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

net/publication/312204825

Slug Frequency in High Viscosity Oil-Gas Two-Phase Flow: Experiment and

Prediction

Article  in  Flow Measurement and Instrumentation · January 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2017.01.002

CITATIONS READS

11 661

4 authors:

Yahaya D. Baba Archibong Archibong-Eso

The University of Sheffield 21 PUBLICATIONS   89 CITATIONS   
26 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Aliyu M Aliyu Abdulhaqq Ameen Ibrahim

University of Huddersfield Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University
46 PUBLICATIONS   169 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

CO2 capturing and Utilisation View project

Polluted soil bioremediation process View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aliyu M Aliyu on 29 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Flow Measurement and Instrumentation

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

Slug frequency in high viscosity oil-gas two-phase flow: Experiment and MARK
prediction
⁎
Yahaya D. Babaa,b, , Archibong E. Archibonga, Aliyu M. Aliyua, Abdulhaqq I. Ameenc
a
Oil and Gas Engineering Centre, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, United Kingdom
b
Chemical/Petroleum Engineering Department, Afe Babalola University, PMB 5454, Nigeria
c
Chemical Engineering Department, Texas A & M University, P.O. Box 23874, Qatar

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The number of slug units that traverses a particular point at a given time within a defined pipe cross-section is
High viscosity oil known as slug frequency. The behaviour of this critical parameter for two-phase flow in high viscosity oils is
Gamma densitometer significantly different from those of conventional oils (of less than 1 Pa s). In this experimental investigation,
Slug flow new data on slugging frequency in high viscosity oil-gas flow are reported. Scaled experiments were carried out
Slug frequency
using a mixture of air and mineral oil in a 17 m long horizontal pipe of 0.0762 m ID. A high-speed Gamma
Densitometer of frequency of 250 Hz was used for data acquisition over a time interval of 30 s. For the range of
flow conditions investigated, increase in oil viscosity was observed to strongly influence the slug frequency.
Comparison of the present data with prediction models available in the literature revealed discrepancies. A new
correlation incorporating the effect of viscosity on slug frequency has been proposed for horizontal flow. The
proposed correlation will improve the prediction of slug frequency in high viscosity oils.

1. Introduction
Unconventional oil resources constitute heavy oil, extra heavy oil,
oil sand, tar sands, oil shale and bitumen which account for a greater
portion of the world remaining oil reserves as illustrated in Fig. 1. Their
production in recent years have gained more attention considering
their huge reserves. This is amidst increasing world energy demand
and the decline in the reserves of conventional low viscous oils.
However, the physical nature (i.e. high viscosity) of heavy oil makes
its production and transportation difficult.
Intermittent flows (which include most viscous oil flows) have been
widely investigated by several researchers both experimentally and
theoretically due to their practical relevance in the oil and gas industry.
Most of these studies are focused low viscous liquids (i.e. water or oils
with viscosities less than 0.1 Pa s). More recently Nadler and Mewes
[31] conducted experiments to study the effects of liquid viscosity on
the phase distribution of slug flow in a 0.059-m ID horizontal pipe. Air,
water and oil (0.014–0.037 Pa s were used as the working fluids. liquid
holdup measurement was done using a multi-detector gamma densit-
ometer. Result obtained showed that liquid holdup increased with
increasing liquid viscosity.
Gokcal [14], Kora et al., [27] and Brito et al., [6] conducted air–
oil experiments, using a 0.0508-m ID horizontal pipe for oil
viscosity ranging from 0.1 – 0.587 Pa s. While Gokcal [14] and
Brito et al., [6] investigated the effects of high oil viscosity on oil-
gas two flows behaviour, Kora et al., [27] proposed a correlation for
the prediction of slug liquid holdup for high viscosity oil in
horizontal pipeline. Foletti et al., [12] carried out experimental
investigation using a viscous oil (μ o =0.896 Pa s) and air in a 0.022-
m ID horizontal pipe. It was observed that the fluid properties have
a strong influence on the flow pattern maps. The measured pressure
drop from their study were compared with those from several
empirical and theoretical models and were found to be in poor
agreement. Khaledi et al., [26] also investigated medium oil
viscosity effects on two-phase flow characteristics using synthetic
commercial oils (0.032 and 0.1 Pa s). The experiments were per-
formed in a straight 0.518-m long horizontal pipeline with 0.069-m
ID. New data set base on their investigation were presented for high
viscosity oil.
Findings have showed that only a few of these publications address
liquid viscosities above 1.0 Pa s [4,51]. In addition to the effects of
liquid viscosity, Archibong [4] also studied pipe inclination and scaling
effects on slug frequency. He noted that both cases result in the
decrease of slug flow region hence slug flow characteristics. Table 1
below presents the summary of the experimental investigations focus-
ing on medium and slightly high viscous oil.
Slug flow, schematically shown in Fig. 2, is one of the most
common and undesired flow regimes occurring in hydrocarbon

