Estimation of Liquid Wall and Interfacial Shear Stress in

Horizontal Stratified Gas-liquid Pipe Flow

Yiping Liu, Hua Zhang, and Jing Wang

Institute of Thermal Physics of Engineering, School ofMechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University,
Shanghai, China

Abstract. A modified two-phase shear stress calculation method for pipeflowproblems is explored. A force balance has
been set up on the control volume of liquid phase to determine the interfacial friction factor by employing both the
measured pressure gradient and liquid height. The gradient of height of liquid layer has been taken into account, which is
suitable for the case where the interface may be smooth, rippled or wavy. The correlation of model indicates that the
careful estimation for liquid-wall shear stress is necessary, and the assumption of a stationary liquid element is not
applicable for the case of higher gas flow rates. The interfacial friction factor evaluated indirectly from experimental
liquid height and pressure loss measurements, which are obtained in 50mm ID pipeline for air and water in cocurrent
stratified flow, is used to achieve its correlation with the combination of characteristic parameters. The evaluation of new
correlation has been conducted by the comparison of the predicted pressure drop with the experimental data. The
performance of correlation depends on the form of the gas-liquid interface.
Keywords: Gas-liquid pipeflow;Friction factors; Interfacial shear stress.
PACS: 47.55.-t

INTRODUCTION

Two-phase pipe flows occur in many industrial applications, such as condensers, and evaporators, chemical
processing equipment, nuclear reactors, and oil pipelines. A variety of basic mechanistic flow models for predicting
the pressure gradient and liquid loading characteristics of these types of flows to assist in design calculations have
emerged over the past three decades, especially for the stratified and slug flow regimes. In these models, an
understanding of the effects of interaction of a moving gas with a liquid surface presents an important problem to
investigators, so most of basic assumptions and empirical closure equations relate to the evaluation of interfacial
shear stresses.
Two assumptions, smooth pipe single-phase Blasius friction for the liquid and gas wall shear stresses, and the
friction factor of the gas-liquid equivalent to the friction factor of the gas flowing against the wall, made in the
pioneer work of Taitel and Dukler[l], is now commonplace in mechanistic models of stratified- and slug-type flows
in horizontal pipes. Andritsos and Hanratty[2] demonstrated that this did not hold true at higher gas velocities and
proposed a correction factor. This factor reduced the error in the momentum equation to within 10% of the
experimental values, while the prediction from Taitel & Dukler was on the order of 50%.
For the equilibrium stratified flow, the momentum equations of two phases are written as

-^G(dP/dx)-TWG^G-TI^I =0 (l)

-AL(dP/dx)-pLg(dhL/dx)-TWLSL+TlSl=0 (2)

^WG=0-5/GPG»G T
WL = ° - 5 / L P L W L ^i=^fiPG(uG-UL)2 (3)

CP914, Multiphase Flow: The Ultimate Measurement Challenge, edited by X. Cai, Y. Wu, Z. Huang, S. Wang, and M. Wang
© 2007 American Institute of Physics 978-0-7354-0422-9/07/S23.00

610
 It is the common practice that both the measured pressure gradient and liquid height are employed for the
calculation of interfacial shear stress. In this case, the flow is commonly assumed to be fully developed, as a result,
the gradient of height of liquid layer is omitted, and arithmetic average height on different locations is employed for
a series of theoretical analysis. However, this assumption is improper as non-uniform flow occurs. Such non-
uniform flow can affect liquid holdup measurement and flow pattern transitions, and can incur error because holdup
varies along the pipeline [3].
In this study, with reference to the liquid control volume, a force balance in the horizontal direction is set up and
the interfacial level gradient has been taken into account. By this approach, the interfacial shear stress evaluated
indirectly from experimental liquid height and pressure loss measurements is provided for the estimation of the
interfacial friction factor.

