SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 17306

Modification of the Cullender and Smith Equation for More

Accurate Bottomhole Pressure Calculations in Gas Wells
by R.D. Oden and J.W. Jennings, Texas A&M U.
SPE Members

Copyright 1988, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference held in Midland, Texas, March 10-11, 1988.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the
author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT
concluded that a more practical approach is that
The modification nf the Cullender and Smith of Cullender and Smith 2 , which treats the ·gas
equation presented here consists primarily of compressibility factor as a function of depth.
adding a gas-water ratio term, and a friction However, the Cullender and Smith method was
factor term as given by the explicit Jain-Swamee developed for dry gas wells in rough-turbulent
correlation. The results of this study show a flow with a absolute roughness of 0.0006 inches.
reduction in the average error in predicting
bottom-hole pressure of 3.4 percent for the Peffer, Miller, and Hill 3 used a variation of
flowing cases and 1.9 percent for the static case the Cullender and Smith method to calculate
when the modif1ed Cullender and Smith equation was bottom-hole pressure. They modified the gas
used instead of the or1g1nal Cullender and Smtth gravity correlat,ion to take into account
equation. condensate and/or water production, and used the
This study resulted in two major conclusions. Nikuradse friction factor correlation for rough-
First, modificat1on of the Cullender and Smith turbulent flow.
equation produces a more accurate method of The purpose of this study is to modify the
calculating static and flowing bottom-hole Cullender and Smith equation to account for wate~
pressures. Second, using an apparent roughness of production and employ a friction factor
0.0023 inches instead of an absolute roughness of correlation to take into account smooth-turbulent
0.0006 inches will further reduce the RMS error and rough-turbulent flow at any absolute
for the flowing case. roughness.
The data on 78 wells obtained from the
INTRODUCTION Peffer, Miller, and Hills' paper is reported in
Table 1. Unfortunately, information on hydrogen
In order to estimate the absolute open flow sulfide, carbon-dioxide, and nitrogen
potential of a gas well. it is necessary to concentrations were not provided for wells 29
determine the static and flowing bottom-hole through 78.
pressures. This is done either by actual
measurement with a bottom-hole pressure gauge. or Determination of the Modified Cullender and Smith
by calculation us1ng wellhead pressure Flowing Bottom-Hole Pressure Equation
measurements. This paper is only concerned w1th
the calculation of bottom-hole pressure from The modification of the Cullender and Smith
wellhead measurements. equation to take into account condensate and/or
Currently, the Texas Railroad Commiss1on water production stems from the fundamental
recommends calculating bottom-hole pressure by the
average temperature and compressibility meth~d. mechanical energy equation. 4 This energy balance
However, as the name implies, this method assumes can be expressed for steady-state flow as shown in
Eq. 1.
a constant gas compressibility factor determined
from an assumed average temperature and pressure
for t~e entire flow column. Although these u du .a...._H 2fu2
assumptions are fairly accurate in shallow wells, 144 v dp +
2 gc + [ L + D ] d1 + w=0
gc gc
this procedure results in more error as depth, ........................ ·......... ( 1)
temperature, and pressure increase. Aziz 1
311
 MODIFICATION OF THE CULLENDER AND SMITH EQUATION FOR MORE
2 ACCURATE BOTTOM-HOLE PRESSURE CALCULATIONS IN GAS WELLS SPE 17306
zero, there are no friction effects and the energy
Young 5 concluded that the change in kinetic energy balance becomes
may be ignored when the depth is greater than 4000
ft or the wellhead flowing pressure is above 500 144 v dp + HIL dl = 0 .................... (6)
psia. All of the wells studied in Table 1 had
wel 1 depths greater than 4000 ft and wellhead Eq. 6 can then be simplified to the Cullender and
flowing pressure greater than 500 psia. Smith static bottom-hole pressure equation.
Therefore, the kinetic energy term was neglecting
from the energy balance. Assuming that no p1
mechanical work is done on or by the gas, the ~ J ~z ~ dp ..................... ( 7)
energy balance for the calculation of bottom-hole 53.34
pressure may be written as p2

,g_H 2fu 2 If there is water suspended in the gas

column, the static bottom-hole pressure equation
144 v dp + [ L + -0 - ] d 1 = 0 .......... ( 2)
gc gc can also be modified to include a gas-water ratio
(see Appendix B). The following equation shows
This energy balance is used in the estimation the modification and is used in the calculation of
of flowing bottom-hole· pressure which involves static bottom-hole pressure.
calculating the hydrostatic head in the wellbore,
and the energy losses due to friction. Upon y p1
integration, Eq. 2 can be simplified to the
Cullender and Smith flowing bottom-hole pressure [s;~~ 4 + a~.21JL = 1 [~z + 1~9.3] ~ dp .(a)
equation. w p2 . w