⁎
Corresponding author at: Oil and Gas Engineering Centre, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, United Kingdom.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2017.01.002
Received 25 June 2016; Received in revised form 18 December 2016; Accepted 3 January 2017
Available online 10 January 2017
0955-5986/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.D. Baba et al.
Nomenclature
A Area m2
C Constants
D Pipe diameter m
Fr Froude number
fs Slug Frequency s−1
g Acceleration due to gravity m. s−2
L length m
Nμ Viscosity number
HL Holdup
N f Inverse viscosity number
Re Reynolds number
St Strouhal number
V Velocity m/s
production and transport. The intermittent nature of slug flow
causes difficulties for phase separation and produces transient
forces which are capable of damaging pre-process equipment. Hill
et al., [22] noted that high slug frequency can cause corrosion in
pipeline. The chaotic flow behaviour at the slug front can cause
breakage of protective coatings resulting in exposure of the pipe
wall to corrosive elements already present in the multiphase flow
Sun and Jepson, [39]. Corrosion rates in pipeline are directly
proportional to slug frequency thus making it a significant necessity
for accurate measurement of slug frequency for the precise predic-
tion of corrosion rates to aid corrosion inhibitor programs.
Slug frequency prediction models (i.e. empirical or mechanistic)
forms an integral part of any slug flow model. The knowledge of
slug frequency most especially in high viscosity liquids is very vital
considering the fact that the behaviour of two-phase flow char-
acteristics in high viscosity oils differs significantly when compared
to those of conventional oils. More so, they serve as input para-
meters for existing mechanistic models for the prediction of two-
phase flow characteristics such as liquid holdup and pressure
gradient in pipes.
A considerable number of correlations has been developed from
different data sources for the prediction of slug frequency, extend-
ing from simple correlations like those of ([17,18,21] and [43]) to
more complex ones such as [23,24,30,38]. Slug frequency, as
estimated by these correlations presented in Table 2 is expressed
by a limited number of flow parameters such as the flowing liquid
fraction and Froude number. However, recent investigations have
shown that the length and diameter of pipe, densities and flow rates
gas and liquid and most importantly the viscosities of the liquid
phase considerably influence slug flow characteristics. The effects
of liquid viscosity on slug frequency have also been studied by
[11,16,2–4,7]. All these authors unanimously concluded that slug
Fig. 1. Total world oil reserves by percentage [1].
110
Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123
Greek letters
μ Viscosity cP
ρ Density kg/m3
τ Shear stress Pa
ε Relative error
Subscripts
f Film zone
g Gas phase
l Liquid phase
m Mixture phase
ns No slip
s Superficial
t Translational
frequency has significant dependency on the liquid viscosity and
increases with increase in liquid viscosity. Most of these studies are
however all limited to viscosity range less than 1.0 Pa s and were
conducted in smaller diameter pipelines.
The purpose of the present work is to provide a new experimental
dataset for high viscosity oil-gas two-phase flow for oil viscosity ranging
from 1.0 – 5.5 Pa s. In addition, a new closure relationship for the
prediction of slug frequency is proposed. This will improve the
predictive capacity of previous correlations.
1.1. Slug formation mechanism: initiation and dissipation
The formation of slugs can be classified into three main groups,
namely; hydrodynamic slugging, terrain slugging and severe slug-
ging depending on the pipe orientation and geometrical configura-
tions. However, this investigation is focussed on hydrodynamic
slugging. This slugging mechanism is commonly encountered in
horizontal pipelines as a result of the flow disturbances on the gas–
liquid interface. The experimental set-ups for hydrodynamic slug-
ging investigation by most researchers [19,28,45] are designed to
favour the formation of stratified flow; a flow pattern characterized
by the parallel flow of gas and liquid in the pipeline with the less
dense phase (i.e. gas) flowing at the top while the denser phase (i.e.
oil) flow at the bottom owing to gravity effects. A detailed under-
standing of this mechanism has been developed from an extensive
visualization study conducted by [10,41] in a 0.0375 m ID hor-
izontal pipe of 19.8 m long.
In the description depicted in Fig. 3, they noted that beyond the
entrance (mixing) region, there exist small perturbations on the
interface which transforms into growing waves due to suction
effects caused by increasing superficial gas velocities. A point is
reached when the growing waves momentarily bridge the top of the
pipe thereby resulting in the build-up of the upstream pressure and
eventual blockage of the pipe cross-section as can be seen depicted
in Fig. 3c. With further increase in the gas phase, the liquid is then
accelerated by the gas velocity. Once this happens, the fluid
blockage appears to be accelerated uniformly across the cross
section and consequently acting as a scoop (i.e.) picking up all
the slow moving liquid in the film ahead of it. By this process, the
fast moving liquid builds up in volume resulting in the formation of
slugs (See Fig. 3d). As the formed slug moves downstream of the
pipe, shedding of liquid occurs uniformly from its back and forms a
film with a free surface. The liquid in the film decelerates rapidly
from the slug velocity to a much lower velocity as regulated by the
interfacial and shear. Further movement down the pipe results in
sweeping of all excess liquid which had entered the pipe since the
Y.D. Baba et al. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123

formation of the last slug. From that point on, it picks up liquid film
Models/Correl-ations Proposed which has been shed from the preceding slug. The length of the slug

Distribution parameter, slug liquid

Slug liquid holdup and mean slug

stabilizes at the point when the rate of pickup of liquid is equal to
the rate at which it is being shed. In general, the required time for
the dropped liquid level as depicted in Fig. 3c to rebuild, triggering

holdup, Slug Frequency

the formation of a new slug which is the inverse of slug frequency.

Slug Liquid Holdup

Slug Frequency

Slug Frequency

Slug Frequency

Slug Frequency
Slug frequency
2. Experimental setup

2.1. Test facility description

length
NA
NA

NA

NA
Fig. 4 below shows the schematic of the experimental setup
Pressure Gradient Slug Frequency Slug Holdup

located at the Oil and Gas Engineering Laboratory of Cranfield

Pressure gradient, flow pattern, translational

University. The test facility is made up of a 0.0762-m-ID horizontal

Flow pattern, slug frequency, holdup, slug

Flow pattern, slug frequency, holdup, slug

Slug liquid holdup and mean slug length

velocity, drift velocity and slug length pipe fabricated from transparent Perspex pipe with an L/D ratio of
223 m. This facility has previously been used by other researchers
[34,35,5,50] for similar studies. The test measurement section is
located at 14-m downstream from the first fluid inlet pipe. The
separator used for the collection and the separation of the fluid into
Parameters Measured

phases is positioned at the end of the pipe. The mixture of the two
Slug Liquid Holdup

fluids (i.e. oil and gas) upon injection is achieved at the T-junction
Pressure Gradient
Slug Frequency

Slug Frequency

between V4 and V6 as shown in Fig. 4. This is the point where

Flow pattern

Flow pattern

multiphase flow starts to develop. The immediate formation of

velocity,

multiphase flow after the T-junction can be credited to the

velocity

increased shear in the pipe walls owing to viscosity effects.

–

Mineral oil (CYL680) manufactured by Total Limited was used

as the liquid phase. This oil is stored in a tank that has a capacity of
Material

Plexiglas

2 m3 and fed into the main test line through a T-junction by a

Acrylic

Acrylic

Acrylic

Acrylic

progressive cavity pump (PCP) manufactured by Fluid Pumps

NA

NA
NA
NA

NA
–
–

Limited. A Coriolis flow meter (Endress + Hauser, Promass

83F80 DN80) is used for the metering the oil flow rate at the inlet.
0, 5, 10, 15, −5, −15

The oil is usually recirculated to the oil tank via a by-pass aimed
towards achieving a uniform oil viscosity just before been injected
Inclination

into the main test line (Fig. 5). The oil temperature is regulated
(Degree)

using a refrigerated bath circulator manufactured by Thermal

0 − 80
0, 30

0, 90

Fisher. Copper coils submerged in the oil tank are connected to

0

0
0
0
0

the circulator, by running cold or hot glycol in the coils at specific

0.074, 0.0254

time intervals, the temperature of oil in the tank is thus controlled

0.012, 0.025,
0.019 – 0.1

by heat transfer. The circulator's temperature ranges from 0 to

ID (m)

0.0508

0.0508

0.0228

0.0508

0.0508

0.0508

0.0508

+50 °C, with an accuracy of ± 0.01 °C. By changing the temperature

0.022

0.022

0.051

0.074
Pipe

of the glycol, the liquid contained in the tank is either heated or

cooled to a desired temperature over a period of time and thus the
Type
Gas

viscosity of the liquid contained in the tank changes.