BASIC MODEL
Two-phase pipe flows occur in many industrial applications, such as condensers, and evaporators, chemical
processing equipment, nuclear reactors, and oil pipelines. A variety of basic mechanistic flow models for predicting
the pressure gradient and liquid loading characteristics of these types of flows to assist in design calculations have
emerged over the past three decades, especially for the stratified and slug flow regimes. In these models, an
understanding of the effects of interaction of a moving gas with a liquid surface presents an important problem to
investigators, so most of basic assumptions and empirical closure equations relate to the evaluation of interfacial
shear stresses.
Referring Fig. 1, including hydrostatic forces in the liquid phase, a force balance about the element of liquid
phase with the length of dx in the axial direction yields

P Wg(h ~ y)Vb(y) dy + PAL + S18ST1 cosf? + (P + 8PI 2)S{8S sin 6 + pLALu

JO
(4)

J *h+oh r

[pLg(h-y)¥Ky)dy
0
-i

+ (P + SP)(AL +SAL) + PLALUL(UL -5UL)+T^S^X

and the one-dimensional equation of mass conservation for the liquid phase is

AWL = (A + 5A)(UL ~ 5U
LI (5)

Since the interface half-width b varies with the liquid level, b = b(y), and for small dh, SAL ~ S, Sh. If both P and
SP are assumed to be constant in the >>-direction at a given location along axial direction, and the small order terms
are neglected, Equation (4) can be expressed as follows:

Sfr^ + SPSjSh12 - 5PAL + pLu2L5AL - r^S^x = £ + * [pLg(h - y)]lb(y) dy = FB (6)

UL+8U

FIGURE 1. Control volume for force balance analysis.

611
 So the interfacial shear stress can be calculated by above expression. Note that the term on the RHS of Equation
(6) is the net hydrostatic force acting on the liquid element in the axial direction. The expression of b about the
liquid level y is given by

600 = 0 . 5 / ^ 1 - ( 2 / ' " l ) 2 (7)

where y is the dimensionless level (y/D), h is the dimensionless liquid height (hID). Two auxiliary definitions, <p
2(h+8h )ID-\, i// = 2hlD-\, are introduced for the integration of Equation (6). Thus, Fnei is given by

F«t = Pi,SD: y,2J\-y,2-<p2 •ql-cp1 + ysin 'y/-q>sin 'q>

(8)
71 5
, x +—
+ — (y/-q>)
16
1
12
[(i-w -(ivrl|
The cross-sectional area of liquid phase, AL, and the perimeters of gas-liquid interface, S,, is given by

-1
AL = 0.25D' n - cos (2h* -1) + (2h* - 1)^1-(2h' -l)2 (9)

Si = D^l-(2h* -if (10)

Substituting Equations (9) and (10) the following relations is obtained for the interfacial shear stress:

Fm 8P PhuLSh , ^WL'S'L
(11)
S:8x 5x ~S~ ~2 Sx

thus, it can be determined for each set of values of [usa, uSL, SplSx, ShISx] from the experimental data.

EXPERIMENT

Flow Loop
Figure 1 is a schematic of the test section and flow loop used to obtain the measurements presented in this paper.
A centrifugal pump was used to circulate water from the tank, through a pair Rousemount CMF300M355NU
Coriolis mass flow meter installed in series, and to the test section liquid entry section. A frequency conversion
compressor was used to circulate air, from a metal tube rotameter and vortex flow meter installed in series, and to
the test section gas inlet piping. The manufacturer-stated accuracies of the water and gas flow meters were ±0.1 and
±1 %, respectively. The entry sections for the two phases were simple pipe tees with air introduced in the branch
and water in the run. In this study the air-water mixture was developed in a 50 mm ID steel tube with a length of 8.5
m. The observation section was a clear Plexiglas tube, 2.2 m long and 50 mm ID. This allowed for a length to
diameter (lid) ratio of 214. Experiment data such as liquid height and pressure loss were acquired at an axial location
of about lid = 174, which ensured that the two-phase mixture was fully developed at the measuring point.

