TCC Fran vSENT

UNIVERSIDADE DO ESTADO DE SANTA CATARINA – UDESC
CENTRO DE EDUCAÇÃO SUPERIOR DA FOZ DO ITAJAÍ – CESFI

CURSO DE ENGENHARIA DE PETRÓLEO
TRABALHO DE CONCLUSÃO DE CURSO
DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPUTATIONAL TOOL TO ANALYZE MULTIPHASE

NON-ISOTHERMAL FLOW
FRANCIANI GOEDERT
BALNEÁRIO CAMBORIÚ, 2022

FRANCIANI GOEDERT

NON-ISOTHERMAL FLOW
Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (TCC) desenvolvido no

ThermoPhase – Fluid and Complex Systems Research Group e
apresentado ao Curso de Bacharelado em Engenharia de
Petróleo, da Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, como
requisito parcial para a obtenção do título de Bacharel em
Engenharia de Petróleo.
Orientador: Antonio Marinho Barbosa Neto, D. Sc
BALNEÁRIO CAMBORIÚ, SC
2022
FRANCIANI GOEDERT

NON-ISOTHERMAL FLOW
Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (TCC) desenvolvido no ThermoPhase – Fluid and Complex

Systems Research Group e apresentado ao Curso de Bacharelado em Engenharia de Petróleo,
da Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, como requisito parcial para a obtenção do título
de Bacharel em Engenharia de Petróleo.
Banca Examinadora:
Orientador:
Prof. Antonio Marinho Barbosa Neto, D.Sc

Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC)
Membros:
Eng. Roberto Fernando Leuchtenberger, M.Sc

Universidade Estadual de Campinas
Prof. Eduardo José Mendes de Paiva, D.Sc
Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina
Balneário Camboriú – SC
17 de fevereiro de 2022
AGRADECIMENTOS
Ao meu orientador e grande amigo, Antonio Marinho, por todo apoio e dedicação durante o
desenvolvimento deste trabalho, muito obrigada por acreditar nos meus objetivos e pelo
incentivo a alcançá-los. Tenho muito carinho e admiração por você.
Aos meus pais, Salesio Goedert e Ana Maria de Oliveira Goedert, minha irmã Francieli Goedert
Theiss e meu cunhado Daniel Cicero Theiss pelo amor incondicional, por acreditarem em meu
potencial. Vocês são minha maior fonte de inspiração.
Ao meu namorado Bruno Rönau Hadlich que sempre me deu forças para que eu alcançasse
meus sonhos e esteve ao meu lado nesses anos.
Aos amigos que fiz durante a faculdade e dividiram essa caminhada comigo, tornando mais
leve esses últimos anos.
As pessoas que eu tive o prazer de conhecer e trabalhar na PetroJr – Empresa Júnior de

Engenharia de Petróleo, por me proporcionarem tanto conhecimento e aprendizado durante esse
período, as experiências que vivenciei ajudaram a me tornar a pessoa que sou hoje.
Às minhas amigas de infância, Gabriela Spengler Gomes e Milena Oliveira de Souza, que
apesar da distância sempre se mostraram presentes, sou externamente grata a nossa amizade e
por sempre estarem do meu lado.
A todos os membros do grupo Thermophase pelo conhecimento compartilhado e por tornar um

ambiente aberto a novas ideias e desenvolvimento.
A todas as pessoas que estiveram comigo durante esses anos de faculdade, muito obrigada!
RESUMO
A revitalização de campos maduros e o desenvolvimento de campos de águas ultra profundas

têm se mostrado como cenários complexos para a indústria de óleo e gás. Nesses campos, o
escoamento que ocorre nas linhas de produção, desde a zona produtora do poço até a unidade
de separação tem sido investigado a fim de aumentar a vazão dos poços e reduzir o custo de
produção. O dimensionamento ou otimização do sistema de produção impacta
significativamente nas condições de escoamento em tubulações e, consequentemente, nos
custos de produção. Neste sentido, a utilização de ferramentas computacionais que auxiliem na
elaboração de projetos de elevação artificial ou análise de garantia de escoamento são
fundamentais nas operações de produção de um campo. Diante deste contexto, o objetivo do
presente trabalho é desenvolver um algoritmo computacional, usando o software Python, capaz
de calcular o perfil termo-hidráulico e propriedades termofluidodinâmicas de escoamento em
sistemas de produção de petróleo e gás natural. Para tanto, o algoritmo computacional é
composto por quatro módulos. O módulo de criação da malha computacional é responsável por
reduzir o sistema de produção em seções menores. Já o módulo PVT calcula todas as
propriedades do fluido importantes para o escoamento em tubulações. Esses dois módulos são
dados de entrada para o módulo de temperatura composto pela Equação da Energia Térmica e
módulo de pressão constituído pela Equação Geral de Perda de Carga para escoamento
monofásico e o modelo de Beggs and Brill (1973) para escoamento multifásico. Inicialmente,
o algoritmo desenvolvido foi usado na análise de um sistema de produção onshore. Neste caso,
verificou-se que o BSW manifestou uma influência significativa na pressão. Para um BSW de
10%, a pressão requerida pelo fluido para vencer a perda de carga do sistema foi de 76 bar.
Enquanto para um BSW de 70%, a pressão requerida pelo fluido aumentou para 91 bar. No
segundo estudo de caso, a ferramenta computacional foi aplicada para um sistema de produção
offshore. Neste cenário, a pressão requerida pelo fluido foi de 229 bar e a temperatura igual a
346K. Já na condição de superfície a pressão e temperatura são de 10 bar e 303K,
respectivamente. Estes resultados são influenciados pelo gás presente no sistema. O holdup
aumenta com a despressurização e varia de 42% no reservatório para 96% na unidade de
separação. Portanto, o algoritmo computacional desenvolvido neste trabalho é multifuncional,
já que é capaz de modelar e simular o escoamento multifásico para diversos cenários.
Palavras-chave: Escoamento Gás-Líquido, Perfil termo-hidráulico, Produção Onshore,

Produção Offshore.
ABSTRACT
The revitalization of mature fields and the development of ultra-deepwater fields have been
shown to be complex scenarios for the oil and gas industry. In these fields, the flow that occurs
in the production lines, from a producing zone of the well to the separation unit, has been
investigated in order to increase the flow of the wells and reduce the cost of production. The
sizing or optimization of the system has a significant impact on production conditions in
pipelines and, consequently, on production costs. In this sense, the use of computational tools
in the construction of artificial elevation projects or flow assurance analysis is central in the
operations of a production field. In view of this context, the objective of the present work is to
develop a computational algorithm, with the aid of Python software, that can calculate the
thermo-hydraulic profile and thermo-fluid dynamic properties of flow in natural gas production
systems. For that, the computational algorithm is composed of four modules. The computational
mesh creation module is responsible for reducing the production system into smaller sections.
The pressure, volume, and temperature (PVT) module, on the other hand, calculates all the
important properties for the flow in pipes. These two modules are input data for the temperature
module composed by the Thermal Energy Equation and pressure module constituted by the
General Head Loss Equation for single-phase flow and the model of Beggs and Brill (1973) for
multiphase flow. Initially, the developed algorithm was used in the analysis of an onshore
production system. In this case, basic sediments, and water (BSW) were found to have a
significant influence on pressure. For a 10% BSW, the pressure required by the fluid to
overcome the pressure drop in the system was 76 bar. While for a BSW of 70%, the pressure
required by the fluid increased to 91 bar. In the second case study, the computational tool was
applied to an offshore production system. In this scenario, the pressure required by the fluid
was 229 bar and the temperature was 346K. In the surface condition, the pressure and
temperature were 10 bar and 303K, respectively. These results are influenced by the gas present
in the system. The holdup increases with depressurization and varies from 42% in the reservoir
to 96% in the separation unit. Therefore, the computational algorithm developed in this work is
multifunctional since it is able to model and simulate the multiphase flow for different
scenarios.
Keywords: Gas-Liquid Flow, Thermo-Hydraulic Profile, Onshore Production, Offshore

Production.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Horizontal flow pattern map. ............................................................................... 26

Figure 2 – Discretization of the length of the pipe for the construction of the computational
mesh. ................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3 – Computational mesh calculation procedure.......................................................... 33
Figure 4 – Calculation procedure of PVT fluid properties..................................................... 38
Figure 5 – Procedure for calculating the properties of the mixture. ....................................... 38
Figure 6 – Logical structure for the calculation of the temperature and pressure. .................. 42
Figure 7 – General computational logic of the simulator. ..................................................... 45
Figure 8 – Fluid and external temperature and pressure profiles in relation a measured depth of
the pipeline. ......................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 9 – Pressure drops by gravity, by friction in relation to a measured depth. ................. 50
Figure 10 – Total pressure drop and pressure in relation to a measured depth. ...................... 50
Figure 11 – Void fraction and surface velocity of gas, liquid, and mixture in relation to a
measured depth. ................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 12 – Specific mass of gas, mixture, and liquid in relation to pressure......................... 52
Figure 13 – FWC in relation a measured depth. .................................................................... 53
Figure 14 – Influence of BSW in the thermo-hydraulic profile. ............................................ 54
Figure 15 – MPPS scheme considered in the case study. ...................................................... 55
Figure 16 – Thermo-hydraulic profile along the flow. .......................................................... 57
Figure 17 – Fluid temperature profile, external temperature profile, and pressure profile in
relation to length. ................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 18 – Pressure drop by gravity, by friction and void fraction in relation to length........ 59
Figure 19 – Surface velocity of liquid, gas, and mixture phases in relation to length. ............ 60
Figure 20 – Specific mass of oil, water, gas, and mixture phases in relation to pressure. ....... 60
Figure 21 – Viscosity of oil, water, mixture, and gas phases in relation to pressure. ............. 61
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Range of values for each flow patterns ................................................................. 27

Table 2 – Beggs and Brill’s empirical coefficients for liquid holdup..................................... 27
Table 3 – Beggs and Brill’s empirical coefficient for C. ....................................................... 28
Table 4 – PVT correlations that create the PVT gas module ................................................. 34
Table 5 – PVT correlations that create the PVT oil module. ................................................. 36
Table 6 – PVT correlation that creates the PVT water module. ............................................. 37
Table 7 – Description of onshore production system geometry. ............................................ 47
Table 8 – Black-Oil PVT characterization of petroleum fluid for case study 1. ..................... 47
Table 9 – Description of offshore production system geometry. ........................................... 55
Table 10 – Black-Oil PVT characterization of offshore petroleum fluid. .............................. 56
Table 11 – Surface operation variables. ................................................................................ 56
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
BSW Basic Sediments and Water
EoS Equation of State
FWC Factor Water Cut
GOR Gas-Oil Ration
HEC Heat Exchanged Coefficient
MD Measured Depth
MPPS Marine Petroleum Production System
PVT Pressure, Volume, and Temperature
TVD True Vertical Depth

LIST OF SYMBOLS
𝑃 Pressure 𝑃𝑎
𝑇 Temperature 𝐾
𝑄𝑂 Oil Flow Rate 𝑚3 /𝑠
𝑄𝑜𝑠𝑐 Oil Flow Rate in Standard Condition 𝑚3 /𝑠
𝑄𝑤 Water Flow Rate 𝑚3 /𝑠
𝑄𝑤𝑠𝑐 Water Flow Rate in Standard Condition 𝑚3 /𝑠
𝑄𝐺 Gas Flow Rate 𝑚3 /𝑠
𝑄𝐺𝑠𝑐 Gas Flow Rate in Standard Condition 𝑚3 /𝑠
𝑉𝑠𝐿 Liquid Surface Velocity 𝑚/𝑠
𝑉𝑠𝐺 Gas Surface Velocity 𝑚/𝑠
𝑉𝑀 Mixture Surface Velocity 𝑚/𝑠
𝑃𝐶 Pseudocritical Pressure 𝑃
𝑇𝑐 Pseudocritical Temperature 𝐾
𝑃𝑝𝑐 Impurity Pressure 𝑃
𝑇𝑝𝑐 Impurity Temperature 𝐾
Z Z Factor [−]
𝜇𝐺 Gas Viscosity 𝑃𝑎 · 𝑠
𝑃𝑏 Bubble Pressure 𝑃𝑎
𝑅𝑠 Gas-Oil Solubility Ratio 𝑠𝑚3 /𝑠𝑚3