Air

Air

Air
Air
Air

Air
Air
Air

Air
air

Air used as the gas phase was supplied from a screw engineering
compressor with a maximum supply capacity of 400 m 3 /h free air
Density (kg/

delivery and a maximum discharge pressure of 7 barg. The air flow

rates were monitored using two flow meters: 0.5-in. vortex flow
m3)

meter (Endress + Hauser Prowirl 72F15 DN15) and 1.5-in. vortex

916

886

890

916
–

–
–
–

–
–
–

flow meter (Endress + Hauser Prowirl 72F40 DN40), both ranging

from 0–20 and 10–130 m 3/h respectively. The gas phase (i.e. Air)
181, 257, 387, 587
Summary of experimental studies high viscosity oil-gas flow.

Viscosity (cP)

is injected into the mainline via a 2-in. steel pipe about 150 pipe
1000- 7500

1000, 3500

diameters upstream from the facility observation section as de-

15, 28, 57
181–590
181–590
181–590

picted in Fig. 5. The two-phase flow mixture collected in a separator

10–180

75, 150
1–590
587

900
896

is allowed to stay for at least 48 h for full phase separation. This

results in the gas phase vanishing into the atmosphere leaving
behind the liquid phase which is collected and reused.
glycerol-
Liquid

2.2. Instrumentation and calibration

water
Type

Oil

Oil

Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil

Oil
Oil

Oil

Oil
oil

The test facility also contains a single beam gamma densit-

Weisman et al., 1986
Gockal et al., (2010)
Gokcal et al. (2006)
Gokcal et al. (2008)
Farsetti et al., [11]

ometer manufactured by Neftemer Limited was used for the phase

Foletti et al., [12]
Al-Safran et al.,

Brito et al., [7]

fraction measurement. The gamma densitometer whose main

Archibong [4]

Wang, 2012
Author (s)

components are highlighted in Fig. 6 consists of a single energy

(2013)

source emitting gamma rays at 662 Kev high energy level (hard
Table 1

[27]
[37]

[51]

spectrum) and the soft spectrum, lower energy level with range of
100 ~ 300 Kev. Caesium 137 acquired via a sodium iodide

111
Y.D. Baba et al.
Fig. 2. Slug Flow Geometry [40].
scintillator was used in the study. The energy source is attenuated
through a steel wall in the measurement section. A proprietary DAS
is used for voltage signal acquisition produced by the detector, ICP
i-7188 programmable logic controller which is used to convert the
raw voltage to gamma counts signals (counts are the remainder of
the attenuation signals after absorption by the media it passes
through).
The Beer-Lambert equation represented by Eq. (1) is used for
linear attenuation coefficients computation and hence, the liquid
hold up. For an empty pipe, the gamma radiation beam's intensity
remains unchanged inside the pipe because of the non-existence of
an attenuating media, however; some of the incident beam is
attenuated at the entrance and exit of the beams due to the pipe
walls.
⎡ ⎛I ⎞⎤
⎢ ln ⎜ IM ⎟ ⎥
⎢ ⎝ A⎠⎥
λL =⎢
⎛ ⎞⎥
⎢ ln ⎜ IL ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ IA ⎠ ⎦ (1)
Where
IM = average gamma count obtained from liquid-gas mixture in the
pipeline
IA = average calibration gamma data obtained for empty pipe
(i.e.100% Air)
IL = average calibration gamma data obtained for pipe containing
pure liquid
λl = Liquid Hold Up
A typical plot from of the Gamma Densitometer liquid holdup
time series exhibits an intermittent behaviour for slug flow as
presented in Fig. 7 below. This is characterized by crests and
troughs. The crests are indicative of the passage of slug liquid while
the troughs represent the slug film region. slug frequency is
obtained by counting the quantity of instantaneous slug liquid
body passing over a period of time, this is validated by counting the
number of slug body from the recordings using high definition
video camera recordings. So as to differentiate travelling waves
from slug liquid body most researchers are known to have adopted
specific values representing a threshold for slug count. For this
study, the technique used by [4,51] was adopted. This technique
defines the threshold for liquid holdup in the slug body and slug
film region Pth by the expression (Eq. (2)). Where Pa is the
instantaneous liquid volume fraction obtained from gamma den-
sitometer. The choice of gamma densitometer over other two-phase
flow monitoring instrument is dependent upon it fast sampling rate
112
Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123
in comparison to Electrical Capacitance Tomography and wire
mesh sensor. Its applicability to oil-gas flow is an advantage
considering the limitation inherent in the use of the wire mesh
sensor.
1
Pth= [max(Pa )+min (Pa )]
2 (2)
2.3. Test matrix
The test fluid used for this investigation with generic name
CYL680 is manufactured by Total Limited, UK with physical
properties at 25 °C given as 917 kg/m3 and 1.83 Pa s for density
and viscosity respectively. The oil's minimum and maximum
viscosity were given as 0.333 and 15.33 Pa s at temperatures of
50 °C and −2.5 °C respectively. A summary of the test fluid proper-
ties and the matrix used for experimental investigation is presented
in Table 3. The uncertainties in the superficial gas and liquid
velocities as presented in Table 4 were obtained based on manu-
facturers’ specification of flow meters, viscometer, and gamma
sensor. These agreed with values obtained upon repeatability tests
conducted to ascertain accuracy of values.
3. Results
3.1. Pipe inlet effects on slug frequencies
In order to study the effects of pipe inlet on the slug flow
development of, the inlet pipe was modified by using a stratified plate
(4 m high) from the ground. Three different inlet plates as depicted in
Fig. 8 with different split fractions (see Table 5) for oil and gas were
used to achieve different flow area for both phases. The frequencies of
slug flow which forms just after the mixing region were observed at 4.0-
m and 14-m upstream and downstream respectively away from the
injection point. The effects of the various pipe inlet modifications on
flow behaviours were compared with that obtained using the normal
inlet (inlet without the stratified plate) and the results are presented
below.
Fig. 9a, b and c below shows the slug frequency obtained for
three different pipe inlets and normal inlet for both the upstream
and downstream location. The result shows relatively higher values
of slug frequency for all the three stratified pipe inlets used when
compared to the normal inlet in the liquid dominated region
corresponding to low gas superficial velocities thus highlighting
the effects of effects of pipe inlet on slug flow development.
Stratified pipe inlets as depicted in Fig. 8 above enhances the
Y.D. Baba et al. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123

Table 2
Summary of existing correlations in the literature for slug frequency.

