CTES - Coiled Tubing Hydraulics Modeling

CTES, L.
C
9870 Pozos Lane
Conroe, Texas 77303
phone: (936) 521-2200
fax: (936) 5221-2275
www.ctes.com
Coiled Tubing Hydraulics Modeling

Subject Matter Authority: Bharath Rao
May 10, 1999
Contents Summary
Introduction ...................................2 This document presents a general formulation of the governing equation
CT and Annular Flow....................4 used to determine the system pressure losses for liquids, gases, and mul-
CT Flow ..........................................4 tiphase fluids. Both CT and annulus flow are considered.
Annular Flow ..................................6
Pressure Losses in Liquids ............6
Newtonian Model............................6
Power-Law Model...........................9
Bingham Plastic Model.................11
Pressure Losses in Gases.............12
Pressure Losses in Foams............13
Pressure Losses in Multiphase
Fluids...........................................15
Duns and Ros Correlation .............17
Hagedorn and Brown Correlation .19
Orkiszewski Correlation ...............19
Beggs and Brill Correlation ..........21
General Comments........................22
Nomenclature ..............................23
Greek Symbols..............................24
Subscripts ......................................25
Superscripts...................................25
References ...................................25
Tech Note CTES, L.C. 1

Introduction In most coiled tubing (CT) applications such as cleanouts, well unloading,
acidizing, stimulation, drilling, etc., fluid (liquid, gas, or multiphase mix-
ture of liquid and gas) is pumped through the CT to a desired depth in the
wellbore, and returned up the annulus. The fluid returning in the annulus
that is formed between the CT and production tubing/casing can be a mul-
tiphase mixture of the pumped CT fluid, reservoir fluid, original wellbore
fluid, and sand or drilled solid particles, depending on the application.
Water, air, nitrogen, diesel, brines, acids, gels, and foams are among the
many commonly pumped fluids through CT in various applications. Thus,
depending on the fluid type and properties, system pressures (pump pres-
sure, gooseneck pressure, wellhead pressure, flowing bottom hole pres-
sure) change and affect the pumping requirements. In addition, system
pressures are also affected by many other parameters such as pump rate,
CT size (length, diameter), reel core diameter, geometry of the wellbore,
and surface roughness.
From a fluid mechanics viewpoint, flows that occur during any CT applica-
tion can be broadly classified as:
! compressible (fluid density is a strong function of pressure such as in

gases) or incompressible (fluid density is a very weak function of pres-
sure such as for liquids)
! steady (flow is independent of time) or unsteady (flow is time-depen-

dent)
! laminar (flow is characterized by layers or streamlines) or turbulent

(flow is characterized by random mixing and is no longer streamlined)
! single-phase (only one fluid phase exists as either liquid or gas) or mul-
tiphase (at least two phases exist as in liquid and gas; or liquid, gas, and
solid)
! Newtonian (shear stress is linearly related to shear rate) or non-Newto-

nian (shear stress is not linearly related to shear rate)
! upwards or downwards in a vertical, inclined, or horizontal wellbore
! in the CT or in the annulus formed between the CT and production tub-

ing/casing.
In order to accurately predict the system pressures in any CT operation, all

these fluid mechanics aspects and parameters must be taken into careful
consideration during the mathematical development of a wellbore hydrau-
lics model for CT applications.

System pressures can be estimated by appropriately accounting for the total

pressure losses (∆P) in the CT and annulus. In general, the total pressure
loss is comprised of three components:
! hydrostatic pressure loss (∆Ph),
! friction pressure loss (∆Pf), and
! acceleration pressure loss (∆Pa).
The magnitude of each of these components is largely affected by fluid

properties such as density and viscosity, and the total pressure loss can be
accurately predicted only if the fluid properties are evaluated correctly.
Moreover, the frictional component of the coiled tubing pressure loss can
be further subdivided into two parts: a part that accounts for the friction
pressure loss on the reel (∆PCT) before entering the well, and a part that
accounts for the straight tubing losses (∆PST) in the well. Experiments
[McCann and Islas (1996); Azouz et al. (1998)] have shown that, in gen-
eral, coiled tubing pressure losses are greater than the corresponding
straight tubing pressure losses, and therefore must be accounted for appro-
priately while determining the system pressure losses.
This document presents a general formulation of the governing equations

to determine the system pressure losses for various fluids (liquids, gases,
foams, and multiphase fluids). The analysis considers both CT and annulus
flow. The evaluation of fluid properties, such as density and viscosity, for
each of these fluid types is discussed in detail with an emphasis on the
influence on the system pressure losses. In addition, criteria for the onset of
turbulence and evaluation of friction factors are discussed for all fluid
types considered. Furthermore, correlations that determine the friction fac-
tor in reeled coiled tubing (fCT) in relation to the friction factor (fST) for
straight tubing are also presented for some fluid types.

CT and Annular
Flow
CT Flow The governing equation for system pressure losses stems from the mechan-
ical energy balance, and is written for a coiled tubing segment as shown in
Figure 1.
flow

1
L
h
CT
FIGURE 1 CT segment of length L and inclined at an angle θ to the vertical
Thus, the total pressure loss (∆Ps = P2 - P1, where P1 and P2 are the pres-
sures at points 1 and 2 respectively) for downward flow through a CT seg-
ment of length L inclined at an angle θ to the vertical is given by
∆P s = ∆Phs − ∆Pf s − ∆Pas

