You are on page 1of 8

8

th

International Conference on Multiphase Flow


ICMF 2013, Jeju, Korea, May 26 - 31, 2013

High liquid viscosity effects on wall and interfacial shear stresses in horizontal
liquid-gas flows
Yabin Zhao, Hoi Yeung and Liyun Lao
Process Systems Engineering Group, Department of Offshore, Process and Energy Engineering, Cranfield University,
Cranfield, MK43 0AL, United Kingdom
Keywords: Liquid-gas flow; Liquid viscosity effect; Slug flow; Shear stress; Interfacial friction factor
Abstract
The characteristics of wall and interfacial shear stress in high viscosity liquid and gas flow are studied experimentally. The
experiments are performed on the 1 inch and 3 inch flow facilities which have 0.026 m ID and 5.5 m long, and 0.074 m ID
and 17.0 m long horizontal pipes, respectively. Liquid with a range of viscosity from 1000 cP to 7500 cP is used. Mainly slug
flow with special characteristics is observed for the flow conditions tested. The pressure drop and liquid holdup data are
measured by using pressure transducers and Electronic Capacitance Tomography (ECT) sensors. Based on results of pressure
gradient in slug unit and equivalent liquid height in slug film region, liquid wall and equivalent interfacial shear stress are
estimated using a two-fluid model. Results show liquid/wall shear stress in high liquid viscosity two-phase flow is relatively
independent of gas velocity. The estimated interfacial shear stress indicates a strong dependence on liquid viscosity. A new
correlation with consideration of liquid viscosity is proposed to predict the effective interfacial friction factor in high
viscosity liquid and gas flow.

Introduction

experimental data:
fl 24 Rel 1

Heavy oil becomes one of the most important energy


resources due to its known reserve which is almost twice
that of conventional oil. Heavy oil has an API gravity less
than 20, or even 10, and a viscosity higher than 1000 cP.
Its high viscosity means that it is very difficult to transport
in a pipeline. In two or three phase flows, liquid viscosity
has significant effects on flow behaviours. It has been
reported that for high viscosity liquid, slug flow regime
dominates, with a higher slug frequency and shorter slug
length than those in lower viscosity liquid two phase
flows(Marquez et al., 2010; Matsubara et al., 2011;
Colmenares et al.,2001; Gokcal et al., 2009; Al-Safran et
al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2012). In addition, unique
characteristics of slug flow are found in high viscosity
liquid and gas flow. Waves at the interface which
eventually evolve to slug flow strongly depend on liquid
viscosity, and tend to become unstable.

fl 0.0262 ( E f Re sl )0.139 for

f g 0.046 Re g 0.2

for

Re g 2100

for

Re g 4000

Re l 4000

Rel 4000

(2)

where, E f is actual liquid holdup in film region. At the


interface between liquid and gas phase, it is very difficult
to directly measure wave behaviours in viscous liquid due
to its opacity. When required for flow behaviour modelling,
the shear stresses at the interface are often approximately
estimated by using empirical correlations and assumptions.
Taitel and Dukler (1976) assumed interfacial friction factor
was equal to gas-wall friction factor, and both gas/wall and
liquid/wall friction factor were obtained by using Eq.(1).
But Andritsos and Hanratty (1987b) stated that the
assumption of fi f g might be invalid and interfacial
shear stress increased if large-amplitude waves existed at
the interface. They pointed out that interfacial friction
factor is a function of gas superficial velocity, liquid
viscosity and liquid flow rate. The proposed correlation is
given as:

Liquid-wall and gas-wall shear stresses in two-phase flow


have been investigated by many researchers (Taitel and
Dukler, 1976; Newton, et al. 1999; Kowalski, 1987). They
all found that there was no obvious dependence of the
gas-wall shear stress on interfacial conditions or liquid
properties. Gas-wall friction factor in two-phase flow is
estimated by the following equations, as used in Taitel and
Dukler (1976):
f g 16 Re g

for

fi
1
fg
fi
fg

1 15(

for
hf
D

) 0.5 (

U sg
U sg ,t

1)

for

U sg U sg ,t

U sg U sg ,t

(3)
(4)

(1)
U sg ,t is the critical gas superficial velocity at which large

irregular waves appear. For water and gas flow, it can be


approximately obtained as:

However, estimation of liquid-wall friction factor using


single phase flow model causes some errors. Spedding and
Hand (1997) derived a correlation based on their

U sg ,t , w 5(

go
g

) 0.5

th

International Conference on Multiphase Flow


ICMF 2013, Jeju, Korea, May 26 - 31, 2013

Surface tension (N/m)

Subscripts
f
Film zone
g
Gas phase
i
Interface
ie
Equivalent interface
l
Liquid phase
m
Mixture phase
s
Superficial or slug body
t
Translational
u
Slug unit
w
Water

where, go is the gas density at atmospheric pressure.


