* ●

SPE
sodawof FetmkumEn@eera

WE 20637

A Cfmpreiiemhie Mechmktic I’dfxid for Tvio-F%ase Flo;AJ

in Pipelines
J,J, Xiao, 0, Shoham, and J,P, 13rili, U, of Tulsa
SPE Members
n
AA
Copyright 1990, Society of Pelroleum Engineerg, Inc.

This paper wag prepared for proaenlcdlon at tho 06th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of tha Socletyof Petroleum Englneere held In New Orleane, LA, September 23-26,1990,

Thts papar waa selected for presentation by an SPE Program Commltlaa following review Of InformalIon contelned In cm abalract aubmltled by the WlhOW$ COIIIO!IIS of the papar,
ae presented, havo not boon.reviewed by the Socialy Of Pelrolaum Englneere and aro 8ubJ6ct to correction ij the euthor(e), The material, as presented, does not nocessarlly reflocl
any position of the Society of pelroloum En@neers, Ita offlcars, or members. Papers presented at 9PE meetings are subject to publication review by Edltorlal Commllteas of Ihe Socioly
ot Petroleum Englnoera, Permleslon to copy la restricted IO an ab!rlract of not more than 300 wordo, Iltuslfatlons may not be copied, The abstract ehould contain consplcuods acknowled~
mant of where and by whom the paper la presented. Write Publlcatlona Manager, SPE, P,O, Uox 833S313, Rlchardeon, TX 76063.3836 U,S,A, Telex, 730989 SPEOAL,

ABSTRACT systems, The traditional approach to solve the problem

has been to conduct experiments and develop empirical
A comprehensive mechanistic model has been correlations. A1though these correlations have
developed for gas-liquid two-phase flow in horizontal contributed significantly to the design of two-phase 11OW
and near horizontal pipelines, The model is able first to systems, they did not take into consideration ille
detect the existing flow pattern, and then to predict the physical phenomena,
flOW characteristics, primarily liquid holdop and
pressure drop, for the stratified, intermittent, t~nnular, Since the mid 1970’s, significant progress has
or disporscd bubble flow patterns, been made irr this area. Models have been developed to
predict flow patterns, Separate Models have also been
A pipeline data bank has been established, The proposed for tho prediction of tho flow characteristics
data bank includes large diameter field data culled from for cacti flow pattern, namely stratified flow,
the A, (3, A, database, and laboratory data published in intermittent flow, mtnular flow and dispersed bubble
the literature, Data include both blaok oil and flow, However, up to date, no study has been carrlcd out
compositional fluid systems, to verify the consistency and the applicabilhy of these
models,
The comprehorrsive mechanistic model has been
ovahtatcd ap@rst tho data bank and also compared with The purpose of this study is to dovclop a
the performrmco of rmmo of tho most commonly used comprohonsivo mechanistic modrtl for two-phnso flow in
correlations for two-phaso flow in pipelhtos, Tho pipelines by combining the most rcccnt dcvolopmcmts in
evaluation, based on the comparison between the this area, The model is thmt evaluated against a fbld and
predicted and tho measured prwmure drops, laboratory mcasurcmwtt data bank, and compared with
demonstrated that the overall performance. of the sovoral commonly used empirical correlations,
proposed model is better than that of any of the
correlations, with the lrmst absolute average percent I?LOW PATTERN I~I{~~:C’rI~N M()~~L
error and the least standard deviation,
When gas and liquid flow simultaneously in a
INTRODUCTION pipe, tho two phases can distribute thmnselvos in a
variety of flow confifytrations or flow patterns,
Prodictiou of flow pnttcrns, liquid holdup and dopondirtg on operational paratrmtors, geometrical
prwwuro loss for two-phastt flow in pipelines is variables as WOI1 as physical properties of tho two
important for designing gas-liquid transportation phases, Tho existht~ flow patterns in pipclinos have boon
classified into four major types: Stratified Flow
Roferoncos and illustrations at end of paper. (Stratified Smooth and Stratified Wavy), Intermittent
167

