July 31, 2017 1

WELLBORE PERFORMANCE
Single phase Liquid flow, Gas flow, Two phase flow, MEB

Notes from Petroleum Production Engineering by Boyun Guo;

Petroleum Production Systems by Economides et al.; & Morrison, F.

Dr. Ajay Suri, Associate Professor

IIT (ISM) Dhanbad
July 31, 2017 2

Application to Oil/Gas Wells

• Wellbore performance establishes a relationship between
well tubular sizes, wellhead and bottom-hole pressures,
fluid properties and production rates

• The production rate is determined by

• Wellhead pressure
• Geometry of production string and its components (tubing, casing
or both)
• Properties of produced fluids (oil, water, gas and sand)
• Constraint on production rate or flowing pressures, to avoid
coning/sanding
July 31, 2017 3

Objectives
• Understanding wellbore performance is important for
production engineers
• Designing well equipment
• Optimizing production conditions

• Oil can be produced from tubing, casing or both

depending upon which flow path has better performance

• Tubing is a better option in most cases to take advantage

of gas lift effect
July 31, 2017 4

Names for Wellbore Performance

• Traditional terms – “tubing performance relationship”
(TPR) and “vertical lift performance” (VLP)

• Math models are valid for casing-tubing annular flow as

long as hydraulic diameter is used

• Excel sheets of the theory presented in this presentation

is available at
• http://books.elsevier.com/companions/9780750682701
July 31, 2017 5

Single-Phase Liquid Flow

• Water or water based fluids (ex. polymer solutions) is
being injected or produced

• When oil is produced with wellhead pressure above the

bubble-point pressure
 July 31, 2017 6

P2, v2, h2
Consider fluid flowing from point
1 to point 2 in a tubing of length L
and height Dz = h2 - h1

Flow
Along a
Tubing
String

P1, v1, h1
 July 31, 2017 7

From Mechanical Energy Balance

• MEB in U.S. field units results in the following equation

Excess pr. at bottom of

Pressure Pr. reqd. to Pr. Reqd. to
the string/hole compared
reqd. to lift increase overcome
to the top of the string
the fluid the velocity friction/viscous
effects
July 31, 2017 8

Pressure Drop in Tubing – Single-Phase Liquid

Du = velocity increase, ft/s

• Pressure drops due to increase in elevation, kinetic

energy, and friction loss
• fF (Fanning friction factor) is based on Reynolds number
and relative roughness
• Pressure was already in lbf, hence it wasn’t divided by gc
July 31, 2017 9

Fanning Friction Factor (Wiki, 2018)

• Fanning friction factor is a local parameter defined as the

ratio of local shear stress (wall force per unit wall area) to
local flow kinetic energy density
t
f =
ru 2
2 Eq. 1

• f = local Fanning friction factor, dimensionless

• t = local shear stress, Pa
• u = bulk flow velocity, volumetric rate / area, m/s
• r = density of the fluid, kg/m3
 July 31, 2017 10

Shear Stress and Pressure Loss Relationship (Wiki,

2018)
• Shear stress at wall is related to pressure loss

Dpp r = t 2p rL
2
Dpr
Two forces are
equated that act on Pressure Friction t= Eq. 2
the fluid in the pipe force
L
force 2L
1. Pressure force
by outside fluid p1 p2
at inlet and outlet
2. Friction force by
pipe walls
t Shear stress and velocity profiles

• Dp = p1 - p2, pressure loss

• L = length of pipe
• r = radius of pipe
 July 31, 2017 11

Pressure Loss from Fanning Friction Factor (Wiki,

2018)
• Using t from eq. 2 in eq. 1, we can calculate frictional
pressure loss as
t Dpr 1
f = 2 =
r u 2 2L r u 2 2

2 fLru 2
Dp =
D

• Fanning friction factor is 1/4th of Darcy friction factor

July 31, 2017 12

Pressure Loss in a Pipe (Wiki, 2018)

• Cylindrical pipe of diameter D, flowing full, pressure loss

due to viscous effects is given by Darcy-Weisbach eq.