Newton et al. (1999) particularly studied liquid viscosity
(46 cP) effects on gas/wall and interfacial shear stress in
horizontal pipes. They found the onset of large amplitude
wave motion at the gas-liquid interface, which is
responsible for slug formation, was delayed by an increase
of liquid viscosity. It is suggested that the critical gas
superficial velocity might be related to liquid viscosity and
liquid film height which affects the instability at the
interface. In high viscosity liquid flow, critical gas
superficial velocity should be much lower than those
suggested by Andritsos and Hanratty (1987b) and
Spedding and Hand (1997). More recently, Matsubara et al.
(2011) conducted experiments with a board range of liquid
viscosity from 1 cP to 11000 cP. They modified Taitel and
Dukler model by assuming a simple relationship of
f i f g 100 . However, only one case is shown in good

Experimental Facility
Experiment setup

agreement with experimental results.

A schematic map of test set-up is illustrated in Figure 1.


The essential design principles for 1 inch and 3 inch rig are
similar. The high viscosity oil is stored in an oil tank where
a heater/chiller is used to change the oil temperature. A
variable speed Progressive Cavity Pump (PCM 6M12S) is
used to pump the oil through the test section. Liquid flow
rate and viscosity are measured near the pump outlet by a
Coriolis flow meter. Compressed air is supplied from a
screw engineering compressor, which can supply air with a
flow rate up to 400 Sm3/h at the maximum discharge
pressure of 7 barg. Air is injected at the T-junction and its
flow rate is measured by a flow meter. At the downstream
of the injection point, a test section is installed where
pressure and liquid holdup are measured. At the end of the
pipe, liquid exits into a separator and air is ventilated. After
fully separated the oil is pumped back to the oil tank for
the next test.

From the literature reviewed, it is clear that investigations


using much higher viscosity are still scarce and liquid
viscosity effects on interfacial characteristics are still not
known. In the present study, experiments with a very large
range of liquid viscosities (1000 cP to 7500 cP) are
performed in 1 inch (0.026 m) and 3 inch (0.074 m) pipes.
Experimental results of pressure gradient and liquid film
height at slug film region are applied in a two-fluid model,
from which liquid/wall and equivalent interfacial shear
stress are estimated. Liquid viscosity effects on interfacial
shear stress in slug flow are highlighted. New correlations
for liquid/wall and interfacial friction factor with the
consideration of liquid viscosity effects are proposed.

Nomenclature
A
C
D
E
g
h
k
L
P
S
U
n

The Electrical Capacitance Tomography (ECT) sensor,


which is manufactured by Industrial Tomography Systems
(ITS), is installed to detect actual liquid holdup. The ECT
sensor, which in principle is a capacitance sensing device,
detects the changes of permittivity and hence phases
distribution when oil and gas pass through it. With the
ECT calibrated appropriately, the actual liquid holdup can
be measured.

Area (m2)
Constants
Pipe diameter (m)
Liquid holdup
Acceleration due to gravity (m. s-2)
Liquid height (m)
Wave numbers (m-1)
Length (m)
Pressure (kPa)
Perimeter (m)
Velocity (m/s)
Tuning number or index in power law

The physical properties of the oil and test conditions are


listed in Table 1. The viscosity has been checked and fitted
to the equation with index n value close to unity, indicating
Newtonian behaviour. The liquid viscosities used in 1 inch
experiments are 3500 cP and 7500 cP in 1 inch rig. For 3
inch experiments, two tests with liquid viscosity of 1000
cP, 3500 cP are investigated.