p1 Determination of a Friction Factor Correlation

1000 '>'miX L PITZ dp ( 3)
53.34 1 2 2 The flow of natural gas through tubing always
P2 2.6665 f a + (PITZ) H results in some mechanical energy losses. These
d5 1000 L energy losses are caused primarily by friction
losses which are related to pipe roughness and to
To determine the specific gravity of the viscosity effects. 4 Since friction losses for
condensate-gas mixture term, a correlation which production strings cannot be measured directly, it
follows the relationship developed by Razasa and is necessary to use a correlation to calculate a
Katz 6 was used. friction factor. This friction factor is a
function of pipe roughness and Reynolds number.
y + 4584 y I R
Pipe roughness is usually described in terms of
0 0 relative roughness (81d) where "8" is the absolute
'>'mix= 1 + 132800 y I R Mo ....... .".·· ... ( 4 ) roughness in inches, and "d" is the internal pipe
0
This specific gravity is then used to determine diameter in inches.
the pseudo-critical properties for the calculation The Colebrook-White 8 correlation is used as
of compressibility factors. The pseudo-critical the basis for modern friction factor charts. It
properties were calculated by Sutton•s 7 pseudo- is a function of Reynolds number and relative
critical gas gravity relationship, which was roughness.
developed by a nonlinear regression method.
5
If there is water production, the flowing 11f" 2.28- 4 log[~+ ~ ] ....... (9) 5
bottom-hole pressure equation can be modified to Re f"
include a gas-water ratio (see Appendix A). The
following ~quation shows·this modification and is where
used in the calculation of flowing bottom-hole
pressure.
Re-- 20011 'd>'g g
........................ (10)
1-Lg
'>'mix 86.27] L
[ 53.34 + Rw
The major weakness in this correlation is that
2 friction factors must be found by an iterative
p1 199.3 [L] L procedure. An explicit correlation for friction
Rw TZ + TZ
factor, which is also an accurate mathematical
J 2 dp .... ( 5) approximation of the Colebrook-White correlation,
p2 2666.5 f a [L]2 H
d5 + TZ L was developed by Jain and Swamee. 9 It is also a
function of both Reynolds number and relative
Determination of the Modified Cullender and Smith roughness.
Static Bottom-Hole Pressure Equation
11f · 5 = 2.28 - 4 log [ d
8
+
21 25
Re"· 9 ] ...... . (11)
The estimation of static bottom-hole pressure
involves calculating the hydrostatic head in the
wel lbore. Since the velocity of the fluid is Fig. 1 shows a plot of the Colebrook-White

312
SPE 17306 RONALD D. ODEN AND JAMES W. JENNINGS 3

and Jai~-Swamee correlations for varying Reynolds modification of the Cullender and Smith equation
numbers and relative roughness. Note the to account for water production and an improved
similarity in the two curves from smooth-turbulent treatment of the friction loss term.
to rough-turbulent flow. Equally important is The percent error in the .calculation of
Fig. 2 which shows the root-mean-square (RMS) flowing bottom-hole pressure is shown in Table 2
error of the Jain-Swamee correlation as compared and Fig. 4. The average percent error for the
to the Colebrook-White cQrrelation for each modified and original Cullender and Smith equation
relative roughnes£ curve, RMS error is defined as was calculated to be -2.5 and -5.9 percent,
respectively. Therefore, the modified Cullender
2 and Smith equation reduces the average percent
RMS error= [E% ~rror ]0.5 ............ (12) error by 3.4 percent. The frequency distribution
for the flowing case is shown in Fig. 5. This
and percent error is defined as figure shows that the percent error ranged between
-30 to 9 percent; however, 94 percent of the
p - p error ranged from -16 to 5 percent.
% error ~
calp meas X 100 ........... (13) The static bottom-hole calculation was
me as performed on wells 29 through 78, since wells 1
through 28 did not have information on static
The largest RMS error is only 1.23 percent at a conditions. The percent error in the calculation
relative roughness of 0.01. The percent error for of static bottom-hole pressure is shown in Table 3
the relative roughness curves ranged from 1 to -1 and Fig. 6. The average percent error for the
percent which was what Jain and Swamee reported. modified and original Cullender and Smith equation
Therefore, the Jain-Swamee correlation can be used was calculated to be -1.7 and -3.6 percent,
in the calculation of flowing bottom-hole respectively. Therefore, the modified Cullender
pressure. and Smith equation reduces the average percent
error by 1.9 percent. The static case truly
Determination of Viscosity and Absolute Roughness indicates how much the gas-water ratio term can
reduce the error in calculating bottom-hole
pressure. Since the friction term 'is zero, the
In order-to use the Jain:Swamee correlation, only difference between the modified and original
two additional unknowns must be determined: gas Cul lender and Smith equation is the gasrwater
viscosity and absolute roughness. ratio term. The frequency distribution of the
The viscosity of gas in a flowing well varies static case is shown in Fig. 7. This figure shows
within the wellbore due to changes in pressure and that the percent error ranged from -20 to 7
temperature; consequently, the Reynolds number percent; however, 92 percent of the error ranged
also v~ries. Since this variation is small in from -10 to 5 percent. ·
most gas wells, both the Reynolds number and gas Fig. 8 shows the RMS error for the
viscosity can be assumed constant. 10 Only small calculation of static and flowing bottom-hole
variations in gas viscosity and Reynolds number pressures. This figure shows that the modified
were noted in the wells studied, so gas viscosity Cullender and Smith equation reduced the RMS error
was assumed constant for each well condition. In by 4.8 percent for the flowing case and 3.4
this study gas viscosity was calculated using the percent for the static case.
Carr, Kobayashi, and Burrows 11 method with the CONCLUSIONS
Dempsey 12 relationship for the~ /~ 1 ratio.
. g The following conclusions are based on the
Absolute roughness is the distance from the result of this study:
peaks to the valleys in a pipe wall measured in
inches, this distance is in the order of 0.0006 or 1. Mod i f i c a t i o n of t h e Cu 1 1e n d e r a· n d Smi t h
0.00065 inches. 2 •4 • 10 By substituting an apparent equation produces a more accurate method of
roughness term for the absolute roughness, the calculating static and flowing bottom-hole
accuracy of the correlations may be improved. The pressures.
optimum apparent roughness can be determined by
minimizing the RMS error. Since it provides an 2. The addition of ~ gas-water rati~· term into
indication of the variability between calculated the Cullender and Smith equation reduces the
and measured bottom-hole pressures, a small value error in calculating bottom-hole pressure.
for RMS error indicates little dispersion and a
large value indicates greater dispersion. 3. Using an apparent roughness of 0.0023 inches
Therefore, the smallest RMS error would yield the instead of an absolute roughness of 0.0006
optimum apparent roughness. Fig. 3 shows RMS inches will further reduce the error for the
error as a function of apparent roughness. For flowing case.
the 78 wells studied in this paper, the RMS error
for the flowing case wa~ reduced by 0.41 percent APPENDIX A
when an apparent roughness of 0.0023 inches was
used. DERIVATION OF THE MODIFIED CULLENDER AND SMITH
FLOWING BOTTOM-HOLE PRESSURE EQUATION
RESULTS
The major results of this study was the

