Reviewing the Ashford and Pierce Relationship for Determining

Multiphase Pressure Drops and Flow Capacities in Down-Hole

Safety Valves

Gerardo Lobato-Barradas
Pemex Exploracin y Produccin
Exitep 2001, Mexico City, February 4 7, 2001


Abstract.

A reexamination of the Ashford and Pierce
1

relationship is made to properly account for the
water/oil ratio of the stream. The changes include a
different form for the estimation of the total specific
fluid volume, the liquid specific volume, the in situ
gas/oil ratio and the total fluid flow rate. The Ashford
and Pierce
1
data are used on the new formulation for
the estimation of oil flow rates and the results are
compared to the original calculations. The data of
Test 2 for a 14/64
th
in. choke are used to evaluate the
influence of the water fraction on the oil flow rate
estimation. Then, both relationships are evaluated
using the data of nine well tests, resulting in a better
performance for the modified correlation. Finally, the
original criteria for estimating the critical pressure
ratio is discussed.

Introduction.

Since the publication of the Ashford and Pierce
1

paper in 1975, few correlations have proved to
perform better than this relationship. Although this
correlation was focused on the down-hole safety
valves problem, it is widely used in the oil industry to
estimate rates and pressure drops through superficial
chokes. When analyzing an oil well during its
different stages of production life, it can be seen that
in a certain time, water appears in the flow stream.
The amount of water raises gradually, increasing the
value of F
wo
, until either the well stops flowing or the
well is no longer commercially productive. When a
large value of F
wo
is used in the Ashford and Pierce
1

relationship, the oil flow rate calculated doesnt show
a significant change, as compared if a value of
F
wo
=0 were used. Moreover, if a value of F
wo
=1 is
introduced, positive value for the oil flow rate will be
calculated. This situation is because of the description
of the fluid specific volume and the total rate
calculation, made by Ashford and Pierce. Now, since
1975, additional concepts have been developed and
used in the study of multiphase flow. This additional
concepts can be applied now to improve the Ashford
and Pierce
1
relationship.

Discussion.

In the derivation of the Ashford and Pierce
1

relationship, the following are the original equations
presented to estimate the liquid specific volume, the
total specific volume, the total rate and the in situ
gas/oil ratio, respectively:

wo w
g s
o
wo o
L
F
R
F B
v

+ +
+
=
615 . 5
( 1 )

wo w
g
o
wo
sc
sc s
o
Lt
F
R
F z
T
T
P
P R R
B
v

+
|
|

\
|
+
+
|
|

\
|
|
|

\
|
|

\
|
+
=
615 . 5
615 . 5
1
1
1
(2)

(
(

+
|
|

\
|
|

\
|
+ =
wo
sc
sc s
o o tf
F
T P
z T P R R
B q q
1
1 1
615 . 5
(3)

( ) |

\
|
|
|

\
|
=
615 . 5
,
1
1 1 s
sc
sc
R R
T P
z T P
T p R (4)

From the analysis of these equations, it can be seen
that for a given conditions of pressure and
temperature, an increase in the water/oil ratio doesnt
follow a decrease in the oil flow rate. In equations 1
and 2, if the water fraction, F
wo
, is changed, the
variation is not reflected on the other components. In
the case that F
wo
tends to a value of 1.0, the specific
volume of liquid should tend to the specific volume
of water. For these equations this is not the case. In
equation 3, the liquid rate is described by q
l
= q
o
( B
o
+
F
wo
). Again, in the case that F
wo
tends to a value of
1.0, the liquid rate should be equal to the water rate
and it is clear that this description does not follow this
behavior. Finally, in equation 4, the presence of water
is ignored. In the derivation
1
of this equation it is
stated that R(p, T) should replace the gas/liquid
specific volume ratio ( v
f
v
L
)/v
L
. Instead, a
formulation of gas/oil ratio is used. The importance of
having a correct estimation of R(p, T) is that the
critical pressure ratio, is a function this value.