Greek letters

Viscosity (centipoise, cP)

Density (kg/m3)

Shear stress (Pa)

th

International Conference on Multiphase Flow


ICMF 2013, Jeju, Korea, May 26 - 31, 2013

Figure 1: The schematic of experiment facility

Density
(kg/m3)

Table 1: Oil property and test conditions


Interfacial
Test
tension
Viscosity (cP)
fluids
(25CN/m)

1.293

air

0.017

1inch

918

CYL680

35001, 7500

3inch

918

CYL680

1000, 3500

Test matrix
(m/s)

API
gravity

0.3-9.0

---

0.031

0.06-0.2
22.67
0.1-0.2

The nominal liquid viscosity

Results and Discussion


Intermittent flow pattern
In this study, flow patterns are recorded at each flow
condition, and identified with ECT measurements. The
flow regime map of 1 inch experiments is shown in Figure
4. As gas superficial velocity increases, the flow pattern
starts with intermittent flow (slug flow), and ends by
annular flow. It is found that intermittent flows tend to
dominate flow regime under the test range. At viscosity
around 7500 cP, intermittent flow continues even at
maximum gas superficial velocity. The details about
particular features of intermittent flow and annular flow
and the considerable effects of liquid viscosity are
discussed in Zhao et al. (2013).

a.

3500 cP

One characteristic owing to viscous property is the great


drag effect occurred near the pipe wall. During
experiments, a thin oil film adhered to the wall is observed
in the gas pocket region. After one slug body passes, a
clear oil layer with few entrained gas bubbles falls down
along the inner wall. As gas superficial velocity further
increases, annular flow with large amplitude waves at the
interface and strong ripple wave on the pipe wall is found.
However, as liquid viscosity increases, annular flow
regime is reduced and slug flow dominates.

b. 7500 cP
Figure 2 Flow regime map in 1 inch experiments

th

International Conference on Multiphase Flow


ICMF 2013, Jeju, Korea, May 26 - 31, 2013

Liquid viscosity effect on liquid height in film region

a.

1000 cP
Figure 4: Comparison of liquid height in film zone with
different liquid viscosities in 1 inch and 3 inch pipe
The liquid holdup value at film zone is often represented
by a liquid height which is of great importance for model
derivation. Many instability studies for stratified and slug
flow revealed that the height of liquid in film zone is a
critical parameter which contributes to the formation of
slug flow. In the present study, the slug film region can be
identified by processing instantaneous liquid volume
fraction measured by the ECT sensors. Based on
geometrical relationships, an equilibrium relative liquid
height, i.e. the ratio of liquid film height to the pipes inner
diameter, is calculated. But this liquid level might include
the film on the top wall and therefore an equivalent liquid
film height is introduced. Results are plotted against gas
superficial velocity for different liquid viscosities as shown
in Figure 6. It is found that with high viscosity, the
equivalent liquid height at the slug film zone might not be
as sensitive to gas superficial velocity as that of low
viscosity liquid, as found by Pan (2010). An increase of
gas flow rate only slightly reduces liquid height, but it may
enhance the interaction between slug body and gas core
which probably affects the gas aeration. In addition, the
increase of liquid superficial velocity over the present
range tested leads to an insignificant increase of liquid
height. Similar trends are found by Pan (2010), in which
slug film height in water/gas and oil/gas (48 cP) flows was
measured by a GAMMA densitometer. Results are shown
in Figure 6 and the comparison of different liquid viscosity
case reveals effects of liquid viscosity on the liquid height.
It is found that liquid height is a function of liquid
viscosity, and at higher liquid viscosity it has a higher
value. When gas superficial velocity is low, liquid height in
film region is still high enough to meet the requirement for
slug formation. However, some uncertainties might exist in
the measurement. One of them is the effect of slug
frequency. High slug frequency might not allow oil
draining and completely form an oil film on the wall.
Kora et al.(2011) also found it was very difficult to
measure liquid height for high viscosity liquid as slow
drainage of high viscosity oil results in oil film on the top
wall. The relative liquid height in the 3 inch pipe is also
presented in Figure 6. No significant differences are found
from the comparison between the 1 inch and 3 inch pipe.

