Home Journals IJHT Critical liquid-carrying model for horizontal gas well

JOURNAL METRICS

Impact Factor (JCR) 2022: 0.9 ℹImpact Factor (JCR):

The JCR provides quantitative tools for ranking, evaluating, categorizing, and comparing journals. The impact factor is one of these; it is a measure of the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period. The annual JCR impact factor is a ratio between citations and recent citable items published. Thus, the impact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the number of current year citations to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years.

5-Year Impact Factor: 0.9 ℹ5-Year Impact Factor:

A 5-Year Impact Factor shows the long-term citation trend for a journal. This is calculated differently from the Journal Impact Factor, so it is not simply an average of the Impact Factors in the time period. The Impact Factor itself is based only on Web of Science Core Collection citation data from the last three years and thus reflects only recent impact. The Journal Impact Factor is the average number of times articles from the journal published in the past two years have been cited in the Journal Citation Reports year.

CiteScore 2022: 1.7 ℹCiteScore:

CiteScore is the number of citations received by a journal in one year to documents published in the three previous years, divided by the number of documents indexed in Scopus published in those same three years.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2022: 0.232 ℹSCImago Journal Rank (SJR):

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2022: 0.492 ℹSource Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP):

SNIP measures a source’s contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field. It helps you make a direct comparison of sources in different subject fields. SNIP takes into account characteristics of the source's subject field, which is the set of documents citing that source.

123.png

Critical liquid-carrying model for horizontal gas well

Oil & Gas Technology Research Institute of Changqing Oilfield Company, Xi’an 710000, China

Yangtze University, Wuhan 430100, China

Gas Lift Innovation Center, CNPC, Hubei 430100, China

Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming 650500, China

Corresponding Author Email:

liaoruiquan@163.com

Received:

5 March 2018

| |

Accepted:

7 July 2018

| | Citation

36.04_19.pdf

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract:

To identify the accurate gas volume to carry liquid in horizontal gas well, this paper simulates the gas-liquid two-phase flow in a single pipe on the platform of multiphase pipe flow. Through indoor experiments on gas-liquid two-phase flow, it is confirmed that the inclined section (inclined angle: 45°~ 60°) is mostly likely to suffer from liquid loading in horizontal gas well. Then, a new critical liquid-carrying model was built after fitting the liquid holdup calculation formula at different inclined angles, considering the actual liquid-carrying phenomenon. The proposed model was proved accurate enough for engineering application through verification by indoor experiments.

Keywords:

horizontal gas well, liquid carrying, gas flow, liquid loading

1. Introduction

2. Preparations

3. Critical Liquid-Carrying Model for Horizontal Gas Well

4. Conclusions

Acknowledgement

References

[1] Morgado AO, Miranda JM, Araújo JDP, Campos JBLM. (2016). Review on vertical gas-liquid slug flow. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 85: 348-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2016.07.002

[2] Li M, Guo P, Liu W, Zhang ML, Li SL. (2002). Comparative study of continuous-removal liquid models from gas well. Fault-Block Oil & Gas Field 9(6): 39-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-8907.2002.06.012

[3] Liu GF, He SL, Gu DH. (2006). New model of the critical liquid carrying flow rate for gas wells. Natural Gas Industry 26(10): 114-116.

[4] Wei N, Meng YF, Li YQ. (2008). Research on liquids continuous removal laws in gas well. Drilling & Production Technology 31(6): 88-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-768X.2008.06.028

[5] Nosseir MA, Darwich TA, Sayyouh MH. (2000). New approach for accurate prediction of loading in gas wells under different flowing conditions. SPE Production & Facilities 15(4): 241-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/66540-PA

[6] Li M, Sun L, Li S. (2001). New view on continuous-removal liquids from gas wells. SPE Production & Facilities 17(01): 42-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-0747.2001.05.031

[7] Ji HJ. (2008). Counter-current flow limitation velocity measured in annular narrow gaps formed between large diameter concentric pipes. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering 25(2): 209-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11814-008-0038-x

[8] Wallis GB, Hutchings BJ. (1983). Compressibility effects on waves in stratified two-phase flow. International Journal of Multiphase Flow (3): 325-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0301-9322(83)90110-6

[9] Wood BD, Radakovich K, Golfier F. (2007). Effective reaction at a fluid - solid interface: Applications to biotransformation in porous media. Advances in Water Resources 30(6): 1630-1647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2006.05.032

[10] Huang Z, Xiao ZJ, Yan X. (2017). Centrifugal force effect on film interfacial instability on the wall of cyclone separator. Nuclear Science and Engineering 37(5): 761-767.

[11] Wang Q. (2014). Experimental study on gas-liquid flowing in the wellbore of horizontal well. Chengdu: Southwest Petroleum University.

[12] Ahmadi MA, Galedarzadeh M, Shadizadeh SR. (2016). Low parameter model to monitor bottom hole pressure in vertical multiphase flow in oil production wells. Petroleum 2(3): 258-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petlm.2015.08.001

[13] Xue JL, Luo W, Liu ZL, Wu ZH, Wang JL, Liao RQ. (2018). A criterion of negative frictional pressure drop in vertical two- phase flow. Chemical Engineering Transactions 66: 415-420. http://dx.doi.org/10.3303/CET1866070

[14] Fabre J, Line A. (2003). Modeling of two-phase slug flow. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 24(1): 21-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fl.24.010192.000321

[15] Alves I. (1991). Slug Flow Phenomena In Inclined Pipes. Oklahoma: University of Tulsa.

[16] Morgado AO, Miranda JM, Araújo JDP. (2016). Review on vertical gas–liquid slug flow. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 85: 348-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2016.07.002

[17] Chokshi R. (1994). Prediction of pressure drop and liquid holdup in vertical two-phase flow tubing. University of Tulsa: Master Dissertation: 41-6.

[18] Kaya AS, Sarica C, Brill JP. (2001). Mechanistic modeling of two-phase flow in deviated wells. SPE Production & Facilities 16(3): 156-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/72998-PA

IJHT
MMEP
ACSM
EJEE
ISI
I2M
JESA
RCMA
RIA
TS
IJSDP
IJSSE
IJDNE
JNMES
IJES
EESRJ
RCES
AMA_A
AMA_B
AMA_C
AMA_D
MMC_A
MMC_B
MMC_C
MMC_D

Username
Password
Remember me

Search form

Critical liquid-carrying model for horizontal gas well