SIMULTANEOUS FLOW of LIQUID and GAS
through HORIZONTAL PIPE
F. H. POHlMANN*
ABSTRACT
A method is presented for predict-
ing pressure drop for two-phase fluid
flow in horizontal pipes.
A set of 267 experimental meas-
urements randomly sampled from ap-
proximately 1,000 measurements
from various literature sources was
used. Pressure gradients calculated
by the procedure develooed and
compared with the expe~imental
values showed a bias of +0.82 per
cent and a standard deviation of 20.8
per cent.
The advantages of this method
over other available methods o.f pre-
dicting two-phase flow pressure drop
are (a) its comparative simplicity of
application, (b) its relative indepen-
dence of flow patterns, (c) its accur-
acy, which on the basis of a statis-
tical evaluation predicts pressure
drop closer than other available
methods, and, (d) its ability to satis-
factorily correlate laboratory data
from various sources while the cor-
relations from these sources do not
appear to agree with one another.
:::1". H. Poettmann is now with Ohio Oil Co.,
Denver, Colo.
Original manuscript received in Petroleum
Branch office on May 6, 1955. Revised manu-
script received on Dec. I, 1955. Paper pre-
sented at Petroleum Branch Fall Meeting in
New Orleans, Oct. 2-5.
SPE 544-G
VOI~. 207,1956
A. F. BERTUZZI
M. R. TEK PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO.
BARTLESVILLE, OKLA.
MEMBER AIME
T. P. 4203
The method has been reduced to a
simplified graphical procedure, suit-
able for field use.
A two-phase f factor is defined
and correlated with parameters in-
volving the flowing gas-liquid mass
ratio, a Reynolds number for the gas
phase, and a Reynolds number for
the liquid phase. The choice of
parameters allows the correlation to
reduce to the usual f factor plot for
the limiting conditions of all gas
or all liquid.
INTRODUCTION
The mechanics and characteristics
of two-phase flow systems have been
of interest throughout the industry
for some time. In numerous engi-
neering installations such as pipe
lines, chemical reactors, and heat ex-
changers, two-phase flow conditions
are of every day occurrence. In oil
production operations it has been de-
sirable, in some cases, to consider
transporting gas and oil together in
a common pipe from oil field to
process plant. The trend toward cen-
trally located stock tank batteries in
oil fields has resulted in longer gath-
ering pipelines in which more than
one fluid phase is flowing. The in-
crease in the producing capacity of
oil wells due to new production tech-
niques has created the need for re-
view and re-design of many surface
gathering lines for properly handling
the increased production. Optimum
pipe size for the situations described
above has become an important fac-
tor.
The problem which is of interest
here involves the ability to predict
the relationship between pressure
drop, fluid properties, fluid rates,
pipe diameter, and pipe length.
Although the literature" r., 10, "', l', '"
contains various articles dealing with
specific cases of the problem, Lock-
hart and Martinelli" proposed the
most general solution. Their method
has been later modified by Baker'.
Alves' demonstrated that different
flow patterns are possible for a flow
mechanism defined by Martinelli
such as gas turbulent, liquid turbu-
lent. Baker' explained deviations ex-
perienced with Martinelli's correla-
tions on the basis that different flow
patterns could exist for the same flow
mechanism. Using Martinelli's meth-
od of correlation, Baker correlated
data for each flow pattern for the
turbulent-turbulent flow mechanism.
Bergelin and Gazley" 7 presented
a correlation for predicting gas phase
lReferences given at end of paper.
17
pressure drop for stratified and annu-
lar flow patterns.
Schneider" presented a method of
correlating two-phase pressure drop
which appears limited to the flow
conditions covered by his data.
The purpose of this study was to
apply the concept of a two-phase f
factor, which may be called the en-
ergy dissipation function, in an at-
tempt to correlate horizontal flow
data. This concept has been success-
fully employed in correlating multi-
phase flow in vertical strings" and
has been used for predicting pressure
drop for the flow of a flashing mix-
ture of steam and water in pipes. ' 5, 10
Another objective was to eliminate
the necessity of establishing a flow
pattern for predicting pressure drop,
since the same fundamental variables
that determine flow pattern should
also determine pressure drop. Fin-
ally, and probably foremost, upon
attaining some degree of success in
the first two objectives, it was desired
to present the results of the correla-
tion in such a manner to be useful to
the practicing field engineer.
ANALYSIS AND SOLUTION
OF THE PROBELM
The general problem of predicting
the pressure drop in a multiphase
flow system is a very complicated
