You are on page 1of 13

Evaluation of Inclined-Pipe, Two-Phase

Liquid Holdup and Pressure-Loss Correlations


Using Experimental Data
G.A. Payne, * SPE-AIME, U. of Tulsa
C.M. Palmer, ** SPE-AIME, U. of Tulsa
J.P. Brill, SPE-AIME, U. of Tulsa
H.D. Beggs, SPE-AIME, U. of Tulsa

Introduction Literature Review


Two-phase flow in pipelines located in hilly terrain is Several authors have investigated inclined two-phase
encountered in the petroleum industry frequently. In flow to some degree. An actual field study of a 16-in.
oilfield gathering systems, two-phase mixtures must pipeline was conducted by Flanigan l in 1958.
be transported from the wells to the separation Pressure drops over various sections of the line were
facility. Because of the problems associated with oil measured. He concluded that the inclination of the
and gas production offshore, it is usually necessary hills had no effect on the pressure drop and that no
to have a common pipeline for the liquid and the gas pressure recovery existed in the downhill sections.
streams. It is expecially important to have good Flanigan's design method included using the
design methods for sizing these pipelines. Panhandle equation to calculate friction loss and an
When designing two-phase pipelines, pressure elevation factor to determine the loss caused by
losses and liquid holdup must be predicted. The elevation. It is possible that Flanigan's elevation
liquid holdup is defined as the fraction of pipe oc- factor could include some pressure recovery in the
cupied by liquid during two-phase flow. A value of downhill sections. This is because any pressure loss,
liquid holdup also is an important consideration not accounted for by the friction term, is assumed to
when designing separation equipment, slug catchers, be elevation loss on the uphill side. The overall
and pumps. pressure drop was used in the development of this
A great deal of research has been conducted in correlation; consequently, any pressure recovery that
horizontal and vertical two-phase flow, and several might have been present is included in the elevation
good correlations exist for these cases. However, term.
only limited research has been performed in inclined A two-phase inclined flow study was conducted in
two-phase flow. 1967 by Guzhov et al. 2 Their data were taken in 2-in.
The main objective of this study was to design and pipe inclined at angles between ±9° from horizontal.
construct an experimental facility that could be used In development of the correlation, two flow regimes
to investigate two-phase flow phenomena in pipelines were considered - plug and stratified. A mixture
laid in hilly terrain. The secondary objective of this Froude number and the gas input fraction were used
study was to evaluate several existing correlations for to predict flow pattern. In stratified flow, there is one
predicting liquid holdup and pressure losses using liquid holdup expression for uphill flow and one for
data obtained from the test facility. downhill flow. This holdup is used to find a two-
. . Now a consultant, Denver. 0149·213617910009-6874 $00.25
"Now with Mapco Inc., Tulsa. ©1979 SOCiety of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

A 2-in. (5.l-cm) diameter, 550-ft (168-m) long pipeline was designed and con-
structed in a hilly terrain configuration. Two-phase-flow liquid holdup and pressure-
loss correlations were evaluated using gas/water data obtained from experiments.
Accurate predictions were obtained using the Beggs and Brill correlation and a
combination of Beggs and Brill and Guzhov et al. correlations.
1198 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
phase density that will determine elevation pressure correlation that requires an iterative procedure. The
loss. In plug flow, the stratified uphill holdup ex- holdup is used to determine friction and acceleration
pression is used for holdup in both uphill and pressure drops. The two-phase friction factor is a
downhill flow. This results in complete recovery of function of no-slip holdup and a smooth pipe friction
the elevation pressure loss. A friction loss expression factor.
is given. Evaluation of the acceleration term requires Eaton's? correlation also is used for pipeline
an iterative solution. design. This method is based on data taken in 2-, 4-,
Beggs and BrilP investigated two-phase flow at and 17-in. pipe under field conditions. Eaton
several inclinations between + 90 and - 90° from proposed a holdup correlation that is a function of
horizontal. Test sections of 1- and I.5-in. pipe were several dimensionless groups. This holdup is used to
used. Holdup and pressure drop were measured, and determine the acceleration component of the pressure
holdup and friction factor correlations were drop. The friction factor is also a function of several
proposed. A horizontal flow pattern map consisting dimensionless groups, but this must be used with
of segregated, intermittent, and distributed flow caution because the friction factor becomes un-
regimes is used to determine a horizontal holdup. bounded as single-phase flow is approached.
The horizontal holdup is corrected for inclination
and then used to determine the elevation pressure Experimental Facility
loss. Friction and acceleration terms also are A schematic diagram of the hilly-terrain-pipeline test
provided. facility is shown in Fig. 1. The test facility consisted
Recently, Robinson4 showed that the accuracy of of 1,200 ft of 2-in. Schedule 40 line pipe (ID = 2.067
the Beggs and Brill correlation could be improved in.) with associated gas compressor, water pump,
when applied to directional wells by using a tran- meter runs, and separator. The entire system was
sitional zone between the segregated and intermittent closed - i.e., both gas and liquid were recirculated.
flow regimes. When the flow is in this region, a The test section was 400 ft long and arranged in three
weighted average of the segregated and intermittent hills. Entrance and exit effects were avoided by
holdup values is used. extending the pipe about 75 ft (450 pipe diameters)
Sometimes, horizontal flow correlations are used on each end of the test section. Fig. 2 is a profile of
with Flanigan's elevation factor to design pipelines in the test section, and Table 1 gives data about that
hilly terrain. The American Gas Assn. Design section.
Manuals recommends using Dukler's6 horizontal
correlation with Flanigan's elevation factor. Dukler's General Procedure for Two-Phase Flow Testing
correlation is based on a large amount of ex- The system was pressurized initially to 400 or 500
perimental data. Dukler developed a holdup psi a with a three-stage Worthington compressor.

Fig. 1 - Schematic diagram of hilly terrain facility.