EQ 1
s
where the hydrostatic ( ∆Ph ), frictional ( ∆Pf s ), and acceleration ( ∆Pas )
components can be written as
ρgh
∆Phs =
gc
EQ 2
s ρv 2 L
∆Pf = f
2g c De
EQ 3
and
ρ
∆Pas = (v 22 − v 12 )
2g c
EQ 4
In Eq 1 through Eq 4, superscript s refers to segment; h is the vertical dis-

tance between points 1 and 2 and is given by h = Lcosθ; g is the accelera-
tion due to gravity; gc is the Newton’s law conversion constant for the
English system of units; f is the Moody’s friction factor; De is the equiva-
lent diameter of the conduit (inside diameter of CT); ρ is the mean density

of the fluid between points 1 and 2; v is the mean velocity of the fluid
between points 1 and 2; and, v1 and v2 are the fluid velocities at points 1
and 2 respectively. It should be noted for horizontal flow (θ = 90 degrees)
s
in the CT, ∆Ph is zero, and only the frictional and acceleration contribu-
tions to the pressure loss exist. In addition, Eq 1 through Eq 4 and all sub-
sequent equations in this document are written in consistent units unless
otherwise noted.
The friction factor in Eq 3 is a function of the Reynolds number (Re),

defined physically as the ratio of the inertia force to the viscous force.
Mathematically, the definition of Re varies depending on the fluid type
(e.g., Newtonian liquids, non-Newtonian liquids, gases, multiphase fluids),
and therefore will be presented separately for each of the fluid types. In
addition, the magnitude of Re distinguishes a flow from being in the lami-
nar, transitional, or turbulent flow regimes. Thus, the friction factor is
found as a function of Re for all these flow regimes in various fluid types.
Similarly, computation of fluid properties (density, viscosity) differ
depending on fluid type and will be discussed in separate sections.
Finally, since Eq 1 through Eq 4 are defined for a single CT segment, the

total pressure loss (∆P) in the CT can be found by a summation over the
entire CT length as
∆P = ∆Ph − ∆Pf − ∆Pa

EQ 5
where
N
∆Ph = ∑ ∆Phs
1
EQ 6
N
∆Pf = ∑ ∆Pf s
1
EQ 7
and
N
∆Pa = ∑ ∆Pas
1 EQ 8
Here, N is the total number of segments in the CT.

Annular Flow Although Figure 1 only depicts flow in a CT, the same analysis [Eq 1
through Eq 8] holds true for upward flow (π/2 < θ ≤ π)) in an annulus
formed between the CT and production tubing/casing, provided the friction
factor, f is evaluated based on the equivalent diameter, De. Several defini-
tions are available for De in the literature, and, in general, can be written as
De = K a (d C − DT )
EQ 9
where Ka is an annulus constant, dc and DT are the inner diameter of the

production tubing/casing and outer diameter of the CT respectively. The
most common values of Ka are 1.0 and 0.816. When Ka = 1, Eq 9 reduces
to the hydraulic diameter (defined as four times the cross-sectional flow
area divided by the wetted perimeter), and for a Ka value equal to 0.816,
Eq 9 becomes the slot flow representation of an annulus flow. It should be
noted that this slot flow approximation yields accurate results only for Dr /
dc ratios greater than 0.3 (small annular areas) and should be used with
caution.
In the next few sections, computation of pressure losses in various fluid

types is considered separately. The equations presented in the following
sections are used in conjunction with the general formulation [Eq 1 through
Eq 9] in order to determine the system pressures for a particular fluid type.
Pressure Losses Liquids are most often pumped through CT. Examples of commonly
in Liquids pumped liquids are fresh water, seawater, brines, acids, kerosene, crude oil,
diesel, polymer gels, and drilling mud. These fluids can be broadly classi-
fied as Newtonian and non-Newtonian liquids. Non-Newtonian liquids can
be further subdivided into many categories depending on the rheological
model that best describes their fluid behavior. The most widely accepted
non-Newtonian models in the petroleum industry are the Power-Law and
Bingham Plastic models, and as such, these models will be discussed in
some detail along with the Newtonian case.
Newtonian Model Fluids that exhibit a linear relationship between the shear stress (τ) and
shear rate (γ) are called Newtonian fluids. Mathematically, the relationship
can be described as
τ = µγ EQ 10
where µ is the viscosity of the fluid. In general, liquid viscosity is a strong

function of temperature and decreases with increasing temperature. Water,
brines, acids, and light oils are good examples of Newtonian liquids.

The flow is usually characterized by the Reynolds number, which for New-
tonian fluids can be written as
ρvDe
Re =
µ EQ 11
For internal flow of Newtonian fluids through straight conduits (including

pipes and annuli), the flow can be classified as either laminar, transitional,
or turbulent depending on the magnitude of the Reynolds number. The flow
is laminar if Re is less than or equal to a critical value of 2100. A transi-
tional flow is observed between Reynolds numbers of 2100 and 4000. If Re
is greater than 4000, then the flow is turbulent. The friction factor for
straight tubing (fST) in laminar flow is given by
64
fST =
Re EQ 12
In turbulent flow, fST for smooth (Blasius equation) and rough pipes (Cole-
brook equation) can be expressed as [see Bourgoyne, Jr., et al. (1991)]
0.3164
fST = (smooth pipes) EQ 13
Re 0.25
2
1  2.51 ε / d T 
fST =  log10  +  (rough pipes) EQ 14
 2  Re f 3 . 715 
 ST 
In Eq 14, ε is the absolute roughness of the CT and is approximately equal

to 0.00186 in. for commercial steel pipes.
However, in the case of flow through coiled tubing on the reel, the presence
of a secondary flow (commonly referred to as Dean’s vortices) perpendicu-
lar to the main flow makes the characterization somewhat complicated.
Instead of the Reynolds number, another dimensionless number called the
Dean number (Dn) is used to characterize the flow, and is defined as
0.5
 d 
Dn = Re T 
 Dreel  EQ 15

where dr is the inner diameter of the CT and dreel is the reel core diameter.
Experiments [Srinivasan et al. (1970)] have suggested that the laminar and
turbulent flow regimes for flow through CT can be distinguished by the
following correlation for the critical Reynolds number (Recr)
 dt 
Re cr = 21001 + 12 
 Dreel 
  EQ 16
For laminar flow through CT, the friction factor can be expressed in terms
of fST [Berger et al. (1983)] as
fCT = fST (0.556 + 0.0969 Dn )

EQ 17
Similarly, in turbulent flow, Sas-Jaworsky and Reed (1997) have recently

provided a correlation that is an extension of Ito’s (1959) work as,
dt
fCT = fST + 0.03
Dreel
EQ 18
Clearly, from Eq 17 and Eq 18, the coiled tubing friction factors are greater
than the straight tubing friction factors by an amount specified by the reel
curvature. Eq 12 through Eq 14, Eq 17, and Eq 18 are utilized in Eq 3 to
compute the friction pressure losses.
Liquid density and viscosity are also an integral part of the pressure loss
computations and must be accounted for appropriately. Liquids are gener-
ally treated as incompressible fluids and their density change with pressure
can be considered negligible. However, temperature effects on both liquid
density and viscosity are significant (especially viscosity) and cannot be
neglected. The above discussion on liquid density and viscosity holds true
for all liquids (Power-Law, Bingham-Plastic) and hence is not addressed in
subsequent subsections.

