USMS

022534 Prediction of Pressure Drop and Hold-Up in Gas/Liquid

Flow in Pipes Using the Two-Fluid Model
R.I. Issa, Imperial College; Z.F. Tang, Imperial College

Copyright /99/ Society of Petroleum Engineers

This manuscript was provided to the Society of Petroleum Engineers for distribution
and possible publication in an SPE journal. The material is subject to correction
by the author(s). Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words. Write SPE Book Order Dept., Library Technician, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.
 UNSOLICITED SPE, 2253 4

PREDICflON OF PRESSURE DROP AND HOLD-UP IN GAS-LIQUID FLOW IN PIPES

USING TIIE lWO-FLUID MODEL

R. 1. Issa and Z. F. Tang

Mineral Resources Engineering, Imperial College, London, U.K.

SUMMARY

The two-fluid model equations for steady one dimensional flow are used to predict the pressure-
drop and hold-up in gas/liquid flow in pipes. The equations are solved numerically to yield
cross-sectional-averaged values of the phase velocities, pressure and phase fraction along the
pipe. The different two-phase flow regimes are accorded their own separate treatment; this is
done by fonnulating different closure models for the interphase momentum transfer mechanism
appropriate for each regime. The method is applied to numerous cases of bubbly, slug and
annular flow in vertical pipes for which experimental data are available; agreement between
theory and experiment is found to be very good.

NOMENG..ATURE

A cross-sectional area of the pipe

B body force per unit length
Cn drag coefficient
D pipe diameter
d bubble diameter
F contact force per unit length
f friction factor
G mass flow rate

~s
length of Taylor bubble
length of liquid slug behind Tayor bubble
p pressure
Re Reynolds number
S mass transfer rate
UF film velocity
U gs velocity of gas bubbles in liquid slug
U is liquid velocity in liquid slug section
U TB velocity of Taylor bubble
V average velocity at a cross-section
Vr relative velocity between phases
z distance along the pipe
a volumetric phase (or void) fraction
o film thickness
Il viscosity
P density
cr surface tension
't shear stress

subscript: g gas phase

I liquid phase
19 interphase transfer from liquid to gas
w pipe wall
i interface
b bubble
s slug
F film
TB Taylor bubble
c gas core
Ie entrained liquid " ,

.- ..
 sp'E 2253 4

1. IN1RODUCflON
Although most if not all calculations for flow lines in multiphase production systems have been and
continue to be based on empirical correlations, there is now a strong tendency to introduce more physically
based (so called mechanistic) approaches to supplement if not replace correlations. This is because the latter
are well known for their unreliability when applied to systems operating under conditions different to those
from which the correlations are derived; such conditions encompass: pressure, temperature, fluid properties
and pipe diameter. Furthermore, correlations exist for limited geometrical configurations (i.e. vertical or
horizontal pipes) and simple physical phenomena (no mass transfer between phases, constant temperature,
etc.). With the advent of more complex production systems involving deviated wells as well as the move to
exploit gas condensate resources the production of which will inevitably involve strong mass transfer
effects, calculation methods will be required to account for such complexities. The use or extension of
existing correlations to such systems will therefore be fraught with uncertainties if at all possible.

The alternative to crude empiricism is the reliance on physically based methods which use the fundamental
laws of fluid mechanics to describe the flow. With such laws, the analysis becomes independent of system
dimensions and fluid properties, thereby rendering the model to be universal, and capable of extension to
new conditions. This is very important, as the models can be tested and verified against experiment under
lalx>ratory conditions, rather than actual field data which are difficult if not impossible to obtain. Such
models exist; the two-fluid model in which conservation equations for mass, momentum and energy are
formulated for each phase in space and time is the most sophisticated of these. It is this model which forms
the basis of the work presented herein.

For pipe flow, the two-fluid model can be considerably simplified by assuming the flow to be one-
dimensional, whereby variations in flow variables occur only along the pipe; variations across the pipe
section are absorbed through the use of averaged quantities for all variables (see e.g. Wallis, 1969). With
this simplification, the two-fluid model becomes feasible for use in routine design calculations for
production systems. Further simplification can be obtained with the assumption of steady conditions, a
state which is true in most production systems in normal operation.