3
𝐵𝑜 FVF Oil 𝑚𝑆𝑇𝐷 /𝑚3
𝐶𝑜 Oil Compressibility 1/𝑃𝑎
𝜇𝑂𝐷 Oil Viscosity Dead 𝑃𝑎 · 𝑠
𝜇𝑂𝐵 Oil Viscosity Saturated 𝑃𝑎 · 𝑠
𝜇𝑂 Oil Viscosity Undersaturated 𝑃𝑎 · 𝑠
𝜎𝐺𝑂 Gas/Oil Surface Tension 𝑁/𝑚
𝑑𝑤 Water Specific Gravity [−]
𝜌𝑤 Water Specific Mass 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝑅𝑆𝑊 Gas-Water Solubility Ratio 𝑠𝑚3 /𝑠𝑚3
3
𝐵𝑤 FVF Water 𝑚𝑆𝑇𝐷 /𝑚3
𝜇𝑤 Water Viscosity 𝑃𝑎 · 𝑠
𝜌𝐿 Liquid Specific Mass 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝜌𝑁𝑆 Mixture Specific Mass “No-Slip” 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
𝜌𝑆 Mixture Specific Mass “Slip” 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
S Salinity %
𝑑𝐺 Gas Specific Gravity [−]
𝜆𝐿 Liquid Holdup “No-Slip” [−]
𝐻𝐿 Liquid Holdup [−]
𝐴𝑝 Area 𝑚
𝑑𝑃 Pressure Gradient 𝑃𝑎/𝑚

𝑑𝐿
𝑑𝑇 Temperature Gradient 𝐾/𝑚
𝑑𝐿
𝑓𝑇𝑃 Two-Phase Friction Factor [−]
𝐶𝑃 Fluid Heat Capacity 𝐽/𝑘𝑔 · 𝐾
𝑇∞ Environment Temperature 𝐾
D Diameter 𝑚
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 14
1.1. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................... 14
1.2. JUSTIFICATION AND RELEVANCE ................................................................... 15
1.3. OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................... 16
1.3.1. Main objective ........................................................................................................ 16
1.3.2. Specific objectives .................................................................................................. 16
1.4. STRUCTURE OF THE WORK ............................................................................... 16
2. THEORETICAL BASIS AND LITERATURE REVIEW ................................... 17

2.1 FLUID PROPERTIES.............................................................................................. 17
2.2 THERMAL ENERGY ............................................................................................. 19
2.2.1 Thermal energy equation ....................................................................................... 20
2.3 PRESSURE DROP .................................................................................................. 22
2.3.1 Pressure drop equation .......................................................................................... 23
3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 31
3.1 COMPUTATIONAL MESH .................................................................................... 31
3.2 PVT MODULE ........................................................................................................ 33
3.3 GRADIENT OF TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE ............................................. 39
3.4 MULTIPHASE FLOW SIMULATOR FEATURES ................................................ 44
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 47

4.1 CASE STUDY 1: ONSHORE SCENARIO.............................................................. 47
4.1.1 Pressure and temperature in the onshore production system .............................. 48
4.1.2 Analysis of thermofluidic dynamic variables ........................................................ 51
4.1.3 Influence of BSW on the system ............................................................................ 53
4.2 CASE STUDY 2: OFFSHORE SCENARIO ............................................................ 54
4.2.1 Pressure and temperature in the offshore production system .............................. 56
4.2.2 Thermofluidic dynamic variables in the offshore system ..................................... 58
5 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 62
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 63
14
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM
The production of the Brazilian pre-salt represents, in December 2021, 73.8% of the
total petroleum production in the country. In relation to the previous month, the production
decreased 0.5% and increased 4.1% in relation to the same month in 2020. The biggest field of
oil and natural gas is in the Santos Basin, namely the Tupi field. It produced an average 864
Mbbl/d of oil and 41 MM m3/d of natural gas. In contrast, onshore production represents, in
2021, 6.1% of the total petroleum production in Brazil. In relation to the previous year (2020),
onshore production increased 2.96%. Currently, there are 484 offshore wells and 5763 onshore
wells in production (ANP, 2021).
In the Oil & Gas industry, multiphase flow may occur in many applications, for example
reservoirs, wells, surface pipelines and production systems (Al-Safran; Brill, 2017). The study
of multiphase flow began around 1950. Investigators developed empirical models to represent
horizontal multiphase flow (Brill; Arlrachakaran, 1992). Currently, with the investment in the
revitalization of onshore mature fields for medium and small companies, production has
reached around 90.987 Mboe/d. In the Brazilian pre-salt region, production growth is 11.5%
compared to the previous year (ANP, 2021). Thus, the improvement in multiphase flow has
become a challenge to the industry and, therefore, research studies about this subject and its
problems have become more prominent.
Multiphase flow modeling is fundamental to describing the flow behavior along the
production line. The production of hydrocarbons stimulates pressure drop in the wellbore.
Correct pressure drop prediction is essential for the calculation of well production and
estimating of artificial lift methods (Pourafshary et al., 2009).
According to Shiu and Beggs (1980), the majority of the available correlations to
compute pressure gradient depends on the fluid pressure, volume, and temperature (PVT)
properties. Such properties are temperature sensitive. This variable is ruled by the heat loss
from the wellbore to the surrounding formation. Temperature profile helps to calculate accurate
pressure drop (Sagar et al., 1991). Because of these reasons, it is imperative to understand how
the fluid’s temperature and pressure profile behave in the flow in pipes as well as which
variables most impact the construction of these profiles. In this way, problems in the flow, such
15
as flow assurance, ineffective artificial lift projects and other issues can be predicted. Thus,
operations to remedy, circumvent or mitigate the problems are carried out.
1.2. JUSTIFICATION AND RELEVANCE
The Brazilian pre-salt fields usually have high production rates per well, but present
challenging characteristics, such as long distance from the coast, low temperature, high
pressure, and high water depth (Beltrao et al., 2009). Pressure and temperature are the most
important parameters affecting flow rate in an oil well because they change significantly during
production. These parameters interfere with the oil, gas and water flow rate and fluid properties
(Boberg et al., 1973).
The degree of difficulty increases according to the assumptions of the problems. For
example, pressure loss occurs due to gravity, friction, and acceleration. But several factors
influence it, such as tubing size, oil gravity, and water cut. The correct estimation of pressure
loss and temperature helps in artificial lift design calculation. Another important assumption is
temperature variation due to different depths, which affect the fluid composition (Pourafshary
et al., 2009).
The study of multiphase flow behavior in the tubing and the subsea flowlines until
reaching the separation system on the platform can prevent all these flow problems. This study
also contributes to the evaluation of the technical-economic viability of the field from surface
production flows as well as to the determination of the pressure and temperature profiles
(Benther, 2014). Thus, a full understanding of the multiphase flow in the production system is
essential to correctly obtain dynamic, thermal, and hydraulic characteristics of the system.
The algorithm developed in this study to simulate multiphase flow will contribute to the
academic community as support material for knowledge. Furthermore, further research can be
carried out to insert new models and analyses departing from the algorithms developed in this
work.
16
1.3. OBJECTIVES
1.3.1. Main objective
The main objective of this work is to develop a computational tool able to simulate non-
isothermal multiphase flow using black-oil fluid modeling at different production scenarios of
oil and gas.
1.3.2. Specific objectives
With the aim to achieve the proposed general objective, the following specific objectives
were defined:
• To develop a dynamic computational mesh able to admit flow in the horizontal and
vertical lines as well as for directional pipelines;
• To build a Black-Oil PVT module to calculate fluid properties;
• To construct an algorithm to calculate pressure drop and temperature;
• To analyze the thermofluidic dynamic behavior in onshore and offshore production
systems.
1.4. STRUCTURE OF THE WORK
This work is organized into five chapters to demonstrate how it was developed along
with results and discussion. This first chapter presented a brief introduction about the
importance of multiphase flow and temperature in the petroleum production system along with
the motivation and relevance of the chosen topic. Still in the first chapter, the main and specific
objectives were presented.
The second chapter presents the literature review on fluid properties and temperature
and pressure gradients in addition to the theoretical basis regarding the modules. The main
properties of each module were defined and their relevance to the system was demonstrated.
In the third chapter, the methodology applied throughout the research study is explored.
It describes the models, methods, and procedures. Thus, it shows an overview of the steps
performed in this work to develop the simulator.
Chapter four presents the results and their analysis for each type of system, onshore and
offshore. Lastly, the fifth chapter displays the final considerations about this work according to
the objectives proposed.
17
2. THEORETICAL BASIS AND LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, a brief literature review is presented. First, the focus is on the evolution
of research on ways to determine fluid properties and the main methods currently used. Then,
the calculation of the temperature and pressure model is presented. Lastly, the theoretical basis
of the main variables that compose the temperature and pressure gradients is discussed.
2.1 FLUID PROPERTIES
The study of fluid properties is part of the well life cycle. As each new stage is
completed, fluid data evolves and is, thus, analyzed. These properties significantly impact the
estimation of the in-situ oil volume and the well development strategy (Dindoruk et al., 2020).
There are three variables that impact fluid behavior: temperature, pressure, and fluid
composition. According to the values of these variables, mass transfer occurs until equilibrium
between the phases is assumed. Thus, the complex mixture of hydrocarbons is composed of a
single-phase gas, a single-phase liquid or two-phase mixture (Mukherjee; Brill, 1999).
A fluid sample is collected to carry out pressure, volume, and temperature (PVT)
experiments. From these samples, information, such as the composition of the fluid and amount
of fluid belonging to each phase, is extracted (Di Primio et al., 1998). Fluid behavior, phase
change and composition are shown in numeric models through the equations of state (EoS).
The compositional model consists of using EoS and performing the flash mixture
calculation. This model is recommended to pipes that in which flow condensates or highly
volatile oil is in it. But, there is a high computational cost for their simulations (Assmann, 1993).
On the other hand, sometimes fluid samples cannot be obtained. Because from an
economic point of view, a careful analysis of the fluid does not justify the expense.
Consequently, the EoS does not apply. The alternative is to use the correlation proposed to
determinate PVT properties. Such correlations were developed from regional samples.
Therefore, this model is simpler, and depends on relative gravity, the amount of each
component, pressure and temperature (Sutton et al., 1990).
Several PVT correlations have been published since the 1990s. The first scholars were
Standing (1947), Glaso (1980), and Vasquez and Beggs (1980). As the correlations were
developed with the oil from a geographic location, they show the same oil type. The oils from
other locations may not satisfy the proposed correlations. Thus, other scholars published
18
different correlations, such as Al-Marhoun (1988) and Petrosky and Farshad (1993) to satisfy
different types of oils (Elsharkawy; Alikhan,1997). In the flow modeling, the main fluid
properties are formation volume factor, gas-oil solubility ration, bubble pressure, and
compressibility.
With the PVT properties of the oil, gas and water phase calculated, it is possible to
determine the in-situ volumetric flow for each phase Mukherjee; Brill (1999). Equation (2.1)
demonstrates the formulations to the oil in-situ volumetric flow.
𝑄𝑜 = 𝑄𝑜𝑠𝑐 · Bo (2.1)
in which 𝑄𝑜𝑠𝑐 is the oil volumetric flow in stand condition (m3/s) and Bo is formation volume
factor of the oil (m3std /m3).
Equation (2.2) presents the water in-situ volumetric flow:
𝑄𝑤 = 𝑄𝑤𝑠𝑐 · Bw (2.2)
In Equation (2.2), 𝑄𝑤𝑠𝑐 is the water volumetric flow in stand condition (m3/s) and 𝐵𝑤 is
water formation volume factor (m3std /m3).
Equation (2.3) displays the gas in-situ volumetric flow:
𝑄𝑔 = (𝑄𝑔𝑠𝑐 − 𝑄𝑜𝑠𝑐 · Rs − 𝑄𝑤𝑠𝑐 · Rsw ) · B𝑔 (2.3)
In Equation (2.3), 𝑄𝑔𝑠𝑐 is the gas volumetric flow in standard condition (m3/s), 𝑄𝑜𝑠𝑐 is
the oil volumetric flow in standard condition (m3/s), 𝑅𝑠 is the gas-oil solubility rate (sm3/sm3),
𝑄𝑤𝑠𝑐 is the water volumetric flow in standard condition (m3/s), 𝑅𝑠𝑤 is the gas-water solubility
ratio (sm3/sm3), and 𝐵𝑔 is gas formation volume factor (m3std /m3).
According to Mukherjee and Brill (1999, p. 21), “surface velocity, which assume a given
phase occupies the entire pipe area, are important correlation parameter.” Thus,
𝑄𝑜 + 𝑄𝑤
𝑉𝑠𝑙 = (2.4)
𝐴𝑝
and
19
𝑄𝑔
𝑉𝑠𝑔 = (2.5)
𝐴𝑝
In Equation (2.5), 𝐴𝑝 is the pipe area (m).
2.2 THERMAL ENERGY
At first in the petroleum industry, there was a lack of a practical way to quantify some
variables, such as temperature. So, the isothermal systems were adopted. With evolution in
drilling more expensive and deep wells, the temperature data was obtained through an isolated
point. However, analytical models must be applied to facilitate system modeling. This type of
study began in the literature with the scholar Farris (1941) who proposed a graph that
determines temperature (Bentsen; Marshall, 1982).
Gregory and Aziz (1978) proposed a program structure able to simulate single and
multiphase flow in the wellbore. The program has a module for choosing the unit, multiphase
and single-phase flow, and calculating the temperature. The study of temperature had a
significative evolution with the pioneer work of Ramey (1962). He developed a solution that
considers the thermal resistance in the well. This solution can be applied to various types of
well with different completions and operations.
Some published works have used Ramey’s work as a basic reference. Alves, Alhanatl
and Shoham (1992) improved Ramey’s methods to predict temperature in two-phase flow at all
range of angles, from vertical to horizontal. Furthermore, methods of heat capacity and Joule-
Thomson coefficient were proposed.
Following the evolution of Ramey’s methods, a new method for estimating the
temperature in the well was developed by Hasan et al. (1994). This approach allows heat
transfer by conduction, convection, and radiation as well as to estimate the formation
temperature for the transitional solution. Sagar, Doty and Schmidt (1991) developed a model
to calculate temperature in the well taking into consideration kinect-energy terms, the
calculation of pressure gradients and information about hydrocarbon composition.
Some models require a lot of real field data information, resulting in little practical
applicability. Thus, Shiu and Beggs (1980) proposed an empirical model to predict temperature
in the well. Some assumptions need to be satisfied. For instance, two-phase flow and
20
temperature of fluid entering the well must be known. Furthermore, little information about the
thermal resistance of the well tubing, casing and cement is also necessary.
Finally, the entire evolution of research on temperature profile prediction models for
production or injector in wells up to the end of the 1990s was compilated in the textbook written
by Hasan and Kabir (2002). They present the application and particularities of each method.
2.2.1 Thermal energy equation
At this point, it is important to present the theoretical foundation of the physical-