Power-Law Model Fluids that exhibit a non-linear relationship between shear stress and shear
rate are said to be non-Newtonian. More specifically, if the non-Newtonian
relationship can be described by a two-parameter model such as
τ = µ aγ
EQ 19
where the apparent viscosity (µa) is given by
µ a = Kγ n −1
EQ 20
then the fluid is said to exhibit a Power-Law type behavior. Here, n and K
are called the flow behavior index and the consistency index respectively. If
n = 1, the fluid exhibits Newtonian characteristics and the viscosity is inde-
pendent of shear rate. However, for n < 1 and n > 1, the fluid viscosity is
dependent on shear rate, and are characterized by shear thinning and shear
thickening behavior respectively. Most polymer gels used in the petroleum
industry and drilling mud can be described by a shear thinning behavior.
The Reynolds number for Power-Law fluids is different from its Newto-
nian counterpart [Eq 11] and is quite frequently referred to as a generalized
Reynolds number (ReG). Mathematically, it can be expressed as
ρv 2−n Den
ReG = n
n −3  1
2 K3 + 
 n
EQ 21
It should be noted that when n = 1, Eq 21 reduces to the Newtonian Rey-

nolds number given by Eq 11. The critical Reynolds number (ReGcr) for
straight tubing flow of Power-Law fluids is [Dodge and Metzner (1959);
Schuh (1964)]
ReGcr = 3470 − 1370n

EQ 22
Thus, the flow is laminar if ReG ≤ ReGcr and transitional if

ReGcr < ReG < 4270 - 1370n. The flow is turbulent if ReG > 4270 - 1370n.
For laminar flow of Power-Law fluids through straight tubes,
64
fST =
ReG
EQ 23

In the case of turbulent flow [Schuh (1964)],
a
fST =
ReGb
EQ 24
where
log10 n + 3.93
a=
50 EQ 25
1.75 − log10 n
b=
7 EQ 26
It should be noted that for the Newtonian case of n = 1, Eq 24 reduces to

the Blasius equation for smooth pipes and hence, the analysis does not take
pipe roughness into account.
For CT flows of non-Newtonian fluids, the critical Reynolds number at

which the transition from laminar to turbulent flow takes place is not well
addressed in the literature. However, a recent publication [McCann and
Islas (1996)] outlines the correlation for turbulent friction factor for Power-
Law fluids as
0.1
1.06a  dT 
fCT =  
ReG0.8 b  Dreel  EQ 27
Eq 27 has been shown [McCann and Islas (1996)] to been in excellent

agreement with experimental data obtained with power-law fluids.

Bingham Plastic Model The relationship between shear stress and shear rate for a Bingham-Plastic
fluid can be written as
τ = τ y + µ pγ
EQ 28
where τy and µp are commonly referred to as the yield stress and plastic
viscosity respectively. Like the Power-Law model, a Bingham Plastic fluid
is non-Newtonian and the fluid behavior is described by two parameters. It
should be noted that when yield stress is zero, Eq 28 reduces to the Newto-
nian form described by Eq 10. Many drilling fluids and foams are
described by the Bingham-Plastic model.
The criteria for turbulence of a Bingham-Plastic fluid is dependent on

another dimensionless number called the Hedstrom number. In consistent
units, the Hedstrom number (He) is defined as [see Bourgoyne, Jr., et al.
(1991)]
ρτ y De2
He =
µ p2
EQ 29
Hanks and Pratt (1967) demonstrated that He could be correlated with the
critical Reynolds number, which determines the onset of turbulence. This
correlation is obtained from the simultaneous solution of the following two
equations
τy 
 
 τ w  = He
3
 τy  16800
1 − 
 τw  EQ 30
4
4 τy  1τy 
1 −   +  
3 τw  3 τw  He
Re cr =
τy 
8 
τw  EQ 31
Here, τw is the wall shear stress. Eq 30 and Eq 31 are solved iteratively to

determine the critical Reynolds number. The flow is laminar if Re < Recr
and turbulent if Re > Recr. The friction factors in straight and coiled tubing
are evaluated just like in the Newtonian case [Eq 11 through Eq 18].

Pressure Losses Air, nitrogen, and natural gas are frequently pumped through CT, with
in Gases nitrogen used most often because of its inert properties. As mentioned ear-
lier, gases are compressible and behave according to the real gas law,
expressed as
P
= ZRT
ρ EQ 32
where Z is the compressibility factor, R is the gas constant, and T is the

temperature of the fluid. Using Eq 32 in the differential form of the
mechanical energy balance, an expression can be derived for the friction
pressure loss of gases in conduits. This expression is given by [McClain
(1952)]
 L  m & 2 ZRT 
∆P = P − P = f 
s
fg 1
2
2
2
 2


