Single-Phase Inflow Performance
Relationship for Horizontal, Pinnate-Branch
Horizontal, and Radial-Branch Wells
Huiqing Liu and Jing Wang, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Petroleum Engineering, China University of
Petroleum; Jian Zheng, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Petroleum Engineering, China University of
Petroleum, and Institute of Oil Production Technology, Shengli Oil Field Company, SINOPEC; and
Ying Zhang, Xinglongtai Oil Production Plant, Liaohe Oil Field Company, CNPC
Summary
Horizontal and multibranch wells are likely to become the major
means of modern exploitation strategies; inflow performances for
these wells are needed. Because this paper considers the finite
conductivity of a horizontal well, it establishes the inflow per-
formance relationships (IPRs) for different branch configurations
of horizontal wells. We find that the IPR of a horizontal well
presents nonlinear characteristics and is similar to Vogel’s equa-
tion, which has been used extensively and successfully for analyz-
ing the IPR of a vertical well in a solution-gas-drive reservoir.
Instead of the effect of a two-phase (oil and gas) flow in a reser-
voir described by Vogel’s equation, the nonlinear characteristics
of horizontal wells are mainly the result of pressure drops caused
by friction, acceleration, and gravity along the horizontal well-
bore. The nonlinearity coefficient presents the pressure drop along
the major branch, and it is a function of major-wellbore length,
major-wellbore diameter, oil viscosity, and relative roughness.
Then, the horizontal-well IPR is used to study the performance of
the pinnate-branch horizontal well and the radial-branch (horizon-
tal lateral) well. The branch number, branch length, major-well-
bore length, major-wellbore diameter, oil viscosity, and relative
roughness are combined into grouped parameters to present the
effect on the deliverability incremental ratio JH and the nonlinear-
ity coefficient ratio Rv of the pinnate-branch horizontal well to the
conventional horizontal well, which show regression relationships
with the grouped parameters for pinnate-branch horizontal wells.
In addition, another binomial relationship between the deliverabil-
ity incremental ratio JV and the grouped parameter combined by
branch number, branch length, and equivalent oil drainage diame-
ter is obtained for radial-branch (horizontal lateral) wells. The
new IPR also covers conventional horizontal wells and vertical
wells (with no branch) because the deliverability incremental
ratios JH and JV in both cases are unity. The IPR is very valuable
for calculating the productivity of horizontal wells, pinnate-
branch horizontal wells, and radial-branch wells.
Introduction
The IPR is the basis of optimization design in production engi-
neering because it can present a boundary condition for artificial
lift designs by showing the relationship of production rates vary-
ing with bottomhole flowing pressure. The IPR of an oil well
depends on reservoir rock-pore type (Brown 1984), well configu-
ration, and reservoir recovery means (Liu et al. 1996; Liu and
Zhang 1999). A longer branch of the horizontal well will increase
the contact area between wellbore and formation, which makes it
easier for oil to enter the wellbore or for working fluids to be
injected into the formation. However, when the horizontal well is
in operation, the length of the horizontal segment plays an impor-
tant role in the pressure drops of horizontal wells. In earlier stud-
ies, only the frictional pressure drop was taken into consideration
Copyright V
C 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 26 November 2010. Revised manuscript
received for review 22 June 2012. Paper (SPE 163054) peer approved 6 July 2012.
April 2013 SPE Journal
(Dikken 1990; Islam and Chakma 1990; Ozkan et al. 1992; Seines
et al. 1993), and the pressure drops of variable mass flow and
fluid-mixing effect are neglected. Su and Gudmundsson (1994)
carried out pressure-drop experiments in perforated pipes to study
the influences of friction, acceleration, gravity effects, and perfo-
ration. Ouyang et al. (1998a) and Schulkes and Utvik (1998)
established the single-phase model for the horizontal well by con-
sidering friction, acceleration, and gravity effects.
The productivity index will be affected by the pressure drop
along the wellbore (Penmatcha et al. 1997). If another strong
drainage zone exists around the toe of the horizontal well, the pro-
ductivity index will even decrease because of counterflow from
heel to toe. With the development of drilling technique, wellbore
trajectory will have more branches. Because of the complexities
of well drilling and completion technology and the influence of
branch configuration on reservoir fluid flow, the deliverability of
multibranch horizontal wells will be greatly different from that of
conventional horizontal wells, and reservoir fluid flow state, mul-
tibranch spacing, branch length, and branch angle will also affect
well deliverability (Ozkan et al. 1995; Zhao et al. 2006). There-
fore, systematic studies on the coupled reservoir flow and pipe
flow are very important to evaluate the deliverability of multi-
branch horizontal wells appropriately and to achieve a highly
effective reservoir production and management.
IPR of Conventional Horizontal Wells
Fluid flow in a wellbore as shown in Fig. 1 is considered by
assuming the single-phase flow of an incompressible Newtonian
fluid under isothermal conditions with no heat transfer. The inflow
direction angle from perforations to wellbore is equal to p/2. Then
the Ouyang model will be as follows (Ouyang et al. 1998a):
q 2  sw SDx
Dp ¼ v  v22   qgsinhDx; . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
B 1 A
where
f qv 2 f q
sw ¼ ¼ ðv1 þ v2 Þ2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
2 8
Kinney (1968) numerically found that the ratio of the local fric-
tion factor f to the no-wall-flow friction factor f0 is dependent on
the wall Reynolds number for laminar flow. Ouyang et al. (1998a)
proposed a correlation based on Kinney’s data:
16 0:6142
f ¼ ð1 þ 0:04304NRe;w Þ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
NRe
In addition, a new correlation for the local friction factor for
turbulent flow was developed by Ouyang et al. (1998a),
0:3978
f ¼ f0 ð1  0:0153NRe;w Þ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
The f0 can be determined from the Colebrook-White equation
or from one of its explicit approximations (Ouyang and Aziz
1996; Colebrook and White 1937),
219
 1
Lm = 330 m
pwfi > pwfj > pwfn qwfi < qwfj < qwfn
Lm = 390 m
0.8 Lm = 450 m
Lm = 510 m
h Lm = 570 m
0.6

p wf /pr
(pwfn, qn) (pwfj, qj) (pwfi, qi)
0.4

Fig. 1—Sketch of pressure drop and local production rate as 0.2

fluids flow along the horizontal wellbore.