In order to solve for these problems, an alternate set
of equations is presented here. The detail of the
derivation of equations 5 8 is shown in Appendix A.

The liquid specific volume is:

( ) ( )
wo
w
sc w
wo
o
sc gd s
sc o
L
F
B
F
B
R
v
,
,
,
1
615 . 5
1

+
(
(
(
(

+
= (5)

the total fluid specific volume is:

L L g g
Lt
E E
v
+
=
1
(6)

the total rate is:

(
(

|
|

\
|
|

\
|
+

=
1
1 1
615 . 5 1 P T
z T P R R
B F
B
q q
sc
sc s
w wo
o
o tf
(7)

and the in situ gas/liquid ratio is:

( ) |

\
|
|
|

\
|
=
615 . 5
,
1
1 1 sL
sc
sc
R GLR
T P
z T P
T p R (8)

The use of these equations and the algorithm for the
calculation of the oil flow rate is shown in Appendix
B.

Results

The reviewed relationship was used to compute oil
rates using the original Ashford and Pierce
1
data. The
results are shown in Table 1. In general, the rates
obtained are smaller than those predicted using the
original formulation. Because the water fraction is
zero, the difference is explained by the calculation of
the total specific volume of fluid v
Lt
. The new
formulation estimates a smaller value for v
Lt
causing a
reduction in the total rate calculated. This condition
results in larger coefficients of discharge, than those
reported by Ashford and Pierce
1
. It has to be pointed
out that for these combinations of pressures, gas/oil
ratios, fluid densities, etc., the oil rates calculated are
smaller and that for another combination of properties
and conditions, the comparisons will be different.

The rates calculated for the test number 2 for a choke
size of 14/64 pg are very similar for both
relationships. Using this criteria, this test was chosen
to show the influence of the water fraction on the oil
rate calculation. The gas/oil ratio, upstream pressure
and downstream pressure are 478 scf/STB, 1,205 psia
and 1,015 psia, respectively. The water fraction is
increased from zero to 1. The results are shown in
Figure 1. The A-P original curve, shows a sharp slope
at the beginning, i.e. at low values of F
wo
. After this
point the slope smoothes until it reaches the value of
F
wo
.= 1.0 and Q
o
=223 bpd. On the other side, the A-P
modified curve, shows a smooth slope at the
beginning and after this point, the slope becomes
sharper until it reaches the value of F
wo
.= 1.0 and
Q
o
=0 bpd. From Figure 1 it is clear that the prediction
of the A-P original curve has not a correct logic, since
a well stream with a large value of F
wo
, must have a
reduced oil rate. Instead, the A-P modified curve
shows a more logic oil rate description. One final
analysis of the curves shapes shows that the curves
may cross at certain points. This implies that for
certain values of F
wo
the oil flow rate, estimated by
either relationship, may be larger than the other one.

Table 2 contains the data of 9 tests of flowing wells
with water fractions ranging from 0.1 to 0.82. The
data are used in both formulations to estimate the oil
rates. In order to calculate the discharge coefficient
for both relationships, the work of Abdul-Majeed and
Aswad
2
is used. B
o
, R
s
are calculated using the
Standing
4
correlations. z
1
factor is estimated using
references 3 and 5. Reference 9 is used to calculate
B
w
. The results are plotted in Figure 2. It can be
observed that the modified correlation gives a better
estimation of the oil rates. In Table 3, the statistical
information is shown. It has to be noticed that almost
all of the rates estimated by the modified formulas,
are greater than those estimated using the original
formulation. This condition indicates that the
estimated rates are in a position similar to the point
where the A-P Modified curve in Figure 1, is greater
than the A-P Original curve. The cases described as
Wells D to H corresponds to several tests made on
one well through different conditions and times.
Cases D, E and F correspond to the first year of the
production life of the well. At this time, the water
fraction is zero. After fifteen years of production, the
water fraction has increased up to 0.38, which
correspond to the cases G and H. The estimation of
oil rates for cases D F, is practically the same for
both relationships. The difference is evident for cases
G and H, where the modified correlation gives a good
agreement, while the original formulation gives a
poor approximation. The importance of the analysis
of cases D to H, relies on the capability for a single
relationship to determine good approximations for
prediction purposes.

