Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Science

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

Influence of aqueous foam on gas–liquid flow development of hilly-

terrain wet gas pipeline with surfactant injection
Pengbo Yin a, Xin Huang a, Jiaqing Li a, Weidong Li a, Xuewen Cao b, Jiang Bian b, Wen Yang c, Lin Teng a,⇑
a
College of Chemical Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China
b
College of Pipeline and Civil Engineering, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, China
c
South China Branch, National Pipe Network Group, Guangzhou 510620, China

h i g h l i g h t s

Gas–liquid flow development with aqueous foam was studied in a hilly terrain pipe.

Phase distribution and interface features of various flow patterns were identified.

Dissipation mechanisms of intermittent flow with aqueous foam were summarized.

Feature parameters of gas–liquid flow development with surfactant were analyzed.

Liquid drainage of wet gas pipelines was realized by surfactant injection.

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

Article history: This study presents surfactant injection as a replacement technology for mechanical pigging to reduce
Received 18 October 2022 liquid accumulation for wet gas transmission. The hilly terrain gas/liquid flow development characteris-
Received in revised form 23 December 2022 tics under surfactant injection were explored in pipelines, and a comprehensive experiment was per-
Accepted 10 January 2023
formed through flow observation and the measurement and analysis of the flow characteristic
Available online 17 January 2023
parameters. The 250 ppm sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) surfactant was employed according to the vari-
ation characteristics of the flow pattern and pressure drop at different concentrations. Flow observations
Keywords:
and liquid holdup characteristics indicate that owing to the formation of aqueous foam, the gas/liquid
Surfactant
Aqueous foam
interface and phase characteristics change significantly, and the liquid holdup decreases by several or
Gas–liquid flow even more than ten times and maintains a low value (0.004–0.070), except for the initial gas–liquid flow
Hilly-terrain pipe at low gas flow and high liquid flow rates. The aqueous foam effectively suppresses the slug and pseudo
Flow visualization slug initiation, the gas/liquid convection of the slug body, and the large wave rolling of the pseudo-slug
Pressure drop body, which induces the dissipation of intermittent flow. The pressure drop under the influence of aque-
ous foam decreases drastically (60%  85%) at certain gas and liquid velocities and fluctuates smoothly
near zero over a wide experimental range. The surfactant suppression on partially blocked pseudo-slug
body induces a significant decrease of pseudo-slug frequency from 0.17  0.42 Hz to 0  0.06 Hz and
transitional velocity from 1.21  1.90 m/s to 0  1.11 m/s. This research is highly significant for surfactant
injection schemes and efficient and sustainable production.
Ó 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The phenomenon of liquid loading is severe and frequent in wet
gas environments in various engineering applications, such as nat-
ural gas pipelines, nuclear industry, chemical processes, bioreac-
tors, and power plants (Yin et al., 2018, 2020a; Sepehri et al.,
2018; Sepehri et al., 2020). With sufficient liquid accumulation,
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tenglin_fzu_ac@163.com (L. Teng).
the hilly terrain slug flow occurs around the low-lying elbows
and develops along the upward inclined sections, which causes a
series of safety problems and influences stable production (Zheng
et al., 2008; Vieira et al., 2020; Fan et al., 2020a; Mohmmed
et al., 2021). A series of studies on the entire slug flow development
cycle have been performed in hilly terrain pipes in recent decades
(Zheng et al., 1994; Henau et al., 1995; Al-Safran et al., 2005, 2016;
Taitel et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2017).
Mechanical pigging technology has been widely employed to
address the liquid accumulation problem in wet gas pipes (Kang

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2023.118469
0009-2509/Ó 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al. Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469

Nomenclature

USL liquid superficial velocity (m/s) g gas phase

USG gas superficial velocity (m/s) add addition of surfactant
V valve
D diameter (m) Abbreviations
L length (m) CMC critical micelle concentration
C concentration DPPG decreasing percentage of pressure gradient
P pressure (Pa) FFAF fully foam annular flow
Fs/ps slug/pseudo-slug frequency FFCL foam flow containing liquid
g gravitational acceleration (m/s2) FFF fully foam flow
HL liquid holdup FFSF fully foam stratified flow
DP pressure drop (Pa) FPS frames per second
Dhl height difference between hump and stable interface INF intermittent flow
(m) ppm parts per million
Ust/pst slug /pseudo-slug transitional velocity (m/s) PSF pseudo-slug flow
UM mixture velocity (m/s) PSFF pseudo-slug flow containing foam
U velocity (m/s) SDS sodium dodecyl sulfate
A cross-sectional area (m2) SEF segregated flow
hl liquid level (m) SF slug flow
SFF slug flow containing foam
Greek symbols SFLF stratified foam and liquid flow
h angle (rad) SWF stratified wave flow
Ρ density (kg/m3) WMS wire mesh sensor
WPSF wave pseudo slug flow
Subscripts WPSFF wave pseudo slug flow containing foam
l liquid phase

et al., 2014). A capsule-shaped pig operates periodically to remove
liquid and solid deposits when the liquid amount induces drastic
production reduction (Naeini et al., 2021). However, some limita-
tions exist for the pigging operation, which are as follows: the
blocking risk of pigs in pipelines with long-term service, applica-
tion in pipelines with small diameters and complex networks,
and a sudden liquid surge in the front of the pig. Therefore, the sur-
factant injection technology has been recently proposed as an
attractive alternative for the liquid removal of wet gas pipelines,
which can overcome the above-mentioned limitations of tradi-
tional pigging technology (Dall’Acqua et al., 2017; Colombo et al.,
2018). Gas–liquid hydrodynamics causes surfactant solution agita-
tion and foam formation (Chaturvedi et al., 2021). Liquid drainage
is realized by a decrease in the effective liquid density and a signif-
icant change in the gas–liquid distribution with foam formation
(Afsharpoor et al., 2010; van Nimwegen et al., 2016a; Li et al.,
2017).
Surfactant injection has been developed into a relatively mature
technique for liquid removal in oil and gas wells, and the corre-
sponding flow behaviors have been investigated by various schol-
ars. Saleh and Al-Jamaey (1997) performed experimental research
on the influence of surfactants on liquid lifting in a 25.4 mm verti-
cal pipe. Based on visual observations, several foam flow patterns
were identified and displayed. Compared with no surfactant flow,
the minimum gas velocity for continuous liquid removal decreased
by 75% with the addition of surfactant, which was beneficial to
prolong the life of gas well production. Rozenblit et al. (2006)
investigated the two-phase flow characteristics in a vertical
25.0 mm pipe with surfactant addition. The flow pattern transition
was barely affected by the surfactant additive. With the addition of
the surfactant, the pressure gradient and heat losses decreased,
and this effect was more significant at low liquid velocities. In a
19.0 mm vertical tube, the gas–surfactant solution flow was
researched experimentally by Duangprasert et al. (2008). With
the addition of the surfactant, the transition gas velocity of the slug
and bubble flows decreased, and the pressure gradient of the inter-
mittent flow decreased significantly. Van Nimwegen et al. (2015a,
2015b, 2017) performed a series of experiments in vertical pipes to
investigate the influence of surfactants on the air–water interface
structure, liquid loading, and pressure gradient. The foam effec-
tively suppressed the air–water interface fluctuation, and the cor-
responding interfacial characteristics are summarized. The liquid
loading and pressure gradient of the churn flow demonstrated a
significant decrease, and the air–water flow indicated more obvi-
ous changes in small-diameter pipes with surfactant addition.
Ajani et al. (2016a) investigated the liquid loading behavior of five
different surfactants in 50.8 mm and 101.6 mm vertical pipes. The
liquid backflow velocity decreased in the presence of foam. The
overall trend of the gas–liquid flow was consistent for the different
surfactants. Gas–surfactant solution flow prediction models in ver-
tical pipes have also been developed based on the experimental
results of small-scale foam test and large-scale pipe flow facilities
(Ajani et al., 2016b; van Nimwegen et al., 2018). The interfacial
friction, foam properties, and phase holdup relationships were
established in annular flow with foam in these models.
In horizontal and upward inclined pipelines, the gas–liquid flow
under the influence of surfactants has also been investigated by
some scholars. Hand et al. (1992) experimentally investigated the
gas–liquid flow containing a surfactant in a horizontal pipe. The
surfactant induced expansion of the segregated flow range and
reduced the pressure gradient. The horizontal gas–liquid flow with
the SDS surfactant was investigated experimentally by Wilkens
et al. (2006, 2007). New foam flow patterns were observed and
described in detail. Owing to foam formation, the slug flow
decreased significantly in the range and pressure drop. A two-
phase horizontal flow with a binary surfactant was studied by
Liu et al. (2009). The high surfactant concentrations decreased
the pressure gradient under a low gas flow rate. In an upward-