 De  g c A  EQ 33
where m & is the mass flow rate of gas and A is the cross-sectional area of
the conduit (pipe or annulus). Eq 33 is once again written in relation to the
segment shown in Figure 1 and replaces Eq 3 in the set of governing equa-
tions when gas calculations are performed. Unlike liquids where the den-
sity is independent of pressure for all segment calculations, gas density is a
strong function of pressure and is calculated iteratively at points 1 and 2 for
each segment (see Figure 1). The mean density is simply the average of the
densities at points 1 and 2 respectively.
Most gases are Newtonian in their fluid behavior and thus can be described
by Eq 10. However, gas viscosity is a function of both pressure and temper-
ature and therefore, must be accounted for appropriately. The viscosity of
pure gases or gas mixtures may be estimated from the dimensionless
reduced viscosity (µN = µ/µo, where µ is the gas viscosity at a given pres-
sure and temperature, and µo is the gas viscosity at atmospheric pressure
and same temperature) plotted as a function of dimensionless reduced tem-
perature and pressure [Carr et al. (1954)]. The reduced pressure and tem-
perature can be evaluated from the critical properties of the gas. Another
correlation that is quite popular in the petroleum industry for estimating the
viscosity of natural gases is based on the work of Lee et al. (1966). Both
these methods are used in Cerberus to estimate the gas viscosity.
In order to determine the gas density, viscosity, and pressures for each seg-
ment, the compressibility factor must be determined. The compressibility
factor for air and nitrogen is calculated from correlations developed for the
nitrogen Z-factor as a function of reduced pressure and temperature. The

data from which these correlations are developed is provided in Sage and
Lacey (1950). The Z-factor computation for natural gas is based on the Hall
and Yarborough (1971) equation and is not discussed here.
Since most gases are Newtonian, the criteria for turbulence is similar to
that of Newtonian fluids. It is defined in terms of the Reynolds number
given by Eq 11 and replacing the liquid viscosity with a gas viscosity. The
friction factors are evaluated from the straight tubing friction factors in
Eq 12 through Eq 14. Currently, no friction factor correlation is available
for the flow of gases in reeled CT, and the CT flow is modeled by assuming
that the length of tubing on the surface is horizontal and straight.
Pressure Losses Foams are essentially multiphase fluids and comprise of a mixture of liq-
in Foams uid, gas, and a surfactant. Although foams are multiphase fluids, they are
treated separately here because their rheological behavior has been
observed to be similar to that of Bingham-Plastic fluids. These multiphase
mixtures can be water-based or oil-based foams depending on the composi-
tion of the liquid medium. The gas phase is usually nitrogen, however, air
and carbondioxide have also been used. The gas phase exists as micro-
scopic bubbles and, in practice, may occupy between 10 to 95 percent of
the total foam volume. The ratio of volume fraction of gas (Vg) to the total
volume of foam (V) characterizes the foam in terms of its quality (q)
defined mathematically as
Vg
q=
V EQ 34
Since gas is compressible, the quality of foam depends on both temperature

and pressure. Thus, the foam quality is a varying parameter and must be
calculated for each segment (see Figure 1) during the CT hydraulics simu-
lation.
As mentioned earlier, foams have been treated as Bingham-Plastic fluids in

the literature and, for practical purposes, their rheological behavior can be
expressed in terms of an effective viscosity (µe) [Blauer et al. (1974)]
shown below
g c τ y De
µ e = µ foam +
6v EQ 35

where µfoam is the plastic foam viscosity and is a function of q. For foam
qualities less than 0.52, the gas exists as uniformly dispersed, non-interact-
ing spherical bubbles in the liquid medium. For such cases, the plastic
foam viscosity can be adequately described by Einstein’s (1906) theory for
a dilute suspension of rigid particles as
µ foam = µ l (1 + 2.5q )
EQ 36
where µl is the viscosity of the liquid phase. For qualities greater than 0.52
and less than 0.74, it has been found that the spherical gas bubbles interact
with one another during flow. Hatschek (1910) proposed an expression for
viscosity of interacting particles in this range of qualities as
µ foam = µ l (1 + 4.5q )
EQ 37
When the foam quality is above 0.74, the gas bubbles deform from spheres
to parallelepipeds. The plastic foam viscosity for parallelepiped gas bub-
bles is given as [Hatschek (1910)]
1
µ foam = µ l
1 − q 1/ 3
EQ 38
Eq 36 through Eq 38 are used in Eq 35 in order to evaluate the effective

foam viscosity. In addition, the yield stress of the foam (τy) in Eq 35 is zero
for qualities less than 0.52. However, for q > 0.52, τy is dependent on qual-
ity and can be expressed as a polynomial function of q (not presented here).
The foam density (ρfoam) can be calculated from the widely accepted “rule
of mixtures” as
ρ foam = ρ l (1 − q ) + ρ g q
EQ 39
where ρg is the density of the gas phase. The density of the gas phase is
found by means of the real gas law [Eq 32] discussed in the previous sec-
tion.
A method to determine the laminar, transitional, and turbulent foam flow

losses in pipes is presented in Blauer et al. (1974). Their method is
extended here to include flow in an annulus along with a more refined tur-
bulence criterion. The turbulence criterion for foams is expressed in terms
of the Hedstrom number for Bingham-Plastic fluids and is discussed with
Bingham-Plastic fluids. In addition, the friction factors for foam flow in
straight and coiled tubing are calculated as discussed in the same section.

Pressure Losses In general, multiphase fluids refer to a mixture of solid, liquid, and gas.
in Multiphase Flu- The solid phase is in the form of drilled cuttings, sand, proppants, etc. The
liquid phase is usually comprised of water and oil. The gas phase is most
ids often nitrogen, air, or natural gas. Some examples of such multiphase flows
are
! annular flows in any drilling operation;
! vertical two-phase flow of oil, gas, and water through production tub-
ing;
! under-balanced drilling operations with nitrified water (a multiphase

mixture of water and nitrogen); and
! acid jobs with nitrified acid (a multiphase mixture of nitrogen and

dilute acid).
In this document, however, the discussion is limited to a multiphase mix-

ture of liquid and gas without any solid phase. The pressure losses of mul-
tiphase fluids in any CT operation are computed using correlations
developed for two-phase flow through production tubing. Of the many
published correlations on the subject of two-phase flow through production
tubing, four multiphase flow models have gained widespread acceptance in
the petroleum industry:
! Duns and Ros (1963)
! Hagedorn and Brown (1965)
! Orkiszewski (1967)
! Beggs and Brill (1973)
Although most of these multiphase correlations have been primarily devel-

