A New Comprehensive, Mechanistic

Model for Underbalanced Drilling

Improves Wellbore Pressure Predictions
C. Pérez-Téllez, SPE, Louisiana State U.-PEMEX, and J.R. Smith, SPE, and J.K. Edwards, SPE, Louisiana State U.

Summary annuli, and Hasan7 developed a mechanistic model to estimate the

A new comprehensive, mechanistic model that allows more pre- void fraction during downward, concurrent two-phase flow in
cise predictions of wellbore pressure and two-phase flow param- pipes. These models used the drift-flux approach to predict the gas
eters for underbalanced drilling (UBD) is proposed. The model void fraction in bubble and slug flow. However, for slug flow this
incorporates the effects of fluid properties and pipe sizes and, thus, represents a simplification that does not rigorously consider the
is largely free of the limitations of empirically based correlations. difference in the drift-flux between the liquid slug and the Taylor
The model is validated against actual UBD field data and full- bubble, so inaccurate predictions may be expected from a model
scale experiments in which the gas and liquid injection flow rates that strictly follows this approach.
as well as drilling fluid properties were similar to those used in Recently, Lage et al.8,9 and Lage10 developed a mechanistic
common UBD operations. Additionally, a comparison against two model based on a comprehensive experimental and theoretical in-
different commercial, empirically based UBD simulators shows vestigation of upward two-phase flow in a concentric annulus.
better performance with the mechanistic model. Although the model was extensively validated against small and
full-scale experimental data gathered from annular geometries,
Introduction
they recommended evaluating it in other annular configurations.
It is generally accepted that the success of UBD operations is Moreover, they did not consider downward two-phase flow through
dependent on maintaining the wellbore pressure between the the drillstring and bit nozzles in their mechanistic model.
boundaries determined by formation pressure, wellbore stability, Even though other mechanistic approaches, such as OLGA11
and the surface equipment’s flow capacity. Therefore, the ability to and Ansari,12 have been used to predict pressure-drop calculations
accurately predict wellbore pressure is critically important for both for flow in annuli during UBD pilot tests,3 they have not been
designing the UBD operation and predicting the effect of changes specially developed or modified for UBD operations. Consequently,
in the actual operation. they are not typically used for designing UBD operations.10
Because of the complex nature of the hydraulic system of UBD Given the necessity for accurately predicting wellbore pres-
operations in which two or more phases (liquid, gas, and solids) sures during UBD operations and the fact that mechanistic models
commonly flow, the prediction of pressure drop and flow param- perform better than empirical correlations, the previous literature
eters, such as liquid holdup and in-situ liquid and gas velocities, review reveals that further work is needed to implement the phe-
are performed mainly with empirical, two-phase flow methods. nomenological approach into the current UBD models. Therefore,
The Beggs and Brill1 correlation is the most popular among the the main purpose of this study was to develop a new, comprehen-
current, commercial UBD simulators. However, it is recognized by sive, mechanistic model capable of predicting pressures and two-
the petroleum industry that most of these empirical correlations phase flow parameters throughout a vertical well during UBD
were developed from experimental databases, thereby making ex- operations. This will provide more accurate wellbore pressure pre-
trapolation hazardous.2 Moreover, the Beggs and Brill1 correlation dictions because the model incorporates fluid properties and pipe
has been shown to overpredict or fail to predict bottomhole pres- sizes and, thus, is largely free of the limitations of empirically
sures for both vertical and horizontal UBD operations.3,4 based correlations.
Since the mid-1970s, significant progress has been made in
understanding the physics of two-phase flow in pipes and produc-
tion systems. This progress has resulted in several two-phase flow UBD Flow Patterns
mechanistic models to simulate pipelines and wells under steady- Particular flow patterns depend on flow rates, fluid properties, and
state as well as transient conditions. Consequently, mechanistic pipe size.13 Typical injection gas and liquid flow rates used in
models, rather than empirical correlations, are being used with UBD operations vary from 10 to 50 standard m3/min (sm3/min)
increasing frequency for designing multiphase production systems. (353 to 1766 scf/min) and 0.189 to 1.325 m3/min (40 to 350
Based on this trend of improvement, the application of mechanistic gal/min), respectively. On the other hand, common annular cross-
models to predict wellbore pressure and two-phase flow param- sectional areas available to flow near the surface vary between
eters seems to be the solution to increasing the success of UBD 0.033 and 0.016 m2, which correspond to 222.4 × 88.9 mm (8.755
operations by improving such predictions. × 3.5 in.) and 168.3 × 88.9 mm (6.625 × 3.5 in.) annuli.14−16 Then,
with the superficial velocity definitions given by Eqs. 1 and 2,
Literature Review. Bijleveld et al.5 developed a steady-state typical superficial velocities for UBD conditions near the surface
UBD program to assist well engineers in planning and executing are presented in Fig. 1.
underbalanced operations. This in-house computer program uses
the mechanistic two-phase flow approach. However, there is al- qGSC pSCzT
most no technical information in the literature about implementing uSG = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
ApTSCp
the mechanistic models in UBD operations.
Hasan and Kabir6 developed a mechanistic model to estimate
qL
the void fraction during upward concurrent two-phase flow in uSL = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
Ap

Fig. 1 shows that very high superficial gas velocities would be

Copyright © 2003 Society of Petroleum Engineers
observed, even for low gas flow rates, when flow is at atmospheric
This paper (SPE 85110) was revised for publication from paper SPE 74426, first presented pressure. However, a small increase in choke pressure would be
at the 2002 SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Mexico, Villaher-
mosa, Mexico, 10−12 February. Original manuscript received for review 22 March 2002.
enough to drastically decrease such superficial gas velocities, shift-
Revised manuscript received 9 April 2003. Paper peer approved 22 April 2003. ing from annular to churn or slug flow conditions. Well-control