313
 MODIFICATION OF THE CULLENDER AND SMITH EQUATION FOR MORE
4 ACCURATE BOTTOM-HOLE PRESSURE CALCULATIONS IN GAS WELLS . SPE 17306

Miller 13 proposed that in gas wells with 10632/Rw + 53.34 Z T/P

water production, the Cullender and Smith·equation [ Yg + 4601.8/Rw ] dp +
can be modified to included a gas-water ratio
term. For this derivation it is necessary to make
two assumptions: first, the water droplets are [H/L + 0.0107f/D 5(TZ/P) 2q2] dl = O.. (A-10)
suspended in the gas column and, second the
volumes are additive. Separating variables and simplifying, Eq. A-
10 becomes
The volume of one standard cubic feet of gas
is 199.3/Rw(P/TZ) 2 + P/ZT
[ ] dp =
H/l(P/TZ) 2 + 0.0107f/D 5q2

The volume of one barrel of water, assuming [yg/53.34 + 86.27/Rw] dl ........... (A-11)
it is incompressible is
Changing the internal diameter unit from feet
to inches and integrating the right hand side from
Vw = 5.615/Rw' ft 3/scfg ............... (A-2) 0 to L, Eq. A-ll becomes the modified flowing
bottom-hole pressure equation.
The weight of one standard cubic feet of gas
is [yg/53.34 + 86.27/Rw] l =

Wg = Yg Ma/Vmsc' lbm/scfg ............. (A-3)

199.3/Rw(P/TZ) 2 + P/ZT
JP~ dp ... (A-12)
The weight of one barrel of water is p H/L(P/TZ) 2 + 2666.5fq 2/d 5
Ww = 350/Rw, lbm/scfg ................. (A-4) APPENDIX B
Combining A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 the specific DERIVATION OF THE MODIFIED CULLENDER AND SMITH
volume of the mixture becomes STATIC BOTTOM-HOLE PRESSURE EQUATION
(Psc T Z)/(T 5 c P) + 5.615/Rw
[ y M /V + 350/R ], The ~erivation of the static bottom-hole
g a msc w pressure equation with a gas-water ratio term
ft 3 /lbm ........................ (A-5) involves substituting Eq. A-6 into the energy
balance Eq. 2. Since the friction term is zero
the energy balance reduces to
Substitute values for Psc' Tsc' Ma' and Vmsc'
the specific volume of the mixture is 144 vmix dp + H/l dl = 0 .............. (B-1)
73.83/Rw + 0.3704 Z T/P ft 3/lbm or
vmix = [ yg + 4601 • 8/R w ],
dp =- (H dl)/(144 l vmix) ............ (B-2)
· · · · ••...•...................•... (A-6)

Recalling the energy balance, substitute Eq. A-6 into Eq. B-2

2 =1_ y
0
+ 4601.8/Rw H
144 vmix dp + [H/L + 2fu /gcD] dl 0 .. (A-7) dp = 144 [73.83/R + 0.3704 Z T/P] ldl .(B- 3)
w
and substituting Eq. A-6 into A-7.
Separate variables and simplify, Eq. B-3
10632/Rw + 53.34 Z T/P becomes
[ Yg + 4601.8/Rw ] dp +
-1/53.34 [yg + 4601.8/Rw] dl =

[H/L + 2fu 2/gcD] dl = 0 ............ (A-8) [ZT/P + 199.3/Rw] l/H dp ............. (B-4)

Substitute the average linear velocity Integrating the left hand side from 0 to l
and leaving the right hand side in integral form,
Eq. B-4 becomes the modified static bottom-hole
u = 0.4152 T Z q/P D2 ................. (A-9) pressure equation.
into Eq. A-8

314
SPE 17306 RONALD D. ODEN AND JAMES W. J£NNINGS 5

1:~ [Zt/P + 199.3/Rw] L/H dp ........ (B-5) 3. Peffer, J.W., Miller, M.A., and Hill, A.D.:
''An Improved Method for Calculating Bottom-
Hole Pressure in Gas Wells with Liquid
NOMENCLATURE Present," paper SPE 15655 presented at the
1986 61st Annual Technical Conference and
D internal pipe diameter, ft Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
d internal p1pe diameter, in. Engineers. New Orleans, October 5-8.
f Fanning friction factor, dimensionless
4. Ikoku, c.u. ~ ~i1Yril-~Al_fr2dY~ii2n
g acceleration due to gravity, ft/sec 2 £ngin~~ring_, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
2 1984.
gc 32.17, conversion factor, lbm-ft/lbf-sec
H vertical distance, ft 5. Young, K.L.: "Effect of Assumptions Used to
L length of flow string, ft (for a vertical Calculate Bottom-Hole Pressure in Gas Wells,"
flow sting L=H) J. of Petroleum Tech., April 1967, pp. 547-
. Ma 28.97, molecular weight of air, lbm/lb-mole 550.
M ~molecular weight of oil, lbm/lb-mole
0 6. Razasa, M.J., and Katz, D.L.: "Calculation of
P pressure, psia Static Pressure Gradients in Gas Wells,"
Psc 14.65, pressure at standard conditions, Trans., AIME, vol. 160, 1945, p. 100.
psi a
q = total gas flow rate, mmcf/D 7. Sutton, R.P.: "Compressibility Factors for
R surface producing gas-oil ratio, scf/STB High-Molecular-Weight Reservoir Gases," paper
Rw surface producing gas-water ratio, scf/STB SPE 14265 presented at 1985 61st Annual
Re Reynolds number, dimensionless Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
T = temperature, 0 R Society of Petroleum Engineers. Las Vegas,
520, temperature at standard conditions, 0 R September 22-25.
Tsc
u average linear velocity of the fluid, 8. Colebrook, C.F.: "Turbulent Flow in Pipes
ftl sec with practical reference to the Transition
= 380.9, volume of one pound-mole of gas at Region between Smooth and Rough Pipe Laws,"
standard conditions, scf/lb-mole J. of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol.
w 0, mechanical work done on or by the gas 11, 1938-1939, pp. 133-156.
z gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
9. Jain, A.K., Swamee, P.K.: "Explicit Equations
for Pip~-Flow Problems," J. Hydraulics
Division, ASCE, 1976, vol. 102, p. 657.
.,
8
specific gravity
absolute roughness, in. 10. Smith, R.V., Dewees, E.J., Williams, R.H.:
p = viscosity, cp "Measurement of Resistance to Flow of Fluids
in Natural Gas Wells," Trans., AIME, 1954,
v specific volume of fluid, ft 3/lbm vol. 201, p. 279.
Subscrjpts 11. Carr, N. L., Kobayashi, R., and Burrows D. B. :
"Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Gases' Under
g = gas Pressure," Trans., AIME,-1953 vol. 207 p
281. ' ' .
m = mass
mix = mixture
o = oi 1 12. Dempsey, J.R.: "Computer Routine Treats Gas
w = water Viscosity as a Variable," Oil and Gas J.
August 16, 1965, p. 141.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
13. Miller, M.A.: Personal Communication.
The authors thank the Hugh~s T.ool
Professorship and the Texas Petroleum Research
Commission for funding of this research. SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

REFERENCES
1. Aziz, K.: "Way to Calculate Gas Flow and bbl X 1.589 873 E-01 = mJ
Static Head," Petroleum Engineer, Series from cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pa.s
November 1960 to September 1963. ft 3 x 2.831 685 E-02 = mJ
°F (°F-32)/1.8 = oc
ft X 3.048* . E-01 =m
2. Cullender, M.H., Smith, R.Y.: ''Practical in. x 2.54* E+OO = em
Solution of &as-Flow Equations for Wells and lbf X 4.448 222 E+OO = N
PfpeHnes ·with Large Temperature Gradients," lbm x 4.535 924 E-01 = kg
Trans., AIME, 1956, vol. 207, p. 281. psi x 6.894 757 E+OO = kPa
0R 0 R/1.8
=K
* Conversion factor is exact.

315
 TABLE 1

WELL DATA
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)

WELL TUBING TEMPERATURE WELL TUBING TEMPERATURE

WELL GAS OIL WATER GOR GAS OIL H2S C02 N2 DEPTH I. D. DEGREES F WELL GAS OIL WATER GOR GAS OIL H2S C02 N2 DEPTH I. D. DEGREES F
NO. MMscf /D STB/D STB/D scf /STB SG. SG. % % % ft in. BOT TOP NO. MMscf/D STB/D STB/D scf/STB SG. SG. % % % ft in. BOT TOP
~I ELQ