b. 3500 cP
Figure 3: Flow regime map in 1 inch experiments
Compared with the 1 inch regime map, slight differences
are found in the 3 inch flow regime map. As seen in Figure
5, intermittent flow region in the 3 inch pipe seems to be
reduced, even though it still shows to be the dominant flow
regime when compared with low viscosity liquid. This
difference might be explained by the mechanism of slug
formation. In the small diameter pipe, the unstable waves
formed at the liquid-gas interface tend to bridge the pipe
with less difficulty due to the lower ceiling. Slug flows
will maintain till rolling waves are generated at high gas
superficial velocities. But in the large diameter pipe, due to
the higher ceiling, unstable waves need much higher gas
energy to form slug flows. When slug is formed, it is
difficult to maintain and more easily replaced by annular
flow.
It is worth noting that stratified flow was not observed in
any experimental conditions in this study, even at the
minimal oil velocity of 0.06 m/s. One probable reason
could be explained by Kelvin-Helmholtz stability for liquid
and gas flow. Barnea (1991) found that the stable stratified
flow was replaced by intermittent flow region at gas
velocity lower than 0.1 m/s when liquid viscosity was
higher than 1000 cP. If liquid viscosity continues to
increase, the critical gas velocity is even lower. Marquez
and Trujillo (2010) investigated flow characteristics with
liquid viscosity of 10 cP, 392 cP and 1000 cP. They
generate flow regime transitions based on the study of
viscous KH instability. The results reported have similar
trends with the present work.

th

International Conference on Multiphase Flow


ICMF 2013, Jeju, Korea, May 26 - 31, 2013

from two-phase momentum equations. However,


interaction between slug body and film zone could be
significant and a specific term (see the first term in Eq.(9))
representing momentum exchanges should be considered
(Zhang et al., 2003). This term is in particular presented
when the entire film is taken as a control volume and
indicates considerable interactions which might cause
disturbance and lead to a rough interface.

Estimation of liquid-wall and interfacial friction factor


Model analysis
Due to the complexity of wavy structure in viscous liquid,
the interfacial friction factor is usually considered by
employing empirical correlations and assumptions. A
successful approach to predict interfacial friction factor for
low viscosity liquid in stratified flow (Andritsos and
Hanratty, 1987b; Spedding and Hand, 1997; Newton et al.,
1999) is to estimate liquid/wall and interfacial shear stress
from a two-fluid model. Using the measured pressure
gradient in slug unit and liquid film height at the slug film
region as inputs, liquid/wall and interfacial friction factors
are obtained.

l (U t U f )(U s U f ) g (U t U g )(U s U g )
Lf

f Sf
Af

g Sg
Ag

i Si (

1
1

)0
Af
Ag

(9)

Pressure gradient in one slug unit is the sum of that in slug


body and in slug film zone. If interfacial shear stress is
eliminated from momentum equations, pressure gradient
can be given as:
Pu sD Ls f S f g S g L f

Lu
A Lu
A
Lu

(10)

Once pressure gradient is measured and liquid film height


is obtained, the liquid/wall shear stress can be estimated
from:

Figure 5 Slug structure

The two-fluid model is constructed based on the continuity


equations and momentum equations. As illustrated in
Figure 5, a slug unit consists of a liquid slug body and a
film region, with length of L s and L f , respectively. The

(5)

(1 E s )(U t U b ) (1 E f )(U t U g )

(6)

(11)

Then, the equivalent interfacial shear stress is calculated


by:

gas and liquid mass flow rate at the inlet and outlet of slug
unit should be balanced, and continuity equations for gas
and liquid phase are given:
Es (Ut Ul ) E f (Ut U f )

P
D Ls Lu
1
{[( u ) expt s
]
A g S g }
Sf
Lu
A Lu L f

ie i

1 Af Ag l (U t U f )(U s U f ) g (U t U g )(U s U g )
[
]
Si A
Lf

1 Af Ag f S f g S g
[

]
Si A
Af
Ag

(12)
where, E s , E f are liquid fraction in liquid slug, and film

The equivalent interfacial shear stress is introduced to


consider complex momentum exchange occurred at the
interface. In this study, complex phenomenon might be
resulted from the interaction between very viscous liquid
film and turbulent gas core. In addition, considering the
structures of the concave interface and the interface
between the thin liquid film on the top and gas core, the
normal shear stress might not be adequate to cover all the
interfacial behaviors.

region. U t is the translational velocity at which the


elongated bubble propagates. U f , U l are liquid velocity in
the film region and slug body. U g and U b , denote gas
velocity in gas core and slug body.
For the overall slug unit:
LuU sl Ls EsU s L f E f U f