The equations arising in the two-fluid model contain terms which represent the transfer of conserved
quantities (i.e. mass, momentum and energy) between phases. These terms require modelling the basis of
which obviously depends on the nature of the flow regime itself. Thus for example the momentum transfer
between the bubbles and the liquid in bubbly flow is due to a different mechanism from that responsible for
momentum transfer in annular mist flow; hence different mathematical models are needed to represent these
mechanisms. The present paper proposes such models for vertical bubbly, annular and slug flows.

To verify the developed models, calculations are made for a large number of cases for which experimental
data exist in the literature. The results of calculation in terms of pressure-drop and hold-up are compared
with the measurements.

2. TIlE ?v1ETHOD
2.1 The Conservation Equations
All equations stated herein may be found in text books such as that by Wallis (1969).

2.1.1 Mass Conservation

For the liquid phase

(1)

For the gas phase

d
(Apga gVI) = SIg + Sg (2)
dz
 SPE 22534

The tenn SI accounts for the mass transfer between the phases whereas SI and S cater for any external
mass sourc~s or sinks such as for example the flow from a hydrocarbon reservoJinto the well bore. In the
present work all mass transfer terms are taken to be zero.

By defmition, the liquid and gas volumetric phase fractions are linked by:

(3)
2.1.2 Momentum Conservation

For the liquid phase

(4)

For the gas phase

d dp
- (Aa p y2) = B + F - a A-g (5)
dz g g g" g g g dz
Nonnally, the phase pressures PI and Pg can be assumed to be equal with the exception of the case of
horizontal stratified flow, where the eXIstence of a hydrostatic head in the liquid dictates the difference in
phase pressures at the cross-section. Since, the present paper does not deal with the latter case, the
assumption of equal pressures is made throughout the work.

In the above equations, BI and Bg are the body forces per unit length. At present, these are only due to
gravity. Hence:
B1 = - AgsinSPIa..
B = - AgsinSp
g
a
g g

where S is the pipe inclination to the horizontal.

The non-body forces F 1 and Fg are made up of the wall shear forces FwI and Fwg' and the interface forces
Fil and Fig (where Fit = - Fig)' All these forces require closure modelS to relate them to the main
dependent variables in the e<J.uations, namely: VI' V g~ p, 0.1 and a~ Such models depend on the structure
and dynamics of the flow regIme being consIderoo ann are derivedLrom a combination of empiricism,
dimensional analysis and simplified theory. The following sections will be devoted to the development of
closure models for vertical bubbly, slug and annular mist flows.

2.2 Closure Model for Vertical Bubbly Flow

2.2.1 Interfacial Force. In pipe flow where there is little acceleration, the interfacial force is due to fonn
drag only; other forces such as frictional drag and virtual mass effect can reasonably be neglected. Further,
if the bubbles are assumed to be spherical in shape, then the number of bubbles per unit volume is related to
the phase fraction a g by:
60.
No. of bubbles/unit volume =~ (6)
3
1td
Also because of the assumption of spherical shape, the projected area of each bubble in the direction of the
flow is

. ;-:-
..~ -- . :
 '-I
SPE 2253 4

Using the standard drag force expression which relates the drag to the dynamic pressure by a drag
coefficient, one arrives at the following expression for the total drag on all the bubbles per unit length:

F.
1
=-c
2g
pV - · - A
xi 6a
19 2 DI r 4 3
xd
or

(7)

The drag coefficient CD is determined empirically as a function of the bubble Reynolds number Reb defined
as:

(8)

Various CD versus Reb relations have been used in the course of this work. The best results were obtained
for low void fractions (~lt < 12.5%) with the Ishii & Zuber (1979) model; for ~ > 12.5% the standard
drag curve (Clift et al, 1'.:178) yielded the better results. This combination of drag coefficient relations is
used throughout this work.