one. One of the main difficulties is
due to the fact that numerous flow
patterns of widely different geometry
and mechanics may exist. These flow
patterns, usually referred to as bub-
ble, plug, stratified, wave, slug, annu-
lar, spray, froth, etc., not only impose
unstable and intricate geometry to
the system but also critically affect
the relative magnitudes of several
force systems active to varying ex-
tents.
The classical approach of attempt-
ing to solve the Navier-Stokes equa-
tions becomes hopelessly devoid of
any promise, not only due to ana-
lytical difficulties in setting up the
boundary conditions but also because
of the non-linear nature of the equa-
tions. The necessity to include, in a
general formulation of the problem,
the interfacial and gravitational forces
along with viscous, inertia, and pres-
sure forces further complicates the
theoretical approach.
Appreciating the above complica-
tions and since the direct mathemati-
cal approach seemed to fail to give
any hope of practical success, it was
thought best to resort to experimen-
tal facts and use available data. Thus
a semi-empirical approach was
adopted in combining ideas from the
18
well established theory of single-
phase flow behavior with experimen-
tal data collected on two-phase flow
systems.
The development which follows is
based on a total energy balance for
the flowing two-phase mixture under
steady state conditions. Energy dis-
sipated to heat due to irreversibilities
in flow is expressed in terms of a
two-phase f factor which is analo-
gous to the resistance factor used for
single-phase flow.
DEVELOPMENT OF CORRELATION
It is well known that a certain
amount of energy is necessary to
overcome the resistance which any
flowing fluid encounters in its path.
The basic energy relationship of any
fluid flow process stems from the law
of conservation of energy which
merely states that the energy of fluid
entering the conduit minus the energy
dissipated in the conduit through ir-
reversible effects is equal to the en-
ergy of the fluid leaving the conduit.
The above is usually formulated by
the following equation based on a
unit mass of fluid flowing.
P,
./v
P,
dP + 6[~~]
+ 6h + W, + W, = 0 (1)
For a horizontal pipe, the differ-
ence in elevation, 6h, is zero. When
no work is done on or by the fluid,
W, is zero. In most cases the kinetic
energy term can be neglected. The
equation then reduces to:
P,
f VdP + W, = 0 . (2)
P,
where W, is the energy dissipated
to heat in the system due to irreversi-
bilities.
For single-phase flow the energy
dissipation term, W f, is expressed as
part of a dimensionless number called
the resistance factor, f.
= 2g, W,~ (3)
f 4v'L .
The resistance factor is correlated
for single phase flow with Reynolds
number, DW I /-L, and relative rough-
ness, EID."
f = cJ> (DWI/-L) (EID) . (4)
This equation can be obtained by
dimensional analysis.
A two-phase f factor is defined
using Eq. 3 and is used with Eq. 2
for making the energy balance on a
horizontal two-phase flow system.
For two-phase flow, in Eq. 2 and 3,
v is the superficial velocity of the
flowing mixture based on the cross
section of the pipe; V is the specific
volume of the flowing mixture. The
problem then revolves around the
ability to correlate f in terms of the
physical properties of the fluids, pipe
diameter and roughness, and fluid
rates.
In two-phase flow the flowing mix-
ture density or specific volume can
be different from the in situ density
or specific volume because of slip-
page or liquid hangup. Slippage oc-
curs when the gas flows at a greater
linear velocity than the liquid. The
flowing mixture density was used
rather than an in situ density because
the energy entering and leaving the
tubing by virtue of the flowing fluid
is a function of the pressure-volume
properties of the fluid entering and
leaving the tubing and not of the
fluid in place.
For single phase flow in smooth
pipe, f can be expressed in terms of
the Reynolds number which involves
inertia and viscous forces. In two-
phase flow the interfacial and gravity
forces undoubtedly also enter the pic-
ture. After an unsuccessful attempt
at correlating f in terms of dimen-
sionless numbers involving all four
forces, another approach was made
which proved adequate for most en-
gineering calculations. Since Lock-
hart and Martinelli" attained a fair
degree of success in correlating data
for a wide range of conditions neg-
lecting interfacial and gravity forces,
our development proceeded on this
basis. For the data used, the two-
phase f factor was found to correlate
best in terms of Reynolds numbers of
the liquid and gas phases, each based
on the pipe diameter, and the gas-
liquid mass ratio. The functional re-
lationship hence took the following
form:
f = cJ> [(DW")
Ft<
a (DWL)
/-LL
b]. (5)
where a and b were functions of the
gas-liquid mass ratio, K.