612
 FIGURE 2. Experimental equipment of gas-water horizontal flow.

Instrument and Measurement

The base liquid height in the stratified flow was measured using parallel wire probes. The principle of this
technique is that the conductance between two parallel wires increases linearly with the height of their immersion in
a conductive solution. Four annularly curved parallel wires, divided into two groups which were used to obtain
liquid level gradient, were expanded over the entire cross section of the pipe. They were sampled simultaneously in
order to study the transient behavior of the liquid layer
A serial of KELLER PA23e pressure transducers, which have a frequency response of up to 5kHz, were
connected to the bottom of the pipe to measure the pressure drop along the test section. Among them two
transducers, lm apart, were located just below the two groups of parallel wire probes. A NI Model PCI-6071 data
acquisition system was used to record the flow rates and pressure signal with the sampling frequency of 2500Hz per
channel.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Liquid Wall Friction Factor

For stable stratified pipe flows with a moving liquid phase, if both uL and 8h are extremely small, these terms are
expected to become insignificant when compared with the hydrostatic terms in Equation (11). Further, if the liquid
flows so slowly that the gas stream can be assumed to run over a stationary liquid, Equation (11) reduces to

F„c 8P 8h_
(12)
S: 8x 8x ~2

then the direct calculation of vl from aforementioned variables is available without the need for any empirical
correlation. However, for the consideration of the various gas-liquid interface forms, it is necessary to obtain the
value of the liquid-wall shear stress.
In two-phase flow computation, it is common practice to model the fluids wall friction factors using Blasius
equations. Kowalski [4] used hot-film anemometry to measure the gas Reynolds stress profiles for air-water and

613
Freon-water stratified flows, which were then extrapolated to the interface to obtain the shear stress. The result was
compared with typical method: from a momentum balance, using the wall shear stresses and void fraction
measurements. Kowalski suggested that measurements of fQ were accurately predicted by Blasius equation, but the
liquid-wall friction factor did not follow the Blasius relation, but a correlation of the type

A=0.263[(l-a)Re s ° 5 ] Re SL =tt SL Z)/v L (13)

This expression is used in this study to calculate the liquid-wall shear stress %WL-

Gas-liquid Interfacial Friction Factor

The aim of this research is to determine the apparent formulation of the interfacial friction factor fu which is
estimated using the experimental measurements of a series of variables. An appropriate correlation may be derived
to express/ as some of these variables or the combination of them. Some of the widely used correlations available in
the literatures are obtained based on a flowing gas phase. Agrawal [5] assumed a hydrodynamically smooth gas-
liquid interface and evaluated the interfacial friction factor as

/ ; =1.293 Re;! (14)

Shoham and Taitel [6] studied stratified turbulent-turbulent gas-liquid flow in horizontal and inclined pipes and
proposed a constant value (corresponding to a fully developed rough interface due to the presence of small waves):

y; =0.00142 (15)

Experimental data
- Agrawal et al (Equation (14))
— Shoham and Taitel (Equation (15))

••r * • . ! • * •

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

R e
L

FIGURE 3. Comparison of measured/ with existing correlations.

0.026
'
0.024 - • Experimental data
• •
• j

0.022

0.020 • y r m •

0.018 - • " V ' • a -

0.016 • jr
•
• • / •
0.014 -

0.012

0.010
- jM m
-
0.008

0.006
0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009 0.0010

(/!/DX027ReG084ReL036

FIGURE 4. 3-parameter correlation for/.

