MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF HORIZONTAL TWO-PHASE FLOW

THROUGH FULLY ECCENTRIC ANNULI



















ÇİĞDEM ÖMÜRLÜ














MAY 2006

MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF HORIZONTAL TWO-PHASE FLOW
THROUGH FULLY ECCENTRIC ANNULI




A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY




BY




ÇİĞDEM ÖMÜRLÜ





IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING




MAY 2006



Approval of the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences


Prof. Dr. Canan Özgen
Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree
of Master of Science.



Prof. Dr. Mahmut Parlaktuna
Head of Department

This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science



Assist. Prof. Dr. M. Evren Özbayoğlu
Supervisor
Examining Committee Members

Prof. Dr. Mahmut Parlaktuna (METU,PETE)

Assist. Prof. Dr. M. Evren Özbayoğlu (METU,PETE)

Prof. Dr. Tanju Mehmetoğlu (METU,PETE)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Serhat Akin (METU,PETE)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. İ. Hakkı Gücüyener (TPAO)

iii
PLAGIARISM












I hereby declare that all information in this document has been
obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical
conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I
have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not
original to this work.



Name, Last name : ÇİĞDEM ÖMÜRLÜ

Signature:











iv

ABSTRACT


MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF HORIZONTAL TWO-PHASE FLOW
THROUGH FULLY ECCENTRIC ANNULI


Ömürlü, Çiğdem
M.Sc., Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering
Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. M. Evren Özbayoğlu


May 2006, 107 pages

The primary objective of this study is to understand the mechanism, the
hydraulics and the characteristics, of the two-phase flow in horizontal annuli.
While achieving this goal, both theoretical and experimental works have been
conducted extensively. The METU-PETE-CTMFL (Middle East Technical
University, Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Department, Cuttings
Transport and Multiphase Flow Laboratory) multiphase flow loop consists of
4.84 m long eccentric horizontal acrylic pipes having 0.1143m inner diameter
(I.D) acrylic casing - 0.0571m outer diameter (O.D) drillpipe and 0.0932m I.D
acrylic casing - 0.0488m O.D drillipipe geometric configurations. During each
experiment, differential pressure loss data obtained from digital and analog
pressure transmitters at a given liquid and gas flow rate were recorded. The
v
flow patterns were identified visually. Meanwhile a mechanistic model has been
developed. The flow pattern identification criteria proposed originally for two-
phase flow through pipes by Taitel and Dukler
1
has been inherited and modified
for the eccentric annular geometry. The complex geometry of eccentric annuli
has been represented by a new single diameter definition, namely
representative diameter d
r
. The representative diameter has been used while
calculating the pressure losses. A computer code based on the algorithm of the
proposed mechanistic model has been developed in Matlab 7.0.4. Both the flow
pattern prediction and the frictional pressure loss estimation are compared with
the gathered experimental data. Moreover, friction factor correlations have
been developed for each flow pattern using experimental data and statistical
methods. The performance of the proposed model and the friction factor
correlations has been evaluated from experimental data. The mechanistic
model developed in this study accurately predicts flow pattern transitions and
frictional pressure losses. The model’s pressure loss estimations are within
± 30% for two different annular flow geometries.


Keywords: Two-phase Flow, Frictional Pressure Loss, Friction Factor,
Mechanistic Model, Eccentric Annulus, Multiphase Experiment






vi

ÖZ


TAM EKSENTRİK HALKASAL ORTAMDA YATAY İKİ FAZLI AKIŞIN
MATEMATİKSEL MODELLENMESİ


Ömürlü, Çiğdem
Y.Lisans, Petrol ve Doğal Gaz Mühendisliği Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Y.Doç. Dr. M. Evren Özbayoğlu


Mayıs 2006, 107 sayfa

Bu çalışmadaki başlıca hedef, iki fazlı akışın yatay halkasal ortamlardaki akış
mekanizmasını, hidroliğini ve karakteristiğini anlamaktır. Bu amaca ulaşırken
yoğun bir şekilde hem teorik hem de deneysel çalışmalar yapılmıştır. ODTÜ-
PETE-KTÇFAL (Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Petrol ve Doğal Gaz Mühendisliği
Bölümü Kesinti Taşıma ve Çok Fazlı Akış Laboratuvarı) iki fazlı akış deney
düzeneği 0.1143m iç çaplı akrilik muhafaza borusu - 0.0571m dış çaplı sondaj
borusu ve 0.0932m iç çaplı akrilik muhafaza borusu - 0.0488m dış çaplı sondaj
borusu geometrik özellikteki yatay halkasal ortamdan oluşmaktadır ve uzunluğu
4.84m’dir. Deneyler sırasında çeşitli gaz ve sıvı akış debilerinde oluşan basınç
kayıpları dijital ve analog olarak kaydedilmiştir. Akış biçimleri ise görsel olarak
tespit edilmiştir. Bir yandan da mekanistik model oluşturulmuştur. Borulardaki
vii
iki fazlı akış için Taitel ve Dukler
1
tarafından geliştirilen akış biçimi tayini
kriterleri tercih edilmiş ve tam eksentrik halkasal ortama uyarlanmıştır. Eksentrik
halkasal ortamın karmaşık geometrisi tek bir yeni çap terimi, temsili çap d
r
ile
temsil edilmiştir. Temsili çap, basınç kayıpları hesaplamaları sırasında da
kullanılmıştır. Matlab 7.0.4 programı kullanılarak oluşturulan mekanistik modele
dayalı bilgisayar kodu yazılmıştır. Hem akış biçimi tayinleri hem de sürtünme
kaynaklı basınç kayıpları hesaplamaları deneysel verilerle karşılaştırılmıştır.
Ayrıca, her bir akış biçimi için sürtünme faktörü bağıntıları istatistiksel yöntem
kullanılarak oluşturulmuştur. Oluşturulan modelin ve sürtünme faktörü
bağıntılarının performansı deneysel veriler kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bu
çalışmada oluşturulan mekanistik model akış biçimleri geçişlerini ve basınç
kayıplarını doğru bir şekilde tayin edebilmektedir. Basınç kayıpları ± 30% hata
sınırları arasındadır.


Anahtar Kelimeler: İki Fazlı Akış, Sürtünme Basınç Kayıpları, Sürtünme Faktörü,
Mekanistik Model, Eksentrik Halkasal Ortam, Çok Fazlı Akış Deneyi









viii









To My Family

















ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I would like to thank my advisor Assist.Prof.Dr. M. Evren Özbayoğlu for his
valuable support, guidance and encouragement during this study. I would like
to thank also to Naci Doğru and Ali Osman Atik for their help during the
construction of the experimental setup. Without all these assistances and helps,
this work would have not been accomplished. My thesis committee members
Prof. Dr. Tanju Mehmetoğlu, Prof. Dr. Mahmut Parlaktuna, Assoc. Prof. Dr. İ.
Hakkı Gücüyener, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Serhat Akın, and Assist. Prof Dr. M. Evren
Özbayoğlu are very appreciated for their comments and suggestions.

Finally my special and sincere thanks go to my whole family for their endless
love and support, to my grandmother who stands always by me with her great
understanding and prayers, to my father and mother for their care and
tolerance, to Tolga Metin who is always beside me with joy and love along with
kindness and never-ending support, and help, to my aunt for great
encouragement and guidance, to my sister İpek Ömürlü and my cousin Berk
Gercek, and to my friends İlkay Uzun and Sevtaç Bülbül for their supports,
encouragements and considerations. I would like to thank to Tolga Metin once
more for drawing the excellent figures in this thesis.




x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAGIARISM .............................................................................................. III
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................IV
ÖZ..............................................................................................................VI
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................................................................IX
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................... X
NOMENCLATURE.......................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER .................................................................................................... 5
1.INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 5
2.LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................. 8
2.1 Models for two-phase flow through pipe............................................ 8
2.2 Models for two-phase flow through annuli ....................................... 13
3.STATEMENT of THE PROBLEM............................................................... 18
4.SCOPE of THE STUDY............................................................................ 20
5.THEORY ............................................................................................... 21
xi
5.1 Flow Pattern Prediction................................................................... 21
5.1.1 Stratified Flow to Non-Stratified Flow Transition......................... 27
5.1.2 Intermittent Flow to Annular Flow Transition ............................. 29
5.1.3 Intermittent Flow to Dispersed Bubble Flow Transition ............... 31
5.1.4 Stratified Smooth Flow to Stratified Wavy Flow Transition .......... 33
5.2 Determination of Frictional Pressure Loss ........................................ 33
5.2.1 Stratified Flow ......................................................................... 33
5.2.2 Intermittent Flow..................................................................... 36
5.2.3 Annular Flow ........................................................................... 42
5.2.4 Dispersed Bubble Flow............................................................. 45
6.EXPERIMENTAL WORK .......................................................................... 47
6.1 Experimental Setup........................................................................ 47
6.2 Test Section................................................................................... 51
6.3 Calibration Process......................................................................... 53
6.4 Experimental Test Procedure and Data Acquisition........................... 55
7.COMPUTER WORK................................................................................. 57
8.RESULTS and DISCUSSION.................................................................... 59
xii
8.1. Validation of Flow Pattern Identification of Proposed Model with
Experimental Data ............................................................................... 59
8.2 Validation of Frictional Pressure Loss Estimations of Proposed Model
with Experimental Results .................................................................... 65
8.3 Empirical Friction Factor Correlations............................................... 73
9.CONCLUDING REMARKS........................................................................ 80
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................. 83
REFERENCES.............................................................................................. 85
APPENDIX.................................................................................................. 90
A.1 Modified Petalas and Aziz Model...................................................... 90
A.2 Modified Garcia et al Model............................................................. 95
A.3 Modified Beggs and Brill Model ....................................................... 96
A.4 Stratified-Intermittent Flow Transition............................................. 97
A.5 Pictures Taken During Experiments............................................... 101






xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.1.1- Cross sections of pipe of representative diameter d
r
and annuli
with diameters of d
i
and d
o
......................................................................... 23
Figure 5.1.2- Geometrical parameters for fully eccentric annuli...................... 24
Figure 5.1.1.1- Stratified Flow..................................................................... 27
Figure 5.1.2.1- Intermittent Flow................................................................. 30
Figure 5.1.2.2- Annular Flow....................................................................... 30
Figure 5.1.3.1- Dispersed Bubble Flow......................................................... 31
Figure 6.1.1- Schematic view of the experimental setup................................ 48
Figure 6.1.2- Two-phase separator .............................................................. 49
Figure 6.1.3- Electropneumatic control valve................................................ 50
Figure 6.2.1- Test section ........................................................................... 52
Figure 6.3.1- Frictional pressure loss gradient versus flow rate data of water
flowing through configuration 1................................................................... 54
Figure 6.3.2- Frictional pressure loss gradient versus flow rate data of water
flowing through configuration 2................................................................... 54
Figure 7.1- Flow chart of Matlab code for the flow pattern identification and
frictional pressure loss determination........................................................... 58
Figure 8.1.1- Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using d
hyd
and GDM
for configuration 1...................................................................................... 60
Figure 8.1.2- Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using d
hyd
and GDM
for configuration 2...................................................................................... 61
Figure 8.1.3- Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using d
hyd
and OOM
for configuration 1...................................................................................... 63
xiv
Figure 8.1.4- Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using d
hyd
and OOM
for configuration 2...................................................................................... 63
Figure 8.1.5- Validation of flow pattern maps generated using d
r
and modified
Beggs and Brill
3
method with experimental data for configuration 1............... 64
Figure 8.1.6- Validation of flow pattern maps generated using d
r
and modified
Beggs and Brill
3
method with experimental data for configuration 2............... 65
Figure 8.2.1- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of the proposed
model with experimental data and mostly used models for stratified flow
through configuration 1 .............................................................................. 66
Figure 8.2.2- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of the proposed
model with experimental data and mostly used models for stratified flow
through configuration 2 .............................................................................. 67
Figure 8.2.3- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of EPDM with
experimental data and mostly used models for intermittent flow through
configuration 1........................................................................................... 69
Figure 8.2.4- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of EPDM with
experimental data and mostly used models for intermittent flow through
configuration 2........................................................................................... 69
Figure 8.2.5- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of OM with
experimental data and mostly used models for intermittent flow through
configuration 1........................................................................................... 71
Figure 8.2.6- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of OM with
experimental data and mostly used models for intermittent flow through
configuration 2........................................................................................... 71
Figure 8.3.1- Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of
experimental stratified flow data ................................................................. 75
xv
Figure 8.3.2- Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of
experimental intermittent flow data ............................................................. 76
Figure 8.3.3- Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of
experimental intermittent flow data for NRe
mixλ
 < 100000............................. 77
Figure 8.3.4- Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of
experimental intermittent flow data for NRe
mixλ
 ≥ 100000 ............................ 78
Figure 8.3.5- Comparison of pressure losses determined by the empirical
correlations and experimental data for stratified flow.................................... 79
Figure 8.3.6- Comparison of pressure losses determined by the empirical
correlations and experimental data for intermittent flow ............................... 79
Figure A.1- The analysis of the forces during wave growth in the conduit ...... 98
Figure A.2- Stratified smooth flow through configuration 1.......................... 101
Figure A.3- Stratified wavy flow through configuration 1 ............................. 101
Figure A.4- Stratified wavy flow through configuration 1 ............................. 102
Figure A.5- Intermittent flow through configuration 1 ................................. 102
Figure A.6- Intermittent flow through configuration 1 ................................. 103
Figure A.7- Intermittent flow through configuration 1 at high liquid and gas flow
rates........................................................................................................ 103
Figure A.8- Intermittent flow through configuration 1 at high liquid and gas flow
rates........................................................................................................ 104
Figure A.9- Stratified smooth flow through configuration 2.......................... 104
Figure A.10- Stratified smooth flow through configuration 2........................ 105
Figure A.11- Stratified wavy flow through configuration 2 ........................... 105
Figure A.12- Stratified wavy flow through configuration 2 ........................... 106
Figure A.13- Intermittent flow through configuration 2 ............................... 106
Figure A.14- Intermittent flow through configuration 2 ............................... 107
xvi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 6.1.1- Geometrical configuration of annular section ............................. 48
Table 6.1.2- Capacity and brand name of experimental components.............. 51
Table 8.2.1- Error percentage for pressure loss estimation of mostly proposed
and modified models .................................................................................. 72



1
NOMENCLATURE

A area (L
2
)
AN Annular Flow
Bo Bond number
c
g
constant for gas phase
c
l
constant for liquid phase
DB Dispersed Bubble Flow
d
C
critical gas bubble diameter (L)
d
CB
critical bubble size below which bubbles can not migrate (L)
d
CD
critical bubble size above which the bubble is deformed (L)
d
g
hydraulic diameter for gas phase(L)
d
hyd
hydraulic diameter (L)
d
i
outer diameter of inner pipe, drillpipe (L)
d
l
hydraulic diameter for liquid phase(L)
d
o
inner diameter of outer pipe, casing (L)
d
r
representative diameter (L)
E
l
liquid volume fraction in the slug unit
E
ls
liquid volume fraction in the slug body
f friction factor
f friction factor
FE entrainment fraction
f
f
friction factor
g gravitational acceleration (L/T
2
)
g gravitational acceleration (L/T
2
)
2
GVF gas void fraction
H
l
Liquid holdup
h
l
liquid level (L)
I Intermittent Flow
L
entrance
length required from entrance for fully developed flow (L)
L
exit
length required from exit for fully developed flow (L)
L
f
length of gas zone (L)
L
s
length of liquid slug body (L)
L
u
length of a slug unit (L)
m constant for gas phase
n constant for liquid phase
N
B
dimensionless term
P pressure (M /(L T
2
))
R
e
Reynolds number
S contact perimeter (L)
s sheltering coefficient
SS Stratified Smooth Flow
SW Stratified Wavy Flow
v velocity (L/T)
z axial direction
l
l
dA
dh
derivative of liquid area with respect to liquid level
L
Fr
N
Froude number
Re

high Reynolds number
P
L


pressure gradient (M/T
2
L
2
)
3
Subscripts
c core
d drift
d∞ drift at high Reynolds numbers
f film
ff formation fracture
f
gp
frictional pocket/liquid film
f
sL
frictional slug
g gas pocket
g related with the gas phase
i related with the interface
l related with the liquid phase
lf liquid film
ls liquid slug
m mixture
mixλ mixture based on liquid holdup
ml mixture related with liquid phase properties
r representative
sg superficial gas
sl superficial Liquid
t translational
wg wall gas
wl wall liquid



4
Greek
δ
dimensionless liquid film thickness
Τ
µ
weighting factor
δ liquid film thickness (L)
φ angle
η weighting factor
λ
l
no-slip holdup
µ viscosity (M /(L T))
θ angle
ρ density (M/L
3
)
σ interfacial surface tension (M/T
2
)
τ shear stress (M /(L T
2
))














5

CHAPTER 1


INTRODUCTION


Two-phase flow is the flow phenomenon of two different fluid phases flowing
simultaneously through a conduit. Generally, liquid and gas phases are the
components of this commonly encountered flow type. Since 1950’s, the flow
mechanism of two-phase fluids has been the subject of research in many
different engineering practices. In petroleum industry, the applications of two-
phase flow start from drilling and continue till the refining process.

In depleted reservoirs, underbalanced drilling techniques are required. In this
integrated technology the drilling fluid pressure is less than the pore pressure in
the formation rock. Therefore, the balance between the borehole pressure and
formation pore fluid pressure is established. Air, gas, foam and aerated water
are the light fluids usually used during underbalanced drilling applications. The
number of wells drilled using this technology is increasing as a result of the
advantages of underbalanced drilling. Increased penetration rate, minimized
circulation loss especially in naturally fractured or pressure depleted reservoirs,
prolonged bit life, minimized differential sticking, improved formation
evaluation, reduced formation damage and environmental benefits are among
the main advantages of underbalanced drilling. This enhanced technology
6
diminishes the risks of contaminating the reservoir and eliminates the potential
pollution of drilling mud to environment
2
.

The hole cleaning efficiency is an important criterion that should be well
determined during drilling operations. The carrying capacity, the ability of
transporting the drilled particles to surface, is one of the major roles of drilling
fluids. Especially during underbalanced drilling operations in horizontal and
deviated wells, flow behavior of the two-phase fluid should be well determined
in order to improve the hole cleaning efficiency. Otherwise, an improper hole
cleaning may result in differential pipe sticking, increased torque and drag and
hence a severe economical loss. The efficiency of the hydraulic program during
drilling operations and the economical success of the operation are directly
related to the better understanding of cuttings transport phenomenon. The
minimum volumetric flow rates and the liquid and gas interface distributions are
the most important requirements for hole cleaning efficiency
3
. Therefore, an
accurate two-phase flow model is essential for an improved description of
transportation of cuttings from the wellbore to the surface.

Another important usage of two-phase flow takes place during the
transportation of the produced oil and gas via the pipelines. Since oil and gas
fields are mainly in remote onshore areas or in offshore, pipeline systems are of
great importance. As the demand for oil and gas in Asia and Europe is
increasing the Caspian region oil reserves are becoming more important.
Therefore pipelines are establishing, i.e., BTC (Baku-Tiflis-Ceyhan). Reliable
engineering calculations should be carried out as the overall distances of these
pipeline systems are considered. With the improving technology, innovative
7
methods provide more accurate results with better understanding of two-phase
flow systems.

When this wide range of application of two-phase flow in petroleum
engineering is considered, the importance of the appropriate determination of
flow parameters of two-phase fluid systems is remarkable. Several studies
4-26

have been carried out for understanding the flow mechanism of two-phase fluid
systems through pipe. However limited researches
3,27-35
are conducted for
annular two-phase flow.

This study attempts to propose a mechanistic mathematical model developed
for two-phase flow through horizontal fully eccentric annulus. Flow pattern
identification and frictional pressure loss determination procedures are
presented accordingly. The performance of the model is compared with the
experimental data collected from METU-PETE-CTMFL (Middle East Technical
University, Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Department, Cuttings
Transport and Multiphase Flow Laboratory) multiphase flow loop. Furthermore,
friction factor correlations are developed using the experimental data obtained
from same multiphase flow loop.







8

CHAPTER 2


LITERATURE REVIEW


Through the investigation of two-phase flow phenomenon, extensive theoretical
and experimental studies have been carried out. The early models developed
for two-phase fluid systems were flow pattern independent. These models
ignored the complex flow configurations, named as flow patterns, and treated
the two-phase flow as a single-phase fluid flow or as a flow of two separated
fluids. Wallis
4
, Lockhart and Martinelli
5
, and Duns and Ros
6
models are among
the most important models that are the starting points through the progress of
modeling two-phase fluid flow. Recent studies focused on the determination of
flow patterns. The flow mechanism of two-phase fluid systems was examined
independently for each flow pattern. Then, governing flow equations were
proposed for a given flow pattern. These models were called mechanistic
models. As the knowledge of flow behavior of two-phase fluid systems has
improved, comprehensive and unified mechanistic models were developed.

2.1 Models for two-phase flow through pipe
In the “Homogeneous No-Slip Flow Model”, introduced by Wallis
3
, the two-
phase mixture wais treated as a pseudo single-phase fluid with average velocity
and physical properties. The physical properties of two-phase system were
9
determined from single-phase gas and liquid properties through the liquid
holdup.

The opposite approach was taken in the “Separated Flow Model” proposed by
Lockhart and Martineli
5
. In this model the gas phase and the liquid phase were
assumed to flow separately from each other. Thus, each of the phases was
analyzed utilizing single-phase flow methods such as friction factor concept.
Four flow mechanisms were established and transition criteria between these
flow mechanisms were suggested. Curves were presented for the prediction of
pressure drop and the liquid level in the pipe.

“Dimensional Analysis”, introduced by Duns and Ros
6
, was a powerful technique
to develop universal solutions from experimental data. This was achieved by
generating governing dimensionless groups that control a given flow system. It
has been applied successfully to various single-phase flow problems. However,
in two-phase flow, due to the large number of variables involved, dimensional
analysis could not be applied in a straightforward manner. Additional
assumptions were required to reduce the number of dimensionless groups.

“The Drift Flux Model”, developed by Wallis
3
, treated the two phases as a
homogeneous mixture. However, it allowed slippage between the gas and the
liquid phases. This was a significant improvement of the homogeneous model.
However, additional information was required about the relative movement of
the two phases and, this information was not always available.

10
Correlations were the most common procedure to predict the flow properties in
annulus, in the past. The predictions either have applied correlations developed
for flow in pipes by use of the hydraulic diameter concept or have applied
correlations developed from experimental data. Baxendell
7
, Gaither et al.
8
,
Angel and Welchon
9
, and Winkler
10
presented empirical correlations for annular
two-phase flow.

Dukler et al.
11
proposed a model based on dimensionless groups and developed
frictional pressure loss correlations using similarity analysis. This model
underestimated the liquid holdup. By using correlations proposed by Eaton and
Brown
12
, more accurate liquid holdup could be calculated. In the case of
inclined pipe flow, Flanigan
3
proposed a correlation for the determination of
the gravitational effects.

Beggs and Brill
14
studied two-phase flow through pipes in an entire range of
inclination angles, i.e., vertical upward, horizontal and vertical downward. They
developed correlations for flow pattern determination by using Froude number
and no-slip holdup. The proposed model estimated the actual holdup and the
pressure loss for each flow pattern separately. Dukler et al
11
’s method was
referred to calculate the two-phase friction factor.

Taitel and Dukler
1
analyzed the prediction of transition boundaries between the
flow patterns. The model begins with the equilibrium stratified flow assumption.
The equilibrium liquid holdup is determined by using the Lockhart and Martinelli
parameter. They modified the Kelvin-Helmholtz inviscid theory in order to
11
predict the initiation of slugs. The transition of intermittent to annular flow is
assumed to be dependent only on liquid level. Jeffrey’s theory for wave
initiation is used to determine the transition of stratified smooth to stratified
wavy flow pattern. Turbulent and buoyant forces acting on a gas pocket are
investigated for the boundary between dispersed bubble flow and intermittent
flow. The transition conditions were also expressed as dimensionless
parameters. This model, developed for Newtonian flow, was verified with the
experiments conducted in small diameter pipes under low-pressure conditions.

Dukler and Hubbard
15
investigated the mechanisms and the hydraulic behavior
of slug flow. An idealized slug unit concept was introduced. Two main zones
that constituted a slug unit were defined as a liquid slug and stratified liquid
film/gas pocket. The proposed model estimated the liquid holdup, pressure loss
and velocity distributions within the slug unit.

Barnea
16
studied the transition mechanisms for each individual boundary and
proposed a unified model. The flow chart of the model begins with the
dispersed bubble transition. The applicability of the developed mechanisms was
presented for the whole range of pipe inclinations. The results were compared
with the experimental data. The effects of flow rates, fluid properties, and pipe
size and inclination angle were incorporated in dimensionless maps.

Xiao et al
17
developed a comprehensive mechanistic model for two-phase flow
in horizontal and near horizontal pipes. The flow pattern transitions were
inherited from Taitel and Dukler’s
1
, and Barnea et al’s
18
models. Two different
methods were applied for calculating interfacial friction factor in stratified flow,
12
i.e., Baker et al
19
and Andritsos and Hanratty
20
. Also the effect of pipe
roughness was taken into consideration during friction factor calculations.
Uniform liquid level in the film zone was assumed for intermittent flow.
Empirical correlations were used in order to predict the slug length and liquid
holdup of the slug body. Annular flow was treated as stratified flow with
different geometrical configuration. Liquid entrainment fraction (Oliemans et
al
21
) was also considered while calculating the liquid holdup in the gas core.