2 A C~IVR MRC~
Flow (Elongated Bubble Flow and Slug Flow), Annular
Flow (Annular Mist Flow and Annular Wavy Flow) and
Dispersed Bubble Flow. These flow patterns are shown in
Fig. I.
Flow pattern prediction is a central problem iii’
two-phase flow analysis, The recent trend in this ares is
the development of mechanistic models based on the
physicel phenomena. The pioneering work is due to
Taitel & Duk!er (1976) and Taitel et al. (1980), Later,
Barnea et al. (1982a, 1982b, 1985 and 1987) adopted the
same approach, modified and extended the existing
models to form a unified model for the entire pipe
inclination angles. On the other hand, flow pattern
determination, especially for the onset of slugging, has
been investigated through linear stability theory by
various researchers (Lin & Hanratt y 19S6, Andritsos
1986 and Wu et al, 1987), Unfortunately, this approach
is mathematically complex and its solution is very
involved for design purposes. Hence, the Taitel & Dukler
(1976) model with some modifications is used in the
present work.
Three major flow pattern transitions are
identified here: The Stratified-Non Stratified transition,
the Intermittent-Annular transition and the
Intermittent-Dispersed Bubble transition. Stratified
flow is further divided into two subregions: Stratified-
Smooth and Stratified-Wavy flow.
. on Str~ . . tion (s . NS ): The
mechanism of wave growth is used for the prediction of
this transition, A finite wave is asaumed to exist, on the
gas-liquid interface of an equilibrium stratified flow.
Extending the Kelvin-Helmholtz theory to analyze the
stability of finite waves in pipes, Taitel & Dukler
claimed that when the pressure suction force is greater
than the gravity force, waves tend to grow and thus
stratified flow cannot be preserved. Their analysis leads
to the followhtg criterion for this transition:
vB>(l-*)~L-:&)aA~]’2
.........o(1)
This transition is shown as transition A in Fig. 2 for air.
water flow at atmospheric pressure h a 0.05-m diumeter
pipe with a htolinatiort angle of -1”.
The stratified-slug transition is predicted
satisfactorily by 13q. (1). For the stratified-annular
transition, however, recent experiments conducted by
Lin & Hanratty (1987) showed that the entrahtmatt.
deposition process is dominant for large diameter pipes,
while for small diameter pipes wave-growth is usually
the dominant mechanism, Nevertheless, no generally
1$8
.
FOR TWO-P-LOW IN PIP-S SPE 20b’3L
accepted model based on the entrainment-deposition
mechanism has yet been found in the literature.
Jntermfttent . Annular ‘transition {I-A): When waves
are unstable, the flow could change to either intermittent
flow or annular flow, depending on whether there is
enough liquid supply. The proposed critical liquid level
was 0,5 in the Taitel & Dukler (1976) model. Barnes et
al. (1982a) modified this criterion by taking into
account possible gas void fraction in liquid slug near the
transition, The *evised transition is given by:
h <0,35 ........................................................... (2)
D
This is shown as transition B in Fig. 2.
ersed Bubble Tr~n . . [1.QB.)L The
mechanism governing this transition is believed to be the
turbulent process which breaks up bubbles and prevents.
bubble coalescence. J3arnea et af. (1987) developed a
unified model for the transition to dispersed bubble flow
applicable to all inclination angles. For the condition
cons~dxed in this study (- 15’s ix < IY) , however, the
original Taitel & Dukler (1976) model is used because of
its simplicity and sufficient accuracy. When the
turbulent force is sufficiently high to overcomt buoyant
force, the gas is no longer ab!e to stay at the top of the
pipe, and disp~i=?d bllbble f!ow will occur. The
wansition criterion is expressed w
112
vL>4ASgCOSa
[ Si fL (
l&&
PL )1
... .... ... . ... .... .... .... (3)
This is shown as transition C ht Fig, 2.
,,
Stratified Smooth-Stratlfled Wavv Transition (SS-SW~ In
stratified flow, the gas-liquid interface can be either
smooth or wavy, which gives quite different results for
liquid holdup and pressure drop. Waves may develop due
to either the interracial shear or as a result of
instability due to the action of gravity. For waves
induced by “wind” effect, Taitel & Duider (1976)
proposed the following criterion acoording to Jeffrey’s
theory:
Vs>
[
4~L(pL
s
- ps)8
PL PS VL 1
cosa “2 .,, ,,,s,.,,,..,.,,,. .,..,,,. (4)
where, s is a sheltering coefficient. Values ranging from
0,01 to 0,6 have been suggested from theories and
experiments in the literature. Taitel & Dukler (1976)
used a value of 0.01 to match their experimental data, A
recent study by Andritsos (1986) showed that the
criterion given by Eq. (4! with s = 0.01 is not accurate
for gas flow with lio.xiJs of high viscosity. They found
 .

DJ. P.- 3

that a good comparison can be obtained if a value of 0,06

is used, The sheltering coefficient may indeed be a
function of liquid viscosity. In the present work the
value of s = 0.06 is used, This transition is shown as
. As ~
() dx
- ~i Si -~wg Se - As ps g sin a = 0..... (7)

transition D in Fig, 2. As can be seen, the transition line

is shifted to the left of the line given by the original
Taitel & Dukler model (1976),
For stratified flow in downwardly inclined
pipes, waves can develop under the influence of gravity
even without the presence of inte:f~cial shear. Barne~. et
af. (1982a) presented the transition criterion as:
Under the assumptions of negligible surface
tension and liquid phase hydrostatic pressure gradient,
the pressure gradients in both phases are the same.
Eliminating the pressure gradient from these equations
result+ in the so called combined momentum equation:
hL&-7w8[(~)+(*l(f+tll+

A> 1.5........................................................ (5)

G (fiL-p&)g ShCE=O . .... ... . ... ... . .... ... .... ... ..... ... .... (8)

In Figure 2, this transition boundary is represented by
Curve E, and is terminated at the transition D where
waves are agitated by interracial shear,
INDIVIDUAL FLOW PATTERN MODELS
After predicting the actual flow pattern from the
operation 1 conditions, separate models are needed to
calculate liquid holdup and pressure drop for the
predicted flokv pattern, These models are developed in
the following section
Applying constitutive equations and geometrical
relationships, one can show that Eq. (8) is an implicit
function of hL/D. One problem encountered in solving
Eq. (8) is the multiple roots which occur in some cases
(Baker et -af. 1988 and Crowley & Rothe 1988),
Commonly, it is presumed that the smallest value is the
physical one,
After solving this equation for hL/f), the liquid
holdup can be derived from a geometrical relationship:
EL,=9 - sin t3 ................................,,,,., ..,,,..... .... (9)
2X

In stratified flow, due to gravity, liquid flows in where

the bottom portion of the pipe while gas flows in the
upper portion of the pipe, as shown in Fig, 3. Stratified ................,,, ,,.,,...,,,,.,,.,,, (lo)
t3=2cos-1 1.2h~
flow is one of the most dominant flow patterns for two- () D
phase flow in pipelines, particularly for flow in
downwardly inclined pipes,
With the solved liquid holdup, Eq. (6) “or (7) can
be used to calculate the pressure gradient, Another way
Over the years, various theoretical models with
is to apply both equations by eliminating interracial
different degrees of complexity have been proposed for
shear, i.e.,
this flow pattern, Significant recent work includes the
Taitel & Dukler (1976) model, the Cheremisinoff (1977)
. Q= ‘twt, SL + ‘rWs Ss ~
model and the Shoharn & Taitel (1984) two-dimensional
model, However, modbls considering the liquid phase ()dx A
velocity profile are neither easy to use nor guarantied to
give better results, This is maybe one of the reason that As .
ALpL+— A ps g Sm a ...................................(11)
the generalized one-dimensional two-fluid model by (A )
Taitel & Dukler (1976) is commonly used. This approach
is adopted in this study, Notice that the first term in the right hand side (RHS) of
Eq. (11) represents the frictional pressure gradient, and
Using the steady state one-dimensional two- the second term represents the gravitational pressure
fluid model approach and neglecting changes of phase gradient, Obviously, ctte acceleratlonal pressure gradient
velocities (Oi liquid level), the momentum equations for has been neglected.
the two fluids reduce to force balances, They can be
written as: Constitutlve Equations

