flow regime

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

flow regime

© All Rights Reserved

- LES of Flow Around Gas Turbine OGV
- Hydraulics Basic Level
- Pressure Losses for Fluid Flow in Curved Pipes
- Manual de hidráulica EM 110-2-1416 15-10-93.pdf
- siggraph2007 curlnoise
- Numerical Study Of Flue Gas Flow In A Multi Cyclone Separator
- SPE 126
- CFX-Intro_14.5_WS02_Mixing-Tee-Particles.pdf
- 2d Upscale
- Pipe Flow Calculations
- InTech-The Importance of Turbulence Reduction in Assessment of Wind Tunnel Flow Quality
- Thesis
- IJE-193
- JFG000553
- Moser 1999 Direct Numberical
- Fluent-Intro_16.0_L09_BestPractices.pdf
- computational analysis of wind flow
- CFD Instabilities in Complex AIAA-2006-4758.pdf
- 1-s2.0-0301932290900995-main
- A Study on Flow Transition and Development in Circular and Rectangular Ducts

You are on page 1of 10

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

stratiﬁed two-phase ﬂow

Kamel Sidi-Ali a,b,, Renée Gatignol a

a

Institut Jean Le Rond d ’Alembert, Université Pierre et Marie Curie et CNRS 4, Place Jussieu, Case courrier 162, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France

b

Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique, Centre de Recherche Nucléaire de Draria, BP 43, Sebbala, Draria Alger 16003, Algeria

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Stratiﬁed two-phase gas–liquid ﬂow in three-dimensional (3D) is challenging because of the difﬁculty

Received 15 December 2009 in determining the shear stresses at the walls and at the gas–liquid interface. The study is simpliﬁed by

Received in revised form considering only the gas and the gas–liquid interface. The gas ﬂows between the ﬁxed wall of the pipe

6 May 2010

and the interface, which is regarded as wall moving at liquid velocity. It is shown, using a CFD code, that

Accepted 14 June 2010

one can determine the correct horizontal and vertical proﬁles of the longitudinal velocity of the gas.

Available online 1 July 2010

Seven experiments done by Strand (1993) for a horizontal stratiﬁed gas–liquid ﬂow are simulated. The

Keywords: simulation results are compared with experimental results, and also to the numerical results of

Two-phase ﬂow Meknassi et al. (2000). We deduce from these comparisons that the approach suggested in this work is

Stratiﬁed ﬂow

very valuable. Then expressions for calculating the gas–wall friction factor, and the gas–liquid interface

Gas–liquid interface

friction factor are presented. These factors are crucial for evaluating the shear stresses. It appears, after

Velocity proﬁle

Shear stress comparison with the experimental values that the correlation proposed for calculating the friction

Friction factor factor at the interface, in the present work, agree with the experimental values better than that given by

Taitel and Duckler (1976a, b).

& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

dp

1. Introduction SG twG pG ts I þ rG SG gsind ¼ 0 ð2Þ

dx

Multiphase ﬂows are met in chemical industry, space industry, Fig. 1represents a stratiﬁed gas–liquid ﬂow in a pipe of circular

nuclear and oil plants. Multiphase ﬂows are very complex to cross section slightly tilted downward in the gravity ﬁeld. In this

model, there is no unique model that can satisfy the multitude of ﬁgure, the entries of the two ﬂuids are shown, where the gas

conﬁgurations that a two or more phase ﬂow can take. Two-phase velocity is UG and the liquid velocity is UL. In the cross-section, the

ﬂow conﬁgurations are described in detail for example, in Ishii interface is denoted I, the perimeter of the pipe wetted by gas is

(1975), Delhaye et al. (1981), Nigmatulin (1991), and Ishii and pG , the one wetted by the liquid is pL , and the height of the liquid

Hibiki (2006). The stratiﬁed two-phase gas–liquid ﬂow is one of is hL. In Eqs. (1) and (2), SL and SG are areas of the slots,

these ﬂow conﬁgurations. respectively, for liquid and gas, dp/dx is the pressure drop per unit

Among the ﬁrst works on stratiﬁed ﬂows gas–liquid, there are length of the pipe and d is the angle of inclination of the pipe,

those of Taitel and Duckler (1976a), who have studied these ﬂows which is zero when the pipe is horizontal, Taitel and Dukler

in the case of an inclined cylindrical pipe (Taitel and Duckler, (1976b). Finally, twG , twL and ts are, respectively, the wall–gas, the

1976a) (Fig. 1), and in the case of a horizontal pipe (Taitel and wall–liquid, and the interface shear stresses.

Dukler, 1976b). Their model is based on the resolution of a system The analysis of the model of Taitel and Duckler (1976a, b) shows

of two equations, one equation written for the liquid phase (1) that it is based on data related to the geometry of the ﬂow and

and another written for the gas phase (2). This model takes into the wall–ﬂuid and the interface shear stresses. The shear stresses are

account the geometry of the ﬂow, and different ﬂuid–wall and the only quantities that may differ from one study to another. The

interface shear stresses: difference is in the choice of the ﬂuid–wall friction factor appearing in

the ﬂuid–wall shear stress expression given by (3). The ﬁrst

dp correlation giving ﬂuid–wall friction factors according to the Reynolds

SL twL pL þ ts I þ rL SL gsind ¼ 0 ð1Þ

dx number for one-phase ﬂow was established by Blasius (1912). For a

two-phase ﬂow, Agrawal et al. (1973) introduce a new deﬁnition of

Corresponding author at: Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique, Centre de the hydraulic diameter with which the Reynolds number is

Recherche Nucléaire de Draria, BP 43, Sebbala, Draria Alger 16003, Algeria.

calculated. For a laminar or a turbulent ﬂow, Taitel and Duckler

Tel.: + 213 21 31 01 75; fax: + 213 21 31 03 32. (1976a, b), Cheremisinoff and James Davis (1979), and Shoham and

E-mail addresses: kamelsidiali@gmail.com, sidiali@lmm.jussieu.fr (K. Sidi-Ali). Taitel (1984) use two different friction factor expressions, one for the

0009-2509/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ces.2010.06.015

K. Sidi-Ali, R. Gatignol / Chemical Engineering Science 65 (2010) 5160–5169 5161

Fig. 1. Stratiﬁed gas–liquid ﬂow in an inclined pipe, Taitel and Duckler (1976a).

liquid–wall region and another for the gas–wall one. Spedding and Table 1

Hand (1997) introduce the superﬁcial Reynolds number, as deﬁned Interface gas–liquid friction factors fs.

below, and the liquid fraction when the ﬂow is laminar. Petalas and

Authors Interface gas–liquid friction factor

Aziz (1998) propose a laminar friction factor according to the

superﬁcial Reynolds number and use the Blasius equation as a Agrawal et al. (1973) fs ¼ 2[0.804(ResG) 0.285]2

turbulent friction factor. The expressions for the shear stresses, Taitel and Dukler (1976b) fs ¼ 0.046 (ReG) 0.2

twL , twG , and ts are given Cheremisinoff and James Davis (1979)

Low amplitude waves fs ¼ 0.00355

2 2 2 Large amplitude waves fs ¼ 0.0080+ 2 10 5 (ReL)

r

L UL r

G UG rG ðUG UL Þ Shoham and Taitel (1984) fs ¼ 0.0142

twL ¼ fwL , twG ¼ fwG , ts ¼ fs ð3Þ

2 2 2 Kowalski (1987)

Low amplitude waves fs ¼ 0.96 (ResG) 0.52

Large amplitude waves fs ¼ 7:5 105 a0:25 ðReG Þ0:3 ðReL Þ0:83

In these expressions, the friction factors fwL, fwG and fs are, Crowley et al. (1992) fs ¼ 0.005

" #

respectively, the liquid–wall, the gas–wall and the interface Petalas and Aziz (1998) rL dg

fs ¼ ð0:004 þ 0:5106 ResL ÞFr 1:335

L

friction factors. In the case of turbulent–turbulent gas–liquid ﬂow, rG UG2

two of these factors apply (Newton et al., 1999; Kowalski, 1987):

ReL and ReG are, respectively, the Reynolds numbers of liquid and

gas given by: ReL ¼ UL dhL =nL and ReG ¼ UG dhG =nG . Superﬁcial

Reynolds numbers for liquid and gas are deﬁned by:

ResL ¼ UsL dhL =nL and ResG ¼ UsG dhG =nG , where UsL and UsG are the

superﬁcial velocities of liquid and gas based on the liquid fraction

a and are calculated by: UsL ¼ aUL and UsG ¼ ð1aÞUG . The liquid

fraction in these last two expressions is given by a ¼ SL =S, where

S is the area of total cross-section of the pipe. The quantities nL

and nG are the kinematic viscosities of the liquid and the gas, and

dhL and dhg are, respectively, the hydraulic diameters of liquid and

gas, given by: dhL ¼ 4SL =pL and dhG ¼ 4SG =ðpG þ IÞ.

While the gas–wall and the liquid–wall friction factors give

generally good results, it is not the same about the interface friction

factor. Different expressions, for calculating the interface friction

factor proposed in the literature, are presented in Table 1. Among

the earliest expressions established, that of Agrawal et al. (1973) is

Fig. 2. Gas–liquid stratiﬁed ﬂow.

written as a function of Reynolds number ResG based on the

superﬁcial gas velocity. Taitel and Duckler (1976a, b) propose an

expression depending on the Reynolds number of gas ReG.

Cheremisinoff and James Davis (1979) propose two expressions. present here a numerical method, based on the transposition of

The ﬁrst expression is equal to a constant and is valuable for a the geometry of the ﬂow and using the CFD code (Fluent, 2006).

stratiﬁed ﬂow with low amplitude waves, and the second one The stratiﬁed two-phase gas–liquid ﬂow, as shown in Fig. 2, is

depends on the Reynolds number of liquid ReL as a linear function assumed stationary. The ﬂow takes place in a cylindrical pipe

for a stratiﬁed ﬂow of large wave amplitudes. Other authors use disposed horizontally. The objective is the CFD simulation, using

constant friction factors as that given by Shoham and Taitel (1984) the CFD code Fluent, of seven experiments conducted by Strand

or the other proposed by Crowley et al. (1992). Kowalski (1987) also (1993). The last part will be dedicated to determine an expression

proposes two expressions, the ﬁrst one for a stratiﬁed ﬂow with low for the gas–liquid interface friction factor.

amplitude waves, depending on the Reynolds number based on the

superﬁcial gas velocity. The second expression for a stratiﬁed ﬂow 1.1. Basic principles of the method

with large wave amplitude is a function of Reynolds numbers of gas

and liquid and the liquid fraction a. Finally, we quote the expression The ﬂow is divided into two parts, one with the gas, the other

given by Petalas and Aziz (1998); written as a function of several with the liquid. For gas, we assume that it ﬂows through a pipe of

quantities including the Froude number of liquid FrL. same section as the actual ﬂow and the interface is considered as

The various methods for determining correlations giving the a moving wall. The problem then reduces to a single phase ﬂow in

friction factors can be theoretical, experimental or numerical. We the upper part of the pipe (Fig. 3), with an interface moving with

5162 K. Sidi-Ali, R. Gatignol / Chemical Engineering Science 65 (2010) 5160–5169

!

where r is the gas density, U the velocity vector of gas, p

!

the pressure, m the shear viscosity and g denotes the gravity

vector.

For turbulence, the k2e model of Launder and Spalding (1972)

is used. The kinetic energy of turbulence k and its dissipation rate

e are obtained by solving the two following transport equations:

@ @ @ m @k

ðrkÞ þ ðrkU i Þ ¼ mþ t þ Gk re ð7Þ

@t @xi @xj sk @xj

@ @ @ mt @e e e2

ðreÞ þ ðreUi Þ ¼ mþ þ C1e Gk C2e r ð8Þ

@t @xi @xj se @xj k k

where Gk is the production term of turbulence and mt the

turbulent viscosity given by

k2

mt ¼ rCm ð9Þ

e

The model constants of Launder and Spalding (1972) are,

Fig. 3. Studied conﬁguration.

C1e ¼ 1:44, C2e ¼ 1:92, Cm ¼ 0:09, sk ¼ 1:0 and se ¼ 1:3.

liquid velocity. The study is done in 3D. In this study, Gambit is 2.1. Boundary conditions

used to mesh the considered computational domain and the CFD

code Fluent for solving the equations governing the ﬂow. The gas For the gas, a uniform velocity proﬁle at the entry is used:

is turbulent air and we consider that there is no heat or mass U ¼ U0 ð10Þ

transfer between gas and the moving wall, and between gas and

A non-slip condition is imposed on the upper wall of the pipe:

pipe wall. Gravity is taken into account.

The validation of this work will be done in comparison with two UG ¼ 0 at the wall ð11Þ

studies, one experimental and one numerical. The experimental work

is that of Strand (1993), who made several experiments on a water– The model of two-layers is used for numerical computation

air ﬂow and provides a layered set of horizontal and vertical proﬁles of turbulent ﬂow in region located near the wall. In this approach,

of longitudinal velocities. In these experiments, Strand (1993) the whole domain is subdivided into a viscosity-affected

observes three types of proﬁles, the ﬁrst type for small gas velocities region and a fully turbulent region. The demarcation of the two

where the proﬁle has a maximum at the center of the ﬂow of the gas regions is determined by a wall-distance-based, turbulent

pﬃﬃﬃ

phase, the second type on average velocities of gas where the Reynolds number, Rey, deﬁned as Rey ry k=m where y is the

maximum velocity is shifted toward the bottom of the ﬂow and the distance of the considered point to the wall, as presented

third type for a high gas velocity where the maximum velocity is by Wilcox (1993) The ﬁrst numerical grid near the wall is located

shifted toward the top of the pipe, this latter type is not studied in this far enough from the wall, in order for the turbulent Reynolds

work. The numerical work is that of Meknassi et al. (2000), who number to be greater than unity, this means that turbulence

developed a tool for numerical calculation based on the ﬁnite volume forces are more important than viscous forces. The two expres-

method to simulate the experiments of Strand (1993). In Meknassi sions of the velocity given by (12), and used in this work, were

et al. (2000), the pressure gradient, the phase distribution and the introduced by Prandtl (1927, 1932) and are universal laws of the

equivalent roughness at the interface were imposed and constant wall:

along the pipe. The equivalent roughness, expressed as height of 8 þ þ

< y ,y ryv

þ

roughness was extracted from the experimental work of Strand >

U

(1993), and the shear stress at the gas–liquid interface was written ¼ 1 ð12Þ

U > : LnðEy þ Þ, y þ Z yvþ

according to the height of roughness. The authors had performed kVK

iterations in the gas phase to approach the gas–wall shear stress and

where the local friction velocity U* is calculated thanks to

the interface shear stress. Then they resumed the iterations in the 1=4

U ¼ Cm k1=2 , and where y þ rU y=m is the dimensionless

liquid phase with the interface shear stress already calculated to

position of y, and yv+ the dimensionless thickness of the viscous

approximate the wall–liquid shear stress. Once the calculations

sub-layer equal to 11.225. The constant E is equal to 9.793 and the

converged, they draw the horizontal and vertical proﬁles of long-

Von Karman constant kVK is equal to 0.4187.

itudinal velocities to compare with the proﬁles obtained by Strand

The diffusion ﬂuxes for all quantities in the exit direction are

(1993). The relative differences between experimental values and

equal to zero as proposed by Chung (2002):

those of Meknassi et al. (2000) for wall–gas and interface shear

stresses vary from 1% to 22%. @Ui @k @e

¼ 0, ¼ 0, ¼0 ð13Þ

@n @n @n

with ð@=@nÞ the derivative with respect to the normal direction to

2. Equations set-up the exit surface.

The interface is supposed to have a constant velocity which is

For the gas phase, the laws of mass and momentum balance equal to the liquid velocity, and the gas velocity at the interface is

are written as equal to the interface velocity:

@r ! UG ¼ Us ¼ UL at the interface ð14Þ

þ r ðr U Þ ¼ 0 ð5Þ

@t

At the interface, the model of two-layers is used for numerical

@ ! !! ! ! ! computation of turbulent ﬂow in regions located near the

ðr U Þ þ r ðr U U Þ ¼ rp þ r g þ r ½mðr U þ ðr U ÞT Þ ð6Þ

@t interface. The expression of the velocity given in (12) is used.

K. Sidi-Ali, R. Gatignol / Chemical Engineering Science 65 (2010) 5160–5169 5163

domain

The governing equations of the ﬂow are solved with the ﬁnite

volume method. This method is based on the integration of the

balance laws, written as integrals on elementary volumes, as

explained by Hirch (1991) and Leveque (2002).

The discretization of the equations is classical and can be

illustrated on the steady-state conservation equation for the

transport of a scalar quantity f. This equation, in integral form for

an arbitrary control volume V, is given by

I I Z

! ! !

rf U d A ¼ Gf rf d A þ Sf dV ð15Þ

V

!

where A is the surface vector, Gf the diffusion coefﬁcient, rf the

gradient of f and Sf the source term per unit volume. Fig. 5. Meshing of the gas entry.