2.2.2 Wall Shear. The wall shear force in bubbly flow is exerted on the liquid phase only. This is
because the bubbles rarely contact the pipe walls as observed by Clift et al (1979), Herrings & Davies
(1976), Subbotin & Pokhavor (1976) and Akagawa (1964). The wall shear force is obtained from the wall
shear stress expressed in terms of a friction factor, thus:

(9)

The friction factor f is a function of the Reynolds number Re defmed as:

Re = (10)

and the relationship between the two in single phase flow is assumed to apply to a two-phase system also.
Hence for example the Blasius fonnula:

-1/4
f = 0.079 Re (11)

may be used for fully turbulent flow in smooth pipes, and:

f=~ (12)
Re

is employed when the flow is laminar.

 SPE 22534

2.3 Closure Model for Vertical Slug Flow

2.3.1 Preamble. Strictly, slug flow is an unsteady but periodic phenomenon. However, for the pUIpose
of routine design calculations, it is desirable to retain the steady state approach which is the subject of this
work. To enable the capture of the essential features of the real phenomenon in a steady framework, it is
necessary to examine the forces acting on one slug unit composed of the Taylor bubble and the following
liquid slug as shown in Fig. 1. These forces are then evaluated as quantities per unit length of pipe and are
assumed to act steadily on a time-average basis. This is legitimate provided that the slug unit length is much
shorter than the pipe length, which is usually the case in production strings. The forces determined thus are
then supplied into the expressions for the interface and wall shear forces needed to close the two-fluid
model equations as explained earlier.

As will be seen shortly, in the derivation of these expressions, additional information about quantities
relating to the details of the flow field in slug flow is required. This necessitates the examination of these
details in a model of the slug structure in order to extract the required information.

2.3.2 Interfacial Force. The total interfacial force between the gas and liquid phases is made up of two
components:

(i) the interfacial force between the Taylor bubble and the surrounding liquid film, and

(ii) the interfacial force between the liquid phase in the liquid slug behind the Taylor bubble and the small
dispersed bubbles within this liquid slug.

The first of these forces is assumed to be negligible as the shear stress between the liquid and bubble is
small and the pressure within the bubble is almost uniform (Le. no form drag).

The second force is determined in a manner similar to that employed in section 2.2.1 (eqn. 7) for dispersed
bubbly flow. Hence, the force per unit length is:

L
s
(13)

where u sg is the void fraction within the liquid slug section of the slug unit.

The value of ~ may be determined from the slug structure model to be presented later, as for examfle
proposed by Fe~andes et al (1983). However, for the sake of simplicity of the slug structure mode and
because of experimental evidence furnished by Barnea & Shemer (1989), a constant value for Us of 0.25
is used in this work. Indeed the full slug structure model of Fernandes et al (1983) in which u sg ~as
computed, returned values close to 0.25, thus justifying the present use of this value.

2.3.3 Wall Shear. Here again, the total force is composed of two components: that acting on the liquid
fIlm around the Taylor bubble, and that acting on the liquid in the liquid slug section. Expressions for these
forces are now derived.

Between the wall and the Taylor bubble, a gas-free liquid film (assumed to be of uniform thickness 0) falls
down at a velocity Up. causing a wall shear force in tlie opposite direction to the flow. The Taylor bubble
does not contribute towards the wall shear force as no contact is made with the wall.

In the liquid slug section, it is assumed that no bubbles contact the wall and the wall shear force is exerted
only on the liquid which travels at a velocity UIs• Hence the total wall shear force per unit length is:

l' '~..-.r.: . \

(14) ,
. . .:
.
......... -
---..
 seE 2253 4

In the above expression, the friction factors fF (for the film in the Taylor bubble section) and f s (for the
liquid slug section), are determined in the usual manner from the Reynolds number (see section 2.2.2). It
should be pointed out that the Reynolds number in the film is based on the hydraulic diameter concept, thus:

2.3.4 Slug Structure Model. In the foregoing two sections, expressions for the interface and wall shear
forces per unit length have been derived. These expressions contain new variables, namely: ~s' UF and
UIs' In order to determine these quantities, it is necessary to examine the details of the flow fieICl in a slug
unit as was done for example by Fernandes et al (1983) and Orell & Rembrand (1986).

In the present approach, the slug structure is analysed along similar lines to those of Fernandes et al, but
use is made of some of the ideas proposed by Orell & Rembrand The resulting model both removes some
of the more dubious assumptions in the second model and leads to a simpler set of equations than in the
first Details of the approach employed here are contained in the work of Issa & Tang (1990); only a brief
outline is therefore given here.

Consider the slug unit depicted in Fig. 1. The slug unit consists of two parts, a Taylor bubble, around
which there is a bubble free falling film, and a liquid slug with dispersed gas bubbles. The Taylor bubble
rises at a velocity of U TB relative to the wall, whereas the film flows down at an average velocity of UFo
The liquid slug picks up the falling film, and accelerates it to its own velocity UIs. Within the liquid slug,
liquid and gas move at different velocities U Is, and UgS! with a gas fraction of <lgg (assumed to be 0.25 as
explained earlier). A balance of mass flow rates and or forces together with some empirical relations, lead
to the following set of equations (Issa and Tang, 1990):

(15)

U (1 - a ) L s _ U (1 - a-) = Va (1 + L s )
Is sg 10 F ~ TH I I 10 (16)

(UTB - U Is ) (1 - as~ = (UF + UTB ) (1 - ~) (17)

U TB = C (VI~ + V gag) + 0.35 JgD (18)

UF = JDg(l-~)/fF (19)

crg (p _ P )]1/4
U = U + 1.53 (l - a )1/2
pI s g
I
2
g
(20)
[ PI

where C is a coefficient that takes the value of 1.2 for Re > 8000 and 2 for lower values of Re.

The set of equations (15) to (20) has to be solved simultaneously with the two fluid model equations since
the variables a, VI and V g which appear in this set are obtainable only from the main conservation
equations. Details of how this is achieved are given by Issa & Tang (1990).
" .
 SPE 22534
2.4 Closure Model for Vertical Annular Flow

2.4.1 Preamble. In annular flow, the central gas core which is laden with droplets is taken in the present
work to constitute one of the phases; the other phase is made up of the liquid in the outer film. Hence, in all
the equations presented earlier whenever a quantity refers to the gas phase, it now pertains to the mixture in
the core.

2.4.2 Interfacial Force. This is simply taken as:

(21)

whex:e Vf is the phase-slip velocity and 0 is the liquid film thickness which is related to the liquid phase
fracnon oy:

or

(22)

The friction factor ~ is determined as a function of olD; here two proposed relations have been used, that by
Wallis (1969) whicn is:

f. = 0.005 (1 + 300 olD) (23)

1

the other by Whalley & Hewitt (1978) which takes the form:

(24)

where fGC = 0.079 ReGC-l/4 where ReGC is a core mixture Reynolds numberdefmed by:

(p a V + PI~VI) D
Re = ~g~g~g-----
GC
IlG

The present work concludes that the best results are obtained when equation (23) is invoked for gas
superficial velocities less than 21 mis, and equation (24) is used for velocities higher than this value.

't ''''';;,; '; ,

 seE 22534 r

2.4.3 Wall Shear Force. Because only the liquid contacts the pipe wall, there is only one component of
the shear force. Hence:

(25)

The friction factor f is now a function of the Reynolds number Re defined as:

and the usual relationships (e.g. the Blasius formula) between f and Re are applied.

2.4.4 Entrainment In annular flow, liquid is continually entrained in the form of fmely dispersed
droplets by the gas core from the surrounding film; an equal amount of liquid is deposited onto the film
when a state of equilibrium exists. In such a state, the net momentum transfer between the phases due to
this mechanism is nil, and no contribution to Fig needs to be included.

However, in the calculation of the interface and wall shear forces in the preceding sections, the mixture
density Pc and viscosity Jlc are used. These values not only depend on the actual gas and liquid densities
and viscosities, but also on the amount of liquid entrained m die gas core, and this in turn is a function of
the flow conditions. Thus, if G le and G g are the mass flow rates of the entrained liquid and of the gas
phase respectively, then, Pc and Jlc are calculated from:

(26)

and

GgJlg + Gle~

P PI
Jlc = Gg G
(27)
...£+2:.
Pg PI

In the above relations, the quantity Glerneeds to be specified. This is accomplished by using one of the
existing correlations such as those by Kataoka & Ishii (1985), Oliemans et al (1986) and Owen & Hewitt
(1986). Since the latter correlations are based on a larger database, it is that which is employed in the
present work. Details of the correlations can be found in the cited reference.