Ashford and Pierce
1
presented a relationship to
determine the critical pressure ratio
c
, from which
any reduction on the downstream pressure will not
result in an oil flow rate increase. The modifications
proposed here doesnt substantially affect this
equation. The only change needed is to replace the
original R(p, T), using equation 8 instead.

( )
( ) ( )
( )
n
n
c
n
c
c
n
n
T p R
n
n
T p R
n
T p R
c
1
2
1
1
, 1 5 . 0
1 1
1
,
,
1
+

(
(

+
(
(

+
|
|

\
|

\
|
=


(9)

Conclusions

1. A better description of the water fraction was
used in the derivation of the relationship
reviewed here. It was demonstrated that a more
logic estimation of the oil rate was obtained by
using the modified formulation.
2. For F
wo
= 0, the application of both, the original
and the modified relationship, resulted in very
similar oil flow rates predictions.
3. For F
wo
> 0, the results obtained for one
relationship will be higher or lower than the other
one, depending upon the relative position of the
curves along the F
wo
axis, as described by Figure
1.
4. The modified relationship was tested using field
data, showing a better performance, when
compared to the original formulation.
5. For cases D to H, the modified relationship
prediction was better that the one obtained by
using the original formulation.
6. The criteria for the calculation of
c
is not
changed, except for the use of equation 8, to
estimate R(p, T).

Acknowledgements

The author wants to thank Pemex Exploracin y
Produccin for having supported this study.

References

1. Ashford, F. E. and Pierce P. E., Determining
Multiphase Pressure Drops and Flow capacities in
Down-Hole Safety Valves, JPT, September 1975,
pages 1145-1152.

2. Abdul-Majeed, G. H., Aswad, z. A., A New
Approach for Estimating the Orifice Discharge
Coefficient required in the Ashford-Pierce
Correlation, Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 5 (1990) pages 25-33. Elsevier Science
Publishers B. V., Amsterdam.

3. Standing, M. B., Katz, D. L.: Density of Natural
Gases, Trans. AIME, 1942, pages 140 149.

4. Standing, M. B.: A Pressure - Volume
Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of California
Oil and Gases, Drilling and Production Practices,
API, 1947, pages 275 286.

5. Benedict, M. et. al,: An Empirical Equation for
Thermodynamic Properties of Light Hydrocarbons
and Their Mixtures. J. Chem. Phys. Vol. 8, 1940.

6. Garaicochea, F, Bernal, C., Lpez, O.: Transporte
de Hidrocarburos por Ductos, CIPM, 1991, pages
97-103.

7. Aziz, K., Settari, A.: Petroleum Reservoir
Simulation Elsevier Applied Science Publishers,
1979, pages 9 10.

8. Xiao, J., Alhanati, F. J., Reynolds, A. C., Fuentes-
Nucamendi, F.: Modeling and Analyzing Pressure
Buildup Data affected by Phase Redistribution in the
Wellbore. SPE 26965. III LACPEC, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, 1994.

9. Dodson, C. R., Standing, M. B.: Pressure
Volume Temperature and Solubility Relations for
Natural Gas Water Mixtures, Drilling and
Production Practices., API, 1944 pages 173, 179.

Nomenclature

A Orifice cross sectional
area
ft
2

B
g
Gas volume factor ft
3
@p,T/ ft
3
@s.c.
B
L
Liquid volume factor bl@p,T/ bl@s.c.
B
o
Oil volume factor bl@p,T/ bl@s.c.
B
w
Water volume factor bl@p,T/ bl@s.c.
C Orifice discharge
coefficient

D Choke diameter 64
th
in.
E
g
Gas fraction
E
L
Liquid fraction
F
wo
Water fraction
g
c
Gravitational constant (lb
m
ft)/(sec
2
lb
f
)
GLR Gas liquid ratio ft
3
/bl
n Specific heat ratio
P
1
Upstream pressure psia
P
2
Downstream pressure psia
P
sc
Pressure at standard
conditions = 14.7
psia
q
g
Gas rate bl/d
q
L
Liquid rate bl/d
q
o
Oil rate bl/d
q
tf
Total rate bl/d
R In situ gas/oil ratio ft
3
/bl
R In situ gas/liquid ratio
(eqs. 8, 9)
ft
3
/bl
R
s
Solution gas/oil ratio ft
3
/bl
R
sL
Solution gas/liquid ratio ft
3
/bl
T
1
Upstream temperature R
T
sc
Temperature at standard
conditions = 520
R
v
L
Specific volume of
liquid
ft
3
/lb
m

v
Lt
Total specific volume ft
3
/lb
m

w Mass rate lb
m
/s
z
1
Non ideal gas factor at
T
1
and P
1





Orifice downstream to
upstream pressure ratio
at critical conditions

c
Orifice downstream to
upstream pressure ratio
P
2
/P
1

g
Gas density @ P
1
, T
1
lb
m
/ft
3

gd,sc
Solution gas density at
standard conditions
lb
m
/ft
3

gs
Gas density at standard
conditions
lb
m
/ft
3

L
Liquid density lb
m
/ft
3

M
Mixture density lb
m
/ft
3

o
Oil density @ P
1
, T
1
lb
m
/ft
3

os
Oil density at standard
conditions
lb
m
/ft
3

w
Water density @ P
1
, T
1
lb
m
/ft
3


0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water fraction
0
100
200
300
400
500
O
i
l

r
a
t
e

(
b
p
d
)
A-P Original
A-P Modified


Figure 1. Water Fraction Influence

0 500 1000 1500 2000
Qo Measured (bpd)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Q
o

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

(
b
p
d
)
A-P Original
A-P Modified



Figure 2. Oil Rates Calculated vs. Oil rates
Measured



Appendix A

Several references
6, 7, 8
were used to develop the
proposed set of equations. The derivation of the
specific volume of liquid correlation is as follows:

L
L
v

1
= (A1)

( )
wo w wo o L
F F + = 1 (A2)

o
sc gd s
sc o
o
B
R
615 . 5
,
,

+
= (A3)

w
sc w
w
B
,

= (A4)

by substituting equations A2 A4 in A1, the liquid
specific volume is obtained:

( ) ( )
wo
w
sc w
wo
o
sc gd s
sc o
L
F
B
F
B
R
v
,
,
,
1
615 . 5
1

+
(
(
(
(

+
= A5)

The derivation of the total specific volume is:

M
Lt
v

1
= A6

g g L L M
E E + = A7

where:

( )
s g L
L
L
R R B B
B
E
+
= A8

( ) ( )
wo w wo o L
F B F B B + = 1 A9

sc
sc
g
T P
z T P
B
1
1 1
= A11

L g
E E =1 A12

g
sc g
g
B
,

= A13

and from equation A5

L
L
v
1
= A14

Equations A8 A14 are used to solve for equation
A7. By substituting equation A7 in A6, the solution
for v
Lt
, as presented in equation 6, is obtained.

The derivation of the total flow rate equation is:

g L tf
q q q + = A15

where

|
|

\
|
|

\
|
=
1
1 1
615 . 5 P T
z T P R R
q q
sc
sc s
o g
A16

w w o o L
B q B q q + = A17

but

wo L w
F q q = A18

substituting A18 in A17 and solving for q
L
:

w wo
o o
L
B F
B q
q

=
1
A19

finally, by substituting A16 and A19 in A15 and
rearranging the terms, the total flow rate is obtained:

(
(

|
|

\
|
|

\
|
+

=
1
1 1
615 . 5 1 P T
z T P R R
B F
B
q q
sc
sc s
w wo
o
o tf
A20

The calculation of the in situ gas-liquid ratio is as
follows. From reference 1, R(p,T) is defined as:

( ) |

\
|
|
|

\
|
=
615 . 5
,
1
1 1 s
sc
sc
R GOR
T P
z T P
T p R A21

but the difference of GOR-R
s
, only accounts for the
oil, not for the total liquid. If GLR-R
sw
is used instead,
the total liquid is accounted for.