(7)

LuU sg Ls (1 E s )U s L f (1 E f )U g

(8)

Shear stresses and friction factors are calculated:


f , g ,s f l , g ,s

where, Lu , L s , L f are the length of slug unit, liquid slug

i fi

and slug film, and U s is the total superficial velocity of


the flow.

l , g , sU f , g , s 2

2
g (U g U f ) | U g U f |

(13)

It is worth noting that geometrical parameters including


A f , g and S f , g ,i are the function of liquid height which is

Similar to stratified flow, a combined momentum equation


for slug flow can be deduced if pressure term is eliminated

obtained from experimental measurements. In order to

th

International Conference on Multiphase Flow


ICMF 2013, Jeju, Korea, May 26 - 31, 2013

solve the two-fluid model, following closure relations are


used.
Translational velocity
In slug flow or plug flow, a slug unit propagates
downstream at the translational velocity, U t . It can be
represented as a function of mixture velocity, U s , and
drift velocity, U d , in the form proposed by Nicklin
(1962).
Ut C U s Ud

(14)

where, C is a coefficient which refers to the ratio of


maximum to the mean velocity for a fully developed
velocity profile. U d is the drift velocity which represents

Figure 6 Estimated liquid-wall friction factor against


liquid Reynolds number

bubble motion in a stagnant liquid. Nicklin proposed a


value of 1.2 for C when flow is turbulent, and a value of
2 when flow is a laminar. Bendiksen (1984) found a
correlation for drift velocity at horizontal and upward
inclined pipe flow, which is widely used:
U d 0.54 gD cos 0.35 gD sin

The friction factor between liquid phase and wall is


estimated from Eq. (11) and (13). Results from the 1 inch
and 3 inch pipes are compared with predictions from
Eq.(1) and Spedding and Hand (1997) (the first part of
Eq.(2)), as shown in Figure 6. Note that the former
equation is widely used for a single phase flow in a smooth
pipe; while the latter is proposed for liquid-gas two-phase
flow. It clearly shows that the estimated liquid-wall friction
factor in film zone agrees favourably well with both
correlations. This may indicate that liquid-wall friction
factor in two-phase flow is independent of the addition of
gas phase and interfacial characteristics. However, slight
discrepancies are found when Re l 1 , where the viscous
forces exerted on the liquid is much larger than inertia
forces. Due to very high liquid viscosity, the full range of
liquid flow is laminar, and liquid-gas turbulent-turbulent
flows never occur in this study. It is found that data from
the 1 inch and 3 inch rig are fitted well with the following
equation:

(15)

Slug liquid holdup


Gregory et al.(1978) experimentally study slug liquid
holdup in a horizontal pipe with oil viscosity of 6.5 cP and
proposed a correlation:
Es

1
U s 1.39
1 (
)
8.66

(16)

Marquez and Trujillo (2010) found the Gregory et al.


(1978) correlation has an acceptable application when the
liquid viscosity is below 500 cP. For cases that liquid
viscosity is higher than 500 cP, this correlation is still
suggested.

f l 20.76 Re l

(18)

For cases of turbulent liquid flow, Spedding and


Hand(1997)s correlation is still suggested.

Slug length
Al-Safran et al.(2011) studied experimentally the effect of
liquid viscosity on slug length in horizontal gas-liquid flow
and derived a new correlation in which additional viscosity
term is taken account. It is shown as:
32
l (l g ) g
D
Ls
2.63
D
l

Liquid-gas interfacial shear stress

(17)

Liquid-wall shear stress

Figure 7 Interfacial friction factor against gas Reynolds


number in 1 inch and 3 inch experiments

th

International Conference on Multiphase Flow


ICMF 2013, Jeju, Korea, May 26 - 31, 2013

The equivalent interfacial friction factor is estimated from


the combine momentum equation, Eq. (12). The obtained
results from 1 inch and 3 inch pipe with different liquid
viscosities are shown in Figure 7. It is found that f i is a
function of gas Reynolds number, liquid viscosity and
diameter but not significantly dependent of liquid flow rate.
As gas Reynolds number increases, the interfacial friction
factor increases. In addition, interfacial friction factor in
high liquid viscosity is greater than that in low viscosity
liquid. This may suggest that an extremely complex
interfacial structure between liquid and gas phases,
resulting in strong momentum exchanges between liquid
slug body and film region. In addition, the high viscosity
leads to large h f D and significant oil adhesion on the

Figure 8 Comparison of f i f g between correlation

wall, which could cause a considerable reduction of


available area for gas flow. Gas drag force caused in
turbulent gas flow might easily form waves, and hence
increase effective roughness at the interface. Ripple waves
observed on the top pipe wall may also contribute to a high
value of equivalent interfacial friction factors. In addition,
diameter effects are also illustrated. At similar liquid
viscosities and velocities, a small diameter pipe tends to
have higher value of interfacial friction factor than a large
diameter pipe. This is probably because large flow space
allows flow to be stabilized and interface becomes less
rough in a large diameter pipe.

and estimation (n=0.99)


Conclusions
Liquid viscosity effects on liquid/wall and interfacial shear
stress are investigated in this study. Based on the
experiments conducted in both 1 inch and 3 inch pipes, slug
flow is observed as the dominant flow pattern, and this
tendency becomes more significant with increased liquid
viscosity. In viscous liquid cases, an equivalent liquid height
in slug film region is insensitive to gas and liquid superficial
velocity. Pipe diameter also has limited contributions. But
the liquid height has a higher value in higher viscosity
liquid. Further, measured pressure drop and the equivalent
liquid film height are used in a two-fluid model to estimate
liquid/wall and interfacial shear stress. Results show that
liquid-wall friction factor is independent of the addition of
gas phase. A new correlation is proposed for liquid/wall
friction, as seen in Eq.(18), which is close to the
equation of Spedding and Hand(1997) at low Reynolds
number. Results of interfacial friction factor show an
increasing trend with gas Reynolds number or liquid
viscosity. High values of interfacial friction factor indicate
an extremely rough interface between very viscous liquid
and gas flow. But interface in a big diameter pipe seems to
be less rough than that in a small diameter pipe. A new
correlation with a consideration of liquid viscosity is
proposed and fits well with experimental results.

As discussed above, gas phase plays an important role to


the interfacial shear stress and the critical gas velocity is
representative of the formation of wave at the interface.
Andritsos and Hanratty (1987a) studied the interfacial
instability and found that the ratio of the critical gas
superficial velocity in water and any liquid was a function
of liquid viscosity. If viscosity is accounted for, a modified
gas superficial velocity is given:

U sg ,t U sg ,t , w w
l

(19)

where, U sg ,t is the critical gas velocity in any liquid and


gas flow. n is a tuning parameter which is introduced to
consider liquid viscosity effect. As mentioned above, in
high viscosity liquid U sg ,t is much smaller than the value

Acknowledgements

in water flow, and Eq.(3) is inadequate in most cases.


When Eq. (19) is substituted into Eq. (4), a new correlation
accounting for interfacial friction factor is proposed:
hf
U sg l n
fi
1 15( ) 0.5 [
( ) 1]
fg
D
U sg ,t w

The authors wish to thank BP E&P, UK and BP Alaska for


the support in the construction of experimental rig in PSE
laboratory, Cranfield University. This work has been
undertaken within the Joint Project on Transient
Multiphase Flows and Flow Assurance. The authors wish
to acknowledge the contributions made to this project by
the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC) and the following: ASCOMP, GL Noble
Denton; BP Exploration; CD-adapco; Chevron;
ConocoPhillips; ENI; ExxonMobil; FEESA; FMC
Technologies; IFP Energies nouvelles; Granherne; Institutt
for Energiteknikk; Kongsberg Oil & Gas Technologies;
MSi Kenny; PDVSA (INTEVEP); Petrobras; PETRONAS;
SPT Group; Shell; SINTEF; Statoil and TOTAL.

(20)

For the above equation, the value of n is best fitted with


0.998 for 1 inch and 0.973 for 3 inch results. In Figure 8,
when 0.99 is adopted for n, the prediction (lines) is
compared with estimations based on experimental results
(points) are shown. A good agreement is found, indicating
the validity of the correlation proved in both the 1 inch and
3 inch pipes.

References

th

International Conference on Multiphase Flow


ICMF 2013, Jeju, Korea, May 26 - 31, 2013

Nicklin, D. J., (1962).


Chem.Eng.Sci., 17,693-702.

Al-Safran, E., Gokcal, B., Sarica,C.,(2011), High viscosity


liquid effect on two-phase slug length in horizontal pipes.
presented at the 15th International Conference on
Multiphase Production Technology, Cannes, France, Jun
15-17.

Two-phase

bubble

flow.

Pan, J., (2010). Gas entrainment in two-phase gas-liquid


slug flow. PhD Thesis, Department of Chemical
Engineering and Chemical Technology, Imperial College
London.

Andritsos, N., Hanratty, T.J., (1987a), Interfacial instability


for horizontal gas-liquid flows in pipelines. Int .J.
Multiphase Flow, 13, 583-603.

Spedding, P.L., Hand, N.P., (1997). Prediction in stratified


gas-liquid co-current flow in horizontal pipelines. Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer, 40, 1923-1935.

Andritsos, N., Hanratty, T.J., (1987b), Influence of


interfacial waves in stratified gas-liquid flows. AICHE.J.,
33,444-454.

Taitel, Y., Barnea, D., (1990). Two-phase slug flow.


Advances in heat transfer, 20, 83-132.
Taitel, Y., Dukler, A.E.,(1976). A model for predicting flow
regime transitions in horizontal and near horizontal
gas-liquid flow. AICHE J.,22,47.

Barnea, D., (1991). On the effect of viscosity on stability


of stratified gas-liquid flow-application to flow pattern
transition at various pipe inclinations. Chem.Eng.Sci., 46,
2123-2131.

Zhang, H.-Q., Wang, Q., Sarica, C. and Brill, J.P.,(2003a),


Unified model for gas-liquid pipe flow via slug
dynamics-part 1:model development, ASME J. Energy Res.
Tech.,125,266.

Bendiksen, K.H., (1984). An experimental investigation of


the motion of long bubbles in inclined tubes.
Int.J.Multiphase Flow, 13, 1-12.

Zhao, Y., Yeung, H., Zorgani, E.E., Archibong, A.E.,


(2013). High viscosity effect on characteristics of oil and
gas two-phase flow in horizontal pipes. Submitted to
Chem.Eng. Sci..

Cohen, L. S., Hanratty, T. J., (1968). Effect of waves at a


gas-liquid interface on a turbulent air flow. J.Fluid
Mechanics, 31, 467-479.
Colmenares, J., Ortega, P., Padrino, J., Trallero, J.L.,
(2001). Slug flow model for the prediction of pressure drop
for high viscosity oils in a horizontal pipeline. presented at
2001 SPE international thermal operations and heavy oil
symposium, Porlamar, Margarita Island, Venezuela, March.
12-24.
Gokcal,B.,
Al-Sarkhi,A.S.,
Sarica,C.,
Al-Safran,E.M.,(2009), Prediction of slug frequency for
high viscosity oils in horizontal pipes. presented at 2009
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans,Louisiana,USA, Oct. 4-7.
Gregory, G.A., Nicholson, M.K. and Aziz, K., (1978),
Correlation of the liquid volume fraction in the slug for
horizontal gasliquid slug flow, Int.J.Multiphase Flow,
4,3339.
Kora, C., Sarica, C., Zhang, H.-Q., Al-sarkhi, A., and
Alsafran, E.M., (2011). Effects of high oil viscosity on slug
liquid holdup in horizontal pipes. Prepared for
presentation at the Canadian Unconventional Resources
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November, 15-17.
Kowalski, J.E., (1987). Wall and interfacial shear stress in
stratified flow in a horizontal pipe. AICHE. J., 33,
274-281.
Marquez, J., and Trujillo, J.,(2010), Overview: slug flow
characterization for heavy-oil field. presented at 2010 SPE
Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Lima, Peru, Dec 1-3.
Matsubara,H., Naito,K., (2011), Effect of liquid viscosity
on flow patterns of gas-liquid two-phase flow in a
horizontal pipe, Int.J.Multiphase flow,37,1277-1281.
Newton, C.H., Behnia, M., and Reizes, J.A., (1999), The
effects of liquid viscosity on gas wall and interfacial shear
stress in horizontal two-phase pipe flow. Chem.Eng.Sci.,
54, 1071.

You might also like