y on flowing w e l l s
producing only a s m a l l amount of water. IMany w e l l s
a r e p u t on artificial lift even though t h e a v a i l a b l e
energy of the fluid entering t h e well bore i s more
than sufficient to lift the fluid t o t h e surface. T h e s e
w e l l s s t o p flowing, for one r e a s o n , b e c a u s e t h e
tubing becomes loaded with water. F i n d i n g s from
additional flow s t u d i e s b a s e d on well-test d a t a
might bring forth c h a n g e s in equipment or produc-
tion p r a c t i c e s t h a t would prolong t h e flowing life of
s o m e wells.
Messrs. Poettmann and C a r p e n t e r (written): We
a g r e e with the general theme of Mr. Cook's dis-
c u s s i o n , viz., that no calculation i s a n y more ac-
c u r a t e than t h e d a t a used in making t h e calculation.
T h e correlation i s based on t h e condition that t h e
fluid is flowing through a c l e a n uniform flow s t r i n g
with n o discontinuities. T h e p r e s e n c e of paraffin
 MULTIPHASE FLOW O F GAS, O I L , AND WATER THROUGH VERTICAL FLOW STRINGS
in the tubing, a water l e g in the bottom of the well,
and other f a c t o r s will bring about a difference in
t h e bottom-hole p r e s s u r e s from t h o s e calculated on
t h e b a s i s of a clean uniform flow string. T h e corre-
lation should not b e u s e d for calculating p r e s s u r e s
when the above conditions are known to exist. In
attempting to establish the accuracy of a comela-
tion, only data which m e known t o meet the con-
ditions on which t h e correlation i s derived should
be used. F o r d a t a taken under controlled condi-
317
tions, the standard deviation, a, should be better
than the overall 8.3 percent a s reported in the
~h~ deviation for the B~~~~~ of
Mines d a t a w a s only 5.3 percent. We have recently
made a large number of additional measurements,
under controlled conditions. From r e s u l t s s o far
calculated, i t appears that t h e standard deviation
of t h i s d a t a will b e considerably better than the
overall 8.3 percent reported in t h e paper.