Shear stress. The shear stresses in liquid-

wall, gas-wall and interface are evaluated through
friction factors as:
169
 ●

Hanratty (1987) correlation (D s 0.127 m or 5 in) and the

Baker et al. (1988) suggested correlation, i.e.,
Tw.=f..& T.,= f.*ti ‘Ci=fitiO-SO ’12)
2 2 2
for D <0.127 m

If vsg $ v~g,t, then:

-here fwL and fwg are obtained as follows.

fi
—= ~,,,,,,.................................................
f.JJl for Re s 2000 .-HHo.-=-- (13) (16)
Re f ~8

If vsg > vsg,t, then:

-1-=3.48
IF
-410g
(
fi+fi
D Re C ) :=1+1+=(3J
f
1)...................(17)

for Re > 20?)0 ........................................,,, (14)

where & is the pipe wall absolute roughness. Liquid and
gas Reynolds numbers are defined as ReL = pLVLDL/ItL
and Reg = pgvgD g/#g, with hydraulic diameters, DL and
D&, given by Eq, (15):
where vsg,t is the critical superficial gas velocity for the
transition to wavy regime. From Andritsos & Hanratty
(1987), this velocity can be approximated by:
vS&t= 5~
‘/ P
,,.,,,,,............................,,,. (18)

DL.*
St. ‘g= .—,(~;
$~i)
,....................... (15)
where p is the pressure in P: (N/m2).

Experiments by Kowalski (1987), Andritsos & for D >0,127 m

Hanratty (1987) and Andreussi & Persen (1987) all show
that the “liquid-wall friction factor deviates from the for Nwe Nys 0.005,
friction factor of single-phase flow due to the presence
of interracial waves. However, it is generally agreed that
using new correlations for fL other than the conventional
~i. W .,.............!.................................... (19)
one does not improve the prediction significantly. In this % Vt
study, the effect of fL on the model performance will be
investigated. for Nwe NW>0.005,

Interracial friction factor. A closure ~i_ 170 a (Nw NPP3

relationship for the interracial friction factor is needed ................................ (20)
to complete the stratified flow model. In the original P8‘~
Taitel & Dukler model this friction factcr was assumed
to be equal to the gas-wall friction factor. where Ei is the interface absolute roughness, Baker el al.
Underprediction of the pressure gradient due to this (1988) proposed that ei should be bounded between the
assumption was reported by many later investigators. pipe wall absolute roughness and 0,25(hL/D). The Weber
Mnny studies have been focused on improving the number, Nwe, and the liquid viscosity number, Np, are
interracial friction modelling. defined as:
An extensive evaluation of available lnterfacial
friction correlations reveals that current methods for Nwa - h ‘~‘j ,..,,..,,.,,,.,,,,,,,..,..,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,. (21)
prediction of the interracial friction are far from being
satisfactory. It is found out that the correlation
developed by Andritsos & Hanratty (1987) works well Pi
Np= —,, ,,,,.,,..,,,.,,,.,,
..s ,0.... .,, ,,, ,,, ,, ..,.,.,. (22)
for small diameter pipes but overpredicts the friction ~L O El
factor when applied to large diameter pipes. A modified
Duns & Ros correlation (Brill & Beggs 1986) used by Baker et al, (1988) suggested to replace the
Bsker el al. (1988), on the other hand, itnderpredicts superficial gas velocity in the original Duns and Ros
friction factor for small diameter pipes and gives a correlation with the interracial velocity, vi. In this
correct trend for large dismeter pipes. Therefore, it is study, VL is substituted for vi. From ci and Reg, the
recommended to use a combination of the Andritsos & interracial friction factor is calculated from Eq. (14).
’170
 For flow pattern prediction, unfortunately, use where VS represents the mixture velocity in the slug
of the above recommended correlations or any other body.
correlations is questionable, This is due to the fact that
available correlations were usually developed for actual The above four equations yield several important
stratified flow with low hL/D, while for equilibrium relationships. From Eq. (25), the liquid velocity in the
stratified flow hL /D can range from 0.0 to 1.0, slug body, VL, is obtained, Then, ?3q, (24) is rearranged
theoretically. At present, a value of fi = 0.0142 is used to give an expression for the liquid velocity in the film
for equilibrium stratified flow in flow pattern zone, vf. Using Eq, (26), an expression for the gas
determination. This constant value is suggested by velocity in the film zone, vg, can be obtained. The average
Shoham & Taitel (1984), liquid holdup for a slug unit, EL, is defined as:

~~=E,Ls+ErLr ................................,., ,,., (27)