( ) |

\
|
|
|

\
|
=
615 . 5
,
1
1 1 sL
sc
sc
R GLR
T P
z T P
T p R A22

where:

( )
wo
F GOR GLR = 1 A23

( )
wo s sL
F R R = 1 A24

Appendix B

From reference 1, the following equations are
presented:

86400
615 . 5
tf Lt
q wv = B1

=
|
|

\
|
2
1
1
144 2
c
L
g P
v
CA
w
B2

where:

( )
( )
( )
n
n
n
P
P
T p R
P
P
P
P
n
T p nR
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
, 1
1 1
1
,

|
|

\
|
+

|
|

\
|
+
(
(
(

|
|

\
|

= B3

from equation A20:

o tf
q q = B4

where:

(
(

|
|

\
|
|

\
|
+

=
1
1 1
615 . 5 1 P T
z T P R R
B F
B
sc
sc s
w wo
o
B5

substituting equation B4 in B1 and solving for q
o
:

|

\
|
=
86400
615 . 5

Lt
o
wv
q B6

The algorithm of calculation is as follows:

a) To start the calculations, estimate the terms
o
,
g
,

w
, B
o
, B
g
, B
w
, z
1
, R
s
, R
sw
, GLR, with the desired
correlations. To avoid instabilities, if F
wo
= 0, then
B
w
=1.

b) Calculate R(p,T) using equation 8.

c) Using equation B3, calculate ,

d) Using equation 5, calculate v
L
.

e) Calculate the orifice area using the following
equation:

|

\
|
|

\
|
=
589824 4
D
A

B7

f) Calculate w using equation B2. The orifice
discharge coefficient, C, may be estimated using
reference 2.

g) Calculate the terms described by equations A8
A14 and use equation 6 to estimate v
Lt
.

h) Calculate , using equation B5.

i) Calculate the oil flow rate, q
o
, by using equation
B6.










Table 1
Oil Rates Computed

Test D qom qo A-P
original
qo A-P
modified
C C
(64
th
in) (bpd) (bpd) (bpd) qom/qoAP qom/qoMod
1 16 559 615 573 0.9089 0.9756
2 16 484 402 374 1.2039 1.2941
1 14 261 224 208 1.1652 1.2548
2 14 427 432 411 0.9890 1.0389
3 14 409 358 332 1.1425 1.2319
4 14 382 308 286 1.2403 1.3357
5 14 596 489 461 1.2189 1.2928
1 20 232 270 251 0.8593 0.9243
2 20 345 363 336 0.9504 1.0268
3 20 551 493 456 1.1176 1.2083






Table 2
Well Test Data

Well Fwo GOR P1 P2 D ro rg Tth qom qoAP qoCorr
(scf/bl) (psi) (psi) (64
th
in.) ( F) (bpd) (bpd) (bpd)
A 0.79 7860 633 284 16 0.876 0.79 120 88 41 59
B 0.54 2543 1394 178 32 0.876 0.79 120 730 659 741
C 0.58 1218 875 149 16 0.876 0.79 120 258 150 201
D 0 1880 1086 995 48 0.838 0.782 171 2069 1753 1779
E 0 2021 1322 995 32 0.838 0.782 163 1598 1470 1461
F 0 1740 1749 995 14 0.838 0.782 129 465 522 540
G 0.38 595 332 66 32 0.838 0.782 81 868 474 879
H 0.38 909 420 72 24 0.838 0.782 79 570 254 460
I 0.82 14800 1450 412 32 0.810 0.704 150 258 238 245



Table 3
Statistical Data

Average percent error Absolute average percent error Standard deviation
Original formulation -16.7 20.8 24.3
Modified formulation -6.9 10.1 14.7