Analysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for the Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells R.G, Turner, SPE-AIME, Baker Oil Tools, Inc. 'M.G. Hubbard, SPE-AIME, U. of Houston AE, Dukler, U. of Houston Introduction Gas phase hydrocarbons produced from underground reservoirs will, in many instances, have liquid phase material associated with them, the presence of which ean affect the flowing characteristics of the well. Liquids can come from condensation of hydrocarbon gs (condensate) or from interstitial water in the res- ervoir matrix. In either case, the higher density liquid phase, being essentially dlscondzuous, must be trans- Ported to the surface by the gas. In the event the gus phase docs not provide sufficient transport energy to lift the liquids out of the well, the liquids will accumu- Ite in the wellbore, The accumulation of the liquid will impose an additional back pressure on the forma tion that can significantly affect the production capaci- ty of the well. In low pressure wells the liquid may completely kill the well; and in the higher pressure walls dere can occur a variable degses of slugging or churning of the liquids, which can affect calculations used in routine well tetts. Specifically, the calculated bottom-hole pressures used in multirate backpressure tests will be erroneous if the well is not removing liguids on a continuous basis, and gascliquid ratios observed during such a test may not be correct. Several authors':**"* have suggested methods to determine if the flow rate of a well is sufficient to remove liquid phase material. Vitter and Duggant proposed that wellhead velocities observed in the field ‘would be adequate for keeping wells unloaded. Jones* and Dukler* presented analytical treatments resulting in equations for calculating, from physical properties, the minimum necessary flow rate. An analysis of these studies indicates the existence of two proposed physi- cal models for the removal of gas well Liquids: (1) 8 Tui drole eatgined ito igh elk get ty gas core. Although there is & continuous ex- change of liquid between the gas core and the Glm, they will be treated separately for the purposes of this study. The development and comparison of these eep- arate models with experimental data will permit the determination of which, if either, is the controlling mechanism for the removal of liquids from gas wells. ‘The Continuous Film Model Liquid phase accumulation on the walls of a conduit during two-phase gas/liquid ow is inevitable duc to the impingement of eatrained liquid drops and the ‘condensation of vapors. The movemeat of the liquid ‘on the wall is therefore of interest in the analysis of liquid removal from gas wells. If the annular liquid film must be moved upward along the walls in order to keep a gas well from loading up, thea the minimum gas flow rate necessary to accomplish this is of pri- ‘mary interest. The analysis technique used follows ‘Dukdert and Howitt" and involves describing the pro- file of the velocity of a liquid film moving upward on the inside of tube, The minimum rato of gas flow required to move the film upward is then calculated. From an analysis of rwo models — in one, the movement observed is of a liquid film on the wall of a tubular conduit where the liquid is moved upward by interfacial shear, and in the other it is of the entrained liquid drops in a vertically upward flowing gas stream — it is evident that the minimum condition required to unload a gas well is that which will move the largest liquid drops that can exist in a gas stream. NOVEMBER, 1969 wasThe results of this analysis are presented in Fig. 3 and Table 1, and the mathematical film flow model is developed in the Appendix. Entrained Drop Movement - The existence of liquid drops in the gas stream pre- sents a different problem in fuid mechanics, namely, that of determining the minimum rate of gas flow that will lit the drops out of the well. Since the drop is a particle moving relative to a fluid in the gravitational field, particle mechanics may be employed to deter- imine this minimum gas flow rate. A freely falling particle in a fluid medium (Fig. 1) will reach a terminal velocity, which is the maximum velocity it can attain under the influence of gravity alone, ic., when the drag forces equal the accelerating (gravitational) forces. This terminal velocity is there~ fore a function of the size, shape and density of the particle and of the density and viscosity of the fluid medium, By a transformation of coordinates, a drop of liquid being transported by a moving gas stream becomes 4 free