SEPTEMBER 1979 1199


TABLE 1 - TEST SECTION DATA have to consider mass transfer between phases. We
assumed the water had a constant density of 62.4
Elevation lbm/cu ft. The gas/water surface tension was
Length Change Angle
Section" (ft) (ft) (degrees) assumed to be a constant 60 dyne/cm for the range of
pressures and temperatures encountered in this
1 50 3.69 4.23 study. Water viscosity was determined from the
2 50 -3.75 -4.30
3 50 6.11 7.02' correlation of water viscosity as a function of
4 50 -3.31 -3.80 temperature presented by Beal. 10
5A 100 0.24 -0.14 Specific gravity of the natural gas was 0.64. The
58 46 6.59 8.24 gas compressibility factor was calculated using a
6 54 -5.56 -5.91
subroutine provided by Brill and Beggs,l1 which is an
'Note that Sec. 5 contains two inclinations over the total length corresponding acceptable approximation to the Standing-Katz z-
to the pressure drop data. factor chart. The Lee et al. 12 correlation was used to
calculate the gas viscosity.
This provided the necessary volume to start a two-
stage Knight compressor. The gas was circulated with Statistical Analysis
the gas bypass valve fully open. After the desired
meter run was opened, the bypass valve was closed The statistical parameters used to evaluate the ex-
until the desired gas flow rate was achieved. With the perimental data were average percent error and
flow controller set on the desired liquid rate and the standard deviation. These parameters are defined as
correct meter run open, the pump was started and the follows:
water bypass valve was closed partially. The pump calculated value - measured value
pressure had to be about 200 psi greater than the fiJoE = x 100,
measured value
system pressure for the flow controller to function
properly. After water reached the separator, the N
liquid-level control valve was set to maintain the E%E;
desired liquid level. Once the liquid level was ;=1
stabilized, the gas rate was set more exactly. %E=
N
When the system had stabilized completely and all N
temperatures, pressures, and flow-rate data were
recorded, transducer equalizing valves were opened
E (%E; - %£)2
and the ball valves were shut. The liquid was drained s= i:::::l

N - 1
from each segment and then weighed. The ball valves
were opened and the equalizing valves were shut. If To make any statistical inference from ex-
only pressure loss data were desired, the holdup perimental data, the data usually must be distributed
procedure was omitted. A complete discussion of the normally. For this reason, the actual values of
experimental equipment, including pressure traverse percent error for predicted pressure drop in the total
and holdup measurement procedure, is found in test section were sorted into ranges, and the
Refs. 8 and 9. The holdup data taken by PalmerS and cumulative relative frequency of the percent error
the pressure drop data taken by Payne9 are presented was plotted vs the value of percent error on normal
in Tables 2 and 3. probability paper. A normal distribution will plot as
a straight line intersecting the 50th percentile at the
Evaluation Techniques mean. It also will intersect the 16th percentile and the
PVT Properties 84th percentile one standard deviation on either side
Because the liquid used here was water, we did not of the mean. Figs. 3 and 4 show that the errors do
approximate a normal distribution.
Because the average percent error is based on a
finite sample, we cannot expect it to coincide exactly
12 -Flow
with the actual population mean. However, since the
percent errors approximate a normal distribution, it
(6)
(68)
(OA)
(4) (3)
(2)
is possible to determine an interval that will bracket
(1)
the true value of the average percent error, given
100 200 300 400 specified odds. For a normal distribution where the
LENGTH (FT)
sample variance is used as an estimator of the
population variance, this interval is given by the
Elevation
Section Length (tp Chang' Ot) Angle(degr •• ) following expression:

3
50
50
50
3,68
-3.76
8.11
4.23
-4.30
1.02
%E ± (t I-a/
.N - 1) (...£).
z' YN
4 50 -3.31 -3.80
5A 100 0.24 -0. t 4
58 46 6.69 8.24
-5.91
Using the above confidence limits and IX = 0.01
6 54 -6.56
(i.e., a 99% confidence interval), we can show that
Note that •• ctlon 5 contain a two inclinations ovar the the Beggs and Brill correlation true average percent
total length corre.pondlng to the pre,aur. drop data
error lies between -20.51 and -28.53%. Con-
Fig. 2 - Test section profile. sequently, at best this correlation underpredicts

1200 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY


TABLE 2 - HOLDUP DATA RECORDED BY PALMER 8

Pressure Temperature Liquid Gas


(psia) rF) Rate Rate Uphill Holdup Downhill Holdup
Run Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet (BID) (scflD) Sec. 1 Sec. 3 Sec.5B Sec. 2 Sec. 4 Sec.6
---
12304 526 514 98 90 505.0 640831 0.2225 0.2448 0.2483 0.2136 0.2101 0.1847
20404 579 572 93 72 234.6 677479 0.2199 0.2413 0.2445 0.1484 0.1302 0.1199
12105 518 512 100 88 330.4 905634 0.2010 0.2040 0.2190 0.1875 0.1510 0.1527
12709 395 378 102 95 864.5 628919 0.2852 0.3385 0.3181 0.2821 0.2213 0.2814
12907 533 521 84 76 703.8 520402 0.3934 0.3993 0.3096 0.1510 0.3949 0.1639
12205 401 390 83 68 345.9 799311 0.1718 0.1684 0.1718 0.1562 0.0833 0.1439
20401 665 659 70 68 234.6 743081 0.2294 0.2396 0.2473 0.1588 0.1050 0.1319
20402 616 609 81 78 234.6 1164866 0.1520 0.1553 0.1539 0.1163 0.0781 0.1127
20403 575 568 88 73 234.6 754148 0.1967 0.2022 0.1888 0.1406 0.0000' 0.1279
21401 547 541 75 51 323.8 130150 0.4510 0.5182 0.4163 0.1701 0.3645 0.2126
21402 547 541 78 54 323.8 123029 0.4175 0.3966 0.5551 0.3029 0.4157 0.0584
21403 548 542 86 70 323.8 109699 0.4372 0.4826 0.5277 0.2751 0.3263 0.1974
21404 549 543 94 68 323.8 90434 0.5214 0.6041 0.5796 0.2309 0.3524 0.1910
21405 548 542 103 78 230.6 74635 0.5669 0.5954 0.5494 0.1883 0.3255 0.1767
21406 551 545 110 77 457.3 130174 0.5506 0.5442 0.5107 0.2300 0.4010 0.1823
21407 549 542 110 90 457.3 95048 0.5506 0.5242 0.5230 0.3784 0.5077 0.2926
21408 469 462 104 84 457.3 204937 0.3067 0.6076 0.4267 0.1892 0.1979 0.1727
21409 473 466 105 75 457.3 166058 0.4982 0.4635 0.3115 0.1883 0.3263 0.2182
21410 472 465 103 74 457.3 167631 0.4948 0.5416 0.4191 0.2448 0.2413 0.2526
21301 604 584 80 76 595.1 1745730 0.1787 0.1606 0.1520 0.1649 0.1423 0.1751
21302 575 555 93 87 595.1 1399644 0.21.90 0.1779 0.1860 0.1623 0.1510 0.1639
21303 555 542 100 85 595.1 1015462 0.2483 0.2491 0.2332 0.2317 0.1771 0.1871
21304 537 528 105 93 595.1 775024 0.2895 0.2873 0.2615 0.2291 0.2586 0.2046
21305 518 510 109 86 578.1 561468 0.3505 0.3602 0.3710 0.2639 0.2578 0.1974
21306 513 506 110 99 590.8 274798 0.4226 0.3897 0.4899 0.2048 0.4062 0.0951
21307 504 500 98 78 132.3 253418 0.3290 0.3081 0.3087 0.1285 0.1259 0.1097
21308 446 442 98 70 131.8 204474 0.3419 0.3142 0.2851 0.1111 0.1632 0.0679
21309 440 435 106 70 131.6 140991 0.3780 0.3576 0.3965 0.0929 0.2040 0.0520
21310 443 435 112 66 285.0 141260 0.3049 0.4999 0.3106 0.2717 0.2161 0.1886

"Liquid holdup was not measured.

99 # 99
#

> >
()
()
z 95 z 95
w w
:> :>
()
()
w w
a:
... 80 ...a: 80

w w
::l- 80
::I- 80
< <
..J
..J
W 40 w 40
a: a:
w
::l- 20
• w
::I- 20

< <
..J
..J
:> :>
:l: :l: 5
5 :>
:> ()
()

-80 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

$ERROR $ERROR

Fig. 3 - Cumulative frequency of percent errors in Fig. 4 - Cumulative frequency of percent errors in
pressure drop (total test section) using the Beggs pressure drop (total test section) using the Eaton·
and Brill correlation. Dukler-Flanigan combination.

SEPTEMBER 1979 1201


TABLE 3 - PRESSURE DROP DATA RECORDED BY PAYNE 9

Inlet Average Liquid Gas Pressure Drop


Pressure Temperature Rate Rate (psi d)
Run (psia) ("F) (BID) (scflD) Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 3 ---- Sec. 5 Sec. 6
Sec. 4 ----
---- ---- ----
12101 529 64 92 1793716 -3.0 -0.6 -1.4 -0.4 -5.0 -1.0
12103 532 69 130 1798329 -1.8 -1.4 -2.2 -1.2 -5.4 -1.8
12202 426 74 575 1401284 -3.6 -2.8 -4.2 -3.0 -11.2 -2.8
12203 423 79 857 857840 -3.2 -2.0 -4.0 -2.4 -10.6 -2.6
12204 411 79 617 938779 -2.4 -1.0 -3.2 -1.6 -7.6 -1.2
12205 401 76 338 831174 -1.8 -0.2 -2.2 -1.0 -4.6 -0.8
12302 516 80 238 1335187 -1.4 -1.2 -1.6 -1.0 -4.8 -1.0
12303 535 89 509 1361592 -2.0 -0.2 -2.6 -1.6 -7.8 -1.6
12304 526 94 505 663704 -2.0 -0.6 -1.6 -0.4 -4.5 -0.4
12702 378 77 231 844692 -0.8 ,-0.4 -1.2 -0.6 -2.8 -0.6
12703 384 82 505 814955 -1.6 -0.6 -2.0 -1.2 -4.6 -1.2
12704 405 87 1077 780271 -3.0 -1.8 -3.6 -2.2 -9.0 -2.4
12705 385 89 1077 459842 -2.0 -1.0 -3.0 -1.4 -6.2 -1.4
12706 387 98 1080 286922 -1.4 -0.2 -2.6 -0.6 -5.2 -0.6
12707 387 99 867 286111 -1.2 -0.2 -2.2 -0.2 -4.2 -0.4
12708 427 99 864 926655 -2.4 -1.2 -3.2 -2.0 -9.8 -2.0
12709 395 98 864 653008 -2.0 -0.6 -2.6 -1.0 -7.8 -1.2
12902 635 74 128 1494170 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -1.6 -3.0 -1.4
12903 611 80 421 837799 -1.2 0.4 -1.4 -0.6 -4.4 -0.8
12904 605 80 515 793696 -1.6 0.2 -1.8 -0.8 -5.2 -1.0
12905 571 78 608 947422 -2.6 0.2 -2.6 -0.8 -6.4 -1.2
12906 546 80 703 985678 -3.4 -0.2 -3.0 -1.2 -7.6 -1.6
12907 533 80 703 542509 -2.6 0.8 -2.8 -0.4 -5.6 -0.8
22001 412 71 331 1007089 -1.4 -0.8 -1.8 -0.9 -4.0 -0.8
22002 391 76 331 780274 -1.2 -0.7 -1.4 -1.1 -3.2 -0.5
22003 385 80 331 580427 -0.8 -0.5 -1.3 -0.6 -2.6 -0.4
22004 347 84 331 291484 -1.0 -0.3 -1.7 -0.1 -2.2 -0.2
22005 308 86 331 251860 -0.8 -0.3 -1.4 -0.2 -2.0 -0.2
22006 291 87 331 228044 -0.7 -0.2 -1.3 0.1 -2.0 -0.1
22007 289 87 331 149999 -0.7 -0.2 -1.2 0.1 -2.0 -0.1
22008 286 88 331 113662 -0.8 -0.2 -0.9 -0.1 -1.9 -0.1
22009 285 89 331 71148 -0.8 -0.2 -1.0 -0.2 -2.0 -0.1
22010 284 91 415 71148 -0.9 -0.3 -0.9 -0.1 -2.1 -0.1
22011 288 90 415 260946 -0.7 -0.2 -1.2 0.1 -2.4 -0.1
22012 290 87 415 365469 -1.0 -0.3 -1.4 -0.1 -2.7 -0.2
22502 431 62 515 319909 -1.0 -0.3 -1.8 -0.1 -2.8 -0.1
22503 432 67 515 283475 -1.1 -0.4 -1.8 -0.1 -2.8 -0.2
22504 430 72 512 218097 -1.3 -0.3 -1.7 -0.1 -2.4 -0.5
22505 430 75 512 159957 -1.3 -0.1 -2.0 -0.3 -2.1 -0.8
22506 428 79 515 95000 -1.3 -0.2 -2.0 -0.4 -1.8 -1.0
22507 429 86 604 91808 -1.5 -0.1 -1.9 -0.5 -0.8 -1.9
22508 430 91 604 175836 -1.3 -0.3 -1.8 0.1 -0.9 -2.0
22509 431 89 604 239541 -1.1 -0.2 -1.8 -0.2 -1.1 -1.8
22510 432 95 604 281048 -1.3 -0.3 -1.8 -0.2 -1.3 -1.9
22511 435 96 604 328608 -1.3 -0.4 -2.0 -0.1 -1.8 -1.7
22512 439 98 703 311346 -1.3 -0.7 -2.1 -0.1 -1.9 -1.9
22513 440 100 703 253689 -1.4 -0.2 -2.5 -0.1 -1.7 -1.9
22514 440 100 703 177556 -1.3 -0.5 -1.9 -0.2 -1.3 -2.2
22515 439 101 703 110171 -1.4 -0.5 -2.0 -0.3 -2.2 -1.1
22516 440 97 805 107612 -1.4 -0.4 -2.1 -0.3 -2.5 -1.0
22517 439 102 805 167485 -1.3 -0.6 -1.8 -0.3 -1.5 -2.1
22518 405 99 805 242556 -1.3 -0.7 -1.9 -0.5 -1.8 -2.2
22519 406 99 805 291122 -1.6 -0.7 -2.1 -0.5 -2.3 -2.2
32002 559 75 233 1766601 -2.1 -1.4 -1.8 -1.5 -5.0 -1.3
32003 511 79 233 1319003 -1.4 -0.8 -1.7 -0.7 -3.6 -0.7