Gomez et al
22
developed a unified mechanistic model for horizontal to vertical
upward flow of two-phase fluid systems. Unified transition flow pattern
prediction model and unified individual models for each flow type were
presented. Moreover, the proposed model implemented new criteria in order to
eliminate the discontinuity problems. The flow mechanisms in the flow pattern
boundaries were inherited from the models of Taitel and Dukler
1
, and Barnea
16
.
Empirical correlations were used for determination of several flow properties
such as, liquid/wall friction factor (Ouyang and Aziz
23
), entrainment fraction
(Wallis
4
) etc.

Petalas and Aziz
24
proposed a mechanistic model applicable to a wide range of
pipe geometries and fluid properties. Empirical correlations were developed for
interfacial friction in stratified and annular-mist flows, for liquid entrainment
fraction and distribution coefficient in intermittent flow. A large amount of
experimental and field data were collected in order to develop these empirical
correlations. The transition mechanisms between the flow patterns were
presented in a similar way to Taitel and Dukler’s
1
, and Barnea’s
16
models.

13
Garcia et al
25
studied a large amount of two-phase flow data and developed
composite analytical expressions for friction factor covering both laminar and
turbulent flow regimes. Two different approaches were presented. The first
method is the universal composite correlation for friction factor estimation
regardless of the flow pattern. The second method represents the friction factor
correlations for a given flow pattern. This Fanning friction factor definition was
based on the mixture velocity and density.

Theofanous and Hanratty
26
published a report summary of the study group on
flow regimes in multiphase fluid flow. In their work, the importance of
experiments, pattern-revealing diagnostics and the computer programs
developed for pattern identification was emphasized.

2.2 Models for two-phase flow through annuli
Sadatomi et al
27
developed flow pattern maps for air-water flow through
vertical annuli. They determined the slug interval by considering the slug
frequency and the gas phase velocity. Then the flow pattern transitions were
estimated from the slug intervals. They developed flow pattern maps for
vertical air and water mixture through various noncircular conduits including
concentric annuli. From these flow pattern maps, they concluded that the
channel geometry has very little effect on the flow pattern transitions.

Hasan and Kabir
28
conducted two-phase flow experiments in inclined annular
geometries. They studied air and water systems and developed a hydrodynamic
model in order to estimate the gas void fraction in slug flow and bubbly flow.
14
They concluded that for a small ratio of diameters of casing and tubing, the gas
void fraction in vertical annular conduit was similar to the gas void fraction in
circular pipes.

Caetano et al
29
investigated the upward vertical flow of two-phase fluid systems
through an annulus. This experimental study covered the flow of water-air and
kerosene-air mixtures through concentric and eccentric annuli. The flow
patterns were identified visually. They proposed a mechanistic model for flow
pattern prediction by applying the Taitel and Dukler’s
1
model to annular
concentric and eccentric geometries. Moreover, average liquid holdup and
pressure loss determination methods were developed. The effect of fluid
properties was observed as a result of the comparison of the developed flow
pattern maps for water-air and kerosene-air mixtures. Experiments were
conducted in a small scale experimental setup.

Salcudean et al
30,31
, investigated the effect of flow obstruction geometry on
pressure drops in horizontal two-phase flow. The effect of central and
peripheral obstructions on flow pattern transitions was also studied by
conducting experiments. The central obstruction corresponded to annular
geometry. They studied the effect of obstructions on void distribution of water
and air horizontal flow. They concluded that the central obstruction has the
strongest effect on stratified wavy-intermittent flow and stratified smooth-
stratified wavy flow transitions. This observation showed the importance of
developing a separate model for two-phase flow through annular conduit.
Moreover, they noted that the use of flow pattern determination models
developed for pipe flow may lead to inaccurate results.
15

Sunthankar
32
conducted experiments in a field scale experimental setup for
water–air mixture through horizontal annuli. He modified the unified model
developed by Xiao et al.
17
to predict the flow patterns for horizontal and nearly
horizontal annular flow. Hydraulic diameter concept was used while modifying
the model. The effects of eccentricity and inner pipe rotation were also
investigated. A simulator was developed based on the work of Gomez et al
22
for
pressure loss estimations. The performance of the proposed model was
evaluated with the experimental data. It was concluded that the intermittent
flow was different than that was defined for pipe flow, i.e., the Taylor bubble
was distorted and the liquid slug was highly aerated. The developed flow
pattern maps showed shifts when compared with the flow pattern transition
boundaries of pipe flow.

Zhou
33
studied cuttings transport with aerated mud in horizontal annulus under
elevated pressures and temperatures. Taitel and Dukler’s
1
model was modified
for annular two-phase flow. A mechanistic model was developed to predict the
volumetric cuttings concentration in the annuli and the critical pressure gradient
for preventing cuttings from deposition. Experiments were also conducted
during this study in order to verify the accuracy of developed model. The
predictions of developed mechanistic model were in agreement with measured
data. It was concluded that liquid flow rate, gas liquid ratio and temperature
essentially affected the cuttings transport efficiency. Comparisons between
predictions and measurements for aerated mud flow showed an average error
of 12.2%.

16
Rodriguez
3
carried out an experimental study in order to find the minimum air
and water flow rates that effectively transport cuttings through highly inclined
and horizontal wells. The experiments were carried out in a low pressure field
scale flow loop. The model proposed in the study of Sunthankar
32
was inherited
for flow pattern identification and pressure loss determination. The model’s
results were compared with experimental data. It was concluded that the flow
patterns of cuttings are dependent on the total flow rate of the liquid and gas
phase. It was also concluded that in order to avoid the formation of a stationary
cuttings bed, an approximate boundary of minimum flow rate of each phase
can be determined. The minimum requirements for gas and liquid flow rates
were found to be always in the intermittent flow regime.

Gücüyener
34
developed a multiphase hydrodynamic model for flow pattern
identification and pressure loss determination through drill string and annulus in
vertical and moderately deviated directional wells. The carrying capacity of the
aerated drilling fluid was evaluated by using two-phase flow properties and a
cuttings transport model. Moreover, a computer program was developed for the
prediction of flow patterns, circulating pressures, optimum two-phase flow
requirements, bit hydraulics and hole cleaning. It was concluded that dispersed
bubble flow did not develop in the drill string and the annulus, and that the
multiphase models calculated lower bottomhole pressures compared to
dispersed model.

Lage et al
35
conducted an experimental and theoretical study on two-phase flow
in horizontal or slightly deviated fully eccentric annuli. Flow pattern prediction
and gas fraction and pressure drop calculation procedures were presented.
17
Flow pattern data and pressure drop measurements were compared with the
mechanistic models predictions. The results showed good agreement even
though the number of data points did not permit the development of a
complete and precise flow pattern map. The model performance was also
compared with Beggs and Brill
14
correlation and modified Aziz et al
36
method. It
was concluded that proposed model had better performance.

As it is remarked from literature review, few studies have been conducted on
two-phase flow in annular geometries especially for horizontal fully eccentric
annular conduit. In this study, a mechanistic model for accurate determination
of flow patterns and frictional pressure losses of two-phase systems through
fully eccentric horizontal annuli was proposed.














18

CHAPTER 3


STATEMENT of THE PROBLEM


Two-phase flow is a common aspect encountered in many major industrial
fields, i.e., aerospace, automotive, nuclear, and petroleum industries. The
better understanding of the flow mechanism of two-phase flow leads to more
accurate engineering solutions which can be sited as the design of steam
generators, internal combustion engines, cooling towers, and pipelines for
transport of gas and oil mixtures. As the emphasis is given to the petroleum
industry, numerous applications of two-phase flow come upon. During the
transportation of produced oil and gas, the two-phase flow occurs in horizontal,
inclined or vertical pipes. In offshore production, these lines can be of
substantial lengths before reaching separation facilities. Throughout drilling
stage of petroleum industry, the geometry of the flow conduit is no more
circular but concentric or eccentric annuli with inclinations from 0
0
to 90
0

(vertical to horizontal). Extensive researches have been conducted for
understanding the flow mechanism of two-phase flow through circular pipes.
Generally, hydraulic diameter is used to adapt these models to annular flow
geometries in order to explain the two-phase flow behavior in annulus.
However, the applicability of this method is questionable since many studies
showed mismatch between observed and calculated results when hydraulic
diameter is used. Therefore, experimental and theoretical studies are required
19
to comprehend the flow behavior of two-phase flow through horizontal annular
conduits using techniques different than hydraulic diameter.
























20

CHAPTER 4


SCOPE of THE STUDY


The scope of this study is to develop analytical equations using fundamental
laws of physics and mathematics to predict the flow behavior, flow patterns and
their transition boundaries for two-phase flow through annular geometries.
Initially, an extensive literature review is conducted for understanding the two-
phase flow fundamentals. Then a new representative diameter approach is
introduced based on the equivalency of flow area, rather than applying
hydraulic diameter concept. With the purpose of determining the flow patterns
and the frictional pressure losses, a mechanistic model is developed using the
representative diameter concept. During the progress of the mathematical
model, experimental data acquired from METU-PETE-CTFL multiphase flow loop
is integrated. Flow pattern and pressure loss estimations are compared with the
experimental data and hence the model’s performance is evaluated. Geometry
independent model for transition of the flow pattern boundaries is obtained.
Moreover, empirical equations are proposed for friction factor determination
corresponding to each flow pattern individually and mutually as well.




21

CHAPTER 5


THEORY


In this chapter, the flow pattern determination and the pressure loss estimation
methods are presented in details. New approaches are developed hence
yielding in a mechanistic model for both flow pattern identification and frictional
pressure loss estimation of horizontal two-phase flow through eccentric annuli.
5.1 Flow Pattern Prediction
Accurate mapping of the flow patterns is the first step for determination of the
frictional pressure losses correctly. Major concern in mechanistic modeling is
the determination of flow patterns accurately. As discussed in previous section
most of the studies carried out inherited the flow pattern transition definitions
proposed by Taitel and Dukler
1
and Barnea
16
. Since the flow area is fully
eccentric annuli; hydraulic diameter (Equation 1) approach yields to significant
errors during flow pattern determination.

hyd o i
d d d = −
(1)

Therefore areal representative diameter approach is proposed. In this study,
representative diameter, d
r
is defined by

22
( )
2 2
r o i
d d d = −
(2)

The liquid holdup, H
l
is determined from Lockhart and Martinelli
5
parameter
using the superficial liquid (Equation 3) and superficial gas pressure gradients
(Equation 4) and the areal representative diameter, d
r
.

2
2
Re
sl
sl
l l
n
sl r
c v
P
L d
ρ

=

(3)

2
2
Re
sg
sg
g g
m
sg r
c v
P
L d
ρ

=

(4)

where 16
l g
c c = = and 1 m n = = for superficial Reynolds numbers of liquid and
gas phases less than 2100. For greater values of superficial Reynolds numbers
the constants 0.046
l g
c c = = and 0.2 m n = = . The superficial liquid and gas
Reynolds numbers are defined respectively as follows

Re
r sl l
sl
l
d v ρ
µ
=
(5)

Re
r sg g
sg
g
d v ρ
µ
=
(6)
23

Then, after the determination of H
l
from chart presented by Lockhart and
Martinelli
5
parameter using the ratio of superficial liquid to superficial gas
pressure gradient, representative pipe liquid level h
lr
is calculated as

lr l r
h H d =
(7)

Equating the liquid pipe flow area to the liquid area in annular geometry (A
lr
=
A
l
), the liquid level h
l
in eccentric annular geometry (Figure 5.1.1) is calculated
using geometrical equations, which are functions of A
l
.


Figure 5.1.1- Cross sections of pipe of representative diameter d
r
and
annuli with diameters of d
i
and d
o


Equations 8-20 are given for determination of the liquid flow area A
l
and gas
flow area A
g,
, as well as liquid contact perimeter S
l
,, gas contact perimeter S
g

24
and interfacial length S
i
perimeters for a given liquid level in the annular
conduit. Figure 5.1.2 clearly represents the parameters used in these equations.


Figure 5.1.2- Geometrical parameters for fully eccentric annuli

The figures I and II in Figure 5.1.2 represent the case in Equation 8.

1
2
cos if
2 2
o
l
o
l
o
d
h
d
h
d
θ

| |

|
= <
|
|
\ ¹
(8)

Similarly, Equation 9 corresponds to the figure I in Figure 5.1.2

1
2
cos if
2 2
i
l
i
l
i
d
h
d
h
d
φ

| |

|
= <
|
|
\ ¹
(9)

Figure III in Figure 5.1.2 corresponds to Equations 10.

I II III
25
1
2
cos if
2 2
o
l
o
l
o
d
h
d
h
d
θ

| |

|
= − ≥
|
|
\ ¹
(10)

Equation 11 represents the case of figures II and III in Figure 5.1.2.

1
2
cos if
2 2
i
l
i
l
i
d
h
d
h
d
φ

| |

|
= − ≥
|
|
\ ¹
(11)

where the angles θ and φ are in radians. For a given liquid level in the annular
conduit, the geometrical parameters can be determined using appropriate
equations presented as follows;

if and
2 2
o i
l l
d d
h h < <


2
2
sin sin
4 2 2 4 2 2
i o o o i i
l l l
d
d d d d d
A h h θ θ φ φ
| | | |
= − − − + −
| |
\ ¹ \ ¹
(12)

l o i
S d d θ φ = +
(13)

2 2
( )
4
g o i l
A d d A
π
= − −
(14)
26

sin sin
i o i
S d d θ φ = −
(15)

( )
g o i l
S d d S π = + −
(16)

where the equations given for determination of A
g
, S
i
and S
g
are same for all
liquid level cases in the annular conduit.

if and
2 2
o i
l l
d d
h h < ≥


2
2 2
sin sin -
4 2 2 4 2 2 4
i o o o i i i
l l l
d
d d d d d d
A h h
π
θ θ φ φ
| | | |
= − − + + −
| |
\ ¹ \ ¹
(17)

( )
l o i
S d d θ π φ = + −
(18)

if and
2 2
o i
l l
d d
h h ≥ ≥


2
2 2 2
( )
sin sin
4 2 2 4 2 2 4
i o o o i i o i
l l l
d
d d d d d d d
A h h
π
θ θ φ φ

| | | |
=− − − + + − +
| |
\ ¹ \ ¹
(19)

( ) ( )
l o i
S d d π θ π φ = − + −
(20)

27
The liquid flow area A
lr
in the pipe of representative diameter d
r
is determined
using geometrical equations (Equations 8-20) and replacing d
o
by d
r
and
equating d
i
to 0.

Once the liquid level and the liquid level dependent parameters for annular
geometry are determined accurately, flow pattern transitions can be checked
accordingly.

5.1.1 Stratified Flow to Non-Stratified Flow Transition
The stratified flow (Figure 5.1.1.1) is assumed to take place, and the flow
variables are determined accordingly. Then the stability analysis is carried out.
The transition criterion of stratified flow to non-stratified flow based on the
modified Kelvin-Helmholtz stability analysis was originally proposed by Taitel
and Dukler
1
.


Figure 5.1.1.1- Stratified Flow

28
In this study this transition model is modified in two different methods. The first
approach is

( )
1
2
1
l g g
l
g
l
o
g
l
g A
h
v
dA
d
dh
ρ ρ
ρ



| |
> −
|

\ ¹


(21)

Although this modified transition equation, i.e., geometry dependent model
(GDM), yields accurate flow pattern prediction for 0.1143m I.D - 0.05715m O.D
annular conduit, the results are not correct for 0.0932m I.D - 0.0488m O.D
annular two-phase flow, i.e., the experimental data are not within the
appropriate flow pattern boundaries for stratified flow. After the analysis of the
experimental data, it is noted that the geometric dependency of this transition
equation due to the term d
o
should be eliminated. The representative diameter
d
r
is inserted instead of the inner diameter of the casing d
o
. The resulting
geometry independent equation, i.e., Omurlu and Ozbayoglu method (OOM), is
as follows

( )
1
2
1
l g g
l
g
l
r
g
l
g A
h
v
dA
d
dh
ρ ρ
ρ



| |
> −
|

\ ¹


(22)

where gas velocity v
g
is calculated from Equation 23.

29
g sg
g
A
v v
A
=
(23)

The term dA/dh
l
, can be calculated by taking the derivative of A
l
from
corresponding equations, i.e., Equations 12, 17 or 19 replacing d
o
by d
r
and
equating

d
i
to 0. The stability analysis predicts whether an infinitesimal
disturbance on the surface will lead to a stable interface, a wavy interface or to
wave growth destroying the stratification between two layers. The derivation of
the transition equation is given in details in Appendix A.4.

5.1.2 Intermittent Flow to Annular Flow Transition
The liquid level in the conduit is low in case the liquid flow rate is low, i.e.,
superficial liquid velocity less than 0.1 m/s, but the gas flow rate is high, i.e.,
superficial gas velocity greater than 10 m/s. Due to the insufficient liquid supply
from the liquid film, waves formed on the interface (Figure 5.1.2.1) are
unstable. As a result the waves are swept up and an annulus of gas phase is
formed (Figure 5.1.2.2). The transition depends uniquely on the liquid level in
the annular geometry. The critical dimensionless liquid level was originally
suggested by Taitel and Dukler
1
to be 0.5 for pipe flow. Later on, it has been
modified by Barnea et al
18
as 0.35 (Equation 15) due to the presence of gas
void fraction in the liquid body in the pipe.

0.35
l
h
d
<
(24)

30

Figure 5.1.2.1- Intermittent Flow


Figure 5.1.2.2- Annular Flow

In this study, it is suggested that the critical liquid level in annular geometry is
the liquid level representing the half of the flow area as the geometrical
difference is involved. The transition criterion for intermittent flow to annular
flow is as follows

31
0.50
l
A
A
<
(25)

5.1.3 Intermittent Flow to Dispersed Bubble Flow Transition
The transition takes place when the turbulent fluctuations are strong enough to
overcome the buoyant forces, which keep the gas at the top of the annulus. At
sufficiently high liquid velocities, i.e., superficial liquid velocity greater than 10
m/s, gas pocket is broken into small dispersed bubbles mixing with the liquid
phase (Figure 5.1.3.1).


Figure 5.1.3.1- Dispersed Bubble Flow

This transition is originally proposed for pipe flow by Taitel and Dukler
1
.
Similarly, in this study the transition is given by;

32
1
2
4 ( )
g l g
l
i l l
gA
v
S f
ρ ρ
ρ




(26)

where liquid velocity v
l
is as follows

l
l sl
A
v v
A
=
(27)

The friction factor and the Reynolds number of the liquid phase are defined by;


16
if Re 2100
Re
l l
l
f = ≤
(28)

The Fanning friction factor for smooth pipe is:

1
6
3
10
0.001375 1 if Re 2100
Re
l l
l
f
| |
| |
|
= + >
|
|
\ ¹ |
\ ¹
(29)

The critical Reynolds number for each phase is taken as 3000 in order to
guarantee the turbulent flow. Reynolds number for liquid phase is as follows

( )
Re
l l l l
l
l
A S v ρ
µ
=
(30)
33

5.1.4 Stratified Smooth Flow to Stratified Wavy Flow Transition
The mechanism of this transition is based on Jeffrey’s theory for wave initiation,
as suggested by Taitel and Dukler
1
. The pressure and shear forces exerted by
the gas phase overcomes the viscous dissipation force in the liquid phase, as a
result waves occur on the interface.

( )
1
2
4
l l g
g
l g l
g
v
s v
µ ρ ρ
ρ ρ


>


(31)

Here, sheltering coefficient, s, is taken as 0.01 as suggested by Taitel and
Dukller
1
, since the liquid phase of the two-phase fluid, i.e, water, can be
considered as low viscous fluid.

5.2 Determination of Frictional Pressure Loss
After the identification of the flow patterns, the frictional pressure losses can be
estimated. The flow mechanism of each flow pattern is studied independently.

5.2.1 Stratified Flow
This flow pattern occurs at relatively low gas and liquid flow rates. The phases
are separated due to the gravitational forces as a result of density difference.
Interfacial shear stress occurs because of the variation in motion of each phase.
34
As the momentum balance is investigated (Figure 5.1.1.1) following equations
are obtained for liquid and gas phase respectively.

0
l wl l i i
l
P
A S S
z
τ τ

| |
− − + =
|

\ ¹
(32)

0
g wg g i i
g
P
A S S
z
τ τ

| |
− − − =
|

\ ¹
(33)

The wall shear stress of liquid phase
wl
τ
, and the wall shear stress of gas
phase
wg
τ
are calculated by;

2


=
2
l l l
wl
f v ρ
τ
(34)

2
g

=
2
g g
wg
f v ρ
τ
(35)

Similar to the liquid friction factor and Reynolds number, gas phase friction
factor and Reynolds number are calculated as


16
if Re 2100
Re
g g
g
f N = ≤
(36)

35
The fanning friction factor for gas phase is given in Equation 37.

1
6 3
10
0.001375 1 if Re 2100
Re
g g
g
f N
| |
| |
|
= + >
|
|
|
\ ¹ |
\ ¹
(37)

and

( )
( )
Re
g g i g g
g
g
A S S v ρ
µ
+
=
(38)

An important parameter affecting the accuracy of the model is the
determination of interfacial friction factor, f
i
, and the interfacial shear stress
i
τ
.
The interfacial friction factor f
i
, is assumed to be equal to gas friction factor f
g

for stratified smooth and stratified wavy flow patterns. Then
i
τ
is given by;

2
( )
=
2
g g g l
i
f v v ρ
τ

(39)

The frictional pressure loss of the two-phase flow system through the eccentric
annuli may be calculated using either Equation 32 or 33.

36
5.2.2 Intermittent Flow
Intermittent flow consists of two main zones, i.e., liquid slug body and the gas
pocket/liquid film region (Figure 5.1.2.1). In this alternate flow of gas pockets
and liquid slugs, gas phase in large bullet-shaped pockets flows in the upper
part of the pipe. The liquid film flows below the gas pocket. Dukler and
Hubbard
15
investigated the flow mechanism of intermittent flow through pipes.
Due to the complexity of the phase distributions, numerical iterations are
required in order to determine the liquid holdup distributions within the slug
body and gas pocket/liquid film zone. Several different pressure loss calculation
methods were presented for intermittent flow afterward. Xiao et al
17
assumed
the film thickness to be uniform along the gas pocket/film zone. This region
was treated to be analogous with stratified flow. Even with this simplifying
assumption, the iterative solution procedures are not reliable. Petalas and Aziz
24

claimed that, this method contradicted with the experimental results and
developed empirical equations for pipe flow. In this study, two methods are
proposed. The first approach is similar to the one suggested by Petalas and
Aziz
24
. As the momentum balance over a slug unit is investigated Equation 40 is
obtained.

1
lf lf g g
ls r
s f
u
S S
d P
L L
z L A A
τ τ
τ π
+
| | ∆
| |
= +
| |

\ ¹
\ ¹

(40)

In this study, the proposed equation is:

37
fsl fgp fsl fgp
P P P P P
T
z z z z z
µ
¦ ¹ ¦ ¹
∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ | | | | | | | | | |
= + − −
´ ` ´ `
| | | | |
∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆
\ ¹ \ ¹ \ ¹ \ ¹ \ ¹
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¹ ) ¹ )
(41)

where, the weighting factor, Τ
µ
is the function of dimensionless liquid holdup
and is presented in details in results and discussion chapter. This method will
be named as empirical pressure drop determination method (EPDM) throughout
this thesis. In this study Τ
µ
is defined as;

= ( )
l
T f H
µ
(42)

The translational velocity of liquid slug is calculated from equation (43) given by
Bendiksen
37
:

t o m d
v C v v = +
(43)

C
o
is taken as 1.2 as suggested by Niklin et al
38
. The drift velocity of gas pocket
is determined from Zukoski
39
correlation:


d m d
v f v

=
(44)

where the correlation of v
d∞
proposed by Bendiksen
37
has only horizontal
velocity term and is determined by using Weber
40
correlation:

38
0.56
( )
1.76
0.54
r l g
d
l
gd
v
Bo
ρ ρ
ρ



= −


(45)

The Bond number is:

( )
2
( )
l G
r
Bo gd
ρ ρ
σ

=
(46)

f
m
term in the Zukoski
39
correlation is given as:

0.316 Re for 1
m m
f f

= <
(47)

Otherwise,

1
m
f =
(48)

where

Re
2
l d r
l
v d ρ
µ


=
(49)

Once these parameters are determined, liquid volume fraction in the slug and
the average liquid volume fraction of the slug unit can be calculated from
39
Gregory et al
41
correlation and mass balance equation of liquid phase over the
slug unit.

1.39
1
1
8.66
ls
m
E
v
=
| |
+
|
\ ¹
(50)

(1 )
l t g ls sg s
l
t
E v v E v
E
v
+ − −
=
(51)

The entrainment fraction, FE, is estimated using Petalas and Aziz
24
correlation:

0.2
0.074
0.735
1
sg
B
sl
v
FE
N
FE v
| |
=
|

\ ¹
(52)

where

2 2
2
l sg g
B
l
v
N
µ ρ
σ ρ
=
(53)

The dimensionless liquid film thickness is determined from equation (54)

40
( ) 1
1 (1 )
2
sl sg
l
sg
FE v v
E
v
δ

| | +

= − −
|
|

\ ¹

(54)

Mixture density and viscosity are defined in Equations 55 and 56 respectively as
mostly used in literature.