Authors/ Year Experimental conditions Correlations developed for slug frequency

[17] CO2/H2O ⎛ V ⎞1.2 ⎛ 19.75 ⎞1.2

ID = 0.019 m fS =0.0226 ⎜ SL ⎟ ∙ ⎜ + VM ⎟
⎝ gD ⎠ ⎝ VM ⎠
[18] ID = 0.15 m ⎛ V ⎞1.2 ⎛ 19.75 VM 2 ⎞
1.2
fS =0.0226 ⎜ SL ⎟ ∙ ⎜ + ⎟
⎝ VM ⎠ ⎝ D gD ⎠

[21] Air/water ⎡ ⎛ V ⎞ ⎛ 19.75 ⎞ ⎤1.2

ID = 0.042 m fS =0.0434 ⎢ ⎜ SL ⎟. ⎜ + VM ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ gD ⎠ ⎝ VM ⎠⎦

[43] – fS =0.61 −
ρG UG
ρL (D − hL )
Where UG is the actual gas velocity; hL = is the equilibrium liquid depth for stratified flow.
[32] Air/water, VSL 0.6–3.5 m/s VSG = 0.5 to 20 m/s. (VSL +1.5) 2
fS =0.088
gD

[25] Air/water, VSL 0- m/s fS =

VSL
(0.00759VM +0.01), ID = 0.03 m
VSG = 0 to 30 m/s. D

[23] Air/water fS D
=0.275 × 10(2.68Hle) whereHle is stratified equilibrimHL
ID = 0.05 m VM
fS D H
=2.74 le
(vg − vl ) 1 − Hle

[24] – ⎛ fS D ⎞*
⎜ ⎟ =−24.729 + 0.00766e9.91209HeLe
* +24.721e 0.20524HeLe
*
⎝ vm ⎠
⎛ f D ⎞* f D ⎛ ⎞
* = HLe ⎜1 − 0.068 ⎟
Where ⎜ S ⎟ = S (1 − vsg ) D 0.3 ; HLe
⎝ vm ⎠ vm ⎝ VSL ⎠

Shell slug frequency, – fS =

g
× [0.048FrL 0.81+A ((FrL
2
+ FrG )0.1−1.17FrL 0.064) ]
1994 D
Where FrL, G =VSL, SG /gD and A = 0.73FrL 2.34

[30] Air/water, VSL 3- m/s ⎛ 2 2 ⎞1.8

VSL Vm, min + Vm
VSG = 0.5–1.0 m/s. fS =0.0037 ⎜ ⎟⎟ whereVmin=5m /s
gD ⎜ Vm
⎝ ⎠

[8] Air/water, VSL 0.1–1.7 m/s ⎡ ⎛ V ⎞ ⎛ 36 ⎞ ⎤0.25

VSG = 0.5–15 m/s. fS =Kθ ⎢ ⎜ SL ⎟. ⎜ + Vt ⎟ ⎥ Kθ =0.018* exp (sinθ )
⎣ ⎝ gD ⎠ ⎝ Vt ⎠⎦
[49] – ⎡ V ⎛ 212.6 ⎞ ⎤1.2
fS =0.0226 ⎢ SL ⎜ + Vm⎟ ⎥ 0.836 + 2.75 sin0.25 θ
⎣ gD ⎝ m
V ⎠⎦

[13] Air/water, VSL 0.3–4.0 m/s St =

fS D
=
AXL
A = 0.044, B = −1.71, C = 0.7,
VSG 1 + BXL + (CXL )2

VSG = 0.6–3.0 m/s, ID = 0.04 m and 0.06 m XL =liquid Volume Fraction

[38] – VSL 0.75
fS = whereLP=pipe length
D1.2LP 0.55

[47] Air/water, VSL 0.3–4.0 m/s fS =1.2

VSL
VSG = 0.1–3.0 m/s, ID = 0.0763 m and 0.095 m Ls

[46] Air/water, VSL 0.16–1.5 m/s St =

fS D
=
0.05XL
A = 0.044, B = −1.71, C = 0.7,
VSG =1–20 m/s, ID=0.05 m VSG 1 − 1.675BXL + 0.768X 2
L
[2] Air/oil, μ = 0.1–0.587 Pa. s, ID= 0.0508 m ⎛ Vs ⎞
LnfS =0.8 + 1.53 ln(VSL )+0.27 ⎜ ⎟−34.1D
⎝ Vm ⎠

[16] Air/oil, μ = 0.1–0.587 Pa. s, ID= 0.0508 m fS =2.63

1 VSL
NF 0.612 D

Where NF =D 3/2 ρL (ρL − ρG ) g /μL

[20] Air/water, air/oil, ID= 0.038 m and 0.067 m, VSG = 0.15 ⎡ V ⎛ 19.75 ⎞ ⎤0.25
to 8.9 m/s and VSL =0.04 − 0.7 m/s, θ =0-20 °C fS =0.8428 ⎢ SL ⎜ + Vm⎟ ⎥
⎣ gD ⎝ Vm ⎠⎦

[37] Air/water, air/oil, θ =0-80 °C, μ = 0.1–0.589 Pa. s fS =

fS D
=Ψ(α )Φ(ReSL )Ψ(α )=0.016α (2 + 3α )
VM
⎧12.1Re −0.37 & Re <4000
Φ(ReSL )=⎨ SL SL
⎩ 1 & ReSL ≥4000
[34,35] Air/oil, μ = 0.1–3.5 Pa. s, ID= 0.0762 m, VSG = 0.3 to ⎛ 3.6102 ⎞ ⎛ VSL1.299 ⎞ ⎛ Frm0.497 ⎞
fS =⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
9.0 m/s and VSL =0.07 −3.0 m/s, ⎝ VM ⎠ ⎝ VM 0.299 ⎠ ⎝ ReM 0.531 ⎠
[51] Air/oil, μ = 0.1–3.5 Pa. s, ID= 0.0762 m, VSG = 0.3 to f
⎧10.836Re −0.337 & Re ≤4000
⎪
SL SG
9.0 m/s and VSL =0.07 −3.0 m/s, =⎨ forReSL <4000
Ψ(α ) ⎩ 6.40Re −0.141 & Re >4000
⎪

SL SG
(continued on next page)

113
Y.D. Baba et al.
Table 2 (continued)
Authors/ Year Experimental conditions
[4] Air/oil, μ = 0.1–5.5 Pa. s, ID= 0.025 and 0.0762 m,
VSG = 0.3 to 9.0 m/s and VSL =0.07 −3.0 m/s, θ =0-30 °C
[42] Air/water, , ID= 0.025 m
[3] Air/oil, μ = 0.1–0.587 Pa. s, ID= 0.0508 m
(a) Wave just passes out of view to the right
(b) Level rebuilds and wave nearly bridges the pipe
(c) Bridging of pipe by liquid, Slug formation
(d) Slug sweeps up liquid, level drops; Slug
(e) Slug passes out of view level drops, level drops
Fig. 3. Slug Formation Process [41].
formation of slug flow and thence slug frequency when gas and oil
are injected by a T-junction. Albeit, there is no significant differ-
ence in the obtained slug frequencies between the three pipe inlets
possibly attributed the relative velocity of oil and gas phase. Also,
beyond gas superficial velocities of 1.5 m/s, there is a slight
difference in the measured slug frequency for all the different inlets
and this is because the gas phase having swept most of the liquid,
becomes highly turbulent and thus dominates the process of mixing
of gas and oil flow. Similarly, the slug frequency obtained at the
Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123
Correlations developed for slug frequency
ln fs=ψ1 ln where
⎡ ⎤
Vsg ⎢ [(ρl − ρg ) / ρg ] ⎥
Vm ⎣ ⎦ Resl ∙ Vsl 2 Vsl
Fr = ; Vsgd = ; MR= ; λ= ;
gD gD Resg ∙ Vsg2 VM
And ψ1,ψ2 , ψ3 and ψ4 were obtained from his dataset as 0.138, 0.801, 1.661 and 0.277
respectively.
⎡ L ⎤−0.14
fS =1.52*10−8 ⎢ ⎥ (ReSL )1.46 (ReSG )0.28
⎣D⎦
fS =exp [1.51 − 17.04D + 0.77Ln (VSL )−0.181Ln (S )]
Vg ⎛ μ ⎞ β ⎛ Vsg ⎞γ
where S = =1 + α⎜ L⎟ ⎜ ⎟
VL ⎝ μ0 ⎠ ⎝ VsL ⎠
Where μ0 = reference viscosity 1 Pa s, α = 1.95; β =0.01; γ = 1.5
downstream of the pipe for all the pipe inlets investigated shows a
slight difference as illustrated in Fig. 9(d, e & f) suggesting that the
inlet effects are eliminated as the flow progresses downstream.
Nevertheless, at low superficial gas velocity, slug frequency was
found to be slightly lower for the Tee-inlet when compared to those
of stratified inlets. This could be as a result of reduced increased
viscous effect which dampens the initial superficial velocity. For the
Tee-junction, the volume of oil entering into the pipeline is full in
contrast to the stratified plates which are reduced.
From Fig. 10 below, it can be seen that at most superficial liquid
velocities, the slug frequency is always lower downstream. This is
attributable to slug evolution and development as described by
[10]. They noted that at the upstream of the pipe, the unstable slug
with a high frequency tend to be evolved and merged with each
other as the slug body travels further down the pipeline thus
resulting in the formation of a relatively stable slug with a low
frequency at downstream. The discrepancy is magnified as liquid
velocity increases and this manifests more at gas superficial
velocities between 0.3 and 1.3 m/s. However, at high gas velocities,
it appears the inlet effects are nullified. This is because the flow
quickly develops within the pipe inlet plates. Fig. 10 below also
shows the error bars for the measured slug frequency. These are
given as 5% of the measured value corresponding to the estimated
error by the gamma densitometer in determining slug units. To
determine this error level, comparisons were made with manually
counting slug units using recorded high speed videos of the flow.
For every 60 slug units counted a difference of between 2 to 3 slug
3
units were observed giving a maximum of 60 ×100% or 5% error in
slug frequency.
3.2. High viscosity effects on slug frequency
Fig. 11 shows an examination of the effects of liquid viscosities
on the measured slug frequency for the given set of flow conditions
investigated. Within the investigated test matrix, slug frequency
increases with an increase in oil viscosity. This is because an
increasing the oil viscosity results in an increase in the liquid
height since there is increasing resistance to flow. However, it is
noted that at V sg of about 2.6 m/s, the slug frequency of viscosity
range 4.3–4.8 Pa s overlaps with that of 3.3–3.8 Pa s, we may
consider this behaviour to be out of trend within the entire dataset.
An explanation for this may be the viscosity of liquid at this test
114
Y.D. Baba et al. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123

Fig. 4. Schematic of experimental test facility.

condition being very close to 4.3–4.8 Pa s (i.e. the upper limit of

3.3–3.8 Pa s and the lower limit of 4.3–4.8 Pa s). Experimental
uncertainties may also account for this outlier behaviour. The
findings in this experimental investigation conform with the trends
for medium oil viscosities observed by [16,34,35,51]. From this
observation, it can be concluded that slug frequency has strong
dependence on liquid viscosity especially at low superficial gas
velocities. Conversely, most existing closure relationships for slug
frequency available in the literature do not reflect this feature
thereby necessitating the development of new correlations taking
into account the effects of viscosity on slug frequency.
Fig. 12 compares the slug frequency obtained for this study and
those of [15,36]. The result shows an increase in slug frequency as
liquid viscosity increases thus highlighting the significance of
viscosity.
Fig. 6. Pictorial representation of gamma ray densitometer used as instrumentation.
4. Correlations for slug frequency prediction

4.1. Development of a slug frequency correlation

predefined limits when compared with experimental data from high
Existing predictive correlations for slug frequency found in the
viscous oil. Slug frequency and slug length are interrelated and are
literature relied on experimental data from low viscous oil for its
often used interchangeably. The fraction of the time a slug is observed
development. As a result, they are expected to only perform within

Fig. 5. Pictorial view of test facility injection point.

115
Y.D. Baba et al. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123

Fig. 8. (a) Pipe inlet plates (b) cross-sectional view when inserted in test pipe.

Fig. 7. A typical gamma densitometer time series liquid holdup plot.

Table 5
Oil and gas fractions based on pipe inlet plates.
Table 3
Inlet Oil split Gas split
Experimental test matrix and fluid properties.
1 1/2 D 1/2 D
S/N Test fluids Density Density Viscosity Test API
2 3/4 D 1/4 D
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (Pa.s) matrix gravity
3 1/4 D 3/4 D
(m/s)

1 Air 1.293 1.293 0.017 0.3–9.0 –

2 CYL680 ≈ 918 ≈ 918 1–6 0.06–0.3 22.67

linear relationship to all viscosities investigated. The use of transla-

tional velocity VT and slug length LS in the same dimensional group will
make the prediction of slug frequency difficult, since slug length will
Table 4 have to be predicted by a closure model.
Uncertainties in measurements.
Therefore, the intermittency is redefined to be dimensionless slug
Measurements Uncertainty frequency as

Superficial liquid velocity ± 0.5%

fs D
I=
Superficial gas velocity ± 2.1% VM (5)
Liquid viscosity ± 1% Vsl
Liquid holdup ± 5% A plot of Eq. (6) above against Velocity ratio as indicated in
VM
Fig. 14 for the same oil superficial velocity of 0.06 m/s for different
oil viscosities shows an increasing pattern for dimensionless slug
frequency as both viscosity and velocity ratio increases.
An extensive dimensional analysis for surface tension, inertia and
viscous forces have been carried out by [44] reported in [16] for which
by a stationary observer is referred to as Intermittency, I, given by the following dimensionless numbers were defined.