2.5 Method of Solution

The two-fluid model equations (1) to (5) together with the auxiliary relations representing the interfacial and
wall shear forces are solved numerically, using an implicit itemtive procedure. The equations are first
discretised by integration over small intervals I1z in the streamwise direction and the resulting simultaneous
algebraic equations at the current station are solved by the following iteration sequence:
 9
SPE 2253 4

(i) solve the liquid continuity equation for VI

(ii) solve for the pressure p from the liquid momentum equation

(iii) solve the gas momentum equation to determine Vg

(iv) obtain <Xg from the gas continuity equation, and calculate <Xl
(v) repeat above process until convergence.

Under-relaxation was found to be necessary on almost all variable in order to stabilise the iterative process.

3. RESULTS

3.1 Bubbly Flow

Comparisons with existing published data are made. The test data are collected from the work by
Hughmark (1959), Bhaga (1972), Lahey (1987) and Serizawa (1987). The tests cover a wide range of
conditions with liquid superfacial velocities between 0.025 (mls) and 0.9 (mls), and gas superfacial
velocities between 0.0008 (mls) and 0.2 (mls). The selected data lie within the bubbly flow regime
according to the flow regime criteria by Taitel et al (1980), McQuillan & Whalley (1983) and Bilicki &
Kestin (1987).

Figures 2 and 3 show, respectively, the comparison between the computed gas void fraction and pressure
drop with the data. It can be seen from the figures that agreement is quite satisfactory with relative
differences of less than 10% throughout.

3.2 Slug Flow

The data to be used for comparison are again collected from published literature. The most comprehensive
slug data set is from Fernandes (1981). Both Hughmark (1959) and Govier et al (1957, 58, 60) measured
gas hold up as well as pressure drop. The pressure drop of slug flow was also measured by Akagawa et al
(1971), and Griffith & Wallis (1961). Another independent gas hold up data is collected from Akagawa et
al (1966). The gas superficial velocity ranges from 0.03 mls to 1.5 mls and that of the liquid velocity from
0.0161 mls to 1.1 mls.

The present calculations for gas void fraction and pressure drop are compared with the data in Figs. 4 and 5
respectively. Agreement is within 7% for the void fraction while the discrepancy in pressure drop is no
worse than 15%.

3.3 AnnularFlow
Computations have been carried out for a number of annular flow cases with gas velocities ranging from 15
mis, which is just over the chum-annular regime transition zone, to 34 mis, and liquid velocities ranging
from 0.006 to 1.5 mls. The gas void fraction varies from 70% up to 98%. The selected data come from
published literature by Fernandes (1983), Govier et al (1957) and Hughmark (1959).

The results are plotted in Figs. 6 and 7 for the gas void fraction and pressure drop respectively. Once
again, discrepancy with the data is limited to 7% in the case of hold-up and to 15% for pressure drop.

4. CONCLUSIONS

A one-dimensional steady two-fluid model has been presented for the calculation of all flow variables along
pipes. The governing equations are closed by closure models for the determination of the interfacial and
wall shear forces. Such models are presented for vertical bubbly, slug and annular flows. Comparisons
with a wide range of published data for these flow regimes show very good agreement. This verifies the
generality of the method and gives great confidence in applying it to new flow conditions for which
empirical correlations are either not available or not suitable.

Future development of the method will focus on formulating closure models for other flow regimes
including horizontal and inclined pipes, which will make the method a comprehensive one. Also needed is
a built-in flow regime identification procedure so that the appropriate closure model is selected .' .
automatically.
 SPE 2253 4 /0

REFERENCES

Akagawa, K. (1964) 'Fluctuation of Void Ratio in Two Phase Flow', Bulletin ofJSME, 7, p122.