oped for upward, two-phase flow in production tubing alone, they have
also been extended to include downward flow through tubing and upward
flow through an annulus. As such, these models have been provided in Cer-
berus for predicting the system pressure losses in CT applications, and each
of these models are considered separately a little later in this section.
At this point, it should be emphasized that the segment analysis [Eq 1

through Eq 8] holds true for multiphase fluids as well. However, the fluid
properties (density and viscosity) and friction factor computations in Eq 2

through Eq 4 differ considerably from the single-phase calculations. The

density and viscosity of multiphase fluids can be evaluated by the simple
“rule of mixtures” as
ρ s = ρ l H s + ρ g (1 − H s )
EQ 40
ρ ns = ρ l H ns + ρ g (1 − H ns )
EQ 41
µ s = µ l H s + µ g (1 − H s )
EQ 42
µ ns = µ l H ns + µ g (1 − H ns )
EQ 43
where H is called the liquid hold-up and represents the volume fraction of
the pipe occupied by the liquid phase. The subscripts s and ns refer to slip
and non-slip respectively. Similarly, the friction factor is also dependent on
the liquid hold-up through the two-phase Reynolds number. It should be
noted that liquid properties such as density, viscosity, and surface tension
(σ) are evaluated based on the water (ξw) and oil (ξo) volume fractions in
the liquid. Typically, the liquid fluid properties can be expressed as
ρ l = ρ oξ o + ρ w ξ w
EQ 44
µ l = µ oξ o + µ w ξ w
EQ 45
σ l = σ oξ o + σ w ξ w
EQ 46
Here, the subscript o and w refer to oil and water respectively. Many oil
system correlations [Baker and Swerdloff (1956); Beggs and Robinson
(1975); Chew and Conally (1959); Lasater (1958); Standing (1947);
Vasquez and Beggs (1980)] are used to evaluate the properties of oil at
downhole conditions, and are not discussed in this document. Clearly, from
Eq 40 through Eq 43, evaluation of liquid hold-up is a critical part of the
multiphase computations and erroneous system pressure predictions can
result if Hs is not estimated accurately. Liquid hold-up can either be mea-
sured or calculated, and is dependent on the flow regime. Flow regimes in
two-phase flow are classified based on whether the flow is vertical or hori-
zontal. In vertical flow, the flow regimes are usually classified as bubble,
slug, froth, transition, and mist flow, whereas in horizontal flow, the usual
classification is: segregated, intermittent, transition, and distributed. The
description of the flow in these various flow regimes is not given here and
can be obtained elsewhere [Beggs and Brill (1975)]. However, these flow

regimes can be distinguished from each other by means of dimensionless

groups described in the next few subsections where each of the multiphase
correlations or models are considered separately.
Duns and Ros Correla- The Duns and Ros correlation is developed for vertical flow of gas and liq-
tion uid mixtures in wells. This correlation is valid for a wide range of oil and
gas mixtures with varying water-cuts and flow regimes. Although the cor-
relation is intended for use with “dry” oil/gas mixtures, it can also be appli-
cable to wet mixtures with a suitable correction. For water contents less
than 10%, the Duns-Ros correlation (with a correction factor) has been
reported to work well in the bubble, slug (plug), and froth regions.
Several dimensionless groups are used to distinguish the flow regimes.

These dimensionless quantities are given below in consistent units as
N lv = v sl 4 (ρ l / gσ ) (liquid velocity number) EQ 47
N gv = v sg 4 (ρ l / gσ ) (gas velocity number) EQ 48
N D = De (ρ l g / σ ) (pipe diameter number) EQ 49
( )
N l = µ l 4 g / ρ l σ 3 (liquid viscosity number) EQ 50
where σ is the surface tension at the liquid-gas interface, and, vsl and vsg
are the superficial liquid and gas velocities respectively. Details on the
equations written as a function of the above dimensionless numbers that
distinguish various flow regimes can be obtained from the original work of
Duns and Ros (1963). In all other multiphase models presented as well,
equations determining various flow regimes are not provided and can be
obtained from the respective original papers [Hagedorn and Brown (1965);
Orkiszewski (1967); and Beggs and Brill (1973)]. Instead only details per-
taining to density, viscosity, liquid hold-up, and friction factor in various
flow regimes are presented here.
The liquid hold-up calculation in the Duns and Ros (1963) model involves
defining a slip velocity (vs) as
S
vs =
(ρ l / σ l g )0.25 EQ 51

where S is the dimensionless slip velocity and is dependent on the flow

regime. Expressions for S in bubble and slug flow regimes can be written in
terms of Eq 47 through Eq 50 and are not provided here. Once the slip
velocity is calculated, liquid hold-up can be found from
Hs = s
[
(v − v m ) + (v m − v s ) + 4v s v sl
2
]
1/ 2
2v s
EQ 52
Here, vm = vsl + vsg is the multiphase mixture velocity. However, in the

mist flow regime, both liquid and gas phases are assumed to move at the
same velocity without any slippage and hence, S is zero. In this case, the
liquid hold-up is referred to as the non-slip hold-up and is simply
v sl
H ns =
vm
EQ 53
The multiphase mixture density can now be calculated from Eq 40, Eq 41,
Eq 52, and Eq 53 for a particular flow regime.
The mixture viscosity given by Eq 42 and Eq 43 are not used in the Duns
and Ros (1963) correlation. Instead, the gas and liquid viscosities are uti-
lized separately depending upon the flow regime. In bubble and slug flow,
the Reynolds number is calculated using Eq 11 based on the liquid viscos-
ity (µl), and in mist flow, gas viscosity (µg) is utilized. Then, the single-
phase friction factor is found from the Moody’s chart and used to compute
the two-phase friction factor. The two-phase friction factor (fm) can be
evaluated from a correlation developed as a function of the single-phase
friction factor (Moody’s chart), pipe diameter number [Eq 49], and the
superficial gas and liquid velocities. In addition, the two-phase friction fac-
tor for mist flow is affected by a thin liquid film on the pipe wall and this
effect is taken into consideration through a dimensionless quantity called
the Weber number. The friction pressure loss is then calculated using Eq 3.
The pressure loss due to acceleration [Eq 4] is considered negligible in the
bubble and slug flow regimes.