L.
Intermittent flow is characterized by alternate
flow of liquid and gas (Fig, 4), Plugs or slugs of liquid, From Eqs. (23), (24) and (25), a relationship for EL can
which fill the entire pipe cross sectional area, are
be derived:
separated by gas pockets, which contain a stratified
liquid layer flowing along the bottom of the pipe. The
mechanism of the flow is that of a fast moving liquid slug vtE, +v~(l-E)-vss (28)
EL= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

overriding the slow moving liquid film ahead of it. The Vt

liquid in the slug body may be aerated by small bubbles
which are concentrated towards the front of the slug and Since we consider a uniform liquid level along
at the top of the pipe. the film zone, a combined momentum equation, similar to
Eq, (8) in stratified flow, can be obtained for the film
Intermittent flow has been studied by many zone:
investigators. Recently, a consistent approach has been
carried out by Taitel & Barnea (1990), They presented a
general approach to determine the hydrodynamics of the
.f:-.s[(:)+(:)(:+t)l+
liquid film of a slug unit using a very detailed one-
dimensional channel flow model. The disadvantage of this (pr,-p~)gsb~=(),..,
.,,
,,
.,,,.,,
..,,
,.,,
.,,.,.,,
,,(29)
general approach is the requirement of numerical
integration, For practical application, a model which
assumes a uniform liquid level in the film zone is Analogously, Eq, (29) is solved for the equilibrium
believed to be sufficient, liquid level, or the liquid holdup in the film zone, Ef,
Then, the liquid and gas velocities and the shear stresses
With this assumption and considering can be evaluated. Considering the slug length to be
incompressible liquid and gas phases, an overall liquid known, the slug unit length can be obtained from fiq. (23)
mass balance over a slug unit gives: and Lu = Ls + Lfi

W LU= VLESLs + VfEf Lf *...’ . . . ..$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23) Lu ~L~ VI, ES - Vf~f ,,,,,,,,, ,,, .,,.,,,, ,,..0.,,,,,,.,,, (30)
V~L- VfEf
where, J3s and Ef are the liquid holdups in slug body and
film zone, respectively. A mass balance can be tdso The average pressure gradient for intermittent
applied at two cross sections relative to a coordinate flow is calculated by using a force balance ovrtr a slug
system moving at the translational velocity, For the unit:
liquid phase, this results in

(V, - VL) E, = (Vt - Vf) Ef ,,!,.,, ,,, ,,, .,.,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, (24)
dp
()
- ~=pugsinrx+-

The total volumetric flow rate is constant at any cross

section in a slug unit, For the slug body and the film fi[(wL’)+rsf:7assLf)l”’’o’1000”’’”(31)
zone cross sections, this implies:
where p,, is the average fluid density of a slug unib
VS = + VB6= VLE, + Vb(1 - E,) ............. (25)
V,SL
pU =ELPL + (1 - EL)ps ,,, ,,, ,,, .,,,,,.,, ,.,.,.,.. ,,, (32)
v8=vf Ef+vg (1 - d ,..*,...,,,,,,*,,*,,,,,,,,,,, ,, (26)
171
The first term of the RHS of Eq. (31) is the gravitational 1.s3 ~_li’4 1#1 sin cs............... (38)
pressure gradient whereas the second term is the 1 Pt 1
frictional pressure gradient, which results from the
. .
friction loss in the slug body as well as the friction loss
0.1
in the film zone. where Es is included to account the effect of “bubble
swarm” in the slug body (Ansari 1988),
Constitutive Equations
Liquid holdup in dug Body. The
Shear stress. The shear stresses appearing in correlation developed for liquid holdup in the slug body
Rq. (29) are calculated in a similar manner as in by Gregory ef al. (1978), given below, is used in this
stratified flow, i.e., study.

~fpLhfhf ~g=fg Psl%h 1 (39)

-Tf= — E s= .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . .
2 2 1 + ~1039
()8.66
~= fiPsl%@’f C!k.Q .,,., .............,,,,..,., (33)
m
L The calculated Es is bounded between 1.0 and 0,48.
where ff and fg are evaluated using Eq. (13) or (14) with Slug length. For slug length, we use the
Ref = pLvfDL/WL and Reg = pgvgDg/ltg, Hydraulic correlation developed by Scott (1987):
diameters are defined exactly as in stratified flow, A
constant value of fi = 0,0142 is used for the’ interracial Ln (L,)= -26.6 +
friction factor.
28.5 [Ln (D) + 3.67]0”1............................s (40)
The shear stress in the slug body, zs, is
calculated as: If D < 0.0381 mm (1.5 in), an approximate value of Ls =
30 D is used.
~,= f,%
—.,‘f: ,,,.. ,,,...................................... [34)
2

where fs is obtained from Eq. (13) or (14) using Res = The liquid phase in annular flow exiNs in two
PSVSWS. PS md PS are the mixture density and viscosity forms: a liquid film flowing along the pipe walh and,
in the slug body, respectively: liquid droplets entrained in the gas core (see Fig, 5).
Unlike the vertical flow case, the liquid film in the
p,=&pL+(l -Es)Pg ,,,............................ (35) horizontal and inclined configurations is not
circumferentially uniform, but is usually thicker at the
bottom than at the top of the pipe.
fls=&PL+{l -ES)P8 . ., . .,, .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (36)
Early studies for annular flow were summarized
Correlations for vt and vb, The correlation by Hewitt & Hall-Taylor (1970). The classical treatment
for elongated (Taylor) bubble translational velocity is for annular flow has been the use of the well-known
based on Bendiksen’s recommendation (Bendiksen 1984): triangular relationship between the film flow rate, the
film thickness and the pressure gradient. This treatment
Vt =Cv’ + 0.35 ~gD sinu + ignores the iiquid secondary flow effects,
circumferential variations of the film thickness, and the
(37) deposition and entrainment rates. These phenomena are
0.54 ~ cos a , .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
important for horizontal and inclined annular flow.
Therefore, two-dimensional models are proposed to
where the value of C depends on the liquid velocity incorporate these mechanisms (James et al, 1987 and
profile in the slug body. C = 1.2 Is used for turbulent Laurinat et af, 1985), Nevertheless, in these models,
flow and C = 2 is used for laminar flow. complex mathematical formulations are involved, and
numerical methods are often required for the solution,
The velocity of dispersed bubbles in the slug For vertical annular flow, on the other hand, the one.
body is given by: dimensional two-fluid approach has used by Oliemans et
al, (1986) and later by Alves et al, (1988). Comparing
Vb = 1,2 VS+ with field data, Ansari (1988) shows that this approach
gives excellent results.
172
 ,,.“*
*:

In the present work, the two-fluid approach is

extended to fully developed steady state annular flow in
. ~_
()
6X
‘TwL SL ,.