September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion 199

 Fig. 1—Annular UBD superficial velocities near the surface.
Fig. 2—Typical annular flow pattern map.
safety and surface fluid-handling considerations usually require
that surface gas flow rates be limited with a choke to increase the
surface pressure and consequently reduce the gas velocity, as uTB = 0.345公gDep. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
shown in Fig. 1. Comparing these results with the literature flow- Taitel et al.13 suggested that whenever u⬁ > uTB, the discrete
pattern maps for annular geometries,8,9,17,18 one can conclude that bubble approaches the back of the Taylor bubble, and coalescence
the windows of occurrence of annular flow in UBD operations are occurs. Under these conditions, bubble flow cannot exist. On the
quite limited. Also, the possibility that churn flow occurs is small other hand, when uTB > u⬁, the Taylor bubble rises through an
and because there is not a well-defined churn flow model, it is array of discrete bubbles, and the relative motion of the liquid at
usually treated as slug flow.8,9 Therefore, in annular geometries, the nose of the Taylor bubble sweeps the small bubbles around the
UBD operations deal mostly with dispersed bubble, bubble, and larger one without coalescence taking place. This phenomenon allows
slug flow. This agrees with the experimental results of Sunthankar the existence of the bubble flow pattern. Therefore, combining
et al.,19 who identified mainly bubble and slug flow during their Eqs. 3 and 4, the bubble flow pattern exists in an annulus when17
experiments with aerated mud in annular geometries.
Regarding downward two-phase flow, Barnea et al.20,21 and,
recently, Lage10 observed that only annular, slug, and bubbly flow
regimes occur in vertical downward flow in small-scale experi-
Dep ⱖ 19.7 冋 共␳L − ␳G兲␴
g␳L2
册 0.5
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)

ments conducted at nearly atmospheric conditions. However, dur- in which Dep⳱DIC + DOT is the equiperiphery diameter.
ing UBD operations, gas and liquid are injected simultaneously at When Dep is greater than the right side of Eq. 5, bubble flow
a high injection pressure. This high pressure has the same effect of can exist. Therefore, the agglomeration or coalescence of small gas
reducing gas velocity as that in upward flow. The downward tur- bubbles into large Taylor bubbles, which occurs when the in-situ
bulent flow generally maintains a dispersed gas phase, and gas gas rate increases (void fraction increases), is the basic transition
injection results in gas void fractions of less than 0.78. Therefore, mechanism from bubble to slug flow. Except for Caetano,17 who
one can assume that dispersed bubble, bubble, and slug flow, as suggested that the bubble-to-slug transition occurs at a void frac-
suggested by Hasan,7 are also the dominant flow patterns in down- tion of approximately 0.20, other investigators2,18 and recently
ward flow through the drillstring. Lage et al.9 agree that such transition occurs at a void fraction of
approximately 0.25.
Flow-Pattern Prediction Models Although there is wide agreement in the gas void fraction value
Upward Flow in Annuli. Caetano,17 Hasan and Kabir,2 Kelessi- at which bubble-to-slug transition occurs, there is an inconsistency
dis et al.,18 and recently Lage et al.8,9 agree that flow patterns in the criterion used to express this transition in terms of measur-
observed in vertical, concentric annuli are similar to those seen in able variables, such as superficial phase velocities.
pipes. They also agree in using the framework developed by Taitel Zuber and Findlay24 stated that the effect of the nonuniform
et al.13 to predict the flow-pattern transitions by adapting annular flow and concentration distribution across the pipe and of the local
geometrical parameters. Based on these different works, flow pat- relative velocity between the two phases affect two-phase flow
terns can be predicted by defining the transition boundaries be- systems and define a velocity profile coefficient, C0. On the other
tween them (see Fig. 2). Although these authors consider five hand, Wallis25 determined that bubble swarm affects the motion of
different flow patterns (dispersed bubble, bubble, slug, churn, and a single bubble and introduced the concept of bubble swarm effect,
annular), for the reason explained previously we have emphasized HLn. Different from other authors,2,9,17,18 who separately consider
only dispersed bubble, bubble, and slug flow. However, to avoid these effects, both are taken into account in the present model.
convergence problems during the calculations, a transition to churn Therefore, the bubble-slug transition is defined by
and annular flow are considered. If churn flow occurs, it is treated
as slug flow. For the annular flow occurrence, a simplified annular uG − C0um = u⬁HLn, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
flow model proposed by Taitel and Barnea22 was implemented. In
UBD operations, these simplistic assumptions have a negligible in which n⳱the swarm-effect exponent.
effect on the overall calculations because when churn or annular To fit experimental with analytical data, different authors2,8,9,17
flow occur, they are relatively close to the surface. used different values for the velocity profile coefficient C0, but all
Bubble-to-Slug Transition. During bubble flow, discrete agree in using 0.5 for the swarm-effect exponent. In the current
bubbles rise with the occasional appearance of a Taylor bubble.13 model, the most widely used values, (C0⳱1.2)2,6 and (n⳱0.5),26
The discrete bubble rise velocity (after Harmathy23) is given by were used.

冋 册
Although most authors agree that the bubble-slug transition
共␳L − ␳G兲g␴ 1Ⲑ4
occurs at a void fraction of approximately 0.25, better results were
u⬁ = 1.53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
␳L2 obtained in this study when considering a void fraction of 0.20, as
suggested by Caetano17 and Lage et al.8 This probably happens
The rise velocity of the Taylor bubbles, on the other hand, is given by because the studies reported previously were carried out with

200 September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion

Newtonian fluids rather than with non-Newtonian fluids, similar to dated with data available from the literature, was implemented in this
those used during the model validation. Thus, with a value of study to predict downward two-phase flow behavior in the drillstring.
␣⳱0.20, Eq. 6 may be reduced to Bubble-to-Slug Transition. Hasan7 proved that in downward
flow, the effect of buoyancy, expressed by the terminal bubble rise
uSL = 3.167uSG − 0.745u⬁. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) velocity (Eq. 3), has the same magnitude as that for the case of
This equation defines Transition A in Fig. 2. upward flow but in the opposite direction. He stated that the tran-
Bubble- or Slug-to-Dispersed Bubble Transition. Taitel et sition from bubble to slug flow occurs because of bubble agglom-
al.13 developed an equation to predict the bubble- or slug-to- eration at high in-situ gas flow rates and assumed that this transi-
dispersed bubble transition for two-phase flow in pipes. They con- tion occurs at a void fraction of approximately 0.25, similar to that
sidered the maximum stable diameter of the dispersed phase under predicted in upward flow.13 Thus, modifying Eq. 6 for downward
highly turbulent conditions and the critical diameter at which the flow conditions, the bubble-slug transition in the present model is
turbulent breakup process causes the gas bubbles to remain spheri- given by
cal, regardless of whether the gas void fraction exceeds the value
of 0.25. As reported by Caetano,17 this equation was later im- uSL = 2.332uSG + 0.7214u⬁. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
proved by considering the relatively small effect of the gas void Bubble- or Slug-to-Dispersed Bubble Transition. Because of
fraction on the process of coalescence and breakup and on the the high velocities associated with dispersed bubble flow, Hasan7
resulting bubble size. With the hydraulic-diameter concept, Caet- concluded that the flow direction is unlikely to have a significant
ano17 proposed Eq. 8 for the bubble- or slug-to-dispersed bubble effect on this flow pattern. Eq. 8 also can then be used to estimate
flow transition, shown in Fig. 2 as Transition B. the bubble- or slug-to-dispersed bubble flow transition for down-