Hagedorn and Brown This correlation was developed using data obtained from a 1500 ft vertical
Correlation well. Tubing diameters ranging from 1 to 2 in. were considered in the
experimental analysis along with 5 different fluid types, namely water and
four types of oil with viscosities ranging between 10 and 110 cp (at 80°F).
The correlation developed is independent of flow pattern with Hs being
correlated with the four dimensionless groups given by Eq 47 through
Eq 50. As before, once Hs is known, the multiphase mixture density (ρs) is
calculated using Eq 40. However, for computing the friction pressure loss
using Eq 3, the mixture density term in Eq 3 needs to be replaced with
2
ρ ns
ρm =
ρs
EQ 54
In order to compute the two-phase friction factor, a two-phase Reynolds

number is first found using Eq 11 based on the non-slip mixture density
(ρns), mixture velocity (vm), and a multiphase mixture viscosity defined as
µ m = µ lH s * µ g1−H s
EQ 55
Based on this two-phase Reynolds number, the friction factor is found from
the Moody’s friction factor chart. The acceleration term [given by Eq 4] is
computed using the slip mixture density and velocity at points 1 and 2
respectively.
Orkiszewski Correla- The correlation is valid for different flow regimes such as the bubble, slug,
tion transition, and annular mist and is a composite of several published works
[Orkiszewski (1967)]. This correlation is limited to two-phase pressure
drops in a vertical pipe and is an extension of Griffith and Wallis (1961)
work in the bubble and slug flow.
In the bubble flow regime, the liquid hold-up is calculated from
 v
H s = 1 − 0.5 1 + m − [(1+ v m ] 
/ v s ) − 4v sg / v s 
2
 vs  EQ 56
Here, the slip velocity, vs, is assumed to be a constant value of 0.8 ft/s. As
before, the friction factor is calculated from the Moody diagram with the
Reynolds number calculated from
ρ l v sl De
Re =
µl Hs
EQ 57
The acceleration term is considered negligible in the bubble flow regime.

In the slug flow regime, the computation of two-phase fluid properties is

somewhat different from the Duns and Ros (1963) and Hagedorn and
Brown (1967) correlations. Here, the mixture density is defined in terms of
a bubble velocity (vb) as
ρ l (v sl + v b ) + ρ g v sg
ρs = + ρl Γ
vm + vb
EQ 58
where Γ is called the liquid distribution coefficient, and is evaluated using

the data from the Hagedorn and Brown (1967) model. The value of Γ is
calculated from several expressions provided in Orkiszewski (1967)
depending upon the liquid phase, mixture velocity, and certain constraints
to eliminate pressure discontinuities between flow regimes (not shown
here). The bubble velocity in Eq 58 is expressed as a function of the bubble
Reynolds number (Reb) as well as the Newtonian Reynolds number (Rel)
given by
ρ l v b De
Re b =
µl
EQ 59
ρ l v m De
Re l =
µl
EQ 60
The equations for the bubble velocity are not presented here and can be
obtained from Orkiszewski’s (1967) work. However, it should be men-
tioned that the calculation procedure for vb is iterative, and this computed
value of vb is utilized in the friction pressure loss computation. The friction
pressure loss in the slug flow regime is somewhat different from the usual
form given by Eq 3, and is expressed as
ρ l v m2 L  v sl + v b  
  + Γ 
s
∆Pf = f
2g c De  v m + v b   EQ 61
where f is obtained from the Moody’s chart based on Eq 60. As in the bub-
ble flow regime, the acceleration term is considered to be negligible and
therefore Eq 4 is zero.
In the transition and mist flow regimes, the method presented by Duns and
Ros (1963) is used (previous subsection) and is not repeated here.

Beggs and Brill Corre- Unlike the other three models, the Beggs and Brill (1973) correlation is
lation developed for tubing strings in inclined wells and pipelines for hilly terrain.
This correlation resulted from experiments using air and water as test flu-
ids. Liquid hold-up and pressure gradient were measured at various inclina-
tions angles and the correlation was developed from 584 measured tests.
As before, details on the flow regimes are omitted here and can be obtained
from the original paper. However, it should be mentioned that the flow pat-
terns are distinguished through correlations expressed as a function of the
non-slip liquid hold-up given by Eq 53 and a Froude number (dimension-
less) written as
v m2
Fr =
gDe
EQ 62
For all flow patterns, the hold-up at any inclination angle (θ) can be
expressed in terms of the hold-up when the pipe is horizontal (θ = π/2) as
H s (θ ) = H s (θ = π / 2) * Ψ
EQ 63
where Ψ is a correction factor accounting for the effect of pipe inclination.

The hold-up which would exist at the same conditions in a horizontal pipe
is calculated from
c2
c1H ns
H s (θ = π / 2) =
Fr c3 EQ 64
Here, Hns is the non-slip hold-up and, ci are constants that are determined
based on the flow pattern. In addition, the correction factor Ψ is given by
[
Ψ = 1 + C sin(1.8φ ) − 0.333 sin 3 (1.8φ ) ] EQ 65
where φ = θ - π/2 is the angle from the horizontal.
For vertical upward flow (θ = π; φ = π/2), Ψ takes the form
Ψ = 1+ 0.3C EQ 66
In Eq 65 and Eq 66, C is given by
c5
C = (1 − H ns ) ln(c 4 H ns N lvc6 Fr c7 )
EQ 67
with the restriction that C ≥ 0.

