Tips for converting models to/from PIPESIM:

1. Do not be alarmed if upon converting a model, your results do not match up exactly. There
are many possible reasons for this that are beyond the control of the user, including:
a. different assumptions/interpretations of theoretical models
b. different calculation methods/algorithms
c. different pipe segmentation defaults (esp. significant for deviated flow)
d. different tolerances
e. shortcuts to improve speed of simulation

2. If your results are within about 5%, consider it a good match. If your goal is to quantify rate
differences due to changing system parameters, your results should match closely on a
relative basis, even if they differ significantly on an absolute basis. If field/lab data is
available to match your base case results, use the same tuning parameters if at all possible.

3. If your results differ significantly, try to identify what is causing the discrepancy by isolating
and comparing these aspects of the model in the following order:
a. fluid model
b. IPR
c. hydraulics model
d. heat transfer model

4. If your model is complex or contains many components, try working backwards by

simplifying the model, comparing results, and then adding back in features while testing for
agreement.

5. Make sure that the Roughness factor is the same. Default roughness factors are as follows:
a. PIPESIM - .001
b. Prosper .0006
c. WellFlo - .0012
d. Perform .00065

6. Units: Before anything else, ensure that you are using consistent units. The units can
usually be set in Preferences, Setup, or the Options menu. Still, there are a few units the
user is not able to set:

a. Pressure units: In specifying the outlet (separator or wellhead) pressure,

Prosper & Perform prompt the user for gauge pressures for the while WellFlo &
PIPESIM prompt the user for absolute pressure. Check for consistency and add
14.7 when going from psig to psia.
b. Heat Transfer Units: In specifying the heat transfer coefficient, PIPESIM and
Prosper prompt the user for a value having units of BTU/Hr/Ft2 whereas Perform
and WellFlo prompt the user for units in BTU/day/Ft2.

7. Ensure that the heat capacities for oil and gas are the same. Defaults for:
a. PIPESIM: oil = .45 Btu/lb/oF gas = .55 Btu/lb/oF
b. Prosper: oil = .53 Btu/lb/ Fo
gas = .51 Btu/lb/
c. WellFlo: oil = ? Btu/lb/oF gas = ? Btu/lb/oF
d. Perform: oil = .485 Btu/lb/oF gas = .54 Btu/lb/oF

8. Check to see whether the Heat Transfer Coefficient (HTC) references the inside of the
pipe (Prosper default) or the outside of the pipe (PIPESIM default). This can significantly
affect the thermal profile of the system. In this example case, the difference translated into
 about a 5% difference in overall temperature drop and a 1% difference in the flowrate. This
discrepancy will be more significant for low mixture velocities and long flowlines. Heat
transfer coefficients, especially in wellbores, are not always known a-priori and usually are
adjusted to match measured data. Therefore, referencing the ID or OD of the pipe is only a
significant issue when converting models.

To convert HTCref-in to HTCref-out, simply multiply by (Din/Dout). For example, if a Heat Transfer
coefficient is defined in Prosper (ref-in) as 2 BTU/hr/ft2, the pipe ID is 3 and the pipe OD is
4, an equivalent HTC in PIPESIM (ref-out) is 2*(3/4) = 1.5 BTU/hr/ft2.

It is not known whether WellFlo or Perform reference the ID or OD of the pipe, though
neither program appears to give correct results for heat transfer calculations based on overall
heat transfer coefficients.

9. Ensure that the flow correlations are the same. For correlations that have been modified
such as Beggs-Brill, Hagedorn-Brown etc., make sure that the same modifications were
applied.

a. PIPESIM:
i. When the Beggs-Brill Revised correlation is selected, the following
enhancements to the original method are used:
1. an extra flow regime of froth flow is considered which assumes a no-slip
holdup (palmer correction)
2. the friction factor is changed from the standard smooth pipe mode to
utilize a single phase friction factor based on the average fluid velocity

ii. When the Hagedorn Brown correlation is selected, the following enhancements
to the original method are used:
1. If the Griffith and Wallis criteria predicted the occurrence of bubble flow,
the Griffith bubble-flow method should be used to predict pressure
gradient, and
2. If the predicted liquid holdup is less than the no-slip liquid holdup, then
the no-slip liquid holdup is used.

b. Perform:
i. Beggs & Brill: Perform allows the user to impose the Palmer correction
for Beggs-Brill, but it is unclear as to whether or not roughness effects
are considered.
ii. Hagedorn Brown: Perform allows the user to use the Griffith and
Wallis correlation for bubble flow, but there is no indication that the no-
slip liquid holdup limit is imposed.

c. Prosper:
i. There are no indications in the user guide that Prosper applies revisions
to the Beggs and Brill correlation.
ii. The Hagedorn and Brown correlation in Prosper applies the same
corrections as PIPESIM.

d. WellFlo:
i. Beggs and Brill (mod) applies same corrections as Beggs Brill Revised
in PIPESIM.
 ii. Standard Hagedorn and Brown applies same corrections as in
PIPESIM. Hagedorn and Brown (mod) adjusts the liquid holdup using
the Beggs and Brill correlation for deviated flow (also applies to Griffith
and Wallace).

10. Ensure that the correlations used to predict fluid properties are the same. Compare
predicted bubble-point pressures (at the specified reservoir temperature) and spot-check
density and viscosity calculations. Compare assumptions and methodology for mixing fluids,
calculating emulsion viscosity, performing calibrations etc.

11. For IPR models, ask the following questions:

a. Look at how skin is calculated (is rate dependent skin added automatically?)
b. Check how the model accommodates 2-phase flow effects (eg. Switch to Vogel)
below the bubble point
c. See how non- Darcy effects are accounted for
d. For the gas phase, check to see whether the pressure-square method or pseudo-
pressure method is used.

12. Compare other features (ie. chokes models, pumps equations, etc.) by consulting the user
manuals to ensure that the assumptions and methodology is the same.

13. While all programs are consistent in prompting the user for tubing deviation surveys in the
form of MD vs TVD, the conventions are different with regard to flowline profiles. Thus,
conversion often requires some trigonometric manipulation using a spreadsheet. Input
format as follows:

a. PIPESIM prompts the user for cumulative horizontal distance vs. elevation
b. Prosper prompts the user for length of each pipe segment vs. elevation
c. Perform prompts the user for cumulative pipe length vs. inclination angle
d. WellFlo prompts the user for cumulative pipe length vs. elevation