mathematician modeling of the thermal energy equation used in this work. The variables to be
defined in this topic are environment temperature, heat exchange coefficient, and temperature
differential by length unit.
The principle of energy conservation establishes the difference between the amount of
energy entering and leaving the control volume. It sums up the heat transfer to the surrounding
which equals the rate of energy accumulated in the system. To the steady state, the equation of
the total energy conservation is (Bird et al., 1980) is
𝑃
𝑄̇ − 𝑊̇𝑠 = ∮ (𝑒 + ) · 𝜌 · 𝑣⃗ · 𝑑𝐴
⃗⃗ (2.6)
𝜌
in which 𝑒 is the total specific energy (J/kg), 𝑃 is the pressure (Pa), 𝜌 is the specific mass
(Kg/m3), 𝑣⃗ is the vector of velocity (m/s) and 𝑑𝐴⃗ is the differential area of the system. For a
linear stretch, in which there is not a flow machine, and the flow is incompressible one-
dimensional with the input (1) and exit (2), equation (2.6) can be rewritten as:
𝑃1 𝑃2
𝛿𝑄̇ = − (𝑒1 + ) 𝜌 · ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑣1 · 𝐴1 + (𝑒2 + ) 𝜌 · ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗
𝑣2 · 𝐴2 (2.7)
𝜌 𝜌
Total specific energy is the sum of energy of internal, kinetics and potential
(SANDLER, 2006).
𝑣2
𝑒 =𝑢+ +𝑔·𝑧 (2.8)
2
In Equation (2.8), 𝑣 is the velocity (m/s), 𝑔 is gravity (m/s2) and 𝑧 is the altitude
difference (m). Considering mass conservation,
21
𝜌 · 𝑣1 · 𝐴1 = 𝜌 · 𝑣2 · 𝐴2 = 𝜌 · 𝑞 = 𝑚̇ (2.9)
In which, 𝑚̇ is constant mass flow (kg/s). Using Equation (2.8) and definition of the
fluid enthalpy (SANDLER, 2006),
𝑃
ℎ=𝑢+ (2.10)
𝜌
Replacing it in Equation (2.7),
𝑣⃗2 𝑣⃗1
𝛿𝑄̇ = 𝜌 · 𝑞 [(ℎ2 + + 𝑔 · 𝑧2 ) − (ℎ1 + + 𝑔 · 𝑧1 )] (2.11)
2 2
Considering that 𝛿𝐿 → 0, Equation (2.11) reduces to:
𝑣⃗ 2
𝛿𝑄̇ = 𝜌 · 𝑞 · 𝑑 (ℎ + + 𝑔 · 𝑧) (2.12)
2
Dividing both sides of Equation (2.11) by dL, assuming that the diameter is constant
and the rate of heat loss per unit length (𝑄̇′ ), there is
𝛿𝑄̇ 𝑑
= −𝑄̇′ = 𝜌 · 𝑞 (ℎ + 𝑔 · 𝑧) (2.13)
𝑑𝐿 𝑑𝐿
In which 𝑞 is the volumetric flow rate (m3/s). By the caloric state equation, the effect of
temperature appears with enthalpy h, as proposed by Bird et al. (1980).
𝑑ℎ = 𝐶𝑝· · 𝑑𝑇 (2.14)
In Equation (2.14), 𝐶𝑝 is the fluid heat capacity (J/Kg·K) and 𝑑𝑇 is the temperature
differential between the points of input and exit (K). The effect of gravity appears with altitude
difference (𝑑𝑧 = 𝑑𝐿 · 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃). After these considerations, Equation (2.13) becomes:
𝑑𝑇
𝑄̇′ = 𝜌 · 𝑞 · 𝐶𝑝 + 𝜌 · 𝑞 · 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 (2.15)
𝑑𝐿
The definition of 𝑄̇′ by Al-Safran and Brill (2017),

22
𝑄̇′ = −𝑈𝑖 · 𝜋 · 𝑑𝑖 · (𝑇 − 𝑇∞ ) (2.16)
In which 𝑈𝑖 is the heat exchange global coefficient, d is the pipe internal diameter (m),
𝑇 and 𝑇∞ relate to the fluid temperature (K) and surrounding temperature (K), respectively. The
heat exchange coefficient (HEC) can be defined by (AL-SAFRAN; BRILL, 2017):
𝐻𝐸𝐶 = 𝑈𝑖 · 𝜋 · 𝑑𝑖 (2.17)
The final expression of the thermal energy equation for the fluid flowing inside the pipe
is:
𝑑𝑇
𝜌 · 𝑞𝐶𝑝 · + 𝜌 · 𝑞 · 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 = −𝑈𝑖 · 𝜋 · 𝑑𝑖 · (𝑇 − 𝑇∞ ) (2.18)
𝑑𝐿
After analytically solving Equation (2.18), it is possible to have an explicit equation for
the temperature profile.
𝐻𝐸𝐶
𝑇(𝐿) = 𝐸𝑥𝑝 (− 𝐿) · (𝑇∞ − 𝜌 · 𝑞 · 𝑔 · 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 − 𝑇0 ) − 𝑇∞ + 𝜌 · 𝑞 · 𝑔 · 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 (2.19)
𝜌 · 𝑞 · 𝐶𝑃
2.3 PRESSURE DROP
Generally, at the onset of petroleum production the flow is single-phase because the gas
is in solution in the oil. The depressurization of the system occurs along the flow. When the
fluid pressure achieves the bubble pressure, the gas is released, and the flow is multiphase
(ROSA et al., 2006).
The flow is composed by the oil, water and gas phases entering the pipe, characterizing
a multiphase flow. The accurate estimation of pressure drop is essential since it interferes in the
project of the completion wells, artificial elevation systems as well as determines the flowlines
and rises. However, there are variables whose definition affect the calculation of other variables,
such as diameter, flow pattern, holdup, and flow rate of different phases. This situation makes
it difficult to accurately predict t pressure drop in the multiphase flow (BARRUFET; RASOOL,
1995).
Thus, due to these complexities, empirical correlations began to be used to predict

pressure drop in the well. The first scholars were Poettmann and Carpenter (1952), whose
23
method was based on conservation laws. Furthermore, they proposed that all multiphase
pressure drops can be related similarly to the friction factor of the Fanning equation for single-
phase flow. In other words, they considered that the multiphase mixture behaved as a single-
phase fluid. It was assumed that the velocity of the gas and liquid flow at the same velocity.
Thus, the single-phase equation was replaced by the mixture variables.
A significant difference in the values of the gas and liquid velocity occurred as the
production presented a reduction in flow rate in the well. Thus, the fluid cannot be considered
a homogeneous fluid. Hagedorn and Brown (1965) developed a model that included the
slippage between the liquid and vapor phase but did not consider the flow pattern. In addition,
the two-phase friction factor can be determined through dimensionless parameters assessed
experimentally. These parameters are introduced in diagrams that provide the holdup value.
This method is transformed into a single-phase model in case the gas or liquid velocity is zero.
The greatest achievement in multiphase flow studies is related to the inclusion of

different flow patterns in the models. Duns Jr. and Ros (1963) developed an empirical model
for vertical flow of liquid and gas mixtures in wells. This model supplies a wide range of gas
and liquid mixture flow rates. Besides, it incorporated the flow pattern and slip between the
phases. On the other hand, Orkiszewski (1967) proposed a mechanistic model that presented
the best results to accurately predict pressure drop. His model is one of the most accepted
mechanistic models in the petroleum industry.
The evolution of the petroleum industry impacted on the efficiency of the model because
the wells with directional drilling began to be perforated. Thus, new models that consider the
deviated wells are presented in the literature. Beggs and Brill (1991) have shown the importance
of calculating the holdup for inclination wells and the impacts on pressure drop. In addition,
they proposed methods for identifying the flow pattern (bubbly, slug, churn, and annular) in the
multiphase flow. This method displayed the best results when compared with real field data.
For this reason, Beggs and Brill’s (1991) model is the most widely used empirical model by the
petroleum industry.
2.3.1 Pressure drop equation
For single-phase flow, the general pressure drop equation is used, shown in Equation
(2.28). In turn, for multiphase flow, the Beggs and Brill’s (1991) model meets the implications
of flow. It involves several calculation steps in addition to defining important variables for the
24
flow, such as holdup, pressure drop and flow patterns. Given the importance of these models
for the work, a brief theoretical basis on pressure drop will be presented in this section.
2.3.1.1 Single-phase pressure drop equation
The pressure drop general equation for single-phase flow is derived from the equations
of mass and linear moment conservation. The mass conservation announces that the inputting
mass minus the outing mass must be equal accumulated mass in the pipe. The differential form
results in Equation (2.20) (ANDREOLLI, 2016).
𝜕𝜌 𝜕(𝜌 · 𝑣)
+ =0 (2.20)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝐿
Yet, the amount of movement equation applied the first Newton’s law. This law
characterized the outgoing movement variation minus inputting movement variations, adding
that the accumulated movement variation in the pipe must be equal to the sum of forces that act
on the fluid. Pressure, gravity, acceleration, and shear forces are shown in Equation (2.21):
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝑃 𝜋𝐷
(𝜌 · 𝑣 ) + (𝜌 · 𝑣 2 ) = − −𝜏 − 𝜌 · 𝑔 · 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 (2.21)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝐿 𝜕𝐿 𝐴
in which, 𝜌 is the fluid specific mass (kg/m3), 𝑣 is the velocity (m/s), 𝑑 is the diameter (m), 𝐴
is the area (m2), and 𝑔 is gravity (m/s2). The consideration of the steady station is made and
shown in Equation (2.22).
𝜕
(𝜌 · 𝑣 ) = 0
{𝜕𝑡 (2.22)
𝜕𝜌
=0
𝜕𝑡
The second term of Equation (2.21) can be rewritten as:
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝑣
(𝜌 · 𝑣 2 ) = (𝜌𝑣 · 𝑣) = 𝑣 · (𝜌 · 𝑣) + 𝜌 · 𝑣 · (2.23)
𝜕𝐿 𝜕𝐿 𝜕𝐿 𝜕𝐿
Considering the specifications made in Equation (2.20) and Equation (2.22):
𝜕
(𝜌𝑣) = 0 (2.24)
𝜕𝐿
Substituting these results in Equation (2.23),