falling particle and the same general equations apply. Tf the gas were moving at a velocity sufficient to hold a drop in suspension (j.c., motionless relative to the conduit), then the gas velocity (the relative velocity between the gas and the drop) would be equal to the free fall terminal velocity of the drop. Since any further increase in the gas velocity would make the drop move upward, the limiting gas flow velocity for upward drop movement is the terminal free set- ting velocity of the drop. v= feel eee. pooao The general free settling velocity equation (Eq. 1) shows dependence on the densities of the phases and on the mass and projected area of the particle, Since the surface tension of the liquid phase acts to draw the drop into a spheroidal shape, Eq. 1 can be re- written in terms of the drop “diameter” (Eq. 2). = 655 en zz) @) Eq. 2 shows that the larger the drop, the higher the terminal velocity, all other things equal. Hence, the larger the drop, the higher the gas fow rire necessary to remove it. The problem, therefore, requires deter- mining the diameter of the largest drop that can exist ina given flow field, and then calculating the terminal velocity of this largest drop. This will insure the up- ward movement of all drops in the gas stream. inze* showed that liquid drops moving relative toa gas are subjected to forces that try to shatter the drop, while the surface tension of the liquid acts to hold the drop together. He determined that it is the antagonism of two pressures, the velocity pressure, ¥ pv/Sr and the surface tension pressure, o/d, that determines the maximum size a drop may attain, The ratio of these two pressures it the Weher number Nos = ¥* py d/og.. Hinze showed that if the Weber ‘number exceeded a critical value, aliquid drop would shatter. For free falling drops, the value of the critical 1415 Weber number was found to be on the order of 20 to 30. If the larger of the observed values is used, a rela- tionship between the maximum drop dlameter and the velocity of a liquid drop is obtained. Substituting the maximum diameter expression into, Eq, 2, the terminal velocity equation becomes 13.6 (pe — pi opt oO) The solution af Eq. 4 requires a knowledge of the interfacial tension and the drag coefficient. The inter- facial tension can be obtained with sufficient accuracy from handbooks, since it appears to the fourth root. ‘The drag coefficient is influenced by the drop shape and the Drop Reynolds number, Nne = 4 py V/ity. A correlation of Ci vs Nn. for spheres™ shows that for a ‘Nae range from 1,000 to 200,000 the drag coefficient is approximately constant (the Newton's law region). Far typical field conditions," the particle Reynolds ‘number ranges from 10° to 10°, based on the drop size prediction of Eq. 3. This is the range where the drag coefficient is relatively constant at a value of 0.44, If this value is used, and the coefficient is cor- rected to allow the use of the values of surface tension in dynes per centimeter, Eq. 4 reduces to 6 ti 5 v= 17. oo (4) Eq. 5 may be used to calculate the minimum gas flow velocity necessary to remove liquid drops. ‘Comparisons with Field Data The film and drop models have been tested inde- pendently with field data obtained from gas wells producing liquids. A small portion of the data was the result of tests performed specifically to determine the inimum lift low rate. Because of the limited range of conditions involved, these data were insufficient; therefore, previously published data'-™* and conven- tional weil test data were combined with them to form the current test data matrix. Tncluded in the data matrix are the two most com- mon flow geometries, standard production tubing in ‘API sizes, and annular completions where the gas Is flowed between the casing and the tubing (as in single- tubing string dual completions). ‘The conduit sizes included in the data range from 1.750 in. ID (2%e in. OD) for tubing to 8 in. for cas- . Several annular areas are included, with both and 7-in. OD casings being represented. phase material included salt water and con- ddensate, ranging in API gravity from 43° to 70°. ‘Some of the data were Incomplete for the purpose of this investigation, and it was necessary to estimate the values of some propertcs. Interfacial tension ig not usually determined in routine analysis and it was therefore not obtainable for the individual well fluids. The surface tension of the hydrocarbon liquids was estimated from a corre- lation based on molecular weight.