2
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al.
inclined pipe, gas–liquid flow experiments containing surfactants
were conducted by Van Nimwegen et al. (2016b) with a wide range
of inclination variations. With the influence of the surfactant, the
two-phase flow characteristic parameters decreased gradually
with decreasing inclination angle. In a 50.0 mm uphill pipe, the
slug flow behavior containing the SDS surfactant was primarily
studied by Yin et al. (2020b, 2021). The liquid slug increased in
void fraction, length, and translational velocity with the addition
of the surfactant. As mentioned above, experimental and model
investigations on gas–surfactant solution flow are primarily
focused on vertical and horizontal pipelines. Systematic research
on the hilly terrain gas–surfactant solution flow development in
pipelines is still lacking to verify the effectiveness of surfactant
addition for wet gas transportation.
Thus, to better understand the gas–surfactant solution flow
development characteristics under wet gas conditions, a compre-
hensive experimental study was conducted with a low liquid
velocity in the uphill of the undulating pipe. The SDS surfactant
was used, and a concentration of 250 ppm was determined based
on the flow pattern and pressure drop variation characteristics.
The phase distribution, interface structure, and liquid holdup char-
acteristics of various flow patterns with and without the surfactant
were identified, and the corresponding flow pattern maps were
acquired at the initiation and developed positions based on the
flow observation and wire mesh sensor (MWS) measurement.
The dissipation mechanisms of intermittent flow development
with surfactants are summarized. The average and fluctuation of
the pressure drop and intermittent flow characteristics were mea-
sured and analyzed along the upward inclined pipe under different
experimental conditions.
2. Experimental setup
2.1. Experimental loop
A multiphase hilly-terrain facility was built for research on the
gas–surfactant solution flow (Fig. 1). The facility consists of four
modules: supply, metering, test, and separation modules. In the
supply module, a screw compressor was employed for the gas sup-
ply, and then the compressed gas passed through the gas reservoirs
and filter to acquire stable and filtered gas. The liquid was filtered
and pumped from a 1000 L tank. The liquid measurement was real-
ized using a Coriolis mass flow meter produced by Emerson, which
had a measurement accuracy and range of 0.1 % and 0 – 500 kg/h,
respectively. The gas measurement was realized using gas vortex
flow meters produced by YOKOGAWA, which had measurement
accuracies and ranges of 1% and 0 – 48 and 0 – 141 m3/h, respec-
tively. A bypass pipe and needle valves (V) were used for the flow-
rate control. Two-phase fluid mixing was realized using a three-
way mixer, and then the mixed fluid entered the test module for
flow observation and measurement. At the pipe outlet, separation
of the gas–liquid mixture was realized by a separator. The liquid
entered the stabilization tank and the gas was released into the
air. In the closed cycle, the liquid phase after foam dissipation flo-
wed back to the liquid tank at a low surfactant concentration. In
the open cycle, a liquid phase with considerable foam was dis-
charged directly at a high surfactant concentration. Uncertainty
analysis of the instruments was performed in our previous work
(Yin et al., 2021).
The inner diameter (D) and length (L) of the pipeline made of
acrylic glass in the test module are 50.0 mm and 680 D respec-
tively. A test module with a U-shaped layout was employed and
consisted of four pipe sections in Fig. 2: developing (120 D), down-
hill (160 D), horizontal (80 D), and uphill (320 D) sections. In this
experiment, an upward inclination angle of 10°, which is common
3
Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469
in wet gas systems with hilly terrain, was selected. A high-speed
camera with a resolution of 1920  1460 and a shooting speed
of 1000 frames per second (FPS) was used for flow observation,
which was produced by NAC with a 50.0 mm lens. In our previous
study, the layout of the observation system was described (Yin
et al., 2020b, 2021). Flow development was observed 0, 40, and
170 D downstream of the entrance of the uphill section.
2.2. Parameter measurement and processing
The measuring system for the liquid holdup and differential
pressure is shown in Fig. 3. Conductivity wire mesh sensors
(WMS, HZDR, Germany) with a configuration of 16  16 electrodes
were employed for high-precision measurement of liquid holdup
at positions of 40, 80, 100, 120, and 170 D. Differential pressure
transducers were used for differential pressure measurements
with a 0 – 5 kPa range and 1000 Hz frequency. To acquire the dif-
ferential pressure characteristics in the initiation and developed
regions of the uphill section, differential pressure transducers
(DP1 – DP4) were installed 10 – 30 D, 30 – 60 D, 150 – 180 D and
180 – 210 D from the elbow. A high-speed acquisition card (NI
9205, National Instruments, USA) and LabVIEW software were
used to realize differential pressure signal acquisition. The liquid
holdup signals were collected and displayed using WMS acquisi-
tion and post-processing software. The acquisition time for each
experimental condition for different measurement parameters
was 600 s.
The liquid holdup data can be acquired from the original con-
ductivity signals of the WMS measurement; its processing is
shown (Fig. 4). The calibrated liquid holdup of pure water (surfac-
tant solution) was used to weigh the measured liquid holdup
because the conductivity of water (surfactant solution) is much
higher than that of air.
The instantaneous liquid holdup HL(i,j,k) at a certain point can be
described as follows:
um
i;j;k
HLði;j;kÞ ¼ ð1Þ
uci;j
where i and j are the cross-sectional coordinates of the measur-
ing point; k refers to the frame number; um i,j,k is the local instanta-
neous conductivity signal at a certain point; and uci,j is the
calibrated conductivity signal of water (surfactant solution).
Considering the weight coefficient wei,j, the average liquid
holdup HL of the cross section is expressed as.
XX
HL ¼ wei;j  HLði;j;kÞ ð2Þ
i j
The dynamic measurement of liquid holdup with the WMS
method was corrected by comparing it with the high-accuracy liq-
uid holdup measurement using the image-quick closing valve
method (IQCV) through image processing and direct weighing of
trapped fluids (Yin et al., 2021). In the air–water flow, the WMS
measurement is consistent with the IQCV measurement and does
not need to be corrected, which has been proven in a previous
research (Vuong et al., 2015) and also in our experiments. The foam
of the air–surfactant solution flow causes the WMS measurement
data to be lower than that of the IQCV measurement. In this study,
with the coexistence of liquid and little foams, the liquid holdup
difference between the WMS and IQCV measurement can be
ignored at the gas superficial velocity (USG) < 6.0 m/s; with the
almost complete liquid foaming, the WMS measurement is cor-
rected with the IQCV measurement in Fig. 4 (b) when the USG is
higher than 6.0 m/s, which is displayed below:
 