25
𝜕 𝜕𝑣
(𝜌 · 𝑣 2 ) = 𝜌 · 𝑣 · (2.25)
𝜕𝐿 𝜕𝐿
From Equation (2.21), Equation (2.22), and Equation (2.25), considering the one-
dimensional flow leads to Equation (2.26):
𝑑𝑃 𝜋𝐷 𝑑𝑣
= −𝜏 − 𝜌 · 𝑔 · 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 − 𝜌 · 𝑣 (2.26)
𝑑𝐿 𝐴 𝑑𝐿
Equation (2.26) is denominated mechanic balance energy equation. This equation can
be converted into pressure unit, shown in Equation (2.27):
𝑑𝑃 𝑓 · 𝜌 · 𝑣2 𝑑𝑣
=− − 𝜌 · 𝑔 · 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 − 𝜌 · 𝑣 (2.27)
𝑑𝐿 2·𝐷 𝑑𝐿
Note that in Equation (2.27) the first term represents friction, the second represents
gravity, and the last term demonstrates the acceleration and term before the equal is the pressure
in gradient format. Equation (2.27) can be rewritten as:
𝑑𝑃 𝑑𝑃 𝑑𝑃 𝑑𝑃
= −( ) −( ) −( ) (2.28)
𝑑𝐿 𝑑𝐿 𝐹𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝐿 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑑𝐿 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
2.3.1.2 Multiphase flow pressure drop equation
Equation (2.27) can be adapted to multiphase flow according to the available models in
the literature. The work used the Beggs and Brill’s (1991) model once it applies the inclination,
vertical and horizontal wells, as well as considers different flow patterns and slip between gas
and liquid phases (SHOHAM, 2006).
In correlation with this model, the flow pattern is identified using the coordinates of the
liquid holdup without slip, Equation (2.29) and Froude number, Equation (2.30).
𝑉𝑠𝐿
𝜆𝐿 = (2.29)
𝑉𝑀
26
2
𝑉𝑀2
𝐹𝑟𝑚 = (2.30)
𝑔·𝑑
in which, 𝑉𝑠𝐿 is liquid surface velocity (m/s), 𝑉𝑀 is mixture surface velocity (m/s), 𝑔 is gravity
(m/s2), and 𝑑 is diameter (m).
The flow pattern map is shown in Figure 1. Note that the graph delimits a region where
each flow pattern type belongs to. The original map by Beggs and Brill (1991) was adapted to
include the transition zone between the segregated and intermittent flows. The continuous lines
represent the original map while the dashed lines represent the adapted map.
Figure 1 – Horizontal flow pattern map.
Source: Beggs and Brill, 1991.
To identify the flow pattern numerically, Beggs and Brill opted to correlate the flow
patterns transition limits through the no-slip liquid holdup and mixture Froude number. This
occurs through a transition zone between the segments. The parameters L defined by Beggs and
Brill to aid in the calculation of the transition limit are presented from Equation (2.31) to
Equation (2.34).
𝐿1 = 316 · 𝜆0.302
𝐿 (2.31)
𝐿2 = 0.0009252 · 𝜆−2.4684
𝐿 (2.32)
𝐿3 = 0.10 · 𝜆−1.4516
𝐿 (2.33)
27
𝐿4 = 0.5 · 𝜆−6.738
𝐿 (2.34)
The criteria for the existence of the flow patterns are shown in Table 1. The inequalities
presented in Table 1 determine the flow regime that would exist if the pipes were horizontal.
Table 1 – Range of values for each flow patterns
Flow Pattern Transition Limit

2 2
Segregated 𝜆𝐿 < 0.01 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹𝑟𝑚 < 𝐿1 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝐿 ≥ 0.01 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹𝑟𝑚 < 𝐿2
2 2
Intermittent 0.01 ≤ 𝜆𝐿 < 0.4 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐿3 < 𝐹𝑟𝑚 ≤ 𝐿1 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝐿 ≥ 0.4 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐿3 < 𝐹𝑟𝑚 ≤ 𝐿4
2 2
Distributed 𝜆𝐿 < 0.4 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹𝑟𝑚 ≥ 𝐿1 𝑜𝑟 𝜆𝐿 ≥ 0.4 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹𝑟𝑚 > 𝐿4
2
Transition 𝜆𝐿 ≥ 0.01 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐿2 ≤ 𝐹𝑟𝑚 ≤ 𝐿3
Source: Mukherjee and Brill (1999).
Considering the constant flow rates, the liquid holdup presents a dependence on the
inclination angle. For this reason, the inclination correction factor (𝜓) was created by dividing
the holdup for any inclination angle (𝐻𝐿𝜃 ) by the holdup for horizontal inclination (𝐻𝐿0 ). This
is shown in Equation (2.35).
𝐻𝐿𝜃
𝜓= (2.35)
𝐻𝐿0
The definition of the holdup for horizontal inclination was realized through regression
with the holdup being the dependent variables and several independent variables, such as
Froude number and no-slip liquid holdup as the most significant (BEGGS; BRILL, 1973).
Equation (2.36) presents the horizontal holdup:
𝑎 · 𝜆𝑏𝐿
𝐻𝐿0 = 2 )𝑐
(2.36)
(𝐹𝑟𝑚
The parameters a, b and c are in Table 2.
Table 2 – Beggs and Brill’s empirical coefficients for liquid holdup.
Flow Pattern a b c
Segregated 0.980 0.4846 0.0868

28
Intermittent 0.845 0.5351 0.0173
Distributed 1.065 0.5824 0.0609
Source: Beggs and Brill (1973).
The inclination correction factor is presented by Equation (2.37):
𝜓 = 1 + 𝐶 · [sin(1.8 · 𝜃) − 0.333 · sin3 (1.8 · 𝜃)] (2.37)
In Equation (2.37),  is the inclination angle (°). The constant C is defined according to
Equation (2.38).
𝑓 2 𝑔 ℎ
𝐶 = (1 − 𝜆𝐿 ) · 𝑙𝑛(𝑒 · 𝜆𝐿 · (𝐹𝑟𝑚 ) · 𝑁𝐿𝑉 ) (2.38)
In which, NLV is the dimensionless number of the liquid/vapor determined by Equation

(2.39).
4 𝜌𝐿
𝑁𝐿𝑉 = 𝑉𝑠𝐿 √ (2.39)
𝜎𝐿·𝑔
In Equation (2.39), 𝜌𝐿 is the liquid specific mass (kg/m3), 𝜎𝐿 is the surface tension of the
liquid (N/m), 𝑉𝑠𝐿 is the liquid surface velocity (m/s) and 𝑔 is gravity (m/s2). Table 3 presents
the parameters e, f, g and h used in Equation (2.38).
Table 3 – Beggs and Brill’s empirical coefficient for C.
Flow Pattern e f g h
Segregated uphill 0.011 -3.7680 3.5390 -1.6140
Intermittent uphill 2.960 0.3050 -0.4473 0.0978
Distributed uphill No correlation: C = 0; 𝜓 = 1

All patterns
4.700 -0.3692 0.1244 -0.5056
downhill
Source: Beggs and Brill (1973).
When the flow pattern is in the transition region, the horizontal liquid must be
interpolated between the values of the segregated region and the intermittent region. This
condition is announced in Equation (2.40):
𝐻𝐿0𝑇𝑅 = 𝐴 · 𝐻𝐿 0𝑆𝑒𝑔 + (1 − 𝐴) · 𝐻𝐿 0𝐼𝑛𝑡 (2.40)

29
In which the parameter A is calculated according to Equation (2.41).

2
𝐿3 −𝐹𝑟𝑚
𝐴= (2.41)
𝐿3 −𝐿2
In Equation (2.41), L3 is defined in Equation (2.33) and L2 in Equation (2.32). The two-
𝑑𝑃
phase friction gradient, 𝑑𝐿 ) , is defined as:
𝐹
𝑑𝑃 𝑓𝑇𝑃 · 𝜌𝑁𝑆 · 𝑉𝑀2

) = (2.42)
𝑑𝐿 𝐹 2·𝑑
in which 𝜌𝑁𝑆 is mixture density “no-slip” (kg/m3), 𝑉𝑀 is the mixture surface velocity (m/s), 𝑑
is the diameter (m) and 𝑓𝑇𝑃 is the two-phase friction factor, dimensionless:
𝑓
𝑓𝑇𝑃 = ( 𝑓𝑇𝑃 ) · 𝑓𝑁 (2.43)
𝑁
In this equation, 𝑓𝑁 is the factor of the normalization friction determined as the same
correlation used for single-phase flow in function of the relative roughness (𝜀/𝑑), but it used
mixture Reynolds number “no-slip”. For example, the option of 𝑓𝑁 calculation is Hall’s
correlation (SHOHAM, 2006).
𝑓
The relation ( 𝑓𝑇𝑃 ) is defined by:
𝑁
𝑓
( 𝑓𝑇𝑃 ) = 𝑒 𝑠 (2.44)
𝑁
The calculation of the parameter S is presented in Equation (2.45):
ln (𝑦)
𝑆 = −0.0523+3.182 · ln(𝑦)−0.875 · ln(𝑦)2+0.01853 · ln(𝑦)4 (2.45)
This function becomes limited for the range 1 < y < 1.2. For this range, the parameter S
is calculated as in Equation (2.46):
𝑆 = ln (2.2 · 𝑦 − 1.2) (2.46)
As the parameter S depends on the calculation of the y, it is demonstrated in Equation

(2.47):
𝜆
𝑦 = 𝐻𝐿2 (2.47)
𝐿
In Equation (2.47), the 𝜆𝐿 is the liquid holdup no-slip and 𝐻𝐿 is the liquid holdup slip.
30
𝑑𝑃
The two-phase gravity pressure gradient, 𝑑𝐿 ) , is defined by:
𝐺
𝑑𝑃
) = 𝑝𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑝 · 𝑔 · 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝜃 (2.48)
𝑑𝐿 𝐺
In Equation (2.48), 𝜌𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑝 is the slip mixture density (kg/m3), that considers the slip
between the phases. The density weighting of the liquid and gas phase with the liquid holdup
of the mixture is calculated as 𝜌𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑝 = 𝐻𝐿 · 𝜌𝐿 + (1 − 𝐻𝐿 ) · 𝜌𝐺 .
𝑑𝑃
Lastly, the two-phase acceleration pressure gradient, ) , is calculated from the
𝑑𝐿 𝐴
relation:
𝑑𝑃 𝜌𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑝 · 𝑉𝑀 · 𝑉𝑠𝐺 𝑑𝑃
) = (− 𝑑𝐿 ) (2.49)
𝑑𝐿 𝐴 𝑃 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
In which P is the absolute average pressure in the pipe (Pa). To define the parameter E k:
𝜌𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑝 · 𝑉𝑀 · 𝑉𝑠𝐺
𝐸𝑘 = (2.50)
𝑃
Equation (2.49) results in
𝑑𝑃 𝑑𝑃
− 𝑑𝐿 ) = 𝐸𝑘 · (− 𝑑𝐿 ) (2.51)
𝐴 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
Therefore, adding Equations (2.42), (2.48) and (2.50) to total pressure gradient results
in:
𝑑𝑃 𝑑𝑃
𝑑𝑃 − ) − )
𝑑𝐿 𝐹 𝑑𝐿 𝐺 (2.52)
) =
𝑑𝐿 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 1−𝐸𝑘
Equation (2.52) is applied to modeling the total pressure gradient due to the liquid-gas
flow on a given pipe segment. Thus, the no-slip liquid holdup, input parameter of the model
can exist in range: 0 < L < 1.
31
3 METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, all the models and procedures performed in this work to achieve the
proposed objectives are presented. Initially, a discussion about the creation of the computational
mesh and the modeling of fluid properties is introduced. These variables are fundamental to the
modeling of the thermo-hydraulic profile. For this, the calculation of the temperature gradient
is based on the thermal energy equation and the pressure gradient using the general pressure
drop equation for single-phase flow and the model of Beggs and Brill’s (1973) for multiphase
flow. The calculation sequence of these gradients is presented in the third subsection. Finally,
an overview of the resources available in the multiphase flow simulation algorithm is shown.
The computational code has been implemented in Python software. The algorithm was
developed flexibly for the insertion future of a new hydraulic, thermal model, and
compositional modeling of the fluid properties. Furthermore, the computational code has an
academic character, providing the university with a multiphase flow simulator that allows the
analysis of the thermofluidic dynamics, pressure, and temperature gradients of the fluids.
3.1 COMPUTATIONAL MESH
Computational mesh can be defined as a representation of the physical plan using

numeric simulation (VARGAS; ALBERI, 2009). A computational mesh is built from the
division of the pipe’s total length. This division is released so that each section has the same
length, called dL. Figure 3 shows the logical structure of the algorithm created to calculate the
computational mesh variables.
The first step is to define the total pipe length and true vertical depth. Thus, the Measured
Depth (MD) is the way taken by the pipe in the form of a unit of length. In contrast, true vertical
depth (TVD) characterizes the vertical distance between two points. The distance and the pipe
coordinates for north and east are calculated. All the variables were obtained through the
minimum curvature method (AMORIN; BRONI-BEDIAKO, 2010). Equations (3.1) and (3.2)
demonstrate the calculation of the MD and the calculation of TVD, respectively according to
Farah (2013).
∆𝑀𝐷 = 𝑀𝐷2 − 𝑀𝐷1 (3.1)