•
fs Ls
I= Froude number to account for the inertia forces
C (2)
Vd ρL
Several researchers such as [29,33,47,48,9] have shown from Frm=
(gD )0.5 (ρL − ρg ) (6)
experimental investigation that the intermittency can roughly be
estimated by
C =1. 2(Vsl +Vsg )≈VT (3) • And the viscosity number to account for viscous forces
Vd μL
From Eq. (2) above, C can be substituted as translational velocity VT Nμ=
gD 2 (ρL − ρg ) (7)
and can be correlated as a function of velocity ratio thereby yielding
fs Ls Vsl Dividing Eq. (6) by Eq. (7), we obtain a dimensionless inverse
I= ∝ viscosity number
VT Vsl + Vsg (4)
Vd ρL
From the relationship above in Eq. (3), a plot of intermittency Frm (gD)0.5 (ρL − ρg )
Nf = =
against velocity ratio for different viscosities at a constant liquid Nμ Vd μL
2
velocity of 0.06 m/s as shown in Fig. 13 indicate and approximate a gD (ρL − ρg ) (8)

116
Y.D. Baba et al. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123

Fig. 9. Slug frequency for different inlets at upstream & downstream position of pipe.

117
Y.D. Baba et al. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123

Fig. 11. Slug frequency vs. gas superficial velocity for different oil viscosities.

Fig. 12. Comparison of slug frequency data for this study with [15,36] data.

Fig. 10. Comparison of Slug frequencies for 1/2 gas and oil inlet at upstream and
downstream positions.

Simplifying leads to an expression for the dimensionless inverse

viscosity in terms of the pipe diameter and fluid properties:
3
D 2 ρL (ρL − ρg ) g
Nf = Fig. 13. Intermittency vs. Liquid Ratio at Different Viscosities for Vsl =0.06 m/s.
μL (9)
Based on experimental observations, the slug frequency

118
Y.D. Baba et al.
Fig. 14. Dimensionless Slug Frequency vs. Liquid Ratio at Different Viscosities for Vsl
=0.06 m/s.
strongly depends on the superficial fluid velocities. We hence define
a velocity ratio being the ratio of the liquid superficial velocity VSL to
that of the mixture velocity Vm=VSG+VSL . Therefore, we can correlate
the dimensionless slug frequency as a function of the inverse
viscosity number and the velocity ratio, i.e.
⎧⎛ 3 ⎞ ⎫ ⎛ 3
fs D ⎪ ⎜ D 2 ρL (ρL − ρg ) g ⎟ ⎛ VSL ⎞ ⎪ ⎜ D 2 ρL (ρL − ρg ) g ⎟ ⎛ VSL ⎞c
=f ⎨ ⎜ ⎟⎟ , ⎜ ⎟ ⎬=A ⎜
VM ⎪⎜ μL ⎝ Vm ⎠ ⎪ ⎜ μL
⎩⎝ ⎠ ⎭ ⎝
A plot of the dimensionless frequency against a combination of
dimensionless inverse viscosity number and velocity ratio are
presented in Fig. 15 for the same velocity of liquid. From the plots
it can be seen that a simple linear relationship exists between
dimensionless slug frequency and the right hand side of Eq. (10),
and the plots are seen to be clearly segregated by viscosities. Linear
regression was used to obtain the coefficient A, the indices b, and c.
The coefficient of variation (R2 ) obtained from the plot of dimen-
sionless groups for all the viscosities investigated were found to be
very close to unity as illustrated in Fig. 15. The coefficient's value
usually lies between 0.0 and 1.0. An R 2 value of 0 is an indication
that there is no relationship between the dimensionless groups
while a unit value indicates strong dependence between ordinate
and abscissa.
The final correlation proposed for the estimation of slug
frequency is a modified form of that proposed by [16]. The
modification is based on the present data for this study and those
obtained by [16] for medium oil viscosity. After linear regression
analysis, the values of A, b, and c were determined to be 1.81012,
−0.4687, and 1 respectively. Therefore, the new correlation for slug
frequency is given below
1 VSL
fs =1. 8102
Nf −0.4687 D
4.2. Evaluation and comparison of slug frequency prediction
correlations
Measured slug frequency data for high viscosity oil obtained in
this investigation have been compared with a number of well-
known empirical correlations earlier summarized above. It is worth
Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123
Fig. 15. Dimensionless slug frequency vs. liquid ratio and inverse viscosity number for
Vsl=0.2 m/s.
noting that based on previous investigations and the literature
review above, it can be said that there is no one correlation that can
be used for all conditions. Therefore, the validity of tested correla-
tions is limited to the individual range of experimental conditions
from which they were developed as was earlier highlighted on
Table 2 above.
⎞b
The correlations whose performance were evaluated include;
⎟⎟ ⎜⎝ V ⎟⎠ [16–18,2,21,32,34,35,49,51] with their performances (mostly un-
m
⎠ der predictions) exhibiting different magnitudes of prediction. The
(10) prediction of these correlations can be divided into three categories
based on their prediction performance and the range of liquid
viscosity datasets used. The first set is that proposed by
([17,18,21,32] and [49]a). This category was developed based on
experimental data from low viscosity ( > 0.01 Pa s) liquids and the
correlations exhibit similar prediction trends in that they signifi-
cantly under-estimate slug frequency. The prediction of those
proposed by ([2] and [16]) with R 2 values of 0.55 and 0.66
respectively which fall under the second category. They are fairly
accurate when compared to the first set as can be seen from Fig. 14.
The reason for their slight improvement in prediction over the first
set can be attributed to the fact that the liquid viscosities investi-
gated in these studies were higher than those of the first set (i.e.
between 0.1 and 0.6 Pa s). As for the correlations developed by
[34,35,51], despite using the same facility as the data source, their
poor performance can be attributed to the fact that [34,35] had a
limited data base, and instrumentation limitation (i.e. low sam-
pling frequency) in the case of [51]. In all, the proposed correlation
for slug frequency in this investigation out performed all the tested
prediction correlations evaluated as presented in Fig. 16 and
Table 6. The definitions of the statistical parameters ε 1 –ε 6 are
given in the appendix.
Finally, the error margin between the measured slug frequencies result
and model prediction becomes more significant with increase in Reynolds
(11) number thus highlighting the sensitivity of the proposed model to change in
liquid viscosity. Nevertheless, based on the use of higher viscosity oil in the
experiments, and the incorporation of published data from [15], the new
correlation has a more robust experimental database. Hence, it is concluded
that the proposed correlation gives better predictions, which the statistical
analysis revealed that it gave the least deviations among the correlations
tested. Also the proposed correlation performed best with each of the errors
being the least.
119
Y.D. Baba et al.
Fig. 16. Comparison of prediction correlations for slug frequency vs measured slug frequency.
5. Conclusion
The literature is short of adequate theoretical and experimental
studies relating to the effects of high viscosity oil on slug frequency. A
study on the effects of liquid viscosities on slug frequency has been
conducted for oil viscosities ranging from 1.0–5.5 Pa s in a 0.0762 m
ID horizontal pipe using an advanced instrumentation (Gamma
Densitometer) with a sampling frequency of 250 Hz. The result from
120
Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123
this investigation shows that slug frequency has strong dependency on
liquid viscosity with an increasing trend as viscosity and gas superficial
velocities increases. Performance evaluation of most existing prediction
models against present data revealed wide discrepancies attributed to
unaccounted liquid viscosity effects in the models. The proposed
correlation exhibits a better prediction of the dataset and as such, will
serve as a better alternative for the prediction of slug frequency than
many of those found in the literature.
Y.D. Baba et al. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123

Fig. 16. (continued)

Table 6
Performance evaluation of proposed model against existing prediction Correlations.