Eq. (15) is applied to each control volume, or cell, in the

calculation domain, and is discretized as given by the liquid height hL, it varies between 42.9 and 26 mm (Table 2). The

Nfaces

X Nfaces

X 3D area is meshed with Gambit, using ‘‘wedges’’. The total number

! ! !

rf ff U f A f ¼ Gff rff A f þSf V ð16Þ of meshes is about 300,000. In the near wall, four rows are taken, the

f f ﬁrst at 10 4 m, with a growth factor of 1.2 for the following rows.

Several different meshes were tested. Some, creating negative

where Nfaces is the number of faces surrounding the cell, ff is the

! ! volumes which do not allow Fluent to run, and others which make

value of f convected through the surface f, rf ff U f A f the f ﬂux

! the computation diverge. The number of grids used varies, depending

through the face f, A f the surface vector of the face f, rff the

on the height of the liquid that is the height of the moving wall from

gradient of f at the face f and V the volume of the cell.

the bottom of the pipe, between 300,000 and 140,000 grids.

This equation leads to a discretized equation of the form:

X

ap fp ¼ af ff þS ð17Þ

f

4. Simulations

In Fig. 4, is shown a cell where ap fp is calculated, in the center of

the cell at the point ‘‘p’’, as in (17). The index ‘‘f’’ is relative to the The simulations are conducted under steady-state. Data on the

faces ‘‘N’’ for north, ‘‘S’’ for south, ‘‘E’’ for east and ‘‘W’’ for west. geometry of the pipe are related to the height of the liquid hL. The

For more details on the calculations, see Patankar (1980). heights of the liquid are assumed constant along the pipe. Their

values, for different simulations, are taken from Strand (1993) and

3.2. Meshing of the computational domain correspond to the ﬁrst column in Table 2. The gas velocity in the

inlet section is denoted UGCFD and the interface velocity Us (equal

The computational domain is shown on Fig. 5. The pipe is to the liquid velocity at the entrance). These two velocities are

cylindrical and parallel to the x axis, the inlet section being at x ¼ 0. found by iterations, as is explained in the following paragraph.

In order to simulate the experiences of Strand (1993), the diameter The simulation procedure is initiated by choosing the values of

of the pipe is d ¼ 0.1 m, and x ¼ 10 m is the length of the pipe. As for the velocities UGCFD and Us, for a given height of liquid hL. When the

calculations are converged, the results are analyzed for the

longitudinal velocity in the sections of the pipe. We check for all

the numerical experiments, and for x 41 m, that all the velocity

proﬁles are identical. In the cross section at x ¼ 5 m, the vertical

proﬁle of the longitudinal velocity, in the plane of symmetry of the

ﬂow, is drawn on (Fig. 7). Then, one can make an estimate of the area

bounded by the proﬁle and compare this area with the area obtained

experimentally. The experimental area is obtained by extrapolating

the four experimental points at the bottom and the top of the

experimental proﬁle to the walls. Iterations on UGCFD and Us will

continue until the two areas are as close as possible. The values of

UGCFD and Us presented in Table 2 are the velocities for which the two

areas are the closest, thus ensuring the correct mass conservation.

The governing equations are solved sequentially. The fact that

these equations are coupled makes it necessary to perform several

iterations of the solution loop before convergence can be reached.

The solution loop (Fig. 6) consists of seven steps that are

performed in sequential order.

The momentum equations for all directions are each solved

using boundary conditions values, in order to update the velocity

ﬁeld. The obtained velocities may not satisfy the continuity

equation locally. Using the continuity equation and the linearized

momentum equation, an equation for pressure correction is

Fig. 4. Two-dimensional discretized cell. derived. Using this pressure correction the pressure and velocities

5164 K. Sidi-Ali, R. Gatignol / Chemical Engineering Science 65 (2010) 5160–5169

Table 2

Position of the peak and corresponding velocity.

Exp. hL (mm) UGCFD (m/s) Us (¼ UL) (m/s) y peak exp y peak CFD Upeak exp (m/s) Upeak CFD (m/s)

b 41 3.15 0.24 0.44 0.43 4 4.09

c 38.8 5.02 0.285 0.42 0.44 6.3 6.44

d 34.5 6.09 0.331 0.45 0.47 7.6 7.72

e 32.5 6.95 0.354 0.39 0.49 8.6 8.54

f 30 8.10 0.410 0.38 0.47 10.1 10.03

g 26 8.38 0.488 0.44 0.43 10.5 10.47

equations are solved with corrected velocity ﬁeld. Then, the ﬂuid

properties and additional source terms are updated. In the last

step, a check for convergence is performed.

The normalized height of the pipe (Fig. 7) is deﬁned by: Fig. 8. Horizontal proﬁle.

of the pipe (Fig. 8) is given by z ¼ ðz þ ‘Þ=2‘, where 2‘ is the chord

at y ¼65 mm. by simulation is y peak CFD , the experimental velocity is Upeak exp and

ﬁnally, the velocity peak obtained by simulation is Upeak CFD.

5.1. Vertical proﬁle of the longitudinal velocity The positions of the peak velocities obtained for simulations

(a, b, c, d, g) show differences ranging from 2.2% to 4.7%. For the

We are situated in the cross section, at a distance of x ¼ 5 m. positions of peak velocities of experiments (e and f), this difference

The proﬁles of the longitudinal velocity in the vertical plane of is important because the experimental proﬁles do not allow peaks

symmetry are plotted in Fig. 9. but constant values on a vertical line. Strand (1993) then deﬁned

In Table 2 is presented for each liquid height hL, the velocity the peak as being at the middle of the vertical line. The velocity

UGCFD and Us, with which the simulations were carried out. The peaks obtained by simulations are very acceptable, the differences

dimensionless position of the experimental velocity peak is vary between 0.28% and 2.2% for all simulations. The differences in

y peak exp , the dimensionless position of the velocity peak obtained the positions of the peaks obtained by Meknassi et al. (2000) are

K. Sidi-Ali, R. Gatignol / Chemical Engineering Science 65 (2010) 5160–5169 5165

Fig. 9. Vertical proﬁles of longitudinal velocities for different heights of liquid and different superﬁcial gas velocities. (a) hL ¼ 42.9 mm and UsG ¼ 1.2 m/s; (b) hL ¼41 mm and

UsG ¼1.7 m/s; (c) hL ¼ 38.8 mm and UsG ¼ 3.1 m/s; (d) hL ¼34.5 mm and UsG ¼ 4.3 m/s; (e) hL ¼ 32.5 mm and UsG ¼ 4.9 m/s; (f) hL ¼30 mm and UsG ¼ 5.5 m/s; (g) hL ¼ 26 mm and

UsG ¼6.6 m/s.

5166 K. Sidi-Ali, R. Gatignol / Chemical Engineering Science 65 (2010) 5160–5169

greater than ours. The positions of the peaks obtained by them are differences to the experimental values of the velocity is 7.3% for

halfway through the height of the gas. In addition to these the ﬁrst, and 2.5% for the second. The velocities used in

differences, we note that our simulations yield proﬁles covering simulations (d, f, and g) show a relative difference from 0.8% to

the entire height from the top wall to the interface, which is not 3.5%, but are identical to those of Meknassi et al. (2000). The

the case of the proﬁles given by Meknassi et al. (2000). relative differences between the velocities of Meknassi et al.

(2000), and the experimental ones, on experiments (a, b, c, and e),

vary between 0.8% and 9.4%. It seems clear that the velocities we

5.2. Horizontal proﬁle of longitudinal velocity

used, are closer to the experimental values for all experiments but

(b), than those of Meknassi et al. (2000) are.

We are situated in the cross section, at a distance of x ¼ 5 m

from the duct entrance. The streamwise velocity proﬁles, in the

horizontal plane at y ¼ 65 mm from the bottom of the duct, which

is of diameter d (Fig. 8), are plotted in Fig. 10. 6. Study of the correlations

In Fig. 10, six horizontal proﬁles of streamwise velocity are

plotted. According to the authors, the experimental proﬁle of In Table 3 is presented, for each height of the liquid, the

experiment (f) in Strand (1993), is erroneous. Indeed, the peak superﬁcial gas velocity UsG, and the gas velocities used for the

velocity in the horizontal plane at y ¼ 65 mm, does not correspond experimental work, for the numerical one and for the present

to the value displayed on the vertical proﬁle. The proﬁles simulations are denoted, respectively, by UG(exp), UG(num) and

computed, thanks to the simulations, are symmetric with respects UG(CFD). The liquid velocities are deﬁned in a similar manner and

to the z ¼ 0.5 line, and velocity is at its maximum halfway through are denoted, respectively, by UL(exp), UL(num) and UL(CFD). The

the duct width. The computed proﬁles are correct, and agree with experimental gas–wall shear stress is given by twGðexpÞ and the one

Strand’s experimental values, near the centre and near the duct obtained by simulation twGðCFDÞ . The experimental interface shear

walls. Furthermore, these calculations are carried out throughout stress is denoted tsðexpÞ and the interface shear stress obtained by

the entire duct width, unlike in the works of Meknassi et al. simulations is denoted tsðCFDÞ . Knowing all these quantities, one

(2000), which are not extended to the walls. We note that the

simulation of experiment (g) was not presented by these authors.

entrance in our simulations, in those by Meknassi et al. (2000),

and the experimental values of Strand (1993). Note that our

values are in good agreement with the experimental ones, in the

seven experiments. For experiments (c, d, e, and g), the relative

difference with the experimental values vary between 0.8% and

4%. For experiments (a, b, and f), these relative differences vary

between 10% and 14%. The velocities used by Meknassi et al.

(2000), are close to the experimental values, on the entire set of

experiments, with a relative difference with regards to the

experimental data, which varies between 0.4% and 6%.

In Fig. 12, we have plotted the velocities of the liquid at the

interface, which we used in our simulations, along with those of

Meknassi et al. (2000), and Strand’s experimental values. The

velocities used in simulations (a and e) are identical to the

experimental values. For simulations (b and c), the relative Fig. 11. Gas velocity used in the three approaches.

Fig. 10. Horizontal proﬁles of longitudinal velocities for different heights of liquid and different superﬁcial gas velocities.

K. Sidi-Ali, R. Gatignol / Chemical Engineering Science 65 (2010) 5160–5169 5167

can deduce the expressions of the friction factors near the wall An expression for the calculation of the interface shear stress

and at the interface. can be derived likewise. It depends on the velocity of the gas, and

is obtained from the numerical results:

rG UG2

ts ¼ fs ð21Þ

2

The friction factors fwG and fs are determined using the values where the friction factor fs is given by the following expression:

of the shear stresses. Their expression is sought under the form:

fs ¼ 0:94Re0:427

G ð22Þ

b

f ¼ aRe ð18Þ We can thus derive another expression of the interface shear

stress, as a function of the relative velocities of the gas and the

The Reynolds number depends on the gas velocity, and is deﬁned liquid:

as ReG ¼ UG dhG =nG . The friction factor is then found thanks to the rG ðUG UL Þ2

expression of the shear stress t ¼ ð1=2Þf rU 2 . The values of the ts ¼ fs ð23Þ

2

constants a and b can now the calculated.

where the coefﬁcient fs is given by the following expression:

The least square approximation is used to ﬁnd a function

which corresponds to the form given in (18), and which ﬁts best fs ¼ 2:82Re0:522

G ð24Þ

the values of our simulations. The correlations are then obtained.

The gas–wall friction factor is given by

The correlations suggested here are valid in the following ranges

rG UG2 for the Reynolds number of the liquid and gas:

twG ¼ fwG ð19Þ

2 9000o ReG o49 000 and 21 000 o ReL o30 000 ð25Þ

where the friction factor fwG is written as follows: These correspond to the numerical simulations of this study.

fwG ¼ 1:14Re0:45

G ð20Þ

6.2. Comparisons of our correlations with those found in literature

This friction factor can then be used to calculate the gas–wall To compare the results given by the expressions of friction

shear stress, in any experiment. factors and shear stresses obtained by the present work and those

of Taitel and Duckler (1976a), we consider the experimental

velocities UGexp and ULexp (which is the interface velocity) given by

Strand (1993). With these velocities we can calculate the values of

the friction factors and the shear stresses obtained in the present

work (expressions (19)–(22)). The same experimental velocities

are used to calculate the friction factors and the shear stresses

given by the expressions of Taitel and Duckler (1976a). Our values

and those of Taitel and Dukler are compared with each other and

also with the experimental shear stresses given by Strand (1993).

In Table 4, are presented, the friction factors fWGTD given by

Taitel and Duckler (1976a) and fWGPW obtained by the present

work. The gas–wall shear stresses tWGTD , tWGPW and tWGexp are,

respectively, those of Taitel and Duckler (1976a), those obtained

by the present work and those obtained experimentally. The same

indices (TD, PW and exp) are used for the interfacial friction

factors and shear stresses.

In Fig. 13, we compare the values given by our correlation, for

the calculation of the gas-wall shear stress, with the one of Taitel

and Duckler (1976a). The experimental results of Strand (1993)

are also plotted. The Taitel and Dukler correlation is the one which

ﬁts best the experimental data, as stated in the Introduction.

Our correlation is precise for the ﬁrst experiment only, carried

Fig. 12. Liquid velocity used in the three approaches. out with an important liquid height. As the liquid height

Table 3

Experimental results (exp) Strand (1993), numerical (num) Meknassi et al., and present work (CFD).

Exp. hL UsG UG (exp) UG (num) UG (CFD) UL (exp) UL (num) UL (CFD) twG (exp) twG (CFD) ts (exp) ts (CFD)

(mm) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa)

a 42.9 1.2 2.03 1.91 2.30 0.243 0.22 0.243 0.020 0.056 0.041 0.061

b 41 1.7 2.76 2.68 3.15 0.259 0.247 0.24 0.035 0.089 0.083 0.095

c 38.8 3.1 4.83 4.85 5.02 0.278 0.287 0.285 0.098 0.191 0.182 0.191

d 34.5 4.3 6.19 6.06 6.09 0.327 0.331 0.331 0.141 0.250 0.217 0.273

e 32.5 4.9 6.82 7.13 6.95 0.354 0.357 0.354 0.167 0.290 0.282 0.325

f 30 5.5 7.35 7.80 8.10 0.396 0.410 0.410 0.189 0.380 0.470 0.425

g 26 6.6 8.31 8.75 8.38 0.484 0.488 0.488 0.232 0.434 0.552 0.457

5168 K. Sidi-Ali, R. Gatignol / Chemical Engineering Science 65 (2010) 5160–5169

Table 4

Friction factors and shear stresses calculated with the experimental velocities.

Exp. hL (mm) UGexp ULexp fWGTD fWGPW tWGTD (Pa) tWGPW (Pa) tWGexp (Pa) fsTD fsPW tsTD (Pa) tsPW (Pa) tsexp (Pa)

(m/s) (m/s)

a 42.9 2.03 0.243 0.00410 0.0182 0.019 0.047 0.020 0.0041 0.016 0.015 0.040 0.041

b 41.0 2.76 0.259 0.00386 0.0157 0.033 0.074 0.035 0.00386 0.0133 0.027 0.064 0.083

c 38.8 4.83 0.278 0.00348 0.0120 0.088 0.175 0.098 0.00348 0.0102 0.079 0.149 0.182

d 34.5 6.19 0.327 0.00337 0.0105 0.137 0.252 0.141 0.00337 0.0089 0.123 0.214 0.217

e 32.5 6.82 0.354 0.00334 0.0099 0.162 0.289 0.167 0.00334 0.0085 0.146 0.246 0.282

f 30.0 7.35 0.396 0.00333 0.0095 0.185 0.321 0.189 0.00333 0.0081 0.165 0.273 0.470

g 26.0 8.31 0.484 0.00333 0.0088 0.229 0.381 0.232 0.00333 0.0075 0.203 0.324 0.552

results which are close to the experimental values. Taitel and

Dukler’s correlation agrees less with the experimental values, as

the height decreases. This is not the case with the correlation we

suggested. Its results are in an excellent agreement, with the ﬁrst

ﬁve experiments (very high liquid heights), and these results are

better than Taitel and Dukler (1976b) for the last two experiments

(small liquid heights).

Taitel and Dukler use a ﬂuid–wall friction factor expression as

the Blasius one. This friction factor is determined for a one-phase

ﬂow in a pipe. They use the same friction factor for the non-

moving wall and for the interface. The shear stresses calculated

with these friction factors give good results at the non-moving

wall but not good ones at the interface. The gas–wall shear stress

expression proposed by the present work is not the best, it was

calculated iteratively within the program according to the friction

velocity t ¼ rU 2 . This shear stress is overestimated at the non-

moving wall but well estimated at the interface. The k2e

turbulence model and the mesh used affect the friction velocity

at the non-moving wall more than at the interface (moving wall),

Fig. 13. Comparison of different values of the wall-gas shear stress in the 7

experiments. this is well explained in Djenidi et al. (2002), Orlandi and Borello

(2009), and Jiang and Lai (2009).

The interface friction factor expression developed in this work

and the gas–wall friction factor given by Taitel and Dukler can be

used in the expressions giving the shear stresses at the interface

and at the gas–wall (Eq. (3)), to study a two-phase ﬂow. The two

expressions are complementary.

7. Concluding remarks

transposed then studied using the CFD code Fluent. The velocity

proﬁles of the gas, which have been computed using this analogy,

are very close to the experimental proﬁles of Strand. Some proﬁles

are in a better agreement, than those of Meknassi et al. are. This

conﬁrms the validity of this method. The vertical proﬁles are

complete and cover the entire width of the duct, follow the

downwards shift of the proﬁle, and provide peak velocities which

are similar to those given by the experiments. Thanks to this

successful approach, the expressions of two friction factors have

been derived: one for the gas–wall, and another for the interface.

We can conﬁrm that Taitler and Dukler’s correlation, which is

used to derive the gas–wall friction factor, remains the most valid.

Fig. 14. Comparison of different values of the interface shear stress in the 7

experiments. However, the correlation suggested in the present work, to

calculate the interface friction factor, is the best.

experimental data. References

In Fig. 14, we compare the values given by our correlation for

the calculation of the interface shear stress, with the values given Agrawal, S.S., Gregory, G.A., Govier, G.W., 1973. An analysis of horizontal stratiﬁed

by the correlation of Taitel and Duckler (1976a), and Strand’s two phase ﬂow in pipes. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 51, 280–286.

K. Sidi-Ali, R. Gatignol / Chemical Engineering Science 65 (2010) 5160–5169 5169

Blasius, H., 1912. Das aehnlichkeitsgesetz bei reibungsvorgangen. Z. Ver. Dtsch. Newton, C.H., Behnia, M., Reizes, J.A., 1999. The effect of liquid viscosity on gas

Ing. 56 (16), 639–643. wall and interfacial shear stress in horizontal two-phase pipe ﬂow. Chem. Eng.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., James Davis, E., 1979. Stratiﬁed turbulent–turbulent gas– Sci. 54, 1071–1079.

liquid ﬂow. A.I.Ch.E. J. 25, 48–56. Nigmatulin, N.I., 1991. Dynamics of Multiphase Media. Hemisphere Publishing

Chung, T.J., 2002. Computational Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge University Press. Corporation, New York.

Crowley, C.J., Wallis, G.B., Barry, J.J., 1992. Validation of a one dimensional wave Orlandi, P., Borello, D., 2009. DNS and zf closure in turbulent channels with a

model for the stratiﬁed-to-slug ﬂow regime transition, with consequences for moving wall. Technical report WT-090414-URS-2.

wave growth and slug frequency. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 18, 249–271. Patankar, S.V., 1980. Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. Hemisphere

Delhaye, J.M., Giot, M., Riethmuller, M.L., 1981. Thermohydraulics of Two Phase Publishing Corporation.

Systems for Industrial Design and Nuclear Engineering. Mc-Graw Hill. Petalas, N., Aziz, Kh., 1998. A mechanistic model for multiphase ﬂow in pipes. In:

Djenidi, L., Savill, A., Antonia, R.A., 2002. Calculation of a low-shear turbulent 49th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of the Canadian

boundary layer using a second-moment order closure. Engineering Turbulence Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, Paper 98-39, Alberta, Canada,

Modelling and Experiments 5. Mallorca, Spain. June 8–10.

Fluent users guide, 2006. Version 6.4, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH. Prandtl, L., 1927. Über den reibungswiderstand strömer luft. Ergebnisse, AVA,

Hirch, C., 1991. Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows, Vol. 1, Göttingen, 3. Liefg, pp. 1–5, 4. Liefg, pp. 18–29.

Fundamentals of Numerical Discretisation. John Wiley and sons. Prandtl, L., 1932. Zur turbulenten strömung in rohren, und längs platen. AVA,

Ishii, M., 1975. Thermo-ﬂuid Dynamic Theory of Two-phase Flow. Eyrolles, Paris. Göttingen, vierte serie.

Ishii, M., Hibiki, T., 2006. Thermo-ﬂuid Dynamics of Two-phase Flow. Springer, USA. Shoham, O., Taitel, Y., 1984. Stratiﬁed turbulent–turbulent gas–liquid ﬂow in

Jiang, X., Lai, C.H., 2009. Numerical Techniques for Direct and Large-eddy horizontal and inclined pipes. A.I.Ch.E. J. 30, 377–385.

Simulations. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis New edition. Spedding, P.L., Hand, N.P., 1997. Prediction in stratiﬁed gas–liquid co-current ﬂow

Kowalski, J.E., 1987. Wall and interfacial shear stress in stratiﬁed ﬂow in a in horizontal pipelines. In. J. Heat Mass Transf. 40, 1923–1935.

horizontal pipe. A.I.Ch.E. J. 33, 274–281. Strand, Ø., 1993. An experimental investigation of stratiﬁed two-phase ﬂow in

Launder, B.E., Spalding, D.B., 1972. Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence. horizontal pipes. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oslo, Norway.

Academic Press, London, England. Taitel, Y., Duckler, A.E., 1976a. A model for predicting ﬂow regime transitions in

Leveque, R.J., 2002. Finite Volume Method for Hyperbolic Problems. Cambridge horizontal and near horizontal gas–liquid ﬂow. A.I.Ch.E. J. 22, 47–55.

University Press. Taitel, Y., Dukler, A.E., 1976b. A theoretical approach to the Lockhart–Martinelli

Meknassi, F., Benkirane, R., Line, A., Masbernat, L., 2000. Numerical modeling of correlation for stratiﬁed ﬂow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 2, 591–595.

wavy stratiﬁed two-phase ﬂow in pipes. Chem. Eng. Sci. 55, 4681–4697. Wilcox, D.C., 1993. Turbulence Modeling for CFD. DCW Inductries Inc.

- LES of Flow Around Gas Turbine OGVUploaded byAnsuman Pradhan
- Hydraulics Basic LevelUploaded byAsifa Aslam
- Pressure Losses for Fluid Flow in Curved PipesUploaded bySrbislav Genic
- Manual de hidráulica EM 110-2-1416 15-10-93.pdfUploaded bymansocalula
- siggraph2007 curlnoiseUploaded bylunar7
- Numerical Study Of Flue Gas Flow In A Multi Cyclone SeparatorUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- SPE 126Uploaded byadvantage025
- CFX-Intro_14.5_WS02_Mixing-Tee-Particles.pdfUploaded bypaulhnv
- 2d UpscaleUploaded byTrupti Desale
- Pipe Flow CalculationsUploaded byputrude
- InTech-The Importance of Turbulence Reduction in Assessment of Wind Tunnel Flow QualityUploaded byDileep
- ThesisUploaded byr_skifton
- IJE-193Uploaded byDarya Khan Bhutto
- JFG000553Uploaded byfanaoum
- Moser 1999 Direct NumbericalUploaded byJennifer Walker
- Fluent-Intro_16.0_L09_BestPractices.pdfUploaded byAnonymous 8209ZT
- computational analysis of wind flowUploaded byMuhammad Zahid
- CFD Instabilities in Complex AIAA-2006-4758.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- 1-s2.0-0301932290900995-mainUploaded byAnonymous 4onBxUG
- A Study on Flow Transition and Development in Circular and Rectangular DuctsUploaded bySpongebob Fans
- water-10-00605-v3Uploaded bySanti Sari
- 1F5CF65AB44FBBD17F5D26A935D38Uploaded byercanpek
- sedimenUploaded byAnonymous 5jWZUDd
- AMM.663.522 (1)Uploaded byKURNIAWAN
- DiscussionUploaded byandy94264
- M Tech Mech Engg_Syllabi_2012-13Uploaded byVikas Sandhu
- IJEE_02_v2n5Uploaded byperules
- 1-s2.0-S0142727X15000740-mainUploaded byMicke Sandoval
- obrabotka_ehksperimentaUploaded byAndrey Zagorulko
- 88MC309Uploaded by9443862123

- bagci2010Uploaded byLazarin Zidan
- bybee2011(1)Uploaded byramihey
- Bruning s 2013Uploaded byramihey
- Arellano 2013Uploaded byramihey
- srp pumpUploaded byramihey
- Gas Lift.-NECHEM Toufik.pdfUploaded byramihey
- 160Uploaded byramihey
- khjgfi 1232010Uploaded byramihey
- larijani2010.pdfUploaded byramihey
- tleukhabyluly2014Uploaded byramihey
- ageh2010Uploaded byViệt Toàn Đỗ
- Sham Mari 2014Uploaded byramihey
- lmpkUploaded byramihey
- Bahri 2014Uploaded byramihey
- qadmani2011.pdfUploaded byramihey
- almutairi2010Uploaded byramihey
- Eli 2013Uploaded byramihey
- Bartolomeu 2014Uploaded byramihey
- Campos 2010Uploaded byramihey
- 10.4043@24924-MSUploaded byramihey
- 10.2118@138888-MSUploaded byramihey
- Ultrasonic Measurement of Multiphase Flow Erosion Patterns in a Standard ElbowUploaded byKarthik R
- 10.4043@28904-MSUploaded byramihey
- Ngo 2018Uploaded byramihey
- Zhou 2018Uploaded byramihey

- hydroststicsUploaded bytirupati
- r050210104 Fluid MechanicsUploaded bySrinivasa Rao G
- 21795597-vicosity-of-fluids.pptxUploaded byMădălina Ștefan
- Fluid Mechanics GATE 1991-2013 Topic Wise SolutionCkhaUploaded bytejamech94
- Aerodynamic Design And Testing Of Helmets.Uploaded byhamza pervez
- 3D Design and Simulations of NASA Rotor 67 MSC ThesisUploaded byKhairy Elsayed
- blaUploaded byPoorya Mehrabi
- notes-t2 (2)Uploaded byAkshay Singh
- Orifice MeterUploaded bykrunalkp037
- The Flow Characteristic of a Control ValveUploaded bykremi_panuen
- Chapter 2Uploaded byvinayak
- 10ME46B Fluid MechanicsUploaded byManjunatha Eikila
- 2 Pump-pipeline SysUploaded byAdelCh
- FM_QBUploaded byArun Raja K K
- Piping and Instrumentation DrawingUploaded byeke23
- Research and Design of a Centrifugal Compressor for Fuel Cell TurbochargerUploaded byjswxie
- Different types of aerodynamic profiles used and their applicationUploaded byanand mani
- Selecting Right ImpellerUploaded byicingrock
- Blasius Boundary Layer Solution With Slip Flow Conditions_Martin_BoydUploaded bysavelyk1351
- gate.rtfUploaded byImranKabir
- Hydraulics & Fluid Mechanics Handout 2012-2013Uploaded byTushar Gupta
- Normalizing NPSHUploaded byorchids28
- Price List - Audco - 2011 - 12Uploaded bysamvendan
- FM 2e SI Chap02 LectureUploaded byShasha AR
- A Novel View on Lubricant Flow Undergoing Cavitation in Sintered Journal BearingsUploaded bytomekzawistowski
- Viscous Flow in PipesUploaded byAmeerul Azmie
- Kaffel et al. ICME 2017Uploaded byKaffel
- Formula 1 Aerodynamics - Front Wings (2010)Uploaded byshaurya_verma
- Assignments FinUploaded byGCVishnuKumar
- FluidFlow3 Brief OverviewUploaded byjjirwin