32
In Equation (3.1), 𝑀𝐷2 is the measured depth of the previous section (m) and 𝑀𝐷1 is
the measured depth of the current section:
∆𝑀𝐷
∆ 𝑇𝑉𝐷 = ∗ (cos(𝐼1 ) + cos(𝐼2 )) ∗ 𝑅𝐹 (3.2)
2
in which, 𝐼2 is inclination in relation to horizontal of the previous section (°) and 𝐼1 is inclination
in relation to the horizontal current section. The second step is to use the MD value to discretize
the tubing as Figure 2.
Figure 2 – Discretization of the length of the pipe for the construction of the computational
mesh.
Source: Elaborated by the author, 2022.
The length of each pipe fraction is the value determined by dL. Yet, the measured depth
to that point is defined by the sum of the last section length and dL. Before calculating the mesh
properties, it is necessary to check whether the dL represents only one type of pipeline. Thus,
in case the measured depth for this section is bigger than the total measured depth for the
pipeline under analysis, a new dL is calculated. The calculated dL will represent only a type of
pipeline and its properties. If the previous condition is not true, the section is divided according
to the dL value defined in the beginning.
33
Figure 3 – Computational mesh calculation procedure.
Mesh Flow
Input data: Stre, L, 𝜃,

Az, 𝑑𝑖 , 𝑑𝑒 , TEC and dL.
Calculation of TVD, MD, 𝐿𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 ,

𝑇𝑉𝐷𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 , 𝑇𝑉𝐷𝑀𝑢𝑑𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑒 and
𝑇𝑉𝐷𝐵𝐻
𝐿𝐷 = 𝐿𝐷𝑖−1 + 𝑑𝐿
𝐿𝐷 > 𝑀𝐷𝑖 No
Yes
𝑑𝐿𝑛𝑒𝑤 = 𝑀𝐷𝑖 − 𝐿𝐷𝑖−1
Out Data: 𝑇𝑉𝐷𝐷 , 𝑀𝐷𝐷 , 𝑑𝑖𝐷 ,

𝑑𝑒𝐷 , 𝜀𝐷 , 𝑇𝐸𝐶𝐷 , 𝜃𝐷 and 𝑑𝐿𝐷
The End
Each section of the pipe represented in Figure 2 will have its own mesh properties, such
as hydraulic diameter, roughness, heat exchanged coefficient, inclination, MD and TVD.
3.2 PVT MODULE
The characterization of the petroleum fluid is carried out through laboratory experiments
of pressure, temperature and volume (PVT) or through PVT correlations to estimate its
34
properties effectively (MAHMOOD, MOHAMMED AAMIR; AL-MARHOUN, 1996). This

module consists of a correlation database for each fluid properties in order to meet saturated
and undersaturated fluid conditions.
The phases that make up the flow are gas, oil, and water. Each one of them has specific
properties that characterize each phase. The black-oil PVT correlations and chemical law, as
the real gas law, can make this characterization.
Gas specific mass is characterized by the equation of real gas and expressed as a function
of pressure and temperature, as showed in Equation (3.3).
𝑃·𝑀
𝜌𝐺 = (3.3)
𝑍·𝑅·𝑇
The gas formation volume factor is defined as volume that it occupies at a given
temperature and pressure condition in relation to the volume it occupies in the standard
condition (GUO et al., 2005), as shown in Equation (3.4):
𝑉 𝑃𝑆𝑇𝐷 𝑃
𝐵𝐺 = = · · 𝑍 (3.4)
𝑉𝑜 𝑇𝑆𝑇𝐷 𝑇
in which, 𝑀 is molecular mass of gas, in g/mol; 𝑅 is the universal constant of gases, J/mol·K;
and 𝑍 is the factor of isothermal compressibility gas.
Some correlations of the gas properties can be found in the literature. The PVT module
developed in this work is composed of the correlations presented in Table 4. The gas property,
unit, abbreviation, and correlation name, respectively, are positioned in each column in the
table. This table structure to present the PVT correlations will be the same used for the oil and
water phases.
Table 4 – PVT correlations that create the PVT gas module
Gas Properties Unit Abbreviations Correlation
Standing
Pseudocritical Pa
Pressure 𝑃𝐶
Sutton
Standing
Pseudocritical 𝑇𝐶
K
Temperature
Sutton
35
Gas Properties Unit Abbreviations Correlation
𝑃𝑝𝑐
Impurity Pressure Pa CKB
Impurity 𝑇𝑝𝑐
K CKB
Temperature
Hall-Yarborough
Dranchuk & Abu –
Kassem
Brill & Beggs
Z Factor - 𝑍
Heidarian
Kumar
Azizi
Lee
Gas Viscosity Pa·s 𝜇𝐺 Dempsey
Sutton
For the oil phase, its properties depend on the saturation condition. Thus, the oil specific
mass to undersaturated fluid is defined as Equation (3.5):
𝜌𝑜 = 𝜌𝑂𝐵 · Exp[𝐶𝑂 · (𝑃 − 𝑃𝑏 )] (3.5)
While for saturated fluid, it is shown in Equation (3.6):
𝜌𝑜𝑆𝑇𝐷 + 𝑅𝑠 . 𝜌𝐺 𝑆𝑇𝐷
𝜌𝑜 = (3.6)
𝐵𝑜
in which, 𝜌𝑜 is the oil specific mass in the saturation pressure, in kg/m3, 𝜌𝑜 𝑆𝑇𝐷 and 𝜌𝐺 𝑆𝑇𝐷 are
the specific mass of oil and gas, respectively, in kg/m3, in the standard condition (1 atm and
15,5°C).
Table 5 expresses the oil properties that depend on the PVT correlation found in the
literature.
36
Table 5 – PVT correlations that create the PVT oil module.
Oil Properties Unit Abbreviations Correlation
Standing
Vasquez and Beggs

Pa
Bubble Pressure 𝑃𝑏
Glaso
Petrosky & Farshad
Standing
Vasquez and Beggs

Gas-Oil Solubility 𝑅𝑆
𝑠𝑚3 /𝑠𝑚3
Ration
Glaso
Petrosky & Farshad
Standing
Vasquez and Beggs

3 𝐵𝑜
FVF Oil 𝑚𝑆𝑇𝐷 /𝑚3
Glaso
Petrosky & Farshad
Standing
𝐶𝑜
Oil Compressibility 1/𝑃𝑎 Vasquez and Beggs
Petrosky & Farshad
Standing
Oil Viscosity Dead 𝑃𝑎 · 𝑠 𝜇𝑂𝐷 Beggs & Robinson
Bergman
Standing
Oil Viscosity
𝑃𝑎 · 𝑠 𝜇𝑂𝐵 Beggs & Robinson
Saturated
Bergman
Standing
Oil Viscosity
𝑃𝑎 · 𝑠 𝜇𝑂 Beggs & Robinson
Undersaturated
Bergman
Gas/Oil Surface
𝑁/𝑚 𝜎𝐺𝑂 Baker & Swerdloff
Tension
37
The characterization of the water is performed because its properties change according
to the environment. Thus, the properties water correlation is necessary to describe the behavior
of the properties in the flow. Table 6 presents these correlations.
Table 6 – PVT correlation that creates the PVT water module.
Water Properties Unit Abbreviations Correlation

Water Specific
[-] 𝑑𝑤
Gravity
Water Density 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 𝜌𝑤
Gas-Water Solubility
𝑠𝑚3 /𝑠𝑚3 𝑅𝑠𝑤 McCain
Ratio
3
FVF Water 𝑚𝑆𝑇𝐷 /𝑚3 𝐵𝑤
Water Viscosity 𝑃𝑎 · 𝑠 𝜇𝑤
This study adopted an approach that considers the flow as composed of only two phases:
gas and liquid. In addition, the weighting of the oil and water phases properties using the
volumetric fraction of water (FWC) creates the liquid phase. Equation (3.7) displays the
calculation of the liquid specific mass:
𝜌𝐿 = 𝜌𝑜 · (1 − fwc) + ρw · fwc (3.7)
Yet, the two-phase flow considers the weighting between the phases of liquid and gas
using the volumetric fraction of gas to obtain the mixture properties. The calculation structure
is the same shown in Equation (3.7). The FWC is changed by the holdup, the oil portion
represents the liquid phase, and the aqueous phase means the gas phase.
Figure 4 expresses, in flowchart format, the logical structure of the computational

algorithm used to calculate the fluid properties for a given pressure and a temperature of each
section of the computational mesh.
For each section 𝑖, there are input data to execute the program. The fluid characterization
is composed by degree API (°API), relative gas density (𝑑𝑔 ), gas-oil ratio (GOR), basic
sediments and water (BSW) and salinity (S), adding pressure (P) and temperature (T). Initially,
the code checks which class the analyzed property belongs to: oil, water or gas. In case the
property is part of the oil class, the bubble pressure is analyzed. If the fluid pressure is smaller
than bubble pressure, the saturated condition is satisfied. Thus, the property is calculated for
38
this condition and for the correlation selected. If the undersaturated condition is satisfied, in
which fluid pressure is bigger than bubble pressure, the same process is performed but for this
condition. The classes of water and gas are simpler. After determination of the class type, the
calculation is carried out from the correlation chosen for this property.
Figure 4 – Calculation procedure of PVT fluid properties.
Calculation of
PVT properties
Input data: Pressure (P),

Temperature (T), property (x)
Calculation of (x)
through the No Y
Yes
𝑃𝑏 < 𝑃? / Oil (x)?
selected es
correlation for Yes No
undersaturated Calculation of (x)
Water (x)? YesY Calculation of (x)
through the selected
condition es through the selected
correlation for
No
correlation
saturated condition
Yes Calculation of (x)
Gas (x)?
through the selected
No correlation
The End
The calculation procedure shown in Figure 5 is executed for all properties for each class
separately. Thus, depending on the calculated variable, a specific property of the fluid is
accessed. In some cases, the mixture properties need to be calculated, so Figure 6 presents the
calculation procedure for this case.
Figure 5 – Procedure for calculating the properties of the mixture.

39
Calculation of
mixture
properties 0
Input data: gas property (xG), oil

property (xO), water property (xW),
water volumetric fraction (fwc)
and gas volumetric fraction (HG)
Calculation of liquid phase

property
𝑥𝐿 = 𝑥𝑂 · (1 − fwc) + xW · fwc
Calculation of mixture phase

property
𝑥𝑚𝑖𝑥 = 𝑥𝐿 · (1 − HG ) + xG · HG
The End
The input data refer to the same fluid property for each phase, but calculated according
to Figure 3, the volumetric fraction of the water and volumetric fraction of the gas. Initially, the
property of the liquid phase is estimated through the weight between water and oil phase. Lastly,
the mixture property is counted through the weight between liquid and gas phase.
3.3 GRADIENT OF TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE
Pressure (P) and temperature (T) calculations are performed for each section 𝑖 of
computational mesh. Pressure is calculated through pressure gradients by gravity, acceleration
and friction using the general pressure drop equation for single-phase flow, Equation (2.27),
and Beggs and Brill’s model for multiphase flow represented by the final expression of this
correlation in Equation (2.52). With the aim of refining the pressure results, the average
pressure method was implemented. This method is interactive and consists of finding the
pressure value at the midpoint of the section, according to Equation (3.8).
40
𝑃𝑖−1 + 𝑃𝑒𝑠𝑡 (3.8)

𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 =
2
In which Pi-1 is pressure in the last section, Pa; and Pest is the estimated pressure, Pa.
The average pressure is an estimate of the pressure on the section. All temperature and
fluid properties calculations necessary to determine pressure drop are calculated at this pressure.
The next step is to estimate the new pressure according to Equation (3.9).
𝑑𝑃
𝑃𝑖 = ( ) · dL + Pi−1 (3.9)
𝑑𝐿
If the error between Pi and Pest is smaller than the tolerance, so the pressure that
represents the section is Pi. Otherwise, the Pi becomes the Pest and the calculating procedure is
realized again.
There are three possibilities for calculating the fluid temperature. The first possibility is
a numeric model through the thermal energy equation, as Equation (2.18). The second
possibility is the linear method. The last is to export a temperature and TVD table that
characterize the system to the code. With the data from the table, a linear interpolation is carried
out to determine the temperature according to the TVD.
The environment temperature used the linear method, which consists in using two points
where the temperature and TVD are known. An intermediate value at these points is found
according to the TVD that wishes to calculate the temperature. This method is shown in
Equation (3.10):
𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑣1 − 𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑣2
𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑣 = 𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑣2 + (𝑇𝑉𝐷 − 𝑇𝑉𝐷2 ) . ( ) (3.10)
𝑇𝑉𝐷1 − 𝑇𝑉𝐷2
In the Equation (3.10), 𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑣2 and 𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑣1 are environment temperatures at the top and
bottom reference points, respectively, TVD is the true vertical depth in the section 𝑖, 𝑇𝑉𝐷1 and
𝑇𝑉𝐷2 are the true vertical depth at the top and bottom reference points, respectively.
The values of PT in each section 𝑖 are stored from the position in the pipe. However, the
construction of the pressure and temperature profile is dependent on the PVT properties of the
fluid, making it necessary to implement an interactive method for calculation pressure, using
the average pressure method as previously described.
41
Figure 6 refers to the logical structure developed in the program to calculate the thermo-
hydraulic profile of the petroleum fluid flowing in the pipeline. In addition, the importance of
the computational mesh and PVT module for the sequence of calculations is evident in this step.
42
Figure 6 – Logical structure for the calculation of the temperature and pressure.
Initiatio
ne
Input Data: 𝑑𝑔 , °API, 𝐿 𝑇 ,

d, 𝜃, 𝑄𝑠𝑐 , 𝑃𝑠 , 𝑇𝑠 , TOL.
Calculation of 𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑣 𝑖
Estimate of 𝑃𝑖𝐸𝑠𝑡
𝑃𝑖−1+𝑃𝑖
Calculation of 𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 2
Calculation of PVT properties, in-situ

flow, and velocity in P and 𝑇𝑖−1
General pressure drop

No
0 < 𝐻𝐺 < 1? equation for single-
Next section i Update: 𝑑𝑃
𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐 𝐸𝑠𝑡
phase flow: )
𝑃 =𝑃 Yes 𝑑𝐿 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝐿𝑖 = 𝑖 · dL
Beggs & Brill modeling for
𝑑𝑃
multiphase flow: )
𝑑𝐿 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
Calculation of 𝑃𝑖𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐
No Convergence
|𝑃𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐 − 𝑃𝐸𝑠𝑡 | < 𝑇𝑜𝑙?
Yes
Calculation of 𝑇𝑖
Output data: 𝑃𝑖 , 𝑇𝑖 and PVT

properties of fluid
No Yes
𝐿𝑖 > 𝑀𝐷? The End
43
For each section 𝑖, the input variables necessary to carry out the sequence of calculations
to obtain the thermo-hydraulic profile are degree API (°API), relative density of gas (𝑑𝑔 ),
diameter of the pipe (d), angle of inclination in relation to the horizontal (𝜃), volumetric flow
rate of liquid in the surface condition (𝑄𝑠𝑐 ), pressure (𝑃𝑠 ) and temperature (𝑇𝑠 ) in the boundary
condition, in this case in the separator. After inserting the input data in the program and the
properties of the mesh calculated according to Figure 3, the environment temperature is
calculated through the methodology described in Equation (3.10).
Before initiating the interactive method, a value of estimated pressure is indicated. For
the first point to be calculated, the estimated pressure is the pressure in the boundary condition,
in this case in the separator. With this value set, the average pressure is calculated according to
the Equation (3.8).
The next step is to compute the PVT fluid properties used to characterize the fluid. The
calculation procedure shown in Figure 4 depends on the input data of the estimated pressure
(𝑃𝐸𝑠𝑡 ) and the last section temperature (𝑇𝑖−1 ). Furthermore, the in-situ flow rate and surface
velocity of the gas, oil and water phase are estimated for both variables.
The holdup represents the amount of gas it contains in the system. Consequently, this
variable defines whether the flow is single or multiphase. In case the holdup is equal to zero,
the flow is a single phase composed only of the liquid phase. Otherwise, if the holdup is equal
to one, the flow has a single phase. So, it is composed of the gas phase. The last alternative is
for the holdup to be between the values of zero and one. So, this characterizes the multiphase
flow. The calculation of the holdup is shown in Equation (3.11):
𝑣𝑒𝑙𝐺
𝐻𝐺 = (3.11)
𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑚𝑖𝑥
In which 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝐺 is the gas surface velocity, m/s and 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑚𝑖𝑥 is the mixture surface velocity,
m/s.
When identifying the type of the flow: multiphase or single phase, the equation for each
type changes. If the flow is characterized by a single phase, the general pressure drop equation
is used, as presented in Equation (2.27). This is valid in both the liquid and gas phases. On the
other hand, for a multiphase flow the Beggs and Brill’s model is used, according to Equation
(2.52). After receiving the results of the pressure drop, the calculated pressure (𝑃𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐 ) is
estimated from the pressure difference between neighboring sections, as Equation (3.9).
44
The value of tolerance adopted in the code is 1%, in which the convergence condition
consists of the difference between the calculated pressure and estimated pressure being greater
than tolerance, as shown in Equation (3.12):
|𝑃𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐 − 𝑃𝐸𝑠𝑡 | < 𝑇𝑜𝑙 (3.12)
In Equation (3.12), 𝑃𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐 is the calculated pressure, (Pa); 𝑃𝐸𝑠𝑡 is the estimated pressure,
(Pa) and Tol is the tolerance, (%).
In case the condition in Equation (3.12) is true, the calculated pressure becomes the
pressure (P) of that section under analysis. Otherwise, the response is false. The calculated
pressure becomes the estimated pressure for the next iterative and this process repeats until this
response becomes true.
Lastly, when the pressure and temperature are calculated for the entire 𝑑𝐿𝑖 section, the
code closes with the thermo-hydraulic profile, PVT properties, mesh properties and flow
properties in response.
3.4 MULTIPHASE FLOW SIMULATOR FEATURES
From the module presented previously, the numeric algorithm was developed to include
all applications to predict the construction of the production system, fluid properties, pressure,
temperature, and all the analyses that can be carried out through these results. The simulator
was developed in Python software. The code structure used was object-oriented programming.
The numeric algorithm is composed of four main classes, each of which has its own
input variables and can be executed separately or in group to have the complete analysis. The
four main classes are: mesh, PVT fluid properties, thermal and flow.
The mesh is responsible for creating the production system with all its characteristics
for realizing the calculation on a computational mesh. Input data refer to pipe according to
inclination, length, diameter, absolute roughness, HET and type of tubing. After inserting these
data, the simulator will discretize the computational mesh. Further, the module is composed of
the auxiliar functions, in which pipe-related properties, such as area and volume of the pipe, are
calculated.
The PVT fluid properties module is formed by three options to calculate the properties:
black oil model, compositional model and importing a PVT table from another software.
Currently, only black oil is available. This model was segregated into three child classes,
45
according to the oil, water, and gas phases. Each of the child’s classes computes all the
properties related to its phase. In addition, there is a database of correlations available to
calculate the properties.
There are three possibilities to compute the temperature implemented in the thermal
module. The first is the numeric model represented by the thermal energy equation, which can
calculate through the explicit temperature equation or through the temperature variation due to
the length variation (dT/dL). The second possibility is a linear model. The last is to import a
temperature and TVD table from another software.
The last module relates to the Flow. This module involves all the properties related to
the flow. The modeling of single-phase flow considers the general pressure drop equation. Yet,
the multiphase flow uses the Beggs and Brill’s model. In addition, correlations of the friction
factor were implemented, such as the Blasius, Cole Brook, and Hall models. Other properties
are computed in this class, such as in-situ flow rate, surface velocity, and gas volumetric
fraction.
The flowchart presented in Figure 7 exhibits how the modules described above are
related, in addition to showing how the computational tool works in practice.
Figure 7 – General computational logic of the simulator.
Initiation
e
Mesh class and PVT

class input data
Mesh Class PVT Class
Thermal Class
Flow Class Results

46
Finally, the results module is executed. This module hinges all the calculated variables
along the code execution. The variables of interest to the user are saved in vector format and
can later be used for analysis in graphic format.
The code was structured to be able to expand within the existing modules. The insertion
of the analysis modules can be done, such as simulation of IPR and TPR. Thus, the efficiency
of elevating a petroleum well will have complete analysis in just one simulator.
47
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 CASE STUDY 1: ONSHORE SCENARIO
This section presents and discusses the onshore production system. This study
approached the system constituted by the production tubing and the surface production lines
until the separation unit. Furthermore, the parameters that influence the flow, as water cut and
holdup, have been analyzed.
The data related to system geometry, fluid’s characterization and surface operational
variables set the petroleum production system for this study. Table 7 presents the geometry data
for each type of flow pipe, as follows: tubing represents the line of production in the well. The
flowline is the pipe that connects the wellhead to separation unit. The important variables of
these lines are length (L), angle to horizontal (𝜃), azimuth (Az), hydraulic diameter (𝑑ℎ ),
absolute roughness (𝜀), and heat exchange coefficient (HEC).
Table 7 – Description of onshore production system geometry.
Flow Line L (m) 𝜽(°) Az (°) 𝒅𝒉 (m) 𝜺 (m) HEC (𝑾/𝒌𝒈 . 𝑲)
Tubing 900 90 0 0.127 1·10-6 2.0

Flowline 200 0 0 0.1524 2·10-6 4.0
The modeling of PVT fluids is black oil. In this study case, the fluid data are API gravity
(°API), gas to oil ratio (GOR), basic sediment water (BSW), relative gas density (𝑑𝑔 ),
percentage of 𝐶𝑂2 (𝐶𝑂2 ) and salinity (S). These data are presented in Table 8.
The heat capacity was considered constant for the water, oil, and gas phases with the
values, 4186.8, 1716.6 and 2206.4 in 𝐽/𝑘𝑔. 𝐾, respectively. These values were assumed by Al
Safran & Brill (2017).
Table 8 – Black-Oil PVT characterization of petroleum fluid for case study 1.
°API [ -] GOR [ 𝒔𝒎𝟑 /𝒔𝒎𝟑 ] BSW [ %] 𝒅𝒈 [ - ] S [ %]
20 25 30 0.64 30
The environment temperature is calculated by the linear method. This method consists
of fixing nodes at points (TVD) where environment temperature is known. The environment
48
temperature profile is created by executing this method with the variation of TVD and the
response is environment temperature for this point. The set of temperature and vertical depth
vertical are: 293.15 K in the separation unit and 353.15 K in the reservoir depth (900m).
The boundary condition is considered in the separator, so the boundary variables with
their values are fluid temperature, 303.15 K, pressure 10 bar and flow rate 99.4 sm3/d,
respectively. This problem was resolved by equations’ explicit description, adopting a one-
dimensional mesh approach. A total of 185 sections of the system were divided to resolve the
results.
4.1.1 Pressure and temperature in the onshore production system
In this section, Figure 8 represents the pressure and temperature profile and the external
temperature, in which it takes the form of geological temperature. Figure 8 shows that the fluid
comes out of the reservoir with 81.5 bar and 317.3 K, yet the external temperature in this region
is 353.15 K. These values are consequences of the boundary condition since the PT are
determined on the surface and the calculation sequence establishes the PT in the bottom hole
condition.
During the flow of the fluid to the wellhead, the temperature fluid decreases. The
thermic gradient presented the variation of -0.0109 – 0.032 K/m. This is due to heat exchange
with the rock formation and the effect of gravity that influences heat loss. This effect also
interferes with pressure, as the fluid will need a greater force to overcome the pressure drop.
The greater the pressure drop by gravity, the greater the impact on these two variables.
From wellhead to separation units, the range of temperature and pressure shows a small
change. In this region, the flow is horizontal. Therefore, pressure is not influenced by the gravity
effect, it has just been the impact of the friction effect. The heat exchange between the fluid and
external environment is low because the soil temperature decreases and remains constant. As
the temperature loss is not significant, the thermal insulation (20 𝑊/𝑘𝑔 . 𝐾) can be lower and
the fluid temperature reaches 295.5 K.
49
Figure 8 – Fluid and external temperature and pressure profiles in relation a measured depth
of the pipeline.
Pressure drop along the system can be observed in Figure 8. In the start of the flow, the
tubing is vertical. Consequently, the gravity is against the flow, having the greatest influence
on the total pressure drop. The pressure gradient by gravity decreases until it reaches a value of
zero, where the pipe becomes horizontal and there is no gravity influence.
The term of friction shows little intervention on the total pressure drop. In the production
tubing, this portion had an increasing behavior. This is related to the gradual increase in the
amount of gas in the system, which collaborates to elevate the surface velocity of the mixture.
In the flowline, a commonly short stretch in an onshore scenario, the amount of gas in the pipe
is constant. Therefore, there is no elevation in the mixture surface velocity, contributing to the
frictional portion of the pressure drop decreasing to 4.55·10-4 bar/m and presenting a small
variation up to the surface that comes to 2.96·10-4 bar/m.
Total pressure variation is the sum of pressure drop by gravity and friction multiplied
by section length (dL) according to Figure 9. Note that the behavior of the total pressure
variation curve is the same behavior of the pressure drop by gravity curve up to 200 m, in Figure
8. This is because gravity is the variable that most influences pressure drop, consequently the
pressure variation is impacted by this. Pressure is calculated by discounting the pressure
variation in that section. Thus, as the pressure variation decreases, the pressure also decreases.
In this trajectory up to 200 m, the greater pressure loss occurs.
50
Figure 9 – Pressure drops by gravity, by friction in relation to a measured depth.
The region where the greatest total pressure gradient occurs is in the production tubing
due to the gravity action.
Figure 10 – Total pressure drop and pressure in relation to a measured depth.