1 10.1 775 9.9 13100 .800 .931 17.06 3. 20 1.92 10471 2.441 242 - 146 40 2.38 213 42 11174 .655 . 752 - - - 9858 1.995 239 74 115
2 10.0 200 0.0 50300 . 713 .647 0.66 4. 72 0.42 8930 2.992 196 - 119 41 0. 77 66 0 11733 .656 .808 - - - 13055 1.995 278 74 90
3 27.4 390 18.3 70300 .671 .690 0.00 1.37 0.26 8914 2.992 194 - 145 42 0.57 48 0 11867 .694 . 768 - - - 11322 1.995 255 74 90
4 10.0 141 11.4 70900 .649 .667 1.26 4.14 0.17 9959 2.441 212 - 121 43 0.68 52 17 13041 .645 . 768 - - - 10607 1.995 254 74 95
5 8.88 118 2.2 75400 .721 .775 12.31 4.85 3. 51 7725 2.441 182 - 172 44 2.59 196 5 13180 .653 . 765 - - - 8850 2.441 215 74 105
6 10.1 134 0.0 75700 . 736 .815 10.00 6.20 4.44 7983 2.441 182 - 100 45 6.43 487 8 13209 .680 . 777 - - - 13150 1.995 295 75 90
7 15.2 13B 14.9 110000 .661 . 759 1.15 4.03 0.16 9330 2.992 19B - 125 46 1. 78 130 0 13663 .645 .772 - - - 10355 1.995 239 74 100
8 2.25 176 0.0 128000 .699 .645 0.57 4.85 0.44 8755 3.960 190 - 105 47 4.66 324 0 1437B .681 .770 - - - 10743 1.995 251 74 100
9 15.0 105 0.0 143000 .689 .662 0.67 4.85 0.43 8777 3.960 180 94 4B 7.80 538 13 14579 . 671 .771 - - 12944 2.441 300 72 94
10 20.3 140 54.0 145000 . 651 .718 1.91 3.5B 0.13 9421 2.992 273 - 154 49 0.59 38 6 15505 .640 . 759 - - - 11462 1.995 259 74 80

11 17.9 64 0.0 2B1000 .690 .695 0.66 5.43 0.43 8930 2.992 lBO - 100 50 1.64 104 0 15799 .664 . 764 - - - 10B85 1.995 253 81 91
-12 11.7 17 0.0 701000 . 766 .620 0. 74 4.47 0 .3B 8734 2.992 168 - 104 51 0. 61 3B 10 15831 .636 . 727 - - - 9559 1.995 239 74 B5
13 12.4 .11 0.0 1170000 .688 .712 0. 57 4.B6 0.45 BB50 3.960 189 - 92 52 2.BO 170 0 16440 .640 . 766 - - - 9974 1. 995 . 238 74 100
14 16:3 1300 22.3 12500 .830 .663 18.52 3.80 l.B9 10948 2.992 235 - 149 53 1.06 59 0 1B075 .640 .807 - - - 13037 1.610 2B6 76 86
15 13.6. . 736 B.l 18500 .710 .774 0.53 4.89 0.44 B788 2.441 240 - 126 54 4.24 212 15 20000 .654 . 799 - - 1346B 1.995 294 76 92
16 B.03 236 15.1 34100 . 700 .803 3.30 1.90 1.83 9311 2.992 169 97 55 2.05 95 0 21566 . 700 . 751 - - - 9643 1. 751 275 74 80
17 9. 79 270 12.2 36300 .718 .672 0.54 4.43 0.55 B423 2.441 184 - 106 56 4.51 209 0 21609 .666 . 772 - - - 11032 1.995 276 70 90
18 5.·48 100 0.1 54800 .720 . 76B 5.16 1.97 2. 23 9313 2.441 171 - 96 57 2.53 95 0 26717 .635 . 767 - - - 7552 2.441 192 74 100
~ 19 10.6 1B7 3.1 56600 . i17 .657 0.10 5.44 0. 71 B'236 1. 995 1B4 - 99 58 1.35 48 139 27104 .642 . 793 - - - 11990 1.995 263 B8 108
0'1 20 5.00 84 0.0 59200 . 731 . 794 11.32 5.24 4.24 79B9 2.441 182 - 97 59 1.43 45 0 31609 .646 . 74B - - - 7237 1.995 219 74 100

21 5.B9 97 66.5 60700 . 724 .713 9.26 5.53 4.36 7875 2.441 lBO - 110 60 7.18 211 0 34005 .602 .816 - - - 11654 1.995 250 74 80
22 7.33 102 49.5 72200 . 758 . 730 12.21 7.10 4.45 8025 2.441 180 - 110 61 3. 77 107 0 35136 .657 .770 - - 12024 1.995 282 88 90
23 11.3 131 17.5 B6500 .6B8 . 724 0.41 4. 72 0.41 B309 2.992 176 - 113 62 2. 77 59 1 38540 .675 . 755 - - - 8126 1.995 240 74 95
24 2.47 26 1.5 94700 .643 . 750 0.55 3.B4 O.lB 955B 2.441 194 - 73 63 2.BO 72 150 38654 .643 . 794 - - - 12330 1.995 271 75 BO
25 6.19 57 7.1 109000 .666 .}93 1.45 3.9B 0.22 9915 2.992 196 - lOB 64 5.30 14 102 3B700 .614 .776 - - - 7676 1.995 224 74 95
26 7. 70 67 0.0 115000 .647 . 739 1. 57 3.66 0.31 9733 2.441 200 - 99 65 5.46 132 117 41511 .619 . 767 - - - 12150 1. 995 275 100 125
27 20.1 136 20.7 147000 .672 .682 1. 92 4.31 0.15 9658 2.992 220 - 121 66 1.26 24 4 52504 .659 . 789 - - - 10279 1.995 264 74 69
2B 7.87 34 B.3 234000 .697 . 737 1. Bl 4.12 0.15 10014 2.441 208 - 122 67 2.33 40 4 57417 .601 .BlO - - - 12970 1.995 275 89 100
29 2.43 469 0.0 5180 . 8B4 -. 741 - - 12444 2.441 295 85 140 68 3.21 56 0 57427 .610 .B04 - - - 10676 1. 995 288 74 100
69 3. 70 54 25 68424 .620 . BOl - - - 10790 1.995 250 85 90
30 2.34 410 750 5720 . 762 .BOO - - - 11B24 1.995 2BO 74 1B4
31 4.68 76B 10 6094 .B70 . 742 ... - - 117B7 2.992 289 32 116 70 4.48 55 0 B1474 .673 . 793 - - - 10314 1.995 271 71 74
32 0. 53 74 64 7137 .65B . 784 - - B579 1.995 22B BO 94 71 4.94 58 15 B4950 .662 . 761 - - - 11351 2.441 2B3 90 98
33 1.05 129 0 8122 . 719 . 758 - - 11000 1.995 270 45 67 72 2. 91 16 0 lBOOOO .593 .809 - - 9160 2.441 246 74 95
34 6.58 753 8 8745 . 722 . 781 - - - 14742 2.441 322 85 145 73 1.55 16 11 332618 .604 . 780 - - - 9220 2.441 255 74 115
?5 0.89 99 45 8991 .690 .77B - - - 1231B 2.441 260 74 80 "14 24.9 32 0 780000 .631 .Bl2 - - - 15676 2.992 300 100 174
:5 2.6B 275 6 9740 .645 . 764 - - 10224 1.995 237 74 120 75 3.81 0 72 DRY .635 0 - - - 16711 2.992 320 75 100
37 5.0B 520 0 9779 .680 . 766 - - - 11040 1.995 260 74 120 76 2.03 0 0 DRY .623 0 - - - 11045 1.995 293 74 80
38 1. B5 1BB 2000 9835 .696 . 784 - - - 11719 1. 995 260 136 188 77 0.46 0 52 DRY .690 0 - - - 9120 2.441 243 74 90
39 1.57 158 105 9921 .659 .771 - - BBB2 1.995 225 74 80 78 19.6 0 0 DRY .595 0 - - - 21453 3.958 322 78 115 'eft
~
....
~
~
0
0'
 TABLE 2

ERROR IN THE MODIFIED AND ORIGINAL CULLENDER AND SMITH

EQUATION FOR THE FLOWING CASE TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)

SURFACE MEASURED MOD. C&S ORIG. C&S SURFACE MEASURED MOD. C&S ORIG. C&S
WELL PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE % PRESSURE % WELL PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE % PRESSURE %
NO. esiA PSI A PSIA ERBOB PSI8 ERBQB NO. PSIA eSI8 PSl8 EBB OR PSI8 ERBQR

1 2685 4579 4598.4 0.423 4436.8 -3.106 40 5100 6667 6669.4 0.037 6562.4 -1.569
2 2082 2937 2827.7 -3.721 2786. L -5.139 41 4090 5889 5888.0 -0.016 5885.3 0.064
3 2672 4087 4168.8 2.002 3958.7 -3.140 42 3595 5000 5102.3 2.046 5100.9 2.012
4 2120 3100 3147.0 1.518 3025.0 -2.421 43 4672 6360 6250.1 -1.727 6113.9 -3.869
5 1717 2445 2489.0 1.803 2389.7 -2.261 44 3590 4835 4709.1 -2.602 4693.9 -2.917
6 1785 2683 2712.9 1.117 2601.2 -3.051 45 5765 8373 8262.8 -1.315 8114.0 -3.093
7 2815 3713 3780.6 1.822 3706.5 -0.174 46 5335 6771 6839.5 1.011 6830.8 0.883
8 1990 2993 2686.6 -10.234 2641.9 -11.728 47 6505 8311 8372.6 0. 741 8317.1 0.074
9 2239 3053 2966.2 -2.842 2950.1 -3.370 48 7082 9457 9324.7 -1.398 9248.6 -2.204
10 2120 3202 3237.5 1.111 3063.7 -4.318 49 1397 2371 2037.9 -14.046 1998.1 -15.727
11 1990 2930 2960.8 1.053 2850.9 -2.699 50 2907 4210 4076.8 -3.163 4066.3 -3.414
12 1879 2806 2665.2 -5.017 2610.5 -6.968 51 2769 3820 3753.9 -1.729 3678.3 -3.710
13 2347 3013 2992.0 -0.696 2980.3 -1.086 52 6042 7544 7523.3 -0.274 7505.5 -0.511
14 2147 4066 3855.2 -5.182 3672.3 -9.684 53 7538 9591 9544.9 -0.479 9534.8 -0.586
15 1716 3309 3305.1 -0.117 3061.5 -7.480 54 5091 7242 7076.4 -2.285 6989.7 -3.484
16 2218 3186 3088.7 -3.052 3054.8 -4.119 55 4931 6253 6270.8 0.284 6250.3 -0.043
17 2040 2968 3046.2 2.635 2937.5 -1.028 56 2820 4089 4115.7 0.653 4042.5 -1.138
18 1812 2614 2568.0 -1.759 2526.8 -3.336 57 4565 5567 5476.6 -1.623 5472.8 -1.692
19 1423 2969 3235.4 8. 973 2926.2 -1.443 58 1700 3977 2798.5 -29.632 2364.1 -40.556
~ 20 1769 2354 2368.6 0.624 2336.7 -0.736 59 2429 3033 2974.6 -1.922 2969.2 -2.104
...... 21 1914 2525 2590.8 2.609 2511.2 -0.547 60 6330 8221 8190.4 -0.371 8089.5 -1.599
22 1822 2524 2596.9 2.889 2505.3 -0.740 61 6125 8397 7793.9 -7.181 7760.2 -7.584
23 1563 2166 2186.3 0.937 2122.2 -2.021 62 2655 3420 3382.3 -1.100 3360.4 -1.742
24 2151 2788 2778.3 -0.345 2768.8 -0.690 63 7325 9524 9462.9 -0.641 9061.4 -4.857
25 1336 1781 1808.5 1.548 1778.7 -0.130 64 2400 4208 3442.4 -18.193 2910.4 -30.836
26 941 1865 1698.7 -8.916 1578.5 -15.360 65 5523 7149 7306.3 2.201 7065.0 -1.175
27 1303 2585 2513.2 -2.774 2312.0 -10.562 66 1695 2207 2258.6 2.341 2238.8 1.440
28 1433 2182 2258.4 3.503 2149.7 -1.481 67 6830 8581 8445.3 -1.581 8418.8 -1.890
29 2783 5247 4854.2 -7.485 4837.1 -7.812 68 5342 6588 6548.8 -0.594 6527.7 -0.916
30 4867 8473 8147.4 -3.842 7033.8 -16.986 69 7305 8836 8813.3 -0.256 8741.0 -1.075
31 2206 4320 3989.5 -7.649 3958.7 -8.363 70 5067 6440 6403.6 -0.564 6363.1 -1.194
32 4335 6441 6128.2 -4.856 5722.3 -11.158 71 3175 4571 4212.7 -7.836 4168.3 -8.810
33 2300 4101 3709.9 -9.536 3703.5 -9.693 72 2256 2785 2760.9 -0.862 2751.8 -1.190
34 7325 10090 10147.9 0.574 10068.6 -0.212 73 1920 2603 2342.7 -9.997 2318.2 -10.940
35 806 1771 1444.8 -18.417 1299.9 -26.603 74 9438 11890 11985.6 0.804 11832.5 -0.483
36 6070 8175 7767.0 -4.990 7733.9 -5.396 75 6970 10006 9107.2 -8.982 8901.9 -11.034
37 6562 8607 8666.1 0.687 8586.3 -0.240 76 3550 4350 4439.1 2.049 4428.3 1. 799
38 1140 4311 4361.5 1.173 1802.8 -58.181 77 865 1587 1237.1 -22.042 1068.1 -32.698
39 4117 5771 5708.4 -1.084 5427.7 -5.949 78 6368 8697 8718.8 0.251 8684.3 -0.146
--- --
AVERAGE ERROR
RMS ERROR
-2.5%
6.5%
-5.9%
11.3% en
-o
rn
,_.
"'
\.Ill
0
0'
 TABLE 3

ERROR IN THE MODIFIED AND ORIGINAL CULLENDER AND SMITH TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
EQUATION FOR THE STATIC CASES

SURFACE MEASURED MOD. C&S ORIG. C&S SURFACE MEASURED MOD. C&S ORIG. C&S
WELL PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE X PRESSURE X WELL PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE l PRESSURE X
NO PSIA PSIA PSIA ERROR PSIA ERROR NO. PSIA PSI A PSIA ERROR PSIA ERROR

29 3385 5998 5620.1 -6.298 5620.2 -6.298 70 6228 7653 7533.2 -1.565 7533.2 -1.565
30 5550 9288 8864.6 -4.557 7852.4 -15.457 71 4890 6016 6135.5 1.987 6115.8 1.660
31 3450 5939 5587.3 -5.921 5576.9 -6.098 72 4908 5786 5800.6 0.253 5800.6 0.254
32 5085 7109 ~953. 9 -2.181 6550.3 -7.859 73 4967 5978 5905.4 -1.213 5867.3 -1.851
33 4400 6214 6207.0 -0.111 6207.1 -0.112 74 10180 12045 12292.1 2.052 12292.2 2.052
34 8250 11250 10971.2 -2.477 10962.3 -2.555 75 12313 14713 14938.2 1.530 14720.8 0.053
35 3323 5393 5368.7 -0.450 5088.4 -5.649 76 7189 8455 8475.8 0.246 8475.8 0.246
36 6272 8339 7962.9 -4.509 7951.0 -4.653 77 4428 5930 5893.1 -0.620 5393.7 -9.043
37 7157 9148 9061.4 -0.945 9061.5 -0.946 78 6976 9348 9370 .o 0.235 9370.0 0.235
38 4048 8128 7937.5 -2.343 5703.6 -29.827
39 5139 6944 6809.6 -1.934 6537.1 -5.860
40 6042 7592 7684.5 1.219 7594.4 0.032 AVERAGE ERROR -1. 7X -3.6X
41 6078 8206 8151.6 -0.662 8151.7 -0.662 RMS ERROR 4.4l 7.8,;
42 7215 9087 9130.6 0.480 9130.7 0.480
43 6192 7839 7949.0 1.403 7809.2 -0.380
44 5406 6780 6741.1 -0.573 6731.8 -0.710
45 8230 10606 10445.3 -1.514 10436.5 -1.599
46 6574 8185 8185.2 0.003 8185.3 0.034
47 7275 8869 9021.9 1. 724 9021.9 1. 724
~ 48 8472 10707 10613.3 - 0.874 10601.3 -0.987
CD 49 4317 6503 5837.1 -10.238 5775.4 -11.189
50 4524 6128 5968.4 -2.604 5968.4 -2.604
51 3107 4125 4182.8 1.403 4105.0 -0.484
52 8049 10049 9629.8 -4.171 9629.8 -4.172
53 6382 7774 8263.2 6.293 8263.2 6.293
54 8275 10426 10393.7 - 0.309 10365.9 -0.577
55 6515 7921 7928.7 0.098 7928.8 0.098
56 4320 5901 5663.9 -4.016 5663.9 -4.027
57 4850 6565 5800.0 -11.652 5800.0 -11.652
58 6837 10134 9121.9 -9.986 8501.5 -16.109
59 4498 5390 5338.1 -0.961 5338.2 -0.962
60 7884 9469 9499.3 0.320 9499.3 0.320
61 8213 10032 9938.0 -0.936 9938.1 -0.936
62 3350 4201 4151.8 -1.169 4150.4 -1.204
63 8140 10228 10276.2 0.471 9900.5 -3.202
64 3400 5879 4711.3 -19.860 4099.9 -30.263
65 6685 8393 8350.1 -0.510 8194.9 -2.360
66 4115 5238 5211.1 -0.512 5193.2 -0.854
67 7300 8971 8930.7 -0.448 8916.4 -0.609
68 5726 7000 6926.3 -1.051 6926.4 -1.052
69 7455 8882 8893.0 0.124 8846.4 -0.401

'(/)
1"'0
rn
....
~
\.H
0
~
 1.4
.015

g0:: .013
0 \. ROUGH-TURBULENT
6/d=.025 J I
.-- r---1 . - -

it \ r--
1.0
a .o11
i=
at

0::
0
it: 6/d=.010 ~ I .--
LL.
C) .009 6/d=.OOB ffi 0.8
(/)
z 6/d=.OOS
zz ~ I .--
6/d=.004
it .007
6/d=.002
'......._lf/d=.001
],~
.005

.003
- COLEBROOK CORRELA.TION
--- JAIN CORRElATION
6/d,;.:6QQ5

-- 0.2i I ~ II ~ II : II ~ II ! II : II : II ~ II :
.001 0.0 I I I I I I I I '-' II II II II IJ
10E3 10E4 10E5 10E6 10E7 RELATIVE ROUGHNESS

.., REYNOLDS NUMBER, Re Rg. 2-RMS erTOr on the Jain-Swamee correlation compared with the Colebrook-White correlation •
CD Rg. 1-Comparlson of friction factor correlations.

6~------------------------------~

6.9

6.8

•
0::
:c• -4
0 0::
0:: 0
0::
ffi 6.7 0::
11..1
(/) 11..1
::::!: C)
0::
ffi3
~

(/)
2
-o
('11

(0.0023 • 6.48) ....

6.4T-----------.-----------.-----------~----------~----------~
0.0006 0.0011 0.0016 0.0021 0.0026 0.0031
""
\.N
0
~
APPARENT ROUGHNESS, IN
0 MOD. cas ORIG. cas
Rg. 3-RMS erTOr as a function of apparent roughnesa.
Fig. 4-Average erTOr on the original and modified Cullender and Smith for the
flowing case.
 70 6~---------------------------------,

60
5
..:

tr5 50 ..:
::::>
8'
:c•4
e: 0:::
0
0:::
~ 40 0:::
.....
.....
~
.....
0:::
30
~3
<

20 2

10

0
I I
-30 TO -23 -23 TO -16 -16 TO -9 -9 TO -2 -2 TO 5 5 TO 9

ERROR, K 0 MOD. CotS ORIG. C&S

Fig. 5-Frequency distribution for flowing BHP. Fig. &-Average errors on the original and modified Cullender and Smith for the
static case.

c.>

=
N
60 12r---------------------------

50
..: 10

t
z
.....
::::>
8' 40 8
0:::
LL ..:
..... 0:::
0
~ 0:::
0:::
~0::: 30 .....
en
::::;; 6
0:::

20
4

"(/)

~
10

0
2

...
~
-20 TO -15 -15 TO -10 -10 TO -5 -5 TO 0 0 TO 5 5 TO 7 I I !"\,"\,'\'\
0 \.Ill
MOD. Co!cS ORIG. Co!cS MOD • CotS OR I G. Co!cS
ERROR, K FLOWING BHP STATIC BHP 0
Fig. 7-Frequency distribution for static BHP.
Fig. 8-RMS error on flowing and static BHP. 0'