energies

Article
Frictional Pressure Drop for Gas–Liquid Two-Phase Flow in
Coiled Tubing
Shihui Sun *, Jiahao Liu, Wan Zhang and Tinglong Yi

Key Laboratory of Enhanced Oil Recovery, Ministry of Education, College of Petroleum Engineering,
Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing 163318, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Coiled tubing (CT) is widely used in drilling, workover, completion, fracturing and
stimulation in the field of oil and gas exploration and development. During CT operation, the tubing
will present a gas–liquid two-phase flow state. The prediction of frictional pressure drop for fluid
in the tube is an important part of hydraulic design, and its accuracy directly affects the success
of the CT technique. In this study, we analyzed the effects of the gas void fraction, curvature ratio
and fluid inlet velocity on frictional pressure drop in CT, numerically. Experimental data verified
simulated results. Flow friction sensitivity analysis shows the frictional pressure drop reaches its
peak at a gas void fraction of 0.8. The frictional pressure gradient increases with the increase in
curvature ratio. As the strength of secondary flow increases with the increase in inlet velocity, the
increased trend of gas–liquid two-phase flow friction is aggravated. The correlation of friction factor
for gas–liquid two-phase flow in coiled tubing is developed by regression analysis of simulation
results. The research results can support high quality CT hydraulics design, through which the
success of CT operations can be guaranteed.

Keywords: coiled tubing; gas–liquid two-phase flow; gas void fraction; curvature ratio; frictional
pressure drop
Citation: Sun, S.; Liu, J.; Zhang, W.;
Yi, T. Frictional Pressure Drop for
Gas–Liquid Two-Phase Flow in
Coiled Tubing. Energies 2022, 15, 8969.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
1. Introduction
en15238969 Coiled tubing (CT) is widely used in drilling, workover, completion, fracturing and
stimulation, and has become an important technology in the field of oil and gas exploration
Academic Editor: Bjørn H.
and development. A gas–liquid two—phase flow occurs in the tubing during CT operation.
Hjertager
Because of the small tubing diameter and the large running length, the flowing fluid
Received: 25 October 2022 is subjected to high flow resistance. Moreover, a secondary flow perpendicular to the
Accepted: 25 November 2022 main flow is generated due to centrifugal force in the helical tube. The additional flow
Published: 27 November 2022 resistance is caused by the secondary vortex, resulting in insufficient hydraulic energy for
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
CT technology. Therefore, it is essential to predict flow friction characteristics of a spiral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in tube for the success of a CT operation.
published maps and institutional affil- There have been many research studies on the calculation of pressure loss in CT. The
iations. current study is mainly based on experimental data or numerical simulation to establish
an empirical formula for pressure drop. Walton investigated the effects of CT size, drilling
fluid types and injection method on wellbore hydraulics, and presented a transient com-
puter wellbore simulator to design drilling hydraulics [1]. McCann carried out a full-scale
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. flow experiment of 1.75”, 2.0”, and 2.375” coiled tubing on a 98” reel. Based on the experi-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. mental data of non-Newtonian fluids, a pressure drop formula for non-Newtonian fluid
This article is an open access article in CT was deduced [2]. Azouz used three fluids—water, guar and HPG—to experimen-
distributed under the terms and
tally investigate the frictional pressure loss in CT and straight sections of tubing, made of
conditions of the Creative Commons
seamed and seamless steel [3]. Rao studied the curvature effects of the reel and frictional
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
pressure losses separately, and built simple correlations to predict frictional pressure losses
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
of non-Newtonian fluids in CT for turbulent flow [4]. Medjani conducted an experiment
4.0/).

Energies 2022, 15, 8969. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15238969 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 8969 2 of 17

with three polymeric solutions to study the flow frictional factor for power-law fluids
in CT [5]. Willingham presented an experimental study on five polymeric solutions and
one drilling fluid in three different coiled tubing sizes, and analyzed the effects of fluid
rheology, coiled tubing curvature and tubing diameter on frictional pressure. [6]. Shan
used a full-scale coiled tubing test facility to investigate the influence of drilling solids on
frictional pressure losses in CT [7]. The frictional pressure loss correlations of fracturing
slurries in straight tubing and CT were established by Shah [8]. Hou established a calcula-
tion mode of frictional pressure loss for drilling fluid in micro hole CT systems [9]. Jain
used water and 35 lb/Mgal guar to experimentally study frictional pressure loss in CT of
1.5” and 2.375” diameter, using CFD software FLUENT to analyze the frictional pressure
loss at field-scale curvature ratios and flow rates [10]. Zhou used the boundary layer
approximation method to develop a new friction factor correlation, the model considering
generalized Dean number, curvature ratio of CT, and the power-law fluid flow behavior
index [11,12]. Pereira conducted a flow experiment of 1/2 in tube on a 376 m reel, and
proposed a method to predict the pressure drop of a coiled tubing system [13]. Oliveira
developed a mathematical model to simulate the flow pressure drop of Newtonian and
non-Newtonian fluids in CT based on experimental data [14].
For the prediction of frictional pressure drop of two-phase flow in a spiral pipe, early
researchers mostly estimated it by the Martinelli–Nelson (M–N) method [15] and Lockhart–
Martinelli (L–M) method [16], which calculate frictional pressure drop in a straight pipe. In
the case of single-phase flow, the frictional pressure drop in a spiral pipe is much higher
than that in a straight pipe, so the prediction error in the two-phase flow is usually larger.
Akagawa experimentally studied the frictional pressure drop, void fraction and flow pattern
of an air–water two-phase flow in a spiral tube under adiabatic conditions, and proposed
three types of empirical equations for frictional pressure drop [17]. Bi carried out frictional
pressure drop experiments of high-pressure steam–water two-phase flow in five vertical
and horizontal helical tubes, and established a semi-empirical theoretical correlation for
predicting the two-phase flow frictional pressure drop in these spiral tubes [18]. Xin
conducted a flow experiment in annular helicoidal pipes with water and air to investigate
the pressure drop and void fraction. Based on the experimental data, two-phase flow
correlations were established [19]. Santini conducted a two-phase diabatic pressure drop
experiment in a helical coil heat exchanger and proposed a frictional two-phase pressure
drop correlation considering oil to be an energy balance of the two-phase mixture [20]. The
frictional pressure drops of steam-water two-phase flow for a pressure range of 3.0–3.5 Mpa
at four different helix axial angles were studied by Guo [21]. Colombo numerically analyzed
the frictional pressure drop and the void fraction of an air-water mixture adiabatic flow in
a spiral heat exchange tube [22]. Cioncolini tested 25 widely used empirical correlations
using 980 data points and proposed a pressure drop prediction equation based on the
homogeneous flow models [23]. Hardik experimentally studied the local boiling two-
phase pressure drops in a spiral tube with water as the working medium and proposed
a correlation for a two-phase pressure drop in spiral coils [24]. Zhao theoretically derived
the friction factor equations of transition and fully turbulent flow in a rough helical tube
based on the distribution law of logarithmic velocity [25]. Xiao discussed the effects of flow
and geometry parameters on a two-phase frictional pressure drop multiplier, and proposed
a correlation for it using a small diameter coil under high pressure [26]. Wu conducted
theoretical analysis and numerical simulation of gas–liquid two-phase boiling heat transfer
in helically-coiled tube, and established a separated phase flow model [27,28].
A lot of research on single-phase and two-phase flow in spiral tubes has been carried
out using experimental and numerical simulation methods. However, the studies are
mostly on gas–liquid two-phase flow in CT focusing on heat transfer, which is different
from the CT operating environment in the oil and gas industry. In addition, the diameters
and lengths of CT differ greatly from those in heat transfer areas. Therefore, it is very
important to predict the frictional pressure drop of CT considering the actual operating
conditions. In this study, gas–liquid two-phase flow in helical tubing was numerically
Energies 2022, 15, 8969 3 of 17

simulated, and the influencing factors of frictional pressure loss were discussed. Moreover,
an empirical model of frictional pressure drops for gas–liquid two-phase flow in CT is
presented by regression of the simulation results. The research results are expected to
supply the theoretical proof to the hydraulic design of CT services.

2. CFD Modeling for Gas–Liquid Two-Phase Flow

2.1. Governing Equations
Gas–liquid two-phase fluid is in an unbalanced state in the exchange of mass, mo-
mentum and energy because of the gas–liquid interface. Flow parameters are difficult
to unify. The Eulerian–Eulerian two-phase model regards gas and liquid as continuous
flowing through each other [29]. In any space, the sum of the volume rates of each phase is
1, and each phase follows its conservation law. Therefore, the model can accurately solve
for the phase parameters of gas–liquid two-phase flow in spiral pipes, and has been widely
recognized in engineering. This study used the Eulerian–Eulerian two-phase fluid model
to analyze gas and liquid behavior in a helical tube.
The continuity equation for gas–liquid fluid is expressed in Equation (1).

∂ ( αi ρi )
+ ∇•(αi ρi vi ) = 0 (1)
∂t
Here, t is time; α, v, and ρ are the volume fraction, velocity vector, and density,
respectively. The variables with subscript i = l are for liquid and those with subscript i = g
are for gas.
The momentum conservation equation for the liquid and gas phases is written in
Equation (2).

∂ ( α i ρ i vi ) h  i
+ ∇• αi ρi vi vi − µi ∇vi + (∇vi )T = αi (ρi g − ∇ Pi ) + Fgl (2)
∂t
where µ is the effective dynamic viscosity coefficient, g is gravitational acceleration, F gl is
the virtual mass force between the gas and liquid phases, and P is pressure.
The gas void fraction is defined as

Vg
αg = (3)
Vg + Vl

where Vg , and Vl are volumetric flow rate of gas and liquid, respectively.
The relationship between the volume fraction of the liquid phase and gas phase is
as follows:
αl + α g = 1 (4)
Because of high reliability, good convergence and low memory requirements, the
standard k-ε turbulence model is widely used in the simulation of flow field and heat
exchange. Furthermore, it has good performance for secondary flow simulation [30].
Therefore, the standard turbulence k–ε model is used to calculate the turbulent viscosity of
the operation fluid [31]. The turbulent kinetic energy k and the specific dissipation rate ε
can be calculated by Equations (5) and (6).
"  #
∂ ( ρi k ) ∂ ∂ µt ∂k
+ (ρ kv ) = µi + + Gk + Gb − ρi ε − YM + Sk (5)
∂t ∂xi i i ∂x j σk ∂x j
" #
ε2

∂ ∂ ∂ µt ∂ε ε
(ρ ε) + (ρ εv ) = µi + + C1ε ( Gk + C3ε Gb ) − C2ε ρi + Sε (6)
∂t i ∂xi i i ∂x j σk ∂x j k k
 ∂t ∂t ∂xi∂xi ∂x∂j xj  σ kσk∂x∂j x j  k k k k
i i i i 1ε k 3ε b 2ε i ε

The
The coefficient
coefficient of of turbulent
turbulent viscosity
viscosity μt μist is computed
computed from
from
2
k 2k
Energies 2022, 15, 8969
μ μ=t ρ=CρCμ 4 of 17
t μ
εε
where
where GkGisk is
thethe turbulent
turbulent kinetic
kinetic energy
energy generation
generation because
because of of mean
mean velocity
velocity gr
grad
The coefficient of turbulent viscosity µ t is computed from
GbGisb is
thethe turbulent
turbulent kinetic
kinetic energy
energy generated
generated byby buoyancy,
buoyancy, and
and YMYisM is the dissipa
the dissipatio
due to velocity turbulence. C1ε, C2ε, C3ε, and
due to velocity turbulence. C1ε, C2εµ, tC=3ερC , andk 2 Cμ are constants, with values of 1.44,
Cμ are constants, with values of (7)1.44, 1.9
and 0.09, respectively. σ
and 0.09, respectively. σk, and σε are the turbulent Prontes numbers of thethe
k, and σε are the turbulent Prontes numbers of turb
µ
ε turbul
netic
netic
where energy
energy k
k and
Gk is the and the specific
the specific
turbulent dissipation
dissipation
kinetic energy generation rate ε,
ratebecause with values
ε, withofvalues of σk = 1.0 and σε = 1.
of σk = 1.0
mean velocity and σε = 1.3.
gradients,
GS are
εis theuser-defined
turbulent source
kinetic energy
Sε are user-defined source items.
b items.
generated by buoyancy, and Y M is the dissipation rate
due to velocity turbulence. C1ε , C2ε , C3ε , and Cµ are constants, with values of 1.44, 1.92, 1.0,
and
2.2.0.09, respectively.
Geometric σk , and σε areand
Configurations the Computational
turbulent ProntesConditions
numbers of the turbulent kinetic
2.2. Geometric
energy Configurations
k and the and rate
specific dissipation Computational
ε, with valuesConditions
of σk = 1.0 and σε = 1.3. Sk and Sε
Coiledtubing
are user-defined
Coiled tubing iswrapped
wrappedaround
sourceisitems. arounda adrum,
drum,sticking
stickingoneoneendendintointothethegoos
go
guide.
guide. TheThe control
control cabin
cabin controls
controls thethe tubing,
tubing, which
which enters
enters thethe well
well through
through thethein
2.2. Geometric Configurations and Computational Conditions
head.
head.Coiled A one-layer
A one-layer coiled tubing wound drum is shown in Figure 1. Due to the
tubing is coiled
wrapped tubing
aroundwound drum isone
a drum, sticking shown
end into inthe
Figure
gooseneck1. Due guide.to the re
bility
bility of coiled tubing on a drum, one-unit spiral section was selected as the rese
The control cabin controls the tubing, which enters the well through the injector head. resear
of coiled tubing on a drum, one-unit spiral section was selected as the
Aject,
ject, asas shown
shown
one-layer in in
coiled Figure
Figure
tubing 2. 2.
woundTheThe inside
inside
drum diameter
diameter
is shown of of
in Figure the
the1. helical
helical
Due tubing
tubing
to the is is d and
d and
repeatability ofitsits ra
radi
thethe
coileddiameter
tubing on
diameter of of
athethe
drum, drum
drum is is
one-unit DD and
spiral
and its radius
section
its is
R,R,
wasisselected
radius and and
asthe the
the pitch
research
pitch is
S. S.
is object, Since
Sinceas the theco
tightly
shown
tightly
in wound,
Figure
wound,
2. the
The
the pitch pitch
inside is equal
diameter
is its
equal to
of the
the
toisthe inner
helical
inner diameter
tubing
diameter
is d of
and
of the the
its CT,
radius
CT, that that
is r, is,
the S = d.
is, S = d. Th
diameter
vature of the is
ratio drum is D and
defined as the radius
diameter R, and theof
ratio pitch
the S. Since
isspiral the coils
tube to thearetubing
tightly reel, th
vature
wound,ratio is defined
the pitch is equal as theinner
to the diameter
diameterratio of CT,
of the thethat
spiral
is, S tube to the
= d. The tubing
curvature reel, that
ratio
d/Dd/D = r/R.
= r/R. as the diameter ratio of the spiral tube to the tubing reel, that is, λ = d/D = r/R.
is defined

Coiled
Coiled tubing
tubing

RR

Coiled
Coiled tubing
tubing reel
reel
Figure
Figure 1. Schematic
Schematic
1. Schematic diagram
diagram of one-layer
of one-layer CT. CT.CT.
Figure 1. diagram of one-layer

SS

DD

d d
Figure
Figure Geometric
2. 2. parameters
Geometric of a unitofofahelical
parameters unit oftube.
helical tube.
Figure 2. Geometric parameters of a unit of helical tube.
 The diameters of the coils and tubing are the same as in flow experiments co
by Zhou [9,32,33]; six numerical models of M1-M6 were established, as shown in
In this study, water and gas were used as the working fluids to compare expe
results. The rheological properties of the fluids are based on sample data at
Energies 2022, 15, 8969 5 of 17
temperature. Water was selected as the liquid phase, with a density of 998.200 kg
viscosity of 1.003 mPa·s. Air was selected as the gas phase, with a density of 1.2
andThe
viscosity ofof0.0181
diameters mPa·s.
the coils and tubing are the same as in flow experiments conducted
by Zhou [9,32,33]; six numerical models of M1-M6 were established, as shown in Table 1. In
this study,
Table water and gas
1. Geometric were used of
dimensions as coils
the working fluids to compare experimental results.
and tubing.
The rheological properties of the fluids are based on sample data at ambient temperature.
CTphase,
Water was selected as the liquid Diameter
with a density Coil kg/m3 andCurvature
Diameters
of 998.200 viscosity of Ratio
Model
1.003 mPa·s. Air was selected as the gas phase, with a density of 1.205 kg/m3 and viscosity
d (in) D (in) d/D
of 0.0181 mPa·s.
M1 0.435 3.6 0.010
M2 1. Geometric dimensions of0.435
Table coils and tubing. 1.8 0.019
M3 0.435
CT Diameter 1.2
Coil Diameters Curvature0.031
Ratio
Model
M4 d (in) 0.435 D (in) 0.5 d/D 0.076
M5
M1 0.435 0.810 3.6 48 0.010 0.017
M2
M6 0.435 1.532 1.8 82 0.019 0.018
M3 0.435 1.2 0.031
M4 0.435 0.5 0.076
M5 The meshing of the
0.810 helical tube was
48 stretched to a3D block
0.017 by a 2D auxilia
M6 1.532 82 0.018
and swept; next, structured meshing was performed. The inlet region was divi
O-shaped meshing, as shown in Figure 3. The near-wall region was processed w
The meshing of the helical tube was stretched to a 3D block by a 2D auxiliary block
fined mesh and treated using non-equilibrium wall functions. The non-slip b
and swept; next, structured meshing was performed. The inlet region was divided into O-
condition
shaped wasasused
meshing, shown atinthe tubing
Figure 3. Thewall. The inlet
near-wall regionand
was outlet boundaries
processed were set
with a refined
ity- and
mesh and pressure-outlet
treated boundary
using non-equilibrium conditions,
wall functions. respectively.
The non-slip CFD simula
boundary condition
was used at the tubing wall. The inlet and outlet boundaries
two-phase flow in CT were performed with Fluent 19.0 to study the flowwere set as velocity- and behavi
pressure-outlet boundary conditions, respectively. CFD simulations of two-phase flow
gas and liquid phases [34]. The finite volume method was used to discretize the
in CT were performed with Fluent 19.0 to study the flow behavior of the gas and liquid
ing equations,
phases andvolume
[34]. The finite the phase-coupled
method was used SIMPLE scheme
to discretize discretized
the governing the pressure–
equations,
coupling
and [35]. To obtain
the phase-coupled SIMPLEsatisfactory accuracy
scheme discretized and better convergence,
the pressure–velocity coupling [35].all resu
simulated
To using aaccuracy
obtain satisfactory constant andtime
betterstep of 1×10 alls results
convergence, −5 on anwere
HP-T7000
simulatedworkstation
using (
adisk,
constant time step of 1 × 10 −5 s on an HP-T7000 workstation (1 T hard disk, 8 GB RAM,
8 GB RAM, and 3.6 GHz CPU).
and 3.6 GHz CPU).

Inlet

Outlet

Figure
Figure3. Computational grid ofgrid
3. Computational a unit
ofofahelical
unit oftube.
helical tube.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Mesh Sensitivity Study
R PEER REVIEW 6 of 8

Energies 2022, 15, 8969 6 of 17

Primary studies were carried out to investigate the variation in simulation results,
using grid number variation
3. Results and for pressure drop under different gas void fractions. Taking
Discussion
M2 as an example, with the inletStudy
3.1. Mesh Sensitivity velocity vin set as 5 m/s, the pressure drops along the
Primary studies were carried out to investigate the variation in simulation results,
tubing at four grid sizes (85,000, 98,000, 113,000, and 126,000) is shown in Figure 4. When
using grid number variation for pressure drop under different gas void fractions. Taking
the number of grids
M2 increases from
as an example, 85,000
with tovelocity
the inlet 98,000,vinthe
set pressure drop
as 5 m/s, the increases
pressure by 15.2%;
drops along the
when the grid size increases from 98,000 to 113,000, the pressure drop changes by 1.2%;
tubing at four grid sizes (85,000, 98,000, 113,000, and 126,000) is shown in Figure 4. When
the number of grids increases from 85,000 to 98,000, the pressure drop increases by 15.2%;
and when the grid size increases from 113,000 to 126,000, the pressure drop changes by
when the grid size increases from 98,000 to 113,000, the pressure drop changes by 1.2%; and
0.8%. It was observed
when thethat when
grid size grids
increases fromnumber
113,000 toincreases from 98,000
126,000, the pressure to 126,000,
drop changes by 0.8%. Itthe
pressure drop does not change
was observed that when significantly. Considering
grids number increases from 98,000calculation
to 126,000, the accuracy
pressure dropand
does not change significantly. Considering calculation
computational cost, the number of grid points was finally chosen as 98,000. accuracy and computational cost,
the number of grid points was finally chosen as 98,000.

1800
85,000 grid sizes
1600
98,000 grid sizes
1400
113,000 grid sizes
Pressure drop (Pa)

1200 126,000 grid sizes

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Gas void fraction (%)

Figure 4. SimulatedFigure 4. Simulated

pressure pressurethe
drop along drop along the
tubing attubing at foursizes.
four grid grid sizes.

3.2. Model Validation between Simulations and Experiments

3.2. Model Validation Between Simulations
Comparisons and
of simulated andExperiments
measured values of the Fanning friction factor, f, in CT
Comparisonsfor ofM1-M6 tubing sizes are shown in Figure 5 as a function of the Reynolds number, Re. In
simulated and measured values of the Fanning friction factor, f, in
Zhou’s experiment, water was used as the fluidizing agent, the density was 998.20 kg/m3 ,
CT for M1-M6 tubing
and thesizes arewas
viscosity shown in Figure
1.003 mPa 5 as a number
·s. The Reynolds function
was of the
5000 Reynolds
< Re number,
<230,000, and flow
Re. In Zhou’s experiment, water was used as the fluidizing agent, the density was 998.20
was turbulent in tubing for all sizes in the experiment.
For Newtonian fluids, the friction factor, f, for smooth CT in turbulent flow can be
kg/m3, and the viscosity was 1.003 mPa·s. The Reynolds number was 5000 < Re <230,000,
calculated by Srinivasan’s correlation [36]:
and flow was turbulent in tubing for all sizes in the experiment.
For Newtonian fluids, the friction factor,f =f, 0.084 (d/D)0.2 CT in turbulent flow can be
for smooth (8)
Re0.2
calculated by Srinivasan’s correlation [36]:
Equation (10) is suitable for a curvature ratio range of 0.0097 < d/D < 0.135.

( )
0.2
The critical Reynolds number, Rec , d
0.084 can be expressed as
f = D
h i (8)
Rec =Re 0.2 1 + 12(d/D )0.5
2100 (9)

Equation (10) is suitable for a curvature ratio range of 0.0097 < d/D < 0.135.
The critical Reynolds number, Rec, can be expressed as

Re = 2100 1 + 12 d 
0.5
(9)
 The average error and standard deviation between simulation and experimental
values for M1-M6 coiled tubing are shown in Table 2. We can see from the data that the
maximum average error and standard deviation are 2.14% and 0.006, respectively. The
simulation results agree well with the experimental results, which proves that the estab-
Energies 2022, 15, 8969 lished simulation model and the above numerical method can simulate fluid flow 7 of in
17
coiled tubing.

0.01 0.01

0.008 0.008

f
f

0.006 0.006

M1 simulated value M2 simulated value

M1 experimental data M2 experimental data

0.004 0.004
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Re Re

(a) (b)

0.012 0.012

0.01 0.01
f
f

0.008 0.008

0.006 0.006
M3 simulated value M4 simulated value
M3 experimental data M4 experimental data
0.004 0.004
Energies 2022, 15, x0 FOR
10,000
PEER20,000
REVIEW30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 8 of 10
Re Re

(c) (d)
0.006 0.006
f
f

0.005 0.005

M5 simulated value
M6 simulated value
M5 experimental data
M6 experimental data

0.004 0.004
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000
Re Re

(e) (f)

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Comparison
Comparisonbetween
betweensimulated
simulatedand
and experimental
experimental friction
friction factor
factor for for M1-M6:
M1-M6: (a) M1,
(a) M1, (b)
(b) M2,
M2, (c) M3, (d) M4, (e) M5 and
(c) M3, (d) M4, (e) M5 and (f) M6.(f) M6.

Table 2. Average error and standard deviation between simulation and experimental value for
M1-M6 coiled tubing.

Model Avg. Error RMS

M1 1.11% 0.0029
M2 0.88% 0.0035
Energies 2022, 15, 8969 8 of 17

Figure 5 shows that the friction factor decreases as the Reynolds number increases,
which is consistent with the trend of experimental data. Average error (Avg. error) and
standard deviation (RMS) are used to characterize the error between simulation and
experimental values to verify the validity of the numerical model. Average error (Avg.
error) reflects the difference between simulated results and experimental value, and can be
expressed as:
1 n ∆PEXP
Avg.error = ∑n=1 −1 (10)
n ∆PSI M
where ∆PEXP is the experimental data for the pressure drop, ∆PSI M is the simulated value
of the pressure drop, and n is the number of data points.
Standard deviation (RMS) reflects the stability of the error between simulated and
experimental data, and can be given as follows:
s
2
∑nn=1 (errori − Avg.error )
RMS = (11)
n−1

The average error and standard deviation between simulation and experimental
values for M1-M6 coiled tubing are shown in Table 2. We can see from the data that
the maximum average error and standard deviation are 2.14% and 0.006, respectively.
The simulation results agree well with the experimental results, which proves that the
established simulation model and the above numerical method can simulate fluid flow in
coiled tubing.

Table 2. Average error and standard deviation between simulation and experimental value for M1-M6
coiled tubing.

Model Avg. Error RMS

M1 1.11% 0.0029
M2 0.88% 0.0035
M3 1.57% 0.0053
M4 1.21% 0.0060
M5 0.72% 0.0027
M6 1.43% 0.0063

3.3. Effect of Gas Void Fraction on Frictional Pressure Losses

The inlet velocity was set to 10 m/s, and gas void fraction was set to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3..., and
0.9, respectively. Flow in M1, M5 and M6 coiled tubing was simulated. Due to the different
tubing sizes in M1, M5 and M6, the influence of the CT size on flow is eliminated, and
the effect of the gas void fraction on frictional pressure gradient is analyzed, as Figure 6
shows. The frictional pressure gradient of gas–liquid two-phase flow in CT has a parabolic
relationship with the gas void fraction. When the gas void fraction is small, the frictional
pressure gradient increases rapidly as void fraction increases, and when gas void fraction
increases to 0.8, the frictional pressure gradient decreases with the increase in void fraction.
This phenomenon is also verified by the empirical formula’s variation law of frictional
pressure drop. The numerical simulation results are compared with the calculated values
of Guo [21], Hardik [24], and Zhao [25] correlations, as Figure 7 shows. We can see from
both numerical results and empirical formula calculation that with the increase in gas void
fraction, there will be a “peak value” of frictional pressure drop. This peak value appears
roughly between 0.6 and 0.8 of the gas void fraction. This peak phenomenon is because
when the gas mass content is too high, the two gas–liquid phases will have apparent
slippage, and the frictional pressure drop gradient will begin to decline. Moreover, the
simulated values of frictional pressure drop are in good match with GUO correlation results.
FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 11
OR PEER REVIEW 9 of 11
Energies 2022, 15, 8969 9 of 17

7000
7000
Frictional pressure gradient (Pa/m) M1
6000 M1
M5
Frictional pressure gradient (Pa/m)

6000
M5
M6
5000
5000 M6
4000
4000
3000
3000
2000
2000
1000
1000
0
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 Gas
0.4 void fraction
0.6(%) 0.8 1
Gas void fraction (%)
Figure 6. Effects ofFigure
a gas6.void fraction on frictional pressure drop.
Effects of a gas void fraction on frictional pressure drop.
Figure 6. Effects of a gas void fraction on frictional pressure drop.
4500
Guo
Frictional pressure gradient (Pa/m)

4500
4000 Guo
Hardisk
Frictional pressure gradient (Pa/m)

4000
3500 Hardisk
Zhou
3500 Zhou
Simulated value
3000
3000 Simulated value
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 Gas
0.4 void fraction
0.6 (%) 0.8 1
Gas void fraction (%)
Figure 7. Comparisons
Figurebetween simulations
7. Comparisons and calculations
between simulations of Hardik,
and calculations Guo,
of Hardik, and
Guo, andZhao correla-
Zhao correlations.
tions. 7. Comparisons
Figure between
3.4. Effect simulations
of Curvature and
Ratio on calculations
Frictional Pressureof Hardik, Guo, and Zhao correla-
Losses
tions. The curvature ratios of M1, M2, M3 and M4 are 0.01, 0.019, 0.031 and 0.076, respectively.
3.4. Effect of Curvature
The gasRatio on Frictional
void fraction was set Pressure
to 0.2, 0.4, Losses
0.6 and 0.8, respectively, and flow in M1, M2, M3
The curvature ratios of M1, M2, M3 and M4 are8 shows
3.4. Effect of and
Curvature M4 coiled
Ratio ontubing was
Frictional simulated.
Pressure Figure
Losses the frictional
0.01, 0.019, 0.031pressure gradient
and 0.076, with
respec-
curvature ratio at four different gas void fractions.
tively.
TheThe gas void
curvature fraction
ratios wasM2,
of M1, set M3
to 0.2,
and0.4,M40.6 areand 0.8,
0.01, respectively,
0.019, 0.031 andand flow
0.076, in M1,
respec-
M2, M3
tively. The and
gasM4 coiled
void tubing
fraction waswas set simulated.
to 0.2, 0.4, Figure
0.6 and80.8, shows the frictional
respectively, and pressure
flow in M1,gra-
dient
M2, M3with
andcurvature
M4 coiledratio
tubingat four
was different
simulated. gasFigure
void fractions.
8 shows the frictional pressure gra-
It is found
dient with thatratio
curvature as the
at curvature
four different ratiogas
increases, the frictional pressure gradient in-
void fractions.
creases. This isthat
It is found because
as thewhen the fluid
curvature ratio flows in coiled
increases, tubing, the
the frictional fluid gradient
pressure is constantly
in-
thrownThis
creases. to the
is outer
becausetubing
whenwall the and
fluidinteracts
flows inwith the tubing,
coiled outer tubing wall,
the fluid is resulting
constantlyin
PEER REVIEW 10 of 12

Therefore, the strength of the secondary flow is the main factor affecting the frictional
Energies 2022, 15, 8969 10 of 17
pressure drop of flow in variable curvature tubes.

4500
gas void fraction=0.2
4000
gas void fraction=0.4
Frictional pressure gradient (Pa/m)

3500
gas void fraction=0.6
3000 gas void fraction=0.8

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Curvature ratio
Figure 8. Frictional pressure gradient with curvature ratio at different gas void fractions.
Figure 8. Frictional pressure gradient with curvature ratio at different gas void fractions.
It is found that as the curvature ratio increases, the frictional pressure gradient in-
creases. This is because
The influence of secondary when the fluid
flow intensity onflows in coiledpressure
frictional tubing, the fluid
dropis constantly
can be de- thrown
to the outer tubing wall and interacts with the outer tubing wall, resulting in friction loss.
scribed by the Dean number, and the Dean number of two-phase flow can be calculated
The frictional pressure drop is mainly affected by tubing roughness, fluid viscosity and
by Polsongkram’s correlation [37]:
the interaction between the fluid and the outer wall. In CT operation, once the tubing and
drilling fluid is selected, the properties of0.5
the tubing roughness and drilling fluid cannot
be changed. Only tubing curvature will d  affect secondary flow intensity, that is, the extent
Dn tp =fluid
of interaction between the
Retpand
 tubing
 (12)
outside wall. Therefore, the strength of the
D
secondary flow is the main factor affecting the frictional pressure drop of flow in variable
Reynolds numbercurvature tubes.
of two-phase flow can be expressed as
The influence of secondary flow intensity on frictional pressure drop can be described
by the Dean number, and the Dean number of0.5two-phase flow can be calculated by Pol-
songkram’s correlation [37]:  μg   ρ 
Re tp = Re l + Re g    l   0.5 (13)
μl  =ρ  d
Dn tp  g 
Retp (12)
D
where Dntp and Retp are the Deannumber
Reynolds number and Reynolds
of two-phase number
flow can be expressedofastwo-phase flow, re-
spectively. Rel, μl and ρl are Reynolds numbers, viscosity  and density of liquid phase,
ρl 0.5

µg
respectively. Reg, μg and ρg are Reynolds numbers, Retp = Rel viscosity
+ Reg and gas phase density, re- (13)
µl ρg
spectively.
(14) Dn
Using Equationswhere andtp and Retp
(15), wearecan
the Dean numberthe
calculate andDean
Reynolds numberof
number of two-phase
two-phase flow,
atrespec-
a
tively. Rel , µl and ρl are Reynolds numbers, viscosity and density of liquid phase, respectively.
gas void fraction of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 under different curvature ratios, and the average
Reg , µg and ρg are Reynolds numbers, viscosity and gas phase density, respectively.
value is called the average Dean
Using number
Equations of two-phase.
(14) and The average
(15), we can calculate the Dean value
numberof the friction
of two-phase at a gas
pressure gradient under the same
void fraction Dean
of 0.2, number
0.4, 0.6 is called
and 0.8 under thecurvature
different averageratios,
frictional
and thepressure
average value
is called
gradient. Figure 9 shows thetheaverage
average Dean numberpressure
frictional of two-phase. The average
gradient withvalue
theofaverage
the friction pressure
Dean
gradient under the same Dean number is called the average frictional pressure gradient.
number of two-phase with a curvature ratio of 0.012.
When the average Dean number of two-phase is 4800, the average frictional pressure
gradient is 1040 Pa/m. When the Dean number increases to 8900, the average frictional
pressure drop gradient is 1577 Pa/m, increasing by 430 Pa/m. Secondary flow intensity
has little influence on friction. When the average Dean number increases to 14,500, the
 Energies 2022, 15, 8969 11 of 17

R PEER REVIEW 11 of 13

Figure 9 shows the average frictional pressure gradient with the average Dean number of
two-phase with a curvature ratio of 0.012.

2500
Frictional pressure gradient (Pa/m)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
Dean number (Dn)
Figure 9. Average frictional pressure
Figure 9. Average gradient
frictional with
pressure average
gradient Dean Dean
with average number.
number.

When the average Dean number of two-phase is 4800, the average frictional pressure
3.5. Effect of Inlet Velocity
gradient on Frictional
is 1040 Pressure
Pa/m. When Losses
the Dean number increases to 8900, the average frictional
pressure
The inlet velocity dropset
was gradient
to 5 ism/s,
15776Pa/m,
m/s,increasing by 430 Pa/m.
7 m/s, and… 15 m/s; Secondary
the gasflowvoid
intensity has
fraction
little influence on friction. When the average Dean number increases to 14,500, the average
was set to 0.2, 0.4,frictional
0.6 andpressure
0.8, respectively;
gradient increasesandtoflow in M2and
2350 Pa/m, coiled tubingiswas
the difference 1310 simulated.
Pa/m. At
The frictional pressure
this time,gradient with
the influence inlet velocity
of secondary flow on at four different
frictional pressure drop gas void significant.
becomes fractions is
shown in Figure 10. As inlet velocity increases, the frictional pressure gradient increases.
3.5. Effect of Inlet Velocity on Frictional Pressure Losses
This is because as inlet Thevelocity increases,
inlet velocity was set to the volume
5 m/s, 6 m/s, 7 flow rate
m/s, and . . .of
15 fluid flow
m/s; the through
gas void fractionthe
tube increases, thewas interaction
set to 0.2, 0.4,between
0.6 and 0.8, fluid and and
respectively; tube flowwall iscoiled
in M2 strengthened, and theThe
tubing was simulated. cen-
frictional pressure gradient with inlet velocity at four different
trifugal force effect becomes noticeable. The intensity of secondary flow increases with gas void fractions is shown
in Figure 10. As inlet velocity increases, the frictional pressure gradient increases. This
the increase in inlet velocity.
is because As
as inlet a result,
velocity the the
increases, frictional
volume flow pressure gradient
rate of fluid of gas–liquid
flow through the tube
two-phase flow inincreases,
the spiral tubes increases.
the interaction between fluid and tube wall is strengthened, and the centrifugal
force effect becomes noticeable. The intensity of secondary flow increases with the increase
in inlet velocity. As a result, the frictional pressure gradient of gas–liquid two-phase flow
4000 in the spiral tubes increases.
gas
3.6.void fraction=0.2
Development of Friction Factor Correlation for Gas–Liquid Two-Phase Flow in CT
3500 The frictional pressure drop of single-phase gas and liquid can be calculated from:
gas void fraction=0.4
al pressure gradient (Pa/m)

dPf v2g
 
3000 gas void fraction=0.6 = fg (14)
dZ g 2d
gas void fraction=0.8
dPf v2l
 
2500 = fl (15)
dZ l 2d

2000

1500
Energies 2022, 15, 8969 12 of 17

 dP   dP 
f f
where dZ and dZ are the frictional pressure gradient of gas and liquid phases,
g l
respectively.
Because there is no friction factor correlations suitable for gas flow in a spiral tube, the
friction factor for single-phase turbulent flow was calculated by Blasius’s equation:

0.3164
f = (16)
Re0.25
A factor Y is defined as:
 ,
dPf dPf f g ρl
 
Y= = (17)
dZ g dZ l f l ρg

By substituting Equation (16) into Equation (17), we can get:

 1.25  0.25
ρl µg
Y= (18)
ρg µl

Based on Chisholm B’s coefficient method [38], the two-phase friction factor correlation
was obtained as follows:
"    #
2 ρl 1.25 µg 0.25
ϕtp = 1 + ϕ(Y − 1) = 1 + ϕ −1 (19)
ρg µl

According to the influencing factors of frictional pressure drop analyzed above, we

selected gas void fraction α, curvature ratio λ (d/D), and inlet velocity v for regression
analysis. Using the multivariate nonlinear regression statistics method, the correction
factor, ϕ, can be obtained as follows:
 0.75 
d v 0.33 1.3
ϕ = 2.35 α (1 − α)0.3 + α2.5 (20)
D 100

The following frictional pressure correlation for gas–liquid two-phase flow can be
proposed as
∆Pf tp = ϕ2tp ∆Pl (21)
where the frictional pressure of single-phase fluid can be expressed as

L v2l
∆Pl = f l (22)
d 2
Correlation is used to predict the friction factor of fluid flowing in a spiral tube:
 "   #−0.25 
1 d 0.5  d 2
  
fl = 0.029 + 0.304 Re (23)
4 D  D 

The comparison of the calculated results of Equation (21) with simulated data is shown
in Figure 11. The maximum deviation between the calculated and simulated value is 39%,
and 82.3% of simulated data are within the error range of 20% of calculated results. The
reason for the error of the established frictional pressure correlation is that there is no
model to accurately predict gas–liquid two-phase flow parameters. Moreover, no friction
factor correlation is fit for the flow of gases in a spiral tube [39]. In this study, we use
the Blasius formula for turbulent flow of Newtonian fluid in smooth straight tubes to
calculate the Reynolds number of the gas; and the liquid phase friction factor is calculated
by an empirical equation which does not consider the tubing roughness. All these will
cause calculation error of the model. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct further studies on
 was set to 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8, respectively; and flow in M2 coiled tubing was simulated.
The frictional pressure gradient with inlet velocity at four different gas void fractions is
shown in Figure 10. As inlet velocity increases, the frictional pressure gradient increases.
This is because as inlet velocity increases, the volume flow rate of fluid flow through the
tube15,increases,
Energies 2022, 8969 the interaction between fluid and tube wall is strengthened, and the cen-13 of 17
trifugal force effect becomes noticeable. The intensity of secondary flow increases with
the increase in inlet velocity. As a result, the frictional pressure gradient of gas–liquid
the hydrodynamic characteristics of CT. A frictional pressure drop model is expected to
two-phase flow in the spiral tubes increases.
establish what the influence of tubing roughness and curvature ratio are.

4000
x FOR PEER REVIEW gas void fraction=0.2 13 of 15

3500 gas void fraction=0.4

Frictional pressure gradient (Pa/m)

3000 gas void fraction=0.6

0.5    d 2 
−0.25

1 d   
fl =  
gas void fraction=0.8  0.029 + 0.304 Re
     (23)
2500 4 D    D   

The comparison of the calculated results of Equation (21) with simulated data is
2000
shown in Figure 11. The maximum deviation between the calculated and simulated value
is 39%, and 82.3% of simulated data are within the error range of 20% of calculated re-
1500
sults. The reason for the error of the established frictional pressure correlation is that
there is no model to accurately predict gas–liquid two-phase flow parameters. Moreo-
1000
ver, no friction factor correlation is fit for the flow of gases in a spiral tube [39]. In this
study, we use the Blasius formula for turbulent flow of Newtonian fluid in smooth
500 tubes to calculate the Reynolds number of the gas; and the liquid phase friction
straight
factor is calculated by an empirical equation which does not consider the tubing rough-
ness. 0All these will cause calculation error of the model. Therefore, it is necessary to
conduct4further studies
6 8
on the hydrodynamic 10 characteristics
12 of CT.14A frictional16pressure
drop model is expected to establishInletwhatvelocity(m/s)
the influence of tubing roughness and curva-
ture ratio are.
Figure 10. Frictional pressure gradient with inlet velocity at different gas void fractions.
Figure 10. Frictional pressure gradient with inlet velocity at different gas void fractions.
8000
+20%
7000

6000
Simulated ΔPf

5000
−20%
4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Calculated ΔPf
Figure 11. Comparison of calculated
Figure 11. Comparison frictional pressure
of calculated frictional with simulated
pressure data. data.
with simulated

During CT operation, tubing is wound on a drum in multiple layers, and the cur-
vature ratio of different layers is different, as shown in Figure 12. From 3.4, we know that
the curvature ratio significantly influences frictional pressure of flow. Therefore, we have
further modified Equation (21) to meet the prediction of frictional pressure for gas–liquid
 2
LN vlN
ΔPlN = flN
Energies 2022, 15, 8969
d 2 ρl 14 of 17

Thus, we can obtain the frictional pressure correlation of multi-layer tubin

During CT operation, tubing
(
ΔPftpNis =different,
ratio of different layers )
1 shown
st
1 layer
(
is wound on a drum
ϕ tp21 ΔPlas tp 2
)
2 in multiple layers, and the
+inϕFigureΔPl 212. ndFrom+3.4,
2 layer
......
we (
+ know Δthat )
2 curvature
ϕtpN PlN theth
n layer
curvature ratio significantly influences frictional pressure of flow. Therefore, we have
further modified Equation (21) to meet the prediction of frictional pressure for gas–liquid
two-phase flow in multiple wound tubing.

th
N layer

st
1 layer

Figure
Figure Schematic diagram
12.12.Schematic diagramof multi-layer coiled tubing
of multi-layer drum.
coiled tubing drum.
The curvature ratio of each layer of tubing can be calculated as
4. Conclusions
d 2d
The flow behavior of λgas = and = liquid in spiral tubes is simulated (24) using
D 4D + (2N − 1)d
an–Eulerian two-phase fluid model approach with the standard k-ε model for
where N is the number of tubing layers.
lent viscosity
The tubingoflength
the gas–liquid
of each layer can fluid. The effects
be described of gas void fraction, curvatur
as follows:
inlet velocity on frictional pressure losses in CT were analyzed. 
Lr D
The frictional pressure
L N =
d
π [ D drop gradientr hasd a parabolic relationship
+ ( 2N − 1 ) d ] = L π + ( 2N − 1 ) (25)with th
fraction, and the frictional pressure losses reach their peak when gas void frac
Thewhere LN is thepressure
frictional tubing length
drops Nth layer, with
of theincrease and Lr the
is theincrease
width of the in reel.
curvature ratio. As
Then we can calculate the single-phase flow frictional pressure of the Nth layer as:
inlet velocity increases, the secondary flow strength increases, and the flow fric
2
spiral section increases. Based ∆P on fluid L N vlN
mechanics theory, multivariate(26) nonlinea
lN = f lN
d 2ρ
are conducted on simulation results, andl friction factor correlation for
two-phase
Thus,flow
we canin CT is
obtain theestablished.
frictional pressure Based on error
correlation analysis
of multi-layer of the
tubing as: developed
we recommend that  further research
   on the hydrodynamic  characteristics of
∆Pf tpN = ϕ2tp1 ∆Pl1 st + ϕ2tp2 ∆Pl2 nd + . . . . . . + ϕ2tpN ∆PlN th (27)
be conducted to study 1the layercombined 2influence layer of tubing roughness n layer and curva
The research results are expected to provide a theoretical basis for hydraulic d
worth noting that the simulation in this study does not consider the influence
ological properties of non-Newtonian fluids. Future studies will focus on the in
the shear stress and shear dilution of non-Newtonian fluids on the flow beha
gas–liquid flow.
Energies 2022, 15, 8969 15 of 17

4. Conclusions
The flow behavior of gas and liquid in spiral tubes is simulated using the Eulerian–
Eulerian two-phase fluid model approach with the standard k-ε model for the turbulent
viscosity of the gas–liquid fluid. The effects of gas void fraction, curvature ratio and inlet
velocity on frictional pressure losses in CT were analyzed.
The frictional pressure drop gradient has a parabolic relationship with the gas void
fraction, and the frictional pressure losses reach their peak when gas void fraction is 0.8.
The frictional pressure drops increase with the increase in curvature ratio. As gas–liquid
inlet velocity increases, the secondary flow strength increases, and the flow friction in the
spiral section increases. Based on fluid mechanics theory, multivariate nonlinear statistics
are conducted on simulation results, and friction factor correlation for gas–liquid two-phase
flow in CT is established. Based on error analysis of the developed equation, we recommend
that further research on the hydrodynamic characteristics of CT should be conducted to
study the combined influence of tubing roughness and curvature ratio. The research results
are expected to provide a theoretical basis for hydraulic design. It is worth noting that the
simulation in this study does not consider the influence of the rheological properties of
non-Newtonian fluids. Future studies will focus on the influence of the shear stress and
shear dilution of non-Newtonian fluids on the flow behavior of the gas–liquid flow.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.L.; validation, W.Z. and T.Y.; writing—original draft, S.S.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
52004064), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2021M700755) and Natural Science
Foundation of Heilongjiang Province (Grant No. LH2022E028).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

α volume fraction, dimensionless

Re Reynolds number, dimensionless
v fluid velocity (m/s)
ρ density of fluid (kg/m3 )
µ fluid viscosity (Pa·s)
f friction factor, dimensionless
V volumetric flow rate (m3 /s)
g acceleration of gravity (m/s2 )
d inside diameter of helical tubing (m)
D diameter of coiled tubing reel (m)
Dn Dean number, dimensionless
P flow pressure (Pa)
N number of tubing layers
LN length of the Nth layer tubing
Lr width of the reel
ϕ correction factor, dimensionless
dP/dZ pressure gradient
l liquid phase
g gas phase
tp two-phase fluid
f frictional pressure
c critical value
Energies 2022, 15, 8969 16 of 17

References
1. Walton, I.C.; Gu, H. Hydraulics Design in Coiled Tubing Drilling. In Proceedings of the SPE Gulf Coast Section/ICoTA North
American Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Conroe, TX, USA, 26–28 February 1996.
2. McCann, R.C.; Isias, C.G. Frictional Pressure Loss during Turbulent Flow in Coiled Tubing. In Proceedings of the SPE Gulf Coast
Section/ICoTA North American Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Conroe, TX, USA, 26–28 February 1996.
3. Azouz, I.; Shah, S.N.; Vinod, P.S.; Lord, D.L. Experimental Investigation of Frictional Pressure Losses in Coiled Tubing. SPE Prod.
Facil. 1998, 13, 91–96. [CrossRef]
4. Rao, B.N. Friction Factors for Turbulent Flow of Non–Newtonian Fluids in Coiled Tubing. In Proceedings of the SPE/ICoTA
Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA, 9–10 April 2002.
5. Medjani, B.; Shah, S.N. A New Approach for Predicting Frictional Pressure Losses of Non–Newtonian Fluids in Coiled Tubing.
In Proceedings of the Rocky Mountain Regional/Low–Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado,
12–15 March 2000.
6. Willingham, J.D.; Shah, S.N. Friction Pressures of Newtonian and Non–Newtonian Fluids in Straight and Reeled Coiled Tubing.
In Proceedings of the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable, Houston, TX, USA, 5–6 April 2000.
7. Shah, S.N.; Zhou, Y. An Experimental Study of the Effects of Drilling Solids on Frictional Pressure Losses in Coiled Tubing. In
Proceedings of the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 24–27 March 2001.
8. Zhou, Y.; Shah, S.N. New Friction Factor Correlations for Non–Newtonian Fluid Flow in Coiled Tubing. SPE Drill. Completion.
2006, 21, 68–76. [CrossRef]
9. Hou, X.; Zheng, H.; Zhao, J.; Chen, X. Analysis of Circulating System Frictional Pressure Loss in Microhole Drilling with Coiled
Tubing. Open Pet. Eng. J. 2014, 7, 22–28. [CrossRef]
10. Jain, S.; Singhal, N.; Shah, S.N. Effect of Coiled Tubing Curvature on Friction Pressure Loss of Newtonian and Non–Newtonian
Fluids–Experimental and Simulation Study. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX,
USA, 26–29 September 2004.
11. Zhou, Y.; Shah, S.N. Non–Newtonian Fluid Flow in Coiled Tubing: Theoretical Analysis and Experimental Verification. In
Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 29 September–2 October 2002.
12. Shah, S.; Zhou, Y.; Bailey, M.; Hernandez, J. Correlations to Predict Frictional Pressure Loss of Hydraulic–Fracturing Slurry in
Coiled Tubing. SPE Prod. Oper. 2009, 24, 381–395. [CrossRef]
13. Pereira, C.E.G.; da Cruz, G.A.; Pereira Filho, L.; Justino, L.R.; Paraiso, E.C.H.; Rocha, J.M.; Calçada, L.A.; Scheid, C.M. Experimental
Analysis of Pressure Drop in the Flow of Newtonian Fluid in Coiled Tubing. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 179, 565–573. [CrossRef]
14. Oliveira, B.R.; Leal, B.C.; Pereira Filho, L.; Borges, R.F.d.O.; Paraíso, E.d.C.H.; Magalhães, S.d.C.; Rocha, J.M.; Calçada, L.A.;
Scheid, C.M. A Model to Calculate the Pressure Loss of Newtonian and Non–Newtonian Fluids Flow in Coiled Tubing Operations.
J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2021, 204, 10864. [CrossRef]
15. Martinelli, R.C.; Nelson, D.B. Prediction of Pressure Drop during Forced–Circulation of Boiling Water. Trans. ASME 1948, 70,
695–702.
16. Lockhart, R.W.; Martinelli, R.C. Proposed Correlation of Data for Isothermal Two–Phase Two Component Flow in Pipes. Chem.
Eng. Prog. 1949, 45, 39–45.
17. Akagawa, K.; Sakaguchi, T.; Ueda, M. Study on a Gas– Liquid Two– Phase Flow in Helically Coiled Tubes. Bull. JSME 1971, 14,
564–571. [CrossRef]
18. Bi, Q.; Chen, T.; Luo, Y.; Zheng, J.; Jing, J. Frictional Pressure Drop of Steam–Water Two–Phase Flow in Helical Coils with Small
Helix Diameter of HTR–10. Chin. J. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 1996, 3, 208–213. [CrossRef]
19. Xin, R.C.; Awwad, A.; Dong, Z.F.; Ebadian, M.A. An Experimental Study of Single–Phase and Two–Phase Flow Pressure Drop in
Annular Helicoidal Pipes. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 1997, 18, 482–488. [CrossRef]
20. Santini, L.; Cioncolini, A.; Lombardi, C.; Ricotti, M. Two–Phase Pressure Drops in a Helically Coiled Steam Generator. Int. J. Heat
Mass Tran. 2008, 51, 4926–4939. [CrossRef]
21. Guo, L.; Feng, Z.; Chen, X. An Experimental Investigation of the Frictional Pressure Drop of Steam–Water Two–Phase Flow in
Helical Coils. Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 2001, 44, 2601–2610. [CrossRef]
22. Colombo, M.; Cammi, A.; Guédon, G.R.; Inzoli, F.; Ricotti, M.E. CFD Study of an Air–Water Flow inside Helically Coiled Pipes.
Prog. Nucl. Energy 2015, 85, 462–472. [CrossRef]
23. Cioncolini, A.; Santini, L. Two–Phase Pressure Drop Prediction in Helically Coiled Steam Generators for Nuclear Power
Applications. Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 2016, 100, 825–834. [CrossRef]
24. Hardik, B.K.; Prabhu, S.V. Boiling Pressure Drop and Local Heat Transfer Distribution of Helical Coils with Water at Low Pressure.
Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2017, 114, 44–63. [CrossRef]
25. Zhao, H.; Li, X.; Wu, X. New Friction Factor Equations Developed for Turbulent Flows in Rough Helical Tubes. Int. J. Heat Mass
Tran. 2016, 95, 525–534. [CrossRef]
26. Xiao, Y.; Hu, Z.; Chen, S.; Gu, H. Experimental Study of Two–Phase Frictional Pressure Drop of Steam–Water in Helically Coiled
Tubes with Small Coil Diameters at High Pressure. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 132, 18–29. [CrossRef]
27. Wu, J.; Li, X.; Liu, H.; Zhao, K.; Liu, S. Calculation Method of Gas–Liquid Two–Phase Boiling Heat Transfer in Helically–Coiled
Tube Based on Separated Phase Flow Model. Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 2020, 161, 114381. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 8969 17 of 17

28. Wu, J.; Li, Z.; Li, S.; Chen, Y.; Liu, S.; Xia, C.; Chen, Y. Numerical Simulation Research on Two–Phase Flow Boiling Heat Transfer
in Helically Coiled Tube. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2022, 395, 111827. [CrossRef]
29. Gidaspow, D. Multiphase Flow and Fluidization: Continuum and Kinetic Theory Descriptions; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2012.
30. Rzasa, M.R.; Czapla–Nielacna, B. Analysis of the Influence of the Vortex Shedder Shape on the Metrological Properties of the
Vortex Flow Meter. Sensors 2021, 21, 4697. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Wilcox, D.C. Turbulence Modeling for CFD; DCW Industries: La Canada, CA, USA, 1998.
32. Zhou, Y.; Shah, S.N. Rheological Properties and Frictional Pressure Loss of Drilling, Completion, and Stimulation Fluids in Coiled
Tubing. J. Fluid Eng.–T ASME 2004, 126, 153–161. [CrossRef]
33. Zhou, Y. Theoretical and Experimental Studies of Power–Law Fluid Flow in Coiled Tubing; University of Oklahoma: Norman,
Oklahoma, 2006.
34. Fluent. Ansys Fluent User’s Guide; ANSYS, Inc. Release 19.0: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2018.
35. Ogugbue, C.C.; Shah, S.N. Laminar and Turbulent Friction Factors for Annular Flow of Drag–Reducing Polymer Solutions in
Coiled–Tubing Operations. SPE Drill. Completion 2011, 26, 506–518. [CrossRef]
36. Srinivasan, P.S.; Nandapurkar, S.S.; Holland, S.S. Friction Factors for Coils. Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 1970, 48, 156–161.
37. Wongwises, S.; Polsongkram, M. Condensation Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop of HFC–134a in a Helically Coiled Concentric
Tube–in–Tube Heat Exchanger. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2006, 49, 4386–4398. [CrossRef]
38. Chisholm, D. Two–Phase Flow in Pipelines and Heat Exchangers; Longmen Group Ltd.: London, UK, 1983.
39. Bharath, R. Coiled Tubing Hydraulics Modeling; CTES, L. C: Conroe, TX, USA, 1999.