冋 册冉冊冉 冊
ward flow.
1.6␴ 0.5
␳L 0.6 2fFH 0.4
Similarly, as stated by Taitel et al.,13 Hasan7 considers that re-
um1.2
共␳L − ␳G兲g ␴ Dh gardless of the existing turbulence forces, the gas void fraction can

冉 冊 uSG 0.5 not exceed 0.52 without causing transition to slug flow. Therefore,
= 0.725 + 4.15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) Eq. 10 also may be used to predict the transition boundary between
um dispersed bubble and slug flow for downward flow conditions.
Because the bubble rise velocity in dispersed bubble flow is very
small compared to the local velocity values, a nonslip homoge- Flow Behavior Prediction Models
neous mixture flow description represents the flow parameters Models that allow accurate prediction of pressure and phase con-
relatively well.17 Therefore, the homogeneous Fanning friction centration are required for each particular flow pattern predicted
factor, fFH, in Eq. 8 is calculated with the nonslip liquid-holdup previously. Considering that the three dominant flow regimes in
concept defined by UBD operations are dispersed bubble, bubble, and slug, six inde-
pendent models are required to handle both downward two-phase
uSL flow through the drillstring and upward two-phase flow through
HL = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
um the annulus. Additionally, a two-phase flow-bit model is required
to predict the pressure drop through the nozzles.
Dispersed Bubble-to-Slug Flow Transition. Taitel et al.13
stated that regardless of how much turbulent energy is available to
Annular-Bubble Flow Model. This model is based on the drift-
disperse the mixture, bubbly flow can not exist at in-situ gas rates
flux approach, which considers the velocity difference between the
so high that bubbles are packed close enough to be in contact.
phases or between a phase and the average volumetric velocity of
Assuming the bubbles are spherical and arranged in a cubic lattice,
the mixture.28 Similar to the bubble-slug transition model (Eq. 6),
they determined that the maximum allowable gas void fraction
the implemented model takes into account both the velocity profile
under bubbly conditions is 0.52. Higher void fraction values will
coefficient, C0, and the bubble swarm effects, HLn. Thus, expressed
cause the transition to slug flow. Thus, considering this gas void
in superficial velocities, the bubble drift-flux model used to predict
fraction limit and the dispersed-bubble homogeneous flow condi-
the liquid holdup is given by9
tions, Eq. 10 gives the transition boundary between dispersed
bubble and slug flow. This is shown as Transition C in Fig. 2. uSG
HLnu⬁ = − C0um. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
uSL = 0.923uSG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10) 共1 − HL兲
Slug-to-Churn Transition. Eq. 11, proposed by Tengesdal et After the liquid holdup is calculated with Eq. 14, the total pressure
al.,27 is used to predict this transition. At a gas void fraction of gradient can be estimated. For steady-state flow, it consists of
0.78, the slug structure is completely destroyed, and the two dis- gravity, friction, and convective acceleration losses and is given by

冉 冊 冉 冊 冉 冊 冉 冊
tinct regions, liquid slug and Taylor bubble, no longer exist, causing
the transition to churn flow, represented as Transition D in Fig. 2. dp dp dp dp
= + + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
dZ dZ dZ dZ
uSL = 0.0684uSG − 0.292公gDep. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
T Hy Fric Acc

The gravitational component is given by

Churn-to-Annular Transition. Based on the minimum gas ve-
locity required to prevent the entrained liquid droplets from falling
back into the gas stream, originating churn flow, Taitel et al.13
proposed the following equation to predict the transition to annular
冉 冊
dp
dZ Hy
= g␳m, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)

flow, shown as Transition E in Fig. 2. in which ␳m = ␳LHL + ␳G共1 − HL兲. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)

uSG = 3.1 冋 共␳L − ␳G兲g␴

册 0.25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
The friction component is given by
␳G2

Downward Flow in Drillstrings. In contrast to the extensive re-

冉 冊
dp
dZ Fric
=
2fF␳mum2
Dh
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)

search in upward, two-phase flow in pipes, there are only a few As suggested by Caetano,17 the Fanning friction factor, fF, is cal-
investigations of gas-liquid mixtures in downward flow in pipes. culated with the Gunn and Darling17 procedure for turbulent flow,
Moreover, these investigations have been carried out at nearly which is a function of the diameter ratio K ⳱ DIC/DOT and the
atmospheric conditions, which greatly differ from those occurring mixture’s Reynolds number, which is defined by
during jointed-pipe UBD operations in which liquid and gas are
injected simultaneously at a high injection pressure. With these ␳mumDh
NRe = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)
limitations, the approach of Hasan,7 which was extensively vali- ␮LHL + ␮G 共1 − HL兲

September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion 201

 Fig. 3—FDTB slug flow unit.

Following this approach, the annular calculations do not depend on

an approximate value of the pipe roughness, ␧.
Using the Beggs and Brill1 approach, the acceleration compo-
nent is given by
Fig. 4—DTB slug flow unit.