Gregory 1969 Henwood & Richardson 1971 [18] [49] [32] [2] [16] [34,35] [51] Proposed Correlation

ε1 −57.46 −18.83 −54.24 −56.66 −57.24 −40.39 −30.73 1122.29 −22.32 −0.91
ε2 57.46 33.88 54.24 56.66 57.24 40.39 30.73 1122.29 24.35 7.40
ε3 32.23 48.65 30.64 31.81 32.11 25.16 18.38 847.81 21.33 14.45
ε4 −0.44 −0.23 −0.42 −0.44 −0.44 −0.28 −0.24 10.63 −0.21 −0.01
ε5 0.44 0.26 0.42 0.44 0.44 0.28 0.24 10.63 0.22 0.05
ε6 0.52 0.41 0.50 0.52 0.52 0.30 0.27 16.73 0.31 0.09

Acknowledgment Engineering Centre of Cranfield University, United Kingdom

(Grant numbers for YDB: PTDF/E/OSS/PHD/BYD/532/12, AMA:
The authors are grateful to Petroleum Technology Development PTDF/E/OSS/PHD/AMA/622/12). The support and kind assis-
Fund (PTDF) under the auspices of the Nigerian Government for tance of fellow colleagues at Cranfield University is highly acknowl-
funding their doctoral research programmes with the Oil and Gas edged.

Appendix

Statistical Parameters

Six statistical parameters were used to evaluate the performance of predictive correlations relative to the experimental data acquired. These
parameters were also used by several researchers such as [16,2,27,50] and are evaluated based on two types of errors; actual and relative error
defined in Eqs. (13) and (14) respectively. Results are given in Table 6 and the best performing correlations are those with the least magnitude of the
statistical parameter concerned. They are:
ypredicted − ymeasured
εi= *100
ymeasured (13)

121
Y.D. Baba et al. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123

εj = ypredicted −ymeasured (14)

Based on the error margin from estimated actual error and relative error above, six other statistical parameters are defined from Eqs. (15) to
(20).
The average relative error is given as:
N
1
ε1= ∑ yi
N i =1 (15)
The absolute of average relative error is given as:
N
1
ε2= ∑ yi
N i =1 (16)
While standard deviation about the relative error is given by:
N
∑i =1 ( yi−Y1)2
ε3=
N −1 (17)
The average actual error
N
1
ε4= ∑ yj
N j =1 (18)
The absolute of the average actual error is given by
N
1
ε5= ∑ yj
N i =1 (19)
And finally, the standard deviation of actual errors is given by:
N
∑ j =1 ( yj−Y4 )2
ε6=
N −1 (20)
The average relative error ε1 and the average actual error ε4 are the agreement between the predicted and measured parameters. Positive
numbers indicate over-estimation of the parameter and vice versa. Individual error can be either positive or negative, and they can cancel each
other, masking the true performance. The average absolute percentage relative error ε2 and the average absolute actual error ε5 do not have masking
effect. However, they indicate how large the error is on the average. The standard deviation ε3 and ε6 indicate the degree of scattering with respect to
their corresponding average errors ε1 and ε4 .

References Horizontal Pipes, University of Tulsa, 2005.

[1] H. Alboudwarej, J. Felix, S. Taylor, R. Badry, C. Bremner, B. Brough, C. Skeates, A.
Baker, D. Palmer, K. Pattison, M. Beshry, P. Krawchuk, G. Brown, R. Calvo, J.A.
Triana, R. Hathcock, K. Koerner, T. Hughes, D. Kundu, J.L. De Cárdenas, C. West,
Highlighting heavy oil, Oilfield Review, 2006.
[2] E. Al-Safran, Investigation and prediction of slug frequency in gas/liquid horizontal
pipe flow, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 69 (2009) 143–155.
[3] E.M. Al-Safran, Probabilistic modeling of slug frequency in gas/liquid pipe flow
using the Poisson probability theory, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 138 (2016) 88–96.
[4] A. Archibong, Viscous Multiphase Flow Characteristics in Pipelines (PhD Thesis),
Cranfield University, United Kingdom, 2015 (United Kingdom).
[5] A. Archibong, Y. Zhao, H. Yeung, Comparison of electrical capacitance tomography
& gamma densitometer measurement in viscous oil-gas flows. AIP Conference
Proceedings 1592, 2014.
[6] A. Brito, J. Marquez, R. Ruiz, R. Cabello, Impact of the Heavy-Oil Properties in the
Slug-Flow Characteristics, in: Proceedings of the SPE Latin American & Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Maracaibo-
Venezuela, pp. 21–23, 2014.
[7] R. Brito, E. Pereyra, C. Sarica, Effect of Medium Oil Viscosity on Two-Phase Oil-Gas
Flow Behavior in Horizontal Pipes, in: Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, p. 285, 2013.
[8] J.Y. Cai, H.W. Wang, T. Hong, W.P. Jepson, Slug frequency and length inclined
large diameter multiphase pipeline, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Symposium on Multiphase Flow and Heat Transfer. China, pp. 195–202, 1999.
[9] M. Cook, M. Behnia, Slug length prediction in near horizontal gas-liquid inter-
mittent flow, Chem. Eng. Sci. 55 (2000) 2009–2018.
[10] A.E. Dukler, M.G. Hubbard, A model for gas-liquid slug flow in horizontal and near
horizontal tubes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 14 (1975) 337–347.
[11] S. Farsetti, S. Farisè, P. Poesio, Experimental investigation of high viscosity oil–air
intermittent flow, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 57 (2014) 285–292.
[12] C. Foletti, S. Farisè, B. Grassi, D. Strazza, M. Lancini, P. Poesio, Experimental
investigation on two-phase air/high-viscosity-oil flow in a horizontal pipe, Chem.
Eng. Sci. 66 (2011) 5968–5975.
[13] M. Fossa, G. Guglielmini, A. Marchitto, Intermittent flow parameters from void
fraction analysis, Flow. Meas. Instrum. 14 (2003) 161–168.
[14] B. Gokcal, Effects of High Oil Viscosity on Two-Phase Oil–Gas Flow Behavior in
[15] B. Gokcal, An Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Slug Flow for High Oil
Viscosity in Horizontal Pipes (PhD Thesis), The University Tulsa, USA, 2008 (USA).
[16] B. Gokcal, A. Al-Sarkhi, C. Sarica, E.M. Alsafran, Prediction of Slug Frequency for
High Viscosity Oils in Horizontal Pipes. in: Proceedings of the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2009.
[17] G. a. Gregory, D.S. Scott, Correlation of liquid slug velocity and frequency in
horizontal cocurrent gas-liquid slug flow, AIChE J. 15 (1969) 933–935.
[18] E.J. Greskovich, A.L. Shrier, Slug frequency in horizontal gas-liquid slug flow, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 11 (1972) 317–318.
[19] H. Gu, L. Guo, Experimental investigation of slug development on horizontal two-
phase flow, Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 16 (2008) 171–177.
[20] V. Hernandez-Perez, M. Abdulkadir, B.J. Azzopardi, Slugging frequency correlation
for inclined gas-liquid flow, World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2 (2010) 39–46.
[21] N.I. Heywood, J.F. Richardson, Slug flow of air—water mixtures in a horizontal
pipe: determination of liquid holdup by γ-ray absorption, Chem. Eng. Sci. 34
(1979) 17–30.
[22] T.J. Hill, C.P. Fairhurst, C.J. Nelson, H. Beeerra, R.S. Bailey, Multiphase
Production Through Hilly Terrain Pipelines in Cusiana Oilfield, Colombia. in:
Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Denver, Colorado-USA, 1996.
[23] T.J. Hill, D.G. Wood, New approach to the prediction of slug frequency. in:
Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, pp. 141–149, 1990.
[24] T.J. Hill, D.G. Wood, Slug Flow: Occurrence, Consequences and Prediction. in:
Proceedings of the University of Tulsa Centennial Petroleum Engineering
Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1994.
[25] W.P. Jepson, R.E. Taylor, Slug flow and its transitions in large-diameter horizontal
pipes, Int. J. Multiph. Flow. 19 (1993) 411–420.
[26] H. Khaledi, I.E. Smith, T.E. Unander, J. Nossen, Investigation of two-phase flow
pattern, liquid holdup and pressure drop in viscous oil–gas flow, Int. J. Multiph.
Flow. 67 (2014) 37–51.
[27] C. Kora, C. Sarica, H. Zhang, A. Al-Sarkhi, E. Al-Safran, Effects of High Oil Viscosity
on Slug Liquid Holdup in Horizontal Pipes. in: Proceedings of the Canadian
Unconventional Resources Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Alberta,
Canada, 2011.

122
Y.D. Baba et al.
[28] E.S. Kordyban, T. Ranov, Mechanism of Slug Formation in Horizontal Two-Phase
Flow, J. Basic Eng. 92 (1970) 857–864.
[29] G.E. Kouba, W.P. Jepson, The flow of Slugs in horizontal, two-phase pipelines, J.
Energy Resour. Technol. 112 (1990) 20–24.
[30] G. Manolis, M. Mendes-Tatsis, G.F. Hewitt, The Effect of Pressure on Slug
Frequency in Two-Phase Horizontal Flow. in: Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Multiphase Flow. Elsevier, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 347–354, 1995.
[31] M. Nadler, D. Mewes, Effects of The liquid viscosity on The phase distributions in
horizontal gas-liquid slug flow. Int. J, Multiph. Flow. 21 (1995) 253–266.
[32] O.J. Nydal, An Experimental Investigation on Slug Flow, University of Oslo, 1991.
[33] O.J. Nydal, S. Pintus, P. Andreussi, Statistical characterization of slug flow in
horizontal pipes, Int. J. Multiph. Flow. 18 (1992) 439–453.
[34] C. Okezue, Application of the gamma radiation method in analysing the effect of
liquid viscosity and flow variables on slug frequency in high viscosity oil-gas
horizontal flow, WIT Trans. Eng. Sci. 79 (2013) 447–461.
[35] C. Okezue, Application of the gamma radiation method in analysing the effect of
liquid viscosity and flow variables on slug frequency in high viscosity oil-gas
horizontal flow. in: C.A. Brebbia, Vorobief, P. (Eds.), in: Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Computational and Experimental Methods in
Multiphase and Complex Flow. València, Spain, pp. 447–461, 2013b.
[36] J. Pan, Gas Entrainment in Two-Phase Gas-Liquid Slug Flow (Ph.D. thesis).
Imperial College London, 2010.
[37] R. Schulkes, Slug Frequencies Revisited. in: Proceedings of the 15th International
Conference on Multiphase Production Technology. BHR Group, Cannes, France,
2011.
[38] R.H. Shea, H. Eidsmoen, M. Nordsveen, J. Rasmussen, Z.G. Xu, J.O. Nossen, Slug
frequency prediction method comparison. in: Proceedings of the 4th North
American Conference on Multiphase Technology. pp. 227–237, 2004.
[39] J.-Y. Sun, W.P. Jepson, Slug flow characteristics and their effect on corrosion rates
123
View publication stats
Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 54 (2017) 109–123
in horizontal oil and gas pipelines. in: Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. SPE, Washington DC, pp. 215–228, 1992.
[40] Y. Taitel, A.E. Dukler, A model for predicting flow regime transitions in horizontal
and near horizontal gas-liquid flow, AIChE J. 22 (1976) 47–55.
[41] Y. Taitel, A.E. Dukler, A model for slug frequency during gas-liquid flow in
horizontal and near horizontal pipes, Int. J. Multiph. Flow. 3 (1977) 585–596.
[42] J. Thaker, J. Banerjee, Characterization of two-phase slug flow sub-regimes using
flow visualization, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 135 (2015) 561–576.
[43] E. Tronconi, Prediction of slug frequency in horizontal two phase slug flow, AIChE
J. 36 (1990) 701–709.
[44] G.B. Wallis, One-dimensional Two-phase Flow, McGraw-Hill Book Comp.
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Newyork, New York, 1969.
[45] G.B. Wallis, J.E. Dodson, The onset of slugging in horizontal stratified air-water
flow, Int. J. Multiph. Flow. 1 (1973) 173–193.
[46] X. Wang, L. Guo, X. Zhang, An experimental study of the statistical parameters of
gas–liquid two-phase slug flow in horizontal pipeline, Int. J. Heat. Mass Transf. 50
(2007) 2439–2443.
[47] B.D. Woods, Z. Fan, T.J. Hanratty, Frequency and development of slugs in a
horizontal pipe at large liquid flows, Int. J. Multiph. Flow. 32 (2006) 902–925.
[48] B.D. Woods, T.J. Hanratty, Relation of slug stability to shedding rate, Int. J.
Multiph. Flow. 22 (1996) 809–828.
[49] G.J. Zabaras, Prediction of Slug Frequency for Gas-Liquid Flows. in: Proceedings of
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Houston, Texas, 1999.
[50] Y. Zhao, High Viscosity Liquid Two-phase Flow (Ph.D. thesis). Cranfield University,
United Kingdom, United Kingdom, 2014.
[51] Y. Zhao, H. Yeung, L. Lao, Slug frequency in high viscosity liquid and gas flow in
horizontal pipes. in: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on
Multiphase Production Technology. BHR Group, Cannes, France, 2013.