A
pipelines, For simplicity, an average film thickness is
assumed. In the gas core, the droplets are assumed to
travel at the same velocity as the gas phase, Thus, the gas ‘PL+&PQ #JShU ,,, ,0,,,.,...,.,., . .. . . . .. . . (47)
core can be treated as a homogeneous fluid. Because of (A A )
these assumptions, the treatment of annular flow is
similar to stratified flow, but with a different Clearly, the total pressure gradient is a summation of the
geometrical configuration, Here, the two fluids are the frictional pressure gradient (the first term of the RHS),
liquid film and the gas core which includes the gas and r‘. ~ the gravitational pressure gradient (the second term
the entrained liquid droplets. ot the RHS). Again, the accelerational pressure gradient
is neglected.
Momentum balances on the liquid film and the
gas core yield Constitutive Equations

Shear stress. The shear stresses are defined

. Af~+~iSi-’CwLSL- as follows:
()dx
Y ,.>..,., ..... (48)
AfpLg Sinc%=o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,, ,., , (41) .wL = f#@ ti = fl PC (VC -‘f

. 2 2.
. A. ~ - ~i Si - Ac p, g sin u = () .........(42) where ff is calculated from Eq, (13) or (14) using ReL =
()dx pLv fD~/pL, with the hydraulic diameter defined as DL =
4tl(D-s)/D,
where pc is the mixture density in the gas core and is
given by: Using an overall liquid volumetric flow rate balance for
the film leads to the following relationship for the liquid
pe=%pL’+(1 ‘&)Ps . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (43) film velocity, VF

The liquid holdup in the gas core is related to liquid V,.(I - FE) .,.,,.. ,,,,,.,..,, ,.,, ..,. ,$,.....s.,... (49)
entrainment fraction, FE, as follows: Vf=
4L1. A
V’L~ DD()
EC= ....................................,,, , (44)
V:g+ VgL~ Similarly, for the gas core, the mixture velocity is given
by:
Eliminating the pressure gradient from these equations
gives the combined momentum equation:
Vc=
VSs +

1.2ii2
VSL~
,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,
,,,
,.,
,,, ,!, ,., ,,, , (50)
sL - ~is~
TwL —
A~ ()Af
~+~+

A, () D

(PL-f.b)gSh~So ,,, ,, .,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (45) Liquid entrainment and interracial

friction factor, To complete the annular flow model,
closure relationships for the interfaoial friction factor
Similar to the stratified flow case, all the
and the liquid entrainment fraction are needed. Only few
geometric parameters in Eq, (4S) are functions of 5/D, correlations- have been developed from experimental data
the dimensionless average film thickness, Thus, the for horizontal annular flow (Henstock & Hanratty (1976),
combined momentum equation can be solved for this Laurinat et al, (1984)), No data are available for inclined
unknown, from which the liquid holdup can be annular flow, Consequently, correlations developed for
calculated: vertical annular flow are also considered in this study
(Wallis (1969), WhaHey & Hewitt (1978) and Oliemans
Vq
EL=l-1.2~2
() D V,g + V,L ~
,, . . .. . . . . . .. . . . (46) el al, (1986)), It h found out that the combination of the
liquid entrainment and htterfacial friction correlations
proposed by Oliemans et al, (1986) gives the best
results, These correlations are given as follows
,The pressure gradient can be evaluated using Eqs. (41)
and (42):
173
 -EL. The 1988 version of the A, t3. A. gas-liquid
I-FE pipeline data base contains 455 data points (Crowley
1988), Theses data are from measurements in a wide
variety of gas and oil pipelines. Thus, it provides an
appropriate source of data for statistical analysis.
However, many data points contained in this data base
are either almost identical or not reliable. As an
example, there are cases where unrealistically low
pressure drops were reported for very long pipelines.
“=fc[’+2250tc(v~: ff~J”’’’””””””(52)
Data of this nature are discarded. Another concern in the
evaluation process is the accuracy of the fluid physical
property prediction. To reflect the performance of the
where the p parameters are regression coefficients. Eq.
model, errors from fluid physical property calculation
(52) is a modification of the original correlation carried should be minimized, For a compositional system
out by Crowley & Rothe (1986). The core friction factor, containing free water a possible water-oil emuIsion may
fc, can be calculated from Eq. (13) or (14) using the occur. Therefore, compositional data containing free
following definition of the Reynolds number : water are not considered. As a consequent of di these
considerations, only 79 data points are selected for this
v. Dc study, among which 25 data are from compositional
~ec ~ p,
,,....0...........0......,,....,.,.0 ......... (53)
b systems.