The Reynolds number is calculated from
ρ ns v m De
Re l =
µ ns
EQ 68
where ρns and µns are the non-slip mixture density and viscosity respec-
tively. The non-slip friction factor (fns) is found from the Moody’s chart
and is utilized to find the two-phase friction factor (fm) as
f m = e X f ns
EQ 69
In Eq 67, X is a function of both Hnl and Hl(θ). Finally, the friction pressure
loss can be calculated from Eq 3 by utilizing fm, ρns, and vm.
General Comments All four multiphase models discussed have been primarily developed to
predict the pressure profile in an upward flow through production tubing.
Nonetheless, they have all been generalized to include downward flow
through tubing and upward, annular flow. More specifically, when these
generalized models are applied to a CT hydraulics simulation (which usu-
ally includes both downward flow through the CT and upward flow
through the annulus formed between the CT and production tubing/casing),
their performance may be affected by errors introduced from the generali-
zation. Therefore, these multiphase correlations should be used with cau-
tion keeping their limitations in mind. Furthermore, the friction pressure
drop relations presented above apply only to straight tubing and cannot be
applied to the length of the coiled tubing on the reel. In fact, the subject of
friction pressure drop of multiphase fluids in coiled tubing has been rarely
addressed in the literature and correlations that determine the effect of cur-
vature on the friction pressure drop of multiphase fluids need to be devel-
oped. Due to the lack of multiphase correlations addressing the effect of
reel curvature on the friction pressure drop, Cerberus like all other com-
mercial programs assumes that, on the surface, flow occurs in horizontal,
straight tubing just as in the case of gases.

Nomenclature a,b constants defined in Eq 24

AF cross-sectional area of fill (ft2)
Ci=1,7 constants used in Eq 64 and Eq 67
C parameter used in the Beggs and Brill model
d inner diameter (ft)
D outer diameter (ft)
De equivalent diameter (ft)
Dn Dean number
Dreel reel diameter (ft)
f Moody’s friction factor
Fr Froude number
g = 32.174 acceleration due to gravity (ft/s2)
gc = 32.174 Newton’s law gravitational constant [lbm-ft/(lbf –s2)]
h vertical height of CT segment (ft)
H liquid hold-up
K consistency index (lbf-sn/ft2)
Ka annulus constant
L length of CT segment (ft)
&
m mass flow rate (lbm/s)
n flow behavior index
N number of segments
Ngv gas velocity number
Nlv liquid velocity number
ND pipe diameter number
Nl liquid viscosity number
P pressure (lbf/ft2)
q quality of foam
Q flow rate (ft3/s)
R gas constant [(lbf-ft)/(lbm °R)]
Re Reynolds number
ReG generalized Reynolds number for power law fluids

Rep particle Reynolds number

S dimensionless slip velocity
T temperature (°R)
v velocity of fluid (ft/s)
V total volume (ft3)
X a function of liquid hold-up used in Eq 69
Z compressibility factor
Greek Symbols ∆P pressure loss (lbf/ft2)

ε absolute pipe roughness (ft)
γ shear rate (1/s)
λ maximum loading (lbm/ft3)
µ viscosity of fluid (lbf-s/ft2)
φ angle from horizontal (radians)
Ψ angle correction factor for Beggs and Brill model
ρ density of fluid (lbm/ft3)
σ surface tension (lbf/ft)
τ shear stress (lbf/ft2)
τw wall shear stress (lbf/ft2)
Γ liquid distribution coefficient for Orkiszewski model
θ angle of inclination to the vertical (radians)
ξ volume fraction

Subscripts 1, 2 points 1 and 2 of segment shown in Figure 1

a acceleration
cr critical
C casing / production tubing
CT coiled tubing
e effective
f friction
g gas
h hydrostatic
l liquid
m mixture
ns non-slip
o oil
p plastic
s slip
sg superficial gas
sl superficial liquid
ST straight tubing
T CT / tubing
w water
y yield
Superscripts s segment
References 1. Azouz, I., Shah, S. N., Vinod, P. S., and Lord, D.L.: “Experimental
Investigation of Frictional Pressure Losses in Coiled Tubing,” SPE
Prod. And Facilities (May, 1998), 91-96.
2. Baker, O. and Swerdloff, W.: “Finding Surface Tension of Hydrocar-

bon Liquids,” Oil and Gas J., (Jan. 2, 1956), 96-104.
3. Beggs, H. D. and Brill, J. P.: “A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined

Pipes,” J. Pet. Tech. (May 1973), 607-617.
4. Beggs, H. D. and Brill, J. P.: “Two-Phase Flow in Pipes,” Lecture

Notes, University of Tulsa, Oklahoma (1975).
5. Beggs, H. D. and Robinson, J. R.: “Estimating the Viscosity of Crude

Oil Systems,” J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1975), 1140-1141.

6. Berger, S.A., Talbot, L., and Yao, L.S.: “Flow in Curved Pipes,” Ann.
Rev. Fluid Mech., 15 (1983), 461-512.
7. Blauer, R. E., Mitchell, B. J., and Kohlhaas, C. A.: “Determination of

Laminar, Turbulent, and Transitional Foam Flow Losses in Pipes,” SPE
4885 presented at the 44th Annual California Regional Meeting of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, San Francisco, CA (Apr. 4-
5, 1974).
8. Bourgoyne Jr., A. T., Millheim, K. K., Chenevert, M. E., Young Jr., F.

S.: “Applied Drilling Engineering,” SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 2 (1991).
9. Carr, N. L., Kobayashi, R., Burrows, D. B.: “Viscosity of Hydrocarbon

Gases under Pressure,” Trans. AIME 201 (1954), 264-272.
10. Chew, J. and Connally, C. A.: “A Viscosity Correlation for Gas-Satu-

rated Crude Oils,” Trans. AIME 216 (1959), 23-25.
11. Duns, H., Jr. and Ros, N. C. J.: “Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mix-
tures in Wells,” Proc. Sixth World Pet. Congress, Frankfurt (Jun. 19-26,
1963) Section II, Paper 22-PD6.
12. Dodge, D. W. and Metzner, A. B.: “Turbulent Flow of non-Newtonian

Systems,” AIChE Journal, 5 (1959), 189-204.
13. Einstein, A.: “Eine Neve Bestimmung Der Molekuldimensionen,”

