.
1.0
0,8
006
O*4
0.2
O*O
G
E
G o
G
G
I
I
000
0
lB o
w
3
)
m VSL = 12,041FT/SEC
O VSL =
3,910 FT/SEC
I
G vSL = 0,363 FT/SEC
t
I I
1 1
n mn .
4U
80 100
superficial GASvELOcITY(FT/sEc) ~
120
Fig. 3 Voi d Fraction w v8g at
Different Values of VSL
for 30 Degrees Angle
Development of Liquid Holdup Correlation
Analytical expressions for liquid holdup have been attempted for uphill
twophase S1U8 flow in vertical pipes and for downhill flow at low angles of
,.
Inclination ln,the range of O to 15 degrees. Considering the complex slippage
mechanism, a global liquid holdup model for any pipe inclination has not been
attempted previously.
More than 1500 liquid holdup measurements at uphill and downhill
inclination an81es from 0 to f90 from horizontal were obtained in this
study. Attempts to correlate these data Into a global empirical liquid holdup
correlation are presented below. At each uphill and downhill an81e, void
fraction was plotted as a function of superficial 8ae velocity for fixed
superficial liquid velocity. Each of these plots was continuous within the
error tolerance of the holdup measurements. Example plots are shown tn Fi8s. 4
throu8h 6. At very high 8as rates the curves almost become asymptotic with the
100%void fraction (O%liquid holdup). For downhill stratified flow at very
low8as rates the void fraction rises rapidly and then almost linearly
increases with increased gas rates. However, the void fraction plot for
horizontal flow Is similar to the uphill plot, even in the stratified flow
reeime. The general shapes of these plots prompted selection of a nonlinear
\
regression equation of the f orm,
2
N C5
HL=EXF(Cl+C2 Sin e+C3Sin 0+C4NL) ~.. .o~**. .~C(l)*..C(l)
NLV 6
Subsequently, three liquid holdup correlations were attempted, one for uphill
Gnd horizontal flow and the other two for downhill strat~fied flow and the
other downhill flow patterns. The re8ress&on cwdikients are given In Table
1. The coefficients were obta~ned by using the nonltnuar BIOMED4regression
pro8ramao In each of the regression analysee, the outliers in the res$dual
plot were deleted f romthe data set and the analyees wao repeated.
100
0,8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
+ VSL = 7.325 FT/SEC
G VSL = Oc363FT/SEC
.
x VSL = 0.094 FT/SEC
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
SUPERFICIALGASVELOCITY(FT/SEC) ~
.
.
100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
I
.
)
m
I VSL = 10,679FT/SEC
G VSL = 0.363FT/SEC
m
x VSL = 0.094FT/SEC
I
i 1 I 1 1
0 20 40 80 80 100 120
superficial GASVELOCITY(FT/sEC) ~
Fig. 6 Void Fraution w Vs g at
Different Values of V~L for
+90 Degrees Angle
~. A
I
I m VSL = 10.679FT/SEC
A VSL = 1.817FT/SEC
G VSL =
0.305 FT/SEC
I I I I I
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
SUPERFICIALGASVELOCITY(FT/SEC)~
Fig. 6 Void Fraction vs
Different Values of
90 Degrees Angle
VW at
vsL for
I I
Table 1
Coefficients of Liquid Holdup Equation
i
I I
I !
Values of Coefficients
Flow Direction Flow Pattern
i
1 1 I 1 B I 1 @ 1
I 1 I IC I 1 I I
1 I Ic
I
lc~cvlc I
1 ! I I I j ~
I ! I I
~ Uphill Flow ~ All ~ 0.380113 ~ 0.129875 ~ 0.119788 ~ 2.343227 ~ 0.475686 ~ 0.288657 I
1 !
1
1
I
I 1 ~ I ~
I
t 1
1
I
Downhill Flow
!
I Stratified
i
 1. 330282 ~ 4.808139
.1 i
~ 4.171584 i 56.262268 ~ 0.079951 i 0.5048W !
I i
~Other ~ 0.51644 ~ 0.789805 ~
~
0.551627 ~ 15.519214 ~ 0.371771 \ 0.393952 I
I i I I I I I

.
The selection of phase velocity numbers as the independent variables
instead of the phase superficial velocities as shown in Figs. 46 was done to
make the variables dimensionless. These numbers were also suggested as
6 9
correlating parameters by Duns and Ros , Hagedorn and Brown , and Eaton
et al. The velocity numbers, together with the inclination angle, also formed
the independent variables defining the flow patterns. Hence, inclusion of all
these variables implicitly makes the holdup correlation flow regime dnpendent.