(1 )
m l l l g
E E ρ ρ ρ = + −
(55)

(1 )
m l l l g
E E µ µ µ = + −
(56)

Once all the necessary parameters are defined, the frictional losses for slug
body can be determined using Equation 57.

2
2
sl
ml m m
f r
f v P
z d
ρ ∆
| |
=
|

\ ¹
(57)

where f
mL
is determined from
Re
ml
,

Re
r l m
ml
l
d v ρ
µ
=
(58)

For the gas pocket/liquid film zone,
41

4
gp
wl
f r
P
z d
τ ∆
| |
=
|

\ ¹
(59)

If
δ
< 0.0001, then homogeneous two-phase model with slip proposed by
Petalas and Aziz
24
can be used for pressure loss determination as given in
Equation 60.

2
2
gp
f l f
f
f v
P
z
ρ

| |
=
|

\ ¹
(60)

where liquid film velocity is determined from,

sl
f
l
v
v
E
=
(61)

From equation (41), total pressure loss is calculated. As the pressure loss
estimations of this method are compared with the experimental data, it is
observed that the method EPLDM gives more accurate results for 0.1143m -
0.05715m annular geometry than 0.0932m - 0.0488m annular conduit.
Therefore the second method, Omurlu Method (OM), is developed introducing
dimensionless group. The proposed equation in this study is as follows

42
2 2
1/ 4
1
sl sg sl sg
m m
l l
fsl fgp m m
i
o
v v v v
P P
E E
v l z v l z
P
z
d
d
ρ ρ
ρ ρ
| | ∆ ∆
| | | |
+ −
| | |
∆ ∆
∆ \ ¹ \ ¹
| |
\ ¹
=
|

\ ¹
| |
|
\ ¹
(62)

Pressure gradients in the liquid slug and the liquid film/gas pocket zone are
calculated as described in the previous method. Then the pressure gradients
are multiplied with a new dimensionless group and divided by ratio of the
casing diameter to drillpipe diameter.

5.2.3 Annular Flow
At very high gas flow rates, gas phase flows in a core of high velocity, which
contains entrained liquid droplets. The liquid phase flows as a thin film around
the pipe wall with a greater thickness at the bottom of the pipe than that at the
top (Figure 5.1.2.2). For practical purposes the film thickness δ, is assumed to
be uniform and equal to the average film thickness. When the momentum
balance equations of the liquid phase and the gas phase are examined, it is
observed that the mechanism of this flow pattern is analogous to stratified flow.
As the appropriate geometrical parameters are defined with empirical closure
equations, liquid film thickness can be determined from the combined
momentum equation by trial and error procedures. For liquid phase,
momentum equation is

43
0
f
f w f i i
P
A S S
z
τ τ

| |
− − + =
|

\ ¹
(63)

For the gas phase in the gas core, momentum equation can be derived as

0
c i i
P
A S
z
τ

| |
− − =
|

\ ¹
(64)

Combining equations (63) and (64) yields

1 1
0
f
wf i i
f f c
S
S
A A A
τ τ
| |
− + =
|
|
\ ¹
(65)

It is assumed that the liquid droplets in the gas phase have the same velocity
with the gas core. Then, gas void fraction in the core, GVF
c
, is:


sg
c
sg sl
v
GVF
v v FE
=
+
(66)

Fluid density and viscosity inside the core are

(1 )
c g c l c
GVF GVF ρ ρ ρ = + −
(67)

44
(1 )
c g c l c
GVF GVF µ µ µ = + −
(68)

respectively. With the geometrical configuration, liquid film velocity and core
velocity are defined as:

2
(1 )
4 ( )
r
f sl
r
FE d
v v
d δ δ
| | −
=
|

\ ¹
(69)

2
2
( )
( 2 )
sg sl r
c
r
v v FE d
v
d δ
| | +
=
|
|

\ ¹
(70)

Petalas and Aziz
24
correlation is preferred for the interfacial friction factor, f
i
:

0.305
0.085
Re
2
0.24
f
i
c c c c
f
N
f v d
σ
ρ
¦ ¹
¦ ¦
=
´ `
¦ ¦
¹ )
(71)

The pressure loss can be estimated from either Equation 63 or 64, once the film
thickness is appropriately determined.




45
5.2.4 Dispersed Bubble Flow
This flow pattern occurs at very high liquid flow rates, i.e., superficial liquid
velocity higher than 10 m/s. The gas phase is dispersed as discrete gas bubbles
within the continuous liquid phase (Figure 5.1.3.1). A simple homogeneous flow
is assumed since the gas bubbles are moving at the same velocity as liquid
phase. Pressure loss can be calculated from equation (72).

2
2
m m m
r
f v P
z d
ρ ∆
| |
=
|

\ ¹
(72)

where f
m
can be calculated using

Re
r m m
m
m
d v ρ
µ
=
(73)

The mixture density, velocity and the mixture viscosity are calculated using the
no-slip liquid holdup λ
l
term. The no-slip hold up is given by;

sl
l
sl sg
v
v v
λ =
+
(74)

Where

sl sg m
v v v + =
(75)
46

As mostly used in literature, mixture density and mixture viscosity are:

(1 )
m l l l g
ρ λ ρ λ ρ = + −
(76)

(1 )
m l l l g
µ λ µ λ µ = + −
(77)

After the calculation of the necessary parameters, the frictional pressure loss of
the dispersed bubble flow can be calculated from Equation 72.
















47

CHAPTER 6


EXPERIMENTAL WORK


The essential part of the experimental study is the experimental setup in
addition to the data acquisition system. The experimental work is presented in
four subtitles namely, experimental setup, test section, calibration process, test
procedure and data acquisition.

6.1 Experimental Setup
METU-PETE-CTMFL multiphase flow loop was constructed in order to perform
two-phase flow experiments in horizontal fully eccentric annuli. A schematic
view of the loop is presented in Figure 6.1.1.

48

Figure 6.1.1- Schematic view of the experimental setup

The experimental setup consisted of a 4.84 m transparent test section. Two
pairs of annular geometrical configuration are used as given in Table 6.1.1.

Table 6.1.1 Geometrical configuration of annular section
Configuration Casing Size (m) Drillpipe Size (m)
1 0.0932 0.0488
2 0.1143 0.0571

A thin plate is welded parallel to flow direction into the flange at the entrance of
the loop in order to contribute to the establishment of fully developed flow. An
air compressor and a centrifugal pump fed the two-phase air-water system. A
separator (Figure 6.1.2) is connected to the exit of the loop; hence water is
separated from two-phase mixture before being carried to the liquid tank. The
centrifugal pump is used with a magnetic flow meter and an electropneumatic
49
control valve (Figure 6.1.3) to measure and control the desired liquid flow rate.
Similarly, the air compressor is used with a volumetric flow meter and an
electropneumatic control valve to deliver required amount of gas into the loop.
The compressed air mixed with the water before entering to the annular
section. A pressure regulator is mounted before the gas flow meter as a safety
measure and to keep the air pressure controlled prior to entering to the test
section. The pressure of the gas phase is kept usually at 25 psi. The pressure of
the loop, frictional pressure losses, liquid and gas flow rates are measured
using the data acquisition system. Data logger and data acquisition software
are used to gather and store the experimental data digitally. The capacity and
brand name of each component in the experimental setup are presented in
Table 6.1.2.


Figure 6.1.2- Two-phase separator
50


Figure 6.1.3- Electropneumatic control valve












51
Table 6.1.2 Capacity and brand name of experimental components
Component Brand Name Capacity
Air Compressor TAMSAN 3000 l/min at 6 atm
Centrifugal Pump DOMAK 1.136 m
3
/min
Liquid Tank 2000 m
3

Magnetic Liquid Flow
Meter
TOSHIBA 1.136 m
3
/min
Volumetric Gas Flow
Meter
COLE-PARMER INST. CO 0-1000 l/min at 25 psi
Electropneumatic Control
Valves
SAMSON
Digital Differential
Pressure Transducers
COLE-PARMER INST. CO 0-1 psi
Differential Pressure
Gauges
ASHCROFT 0-1” water
0-2” water
0-5” water
0-10” water

6.2 Test Section
The test section is 4.84 m. long and made of acrylic casing and steel drillpipe
(Figure 6.2.1). The geometrical configuration of the test section is given in
Table 6.1.1. The transparent casing allowed the observation and identification
of the flow patterns. Digital 1 psi differential pressure transducers and
differential pressure gauges of are used in order to measure frictional pressure
losses. Moreover, digital pressure transducers are mounted on the gas line at
52
the entrance of the gas flow meter and on the annular test section with the aim
of monitoring the system pressure at different locations. The average pressure
inside the loop was kept less than 20 psia. Table 6.1.2 clearly shows the
capacity and brand name of the pressure transmitters.


Figure 6.2.1- Test section

The determination of the locations of the pressure transmitters on the test
section was one of the important tasks during setup design and construction.
The data collected should be reliable since the mathematical model’s
performance would be evaluated using the experimental data. Therefore,
entrance and exit effects are calculated for each casing-drillpipe configuration
using Equations 69 and 70. The entrance length is calculated by;

53
50
entrance hyd
L d =
(78)

Equation 78 is porposed by Knudsen and Katz
42
for pipe flow. In this study it
was modified by using hydraulic diameter.

The distance from the exit required to eliminate the chimney effect is given in
Equation 79 (reference 43). Similarly, the equation proposed for pipe flow was
modified for annular geometry inserting hydraulic diameter.

1
6
4.4 Re
exit hyd
L N d =
(79)

Thus, a fully developed region of 1.22 m for configuration1 and 0.61 m for
configuration 2 annular test sections are obtained.

6.3 Calibration Process
The most important components of the experimental study are the frictional
pressure loss measurement and flow pattern visualization. The verification of
fully developed flow in the test section is essential. To ensure the accuracy of
the experimental data, frictional pressure losses are recorded for single phase
water flow through the annular test section. The pressure and flow rate
readings are recorded and compared with theoretical estimations. Figure 6.3.1
and Figure 6.3.2 show the accordance between the calculated pressure losses
and the experimental data for configuration 1 and configuration 2 eccentric
annular flow.
54

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 20 40 60 80 100
Q (gpm)
D
P
/
D
L

(
i
n
c
h

o
f

w
a
t
e
r
/
i
n
c
h
)
MEASURED DP/DL
CALCULATED DP/DL

Figure 6.3.1- Frictional pressure loss gradient versus flow rate data of
water flowing through configuration 1

0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0 50 100 150 200 250
Q (gpm)
D
P
/
D
L

(
i
n
c
h

o
f

w
a
t
e
r
/
i
n
c
h
)
)
MEASURED DP/DL
CALCULATED DP/DL

Figure 6.3.2- Frictional pressure loss gradient versus flow rate data of
water flowing through configuration 2
55

The pressure losses are calculated for concentric annuli using narrow slot
approach. However, the experimental data were collected from fully eccentric
conduit. The slight difference between the experimental data and estimated
pressure losses may be due to this fact.

The calibration of liquid and gas flow meters are checked and the readings are
found to be within the 1% accuracy as given in the calibration data sheets. The
differential analogue pressure gauge is designed to measure the pressure
losses to an accuracy of 2% of full scale of reading. Similarly, the pressure
readings of digital differential pressure transducers and the pressure gauges are
within the 0.25% and 0.13% accuracy of the full scale, respectively.

6.4 Experimental Test Procedure and Data Acquisition
In the experimental work, air and water are used during two-phase flow tests.
Pressure losses and flow patterns are recorded at different gas and liquid flow
rates through horizontal fully eccentric annuli. The procedure of the two-phase
tests is as follows.
1) The water is pumped from the liquid collection tank to the loop using
centrifugal pump.
2) The water inside the water lines connecting the differential pressure
transducers’ low and high ends to the test section is flushed to prevent
the trapping of air bubbles in these lines.
56
3) Once the differential pressure transmitters are ready and the water flow
in the system is stabilized, control valve on the air line is opened and
adjusted to the desired flow rate.
4) After waiting for the stabilization of the flow rate of both phases, the
frictional pressure losses, system pressures and the flow rates are
recorded using data logger and data acquisition software. The record
time for each set of flow condition is one minute after steady state
condition is established. During the analysis of the experimental data the
average of this one minute recorded data is used.
5) Meanwhile, the observed flow pattern is recorded using high resolution
Sony Digital Video Camera Recorder.

A test matrix covering the minimum and maximum capacities of the system is
established to perform the experiments. While conducting the tests, air flow
rate is increased gradually keeping the water flow rate constant. Then the
water flow rate is increased to the next level and same procedure is followed.










57

CHAPTER 7


COMPUTER WORK


A computer program based on the proposed mathematical model in this study
is developed in order to facilitate the flow pattern determination and pressure
loss estimation using Matlab 7.0.4. The discussion of the model performance
and the analysis of the experimental data are given in details in the next
chapter. The flow chart of the computer program for the flow pattern
determination is given in Figure 7.1. The frictional pressure losses are
calculated accordingly once the flow pattern is identified.








58
START
Ql,Qg, di,
do,µl,µg,ρl,ρg
dr, hlr, hl, Al,Ag, Sl,
Sg, Si, vl, vg, vm,
µm,ρm
( )
1
2
1
l g g
l
g
l r
g
l
g A
h
v
dA d
dh
ρ ρ
ρ

− | |
≤ −
|
\ ¹


Stratified Wavy
( )
1
2
4
l l g
g
l g l
g
v
s v
µ ρ ρ
ρ ρ

>


Stratified Smooth
0.50
l
A
A
<
Annular
1
2
4 ( )
g l g
l
i l l
gA
v
S f
ρ ρ
ρ




Dispersed Bubble Intermittent
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES YES
Pressure Loss Calculation
END
Figure 7.1- Flow chart of Matlab code for the flow pattern
identification and frictional pressure loss determination
59

CHAPTER 8


RESULTS and DISCUSSION


After the calibration of experimental setup is finished and the validation of the
data acquisition system and the experimental setup with single phase water
flow experiments is carried out, two-phase flow measurements are conducted.
Firstly, flow pattern maps are generated for 0.0932m I.D acrylic casing –
0.0488m O.D drillpipe (configuration 1) and 0.1143m I.D acrylic casing –
0.05715m O.D drillpipe (configuration 2) annular conduits. The validation of the
proposed model’s flow pattern prediction with the experimental data is given in
detail in the following section. The comparison with generated flow pattern
maps using hydraulic diameter is also discussed. The accuracy of the proposed
model’s frictional pressure loss estimations are explained using experimental
pressure loss measurements. Empirical friction factor correlations are presented
for each observed flow pattern. The results and the discussion are given in
details in the following sections.

8.1. Validation of Flow Pattern Identification of Proposed Model with
Experimental Data
The flow pattern map is generated using hydraulic diameter and the transition
criterions proposed by Taitel and Dukler
1
. Figures 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 represent the
60
comparison of flow pattern maps for hydraulic diameter, d
hyd
and representative
diameter, d
r
approaches (GDM) for two different annular geometries, i.e.,
configurations 1 and 2.

0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.1 1 10 100
vsg (m/s)
v
s
l

(
m
/
s
)
dr
SS
SW
I
dhyd

Figure 8.1.1- Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using d
hyd

and GDM for configuration 1


SS
SW
AN
I
DB
GDM
61
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.1 1 10 100
vsg (m/s)
v
s
l

(
m
/
s
)
dr
SS
SW
I
dhyd

Figure 8.1.2- Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using d
hyd

and GDM for configuration 2

The flow patterns observed experimentally are stratified smooth (SS), stratified
wavy (SW) and intermittent (I) flow. Some of the flow pattern examples are
given as pictures taken during experiments in Appendix A.5. As compared with
the experimental data (Figures 8.1.1 and 8.1.2), it is observed that a significant
shift in flow pattern map generated using d
hyd
(blue dashed lines in Figures
8.1.1 and 8.1.2) occurred in stratified to non-stratified flow pattern boundaries
and stratified wavy to stratified smooth flow pattern transitions. Stratified
smooth and stratified wavy flow patterns are developed at considerably higher
liquid and gas flow rates than those estimated with hydraulic diameter
approach. It can be observed that the proposed first approach in this study
predicts accurately the flow pattern transitions for the conduit configuration 2.
The experimental data fits exactly within the predicted boundaries. However, as
the annular geometry changes, i.e., the flow area decreases, the accuracy of
the proposed GDM diminishes. From Figure 8.1.1, it is clearly observed that the
SS SW
AN
DB
I
GDM
62
transition from intermittent flow to stratified smooth and stratified wavy flow
begins at higher liquid superficial flow rates than predicted velocities. Similarly,
annular flow pattern transition should shift towards right, to higher superficial
gas velocities. However, one should note that due to the experimental setup
limitations, i.e., capacity of experimental setup components given in Table
6.1.2, the majority of the data collected from configuration 1 annular conduit
consist of intermittent flow patterns. Therefore, more stratified flow data are
required in order to evaluate accurately the flow pattern transition models. The
liquid superficial velocity was greater than 0.1 m/s during the experiments. At
higher superficial liquid velocities, gas phase could not flow through the mixing
line since the pressure of the gas phase was kept less than 25 psi at the
entrance of flow meter. In case of hydraulic diameter used maps, the flow
pattern identifications are not correct for configurations 1 and 2 annular
conduits when compared with experimental results (blue dashed lines in Figures
8.1.1 and 8.1.2).

When the overall flow patterns in both annular geometries are observed it is
noted that the flow patterns are independent of the conduit dimensions.
However, the proposed first method (GDM) is geometry dependent because of
the presence of d
o
in the transition equation, i.e., Equation 21. Therefore, the
proposed model is modified by replacing d
o
with d
i
(Equation 22). This second
method (OOM) becomes geometry independent. The comparison of the results
of OOM with the experimental data is presented for configuration 1 and
configuration 2 annular geometries in Figure 8.1.3 and Figure 8.1.4.

63
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.1 1 10 100
vsg (m/s)
v
s
l

(
m
/
s
)
SS
SW
I
dhyd
dr, 2nd aproach

Figure 8.1.3- Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using d
hyd

and OOM for configuration 1

0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.1 1 10 100
vsg (m/s)
v
s
l

(
m
/
s
)
dr, 2nd approach
SS
SW
I
dhyd

Figure 8.1.4- Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using d
hyd

and OOM for configuration 2

As an expected result, the flow pattern predictions of OOM in this study are
highly accurate when compared with the experimental data. Similar to GDM,
SS
SW
AN
DB
I
OOM
SS
SW
AN
DB
I
OOM
64
the experimental results fit exactly within the appropriate flow pattern
boundaries configuration 2. In case of configuration 1, this geometry
independent method, OOM, gives more accurate flow pattern estimations than
GDM. Yet, more stratified flow data are needed in order to discuss and evaluate
the accuracy of OOM for configuration 1 annular geometry. The proposed
model still estimates the flow patterns more correctly than hydraulic diameter
approach.

The final part of the flow pattern comparison is the evaluation of Beggs and
Brill
14
method (Appendix A.3) for horizontal fully eccentric annular two-phase
flow. Hydraulic diameter is used to represent the annular geometry. Figure
8.1.5 and Figure 8.1.6 show the comparison of the flow patterns generated
with the observed data.

0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.1 1 10 100
vsg (m/s)
v
s
l

(
m
/
s
)
SS
SW
I
modified
Beggs &Brill

Figure 8.1.5- Validation of flow pattern maps generated using d
r
and
modified Beggs and Brill
3
method with experimental data for
configuration 1
SEGREGATED
DISTRIBUTED
I
SEG-I TRANSITION
65

0.01
0.1
1
10
0.1 1 10 100
vsg (m/s)
v
s
l

(
m
/
s
)
SS
SW
I
modified
Beggs & Brill

Figure 8.1.6- Validation of flow pattern maps generated using d
r
and
modified Beggs and Brill
3
method with experimental data for
configuration 2

The empirical flow pattern prediction model of Beggs and Brill
14
is modified
using d
r
. This widely used model in industry could not predict correctly the flow
patterns observed. Especially in annular conduit configuration 1, the results are
not accurate. In case of configuration 2, intermittent flow data are within the
appropriate boundaries but stratified flow data are also in this region. Stratified
flow takes place at higher liquid superficial velocities according to the
experimental observations.

8.2 Validation of Frictional Pressure Loss Estimations of Proposed
Model with Experimental Results
The flow patterns observed during experiments are only stratified (SS and SW)
flow and intermittent (I) flow. Although pressure loss determination equations
SEGREGATED
DISTRIBUTED
I
SEG-I TRANSITION
66
for annular (AN) and dispersed bubble (DB) flow are given in chapter 5, only
intermittent and stratified flow frictional pressure loss estimations are discussed
in this chapter.

The comparison of the experimental results and proposed model estimation for
pressure losses of stratified flow of water-air mixture flowing through fully
eccentric horizontal annulus of configurations 1 and 2 is presented in Figures
8.2.1 and 8.2.2.

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
measured DP/DL(Pa/m)
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

D
P
/
D
L
(
P
a
/
m
)
modified Aziz et al.
modified Garcia et al.
Ti=f(fG),this study
modified Beggs & Brill

Figure 8.2.1- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of the
proposed model with experimental data and mostly used
models for stratified flow through configuration 1

+30%
-30%
67
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 50 100 150 200 250
measured DP/DL (Pa/m)
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

D
P
/
D
L

(
P
a
/
m
)
modified Aziz et al.
modified Garcia et al.
Ti=f(fG),this study
modified Beggs & Brill

Figure 8.2.2- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of the
proposed model with experimental data and mostly used
models for stratified flow through configuration 2

The dashed lines in Figures 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 are ±30 % error margin, and the
solid line represents the perfect match between the experimental stratified flow
data and calculated results for configuration 1 and configuration 2 annular
conduits respectively. Mostly used models of Petalas and Aziz
24
, Garcia et al
25

and Beggs and Brill
14
for pipe flow are modified for annular geometry by using
d
r
instead of pipe diameter as shown in Appendix A.3. Modified Petalas and
Aziz
24
and Beggs and Brill
14
models give underestimated pressure loss results
when compared with the experimental results. The correct determination of
interfacial shear stress is the most important step during the pressure loss
calculations. Instead of using empirical correlation for interfacial friction factor
(Petalas and Aziz
24
), gas friction factor is preferred in this study. Although
modified Garcia et al’s model
25
gives accurate results the proposed model’s
performance is agreeable when validated with experimental data. It can be
+30%
-30%
68
observed that the procedure presented in this study for stratified flow estimates
the frictional pressure losses with a reasonable accuracy for both annular
geometries. However, it should be remarked that the amount of data is not
sufficient to generalize the results due to the limitations of the experimental
setup, i.e. Table 6.1.2.

In chapter 5 two methods, i.e., EPDM and OM are presented for pressure loss
determination in case of intermittent flow. In this study, in EPDM an empirical
equation (Equation 80) is developed.

(1.6552 )
=0.3805
l
H
T e
µ
(80)

Figure 8.2.3 and Figure 8.2.4 represent the comparison of the experimental
results and EPDM’s estimations for pressure losses of intermittent flow. The
performances of the modified Petalas and Aziz
24
, modified Garcia et al.
25
and
modified Beggs and Brill
14
models are also evaluated with the experimental
data.

69
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
measured DP/DL (Pa/m)
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

D
P
/
D
L

(
P
a
/
m
)
modified Aziz et al.
modified Garcia et al.
EPDM, this study
modified Beggs and Brill

Figure 8.2.3- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of
EPDM with experimental data and mostly used models for
intermittent flow through configuration 1

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 200 400 600 800
measured DP/DL(Pa/m)
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

D
P
/
D
L
(
P
a
/
m
)
modified Aziz et a.
modified Garcia et al.
EPDM, this study
modified Beggs and Brill

Figure 8.2.4- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of
EPDM with experimental data and mostly used models for
intermittent flow through configuration 2
70

Similarly, in the figures above, the dashed lines are ±30 % error margin, and
the solid line represents the perfect match between the experimental and
calculated results. From Figures 8.2.3 and 8.2.4, it is observed that EPDM in
this study estimates accurately the frictional pressure losses for intermittent
flow. The results are more correct for configuration 2. As in case of
configuration 1, at relatively high measured pressure losses the model
overestimates the frictional pressure losses. However, the modified models, i.e.,
Garcia et al.
25
and Beggs and Brill
14
, highly underestimate the pressure losses.
As the measured frictional pressure loss increases these modified models still
calculate very low pressure loss estimations. Modified Petalas and Aziz
24
model
gives closer pressure results to the experimental data than other modified
models. However, EPDM proposed in this study is the most accurate model
among others.

The second method, OM developed in this study is more geometry independent
(Equation 62) than the first method EPDM (Equation 41). The higher accuracy
of OM is valid for configurations 1 and 2. Here, in the following figures, i.e.,
Figure 8.2.5 and Figure 8.2.6, the comparison of OM in this study is presented
along with the evaluation of the modified models with the experimental
intermittent flow data for configuration 1 and configuration 2 respectively.

71
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
measured DP/DL (Pa/m)
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

D
P
/
D
L

(
P
a
/
m
)
modified Aziz et al.
modified Garcia et al.
OM, this study
modified Beggs and Brill

Figure 8.2.5- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of OM
with experimental data and mostly used models for
intermittent flow through configuration 1

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 200 400 600 800
measured DP/DL(Pa/m)
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

D
P
/
D
L
(
P
a
/
m
)
modified Aziz et al.
modified Garcia et al.
OM, this study
modified Beggs and Brill

Figure 8.2.6- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of OM
with experimental data and mostly used models for
intermittent flow through configuration 2
72

In Figures 8.2.5 and 8.2.6, the dashed lines are ±30 % error margin, and the
solid line represents the perfect match between the experimental and
calculated results. It is remarked that OM proposed in this study estimates the
frictional pressure losses with a high accuracy for intermittent flow through
configurations 1 and 2 horizontal eccentric annular conduits. As discussed in the
validation of EPDM, the modified models, i.e., Garcia et al.
25
and Beggs and
Brill
14
, highly underestimate the pressure losses, and modified Petalas and
Aziz
24
model gives closer pressure results to the experimental data than other
modified models. However, OM proposed in this study is the most accurate
model among others, and most of the calculated pressure losses are within the
±30 % error margin. The reason for inaccurate pressure loss estimations of
modified models may be the fact that these models were originally developed
for two-phase pipe flow. Also, there are empirical equations used in these
models which are similarly proposed for circular pipes.

Table 8.2.1 Error percentage for pressure loss estimation of mostly
proposed and modified models
do-di (0.0932-0.0488m)
Mod. Beggs
and Brill model
Mod.Aziz
and
Petalas
Mod.
Garcia
First
Approach
(This Study)
Second
Approach
(This Study)
Mod.
Beggs
and Brill
model
Mod.Aziz
and
Petalas
Mod.
Garcia
This
study
Average Error % 86.6 42.2 93.4 35.1 30.5 70.7 78.2 36.7 51.1
Maximum Error % 93.0 56.8 95.4 102.6 170.0 90.8 126.7 89.4 166.4
Minimum Error % 53.0 3.8 82.9 0.1 0.1 48.8 52.9 7.1 0.5
do-di (0.1143-0.05715m)
Average Error % 90.5 54.2 95.0 31.0 15.1 93.5 113.9 57.0 25.3
Maximum Error % 95.9 68.6 96.7 84.4 39.4 95.5 131.1 77.4 58.3
Minimum Error % 74.9 21.3 90.5 0.2 0.0 40.7 2.1 2.3 1.4
Intermittent Flow Stratified Flow


73
Table 8.2.1 represents quantitatively the average, maximum and minimum
errors for pressure loss estimations. As remarked from this table, for
intermittent flow EPDM proposed in this study has an average error of 35.1%
and 31% for configurations 1 and 2. However, OM proposed in this study
determines the frictional pressure losses in both annular configurations more
accurately with an average error of 30.5% and 15.1%. Other compared models
have very low accuracy in pressure loss estimations. In stratified flow the
proposed procedure in this study calculates the pressure drop accurately with
an average error of 51.1% for configuration 1 and 25.3% for configuration 2.
In configuration 1 modified Garcia et al
25
model estimates the pressure drop
more accurately than the proposed model with an average error of 36.7%. In
both annular geometries and for both flow patterns, proposed mechanistic
model has the least minimum errors. Moreover, as the amount of data is
considered, the proposed method in this study can be considered as accurate
and applicable. This proposed mechanistic model is highly useful for practical
purposes, since the calculation procedure is simple and accurate for both
annular geometries.

8.3 Empirical Friction Factor Correlations
In this study, although the simplicity and the accuracy of the model proposed
for stratified flow and OM for intermittent flow, for practical purposes empirical
friction factor correlations are developed. The frictional pressure losses are
estimated theoretically for each flow pattern independently using representative
diameter, d
r
. The correlations are developed based on data obtained from
METU-PETE-CTMFL multiphase flow loop using statistical methods. The data
74
obtained include only stratified and intermittent flow data due to the
geometrical and two-phase system restrictions, i.e., Table 6.1.2.

For stratified flow, the friction factor correlation is given in Equation 81.

( )
1.1734
9880 Re
f m
f

=
(81)

Where Re
m
, the mixture Reynolds number can be calculated using Equation 73.
The friction factor versus mixture Reynolds number relation of the experimental
stratified flow data is presented in Figure 8.3.1. The friction factor is calculated
from Equation 72.


75
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10000 100000 1000000
Rem
f
f

Figure 8.3.1- Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of
experimental stratified flow data

Similarly, for intermittent flow, friction factor correlations are developed. It is
observed that mixture Reynolds number and the friction factor does not show
expected correlation (Figure 8.3.2).

76
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
100000 1000000
Rem
f
f

Figure 8.3.2- Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of
experimental intermittent flow data

Therefore, a new mixture Reynolds number based on liquid holdup is proposed
as given in Equation 82.

Re Re (1 ) Re
mix l sl l sg
N N N
λ
λ λ = + −
(82)

where liquid holdup, λ
l
is calculated from Equation 74. As the results are
investigated, it is remarked that at NRe
mixλ
= 100000, the slope of the curve
changes. Figures 8.3.3 and 8.3.4 show the relation between the friction factor
and the Reynolds number for each case.

77
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10000 100000
NRemixλ λλ λ
f
f

Figure 8.3.3- Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of
experimental intermittent flow data for NRe
mixλ λλ λ
 < 100000

Therefore, the friction factor correlations are developed accordingly. For
NRe
mixλ
< 100000, the proposed equation is;

( )
0.0594
0.0085 Re
f mix
f N
λ

=
(83)

In case where NRe
mixλ
≥ 100000, friction factor can be calculated from
Equation 84.

( )
0.4676
0.9435 Re
f mix
f N
λ

=
(84

Figure 8.3.4 represents the correlation given in Equation 84.
78
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
100000 1000000
NRemixλ λλ λ
f
f

Figure 8.3.4- Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of
experimental intermittent flow data for NRe
mixλ λλ λ
 ≥ 100000

Then, pressure loss can be determined using Equation 62. The performance of
the empirical correlations is compared with experimental data. Figures 8.3.5
and 8.3.6 represent the accuracy of the proposed correlations. Dashed lines
represent ±30% error margin. It can be noted that all of the estimated pressure
losses are within this error range. The empirical model can estimate the
frictional pressure losses accurately.
79
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
measured DP/DL (Pa/m)
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

D
P
/
D
L

(
P
a
/
m
)

Figure 8.3.5- Comparison of pressure losses determined by the
empirical correlations and experimental data for stratified
flow

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
measured DP/DL (Pa/m)
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

D
P
/
D
L

(
P
a
/
m
)

Figure 8.3.6- Comparison of pressure losses determined by the
empirical correlations and experimental data for intermittent
flow

80

CHAPTER 9


CONCLUDING REMARKS


A mechanistic two-phase flow modeling study along with an experimental work
is carried out. The theoretical part of this study covers the development of the
mechanistic model for water-air horizontal two-phase flow through fully
eccentric annuli. Flow pattern identification, i.e., distribution of two phases in
the eccentric annuli, and frictional pressure loss calculation methods are
proposed. A new diameter term, i.e., representative diameter is introduced in
order to characterize the fully eccentric annuli. Empirical friction factor
correlations are developed for practical frictional pressure loss calculations. The
experimental study is carried out in METU-PETE-CTMFL multiphase flow loop.
Water and air are the fluids used during the experiments in two different
geometrical configurations of fully eccentric annular conduit. As the accuracy of
the proposed mechanistic model and empirical correlations are evaluated with
the experimental data, the following remarks are concluded.

• Hydraulic diameter can be used to represent the fully eccentric
horizontal annuli while determining the fully developed region.

• Omurlu and Ozabayoglu model (OOM) can estimate flow patterns
accurately for configurations 1 and 2 annular conduits when compared
81
with the experimental data. Geometry dependent model (GDM) model
identifies flow patterns correctly for configuration 2, but the
experimental stratified data of configuration 1 are not within the
appropriate flow pattern boundaries predicted by GDM.

• Hydraulic diameter approach is not applicable for two-phase fully
eccentric annular flow. Conduit geometry has a strong influence on flow
pattern transitions when compared with pipe flow. As the hydraulic
diameter approach is applied, noticeable shifts between the
experimental data occur at the flow pattern map.

• The flow pattern prediction and frictional pressure loss estimations of
modified models i.e., Petalas and Aziz
24
, Garcia et al
25
, and Beggs and
Brill
14
are compared with experimental data collected at METU-PETE-
CTMFL multiphase flow loop. The modified models’ results are not
accurate and hence are not applicable for horizontal two-phase flow
through fully eccentric annuli.

• Interfacial shear stress should be well defined for stratified flow. Gas
friction factor is used as the interfacial friction factor. The model’s
pressure loss estimations are accurate when compared with
experimental results.

• Two different methods i.e., empirical pressure drop determination
model (EPDM) and Omurlu model (OM) are proposed for pressure loss
determination in intermittent flow based on weighting factor Τ
µ
and
82
dimensionless group respectively. The pressure losses are estimated
accurately using EPDM for 0.1143m I.D – 0.05715m O.D horizontal
eccentric annuli when compared with experimental data. However, for
flow through 0.0932m I.D – 0.0488m O.D annular conduit, EPDM
overestimates the pressure losses at high liquid and gas flow rates, i.e.,
1 m/s superficial liquid velocity and 2.5 m/s superficial gas velocity. OM
determines the frictional pressure losses with a high accuracy for two-
phase flow through both annular geometries. OM is more accurate and
reliable as the amount of data compared is considered.

• For practical purposes, frictional pressure losses can be determined
using friction factor correlations proposed separately for each flow
pattern and flow properties of the mixture. A new mixture Reynolds
number NRe
mixl
based on liquid holdup term is introduced for
intermittent flow. The friction factor equations are developed for NRe
mixl

< 100000 and NRe
mixl
≥ 100000 separately due to the friction factor and
new mixture Reynolds number relation.









83

RECOMMENDATIONS


This study is an important step for understanding the hydraulics of two-phase
flow through fully eccentric annuli. However, further studies are needed to
better comprehend the flow behavior of two-phase systems flowing through
horizontal fully eccentric annuli. Additional experimental and theoretical work
will allow analyzing the hydraulics of two-phase fluid and distinguishing
between the behaviors in circular pipe and annuli. The recommendations for
future works are as follows.

• Experiments should include more stratified flow, annular flow and
dispersed bubble flow data in order to complete the transition
boundaries of flow pattern map. The range for superficial liquid velocity
should be less than 0.1 m/s and greater than 2 m/s. The gas superficial
velocity should be between 0.1 m/s and 100 m/s. Then, the performance
of the proposed mechanistic model and the empirical correlations can be
evaluated and the accuracy may be generalized.

• Water and air was used during the experiments. Experiments with more
viscous liquid phase can be conducted in order to analyze the effect of
viscosity on flow pattern transition boundaries. Moreover, different fully
eccentric annular geometrical configurations are needed to generalize
the accuracy of the mechanistic model.
84

• The effect of eccentricity on flow pattern identification and pressure loss
determination may be analyzed using concentric and eccentric annular
conduits with different eccentricities.

• Flow patterns and flow pattern transitions may be recorded digitally by
high speed camera and may be analyzed to determine whether the flow
patterns in annular geometry are different than pipe flow.

• Experiments need to be conducted for better understanding the
determination of fully developed region in horizontal fully eccentric
annuli. Correlations different than pipe flow may be developed.














85

REFERENCES


1. Taitel, Y., and Dukler, A.E.: “A Model for Predicting Flow Regime
Transition in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow,” AIChE J.
(1976) 22 No. 1, 47.
2. Guo, B., and Ghalambor, A.: “Gas Volume Requirements for
Underbalanced Drilling, Deviated Holes”, PennWell Corporation, 2002.
3. Rodriguez, P. V.: “Experimental Determination of Minimum Air and Water
Flow Rates for Effective Cutting Transport in High Angle and Horizontal
Wells”, MSc. Thesis, 2001, The University of Tulsa.
4. Wallis, G.B.: “One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow,” McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Inc., New York City (1969).
5. Lockhart, R.W., and Martinelli, R.C.: “Proposed Correlation of Data for
Isothermal Two-Phase, Two-Component Flow in Pipes,” Chemical
Engineering Progress 45, No. 1, 39-48 (1949).
6. Duns, H.Jr. and Ros, N.C.J.: “Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in
Wells,” Proc., Sixth world Petroleum Congress, Frankfurt-am-Main,
Germany (1963) 451.
7. Baxendell, P.B. “Producing Wells on Casing Flow-An Analysis of Flowing
Pressure Gradients,” JPT (August 1958) 59;Trans., AIME,213.
8. Gaither, O.D.,Winkler, H.W.,and Kirkpatrick,C.V.: “Single-and Two-Phase
Fluid Flow in Small Vertical Conduits Including Annular Configurations,”
JPT (March 1963) 309; Trans., AIME,228.
86
9. Angel, R.R. and Welchon, J.K.: “Low-Ratio Gas-Lift Correlation for
Casing-Tubing Annuli and Large-Diameter Tubing,” Drill.& Prod. Prac.
(1964) 100.
10. Winkler, H.W.: “Single-and Two-Phase Vertical Flow Through 0.996 X
0.625-Inch Fully Eccentric Plain Annular Configuration,” PhD dissertation,
U. of Texas, Austin, Texas (1968).
11. Dukler, A.E., Wickes, M. III, and Cleveland, R.G.: “Frictional Pressure
Drop in Two-Phase Flow: An Approach Through Similarity Analysis”
AIChE J. (1964) 10, No. 1, 44.
12. Eaton, B.A. and Brown, K.E.: “The Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid
Holdup and Pressure Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase
Flow in Horizontal Pipelines,” Technical Report, The U. of Texas (October
1965).
13. Flanigan, O.: “Effect of uphill flow on pressure drop in design of two-
phase gathering systems,” Oil and Gas J. 56-132 (1958).
14. Beggs, H.D., and Brill, J.P.: “A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined
Pipes,” JPT (May 1973) 607; Trans., AIME, 255.
15. Dukler, A.E., and Hubbard, M.G.: “A Model For Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in
Horizontal and Near Horizontal Tubes,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. (1975)
14, 337.
16. Barnea, D.: “A Unified Model for Predicting Flow Pattern Transitions for
the Whole Range of Pipe Inclinations,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow (1987)
13, No. 1, 1.
17. Xiao, J.J., Shoham, O., and Brill, J.P.: “A Comprehensive Mechanistic
Model for Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines.” Paper SPE 20631 presented at
87
the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
23-26 September.
18. Barnea, D., Shoham, O., and Taitel, Y.: “Flow Patter Transition for
Vertical Downward Inclined Two-Phase Flow; Horizoontal to Vertical,”
Chem. Eng. Sc. 37, No. 5, 735-740 (1982).
19. Baker, A., Nielsen, K., and Gabb, A.: “Pressure loss, Liquid Holdup
Calculations developed,” Oil & Gas J., 55-59 (March 14, 1998).
20. Andritsos, N., and Hanratty, T. J.: “Influence of Interfacial Waves in
Stratified Gas-Liquid Flows,” AIChE J. 33, No. 3, 444-454 (1987).
21. Oliemans, R.V., A., Pots, B.F., and Trope, N.: “Modelling of Annular
Dispersed Two-Phase Flow in Vertical Pipes,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow 12,
No. 5, 711-732 (1986).
22. Gomez L.E., Shoham O., Schmidt Z., Chokshi R.N. and Northug T.:
“Unified Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow: Horizontal
to Vertical Upward Flow,” SPE Journal 5, No. 3, 339-350 (September
2000).
23. Ouyang, L.B., and Aziz, K.: “Development of New Wall Friction Factor
and Interfacial Friction Factor correlations for Gas/Liquid Stratified Flow
in Wells and Pipes,” paper SPE 35679 presented at the 1996 SPE
Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, 22-24 May.
24. Petalas, N., and Aziz, K.: “A Mechanistic Model for Multiphase Flow in
Pipes,” JCPT 39, No. 6, 43-55 (2000).
25. Garcia, F., Garcia, R., Padrino, J.C., Mata, C., Trallero, J.L. and Joseph,
D.D.: “Power Law and Composite Power Law Friction Factor Correlations
for Laminar and Turbulent Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipelines,” Int.
J. Multiphase Flow 29, 1605-1624 (2003).
88
26. Theofanous, T.G. and Hanratty, T.J.: “Appendix 1: Report of Study
Group on Flow Regimes in Multifluid Flow,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow 29,
1061-1068 (2003).
27. Sadatomi, M., Sato, Y., and Saruwatari, S.: “Two-Phase Flow in Vertical
Noncircular Channels,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow 8, 641-655 (1982).
28. Hasan, A.R., and Kabir, C.S.: “Two-Phase Flow in Vertical and Inclined
Annuli,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow 18, 279-293 (1992).
29. Caetano, E.F., Shoham, and O., Brill, J.P.: “Upward Vertical Two-Phase
Flow Through An Annulus, Part-I: Single Phase Friction Factor, Taylor
Bubble Velocity And Flow Pattern Prediction,” ASME J. Energy Resour.
Technol. 114, 1-13 (1992).
30. Salcudean, M., Chun, J.H., and Groeneveld, D.C.: “Effect of Flow
Obstructions on Void Distribution in Horizontal Air-Water Flow,” Int. J.
Multiphase Flow 9, 91-96 (1983).
31. Salcudean, M., Chun, J.H., and Groeneveld, D.C.: “Effect of Flow
Obstructions on the Flow Pattern Transitions in Horizontal Two-Phase
Flow,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow 9, 87-90 (1983).
32. Sunthankar, A.A.: “Study of the Flow of Aerated Drilling Fluids in Annulus
under Ambient Temperature and Pressure Conditions,” Ms. Thesis, The
University of Tulsa, 2000.
33. Zhou, L.: “Cuttings Transport with Aerated mud in Horizontal Annulus
under Elevated Pressure and Temperature Conditions,” PhD Dissertation,
The University of Tulsa, 2004.
34. Gucuyener, I.H.: “Design of Aerated Mud for Low Pressure Drilling,”
paperSPE 80491 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference, Jakarta, 15-17 April, 2003.
89
35. Lage, A.C.V.M.; Rommetveit, R.; Time, R.W.: “An Experimental and
Theoretical Study of Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal or Slightly Deviated
Fully Eccentric Annuli,” SPE 62793, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling
Technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11–13 September 2000.
36. Aziz, K., Govier, G.W., and Fogarasi, M.: “Pressure Drop in Wells
Producing Oil and Gas,” J. Can. Petrol. Technol 11, 38 (1972).
37. Bendiksen, K.H.: “An Experimental Investigation of the Motion of Long
Bubbles in Inclined Tubes,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow 10, 467 (1984).
38. Niklin, D.J., Wilkes, J.O., and Davidson, J.F.: “Two Phase Flow in Vertical
Tubes,” Trans. Inst. Chem. Engr. 40, 61-68 (1962).
39. Zukoski, E. E.: “Influence of Viscosity, Surface Tension, and Inclination
Angle on Motion of Long Bubbles in Closed Tubes,” J. Fluid Mech. 25,
821-8337 (1966).
40. Weber, M.E.: “Drift in Intermittent Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal Pipes,”
Canadian J. Chem. Engg. 59, 398-399 (1981).
41. Gregory, G.A., Nicholson M.K., and Aziz K.: "Correlation of the Liquid
Volume Fraction in the Slug for Horizontal Gas-Liquid Slug Flow," Int. J.
Multiphase Flow 4, No. 1, 33-39 (1978).
42. Knudsen, J.G., and Katz, D.L.: “Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer,”
McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1959)
43. ANSYS CFX version 8.0, Tutorial, Section Laminar to Turbulent Flow.





90

APPENDIX

A.1 Modified Petalas and Aziz Model
Pressure loss for intermittent flow can be determined using Equation A.1

( ) 1
sl gp
f f
P P P
z z z
η η
∆ ∆ ∆
| | | | | |
− = + −
| | |
∆ ∆ ∆
\ ¹ \ ¹ \ ¹
(A.1)

where, the weighting factor, η, is the function slug length, L
s
, to
slug unit length, L
u
, ratio,
s u
L L
. For
1.0 η ≤


(0.75 )
l
E
l
η λ

=
(A.2)

The translational velocity of liquid slug is calculated from equation
(A.3) given by Bendiksen
37
:

t o m d
v C v v = +
(A.3)

C
o
is taken as 1.2 as suggested by Niklin
38
. The drift velocity of
gas pocket is determined from Zukoski
39
correlation:


d m d
v f v

=
(A.4)
91

where the correlation of v
d∞
proposed by Bendiksen
37
has only
horizontal velocity term and is determined by using Weber
40

correlation:

0.56
( )
1.76
0.54
r l g
d
l
gd
v
Bo
ρ ρ
ρ



= −


(A.5)

The Bond number is:

( )
2
( )
l g
r
Bo gd
ρ ρ
σ

=
(A.6)

f
m
term in the Zukoski
39
correlation is given as:

0.316 Re
m
f

= (A.7)

for f
m
<1. Otherwise,

1
m
f =
(A.8)

where


Re
2
l d r
l
v d ρ
µ


=
(A.9)
92

Once these parameters are determined, liquid volume fraction in
the slug and the average liquid volume fraction of the slug unit
can be calculated from Gregory et al
41
correlation and mass
balance equation of liquid phase over the slug unit.

1.39
1
1
8.66
ls
m
E
v
=
| |
+
|
\ ¹
(A.10)

(1 )
ls t g ls sg
l
t
E v v E v
E
v
+ − −
=
(A.11)

The entrainment fraction, FE, is estimated from Petalas and Aziz
24

correlation:

0.2
0.074
0.735
1
sg
B
sl
v
FE
N
FE v
| |
=
|

\ ¹
(A.12)

where

2 2
2
l sg g
B
l
v
N
µ ρ
σ ρ
=
(A.13)

93
The dimensionless liquid film thickness is determined from
equation (A.14)

( ) 1
1 (1 )
2
sl sg
l
sg
FE v v
E
v
δ

| | +

= − −
|
|

\ ¹

(A.14)

Once all the necessary parameters are defined, the frictional
losses for slug body can be determined

2
2
sl
ml m m
f r
f v P
z g d
ρ ∆
| |
=
|

\ ¹
(A.15)

For the gas pocket/liquid film zone,

4
gp
wl
f r
P
z d
τ ∆
| |
=
|

\ ¹
(A.16)

If
δ
< 0.0001, then

2
2
gp
f L f
f
f v
P
z
ρ
∆ | |
=
|

\ ¹
(A.17)

From equation (A.1), total pressure loss is calculated.

94
For the stratified flow, pressure loss determination procedure is
similar the one presented in chapter 5. The differences are the
determination of liquid friction factor and interfacial friction factor
which are presented in Equations A.18 and A.19.

0.731
0.452
l sl
f f = (A.18)

1.335 6
2
(0.004 0.5 10 Re )
l r
i sl Frl
g g
d g
f x N
v
ρ
ρ

| |
= +
|
|
\ ¹
(A.19)

The liquid diameter and gas diameter are as follows.

4
l
l
l
A
d
S
= (A.20)

4
g
g
g
A
d
S
= (A.21)
Then, liquid and gas phase Reynolds number are calculated using
Equation A.22 and Equation A.23.

Re
l l l
l
l
d v ρ
µ
=
(A.22)

Re
g g g
g
g
d v ρ
µ
=
(A.23)
95

The pressure loss for stratified flow can be calculated from
Equation 32 or Equation 33.

A.2 Modified Garcia et al Model
Pressure loss for intermittent flow can be determined using Equation A.24 and
A.25 for stratified flow.

0.9501 0.2
0.2534
0.197
4.864
13.98 Re 0.0925 Re
0.0925 Re
Re
1
293
m m
gar m
m
N N
ff N
N
− −


= +
| |
| |
| +
|
|
\ ¹
\ ¹
(A.24)

2
2
m
gar m
r
v P
ff
z d
ρ

=

(A.25)

Similarly, the friction factor for intermittent flow is as follows;

0.9501 0.2629
0.2629
0.2029
3.577
13.98 Re 0.1067 Re
0.01067 Re
Re
1
293
m m
gar m
m
N N
ff N
N
− −


= +
| |
| |
| +
|
|
\ ¹
\ ¹
(A.26)

The frictional pressure loss for this flow pattern is calculated from Equation
A.25.

96
A.3 Modified Beggs and Brill Model
Flow pattern determination is as follows.

The flow regime is Segregated if λ
l
<0.01 and N
Frl
<L
1
or λ
l
≥0.01 and N
Frl
<L
2

Where L
1
and L
2
are determined from Equations A.27 and A.28.

0.302
1
316
l
L λ = (A.27)

1.4516
3
0.1
l
L λ

= (A.28)

The transition zone between segregated and intermittent flow takes place if
λ
l
≥0.01 and L
2
≤ N
Frl
≤L
3
. L
2
can be determined from Equation A.29.


2.4684
2
0.0009232
l
L λ

= (A.29)

The liquid holdup must be averaged as:

3 3
( ) ( ) (int )
3 2 3 2
1
Frl Frl
l transition l segregated l ermittent
L N L N
H H H
L L L L
| | − −
= + −
|
− −
\ ¹
(A.30)

The intermittent flow takes place if 0.01 ≤λ
l
≤0.4 and L
3
< N
Frl
≤L
1
or λ
l
≥0.4
and L
3
< N
Frl
≤L
4
where L
4
is:

6.738
2
0.5
l
L λ

=
(A.31)
97

Similarly, the transition criterion for distributed flow is in case λ
l
<0.4 and
N
Frl
≥L
1
or λ
l
≥0.4 and N
Frl
≥L
4
. Then dimensionless liquid holdup H
l(o)
is
determined.

( )
b
l
l o c
Frl
a
H
N
λ
=
(A.32)

For all flow conditions H
l(o)
≥λ
l
should be satisfied. The friction factor is
determined from Dukler et al’
15
s method. Then the total pressure gradient is
calculated from Equation A.33.

(1 )
f
m m sg
P
z
P
v v
z
gP
ρ

| |
|

∆ \ ¹
=


(A.33)

This model is modified by using d
r
instead of pipe diameter.

A.4 Stratified-Intermittent Flow Transition
The condition for wave growth is as follows;

' ( ')( )
g g l g
P P h h g ρ ρ − > − −
(A.34)

98
Where h
g
and h
g
’ are the gas level in the conduit as shown in Figure A.1.


Figure A.1- The analysis of the forces during wave growth in the
conduit

From Bernoulli’s equation, Equation A.35 is obtained.

2
2
'
1
' ( )
2
g
g g
P P v v ρ − = −
A.35

Substituting in Equation A.34,

2
2
'
( ) 2( ')( )
g
l g
g g g
g
v v h h g
ρ ρ
ρ

− > −
A.36

Where from continuity equation gas velocity v
g
’ is:

2
2
2
'
'
g
g g
g
h
v v
h
| |
=
|
|
\ ¹
A.37
P’
P
h
g

h
g

h
l

h
l

v
g

v
g

v
l

99

Equation A.37 can be expressed for round pipe in terms of Equation A.38.

2
2
2
'
'
g
g g
g
A
v v
A
| |
=
|
|
\ ¹
A.38

and

'
'
g g l l
h h h h − = −
A.39

Taylor expansion of A
g
’ around A
g
is:

'
( )
g
g g l l
l
dA
A A h h
dh
| |
= + −
|
\ ¹
A.40

Also writing Equation A.41, the derivative of gas flow area A
g
to liquid flow area
A
l
can be taken.

g l
A A A = − A.41

A
g
’ is expressed in terms of h
l
and A
l
in Equation A.42.

' '
( )
l
g g l l
l
dA
A A h h
dh
| |
= − − −
|
\ ¹
A.42
100

Substituting the parameters calculated above in Equation A.36, Equation A.43
the criterion for transition to intermittent flow from stratified flow is obtained.

1 2
'
g l g
g g
g
l
g
l
A
v gA
A
dA
dh
ρ ρ
ρ
| |
|
| |

|
>
|
| |
| |
\ ¹
|
|
|
\ ¹
\ ¹
A.43

Where

'
1
g
l
g r
A
h
A d
≅ −
A.44

If the equilibrium level approaches to top of the conduit, the ratio of areas in
the left hand side of Equation A.44 goes to 0. Also, the right hand side of this
equation goes to 0. Therefore, the approximation presented in Equation A.44
can be used.







101

A.5 Pictures Taken During Experiments
Here is presented some pictures taken during experiments for configurations 1
and 2 annular geometries at different air and water flow rates.


Figure A.2- Stratified smooth flow through configuration 1


Figure A.3- Stratified wavy flow through configuration 1
102


Figure A.4- Stratified wavy flow through configuration 1


Figure A.5- Intermittent flow through configuration 1

103

Figure A.6- Intermittent flow through configuration 1


Figure A.7- Intermittent flow through configuration 1 at high liquid
and gas flow rates

104

Figure A.8- Intermittent flow through configuration 1 at high liquid
and gas flow rates


Figure A.9- Stratified smooth flow through configuration 2

105

Figure A.10- Stratified smooth flow through configuration 2


Figure A.11- Stratified wavy flow through configuration 2

106

Figure A.12- Stratified wavy flow through configuration 2


Figure A.13- Intermittent flow through configuration 2

107

Figure A.14- Intermittent flow through configuration 2


MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF HORIZONTAL TWO-PHASE FLOW THROUGH FULLY ECCENTRIC ANNULI

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

Ç ĞDEM ÖMÜRLÜ

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING

MAY 2006

Approval of the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences

Prof. Dr. Canan Özgen Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

Prof. Dr. Mahmut Parlaktuna Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science

Assist. Prof. Dr. M. Evren Özbayoğlu Supervisor Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. Mahmut Parlaktuna (METU,PETE)

Assist. Prof. Dr. M. Evren Özbayoğlu

(METU,PETE)

Prof. Dr. Tanju Mehmetoğlu

(METU,PETE)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Serhat Akin

(METU,PETE)

Assoc. Prof. Dr. . Hakkı Gücüyener

(TPAO)

as required by these rules and conduct. I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Last name : Ç ĞDEM ÖMÜRLÜ Signature: iii . I also declare that. Name.PLAGIARISM I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct.

.0488m O.Sc. Prof. Dr.D drillipipe geometric configurations. Cuttings Transport and Multiphase Flow Laboratory) multiphase flow loop consists of 4. The METU-PETE-CTMFL (Middle East Technical University.0.0. Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Supervisor: Assist.84 m long eccentric horizontal acrylic pipes having 0. the hydraulics and the characteristics. Evren Özbayoğlu May 2006.ABSTRACT MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF HORIZONTAL TWO-PHASE FLOW THROUGH FULLY ECCENTRIC ANNULI Ömürlü. Çiğdem M. of the two-phase flow in horizontal annuli. Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Department. 107 pages The primary objective of this study is to understand the mechanism.D) drillpipe and 0.D acrylic casing . While achieving this goal.1143m inner diameter (I. differential pressure loss data obtained from digital and analog pressure transmitters at a given liquid and gas flow rate were recorded.0932m I. The iv .D) acrylic casing .0571m outer diameter (O. During each experiment. M. both theoretical and experimental works have been conducted extensively.

The representative diameter has been used while calculating the pressure losses.4.flow patterns were identified visually. Moreover. Mechanistic Model. Eccentric Annulus. Friction Factor. Multiphase Experiment v . The mechanistic model developed in this study accurately predicts flow pattern transitions and frictional pressure losses. The performance of the proposed model and the friction factor correlations has been evaluated from experimental data. The flow pattern identification criteria proposed originally for twophase flow through pipes by Taitel and Dukler1 has been inherited and modified for the eccentric annular geometry. friction factor correlations have been developed for each flow pattern using experimental data and statistical methods. namely representative diameter dr. Both the flow pattern prediction and the frictional pressure loss estimation are compared with the gathered experimental data. The model’s pressure loss estimations are within ± 30% for two different annular flow geometries. Meanwhile a mechanistic model has been developed.0. The complex geometry of eccentric annuli has been represented by a new single diameter definition. Keywords: Two-phase Flow. Frictional Pressure Loss. A computer code based on the algorithm of the proposed mechanistic model has been developed in Matlab 7.

0932m iç çaplı akrilik muhafaza borusu . iki fazlı akışın yatay halkasal ortamlardaki akış mekanizmasını. M. ODTÜPETE-KTÇFAL (Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Petrol ve Doğal Gaz Mühendisliği Bölümü Kesinti Taşıma ve Çok Fazlı Akış Laboratuvarı) iki fazlı akış deney düzeneği 0. Evren Özbayoğlu Mayıs 2006.0.84m’dir.1143m iç çaplı akrilik muhafaza borusu . Petrol ve Doğal Gaz Mühendisliği Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Y.0488m dış çaplı sondaj borusu geometrik özellikteki yatay halkasal ortamdan oluşmaktadır ve uzunluğu 4. Bir yandan da mekanistik model oluşturulmuştur. 107 sayfa Bu çalışmadaki başlıca hedef.ÖZ TAM EKSENTR K HALKASAL ORTAMDA YATAY K FAZLI AKIŞIN MATEMAT KSEL MODELLENMES Ömürlü.0571m dış çaplı sondaj borusu ve 0. Borulardaki vi . Akış biçimleri ise görsel olarak tespit edilmiştir. Bu amaca ulaşırken yoğun bir şekilde hem teorik hem de deneysel çalışmalar yapılmıştır. hidroliğini ve karakteristiğini anlamaktır. Dr.0.Lisans.Doç. Deneyler sırasında çeşitli gaz ve sıvı akış debilerinde oluşan basınç kayıpları dijital ve analog olarak kaydedilmiştir. Çiğdem Y.

Eksentrik halkasal ortamın karmaşık geometrisi tek bir yeni çap terimi. Temsili çap. basınç kayıpları hesaplamaları sırasında da kullanılmıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler: ki Fazlı Akış. Ayrıca. her bir akış biçimi için sürtünme faktörü bağıntıları istatistiksel yöntem kullanılarak oluşturulmuştur. Çok Fazlı Akış Deneyi vii . Eksentrik Halkasal Ortam. Basınç kayıpları ± 30% hata sınırları arasındadır. Hem akış biçimi tayinleri hem de sürtünme kaynaklı basınç kayıpları hesaplamaları deneysel verilerle karşılaştırılmıştır.0. Sürtünme Basınç Kayıpları.4 programı kullanılarak oluşturulan mekanistik modele dayalı bilgisayar kodu yazılmıştır. Matlab 7. Mekanistik Model. Oluşturulan modelin ve sürtünme faktörü bağıntılarının performansı deneysel veriler kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. temsili çap dr ile temsil edilmiştir.iki fazlı akış için Taitel ve Dukler1 tarafından geliştirilen akış biçimi tayini kriterleri tercih edilmiş ve tam eksentrik halkasal ortama uyarlanmıştır. Sürtünme Faktörü. Bu çalışmada oluşturulan mekanistik model akış biçimleri geçişlerini ve basınç kayıplarını doğru bir şekilde tayin edebilmektedir.

To My Family viii .

I would like to thank to Tolga Metin once more for drawing the excellent figures in this thesis. ix . to my grandmother who stands always by me with her great understanding and prayers.Prof. and help. this work would have not been accomplished. Prof. Hakkı Gücüyener. M. Serhat Akın. Assoc. Dr. to Tolga Metin who is always beside me with joy and love along with kindness and never-ending support. and Assist. Prof Dr. Dr. Prof. Tanju Mehmetoğlu. . Dr. guidance and encouragement during this study. to my aunt for great encouragement and guidance. Finally my special and sincere thanks go to my whole family for their endless love and support.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor Assist. Dr.Dr. My thesis committee members Prof. and to my friends lkay Uzun and Sevtaç Bülbül for their supports. Mahmut Parlaktuna. Prof. encouragements and considerations. to my sister pek Ömürlü and my cousin Berk Gercek. Evren Özbayoğlu are very appreciated for their comments and suggestions. Evren Özbayoğlu for his valuable support. Assoc. M. to my father and mother for their care and tolerance. Without all these assistances and helps. I would like to thank also to Naci Doğru and Ali Osman Atik for their help during the construction of the experimental setup.

THEORY .................................................................................................... 5 1...................... 18 4.......... 8 2.......................2 Models for two-phase flow through annuli ................................IV ÖZ.................................LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................IX TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................. X NOMENCLATURE .......STATEMENT of THE PROBLEM ................TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM ....................................................................................................................................... III ABSTRACT ............................................SCOPE of THE STUDY.............................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER ...........VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................... 5 2...................................... 8 2........................................................................................................ 20 5............... 13 3...... 21 x ....................................................................................................................................................................1 Models for two-phase flow through pipe ............................INTRODUCTION...................................................

........... 33 5........2...... 57 8....4 Experimental Test Procedure and Data Acquisition .......................4 Dispersed Bubble Flow . 51 6..............................................2.............................1........2 Determination of Frictional Pressure Loss .. 47 6..............3 Intermittent Flow to Dispersed Bubble Flow Transition .................................................... 47 6..................................................2 Test Section............................................................................................................ 27 5...........................................................................2........................ 59 xi ................... 36 5.................................1 Stratified Flow ........1 Stratified Flow to Non-Stratified Flow Transition.............................1 Experimental Setup .........................RESULTS and DISCUSSION............................................ 33 5................. 29 5......................2 Intermittent Flow ............1..................................................1 Flow Pattern Prediction.3 Calibration Process ............................ 53 6............................5. 45 6........................COMPUTER WORK...............3 Annular Flow ...............4 Stratified Smooth Flow to Stratified Wavy Flow Transition ....EXPERIMENTAL WORK ... 21 5.................................... 42 5..................... 33 5..2.......... 31 5................................2 Intermittent Flow to Annular Flow Transition ..........1...1.............. 55 7.

...... 83 REFERENCES...................................................2 Modified Garcia et al Model................................................1............2 Validation of Frictional Pressure Loss Estimations of Proposed Model with Experimental Results ............................................................4 Stratified-Intermittent Flow Transition ..... 59 8.. 90 A.........1 Modified Petalas and Aziz Model................ 95 A............ 65 8.................8.................................................................................................3 Modified Beggs and Brill Model .................................................................................................................................................................... 90 A................... 96 A............................ Validation of Flow Pattern Identification of Proposed Model with Experimental Data ................................... 85 APPENDIX............................3 Empirical Friction Factor Correlations.................................................................... 80 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................... 101 xii ............. 73 9........................ 97 A..........................5 Pictures Taken During Experiments ..CONCLUDING REMARKS ...

.Flow chart of Matlab code for the flow pattern identification and frictional pressure loss determination.........................2............. 54 Figure 7......Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using dhyd and GDM for configuration 1..... 60 Figure 8......................2.............................. 23 Figure 5............................3................................3... 30 Figure 5.......1....1.......................1...1.......1.......................1.....................1...........1......1.......Test section ............ 24 Figure 5.1..2................................................................Two-phase separator ......2.................................Geometrical parameters for fully eccentric annuli.....................................................LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5.............1..1............1........ 58 Figure 8...................1........................2.........................................1.....1.......................Dispersed Bubble Flow .....................................3.......1....Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using dhyd and OOM for configuration 1..................................................Annular Flow .... 63 xiii .... 27 Figure 5.................3...............2...... 30 Figure 5....Electropneumatic control valve ..................... 52 Figure 6................1............... 61 Figure 8.............1........Frictional pressure loss gradient versus flow rate data of water flowing through configuration 2......1........Intermittent Flow....... 50 Figure 6.................Frictional pressure loss gradient versus flow rate data of water flowing through configuration 1..............................Schematic view of the experimental setup.....................Stratified Flow .................2.....................1..... 49 Figure 6............. 31 Figure 6................................ 48 Figure 6...Cross sections of pipe of representative diameter dr and annuli with diameters of di and do ...1..2.....................................................3............ 54 Figure 6.....Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using dhyd and GDM for configuration 2......

................Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using dhyd and OOM for configuration 2.......................................................................2...................... 71 Figure 8.Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of EPDM with experimental data and mostly used models for intermittent flow through configuration 1 ......5...........2.Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of the proposed model with experimental data and mostly used models for stratified flow through configuration 2 ..........................................................Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of EPDM with experimental data and mostly used models for intermittent flow through configuration 2 ....1..............Validation of flow pattern maps generated using dr and modified Beggs and Brill3 method with experimental data for configuration 2 ....................... 67 Figure 8..2..................................3................................3... 71 Figure 8..........4................................. 66 Figure 8..Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of the proposed model with experimental data and mostly used models for stratified flow through configuration 1 ...................................................1... 63 Figure 8......Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of experimental stratified flow data .... 69 Figure 8..............................1........................ 65 Figure 8....... 64 Figure 8...........6.....................Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of OM with experimental data and mostly used models for intermittent flow through configuration 1 ....................Validation of flow pattern maps generated using dr and modified Beggs and Brill3 method with experimental data for configuration 1 .........2..............5.............. 69 Figure 8.................. 75 xiv ....................................1........4.......2........................................2......................1......6.............2.Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of OM with experimental data and mostly used models for intermittent flow through configuration 2 .............Figure 8...........

........Stratified smooth flow through configuration 2 ......... 79 Figure A...................................Comparison of pressure losses determined by the empirical correlations and experimental data for stratified flow......4......Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of experimental intermittent flow data for NRemixλ < 100000...3................................6.7....Comparison of pressure losses determined by the empirical correlations and experimental data for intermittent flow ....................................... 79 Figure 8............... 76 Figure 8..............13...3.. 103 Figure A......Stratified smooth flow through configuration 1........ 106 Figure A......5.............Intermittent flow through configuration 1 at high liquid and gas flow rates......... 103 Figure A.................Intermittent flow through configuration 1 .6...14..................................2...... 98 Figure A..Intermittent flow through configuration 1 at high liquid and gas flow rates.......2........................ 102 Figure A.................3..................9. 105 Figure A...Stratified wavy flow through configuration 2 ......................Stratified wavy flow through configuration 1 ...The analysis of the forces during wave growth in the conduit .....Stratified smooth flow through configuration 2....3........................Stratified wavy flow through configuration 2 .................Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of experimental intermittent flow data for NRemixλ ≥ 100000 .........................................3. 101 Figure A.....3.... 104 Figure A..................... 107 xv .....................................Stratified wavy flow through configuration 1 .........Intermittent flow through configuration 2 ......................Intermittent flow through configuration 2 ................................. 104 Figure A..........................12.8...1.... 106 Figure A.... 77 Figure 8.... 105 Figure A.. 102 Figure A...............5.........11.... 101 Figure A.......................Intermittent flow through configuration 1 ...........10...............4.Figure 8........3.........Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of experimental intermittent flow data ............ 78 Figure 8........

...........1..........1...........Geometrical configuration of annular section .............................. 72 xvi ............. 51 Table 8...1..................2......LIST OF TABLES Table 6.2...... 48 Table 6...Error percentage for pressure loss estimation of mostly proposed and modified models .................Capacity and brand name of experimental components..1....

casing (L) representative diameter (L) liquid volume fraction in the slug unit liquid volume fraction in the slug body friction factor friction factor entrainment fraction friction factor gravitational acceleration (L/T2) gravitational acceleration (L/T2) A AN Bo cg cl DB dC dCB dCD dg dhyd di dl do dr El Els f f FE ff g g 1 . drillpipe (L) hydraulic diameter for liquid phase(L) inner diameter of outer pipe.NOMENCLATURE area (L2) Annular Flow Bond number constant for gas phase constant for liquid phase Dispersed Bubble Flow critical gas bubble diameter (L) critical bubble size below which bubbles can not migrate (L) critical bubble size above which the bubble is deformed (L) hydraulic diameter for gas phase(L) hydraulic diameter (L) outer diameter of inner pipe.

GVF Hl hl I Lentrance Lexit Lf Ls Lu m n NB P Re S s SS SW v z dAl dhl N FrL gas void fraction Liquid holdup liquid level (L) Intermittent Flow length required from entrance for fully developed flow (L) length required from exit for fully developed flow (L) length of gas zone (L) length of liquid slug body (L) length of a slug unit (L) constant for gas phase constant for liquid phase dimensionless term pressure (M /(L T2)) Reynolds number contact perimeter (L) sheltering coefficient Stratified Smooth Flow Stratified Wavy Flow velocity (L/T) axial direction derivative of liquid area with respect to liquid level Froude number high Reynolds number pressure gradient (M/T2L2) Re∞ ∆P ∆L 2 .

Subscripts c d d∞ f ff fgp fsL g g i l lf ls m mixλ ml r sg sl t wg wl core drift drift at high Reynolds numbers film formation fracture frictional pocket/liquid film frictional slug gas pocket related with the gas phase related with the interface related with the liquid phase liquid film liquid slug mixture mixture based on liquid holdup mixture related with liquid phase properties representative superficial gas superficial Liquid translational wall gas wall liquid 3 .

Greek
δ

dimensionless liquid film thickness weighting factor liquid film thickness (L) angle weighting factor no-slip holdup viscosity (M /(L T)) angle density (M/L3) interfacial surface tension (M/T2) shear stress (M /(L T2))

Τµ δ φ η λl µ θ ρ σ τ

4

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Two-phase flow is the flow phenomenon of two different fluid phases flowing simultaneously through a conduit. Generally, liquid and gas phases are the components of this commonly encountered flow type. Since 1950’s, the flow mechanism of two-phase fluids has been the subject of research in many different engineering practices. In petroleum industry, the applications of twophase flow start from drilling and continue till the refining process.

In depleted reservoirs, underbalanced drilling techniques are required. In this integrated technology the drilling fluid pressure is less than the pore pressure in the formation rock. Therefore, the balance between the borehole pressure and formation pore fluid pressure is established. Air, gas, foam and aerated water are the light fluids usually used during underbalanced drilling applications. The number of wells drilled using this technology is increasing as a result of the advantages of underbalanced drilling. Increased penetration rate, minimized circulation loss especially in naturally fractured or pressure depleted reservoirs, prolonged bit life, minimized differential sticking, improved formation

evaluation, reduced formation damage and environmental benefits are among the main advantages of underbalanced drilling. This enhanced technology

5

diminishes the risks of contaminating the reservoir and eliminates the potential pollution of drilling mud to environment2.

The hole cleaning efficiency is an important criterion that should be well determined during drilling operations. The carrying capacity, the ability of transporting the drilled particles to surface, is one of the major roles of drilling fluids. Especially during underbalanced drilling operations in horizontal and deviated wells, flow behavior of the two-phase fluid should be well determined in order to improve the hole cleaning efficiency. Otherwise, an improper hole cleaning may result in differential pipe sticking, increased torque and drag and hence a severe economical loss. The efficiency of the hydraulic program during drilling operations and the economical success of the operation are directly related to the better understanding of cuttings transport phenomenon. The minimum volumetric flow rates and the liquid and gas interface distributions are the most important requirements for hole cleaning efficiency3. Therefore, an accurate two-phase flow model is essential for an improved description of transportation of cuttings from the wellbore to the surface.

Another important usage of two-phase flow takes place

during the

transportation of the produced oil and gas via the pipelines. Since oil and gas fields are mainly in remote onshore areas or in offshore, pipeline systems are of great importance. As the demand for oil and gas in Asia and Europe is increasing the Caspian region oil reserves are becoming more important. Therefore pipelines are establishing, i.e., BTC (Baku-Tiflis-Ceyhan). Reliable engineering calculations should be carried out as the overall distances of these pipeline systems are considered. With the improving technology, innovative

6

friction factor correlations are developed using the experimental data obtained from same multiphase flow loop. the importance of the appropriate determination of flow parameters of two-phase fluid systems is remarkable. 7 . When this wide range of application of two-phase flow in petroleum engineering is considered. This study attempts to propose a mechanistic mathematical model developed for two-phase flow through horizontal fully eccentric annulus. The performance of the model is compared with the experimental data collected from METU-PETE-CTMFL (Middle East Technical University.27-35 are conducted for annular two-phase flow. Cuttings Transport and Multiphase Flow Laboratory) multiphase flow loop. However limited researches3. Several studies4-26 have been carried out for understanding the flow mechanism of two-phase fluid systems through pipe. Furthermore.methods provide more accurate results with better understanding of two-phase flow systems. Flow pattern identification and frictional pressure loss determination procedures are presented accordingly. Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering Department.

Then. The early models developed for two-phase fluid systems were flow pattern independent. These models ignored the complex flow configurations. Lockhart and Martinelli5. named as flow patterns. 2. These models were called mechanistic models. The flow mechanism of two-phase fluid systems was examined independently for each flow pattern. comprehensive and unified mechanistic models were developed. Recent studies focused on the determination of flow patterns. Wallis4. and Duns and Ros6 models are among the most important models that are the starting points through the progress of modeling two-phase fluid flow. extensive theoretical and experimental studies have been carried out. the twophase mixture wais treated as a pseudo single-phase fluid with average velocity and physical properties. governing flow equations were proposed for a given flow pattern. The physical properties of two-phase system were 8 . and treated the two-phase flow as a single-phase fluid flow or as a flow of two separated fluids. As the knowledge of flow behavior of two-phase fluid systems has improved. introduced by Wallis3.CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Through the investigation of two-phase flow phenomenon.1 Models for two-phase flow through pipe In the “Homogeneous No-Slip Flow Model”.

9 . This was achieved by generating governing dimensionless groups that control a given flow system. However. dimensional analysis could not be applied in a straightforward manner. “Dimensional Analysis”. Additional assumptions were required to reduce the number of dimensionless groups. However. However. “The Drift Flux Model”. treated the two phases as a homogeneous mixture. this information was not always available. In this model the gas phase and the liquid phase were assumed to flow separately from each other. it allowed slippage between the gas and the liquid phases. Curves were presented for the prediction of pressure drop and the liquid level in the pipe. Thus. The opposite approach was taken in the “Separated Flow Model” proposed by Lockhart and Martineli5. additional information was required about the relative movement of the two phases and. developed by Wallis3. This was a significant improvement of the homogeneous model. Four flow mechanisms were established and transition criteria between these flow mechanisms were suggested. in two-phase flow. due to the large number of variables involved. each of the phases was analyzed utilizing single-phase flow methods such as friction factor concept. was a powerful technique to develop universal solutions from experimental data. introduced by Duns and Ros6.determined from single-phase gas and liquid properties through the liquid holdup. It has been applied successfully to various single-phase flow problems.

e. Gaither et al. They developed correlations for flow pattern determination by using Froude number and no-slip holdup. The proposed model estimated the actual holdup and the pressure loss for each flow pattern separately. Taitel and Dukler1 analyzed the prediction of transition boundaries between the flow patterns. Beggs and Brill14 studied two-phase flow through pipes in an entire range of inclination angles. Baxendell7. The equilibrium liquid holdup is determined by using the Lockhart and Martinelli parameter. The model begins with the equilibrium stratified flow assumption. By using correlations proposed by Eaton and Brown12. This model underestimated the liquid holdup. Angel and Welchon9. more accurate liquid holdup could be calculated. Flanigan the gravitational effects. vertical upward.11 proposed a model based on dimensionless groups and developed frictional pressure loss correlations using similarity analysis. The predictions either have applied correlations developed for flow in pipes by use of the hydraulic diameter concept or have applied correlations developed from experimental data. in the past.Correlations were the most common procedure to predict the flow properties in annulus. i. horizontal and vertical downward. and Winkler10 presented empirical correlations for annular two-phase flow. They modified the Kelvin-Helmholtz inviscid theory in order to 3 proposed a correlation for the determination of 10 .8. Dukler et al11’s method was referred to calculate the two-phase friction factor. In the case of inclined pipe flow.. Dukler et al.

Barnea16 studied the transition mechanisms for each individual boundary and proposed a unified model. and Barnea et al’s18 models. The results were compared with the experimental data. was verified with the experiments conducted in small diameter pipes under low-pressure conditions. An idealized slug unit concept was introduced. Turbulent and buoyant forces acting on a gas pocket are investigated for the boundary between dispersed bubble flow and intermittent flow. Two main zones that constituted a slug unit were defined as a liquid slug and stratified liquid film/gas pocket. The applicability of the developed mechanisms was presented for the whole range of pipe inclinations. Dukler and Hubbard15 investigated the mechanisms and the hydraulic behavior of slug flow. 11 . The flow pattern transitions were inherited from Taitel and Dukler’s1. The transition of intermittent to annular flow is assumed to be dependent only on liquid level.predict the initiation of slugs. The transition conditions were also expressed as dimensionless parameters. The proposed model estimated the liquid holdup. The flow chart of the model begins with the dispersed bubble transition. developed for Newtonian flow. This model. pressure loss and velocity distributions within the slug unit. The effects of flow rates. Two different methods were applied for calculating interfacial friction factor in stratified flow. Xiao et al17 developed a comprehensive mechanistic model for two-phase flow in horizontal and near horizontal pipes. fluid properties. and pipe size and inclination angle were incorporated in dimensionless maps. Jeffrey’s theory for wave initiation is used to determine the transition of stratified smooth to stratified wavy flow pattern.

. Petalas and Aziz24 proposed a mechanistic model applicable to a wide range of pipe geometries and fluid properties. A large amount of experimental and field data were collected in order to develop these empirical correlations. Unified transition flow pattern prediction model and unified individual models for each flow type were presented. and Barnea16. the proposed model implemented new criteria in order to eliminate the discontinuity problems. 12 . Liquid entrainment fraction (Oliemans et al21) was also considered while calculating the liquid holdup in the gas core.i. Empirical correlations were used in order to predict the slug length and liquid holdup of the slug body. The transition mechanisms between the flow patterns were presented in a similar way to Taitel and Dukler’s1. Empirical correlations were developed for interfacial friction in stratified and annular-mist flows. for liquid entrainment fraction and distribution coefficient in intermittent flow. Annular flow was treated as stratified flow with different geometrical configuration. Baker et al19 and Andritsos and Hanratty20. The flow mechanisms in the flow pattern boundaries were inherited from the models of Taitel and Dukler1. entrainment fraction (Wallis4) etc.e. and Barnea’s16 models. liquid/wall friction factor (Ouyang and Aziz23). Also the effect of pipe roughness was taken into consideration during friction factor calculations. Gomez et al22 developed a unified mechanistic model for horizontal to vertical upward flow of two-phase fluid systems. Moreover. Empirical correlations were used for determination of several flow properties such as. Uniform liquid level in the film zone was assumed for intermittent flow.

The second method represents the friction factor correlations for a given flow pattern. The first method is the universal composite correlation for friction factor estimation regardless of the flow pattern. They studied air and water systems and developed a hydrodynamic model in order to estimate the gas void fraction in slug flow and bubbly flow. Two different approaches were presented. They developed flow pattern maps for vertical air and water mixture through various noncircular conduits including concentric annuli. Hasan and Kabir28 conducted two-phase flow experiments in inclined annular geometries. the importance of experiments. Then the flow pattern transitions were estimated from the slug intervals. 13 .Garcia et al25 studied a large amount of two-phase flow data and developed composite analytical expressions for friction factor covering both laminar and turbulent flow regimes. 2. In their work. This Fanning friction factor definition was based on the mixture velocity and density. pattern-revealing diagnostics and the computer programs developed for pattern identification was emphasized. Theofanous and Hanratty26 published a report summary of the study group on flow regimes in multiphase fluid flow. From these flow pattern maps.2 Models for two-phase flow through annuli Sadatomi et al27 developed flow pattern maps for air-water flow through vertical annuli. They determined the slug interval by considering the slug frequency and the gas phase velocity. they concluded that the channel geometry has very little effect on the flow pattern transitions.

14 . The effect of fluid properties was observed as a result of the comparison of the developed flow pattern maps for water-air and kerosene-air mixtures. Experiments were conducted in a small scale experimental setup. the gas void fraction in vertical annular conduit was similar to the gas void fraction in circular pipes. The effect of central and peripheral obstructions on flow pattern transitions was also studied by conducting experiments. Moreover. average liquid holdup and pressure loss determination methods were developed. This observation showed the importance of developing a separate model for two-phase flow through annular conduit. This experimental study covered the flow of water-air and kerosene-air mixtures through concentric and eccentric annuli. They studied the effect of obstructions on void distribution of water and air horizontal flow. Salcudean et al30. Moreover. They concluded that the central obstruction has the strongest effect on stratified wavy-intermittent flow and stratified smoothstratified wavy flow transitions. The central obstruction corresponded to annular geometry.They concluded that for a small ratio of diameters of casing and tubing. Caetano et al29 investigated the upward vertical flow of two-phase fluid systems through an annulus. they noted that the use of flow pattern determination models developed for pipe flow may lead to inaccurate results. The flow patterns were identified visually.31. investigated the effect of flow obstruction geometry on pressure drops in horizontal two-phase flow. They proposed a mechanistic model for flow pattern prediction by applying the Taitel and Dukler’s1 model to annular concentric and eccentric geometries.

Sunthankar32 conducted experiments in a field scale experimental setup for water–air mixture through horizontal annuli. He modified the unified model developed by Xiao et al.17 to predict the flow patterns for horizontal and nearly horizontal annular flow. Hydraulic diameter concept was used while modifying the model. The effects of eccentricity and inner pipe rotation were also investigated. A simulator was developed based on the work of Gomez et al22 for pressure loss estimations. The performance of the proposed model was evaluated with the experimental data. It was concluded that the intermittent flow was different than that was defined for pipe flow, i.e., the Taylor bubble was distorted and the liquid slug was highly aerated. The developed flow pattern maps showed shifts when compared with the flow pattern transition boundaries of pipe flow. Zhou33 studied cuttings transport with aerated mud in horizontal annulus under elevated pressures and temperatures. Taitel and Dukler’s1 model was modified for annular two-phase flow. A mechanistic model was developed to predict the volumetric cuttings concentration in the annuli and the critical pressure gradient for preventing cuttings from deposition. Experiments were also conducted during this study in order to verify the accuracy of developed model. The predictions of developed mechanistic model were in agreement with measured data. It was concluded that liquid flow rate, gas liquid ratio and temperature essentially affected the cuttings transport efficiency. Comparisons between predictions and measurements for aerated mud flow showed an average error of 12.2%.

15

Rodriguez3 carried out an experimental study in order to find the minimum air and water flow rates that effectively transport cuttings through highly inclined and horizontal wells. The experiments were carried out in a low pressure field scale flow loop. The model proposed in the study of Sunthankar32 was inherited for flow pattern identification and pressure loss determination. The model’s results were compared with experimental data. It was concluded that the flow patterns of cuttings are dependent on the total flow rate of the liquid and gas phase. It was also concluded that in order to avoid the formation of a stationary cuttings bed, an approximate boundary of minimum flow rate of each phase can be determined. The minimum requirements for gas and liquid flow rates were found to be always in the intermittent flow regime. Gücüyener34 developed a multiphase hydrodynamic model for flow pattern identification and pressure loss determination through drill string and annulus in vertical and moderately deviated directional wells. The carrying capacity of the aerated drilling fluid was evaluated by using two-phase flow properties and a cuttings transport model. Moreover, a computer program was developed for the prediction of flow patterns, circulating pressures, optimum two-phase flow requirements, bit hydraulics and hole cleaning. It was concluded that dispersed bubble flow did not develop in the drill string and the annulus, and that the multiphase models calculated lower bottomhole pressures compared to dispersed model. Lage et al35 conducted an experimental and theoretical study on two-phase flow in horizontal or slightly deviated fully eccentric annuli. Flow pattern prediction and gas fraction and pressure drop calculation procedures were presented.

16

Flow pattern data and pressure drop measurements were compared with the mechanistic models predictions. The results showed good agreement even though the number of data points did not permit the development of a complete and precise flow pattern map. The model performance was also compared with Beggs and Brill14 correlation and modified Aziz et al36 method. It was concluded that proposed model had better performance.

As it is remarked from literature review, few studies have been conducted on two-phase flow in annular geometries especially for horizontal fully eccentric annular conduit. In this study, a mechanistic model for accurate determination of flow patterns and frictional pressure losses of two-phase systems through fully eccentric horizontal annuli was proposed.

17

hydraulic diameter is used to adapt these models to annular flow geometries in order to explain the two-phase flow behavior in annulus. and petroleum industries. Extensive researches have been conducted for understanding the flow mechanism of two-phase flow through circular pipes.e. internal combustion engines.CHAPTER 3 STATEMENT of THE PROBLEM Two-phase flow is a common aspect encountered in many major industrial fields. Throughout drilling stage of petroleum industry. the geometry of the flow conduit is no more circular but concentric or eccentric annuli with inclinations from 00 to 900 (vertical to horizontal). The better understanding of the flow mechanism of two-phase flow leads to more accurate engineering solutions which can be sited as the design of steam generators. Generally. aerospace. inclined or vertical pipes. the two-phase flow occurs in horizontal. Therefore. During the transportation of produced oil and gas. the applicability of this method is questionable since many studies showed mismatch between observed and calculated results when hydraulic diameter is used. and pipelines for transport of gas and oil mixtures. numerous applications of two-phase flow come upon. However. In offshore production. experimental and theoretical studies are required 18 . automotive. nuclear.. As the emphasis is given to the petroleum industry. these lines can be of substantial lengths before reaching separation facilities. i. cooling towers.

19 .to comprehend the flow behavior of two-phase flow through horizontal annular conduits using techniques different than hydraulic diameter.

rather than applying hydraulic diameter concept. Flow pattern and pressure loss estimations are compared with the experimental data and hence the model’s performance is evaluated. an extensive literature review is conducted for understanding the twophase flow fundamentals. Moreover. Then a new representative diameter approach is introduced based on the equivalency of flow area. With the purpose of determining the flow patterns and the frictional pressure losses. Geometry independent model for transition of the flow pattern boundaries is obtained.CHAPTER 4 SCOPE of THE STUDY The scope of this study is to develop analytical equations using fundamental laws of physics and mathematics to predict the flow behavior. empirical equations are proposed for friction factor determination corresponding to each flow pattern individually and mutually as well. During the progress of the mathematical model. experimental data acquired from METU-PETE-CTFL multiphase flow loop is integrated. Initially. flow patterns and their transition boundaries for two-phase flow through annular geometries. a mechanistic model is developed using the representative diameter concept. 20 .

d hyd = do − di (1) Therefore areal representative diameter approach is proposed.1 Flow Pattern Prediction Accurate mapping of the flow patterns is the first step for determination of the frictional pressure losses correctly. Since the flow area is fully eccentric annuli. New approaches are developed hence yielding in a mechanistic model for both flow pattern identification and frictional pressure loss estimation of horizontal two-phase flow through eccentric annuli. hydraulic diameter (Equation 1) approach yields to significant errors during flow pattern determination. Major concern in mechanistic modeling is the determination of flow patterns accurately. the flow pattern determination and the pressure loss estimation methods are presented in details. 5. In this study.CHAPTER 5 THEORY In this chapter. As discussed in previous section most of the studies carried out inherited the flow pattern transition definitions proposed by Taitel and Dukler1 and Barnea16. dr is defined by 21 . representative diameter.

046 and m = n = 0. 2 2cl ρl v sl ∆P = ∆L sl d r Ren sl (3) 2 2cg ρ g v sg ∆P = ∆L sg d r Rem sg (4) where cl = cg = 16 and m = n = 1 for superficial Reynolds numbers of liquid and gas phases less than 2100.2 . The superficial liquid and gas Reynolds numbers are defined respectively as follows Re sl = d r vsl ρl µl d r vsg ρ g (5) Re sg = µg (6) 22 .dr = (d 2 o − di2 ) (2) The liquid holdup. For greater values of superficial Reynolds numbers the constants cl = cg = 0. dr. Hl is determined from Lockhart and Martinelli5 parameter using the superficial liquid (Equation 3) and superficial gas pressure gradients (Equation 4) and the areal representative diameter.

Figure 5.. the liquid level hl in eccentric annular geometry (Figure 5.Cross sections of pipe of representative diameter dr and annuli with diameters of di and do Equations 8-20 are given for determination of the liquid flow area Al and gas flow area Ag. which are functions of Al.1.1.1. gas contact perimeter Sg 23 . as well as liquid contact perimeter Sl.. after the determination of Hl from chart presented by Lockhart and Martinelli5 parameter using the ratio of superficial liquid to superficial gas pressure gradient.1) is calculated using geometrical equations.Then. representative pipe liquid level hlr is calculated as hlr = H l d r (7) Equating the liquid pipe flow area to the liquid area in annular geometry (Alr= Al).

2  di  2 − hl −1 φ = cos   di 2       if hl < di 2 (9) Figure III in Figure 5.2 clearly represents the parameters used in these equations.and interfacial length Si perimeters for a given liquid level in the annular conduit.2.2 represent the case in Equation 8.1. Equation 9 corresponds to the figure I in Figure 5.  do  2 − hl −1 θ = cos   do 2       if hl < do 2 (8) Similarly.1.1. Figure 5.Geometrical parameters for fully eccentric annuli The figures I and II in Figure 5.1.2 corresponds to Equations 10.1. 24 . I II III Figure 5.

 do  2 − hl −1 θ = cos  −  do 2       if hl ≥ do 2 (10) Equation 11 represents the case of figures II and III in Figure 5.1. the geometrical parameters can be determined using appropriate equations presented as follows. For a given liquid level in the annular conduit.2. if hl < do d and hl < i 2 2 2 d d o2 d d d d   Al = θ − o  o − hl  sin θ − i φ + i  i − hl  sin φ 4 2  2 4 2 2   (12) Sl = d oθ + diφ π 4 (13) Ag = (d o2 − di2 ) − Al (14) 25 .  di  2 − hl −1 φ = cos  −  di 2       if hl ≥ di 2 (11) where the angles θ and φ are in radians.

Si = d o sin θ − d i sin φ (15) S g = π ( d o + d i ) − Sl (16) where the equations given for determination of Ag. if hl < do d and hl ≥ i 2 2 2 d o2 d Al = θ − o 4 2 di di  di π di2  do   (17)  − hl  sin θ + φ +  − hl  sin φ 4 2 2 4  2   Sl = d oθ + di (π − φ ) do d and hl ≥ i 2 2 2 (18) if hl ≥ d d2 d d d  Al = − o θ − o  o − hl  sinθ + i φ + i 4 22 4 2  π (do2 − di2 )  di  − hl  sinφ + (19)  4 2  Sl = d o ( π − θ ) + d i ( π − φ ) (20) 26 . Si and Sg are same for all liquid level cases in the annular conduit.

1) is assumed to take place. flow pattern transitions can be checked accordingly.1. 5.1. and the flow variables are determined accordingly.The liquid flow area Alr in the pipe of representative diameter dr is determined using geometrical equations (Equations 8-20) and replacing do by dr and equating di to 0.Stratified Flow 27 . Then the stability analysis is carried out.1. Figure 5.1. The transition criterion of stratified flow to non-stratified flow based on the modified Kelvin-Helmholtz stability analysis was originally proposed by Taitel and Dukler1.1.1. Once the liquid level and the liquid level dependent parameters for annular geometry are determined accurately.1 Stratified Flow to Non-Stratified Flow Transition The stratified flow (Figure 5.

0.e. After the analysis of the experimental data.0932m I.05715m O. The first approach is    ( ρ l − ρ g ) g Ag   h   vg > 1 − l   dAl do     ρg   dhl   1 2 (21) Although this modified transition equation.In this study this transition model is modified in two different methods. i. The representative diameter dr is inserted instead of the inner diameter of the casing do. it is noted that the geometric dependency of this transition equation due to the term do should be eliminated.. 28 . i. is as follows    ( ρ l − ρ g ) g Ag   h   vg > 1 − l   dAl dr     ρg   dhl   1 2 (22) where gas velocity vg is calculated from Equation 23.0488m O.D annular conduit. Omurlu and Ozbayoglu method (OOM).0..1143m I.D annular two-phase flow. i.e. the experimental data are not within the appropriate flow pattern boundaries for stratified flow.D . the results are not correct for 0.D . yields accurate flow pattern prediction for 0.e. geometry dependent model (GDM). The resulting geometry independent equation..

1.. it has been modified by Barnea et al18 as 0. The critical dimensionless liquid level was originally suggested by Taitel and Dukler1 to be 0. 5. i. superficial liquid velocity less than 0.2. hl < 0. superficial gas velocity greater than 10 m/s. but the gas flow rate is high.35 d (24) 29 . i. can be calculated by taking the derivative of Al from corresponding equations. The transition depends uniquely on the liquid level in the annular geometry. a wavy interface or to wave growth destroying the stratification between two layers.e.2 Intermittent Flow to Annular Flow Transition The liquid level in the conduit is low in case the liquid flow rate is low.2.4. 17 or 19 replacing do by dr and equating di to 0. The derivation of the transition equation is given in details in Appendix A. As a result the waves are swept up and an annulus of gas phase is formed (Figure 5.1.1. i.5 for pipe flow. waves formed on the interface (Figure 5. Due to the insufficient liquid supply from the liquid film.. Equations 12.1) are unstable..1 m/s.e.vg = vsg A Ag (23) The term dA/dhl. The stability analysis predicts whether an infinitesimal disturbance on the surface will lead to a stable interface.2). Later on.e.35 (Equation 15) due to the presence of gas void fraction in the liquid body in the pipe.

2. it is suggested that the critical liquid level in annular geometry is the liquid level representing the half of the flow area as the geometrical difference is involved.2.Figure 5.1.1.Annular Flow In this study. The transition criterion for intermittent flow to annular flow is as follows 30 .Intermittent Flow Figure 5.1.2.

gas pocket is broken into small dispersed bubbles mixing with the liquid phase (Figure 5.3.50 A (25) 5.e.1.3.3 Intermittent Flow to Dispersed Bubble Flow Transition The transition takes place when the turbulent fluctuations are strong enough to overcome the buoyant forces.1. Figure 5. Similarly.1.Al < 0.Dispersed Bubble Flow This transition is originally proposed for pipe flow by Taitel and Dukler1. in this study the transition is given by. superficial liquid velocity greater than 10 m/s.1. 31 .1). i. which keep the gas at the top of the annulus. At sufficiently high liquid velocities..

fl = 16 Rel if Rel ≤ 2100 (28) The Fanning friction factor for smooth pipe is: 1    106  3  1 + fl = 0.001375   Rel         if Rel > 2100 (29) The critical Reynolds number for each phase is taken as 3000 in order to guarantee the turbulent flow. 4 gAg ( ρl − ρ g )  2 vl ≥   Si f l ρl   where liquid velocity vl is as follows 1 (26) vl = vsl Al A (27) The friction factor and the Reynolds number of the liquid phase are defined by. Reynolds number for liquid phase is as follows Rel = ( Al Sl ) vl ρl µl 32 (30) .

4 Stratified Smooth Flow to Stratified Wavy Flow Transition The mechanism of this transition is based on Jeffrey’s theory for wave initiation.  4 µl ( ρ l − ρ g ) g  vg >   s ρl ρ g vl     1 2 (31) Here.5. sheltering coefficient.01 as suggested by Taitel and Dukller1. the frictional pressure losses can be estimated. 5. 5. 33 . The pressure and shear forces exerted by the gas phase overcomes the viscous dissipation force in the liquid phase. is taken as 0. as a result waves occur on the interface. as suggested by Taitel and Dukler1. can be considered as low viscous fluid.1 Stratified Flow This flow pattern occurs at relatively low gas and liquid flow rates. s. water.2 Determination of Frictional Pressure Loss After the identification of the flow patterns.2. since the liquid phase of the two-phase fluid. The phases are separated due to the gravitational forces as a result of density difference. Interfacial shear stress occurs because of the variation in motion of each phase. i. The flow mechanism of each flow pattern is studied independently.e.1.

 ∆P  − Al   − τ wl Sl + τ i Si = 0  ∆z l (32)  ∆P  − Ag   −τ wg Sg −τ i Si = 0  ∆z g The wall shear stress of liquid phase phase (33) τ wl .1.1. gas phase friction factor and Reynolds number are calculated as fg = 16 Re g if N Re g ≤ 2100 (36) 34 .As the momentum balance is investigated (Figure 5.1) following equations are obtained for liquid and gas phase respectively. and the wall shear stress of gas τ wg are calculated by. 2 τ wl f ρv = l l l 2 (34) 2 τ wg = f g ρ g vg 2 (35) Similar to the liquid friction factor and Reynolds number.

001375 1 +     Re g           1 3 if N Re g > 2100 (37) and Re g = (A g ( S g + Si ) ) v g ρ g µg (38) An important parameter affecting the accuracy of the model is the determination of interfacial friction factor. and the interfacial shear stress τi .The fanning friction factor for gas phase is given in Equation 37. Then τi is given by. The interfacial friction factor fi. fi. 35 . τi = f g ρ g (vg − vl )2 2 (39) The frictional pressure loss of the two-phase flow system through the eccentric annuli may be calculated using either Equation 32 or 33. is assumed to be equal to gas friction factor fg for stratified smooth and stratified wavy flow patterns.  6   10 f g = 0.

e.2. The liquid film flows below the gas pocket. the proposed equation is: 36 . this method contradicted with the experimental results and developed empirical equations for pipe flow. Xiao et al17 assumed the film thickness to be uniform along the gas pocket/film zone. The first approach is similar to the one suggested by Petalas and Aziz24. Several different pressure loss calculation methods were presented for intermittent flow afterward. Petalas and Aziz24 claimed that. liquid slug body and the gas pocket/liquid film region (Figure 5. This region was treated to be analogous with stratified flow. Dukler and Hubbard15 investigated the flow mechanism of intermittent flow through pipes.1). gas phase in large bullet-shaped pockets flows in the upper part of the pipe. numerical iterations are required in order to determine the liquid holdup distributions within the slug body and gas pocket/liquid film zone. In this study. ∆P 1   τ lsπ d r =  Ls  ∆z Lu   A   + Lf   τ lf Slf + τ g S g  A     (40) In this study.2.1. the iterative solution procedures are not reliable.. two methods are proposed. i.5. Even with this simplifying assumption. As the momentum balance over a slug unit is investigated Equation 40 is obtained. Due to the complexity of the phase distributions.2 Intermittent Flow Intermittent flow consists of two main zones. In this alternate flow of gas pockets and liquid slugs.

the weighting factor. The drift velocity of gas pocket is determined from Zukoski39 correlation: vd = f m vd ∞ (44) where the correlation of vd∞ proposed by Bendiksen37 has only horizontal velocity term and is determined by using Weber40 correlation: 37 . Τµ is the function of dimensionless liquid holdup and is presented in details in results and discussion chapter. This method will be named as empirical pressure drop determination method (EPDM) throughout this thesis. Tµ =f ( H l ) (42) The translational velocity of liquid slug is calculated from equation (43) given by Bendiksen37: vt = C o v m + v d (43) Co is taken as 1. ∆P   ∆P    ∆P   ∆P        ∆P  =Tµ   +  −  −      ∆z   ∆z fsl  ∆z fgp   ∆z fsl  ∆z  fgp      (41) where.2 as suggested by Niklin et al38. In this study Τµ is defined as.

liquid volume fraction in the slug and the average liquid volume fraction of the slug unit can be calculated from 38 .54 − 0.316 Re∞ Otherwise.56  Bo  ρl  The Bond number is: (45) Bo = ( ρl − ρG ) σ ( gd ) 2 r (46) fm term in the Zukoski39 correlation is given as: f m = 0. for f m < 1 (47) fm = 1 where (48) Re∞ = ρl vd ∞ d r 2 µl (49) Once these parameters are determined.1.76  gd r ( ρ l − ρ g )  vd ∞ =  0.

735 N B   1 − FE  vsl  where 0. Els = 1  v  1+  m   8.39 (50) El = El s vt + vg (1 − Els ) − vsg vt (51) The entrainment fraction. is estimated using Petalas and Aziz24 correlation: FE 0.66  1.Gregory et al41 correlation and mass balance equation of liquid phase over the slug unit.074  v sg  = 0.2 (52) µl 2 vsg 2 ρ g NB = σ 2 ρl (53) The dimensionless liquid film thickness is determined from equation (54) 39 . FE.

the frictional losses for slug body can be determined using Equation 57. ( FE ) vsl + vsg 1 δ = 1 − (1 − El )   2 vsg       (54) Mixture density and viscosity are defined in Equations 55 and 56 respectively as mostly used in literature. 2 f ml vm ρ m  ∆P    = dr  ∆z  f sl where fmL is determined from Re ml . 40 . ρm = El ρl + (1 − El ) ρg µm = El µl + (1 − El ) µ g (55) (56) Once all the necessary parameters are defined. 2 (57) Reml = dr ρl vm µl (58) For the gas pocket/liquid film zone.

The proposed equation in this study is as follows 41 . vf = vsl El (61) From equation (41).1143m 0.05715m annular geometry than 0. Omurlu Method (OM).0488m annular conduit. then homogeneous two-phase model with slip proposed by Petalas and Aziz24 can be used for pressure loss determination as given in Equation 60.0. As the pressure loss estimations of this method are compared with the experimental data. is developed introducing dimensionless group.0001.4τ wl  ∆P    = dr  ∆z  f gp (59) If δ < 0. f ρv  ∆P  = f l f   2  ∆z  f gp 2 (60) where liquid film velocity is determined from. total pressure loss is calculated. it is observed that the method EPLDM gives more accurate results for 0. Therefore the second method.0932m .

The liquid phase flows as a thin film around the pipe wall with a greater thickness at the bottom of the pipe than that at the top (Figure 5.2. which contains entrained liquid droplets. momentum equation is 42 . gas phase flows in a core of high velocity. For liquid phase. ∆P   =  ∆z  El vsl vsg ρm  ∆P  v v ρ   ∆P   + 1 − El sl 2sg m      2 vm ρl  ∆z  fsl  vm ρl   ∆z  fgp 1/ 4  di   d   o (62) Pressure gradients in the liquid slug and the liquid film/gas pocket zone are calculated as described in the previous method.2.1. is assumed to be uniform and equal to the average film thickness.3 Annular Flow At very high gas flow rates. 5. it is observed that the mechanism of this flow pattern is analogous to stratified flow. When the momentum balance equations of the liquid phase and the gas phase are examined. Then the pressure gradients are multiplied with a new dimensionless group and divided by ratio of the casing diameter to drillpipe diameter. liquid film thickness can be determined from the combined momentum equation by trial and error procedures.2). As the appropriate geometrical parameters are defined with empirical closure equations. For practical purposes the film thickness δ.

Then. momentum equation can be derived as  ∆P  − Ac   −τ i Si = 0  ∆z  Combining equations (63) and (64) yields (64) τ wf Sf  1 1  − τ i Si  + =0 A  Af  f Ac  (65) It is assumed that the liquid droplets in the gas phase have the same velocity with the gas core. gas void fraction in the core. GVFc. ∆P  − Af   − τ w f S f + τ i Si = 0 ∆z   (63) For the gas phase in the gas core. is: GVFc = vsg vsg + vsl FE (66) Fluid density and viscosity inside the core are ρc = ρ g GVFc + ρl (1 − GVFc ) (67) 43 .

24   2 fc  ρc vc dc    0.305 N Re f (71) The pressure loss can be estimated from either Equation 63 or 64. liquid film velocity and core velocity are defined as:  (1 − FE ) d r2  v f = vsl    4δ ( d r − δ )  (69)  (vsg + vsl FE ) d r2  vc =   (d − 2δ )2   r   (70) Petalas and Aziz24 correlation is preferred for the interfacial friction factor. 44 . once the film thickness is appropriately determined.µc = µg GVFc + µl (1 − GVFc ) (68) respectively. With the geometrical configuration.085 0. fi:  fi  σ   = 0.

i.  ∆P  2 f m ρ m vm  = dr  ∆z  2 (72) where fm can be calculated using Rem = d r ρ m vm µm (73) The mixture density.5.e.1). The gas phase is dispersed as discrete gas bubbles within the continuous liquid phase (Figure 5.3. A simple homogeneous flow is assumed since the gas bubbles are moving at the same velocity as liquid phase.4 Dispersed Bubble Flow This flow pattern occurs at very high liquid flow rates. λl = vsl vsl + vsg (74) Where vsl + vsg = vm (75) 45 . superficial liquid velocity higher than 10 m/s.1..2. velocity and the mixture viscosity are calculated using the no-slip liquid holdup λl term. Pressure loss can be calculated from equation (72). The no-slip hold up is given by.

As mostly used in literature. mixture density and mixture viscosity are: ρ m = λl ρl + (1 − λl ) ρ g µm = λl µl + (1 − λl ) µ g (76) (77) After the calculation of the necessary parameters. 46 . the frictional pressure loss of the dispersed bubble flow can be calculated from Equation 72.

calibration process.CHAPTER 6 EXPERIMENTAL WORK The essential part of the experimental study is the experimental setup in addition to the data acquisition system. 47 .1 Experimental Setup METU-PETE-CTMFL multiphase flow loop was constructed in order to perform two-phase flow experiments in horizontal fully eccentric annuli. 6.1. experimental setup. The experimental work is presented in four subtitles namely. A schematic view of the loop is presented in Figure 6. test procedure and data acquisition.1. test section.

1143 0.1.1.1. hence water is separated from two-phase mixture before being carried to the liquid tank.1 Geometrical configuration of annular section Configuration Casing Size (m) Drillpipe Size (m) 1 2 0. A separator (Figure 6.Figure 6. Two pairs of annular geometrical configuration are used as given in Table 6. An air compressor and a centrifugal pump fed the two-phase air-water system.2) is connected to the exit of the loop.0932 0.1.Schematic view of the experimental setup The experimental setup consisted of a 4.1.1. The centrifugal pump is used with a magnetic flow meter and an electropneumatic 48 .0488 0.84 m transparent test section.0571 A thin plate is welded parallel to flow direction into the flange at the entrance of the loop in order to contribute to the establishment of fully developed flow. Table 6.

Figure 6. Similarly. frictional pressure losses. The pressure of the loop.1. The capacity and brand name of each component in the experimental setup are presented in Table 6.3) to measure and control the desired liquid flow rate.2. A pressure regulator is mounted before the gas flow meter as a safety measure and to keep the air pressure controlled prior to entering to the test section.Two-phase separator 49 .1. The compressed air mixed with the water before entering to the annular section.2. Data logger and data acquisition software are used to gather and store the experimental data digitally. The pressure of the gas phase is kept usually at 25 psi.control valve (Figure 6. liquid and gas flow rates are measured using the data acquisition system.1. the air compressor is used with a volumetric flow meter and an electropneumatic control valve to deliver required amount of gas into the loop.

Electropneumatic control valve 50 .1.3.Figure 6.

2 Test Section The test section is 4. The transparent casing allowed the observation and identification of the flow patterns. CO 0-1000 l/min at 25 psi Liquid Flow TOSHIBA Brand Name TAMSAN DOMAK Capacity 3000 l/min at 6 atm 1.1. The geometrical configuration of the test section is given in Table 6. Moreover.2 Capacity and brand name of experimental components Component Air Compressor Centrifugal Pump Liquid Tank Magnetic Meter Volumetric Meter Electropneumatic Control SAMSON Valves Digital Differential COLE-PARMER INST.136 m3/min Pressure Transducers Differential Gauges Pressure ASHCROFT 0-1” water 0-2” water 0-5” water 0-10” water 6.2.1.84 m. long and made of acrylic casing and steel drillpipe (Figure 6.136 m3/min 2000 m3 1.1. Digital 1 psi differential pressure transducers and differential pressure gauges of are used in order to measure frictional pressure losses.Table 6. CO 0-1 psi Gas Flow COLE-PARMER INST. digital pressure transducers are mounted on the gas line at 51 .1).

52 .the entrance of the gas flow meter and on the annular test section with the aim of monitoring the system pressure at different locations. Figure 6. entrance and exit effects are calculated for each casing-drillpipe configuration using Equations 69 and 70.Test section The determination of the locations of the pressure transmitters on the test section was one of the important tasks during setup design and construction.2 clearly shows the capacity and brand name of the pressure transmitters.1. Therefore.2. The average pressure inside the loop was kept less than 20 psia. The data collected should be reliable since the mathematical model’s performance would be evaluated using the experimental data. The entrance length is calculated by. Table 6.1.

6.1 and Figure 6.3. Figure 6.22 m for configuration1 and 0. The distance from the exit required to eliminate the chimney effect is given in Equation 79 (reference 43). 53 . The pressure and flow rate readings are recorded and compared with theoretical estimations. Lexit = 4.4 N Re 6 d hyd 1 (79) Thus. The verification of fully developed flow in the test section is essential. a fully developed region of 1.2 show the accordance between the calculated pressure losses and the experimental data for configuration 1 and configuration 2 eccentric annular flow. In this study it was modified by using hydraulic diameter. the equation proposed for pipe flow was modified for annular geometry inserting hydraulic diameter. Similarly. To ensure the accuracy of the experimental data. frictional pressure losses are recorded for single phase water flow through the annular test section.3 Calibration Process The most important components of the experimental study are the frictional pressure loss measurement and flow pattern visualization.61 m for configuration 2 annular test sections are obtained.3.Lentrance = 50d hyd (78) Equation 78 is porposed by Knudsen and Katz42 for pipe flow.

02 0.Frictional pressure loss gradient versus flow rate data of water flowing through configuration 1 0.04 0.025 0.09 0.0.06 0.04 0.3.035 0.1.045 DP/DL (inch of water/inch) 0.005 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Q (gpm) MEASURED DP/DL CALCULATED DP/DL Figure 6.2.08 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.1 DP/DL (inch of water/inch)) 0.3.03 0.Frictional pressure loss gradient versus flow rate data of water flowing through configuration 2 54 .05 0.015 0.01 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Q (gpm) MEASURED DP/DL CALCULATED DP/DL Figure 6.

25% and 0. 2) The water inside the water lines connecting the differential pressure transducers’ low and high ends to the test section is flushed to prevent the trapping of air bubbles in these lines. Similarly. However.13% accuracy of the full scale. 6. The slight difference between the experimental data and estimated pressure losses may be due to this fact. 1) The water is pumped from the liquid collection tank to the loop using centrifugal pump. The calibration of liquid and gas flow meters are checked and the readings are found to be within the 1% accuracy as given in the calibration data sheets. Pressure losses and flow patterns are recorded at different gas and liquid flow rates through horizontal fully eccentric annuli. air and water are used during two-phase flow tests. the pressure readings of digital differential pressure transducers and the pressure gauges are within the 0. respectively. 55 .The pressure losses are calculated for concentric annuli using narrow slot approach. The differential analogue pressure gauge is designed to measure the pressure losses to an accuracy of 2% of full scale of reading. the experimental data were collected from fully eccentric conduit.4 Experimental Test Procedure and Data Acquisition In the experimental work. The procedure of the two-phase tests is as follows.

the observed flow pattern is recorded using high resolution Sony Digital Video Camera Recorder.3) Once the differential pressure transmitters are ready and the water flow in the system is stabilized. 5) Meanwhile. During the analysis of the experimental data the average of this one minute recorded data is used. system pressures and the flow rates are recorded using data logger and data acquisition software. A test matrix covering the minimum and maximum capacities of the system is established to perform the experiments. the frictional pressure losses. While conducting the tests. 4) After waiting for the stabilization of the flow rate of both phases. Then the water flow rate is increased to the next level and same procedure is followed. 56 . The record time for each set of flow condition is one minute after steady state condition is established. air flow rate is increased gradually keeping the water flow rate constant. control valve on the air line is opened and adjusted to the desired flow rate.

The flow chart of the computer program for the flow pattern determination is given in Figure 7. The frictional pressure losses are calculated accordingly once the flow pattern is identified.4. 57 .1. The discussion of the model performance and the analysis of the experimental data are given in details in the next chapter.CHAPTER 7 COMPUTER WORK A computer program based on the proposed mathematical model in this study is developed in order to facilitate the flow pattern determination and pressure loss estimation using Matlab 7.0.

Sl.1. Al. ρl.Flow chart of Matlab code for the flow pattern identification and frictional pressure loss determination 58 .ρg dr. µm.Qg. vm. vl.50 A NO 1  4gAg ( ρl − ρg )  2 vl ≥   Si fl ρl   NO YES YES Annular Dispersed Bubble Intermittent Figure 7. ρm END 1 NO  2  hl   ( ρl − ρg ) g Ag   vg ≤ 1−     dr   ρg dAl   dhl   YES  4µl ( ρl − ρg ) g  2 vg >    sρl ρg vl    1 YES Stratified Wavy NO Stratified Smooth Pressure Loss Calculation Al < 0. di. hl.START Ql. µg. Sg. hlr. vg. Si.µl.Ag. do.

D acrylic casing – 0. The accuracy of the proposed model’s frictional pressure loss estimations are explained using experimental pressure loss measurements. flow pattern maps are generated for 0.05715m O.0932m I.D drillpipe (configuration 1) and 0.1 and 8. Firstly.1. Figures 8.D acrylic casing – 0. two-phase flow measurements are conducted.CHAPTER 8 RESULTS and DISCUSSION After the calibration of experimental setup is finished and the validation of the data acquisition system and the experimental setup with single phase water flow experiments is carried out.1143m I.1. The comparison with generated flow pattern maps using hydraulic diameter is also discussed. 8. The validation of the proposed model’s flow pattern prediction with the experimental data is given in detail in the following section.2 represent the 59 . Empirical friction factor correlations are presented for each observed flow pattern.0488m O.D drillpipe (configuration 2) annular conduits.1. The results and the discussion are given in details in the following sections. Validation of Flow Pattern Identification of Proposed Model with Experimental Data The flow pattern map is generated using hydraulic diameter and the transition criterions proposed by Taitel and Dukler1.

01 0.1. dr approaches (GDM) for two different annular geometries. configurations 1 and 2. dhyd and representative diameter.1. i..e.1 Figure 8.1 dhyd 0.Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using dhyd and GDM for configuration 1 60 . 100 GDM 10 vsl (m/s) DB dr SS SW I 1 I AN SS SW 1 vsg (m/s) 10 100 0.comparison of flow pattern maps for hydraulic diameter.

it is observed that a significant shift in flow pattern map generated using dhyd (blue dashed lines in Figures 8.100 DB 10 vsl (m/s) GDM dr SS 1 I SW I dhyd 0. as the annular geometry changes.1 SS 0.01 0. The experimental data fits exactly within the predicted boundaries. the accuracy of the proposed GDM diminishes. the flow area decreases.1. stratified wavy (SW) and intermittent (I) flow. Stratified smooth and stratified wavy flow patterns are developed at considerably higher liquid and gas flow rates than those estimated with hydraulic diameter approach. However. it is clearly observed that the 61 .Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using dhyd and GDM for configuration 2 The flow patterns observed experimentally are stratified smooth (SS).2) occurred in stratified to non-stratified flow pattern boundaries and stratified wavy to stratified smooth flow pattern transitions. Some of the flow pattern examples are given as pictures taken during experiments in Appendix A.1.2.e.1.1.2). From Figure 8.1 and 8.1. i.1 1 vsg (m/s) SW 10 AN 100 Figure 8..1. It can be observed that the proposed first approach in this study predicts accurately the flow pattern transitions for the conduit configuration 2. As compared with the experimental data (Figures 8.1 and 8.5.1.

the majority of the data collected from configuration 1 annular conduit consist of intermittent flow patterns. The comparison of the results of OOM with the experimental data is presented for configuration 1 and configuration 2 annular geometries in Figure 8. This second method (OOM) becomes geometry independent. The liquid superficial velocity was greater than 0. Therefore.2). Similarly.e.transition from intermittent flow to stratified smooth and stratified wavy flow begins at higher liquid superficial flow rates than predicted velocities.e. more stratified flow data are required in order to evaluate accurately the flow pattern transition models.1. the flow pattern identifications are not correct for configurations 1 and 2 annular conduits when compared with experimental results (blue dashed lines in Figures 8. However. i. Therefore. to higher superficial gas velocities. Equation 21. 62 . In case of hydraulic diameter used maps. annular flow pattern transition should shift towards right. one should note that due to the experimental setup limitations.. When the overall flow patterns in both annular geometries are observed it is noted that the flow patterns are independent of the conduit dimensions.4. capacity of experimental setup components given in Table 6.1 m/s during the experiments.1.2.3 and Figure 8.1 and 8.1.1. i. the proposed first method (GDM) is geometry dependent because of the presence of do in the transition equation.1. However. the proposed model is modified by replacing do with di (Equation 22). gas phase could not flow through the mixing line since the pressure of the gas phase was kept less than 25 psi at the entrance of flow meter.. At higher superficial liquid velocities.

Similar to GDM.1 1 vsg (m/s) 10 AN 0.Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using dhyd and OOM for configuration 2 As an expected result.Comparison of flow pattern maps generated using dhyd and OOM for configuration 1 100 DB 10 vsl (m/s) OOM dr.1 SS SW 0. the flow pattern predictions of OOM in this study are highly accurate when compared with the experimental data.1. 63 . 2nd approach 1 I SS SW I dhyd 0.1 SS SW 0.01 100 Figure 8.1. 2nd aproach 1 0.3.4.100 10 vsl (m/s) DB I OOM SS SW I dhyd dr.1 1 vsg (m/s) 10 AN 0.01 100 Figure 8.

this geometry independent method. 100 10 vsl (m/s) DISTRIBUTED SS SW 1 I 0. Hydraulic diameter is used to represent the annular geometry.6 show the comparison of the flow patterns generated with the observed data.5 and Figure 8.3) for horizontal fully eccentric annular two-phase flow. gives more accurate flow pattern estimations than GDM.1.01 Figure 8.1 1 vsg (m/s) 10 100 0.1 I modified Beggs &Brill SEG-I TRANSITION SEGREGATED 0. Figure 8.1. OOM.5. more stratified flow data are needed in order to discuss and evaluate the accuracy of OOM for configuration 1 annular geometry. The final part of the flow pattern comparison is the evaluation of Beggs and Brill14 method (Appendix A. Yet. The proposed model still estimates the flow patterns more correctly than hydraulic diameter approach.Validation of flow pattern maps generated using dr and modified Beggs and Brill3 method with experimental data for configuration 1 64 .1.the experimental results fit exactly within the appropriate flow pattern boundaries configuration 2. In case of configuration 1.

10

DISTRIBUTED

SS

vsl (m/s)

1

SW

I
I

0.1

SEG-I TRANSITION
0.01

modified Beggs & Brill

SEGREGATED
0.1 1 vsg (m/s) 10 100

Figure 8.1.6- Validation of flow pattern maps generated using dr and modified Beggs and Brill3 method with experimental data for configuration 2 The empirical flow pattern prediction model of Beggs and Brill14 is modified using dr. This widely used model in industry could not predict correctly the flow patterns observed. Especially in annular conduit configuration 1, the results are not accurate. In case of configuration 2, intermittent flow data are within the appropriate boundaries but stratified flow data are also in this region. Stratified flow takes place at higher liquid superficial velocities according to the experimental observations.

8.2 Validation of Frictional Pressure Loss Estimations of Proposed Model with Experimental Results The flow patterns observed during experiments are only stratified (SS and SW) flow and intermittent (I) flow. Although pressure loss determination equations

65

for annular (AN) and dispersed bubble (DB) flow are given in chapter 5, only intermittent and stratified flow frictional pressure loss estimations are discussed in this chapter.

The comparison of the experimental results and proposed model estimation for pressure losses of stratified flow of water-air mixture flowing through fully eccentric horizontal annulus of configurations 1 and 2 is presented in Figures 8.2.1 and 8.2.2.

350 calculated DP/DL(Pa/m) 300 250 modified Aziz et al. 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 measured DP/DL(Pa/m) modified Garcia et al. Ti=f(fG),this study modified Beggs & Brill

+30%

-30%

Figure 8.2.1- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of the proposed model with experimental data and mostly used models for stratified flow through configuration 1

66

250

+30%
calculated DP/DL (Pa/m) 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 measured DP/DL (Pa/m)

modified Aziz et al.

-30%

modified Garcia et al. Ti=f(fG),this study modified Beggs & Brill

Figure 8.2.2- Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of the proposed model with experimental data and mostly used models for stratified flow through configuration 2 The dashed lines in Figures 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 are ±30 % error margin, and the solid line represents the perfect match between the experimental stratified flow data and calculated results for configuration 1 and configuration 2 annular conduits respectively. Mostly used models of Petalas and Aziz24, Garcia et al25 and Beggs and Brill14 for pipe flow are modified for annular geometry by using dr instead of pipe diameter as shown in Appendix A.3. Modified Petalas and Aziz24 and Beggs and Brill14 models give underestimated pressure loss results when compared with the experimental results. The correct determination of interfacial shear stress is the most important step during the pressure loss calculations. Instead of using empirical correlation for interfacial friction factor (Petalas and Aziz24), gas friction factor is preferred in this study. Although modified Garcia et al’s model25 gives accurate results the proposed model’s performance is agreeable when validated with experimental data. It can be

67

The performances of the modified Petalas and Aziz24.e.2. However. In this study.e. i.2.3805 e(1.25 and modified Beggs and Brill14 models are also evaluated with the experimental data.3 and Figure 8. EPDM and OM are presented for pressure loss determination in case of intermittent flow. modified Garcia et al.observed that the procedure presented in this study for stratified flow estimates the frictional pressure losses with a reasonable accuracy for both annular geometries.. it should be remarked that the amount of data is not sufficient to generalize the results due to the limitations of the experimental setup. Table 6. In chapter 5 two methods.6552 Hl ) (80) Figure 8. 68 .2.4 represent the comparison of the experimental results and EPDM’s estimations for pressure losses of intermittent flow.1. in EPDM an empirical equation (Equation 80) is developed. i. Tµ =0.

modified Garcia et al.4.2500 calculated DP/DL (Pa/m) 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 measured DP/DL (Pa/m) modified Aziz et al.2.2. this study modified Beggs and Brill Figure 8. EPDM. EPDM.Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of EPDM with experimental data and mostly used models for intermittent flow through configuration 1 800 calculated DP/DL(Pa/m) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 200 400 600 800 measured DP/DL(Pa/m) modified Aziz et a. this study modified Beggs and Brill Figure 8. modified Garcia et al.3.Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of EPDM with experimental data and mostly used models for intermittent flow through configuration 2 69 .

70 . As the measured frictional pressure loss increases these modified models still calculate very low pressure loss estimations. The results are more correct for configuration 2. in the following figures. The higher accuracy of OM is valid for configurations 1 and 2.2. i. However. EPDM proposed in this study is the most accurate model among others.6.4.25 and Beggs and Brill14.2.3 and 8. As in case of configuration 1. i. The second method. the comparison of OM in this study is presented along with the evaluation of the modified models with the experimental intermittent flow data for configuration 1 and configuration 2 respectively.. the dashed lines are ±30 % error margin. Garcia et al.5 and Figure 8. From Figures 8. the modified models. Here. However.e.Similarly. Modified Petalas and Aziz24 model gives closer pressure results to the experimental data than other modified models. in the figures above.e. OM developed in this study is more geometry independent (Equation 62) than the first method EPDM (Equation 41). at relatively high measured pressure losses the model overestimates the frictional pressure losses.2. highly underestimate the pressure losses.. Figure 8. and the solid line represents the perfect match between the experimental and calculated results. it is observed that EPDM in this study estimates accurately the frictional pressure losses for intermittent flow.2.

2. modified Garcia et al. this study modified Beggs and Brill Figure 8.5. OM. OM. modified Garcia et al.2500 calculated DP/DL (Pa/m) 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 measured DP/DL (Pa/m) modified Aziz et al.2. this study modified Beggs and Brill Figure 8.Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of OM with experimental data and mostly used models for intermittent flow through configuration 2 71 .Comparison of frictional pressure loss estimations of OM with experimental data and mostly used models for intermittent flow through configuration 1 800 calculated DP/DL(Pa/m) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 200 400 600 800 measured DP/DL(Pa/m) modified Aziz et al.6.

OM proposed in this study is the most accurate model among others.6 96.2 93.1 30.7 113. However.9 68. and most of the calculated pressure losses are within the ±30 % error margin. It is remarked that OM proposed in this study estimates the frictional pressure losses with a high accuracy for intermittent flow through configurations 1 and 2 horizontal eccentric annular conduits.1 90.4 35.e.0 Maximum Error % 53.0 Minimum Error % Stratified Flow Mod.4 Maximum Error % 74.25 and Beggs and Brill14.8 95.1 0.05715m) 90.0 3.6 170.1 Minimum Error % do-di (0.1 Error percentage for pressure loss estimation of mostly proposed and modified models Intermittent Flow Mod. Garcia et al. Also. and the solid line represents the perfect match between the experimental and calculated results. This model Petalas Garcia study 70.6.7 84.5 54.2.5 40.7 78.3 1. Beggs Mod. i. and modified Petalas and Aziz24 model gives closer pressure results to the experimental data than other modified models. The reason for inaccurate pressure loss estimations of modified models may be the fact that these models were originally developed for two-phase pipe flow.0932-0.9 21. highly underestimate the pressure losses.7 51.2 36.9 0.5 and 8.8 52.8 82.0488m) and Brill model Petalas Garcia (This Study) (This Study) 86.Aziz First Second Mod.4 102. there are empirical equations used in these models which are similarly proposed for circular pipes.4 2.3 58.4 166.0 15.0 56. Approach Approach do-di (0.5 93.Aziz and Brill and Mod.0 77.5 Average Error % 93..5 0.4 72 .1143-0.9 7. the modified models.2 0.1 0.8 126.4 39.7 89.9 131.0 31. Beggs and Mod.In Figures 8. As discussed in the validation of EPDM.1 2.5 95.2.1 Average Error % 95.6 42.1 57.3 25.2 95.3 90.2.4 48. Table 8. the dashed lines are ±30 % error margin.

as the amount of data is considered.7%. for practical purposes empirical friction factor correlations are developed. proposed mechanistic model has the least minimum errors. dr. 8.1% for configuration 1 and 25. However. As remarked from this table.3% for configuration 2.2. The data 73 . OM proposed in this study determines the frictional pressure losses in both annular configurations more accurately with an average error of 30. In stratified flow the proposed procedure in this study calculates the pressure drop accurately with an average error of 51.3 Empirical Friction Factor Correlations In this study. although the simplicity and the accuracy of the model proposed for stratified flow and OM for intermittent flow.1 represents quantitatively the average.1%.1% and 31% for configurations 1 and 2. In configuration 1 modified Garcia et al25 model estimates the pressure drop more accurately than the proposed model with an average error of 36. Other compared models have very low accuracy in pressure loss estimations. since the calculation procedure is simple and accurate for both annular geometries. The correlations are developed based on data obtained from METU-PETE-CTMFL multiphase flow loop using statistical methods. the proposed method in this study can be considered as accurate and applicable. maximum and minimum errors for pressure loss estimations. for intermittent flow EPDM proposed in this study has an average error of 35. This proposed mechanistic model is highly useful for practical purposes. In both annular geometries and for both flow patterns.Table 8. Moreover. The frictional pressure losses are estimated theoretically for each flow pattern independently using representative diameter.5% and 15.

The friction factor is calculated from Equation 72.e. The friction factor versus mixture Reynolds number relation of the experimental stratified flow data is presented in Figure 8.1. 74 .1734 (81) Where Rem. Table 6. the friction factor correlation is given in Equation 81. For stratified flow.2.. the mixture Reynolds number can be calculated using Equation 73.obtained include only stratified and intermittent flow data due to the geometrical and two-phase system restrictions.1. i.3. f f = 9880 ( Re m ) −1.

1 ff 0.1 0. friction factor correlations are developed.3. It is observed that mixture Reynolds number and the friction factor does not show expected correlation (Figure 8.001 10000 100000 Rem 1000000 Figure 8.1. for intermittent flow.3.2).01 0. 75 .Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of experimental stratified flow data Similarly.

001 0 100000 Rem ff 1000000 Figure 8.004 0.3 and 8. λl is calculated from Equation 74.006 0.3. As the results are investigated.Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of experimental intermittent flow data Therefore. 76 .3. a new mixture Reynolds number based on liquid holdup is proposed as given in Equation 82.4 show the relation between the friction factor and the Reynolds number for each case. the slope of the curve changes.005 0.0. it is remarked that at NRemixλ = 100000. N Remixλ = λl N Re sl + (1 − λl ) N Re sg (82) where liquid holdup.2.3. Figures 8.007 0.002 0.003 0.008 0.

−0.Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of experimental intermittent flow data for NRemixλ < 100000 Therefore.1 0.4676 (84 Figure 8. For NRemixλ < 100000.3. the proposed equation is.9435 ( N Remixλ ) −0. 77 . the friction factor correlations are developed accordingly.0085 ( N Remixλ ) In case where NRemixλ Equation 84.4 represents the correlation given in Equation 84.3.001 10000 NRemixλ λ 100000 Figure 8.1 ff 0. friction factor can be calculated from f f = 0.0594 (83) ≥ 100000. f f = 0.3.01 0.

pressure loss can be determined using Equation 62. 78 .003 ff 0. Dashed lines represent ±30% error margin.004 0.Friction factor and mixture Reynolds number relation of experimental intermittent flow data for NRemixλ ≥ 100000 Then.3.0.005 0.3.4. Figures 8.006 0. The performance of the empirical correlations is compared with experimental data.3.5 and 8.001 0 100000 NRemixλ λ 1000000 Figure 8.002 0. The empirical model can estimate the frictional pressure losses accurately. It can be noted that all of the estimated pressure losses are within this error range.6 represent the accuracy of the proposed correlations.

Comparison of pressure losses determined by the empirical correlations and experimental data for intermittent flow 79 .3.400 350 calculated DP/DL (Pa/m) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 measured DP/DL (Pa/m) Figure 8.6.5.Comparison of pressure losses determined by the empirical correlations and experimental data for stratified flow 1600 1400 calculated DP/DL (Pa/m) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 measured DP/DL (Pa/m) Figure 8.3.

.e. and frictional pressure loss calculation methods are proposed.CHAPTER 9 CONCLUDING REMARKS A mechanistic two-phase flow modeling study along with an experimental work is carried out. Water and air are the fluids used during the experiments in two different geometrical configurations of fully eccentric annular conduit.. As the accuracy of the proposed mechanistic model and empirical correlations are evaluated with the experimental data. representative diameter is introduced in order to characterize the fully eccentric annuli. Empirical friction factor correlations are developed for practical frictional pressure loss calculations. The theoretical part of this study covers the development of the mechanistic model for water-air horizontal two-phase flow through fully eccentric annuli. Flow pattern identification. i. distribution of two phases in the eccentric annuli. • Hydraulic diameter can be used to represent the fully eccentric horizontal annuli while determining the fully developed region.e. • Omurlu and Ozabayoglu model (OOM) can estimate flow patterns accurately for configurations 1 and 2 annular conduits when compared 80 . The experimental study is carried out in METU-PETE-CTMFL multiphase flow loop. i. the following remarks are concluded. A new diameter term.

Gas friction factor is used as the interfacial friction factor. Geometry dependent model (GDM) model identifies flow patterns correctly for configuration 2. • Interfacial shear stress should be well defined for stratified flow. • Two different methods i.. • Hydraulic diameter approach is not applicable for two-phase fully eccentric annular flow.. Conduit geometry has a strong influence on flow pattern transitions when compared with pipe flow. As the hydraulic diameter approach is applied. noticeable shifts between the experimental data occur at the flow pattern map. The model’s pressure loss estimations are accurate when compared with experimental results.e. Petalas and Aziz24.with the experimental data. Garcia et al25. empirical pressure drop determination model (EPDM) and Omurlu model (OM) are proposed for pressure loss determination in intermittent flow based on weighting factor Τµ and 81 . but the experimental stratified data of configuration 1 are not within the appropriate flow pattern boundaries predicted by GDM. and Beggs and Brill14 are compared with experimental data collected at METU-PETECTMFL multiphase flow loop.e. The modified models’ results are not accurate and hence are not applicable for horizontal two-phase flow through fully eccentric annuli. • The flow pattern prediction and frictional pressure loss estimations of modified models i.

OM is more accurate and reliable as the amount of data compared is considered. However.D annular conduit.D horizontal eccentric annuli when compared with experimental data.0932m I. for flow through 0. EPDM overestimates the pressure losses at high liquid and gas flow rates. frictional pressure losses can be determined using friction factor correlations proposed separately for each flow pattern and flow properties of the mixture. The friction factor equations are developed for NRemixl < 100000 and NRemixl ≥ 100000 separately due to the friction factor and new mixture Reynolds number relation.5 m/s superficial gas velocity. 82 .. i.dimensionless group respectively. The pressure losses are estimated accurately using EPDM for 0.05715m O.e.0488m O. OM determines the frictional pressure losses with a high accuracy for twophase flow through both annular geometries. • For practical purposes.D – 0. A new mixture Reynolds number NRemixl based on liquid holdup term is introduced for intermittent flow.1143m I. 1 m/s superficial liquid velocity and 2.D – 0.

annular flow and dispersed bubble flow data in order to complete the transition boundaries of flow pattern map. the performance of the proposed mechanistic model and the empirical correlations can be evaluated and the accuracy may be generalized.1 m/s and 100 m/s. further studies are needed to better comprehend the flow behavior of two-phase systems flowing through horizontal fully eccentric annuli. Experiments with more viscous liquid phase can be conducted in order to analyze the effect of viscosity on flow pattern transition boundaries. different fully eccentric annular geometrical configurations are needed to generalize the accuracy of the mechanistic model.1 m/s and greater than 2 m/s. The recommendations for future works are as follows. The range for superficial liquid velocity should be less than 0. Then. • Experiments should include more stratified flow.RECOMMENDATIONS This study is an important step for understanding the hydraulics of two-phase flow through fully eccentric annuli. Moreover. The gas superficial velocity should be between 0. 83 . However. • Water and air was used during the experiments. Additional experimental and theoretical work will allow analyzing the hydraulics of two-phase fluid and distinguishing between the behaviors in circular pipe and annuli.

Correlations different than pipe flow may be developed.• The effect of eccentricity on flow pattern identification and pressure loss determination may be analyzed using concentric and eccentric annular conduits with different eccentricities. • Flow patterns and flow pattern transitions may be recorded digitally by high speed camera and may be analyzed to determine whether the flow patterns in annular geometry are different than pipe flow. 84 . • Experiments need to be conducted for better understanding the determination of fully developed region in horizontal fully eccentric annuli.

No. 2001. O. N.. Lockhart.. and Martinelli.C. 47. 8. Thesis.213. Germany (1963) 451. H.Trans. Guo.: “Single-and Two-Phase Fluid Flow in Small Vertical Conduits Including Annular Configurations.: “One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow.: “Experimental Determination of Minimum Air and Water Flow Rates for Effective Cutting Transport in High Angle and Horizontal Wells”. The University of Tulsa. Frankfurt-am-Main. A. New York City (1969). Wallis. 5. P.. 7. 4..Winkler..D. 2002. V. and Ghalambor. AIME..” McGraw-Hill Book Co.” Proc. Deviated Holes”. Duns. R.C. PennWell Corporation. Taitel.” JPT (March 1963) 309.: “Gas Volume Requirements for Underbalanced Drilling. 85 . 1. 39-48 (1949).E.W.B. “Producing Wells on Casing Flow-An Analysis of Flowing Pressure Gradients.: “A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transition in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow. Two-Component Flow in Pipes. and Dukler.B. MSc. H. P. and Ros. Baxendell.” Chemical Engineering Progress 45. 3. Gaither.and Kirkpatrick.” JPT (August 1958) 59.W. Trans.. G. B. Y.C.. 6.V. Rodriguez. A.Jr. (1976) 22 No. AIME.REFERENCES 1. Inc.” AIChE J.228.: “Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells. 1. Sixth world Petroleum Congress..: “Proposed Correlation of Data for Isothermal Two-Phase. 2. R.J.

A. No.: “The Prediction of Flow Patterns. B. 11. Winkler.E. No. Beggs. Angel. Prac. 12. D. O. and Welchon.: “A Unified Model for Predicting Flow Pattern Transitions for the Whole Range of Pipe Inclinations. Multiphase Flow (1987) 13. Eng.: “Effect of uphill flow on pressure drop in design of twophase gathering systems. 16. J. J. 17. A. J. Chem. 10.” Oil and Gas J. Shoham. 13. Trans. and Brill. M.. (1964) 10.: “A Model For Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Tubes. Wickes. 337.” JPT (May 1973) 607.: “A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines. of Texas.P. Dukler.” PhD dissertation.P.: “Single-and Two-Phase Vertical Flow Through 0.9. Liquid Holdup and Pressure Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal Pipelines.: “A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes. J. H. 1. 1. AIME. U. Austin.W.” Ind. J.. (1975) 14.” Int. Dukler. and Brill. K.E. 255.R. of Texas (October 1965). Fundam.: “Low-Ratio Gas-Lift Correlation for Casing-Tubing Annuli and Large-Diameter Tubing.. Xiao.” Technical Report. and Hubbard.A. and Cleveland.G.. The U.625-Inch Fully Eccentric Plain Annular Configuration. Eaton.J. and Brown. M.E. R. 1..: “Frictional Pressure Drop in Two-Phase Flow: An Approach Through Similarity Analysis” AIChE J.& Prod.. 15. 56-132 (1958).” Paper SPE 20631 presented at 86 . Flanigan.K. Texas (1968). H. (1964) 100. Barnea. 14. R.” Drill.G. O.996 X 0.D. III. 44.

” Int. Shoham O. No.. Baker. 43-55 (2000). Padrino. 339-350 (September 2000). 19. Liquid Holdup Calculations developed. 735-740 (1982). No. 25.C. 33..” Chem. K. and Northug T.: “Pressure loss. J. 5. N..N.: “Modelling of Annular Dispersed Two-Phase Flow in Vertical Pipes.. New Orleans. 18. K.: “A Mechanistic Model for Multiphase Flow in Pipes. No. 23.. Anchorage. and Joseph.: “Power Law and Composite Power Law Friction Factor Correlations for Laminar and Turbulent Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipelines. Multiphase Flow 12. A. No. and Gabb...” paper SPE 35679 presented at the 1996 SPE Western Regional Meeting. 21. Andritsos. 1605-1624 (2003).” JCPT 39. Ouyang. Mata.: “Influence of Interfacial Waves in Stratified Gas-Liquid Flows. O. 20. Barnea. and Aziz. 711-732 (1986). Sc. Petalas.E. and Aziz. Eng. N.F. Y.. 87 . Schmidt Z..” AIChE J. J. 5. Shoham.” Oil & Gas J.D. J.the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. B. and Hanratty. Horizoontal to Vertical. Garcia.. R.: “Unified Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow: Horizontal to Vertical Upward Flow.L. and Taitel.B. No. 3. and Trope. K. 6..: “Flow Patter Transition for Vertical Downward Inclined Two-Phase Flow. Garcia... J.” SPE Journal 5. T.. Oliemans. Trallero. Gomez L. 23-26 September. A.: “Development of New Wall Friction Factor and Interfacial Friction Factor correlations for Gas/Liquid Stratified Flow in Wells and Pipes. Chokshi R.” Int. C. F. R. 22. 3..V. 24.. Multiphase Flow 29.. 1998). Pots. 37. Nielsen. D. 444-454 (1987). L. J.. 55-59 (March 14. A. 22-24 May. N. D.

J. L. 114. Zhou.F..: “Design of Aerated Mud for Low Pressure Drilling. A. 1-13 (1992). and Kabir. 2000. J. I. Shoham.. 641-655 (1982).. A. Technol.” Int. Salcudean.G. M. The University of Tulsa. 91-96 (1983). 27. J. S. J. J. 1061-1068 (2003). and Groeneveld.: “Upward Vertical Two-Phase Flow Through An Annulus. Multiphase Flow 18. Gucuyener. 15-17 April. Multiphase Flow 9. Multiphase Flow 8. Sato..P.: “Two-Phase Flow in Vertical and Inclined Annuli.” PhD Dissertation.C. Taylor Bubble Velocity And Flow Pattern Prediction. and O.H.C.R.: “Cuttings Transport with Aerated mud in Horizontal Annulus under Elevated Pressure and Temperature Conditions. Sadatomi. 88 .” Int.S. J. 29..” Int.” Int. 2003.” Ms. Thesis. J. 34.H.. 32.A. and Groeneveld..26. D. 30.J. Chun. and Hanratty. 28.” Int.: “Effect of Flow Obstructions on the Flow Pattern Transitions in Horizontal Two-Phase Flow. J. Multiphase Flow 29. M..: “Two-Phase Flow in Vertical Noncircular Channels. E. D.” ASME J.: “Appendix 1: Report of Study Group on Flow Regimes in Multifluid Flow. 87-90 (1983). Jakarta. 2004. Theofanous. T. 31. 279-293 (1992). and Saruwatari. 33. Caetano. Salcudean..: “Study of the Flow of Aerated Drilling Fluids in Annulus under Ambient Temperature and Pressure Conditions. M. Y. Hasan. Part-I: Single Phase Friction Factor. C. Multiphase Flow 9.” paperSPE 80491 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference. Chun. Energy Resour. Sunthankar. The University of Tulsa. Brill. T.: “Effect of Flow Obstructions on Void Distribution in Horizontal Air-Water Flow.H.

Malaysia.W.E.” Trans. Kuala Lumpur." Int. and Davidson.” J. 89 .: “An Experimental and Theoretical Study of Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal or Slightly Deviated Fully Eccentric Annuli. Multiphase Flow 4.. J.A. Aziz. Bendiksen. New York City (1959) 43.35.H. 41. 38.. 1. G. K. A. Inc..” J. J.V. 33-39 (1978). Technol 11. M.: “Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer. Can. Engg.. Zukoski. 42. Engr.: “Drift in Intermittent Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal Pipes. Wilkes. 38 (1972). 821-8337 (1966). D.” McGraw-Hill Book Co.M.: “Two Phase Flow in Vertical Tubes.. E. Rommetveit.” SPE 62793. Weber. and Katz...O. D. J. G. E. 37.C..K. 25.: “An Experimental Investigation of the Motion of Long Bubbles in Inclined Tubes.W. Time. J. 59.” Canadian J. R. 39. Niklin. Inst. Chem. Gregory.: “Influence of Viscosity.. 11–13 September 2000. R. and Fogarasi. Surface Tension. J.0.L. No. Petrol.J. 40.F. IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology. Section Laminar to Turbulent Flow. 36. ANSYS CFX version 8. 467 (1984). M.G. and Aziz K.: “Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil and Gas. Nicholson M. 40.: "Correlation of the Liquid Volume Fraction in the Slug for Horizontal Gas-Liquid Slug Flow. Tutorial. and Inclination Angle on Motion of Long Bubbles in Closed Tubes. Fluid Mech.” Int. 61-68 (1962).. Govier. 398-399 (1981). Knudsen. Chem. K. Lage. Multiphase Flow 10.

ratio.4) 90 . to slug unit length. the weighting factor. For η ≤ 1.3) given by Bendiksen37: vt = Co vm + vd (A.2) The translational velocity of liquid slug is calculated from equation (A. Ls. Ls Lu .75− E ) l (A. The drift velocity of gas pocket is determined from Zukoski39 correlation: vd = f m vd ∞ (A.1) where.1  ∆P   ∆P   ∆P  −  =η   + (1 − η )    ∆z   ∆z  fsl  ∆z  f gp (A.1 Modified Petalas and Aziz Model Pressure loss for intermittent flow can be determined using Equation A. Lu.3) Co is taken as 1. η. is the function slug length.2 as suggested by Niklin38.0 η = λl (0.APPENDIX A.

56  Bo  ρl  (A.6) fm term in the Zukoski39 correlation is given as: f m = 0.5) The Bond number is: Bo = ( ρl − ρ g ) σ ( gd ) 2 r (A.where the correlation of vd∞ proposed by Bendiksen37 has only horizontal velocity term and is determined by using Weber40 correlation: 1.76  gd r ( ρl − ρ g )  vd ∞ = 0.54 − 0.316 Re∞ (A. fm = 1 where (A.8) Re∞ = ρl vd ∞ d r 2µl 91 (A.7) for fm<1.9) . Otherwise.

39 (A. is estimated from Petalas and Aziz24 correlation: FE 0.13) 92 .66  1.735 N B   1 − FE  vsl  0.Once these parameters are determined. FE. liquid volume fraction in the slug and the average liquid volume fraction of the slug unit can be calculated from Gregory et al41 correlation and mass balance equation of liquid phase over the slug unit.2 (A.11) The entrainment fraction.074  vsg  = 0. Els = 1  v  1+  m   8.10) El = Els vt + vg (1 − Els ) − vsg vt (A.12) where µl 2 vsg 2 ρ g NB = σ 2 ρl (A.

the frictional losses for slug body can be determined 2 f ml vm ρ m  ∆P    = g dr  ∆z  f sl For the gas pocket/liquid film zone. 93 .The dimensionless liquid film thickness is determined from equation (A.14) Once all the necessary parameters are defined.1).17) From equation (A. then (A.14) 1 δ = 1 − (1 − El )   2    ( FE ) vsl + vsg     vsg   (A.16) f f ρLv f  ∆P    = 2  ∆z  f gp 2 (A.15) 4τ  ∆P  = wl   dr  ∆z  f gp If δ < 0. 2 (A.0001. total pressure loss is calculated.

5 x10−6 Re sl ) N Frl 1.23. dl = 4 Al Sl (A.20) dg = 4 Ag Sg (A. liquid and gas phase Reynolds number are calculated using Equation A.21) Then.18) fi = (0. fl = 0.731 (A.For the stratified flow. Rel = dl vl ρl µl d g vg ρ g (A.23) 94 .335  ρl d r g    ρ v2    g g  (A.22 and Equation A. pressure loss determination procedure is similar the one presented in chapter 5.19) The liquid diameter and gas diameter are as follows.18 and A. The differences are the determination of liquid friction factor and interfacial friction factor which are presented in Equations A.004 + 0.452 f sl 0.19.22) Re g = µg (A.

24 and A.01067 N Re −0.2534 + 13.1067 N Re−0.26) The frictional pressure loss for this flow pattern is calculated from Equation A.577  m 1 +     293      0.2029 (A.25 for stratified flow.864  m 1 +     293      0.0925 N Re −0.The pressure loss for stratified flow can be calculated from Equation 32 or Equation 33.2 Modified Garcia et al Model Pressure loss for intermittent flow can be determined using Equation A. − ff gar = 0.197 (A. 95 .9501 − 0. A. ff gar = 0.24) 2 vm ∆P = ff gar 2 ρ m ∆z dr (A.2 m m   N Re 4.98 N Re −0.0925 N Re m0.98 N Re−0.9501 − 0.25. the friction factor for intermittent flow is as follows.2629 m m   N Re 3.2629 + m 13.25) Similarly.

L1 = 316λl0.01 and NFrl<L1 or λl ≥ 0.4516 (A. L2 can be determined from Equation A.28.4 and L3< NFrl ≤ L4 where L4 is: L2 = 0.30) The intermittent flow takes place if 0.29.738 (A.A.4684 (A. L2 = 0.28) The transition zone between segregated and intermittent flow takes place if λl ≥ 0. The flow regime is Segregated if λl<0.31) 96 .4 and L3< NFrl ≤ L1 or λl ≥ 0.01 ≤ λl ≤ 0.01 and L2 ≤ NFrl ≤ L3.0009232λl−2.29) The liquid holdup must be averaged as: H l (transition ) =  L − N Frl L3 − N Frl H l ( segregated ) + 1 − 3 L3 − L2 L3 − L2    H l (int ermittent )  (A.3 Modified Beggs and Brill Model Flow pattern determination is as follows.5λl−6.1λl−1.27) L3 = 0.01 and NFrl<L2 Where L1 and L2 are determined from Equations A.302 (A.27 and A.

 ∆P    ∆P  ∆z  f = ρ v v ∆z (1 − m m sg ) gP (A.4 and NFrl ≥ L1 or λl ≥ 0.34) 97 .4 Stratified-Intermittent Flow Transition The condition for wave growth is as follows. Then the total pressure gradient is calculated from Equation A.33) This model is modified by using dr instead of pipe diameter. H l (o) = aλlb N Frl c (A.32) For all flow conditions Hl(o) ≥ λl should be satisfied. The friction factor is determined from Dukler et al’15s method.4 and NFrl ≥ L4. A. P − P ' > (hg − hg ')( ρl − ρ g ) g (A.33. Then dimensionless liquid holdup Hl(o) is determined.Similarly. the transition criterion for distributed flow is in case λl<0.

1.Where hg and hg’ are the gas level in the conduit as shown in Figure A.35 is obtained.36 Where from continuity equation gas velocity vg’ is: 2  hg v = vg  ' h  g ' 2 g     2 A.The analysis of the forces during wave growth in the From Bernoulli’s equation.35 Substituting in Equation A.1. vg’ hg’ P’ hl’ vg P hg hl’ vl conduit Figure A. Equation A.37 98 . P − P' = 2 1 2 ρ g (v 'g − vg ) 2 A. (v 'g − vg ) > 2(hg − hg ')( 2 2 ρl − ρ g )g ρg A.34.

42.41. the derivative of gas flow area Ag to liquid flow area Al can be taken.41 Ag’ is expressed in terms of hl and Al in Equation A.Equation A. Ag = A − Al A.37 can be expressed for round pipe in terms of Equation A.38 and hg − hg ' = hl − hl' Taylor expansion of Ag’ around Ag is: A.42 99 .38.39  dA  Ag = Ag + (hl − hl' )  g   dhl  A.40 Also writing Equation A.  Ag v = vg  ' A  g ' 2 g 2     2 A.  dA  ' Ag = Ag − (hl − hl' )  − l   dhl  A.

the right hand side of this equation goes to 0. the ratio of areas in the left hand side of Equation A.43 the criterion for transition to intermittent flow from stratified flow is obtained.36. Therefore.44 can be used.44 goes to 0. 100 . Equation A. Also. the approximation presented in Equation A.     '  Ag   ρl − ρ g vg >  gAg    Ag    dA   l   ρ   g  dh     l  Where 12 A.Substituting the parameters calculated above in Equation A.44 If the equilibrium level approaches to top of the conduit.43 ' Ag Ag ≅ 1− hl dr A.

2.5 Pictures Taken During Experiments Here is presented some pictures taken during experiments for configurations 1 and 2 annular geometries at different air and water flow rates.Stratified smooth flow through configuration 1 Figure A.Stratified wavy flow through configuration 1 101 . Figure A.A.3.

4.Stratified wavy flow through configuration 1 Figure A.Figure A.5.Intermittent flow through configuration 1 102 .

7.Figure A.6.Intermittent flow through configuration 1 at high liquid and gas flow rates 103 .Intermittent flow through configuration 1 Figure A.

Intermittent flow through configuration 1 at high liquid and gas flow rates Figure A.Stratified smooth flow through configuration 2 104 .8.Figure A.9.

Stratified smooth flow through configuration 2 Figure A.10.Stratified wavy flow through configuration 2 105 .Figure A.11.

Stratified wavy flow through configuration 2 Figure A.12.Intermittent flow through configuration 2 106 .Figure A.13.

Intermittent flow through configuration 2 107 .Figure A.14.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful