This guide is intended as a reference aid for using Aspen Hydraulics functionality within the HYSYS 3.4 Oil & Gas Option and in particular the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver used within Aspen Hydraulics.
Who Should Read this Guide
2
INTRODUCING THE ASPEN DYNAMIC PIPELINE SOLVER ................................. 
4 
ASPEN DYNAMIC PIPELINE SOLVER REFERENCE ............................................. 
5 
Solution Procedure 
5 
Numerical Stability and the Courant Limit 
6 
Semiimplicit Methods .......................................................................................... 
6 
The SETS Method 
6 
...................................................... 
10 
Physical Properties 
15 
15 

17 

Interfacial Friction 
19 
Wall Friction 
23 
29 

33 

Interfacial Mass Transfer 
36 
GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................................................... 41 

Copyright .............................................................................................................. 
41 
TECHNICAL SUPPORT .................................................................................... 43 

Online Technical Support Center 
43 
Phone and Email 
44 
Contents
3
The Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver is a code for modelling transient multiphase hydrocarbon flows in wells, pipelines and components. The Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver solves mass, momentum and energy equations for each phase using a onedimensional finite difference scheme. Appropriate flow pattern maps and constitutive relationships are provided for wall and interfacial friction and heat transfer, and a model for multicomponent phase change is included.
Introducing the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver
4
The Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver is a transient multiphase flow model for oil and natural gas pipelines. The code is a sixequation, semiimplicit, finite difference computational fluid dynamics model. In order to close the equation set and obtain solutions, the code requires physical property data for the fluids, models for wall friction and interfacial friction based on mechanistic flow regime prediction, thermodynamic modelling of interfacial mass transfer, relationships for heat transfer between the fluids and the pipe walls and a model for twophase critical flow.
The finite difference method is very popular for numerically solving systems of partial differential equations, such as occur in single and multiphase flows. Its main feature is the replacement of the derivatives by finite differences of function values, ending up with equations, which have function evaluations at discrete values of the function variables (time and up to three space dimensions, in the case of fluid flow). This manual will not give an introduction to these methods, and familiarity with basic concepts such as implicit and explicit differencing is assumed. You should refer to standard texts such as Roache (1976). The most appropriate method for discretising a given set of fluid flow equations by finite difference methods will depend on various factors, including:
• 
Numerical stability  some ways of discretising the equations are numerically unstable: errors, however small, grow and the solution diverges. Numerical instability may be conditional, in which case the scheme may be used, but subject to certain restrictions (see Courant limit below) or unconditional, in which case the scheme cannot be used. 
• 
Computer time  the ideal is to find a scheme that will give accurate, stable results in the minimum of computer time. 
• 
Accurate representation of the continuous partial differential 
equations  for instance, some methods of Discretization may result in a finite difference equation, which tends, in the limit of, to a differential equation which is different to the original equation.
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
5
The methods used in many practical codes, therefore, are usually compromises between these various factors and, as such, can be expected to have ranges of invalidity, though these may be not too constraining.
The question of numerical stability is a very important one and is closely connected with the type of differencing employed. The fully explicit methods, whilst easy to solve, are subject to strict limits on the size of the mesh used. If this condition is violated, the solution will become unstable. There is, in general, a condition, known as the Courant limit, such that (in a one dimensional system):
∆
V
t
∆ x
≤ 1
(1)
The Courant limit was first identified by Courant, Friedrichs and Lewy (1928), who discussed the propagation of information in fluid flow simulations. Essentially, they realized that if the velocity of the fluid was fast enough, then information about momentum and other properties could be transported out of the current cell before the current timestep had finished, and this led to numerical instabilities. The Courant limit means practically that, given a system which has been discretized in space, there is thus a limit on the maximum size of the timestep. This means that any program using such a scheme to difference the flow equations may take a very long time to run.
In order to overcome the limitations of explicit methods, whilst retaining their computational simplicity, a class of finite difference methods has arisen known as the semiimplicit methods. These treat some of the terms in the differential equations explicitly and others, specifically those involved in the Information Propagation discussed above, implicitly. By doing this the idea is to eliminate, or at least relax, the Courant limit so that a larger timestep may be used, but without having the computational overhead of a fully implicit system each time. The SETS (StabilityEnhancing TwoStep) method, used in the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver, is a semiimplicit method which treats the terms, and implicitly.
SETS is a twostep method, consisting of a basic step and a stabilizing step. The basic step is a semiimplicit equation set, and it provides information about pressure wave propagation. It treats the convective terms implicitly and this helps to relax the Courant limit on mesh size. However, studies by Mahaffy (1979, 1982) showed that in some circumstances numerical instabilities can arise and so the method is stability enhancing rather than totally stable. The second step is thus added as a stabilizing step, and it
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
6
provides information about the propagation of density, energy and momentum across cell boundaries.
A Simple Example  Single Phase Flow
In order to illustrate the use of the SETS method, its application to one dimensional singlephase flow in a pipe will be considered, following Mahaffy. The equations he used for mass energy and momentum conservation respectively in singlephase flow were:
− T )
(2)
In these equations, K is a wall friction factor, h is a heat transfer coefficient for the heattransfer area, and Tw is the temperature of the pipe wall. The pipeline is divided into discrete cells for the finite difference solution, and a staggered mesh is used for the discretized flow variables  that is, the velocities are defined on the cell edges and the bulk properties, such as density, energy, etc., are defined in the cell centers.
In order to define values for cellcentered properties at the cell edges, the SETS method uses donor cell weighting. For any group of state variables Y, defined at the cell centers:
〈
YV
〉
j +
1
2
=
=
Y V
1
j j j + 1
Y
+
2
,
V
j
+
if V
j
+
1
2
1
2
,
if V
j
+
≥
0
1
2
<
0
(3)
Essentially, this ensures that the value used for any bulk fluid property is that from the cell which is ëprovidingí the material: if the velocity on the right hand cell edge is positive, then the flow is out of this cell in the direction of increasing j, and the current cell's fluid properties are used. If the velocity is negative, then fluid is flowing in from the next `higher' cell (j+1), and the density, energy etc. of that cell's fluid are used instead. This helps stability and is also more physically realistic. The onedimensional equations, when discretized by the SETS method, are as follows:
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
7
Stabilizer Momentum Equation
(
~
n + 1
V j +
1
2
−
V n j +
1 )
∆ t
2 n
+
V
j +
1
2
∇
j
+
1
2
~
V
n + 1
+
~
ξ( V
j +
1
2
n +
1
−
n
V
j +
1
2
)
∇
j
+
1
2
~
V
n
+
1
ρ
n + 1 j +
1
2
∆ x
j +
1
2
(
p
n
j +
1
2
−
p
n
j
)
+
K
n
j
+
1
2
~
2 V
j
+
1
2
n + 1
−
n
V
j +
1
2
= 0
Basic Mass Equation
( ~ ρ
n + 1 j
−
ρ
n
j
)
∆ t
+ ∇
j
⋅
(ρ
n
+
1
V
n
+
1
)
=
0
Basic Momentum Equation
( V ~
n + 1 j +
1
2
−
n
V
j +
1
2
)
∆ t
+
n
V
j +
1
2
∇
j
+
1
2
V ~
n
+ 1
+
ξ(V
j +
1
2
n +
1
−
n
V
j +
1
2
)
∇
j
+
1
2
~
V n
+
1
ρ
n + 1 j +
1
2
∆ x
j +
1
2
( ~ p
n +
1
j + 1
−
~
p
n
j
+
1
)
+
K
n
j +
1
2
( 2 V
j
+
1
2
n +
1
−
n
V
j +
1
2
Basic Energy Equation
~
( ρ
n +
j
1
~
e
n
j
+
1
− ρ
n
j
e
n
j
)
∆ t
+ ∇
j
⋅
(ρ
n
+
1
e
n
+
1
V
n
+
1
)
+
~
p
n
j
+
1
∇
j
⋅ (V
n
+
1
)
−
h
n
j
(
n
T
w
,
j
−
~
n + 1 j
T
)
=
0
Stabilizer Mass Equation
(ρ
n + 1 j
+
ρ
n
j
)
∆ t
+ ∇
j
⋅
(ρ
n
+
1
V
n
+
1
)
=
0
(4) 

(5) 

= 0 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
8
Stabilizer Energy Equation
(ρ
n +
1
j
e
n
j
+
1
−
ρ
n
j
e
n
j
)
∆ t
+ ∇
j
⋅
(ρ
n
+
1
e
n
+
1
V
n
+
1
)
+
~
p
n
j
+
1
∇
j
⋅ (V
n
+
1
)
−
h
n
j
(
n
T
w
,
j
−
~
n + 1 j
T
)
=
0
(9)
The operators in these equations are defined, using the donorcell notation, as follows:
( A j + 1 
YV

1 
− A 
j − 

∇ 
j 
⋅ 
( YV 
) 
= 
2 
j + 
2 vol j 

and 

V 
( 
V 
− 
V 
) 

j + 1 2 
j + 
1 
j − 
1 

V 
∇ 
V 
= 
2 
2 

j + 
1 2 
j 
+ 
1 2 
∆ x 
, 

j + 
1 

2 

V j + 1 2 
( 
V j + 
3 
− 
V j + 
1 
) 

= 
2 
2 

∆ x 
1 
, 

j + 
2 

Also 

~ 

ξ 
= 
0 if 
∇ 
j + 
1 V n < 0 

2 

~ 

ξ 
= 
1 if 
∇ 
j + 
1 
V 
n > 0 

2 
1 )
if V
j +
1
2
if V
j +
1
2
≥ 0
< 0
(10)
(11)
(12)
These equations may be solved in any order, although Mahaffy found superior stability properties if they are solved in the above order, i.e. the stabilizer momentum equations are solved first, followed by a set of basic equations and finally the stabilizer mass and energy equations.
The stabilizer momentum equation is tridiagonal in
V n +1
and is solved by
standard methods. The basic equations are a nonlinear, coupled set of equations which are solved by an iterative method, as described below.
Finally, once V
n +1
is known, the stabilizer mass and energy systems can be
solved as they are reduced to tridiagonal systems in the variables ρ (mass equation) and e ρ (energy equation).
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
9
The basic set of finite difference equations is nonlinear and hence to solve them at each timestep it is necessary to use an iterative method, based on Newtonís method. Starting with some estimated values for the independent variables at the new timestep, the derivatives of the equations with respect to those variables are used to give the next best estimates  based on linear extrapolation from the last value  continuing until the latest estimates are equal (within prescribed tolerance) to the previous ones. The following is an extension of the summary given in Appendix C of Liles et al (1984). At a timestep n+1, given an initial guess of the independent variables (in this case p and T), the values on the next iteration (variables without primes) are assumed to be related to those at the last (with primes) by the relations:
p
n +
j
1
=
p '
n
+
1
j
+
n +
T
j
1
=
T '
n
j
+
1
+
δ 
p 

(13) 

δ 
T 

(14) 
Since the finitedifference equations are functions of T and p, a Taylor expansion about the last iterationís value, retaining only the terms linear in dpj and dTj gives:
f
δ T +
higher order terms
T
=
T '
(15)
In practice, an expansion is performed only on the mass and energy equations, and the momentum equation is treated differently. First, it is rearranged to yield as a function of the pressures in the current and adjacent cells. This gives:
n + 1 j +
V
1
2
=
(16)
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
10
From this equation it can be seen that:
∂ V 2 n + 1 j + 1 
= − n + 1 ∂ V j + 
1 2 

∂ p n + 1 j + 1 
∂ p n + 1 j 

(17) 

Also from Equation (16), by replacing the index j with j  1: n + 1 j − ∂ V 1 n + 1 ∂ V j − 1 

2 
= − 
2 

∂ p n + 1 j − 1 
∂ p n + 1 j 

(18) 
Performing the differentiations indicated in Equation (15), using the mass equation as an example, leads to:
∆ 
f ( 
~ 
~ 
) = ∆ 
~ 
~ 

t 
p T , 
t 
f ( 
p ' , 
T ' ) 

+ δ p j + δ 
∂ ρ'
∂ p
n + 1 j ∆ t A 
+ ∆ t A ρ n 
j + 1 2 ρ n j + 1 2 ∂ V 2 n + 1 j + 1 
n + 1 ∂ V j + 1 2 ∂ p n + 1 j − ∆ t A 
− ∆ t A j n + 1 
− ∂ 
1 2 ρ n j − n + 1 V j − 1 2 
1 2 ∂ V ∂ p j −
n + 1 j
n + 1 

p j + 1 
1 
1 
1 
ρ 
1 

δ 

∆ 
j + t A 
2 
j n 
+ 
2 
∂ p n + 1 j + 1 ∂ V 2 n + 1 j + 1 
− ∆ t A 
j 
− 
2 
j n 
− 
2 
∂ p n + 1 j + 1 n + 1 ∂ V j − 1 2 


+ 
p j − 1 
1 
ρ 
1 
1 
ρ 
1 

+ 
δ T 
∂ ρ' ∂ T 
j + n + 1 j 
2 
j 
+ 
2 
∂ p n + 1 j − 1 
j 
− 
2 
j 
− 
2 
∂ p n + 1 j − 1 


(19) 

The ρ 
n 
and 
n 
terms are the donorcell weighted averages of the density 

j + 
1 
ρ 
j − 
1 

2 
2 
at the right and left cell boundaries, respectively.
Derivatives of velocity with respect to pressure occur in these equations, and Equations (17) and Equation (18) above may now be used to eliminate the
∂ V
j +
1
2
n +
1
∂ p
n +
1
j +
1
and
∂ V
j −
1
2
n +
1
∂ p
n +
1
j −
1
terms.
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
11
From Equation (16), the following derivatives are zero:
n + ∂ V j + 1 2 
1 
n + 
1 

∂ V j − 
1 2 

∂ p n + 1 j − 1 
, 
∂ p n + j + 
1 

1 
Rearranging Equation (19) gives:
n + 1
∂ ρ'
∂ ρ'
δ T +
∂ T
∂ p
j
j A 1 ρ n 1 ∆ t 
n + 1 
− 

A 
j + 
1 2 
ρ 
n j 
+ 
1 2 
∆ 
t 
∂ V j 
n + 1 1 +


∂ V 
δ p n + 1 1 
j 

vol 
j 
∂ p n + 1 j 

− 
j − 2 j − 2 
j 
− 
(δ 

2 
− δ 

= ρ 
vol j n j − ρ' n + 1 j − ∆ ∇ t j 
∂ p n + 1 j ⋅ (ρ 
n 
V n 
p + 1 
j ) 
p 
j − 1 
) 
p
j
+ 1
− δ
p
j
)
(20)
(21)
A similar procedure is applied to the energy equation, resulting in:
n + 1
n + 1
∂ e '
∂ ρ'
n + 1
+ e '
+ ∆
t
⋅
h
j
j
∂ T
∂ T
j
j
n + 1
n + 1
∂ e '
∂ ρ'
n + 1
+ e '
t
j
∂ p
∂ Tp
j
j
ρ' n + 1 j + ρ' n + 1 j n + 1 + ∆ ∇ ⋅ ρ A j − 1 ∆ t n + 1 ∂ V j + 1 
δ T V ' n + 1 j 
δ p 
j 

− ρ' n + 1 + 
n j + 1 
2 2 
(δ p 
− 
δ p j 
) 

j 
2 e n j + 1 2 
vol j ∂ p n + 1 j 
j 
+ 1 

− ρ' n + 1 + 
ρ n 
A j − 1 2 ∆ t n + 1 ∂ V j − 1 2 
(δ p 

j − 1 
δ 
p j − 1 
) 

j 
2 e n j − 1 2 
vol j ∂ p n + 1 j 
j 
− 

n n 
ρ' n + 1 j e ' n + j 
1 

= ρ j e j − − ∆ t [∇ j ⋅ 
) ] 

ρ n n e V ' 
n + 1 − h n + 1 j ( n T w , j − 
T ' n + 1 j 
(22)
These two equations can be arranged into the form:
B
j
δ p
j
δ T
j
=
b
j
+
c
j
(δ
p
j
+1
−
δ
p
j
)
−
d
j
(δ
p
j
−
δ
p
j
−1
)
(23)
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
12
Bj is a 2 x 2 matrix containing the coefficients of dpj and dTj from Equations (21) and Equations (22). If this equation is now multiplied by B1, two equations result giving dpj and dTj in terms of the variations in pressure:
δ 
p j 
= b 
' 
1 
+ 
c ' 
1 (δ 
p 
j 

and 

δ 
T j 
= b 
' 
2 
+ 
c ' 
2 (δ 
p 
j 

where: 

b ' = 
b ' 1 

= 
− 1 B b 

b ' 2 


c ' = 
c ' 1 

= 
− 1 B c 

c ' 2 


and 

d ' = 
d ' 1 

= − 1 B d 

d ' 2 

+1
+
δ
p
j
)
−
d
'
1
(δ
p
j
−
δ
p
j
−1
+1
−
δ
p
j
)
−
d
'
2
(δ
p
j
−
δ
p
j
−1
) 

(24) 

) 

(25) 

(26) 

(27) 

(28) 
The first of these equations has pressure only as an unknown, and is a tridiagonal system which can easily be solved for the dpjs. Once these are known, the dTjs can be calculated from the second equation. This gives the current iterationís new p and T, and once these are known, the densities and energies can be found (from the thermodynamics) and the velocities calculated. Finally, the solution at this iteration is compared to the solution at the last to see whether it has converged within the prescribed tolerance. If not, the new p and T values from this iteration are taken to be the old ones for next iteration. This cycle continues until either a solution is reached or a maximum number of iterations have taken place, in which case no solution can be found.
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
13
Extension of SETS to Twophase Flow
It is relatively straightforward to extend the above analysis to twophase flow, for which the governing equations, as implemented in the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver, are:
Gas Mass Conservation
∂ α ρ
g
g
∂ t
+ ∇ ⋅ (α ρ
g
V
g
)
= Γ
Liquid Mass Conservation
∂
(1
−
α) ρ
l
∂ t
+ ∇ ⋅
((1
−
α) ρ
l
)
= −Γ
Gas Momentum Conservation
Liquid Momentum Conservation
Total Energy Conservation
∂
(1
−
α) ρ
l
e
l
+
αρ
g
e
g
∂ t
+ ∇ ⋅
=
p
∇ ⋅
(1
−
α)
V
l
+
α
V
g
+
q
wl
(1
−
α) ρ
l
+
q
wg
e V
l
l
+
αρ
g
e
g
V
g
(29) 

(30) 

(31) 

(32) 

] 

(33) 
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
14
Gas Energy Conservation
∂ (α ρ
g
e
g
)
∂ α
p
∂ t
g
∂ t
+ ∇ ⋅
(α ρ
e V
g
g
)
= −
−
p
∇ ⋅ (α
)
+
q
wg
+
q
ig
+ Γ
h
sg
(34)
A total energy equation is used instead of a liquid energy equation because this gives the opportunity to force thermal equilibrium by using one equation rather than two; this implementation is easier if a total energy equation is included from the start. In the case of more complex piping, terms must also be added to deal with tee junctions. Mass, momentum and energy source terms need to be added to these equations at the tee. Another modification found to be beneficial to stability is the addition of a pair of explicit momentum equations (one per phase) to predict the initial new timestep velocity on the first iteration when solving the basic equation set. The SETS equations for this model, are as implemented in the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver, but assuming no tee components, are given in Sets equations for twophase flow. For each timestep: First, the stabilizer Momentum equations are solved,
yielding values for
n +1
.
The main iteration begins, solving the basic equations. An outer loop controls the iterations as follows:
1 On the first iteration only, the explicit predictor momentum equations are solved to provide a good initial estimate for the new timestep velocities.
2 Then the whole set of basic equations are solved. As for the singlephase case, an iterative solution must be used, linearising the equations at each stage.
Finally, the stabilizer mass and energy equations are solved, giving the final solution for this timestep.
Certain physical properties are required. These include:
• 
Vapor mass fraction 
• 
Liquid density 
• 
Vapor density 
• 
Liquid viscosity 
• 
Vapor viscosity 
• 
Liquid internal energy 
• 
Vapor internal energy 
• 
Surface tension 
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
15
The following derivatives are also required:
(35)
These derivatives are required at constant composition of the appropriate phase for correct application in the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver. The derivatives are, therefore, different to those at constant overall composition.
Interpolation of Property Data
Physical properties at a given pressure and temperature are interpolated. In previous distributed versions of the software, two interpolation methods were provided, linear and bicubic. In the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver only linear interpolation of property data is available. Previous experience has shown that the bicubic interpolation did not greatly enhance the performance of the software when compared to the linear interpolation.
Linear Interpolation
The pressure, p, lies between p1 and p2; the temperature T, between T1 and T2. A physical property φ for each of the four points surrounding (p, T) is:
φ
11
=
(
φ
p
1
,
T
1
)
φ
12
=
(
φ
p
1
,
T
2
)
φ
21
=
(
φ
p
2
,
T
1
)
φ
22
=
(
φ
p
2
,
T
2
)
(36)
By interpolating in the pressure and temperature planes, we obtain:
+
T
−
T
1
( p T )
φ
p
−
p
1
(
φ
) +
p
2
−
p
1
T
+
T
2
−
T
1
p
−
p
1
p
2
−
p
1
(
φ
22
+
φ
11
φ
12
φ
21
)
φ
φ
12
−
φ
11
)
(37)
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
16
The Solution Procedure section show in detail the six equation set used in the Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver. In order to close this set of equations and provide all of the necessary information for them to be solved, a set of additional models are required. These closure models are required for wall and interfacial friction, wall and interfacial heat transfer and interfacial mass transfer. In addition to these models the software also includes models for choking flow and for pigging of a pipeline. These are also discussed in this section.
Flow Regimes
The Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solverhas different flow regime maps for vertical and horizontal flow. These are needed because the friction behavior for twophase flow is dependent on the orientation of the flow. The flow regime is predicted for each cell edge based on the velocities of each phase, void fraction and other parameters. The vertical flow pattern map is used if the angle of inclination is above 10 and the horizontal flow pattern map at inclinations below 10 .
Vertical Flow Regimes
The flow regime boundaries in vertical flow are mainly based on void fraction. There is, however, an additional transition from slug flow to bubble flow for a mass flux above 2000 kg/m2s. This flow regime map was developed by the authors of the TRAC code. They based this on physical intuition and it has been found over many years of use in TRAC, PLAC and ProFES Transient, to work well for a wide variety of transients.
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
17
Horizontal Flow Regimes
The horizontal flow map was similarly developed by the TRAC developers. This includes a stratified flow model, the basis for which is a model by Taitel and Dukler (1976) based on a modified KelvinHelmholz model for a circular pipe.
The model defines a critical gas velocity, Ucrit, above which stratification is impossible.
U
crit
=
1
−
h
l
(ρ
−
1
ρ
g
)
g
cos β
A
g
D
ρ
g
dA
l
/
dh
l
1
2
where:
dA
l
=
dh
l
(
D
2
−
( 2
h
l
−
D
)
2
)
1
2
(38)
(39)
β is the angle formed by the pipe axis with the horizontal and hl is the liquid height. Stratified flow is only possible if hl > D/1000. For gas velocities between Ucrit and 2Ucrit the flow regime is assumed to be in transition between stratified and other horizontal flow patterns. The transitions between slug flow and annular flow are based simply on void fraction. A transition region is assumed between these two regimes.
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
18
Models for interfacial friction are used for each of the vertical and horizontal flow regimes. There is a relaxation between the previous timestep friction factor and the new friction factor for stability. The transitions between flow regimes are also relaxed.
Interfacial Friction for Vertical Flow
Bubble Flow
The interfacial friction is calculated by predicting the bubble size and shear coefficient. The bubble diameter is calculated as follows:
D
b
=
We
b
σ
^{ρ} l
2
V
r
(40)
where D _{b} is the bubble diameter and We _{b} is the Weber number, assumed to be 7.5 from Crowley et al (1977). The bubble diameter must lie between the cell hydraulic diameter and 10 ^{}^{4} meters. The interfacial shear coefficient is provided by a standard set of formulae for a sphere, from Govier and Aziz
(1972):
c i =
3
c
b
α ρ
l
4 D
b
(41)
where the shear coefficient is based on the bubble Reynolds number as follows:
Re _{b} 
C 
b 
< 0.1 
180 

0.1 < = Re _{b} <= 989 
(18/Re _{b} ) (1 + 0.15 Re ^{0}^{.}^{6}^{8}^{7} ) 

> 989 
0.33 
Plug Flow
The plug flow regime is treated in the same manner as bubble flow. The plug diameter is calculated by interpolation between the bubble size calculated above and the pipe diameter, based on the void fraction. A similar interpolation is done between 2000 and 2700 kg/m2s.
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
19
Annular Flow
The entrainment fraction is calculated based on Kataoka and Ishii (1982) as follows:
E = 
exp[ 0.23( − V g 
− V 
) ] 

E 
(42) 

where: 

1 

= 
(ρ 
l 
− 
ρ g 
) 
We σ 
d 

4 

2.33 



2 

ρ 
l 

(43) 
The remainder of the liquid is in a film or sheet. The interfacial shear is a volume average of the film and droplet relations in the annularmist regime. The wetted surface area of the cell is determined from the portion of the geometric flow area that is blocked. The total interfacial surface area is determined by the sum of the areas contained in the wetted film and droplets. A critical Weber number, equal to 4 for the drops, is used with a calculation procedure similar to that for bubbly flow. This value of the Weber number is appropriate for accelerating drops. The interfacial drag coefficient for the annulardroplet regime combines the droplet drag (see above) and the Wallis (1969), correlation for annular flow:
C _{i} =
0.01ρ
g
D h
(1.0
+
75.0(1
−
α)(1
− E
))
(44)
where E is given by Equation (42). To avoid a singularity in the liquid acceleration, a void fraction, α _{c}_{u}_{t} , is calculated that corresponds to the minimum allowed film thickness. Above this void fraction value, the above
equation is multiplied by (1  α)/(1  α _{c}_{u}_{t} ). To obtain the interfacial drag coefficient, droplet drag is weighted by the liquid fraction that is entrained, and Wallisí annular flow is weighted by the fraction remaining as a film.
Aspen Dynamic Pipeline Solver Reference
20
Churn Flow
For the regime between the bubbly/slug flow and annular flow, a cubic spline interpolation in the void fraction is made between the conditions that would exist if the void fraction were 0.75, in the annular or annularmist regime, and the conditions that would exist if the void fraction were 0.5, in the bubbly/slug regime. If 0.5 < a < 0.75, then a weight factor, W, is calculated from:
W =
( 4 α
−
2)
2
×
(7
−
8 α)
(45)
This interpolation assures that the correlation for the interfacial friction is a continuous function of the void fraction, the relative velocity, the mass flux and the various fluid thermodynamic and transport properties.
Interfacial Friction for Horizontal Flow
Interfacial friction is calculated for each flow regime and relaxed over the timestep. Smoothing occurs between slug flow and annular flow, based on void fraction, for 0.4 < a < 0.6.
W =
(5 α
−
2)
2
×
(7
−