Akagawa, K., Hamaguchi, H., Sakaguchi, T., Ikari, T. (1971) 'Fluctuation of Void Fraction on Pressure
Drop in Two Phase Slug Flow', Bull. JSME, 14, p447.
Bamea, D., Shemer, L. (1989) 'Void Faction Measurements in Vertical Slug Flow: Applications to Slug
Characteristics and Transition', Int. J. of Multiphase Flow, p495.

Bhaga, D., Weber, M. E. (1972), 'Holdup in Vertical Two and Three Phase Flow Part ll: Experimental
Investigation', Can. J. Chern. Eng., 50, p329.

Bilicki, Z., Kestin, J. (1987) 'Transition Criteria for Two Phase Flow Patterns in Vertical Upward Flow',
Int. J. of Multiphase Flow, 13, p283.

Clift, R., Grace, J. R., Weber, M. E. (1978) Bubbles, Drops and Particles, Academic Press, New York.

Fernandes, R C. (1981) Experimental and Theoretical Studies ofIsothermal Upward Gas Liquid Flows in
Vertical Tubes, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Houston, U.S.A.
Fernandes, R C., Semiat, R, DuckIer, A. E. (1983) 'Hydrodynamic Model for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in
Vertical Tubes', AIChE J., 29, p981.

Govier, G. W., Radford, B. A., Duns, J. S. C. (1957) 'The Upwards Vertical Flow of Air Water
Mixtures,1. Effect of Air and Water Rates on Flow Pattern, Holdup and Pressure Drop', Can. J. Chern.
Eng. vol 35, p1258.

Govier, G. W., Short, W. L. (1958) 'The Upwards Vertical Flow of Air Water Mixtures, ll. Effect of
Tubing Diameter on Flow Pattern, Holdup and Pressure Drop', Can. J. Chern. Eng. 36, p195.

Govier, G. W., Brown, R A. S., Sullivan, G. A. (1960) 'The Upwards Vertical Flow of Air Water
Mixtures, Ill. Effect of Gas Phase Density on Flow Pattern, Holdup and Pressure Drop', Can. J. Chern.
Eng. 38, p62.
Govier, G. W., Aziz, K. (1972) The Flow ofCornpiex Mixtures in Pipes, Van Reinhold Company.

Griffith, P., Wallis, G. B. (1961) 'Two Phase Slug Flow', J. Heat Transfer, 83, p271.

Herringe, R A., Davies, M. R. (1976) Structural Development ofGas-Liquid Mixture Flows, 173, p97.

Hughmark, G. A. (1959) Holdup and Pressure Drop with Gas Liquid Flow in a Vertical Pipe, Ph.D.
Thesis, Louisiana State Univ., U.S.A.

Ishii, M., Zuber, N. (1979) 'Drag Coefficient and Relative Velocity in Bubbly, Droplet or Particulate
Flows', AIChE J., 25, No.5, p843.

Issa, R. 1., Tang, Z. F. (1990) 'Modelling of Vertical Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Pipes', Proc. ofASME
Int. Symp. on Gas/Liquid Flow, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 25-30, Nov., 1990.

Kataoka, 1., Ishii, M. (1983) 'Entrainment and Deposition Rates of Droplets in Annular Two Phase Flow',
I Proceedings, ASME-JSME, Thermal Eng. Joint Conference, vol. 1 p69, ASME, New York.

Lahey, R. T., Lee, S. J. (1987) 'Phase Distribution and Two-Phase Turbulent for Bubbly Flows in Pipes',
Multiphase Science and Technology, p4.
McQuillan, K. W., Whalley, P. B. (1985) 'Flow Patterns in Vertical Two Phase Flow', Int. J. of
Multiphase Flow, 11, p161.
 /1

SPE 22534
Oliemans, R. v. A., Pots, B. F. M, Trope, N. (1986) 'Modelling of Annular Dispersed Two Phase Flow
in Vertical Pipes', Int. J. Multiphase Flow, p711.

Orell, A., Rembrand, R. (1986) 'A Model for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in a Vertical Tube', Ind. Eng.
Chem., Fundam., 25, p195.
Owen, D. G., Hewitt, G. F. (1986) A Proposed Entrainment Correlation, AERE R12279, HARWELL.

Serizawa, A., Kataoka, I., Michiyoshi, I. (1987) 'Phase Distribution in Bubbly Flow', Multiphase
Science and Technology.
Subbotin, V. I., Pokhvailov, Yu. E., Mikhailov, L. E., Kronin, I. V., Leonov, V. A., 1976, Time and
Structure Characteristics of Slug Flow of Gas/Liquid Mixture', Thermal Eng. 23, p48

Taitel, Y., Dornea, D., Duckier, A. E. (1980) 'Modelling Flow Pattern Transition for Steady Upward Gas-
Liquid Flow in Vertical Tubes', AIChE J. 26, p345.

Wallis, G. B. (1969) One Dimensional Two Phase Flow, McGraw-Hill Inc.

Whalley, P. B., Hewitt, G. F. (1978) The Correlation ofLiquid Entrainment Fraction and Entrainment
Rate in Annular Flow, AERE R9187, HARWELL.

... ,
 SPE 2253 4 lJ.

B B

Taylor bu bble Lra

U
F

Falling film

0 0 0 0

ULS t gstU

LS
Liquid slu g 000

0 0 0 0

Vg V
L
•
A- -A

Fig. 1 Slug Unit

.' ,
 S~E !2534 13

0.32

0.3 -
-
0.28 -

0.26 -

0 0.24
W
a:: 0.22
lh
Z 0.2
0
1= 0.18
0
c(
a::
u.
0.16

0 0.14
g I1l

. /.; ....
0.12 - III
(J) 111
c(
<:) 0.1 -

0.08 -

0.06 -

0.04 - m ~-
EI
0.02 -
raRJ mli!l
0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32

GAS VOID FRACTION (EXP)

Fig.2 VOID FRACTION COMPARISON FOR BUUBBLY FLOW

1.1

i
:::c
E
ow
a:: 0.9
lh
!Zw iii
ra EI
~
<:) 0.8 -
III

w
a::
:>
(J)
E:I
(J) III
w 0.7 -
a::
Q..

0.6 -

0.5 -t------r------,-----,-----,-----,.------;
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1

PRESSURE GRADIENT(EXP•• mH2o/m)

Fig.3 PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON FOR BUBBLY FLOW

 SPE 22534 17

O-S . . . . . , . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _

EIEI
0-7 -
JAm
mEl
6'
II iii iii
UJ Ell:!
a:: 0-6 iii
~
z
o

~
u..
0-5

o
~ 0.4 -
~
0-3

0.2 +-----~---__,----___.----.___---____r----_/

0-2 0-4 0-6 D.B

GAS VOID FRACTION (EXP)

Fig.4 VOID FRACTION COMPARISON FOR SLUG FLOW

1.1

1 -

!::I:
0-9 -

~ D.S - III
0
UJ liE!
UJ
a:: 0-7 -
~
!Z
UJ 0-6 -
is
UJ
a::
C) 0.5 -
UJ
a::
:::>
<J) 0-4
<J)
UJ
a::
c.. 0-3

0-2

0-1
0-1 0-3 0-5 0-7 0.9 1.1
PRESSURE GRADEITN(EXP.,mH20/m)
Fig.5 PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON FOR SLUG FLOW

. ~.'_.:.,_. :
 1.1

1 -

0 0.9
UJ
a:
~
z
0 0.8
1=
0
<:
a:
u. 0.7
0
§?
(/)
<: 0.6
Cl

0.5

0.4
0.4 0.6 0.8

GAS VOID FRACTION (EXP)

Fig.6 VOID FRACTION COMPARISON FOR ANNULAR FLOW

1.1

1 -

~
J: 0.9 - III
E
c::i 0.8 -
UJ III
a:
~ 0.7 -
~
Z
UJ
(i) 0.6 -
<:
a:
Cl 0.5 -
UJ
a:
=>
(/)
0.4
(/)
UJ
a: 0.3
C-

O.2

0.1 - l'D
ED
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

PRESSURE GRADIENT(EXP., mH2o/m)

Fig.? PRESSURE DROP COMPARISON FOR ANNULAR FLOW