HLW;c ¼ HLI ¼ HLW;M  0:0124  U 2M þ 0:163  U M þ 1:75 ð3Þ
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al. Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469

Fig. 1. Schematic design of the gas–surfactant solution flow loop.

Fig. 2. Layout of the test module in hilly terrain pipe.

where HLW,c denotes the adjusted data of the WMS measure- liquid holdup measurement ratio of the IQCV and WMS methods
ment; UM denotes the mixture velocity; and HLI and HLW,m denote when the liquid holdup fluctuation is small and the interference
the IQCV and WMS measurement data, respectively. Eqs. (3) is of foaming on the WMS measurement is strong. Owing to the foam
determined through the quadratic polynomial relationship of the interference on the pipe wall, the WMS measurement shows a

4
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al. Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469

Symbols: NI 9205
LabVIEW
Acquisition card program
DP Differential pressure transducer
Wire mesh sensor

30 D
Distance: 20 D
Flow direction

Inlet
2 in (D=0.05 m)
WMS200 basic Data acquisition Data post-processing
10° Device software software
-10 D 0D

Fig. 3. Layout of the liquid holdup and differential pressure measuring system.

Fig. 4. Processing of liquid holdup data by WMS method: (a) weight coefficient of average cross-sectional liquid holdup; (b) correction of liquid holdup measurement by
WMS method.

large error at high USG; however, it can still reflect the characteris- product, is expressed in ppm. The SDS surfactant product had a
tics of the interface structure through comparison with experimen- purity (mass fraction) of 86.0 %, while the other components con-
tal observations. tained salinity (7.5 %), water (3.0 %), and unsulfated products (3.5
%).
The shear stress and static surface tension of the SDS solutions
2.3. Test conditions and surfactant properties
used in this study were measured at 20 °C in our previous study
(Yin et al., 2020b). The SDS critical micelle concentration (CMC)
Deionized water and air were used as the liquid and gas sol-
was approximately 1500 ppm. Based on hilly terrain pipeline test-
vents, respectively. The liquid and gas densities were 999.61–
ing, the foam formation phenomenon was already significant at
999.80 kg/m3 and 1.226 kg/m3. A pressure of 0.101 MPa and tem-
low concentrations, and a high energy loss occurred at high con-
perature of 20 °C were used in our experiments. Considering the
centrations. Therefore, the concentration ranges of the SDS solu-
wet gas environment with a low liquid superficial velocity (USL)
tions used in this study had concentrations of 50 – 400 ppm. To
in pipelines (Meng, 1999), the USL ranged from 0.001 to 0.010 m/s.
increase the contrast of the gas–liquid fluids, water and SDS solu-
Table 1 lists the properties and compositions of the SDS surfac-
tions were dyed with a fluorescent green dye (0.001 wt%).
tants used in this study. The concentration (C) of the surfactant,
which contains the non-surfactant components of the surfactant
3. Results and discussion
Table 1
Surfactant properties and compositions. 3.1. Surfactant concentration selection
Chemical formula C12H25SO4Na
The SDS concentration was selected based on the flow regime
Molecular weight 288.38
Ionic properties Anionic
and the development of the pressure drop. Fig. 5 shows the varia-
Chemical compositions (mass fraction) C12H25SO4Na (86.0%) tion of intermittent and segregated flow patterns in the uphill sec-
Salinity (7.5 %) tion under different surfactant concentrations, USG, and
Water (3.0 %) observation positions when the USL is 0.005 m/s. The pure gas–liq-
Unsulfated product (3.5 %)
uid flow regime at different observation positions was in the inter-
5
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al.
USG
USG
LD
USG
USG
LD
Fig. 5. Comparison of gas–liquid flow regimes under different operating conditions and observation positions.
mittent flow range. With the addition of 50 and 100 ppm SDS, the
flow pattern showed little change, with a small amount of foam
formation, and the intermittent flow dissipated only in the pipe
outlet. With an increase in the SDS surfactant concentration to
150 – 200 ppm, a considerable amount of foam induced a large
increase in the separated flow range. With a further increase in
the SDS concentration, the intermittent flow almost disappeared
and formed only in the pipe inlet with a low USG.
The average pressure drop (DP1) at C = 0 – 400 ppm, USL = 0.005-
m/s and USG = 2.0 – 10.0 m/s is shown in Fig. 6, which is measured
to analyze the complex flow behavior of uphill section inlet under
different surfactant concentrations. At C = 50 – 100 ppm, the pres-
sure drop is slightly higher than that of the pure gas/liquid flow. In
the USG > 4.0 m/s and C = 150 – 350 ppm range, the pressure drop
decreased significantly and attained a minimum value at
C = 250 ppm. At C = 400 ppm, the pressure drop decreased slowly
and then increased significantly with increasing USG. As mentioned
above, an SDS concentration of 250 ppm was determined for the
flow development investigation with surfactant in the following
sections, which caused intermittent flow dissipation and a signifi-
cant decrease in the pressure drop in the majority of experimental
conditions.
USL
USG
Fig. 6. Average pressure drop under different USGS and surfactant concentrations
(USL = 0.005 m/s).
Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469
USG
USG
LD LD LD
USG
USG
LD LD LD
3.2. Experimental repeatability and full development
The experimental repeatability was verified by calculating the
relative standard deviation of the average pressure drop at the ini-
tiation (DP2) and developed (DP3) regions in Fig. 7 (a) based on five
repeated measurements. This reveals that the two phase flow
experiments without and with surfactant have good repeatability,
with the overall relative standard deviations less than 20%. In Fig. 7
(b), the relative difference between the average DP3 and DP4 under
different experimental conditions is calculated to verify the full
gas–liquid development. This reveals that the gas/liquid flow in
the 150 D – 180 D range with and without surfactant is basically
completely developed, with the overall relative differences less
than 20%.
3.3. Flow observation and liquid holdup visualization and fluctuation
3.3.1. Gas–liquid flow
The gas/liquid flow observation and liquid holdup characteris-
tics are displayed with the variation in USG and USL at the initiation
position (40 D) in Fig. 8. The visualized 3-dimension (3 D) plots and
2-dimension (2 D) central axial plots of the liquid holdup were
acquired using the Tecplot software based on the WMS measure-
ment. The points with the same liquid holdups of 0.02 and 0.20
in the volumetric data field were connected to generate the gas–
foam and gas–liquid (foam–liquid) interfaces in the 3 D plots
(Yin et al., 2023).
In Fig. 8 (a), the slug flow (SF) with the liquid blockage of the
entire pipe cross-section (2 D view) and a small amount of bubble
entrainment (3 D view) in the slug body is formed under USG = 2.0-
m/s. The pseudo slug flow (PSF) is shown in Fig. 8 (b), with contin-
uous gas penetration (2 D view) and intense gas–liquid mixing (3 D
view) of the slug body top under USG = 6.0 m/s. With increasing USG,
the large amplitude waves generated by the accumulation of roll-
ing waves temporarily reached the pipe top and formed a wave
pseudo slug flow (WPSF) (Lin and Hanratty, 1986) in Fig. 8 (c).
Under USG = 14.0 m/s, the intermittent flow disappears, and the
stratified wave flow (SWF) with lower ripple waves and upper
gas forms, as shown in Fig. 8 (d). In Fig. 8, the length and blocking
effect of the slug body and the peak and average liquid holdup
decrease significantly with increasing USG and increase slightly
with increasing USL.
The observation, liquid holdup visualization, and fluctuation
results of the developed gas–liquid flow (170 D) are shown in
Fig. 9. The flow pattern configurations exhibited little change with
the flow development. With the merging of short slug bodies and
6
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al.
Fig. 7. (a) Relative standard deviation of average pressure drop and (b) relative difference between average DP3 and DP4.
the liquid entrainment from dissipated slug bodies with the flow
development, the length, blocking effect, and peak liquid holdup
of the slug body increased, and a decrease in the average liquid
holdup occurred.
3.3.2. Gas–surfactant solution flow
The gas/liquid flow and liquid holdup characteristics with
250 ppm SDS at the initiation position (40 D) are shown in
Fig. 10. The slug/pseudo-slug flow dissipated completely under
USL = 0.001 m/s in Fig. 10 (a-1) – (c-1). Stratified foam and liquid
flow (SFLF) of the lower liquid, middle foam, and upper gas layers
are formed, and the liquid film moves forward slowly with the
foam rolling (Fig. 10 (a-1) and (b-1)). A fully foam stratified flow
(FFSF) with lower foam and upper gas layers is formed, and the
foam fluid climbs up along the pipe wall and rolls forward, as
shown in Fig. 10 (c-1) and (d-1). With increasing USG, the thickness
and fluctuation range of the foam and liquid layers decrease dras-
tically, based on the WMS visualization in Fig. 10 (a-1) – (d-1). Sig-
nificant liquid drainage was realized with a low liquid holdup
value (<0.066) and fluctuation (<0.200), as shown in Fig. 10 (a-3)
– (d-3). The intermittent flow under USL = 0.010 m/s was formed
with foam filling and flow configurations similar to pure gas/liquid
flow. The slug flow containing foam (SFF) is formed with consider-
able foam permeation of the liquid slug and the occurrence of a
foam section in the slug front, as shown in Fig. 10 (a-2). With
increasing USG in Fig. 10 (b-2), the liquid foaming increases, and
the pseudo slug flow containing foam (PSFF) is formed with consid-
erable foam fluid filling in the slug body top and spreading to both
sides. In Fig. 10 (c-2), the accumulated droplet/foam mixture tem-
porarily reaches the pipe top and forms a wave pseudo-slug flow
containing foam (WPSFF). The liquid carrying of the intermittent
flow is improved with a significant decrease in the peak and aver-
age liquid holdup, as shown in Fig. 10 (a-3) – (c-3).
The structural and interface characteristics of the flow patterns
with 250 ppm SDS at the initiation position are shown in Fig. 10 (e)
and (f), respectively. In the segregated flow under USL = 0.001 m/s
and USG = 2.0 m/s, large irregular ellipsoidal bubbles are formed at
the top and gradually replaced by regular small spherical bubbles
from the top to the bottom in the foam layer, and the pipe bottom
deposits a small amount of free liquid. With increasing USG, large
7
Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469
irregular ellipsoidal bubbles disappeared under strong gas flow,
and creamy foam waves or ripples were occasionally formed with
the merging and coalescence of small spherical bubbles. At
USL = 0.001 m/s, the liquid and foam fluids of the slug body exhib-
ited strong swirling mixing (top and bottom views) when USG = 2.0-
m/s. The liquid film entrainment of the pseudo-slug body is
suppressed (side and top views) at USG = 6.0 m/s, and the pipe bot-
tom deposits a stable liquid film (bottom view). With increasing
USG, the high gas velocity (USG > 10.0 m/s) causes the foam to dis-
perse and form uniform small spherical bubbles and partially mix
with liquid to form an emulsion fluid in the segregated flow.
Fig. 11 shows the developed gas/liquid flow (170 D) observation
and liquid holdup characteristics with 250 ppm SDS. Compared to
the initiation position, the foam-thickness increases and the liquid-
thickness decreases with increasing foaming degree at USL = 0.001-
m/s and low USG, as shown in Fig. 11 (a-1). With increasing USG, the
foam fluid climbs up faster than the initiation position along the
pipe wall, and the formation of fully foam annular flow (FFAF)
occurs with the foam ripples on the pipe wall and gas core of the
pipe center (Fig. 11 (d-2)). With increasing USL, the liquid deposi-
tion increases in the bottom of pipe, and more foam fluid is gener-
ated and adhered to the top of the pipe, as shown in Fig. 11 (a-2) –
(d-2). The peak and average liquid holdup decrease at different
experimental conditions with the flow development, as shown in
Fig. 11 (a-3) – (d-3).
Fig. 11 (e) and (f) show the developed gas–liquid flow structure
and interface with the surfactant. At USG = 2.0 m/s and USL = 0.001-
m/s, a stable foam layer with high-density bubbles was formed,
accompanied by a small amount of liquid deposition at the pipe
bottom. With increasing USG (6.0 m/s), the foam interface formed
various foam waves, and the foam was dispersed into smaller
spherical bubbles. A high gas velocity leads to bubble collapse
and coalescence and a small amplitude fluctuation of the foam
interface at USG > 10.0 m/s. Except for increased liquid deposition,
the gas/liquid structural and interface characteristics remained
almost unchanged with increasing USL.
3.3.3. Flow regime maps
The flow pattern maps without and with 250 ppm SDS are sum-
marized at different velocities and observation positions in Fig. 12
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al. Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469

Fig. 8. Gas–liquid flow photographs/visualization and liquid holdup fluctuation at the initiation position (40 D) of upward inclined pipe.

8
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al. Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469

Fig. 9. Developed gas–liquid flow (170 D) photographs/visualization and liquid holdup fluctuation of upward inclined pipe.

9
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al. Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469

Fig. 10. Initial gas–liquid flow (40 D) photographs/visualization and liquid holdup fluctuation with 250 ppm SDS of uphill section.

10
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al.
Fig. 10 (continued)
according to the flow pattern and phase distribution characteris-
tics. Considering that the development of a pure gas–liquid flow
along the uphill pipe has no influence on the flow regime variation,
the unified flow pattern map in Fig 0.12 (a) is displayed. At low USG,
the SF and PSF form alternately. With the increase in USG, the tran-
sition of the flow pattern occurs from PSF to WPSF, and SWF is
formed at a high USG. The critical USG of segregated (SEF) flow
and intermittent (INF) flow changes little with USL variation. The
intermittent flow at the initiation position (40 D) dissipates signif-
icantly with the addition of 250 ppm SDS, as shown in Fig. 12 (b).
With increasing USG, the transition of the flow pattern occurs from
SFF and PSFF to PSFF and WPSFF, which is similar to the corre-
sponding pure gas–liquid flow, except for a slight decrease in the
range of SFF and PSFF. With increasing USL, the FFSF is transformed
into an SFLF in the segregated flow. With a decrease in USL, the
transitions of INF and SEF decrease drastically. Fully foam flow
(FFF) occurs at a low USL and relatively high USG. As shown in
11
Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469
Fig. 12 (c), the intermittent flow dissipates completely with
250 ppm SDS at the developed position (170 D). With an increase
in USG, the flow patterns of SFLF, FFSF and FFAF are formed in turn.
The transition boundary between the foam flow containing liquid
(FFCL) and FFF is shifted to a lower USG compared with the initia-
tion position.
3.4. Dissipation mechanisms of intermittent flow development with
surfactant
Based on the visual observation and liquid holdup measure-
ment, the dissipation mechanisms of slug and pseudo slug flow
development with surfactants for liquid drainage are summarized
in Figs. 13 and 14. Fig. 13 (a) shows the slug formation and devel-
opment of the pure gas/liquid flow. The liquid level continuously
grew with liquid accumulation from the upstream liquid inlet flow
and downstream liquid backflow in the elbow. At the two-phase
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al. Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469

Fig. 11. Developed gas–liquid flow (170 D) photographs/visualization and liquid holdup fluctuation with 250 ppm SDS of uphill section.

12
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al. Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469

Fig. 11 (continued)

interface, a hump was formed owing to the pressure decrease theory. Taitel and Dukler (1976) proposed the interface instability
caused by the gas acceleration based on the Bernoulli effect. In criterion of a round pipe through an extension of the Kelvin-
the elbow, the hump grows when the pressure difference DP is suf- Helmholtz theory, which is described as follows:
ficient to fight the gravitational suppressing effect, which is 2   31=2
expressed as. Ag ql  qg g cos h
UG > K 4 5 ð5Þ
  qg ðdAl =dhl Þ
DP > Dhl ql  qg g ð4Þ
where Ag is the cross-sectional area of the gas, UG is the gas
where Dhl is the height difference between the hump and stable velocity, and h is the inclination angle. The coefficient K and deriva-
interface, g is the gravitational acceleration, and qg and ql are the tive dAl/dhl are given by.
gas and liquid densities, respectively. The Kelvin–Helmholtz theory
refers to the fluid instability formed when a single continuous fluid K ¼ ð1  hl =DÞ ð6Þ
or the interface between two fluids has a velocity shear or velocity h i0:5
2
difference, which is widely used in astrophysics and engineering dAl =dhl ¼ D 1  ð2hl =D  1Þ ð7Þ
fields. In gas–liquid hydrodynamics, the stability criterion of
infinitesimal amplitude waves at the liquid interface between hor- When the criterion is satisfied and the liquid level hl is suffi-
izontal parallel plates is interpreted using the Kelvin–Helmholtz ciently high, slug initiation, as shown in Fig. 13 (a-1), occurs with
13
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al.
USL
L D
USL
L D
USG
Fig. 12. Gas–liquid flow pattern maps without and with 250 ppm SDS at initiation (40 D) and developed (170 D) positions of upward inclined pipe (10°).
the blocked pipe cross-section. In the initiation region in Fig. 13 (a-
2), intense two-phase interaction and vortex motion at the slug
front occur with the liquid convection between the backflow and
slug moving forward. Slug growth occurs because the liquid
entrainment in the slug front is greater than the liquid discharge
in the slug tail. The developed liquid slug remains stable and
moves forward smoothly owing to the quasi-equilibrium between
the liquid entrainment and discharge, as shown in Fig. 13 (a-3).
As shown in Fig. 13 (b-1–1) and (c-1), the foam formation at the
interface suppresses the long wave growth of the hump in the
elbow at a high USL, resulting in more liquid accumulation and
the position of slug initiation moving forward to satisfy the inter-
face instability criterion. In the initiation region in Fig. 13 (b-1–
2), the foam section effectively suppressed the liquid convection
and interaction at the slug front with increasing liquid carrying.
The liquid entrainment at the slug front decreased and was less
than the liquid discharge at the slug tail. According to the WMS
visualization in Fig. 13 (c-2), with an increase in the development
position, the foam penetration and accumulation at the slug top (3
D view) and the liquid foaming at the bottom of the slug body (2 D
view) increased. The slug stability gradually declines and eventu-
ally dissipates with continuous gas penetration. The developed
segregated flow was formed with low liquid loading, as shown in
Fig. 13 (b-1–3) and (c-2). At low USL, with the foaming of liquid,
the liquid level decreases, and the hump with the growth of long
waves is unable to rise to the pipe top and become a liquid slug
(Fig. 13 (b-2–1) and (c-1)). In Fig. 13 (b-2–2), liquid drainage is
realized by the co-current flow with a continuous liquid carrying
in the initiation and developed regions.
Fig. 14 (a) shows the pseudo slug formation and development of
pure gas/liquid flow. Owing to the coalescence of short disturbance
waves, large liquid waves are formed downstream of the elbow
Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469
D
USG
USL
L D
USG
and cause the incomplete blockage of the pipe cross section when
the liquid accumulation is sufficiently high (Lin and Hanratty,
1987), as shown in Fig. 14 (a-1) and (c-1). In the initiation region
in Fig. 14 (a-2), the strong liquid wave coalescence and rolling
occur in the slug bottom. The gas penetration with the stripped
droplets entrainment from gas–liquid interface is formed in the
slug body top, which induces the incomplete blockage of slug body.
With the flow development, the range of liquid wave coalescence
and rolling increases, as shown in Fig. 14 (a-3) in the developed
region.
In Fig. 14 (b-1) and (c-1), with the addition of the surfactant, the
fluctuation and coalescence of disturbance waves are suppressed
by the interfacial foam formation, and the cross-section of the pipe
is partially blocked by foam waves in the elbow. In the initiation
region with a high USL (Fig. 14 (b-2)), the liquid loading decreases
significantly owing to the foaming of the liquid and the effective
suppression of liquid wave coalescence and rolling. With flow
development (Fig. 14 (c-2)), the gas permeation, liquid foaming,
and wave rolling inhibition increased in the slug body, which
induced slug dissipation in the developed region. At a low USL in
Fig. 14 (b-3), the slug body dissipates completely, and the low liq-
uid holdup flow continues with the flow development.
3.5. Average and fluctuation of pressure drop
3.5.1. Average pressure drop
The surfactant effect on the pressure drop was quantitatively
expressed by the decreasing percentage of the pressure gradient
(DPPG), which is described below:
    
DPPG ¼ rP  rPadd = rP 100% ð8Þ
14
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al. Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469

Fig. 13. Dissipation mechanism of slug flow development with surfactant for liquid drainage.

15
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al.
Fig. 14. Dissipation mechanism of pseudo slug flow development with surfactant for liquid drainage.
 
where rP and rP add refer to the average gas–liquid pressure
drop with and without the surfactant, respectively.
The average pressure gradient distribution of the pure gas/liq-
uid flow with velocity variations in the initiation and developed
regions is shown in Fig. 15. The initial average pressure drop was
higher than the developed pressure drop with slug merging and
dissipation. The USG had a significant influence on the initial short
slug structure, which induced a drastic linear decrease in the aver-
age pressure drop with increasing USG. In the developed region,
with increasing USG, the average pressure drop first increases and
then decreases because the liquid slug is initially stable and then
gradually penetrates. With increasing USL, the average pressure
drop increased slightly in different regions.
16
Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469
In Fig. 16, the average pressure drop distribution with velocity
variation is displayed in the initiation region in the gas–liquid flow
with 250 ppm SDS. As shown in Fig. 16 (a), with increasing USG, the
pressure drop decreases rapidly at first owing to the suppression
and dissipation effects of the surfactant on the intermittent flow,
and then increases gradually with increasing interface and wall
friction in the segregated flow. The USG corresponding to the min-
imum value of the pressure drop increases when the USL increases.
The DPPG comparison indicates that with the effect of 250 ppm
SDS in Fig. 16 (b), the pressure drop is less than that of pure
gas–liquid flow at USG < 12.0 m/s and presents a significant
decrease of 70 % – 85 % in the ranges of low USG and USL and med-
ium USG and USL. The gas–liquid pressure drop in the initiation
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al. Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469

Fig. 15. Average gas/liquid pressure drop in initiation (30 – 60 D) and developed (150 –180 D) regions.

USL
USL
USL
USL
USL
L D
SL

USG SG

Fig. 16. Average gas–liquid pressure drop and DPPG comparison with 250 ppm SDS in initiation region (30 – 60 D).

USL
USL
USL
USL
USL
L D

USG

Fig. 17. Average gas–liquid pressure drop and DPPG comparison with 250 ppm SDS in developed (150 –180 D) region.

region was effectively suppressed by the surfactant in the upward-
inclined pipe.
The average gas/liquid pressure drop distribution with 250 ppm
SDS in the developed region is shown in Fig. 17. In Fig. 17 (a), the
increasing USG causes an increase in the average pressure drop
owing to the increase in the interface and wall friction in the sep-
arated flow. The increasing interfacial fluctuation and free liquid
induced an increase in the average pressure drop with the increas-
ing USL. In the developed region in Fig. 17 (b), the average pressure
drop with 250 ppm SDS addition is less than that of pure two phase
flow in the range of USG < 8.0 – 10.0 m/s and demonstrates a signif-
icant decrease of 60 % in the range of low USG and USL. The surfac-
tant effectively suppressed the gas/liquid pressure drop in the
uphill pipe.

17
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al.
3.5.2. Pressure drop fluctuation
As shown in Figs. 18 and 19, the pressure drop fluctuations
without and with 250 ppm SDS in the initiation and developed
regions are shown when USL = 0.005 m/s. Under USG = 2.0 m/s,
with the coexistence of unstable short liquid slugs and stable
long liquid slugs, the initial pressure drop peak fluctuated widely
in the slug body, as shown in Fig. 18 (a). With increasing USG,
the pressure drop peak and fluctuation range partially decreased
at USG = 6.0 m/s and decreased significantly at USG = 10.0 m/s.
The pressure drop fluctuation under USG = 14.0 m/s was smooth
and near zero in the stratified wave flow. In Fig. 18 (b), with the
addition of 250 ppm SDS, the pressure drop peak of the slug
body was significantly suppressed under USG = 2.0 m/s, and the
foam caused a decrease in the pressure drop in the liquid film.
Under USG = 6.0 – 14.0 m/s, a little fluctuation of pressure drop
close to zero occurred with the pseudo-slug dissipation. The
pressure drop fluctuation range gradually decreased with
increasing USG.
By comparison with the initiation region in Fig. 19 (a), the pres-
sure drop under USG = 2.0 – 10.0 m/s in the developed region
increases in the duration of pressure drop peak and decreases in
the fluctuation range, owing to the formation of relatively long
Fig. 18. Gas–liquid pressure drop fluctuation without and with surfactant in initiation region (30 – 60 D).
Fig. 19. Gas–liquid pressure drop fluctuation without and with surfactant in developed region (150 –180 D).
18
Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469
and stable liquid slugs. As shown in Fig. 19 (b), with the addition
of 250 ppm SDS, the pressure drop is effectively suppressed to fluc-
tuate within a small range, and the fluctuation range of the pres-
sure drop decreases with increasing USG.
3.6. Intermittent flow characteristics
Fig. 20 shows the slug/pseudo-slug frequency (Fs/ps) and transi-
tional velocity (Ust/pst) obtained through WMS measurement data
processing (Fan et al., 2020b) and model prediction. The Fs/ps in
Fig. 20 (a) is sensitive to USG and increases slightly with increasing
USL in the no-surfactant flow. The merging and dissipation pro-
cesses induced a decrease in Fs/ps along the flow direction, and
the difference in Fs/ps between the initiation and developed posi-
tions decreased significantly with increasing USG. At the developed
position, Al-Safran (2016) under-predicted the Fs/ps, and the Fs/ps
presented a sudden increase when the flow transitioned from SF
to PSF. The erosion and vibration risks of the pipeline decreased
with the addition of the surfactant, as the Fs/ps decreased sharply
or dropped to zero at the initiation position. With the complete
blockage of slug body, the Ust/pst in Fig. 20 (b) does not increase
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al.
Fig. 20. Comparison of measured and model predicted slug/pseudo-slug (a) frequency and (b) translational velocity of gas/liquid flow without and with surfactant from the
current study, Al-Safran (2016) and Fan (2019).
significantly with increasing USG, but fluctuates around 1.75 m/s in
the no surfactant flow. At the developed position, the increase in
slug blockage along the flow direction induces an increase in Ust/
pst at a low USL, and Fan et al. (2019) can relatively accurately pre-
dicts the Ust/pst. The surfactant did not cause a significant decrease
in Ust/pst at low USL and initiation positions.
4. Conclusions
In this study, the gas–liquid flow development was studied
experimentally in a 50.0 mm hilly-terrain pipeline with and with-
out the SDS surfactant. The gas–liquid morphology and the average
and fluctuation characteristics of flow characteristic parameters
with and without a surfactant are discussed, and the dissipation
mechanisms of intermittent flow with a surfactant are summarized
along the uphill of the hilly terrain pipe. Based on the experimental
results, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. The 250 ppm SDS surfactant was selected and caused the inter-
mittent flow dissipation and the significant decrease of pressure
drop in a wide range. This concentration was significantly lower
than the CMC (1 CMC = 1500 ppm), which reduced the cost of
surfactant and the friction loss in pipeline, as described by
Ajani et al. (2016a).
2. The entire, partial, and temporary liquid blocking of the pure
gas–liquid slug body of the SF, PSF, and WPSF were formed,
19
Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469
and the corresponding gas–liquid interaction characteristics
were recognized according to the flow observation and WMS
visualization. The length and blocking effect of the slug body
and peak liquid holdup increased with decreasing USG and
increasing USL and position. The average liquid holdup increased
with an increase in the USL and a decrease in the USG and
position.
3. The foam segregated flow of FFSF, SFLF, and FFAF with different
distribution and interface characteristics of gas, foam, and liq-
uid layers were formed at a low USL. The intermittent flows of
SFF, PSFF, and WPSFF with different forms of foam filling and
similar pure gas–liquid structural characteristics were formed
at high USL and initiation positions. The peak and average liquid
holdup with the surfactant decreased significantly under differ-
ent experimental conditions and positions. The dissipation of
the intermittent flow occurred over a wide range at the initia-
tion position and dissipated completely at the developed posi-
tion with the surfactant additive.
4. Under a high USL and low USG, foam formation effectively sup-
pressed the long wave growth of the hump in the elbow and
the liquid convection and interaction of the slug front in the ini-
tiation region. The foam penetration and liquid foaming of the
slug body increased with the flow development and eventually
induced slug dissipation. Under a high USL and high USG, the
foam of the pseudo slug flow effectively suppressed the fluctu-
ation and coalescence of disturbance waves in the elbow and
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al.
the rolling of large waves in the initiation region. Liquid foam-
ing, gas penetration, and wave rolling inhibition increased with
flow development, which induced pseudo-slug dissipation.
Under a low USL, the slug and pseudo slug could not initiate
with insufficient liquid accumulation in the elbow, and the con-
tinuous co-current low liquid loading flow was realized with
the flow development.
5. With the addition of the surfactant and increasing USG, the ini-
tial pressure drop first decreased and then increased with the
slug/pseudo-slug dissipation, and the developed pressure drop
increased with increasing interface friction of the separated
flow. Under USG < 10.0 m/s, the average pressure drop with sur-
factant was less than that of pure gas–liquid flow, and
decreased by>60% under some experimental conditions. The
pressure drop fluctuation with the surfactant decreased to
nearly zero over a wide experimental range. An appropriate sur-
factant concentration, a decrease in the liquid flow rate, and an
increase in the inclination angle are conducive to reducing the
pressure drop.
6. The surfactant significantly decreased the frequency of the slug/
pseudo-slug and the transitional velocity of the pseudo-slug at
the initiation position, which reduced the risk of erosion corro-
sion and mechanical damage in the pipeline.
7. The pipe diameter is an important factor that affects the gas–
liquid flow characteristics of surfactants. For small-diameter
pipes, the gravity effect is less, large amplitude waves and
strong turbulence are more easily formed, and the pseudo slug
range is wider, which may enhance liquid removal and reduce
the pressure drop with surfactant injection. The influence of
diameter on gas–liquid flow development with surfactants in
hilly terrain pipes will be investigated in our future work.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pengbo Yin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation.
Xin Huang: Supervision, Writing – original draft. Jiaqing Li: For-
mal analysis, Visualization. Weidong Li: Data curation. Xuewen
Cao: Resources. Jiang Bian: Writing – review & editing. Wen Yang:
Validation. Lin Teng: Project administration, Investigation.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from
the corresponding author, [Lin Teng], upon reasonable request.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (Grant Nos. 51874340 and 52204073), the Fujian
Natural Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 2020J05098 and
2022J05130), and the Chongqing Natural Science Foundation
(Grant No. CYY202010102001).
References
Afsharpoor, A., Lee, G.S., Kam, S.I., 2010. Mechanistic simulation of continuous gas
injection period during surfactant-alternating-gas (SAG) processes using foam
catastrophe theory. Chem. Eng. Sci. 65, 3615–3631.
