Mukherjee & Brill - SPE 10923 Liquid Holdup Correlations For Inclined Two-Phase Flow-1-6
Mukherjee & Brill - SPE 10923 Liquid Holdup Correlations For Inclined Two-Phase Flow-1-6
summary
Liquid holdup behavior in two-phase inclined flow was The Beggs and Brill correlation was developed from
studied in an inclined pipe-flow simulator. Two sets of data obtained in an air/water flow system with 1- and
empirical equations, one each for uphill and downhill 1,~.in. (2.5- and 3.8-cm) diameter pipes. They con-
flow, are presented. For downhill stratified flow, a third sidered a rsnge of inclination angles from O to & 90°.
equation is presented. The liquid holdup equations arc Use of the correla~on requires first detemnining the
functions of dimensionless liquid and gas velocity holduv for horizontal flow according to cmdicted
numbers in addition to liquid viscosity number and angle horiz&tal flow patterns. The horizontarholdu~ is then
of inclination. These four parameters uniquely define the corrected for angle of inclination. Palmer6 found that the
flow-pattern transitions in inclined two-phase flow. Con- Beggs snd Brifl liquid holdup was overpredicted for both
sequently, the hoIdup equations are also implicitly flow- uphill and dowrdill flow and suggested proper correction
--
pattern dependent. factors.
.
. . . .. . k,.,. 4
v’ TO TRANSDUCER
. .
+
DETAIL A [—>.:—4
SOLENOID
DRAIN VALVE
- CHECK VALVE
+ MOTOR VALVE
~ ROTAMETER
@ OFJF,C,METER
- OIL F[LTER
Ml, TANK
a.
Fig. l—Schematic of inched flow simulator.
to accepted phenomena. They also suggested a. method The two-phase mixmm flowed through the test sections
of calculating liquid holdup for annular flow that is and into a horizontal separator. The gas (air) was vented
iterative in nature. Their liquid holdup models repro- to the atmosphere and the liquid passed through a filter
duced their data with rcasoaable accuracy. and into a storage tank.
Kerosene and lube oil were used as the liquid phas~s.
Experimental Program The surface tension, density, and viscosity of the
An experimental facility was designed and constructed to kerosene at 60”F” (15 .56”C) were 26 dyne{cm (26
obtain the desired test data. Fig. 1 is a schematic of the mN/m), 51 lbm/cu ft (816.9 kg/m3) and 2 cp (0.002
test facility. The test sections consisted of an inverted U- Pa. s), respectively. Corresponding values “for the lube
shapc 1.5-in. (3.8-cm) ID nominal steel pipe. The closed oil were 35 dyne/cm (35 mN/m), 53. lbmlcu fr (849
end of the U-shape test sections could be raised or kg/m3 ) and 29 cp (O .029 Pa.s). Temperatures between
lowered to any angle from O to +90” from horizontal. 18 and 132°F (–7.8 and 55.56”C) were encountered
Each leg of the U was 56 ft (17 m) long with 22 ft (6.7 during the tests.
phenomenon of one phase slipping past the other in two- presence of slippage between phases in two-phase pipe
phase pipe flow. There are several causes for slippage flow is unavoidable at any angle of inclination. In both
between phases, Frictional resistances to flow or irrever- uphill and downhill bubbie or slug flow, when the liquid
sible energy losses in the direction of flow arc much less phase is continuous and is capable of being suppmted by
in the gas phase than in the liquid phase. This makes the itself, buoyant forces generate bubble rise velocity caus-
gas more transmissible than liquid in two-phase flow, ing slippage between phases. Near the slug and annula-
even in the absence of strong buoyancy effects such as in mist flow transition or when the slug length becomes
horizontal flow. This effect can be ve~ prenounccd in long [> 1.5 to 3 ft (0.5 to 1 m)], the phases become
ariy segregated flow regime such as stratified flow. The discontinuous. During this type of flow, broken liquid
large difference ~ compressibilities between gas snd Iiq- slugs or rippIes incapable of bridging the pipe are seen to
uid causes the expanding gas to travel at a higher veloci- fall back against the direction of uphill flow. Vecy
ty and to slip past the liquid when pressure decreases in similar flow phenomena occur in dowabill stratified flow
the direction of flow. Slippage between phases is also when the liquid falls back and accelerates until the liquid
premoted by the difference in buoyant forces acting on kinetic energy is balanced by the shear energy around the
the phases. In a static liquid medium, less-dense gas liquid layer. In stratified flow, large ir-situ velocities at-
tends to rise with a veIocity proportional to the density tained by the liquid as a result of acceleration by grsvity
difference. Zukoski 11 studied the effect of pipe inclina- normally causes a very smaU liquid holdup. This
tion angle on bubble rise velocity in a stagnant liquid. He phenomenon is shown in Fig. 3, where, in stratified flow
concluded that, depending on the pipe diameter, surface at O. 363-ft/sec (O. 11-m/s) liquid superficial velocity,
tension and viscosity of fluids may appreciably affect the void fmction rises rnpidly to nearly 97% when very little
bubble rise velnci~. His findings also showed that for air flows simultaneously. At bigher liquid velocities in
some conditions an inclimtion angle as small as 1” from bubble or slug flow, the void fraction builds up mop
the horizontal can cause the bubble rise velocity to be sIowly. An important deduction at this point is that in
mo= than 1.5 times the value obtained for horizontal uphill flow, slippage causes liquid velocity to SIOW
pipes. This establishes a strong dependence.between in- down, resulting in a net accuqndation of liquid in the
clination angle and phase slippage. In the absence of any flow channel or pipe and increasing the in-situ liquid
annlyticzd formulation, the phenomenon of slippage fraction. The in-situ liquid fraction is commonly called
caused by bubble rise velocity is studlcd empirically. “liquid holdup.” In downMll flow, slippage causes the
Cheater gravitational forces on the more-dense liquid in-situ liquid velocity to increase, resulting in a decrease
phase promotes fallback of liquid when shear forces and in liquid holdup. AU these causes of phase slippage and
buoyant forces fail to support the liquid in upward flow. the resulting flow patterns will occur as soon as one end
For downward flow it causes the liquid to travel faster of the pipe is raised about one pipe diameter from the
than the gas. Thus, while buoyancy aIways causes the other end, regardless of the angle of inclination. Thus,
gas phase to rise dative to the liquid phase, gravity depending on the Iengtl of the pipe snd direction of
always tends to cause the liquid to faU faster than the flow, characteristic flow patterns or liquid hoIdup for in-
gas. cliied flow should be observed even at extremely low
A few impommt conclusions can be made from the angles. For exsmple, at my low uphiU angle, the
preceding discussion. Except for homogeneous flow, the s~titied flow pattern should never be observed.
.
Development of Liquid HoIdup Correlation
.— NC. ‘5
,,,
,,,
.,,
,,,
,,. . . . . .
NL, ‘6 1 ...(1)
*
with the Beggs and Brill discove~ that liquid holdup
0.,
passes through maximums and minimums at fixed in-
clination angles of approximately +5o 0 and –500,
~spectively, for their data. Eq. 1 shows that the liquid 0.,
The proposed fiquid holdup corrdatirm was tested with $ ,., . ,,,,4 (mm ,s1
o ,.,6, (0.,, km
the observed data to check the reproducibility of the s
-.
TABLE 1—COEFFICIENTS OF LIQUID HOLOUP EQUATION
Flow
Flow Direction Pattern e, C2 Cs c. C5 C6
__ _ _ — z .-
downhll flow stratified -1,330282 4. S08139 4.17< 584 56.262268 0.079951 0.504S87
Kerosene
~ = s<~ace tension, dynelcm (mN/m)
Values of average percent error and sfsndard deviations Pipelims,., AJCIUE J. (Sept. 1971) 17, 1109,
10. Si”gh, G, and Griftifh, P.: “Determination of PEssure Drop Op-
for liquid holdup for each oil at different angles of in-
tinium Pipe Size for a Two:Phase Slug Flow in an Inclined P!pe,”
clination are shown in Table2. J. En*. fo, Ind, (My. 1970); Tram., ASME 92, 717-26.
11. Zukoski, E. E.: %fl.erice of Viscosity, Surface Tension and In-
Conclusions clination Angle on Motio” of !-ong Bubbles in Closed Tubes, ” J.
Fluid ,?dech. (1966) 25,821-37.
Ari empirical model forinclined two-phase flow liquid Dixon, W .J.: “BMDP-Biomedical Compuler Programs, P-
12.
holdup is proposed. The proposed model enables. the Series,v, U, of California Press, Los Angeles (1977).
determination of liquid holdup regardless of the angle of 13. 0..s. H. Jr. and Ros. N. C. J.: “Vetical Flow of Gas and Licwid
Mi.m& in Wells,,, ‘Pro.., SMh Wodd Pi. Cong., Frank~mt
inclination and the direction of flow. The set of holdup
. .. ---- 451.
(19S3>
correlations is dependent on the snrne dlmension168s
14. Haged?m, A.R, and Bmym, K. E.: ‘ .Experimerdal Study of
painmeters that control the flow pattern transitions in PIEssure Gradients Ocmn’rirIE Dw’i”g CoMin.ous Two-Phase
two-phase. flow. Except for downhll stratified flow, the Flow i. Small Diameter Verdcal Ccmduits,,, J. Pet Tech. (Apdf
pattem transitions.
1 S82. Revised ma.uscr;pl received Jan. 21, 19S3. Paw acwted for Pubkaao.
NL =liquid viscosity number, pL~/(pLn3)]0Z Ocl 8, 1SS2.
-.. .