K 1
a = + K ; b - -eO.-
1K
(6)
and
(7)
As K approaches CJJ (all gas)
a approaches 1
b approaches 0
(R:) (R~) approaches Rg
As K approaches 0 (all liquid)
a approaches 0
b approaches 1
(R:) (R~) approaches RL
PETQ.OLEUM TRANSACTIONS, AIME
therefore in the limiting conditions,
all gas or all liquid, the correlation
reduces to that for single phase flow,
neglecting relative roughness.
Two-phase f factors have been cor-
related against (R;) (R~) for a range
of gas-liquid mass ratios.
The selection of the exponent func-
tions a and b was arbitrary except
that they meet the requirements
stated above at the limiting condi-
tions. The factor of 0.1 used in ex-
ponent b insures significance of the
liquid phase in computing the func-
tion (R:) (R~) for gas-liquid mass
ratios as high as 50 to 1.
DISCUSSION OF CORRELATION
The correlation is presented as
Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Each figure is
for a range of gas-liquid mass ratios,
as indicated. The nature of the data
did not permit correlating for specific
gas-liquid mass ratios. Fig. 5 is a
composite of the four previous fig-
ures and shows the single phase
curves for smooth pipes. The nature
of the correlating curves, their rela-
tion with one another and with the
single phase curves results, in part,
from the selection of the exponent
functions, a and b.
This method of correlating shows
that it is possible to have more than
one value of f for particular values
of (R:) (R~) and gas-liquid mass
ratio over a range of (R;) (R~) val-
ues. The reason is attributed to the
fact that it is possible to have several
flow patterns for the same value of
the function over this range. It ap-
pears, however, that more than one
flow pattern can be correlated by a
single curve in this range, and at high
values of the Reynolds number func-
tion the data can be correlated inde-
FIG. 1- ENERGY DISSIPATION FUNCTION FOR GAs-LIQUID MASS RATIOS
UP
VOL. 207, 1956
, +-_.
i'
i'
': ::!:
i -,-
- --=---:----X: ....
"''
.,-
1'-
"
FIG. 2- ENERGY DISSIPATION FUNCTION FOR GAs-LIQUID MASS RATIOS
0.2
pendent of flow pattern for a given
gas-liquid mass ratio. On the basis of
the information available, the lower
curve (1) on each figure seems to
apply to stratified, wave, and semi-
annular flow; whereas the upper
curve applies to the other types of
flow. As is indicated on each figure
the transition from the lower curve
(1) to the upper curve (2) occurs
for liquid Reynolds numbers between
500 to 10,000. More data are needed
in the lower range of Reynolds num-
ber function with Rg less than 2,000
to see if there is a similar transition
region. Representation of the corre-
lation by straight lines where possible
was for convenience in further sim-
plification to working charts. Point
scatter in the correlation can be at-
tributed partly to the fact that a par-
ticular curve applies to a range of
gas-liquid mass ratios.
The correlation was developed
from laboratory data available in the
TO 0.2
, , j ;! .:.,
TO 004.
literature. '" A set of 267 experimental
measurements randomly sampled
from approximately 1,000 measure-
ments from various literature sources
was used. The range of the variables
involved, therefore the limitations of
the correlation, is summarized in
Table 1. Although available field
data' were not used directly in the
correlation, they were used as a guide
in extrapolation, indicated by dashed
lines on Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
A comparison of field measure-
ments' with predicted values is given
in Table 2. Only 10 of Baker's 27
sets of data were used in the com-
parison presented as Table 2. The
other data were beyond the gas-
liquid mass ratio limit of the correla-
tion which is equivalent to a gas-
liquid volume ratio (cu ft/bbl) of
approximately 5,000. We have found,
however, that for gas-liquid volume
ratios greater than 50,000 cu ft/bbl
the gas flow equations" can be
used. This method assumes the liquid
to be uniformly distributed through-
out the gas phase, and an adjustment
is made to the gas gravity to account
for the liquid. The calculations are
then made assuming only gas flow.
Table 3 gives a comparison of Bak-
er's field measured pressure drops for
gas-liquid volume ratios greater than
50,000 with those calculated by the
method just described.
Data by Gazley 12 for stratified flow
were not used. Gazley measured gas
phase pressure drops and showed
that there could be considerable dif-
ference between gas phase pressure
drop and liquid phase pressure drop
because of change in head of the liq-
"'The tabulated data were omitted to re-
duce the length of paper, but can be obtained
from the authors.
19
 I"'.", '.""1' .. '.
-;;b
I I' , 'I' dP 2fv'
dL + = O. (10)
Since W" = pv, and the gradient is
negative,
dP _ 2f W~
(11)
dL - g,. D p
---j---~
One need go no further than Eq.
+-----' .-+-

11 to make the pressure gradient cal-

culation. However, to effect addi-
tional simplification for graphical
representation, f has been expressed
as part of an equation of the form

f = C

where d is the slope of a straight lin~

[CR:) (Rn r (12)

and C is the intercept at unity for

the function (R:) (R~) on log-log
paper. The slope, d, is constant and
equal to -0.12 for curves (2) on
Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4. The intercept, C,
can be expressed in terms of the gas-
Fro. 3 - ENERGY DISSIPATION FUNCTION FOR GAs-LIQUID MASS RATIOS liquid mass ratio, K.
FROM 0.4 TO 0.6. By substituting Eq. 12 into Eq. 11
and collecting terms,
uid phase. Since the gas phase pres-
sure drop does not necessarily repre-
cent, and the standard deviation, CT,
from the algebraic average was 27.5
~~ = [Z :}t12(Hb)]
(K

sent the two phase pressure drop for per cent. The algebraic average devia- W'" ". . 12(a+b)] [ftc0.12" ft L0'''b1
[-D-1+o. 12(U-"-:w ~-p--
. 12b
(13)
this type of flow and range of condi- tion represents the bias of the corre-
tions, the data were not used. Some lation. For a normal distribution, Expressing Wo in terms of QM,
of his data, where the gas phase pres- 6S.26 per cent of the values will be mass flow per day,
sure drop is approximately equal to included within plus or minus one dP
the two phase pressure drop, appear standard deviation; 95.46 per cent dL
to correlate by the methods described within plus or minus two standard "~'''(''+'') (K + 1) o.,,(a+b)]
here and fall within the range of deviations: 99.73 per cent within [
(l.4737xlO') (Z) KO"o
plus or minus three standard devia-
Schneider's" data which consisted pri-
marily of wave flow. Jenkin's" data tions. [(O Lf),.O.",,,+b.'] r ""0--r --
. .. iV1
- 6-'-:'o~'.!(a+b)
O.1ObJ
-
ftg
... -
P'L

were not available at the time of this

APPLICATION whereZ = 0.6217 C
investigation. Van Wingen's'" data
were not complete for the type of DEVELOPMENT OF WORKING CHARTS K = 0.000219 (Sg/o) (Gg/GrJ
(15)
analysis made here. There are much To facilitate prediction of pressure
all exponents are functions of the
more data in the literature that were drop, Eq. 2 and 3 have been com-
gas-liquid weight ratio and are ex-
not used since they covered approxi- bined with the correlation and re-
pressed on Fig. S as
mately the same range as the data duced to graphical form in Figs. S
r = 0.12a
used in the correlation. and SA. The development which fol-
s = 0.12 b
An evaluation of the correlation is lows is the basis for the graphical
t = 0.12(a+b)
presented as Fig. 6. A comparison of presentation. Putting Eq. 2 in differ-
u = 2-0.12(a+b)
experimental pressure drops with ential form
v = 5-0.12(a+b) .. (16)
pressure drops predicted by Marti-
nelli's correlation is presented as Fig. -dP + dW f = 0 (S) Eq. 14 has been put in graphical
P form on Figs. S and SA. Eq. 14
7. For the correlation developed in equates pressure gradient with the
and combining with Eq. 3 in differ-
this report the algebraic average de- product of three terms, the first of
ential form one obtains
viation was +0.S2 per cent, and the which involves gas-liquid mass ratio,
standard deviation, CT, from the alge- -dP + ---.-
4fv'dL
= O. (9) the second involves fluid rate and
braic average was 20.S per cent. For p 2gc D
pipe diameter, and the third involves
Martinelli's correlation17 the algebraic By expressing in terms of a pressure the physical properties of the flow-
average deviation was + 14.4 per gradient, ing fluids. It should be n8ted that
the third term is the only one which
TABLE I - RANGE OF VARIABLES
is a function of pressure, thus sim-
Diameter in. ,(, To 2 plifying the calculations.
Temperature OF 50 To 100
Pressure psia 15 To 55
Liquid phase Reynolds numbers,
liquid Rate Ib/sq fl/sec 2 To 1,000 R L , should be greater than 10,000
Gas Rate Ib/sq ft/sec 0.5 To 15
liquid Viscosity Ib/ft/sec 0.00025 To 0.190 when using Figs. S and SA. For most
Gas Viscosity Ib/ft/sec 6.5 X 10. 4 To 13 X 10"
liquid Reynolds No. Rr. 10 To 135,000
practical field cases RL will be greater
Gas Reynolds No. Rg
0
1,000 To 100.000 than 10,000 for gas-liquid volume
liquid Gravity GL [60 F/60 F) 0.813 To 1.00
Gas Gravity G g [Air = 1.0) 0.71 To 1.00 ratios less than 5,000. This limita-

20 PETROLEUM TR.\'iSACTIO'lS, AIME

 function locates point 3 on
Fig. 8.
Sg/o (Gg/G L ) = 1,000
(0.65/0.80) = 812.5
LOCKHAJll ...URTlNHLI (11) Step 4. This step involves location of
o $01NIIOH. "1111''' NUNTINGTClM In!

HLOW ........ UUOF_FOI!IR"'IllIt l

point 4 which establishes the
Vilot.UnO# .....IIEG." ... TE.fHAtI_
pressure gradient for a given
=:=;i:=t==~j
:=:: -- "'IOVE
T ......un
....... lION 0# CUlt
F.OM ".. .! FOIl 1"'1aJVE
(I) TO (tl
III IXCI,III$ FOIl V.... UU OF .~ It .... CMNG pressure. Point 4 is deter-
- ::~(: C::V~":- ;~L~llr: IA":O,
FOIIItLGltUnll m ... Ml. . . . CUIIV(
mined from the physical
(31 ~OUlO'" U.o.
property function, (fl/)
(flL S) / p. Since this function
varies with pressure it is best
to calculate the function for
several pressures and tabu-
late corresponding pressure
gradients in preparation for
Steps 5 and 6. As a first ap-
proximation fluid viscosities
at the outlet conditions were
used. Usually if the pressure
drop is less than 100 psi,
change in fluid viscosities
with pressure can be neg-
FIG. 4 - ENERGY DISSIPATION FUNCTION FOR GAs-LIQUID MASS RATIOS lected. Also if the pressure
FROM 0.6 TO 1.0. level is low gas solubility can
be neglected and Eq. 20 can
Table 1. Field data are needed to G L = 0.80 be used for calculating V m'
further verify the applicability of cor- flg = 0.014 cp = 9.4 X 10-0 K
relation for pressures greater than 1b/ft/sec @ 75 and a=K+l=
100 psi and pipe diameters larger 50 psia
than 2 in. flL = 0.6 cp = 4.0 X 10-4 812.5 (0.000219) = 0 151
Evaluation of M and p can be 1b/ft/sec @ 75 and (812.5) (0.000219) + 1 .
made from the following relation- 50 psia 1 1
ships: b = eO. 1 Ie = eO. 017S = 0.980
M = (5.61) (62.4) (Gd + SOLUTION
(0.0764) (G g ) (Sg/o) Step 1. Determine the product, QM r = 0.12a = 0.018 : s = 0.12b
(17) Q = 400 BID =-- 0.118
M M = (350.1) G L + (0.0764) fL:-
= (9.4 x 10-')0018 = 0.812
p= (18) (G g ) (Sg/o) (16) flL S = (4.0 x 10- 4) 0.118 = 0.397
Vln M = 329.7 Ib/bbl fl/ fLL' = 0.322
Vm = 5.61 F + QM = 400 (329.7)
M 329.7
P a Tnyg Z 131,880 lb/day p=-=--
(Sg/o - S,). (19)
This value establishes the Vm Vm
P Ta
If the gas solubility is nearly zero starting point on Fig. 8. Vm = 5.61 +
Step 2. The pipe diameter, 2 in.
~)
such as in the case of air and water
mixtures then: (1.995 ID) locates point 2 ( Po J,av g
) (Sg/o) ( (19)
on Fig. 8.
Vm = 5.61 + V'll = 5.61 +
Step 3. The gas-liquid weight ratio
P a T.v. Z S I (20)
P Ta go

EXAMPLE PROBLEM
A well is being produced by gas-
lift. The well is producing 400 BOPD
with a total GOR of 1,000 cu ft/bbl.
The separator which is 1,000 ft from
the wellhead is operated at a pres-
sure of 50 psia and the fluids are
transported to the separator through
a 2-in. (1.995 ID) horizontal line.
In gas-lift operations it is desirable
to maintain a low wellhead pressure
for efficient lifting; therefore, it
would be of value to know the well-
head pressure for the 2-in. pipe.
Additional pertinent data are as
follows: -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
T.,.g = 75F <?tRtl - ItETJrIOUlS MlI/I8ERFtllCTlCII

G g = 0.65 FIG. 5 - COMPOSITE ENERGY DISSIPATION CHART.

VOL. 207, 1956 21

 TABLE 2 - COMPARISON OF FielD MEASURED PRESSURES' WITH CALCULATED PRESSURES USING P a = base pressure 14.65 psia.
OUR CORRELATION FOR GASlIQUID RATIOS UP TO 5,000 CU FT/BBL
Pipe Dia. Outlet Press. Outlet Press. Q = barrels of liquid flowing per
Gas Rate Liquid Rate Pipe Length 1.0. line Temp. Inlet Press. Meas. Calc.
M.S.C.F.D. Bbl/Day Feet Inches OF Psig Psig. Psig.
day.
25,552 5,484 11 ,317 7.750 80 1,007 975
962
--954-
957
Rg =
gas Reynolds number, di-
12,050 4,167 11 ,317 7.750 f,Q 972
11 ,886 6,592 11 ,317 7.7'0 78 977 960 965 mensionless.
6,474 4,970 5,534 7.750 66 964 9.#)0 959
4,348 5,420 11 ,317 7.750 112 940 930 933 RL = liquid Reynolds number, di-
25,552 5,484 41,333 10.136 80 975 946 925 mensionless.
12,050 4,167 31,11 ; 10.136 69 962 948 951
11 ,886 6,592 41,333 10.136 78 960 936 940 Sg! 0 = cu ft of gas!bbl of liquid
6,474 4,970 41,33J 10.136 66 952 936 944
4,348 5,420 41,333 10.136 82 930 912 923 at std. condo (14.65 psi
60F) .
(14.65) (535) (1,000) Z A plot of P vs L cumulative gives S, = solubility of gas in liquid at
a value of 97 psia. Since the pres- pressure, P.
(520) P
sure drop from separator to well Ta = base temperature 60F.
V m = 5.61 + 15,073
zp head is only 47 psi, taking into ac- T''''g = Arithmetic average of the
count variation in fluid viscosities inlet and outlet pipe temper-
The NGSMA manual can be used and gas solubility with pressure will atures.
for establishing Z, the compressibil- give no significant difference in pres- v = velocity of flowing fluid,
ity factor for the gas. If it is neces- sure drop. ft! sec.
sary to use Eq. 19 for V m, the gen- V = specific volume of flowing
eralized correlations of Standing" can NOMENCLATURE fluids, cu ft/lb.
be used for estimating gas solubility V m = cu ft of gas and liquid at
and formation volume factor. Esti- D = inside diameter of pipe, ft. pressure, P,/bbl of liquid
mates of liquid viscosity may be f = dimensionless energy dissi- based on the ratio of the
made by the method of Katz and pation function, resistance
factor for single-phase flow. fluids flowing into and out
Bicher' or by the Beal Method.' Es-
F = ratio of barrels of liquid at of the pipe.
timates of gas viscosity may be made
by the method of Kobayashi" as pressure, P, to barrel of W = mass throughput, lb! sec! sq
seen in Table 4. liquid at standard condi- ft.
Step 5. This step involves a correc- tions, formation volume fac- Wa = Wg + WI.'
tion to the estimated gradi- tor. W f = energy losses resulting from
ents determined by Step 4. ge = constant = 32.174. irreversibilities of the fluid
Fig. 8A is used for this cor- G g = gas gravity (air = 1.0). in flow.
rection. G L = liquid specific gravity. W g = gas mass through, based on
K = gas-liquid mass ratio, di- pipe diameter.
QM = 131 880(~) mensionless. WL = liquid mass throughput,
D '\1.995 L = length of pipe, ft.
= 793,260 based on pipe diameter.
M = total mass of liquid and gas
Sg/o (Gg/Gr.) = 812.5 W, = work done by or on the
associated with one barrel
Correction = 1.21 of liquid flowing into and fluid while in flow.
Step. 6. Table 5 shows the incre- out of the pipe, lb. Z = compressibility factor of gas.
mental integration to give P = absolute pressure in consis- e = 2.7218.
the pressure at the well head. tent units. p = density at pressure P and

~ ILl

__ 1_ ~-f
T
~, I

--J
-1
tf
1.' 10.D
fI~flll .. eoTAl - .OIJl;DS .U SOUA!I[ tOOT .U fOOl
! I 1.
FIG. 7 - EXPERIMENTAL VS CALCULATED GRADIENTS
FIG. 6 - EXPERIMENTAL VS CALCULATED PRESSURE
GRADIENTS - THIS CORRELATION (FOR GAs-LIQUID - MARTINELLI CORRELATION (FOR GAs-LIQUID MASS
MASS RATIOS TO 1.0). RATIOS TO 1.0).

22 PETROLEUM TRA;>ISACTIO,,"S, AIME

 TABLE 3 - COMPARISON OF FIELD MEASURED PRESSURES' WITH CALCULATED PRESSURES USING temperature Toy", lb/cu ft.
GAS FLOW EQUATIONS" FOR GASlIQUID RATIOS GREATER THAN 50,000 CU FT/BBL
Pipe Die. Outlet Press. Outlet Press. p.g = gas viscosity, lb/ftlsec.
Gas Rate
M.S.C.F.D.
Liquid Rote
Bbl/Doy
Pipe Length '-D. line Temp. Inlet Press.
OF
Meas. Calc.
Psig.
jJ.L = liquid viscosity, lb/ ftl sec.
. _Feet
--- Inches ~ Psig.
26,970 514 11,317 7.750 75 983 964 970
26,970 514 41,333 10.136 75 964 945 951
11 ,767 192 11,427 7.750 65 712 703 70B ACKNOWLEDGMENT
6,484 136 11,427 7.750 65 705.5 703 704.2
4,441 76 11,427 7.750 69 1,075.0 1,075.0 1,075.1
6,484 136 10,617 7.750 65 703 701.5 701.8 The authors wish to thank the
6,668 107 10,617 7.750 70 1,067 1,065.5 1,066.2
6,798 102 10,617 7.750 69 1,075 1,074 1,074.3
management of Phillips Petroleum
11,950 236 11,313 7.750 70 1,064 1,062 1,061.5 Co. for permission to publish this
6,484 136 22,044 7.750 66 705.5 701.5 703.1
11,950 236 41,317 10.136 70 1,063 1,055.5 1,060.7 paper.

REFERENCES
TABLE 4
OM 131,880 131,880 131,880 131,880 131,880 131,880 1. Allen, W. F., Jr.: Trans. ASME.
D 1.995 1.995 1.995 1.995 1.995 1.995
$g/o (Gg/GI.i 812.5 812.5 812.5 812.5 812.5 812.5 (1951), 73, 257.
j.l~/' j.lLt>>f. 0.322 0.322 0.322 0.322 0.322 0.322
M 329.7 329.7 329.7 329.7 329.7 329.7
2. Alves, G. E.: "Co-Current
Z 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.985 0.985 0.98 Liquid-Gas Flow in a Pipeline
P psia 50 60 70 80 90 100
Vm 304.05 254.31 218.79 191.19 170.57 153.32 Contactor," Paper presented at
P 1.084 1.296 1.507 1.724 1.933 2.150 AIChE Meeting, San Francisco
J.lgr J.LL~ 0.297 0.248 0.214 0.187 0.167 0.150
dP/dL psi/lOO It 5.7 4.6 4.0 3.6 3.25 3.0 (Sept. 14, 1953).
*Fluid viscosity at outlet conditions were used. 3. Baker, 0.: Oil and Gas Jour.
(July 26,1954),185.
4. Beal, C.: Trans. AIME (1946),
TABLE 5 165, 94.
P 50 60 70 80 90 100 5. Benjamin, M. W., and Miller, J.
dp/dl psi/l00 It 5.7 4.6 4.0 3.6 3.25 3.0 G.: Trans. ASME (1942), 64,
Correction 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21
dp/dl psi/laO It 6.9 5.6 4.8 4.4 3.9 3.6 657.
6. Bergelin, O. P., and Gazley.

15

FIG. 8-
*PS.I./IOOFEET

CHART FOR ESTIMATING PRESSURE DROP FOR HORIZONTAL MULTIPHASE FLUID FLOW IN PIPES.

VOL. 207, 1956 23

 TABLE 6 8. Boelter, L. M., and Kepner, R.
p
50 60 70 80 90 100
!:.p 10 10 10 10 10 H.: Ind. Engl'. Chern. (1939),
dp/dl 6.9 5.6 4.8 4.4 3.9 3.6
clo/dl (ave) 6.25 5.2 4.6 4.15 3.75
31, 426.
~"cremental -- 160 192 217 241 267 9. Bicher, L. B., and Katz, D. L.:
~ cumulative 0 160 352 569 810 1077
Ind. Engl'. Chern. (1943), 35,
754.
10. Davidson, W. F., et al: Trans.
ASME (1943),65,553.
c., Jr.: "Co-Current Gas-Liquid Carpenter, F. G., and Gazley, 11. Dittus, F. W., and Hilderbrand,
Flow," (I) "Flow in Horizon- c., J r.: "Co-Current Gas-Liquid A.: Trans. ASME (1942), 64,
tal Tubes," Heat Transfer and Flow," (II) "Flow in Vertical 185.
Fluid Mechanics Institute, Berk- Tubes," Heat Transfer and Fluid 12. Gazley, Carl Jr.: "Interfacial
eley, Calif. (1949). (Available Mechanics Institute, Berkeley, Shear and Stability in Two-
from ASME.) Calif. (1949). (Available from Phase Flow," PhD Thesis, Uni-
7. Bergelin, O. P., Kegel, P. K., ASME.) versity of Delaware (1948).
13. Holmes: Perry's Chemical En-
gineers Handbook, Third Edi-
tion, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
Inc., New York. Figs. 17 and
-- 18, 686.
-- 14. Jenkins, Rodman: "Two-Phase
Two-Component Flow of Water
--- - 0
0
~
_0

~
_ 0 0

~
- ~ -r - "1 --

~
f--o
~ ~ -"
2
f--
g and Air," MChE Thesis, Uni-
versity of Delaware (1947).
15. Johnson, H. A., and Abou-
r-- r-- 'I Sabe, A. H.: Trans. ASME
- -- -- - --- r= =r i+- F
(1952), 74, 977.
-
1 FF
1- rr
16. Kobayashi, R., Carr, N. L., and
-- f 1/- -1 Burrows, D. B.: Trans. AIME,
(1954) 201,264.
17. Lockhart, R. W., and Martinelli,
0'..... +
1--1- IF F-I-
fl + R. c.: Chern. Engl'. Prog.
8 II -I 7- (1949),45, No.1, 39.

::;\
~o
10'
VI
~
1if I 711 -- 18. McAdams, W. H., et al: Trans.
ASME (1941),63,545.
19. McAdams, W. H., et al.: Trans.
, ASME (1942), 64, 193.
I
20. Moody, L. F.: Trans. ASME
f--- -IIi f- (1944), 66, 671.
10' 1rryrr 21. Poettmann, F. H., and Carpen-
ter, P. G.: Drill. and Prod.
Prac. (1952) 257.
r- t-- f- H -
+-- 22. Schneider, F. N., et al: Dallas
i-- ---I- --\-I-- -1- -c- - l-f f ~

+-- Meeting of AIME (Oct., 1953).

10'
7f ~f ---- -- - 23. Standing, M. B.: Volumetric
and Phase Behavior ot Oil Field
Hydrocarbon Systems, Reinhold
Publishing Corp., New York
(1952).
-- t---I--
24. Van Wingen, N.: World Oil
III (Oct. 1949) 156.
10'
0.4 0.. 0.6 to 1.2 1.4 25. Clinedinst, W. D.: Oil and Gas
CORRECTION "0 PRES5URE CRADlE NT OF FIGURE
Jour. (April 7, 1945) 79.
FIG. 8A - MULTIPLICATION CORRECTION TO FIG. 8.
***

24 PETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS, AIME