Ajani, A., Kelkar, M., Sarica, C., Pereyra, E., 2016a. Effect of surfactants on liquid
loading in vertical wells. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 83, 183–201.
20
Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469
Ajani, A., Kelkar, M., Sarica, C., Pereyra, E., 2016b. Foam flow in vertical gas wells
under liquid loading: Critical velocity and pressure drop prediction. Int. J.
Multiphase Flow 87, 124–135.
Al-Safran, E., Sarica, C., Zhang, H.Q., Brill, J., 2005. Investigation of slug flow
characteristics in the valley of a hilly-terrain pipeline. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 31,
337–357.
Al-Safran, E., 2016. Probabilistic modeling of slug frequency in gas/liquid pipe flow
using the Poisson probability theory. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 138, 88–96.
Colombo, L.P.M., Carraretto, I.M., Lullo, A.G.D., Passucci, C., Allegrucci, A.,
2018. Experimental study of aqueous foam generation and transport in a
horizontal pipe for deliquification purposes. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 98,
369–380.
Chaturvedi, K.R., Sharma, T., 2021. In-situ formulation of pickering CO2 foam for
enhanced oil recovery and improved carbon storage in sandstone formation.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 235, 116484.
Dall’Acqua, D., Benucci, M., Corvaro, F., Leporini, M., Cocci Grifoni, R., Del Monaco,
A., Di Lillo, A., Passucci, C., Marchetti, B., 2017. Experimental results of
pipeline dewatering through surfactant injection. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 159, 542–
552.
Duangprasert, T., Sirivat, A., Siemanond, K., Wilkes, J.O., 2008. Vertical two-phase
flow regimes and pressure gradients under the influence of SDS surfactant. Exp.
Therm. Fluid Sci. 32, 808–817.
Fan, Y., Pereyra, E., Sarica, C., Schleicher, E., Hampel, U., 2019. Analysis of flow
pattern transition from segregated to slug flow in upward inclined pipes. Int J
Multiphase Flow 115, 19–39.
Fan, Y., Al-Safran, E., Pereyra, E., Sarica, C., 2020a. Modeling pseudo-slugs liquid
holdup in slightly upward inclined pipes. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 194, 107564.
Fan, Y., Pereyra, E., Sarica, C., 2020b. Experimental study of pseudo-slug flow in
upward inclined pipes. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 75, 103147.
Hand, N.P., Spedding, P.L., Ralph, S.J., 1992. The effect of surface tension on flow
pattern hold-up and pressure drop during horizontal air—water pipe flow at
atmospheric conditions. Chem. Eng. J. 48, 197–210.
Henau, V.D., Raithby, G.D., 1995. A study of terrain-induced slugging in two-phase
flow pipelines. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 21 (3), 365–379.
Kang, S.P., Shin, J.Y., Lim, J.S., Lee, S., 2014. Experimental measurement of the
induction time of natural gas hydrate and its prediction with polymeric kinetic
inhibitor. Chem. Eng. Sci. 116, 817–823.
Li, C., Huang, Y., Sun, X., Gao, R., Zeng, F., Tontiwachwuthikul, P., Liang, Z., 2017.
Rheological properties study of foam fracturing fluid using CO2 and surfactant.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 170, 720–730.
Lin, P.Y., Hanratty, T.J., 1986. Prediction of the initiation of slugs with linear stability
theory. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 12, 79–98.
Lin, P.Y., Hanratty, T.J., 1987. Detection of slug flow from pressure measurements.
Int. J. Multiphase Flow 13, 13–21.
Liu, Y., Zhang, H., Wang, S., Wang, J., 2009. Effect of binary mixtures of surfactants
on horizontal gas–liquid flow with low liquid loading. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 68, 235–
244.
Meng, W., 1999. Low-liquid Loading Gas–liquid Two-phase Flow in Near Horizontal
Pipes. University of Tulsa.
Mohmmed, A.O., Al-Kayiem, H.H., Osman, A.B., 2021. Investigations on the slug
two-phase flow in horizontal pipes: Past, presents, and future directives. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 238, 116611.
Naeini, H.S., Soorgee, M.H., 2021. Experimental investigation on sphere pig
movement in multiple thickness pipe. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 95, 104152.
Rozenblit, R., Gurevich, M., Lengel, Y., Hetsroni, G., 2006. Flow patterns and heat
transfer in vertical upward air–water flow with surfactant. Int. J. Multiphase
Flow 32 (8), 889–901.
Saleh, S., Al-Jamaey, M., 1997. Foam-assisted liquid lifting in low pressure gas wells.
In: SPE Production Operations Symposium, March, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Sepehri, A., Sarrafzadeh, M.H., 2018. Effect of nitrifiers community on fouling
mitigation and nitrification efficiency in a membrane bioreactor. Chem. Eng.
Process. 128, 10–18.
Sepehri, A., Sarrafzadeh, M.H., Avateffazeli, M., 2020. Interaction between Chlorella
vulgaris and nitrifying-enriched activated sludge in the treatment of
wastewater with low C/N ratio. J. Cleaner Prod. 247, 119164.
Taitel, Y., Dukler, A.E., 1976. A model for predicting flow regime transitions in
horizontal and near horizontal gas-liquid flow. AIChE J. 22, 47–55.
Taitel, Y., Simkhis, M., Tevelev, A., Barnea, D., 2016. Transient gas liquid flow in hilly
terrain pipelines. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 86, 21–27.
van Nimwegen, A.T., Portela, L.M., Henkes, R.A.W.M., 2015a. The effect of
surfactants on air–water annular and churn flow in vertical pipes. Part 1:
Morphology of the air–water interface. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 71, 133–
145.
van Nimwegen, A.T., Portela, L.M., Henkes, R.A.W.M., 2015b. The effect of
surfactants on air–water annular and churn flow in vertical pipes. Part 2:
Liquid holdup and pressure gradient dynamics. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 71, 146–
158.
van Nimwegen, A.T., Portela, L.M., Henkes, R.A.W.M., 2016a. The effect of
surfactants or vertical air/water flow for prevention of liquid loading. SPE J.
21 (2), 488–500.
van Nimwegen, A.T., Portela, L.M., Henkes, R.A.W.M., 2016b. The effect of
surfactants on upward air–water pipe flow at various inclinations. Int. J.
Multiphase Flow 78, 132–147.
van Nimwegen, A.T., Portela, L.M., Henkes, R.A.W.M., 2017. The effect of the
diameter on air–water annular and churn flow in vertical pipes with and
without surfactants. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 88, 179–190.
P. Yin, X. Huang, J. Li et al.
van Nimwegen, A.T., Portela, L.M., Henkes, R.A.W.M., 2018. Modelling of upwards
gas–liquid annular and churn flow with surfactants in vertical pipes. Int. J.
Multiphase Flow 105, 1–14.
Vieira, S.C., Geest, C., Fabro, A.T., Castro, M.S.D., Bannwart, A.C., 2020. Experimental
study and modelling of developing intermittent slug flow in inclined annular
pipelines. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 192, 107204.
Vuong, D.H., Aydin, T.B., Torres, C.F., Schleicher, E., Pereyra, E., Sarica, C., 2015. A
methodology to quantify the uncertainty in liquid holdup measurements with
wire mesh sensor. Flow Meas Instrum 46, 18–24.
Wilkens, R.J., Thomas, D.K., Glassmeyer, S.R., 2006. Surfactant use for slug flow
pattern suppression and new flow pattern types in a horizontal pipe. J. Fluids
Eng. 128, 164–169.
Wilkens, R.J., Thomas, D.K., 2007. Multiphase drag reduction: effect of eliminating
slugs. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 33, 134–146.
Yang, Y., Li, J., Wang, S., Wen, C., 2017. Understanding the formation process of the
liquid slug in a hilly-terrain wet natural gas pipeline. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 5,
4220–4228.
Yin, P., Cao, X., Li, Y., Yang, W., Bian, J., 2018. Experimental and numerical
investigation on slug initiation and initial development behavior in
21
Chemical Engineering Science 269 (2023) 118469
hilly-terrain pipeline at a low superficial liquid velocity. Int. J. Multiphase
Flow 101, 85–96.
Yin, P., Cao, X., Zhang, P., Yang, W., Bian, J., Guo, D., 2020a. Investigation of slug flow
characteristics in hilly terrain pipeline using ultrasonic Doppler method. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 211, 115300.
Yin, P., Cao, X., Wu, C., Qin, S., Zhang, P., Bian, J., 2020b. The effect of surfactants on
the initiation and development of air–water slug flow in hilly terrain pipeline.
Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 117, 110139.
Yin, P., Cao, X., Zhang, P., Bian, J., Li, X., Zhang, Q., 2021. Phase volume fraction
measurement of slug flow with surfactant based on an image-quick closing
valve method. Flow Meas. Instrum. 78, 101881.
Yin, P., Li, W., Zhang, P., Cao, X., Yang, W., Bian, J., 2023. Characteristics of liquid
loading with surfactant injection in hilly terrain pipeline. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci.
140, 110746.
Zheng, G., Brill, J.P., Taitel, Y., 1994. Slug flow behavior in a hilly terrain pipeline. Int.
J. Multiphase Flow 20, 63–79.
Zheng, D., Che, D., Liu, Y., 2008. Experimental investigation on gas–liquid two-phase
slug flow enhanced carbon dioxide corrosion in vertical upward pipeline.
Corros. Sci. 50, 3005–3020.