Annalen Der Physik, 19 (1906), 289-.
14. Griffith, P. and Wallis, G.B.: “Two-Phase Slug Flow,” J. Heat Transfer;
Trans. ASME (Aug. 1961), 307-320.
15. Hall, K.R. and Yarborough, L.: “A New Equation of State for Z-Factor
Calculations,” Oil and Gas J., (Jun. 18, 1971), 82-91.
16. Hanks, R. W. and Pratt, D. R.: “On the Flow of Bingham Plastic Slur-
ries in Pipes and Between Parallel Plates,” Soc. Pet. Engg. J. (Dec.,
1967), 342-346.
17. Hagedorn, A. R. and Brown, K. E.: “Experimental Study of Pressure

Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small
Diameter Vertical Conduits,” J. Pet. Tech. (Apr. 1965) 475-484.
18. Hatschek, E.: “Die Viskositat Der Dispersoide. I. Suspensoide,” Kol-

loid Z., 7 (1910) 301-304.
19. Ito, H.: “Friction Factors for Turbulent Flow in Curved Pipes,” Trans.
ASME, J. Basic Engg. (1959), 123-134.
20. Lasater, J. A.: “Bubble Point Pressure Correlation,” Trans. AIME 213
(1958), 379-381.

21. Lee, A. L., Gonzalez, M. H., and Eakin, B. E.: “The Viscosity of Natu-
ral Gases,” J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1966), 997-1000.
22. McCann, R.C. and Islas, C.G.: “Frictional Pressure Loss during Turbu-
lent Flow in Coiled Tubing,” SPE 36345 presented at the 1996 SPE/
IcoTA North American Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Montgomery, TX
(Feb. 26-28, 1996).
23. McClain, C. H.: “Fluid Flow in Pipes,” The Industrial Press, New York
(1952).
24. Orkiszewski, J.: “Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical

Pipe,” J. Pet. Tech. (Jun. 1967), 829-838.
25. Sage, B. H. and Lacey, W. N.: “Thermodynamic Properties of the

Lighter Paraffin Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen,” Monograph on API
Research Project 37, API (1950).
26. Sas-Jaworsky II, A., and Reed, T. D.: “Predicting Friction Pressure
Losses in Coiled Tubing Operations,” World Oil (Sept., 1997), 141-
146.
27. Schuh, S. C.: “Computer Makes Surge-Pressure Calculations Useful,”

Oil and Gas J., (August 3, 1964), 96-104.
28. Srinivasan, P. S., Nandapurkar, S.S., and Holland, F. A.: “Friction Fac-
tors for Coils,” Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs. 48 (1970), T156-T161.
29. Standing, M. B.: “A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for

Mixtures of California Oils and Gases,” Drill. and Prod. Prac., API
(1947).
30. Vasquez, M. and Beggs, H. D.: “Correlations for Fluid Physical Prop-
erty Prediction,” J. Pet. Tech. (Jun. 1980), 968-970.
CTES

CTES - Coiled Tubing Hydraulics Modeling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CTES - Coiled Tubing Hydraulics Modeling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CTES - Coiled Tubing Hydraulics Modeling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CTES, L.

Coiled Tubing Hydraulics Modeling

May 10, 1999

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 1

! compressible (fluid density is a strong function of pressure such as in

! steady (flow is independent of time) or unsteady (flow is time-depen-

! laminar (flow is characterized by layers or streamlines) or turbulent

! Newtonian (shear stress is linearly related to shear rate) or non-Newto-

! upwards or downwards in a vertical, inclined, or horizontal wellbore

! in the CT or in the annulus formed between the CT and production tub-

In order to accurately predict the system pressures in any CT operation, all

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 2

System pressures can be estimated by appropriately accounting for the total

! hydrostatic pressure loss (∆Ph),

! friction pressure loss (∆Pf), and

! acceleration pressure loss (∆Pa).

The magnitude of each of these components is largely affected by fluid

This document presents a general formulation of the governing equations

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 3

FIGURE 1 CT segment of length L and inclined at an angle θ to the vertical

∆P s = ∆Phs − ∆Pf s − ∆Pas

In Eq 1 through Eq 4, superscript s refers to segment; h is the vertical dis-

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 4

The friction factor in Eq 3 is a function of the Reynolds number (Re),

Finally, since Eq 1 through Eq 4 are defined for a single CT segment, the

∆P = ∆Ph − ∆Pf − ∆Pa

Here, N is the total number of segments in the CT.

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 5

where Ka is an annulus constant, dc and DT are the inner diameter of the

In the next few sections, computation of pressure losses in various fluid

where µ is the viscosity of the fluid. In general, liquid viscosity is a strong

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 6

For internal flow of Newtonian fluids through straight conduits (including

In Eq 14, ε is the absolute roughness of the CT and is approximately equal

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 7

fCT = fST (0.556 + 0.0969 Dn )

Similarly, in turbulent flow, Sas-Jaworsky and Reed (1997) have recently

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 8

where the apparent viscosity (µa) is given by

It should be noted that when n = 1, Eq 21 reduces to the Newtonian Rey-

ReGcr = 3470 − 1370n

Thus, the flow is laminar if ReG ≤ ReGcr and transitional if

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 9

In the case of turbulent flow [Schuh (1964)],

It should be noted that for the Newtonian case of n = 1, Eq 24 reduces to

For CT flows of non-Newtonian fluids, the critical Reynolds number at

Eq 27 has been shown [McCann and Islas (1996)] to been in excellent

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 10

The criteria for turbulence of a Bingham-Plastic fluid is dependent on

Here, τw is the wall shear stress. Eq 30 and Eq 31 are solved iteratively to

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 11

where Z is the compressibility factor, R is the gas constant, and T is the

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 12

Since gas is compressible, the quality of foam depends on both temperature

As mentioned earlier, foams have been treated as Bingham-Plastic fluids in

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 13

Eq 36 through Eq 38 are used in Eq 35 in order to evaluate the effective

A method to determine the laminar, transitional, and turbulent foam flow

Tech Note CTES, L.C. 14

! annular flows in any drilling operation;