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

net/publication/327108617

Influence of a sudden expansion on slug flow characteristics in a horizontal

two-phase flow: a pressure drop fluctuations analysis

Article  in  Meccanica · October 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s11012-018-0892-5

CITATIONS READS

8 247

4 authors:

Abderraouf Arabi Yacine Salhi

Sonatrach University of Science and Technology Houari Boumediene
11 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   84 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

El-Khider Si-Ahmed Jack Legrand

University of Nantes University of Nantes
54 PUBLICATIONS   334 CITATIONS    355 PUBLICATIONS   8,197 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Virus induced gene silencing View project

THESIS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yacine Salhi on 04 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Meccanica
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-018-0892-5 (0123456789().,-volV)
(0123456789().,-volV)
Influence of a sudden expansion on slug flow characteristics
in a horizontal two-phase flow: a pressure drop fluctuations
analysis
A. Arabi . Y. Salhi . E. K. Si-Ahmed . J. Legrand
Received: 2 December 2017 / Accepted: 14 August 2018
 Springer Nature B.V. 2018
Abstract Experimental investigations were con-
ducted to study the evolution of air/water slug flow
characteristics through a horizontal sudden expansion
having a ratio of rA = 0.444. A series of acquisition of
differential pressure upstream and downstream were
carried out leading to statistical as well as spectral
analyses. The influences of both liquid and gas
superficial velocities on flow behavior as well as
standard deviation were studied. Substantial modifi-
cations of two-phase flow distribution were reported
downstream the singularity with a quantitative reduc-
tion in standard deviation. Besides the fact that the
slug flow regime didn’t persist downstream the
singularity for low values of superficial phasic-veloc-
ities, the latter (J‘ and Jg ) seem to have no noticeable
effects downstream the expansion. Reduction of slug
frequency between upstream and downstream the
singularity was also observed.
Keywords Two-phase flow  Differential pressure 
Sudden expansion  Slug flow  PDF  PSD
A. Arabi  Y. Salhi  E. K. Si-Ahmed (&)
USTHB Physics’ Faculty Dept. Fluid Mechanics and
Energetics, LMFTA, Algiers, Algeria
e-mail: el-khider.si-ahmed@univ-nantes.fr
E. K. Si-Ahmed  J. Legrand
University of Nantes, GEPEA, CNRS, UMR-6144, 37 Bd
de l’université BP406, 44602 Saint-Nazaire, France
1 Introduction
Gas–liquid two-phase flows are encountered in a wide
range of different chemical reactors, power plants and
transportation pipelines in oil and gas industry. These
flows are mostly subjected to singularities, generating
important head losses and affect the flow patterns.
Among these singularities, sudden enlargement cor-
responds to a common case. Most studies focused on
the evolution of static wall pressure as well as the void
fraction, both in macro-pipes (Mendler [1], Janssen
and Kervinen [2], Velasco [3], Ahmed [4], Salhi [5])
and mini-pipes (Abdelall et al. [6], Chen et al. [7]).
Various theoretical and semi-empirical models, for the
prediction of the pressure drop, were developed. Some
were based on momentum conservation equation
(Lottes [8], Chisholm and Sutherland [9], Ahmed
et al. [10]), the energy conservation equation
(Richardson [11], Delhaye [12]) or from the evolution
of kinetic energy into static pressure (Wadle [13]).
Some studies focused on a particular flow regime;
for instance, Aloui et al. [14, 15] investigated the
bubbly flow in the presence of a flat horizontal sudden
enlargement with an aspect ratio r = 0.444. The
pressure loss and the local parameters such as the void
fraction, the size and the velocity of the bubbles were
reported. They found that the evolution of the pressure
along a flat sudden expansion is similar to that
obtained in axisymmetrical sudden expansion. The
slip velocities were, also, very high compared to the
values obtained with bubbly flow in regular pipe; the
123

bubbles’ size decreased along their trajectories. Sch-
midt and Friedel [16] studied a pressure loss in the
presence of an annular-mist flow and developed a
model for the prediction of singular pressure drop.
Yang et al. [17] were concerned by the flow regime
variations, in case of a vertical pipe, through a sudden
enlargement of r = 0.36. The authors found a transi-
tion from annular to churn flow downstream the
expansion.
Of all the flow patterns encountered in field
operations, slug flow is dominant in horizontal and
near horizontal pipelines with and without singulari-
ties (Mandhane et al. [18], Taitel and Dukler [19], Kim
and Ghajar [20]). Slug flow is characterized by an
alternate flow of liquid and gas pockets. This inter-
mittence generates a hydrodynamic instability, result-
ing in temporal fluctuations of parameters including
local pressure, void fraction and velocity fields.
Consequently, pipe erosion–corrosion phenomena
are amplified (Thaker and Banerjee [21]); the pipe
aging is then accelerated and could possibly lead to its
destruction (Ahmed et al. [22]).
Understanding time-dependent parameter in inter-
mittent flow, such as pressure and void fraction, is very
important. Neglecting the fluctuation of these param-
eters is acknowledged to be a departure from the
physical reality (Wang and Shodji [23]). The analysis
of these fluctuations is carried out by means of
statistical methods as well as frequency analysis
(Drahos et al. [24, 25]). The methods of deterministic
chaos analysis of wall pressure fluctuations were used
by the same author [25] to characterize the intermittent
flow patterns in a horizontal pipe. The occurrence of
chaotic behavior revealed well the plug–slug transi-
tion predicted by other authors.
Among the parameters explored in slug flows the
slug frequency, defined as the number of liquid slugs
passing per unit time at a fixed position of the pipe, is
one of the most studied intrinsic parameter. The slug
frequency influences directly the pressure drop
(Greskovitch and Shrier [26]). Moreover, the intrinsic
frequency of this type of flow (few Hertz) can resonate
with the frequency of the pipe which can lead to the
destruction of the latter (Kabiri-Samani et al. [27]). It
should be noted that many correlations, for the
prediction of the slug frequency, are reported in the
literature (Gregory and Scott [28], Taitel and Duckler
[29], Zabaras [30], Fossa et al. [31]).
123
Meccanica
A substantial amount of research work focusing on
slug flow has been achieved, whether in a straight pipe
(Belgacem et al. [32], Al-Kayiem et al. [33]) or with
the presence of singularities, such as bend (Zhao et al.
[34]), orifice (da Costa Maidana et al. [35]) and
T-junction (Saieed et al. [36]). However, studies on the
slug flow through a sudden enlargement are still
lacking. This work was undertaken to provide flow
characteristics, including statistical information, of
two-phase flow, especially slug flow, crossing a
sudden expansion. It aims on examining the influence
of such singularity on this flow regime by means of its
characteristic fluctuations. A series of differential
pressure measurements, in a horizontal pipe, were
carried out upstream and downstream a singularity of
aspect ratio rA = 0.444. Statistics as well as frequency
analyses were conducted on the time series of the
differential pressure upstream and downstream the
singularity. The influence of the phasic superficial
velocities was investigated.
2 Experimental facility and measurement
techniques
The experiments were performed in a two-phase
water–air test loop sketched in Fig. 1. The same
experimental device was used by Belgacem et al. [32].
A 14 m long test facility, built in PMMA to allow
optical access, was used. It is adapted to generate a
gas–liquid two-phase flow concurrently. The working
fluids were water and air. The loop operates in closed
circuit for the liquid component which is provided by a
centrifugal Noryle pump, while air is supplied by a
compressor. Gas flow measurements were performed
by two rotameters AALBORG VMRP010092 and
VMRP010083 type. The liquid rate was measured by
an ultrasonic flow meter type GE PT878.
The pipe was made of several 2 m long flanged
tubes. Care was taken to ensure that the bore was
continuous (i.e. without steps at the flange positions).
Both fluids air and water entered the pipe through a
cylindrical mixing chamber. At the inlet, stratified
flow conditions were generated by a convergent
nozzle. The test section was characterized by a sudden
area expansion with inner diameters of 0.04 m and
0.06 m respectively upstream and downstream the
singularity, giving an area ratio of 0.444. The singu-
larity was located at 187.5 D from the mixer.
Meccanica
Fig. 1 Experimental set-up
Four-millimeter diameter pressure tapings were
drilled and mounted down the pipe surface in the test
section. Two Freescale MPX-2010 DP differential
pressure transducers (with a range of 0–10 kPa) were
used. The data recordings were achieved via a Picolog
ADC20 card.
The pressure drops were measured between loca-
tions of 33 cm and 101 cm upstream and between
50 cm and 150 cm downstream the singularity. The
sampling time was 30 s for a frequency of 200 Hz.
3 Results and discussion
The investigations were performed for forty-two
 
couples j‘ ; jg of liquid and gas superficial velocities
as follows: 0:239 ms  jl  0:398 ms and
m m
1:061 s  jg  2:387 s .
3.1 Flow regime map
The flow pattern was first identified for each setting
 
j‘ ; jg on flow map of Mandhane et al. [18] upstream
(Fig. 2) and downstream (Fig. 3) the singularity.
Figure 2 shows that most of the experimental points
belong to the slug flow zone in the flow map of
Mandhane et al. [18]. This flow pattern is distin-
guished from the plug flow by the presence of gas
bubbles in the liquid slug. This figure, despites some
slight discrepancies between the experimentally
observed transition lines and those of Mandhane
et al. [18], the ranges of superficial gas and liquid
velocities in which this flow pattern was predominant
were similar. These slight offsets between the
recorded points the Mandhane’s map could be related
AR : Air Rotameters
C : Compressor
M : Mixer
ST: Separator Tank
WF: Water
Flowmeter
WP: Water Pump
WR: Water reservoir
ΔP : Differential
Pressure Transducer
to the experiment’s conditions as well as the inner pipe
diameter. Downstream the singularity (Fig. 3), for low
liquid superficial velocity value, the slug flow didn’t
persist after crossing the sudden expansion, the liquid
slug breaks up forming a wave which does not touch
the upper part of the cross section. For a majority of
studied cases, the slug flow persists.
3.2 Pressure drop signals
The exclusive use of a visual observation to determine
flow patterns has the drawback of being subjective.
Visual observation is undoubtedly a major reason of
discrepancies for researchers who have recorded
different flow regimes under essentially similar con-
ditions, especially for high flows of gas where the
phases become hardly perceptible due to the strong
aeration of the slugs (Roman et al. [37]). Therefore,
the development of simple quantitative tools to
distinguish between flows was considered necessary.
In this work, visual observations were supple-
mented by an analysis of pressure drop fluctuations
signals according to the method of Weisman et al.
[38]. Slug flows have typical pressure traces. Slugs can
be identified from the pressure signal by a pressure
drop trace with regularly spaced peaks.
As pointed out by Kadri et al. [39], a noteworthy
phenomenon that has been observed with the present
experimental study, upstream the sudden expansion, is
the appearance of two types of slugs: regular long
slugs and short slugs, called hydrodynamic slug.
Regular long slug can be identified from the pressure
signal by a pressure drop trace, with regularly spaced
peaks.
According to Weisman et al. [38], the passive
regions between the peaks were at least twice the
123
 Meccanica

Fig. 2 Flow regime map

upstream sudden expansion

Fig. 3 Flow regime map

downstream sudden
expansion

length (covered twice the time period) of the peaks. At
first, as we can see the number of peaks is substantially
lower downstream compared to those recorded
upstream the singularity for Figs. 4a–c and 5a–c.
Moreover, Fig. 4a–c show signals of pressure drop
upstream and downstream the sudden expansion for a
constant upstream gas superficial velocity (Jg-
= 1.061 m/s) for three values of the liquid superficial
velocity J‘. For instance, the upstream signal in Fig. 4a
(J‘ = 0.239 m/s) is the distinctive pressure trace of
slug flow as reported by Weisman et al. [38].
Nevertheless, downstream the singularity, the signal

123
Meccanica

Fig. 4 Differential pressure 5000

signals upstream and upstream
4000
downstream of the sudden downstream
expansion for different 3000 Jl = 0.239 m/s
upstream liquid superficial

Pressure drop (Pa)

velocities (Jg = 1.061 m/s) 2000

1000

-1000

-2000

-3000

-4000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
(a)

5000

4000
upstream
downstream
3000 Jl = 0.292 m/s
Pressure drop (Pa)

2000

1000

-1000

-2000

-3000

-4000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
(b)

5000

4000
upstream
downstream
3000 Jl = 0.398 m/s
Pressure drop (Pa)

2000

1000

-1000

-2000

-3000

-4000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
(c)

123
 Meccanica

Fig. 5 Differential pressure 5000

signals upstream and upstream
4000
downstream of the sudden downstream
expansion for different 3000 Jg = 1.326 m/s
upstream gas superficial

Pressure drop (Pa)

velocities (J‘ = 0.318 m/s) 2000

1000

-1000

-2000

-3000

-4000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
(a)

5000

4000 upstream
downstream
3000 Jg = 1.591 m/s
Pressure drop (Pa)

2000

1000

-1000

-2000

-3000

-4000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
(b)

5000

4000 upstream
downstream
3000 Jg = 2.122 m/s
Pressure drop (Pa)

2000

1000

-1000

-2000

-3000

-4000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
(c)

123
Meccanica
contained small peaks with short amplitudes repre-
senting the passage of small waves which do not touch
the wall. The non-existence of peaks revealed the non-
persistence of the slug regime downstream the singu-
larity. The slugs broke down when passing the
singularity forming small waves which do not reach
the upper part of the pipe. As the superficial velocity of
the liquid increases, the process for creating slugs
becomes stochastic (Woods et al. [40]). As a result, the
spacing between two successive slugs becomes irreg-
ular leading to occurrence of hydrodynamic slug as
depicted by the signals in Fig. 4b and c. An inspection
of Fig. 4b, c suggests a great sensitivity of flow pattern
to J‘. For values of J‘ = 0.292 m/s and J‘ = 0.398 m/s,
the peaks were more prominent downstream the
singularity revealing the persistence of the slug flow.
One should note that for J‘ equals to 0.292 m/s, a
hydraulic jump was observed downstream the expan-
sion. When the liquid at high velocity (Fig. 4b) flows
into a zone of lower velocity, a slight sudden rise
occurred at the liquid interface due to the abrupt
deceleration of the liquid. The liquid holdup near the
mixing zone of the singularity increased slowly with
time inducing an acceleration of the gas-phase and
small disturbances at the interface of the stratified flow
were generated. While the gas holdup decreased, the
small waves increased in amplitude until a large wave
reached the upper wall pipe, producing a single slug of
liquid that propagated along the test section, as
revealed by the presence of peaks in the pressure drop
signal.
Figure 5 shows the pressure drop signals of the flow
upstream and downstream the expansion for different
gas superficial velocities with a constant liquid
superficial velocity (J‘ = 0.318 m/s). As revealed by
Fig. 4a–c the number of peaks in the signal upstream
the expansion is higher than the number of peaks
downstream. Increasing gas superficial velocities does
not play a major role on the slug formation compared
to the increase of the liquid superficial velocities as
reported by Vaze and Banerjee [41]. Moreover,
increasing Jg showed that the slug regime recorded
upstream the singularity evolved into a pseudo-slug
regime downstream the latter (Lin and Hanratty [42],
Thaker and Banerjee [43]). Upstream the singularity,
small peaks appeared on the liquid film, indicating a
pseudo slug: a sub-regime of the slug flow character-
ized also by the intermittency of both phases with
liquid plugs blocking momentarily the conduct and the
waves do not touch the top of the pipe (Lin and
Hanratty [42]). According to these authors, slugs can
be recognized from pseudo-slugs by examining the
amplitude of the pressure fluctuation. However, in
some cases, especially when gas flow rate is high, the
distinction is not straightforward. In these cases,
pseudo-slugs bridge the pipe temporarily followed
by waves that do not touch the top of the pipe.
Therefore, significant pressure fluctuations are
observed, in the film liquid region. Since the blockage
is only transitory, the pressure is not sustained for the
whole duration of the existence of the pseudo-slug,
such as for slug cases.
3.3 PDF signals of pressure drop
The Probability Density Functions (PDF) expresses
the frequency occurrence of a pressure value in a time
series. Jones and Zuber [44] suggested that the flow
pattern could be identified depending on the shape of
the PDF. Costigan and Whalley [45] carried out an
extensive work to link specific PDF signatures with
flow pattern configurations. The shape of PDF can be
used as a tool to identify the flow patterns.
Figure 6a–c depict the PDF signals of a differential
pressure drop upstream and downstream the sudden
expansion for three values of the liquid superficial
velocities while maintaining a constant gas superficial
velocity (Jg = 1.061 m/s). For J‘ = 0.239 m/s,
(Fig. 6a) the shape of the PDF is characterized by a
unimodal distribution with a narrow single peak
upstream the singularity. This single peak is a
signature of a slug flow (Luo et al. [46]). Downstream
the expansion, the absence of peaks revealed a
stratified flow regime: the slugs vanished. As the
liquid superficial velocity increases the pressure time
series exhibits a number of peaks occurring periodi-
cally. The PDF is then characterized by a slightly
shorter peak upstream Fig. 6b (Jg = 1.061 m/s and
J‘ = 0.292 m/s) and vice versa downstream; the peaks
become wider as J‘ increases Fig. 6c (Jg = 1.061 m/s
and J‘ = 0.398 m/s). This remark does not hold when
increasing Jg (see Fig. 7).
Figure 7a–c show the PDF signals of differential
pressure drop upstream and downstream the sudden
expansion for different gas superficial velocities for a
constant liquid superficial velocity (J‘ = 0.318 m/s).
One should note, that the shape of the PDF is
characterized by a unimodal distribution both
123
 Meccanica

40 40

upstream upstream
35 35
downstream downstream
Jl = 0.239 m/s Jl = 0.292 m/s
30 30

25 25

PDF (%)
PDF (%)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0

-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Pressure drop (Pa) Pressure drop (Pa)

(a) (b)

40

upstream
35
downstream
Jl = 0.398 m/s
30

25
PDF (%)

20

15

10

-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Pressure drop (Pa)
(c)
Fig. 6 PDF signals of differential pressure drop upstream and downstream of the sudden expansion for different upstream liquid
superficial velocities (Jg = 1.061 m/s)

upstream and downstream the expansion. This reveals For other couples of (J‘, Jg) the reappearance of the
the presence of a slug unit regime flow on either side of slugs downstream the enlargement is followed by an
the singularity. increase in the maximum pressure drop. Further, in
contrast with the upstream region of the expansion, the
3.4 Maximum differential pressure superficial velocity of the gas does not seem to have a
great influence on the pressure drop downstream the
The maximum pressure differences upstream and singularity.
downstream the singularity were plotted as a function Figure 9 displays the variation of the maximum
of the gas superficial velocities for different values of pressure drop as function of the liquid superficial
J‘ (Fig. 8). It is noticed that upstream the singularity, velocities for different gas superficial velocities.
the maximum pressure drop increases with the gas Upstream the singularity, an increase in the liquid
superficial velocity as reported by Luo et al. [46] in superficial velocity does not seem to have a great
case of a regular pipe. For Jg = 2.122 m/s, the effect on the evolution of the pressure drop. This is
maximum pressure drop decreases upstream the consistent with the results found by Luo et al. [46] in a
singularity before rising, this is due to the transition straight pipe for low gas phase flow velocities.
from slug flow to pseudo-slug flow. Downstream the Downstream the expansion, the increase of the
singularity, for cases where the slug flow does not superficial velocity of the liquid phase doesn’t have
persist (J‘ = 0.239 m/s and low values of Jg), the any effect on the maximum pressure drop.
maximum pressure drop is low (less than 1000 Pa).

123
Meccanica

40 40

upstream upstream
35 35
downstream downstream
Jg = 1.326 m/s Jg = 1.591 m/s
30 30

25 25

PDF (%)
PDF (%)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5
5

0
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure drop (Pa) Pressure drop (Pa)

(a) (b)

40

upstream
35
downstream
Jg = 2.122 m/s
30

25
PDF (%)

20

15

10

-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Pressure drop (Pa)
(c)
Fig. 7 PDF signals of differential pressure drop upstream and downstream of the sudden expansion for different upstream gas
superficial velocities (J‘ = 0.318 m/s)

The maximum pressure drop results were also y is the time-averaged value and N is the number of
represented as a function of the upstream mixture instantaneous data of each run.
velocity (Jm = Jg? J‘) in Fig. 10. We see that for Figures 11 and 12 show standard deviation of the
Jm [ 2.2 m/s, the decrease in the maximum pressure pressure drop signal upstream and downstream the
drop may be regarded as an effect of the transition expansion as function of the gas and liquid superficial
from slug flow to pseudo-slug flow or another sub- velocities respectively. It appears from Fig. 11 that the
regime of slug flow (Thaker and Banerjee [21]). increase in Jg is accompanied by an increase in the
standard deviation, behavior already observed in
3.5 Standard deviation of differential pressure straight pipes (Luo et al. [46]). For a gas superficial
velocity of Jg = 2.122 m/s, the standard deviation is
The standard deviation is a statistical parameter used reduced due to the flow transition. Downstream the
to evaluate the intensity of the dispersion. The singularity, for J‘ = 0.239 m/s, the increase in gas flow
leads to an increase in the standard deviation. For the
standard deviation is computed as STD ¼
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi other cases, studied, the same remarks made for the
PN
1
N i¼1 ðyi  y Þ2 where yi is the instantaneous value, maximum pressure parameter are to be drawn i.e. the

123
 Meccanica

Fig. 8 Evolution of the 9000

maximum differential
pressure as a function of the Jl = 0.239 m/s Jl = 0.292 m/s Jl = 0.398 m/s
8000
upstream gas superficial upstream upstream upstream
velocities for different downstream downstream downstream
upstream liquid superficial 7000

Maximum pressure drop (Pa)

velocity
6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4
Jg (m/s)

Fig. 9 Evolution of the 9000

maximum differential
pressure as a function of the Jg = 1.326 m/s Jg = 1.591 m/s Jg = 2.122 m/s
8000
upstream liquid superficial upstream upstream upstream
velocities for different downstream downstream downstream
upstream gas superficial 7000
Maximum pressure drop (Pa)

velocities
6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40
Jl (m/s)

superficial velocity does not seem to have a great
influence on the dispersion of the pressure drop signal.
An increase in the liquid flow rate (Fig. 12) causes
an increase in the dispersion of the pressure drop
signal upstream the expansion. Nonetheless, the liquid
superficial velocity influence seems uncertain
downstream the singularity. This is due to the complex
nature of the waves, resulting from the breaking of the
liquid slug at the passage of the sudden enlargement. A
thorough investigation in terms of waves would be
interesting to conduct to get a better understanding on
the influence of both liquid and gas superficial

123
Meccanica

Fig. 10 Evolution of the 9000

maximum differential
pressure as a function of the 8000 Upstream
upstream mixing velocity Downstream
Jm = Jg? J‘

Maximum pressure drop (Pa)

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 3,0
J m (m/s)

Fig. 11 Evolution of the 1200

standard deviation of the
differential pressure as a 1100 Jl = 0.239 m/s Jl = 0.292 m/s Jl = 0.398 m/s
function of the upstream gas upstream upstream upstream
1000
superficial velocities for downstream downstream downstream
different upstream liquid 900
superficial velocities
Standard deviation (Pa)

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4
Jg (m/s)

velocities on the flow downstream the sudden extracting the frequencies present in a system. In
expansion. two-phase flow, the PSD can be used to distinguish
between the flow regimes transition (Hanafizadeh
3.6 Spectral analysis et al. [47]) and to determine the slug frequency
(Heywood and Richardson [48]). The PSD, in this
It is common to use Power Spectral Density (PSD) to study, was obtained with applied the Fast Fourier
study transient phenomena. The PSD allows Transform (FFT) algorithm on the autocorrelation

123

Fig. 12 Evolution of the 1200
standard deviation of the
differential pressure as a 1100
function of the upstream gas
1000
superficial velocities for
different upstream liquid 900
superficial velocities
Standard deviation (Pa)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
function of time series of pressure drop. The
equation of PSD is given by Pxx(f) = $T0 Rxx(s)e-j2pfsds,
where Pxx(f) is the power spectrum density function
in the frequency domain, s represents time delay,
T is the sampling time and Rxx is the auto-correlation
function for a given time delay given by
Rxx ðsÞ ¼ limT!1 T1 r T0 xðtÞxðt þ sÞdt, x(t) is the instan-
taneous value of pressure drop collected at time t,
between 0 and T.
Figure 13 shows the PSDs obtained, upstream and
downstream, from the pressure drop signals for
different liquid superficial velocities at Jg = 1061 m/
s. It is noted that in all cases the frequency spectrum is
mainly concentrated below 10 Hz and the amplitude
of the PSD is less important downstream than the one
upstream the singularity where the spectrum of
frequencies exhibits a broad band of frequencies
characteristic of chaotic systems (Cai et al. [49]).
Downstream, this phenomenon is less present, which
suppose by crossing the sudden expansion the flow
becomes less chaotic. Except for the case of J‘-
= 0.239 m/s and Jg = 1.061 m/s (Fig. 13a) where the
slug flow is not present downstream the singularity.
The spectrum in this case is characterized by a band
with no peaks, indicating that the system is hazardous
(Xu et al. [50]). Figure 14 shows the PSDs obtained
from the differential pressure signals for different gas
123
Meccanica
Jg = 1.326 m/s Jg = 1.591 m/s Jg = 2.122 m/s
upstream upstream upstream
downstream downstream downstream
0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40
Jl (m/s)
superficial velocities with a fixed liquid superficial
velocity. As Jg increases the number of peaks expands
indicating that with the transition to the pseudo-slug,
the flow becomes more chaotic.
Comparing the dominant frequencies (frequency
corresponding to the maximum amplitude) upstream
and downstream, it appears in Figs. 13 and 14 that the
frequency does not vary much (difference less than
10%). However, this frequency downstream the
expansion represents both the slugs and the large
waves (which do not touch the top of the wall)
resulting from the breaking of the slugs while passing
through the singularity. Consequently, the PSD cannot
be used in this case to characterize the slug frequency
downstream the sudden enlargement.
3.7 Slug frequency
Figures 15 and 16 depict the variation in the slug
frequency upstream and downstream the expansion for
different liquid and gas superficial velocities, respec-
tively. The slug frequencies upstream were obtained
by extracting the dominant frequency of the PSD.
Downstream, on the other hand, the counting method
was used (Hubbard [51], Belgacem et al. [32]). The
method consists in counting the number of peaks (N)
of a pressure signal, dividing it by the acquisition time
Meccanica

50000 50000
Jl = 0.239 m/s Jl = 0.239 m/s
Upstream Downstream
40000 40000

30000 30000
PSD

PSD
20000 20000

10000 10000

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Frequency (Hz) (a) Frequency (Hz)

100000 100000
Jl = 0.292 m/s Jl = 0.292 m/s
Upstream Downstream
80000 80000

60000 60000
PSD
PSD

40000 40000

20000 20000

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(b)
100000 100000
Jl = 0.398 m/s Jl = 0.398 m/s
Upstream 80000 Downstream
80000

60000 60000
PSD
PSD

40000 40000

20000 20000

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Frequency (Hz) (c) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 13 PSD of differential pressure drop upstream and downstream of the sudden expansion for different upstream gas superficial
velocities (Jg = 1.061 m/s)

(t) to obtain the frequency of the slugs, fs ¼ Nt .
Obviously, according to the above analysis, a decrease
of the number of slugs downstream was observed
compared to those recorded upstream the singularity.
Hence, the sudden expansion played the role of slug
catcher allowing only the fast ones to cross the
singularity. These results do not confirm the principle
of the persistence of the frequency of the slugs through
the singularities stated by Azzopardi et al. [52]. The
rupture of the slugs is explained by the fall of the liquid
holdup due to the expansion of the diameter of the pipe
(from 40 mm to 60 mm).

123
 Meccanica

100000 100000
Jl = 1.326 m/s
J g = 1.326 m/s Downstream
80000 Upstream 80000

60000 60000

PSD
PSD

40000 40000

20000
20000

0
0 0 5 10 15
0 5 10 15 (a)
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
150000
150000 Jl = 1.591 m/s
Jg = 1.591 m/s
Downstream
Upstream

100000
100000

PSD
PSD

50000
50000

0
0 0 5 10 15
0 5 10 15
(b) Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
100000
100000
Jg = 2.122 m/s Jg = 2.122 m/s
Upstream 80000 Downstream
80000

60000 60000
PSD
PSD

40000 40000

20000 20000

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Frequency (Hz) (c) Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 14 PSD of differential pressure drop upstream and downstream of the sudden expansion for different upstream gas superficial
velocities (Jl = 0.318 m/s)

Upstream the abrupt expansion, it was found that
the gas superficial velocity has no influence on the
frequency of the slugs, whereas the increase in the
liquid superficial velocity leads to an increase in the
slug frequency as reported by Wang et al. [53] for a
regular horizontal channel. Downstream the expan-
sion, neither the liquid superficial velocity nor the gas
superficial velocity showed any influence on the slug
frequency.
Figure 17 depicts the results of the liquid slugs
frequencies based on the Strouhal number Stg ¼ fJs Dg (fs,
the slug frequency, D is the pipe internal diameter) as a
function of the Lockhart–Martinelli’s parameter X ¼

123
Meccanica

3,5

Jl = 0.239 m/s Jl = 0.292 m/s Jl = 0.398 m/s

3,0 upstream upstream upstream
downstream downstream downstream
2,5
Slug frequency (Hz)

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0
1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,4
Jg (m/s)

Fig. 15 Evolution of the slug frequency as a function of the upstream gas superficial velocities for different upstream liquid superficial
velocities

Fig. 16 Evolution of the 3,5

slug frequency as a function
of the upstream liquid Jg = 1.326 m/s Jg = 1.591 m/s Jg = 2.122 m/s
superficial velocities for 3,0 upstream upstream upstream
different upstream gas
downstream downstream downstream
superficial velocities
2,5
Slug frequency (Hz)

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0
0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40
Jl (m/s)

123

Fig. 17 Gas based Strouhal
number against Lockhart–
Martinelli
Gas based Strouhal number Stg
0,1
0,01
1E-3
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffi
ðdP
dx Þ‘
 
¼ qq‘ JJg‘ ( dP
dx i and qi are respectively the
ð dx Þg
dP
g
phasic pressure gradient and density). Indeed, Kaji
et al. [54] showed a linear correlation for the case of
straight pipe. Obviously a linear fit holds in the
upstream case while downstream a greater dispersion
was recorded.
4 Concluding remarks
The effect of an abrupt expansion on the slug regime
behavior in a horizontal pipe was examined through
differential pressure fluctuations. Visual observations
were supplemented by an analysis of pressure drop
fluctuations signals according to the method of Weis-
man et al. [38]. The influence of both fluids superficial
velocities was carried out upstream and downstream
the singularity. The following remarks hold:
• The non-persistence of the slug regime down-
stream the enlargement was recorded for low
liquid and gas superficial velocities. However, for
higher values of liquid and gas superficial veloc-
ities the persistence of the slug regime was
observed.
• The gas superficial velocity has a direct effect on
the flow behavior as well as the maximum pressure
123
Meccanica
1
Upstream
Downstream
4 6 8 10 12
Lockhart-Martinelli parameter X
drop and standard deviation upstream the sudden
expansion. While, the liquid superficial velocity
seems to have no effect, at least for the range of
velocities considered within this study. Nonethe-
less J‘ and Jg seem to have no influence down-
stream the singularity.
• Slug frequency decreases downstream the sudden
expansion.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no
conflict of interest.
References
1. Mendler OJ (1966) Sudden expansion losses in single and
two-phase flow. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
2. Janssen E, Kervinen JA (1966) Two-phase pressure drop
across contractions and expansions of water–steam mixture
at 600 to 1400 psia. In: Report Geap 4622-1965-US
3. Velasco I (1975) L’écoulement diphasique à travers un
élargissement brusque. Dissertation, Catholic University of
Louvain, Belgium
4. Ahmed WE (2005) Two-phase flow through sudden area
expansions. Dissertation, McMaster University. Hamilton.
Ontario. Canada
5. Salhi Y (2010) Contributions théorique et expérimentale à
l’étude des phénomènes de transition d’un écoulement
Meccanica
stratifié à l’écoulement poche/bouchon dans une conduite
horizontale en présence de singularité. Dissertation,
USTHB Algiers Algeria
6. Abdelall FF, Hahn G, Ghiaasiaan SM, Abdel-Khalik SI,
Jeter SS, Yoda M, Sadowski DL (2005) Pressure drop
caused by abrupt flow area changes in small channels. Exp
Thermal Fluid Sci 29:425–434
7. Chen IY, Liu CC, Chien KH, Wang CC (2007) Two-phase
flow characteristics across sudden expansion in small rect-
angular channels. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 32:696–706
8. Lottes PA (1961) Expansion losses in two-phase flow. Nucl
Sci Eng 9:26–31
9. Chisholm D, Sutherland LA (1969) Prediction of pressure
gradient in pipeline systems during two-phase flow. Proc
Inst Mech Eng 184(Pt 3C):24–32
10. Ahmed WH, Ching CY, Shoukri M (2007) Pressure
recovery of two-phase flow across sudden expansions. Int J
Multiph Flow 33:575–594
11. Richardson B (1958) Some problems in horizontal two-
phase, two-component flow. Report ANL-5949
12. Delhaye JM (1981) Singular pressure drops in two-phase
and heat transfer in the power and process industries. Edited
Bergles AE. Hemisphere, Washington
13. Wadle M (1989) A new formula for the pressure recovery in
an abrupt diffuser. Int J Multiph Flow 15(2):241–256
14. Aloui F, Souhar M (1996) Experimental study of a two-
phase flow bubbly flow in a duct symmetric sudden
expansion-Part I. Visualization, pressure and void fraction.
Int J Multiph Flow 22(4):651–665
15. Aloui F, Souhar M (1996) Experimental study of a two-
phase flow bubbly flow in a duct symmetric sudden
expansion-Part II. Liquid and bubble velocities bubble size.
Int J Multiph Flow 22(5):849–861
16. Schmidt J, Friedel L (1996) Two-phase pressure change
across sudden expansions in duct areas. Chem Eng Commun
141:175–190
17. Yang Y, Li G, Zhou F, Chen X (2001) The effect of sudden
change in pipe diameter on flow patterns of air-water two-
phase flow in vertical pipe (II) sudden expansion cross
section. Chin J Chem Eng 9(2):221–223
18. Mandhane JM, Gregory GA, Aziz K (1974) A flow pattern
map for gas-liquid flow in horizontal pipes. Int J Multiph
Flow 1(4):537–553
19. Taitel Y, Dukler AE (1976) A model for predicting flow
regime transitions in horizontal and near-horizontal gas–
liquid flow. AIChE J 22:47–55
20. Kim D, Ghajar AJ (2002) Heat transfer measurements and
correlations for air–water flow of different flow patterns in a
horizontal pipe. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 25:659–676
21. Thaker J, Banerjee J (2016) Influence of intermittent flow
sub-patterns on erosion-corrosion in horizontal pipe.
J Petrol Sci Eng 145:298–320
22. Ahmed WH (2012) Nuclear power-practical aspects. In:
InTech, New York, USA, pp 153–178. Chapter 6
23. Wang S, Shoji M (2002) Fluctuation characteristics of two-
phase flow splitting at a vertical impacting T-junction. Int J
Multiph Flow 28:2007–2016
24. Drahos J, Cermak J, Seluck K, Ebner L (1987) Characteri-
zation of hydrodynamic regimes in horizontal two-phase
flow part II: analysis of wall pressure fluctuations. Chem
Eng Process 22:45–52
25. Drahos J, Tihon J, Serio C, Lübbert A (1996) Deterministic
chaos analysis of pressure fluctuations in a horizontal pipe at
intermittent flow regime. Chem Eng J 64:149–156
26. Greskovich EJ, Shrier AL (1971) Pressure drop and holdup
in horizontal slug flow. AIChE J 17:1214–1219
27. Kabiri-Samani AR, Borghei SM, Saidi MH (2007) Fluctu-
ation of air–water two-phase flow in horizontal and inclined
water pipelines. J Fluids Eng 129(1):1–14
28. Gregory GA, Scott DA (1969) Correlation of liquid slug
velocity and frequency in horizontal concurrent gas–liquid
slug flow. AIChE J 42:901–907
29. Taitel Y, Dukler AE (1977) A model for slug frequency
during gas-liquid flow in horizontal and near-horizontal gas-
liquid flow. Int J Multiph Flow 19(5):829–838
30. Zabaras G (2000) Prediction of slug frequency for gas/liquid
flows. SPE 65093 SPE J 5 (3)
31. Fossa M, Guglielmini G, Marchitto A (2003) Intermittent
flow parameters from void fraction analysis. Flow Meas
Instrum 14:161–168
32. Belgacem I, Salhi Y, Hammoudi M, Si-Ahmed E-K,
Legrand J (2015) Development and statistical characteri-
zation of slug in two-phase flow along horizontal pipeline.
Mech Ind 16:307
33. Al-Kayiem HH, Mohmmed AO, Al-Hashimy ZI, Time RW
(2017) Statistical assessment of experimental observation
on the slug body length and slug translational velocity in a
horizontal pipe. Int J Heat Mass Transf 105:252–260
34. Zhao D, Omar R, Abdulkadir M, Abdulkareem LA, Azzi A,
Saidj F, Hernandez-Perez V, Hewakandamby BN, Azzo-
pardi BJ (2017) The control and maintenance of desired
flow patterns in bends of different orientations. Flow Meas
Instrum 53:230–242
35. da Costa Maidana N, Rosa ES (2018) Flow disturbances
induced by an orifice plate in a horizontal air-water flow in
the slug regime. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 94:59–76
36. Saieed A, Pao W, Hewakandamby B, Azzopardi BJ, Wood
DA, Ali HM (2018) Experimental investigation on the
effect of diameter ratio on two-phase slug flow separation in
a T-Junction. J Petrol Sci Eng 170:139–150
37. Roman AJ, Kreitzer PJ, Ervin JS, Hanchak MS, Byrd LW
(2016) Flow pattern identification of horizontal two-phase
refrigerant flow using neural networks. Int Commun Heat
Mass Transf 71:254–264
38. Weisman J, Duncan D, Gibson J, Crawford T (1979) Effects
of fluid properties and pipe diameter on two-phase flow
patterns in horizontal lines. Int J Multiph Flow
5(6):437–462
39. Kadri U, Zoeteweij ML, Mudde RF, Oliemans RVA (2009)
A growth model for dynamic slugs in gas–liquid horizontal
pipes. Int J Multiph Flow 35(5):439–449
40. Woods BD, Fan Z, Hanratty TJ (2006) Frequency and
development of slugs in a horizontal pipe at large liquid
flows. Int J Multiph Flow 32(8):902–925
41. Vaze MJ, Banerhee J (2012) Prediction of liquid height for
onset of slug flow. Can J Chem Eng 90(5):1295–1303
42. Lin PY, Hanratty TJ (1987) Detection of slug flow from
pressure measurements. Int J Multiph Flow 13(1):13–21
43. Thaker J, Banerjee J (2015) Characterization of two-phase
slug flow subregimes using flow visualization. J Petrol Sci
Eng 135:561–576
123

44. Jones OC, Zuber N (1975) The interrelation between void
fraction fluctuations and flow patterns in two-phase flow. Int
J Multiph Flow 2(3):273–306
45. Costigan G, Whally PB (1997) Slug flow regime identifi-
cation from dynamic void fraction measurements in vertical
air–water flows. Int J Multiph Flow 23(2):263–282
46. Luo XM, He LM, Lu YL (2010) Fluctuations characteristics
of gas-liquid two-phase slug flow in horizontal pipeline. AIP
Conf Proc 1207:162–171
47. Hanafizadeh P, Eshraghi J, Alireza Taklifi A, Ghanbarzadeh
S (2016) Experimental identification of flow regimes in gas–
liquid two-phase flow in a vertical pipe. Meccanica
51(8):1771–1782
48. Heywood NI, Richardson JF (1979) Slug flow of air-water
mixtures in a horizontal pipe: determination of liquid
holdup by -c-ray absorption. Chem Eng Sci 34:17–30
49. Cai Y, Wambsganss MW, Jendrzejczyk JA (1996) Appli-
cation of chaos theory in identification of two-phase flow
123
View publication stats
Meccanica
patterns and transitions in a small, horizontal, rectangular
channel. J Fluids Eng 118:383–390
50. Xu J, Bao X, Wei W, Shi G, Shen S, Bi HT, Grace JR, Lim
CJ (2004) Statistical and frequency analysis of pressure
fluctuations in spouted beds. Powder Technol 140:141–154
51. Hubbard MG (1965) An analysis of horizontal gas–liquid
slug flow. Dissertation, University of Houston TX
52. Azzopardi B, Ijioma A, Yang S, Lokman LA, Azzi A,
Abdulkadir M (2014) Persistence of frequency in gas-liquid
flows across a change in pipe diameter or orientation. Int J
Multiph Flow 67:22–31
53. Wang X, Guo L, Zhang X (2007) An experimental study of
the statistical parameters of gas-liquid two-phase slug flow
in horizontal pipeline. Int J Heat Mass Transf 50:2439–2443
54. Kaji R, Azzopardi BJ (2009) Investigation of flow devel-
opment of co-current gas–liquid vertical slug flow. Int J
Multiph Flow 35:335–348