* JOURNAL OF: PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYVirtually all of the data were incomplete in that the botiom-hole temperatures were not reported. In these cases, estimates were made from area geo- thermal gradient charts, since the location and depth of the wells were known. The dena ofthe guid phase and gravy ofthe are very important to the developments and, n- forrnately, were aot avaiable for most of the data, However, the data that were insufficient in this re- spect did contain the liquid:gas ratio. It is generally true that in. wells that produce a small quantity of , the Hiquid will be clear, very light (high API gravity), and volatile and there will be a 20 ingly light (low gravity) gas. And a rich well with a BY itgan a Wulgeacaly ve more Genus liquid and gas phases. Based on these principles and on a knowledge of the ranges of these quantities nor- mally encountered in the field, approximations were made. In the ease of water, the specific gravity was taken to be 1.08, ‘The use of data collected primarily for purposes other than to determine the minimum lift velocity re- ‘quires a special technique. The conditions (pressure, temperature, tubing size, etc.) of a datum point are ‘used to calculate minimum flow rates by each of the models. The calculated rates are then compared with the observed rate. If the observed rate is known to be Adequate, then it should be higher than a properly ‘calculated minimum. If the observed rate is not ade- ‘quate, then it should be lower than the calculated minimum, Sufficient data should provide statistical validation or invalidation of the mathematical mod- cls, An IBM 7094 computer was programmed to test the data in both the film and drop models. Eq. 5 was used to calculate gas velocities In developing the drop ‘model, and integration of Eq. A-3 in the Appendix ‘was performed for the film model caloulations. The results are shown graphically in Figs. 2 and 3 and are listed on Table 1. ‘The figures are constructed in such a way that if a well’s actual test flow rate equals its minimum calcu- lated flow rate for liquid removal, the datum point will plot oa the diagonal. If the method for calculat- ing the minimum flow rate is accurate, then all wells that are tested at conditions near load-up (shown as circles on the graphs) should plot near this diagonal. Wells that unload easily during a test (shown as squares) should plot above the diagonal and those that do not unload (shown as triangles) should plot below the line. The ability of a given analytical mode! to achieve this data separation is a measure of its validity. ‘The drop model (Fig. 2) shows a good separation of the adequate and inadequate flow rates; however, the calculated minima are, in most cases, too low. This can be attributed to the use of drag coefficients for solid spheres rather than for oscillating liquid drops in the development of Eq. 5, and to the fact that the mathematical development predicts stagna- tion velocity, which must be exceeded by some finite quantity to guarantee removal of the largest drops. Another contributing factor could be the Critical Weber number, which was established for drops fall- ing in air experimentally and not for conditions that NOVEMBER, 1969 Fig. 2—The drop removal model. Fig. 3—The film movement model. un‘TABLE 1—DATA AND PREDICTIONS OF MINIMUM GAS FLOW RATE FOR UNLOADING GAS WELLS Yona “as” 725 400 108 540 450 3607 3434 3773 3660 3340 3295 3200 3540 3330 3525 3472 3338 3245, 3092 3586 3455 3008, 3644 3615 3212 3028 e213 7980 7408 2335 2226 zie 2175 2168 1590 1550 1820 1245 aie8 a7 1988 1938 1913 2271 1818 11600 1835 2621 4931 4786 4575 & SS abit obit 38 a3 708 61.0 61.0 610 os os 65.0 60 3. 96 105 a3 374 a4 36 368 1308 1308 08 uss 35, 1069 106.9 76 zs 176 1083 1043 633 43 108 108 108 7s 79 23 25 28 131 131 aaa 103 103 103 248 8 28 ne 318 318 152 151 a6 a7 37 a7 37 267 267 287 273 2738 zs 273 75 75 78 73 309 0. 18.0 124 105 BEEEPSL9999 999999999 9 EBSD PED SPE ESP SES EEE SB EN ES SEND999 Taine festa, 2441 1995 20041 1.995 11995 1.995 1.995 1995 1.995 2992 2992 Bese 2461 2441 1995 1.995 2ast 2aai 244i 1995 1.995 Zeer ast 2aar 2441 aan 2aa1 2441 asi 1.995 1995 3.958 3.953 3.958 SuRgHUaH Tae gases) i 2.878 2.078 2875 2878 2875 2875 2978 2875 2875 3.800 3.500 13.800 3.500 3.500 3,500 4500 4.500 4.500 o e184 6.184 eiee 6184 iat 6184 6.184 6.184 ee e184 6.184 6.194 6184 6.184 eee ee 84 6.184 6184 6184 61e4 61e4 iw lin 3351 2oaz 3182 2547 3817 3672 116 1959 3501 7508 3551 4150 44g 5813 8185 9039 9897 702 8210 9289 7109 8406 9747 6361 8087 9860 11767 4124 4998 423 9672 6654 3136 3917 2376 4830 22 7792 1138 ioe mn 503 306 661 419 1186 1160 1158 142 2412 2401 2395 1635 11600 1108 1085 1623 1610 1574 