冉 冊
dp
dZ Acc
=
␳mumuSG dp
p dZ
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)
The hydrodynamic parameters required in the pressure gradient
equations for both FDTB and DTB are deduced in Appendices A
Annular-Dispersed Bubble Flow Model. Because of the high and B, respectively. Thus, for slug flow, the gravitational compo-
turbulence forces during dispersed bubble flow, the dispersed gas nent is given by12
bubbles do not exhibit significant slippage through the liquid
phase, and the velocity profile is approximately flat.17 Therefore,
the slip velocity is negligible (u⬁ ≈0), and the velocity profile
coefficient is approximately one.28 Thus, liquid holdup can be
冉 冊
dp
dZ Hy
= 关共1 − ␤兲 ␳mLS + ␤␳mTB兴g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)

calculated with Eq. 9. The friction component is given by

After calculating the corresponding dispersed-bubble liquid
holdup, the pressure-gradient components are calculated like those
in bubble flow. 冉 冊
dp
dZ Fric
=
2fFLS␳mLSum2
Dh
共1 − ␤兲. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)

Annular-Slug Flow Model. Fernandes et al.26 developed the first in which ␳mLS⳱␳LHLLS+␳G(1 − HLLS) and the friction factor is
mechanistic model for slug flow in vertical pipes, and then Caet- calculated as before with a Reynolds number defined by
ano17 implemented this model for vertical annuli. These works are
adopted and modified in this study. Different from these works, the ␳mLSumDh
present model considers variable liquid holdup in the liquid slug NRe = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)
and incorporates the bubble drift-flux model represented by Eq. 14 ␮LHLLS + ␮G 共1 − HLLS兲
to predict the in-situ gas velocity in the liquid slug zone. Moreover,
the current slug flow model takes into account both fully devel- The pressure drop caused by acceleration across the mixing
oped Taylor bubble (FDTB) flow, depicted in Fig. 3, and devel- zone at the front of the liquid slug is given by

冉 冊
oping Taylor bubble (DTB) flow, illustrated in Fig. 4. HLLS␳L
dp
As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, slug flow is characterized by the
presence of large cap bubbles (Taylor bubbles), which occupy dZ
=
LSU 共uLLS + ⱍuLTBⱍ兲共uT − uLLS兲, . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
Acc
most of the cross section available to flow. Between the Taylor
bubble and the pipe walls, liquid flows downward as a falling film. in which, for the FDTB flow condition, ␤ ⳱L TB /L SU , and
Liquid slugs containing small gas bubbles, which bridge the entire ␳ m T B ⳱ ␳ G ; for the DTB flow condition, ␤ ⳱L d T B /L d S U ,
cross-sectional area, separate successive Taylor bubbles. Conse- ␳mTB⳱␳LHLdTB+␳G (1 − HLdTB) and uLTB⳱uLdTB.
quently, the hydrodynamic parameters that describe this flow be- The selection of which parameters are used is based on which
havior are required to calculate the pressure drop in slug flow. flow condition exists, as explained in the previous paragraph.
When the calculated bubble cap length is less than the calcu- The average liquid holdup for the entire slug unit for either
lated Taylor bubble length for existing flow parameters at a point developed or developing Taylor bubbles can be calculated by
in the annulus, FDTB (see Fig. 3) is considered, and a constant
film thickness may be assumed. On the other hand, when the uSG + 共1 − HLLS兲共uT − uGLS兲
HLSU = 1 − . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
calculated length of the Taylor bubble cap exceeds that calculated uT
for an FDTB for the same in-situ flow parameters, a DTB (see Fig.
4) is considered, and the film thickness varies continuously along Drillstring-Bubble Flow Model. For downward flow, buoyancy
the bubble zone. opposes the flow of the gas phase. According to Hasan,7 Eq. 14

202 September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion

may be rearranged to calculate liquid holdup in downward best results. Both the drillstring and annulus may have sections of
bubble flow. different cross-sectional areas, as desired. Calculation based on the
pressure and temperature at the wellhead starts at the surface,
uSG proceeds down the annulus to the bottomhole, then up through the
HLnu⬁ = C0um − . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26)
共1 − HL兲 bit nozzles, and finishes at the drillstring surface.
For estimating the pressure-gradient components, equations simi- The unified mechanistic model was evaluated with two differ-
lar to those used in the annular-bubble flow model can be used ent sets of data. The predicted wellbore pressures were compared
with the Moody friction factor calculated with the Colebrook29 first with field data measured while drilling a Mexican well with
equation. nitrified mud and second with full-scale experimental data ob-
Similarly, taking into account the friction factor adjustment, the tained from the literature. Additionally, the model performance
drillstring dispersed-bubble flow model is evaluated with the ap- was compared against wellbore pressure and flow parameters cal-
proach suggested for the annulus. culated with two different commercial UBD simulators, which rely
on empirical correlations.
Drillstring-Slug Flow Model. Considering that the gas phase in
the liquid slug is usually a small fraction of the total gas phase in Field Data Validation. The parameters input for wellbore predic-
a slug unit and that the difference in the drift velocities in the liquid tions were from a Mexican well (Agave 301). This well was drilled
slug and in the Taylor bubble is usually small, Hasan and Kabir6 from 3895 (12,779 ft) to 3984 m (13,071 ft) with the simultaneous
and Hasan7 developed an approach to predict the hydrodynamic injection of a constant nitrogen rate of 10 sm3/min (353 ft3/min)
parameters of a slug unit needed to calculate pressure drop in and a constant mud rate of 0.45 m3/min (119 gal/min). During
downward slug flow in pipes. These works are the basis for the drilling, a pressure/temperature recorder placed in the drillstring at
development of a model for downward slug flow in the drillstring. 1645 m (5,397 ft) above the bit measured the wellbore pressure
Considering that the bubble-swarm effect in downward flow is and temperature. The Agave well’s geometry is described in Fig.
negligible (n⳱0), the liquid holdup in the liquid slug can be cal- 5, and additional input data are summarized in Table 1.
culated by solving Eq. 26 as follows. Mechanistic model outputs are shown in Fig. 6. The figure
shows a comparison between the measured pressures (black
uSG circles) with the predicted wellbore pressures considering that only
HLLS = 1 − . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (27) FDTB flow occurs and that FDTB and/or DTB flow may occur, as
C0um − u⬁
implemented in our unified model. The predicted annular and drill-
With uTB and Eq. 4 for the rise velocity of a Taylor bubble in string flow patterns, as well as the relative percent errors, are
downward flow,7 the liquid holdup in the Taylor bubble may be also shown.
calculated by As indicated by Fig. 6, when both FDTB and DTB models are
uSG considered, the model predictions are very good (relative error of
HLTB = 1 − . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (28) less than 5%). On the other hand, when only the simplified FDTB
共C1um − uTB兲 model is used, the relative error is nearly 15%. This causes a
After extensive validations, Hasan7 recommended using C0⳱1.2 difference in bottomhole pressure predictions of 238 psi. Conse-
and C1⳱1.12. quently, if near-balanced or slightly underbalanced conditions are
Considering a slug unit formed by a Taylor bubble and a liquid required, lack of accuracy in the wellbore pressure predictions
slug region (Fig. 3), the liquid holdup in the slug unit may be compromises the success of UBD operations.
approximated by6 The flow patterns predicted are schematically shown in the