  0
1 e 1:256
pffiffiffiffi ¼ 4:0log10 þ pffiffiffiffi : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
f0 3:7 NRe f0 q/q CHmax

For comparison, the reservoir parameters reported by Zhao
et al. (2006) are used for studying the deliverability in a conven-
tional horizontal well. The formation depth is 1500 m, the pay
zone is 15 m, the well drainage area is 630  420 m, the porosity
is 25%, the permeability is 50  10–3 lm2, the initial oil saturation
is 0.7, the connate water saturation is 0.3, the oil viscosity is 20
mPa/s, and the initial pressure is 15 MPa. Single-phase oil exists
in the formation during production. The dissolved gas is neglected
to investigate only the effect of pressure drop along the well on
IPR. Constant pressures at inner and outer boundaries are used:

pjr¼rw ðat heel endÞ ¼ pw
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ
pjr¼re ¼ pe
By changing the bottomhole flowing pressure, the deliverabil-
ity at different completion lengths of the conventional horizontal
well is calculated, and the simulation results are shown in Fig. 2.
It is shown that, when the wellbore pressure drops are considered,
the relationship between production rate and bottomhole flowing
pressure of a horizontal well is nonlinear. In addition, the shapes
of an IPR curve are similar to those of the solution-gas-drive reser-
voir. Therefore, Vogel’s equation (Vogel 1968) is referenced to
obtain the dimensionless pressure and production rate. The dimen-
sionless deliverability relationship is obtained by regression and is
shown as follows (Bendakhlia and Aziz 1989):
   2
q pwf pwf
¼ 1  ð1  vÞ v : . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
qCHmax pr pr
It is very similar to Vogel’s equation, but the mechanisms are
different. The nonlinearity of Vogel’s equation in a vertical well
is caused by the effect of two-phase (oil and gas) flow (Vogel
1968; Cheng 1990; Retnanto and Economides 1998), whereas the
nonlinearity of Eq. 7 is caused not only by the pressure drop along
the horizontal well that is a result of friction, acceleration, and
gravity as the fluids flow from the toe to the heel but also by the
lateral influx distributed along the horizontal well (Ouyang et al.
1998b).
The modeling results indicate that the length of the horizontal
well, Reynolds number, and surface roughness have significant
effects on the wellbore pressure drops and the nonlinearity of the
IPR curve. These effects are simulated and shown in Fig. 3. It is
shown that the longer the horizontal well, the larger the pressure
differential between the toe and heel of the horizontal well, and the
greater the nonlinearity degree of deliverability relationships. The
horizontal well with a smaller wellbore diameter will generate a
higher nonlinearity coefficient (v). In addition, a higher oil viscos-
ity will also result in a bigger flowing resistance. However, when
the bottomhole flowing pressure is constant, the production plays
an important role in determining the nonlinearity coefficient (v). A
lower production will generate a smaller v. A bigger relative rough-
ness will result in a bigger friction drop; thus, the v is increased.
To quantitatively describe the relationship between v and the
parameters aforementioned, an orthogonal test plan [L16 (45)] is
Fig. 2—Bottomhole flowing pressures and production rates at
different major wellbore lengths.
established, as shown in Table 1. According to the simulation
results under different conditions, a grouped parameter (NHv)
could be obtained through the correlation between each parameter
and v. Then, a nonlinear regression procedure is used to develop
the relationship between v and NHv), and it can be characterized
by the exponential variogram model. The fitting curves between
experimental data and Eq. 8 are shown in Fig. 4.
  
3NHv
v ¼ 0:65  1  exp  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ
1750
L1:8 0:9
m e
NHv ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ
lo  d 2
From Eq. 8, with the increase of NHv, v increases gradually.
When the value of NHv is less than 100, v is less than 0.1, repre-
senting a lower nonlinearity of the IPR curve; when the value of
NHv is higher than 1500, the increasing tendency of v becomes
less pronounced, and maximum v equals 0.65. From Eq. 9, the
sensitivities of v to the parameters can be arranged as d >
Lm > lo > e.
Deliverability Characteristics of Pinnate-Branch
Horizontal Wells
Reservoir Pressure Distribution Along Pinnate-Branch Hori-
zontal Well. The simulation area is a rectangle with aspect ratio
3:2; the length of the rectangle depends on horizontal well length.
Reservoir properties are shown in Table 2.
The configurations of pinnate-branch horizontal wells with dif-
ferent branch numbers are shown in Fig. 5. Corresponding to spe-
cific configurations—the pressure distributions in the wellbore
and the perforated grids of conventional horizontal wells and
pinnate-branch horizontal wells with different branch numbers—
bottomhole flowing pressures are obtained (see Fig. 6).
As shown, at a given bottomhole flowing pressure, the pressure
in the major wellbore is reduced gradually from the toe to the heel.
The flow rate near the heel is much higher, and the reducing rate of
pressure is faster. With the increase of branch number, both the
production rate and the flow rate increase. Thus, the pressure dif-
ferences between the toe and the heel are much bigger. In perfo-
rated grids, because of the production of oil from branches, the
formation pressure is reduced. Therefore, the pressure from the toe
to the heel shows a tendency to decrease first and then increase. In
addition, the greater the number of branches, the more distinct the
tendency will be. At a given number of branches, when the bot-
tomhole flowing pressure is much higher, the production rate is
low, and the flow rate in wellbore is also low. Thus, the pressure
drop is small, and the pressure drop from the toe to the heel is not

220 April 2013 SPE Journal

 1 1
Lm = 90 m Lm = 150 m d = 0.10 m
Lm = 210 m Lm = 270 m d = 0.12 m
0.8 Lm = 330 m Lm = 390 m 0.8 d = 0.14 m
Lm = 450 m Lm = 510 m d = 0.16 m
Lm = 570 m d = 0.18 m
0.6 0.6 d = 0.20 m
pwf /p r

p wf /p r
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
q/q CHmax q/q CHmax
(a) Horizontal Well Length (b) Inner Diameter

1 1
µo = 1 mPa•s e = 0.0001
µo = 6 mPa•s e = 0.0002
0.8 µo = 11 mPa•s 0.8 e = 0.0003
µo = 16 mPa•s
e = 0.0004
e = 0.0005
µo = 21 mPa•s
0.6 0.6
µo = 26 mPa•s
p wf /p r

p wf /p r
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
q/q CH max q/q CHmax
(c) Oil Viscosity (d) Relative Roughness

Fig. 3—Effects of different parameters on IPR linearity.

distinct. On the contrary, when the well’s bottomhole flowing pres- increase in nonlinearity. The IPR is similar to that of the conven-
sure is lower, the production rate is higher, and the flow rate of tional horizontal well, and Eq. 7 can be written as
wellbore is also higher. Therefore, for the perforated grid, with  2
decrease in bottomhole flowing pressure, the production rates of q pwf pwf
¼ 1  ð1  vb Þ  vb . . . . . . . . . . . ð10Þ
the major wellbore and branch wellbores increase, and the concave qBHmax pr pr
degree is also intensified.
Then, the deliverability incremental ratio JH is defined as the
ratio of qBHmax to qCHmax, which represents the deliverability
IPR of a Pinnate-Branch Horizontal Well. For a 330-m major increase of the pinnate-branch horizontal well compared with that
wellbore with different branch lengths and branches with a 0.14- of the conventional horizontal well. In addition, the v ratio Rv is
m diameter, reservoir numerical simulation was performed to cal- defined as the ratio of vb to v, which represents the nonlinearity
culate the production rates at different bottomhole flowing pres- difference between the pinnate-branch horizontal-well IPR and
sures. The oil viscosity was 11 mPas, and the relative roughness the conventional-horizontal-well IPR. Then, Eq. 10 can be written
was 0.0003. Dimensionless pressure and production rate can be as
obtained in the form pwf /pr for pressure and q/qBHmax for produc- "  2 #
tion rate, as shown in Fig. 7a. In addition, if the dimensionless q pwf pwf
¼ JH 1  ð1  Rv vÞ  Rv v : . . . . . ð11Þ
production rate is defined as a ratio of production rate to the maxi- qCHmax pr pr
mum rate of conventional horizontal well, q/qCHmax, the IPR will
be different, as shown in Fig. 7b). Besides the effects of horizontal-well length, Reynolds num-
By observing Fig. 7, we find that because of the increasing of ber, and surface roughness, JH and Rv also depend on branch num-
the branch length, the drainage area increases, and the deliverabil- ber and branch length. Table 3 lists five levels for each of the
ity and flow rate in the major wellbore will increase, which results influencing parameters. The trends of JH and Rv with the level
in larger pressure loss and higher nonlinearity of the IPR curve. changes of each influencing parameter are presented in Fig. 8. JH
Compared with the conventional horizontal well at the same bot- and Rv are shown to increase with branch number, branch length,
tomhole flowing pressure, the productivity of a pinnate-branch oil viscosity, and major-wellbore diameter but to decrease with
horizontal well is higher. Similarly, the increase of production the major wellbore length and relative roughness. This indicates
will also increase the wellbore pressure drop, resulting in an that better improvement will be achieved by increasing branch

April 2013 SPE Journal 221

 0.7
TABLE 1—ORTHOGONAL ARRAY L16(45)
0.6
Test No. lo
Parameters Lm (m) D (m) e (mPas) 0.5

1 90 0.1 0.01 1
0.4
2 90 0.12 0.02 6

v
3 90 0.14 0.03 11 0.3
4 90 0.16 0.04 16
5 90 0.18 0.05 21 0.2
6 210 0.1 0.02 11
7 210 0.12 0.03 16 0.1
8 210 0.14 0.04 21
0
9 210 0.16 0.05 1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
10 210 0.18 0.01 6 N Hv
11 330 0.1 0.03 21
12 330 0.12 0.04 1 Fig. 4—Relationship between coefficient m and NHv .
13 330 0.14 0.05 6
14 330 0.16 0.01 11 Rv ¼ expð50:34NHbv Þ; ðR2 ¼ 0:9033Þ . . . . . . . . . . . ð14Þ
15 330 0.18 0.02 16
16 450 0.1 0.04 6 n0:45
b  L1:2 0:9
b  lo  d
1:3
NHbv ¼ 2 0:2
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð15Þ
17 450 0.12 0.05 11 Lm  e
18 450 0.14 0.01 16
19 450 0.16 0.02 21 Later, by integrating Eqs. 8 and 14, one can obtain the value of
20 450 0.18 0.03 1 vb as shown in Table 4. Thus, compared with that from the actual
results that the calculation value plotted on the x axis and the
21 570 0.1 0.05 16
actual value plotted on the y axis shown in Fig. 11, the calculated
22 570 0.12 0.01 21
data and the actual data are distributed in the surrounding region
23 570 0.14 0.02 1 of this straight line, y = x, which demonstrates that the calculation
24 570 0.16 0.03 6 values are close to the true values. Therefore, it is presented that
25 570 0.18 0.04 11 this model is reliable.
From Eqs. 12 through 15, for the parameter JH, representing
the increase of horizontal-well productivity, the sensitivities of it
number and branch length for shorter major wellbore, smaller to the parameters can be arranged as Lm > d > Lb ¼ nb > lo > e.
major-wellbore diameter, less relative roughness, and higher oil For the other parameter, Rv, representing the increase of wellbore
viscosity. pressure drop, the sensitivities of it to the parameters can be
To quantitatively describe the relationship of JH and Rv with arranged as: Lm > d > Lb > lo > nb > e. It is clear that JH increases
these parameters, based on the orthogonal test mentioned earlier as the NHJ increases but slows gradually at higher NHJ. JH can be
(Table 1), the values of JH and Rv under different parameters used to evaluate the validity of reservoir reconstruction projects
(including the major wellbore length, branch number, and branch or drilling branches for horizontal wells. The reasonable branch
length) are calculated. According to the correlation of JH and Rv number and branch length can be obtained by evaluating JH and
with these parameters, a grouped parameter is obtained. Then, on the corresponding cost.
the basis of regression method, the relationship between JH, Rv, In addition, the grouped parameters will be zero for the con-
and their assembly parameter is obtained, and the fitting curves ventional horizontal well (no branch), and both productivity incre-
between experimental data and Eqs. 12 and 14 are shown in Figs. mental ratio JH and v ratio Rv are unity in Eq. 12 and Eq. 14, and
9 and 10: Eqs. 7 and 11 are the same. The preceding studies are conducted
under the same branch length. To study the influence of different
2
JH ¼ 1 þ 12:04NHJ  18:56NHJ ; ðR2 ¼ 0:9476Þ . . . . ð12Þ branch lengths on the IPR curve, we simulate the IPR curves of
these plans in Fig. 12 for different branch lengths and different
nb  Lb  l0:6
o d
1:3
distributions, as shown in Fig. 13.
NHJ ¼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð13Þ
As determined from the simulation results, the differences in
L1:7
m e
0:25
the IPR curves for the same average branch length but different
branch-length combinations are very small. This is because the
pressure drop is mostly from the major wellbore. The branches
mainly provide drainage areas. Nb and the average branch length
TABLE 2—RESERVOIR PROPERTIES LIST L b can be used if the branches have different lengths.
Property Value
Deliverability of the Radial-Branch (Horizontal
Formation depth (m) 1500 Lateral) Well
Formation thickness (m) 15 IPR of Radial-Branch Well. The simulation area is a square
Initial pressure (MPa) 15 (420  420 m), and formation thickness is 15 m. Reservoir
Formation volume factor 1.15
Dead oil density (kg/m3) 920
Initial oil saturation (%) 70
Initial water saturation (%) 30
Permeability (10–3lm2) 35
a b c d e
Porosity (%) 25
Total compressibility (10–4 1/MPa) 3.5 Fig. 5—The configurations of pinnate-branch horizontal wells.

222 April 2013 SPE Journal

 10.5 15
n = 0, pwf = 8 MPa n = 1, pwf = 8 MPa n = 2, pwf = 8 MPa
n = 3, pwf = 8 MPa n = 4, pwf = 8 MPa n = 5, pwf = 8 MPa

Pressure in the wellbore (MPa)

Pressure in the wellbore (MPa)

10 12

9.5 9

9 6

pwf = 14 MPa pwf = 13 MPa pwf = 12 MPa

8.5 3 pwf = 11 MPa pwf = 10 MPa pwf = 9 MPa
pwf = 8 MPa pwf = 7 MPa pwf = 6 MPa
pwf = 5 MPa pwf = 4 MPa pwf = 3 MPa
pwf = 2 MPa pwf = 1 MPa pwf = 0 MPa
8 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510
Distance from heel (m) Distance from heel (m)

(a) Pressure distribution in the wellbore for different (b) Pressure distribution in the wellbore for different
branch numbers (pwf = 8 MPa) bottomhole flowing pressures (nb = 5)

14.5 15
n = 0, pwf = 8 MPa n = 1, pwf = 8 MPa n = 2, pwf = 8 MPa
n = 3, pwf = 8 MPa n = 4, pwf = 8 MPa n = 5, pwf = 8 MPa

Pressure out the wellbore (MPa)

Pressure out the wellbore (MPa)

14
14

13

13.5

12

13
11
pwf = 14 MPa pwf = 13 MPa pwf = 12 MPa pwf = 11 MPa
pwf = 10 MPa pwf = 9 MPa pwf = 8 MPa pwf = 7 MPa
pwf = 6 MPa pwf = 5 MPa pwf = 4 MPa pwf = 3 MPa
pwf = 2 MPa pwf = 1 MPa pwf = 0 MPa
12.5 10
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360390 420 450 480 510 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510
Distance from heel (m) Distance from heel (m)

(c) Pressure distribution in the perforated grids for (d) Pressure distribution in the perforated grids for
different branch numbers (pwf = 8 MPa) different bottomhole flowing pressures (nb = 5)

Fig. 6—Pressure distribution along pinnate-branch horizontal wells under different conditions.

1 1
n = 1, Lb = 127.5 m n = 3, Lb = 42.5 m
n = 2, Lb = 127.5 m n = 3, Lb = 85 m
0.8 n = 3, Lb = 127.5 m 0.8 n = 3, Lb = 127.5 m
n = 4, Lb = 127.5 m n = 3, Lb = 170 m
n = 5, Lb = 127.5 m n = 3, Lb = 212.5 m
0.6 Convent. well 0.6 Convent.well
p wf /p r

p wf /p r

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
q/qCHmax q/q BHmax
(a) pwf /pr vs. q/qBHmax (b) pwf /pr vs. q/qCHmax

Fig. 7—IPR curves of multibranch horizontal wells with different branch length and numbers.

April 2013 SPE Journal 223

 2
TABLE 3—FIVE LEVELS FOR EACH OF THE INFLUENCING
Lb nb Lm µo e d
PARAMETERS OF JH AND RV
1.8
Level lo
No. Lb (m) nb Lm (m) (mPas) e d (m)
1.6
1 42.5 3 450 11 0.0003 0.14

JH
2 85
3 127.5 1.4
4 170
5 212.5
1 127.5 1 450 11 0.0003 0.14 1.2
2 2
3 3
1
4 4 1 2 3 4 5
5 5 Level No.
1 127.5 3 330 11 0.0003 0.14
2 390 5
3 450 Lb nb Lm µo e d
4 510
5 570 4
1 127.5 3 450 1 0.0003 0.14
2 6
3 11

Rv
3
4 16
5 21
1 127.5 3 450 11 0.0001 0.14
2
2 0.0002
3 0.0003
4 0.0004
5 0.0005 1
1 2 3 4 5
1 127.5 3 450 11 0.0003 0.10
Level No.
2 0.12
3 0.14 Fig. 8—The trends of JH and Rv with the level changes of each
4 0.16 influencing parameter.
5 0.18
a vertical well, q/qCVmax, the IPR will be different, as shown in
properties used in this case are the same as in Table 2. The oil vis- Fig. 14b.
cosity is 15 mPas, the relative roughness is 0.0003, and the well- As seen in Fig. 14, because the individual branch length in a
bore diameter is 0.14 m. Both a constant pressure outer boundary radial-branch well is generally smaller, according to the effect of
and a bottomhole flowing pressure at the center outflow point are pressure drop on well deliverability shown in Fig. 1, the deliver-
used. ability drop will not be significant; thus, the IPR of a radial-
Dimensionless pressure and production rate can be obtained in branch well is basically linear. However, the dimensionless
the form pwf /pr for pressure and q/qBVmax for production rate, as production rate is much larger. The deliverability has a linear rela-
shown in Fig. 14a. In addition, if the dimensionless production tionship for a vertical well with single-phase flow (Brown 1984).
rate is defined as a ratio of production rate to the maximum rate of The IPR of a radial-branch well can also be described by the fol-
lowing model:

3
30

25
2.5

20
JH

2
Rv

15

10
1.5
5

1 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
NHJ NHbv

Fig. 9—Relationship between JH and NHJ. Fig. 10—Relationship between Rv and NHbv .

224 April 2013 SPE Journal

 TABLE 4—TESTING PARAMETERS FOR THE INFLUENCING FACTORS OF JV

No. Lm nb Lb d e lo Actual vb Calculated vb

1 330 1 42.5 0.1 0.0001 1 0.56 0.50722114

2 330 1 85 0.12 0.0002 6 0.312 0.209034776
3 330 1 127.5 0.14 0.0003 11 0.149 0.184731961
4 330 1 170 0.16 0.0004 16 0.173 0.247341104
5 330 1 212.5 0.18 0.0005 21 0.4534 0.508682677
6 330 2 42.5 0.12 0.0003 16 0.072 0.12787565
7 330 2 85 0.14 0.0004 21 0.055 0.160989165
8 330 2 127.5 0.16 0.0005 1 0.7 0.649288527
9 330 2 170 0.18 0.0001 6 0.153 0.131453852
10 330 2 212.5 0.1 0.0002 11 0.455 0.365037905
11 330 3 42.5 0.14 0.0005 6 0.266 0.302866992
12 330 3 85 0.16 0.0001 11 0.045 0.072844093
13 330 3 127.5 0.18 0.0002 16 0.034 0.208098266
14 330 3 170 0.1 0.0003 21 0.309 0.458919321
15 330 3 212.5 0.12 0.0004 1 0.7813 0.728407127
16 330 4 42.5 0.16 0.0002 21 0.0435 0.059496142
17 330 4 85 0.18 0.0003 1 0.592 0.504798003
18 330 4 127.5 0.1 0.0004 6 0.573 0.528723336
19 330 4 170 0.12 0.0005 11 0.429 0.594143907
20 330 4 212.5 0.14 0.0001 16 0.6589 0.715339667
21 330 5 42.5 0.18 0.0004 11 0.029 0.127456924
22 330 5 85 0.1 0.0005 16 0.31 0.363927501
23 330 5 127.5 0.12 0.0001 21 0.06 0.225786256
24 330 5 170 0.14 0.0002 1 0.7 0.593975845
25 330 5 212.5 0.16 0.0003 6 0.404 0.591083854
26 390 1 42.5 0.1 0.0001 1 0.64 0.566105356
27 390 1 85 0.12 0.0002 6 0.3715 0.255561886
28 390 1 127.5 0.14 0.0003 11 0.196 0.208182114
29 390 1 170 0.16 0.0004 16 0.105 0.234234006
30 390 1 212.5 0.18 0.0005 21 0.3387 0.363444241
31 390 2 42.5 0.12 0.0003 16 0.112 0.157548096
32 390 2 85 0.14 0.0004 21 0.084 0.172028528
33 390 2 127.5 0.16 0.0005 1 0.71 0.667585642
34 390 2 170 0.18 0.0001 6 0.192 0.131139372
35 390 2 212.5 0.1 0.0002 11 0.509 0.362809826
36 390 3 42.5 0.14 0.0005 6 0.324 0.363520261
37 390 3 85 0.16 0.0001 11 0.071 0.077916697
38 390 3 127.5 0.18 0.0002 16 0.056 0.165807048
39 390 3 170 0.1 0.0003 21 0.363 0.401792641
40 390 3 212.5 0.12 0.0004 1 0.798 0.71410052
41 390 4 42.5 0.16 0.0002 21 0.0597 0.066994678
42 390 4 85 0.18 0.0003 1 0.594 0.562690771
43 390 4 127.5 0.1 0.0004 6 0.577 0.570821511
44 390 4 170 0.12 0.0005 11 0.473 0.561929834
45 390 4 212.5 0.14 0.0001 16 0.177 0.388517993
46 390 5 42.5 0.18 0.0004 11 0.06 0.150725453
47 390 5 85 0.1 0.0005 16 0.406 0.394921128
48 390 5 127.5 0.12 0.0001 21 0.123 0.171826241
49 390 5 170 0.14 0.0002 1 0.712 0.63370828
50 390 5 212.5 0.16 0.0003 6 0.479 0.515663063
51 450 1 42.5 0.1 0.0001 1 0.688 0.604492064
52 450 1 85 0.12 0.0002 6 0.42 0.302893951
53 450 1 127.5 0.14 0.0003 11 0.244 0.236774755
54 450 1 170 0.16 0.0004 16 0.14 0.239965963
55 450 1 212.5 0.18 0.0005 21 0.1 0.31285358
56 450 2 42.5 0.12 0.0003 16 0.154 0.189670207
57 450 2 85 0.14 0.0004 21 0.103 0.190120595
58 450 2 127.5 0.16 0.0005 1 0.722 0.672591656
59 450 2 170 0.18 0.0001 6 0.204 0.139374518
60 450 2 212.5 0.1 0.0002 11 0.522 0.379462001
61 450 3 42.5 0.14 0.0005 6 0.369 0.420115111

April 2013 SPE Journal 225

 TABLE 4 (continued)—TESTING PARAMETERS FOR THE INFLUENCING FACTORS OF JV

No. Lm nb Lb d e lo Actual vb Calculated vb

62 450 3 85 0.16 0.0001 11 0.083 0.086683586

63 450 3 127.5 0.18 0.0002 16 0.063 0.153333285
64 450 3 170 0.1 0.0003 21 0.374 0.389891151
65 450 3 212.5 0.12 0.0004 1 0.77801 0.700505078
66 450 4 42.5 0.16 0.0002 21 0.011 0.076982325
67 450 4 85 0.18 0.0003 1 0.605 0.60362209
68 450 4 127.5 0.1 0.0004 6 0.587 0.607564919
69 450 4 170 0.12 0.0005 11 0.483 0.563968051
70 450 4 212.5 0.14 0.0001 16 0.181 0.282647876
71 450 5 42.5 0.18 0.0004 11 0.078 0.177239401
72 450 5 85 0.1 0.0005 16 0.421 0.432169825
73 450 5 127.5 0.12 0.0001 21 0.134 0.154443791
74 450 5 170 0.14 0.0002 1 0.745 0.658668826
75 450 5 212.5 0.16 0.0003 6 0.485 0.49668149
76 510 1 42.5 0.1 0.0001 1 0.688 0.627446274
77 510 1 85 0.12 0.0002 6 0.446 0.349289649
78 510 1 127.5 0.14 0.0003 11 0.263 0.268105456
79 510 1 170 0.16 0.0004 16 0.147 0.254518799
80 510 1 212.5 0.18 0.0005 21 0.1 0.296165927
81 510 2 42.5 0.12 0.0003 16 0.196 0.223282547
82 510 2 85 0.14 0.0004 21 0.128 0.212142197
83 510 2 127.5 0.16 0.0005 1 0.733 0.671663017
84 510 2 170 0.18 0.0001 6 0.221 0.152103912
85 510 2 212.5 0.1 0.0002 11 0.537 0.404341331
86 510 3 42.5 0.14 0.0005 6 0.408 0.470596181
87 510 3 85 0.16 0.0001 11 0.099 0.097726283
88 510 3 127.5 0.18 0.0002 16 0.072 0.152769744
89 510 3 170 0.1 0.0003 21 0.388 0.396895058
90 510 3 212.5 0.12 0.0004 1 0.7804 0.689780825
91 510 4 42.5 0.16 0.0002 21 0.022 0.088694085
92 510 4 85 0.18 0.0003 1 0.614 0.630125353
93 510 4 127.5 0.1 0.0004 6 0.598 0.636009824
94 510 4 170 0.12 0.0005 11 0.494 0.579173434
95 510 4 212.5 0.14 0.0001 16 0.187 0.240010606
96 510 5 42.5 0.18 0.0004 11 0.107 0.205832224
97 510 5 85 0.1 0.0005 16 0.438 0.470348118
98 510 5 127.5 0.12 0.0001 21 0.143 0.151033628
99 510 5 170 0.14 0.0002 1 0.765 0.671836199
100 510 5 212.5 0.16 0.0003 6 0.492 0.500623759
101 570 1 42.5 0.1 0.0001 1 0.688 0.640077428
102 570 1 85 0.12 0.0002 6 0.486 0.393434518
103 570 1 127.5 0.14 0.0003 11 0.312 0.300740311
104 570 1 170 0.16 0.0004 16 0.186 0.27387163
105 570 1 212.5 0.18 0.0005 21 0.108 0.295020522
106 570 2 42.5 0.12 0.0003 16 0.237 0.257598837
107 570 2 85 0.14 0.0004 21 0.166 0.236548173
108 570 2 127.5 0.16 0.0005 1 0.714 0.66885811
109 570 2 170 0.18 0.0001 6 0.257 0.167622156
110 570 2 212.5 0.1 0.0002 11 0.534 0.432704584
111 570 3 42.5 0.14 0.0005 6 0.449 0.513906548
112 570 3 85 0.16 0.0001 11 0.129 0.11039074
113 570 3 127.5 0.18 0.0002 16 0.097 0.15823343
114 570 3 170 0.1 0.0003 21 0.442 0.413039357
115 570 3 212.5 0.12 0.0004 1 0.7807 0.681833661
116 570 4 42.5 0.16 0.0002 21 0.039 0.101734855
117 570 4 85 0.18 0.0003 1 0.657 0.645799628
118 570 4 127.5 0.1 0.0004 6 0.655 0.656009087
119 570 4 170 0.12 0.0005 11 0.559 0.598883816
120 570 4 212.5 0.14 0.0001 16 0.23 0.222349519
121 570 5 42.5 0.18 0.0004 11 0.142 0.235692854
122 570 5 85 0.1 0.0005 16 0.496 0.506663637

226 April 2013 SPE Journal

 TABLE 4 (continued)—TESTING PARAMETERS FOR THE INFLUENCING FACTORS OF JV

No. Lm nb Lb d e lo Actual vb Calculated vb

123 570 5 127.5 0.12 0.0001 21 0.182 0.154458479

124 570 5 170 0.14 0.0002 1 0.781 0.677047472
125 570 5 212.5 0.16 0.0003 6 0.562 0.514997218

0.8

a b
Actual vb

0.6

0.4
y=x
2
R = 0.8744
0.2

c d
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fig. 12—The configurations of pinnate-branch horizontal wells
Calculational vb with different branch lengths and distributions.

Fig. 11—Comparison of actual vb and calculated vb.
q pwf
¼1 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð16Þ
qBVmax pr
Then, the deliverability incremental ratio JV is defined as the
ratio of qBVmax to qCVmax, which represents the deliverability
increase of the radial-branch well compared with that of the con-
ventional vertical well, and Eq. 16 will be:
 
q pwf
¼ Jv  1  : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ð17Þ
qCVmax pr
JV depends on branch number, branch length, oil viscosity, well-
bore diameter, and surface roughness. Table 5 lists five levels for
each of the influencing parameters. The trends of JV with the level
changes of each influencing parameter are presented in Fig. 15.
JV is demonstrated to increase with branch number and branch
length but changes little with oil viscosity, wellbore diameter, and
relative roughness. This indicates that better improvement will be
achieved by increasing branch number and branch length.
To quantitatively describe the relationship between JV and the
parameters mentioned, the orthogonal test plan [L16(45)] is used
again, as shown in Table 6. According to the simulation results
under different conditions, a grouped parameter (NHv) could be
obtained through the correlation between each parameter and JV.
Because the oil viscosity, wellbore diameter, and relative rough-
ness have almost no effect on JV, the NHv is only combined by
branch number and branch length. Then, the following correlation
can be obtained by regression analysis as shown in Fig. 16:
2
JV ¼ 1 þ 8:48NVJ  0:81NVJ ðR2 ¼ 0:9539Þ . . . . . . . . ð18Þ
n0:6
r  Lb
NVJ ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð19Þ
Rd
where,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rd ¼ 2Lp 1=p: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð20Þ

15 1

a b c d a b c d

12 0.8
pwf (MPa)

9 0.6
pwf /pr

6 0.4

3 0.2

0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
q (t/d) q/qBHmax
(a) pwf vs. q (b) pwf /pr vs. q/qBHmax

Fig. 13—IPR curves of pinnate-branch horizontal wells with equivalent or different branch lengths.

April 2013 SPE Journal 227

 1 1
Convent. well Convent. well
nr = 3, Lb = 35 m nr = 3, Lb = 35 m
0.8 nr = 3, Lb = 70 m 0.8 nr = 3, Lb = 70 m
nr = 3, Lb = 105 m nr = 3, Lb = 105 m
nr = 3, Lb = 140 m nr = 3, Lb = 140 m
0.6 0.6

pwf /pr
nr = 3, Lb = 175 m nr = 3, Lb = 175 m
pwf /pr

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
q/qBVmax q/qCVmax

Fig. 14—IPR curves of radial-branch wells with different branch lengths.

From Eq. 18, we can see that the productivity incremental ratio JV influence of different branch lengths on IPR curves, we simulate
increases with branch number and branch length and that the JV of the IPR curves of these plans in Fig. 17 for different branch
radial-branch well is much larger than that of a pinnate-branch lengths and different distributions, as shown in Fig. 18.
horizontal well. In other words, the deliverability of a radial According to the simulation results, the differences in the IPR
branches of a vertical well improves much more than that of pin- curves for the same average branch length but different branch-
nate branches of a horizontal well. Because the disturbance length combinations are very small. Nr and the average branch
among branches will also increase gradually as branch number length L b can be used if the branches have different lengths.
increases, the binomial term in Eq. 18 mainly reflects the disturb-
ance among branches. In addition, JV can be used to evaluate the Validation of the IPR for Multibranch Wells
validity of reservoir reconstruction projects or drilling radial
branches for vertical wells. Pinnate-Branch Horizontal Wells. Wells X-H310 and X-H302
The grouped parameters will be zero for the conventional ver- are located in Xinggu reservoir block in Liaohe oil field. The bur-
tical well (no branch), and productivity incremental ratio JV is ied depth of the formation is 4500 m, and the pay zone is 21.7 m.
unity in Eq. 18, and Eqs. 16 and 17 are the same. The studies pre- Oil viscosity is approximately 3.5 mPas. Initial oil saturation is
ceding are conducted under a same-branch length. To study the 0.67, and connate water saturation is 0.33. Reservoir pressure is
45 MPa. The rock porosity is 17.5%, and permeability is approxi-
mately 100  10–3 lm2. Wells X-H310 and X-H302 are pinnate-
branch horizontal wells with three and four branches, respec-
TABLE 5—FIVE LEVELS FOR EACH OF THE INFLUENCING tively. The parameters of the two wells are shown in Table 7.
PARAMETERS OF JV Several test points exist for each well. First, we obtain the val-
ues of v, JH, and Rv with the relevant parameters (v3 ¼ 0.095,
Level No. Lb (m) nb lo (mPas) e d (m) J3 ¼ 1.351, Rv3 ¼ 1.383; v4 ¼ 0.140, J4 ¼ 1.424, Rv3 ¼ 1.398), and
1 35 3 15 0.0003 0.14
use one of the test points (qt3 ¼ 76.4 t/d, pwft3 ¼ 25.0 MPa; qt4 ¼
89.6 t/d, pwft4 ¼ 29.5 MPa) to calculate the qCHmax by Eq. 21.
2 70
Thus, the IPR can be obtained using Eq. 11. Then, all the test
3 105 points are compared with the IPR, as shown in Fig. 19. As can be
4 140 seen, the agreement is good. Therefore, the IPR can be used to
5 175 predict the performance in the early development stage.
1 105 1 15 0.0003 0.14
2 2 30
3 3
Lb nr µo d e
4 4
25
5 6
1 105 3 5 0.0003 0.14
2 10 20
3 15
4 20
JV

15
5 25
1 105 3 15 0.0001 0.14
10
2 0.0002
3 0.0003
4 0.0004 5
5 0.0005
1 105 3 15 0.0003 0.10 0
2 0.12 1 2 3 4 5
3 0.14 Level No.
4 0.16
Fig. 15—The trends of JV with the level changes of each influ-
5 0.18
encing parameter.

228 April 2013 SPE Journal

 25
TABLE 6—ORTHOGONAL ARRAY L16(45)

20 Test No. Lb D lo
Parameters nr (m) (m) e (mPas)

15 1 1 35 0.12 0.01 5
2 2 70 0.14 0.02 10
JV

3 3 105 0.16 0.03 15

10 4 4 140 0.18 0.04 20
5 5 175 0.20 0.05 25
6 1 210 0.12 0.02 15
5
7 2 35 0.14 0.03 20
8 3 70 0.16 0.04 25
0 9 4 105 0.18 0.05 5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 10 5 140 0.20 0.01 10
NVJ 11 1 35 0.12 0.03 25
12 2 70 0.14 0.04 5
Fig. 16—Relationship between JV and NVJ. 13 3 105 0.16 0.05 10
14 4 140 0.18 0.01 15
15 5 175 0.20 0.02 20
16 1 35 0.12 0.04 10
17 2 70 0.14 0.05 15
18 3 105 0.16 0.01 20
19 4 140 0.18 0.02 25
20 5 175 0.20 0.03 5
21 1 35 0.12 0.05 20
a b c 22 2 70 0.14 0.01 25
23 3 105 0.16 0.02 5
Fig. 17—IPR curves of radial-branch wells with equivalent or 24 4 140 0.18 0.03 10
different branch lengths. 25 5 175 0.20 0.04 15
qt
qCHmax ¼ ( "   2 #) :
pwft pwft 15
JH 1  ð1  Rv vÞ  Rv v
pr pr a b c
                   ð21Þ 12

Radial-Branch Wells. Wells Y-C108 and Y-C205 are located in

pwf (MPa)

the Y reservoir block in Shengli oil field. The buried depth of the 9
formation is 3485 m, and the pay zone is 13.9 m. Oil viscosity is
approximately 5.2 mPas. Initial oil saturation is 0.71, and connate
water saturation is 0.29. Reservoir pressure is 35.0 MPa. The rock 6
porosity is 21.2%, and permeability is approximately 168  10–3
lm2. Wells Y-C108 and Y-C205 are radial-branch wells with
3
three and four branches, respectively. The well spacing of the ra-
dial-branch well group is defined as the distance between two
trunk wells, and the well space of the well group where the two
0
wells are located is 483 and 525 m, respectively. The parameters
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
of the two wells are shown in Table 8.
q (t/d)
In addition, several test points exist for each well. The JV val-
ues of Y-C108 and Y-C205 are 3.794 and 4.803, respectively.
Fig. 18—The configurations of radial-branch wells with differ-
The test points (qt3 ¼ 44.2 t/d, pwft3 ¼ 26.0 MPa; qt4 ¼ 57.4 t/d, ent branch lengths and distributions.
pwft4 ¼ 28.6 MPa) are used to calculate the qCVmax by Eq. 22.
Thus, the IPR can be obtained with Eq. 17. Then, all the test
points are compared with the IPR, as shown in Fig. 20. As can be Conclusions
seen, the agreement is also good. Therefore, the IPR can be used The single-phase IPR of a horizontal well is similar to Vogel’s
to predict the performance in the early development stage. equation. However, the mechanism of this nonlinearity is the pres-

   sure drop as fluids flow along the horizontal well, not the effect of
pwft a two-phase (oil and gas) flow. The nonlinearity of IPR is related
qCVmax ¼ qt JV 1  : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð22Þ
pr to the length of horizontal wellbore, wellbore diameter, oil

TABLE 7—PARAMETERS OF PINNATE-BRANCH HORIZONTAL WELLS X-H310 AND X-H302

Well Lm (m) Lb1 (m) Lb2 (m) Lb3 (m) Lb4 (m) Inner Diameter (m) Relative Roughness

X-H310 (Three Branches) 413.8 124.2 98.6 105.7 0.2 0.0001

X-H302 (Four Branches) 524.3 160 142 142 155 0.2 0.0001

April 2013 SPE Journal 229

 45 45
Computed IPR Computed IPR
40 40
Test data Test data
35 35

30 30
pwf (MPa)

pwf (MPa)
25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 250
q (t/d) q (t/d)
(a) Pinnate-branch horizontal well X-H310 with (b) Pinnate-branch horizontal well X-H302 with
three branches four branches

Fig. 19—Validation of the pinnate-branch horizontal-well IPR.

TABLE 8—PARAMETERS OF RADIAL-BRANCH WELLS Y-C108 AND Y-C205

Well Lp (m) Rd (m) Lb1 (m) Lb2 (m) Lb3 (m) Lb4 (m)

Y-C108 (Three Branches) 483 545 98 104 87

Y-C205 (Four Branches) 525 592 127 132 116 108

viscosity, and relative roughness. The longer the horizontal well,
the larger the relative roughness, and when the viscosity of crude
oil is lower and the wellbore diameter is smaller, v is larger.
When NHv is less than 100, the nonlinear characteristic can be
neglected. However, when NHv is greater than 1500, v is almost
stable, and the maximum value equals 0.65.
The single-phase IPR curves of pinnate-branch wells are
obtained by modifying the horizontal-well IPR. A deliverability
incremental ratio JH exists when the dimensionless pressure is
defined as q/qCHmax. In addition, a v ratio Rv exists when the
dimensionless pressure is defined as q/qBHmax. Both the deliver-
ability incremental ratio JH and v ratio Rv are influenced by branch
number, branch length, major-wellbore length, wellbore diameter,
oil viscosity, and relative roughness, and binomial relationships
with the grouped parameters NHJ and NHbv are proposed for the
pinnate-branch horizontal well. JH can be used to evaluate the
economic validity of reservoir reconstruction projects or drilling
branches for horizontal wells.
The single-phase IPR curves of radial-branch wells are also
obtained. A deliverability incremental ratio JV also exists when
the dimensionless pressure is defined as q/qCVmax. The deliverabil-
ity incremental ratio JV shows a binomial relationship with the
grouped parameter NVJ for the radial-branch wells. It also can be
used to evaluate the validity of reservoir-reconstruction projects
or drilling radial branches for vertical wells. By contrast, the
deliverability incremental ratio JV of radial-branch wells is much
larger than that of pinnate-branch horizontal wells.
Further work on the multibranch-well IPR will focus on two-
phase IPR, which will consider both the two-phase flow and the
pressure drop in the wellbore.
Nomenclature
A ¼ pipe cross-sectional area, m2
B ¼ momentum correction factor, dimensionless
d ¼ pipe diameter, m

35 35
Computed IPR Computed IPR
30 Test data 30 Test data

25 25
pwf (MPa)

pwf (MPa)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
q (t/d) q (t/d)
(a) Radial-branch well Y-C108 with three branches (b) Radial-branch well Y-C205 with four branches

Fig. 20—Validation of the radial-branch well IPR.

230 April 2013 SPE Journal

 e ¼ relative roughness, dimensionless Islam, M.R. and Chakma, A. 1990. Comprehensive Physical and Numeri-
f ¼ wall-flow friction factor, dimensionless cal Modeling of a Horizontal Well. Paper SPE20627 presented at the
f0 ¼ no-wall-flow friction factor, dimensionless 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
JH ¼ deliverability incremental ratio in horizontal wells, Louisiana, 23–26 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/20627-MS.
dimensionless Kinney, R. 1968. Fully Developed Frictional and Heat-Transfer Character-
JV ¼ deliverability incremental ratio in vertical wells, istics of Laminar Flow in Porous Tubes. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 11
dimensionless (9): 1393–1401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0017-9310(68)90184-1.
Lb ¼ branch length, m Liu, H.Q., Wu, X.D., and Zhang, Q. 1996. Methodology of IPR Study for
Lm ¼ major-wellbore length, m Steam Stimulation in Horizontal Well. Paper SPE37146 presented at
Lp ¼ well spacing, m the SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Cal-
nb ¼ branch number of pinnate well gary, Canada, 18–20 November. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/37146-MS.
nr ¼ branch number of radial well Liu, H.Q. and Zhang, Q. 1999. Inflow Performance Relationship for Steam
NHJ ¼ grouped parameter Stimulation Well. Journal of University of Petroleum, China (in Chi-
NHV ¼ grouped parameter nese, abstract in English) 23 (3): 32–36.
NHbv ¼ grouped parameter Ouyang, L. and Aziz, K. 1996. Steady-State Gas Flow in Pipes. J. Petro-
NVJ ¼ grouped parameter leum Science and Engineering 14 (3–4): 137–158. http://dx.doi.org/
NRe ¼ Reynolds number, dimensionless 10.1016/0920-4105(95)00042-9.
NRew ¼ wall Reynolds number, based on pipe diameter and Ouyang, L.B., Arbabi, S., and Aziz, K. 1998a. General Wellbore Flow
equivalent inflow/outflow velocity, dimensionless Model for Horizontal, Vertical, and Slanted Well Completions. SPE J.
pwf ¼ bottomhole flowing pressure, MPa 3 (2): 124–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/36608-PA.
pwft ¼ tested bottomhole flowing pressure, MPa Ouyang, L.B., Petalas, N., Arbabi, S. et al. 1998b. An Experimental Study
pr ¼ reservoir average pressure, MPa of Single-Phase and Two-Phase Fluid Flow in Horizontal Wells. Paper
q ¼ oil-production rate, t/d SPE46221 presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Bakers-
qBHmax ¼ maximum oil-production rate at pwf ¼ 0 for pinnate- field, California, 10–13 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/46221-MS.
branch horizontal well, t/d Ozkan, E., Sarica, C., Haciislamoglu, M. et al. 1992. Effect of Conductiv-
qBVmax ¼ maximum oil-production rate at pwf ¼ 0 for radial ity on Horizontal Well Pressure Behavior. Paper SPE 24683 presented
branch well, t/d at the 67th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Wash-
qCHmax ¼ maximum oil-production rate at pwf ¼ 0 for conven- ington, DC, 4–7 October.
tional horizontal well, t/d Ozkan, E., Sarica, C., Haciislamoglu, M. et al. 1995. Effect of Conductiv-
qCVmax ¼ maximum oil-production rate at pwf ¼ 0 for conven- ity on Horizontal Well Pressure Behavior. SPE Advanced Technology
tional vertical well, t/d Series 3 (1): 85–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/24683-PA.
qmax ¼ maximum oil-production rate at pwf ¼ 0, t/d Penmatcha, V.R., Arbabi, S., and Aziz, K. 1997. Effects of Pressure Drop
qt ¼ tested oil-production rate, t/d in Horizontal Wells and Optimum Well Length. Paper SPE37494 pre-
Rd ¼ equivalent oil-drainage diameter, m sented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
Rv ¼ nonlinearity coefficient ratio, dimensionless Oklahoma, 9–11 March. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/37494-MS.
S ¼ wellbore perimeter, m Retnanto, A. and Economides, M.J. 1998. Inflow Performance Relation-
v ¼ average velocity, m/s ships of Horizontal and Multibranched Wells in a Solution-Gas-Drive
h ¼ wellbore-inclination angle (from horizontal) Reservoir. Paper SPE50659 presented at the European Petroleum
lo ¼ oil viscosity, mPas Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 20–22 October. http://
q ¼ density, g/cm3 dx.doi.org/10.2118/50659-MS.
sw ¼ wall-friction shear, N/m2 Schulkes, R.M.S.M. and Utvik, O.H. 1998. Pressure Drop in a Perforated
v ¼ nonlinearity coefficient, dimensionless Pipe With Radial Inflow: Single-Phase Flow. SPE J. 3 (1): 77–85.
vb ¼ nonlinearity coefficient for pinnate-branch horizontal http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/38448-PA.
well, dimensionless Seines, K., Aavatsmark, I., Lien, S.C. et al. 1993. Considering Wellbore
Friction Effects in Planning Horizontal Wells. J. Pet Tech 45 (10):
994–999. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/21124-PA.
Acknowledgments Su, Z. and Gudmundsson, J.S. 1994. Pressure Drop in Perforated Pipes:
The authors would like to express appreciation to the management Experiments and Analysis. Paper SPE28800 presented at the SPE Asia
of the Fourth Oil Production Factory of Zhongyuan Oil Field Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 7–10 Novem-
Company, SINOPEC, who provided well data and financial sup- ber. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/28800-MS.
port for this research, for their permission to publish this paper. Vogel, J.V. 1968. Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas
The authors also thank Yuping Fan, a doctoral student, for his Drive Wells. J. Pet Tech 20 (1): 83–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
suggestions and insightful remarks on this research. 1476-PA.
Zhao, L.X., Jiang, M.H., and Zhao, X.F. 2006. Research on Deliverability
References Relationship of Complicated Horizontal Well. Journal of China Uni-
Bendakhlia, H. and Aziz, K. 1989. Inflow Performance Relationships for versity of Petroleum (in Chinese with abstract in English) 30 (3):
Solution-Gas Drive Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE19823 presented at 77–80.
the 64th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, Texas, 8–11 October. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/19823-MS. Huiqing Liu is a professor of petroleum engineering at the
Brown, K.E. 1984. The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods. Tulsa, Okla- School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petro-
leum (Beijing). Liu previously studied at University of Wyoming
homa: Penn Well Publishing Company.
as a visiting scholar. Now, he is the Assistant President of the
Cheng, A.M. 1990. Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas- School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petro-
Drive Slanted/Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE20720 presented at the leum (Beijing). Liu’s research focuses on numerical simulation,
65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Lou- thermal recovery, and enhanced oil recovery (EOR). He holds
isiana, 23–26 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/20720-MS. BS, MS, and PhD degrees from China University of Petroleum.
Colebrook, C.F. and White, C.M. 1937. Experiments with Fluid Friction
Jing Wang is a PhD candidate in oil- and gasfield develop-
Roughened Pipes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 161: 367–381. http:// ment at the School of Petroleum Engineering, China University
dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1937.0150. of Petroleum (Beijing). Now, Wang is studying oil- and gas-field
Dikken, B.J. 1990. Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells and Its Effect on development, combining MS and PhD degrees. His research
Production Performance. J. Pet Tech 42 (11): 1426–1433. http:// interests are in numerical simulation and EOR. He holds a BS
dx.doi.org/10.2118/19824-PA. degree from China University of Petroleum (East China).

April 2013 SPE Journal 231

Jian Zheng is a senior reservoir engineer at Shengli Oil field of
Sinopec. His research interests are in numerical simulation, pro-
file control, and EOR. He holds a BS degree from Northwest
University in China. Zheng also holds an MS degree from China
University of Petroleum (East China).
232
Ying Zhang is a professor and senior reservoir engineer at
Liaohe Oil Field of CNPC. Now, Zhang is the manager of Xin-
glongtai Block at Liaohe Oil Field. His research interests are in
thermal recovery and oil-production engineering. He holds BS
and MS degrees from China University of Petroleum.
April 2013 SPE Journal