1091 1082 1160 1654 1648 1608 1869 1986 1941 1930 936 910 35787 3757 347 3281 3233 3195 4920 4793 4649 931 902 5087 6082 eos 5987 “8580 5559 3595, S641 S671 Saas S212 3613 3412 3199 1239 4407 1487 1502 3770 1732 1705 “1689 851 co elf) 276 stat bens “a ‘Loaded Up Unloaded Questionable Unloaded Loaded Up Questionable Questionable Loaded Up Questionable Landed Up Unloaded Londed Up ‘Questionable Unloaded Questionabie Unloaded Loaded Up Questionable Unleaded Loaded Up Uniowded Lsecea up Questionable JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYexist in gas wells. Analysis of the data reveals that the total contribution of these factors requires an upward ‘adjustment of approximately 20 percent. Instead of being distributed as individual contributions among the pertinent parameters in the development, this ae! is lumped in the constant of Eq. 5 to produce vy, = 20.4. a ee © Since the contributing factors are individually ob- tained from experimental correlations, their adjust~ ‘ment, in this case, to fit the specific data does not alter or affect the rigor of the development. ‘The predictions of the film model (Fig. 3) do not as clear a definition between the adequate nd inedequate rates as do those of the drop model Additionally, the theoretical development for the film model indicates that the minimum lift velocity de- pends upon the gas:liquid ratio. Analysis of the avail- TABLE 1 (Contd,}—DATA AND PREDICTIONS OF MI able fleld dara shows nto such dependence in the range of liquid production associated with most gas wells (I to 100 bbI/MMEct). The drop model, on the other hand, is independent of a liquid rate. This in dicates that the flm model does nat represent the con- trolling liquid transport mechanism. The data were tested for the minimum flow rate that would be required at the top and the bottom of the conduit. The results indicated that the wellhead conditions were, in most instances, controling (Le., required the higher flow rate). This is fortunate, since it allows the use of the more easily obtained surface data, Since in some of the field observations the wells were known to be unloading, but the film model pre- dicted the gas rates to be inadequate, it appears that the liquids can be continuously removed by liquid drop movement alone. It is of interest, therefore, to know what happens to a film that is not moving up- ward with the gas. If the liquid film moves downward, INIMUM GAS FLOW RATE FOR UNLOADING GAS WELLS om. nine wanna Taut Cyee Tat atth ate ee Se ian tan onan hry FE Sze 1737 71.0 2 at Unloaded 524 1480 71.0 2473750 Unloaded 296 1248710 206566 Unloaded eeeeeeeneneeeaes 1797 8752652) Unioaded: $20 1861717 25028592863 Unlonded S26 yea 717 3460 8825108 Unloaded S254 1680717 44398033309 Unloaded 7699 2814535 19961218 Unloaded yes 2502 595 24231178 Unioade 7689 2108585 3598 1070 Unloaded 75391575538 aio oie Unloaded 475 278324 2099 8342155 Unloaded 7475 2655524 440817 2087 Unloaded 7475 2806 524 3820 7701983 Uniowsea 775 2208 526 68717461884 Unloaded yes 574522 194s 808 Unloaded yas 2228 522 210833 Unioeded 7546 1889 522 372735 Unloaded Teas 1509522 o 443563 Unloaded 77832611526 r 3496 1082 2954 Unloaded y7s3 2527526 ° “a7, 10582801 Unlonded e162 2556567 °. 1550 1026 2801 Unloaded s162 2415567 °. 1e0t 9962697 Unloaded aie2 2149567 ° 2585 9412512 Unloeded g162 1768567 ° 2049 856 2246 Unlonded yao 2062522 °. 2378 4974 3024 5008 Unloaded 710 2823522 °. 2375 4.974 38635045 Loaded Up 7531760349 45a 12671148 Loaded UB 751708549 408 13131099 Loaded Up 7531822549 263 2 13561197 Loaded UB yal oe Sao 2B 24a 1365 1819 Lorded Up 7551552549 223 2a 1607958 Near LU. ams 50.0 7386 5740 500d 19974 Loaded Up 3278422500 0 7.386 3800 $923 Loeded UD 3278459500 0 7386 2700 6186 Loaded UD 3278434 50.0 7.388 1658, 6399 oeaed UP 3080 500500 3. 2375 4974 400 2184 Losded Up j200 $008. 50 2378 4082 8001728 Ubeded Up 76660. 35 2375 6.276 4300" 6367 Loeded Up 3077780. 280 2375 4974 © 5002083 Loaded Up 250-10. 240 2375 6276 470. 