51
The pressure drop by friction makes a small portion contribution to the total pressure
variation. It becomes more evident in the horizontal flow, where there no influence of gravity.
Thereby, the pressure variation has a range of 0.3238 – 0.0017 bar in this region. As expected,
the pressure manifested a small shift in its values.
4.1.2 Analysis of thermofluidic dynamic variables
Thermofluidic dynamic variables, as surface velocity of gas, liquid and mixture and
specific mass of gas, liquid and mixture are presented in Figure 11 and Figure 12, respectively.
Figure 11 shows the void fraction and surface velocity of gas, liquid, and mixture in
relation a measured depth. Void fraction is the amount of gas along the onshore production
system. Note that as the pressure decreases, the void fraction raises. That is, as the oil phase is
depressurized, the gas in solution is expelled, forming the gas phase. Thus, the expansion of the
gas phase occurs along the system because of the depressurization of the system.
As the amount of gas raises, its surface velocity also raises, exhibiting exponential
growth up to the wellhead, where the hydraulic diameter is smallest. As the surface velocity is
inversely proportional to the hydraulic diameter, the gas surface velocity decreases when the
pipe is changed to a larger hydraulic diameter. The gas starts the flow with the surface velocity
in 4.68·10-4 m/s and increases to 0.29 m/s in the wellhead. In the surface, this property presented
the value of 0.308 m/s.
The liquid surface velocity shows a decreasing behavior, varying from 0.28 m/s to 0.19
m/s on the surface. Yet, the mixture surface velocity is the sum of gas and liquid surface
velocity. First, only the liquid phase contributes to the mixture velocity. After, the surface gas
velocity increases, thus, this phase has a greater impact on the mixture velocity.
Figure 12 represents the specific mass of gas, mixture, and liquid in relation to a
measured depth. The oil specific mass increases due to the release of light components. Yet,
the water specific mass presents a small variation of 989.74 – 994.77 kg/m3 due to the increase
in the amount of water in the system. The liquid specific mass is formed from the weight of the
specific mass of the aqueous and oil phases.
52
Figure 11 – Void fraction and surface velocity of gas, liquid, and mixture in relation to a
measured depth.
Figure 12 – Specific mass of gas, mixture, and liquid in relation to pressure.
The gas phase is created from the release of light components from the oil phase. Thus,
the gas specific mass decreases due to its depressurization along the onshore production system
ranging from 66.39 – 7.52 kg/m3. Lastly, the weight between the liquid and gas phase by their
53
respective volume fractions formed the mixture specific mass, in which, it showed a decreasing
behavior from the bottom hole to separation unit, with variation of 920.34 - 367.5 kg/3.
4.1.3 Influence of BSW on the system
A high production of water and sediments is common in the onshore production system.
This is measured through BSW value. This variable impacts fluid properties, thermo-hydraulic
profile and well equipment integrity. In this section, the influence of BSW in the system is
analyzed.
Figure 13 shows the different BSW values measuring the amount of water in the pipe.
Note that there is both an oil and a water phases, because in all cases the FWC > 0.
Figure 13 – FWC in relation a measured depth.
Figure 14 presents the influence of BSW in the thermo-hydraulic profile. At the

beginning of the flow, there is less water in the system. As the BSW increases, the pressure also
increases. This phenomenon, combined with the highest water specific mass compared to
hydrocarbon, makes BSW contribute to the pressure drop by gravity.
54
Figure 14 – Influence of BSW in the thermo-hydraulic profile.
Thermo-hydraulic profile that considers BSW = 70% requires a pressure in the reservoir
larger (91,95 bar) to win the pressure gradient. In contrast, when it accounts the BSW = 10%,
this pressure declines to 76,71 bar.
4.2 CASE STUDY 2: OFFSHORE SCENARIO
This section presents the results for the offshore production system scenario. The studied
system is similar to a tie-back subsea arrangement, which is composed of long pipes and wet
Christmas tree installed at the wellhead far away from the floating offshore structure, as shown
in the geometry description of Figure 15. The total course of the petroleum fluids from the
reservoir to the platform is 14.55 km.
55
Figure 15 – MPPS scheme considered in the case study.
The variables to create the production system are the same in the case of onshore and
offshore conditions. Notwithstanding, the actuation range for variables is different for each of
the scenarios.
Table 9 shows the geometry of the system: the tubing in the well, pipe that is located
under the seabed (flowline) and pipe connecting the platform to end of flowline (riser). All the
variables in Table 7 were described in the onshore system section.
Table 9 – Description of offshore production system geometry.
HEC (𝑾/
Flow Line L (m) 𝜽(°) Az (°) 𝒅𝒉 (m) 𝜺 (m)
𝒌𝒈 . 𝑲)
Riser 1550 90 0 0.1524 1·10-6 1
Flowline 10000 0 0 0.1397 1·10-6 0.5
Tubing 500 15 351.27 0.127 1·10-6 2
Tubing 500 20 351.27 0.127 1·10-6 2
Tubing 500 25 351.27 0.127 1·10-6 2
Tubing 500 30 351.27 0.127 1·10-6 2
Tubing 500 45 351.27 0.127 1·10-6 2
Tubing 500 30 351.27 0.127 1·10-6 2

56
The description PVT black-oil of the petroleum fluids is considered in this study. The
values of API, GOR, BSW, 𝑑𝑔 and S used as input data in PVT module are presented in Table
10.
Table 10 – Black-Oil PVT characterization of offshore petroleum fluid.
°API [ -] GOR [ 𝒔𝒎𝟑 /𝒔𝒎𝟑 ] BSW [ %] 𝒅𝒈 [ - ] 𝑪𝑶𝟐 [ % ] S [ %]
40 400 10 0.62 10 10
A boundary condition was assumed in the surface separator, so that the operation
variables such as: fluid pressure (𝑃𝑠 ), temperature (𝑇𝑠 ) and total flow of liquid (𝑄𝑠 ) were defined
for this condition. Yet, the ambient temperature profile was calculated by the linear
interpolation method. It consists of defining fixed nodes of temperature in relation to vertical
depth. The pair of temperature and vertical depth values defined were: 283.15K in the separator
(0m), 277.15K in the seabed depth (1550 m) and 353.15K in the reservoir depth (4217.26m).
Following this logic, the simulation of thermo-hydraulic profile was performed considering the
variables presented in the Table 11.
The problem was solved by an iterative explicit method at pressure and temperature.
Further, the computational mesh assumed a one-dimensional distribution in length Δ𝐿.
Table 11 – Surface operation variables.
Variables 𝑷𝒔 [bar] 𝑻𝒔 [K] 𝑸𝒔 [𝒔𝒎𝟑 /𝒅] 𝚫𝑳 [m]
Values 10 303.15 2384.64 60
The detailed configuration of the petroleum production system is composed of 248

analysis sections, considering Δ𝐿 = 60𝑚. From the division of the system, the methodology
presented in Section 3 was applied to determine the thermo-hydraulic profile and other
thermofluidic dynamic variables involved in the flow, as presented in the following sections.
4.2.1 Pressure and temperature in the offshore production system
In this section, the thermo-hydraulic profile and the pressure and temperature (PT)
profile are presented in Figure 16 and Figure 17, respectively.
57
Figure 16 presents the fluid thermo-hydraulic profile along the flow. In the initial
condition, the pressure and temperature in the separator were 10 bar and 303.15 K, respectively.
There is an increase in PT, which is due to the high energy demand of the fluid to overcome the
elevation of the well and the subsea flow pipelines to the platform.
Figure 16 – Thermo-hydraulic profile along the flow.
On the other hand, the thermal exchange significantly influences the temperature in the
region of flowline. In this location, the external temperature reaches low values, around 4°C. In
condition of the mud line, check values of 145.59 bar and 333.72 K.
Fluid temperature profile, external temperature profile and pressure profile in relation
to pipe length are shown in Figure 17. The fluid loses heat during the flow until the wet
Christmas tree, attaining 336.72 K. This happens because the fluid changes heat with the
geological formation and production tubing. The external temperature, on the other hand, shows
353.15 K in the buttonhole, and decreases to 277.15K, when altering the external environment
to subsea water.
External temperature does not fluctuate in the flowline since the tube has the same true
vertical depth (TVD) along its entire length. At this location, fluid temperature shows linear
behavior. This is due to the biggest isolation used (𝐻𝐸𝐶 = 0.5 𝑊/𝑘𝑔 . 𝐾) because it is about
temperature severe condition. An important factor in thermic energy equation is gravity effect,
the smaller the angle, the smaller gravity effect in the thermic gradient, thus presenting a range
of 0.0085-0.00136K/m. In the riser base, fluid temperature is 318.57K.
58
At the beginning riser section, there is an increase in the pipe angle directly affecting
the thermic gradient, in which it presents a slope in temperature profile, altering from
0.0147K/m to 0.0085K/m, as can be observed in Figure 17. This change is related to the effect
of gravity.
Figure 17 – Fluid temperature profile, external temperature profile, and pressure profile in
relation to length.
The importance of temperature profile to produce oil and natural gas along the MSPP is
highlighted, in which this variable strongly impacts fluid properties, that directly influence the
calculation of the pressure gradient.
4.2.2 Thermofluidic dynamic variables in the offshore system
In Figure 18, Figure 19, Figure 20 and Figure 21, the pressure drop and void fraction,
surface velocity, specific mass and viscosity of the oil, water, gas and mixture phases were
plotted, respectively.
Figure 18 presents the pressure drop by gravity, by friction and void fraction in relation
to length. Note the influence of pressure drop by gravity on section with angles other than zero.
The pipe angle impacts this gradient, as the effect of gravity is greater in flows with larger pipe
angles. In the riser, this pressure drop varies from 0.00798 – 0.0256 bar/m. This section is fully
vertical, but the void fraction reduces the specific mass of mixture because it liberates the light
oil components. Thus, the fluid pressure reduces as the void fraction increases. In the flowline,
59
this gradient is zero because there no influence of gravity on horizontal pipelines, reaching the
elevation with the range of 0.0098 – 0.024 bar/m.
In contrast, the pressure drop by friction increased during all the flow. This happened
due to the expansion of gas in the system, contributing to the elevation of mixture surface
velocity. In this case, the pressure drop by friction ranged from 0.0398 to 0.0083 bar/m in the
riser, in the flowline base this gradient is 0.0064 bar/m. Yet, in the elevation the range is 0.0103
– 0.0078 bar/m.
Figure 18 – Pressure drop by gravity, by friction and void fraction in relation to length.
In Figure 19, it can be noted that the raise in the surface velocity of the mixture is linked
to the increase in the surface velocity of gas. This occurs as the gas expands in the pipe, as
shown in Figure 18 with raising void fraction during the flow. At the surface velocity of liquid,
however, there is a small decreasing variation along the flow, starting with 3.034 m/s and ending
with 1.54m/s.
The specific mass of water, oil, gas, and mixture phases in relation to pressure are
presented in Figure 20. The behavior of this variable must be analyzed, as it directly influences
flow pressure and temperature profile. The gas specific mass reduces due to its depressurization
along the flow in the SMPP while the specific mass of oil raises due to the release of light
components of oil to create the gas phase. The water specific mass shows small variation,
altering from 978.96 kg/m3 in the bottom hole to 994.63 kg/m3 in the surface. The mixture
specific mass results in the weighting of the property of oil and gas phases through void fraction.
60
The reduction in the values of mixture specific mass is related for the low values of the gas
specific mass together with the increase in the void fraction. The decrease behavior happens
from the bottom hole to the platform. Thus, the specific mass varies from 460.78 kg/m3 to 32.44
kg/m3.
Figure 19 – Surface velocity of liquid, gas, and mixture phases in relation to length.
Figure 20 – Specific mass of oil, water, gas, and mixture phases in relation to pressure.