冋 册
vertical lines at the extreme right of Fig. 6. As expected, in the
LTB LLS annulus churn flow (CH) occurred at surface, slug flow (SL) ex-
HLSU = 1 − 共1 − HLTB兲 + 共1 − HLLS兲 . . . . . . . . . . . . (29)
LSU LSU tends to 730 m (2,395 ft) from the surface, bubble flow (B) oc-
curred in almost 80% of the annulus, and dispersed bubble flow
Akagawa and Sakaguchi30 show that the average volume fraction of (DB) occurred at the bottom in the casing and drill collar annulus.
gas in the liquid slug (␣LLS/LSU) is approximately equal to 0.1 when On the other hand, only dispersed bubble flow was predicted to
uSG > 0.4 m/sec and equal to 0.25 uSG for lower superficial gas occur in the drillstring.
velocities. Hasan7 validated that this approximation may be extended
to downward slug flow in pipes. Thus, applying Eq. 27 for the Full-Scale Data Validation. The data obtained by Lopes31 from
gas void fraction in the liquid slug and knowing that LLS≈16DIT,13 an two experiments performed in a full-scale well located at Louisi-
equation for the slug unit length may be obtained. Thus:
160DITuSG
LSU = for uSG ⬎ 0.4 mⲐsec, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (30a)
C0um − u⬁
64DIT
LSU = for uSG ⱕ 0.4 mⲐsec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (30b)
C0um − u⬁
Considering FDTB flow and knowing that LLS/LSU+␤⳱1, the
gravitational and frictional components can be calculated with Eqs.
21 through 23. The acceleration component in the drillstring is
small and may be either neglected or calculated with the approach
suggested for bubble flow (Eq. 20).

Two-Phase Flow-Bit Model. Homogeneous two-phase flow was

considered to predict pressure drop across the bit nozzles. The
model is given in Appendix C.

Results and Discussions

The models were implemented in a FORTRAN computer program,
which performs an iterative two-phase flow analysis on a dis-
cretized wellbore. The well is divided into many axial increments,
and each increment is treated separately. Any increment length
may be used, but 6- to 15-m (20- to 50-ft) segments provide the Fig. 5—UBD equipment and Agave’s well geometry.

September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion 203

ana State U. is also used for validating the current model. This is
a vertical well 1793 m (5,884 ft) deep with 244 mm (95⁄8 in.) of
casing with different inner diameters. Its completion includes a
32-mm (11⁄4-in.) gas injection line that runs inside an 89-mm (31⁄2-
in.) drilling-fluid injection line. A 60-mm (23⁄8-in.) perforated tub-
ing runs down the annulus parallel to the drilling fluid injection
line.
The experiments consisted of injecting nitrogen through the gas
injection line and mud through the drilling fluid injection line
while measuring annular wellbore pressure with pressure recorders
lowered through the perforated tubing until steady-state conditions
were reached. During the first experiment, nitrogen was injected at
32 sm3/min (1,120 ft3/min), and mud of 1.12 s.g. with a plastic Fig. 6—Field data mechanistic model outputs.
viscosity of 6 mPa·s (6 cp) was injected at 0.58 m3/min (152
gal/min). Annular wellbore pressure was measured at 1768 (5,800
and just slightly better than those predicted by A. However, this
ft) and 1186 m (3,890 ft), and the choke pressure was maintained
small gain in accuracy can be important when near-balanced con-
at 141 psi. During the second test, nitrogen was injected at 26
ditions are required. Although A makes reasonably good wellbore
sm3/min (923 ft3/min), and mud of 1.12 specific gravity with a
pressure predictions, its liquid holdup values (see Fig. 10) are
plastic viscosity of 24 mPa·s (24 cp) was injected at 0.53 m3/min
somewhat smaller than those given by the present model. Also,
(140 gal/min). Annular wellbore pressure was measured at 1768 m
changes in liquid holdup (Fig. 10) and in-situ velocity values (Figs.
(5,800 ft), and the choke pressure was maintained at 230 psi.
11 and 12) caused by changes in the flow area are not clearly
Figs. 7 and 8 show the comparison between the measured
observed in the results of A. On the other hand, B more or less
pressures (black circles) with the calculated wellbore pressures, the
predicts such flow-parameter changes caused by flow area
annular and drillstring flow patterns predicted, and the relative
changes, but its wellbore pressure and liquid holdup predictions
percent error between the predictions and the measurements for
are not accurate.
each experiment. Again, the model performance is very good (rela-
tive error of less than 3.5%). In the two experiments, slug and
bubble flow patterns were predicted in both the annulus and drill- Conclusions
string. Only single-phase flow was present in the injection lines, so 1. The model predictions are compared against actual UBD field
measurements were not available to validate the drillstring models. data and full-scale experiments in which the gas and liquid
injection flow rates as well as drilling fluid properties were
Model Comparison. In addition to accurately predicting wellbore similar to those used in common UBD operations. For the an-
pressures, a good two-phase flow model also should precisely nulus flow patterns considered (dispersed bubble, bubble, and
predict other flow parameters, such as liquid holdup and in-situ slug) and drillstring dispersed bubble, the validation shows that
velocities. These flow parameters are of fundamental importance the model performance is very good (average error of less than
for determining procedures for a pipe connection or trip as well as 3%).
knowing if the liquid velocity will properly carry the cuttings. 2. The model comparison against two different commercial, em-
Figs. 9 through 12 show the comparisons of wellbore pressure and pirically based UBD simulators shows that mechanistic models
annular flow parameters predicted by the proposed mechanistic perform better than these empirical correlations.
model with those estimated with two different UBD simulators, A 3. Improved wellbore-pressure and flow-parameter predictions
and B, that used the field data described previously. should allow better UBD operational design by maintaining
Fig. 9 shows that the wellbore pressure predicted with the wellbore pressure and flow velocity within specified boundaries.
present model is much more accurate than those estimated by B

Fig. 7—The first experiment’s wellbore pressure. Fig. 8—The second experiment’s well pressure.

204 September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion

 Fig. 9—Wellbore pressure comparison.

Fig. 10—Liquid holdup comparison.