32004 470 85 233 651544 -0.9 -0.2 -1.5 -0.1 -2.0 -0.1
32005 477 87 130 608329 -0.7 -0.2 -1.0 -0.1 -1.5 -0.1
32006 489 92 131 1363708 -0.8 -1.0 -0.5 -0.2 -2.9 -0.3
32007 488 91 131 1779416 -1.8 -1.3 -2.2 -1.0 -5.0 -1.5
32008 435 97 131 344198 -0.5 -0.3 -0.9 -0.1 -1.4 -0.5
32009 433 98 131 282284 -1.3 -0.1 -0.9 -0.1 -1.4 -0.3
32010 435 102 131 219766 -0.4 -0.3 -0.7 -0.2 -1.4 -0.4
32011 420 107 131 173545 -0.8 -0.1 -1.4 -0.2 -1.5 -0.3
32012 425 109 131 118403 -0.6 -0.6 -1.0 -0.6 -1.6 -0.4
32013 421 109 85 115796 -0.7 -0.4 -1.4 -0.7 -1.6 -0.4
32014 431 106 85 171136 -0.3 -0.1 -1.6 -0.6 -1.4 -0.2
32015 450 97 85 246550 -0.3 -0.1 -0.4 -0.6 -1.2 -0.4
32016 455 102 85 383687 -0.3 -0.1 -0.3 -0.6 -1.2 -0.4
32017 491 100 84 1303383 -0.5 -0.6 -0.3 -1.2 -2.4 -1.2
32018 510 100 84 1649565 -0.8 -1.0 -0.6 -1.5 -3.3 -1.1

1202 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY


TABLE 4 - CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PERCENT ERRORS IN PRESSURE DROP
(TOTAL TEST SECTION)

%E
-50 -20 -10 0 10 20 50 100
Beggs and Brill (modified by Robinson) 4 61 87 94 100
Beggs and Brill (neglect pressure recovery) 0 13 33 50 57 93 100
Beggs and Brill (rough pipe friction factor) 0 26 39 63 73 84 99 100
Dukler (HL), Dukler (FF), Flanigan (EF) 0 0 0 11 31 54 97 100
Eaton (HL), Eaton (FF), Flanigan (EF) 0 10 20 44 64 79 96 100
Guzhov et al. 70 84 84 89 89 90 96 100
HL = liquid holdup.
FF = friction factor.
EF = elevation factor.

pressure loss at least 20070 for 2-in. pipe. caused by slugging. The Guzhov et al. correlation
A similar analysis for the Eaton-Dukler-Flanigan gave the lowest average percent error of the three
combination gives a 99% confidence interval of 1.16 correlations. Using the Guzhov et al. criteria for
to 10.80%. Table 4 gives the percent error distribu- stratified flow, liquid holdup in downhill flow is
tion of the other methods used to compare calculated predicted most accurately by Guzhov et al. in
pressure drop with the measured pressure drop. stratified flow and by Beggs and Brill elsewhere.
Statistics for this combination also are shown in
Holdup Analysis Table 5.
Liquid holdup was measured in three uphill and three The Beggs and Brill correlation was used in a
downhill sections for each experiment. Calculated modified form to see if the downhill holdup could be
values of liquid holdup corresponding to the predicted more accurately. The correlation was
measured values were determined from the Beggs and forced to a segregated flow condition for those
Brill,3 Flanigan, I and Guzhov et al. 2 correlations. The experiments where stratified flow was indicated,
results of this analysis are provided in Table 5 and in according to the Guzhov et at. criteria. This modified
Figs. 5 through 10. form proved to be less accurate than the original
Examination of the individual percent errors for Beggs and Brill correlation for downhill flow. The
the uphill sections indicates that the correlations consistently large positive percent errors for liquid
predict the holdup more accurately in some sections holdup in the downhill section indicates that the
than others. This fluctuation could result from the correlation is overpredicting the downhill holdup.
presence of slugs in some parts of the test section. As Table 5 shows that the Flanigan correlation was
can be seen in Table 5, the Beggs and Brill correlation the least accurate of the three correlations. As
was the most accurate in predicting the liquid holdup Flanigan stated, the correlation was a crude ap-
in the uphill sections. proximation, but this was one of the first steps taken
In downhill flow, the fluctuation of the holdup to predict liquid holdup. Flanigan's correlation was
percent error in individual sections is similar to that developed for uphill flow, and holdup in downhill
found in the uphill sections. This also could be flow was ignored.

1. 0 r---.--,.--r---.--,.--r----r-,..--,-.....,.

0.8
A. A.

'"
Q
..J
'"
Q
..J
o o
:z: :z:
0.8 0.8
..J ..J
..J ..J

:z: :z:
A. A.

'"
Q
'"
Q
0.4 0.4
'"
a: '"a:
.,'" .,'"
-< -<
'":Ii '"
:Ii
0.2 0.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0

CALCULATED UPHILL HOLDUP CALCULATED UPHILL HOLDUP

Fig. 5 - Measured uphill holdup vs calculated uphill Fig. 6 - Measured uphill holdup vs calculated uphill
holdup using the Beggs and Brill method. holdup using the Flanigan method.

SEPTEMBER 1979 1203


Pressure Loss Analysis TABLE 5 - STATISTICS FROM HOLDUP
ANALYSIS
The calculation procedure used to determine pressure
loss in the test section is given in Ref. 9. Six different Uphill Downhill
correlations or combinations of correlations were Method %E S %E S
compared with the experimental data. Table 6 and
Beggs and Brill 9.2 15.0 61.0 BO.B
Figs. 11 through 18 give the results of this com- Flanigan 16.3 30.1
parison. The statistics in Table 6 are based on the Guzhov et a/. 14.3 19.5 36.6 57.4
total pressure drop (or the entire test section. A Beggs-Guzhov· 17.9 4B.7
positive value of average percent error indicates an
'Combination of Beggs and Brill correlation with the Guzhov
overprediction of pressure loss. et at. correlation for downhill only.
The Guzhov et al. correlation was significantly
worse than the others. This was attributed to the et al. criteria. The· acceleration term in this corre-
downhill holdup being equal to the uphill holdup in lation was neglected.
plug flow. This results in complete recovery of the The combination of Dukler holdup, Dukler
elevation term in downhill flow. The majority of the friction factor, and the Flanigan elevation factor did
data are in this flow regime, according to the Guzhov not predict pressure loss as well as the Eaton holdup,

Q.

Q.
"...
Q

"...
Q o
o ...'" 0.8
......'" '=
z"
;:
'"
Q. o
Q

"
Q
Q
w
w a:
a:
.,"
".,< <
w
w ::!i
::!i

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0
CALCULATED DOWNHILL HOLDUP
CALCULATED UPHILL HOLDUP
Fig. 9 - Measured downhill holdup vs calculated downhill
Fig. 7 - Measured uphill holdup vs calculated uphill holdup using the Guzhov et a/. method.
holdup using the Guzhov et a/. method.

1. 0 ,..---,----,.---.--,--.,.--r----r---,----.--?I

Q.
0.8
Q.
"...
Q

"...
Q
o
o
......'"
......'" 0.8
0.8

'"z
'"z
;:
;:
oQ
oQ Q
w
0.4
Q
a:
w
a: .,"
".,< <
w
::!i
w 0.2
::!i

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0
CALCULATED DOWNHILL HOLDUP
CALCULATED DOWNHILL HOLDUP
Fig. 10 - Measured downhill holdup vs calculated downhill
Fig. 8 - Measured downhill holdup vs calculated downhill holdup using the Beggs and Brill/Guzhov et a/.
holdup using the Beggs and Brill method. method.

1204 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY


TABLE 6 - STATISTICS FROM PRESSURE·LOSS ANALYSIS
Uphill Downhill
Total
Sec. 1 Sec. 3 Sec. 5 Sec. 2 Sec. 4 Sec. 6 Test Section
Method %E S %E S %E S %E S %E S %E S %E S
----- ----- ---- ----- ----
Beggs and Brill -0.62 28.21 3.39 43.53 6.34 55.86 -125.07 176.78 -68.20 120.32 -133.66 163.58 -24.52 12.65
Beggs and Brill
(modified by
Robinson) -2.44 26.21 0.26 40.04 4.46 56.55 -121.92 173.95 -66.85 118.03 -131.32 162.83 -25.75 14.45
Beggs and Brill
(neglect pressure
recovery) -0.62 28.21 3.38 43.52 8.03 57.03 16.95 203.84 42.16 221.19 30.85 123.64 -1.45 15.91
Beggs and Brill
(rough pipe
friction factor) 15.81 29.34 18.43 51.95 25.58 58.05 -91.67 236.26 -24.20 152.40 -92.77 174.41 -4.38 21.79
Eaton (HL),
Dukler (FF),
Flanigan (EF) 10.89 42.74 12.61 61.73 14.20 53.85 21.87 269.81 52.56 224.58 35.09 122.24 5.98 15.23
Dukler (HL),
Dukler (FF),
Flanigan (EF) 22.17 41.79 22.19 63.28 26.40 52.03 40.56 280.35 79.68 258.68 62.97 146.35 19.43 14.83
Eaton (HL),
Eaton (FF),
Flanigan (EF) 11.36 47.79 12.23 63.11 14.92 55.70 28.18 207.80 46.15 221.81 41.44 125.95 6.87 20.84
Guzhov et al. -11.98 56.60 -11.56 56.21 -22.05 42.88 -178.92 161.44 -140.06 240.05 -22.05 42.88 -48.68 41.43

HL = liquid holdup,
FF = friction factor.
EF = elevation factor.

Dukler friction factor, and Flanigan elevation factor same results for these data. The Beggs and Brill
combination. This must be a direct result of the correlation next is analyzed in detail.
Dukler holdup correlation. This agrees with a
previous evaluation of Dukler's holdup correlation Beggs and Brill Method
by Marcano 13 where the Dukler correlation un- When analyzing the holdup data, we found that the
derpredicted by 33070. Underprediction of liquid Beggs and Brill correlation over predicted holdup in
holdup would result in overprediction of friction downhill flow. This would result in too much
loss. pressure recovery and a corresponding under-
The combination using Eaton's friction factor was prediction in overall pressure loss. In view of this, the
fairly accurate since the correlation was developed Beggs and Brill correlation was evaluated with the
with data taken in 2-in. pipe. elevation term set at zero in downhill flow. This
The original Beggs and Brill correlation and the resulted in considerably better performance. The
version modified by Robinson4 gave essentially the average percent error was reduced to -1.45% with a

(!) -24
-24 Q
<&
Q

'" '"
Co ta
t'" (!)
-20
Co
-20 0
Co
a:
0 Q GG
a:
Q GG W -16
a: G
w -16 GG
G :>
a: ~ G
.,
:> (!)
eefl'
'"'"w -12
GGG

'"a:w -12
a:
Co ~G
G
'" <!>
Co G '"
€ '" Q
w
a-s 0
Q
w
a: -8
ee0
(!)

(!)~
a:
.,:> -6 "'i
"'.~
.,
:> G$ .
<
w
G

< ~ £
!~
w
~ ~ -4
-4
I~
-8 -12 -16 -20 -24
-4 -8 -12 -18 -20 -24
CALCULATED PRESSURE DROP (PSID)
CALCULATED PRESSURE DROP (PSID)
Fig. 12 - Measured vs calculated pressure drop (total test
Fig. 11 - Measured vs calculated pressure drop (total test section) using the Beggs and Brill correlation as
section) using the 'Beggs and Brill correlation. modified by Robinson.

SEPTEMBER 1979 1205


99070 confidence interval of -6.49 to 3.59%. Fig. 13 equation,15 which is a function of relative roughness
shows the improved performance of the correlation. and which resulted in an average percent error for the
However, to conclude that the downhill holdup is the total test section of -4.38% with a 99% confidence
only error source in this correlation could be an interval of -11.28 to 2.52%. Fig. 14 shows the im-
oversimplification. proved performance of the correlation. Table 5 gives
Possibly, some error exists in the friction com- the uphill and downhill statistics for this variation of
ponent of the total pressure drop. The Beggs and the Beggs and Brill method. It seems that using' a
Brill correlation was developed in plastic pipe, and rough-pipe friction factor provided too much friction
roughness was not a parameter in the friction factor. loss. However, the overprediction of pressure re-
In the original correlation, the Drew et af. 14 equation covery compensates for this. Note that the roughness
was used to calculate a smooth-pipe friction factor used was that of commercial steel or wrought iron
multiplier. This was replaced with another (0.00015 ft). This value resulted in good agreement

., .,
-24 -24
0 ., 0

t'" G>
...'"
-20
...0 -20
...0
a: a:
0 0
W w -18
a: a:
:> :>

'"'"w '"'"w -12


...a: ...a:
0 0
w w
a: a: -8
:> :>

'"<w '"<w
::! ::!

-4 -8 -24 -4 -8 -12 -18 -20 -24

CALCULATED PRESSURE DROP (PSID) CALCULATED PRESSURE DROP (PSID)

Fig. 13 - Measured vs calculated pressure drop (total test Fig. 15 - Measured vs calculated pressure drop (total test
section) using the Beggs and Brill correlation section) using the Eaton·Dukler-Flanigan
with no pressure recovery. combination .

.,
., .,
-24 -24
0
., ., !:
.,
t o
t I!l
-20
...0 -20
...0
a:
0
., ., a:
0
., .,
w -18 .,~
w -18
a: a:
.,., .,.,
:> :>
., G> "p

., .,
w -12 w -12
a:
... ., ...a:
0 ., 0
w w
a: -8 a: -8
.,
:>
.,
:>

< <
w w
::! ::!
-4 -4

-4 -8 -12 -18 -20 -24 -4 -8 -12 -16 -20 -24

CALCULATED PRESSURE DROP (PSID) CALCULATED PRESSURE DROP (PSID)

Fig. 14 - Measured vs calculated pressure drop (total test Fig. 16 - Measured vs calculated pressure drop (total test
section) using the Beggs and Brill correlation section) using Dukler-Dukler-Flanigan com-
with a rough-pipe friction factor multiplier. bination.

1206 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY


between calculated and measured pressure drops in compensate for the overprediction of holdup with the
single-phase gas flow. Beggs and Brill correlation gave excellent results.
The Beggs and Brill correlation seems to be af-
fected primarily by an overprediction of holdup in Acknowledgment
downhill flow. This results in too much pressure The sponsorship of these projects by the U. of Tulsa
recovery. It is possible that the friction loss is not as Fluid Flow Projects is gratefully acknowledged.
great as it should be. However, neglecting pressure
recovery and using a rough-pipe friction factor Nomenclature
would result in an excessive pressure loss. An in- %E = percent error
teresting analysis would be to use the Beggs and %E = average percent error
Brill/Guzhov et al. combination discussed previously N = number of data points
for downhill holdup with a rough-pipe friction S = deviation about the average percent error
factor. We did not do this because our paper is a t variate of the t distribution
combination of two independent research projects a = confidence coefficient
(see Refs. 8 and 9). Results of the holdup analysis
were not available before completion of the pressure References
loss analysis.
1. Flanigan, 0.: "Effect of Uphill Flow on Pressure Drop in
Design of Two-Phase Gathering Systems," Oil and Gas J.
Conclusions (March 10, 1958) 56, 132.
Several conclusions can be drawn from the ex- 2. Guzhov, A.L., Mamayev, V.A., and Odishariya, G.E.: "A
perimental data analyzed in this study. Study of Transportation in Gas Systems," paper IGV /CI9-67
presented at the 10th International Gas Union Conference,
1. The Beggs and Brill correlation accurately Hamburg, June 6-10, 1967.
predicts holdup in uphill flow. 3. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: "A Study of Two-Phase Flow in
2. The Beggs and Brill correlation overpredicts Inclined Pipes," J. Pet. Tech. (May 1973) 607-617; Trans.,
liquid holdup in downhill flow. AIME,255.
3. Liquid holdup prediction in downhill flow can 4. Robinson, J.R.: "Development of a Two-Phase Well Data
Bank and an Evaluation Study of Pressure Loss Methods
be improved by using the Guzhov et al. correlation Applied to Directional Oil Wells," MS thesis, U. of Tulsa, OK
when stratified flow is indicated and by using the (1974).
Beggs and Brill correlation at all other times. 5. Baker, 0.: "Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines, II. Design
4. The combination of Eaton holdup, Dukler Manual," API-AGA Project NX-28, New York City (Oct.
1970).
friction factor, and the Flanigan elevation factor 6. Dukler, A.E.: "Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines, Part I,
accurately predicted pressure loss. Research Results," API-AGA Project NX-28, New York City
5. The Beggs and Brill correlation underpredicted (May 1969).
pressure loss by nearly 25070. This is primarily 7. Eaton, B.A.: "The Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid
because of an overprediction of liquid holdup in Holdup and Pressure Losses Occurring During Continuous
Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal Pipelines," PhD dissertation,
downhill flow. U. of Texas, Austin (1966).
6. Neglecting pressure recovery in downhill flow to 8. Palmer, C.M.: "Evaluation of Inclined Pipe Two-Phase

-.,...
Q
-24

.,
Q
-24
0

-...
0
-20 t
... -20
C!I

C!I

a: 0
Q 0" a:
w -18
Q 0 e
a: w -18
.,.,
:::l a: ~
C!I

.,.,
:::l

w 0
a: -12 w -12 e
... ...a: 0 C!I GI
Q 0
W Q
r9
E>El C!I
a: -8 w 0
.,
:::l a:
.,
:::l
-8 GI

<
W <
~ W C!I
-4 ~
-4

-20 -24
-12 -18 -20 -24
CALCULATED PRESSURE DROP (PSID)
CALCULATED PRESSURE DROP (PSID)
Fig. 17 - Measured vs calculated pressure drop (total test
section) using the Eaton·Eaton·Flanigan com· Fig. 18 - Measured vs calculated pressure drop (total test
bination. section) using the Guzhov et a/. correlation.

SEPTEMBER 1979 1207


Liquid Holdup Correlations Using Experimental Data," MS SI Metric Conversion Factors
thesis, U. of Tulsa, OK (1975).
9. Payne, G.A.: "Experimental Evaluation of Two-Phase B/D x 1.589873 E-Ol m 3/d
Pressure Loss Correlations for Inclined Pipe," MS thesis, U. dyne/em x 1.000* E+OO mN/m
10.
of Tulsa, OK (1975).
Beal, C.: "Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas, Crude Oil
of CF-32)/1.8 °c
and Its Associated Gases at Oil-Field Temperatures and
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
Pressures," Trans. AI ME (1946) 165, 94-115. in. x 2.540* E-02 m
11. Brill, J.P. and Beggs, H.D.: Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, U. of Ibm/ell ft x 1.601846 E+Ol kg/m3
Tulsa Press, Tulsa, OK (1975). sefiD x 2.863640 E-02 stdm 3/m 3
12. Lee, A.L., Gonzales; M.H., and Eakin, B.E.: "The Viscosity
of Natural Gas," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1966) 997-1000; Trans., ·Conversion factor is exact. JPI
AIME,237.
13. Marcano, N.l.L.: "Comparisons of Liquid Holdup
Correlations for Gas Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes," MS Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July
thesis, U. of Tulsa, OK (1973). 13, 1977. Paper accepted for publication Jan. 18, 1979. Revised manuscript
received July 17, 1978. Paper (SPE 6874) first presented at the SPE·AIME 52nd
14. Drew, T.B., Koo, E.C., and McAdams, W.H.: "The Friction Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, held in Denver, Oct. 9·12,
Factor for Clean Round Pipes," Trans., AIChE (1932) 28,56. 1977.
15. J. [nst. Civil Engrs., London (1938) 11,133. This paper will be included in the 1979 Transactions volume.

1208 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY


Discussion of Evaluation of Inclined-Pipe,
Two-Phase Liquid Holdup and Pressure-Loss
Correlations Using Experimental Data
Ali Danesh, SPE-AIME, Abadan Inst. of Technology

Introduction
The following comments pertain to two methods of liquid velocity number, N LV' defined by
holdup prediction discussed in "Evaluation of In-
clined-Pipe, Two-Phase Liquid Holdup and N LV = VSL (PL/(1)Y4,
Pressure-Loss Correlations Using Experimental
Data" by Payne et at. (Sept. 1979 JPT, Pages 1198- where VSL is the superfacialliquid velocity, PL is the
1208). liquid density, and (1 is the interfacial tension of the
two phases.
Beggs and Brill Correlation The slip between the pipeline phases basically is
Payne et at. 1 concluded that the Beggs and Brill caused by the difference in properties of the two
correlation accurately predicts holdup in uphill flow phases. The most important physical properties are
and over predicts holdup in downhill flow, but density, viscosity, and interfacial tension. When the
remains the most accurate method for all flow pressure of a gas-condensate mixture increases and
regimes with the exception of stratified flow. Use of approaches the critical condition, the difference in
the Beggs and Brill correlation also has been the properties of the two phases is reduced and the
recommended by others (such as Gould and Ram- holdup for such a gas-condensate mixture at high
sey2) for gas-condensate offshore pipelines. pressure is definitely lower than the air/water system
The Beggs and Brill correlation was used at the used in the Beggs and Brill experiment at the same
Abadan Inst. of Technology 3 to predict the per- flow rates of gas and liquid. Hence, it can be con-
formance of a 24.5-in. (622-mm) ID hilly-terrain gas- cluded that the method, which does not consider the
condensate pipeline 30 miles (48 km) long at 2,500- effects of physical properties, overpredicts the
psi (17 236-kPa) inlet pressure. When the predicted horizontal holdup for a high-pressure gas-condensate
holdup results were studied, many unrealistic values pipeline.
were noticed. The method predicted negative values For inclined flow where the effects of physical
and values greater than one. It also predicted properties are considered, the inclination correction
horizontal holdup may decrease in the uphill section factor for horizontal segregated flow shows that the
of the pipe. Careful examination of the calculations increase of (p L / (1) increases the uphill holdup. While
revealed most of these incorrect results originated for the gas-condensate line, the increase of (p L / (1),
from use of the inclination correction factor. which is the pressure increase, should reduce the
In the Beggs and Brill method, the two parameters holdup. For example, at the critical condition the
of input liquid content and Froude number are flow becomes homogeneous and the slip is zero,
sufficient to predict only the horizontal flow regime while the correction factor approaches infinity. For
and the horizontal holdup, and they are independent horizontal intermittent flow, the correlation shows
of the physical properties of the fluids. But the in- that the holdup decreases with the increase of (P L / (1).
clination correction factor, which adjusts the This further magnifies problems associated with the
horizontal holdup for the inclination, depends on the discontinuity that occurs from methods giving
different correlations for different flow regimes. 1,3
Gregory4 showed that the effect of the angle of
0149-2136/80/0001-8782$00.25
inclination on holdup is small for angles less than
© 1980 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME 10°. Therefore, for uphill flow it is recommended
JANUARY 1980
169
that the inclination correction factor be ignored for a
high-pressure gas-condensate hilly-terrai~ pipeline til>E=EHPLg Ez+
and the horizontal holdup be used. This recom-
mendation may reduce the accuracy of the holdup = [PLHL +PC (l-HL)]g Ez+ ,
prediction at some conditions but ensures that large
errors are not introduced in the evaluation of the
which gives
holdup. It is worth mentioning that setting con-
straints in the calculation procedures (such as
0:5 H L :51) and other constraints given in the r~vised
method of Beggs and Brill is not a reliable solutIOn to
where til>E is elevation pressure drop, P~ and Pc are
the problem. We discarded only the obviously liquid and gas density, respectively, ~z is the sum
erroneous results. Proper constraints should be in the
of uphill rises, HL is liquid holdup, and g is
f~rm of limits on flow properties and conditions, gravitational acceleration. The equation shows that
such as physical properties, diameter, Reynolds H L is always smaller than E H as E H < 1, and E lj
number, etc. given by Flanigan can be taken as HL when PC/PL IS
The final comment on the Beggs and Brill method, very small. The correlation of E H was developed
which can be generalized to most of the available using data of Flanigan as well as other investigators.
correlations for two-phase flow, is that these Flanigan's data were taken from a high-pressure gas-
correlations are based on some forms of dimen-
condensate line, and the density ratio of the two
sionless groups or factors introduced by simply
phases should not be ignored, especially at low
combining the parameters or exactly duplicating the
holdup. The properties of the two phases are not
forms used in single-phase flow. To have a reliable
given by Flanigan, but the density ratio may be
correlation, the dimensionless groups should be
estimated to be about 0.1, which results in the
developed by rigorous analysis of the multiphase
following values.
flow and a thorough study of the pertinent forces.
Otherwise, these correlations should be used only Liquid head factor 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
within the tested range of the variables. The ap- Liquid holdup 0.22 0.33 0.44 0.56 0.67
plication of these correlations becomes further Error percent 35 20 13 8 5
limited when parameters are employed that were not
varied at all (e.g., PL and (J in the Beggs and Brill Flanigan used his data to develop the correlation
correlation). for E H >0.35, and for E H <0.35 he used 10:-"-
Flanigan Correlation pressure gas-liquid data of others. Hence, the denSity
correction for E H < 0.35 is not required. Fig. 6 in
Flanigan defined the liquid head factor E H as the Ref. 1 shows that the predicted liquid holdup values
fraction of the elevation pressure drop that would by the Flanigan method are higher than the measured
exist if all uphill sections of the pipe were filled with values for E H >0.35; therefore, the density
the liquid. Flanigan did not measure the liquid correction definitely improves the results.
holdup but evaluated the elevation pressure drop by
subtracting the calculated friction pressure drop References
from the total measured pressure drop, assuming no
I. Payne, G.A., Palmer, G.M., Brill, J.P., and Beggs, H.D.:
downhill pressure recovery. Therefore, the values of "Evaluation of Inclined-Pipe, Two-Phase Liquid Holdup and
E H evaluated by Flanigan ~epend on t?e pressure Pressure-Loss Correlations Using Experimental Data," J. Pet.
recovery in the downhill sectIOn of the pipe and the Tech. (Sept. 1979) 1198-1208; Trans., AIME, 267.
calculated friction pressure drop, which are not 2. Gould, T.L. and Ramsey, E.L.: "Design of Offshore Gas
Pipelines Accounting for Two-Phase Flow," J. Pet. Tech.
pertinent to the liquid holdup in uphill section of the (March 1975) 366-374; Trans., AIME, 259.
pipe. Neglecting these effects, 3. Danesh, A. and Noghrekar, G.R.: "Hilly Country Gas-
Condensate Pipelines," Oil Service Co. of Iran Report No.
P-3062 (1976).
4. Gregory, G.A.: "Comparison of Methods for the Prediction of
Liquid Holdup for Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in Inclined
Original manuscript (SPE 8782) received in SOCiety of Petroleum Engineers Pipes," Cdn. J. Chern. Eng. (1975) 384-388.
office Oct. 22, 1979.
This paper will be included in the 1980 Transactions Volume. JPT

170 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

You might also like