The use of dimensionless numbers should not affect the shapes of curves shown
.
in Figs. 46 since, for a ~xed oil, converting superficial velocities to
dimensionless
approximately
/
form requ~. _. ~lication by a nearly constant quantity of
2.5 for this study.
Effects of Inclination Angle and Viscosity
The second degree polynomial function of the form Cl + C2 Sin e +C3 Sinz e
was selected by plotting liquid holdups for different angles of inclination at
fixed liquid and gas velocity numbers. This relation was also confirmed by
comparing results of other equation forms in trial runs of the regression
analysis. The best error as indicated by the sum of squares was obtained using
the second degree relation. The equation is also consistent with the Beggs and
Brill discovery that liquid holdup passes through maximums and minimums at
fixed inclination angles of approximately +50 and 50, respectively for
their data. Eq. 1 shows that the liquid holdup should increase as the uphill
angle of inclination increases. fiis fact can be shown graphically by
comparing liquid holdup values obtained from the plots in Figs. 78 where void
fractions are plotted for the same oil at three similar superficial liquid
velocities for horizontal and uphill 30 pipe Inclination.
Intuitively, increased liquid viscosity should increase viscous shear
causing increased liquid holdup irrespective of inclination angle. Positive
coefficients of the liquid viscosity number in all the holdup correlations
support this hypothesis,
1.0
g
.
0.8
006
0.4
0.2
000
.0.094
.
//
,
3.9
7.3
1200
VSL
(FT/SEC)
A 0.094
0 0.363
G 3.9
x 7.3
I 12.0
1 1 I 1 1
0
20 40 60 80 100 120
SUPERFICIALGASVELOCITY(FT/SEC)~
Fig. 7, Figure ShowingVoidFraction w Superficial (3as Velodty
at Fixed Superficial LiquidVelocity for Horizontal Flow
.
o
A
G
i,
VSL
(FT/SEC)
oG 094
3*9
12.0
0 20 40 60 80
100 120
SUPERFICIALGAS VELOCITY(FT/SEC)~
Fig. 8 Figure Showing Void Fraction vs Superficial Gas Velocity at Fixed
Superficial LiquidVelocity for Uphill Flowat 300
In general any force which creates drag on any phase against the
direction of flow tends to increase the insitu fraction of that phase. As a
result, viscous drag on the liquid will always tend to increase the liquid
holdup, irrespective of inclination angle. However, gravity forces on the more
dense phase will tend to increase the holdup of that phase for uphill flow and
decrease it for downhill flow. Similarly, buoyant forces will tend te decrease
void fraction for uphill flow while increasing it for downhill flow.
DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS
The proposed liquid holdup correlation was tested with the observed data
to check the reproducibility of the observed holdup values. For both
experimental oils at different angles of inclination the relative percent
errors were calculated for individual experimental observations. For each
angle and each oil the average percent errors and their standard deviations
were calculated. The data points with more than 30 percent relative percent
error were not used for the calculation of either average percent errors or
the standard deviations. A majority of these data were for liquid hcldups less
than 10 percent or more than 90 percent. In this range of liquid holdup the
capacitance sensor was found to be less accurate and high percent errors in
the measured values were expected. However, for most of these very low or very
high liquid holdup cases, the sensitivity of total pressure loss to the liquid
holdup was greatly reduced.
In the development of these liquid holdup correlations, the BMDPnon
linear re~ression package was used, Thts regression method minimizes the
residual sum of squares to calculate the regression coefficients, The
observations corresponding to the outliers in the res&dual plot we~= c~cludei
in the development of the holdup correlations. Normally, these outliers
indicated erroneous observations, This criterion for culli~ data does not
correspond to minimizing the average percent error. Hence, when these
correlations were applied to the observed data, a further culling of data
based on average percent error was required. Normally, depending on the value
of the absolute relative error, the sensitivity of the holdup measurement
techniques reflests a great deal on the average percent error. For very small
values of observed holdup, even with acceptable absolute error, relative error
may be very large. This is often caused by division of a small quantity in the
calculation of percent error. Values of average percent error and standard
deviations for liquid holdup for each oil at different angles of inclination
are shown in Table 2.
CONCLUSIONS
An empirical model for inclined twophase flow liquid holdup is proposed.
The proposed model enables the determination of liquid holdup irrespective of
the angle of inclination and the direction of flow. The set of holdup
correlations is dependent on the same dimensionless parameters that control
the flow pattern transitions in twophase flow. Except for
flow, the liquid holdup correlations are continuous across
transitions.
downhill stratified
flow pattern
Table 2
Statistical Parameters for Holdup Correlations
Applied to Obeerved Data
oil Angle
i
I &~f /Average
(degrees) ~ , % Error
i I
Standard
i
Deviation
I
~
5
20
:;
!5J
70
80
90
;
20 .
30
50
70
80
90
35
i
I
2.79
48
I
O*O4
57
I
4.71
I
5*49
4; \ 1.96
2.17
I
6; ~ 4.98
2.77
% ~ 2.95
42
/
1.86
40
I
2.44
O*33
:; ~
6.81
31
I
1.71
33
I
5*35
29
1
 os05
29
1
6. 19
13,64
14.25
13040
1.77
12.30
3.16
11.92
13.55
16.80
13.95
13079
25.95
10.73
20.32
18,91
19.89
21.20
I
I
1 G01
:; I
I
15.01
7.52
I
8.22
4.34 13.58
:
I
I
Oe26
I
I
15*43
37 7.15 15.87
NOMENCLATURE
c
L
gv
*Lv
L
Sg
s1
u
P
u
e
empirical constazs
l~quid holdup
gasvelocity number, v
Sg {pL/(gu)}25
liquidvelocity number, v
sl {@@}25
liquid viscosity number, p
L {!j/(pLu3)}*25
superficial gas velocity, ft/sec
superficial liquid velocity, ft/sec
viscosity, Cp
density, lbm/ft3
surface tension,
pipe Inclination
dynes/cm
angle from horizontal
S1 METRICCONVERSION FACTORS
Cp x 1*O* E03 = Pa.S
dyne x 1.0* E02 = mN
F *F
 32)/1.8
= c
ft X 3.048* E01 = m
inx 2.54* E+OO = cm
lbm X 4.535924 E01 = KS
* Conversion factor is exact.
.
1.
2.
3*
4.
50
6.
7.
8.
9.
10*
llQ
Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: A Study of TwoPhase Flow in Inclined
Pipes, J. Pet. Tech. (May 1973), 607617.
Bonnecaze, R.H., Erskine, W. and Greskovich, E.J.: Holdup and Pressure
Drop for No Phase Slug Flow in Inclined Pipelines, AIChE J. (Sept. 1971)
17, 1109*
Cunliffe, R.S.: Prediction of Condensate Flow Rates in Large Diameter
High Pressure Wet Gas Pipelines, APEAJ. (1978), 171.
Dixon, W.J.: BMDP Biomedical Computer Pro8rams, PSeries, Univ. of
California Press (1977).
Dukler, A.E., Wicks, III, M. and Cleveland, R.G.: Frictional Pressure
Drop in TwoPhase Flow: B. An Approach Throu8h Similarity Analysis,
AIChE J. (Jan. 1964) 10, No. 1.
Duns, H., Jr. and Ros$ N.C.J.: Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures
in Wells, ~roc. 6t~ World Pet. Cong. (1963), 451.
Eaton, B.A., et al: The Prediction of Flow F~ttems, Liquid Holdup and
Prescure Lo.sacs 0ccurrin8 Durin8 Continuous TwoPhase Flow in Horizontal
Pipelines, Trans. AIME, (1967)$ 815.
Guzhov, A.I., Mamaye~?,V*A. and Odishariya, G.E.: A Study of Transport
ation in GasLiquid Systems, 10th Int, Gae Conference, Hamburg, Germany
(1967).
Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients
During Continuous TwoPhase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Occurring
Conduits, J. Pet. Tech. (April 1965), 475484.
Hu8hmark, G.A, and Pressbur8, B.S.: Holdup and Pressure Drop with Gas
Liquid Flow in a Vertical Pipe, AIChE J. (Dec. 1961) ~, 677.
Mukherjee, H.: An Experimental Study of Inclined TwoPhase Flow, Ph.D.
Dissertation, The Univ. of Tulsa (1979).
12. Palmer, CoM@: Evaluation of Inclined Pipe TwoPhase Liquid Holdup
Correlations Usin8 Experimental Data , M.S. Thesis, The U. of Tu1s8(1975).
13. Singh, G. and Griffith, P.: Determination of Pressure Drop Optimum Pipe
Size for a TwoPhase Slug Flow In an Inclined P$pe, J, Eng. for Ind.
(Nov. 1970), Trans. ASME, 92, 717726.
14. Vohra, I.R., et al: Comparison of Liquid Holdup and FrictionFactor
Correlations for GasLiquid Flow$t, J. Pet. Tech. (May 1975), 564568.
15. Zukoski, E.E.: Influence of V?.scosity, Surface Tension and Inclination
Angle on Motion of Long Bubblas in Closed Tubes, J. Fluid Mech. (1966)
2S, Part 4, 821837.
e,