where Field measurements by Mcleod et al. (1971) are

also included in our data base. These are high mtality
~=&~L+(l ‘Ec)lJg ., .,,. ,,, ,,, , . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (54) data taken in an offshore pipeline of lS2.4-mm- di~mete;.
The fluids are modelled as a black-oil system.
De= D-25 ..................,..,.,, ,,,................... (5s)
Additional laboratory dak from Eaton & Brown
(1965) and Payne et al. (1979) are included. Although
these data were obtained in small diameter pipes, the
operational pressures are very close to field conditions.
Among the four flow patterns, the model for
dispersed bubble flow is the simplest one. Due to no STATISTICALPARAMETERS
slippage between the phases, the pseudo-single phase
model with average properties is suitable for this flow The statistical parameters used in this study are
pattern. The liquid holdup is thus the no-slip liquid defined in Table 2 and are explained below:
holdup:
The average percentage error, El, and the average
EL. m .......................................
.,
...........s. (56) error, G4, are measures of the agreement between
v~
predicted and measured data. They indic~te the degree of
ovorprediction (positive values) or underprediction
Calculation of ttte pressure gradient calculation (negative values), The absolute average percentage error,
can be carried out as in single phase flow with average e2, and the absolute average error, eS, are considered t~
mixture density and velocity:
be more important than CI and E4, because the negative
and the positive errors do not cancel out, The standard
. Q. H s 2 ‘mDpm ‘A + pm g sin ~...,., ...... (57)
\dx)
deviations, G3 and &6, indicate the scatter of the error$
with respect to their corresponding average errors, e 1
and c4.
EVALUATION
The first three parameters are more appropriate
PIPMANE DATABASE to be used for the evaluation of small values, whereas the
rest three are better for large values, In this study; all
The armlicability of the proposed comprehensive the six parameters arc considered in the evaluation
mechanistic m~~el is assessed through compar~ons with
actual data, For this purpose, a pipeline data bank has RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONS
been established, This data base contains a total of 426
field and laboratory data from various sources, as shown The evaluation irr this study is only carried out
in Table 1, for ~ressure drotw since most of the cases in the data
base” do not cort\atn liquid holdup values, The commonly
174
=4PFI #)631 J. J. ~AO. O. ~ J. P. B~ 9

msed correlations of Beggs and Brill, Mukherjee and correlations for the wide variety of data
rnrill, Dukler and Duk~r with the Eaton holdup contained in the data base.
-orrelation’ ( Brill & Beggs 1986) have also been included
fin the evaluation for the purpose of comparison, 3. All individual flow pattern models give better
results than any of the empirical correlations.
The overall evaluation of the comprehensive
mechanistic model using the entire data base is shown in For future studies, the following
Yable 3. The calculated and measured pressure drops are recommendations are made:
-ISO plotted to give an overall picture of the performance
mf the model (Fig. 6). The model has negative values for 1, The major uncertainty for the stratified flow
m I and e4, indicating its underprediction for pressure model is the interracial friction factor. Future
Arops, All the other statistical parameters of the model studies should be focused on improving our
msre the smallest, which demonstrates its superior understanding of the interracial shear
-erformance over all the correlations, Of all 426 ‘cases, phenomena, and developing more accurate
-ere is only one case where the model has a convergent predictive methods,
~roblem, whereas all correlations have more than five
=oublesome cases. In this respect, the comprehensive 2, For annular flow, the correlations for liquid
=nechanistic model is also the best. entrainment and interfac”ial friction factor are
all developed from vertical annular flow
For a flow pattern dependent model such as the experiments. More studies are needed for
-omprehensive model, the evaluation should be also horizontal and inclined annular flow.
-arried out for each of the individual flow pattern
=rnodels. Here, the entire data base is separated into 3. Small diameter laboratory data represent a
_@oups in which all cases have the same dominant flow large portion of the data base used in this
~attern (>75% of the total pipe length), namely study, More high quality field data are needed
=stratified, intermittent, annular flow and dispersed to further verify the mechanistic model.
_bubble flow. Then, a separate evaluation is conducted for
-ch flow pattern. The results can be found in Table 4-6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
-nd Figure 7-9. It can be seen that all these models,
~articularly the intermittent flow model, perform better Financial support from The University of Tulsa
__lhan any of the correlations. No evaluation can be done and the Tulsa University Fluid Flow Projects (TUFFP) to
--for the dispersed bubble flow model because there is no J. J, Xiao is gratefully acknowledged.
-dispersed bubble flow dominated cases.
NOMENCLATURE
The degree of uncertainty in the calculation of
the liquid-wall friotion factor for stratified flow has A pipe cross sectional area or ar~
also been studied. A sensitivity study is undertaken by occupied by fluid
varying the value of fL &25% around its calculated value, c constant coefficient
The results are reported in Table 7. As shown, except for dAL/dhL differentiation of AL with
some changes in s 1 and G4, the other parameters remain respect to hL
almost the same. This suggests that the performance of dp/dx pressure gradient
the stratified flow model is generally not sensitive to fL, 1) pipe diameter or hydraulic
diameter
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS E liquid holdup
f fanning friction factor
FE liquid entrainment fraction
Based on the results of this study, the following acceleration of gravity
conclusions have been reached: : llquid level
L length
1, A comprehensive mechanistic mode!,, which. 1s N number of points
capable of predicting two-phase flow pattern, Nwe Weber number
liquid holdup and pressure drop, has been Nk liquid viscosity number
formulated, pressure
L Reynolds number
2, The consistency and applicability of the s wetted periphery or sheltering
comprehensive mechanistic model have been coefficimtt
demonstrated by its overall superior v velocity ,,
performance over any of the compared
17s
.._
Greek Letters
7. Barnea, IX, Shoham, (). and Taitel, Y,: “Flow Pattern
a= pipe inclination angle, positive Transition for Vertical Downward Inclined Two.
for upward Phase Flow; Horizontal to Vertical,” Chem, Eng,
P = regression coefficient SCL 37, No.5, 735-740 (1982a).
6= film thickness
Ap = pressure drop 8. Bamea, D., Shoham, 0. and Taitel, Y.: “P1owPattern
= roughness or error parameter Transition for Vertical Downward Two-Phase
E
Flow,” Chem, Eng. Sci, 37, N0,5, 741-744 (1982b).
e = angle subtended by interface
P = viscosity 9+ Barnes, D., S!’oham, O. and Taitel, Y.: “Clas-Liquid
P= density Flow Inclined Tubes: Flow Pattern Transitions for
= surface tension Upward Flow,” Chem, Eng, Sci. 40, No.1, 131-136
i= summation (1985).
7 = shear stress
10, 13amea, D.: “A Unified Model for Predicting Flow-
Subscripts Pavern Transitions for the Whole Range of Pipe
Inclinations,” Int. J, Multiphase Flow 13, No. 1, 1-
b = bubble 12 (1987).
c core or calculated
f: film 11, Bendiksen, K, H,: “An Experimental Investigation
g gas phase of the Motion of Long Bubbles in Inclined Tubes,”
i: interface Int, J. Multiphase Flow 10, No, 4, 467.483 (1984),
L= liquid phase
m= measured or mixture 12. Mill, J. P, and Beggs, H. D.: “XSY@MS&FIOW k

s = superficial or slug -,” Fifth Edition (December, 1986).

t= transition or translational
u = slug unit 13. Cheremisinoff, N. P.: “An Experimental and
w= wall Theoretical Iiwestigation of Horizontal Stratified
and Annular Two-Phase Flow with Heat Transfer,”
REFERENCES Ph 1). Dissertation, Clarkson College of Technology
(1977).

1. Alves, L N,, Caetano, E, F., Minami, K, and Shoham,
0.: “ModelHng Annular Flow Behavior for Gas
Wells,” Presented at the Winter Annual Meeting of
ASME, Chicago (Nov. 27-Dee. 2, 1988).
2. Andreussi, P. and Persen, L. N.: “Stratified Gas-
Liquid Flow in Downwardly Inclined Pipes,” [nt. J.
Multiphase Flow 13, No, 4, 56S-S75 (1987).
14. Crowley, C. J. and Rothe, P, H.: “jlllt
Report On Mul*ha so Meth~ds for Gas
lnelin u” VOL 3: Theoretical Supplement,
Prepared ~or Project PR-172.609 of Pipeline
Rcaearch Committee, A. G, A, (December, 1986).
15, Crowley, C. J. : “Contents of A. G, A. Data Bank
(August 1988 Release),” Creare (1988).

3, Andri~os. N!: “~ 16$ Crowloy, C. J, wtd Rotho, P. H*: “Assessment of

~~” ph, D+ Mechanistic Two-Phaso Analysis Method for tlas-
Ditnmrtation, U. of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana Condemtte Pipelines,” PSI(I Annual Meeting,
(1986), Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Ott, 20-21, 1988).

4. Andritsos, N, and Hanratty, T. ‘“J*: %41uencc of 17* Baton, B. A. and Mown, K. Et: “~
Interfaclal Waves in Stratified (3ns-Liquid Mows,” and Pr~ .
AIChIl J. 33, No. 3, 444.454 (1987),
~” Techu(oal Report, The U, of
5, Ansari, A, M,: “~ Texas (Ootobor 1965’).
. ham ~low,” M, S. Thesis,
The University of Tulsa (1988), 18, Gregory, G. A,, Nioolson, M, K, mtd Aziz, K.:
“Correlation of tho Liquid Vohtmo Fraction in the
6. Baker, A., Nielsen,K and fJaW AJ “ReSsttreIOES, Slug for Horizontal (las-Liquid Slug Now,” Mt. J,
Liquid Holdup Calculations devaloped? Oil & Gas Multiphase ~lOW 4, 33=39 (1978),
J,, ‘55-59 (Maroh 14, 1988).
176
19, Henstock, W. H, and Hanratty, T, J,: “The
interracial Drag and the Height of the Wall layer
in Annular Flow,” AIChE J. 22, No, 6, 990-999
(1976).
20, Hewitt, 0, I? and Hall-Taylor, N, S.: “*
U Flow,” Pergmmm Press (1970).
Inclined Pipes,” AIChE J. 30, No. 3, 377.385
(1984),
32, Taitel, Y, and Dukler, A, E,: “A Model for
Predicting Flow Regime Transitions in Horizontal
Two. and Near Horizontal (Jas.Liquid Flow,” AIChE J.
22, No, 1, 47.55 (1976),

210 James, P, W,, Wilkes, N, S., Cottkie, W; and Burns, 33, Taltel, Y., Borrw, D. and Duklcr, A, E,: “Modelling
A,: “Developments in the Modelling of Horizontal Flow Pattern Transition for Steady Upwtird Gas-
Annular two-Phase Plow,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow Liquid Flow in Vertical Tubes,” AIChE J. 26, No. 3,
13, No. 2, 173-198 (1987), 345-354 (1980),

22* Kowalski, J. E.: “Wall and Interracial Shear Stress 34, Taitel, Y, and Barnea, D,: “A Consistent Approach
in Stratified Flow in a Horizontal Pipe,” AIChE J, for Calculating Pressure Drops in Inclined Slug
33, No. 2, 274.281 (1987), Flow,” Chem, Eng, Sci. 45, No, 5, 1199-1206
(1990),
23. Laurinat, J. E,, Hanratty, T. J. and Jepson, W. P,:
35. Wallis, (3, B,: “gne-D~ Two-P~ * ,*
“Film thickness Distribution for (las-Liquid
Annular Flow in a Horizontal Pipe,” Int, J, McClraw-Hill (1969).
Multiphase Flow 6, No. 1/2, 179.195,(1985),
36, Whalley, P. B, and Hewitt, (3. F,: “The Correlation
24. Laurinat, J. B., Hanratty, T. J. and Dallman, J. C,: of Liquid Entrainment Fraction and Entrainment
“Pressure Drop and IWm Height Measurem~nts for Rate in Annular Two-Phaso Flow,” UKAEA Report,
Annular (3as.Liquid Flow,” Int, J. Multiphase Flow AERE-R9187, Harwcll (1978).
10, No. 3, 341-356 (1984).
37, Wu, H, L., Pots, R, F. M., Hollenberg, J, P, and
25. Lin, P. Y. and Hanratty, T. J.: “Prediction of the Mecrhoff, R,: “Flow Pattmn Transitions in Two.
Initiation of Slugs with Linear Stability Theory,” Phasa Gas/Condensate Flow at High Pressure in An
Ittt, J. Multiphase Flow 12, No, 1, 79-98 (1986), 8-in Horizontal Pipe,” 3rd International
Conference on Multiphase Flow, The Hague,
26. Lin, P. Y. and Hanratty, T. J.: “Effect of Pipe Nothorlands, 13-21 (May 18-20, 1987).
Diameter on Flow Patterns lor Air-Water Flow in
Horizontal Pipes,N Int, J, Multiphase Flow 13, No,
4, S49-563 (1987).

27. Mclcod, W, R,, Rhodos, D, F. and Day, J, J,:

“Radiotracers in (las.Liquid Transportation
Problems = A Field Cam,” J. Pet, Tech,, 939.947
(August, 1971),

28. Oliomans, R, V, A,, Pots, B, F, and Trope, N,:

“Modelling of Annular Dispersed Two-Phase Flow
in Vertical Pipess Int, J, Multiphase Flow 12, No,
5, 711-732 (1986),

29, Payne, 0, A,, Pahnor, C. M,, Brill, J, P, and Beggs,

1{, D,: “i3valuatlon of Inclined-Pipe, Two.Phaso
Liquid Holdup and Pressure-Loss Correlations
Using Experimental Data,” J, Pet, Tech,, 1198.
1208 (September, 1979).

30, Scott, s! LJ “~$”

Ph. D, Disseridion, The University of Tulsa
(1987).

31, Shoham, C). and Taitel, Y.: “Stratified Turbulmtt-

Turbulent (las.Liqttid Flow in Horizontal and
177
II’
m

%-
&“ * “0
..

q
0
.

i? -* m *IV)

‘a

1
1?s
., .
●
,;A’’,, ,:

_“-”A”
-.-- . —.—.” “-+= (ss)
/i
STA’WII’W

Tul)k 7 -“. ”-7-- .—-- .— .- (Sw) 1

Scnsltlvlty Anulysls of
_w. — .

—. —.
(MI)
Llquld.Wall Frlctlon Iructor on the
IN’ITM?MITTINT
Perfortnnnco of Strutlflcd Flow Model
(SL) 1

Friction NrI. Suuislicnl Ihmuoctcrs

No. I%cwr or Dnlu c, r) c1 Ca c, L’h (AM)
f,, 1’01111s .10’ nIod xI0’
(%) (~) (%) (1}[1) ( 1’{1) ( Pn~ ANNULAR

I U.75 ft. 8(J .22,1 3s.9 411,4 .4,1 8.5 1444

(AW) 1

2 r,, Ky .18,() 34,6 49,1 .3, ? rl,l 14.3

mslwlwwl)
3 ),2s” f,, 89 -14.4 34.4 4~),!i .1. {) 8.0 14.3 (IXl) IIU1311LE
++

Figure I - Flow Pnncrns in Ilorizontd tout Ncw I Ioriz.nnlul Plpcs

10 —

_c-———=———
(Do)

(1)
I : A
‘\\ ‘..
‘\\ ‘\
‘,
,.o.orl 0.0,
‘1, \
.1 ?
‘1,
‘1, \
1 $,
[SW) ‘t, t,
\~, 1,
—-..-—.—
.01 . \, ‘1, h
-E— E —E I ~,

m p
(ss) --1, )
J-4
i,

,01 .1 I 10 100
SUIWRIWIAL GAS VI! I,0C2TY (oILO

I@Ira 2. Now Pnucn} Mop (Air.\Vnlw lo 5.COI PIIW of . I Dqrrcc Inclhuuioo) Flgoro 3. PIIYSM Model for Strotlficd Flow

Flgurc 4. Phy$lcol Modol For Iukvrnlneot Now FIsurv 5. Phydcul MoM for Aotndw Now

1?0
 4ao,o 3U0.O /-’
.*

3m3.o -
2SC0,0.

Wm.o .
0
Xa3.o .
2SW.O -
0
0
2o111.o-
eoe I Scu.o-
0“

Ism.o . e Icsxt.o.*

10XI.O-0
J

503.0 .
503.0b 00

0.0 3500.0 4000,0 0.0

U.o Soo.o 1000.0 1s00.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 U.rl 500.0 1000,0 1500.0 20Q0.O 2500.0 3000.0

MEASURED PRESSURE DROP (kPsO MEASURED PRESSURE DROP (kPit)

Figure 6 - Pmfotnwrwe of the Comprehensive Model Using Enthe DIIIa Bank Figure 7. Performance of Strtmified F30w Model Using Cmcs with 7S% Stratlficd Flow

4(m.o

G 3seo.o -
&
~

t $ WYJ.o -
o
m n
o 2cmo -
w w 2503.0 .
as *
~
*
~ ISKr.o ~
&
I mo -
8

$
Soo.o-
a L!
a ~: 000
$

0.0
U.o Soo.o 1000.0 1500.0 2000,0 2s00.0 3000.0
$ Srxl.o

I#@cl...l.l..’
0.0 .
0.0
Q

#“&’

SOo.o 1000.0 [500,0 2000.0 2500.0 3000,0 3s00.0 4m30.o

MEASURED PRESSURE DROP (kPn) MEASURED PRESSURE DROP (kPaJ

Figure 9 - Performance of Annular Flow Model Using Cases with 7S% Annulnr Ffow
Figure 8 - Performance of Intermittent Flow Model UshrS Cases with 75% Inlermiltcnt Fiow

TM