3248 Loaded Up NOVEMBER, 1960 19is then moving countercurrent to the gas and “flood ing” occurs. This is a condition in which the film thick ens and bridges the tube, causing film break-up and slugging, which leads to the production of drops and to increased entrainment. The flooding of the film, along with the activity of the liquid at discontinuities such as the coupling recess, provides an ample source of liquid drops for transport by the drop mechanism. Application to Field Design For field application itis highly desirable to have a simple method of determining the minimum flow rate necessary to insure continuous liquid removal. Al- though the equations required to calculate this rate are not particularly complex, a side rule or logarithm. tables are necestaty. Tels worthwhile, therefore, 1 investigate methods of simplifying the equations. Since drop removal isthe limiting liquid removal mechanism, Bq. 6 for terminal drop velocity will be used for the field application. The grouping of pa- rameters is such that we can simplify the equation to a relationship suitable for graphical solution. Since the fourth root of the surface tension of low molecular weight hydrocarbons varies only slightly with changes in molecular weight and temperature, consolidation of the term into a constant for condeneates is indicated. For water, another constant may be used. (Values of 20 dynes/em for condensate and 60 dynes/em for water were chosen.) The liquid phase density for condensates will vary between 51.5 1h mass/cu ft (40° API) and 43.8 Ib mass/cu ft (70° APD. Therefore, the liquid phase density for conden- sates (the fourth root of which is also used) may be treated as a constant (45 Ib mass/cu {0 Water will stshave a relatively constant deny (67 tb mase/ox ‘This leaves two equations (one each for water and condensate) in which the terminal velocity is a func- tion of the gas phase density. Gas density is a function ‘of the pressure, temperature, and gas gravity. An in- vestigation of the relative impact of variations of these Parameters in ranges normally encountered in gas ‘wells shows that gas gravity and absolute temperature hhave les effect than do variations in pressure. Further simplification is possible by using an average value of gas gravity (0.6) and gas temperature (120°F). This, yields Eqs. 7 and 8, which are the gas velocity equa- tions for water and condensate, respectively. » = 5:62 667 = 0.00319)" (rates) = OOOSIB* nfconennt) = $2285 = 000010" gy ‘The interdependence of flow rate and pressure, due to reservoir deliverability, precludes having a direct ‘minimum flow rate calculation for a particular well. However, a minimum flow rate for a particular set of ‘conditions (pressure and conduit geometry) can be calculated using Eqs. 7 and 8 and Eq. 9. a OmMet/D) = 28PwA | Eqs. 7 through 9 allow the construction of a no- mograph for direct solution of these equations (Fig. 4). Fig. 4 allows consideration of all values in the foregoing equations except the gas deviation factor z ‘The nomograph is used by starting at the pressure ‘of interest, going vertical to the proper line, then horl- zontal to the edge of the grid. This is the minimum {gas velocity. From this point a line is drawn through the p/T line to the intermediate line, and from this line through the flow area line to the 2 line For accurate flow rates, the deviation factor for the existing conditions should be divided into the az term. ‘The sample problem shown in Fig. 4 was for a hypo- thetical well with a wellhead pressure of 1,150 producing through a 5¥4-in,, 15.5-Ib X 2%-in., 4.3- 1 casing-tubing annulus (0.11 sq ft) and a wellhead temperature of 140°F, producing salt water along with the gas. The grid portion of the nomograph shows a required minimum gas velocity of 8.2 ft/sec, and subsequent progression through the nomograph shows 8 az product of 5.4 MMct/D. For these conditions a deviation factor of approximately 0.88 would exist, and the resulting minimum required flow raté would be 6.15 MMct/D. Conclusion The minimum flow conditions necessary to remove liquids from gas wells are those that will provide a ‘gas velocity sufficient to remove the largest drops that ‘can exist. This velocity can be calculated using parti- le and drop break-up mechanics. The equation de- rived must be adjusted upward by approximately 20 percent to insure removal of all drops. The gas flow rate required to produce this velocity may be calcu- lasted and compared with existing conditivas to deter- ‘mine the adequacy or inadequacy of the particular flow test. The derived equations are not limited to tubing, but cam be used in annular and other flow geometries also, The gns:liquid ratio’ does not infu- ence the minimum lift velocity in the observed ranges of liquid production up to 130 bbI/MMcf, and the liquid may be water and/or condensate. If both liquids are present, the properties of the denser of the two should be used in the equation, since the higher density material will be the controlling factor. Nomenclature ‘A = flow area of conduit, saft A, = projected area, 2q ft Cy = drag coefficient diameter of conduit, ft d, = diameter of liquid drop, ft dq = maximum diameter of liquid drop, tt & = gravitational constant = 32.17 1b mass ft/lb force acct {8 = local acceleration of gravity, ft/sec? = constant = 0.36 ‘= film thickness, ft ‘my = mass of falling particle, Ib mass ‘Nas = Reynolds number = pd v/n Neo = Weber number = pv! d/o. = pressure, Ib force/sq in 4, = gas flow rate, MMef/D T = temperature, °R JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY¥ = velocity, ft/sec 4 terminal velocity offre falling particle, ft/sec tw = liqhid phase flow rate, Tb mass/see ‘Ya* = dimensionless distance parameter evaluated at center of conduit 23 deviation factor z (= = two-phase pressure drop, Ib force/ aren a tuft Hs = gus phase viscosity, Ib mass/tt see ‘ns = liquid phase viscosity, Ib mass/ft sec ‘g03 phase density, Ib macs/cu ft liquid phase density, Ib mass/cu ft density of particle, Ib mass/cu ft terfacial tension, dynes/em 1 = shear ses, Ib forc/s9 ft ro = shear stress atthe wall, 1b force /sq ft ry = shear stress at the gas/liquid inter- face, tb force/aq ft 60/22 o= References “Pagan 0 Eaimaing Flaw Rate Rec SEW Ceca Ba Fak te 2. Dole, Rs “Eid Macha and oat Trane in Sorel Bog is Ca. re dh tne, ari Maaing APE Mibsgdereue, NM, Mark 30. oe 4.010, Ww. Wind Sei, Bi “A Medleaton of yeaah four arc, Two-Phase Flow: the Dubler Analyais Br4035 Atemie Eoersy Royal Iishment, Harwell, England (13 NOVEMBER, 1969 6. Hinze, J.0.; “Fundamentals of the Hydrodynamic Mech- agin of Splitig in Duzerion Proce, AICHE Zour. 1. Hine, ‘Speeds of Liquid Globe ge dilid ene Rrtach (B08) As Nos nee ‘ing Corp., New York (1947) 3, 100. 1 Eee es cas ce crt Cn ren oo erin ffs roa Pou fe bron Fgh rea See en Sawa! Gee See eee Le ee or tetas, 2 leary Hens hb pa ee BS BS ae ea Ry Rk sees Mf Be mes pea Rer ore tas Taper, R.G.: “An of the Continuous Removal ae pps Rom a tt Yet Wes thats Tat Hens, APPENDIX Film Model Development ‘The co-current vertical upward flow of gas core- liquid film systems has been studied in several lab- ‘oratory investigations, and its theoretical understand- ing has advanced to & point where mathematical mod- cling is possible. The approach presented here it after ‘Hewitt? and his treatment of the Dukler* analysis. Tn an annular liquid film (thickness A) on the walls, of a vertical tube, the transport in the upward direc- tion is a result of the intertacial shear (r() of the mov- ng gas on the surtace of the quid (Fig. 5). This motion is resisted by the action of gravity and wall friotion. At any point y distance from the wall, there 5 watexists a velocity v and a shear stress +. The resisting shear stress at the wall is ro. A steady-state force balance shows that at any point y, Yee te a Ta Be In dimensionless form, Eq, A-1 becomes sitye , (acl) (a2) ye = 22206 (dimensionless distance ye parameter) “friction” velocity) y= % (dimensionless velocity * parameter) 1 tee (dimensionless film thickness) (A-3) ‘The velocity distribution ia the quid fl can then ‘he integrated to find the liquid-phase flow rate: mentite [rar . woe . Eqs. A-3 and A-4 may be used to evaluate the mini- mum gas flow rate required to move the film steadily upward. For this application it is necessary to estab- lish the relationship between the shear stresses and the gravitational forces ia the film at the minimum condition of upward flow. Since the interfacial shear G0 provides the motivating force for moving the file upward, and the gravitational shear stress, A pc 8/80, and the shear stress at the wall (,) are resisting move ‘meat, the minimum flow condition for film movement will be when the interfacial shear (r,) approaches the (4) un Fig. 5—Liquid flim movement. Yalue of the gravitaonal “shear” and the shear ses at the wall (r.) approaches zero. The ratio 4 0-8/8 = X approaches 1.0 (ie., the gravitational shear stress approaches the interfacial shear stress) at the limiting condition. For the purpose of analysis, X must bo, slightly less than 1 (Le., the interfacial shear must be slightly larger than the gravi- tational shear strees, and , must be greater than 2470). Tf it is assumed that X = 0.99 at the minimum gas flow rate condition, it is possible to evaluats the nec- ‘essary parameters to integrate Eqs. A-3 and A-4. The relationships utilized are =x. 1 ena bea where 4 fap ng, oe mame z 4p/ax — prlg/g.) = the two-phase pressure drop = Gp/asre"A toodlcation at the Martineli? fro- ‘phase pressure drop correlation is employed to evalu- ate the (4p/Ax)rr. ‘The calculation procedure to test the development against field data requires numerical integration and iteration. A computer program was wrilien to per form these calculations and the results are shown in ao JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY