Abstract
Gas–liquid flow in a pipeline is a very common. Slug two-phase flow is dominated in the case of slightly upward flow (+0.25°) and considered to be the comprehensive flow configuration, and can be in close contact with all the other flow patterns. The models of different flow patterns can be unified. Precise prediction of the slug flow is crucial for proper design and operation. In this paper, we develop hydrodynamics unified modeling for gas–liquid two-phase slug flow, and the bubble and droplet entrainment is optimized. For the important parameters (wall and interfacial friction factors, slug translational velocity and average slug length), the correlations of these parameters are optimized. Furthermore, the related parameters for liquid droplet and gas bubble entrainment are given. Accounting for the gas–liquid interface shape, hydrodynamics models, i.e., the flat interface model (FIM) and the double interface model (DIM), of liquid film in the slug body are applied and compared with the experimental data. The calculated results show that the predictions for the liquid holdup and pressure gradient of the DIM agree with experimental data better than those of the FIM. A comparison between the available experimental results and Zhang’s model calculations shows that the DIM model correctly describes the slug dynamics in gas–liquid pipe flow.
Highlights
Gas–liquid flow in a pipeline is very common
(+0.25◦ ) and considered to be the comprehensive flow configuration [5,6]. It can be in close contact with all other flow patterns; for example, the liquid film zone of the slug unit is similar to that of stratified flow, and the liquid slug body resembles that of bubbly or dispersed bubble flow [7,8]
The hydrodynamics model was derived for fully developed hydraulic gas–liquid slug flow, where there is no heat and mass transfer between gas and liquid phases
Summary
Gas–liquid flow in a pipeline is very common. Due to its remarkable economic benefit, it has been applied widely in geothermal fields, oil and gas industries, chemical reactors, nuclear reactors, aerosols, and various other heat and mass transfer processes during the past 40 years [1,2,3,4]. Slug two-phase flow is dominated in the case of slightly upward flow (+0.25◦ ) and considered to be the comprehensive flow configuration [5,6] It can be in close contact with all other flow patterns; for example, the liquid film zone of the slug unit is similar to that of stratified flow, and the liquid slug body resembles that of bubbly or dispersed bubble flow [7,8]. Bendiksen et al [15] incorporated a unit-cell type of slug flow description into the transient two-fluid model for the simulation of two-phase oil and gas flow in pipelines, and predictions of liquid holdup and pressure gradient were found to agree with experimental data. Issa and Kempf [18] proposed a mechanistic one-dimensional model to predict hydrodynamic slug formation, growth, and decay, and the subsequent development of the slug shape into continuous slug flow, based on the numerical solution of the one-dimensional transient two-fluid model equations. A new mechanistic model was formulated and tested against experimental data, based on the comparison of these three interface configurations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