614
 Measurements of/ are plotted against the gas phase Reynolds number in Fig. 3. The solid and dot lines represent
two correlations listed above. Neither of these models predicts satisfactorily. Including more characteristic
parameters is needed for the achievement of an improvement in the quality of prediction. According to the result of
Pimsner and Toma [7], with the friction velocity, uz, the velocity profile may be expressed as the combination of the
liquid height and gas phase and liquid phase Reynolds number.

u/uT = F(D/h,ReG,ReL) (16)

If an approximation is applied here

(17)

Equation (16) may be expressed as

/=F[D//z,ReG,ReL] (18)

so, a power relation about the interfacial friction factor is as follows

f^a + biD/hfReiRei (19)

By the regression methods, the constant a, b, c, d, e, can be evaluated to fit the linear logarithmic form of the
formulation (as shown in Fig. 4). For present experimental data, the interfacial friction factor is formulated by

0 20 40 60 100 120 140 160 180 200

Measured pressure drop (Pa/m)

FIGURE 5. Comparison between calculated pressure drop using Equationl 1 and experimental values.

— ' — r —1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1—-j 1 1 • 1 r^

• / 40% y< -
:
- y "• /
- /. • /
. / • -• / -40%
/ • / • ^ " '
• / * ^
. / • y^.
t*S -" '

ii,
- *•
9
*s **
**
- A>Y*
*"
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Measured pressure drop (Pa/m)

FIGURE 6. Comparison between calculated pressure drop using Equationl 1 and experimental values.

615
 f{ =2.56xl0~3 +23.19(h/Dy027Rel084Re°L (20)

The methodology used to calculate the liquid-wall and gas-liquid interfacial friction factors in this study requires
evaluation against experimental data. Therefore, values of these two kinds of friction factor are substituted into one-
dimensional momentum balance (Equation (1) or Equation (2)) for stratified flow to give pressure loss predictions.
Comparison between calculated pressure loss using current procedure and experimental data are shown in Fig. 5 and
Fig. 6, which correspond to normal (Equation (11)) and simplified (Equation (12)) correlations of interfacial shear
stress respectively. For the former, scatters fall into an error band of approximately ±25%. The improvement over
simplified correlation, which has an error band of approximately ±40%, can be attributed to the consideration of
liquid level gradient and the proper estimation of liquid-wall shear stress. However, the data are overpredicted by
current correlation. Especially, agreement is found to be poor for larger pressure drop, which is related to the case
where larger amplitude waves are prevalent.

CONCLUSIONS
An investigation of the gas-liquid interfacial shear stress in horizontal pipe is conducted. Models are set up on a
volume element of liquid phase to correlate target variable with liquid-wall shear stress, pressure drop and liquid
height. Special aspect is that liquid level gradient has been accounted for, which can affect liquid hold-up
measurement, and can incur error because holdup varies along the pipeline. The estimation of interfacial shear stress,
along with its characteristic parameter, interfacial friction factor, is conducted on the experiment of air-water flow in
a horizontal pipe. By regression analysis, the correlation about interfacial friction factor is obtained. As shown in
results, combining dimensionless numbers, such as dimensionless liquid level and Reynolds number of each phase,
in the form of exponent, it fits the measured interfacial friction factor well.
It is found that the liquid-wall shear stress is necessary in this model. Since the absence of direct measurements
of these stresses, empirical correlation about liquid-wall friction factor are employed to support the estimation of
interfacial shear stress.
The correlations about gas-liquid interfacial friction factor are used to provide the predicted pressure drop for
the comparison with the measurement. Agreement is found to be good over the ranger of lower pressure drop.
Overestimation for the case of larger pressure drop indicates the occurrence of larger amplitude waves which arise
from higher gas flow rates.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 50476015).

REFERENCES
1. Y. Taitel and A. E. Dukler, AIChE J. 22, 47-54 (1976).
2. Y. Taitel and A. E. Dukler, AIChE J. 22, 47-54 (1976).
3. A. A. Bishop and S. D. Deshpande, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 12, 957-975 (1986).
4. J. E. Kowalski, AIChE J. 33,274-281 (1987).
5. S. S. Agrawal, G. A. Gregory and G. W. Govier, Can. J. Chem. Engng. 51,280-286 (1973).
6. O. Shoham and Y. Taitel, AIChE J. 30, 377-385 (1984).
7. V. Pimsner and P. Toma, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 3,273-284 (1977).

616