61
Figure 21 presented the viscosity of oil, water, gas, and mixture phases in relation to
pressure. The viscosity behavior is similar to specific mass. Note that oil and water viscosity is
responsible for the increase in the viscosity of mixture. Once the release of the light components
creates a phase of larger chains and more concentrated of hydrocarbon, the gas viscosity shows
a decrease adequate to depressurization along the flow in the SMPP.
Figure 21 – Viscosity of oil, water, mixture, and gas phases in relation to pressure.
Viscosity and specific mass are important variables in the flow, as they impact pressure
drop by friction and gravity, consequently displaying consequences in the temperature and
pressure profile.
62
5 CONCLUSIONS
A computational tool for single-phase flow and multiphase flow analysis has been
developed in this study by using Python software. It also considers the general pressure drop
equation to the single-phase flow and the Beggs and Brill’s model to multiphase flow to
calculate the pressure drop and thermal energy equation to determine the temperature gradient
into account.
The developed computational mesh allowed the simulation of offshore production

systems, with their flowlines and rises with different diameters and length and a directional
well. It also allowed the simulation of onshore production systems, which are not that complex.
It is composed by the vertical tubing and surface flowline. In both cases, the computational
mesh is discretized into smaller sections.
The comprehension of pressure and temperature behavior and the thermofluidic

dynamic properties has a fundamental role in the multiphase flow. The onshore system does
not work with pressure and temperature in severe conditions. The pressure varied from 81 bar
in the reservoir to 10 bar in the separator. However, BSW influences this value. The higher the
BSW, the higher the reservoir pressure. That is, when the BSW is equal to 10%, the pressure is
76.71 bar in the reservoir while when the BWS is equal to 70%, the pressure increases to 91.95
bar.
In the offshore system, the conditions are severe. High pressure and low temperatures
are characteristics of this system. The pressure in the reservoir is 299 bar, as the flow occurs,
the fluid loses pressure due to pressure drop. Thus, the fluid arrives in the separator with a
pressure of 10 bar. In addition, severe environment temperature is in flowline with 277.15K.
Due to heat transfer, the fluid leaves the reservoir at a temperature equal to 346K and arrives in
the separator with 303.15K.
It is concluded that the simulator presented in this work is multifunctional. It is capable

of modeling and simulating fluid properties with the black oil model, as well as creating a
flexible mesh and calculating numerically the pressure and temperature profiles. In addition,
the variables involved in these modules can be accessed and specific analyses with these
variables can be conducted. It is highlighted that the simulator could be used in academia to
help in the classes of flow in pipes.
63
REFERENCES
ANDREOLLI, Ivanilto. INTRODUÇÃO À ELEVAÇÃO E ESCOAMENTO

MONOFÁSICO E MULTIFÁSICO DE PETRÓLEO. Rio de Janeiro: Interciência, 2016.
ANP. Boletim da Produção de Petróleo e Gás Natural. Rio de Janeiro: 2021.
Al-Marhoun, M.A., 1988. PVT correlations for Middle East crude oils. J. Petrol.
Technol. 40 (5), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.2118/13718-PA, 0149-2136.
AL-SAFRAN, E. M.; BRILL, J. P. (JAMES P. . Applied multiphase flow in pipes and
flow assurance oil and gas production. , p. 287–296, 2017.
ALVES, I. N.; ALHANATL, F. S.; SHOHAM, O. Flowing Temperature Distribution. ,
, n. November, p. 363–367, 1992.
AMORIN, R.; BRONI-BEDIAKO, E. Application of Minimum Curvature method to
wellpath calculations. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology,
v. 2, n. 7, p. 679–686, 2010.
ASSMANN, B. W. Previsão do comportamento de pressão e temperatura transitorios
em poços de petroleo e oleodutos. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 1993.
BARRUFET, M. A.; RASOOL, A. Prediction of Bottomhole Flowing Pressures in l
Multiphase Systems Using a Thermodynamic Equation of State. , p. 369–380, 1995.
BEGGS, H. D.; BRILL, J. P. A Study of wo-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes. , 1973.
BELTRAO, R. L.; SOMBRA, C.; LAGE, A.; FAGUNDES NETTO, J.; HENRIQUES,
C. Challenges and New Technologies for the Development of the Pre-Salt Cluster, Santos
Basin, Brazil. , 2009.
BENTHER, A. D. ANÁLISE DO COMPORTAMENTO DAS CURVAS DE
PRESSÃO REQUERIDA NA PRODUÇÃO DE POÇOS DE PETRÓLEO‫ر‬. Pontificia
Universidad Catolica del Peru, v. 8, n. 33, p. 44, 2014.
BENTSEN, R. G.; MARSHALL, D. W. A COMPUTER MODEL TO DETERMINE
THE TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTIONS IN A WELLBORE. , , n. l, 1982.
BIRD, R. B.; STEWART, W. E.; LIGHTFOOT, E. N. Transport Phenmena. 1980.
BOBERG, T. C.; PENBERTHY, W. L.; HAGEDORN, A. R. Calculating the Steam-
Stimulated Performance of Gas-Lifted and Flowing Heavy-Oil Wells. JPT, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, v. 25, p. 1207–1215, 1973.
BRILL, J. P.; ARLRACHAKARAN, S. J. State of the Art in Multiphase Flow. Jpt, , n.
May, 1992.
DINDORUK, B.; RATNAKAR, R. R.; HE, J. Review of recent advances in petroleum
fluid properties and their representation. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering,
v. 83, n. June, p. 103541, 2020. Elsevier B.V.
DUNS JR., H.; ROS, N. C. J. Vertical flow of gas and liquid mixtures in wells. 6th
World Petroleum Congress, 19. jun. 1963.
ELSHARKAWY, A. M.; ALIKHAN, A. A. Correlations for predicting solution gas /
oil ratio , oil formation volume factor , and undersaturated oil compressibility. , v. 17, p. 291–
302, 1997.
FARAH, O. Directional Well design, trajectory and survey calculations, with a case
64
study in Fiale, Asal Rift, Djibouti. Programme Training Programme, v. 27, n. 27, p. 34, 2013.
GREGORY, G. A.; AZIZ, K. CALCULATION OF PRESSURE AND
TEMPERATURE PROFILES IN MULTIPHASE PIPELINES AND SIMPLE PIPELINE
NETWORKS. , , n. 3, 1978.
GUO, B.; GHALAMBOR, A.; ENGINEERING, G.; SECOND, H. Properties of Natural
Gas Properties of Petroleum Fluids Dry Gases. , 2005.
HAGEDORN, A. R.; BROWN, K. E. Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients
Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small-Diameter Vertical Conduits. , 1965.
HASAN, A. R.; DAKOTA, U. N.; KABIR, C. S.; PETROLEUM, C.; CO, T. Aspects
of Wellbore Heat Transfer During Two-Phase Flow. , , n. August, 1994.
MAHMOOD, MOHAMMED AAMIR; AL-MARHOUN, M. A. Evaluation of
empirically derived PVT properties for Pakustani crude oils. Scientia Iranica, v. 14, n. 4, p.
358–368, 1996.
MUKHERJEE, H.; BRILL, J. P. Multiphase Flow In Wells. Richardson, Texas, 1999.
OLUSEGUN, A. T.; MATTHEW, A. A. Fluid Characterization and EoS Modelling of
PVT Experiments. , , n. August, p. 5–7, 2014.
ORKISZEWSKI, J. Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipe. , 1967.
POURAFSHARY, P.; VARAVEI, A.; SEPEHRNOORI, K.; PODIO, A. A
compositional wellbore/reservoir simulator to model multiphase flow and temperature
distribution. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, v. 69, n. 1–2, p. 40–52, 2009.
Elsevier B.V.
DI PRIMIO, R.; DIECKMANN, V.; MILLS, N. PVT and phase behaviour analysis in
petroleum exploration. Organic Geochemistry, v. 29, n. 1-3–3 pt 1, p. 207–222, 1998.
RAMEY, H. J. Wellbore Heat Transmission. , 1962.
ROSA, J. A.; CARVALHO, R. S.; XAVIER, J. A. D. Engenharia de Reservatórios de
Petróleo. Rio de Janeiro, Interciência, 2003.
SAGAR, R.; DOTY, D. R.; SCHMIDT, Z. Predicting temperature profiles in a flowing
well. SPE Production Engineering, v. 6, n. 4, p. 441–448, 1991.
SHIU, K. C.; H.D.BEGGS. Predicting Temperature in Flowing Oil Wells. , , n. 78, 1980.
SUTTON, R. P.; FARAHAD, F.; LOUISIANA, U. S. Evaluation of Empirically
Derived PYT Properties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils. , , n. February, 1990.
VARGAS, R. D. F.; ALBERI, C. P. Malhas Computacionais Para Simulação Numérica
De Escoamentos De Fluidos Entre Cilindros Com Excentricidade. , 2009.

TCC Fran vSENT

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

TCC Fran vSENT

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UNIVERSIDADE DO ESTADO DE SANTA CATARINA – UDESC

CENTRO DE EDUCAÇÃO SUPERIOR DA FOZ DO ITAJAÍ – CESFI

TRABALHO DE CONCLUSÃO DE CURSO

DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPUTATIONAL TOOL TO ANALYZE MULTIPHASE

BALNEÁRIO CAMBORIÚ, 2022

DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPUTATIONAL TOOL TO ANALYZE MULTIPHASE

Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (TCC) desenvolvido no

Orientador: Antonio Marinho Barbosa Neto, D. Sc

DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPUTATIONAL TOOL TO ANALYZE MULTIPHASE

Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (TCC) desenvolvido no ThermoPhase – Fluid and Complex

Prof. Antonio Marinho Barbosa Neto, D.Sc

Eng. Roberto Fernando Leuchtenberger, M.Sc

Prof. Eduardo José Mendes de Paiva, D.Sc

Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina

As pessoas que eu tive o prazer de conhecer e trabalhar na PetroJr – Empresa Júnior de

A todos os membros do grupo Thermophase pelo conhecimento compartilhado e por tornar um

A revitalização de campos maduros e o desenvolvimento de campos de águas ultra profundas

Palavras-chave: Escoamento Gás-Líquido, Perfil termo-hidráulico, Produção Onshore,

Keywords: Gas-Liquid Flow, Thermo-Hydraulic Profile, Onshore Production, Offshore

Figure 1 – Horizontal flow pattern map. ............................................................................... 26

Table 1 – Range of values for each flow patterns ................................................................. 27

BSW Basic Sediments and Water

EoS Equation of State

FWC Factor Water Cut

GOR Gas-Oil Ration

HEC Heat Exchanged Coefficient

MPPS Marine Petroleum Production System

PVT Pressure, Volume, and Temperature

TVD True Vertical Depth

𝑄𝑂 Oil Flow Rate 𝑚3 /𝑠

𝑄𝑜𝑠𝑐 Oil Flow Rate in Standard Condition 𝑚3 /𝑠

𝑄𝑤 Water Flow Rate 𝑚3 /𝑠

𝑄𝑤𝑠𝑐 Water Flow Rate in Standard Condition 𝑚3 /𝑠

𝑄𝐺 Gas Flow Rate 𝑚3 /𝑠

𝑄𝐺𝑠𝑐 Gas Flow Rate in Standard Condition 𝑚3 /𝑠

𝑉𝑠𝐿 Liquid Surface Velocity 𝑚/𝑠

𝑉𝑠𝐺 Gas Surface Velocity 𝑚/𝑠

𝑉𝑀 Mixture Surface Velocity 𝑚/𝑠

𝑃𝑝𝑐 Impurity Pressure 𝑃

𝑇𝑝𝑐 Impurity Temperature 𝐾

𝑅𝑠 Gas-Oil Solubility Ratio 𝑠𝑚3 /𝑠𝑚3

𝐶𝑜 Oil Compressibility 1/𝑃𝑎

𝜇𝑂𝐷 Oil Viscosity Dead 𝑃𝑎 · 𝑠

𝜇𝑂𝐵 Oil Viscosity Saturated 𝑃𝑎 · 𝑠

𝜇𝑂 Oil Viscosity Undersaturated 𝑃𝑎 · 𝑠

𝜎𝐺𝑂 Gas/Oil Surface Tension 𝑁/𝑚

𝑑𝑤 Water Specific Gravity [−]

𝜌𝑤 Water Specific Mass 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

𝑅𝑆𝑊 Gas-Water Solubility Ratio 𝑠𝑚3 /𝑠𝑚3

𝜌𝐿 Liquid Specific Mass 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

𝜌𝑁𝑆 Mixture Specific Mass “No-Slip” 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

𝜌𝑆 Mixture Specific Mass “Slip” 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3

𝑑𝐺 Gas Specific Gravity [−]

𝜆𝐿 Liquid Holdup “No-Slip” [−]

𝐻𝐿 Liquid Holdup [−]

𝑑𝑃 Pressure Gradient 𝑃𝑎/𝑚

𝑓𝑇𝑃 Two-Phase Friction Factor [−]

𝐶𝑃 Fluid Heat Capacity 𝐽/𝑘𝑔 · 𝐾

2. THEORETICAL BASIS AND LITERATURE REVIEW ................................... 17

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................. 47

1.1. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM

1.2. JUSTIFICATION AND RELEVANCE

1.3.1. Main objective