See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223774674

Liquid holdup in horizontal two-phase gas—liquid flow

Article  in  Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering · August 1996

DOI: 10.1016/0920-4105(95)00069-0

CITATIONS READS

48 2,033

1 author:

Ghassan H Majeed
University of Baghdad
49 PUBLICATIONS   386 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Two-phase Fluid Flow in Pipes View project

IOT,security,lightweight cryptography ,AES View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ghassan H Majeed on 06 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 15 ( 1996) 27 l-280

Liquid holdup in horizontal two-phase gas-liquid flow

G.H. Abdul-Majeed
Computer Center, Uniuersity ofBaghdad, P.O. Box 47101, Jadiriyah, Baghdad, Iraq
Received 1 August 1995; accepted 15 October 1995

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to simplify and improve the mechanistic model developed by Taitel and Dukler (1976) for
estimating the liquid holdup in horizontal two-phase flow. An experimental study was first conducted to develop a data bank
used for evaluation and improvement. The holdup data were obtained using an air-kerosene mixture flowed through a test
section consisting of a horizontal pipe 2-in (50.8 mm) in diameter and 118 ft (36 m> long. The liquid holdup ranged from
0.009 to 0.61 and the flow patterns observed were stratified, slug and annular.
It was shown that the Taitel-Dukler model, which consists of several equations and requires an iterative method to solve,
can be accurately represented by a single explicit equation.
Based on the measured data, it was found that Taitel-Dukler model tends to overestimate liquid holdup for stratified
wavy, slug and annular flow patterns, whereas it tends to underestimate the liquid holdup for stratified smooth flow. An
empirical modification, therefore, is proposed which results in a significant improvement in predictions compared to
experimental data.
Based on statistical results, it is observed that the proposed model gives excellent results and clearly outperforms the
original model and all the existing correlations when tested against the present data (89 points) and against data from the
literature (111 points).

1. Introduction when using the Taitel-Dukler model. First, it re-

quires an iterative method to solve. Second, multiple
Several correlations have been published for pre- roots may occur in some cases (Crowley and Rothe,
dicting liquid holdup in horizontal pipes. Most of 1986; Baker et al., 1988).
these correlations are empirically developed from The purpose of this study was to simplify and
experimental data. Also, various theoretical models improve the Taitel-Dukler model. The author first
with different degrees of complexity have been pro- performed an experimental study to obtain measured
posed in the literature. Among them, the physical data for evaluation and improvement.
model developed by Taitel and Dukler (1976) has
gained great popularity. All the theoretical models
proposed later are based on this approach (Andritsos
and Hanratty, 1987; Baker et al., 1988; Xiao et al., 2. Experimental equipment and testing procedure
1990). Many investigators evaluated the Taitel-
Dukler model and found that it tended to underesti- A schematic flow diagram of the equipment used
mate holdup values. Two problems are encountered is shown in Fig. 1. The test section consisted of a

0920-4105/96/$15.00 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

SSDIO920-4105(95)00069-O
272 G.H. Ahdul-Majeed/Journal
plastic pipe with inside diameter of 2-m (50.8 mm>
and length of 118 ft (36 m>, supported along its
length in a horizontal position by angle iron sections.
Liquid holdup was measured using three pneumati-
cally actuated quick closing ball valves. Two valves
were installed at the ends of the plastic pipe, and the
third one was placed in the bypass line. The three
valves were full-opening ball valves, with inside
diameter equal to the inside diameter of the pipe, so
that the flow stream was not disturbed by passing
through the open valves. The valves were controlled
simultaneously by a single switch.
Kerosene was used as a liquid phase and air as a
gas phase. Air was supplied by a compressor rated at
7.50 Mscf/D (21.23 m3 D-l> at 120 psig (827.4
kPa). A pressure regulator was used to maintain the
pressure at 130 psig. The temperatures were read
from a thermometer. Pressure transducers and pres-
sure gauges were located at several points on the
plastic pipe.
Kerosene and air were supplied to the test line
through 3-in lines in which orifice plates and rotame-
ters were installed to measure the flow rates. Control
and measurement of the variables were made with
the aid of calibrated orifice plates and rotameters for
the air and kerosene flow rates. Calibrated dial ther-
mometers were used for measuring temperatures, and
AIR
sUppLY = DO
Fig. 1. Schematic flow diagram of the apparatus
of PetroleumScience and Engineering 15 (19961 271-280
simple gravimetric methods were utilized for the in
situ kerosene content of the test section. For each
test, air and kerosene were allowed to flow through
the separator until a steady-state condition was
reached. The pressure, temperature and flow rates
were recorded when steady-state conditions were
reached. Then the holdup valves were actuated and
the amount of liquid trapped in the test line (between
valves) was measured to obtain holdup. To get accu-
rate results, the last step was repeated at least 5
times, and the average value was then determined.
The physical properties of the kerosene were cal-
culated using the following equations, which are
based on laboratory measurements:
p, = 62.4(0.8252 - 0.000727)
p, = 3.473004exp( -0.02016T)
o, = 29.9776 - 0.13176T
where T is the temperature in “C.
The total number of measured data was 89. The
liquid holdup covered by these data ranged from
0.009 to 0.61. Based on Mandhane et al.‘s (1974)
flow pattern map, 20 points were in stratified smooth
flow, 13 in the stratified wavy flow, 33 in the slug
flow, and 23 in the annular flow. The data are
presented in Table 1.
X CHECK VALVE
frq GATE VALVE
@I PNEUMATICALLY
ORIFICE
ACTUATEDVALVE
METER
8 PRESSUREGAUGE
I; I :: =_ ,QJ TEMPERATUREGAUGE
PUMP
used by the author.
 G.H. Abdul-Majeed/Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 15 (1996) 271-280 273

3. Taitel-Dukler model Taitel and Dukler (1976) assumed that f, =fg,

and concluded that h, and E, are functions of the
The final dimensionless equation of the Taitel- parameter X only. Eq. (1) is an implicit function of
Dukler model is: h, and requires an iterative method for solution.

4. Simplification

zz
0 (1) To eliminate the problems associated with the
where the superscript (-) over a variable designates Taitel-Dukler model, an attempt was made to re-
it as dimensionless; and X is the Lockhart-Martinelli place this implicit model by a single explicit equa-
parameter (Lockhart and Martinelli, 1949) defined as tion. Eq. (1) is solved for the parameter X by
follows: assuming values of h, in the range of O-1.0. The
liquid holdups corresponding to the assumed values
of h, are calculated using Eq. (14). Using regression
(2) analysis with E, values as dependent variable and X
values as independent variable, the following equa-
For turbulent flow, m = 0.2, whereas for laminar
tions were obtained:
flow, m = 1.0. The f, and fg are the interfacial and
For turbulent flow:
gas wall friction factors, respectively. The other
dimensionless variables in Eq. (1) can be determined E, = exp( -0.9304919 + 0.5285852 R
as follows: -9.219634 X 1O-2 R2 + 9.02418 x 10m4 R4)
h, = h,/d (3) (16)
F=(2h,-1) (4) For laminar flow:
sg = cos-‘( F) (5) E, = exp( - 1.099924 + 0.6788495 R

s, = ?r - s, -0.1232191 x 1O-2 R2 - 1.778653 x 10-j R3

(6)
+ 1.626819 X 1O-3 R4) (17)
ji = (1 - qo.5 (7) where
Kg = 0.25( $ - Fs,) (8) R = ln( X)

&=0.25(~4&) Detailed calculations show that the Taitel-Dukler

(9)
model and the findings of the author give approxi-
v, = 0.25+& (10) mately the same results, with an average percent
difference of u 0.01%. Fig. 2 shows excellent
VP = 0.25~r/‘A, (11) agreement between the Taitel-Dukler model and the
0, =4x,/s, new equations. Due to their accuracy and simplicity,
(12)
the new equations are recommended to be used
Dg = 4/i/( sg + s,) (13) instead of the implicit model developed by Taitel
and Dukler.
All these variables are functions of h, only. The
liquid holdup can be determined from (Xiao et al.,
1990):
5. Modification
E = 6 - sin 4
1 2r
( 14) On deriving their model, Taitel and Dukler as-
sumed that the ratio of the interfacial to gas wall
where
friction factor <j/f,> is constant and equal to unity.
4= ~COS-I( -F) (15) It has been reported in the literature that this assump-
214 G.H. Ahdul-Majeed/ Journal of Petroleum Science and En~ineerinl: 15 (19961 273-280

Table I
Experimental liquid holdup data

EL Flow regime

-
I I .246 0.329 898.4 46.7 0.4034 slug
2 0.366 0.032 829.4 47.2 0.541 I stratified
3 20.660 0.121 277.9 47.8 0.0350 annular
4 0.892 I.531 795.7 43.3 0.5180 slug
5 0.75 I 0.982 781.2 45.0 0.505 I slug
6 7.882 0.104 374.4 46.7 0.0945 slug
7 0.344 0.006 843.2 34.4 0.31 IO stratified
8 0.958 0.402 863.9 40.6 0.4545 slug
9 0.685 0.701 919.1 44.4 0.5 I45 slug
IO 0.653 0.120 760.5 35.6 0.5188 stratified
II 0.413 0.095 767.4 42.8 0.6061 stratified
12 7.061 0.102 388.2 35.0 0. I040 \lug
I3 3.148 I .ooo X84.6 45.0 0.299 I slug
I4 18.992 0.40 I 307.5 47.2 0.077 I slug
I5 2.720 0.989 822.5 40.0 0.3494 slug
I6 12.334 0.1 I2 296.5 31.1 0.053 I annular
17 1.400 I .200 786.7 44.4 0.5406 AU&
I8 16.62 I 0.555 328.9 45.0 0.07 14 slug
I9 3.085 0.700 914.2 43.3 0.2742 slug
20 IO.291 0.301 336.5 27.8 0.1 I91 <lug
21 6.149 0.350 775.7 35.0 0.1527 \1ug
22 0.787 0.03 I 766.0 44.4 0.3364 stratified
23 0.733 0. I28 752.9 37.8 0.4619 stratified
24 0.315 0.004 810.1 35.0 0.3527 stratified
2s 0.459 0.102 768.8 42.2 0.5225 stratified
26 I.084 0.109 547.4 46.7 0.3655 stratified
27 I.951 I.321 590.2 41.1 0.4020 slug
28 1.064 0.710 649.5 35.6 0.4617 slug
29 0.196 0.002 426.8 3x.3 0.3636 stratified
30 1.022 0.991 597.8 45.6 0.47 I8 slug
31 6.612 I .o IO 384.0 36.7 0.2138 slug
32 0.59 I 0.055 549.5 42.2 0.4503 stratified
33 0.621 0. I I I 549.5 38.9 0.5205 stratified
34 0.993 0.1 I2 527.4 35.6 0.4126 stratified
35 3.383 1.000 863.9 32.6 0.3214 alug
36 1.203 1.042 S38.5 43.3 0.434 I slug
37 13.01 I 0.121 377.1 3 I .7 0.062 I annular
38 0.634 0.095 605.4 46.7 0.5046 stratified
39 15.820 0.52 I 349.6 46.7 0.1030 Slug
40 22.067 0.045 246. I 42.2 0.0 159 annular
41 13.023 0.3 1 I 410.9 45.6 0.0979 slug
42 I 1.545 0.410 452.3 40.6 0.1 I I9 slug
43 10.925 0.306 47 I .6 40.0 0.1135 slug
44 IS.712 0.0062 274.4 43.3 0.0092 wave
45 IS.821 0.035 282.7 46. I 0.0303 wave
46 33.264 1.825 429.5 35.6 0.0920 slug
47 48.537 0.100 197.2 47.2 0.0130 annular
48 48.908 0.179 211.0 42.2 0.0187 annular
49 47.665 0.323 246.8 45.0 0.0265 annular
50 3.334 0.324 512.3 42.2 0.2567 slug
51 17.861 0.01 I 237.9 38.9 0.0 109 wave
52 3.412 0.119 569.5 38.9 0.1910 slug
 G.H. Abdul-Majeed/Journal ofPetroleum Science and Engineering 15 (1996) 271-280 215

Table 1 (continued)
No. “v v,, El Flow regime
(In s-1) (m s- ‘)

53 12.225 0.221 341.3 44.4 0.0890 slug

54 6.553 0.009 307.5 44.4 0.0284 stratified
55 2.119 0.044 556.4 46.1 0.1891 stratified
56 I 1.670 0.058 304.7 45.6 0.04554 wave
51 15.330 0.092 287.5 41.1 0.0433 annular
58 16.771 0.056 289.6 46.7 0.0274 wave
59 19.154 0.037 253.0 37.2 0.0 169 annular
60 18.555 0.337 248.2 44.4 0.0725 annular
61 29.824 0.395 212.3 46.7 0.0465 annular
62 6.907 0.057 408.2 47.2 0.0806 wave
63 14.133 0.037 241.3 45.6 0.0261 wave
64 39.144 0.041 230.3 45.6 0.0114 annular
65 1I.833 1.144 347.5 45.0 0.1504 SlUg

66 16.333 0.982 273.1 43.3 0.1290 slug

67 13.444 0.502 268.9 42.8 0.1166 slug

68 20.225 0.391 280.6 43.9 0.0716 annular

69 38.187 0.112 255.1 41.7 0.0171 annular
70 44.111 0.331 279.9 38.3 0.0266 annular
71 43.227 0.560 294.4 40.6 0.0363 annular
72 5.334 0.0274 231.7 47.8 0.0710 wave
73 10.607 0.091 265.4 48.3 0.0680 wave
74 15.300 0.018 293.1 48.9 0.0170 wave
75 14.780 0.06 1 298.5 34.4 0.0410 wave
16 14.510 0.040 293.7 40.0 0.0310 wave
17 2.890 0.006 437.1 42.8 0.0410 stratified
78 1.600 0.0061 431.6 37.0 0.0910 stratified
79 10.400 0.520 424.0 38.3 0.1420 slug
80 I 1.200 0.0061 216.5 41.1 0.0102 wave
81 1.800 0.058 548.8 35.6 0.2900 stratified
82 1.010 0.0062 554.3 47.2 0.1330 stratified
83 22.010 0.0305 211.0 43.3 0.0190 annular
84 30.880 0.09 I 282.0 38.9 0.0245 annular
85 39.140 0.043 231.7 42.8 0.0110 annular
87 45.870 0.677 248.9 40.0 0.0520 annular
88 30.600 0.305 286.8 43.3 0.0570 annular
89 27.550 0.240 293.7 37.2 0.0350 annular

tion resulted in underestimation of liquid holdup and,
hence, in pressure drop for stratified flow (Xiao et
al., 1990). Several alternative correlations, therefore,
were proposed in the literature (Lopes and Dukler,
1986; Andritsos and Hanratty, 1987; Baker et al.,
1988) for estimating this ratio. These correlations,
however, require a trial-and-error solution and, thus,
increase the degree of complexity of the Taitel-
Dukler model.
In order to allow for the effects of a wavy inter-
face without giving up the simplicity of the new
equations ( Eq. (16) and Eq. (17)), the following
equation is proposed to predict the true liquid holdup:
(18)
The theoretical holdup value can be determined from
either Eq. (16) or Eq. (171, and C is the correction
factor to account for the errors due to using <f,/f,>
= 1. Using Eq. (1 S), the correction factor is calcu-
lated for each data point (89 values). Analysis of
results shows that the correction factor appears to be
276 G.H. Abdd-Mujeed/
Lockhart-Matiinelli X Parameter
Fig. 2. Comparison between Taitel-Dukler model and that devel-
oped by the author.
related to the type of flow regime. For stratified
smooth flow, the correction factors are greater than
unity. For other flow regimes (stratified wavy, slug
and annular), the correction factors required to sat-
isfy the measured E, data are always smaller than
unity. This leads to the conclusion that the Taitel-
Dukler model (with the assumption of J/f, = 1)
tends to underestimate E, for stratified smooth flow,
and to overestimate E, for stratified wavy, slug and
annular flow regimes. Based on Eq. (l), E, is in-
versely related to the ratio j;/,&, as shown in Fig. 3.
Thus, it is expected that the actual values of j;/.fi
for stratified smooth flow are, in general. < I .O,
Fig. 3. Liquid holdup as a function of f; / ji.
Journal of’ Petroleum Sciencr and Engineering 15 (1996) 271-280
Fig. 4. Relationship between correction factor and (V\? V,,) for the
present data.
whereas for other regimes they are > I .O. Many
investigators reported that the values of the ratio
f,/f, for stratified wavy, slug and annular flow
regimes, are always greater than unity (Wallis, 1969;
Chen and Spedding, 1981; Andritsos and Hanratty,
1987; Tronconi, 1990).
Because the correction factor values are found to
be dependent on the flow regime, it is necessary to
correlate these values with the parameters that con-
trol the flow regime. Most of the existing flow-reg-
ime maps reveal that the flow regime can be accu-
rately predicted by the superficial gas and liquid
velocities. In this study, the values of f,/,fg ratio
required to satisfy the measured E, data increase
with increasing product of the superficial gas and
liquid velocities (V&V,,>. Therefore, it is expected
that an inverse relationship exist between the correc-
tion factor and ( V’gV,,). Fig. 4 is a plot of these data.
The solid line is the best fit, which can be repre-
sented by the following empirical equation:
c = 0.528( ~ev\,)P”~?10’2’ (19)
6. Calculation procedure
Based on the equations developed in this study,
liquid holdup can be estimated from the following
procedure:
 G.H. Abdul-Majeed/ Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 15 (I9961 271-280 211

(1) Determine the parameter X from Eq. (2). standard deviation, SD. The definitions of these pa-
(2) Obtain the correction factor C from Eq. (19). rameters are:
(3) Determine the theoretical liquid holdup from
(estimated) - (measured)
Eq. (16) or Eq. (17). PE = x 100
(4) Using the obtained value of C, determine the (measured)
true liquid holdup from Eq. (18).
CPE,
APE=‘=
n
7. Evaluation

The validity of the proposed model was tested AAPE = i=l

using two sets of data: the present data (89 points) n
and Minami and Brill (1987) data (111 points). Most 2 I.5

of the existing correlations are included for compari-

n 2 (PEi)2 -
son purposes. The correlations considered are those i= 1
of Armand (1946), Hughmark and Pressburg (1961); SD =
n2
Hughmark (1962); Eaton and Brown (19671, Guzhov
et al. (19671, Beggs and Brill (1971), Gregory et al.
(1978), Brill et al. (1981), Chen and Spedding (1981,
1983), Mukherjee and Brill (19831, and Minami and
Brill (1987). Although the last two correlations were
developed for vertical flow, they are widely used for 8. Present data
horizontal flow. The statistical parameters used in
the evaluation are the average percent error, APE; As mentioned earlier, data obtained by the author
the absolute average percent error, AAPE; and the cover stratified, slug and annular flow regimes. Sta-

Table 2
Statistical results using present measured data
Prediction method APE AAPE SD
Eaton and Brown (1967) -40.83 44.56 29.14
Brill et al. (1981) - 50.96 82.76 160.87
Gregory et al. (1978) 494.86 494.86 656.15
Mukherjee and Brill(l983) - 34.58 41.55 36.82
Minami and Brill ( 1987) (method 1) 1.26 13.61 19.15
Minami and Brill(1987) (method 2) 4.60 14.84 17.39
Beggs and Brill ( 197 1) 7.06 25.58 31.76
Guahov et al. (I 967) 316.33 322.56 459.77
Hughmark and Pressburg (1961) 14.87 78.22 116.32
Hughmark ( 1962) 63.41 75.54 92.84
Taitel and Dukler (1976) 100.39 108.02 95.82
Armand (I 946) (slug data) 49.74 5 1.47 45.47
Chen and Spedding (1981) (annular data) 33.72 35.85 30.97
Chen and Spedding (1983) (annular data) 130.24 130.24 51.15

Proposed (all data) -0.38 10.30 13.30

Proposed (slug data) - 6.37 8.46 9.43
Proposed (annular data) 9.56 16.19 16.05
278 G. H. Abdul-M&d/ Journal of Petroleum Science and Eqineering I5 ( I9961 271-280

tistical results are listed in Table 2. This table reveals

several important points:
(1) The proposed modification causes a signifi- - Eq. 19

cant improvement in the performance of the Taital- .

* *
Dukler model. The proposed model yields statistical 2.0 -

results - 80% lower than those obtained by using

the original model.
(2) For the entire data, the proposed model shows
the best performance compared to the other correla-
tions considered.
(3) For slug flow, the modified model yields
results much better than those obtained by the Ar-
mand correlation. Also, for annular flow it gives
results superior to those obtained by using Chen-
Spedding correlations.
(4) The correlations of Eaton and Brown (1967),
Brill et al. (1981) and Mukherjee and Brill (1983)
underestimate liquid holdup, whereas all others over-
estimate the holdup data.
9. Minami-Brill data
Minami and Brill (1987) data were obtained using
air-water and air-kerosene two-phase mixtures. The
liquid holdup ranged from 0.009 to 0.45. Using
Mandhane et al.‘s (1974) flow map, 5.5 points fell in
the stratified smooth flow region, 26 in the stratified
wavy flow, and 30 points in the slug flow. Minami
and Brill used these data to develop their own corre-
lations (correlations 1 and 2). The statistical results
Fig. 5. Relationship between correction factor and (V,BV,,)
Minami-Brill data.
of the proposed and existing correlations are listed in
Table 3. The model proposed by the author gives
results superior to those obtained by using Minami-
Brill correlations and all others considered. For slug
Bow, the modified model yields results much better
than those obtained by using the Armand correlation.
Also, Table 3 shows that the correlations of Eaton
and Brown and Mukherjee and Brill tend to underes-
timate holdup, whereas other correlations overesti-
mate.
The values of the correction factor for Minami-
Brill data were calculated using Eq. (18) and plotted
versus (V&V,,). as shown in Fig. 5. Minami-Brill

Table 3
Statistical results using Minami-Brill data
Prediction method APE AAPE SD

Eaton and Brown (I 967) -48.10 4R.10 20.73

Brill et al. (198I) 34.00 s9.00 97.50
Gregory et al. (I 978) 722 722 860
Mukhejee and Brill(1983) - 35.70 39.10 3 I.35
Minami and Brill (1987) (method I) 4.35 14.6.5 19.35
Minami and Brill (1987) (method 2) -4.64 15.74 18.47
Beggs and Brill(1971) - 10.70 26.26 30.70
Guzhov ct al. (1967) 252. IO 254 434.60
Hughmark and Pressburg (1961) 2.60 72.70 IO9.40
Hughmark (1962) 51.10 66.40 IO2.70
Taitel and Dukler (1976) 40.56 56.X4 59.39

Proposed I .46 13.93 17.00

 G.H. Abdul-Majeed/Joournal
data show the same trend as those shown by the
present data. Also, there is a good agreement be-
tween Minami-Brill data and values obtained by
using Eq. (19).
10. Conclusions
(1) It has been shown that the implicit model
developed by Taitel and Dukler can be accurately
represented by a single explicit equation.
(2) Based on experimental data, the Taitel and
Dukler model tends to underestimate the holdup for
stratified smooth flow and tends to overestimate the
holdup for stratified wavy, slug and annular flows.
(3) A new empirical modification is proposed
which caused a significant improvement in the per-
formance of the original model.
(4) The proposed model contains no complex
dimensionless expressions and is, therefore, easier to
apply than the original model.
(5) The proposed model is found to be applicable
to stratified (smooth and wavy), slug and annular
flow regimes.
(6) The proposed model shows excellent results
and clearly outperforms all the existing correlations,
when tested against the present measured data and
against data from the literature.
11. Notation
A area occupied by fluid, m* (ft*)
C liquid holdup correction factor
D hydraulic diameter, m (ft)
liquid holdup, dimensionless
F
h
friction factor
equilibrium elevation, m (ft)
s wetted periphery, m (ft)
V velocity, m s- ’ (ft s- ’ >
X Lockhart-Martinelli parameter, dimension-
less
Greek symbols:
gas viscosity, Pa s (cP)
oil viscosity, Pa s (cP)
gas density, kg rnp3 (lbm ftC3)
liquid density, kg rnp3 (lbm ftC3)
of Petroleum Science and Engineering 15 (19%) 271-280 219
Subscripts:
g gas phase
interface
; liquid phase
S superficial
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Dr. James P. Brill of
Tulsa University for his suggestions and help.
References
Andritsos, N. and Hanratty, T.J., 1987. Influence of interfacial
waves in stratified gas liquid flows. AIChE J. (Mar.), 33:
44-453.
Armand, A.A., 1946. The resistance during the movement of a
two-phase system in horizontal pipes. Izv. VT1 1, AERE
Trans., 13: 16-23.
Baker, A., Nielsen, K. and Gabb, A., 1988. Pressure loss, liquid
holdup calculations developed. Oil Gas J. (Mar.), 11: 55-59.
Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P., 1971. A study of two-phase flow in
inclined pipes. J. Pet. Technol. (May), 4: 607-617.
Brill, J.P., Schmidt, Z.R., Coberly, W.A., Herring, J.D. and
Moore, D.W., 1981. Analysis of two-phase tests in large
diameter flow lines in Prudhoe Bay field. Sot. Pet. Eng. J.
(June), 3: 363-378.
Chen, J.J. and Spedding, P.C., 1981. An extension of the Lock-
hart-Martinelli theory of two-phase pressure drop and holdup.
Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 6: 659-675.
Chen, J.J. and Spedding, P.C., 1983. An analysis of holdup in
horizontal two-phase gas-liquid flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow,
2: 147-159.
Crowley, C.J. and Rothe, P.H., 1986. State of the art. Report on
Multiphase Methods for Gas and Oil Pipelines. Vol. 3, Theo-
retical Supplement, prepared for Project PR-172-609 of
Pipeline Research Committee, A.G.A. (Dec.), 44 pp.
Eaton, B.A. and Brown, K.E., 1967. The prediction of flow
patterns liquid holdup and pressure losses occurring during
continuous two-phase flow in horizontal pipelines. J. Pet.
Technol. (June), 12: 815-828.
Gregory, G.A., Nicholson, M.K. and Aziz, K., 1978. Correlation
of the liquid volume fraction in the slug for horizontal gas
liquid slug flow. Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 4: 33-39.
Guzhov, A.I., Mamayev, V.A. and Odishariya, G.E., 1967. A
study of transportation in gas liquid systems. 10th Int. Gas
Congr., Hamburg, 8 pp.
Hughmark, G.A., 1962. Holdup in gas liquid flow. Chem. Eng.
Prog., 58: 62-64.
Hughmark, G.A. and Pressburg, B.S., 1961. Holdup and pressure
drop with gas liquid flow in a vertical pipe. AIChE J. (Dec.),
7: 677-680.
280 G.H. Ahdul-Majeed/ Journal qfPetroleum
Lockhart, R.W. and Martinelli, R.C., 1949. Proposed correlation
of data for isothermal two-phase, two-component flow in
pipes. Chem. Eng. Prog. (Jan.), 45: 39-43.
Lopes, J.C.B. and Dukler, A.E., 1986. Droplet entrainment in
vertical annular flow and its contribution to momentum trans-
fer. AIChE J. (Sept.), 6: 1500-1515.
Mandhane, J.M., Gregory, G.A. and Azir. K.. 1974. A flow
pattern map for gas liquid flow in horizontal pipes. Int. J.
Multiphase Flow (Oct.), I : 537-553.
Minami. K. and Brill, J.P., 1987. Liquid holdup in wet gas
pipelines. Sot. Pet. Eng. Prod. Eng. (Feb.), 5: 36-44.
Mukherjee, H. and Brill, J.P.. 1983. Liquid holdup correlations for
inclined two-phase flow. J. Pet. Technol. (May), 4: 1003-1008.
View publication stats
Science and Engineering 15 (19961 271-280
Taitel, V. and Dukler, A.E., 1976. A theoretical approach to the
Lockhart-Martinelli correlation for stratified flow. Int. J. Mul-
tiphase Flow, 2: 591-595.
Tronconi, E.. 1990. Prediction of slug frequency in horizontal
two-phase slug flow. AIChE J. (May), 7: 701-709.
Wallis. G.B.. 1969. One Dimensional Two Phase Flow. McGraw-
Hill. New York. NY, 385 pp.
Xiao. J.J.. Shoham, 0. and Brill, J.P.. 1990. A comprehensive
mechanistic model for two-phase flow in pipelines. 65th Annu.
Tech. Conf., Sot. Pet. Eng., New Orleans. LA, Pap. SPE
20631. 14 pp.