• Dp/L = frictional pressure loss per unit length, Pa/m

• r = density of fluid, kg/m3
• <v> = mean flow velocity (volumetric rate / cross-sectional
area), m/s
• fD = Darcy friction factor, dimensionless
July 31, 2017 13

MEB with Friction

• Its relationship to pressure drops, flow rates, and
geometric factors may be understood/calculated using
MEB
July 31, 2017 14

Ex – Newtonian Fluid Steady State Flow

F
July 31, 2017 15

F for Newtonian Fluid Steady State Flow

Experimentally we can measure frictional

pressure loss using the above method
July 31, 2017 16

F for Newtonian Fluid in Steady State Flow

• Data for various flow rates, tube lengths and diameters,
fluid densities and viscosities could be tabulated and
published

• Dimensional analysis makes the collection and reporting

of pressure drop and flow rate data more accessible and
rational

• Darcy / Fanning friction factors, dimensionless wall force

may be used to correlate friction in pipes with Re
(dimensionless flow rate)
July 31, 2017 17

f for Newtonian Fluid in Steady State Laminar Flow

• Dimensional analysis tells that f is a function of Re only

Ratio of
inertial forces
to viscous
forces

• F can be determined for any fluid in any tube

July 31, 2017 18

ff and NRe for Steady State Laminar Flow

 July 31, 2017 19

Darcy/Moody
Friction
Factor, fM or
fD

Moody friction
factor, fM is
also referred
to as Darcy-
Weisbach
friction factor,
fD
July 31, 2017 20

Fanning Friction Factor, ff

• For Re > 2,100
• Chen’s (1979) corelation has explicit form
• Similar accuracy as Cole-brook-White equation used to
generate friction factor chart in petroleum industry

• d is the absolute roughness of the pipe wall, inch with d in

inches too
July 31, 2017 21

Example Problem – Single Phase Liquid Flow in a Pipe

Tubing I.D. = 2.259 inches for the given tubing

July 31, 2017 22

Example Solution – Single Phase Liquid Flow in a Pipe

July 31, 2017 23

Example Solution – Single Phase Liquid Flow in a Pipe

July 31, 2017 24

Example Solution – Single Phase Liquid Flow in a Pipe

July 31, 2017 25

Example Solution – Single Phase Liquid Flow in a Pipe

July 31, 2017 26

Example Solution – Single Phase Liquid Flow in a Pipe

Elevation component = 49816.6 lbf/ft2, 345.9 psi, 98.8 %

Friction component = 618.64 lbf/ft2, 4.3 psi, 1.2 %
July 31, 2017 27

Single-Phase Gas Flow

• Same MEB governs gas flow in tubing
• Kinetic energy change is taken negligible because tubing
dia. is almost constant
fM = Moody friction
d(v )
2
+ factor = 4*fanning
friction factor
2g c
July 31, 2017 28

Single-Phase Gas Flow

• Ordinary differential equation

• With z, T, P varying with tubing length

• T can be approximated from linear geothermal gradient
• z is a function of both P and T
• Hence analytical solution difficult
• P is not a strong function of T and z
• Approximate solutions sought and used in gas industry
July 31, 2017 29

Single-Phase Gas Flow – Avg. T and z

• If single avg. T and z is used over entire tubing length,

• By separation of variables, eq. is integrated over L

July 31, 2017 30

Single-Phase Gas Flow – Avg. T and z

• Avg. z is function of P (dependent variable) itself,
numerical iterative method, like trial and error or Newton-
Raphson method is required.

• Example program - AverageTZ.xls

July 31, 2017 31

NRe, Reynolds Number for Gas Flow

20.09g g qsc
N Re =
Dm

• gg = gas specific gravity, gas M.W. / 28.97 (air M.W.)

• qsc = gas rate at standard conditions, Mscf/D
• D = diameter of pipe, inch
• m = viscosity of gas, cp
July 31, 2017 32

Friction factor for Gas Flow

• Moody (Darcy-Wiesbach) friction factor calculated
conventionally (ex. chen’s correlation)

• For fully turbulent flow (in most gas wells), simpler relation
by Katz and Lee (1990) can be used
July 31, 2017 33

Simplified Friction factors for Gas Flow

• Guo (2001) used Nikuradse friction factor for fully
turbulent flow in rough pipes
July 31, 2017 34

Single-Phase Gas Flow – Avg. T and z

July 31, 2017 35

Carr et al. Corelation for Gas Viscosity

July 31, 2017 36

Carr et al. Corelation for Gas Viscosity

July 31, 2017 37

Carr et al. Corelation for Gas Viscosity

July 31, 2017 38

Brill and Beggs Corelation for Gas Deviation

factor (Z factor)
July 31, 2017 39

More Accurate Corelation for Gas Deviation

factor (Z factor)
July 31, 2017 40

More Accurate Corelation for Gas Deviation

factor (Z factor)
July 31, 2017 41

Single-Phase Gas Flow – Avg. T and z

Pressure gradient = 0.21 psi/ft

July 31, 2017 42

Single-Phase Gas Flow – Avg. T and z

m = 0.013 cp (Carr et al. corelation)
Re ~ 106
fM ~ 0.018 (from Moody chart)
July 31, 2017 43

Single-Phase Gas Flow – Kinetic pr. drop

July 31, 2017 44

Single-Phase Gas Flow – Cullender and Smith

Method
• The original equation can be solved by a fast numerical
algorithm by Cullender and Smith

• Rearranging the above eq.

July 31, 2017 45

Single-Phase Gas Flow – Cullender and Smith

Method

• If qsc is in MMscf/d (U.S. field units)

July 31, 2017 46

Single-Phase Gas Flow – Cullender and Smith

Method
• Integrant is denoted with symbol I

• Integrating numerically, with pmf is pressure at mid-depth

and Imf is integrant evaluated at it
July 31, 2017 47

Single-Phase Gas Flow – Cullender and Smith

Method
• Assuming both terms are half of the right hand side

Imf is a f(pmf), hence numerical

technique such as N-R
iteration is required for pmf

Iwf is a f(pwf), hence N-R

iteration required for pwf
July 31, 2017 48

Single-Phase Gas Flow – Cullender and Smith

Method
 July 31, 2017 49

Single-Phase
Gas Flow –
Cullender and
Smith Method
July 31, 2017 50

Multiphase Flow in Oil Wells

• Almost all oil wells produce certain amount of water, gas, and
sometimes sand

• These are called multiphase-oil wells

• TPR for single-phase flow isn’t valid for multi-phase oil wells,
rigorously, a multiphase flow model is required

• Complicated flow regime / pattern in the well in multiphase flow

• Fluid distribution changes greatly in different flow regimes,

significantly affecting the pressure gradient
July 31, 2017 51

Tubing Performance Relationship (TPR) Models

• Numerous TPR models have been developed for vertical

pipes

• Brown (1977) presented a review of the models

• Two categories
• Homogeneous-flow models
• Separated-flow models

• Homogeneous treats multiphase as a homogeneous

mixture and do not consider liquid holdup (no slip
between flowing phases)
July 31, 2017 52

TPR – Homogeneous-Flow Models

• Less accurate and usually calibrated with local operating
conditions in field applications

• Can handle gas-oil-water 3-phase and gas-oil-water-sand

4 phase systems.

• Easy to code
July 31, 2017 53

TPR – Separated-Flow Models

• More realistic

• Empirical corelations

• Effect of liquid holdup (slip) and flow regime considered

• Difficult to code because corelations are graphs

July 31, 2017 54

TPR – Homogeneous-Flow Models

• Pioneers were Poettmann and Carpenter (1952). Used
two-phase friction factor without considering the effect of
liquid viscosity

• Cicchitti (1960) and Dukler et al. (1964) considered liquid

viscosity

• Hasan and Kabir (2002) reviewed the above models

• Guo and Ghalambor (2005) presented work on gas-oil-

water-sand 4 phase flow
July 31, 2017 55

TPR – Homogeneous-Flow Models

• With no slip, P&C presented a simplified gas-oil-water 3
phase flow model to compute pressure losses by
estimating mixture density and friction factor
• Acceleration term is neglected
 July 31, 2017 56

Mass of the Mixture Associated with 1 STB of Oil

stb of water / stb of oil scf/stb

lb

350.17 lb is the mass of 1 bbl of water (S.G. = 1)

0.0765 lb/ft3 is the air density at 14.7 psi and 60 F

July 31, 2017 57

Volume of Mixture Associated with 1 STB of Oil

At higher PT conditions
Stock Tank Conditions (anywhere in the wellbore)

Associated Gas
Associated Gas Volume = (GOR-Rs)*Bg, cf/stb
Volume = GOR (scf/stb)
Same
Mass
of
fluids
Oil Volume = 1 STB Oil Volume = Bo bbls

Associated water Associated water

Volume = WOR (bbl/STB) Volume = 5.615*WOR*Bw, cf
July 31, 2017 58

P&C Homogeneous Flow Model for TPR

lb/bbl of water

lbm

cuft.
July 31, 2017 59

Rs and Bo Corelations
July 31, 2017 60

Gas Density

In field units

Note density of air at 14.7 psi

and 60 F is 0.0763
lbm/cu.ft.(1.23 kg/m3)
July 31, 2017 61

Nomenclature
July 31, 2017 62

Friction Factor Term in P&C Model

July 31, 2017 63

Poettman-Carpenter Model - Comments

• Accurate for short depth increments

• For deep wells, well length should be broken in segments

• Excel spreadsheet Poettman-CarpenterBHP.xls is

available
July 31, 2017 64

Poettman-Carpenter Example Problem

July 31, 2017 65

Poettman-Carpenter Example Solution

July 31, 2017 66

Poettman-Carpenter Example Solution

July 31, 2017 67

Guo-Ghalambor (2005) 4 Phase Model

• Gas-oil-water-sand 4 phase model is similar to gas-oil-
water 3 phase flow model by P-C with no slip
July 31, 2017 68

Guo-Ghalambor (2005) 4 Phase Model

Excel program – Guo-GhalamborBHP.xls

July 31, 2017 69

Guo-Ghalambor (2005) 4 Phase Model

July 31, 2017 70
July 31, 2017 71
 July 31, 2017 72

Flow
Regimes in
Gas-Liquid
Two Phase
Flow
At least 4 flow
regimes are identified
in vertical flow
1. Bubble
2. Slug
3. Froth/Churn
4. Annular/Mist

Occurs in progression
with increasing gas
flow rate at a given
liquid flow rate
July 31, 2017 73

Flow Regimes Described

• Bubble flow – gas is dispersed in the form of small bubbles in a
continuous liquid phase

• Slug flow – gas bubbles coalesce into large bubbles that

eventually fill the entire pipe cross-section. Between the large
bubbles, are slugs of liquid that contain smaller bubbles of
entrained gas

• Churn flow – larger gas bubbles become unstable and

collapse, resulting in a turbulent flow pattern with both phases
dispersed, & oscillatory up and down motions of the liquid

• Annular flow – gas becomes the continuous phase, with liquid

flowing in an annulus, coating the surface of the pipe with
droplets entrained in the gas phase in the middle
July 31, 2017 74

Liquid Holdup
• Amount of the pipe occupied by a phase is often different
from its proportion of the total volumetric flow rate

• This is due to density difference between phases

• Dense phase slips down in an upward flow (lighter phase

moves faster than denser phase)

• In situ volume fraction of denser phase will be greater

than its input volume fraction (i.e. it is held up in the pipe
relative to the lighter phase)
July 31, 2017 75

Liquid Holdup
• Liquid holdup is defined as

• Liquid holdup, yL, depends on flow regime, fluid

properties, pipe size and configuration

• Value can be determined only through experiments

July 31, 2017 76

Number of Separated-Flow Models for TPR

• Lockhart and Martinelli correlation (1949)
• Duns and Ros correlation (1963)
• Hagedorn and Brown (H-B) method (1965)

• Ansari et al. (1994) and Hasan and Kabir (2002)

compared the above models and recommended the H-B
method with modifications (mH-B) for near-vertical flow

• Modifications are
• Use no slip holdup when calculated holdup is less than no slip
holdup
• Using Griffith and Wallis (1961) correlation in bubble flow regime
July 31, 2017 77

Original H-B Correlation (Near Vertical Wells)

Note mostly gas density and rate change in the well due to its compressibility

Q: At steady state, would the gas rate increase or decrease coming up the well
 July 31, 2017 78

Gas Volumetric Rate Up the Well

Q: At steady state, would the gas flow rate increase or decrease coming up the well

Ans: At steady state, the total mass rate in and out of the well should be constant.

If we assume that the two phases remain intact with no mass transfer between the
phases, then

Since the pressure decreases up the well, the density of the gas should decrease.

rG ¯
If the density of the gas decreases, its volumetric flow rate should increase and so
its superficial gas velocity.
qG -
July 31, 2017 79

Original H-B Correlation (Vertical Wells)

dp/dz = psi/ft, D = ft, z = ft

July 31, 2017 80

Original H-B Correlation

qL qG
usL = usG =
A A

Note the
liquid density
is assumed
to be
constant
 July 31, 2017 81

Flow Regime Map

Air-Water System
2 inch Pipe
July 31, 2017 82

Taitel and Dukler Flow Regime Described

July 31, 2017 83

Dimensionless nos. for Liquid Hold-up Calculation

• Liquid holdup, yL is calculated from 3 charts that depends

on following dimensionless numbers.
July 31, 2017 84

Nomenclature for Dimensionless Nos.

July 31, 2017 85
July 31, 2017 86
July 31, 2017 87
July 31, 2017 88
July 31, 2017 89

Liquid Hold-up Charts / Corelations based on

Dimensionless
Hold Nos.
up Chart 1
July 31, 2017 90

Hold up Chart 1 Corelation

• First chart gives CNL based on NL

July 31, 2017 91

Hold up Chart 2
July 31, 2017 92

Holdup Chart 2 Corelation

Above group is used in the second chart to determine

From chart 1
July 31, 2017 93

Hold up Chart 3
July 31, 2017 94

Chart 3 Corelation
July 31, 2017 95

Hold up

From chart 2 and chart 3

values
July 31, 2017 96

Friction Factor

Fanning friction factor can be determined by Moody plot or

Chen’s correlation where Re for the mixture is calc. as followed

In field units
July 31, 2017 97

Bubble Flow Regime for mH-B

Bubble-flow regime is when input gas fraction is less than

LB
Bubble Flow Regime Where lG = Input
Gas Fraction

if LB < 0.13, LB = 0.13

July 31, 2017 98

Griffith Corelation during Bubble Flow Regime

• Different Holdup corelation

• Frictional pressure drop based on in-situ avg. liq. velocity
• Neglects kinetic energy pressure gradient
July 31, 2017 99

mH-B Correlation – Griffith Corelation Hold up

Liquid hold is given as

July 31, 2017 100

Griffith Corelation Friction Factor

Friction factor is based in-situ avg. liquid velocity

Re is based on in situ average liquid velocity, i.e.

Excel pgm – HagedornBrownCorrelation.xls has the code

July 31, 2017 101

Surface tubing pressure = 800 psia

Surface temperature = 175 oF
Liquid rate = Oil rate = 2000 bpd
Density of oil = 0.8 g/cc
Viscosity of oil = 2 cp
Gas rate = 1 MMSCF/d
Gas specific gravity = 0.709
Compressibility factor = 0.935 at surface P & T From corelations
Gas viscosity = 0.0131 cp at surface P & T
Surface tension = 30 dynes/cm
Relative roughness = 0.0006
July 31, 2017 102
July 31, 2017 103
July 31, 2017 104
July 31, 2017 105
July 31, 2017 106
July 31, 2017 107

Fig 4.4
July 31, 2017 108

Table 4.3
July 31, 2017 109

Mist Flow in Gas Wells

• Almost all gas wells produce certain amount of liquids

• Water and/or gas condensate (light oil)

• In some gas wells, gas condensate is in the well and not at the
surface depending upon P, T

• Sand and coal particles also produced

• Multi-phase-gas wells

• Homogeneous 4-phase flow model (Guo-Ghalambor) can be

applied to mist flow in gas wells
July 31, 2017 110

Summary
• Illustrated different math models for wellbore/tubing
performance

• mH-B has been found to give results with good accuracy

• Industry practice is to conduct a flow gradient (FG) survey

to measure the flowing pressures along the tubing string

• FG data are employed to validate and tune one of the

models to use in on a large scale
 July 31, 2017 111

Energy Conservation

DETot = Qin +Won + DEconvection

Won (Work done on the

system by compressing DEconvection (Net
the system) System energy added to the
system due to entry
of mass)
Qin
July 31, 2017 112

Kinetic Energy of the System (assume ball

shape instead of the piston compartment)
July 31, 2017 113

Potential Energy of the System

Accounting only
gravitational
potential energy

Neglecting
electromagnetic
potential energy
July 31, 2017 114

Internal Energy of the System

Typically a function of

• Temperature,
Pressure
• Phase
• Chemical
composition
July 31, 2017 115

Case1: Closed System – No Convection (No

mass leaving/entering the system)
July 31, 2017 116

Case 2: Open Systems – with Convection

July 31, 2017 117

Open Systems – Steady State

0
July 31, 2017 118

Open Systems – Steady State

From now on D refers to Out - In

July 31, 2017 119

Open Systems – Steady State

July 31, 2017 120

Open Systems – Steady State

July 31, 2017 121

Open Systems – Steady State

July 31, 2017 122

Open Systems – Steady State

July 31, 2017 123

Open Systems – Steady State

Won, work done on the system has two

contributions:

1. Shaft work from moving parts like shafts,

turbines, and pumps
2. Flow work by the fluid itself as it enters and
leaves the system
July 31, 2017 124

Shaft Work
July 31, 2017 125

Flow Work - Open Systems

Volumetric
rate

Rate of Rate of
July 31, 2017 126

Inlet Flow Work Rate

July 31, 2017 127

Exit Flow Work Rate

July 31, 2017 128

Open Systems – Steady State

Will show the

enthalpy
equivalence
July 31, 2017 129

Open Systems – Steady State

July 31, 2017 130

Open Systems – Steady State

July 31, 2017 131

Open Systems – Steady State

 July 31, 2017 132

Heat Transfer Open Systems – Steady State

and the dot is the rate

July 31, 2017 133

Mechanical Energy Balance (MEB)

• Open-system macroscopic energy balance is

quite common in heat exchangers and reactors

• Flow of liquids and gases in conduits, kinetic,

potential and shaft work dominates.

• Bernoulli equation is an example of simple MEB

 July 31, 2017 134

Bernoulli’s equation as MEB

• Special case of single-input and output system of

liquid pushed thru a pipe by pump
Open-system Energy Balance

Assumptions
July 31, 2017 135

Kinetic Energy Difference (out, 2 – in, 1)

where
July 31, 2017 136

Potential Energy Difference (out, 2 – in, 1)

where
July 31, 2017 137

Enthalpy Difference (out, 2 – in, 1)

where U with a pointed cap is the internal energy per unit

mass and
V with a pointed cap is the volume per unit mass
j is the outlet, denoted as 2
i is the inlet, denoted as 1
July 31, 2017 138

Enthalpy Difference (out, 2 – in, 1) continued

where

For incompressible system, r1 = r2

 July 31, 2017 139

MEB Simplified

Square bracket terms are small for incompressible fluids in pipe

July 31, 2017 140

MEB Simplified
• Internal energy term is small since temperature is almost
constant and assumingly no phase change or chemical
reaction occurred

• Heat loss or gain term is small –

• We group these terms as Friction factor, F

July 31, 2017 141

MEB Simplified
July 31, 2017 142

MEB Simplified
• a in the denominator of the kinetic energy term accounts
for the variation in the velocity of fluid at different radii of
the pipe

• Approx. 1 for turbulent, and exactly 0.5 for laminar flow

• Can be deduced from momentum balance (Geankoplis)

July 31, 2017 143

MEB Simplified to Bernoulli’s Equation

• When friction term, F and shaft work are neglected or not
there, the MEB simplifies to Bernoulli’s equation
July 31, 2017 144

MEB – No Friction
July 31, 2017 145

MEB – No Friction
July 31, 2017 146

MEB – No Friction
July 31, 2017 147

MEB – No Friction - Flow in 3 inch Pipe

July 31, 2017 148

MEB – No Friction – Laminar/Turbulent

July 31, 2017 149

MEB – No Friction – Turbulent

July 31, 2017 150

MEB – No Friction – Turbulent

Kinetic energy Potential energy
contribution contribution
July 31, 2017 151

Example – Venturi Flow Rate & Pressure Drop

• A Venturi is a tapered tube with a throat that allows us to
measure the flow rate of an incompressible fluid in a pipe
• Takes lot of space but is accurate & doesn’t disturb flow
much
July 31, 2017 152

Example – Venturi Flow Rate & Pressure Drop

• MEB without friction can be used to deduce the
relationship between flow rate and pressure drop
• Calibrated device can be used to take into account the
friction effects
• Converging and then diverging
July 31, 2017 153

Example – Venturi Flow Rate & Pressure Drop

• Tapering is gradual to minimize friction losses
July 31, 2017 154

MEB with Friction

• Friction term is important when there are changes in pipe
diameter, twists, turns, flow obstructions such as orifice
plate or when there are very long runs of piping

• F must be determined experimentally, as Cv for Ventur

• MEB is not very useful then; however MEB is applied from

one apparatus (variables) to another system of variables.

• Ex. to calculate shaft work of a pump in a loop

July 31, 2017 155

MEB with Friction

• We draw on past experiments of prior researchers to
estimate F for systems that interests us

• We may be able to use the data for similar experiments

where apparatus is not the same

• Resolution is dimensional analysis based on correct

observation that the laws of physics apply to all systems

• Simple systems – engineering analysis; complex systems

– start from laws of physics
July 31, 2017 156

MEB with Friction

• From dim. analysis on laws of physics, deduce interest
quantities (wall friction or heat transfer coefficient) vary
with certain identified system quantities

• Targeted experiments are done to publish data corelations

to be used by engineers to calculate quantities of interest
on similar systems (Geankoplis)

• Data corelations for F in straight pipes, valves, fittings,

etc.

• Liquid flow in straight pipes – Fanning friction factor, f as a

function of Reynolds number, Re
July 31, 2017 157

Example – Venturi Flow Rate & Pressure Drop

• Incompressible flow
July 31, 2017 158

Example – Venturi Flow Rate & Pressure Drop

July 31, 2017 159

Venturi Meters with Friction

• When flow is sufficiently rapid (Re > 104), previous no
friction relationship holds well

• For slower flows, friction is important to total energy and

calibration should be performed to determine an empirical
friction correction factor Cv
July 31, 2017 160

Fanning Friction Factor, f, for Steady Laminar Flow

• Corelation for f and Re can be determined experimentally

• Laminar flow is simple, microscopic momentum balance

gives the relationship between pressure drop and Re

• Newtonian fluid at steady state results in Hagen-Poiseuille

equation
July 31, 2017 161

Fanning Friction Factor, f, for Steady Laminar Flow

July 31, 2017 162

Fanning Friction Factor, f, for Fully Turbulent Flow

Colebrook Equation
July 31, 2017 163

Fanning Friction Factor, f, for Turbulent Flow

July 31, 2017 164

Friction, F, in Other Devices

• Valves, fittings, pumps, expansions, contractions, twists,
turns etc.
• Same procedure as earlier for estimating F, simplify MEB
• Use dim. analysis to guide experiments for corelations
• For valves, fittings, expansions and contractions, F is
 July 31, 2017 165

Friction loss Factors, Ki, for Valves, Fittings (Laminar Flow)

July 31, 2017 166

Friction loss
Factors, Ki, for
Valves, Fittings
(Turbulent Flow)
July 31, 2017 167

Friction Term, F, for Complete Piping System

• vj is the average flow velocity in the pipes of different dia.

• vi is the faster average velocity in the fittings (downstream
in case of contraction and upstream in case of expansion)
July 31, 2017 168

MEB with Friction

2 90o elbows
2 contractions (tank to inlet, inlet
pipe to pump outlet pipe)
July 31, 2017 169

Previous Example with Friction Now

• The 3 inch pipe before the pump is 50 ft long

• The 2 inch pipes after the pump are (40+8+75+20) =143 ft

• Recall Re was > 4000; as a result it was turbulent flow

July 31, 2017 170

Previous Example with Friction Now

• Fanning friction factor, f, from Colebrook formula for the
straight pipes give

• From Table of ki for turbulent flow

July 31, 2017 171

Friction Term, F
July 31, 2017 172

Friction Term, F Included for Shaft Work

• Shaft work without friction = 0.113 hp

• Shaft work with friction = 0.114 hp
• Not much difference, potential energy still dominates
July 31, 2017 173

Energy Terms in Elevation Head (ft of head)

Elevation head change
Kinetic head change Friction head

• All in energy terms in elevation head

• Elevation head is therefore a convenient concept for

comparison
July 31, 2017 174

Acknowledgement
• Notes taken from Faith A. Morrison, Associate Professor,
Chemical Engineering, Michigan Technological University