Recommendations
1. For UBD operations, simplified mechanistic models that endan-
ger the model prediction accuracy should be avoided. Therefore, g ⳱ gravity acceleration, Lt−2, m/s2
additional work is required to validate and, if necesssary, im-
H ⳱ holdup
prove the drillstring-slug flow model.
2. Although mechanistic models seem to be superior to empirical l ⳱ distance from nose of the bubble to the point of
correlations, the value of flow variables, such as velocity profile interest, L, m
coefficient C0, swarm-effect exponent n, transition gas void L ⳱ length, L, m
fraction, and liquid holdup in the liquid slug must be adjusted M ⳱ molecular weight, m(m-mole)−1, kg/kg-mol
for each specific condition being predicted. Therefore, addi- NRe ⳱ mixture Reynolds number, dimensionless
tional work should be performed to develop a unique method for p ⳱ pressure, ML−1t−2, Pa (psi)
predicting these parameters explicitly. q ⳱ flow rate, L3t−1, m3/min1, (scf/min), (gal/min)
3. The model should be developed further by implementing R ⳱ gas constant mL−1m3(m-mole)−1 T−1, Pa·m3/kg-mol°C
mechanistic models that allow handling horizontal and highly T ⳱ temperature, °C
deviated wells and various alternative geometries for gas injec-
u ⳱ velocity, Lt−1, m/s
tion. Additionally, the annular flow pattern should be added to
the current model version so that accurate wellbore pressure v ⳱ specific volume of the mixture, L3m−1, m3/kg
predictions can be achieved when higher-than-normal annular V ⳱ volume, L3, m3
gas flow rates are present during UBD operations. PEMEX is w ⳱ mass fraction
conducting such development while it implements this model as z ⳱ compressibility factor, dimensionless
its in-house UBD program. Z ⳱ direction
␣ ⳱ gas volumetric fraction
Nomenclature ␤ ⳱ relative bubble length
A ⳱ area, L2,m2 ␦ ⳱ film thickness, L, m
B ⳱ reference plan ␮ ⳱ dynamic viscosity, mL−1t−1, Pa·s
C ⳱ velocity profile coefficient, dimensionless ␳ ⳱ density, mL−3, kg/m3 (lbm/gal)
D ⳱ diameter, L, m ␴ ⳱ interfacial tension, mt−2, N/m
f ⳱ friction factor, dimensionless ␧ ⳱ pipe roughness, L, m

Fig. 11—In-situ liquid velocity comparison. Fig. 12—In-situ gas velocity comparison.

September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion 205

Subscripts 13. Taitel, Y., Barnea, D., and Duckler, A.E.: “Modeling Flow Pattern
Acc ⳱ acceleration component Transitions for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in Vertical Tubes,”
bh ⳱ bottomhole AIChE J. (1980) 26, 345.
C ⳱ cap 14. Underbalanced Drilling Manual, Gas Research Inst., Chicago, Illinois
(1997).
d ⳱ developing
15. Jiménez, J.A.R. et al.: “Desarrollo de la Perforacion Bajo Balance
ep ⳱ equiperiphery
(pbb) en México,” paper presented at XII COLAPER in México City,
F ⳱ fanning February 2000.
FH ⳱ fanning homogeneous 16. Underbalanced Drilling and Completion Manual, DEA-101, Maurer
Fric ⳱ friction component Engineering Inc., Houston (1998).
h ⳱ hydraulic 17. Caetano, E.F.: “Upward Two-Phase Flow Through an Annulus,” PhD
Hy ⳱ hydraulic component dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa (1985).
IC ⳱ inner casing 18. Kelessidis, V.C. and Dukler, A.E.: “Modeling Flow Pattern Transitions
IT ⳱ inner tubing for Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in Vertical Concentric Annuli,” Intl. J.
G ⳱ gas Multiphase Flow (1989) 15, No. 2, 173.
L ⳱ liquid 19. Sunthankar, A.A., Kuru, E., and Miska, S.: “New Developments in
LS ⳱ liquid slug Aerated Mud Hydraulics for Drilling in Inclined Wells,” paper SPE
m ⳱ mixture 67189 presented at 2001 SPE Production and Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 24–27 March.
n ⳱ nozzle
20. Barnea, D., Shoham, O., and Taitel, Y.: “Flow Pattern Transition for
OT ⳱ outer tubing
Vertical Downward Two Phase Flow,” Chem. Engng. Sci. (1982) 37,
p ⳱ pipe or annulus No. 5, 741.
sc ⳱ standard conditions 21. Barnea, D., Shoham, O., and Taitel, Y.: “Flow Pattern Transition for
S ⳱ superficial Downward Inclined Two Phase Flow; Horizontal to Vertical,” Chem.
SL ⳱ superficial liquid Engng. Sci. (1982) 37, No. 5, 741.
SU ⳱ slug unit 22. Taitel, Y. and Barnea, D.: “Counter Current Gas-Liquid Vertical Flow,
T ⳱ total Model for Flow Pattern and Pressure Drop,” Intl. J. Multiphase Flow
TB ⳱ Taylor bubble (1983) 9, No. 6, 637.
up ⳱ upstream 23. Harmathy, T.Z.: “Velocity of Large Drops and Bubbles in Media of
Infinite or Restricted Extent,” AIChEJ. (1960) 6, 281.
Acknowledgments 24. Zuber, N. and Findlay, J.A.: “Average Volumetric Concentration in
The authors are grateful to PEMEX and Louisiana State U. for Two-Phase Flow System,” J. of Heat Transfer (1965) 453.
permission to publish this paper and for the field and experimental 25. Wallis, G.B.: One Dimensional Two-Phase Flow, McGraw-Hill, New
data used for model validation. York City (1969).
26. Fernandes, R.C., Semiat, T., and Dukler, A.F.: “Hydrodynamic Model
References for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Vertical Tubes,” AIChE J. (1983) 29, No.
1. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: “A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined 6, 981.
Pipes,” JPT (May 1973) 607. 27. Tengesdal, J.Ø., Kaya, A.S., and Sarica, C.: “Flow-Pattern Transition
2. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: “A Study of Multiphase Flow Behavior in and Hydrodynamic Modeling of Churn Flow,” SPEJ (December 1999)
Vertical Wells,” SPEPE (May 1988) 263 342.
3. Smith, S.P. and Gregory, G.A.: “Application of Multiphase Flow Meth- 28. Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechanics, “Gas Liquid Flows,” Nicholas P.
ods to Underbalanced Drilling Pilot Test Data,” paper presented at the Cheremisinoff (ed.), (1986) 3, 908.
2000 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Houston, 28−29 August. 29. Brill, J.P. and Mukherjee, H.: Multiphase Flow in Wells, SPE, Rich-
4. Smith, S.P. et al.: “Application of Multiphase Flow Methods to Hori- ardson, Texas (1999).
zontal Underbalanced Drilling,” J. of Canadian Petroleum Technology 30. Akagawa, K. and Sakaguchi, T.: “Fluctuation of Void Ratio in Two-
(2000) 39, No. 10, 52. Phase Flow,” Bull. of the JSME (1966) 9, 104.
5. Bijleveld, A.F., Koper, M., and Saponja, J.: “Development and Appli- 31. Lopes, C.A.: “Feasibility Study on the Reduction of Hydrostatic Pres-
cation of an Underbalanced Drilling Simulator,” paper IADC/SPE sure in a Deep Water Riser Using a Gas-Lift Method,” PhD disserta-
39303 presented at the 1996 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, tion, Louisiana State U., Baton Rouge, Louisiana (1997).
3−6 March.
32. Gomez, L. et al.: “A Unified Mechanistic Model for Steady-State
6. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: “Two-Phase Flow in Vertical and In-
Two-Phase Flow in Wellbores and Pipelines,” paper SPE 56520 pre-
clined Annuli,” Intl. J. of Multiphase Flow (1992) 18, No. 2, 279.
sented at the 1999 SPE Annual and Technical Conference and Exhi-
7. Hasan, A.R.: “Void Fraction in Bubbly and Slug Flow in Downward
bition, Houston, 3−6 October.
Two-Phase Flow in Vertical and Inclined Systems,” paper SPE 26522
33. Kaya, A.S., Sarica, C., and Brill, J.P.: “Comprehensive Mechanistic
presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
Modeling of Two-Phase Flow in Deviated Wells,” paper SPE 56522
tion, Houston, 3−6 October.
presented at the 1999 SPE Annual and Technical Conference and Ex-
8. Lage, A.C.V.M. and Time, R.W.: “Mechanistic Model for Upward
hibition, Houston, 3−6 October.
Two-Phase Flow in Annuli,” paper SPE 63127 presented at the 2000
34. Barnea, D. and Brauner, N.: ‘Holdup of Liquid Slug in Two-Phase
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 1−4 Octo-
Intermittent Flow,” Intl. J. of Multiphase Flow (1985) 11, No. 1, 43.
ber.
35. McQuillan, K.W. and Whalley, P.B.: “Flow Patterns in Vertical Two-
9. Lage, A.C.V.M. and Time, R.W.: “An Experimental and Theoretical
Phase Flow,” Intl. J. of Multiphase Flow (1985) 11, No. 2, 161.
Investigation of Upward Two-Phase Flow in Annuli,” paper SPE 64525
presented at the 2000 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and 36. Liu, G. and Medley, G.H.: “Foam Computer Model Helps in Analysis
Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia, 16−18 October. of Underbalanced Drilling,” Oil and Gas J. (July 1996).
10. Lage, A.C.V.M.: “Two-Phase Flow Models and Experiments for Low-
Head and Underbalanced Drilling,” PhD dissertation, Stavanger U. Appendix A—Hydrodynamic FDTB Parameters
College, Bergen, Norway (2000). Without any relative velocity, Taylor bubbles and liquid slugs rise
11. Bendiksen, K.H. et al.: “The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: steadily at a translational velocity given by

冋 册
Theory and Application,” SPEPE (May 1991) 171.
12. Ansari, A.M. et al.: “A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward gDep 共␳L − ␳G兲 0.5
uT = 1.2um + 0.345 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
Two-Phase Flow in Wellbores,” SPEPF (May 1994) 143. ␳L

206 September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion

For a coordinate system traveling at the translational velocity, slug Similar to Eq. A-2, a gas mass balance expressed as a function of
variables are independent of time and vary only with respect to areas gives
space. Thus, a liquid mass balance from liquid slug to Taylor
bubble gives 共uT − uGLS兲 AGLS = 共uT − uGTB兲 AGTB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-3)

共uT − uLLS兲 HLLS = 共uT + ⱍuLTBⱍ兲HLTB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2) A net volumetric flow rate across the plot B-B in Fig. 4 gives

Considering that the flow of a slug unit through a fixed plane in a ⱍ ⱍ

umAp = uGTB AGTB − uLTB ALTB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-4)
region in which fully developed flow exists, an overall liquid Then, knowing that ALTB⳱Ap–AGTB, a numerical solution of Eqs.
balance gives B-1 through B-4 together with Eqs. A-4 and A-5 are used to
LLS LTB calculate the Nusselt film thickness, ␦N.
uSL = uLLS HLLS − uLTB HLTB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3) Applying Bernoulli’s theorem to the top region of the Taylor
LSU LSU bubble, McQuillan and Whalley35 defined the velocity of the liq-
Also, assuming that the liquid and gas phase in the liquid slug uid film relative to the nose of the bubble as

ⱍ ⱍ
uLRTB = uT + uL TB = 公2gl , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-5)
behave analogous to fully developed bubble flow conditions, from
Eq. 14, the in-situ gas velocity in the liquid slug is
in which l⳱the distance from the nose of the bubble to the point
uGLS = C0um + HLn LSu⬁. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4)
of interest. Combining Eqs. B-4 and B-5 and taking l⳱Lc , the
Instead of assuming that the liquid holdup in the liquid slug is length of the Taylor bubble cap can be calculated by

冉 冊
constant, different methods12,32−34 were implemented to calculate uG TBAG TB u A 2
it as the slug flow progresses. For the actual well conditions used 1 m p
LC = uT + − . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-6)
to validate the model, better performance was obtained with the 2g AL TB AL TB
approach followed by Ansari et al.12:
From the comparison of LC and LTB, if LCⱖLTB, the slug flow is
uSG in its developing stage; therefore, different hydrodynamic param-
HLLS = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-5)
0.425 + 2.65um eter values (LdTB, uLdTB, HLdTB, LdSU)are required for pressure-drop
estimations.
Considering that the free-falling film thickness in the Taylor The gas volume in the developing Taylor bubble is given by
bubble reaches a terminal constant value, Fernandes et al.26 proved
L dTB
that the film thickness equation proposed by Wallis25 can be used
to estimate its value. Thus, for turbulent flow, VG dTB = 兰A G dTB dl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-7)

冋 册冉 ⱍ ⱍ 冊
0
␮L2 1Ⲑ3 4␳L uLTB ␦ 2Ⲑ3
␦ = 0.0682 . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6) Because liquid holdup can be expressed as a function of areas,
g共␳L − ␳G兲␳L ␮L combining Eqs. A-2 and B-5, the area of gas in the DTB is

冋 册
Based on the annular slug flow geometry, Caetano17 proposed the 共uT − uL LS兲 HL LS
following expression for liquid holdup in the Taylor bubble zone. AG dTB = 1− Ap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-8)
4␦ 共DIC − ␦兲
公2gl
HLTB = 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7) Because the gas volume in a developing slug unit is equal to the
DIC − DOT
2
gas volume in the DTB plus the gas volume in the liquid slug, the
Fernandes et al.26 and Taitel et al.13 have shown that in a wide gas volume in the DTB can be also expressed as

冉 冊
range of flow conditions, the slug length in upward two-phase flow
in pipes has a fairly constant value equal to 16 pipe diameters. L dTB+ L LS L LS
VG dTB = uSG Ap − u GLS Ap 共1 − HL LS兲 . . . . . (B-9)
Later, Caetano17 confirmed this for annuli with the hydraulic di- uT uT
ameter concept. Hence, the liquid slug length is given by
Substituting Eqs. B-9 and B-8 into B-7 and performing the inte-
LLS = 16Dh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-8) gration, an implicit equation for the developing length of the Tay-
lor bubble is obtained.
If fully developed slug flow is considered, the numerical solution
of Eqs. A-1 through A-8 gives the necessary hydrodynamic pa-
rameters (LLS, LTB, uT, uLLS,uLTB, HLLS, HLTB) for pressure-drop
calculations.
冉 1−
u SG
uT
冊 L dTB −
2共uT − uL LS兲 HL LS

公2g
1Ⲑ2
LdTB

Appendix B—Hydrodynamic DTB Parameters

If the Taylor bubble consists only of a cap bubble (see Fig. 4) and − 冋 u SG − uG LS 共1 − HL LS兲
uT
册 L LS = 0 . . . . (B-10)
the film thickness varies continuously along the film zone, then it
is necessary to determine the cap length, LC, and compare it with Using the Newton-Raphson root-finding method to solve Eq. B-10
the FDTB length, LTB, to determine the basis for the flow param- rather than the quadratic solution proposed by Caetano17 and used
eters to be used in calculating pressure losses (␤, ␳mTB, uLTB, LdTB), by Ansari12 facilitates the calculation of the developing length of
which are dependent on which flow condition exists. the Taylor bubble, LdTB. After calculating LdTB, the in-situ liquid
The Taylor bubble cap length starts at the bubble nose and ends velocity in the DTB can be calculated by rearranging Eq. B-5 as
when the film thickness decreases to the Nusselt film thickness, follows.
which is given by35
uL dTB = 公2gl dTB − uT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-11)

␦N = 冋 3uLTBALTB␮L
␲DICg共␳L − ␳G兲
册 1Ⲑ3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-1) Because the gas volume in the DTB also can be expressed as
VGdTB⳱AGdTBLdTB, solving Eq. B-7 after substituting Eq. B-8, the
Once the film thickness decreases to the Nusselt film thickness, the average liquid holdup in the DTB is
resulting Taylor bubble area in an annulus is17 2共uT − uL LS兲 HL LS
HL dTB = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-12)
AGTB = 0.25␲关共DIC − 2␦N兲 − 兴. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-2) 公2gL dTB
2 2
DOT

September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion 207

The developing slug unit length is defined by
SI Metric Convertion Factors
L d TB + L LS = L dSU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B-13)
cp × 1.0* E−03 ⳱ Pa·s
ft × 3.048* E−01 ⳱ m
Appendix C—Two-Phase Flow Bit Model ft3 × 2.831 685 E−02 ⳱ m3
The mechanical energy equation for two-phase flow through the gal × 3.785 412 E−03 ⳱ m3
bit nozzles is36 in. × 2.54* E+00 ⳱ cm
un pbh
lbm × 4.535 924 E−01 ⳱ kg

兰 兰 v dp = 0 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-1) E+00 ⳱
1 psi × 6.894 757 kPa
udu +
gc *Conversion factor is exact.
0 pup

in which ␯⳱the specific volume of the mixture. Assuming that the

liquid-gas mixture passing through the nozzles is homogeneous,
the specific volume may be defined as Carlos Pérez-Téllez is a senior engineer in the technology
development department of PEMEX Exploration and Pro−
wG 共1 − wG兲 duction in Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico. e-mail:
v= + , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-2) [email protected]. He has been in PEMEX for 16
␳G ␳L years, working mainly in the drilling and completion areas.
in which wG⳱qG␳G/(qG␳G+qL␳L) and the gas density is given by Pérez-Téllez holds BS and MS degrees in petroleum engineering
from the Mexican Natl. U. and a PhD degree in petroleum
MG p engineering from Louisiana State U. John Rogers Smith is a
␳G = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-3) campanile professor and an assistant professor in the Craft
zRT
and Hawkins Dept. of Petroleum Engineering at Louisiana State
Substituting Eqs. C-1 and C-2 into Eq. C-3 and performing the U. e-mail: [email protected]. He previously worked for Amoco
integrations results in: Production Co. in drilling, production, facilities, and research

冉 冊
for more than 20 years. His primary research interests are drilling
u2n 共1 − wG兲 wG zRT pbh related, including well control and design, deep drilling, bit
+ 共pbh − pup兲 + ln = 0 . . . . . . . . . . (C-4) performance, and wellbore integrity. Smith holds a BS degree
gc ␳L MG pup
in electrical engineering from the U. of Texas at Austin and MS
For steady-state flow conditions that use the continuity equation, and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from Louisiana
the nozzle velocity may be express by State U. He was an SPE Distinguished Lecturer on deep drilling
from 1999−2000 and is currently serving on the SPE R&D Advi-
qG ␳G + qL ␳L sory Committee. Jeremy K. Edwards is currently an assistant
un = v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C-5) professor of petroleum engineering at Louisiana State U.
An
e-mail: [email protected]. He has teaching and research inter-
Eqs. C-4 and C-5 can be solved numerically to obtain the pressure ests in production engineering and multiphase flow in pipes.
upstream of the nozzle pup by knowing the corresponding bottom- Edwards holds BS, MS, and PhD degrees in mechanical engi-
hole pressure pbh. neering from the U. of Tulsa.

208 September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion