Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1923-1935, 1997
1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0017 9310/97 $17.00+0.00
~)
Pergamon
PII : S0017-9310(96)00252-9
1. INTRODUCTION
Despite numerous theoretical and experimental investigations into gas liquid pipe flow, no general models
are available that reliably predict frictional pressure
loss and liquid holdup in horizontal flow. Spedding et
al. [1-4] have reviewed the prediction performance of
various holdups models, while Spedding et al. [5-9]
have reported on pressure loss prediction methods.
However, as Spence and Spedding [5], Xiao et al.
[10] and Spedding et al. [2, 4] have shown, all successful models were of limited usefulness, being among
other things flow regime dependent. Better agreement
between experiment and theory was found when a
phenomenological approach was used to model gas
liquid flow.
A useful approach has been to model two-phase
stratified flow using one-dimensional m o m e n t u m balances over each phase. The pressure loss came from
the resistance between the pipe wall and the phases
and from interfacial effects.
Figure 1 illustrates the principal geometric parameters and shear forces developed in co-current
smooth stratified flow. A one-dimensional m o m e n t u m
balance across each phase produced
-- AL (dP/dL)L --ZWL" S L - ~ -
Zi " S i
(2)
The shear stresses are defined
(3)
Zwo = f 6 P ~
(4)
ri = f p o
( F G - VL) 2
2
(5)
--pLALg sin ~ = 0
(1)
1923
rWL =
(dP/dL)f A
SL
- - "EWGS~3
(6)
1924
NOMENCLATURE
A
D
f
g
h
h~
cross-sectional area
pipe diameter
friction factor
acceleration due to gravity
film height
dimensionless liquid film height of
equation (10)
k~ variable, equation (23)
(dP/dL)L pressure loss per unit length of
pipeline in liquid phase
(dP/dL)~ pressure loss per unit length of
pipeline in gas phase
hold-up
Re Reynolds number
S
perimeter
V
velocity
X
Lockhart-Martinelli [26] parameter
Greek symbols
angle of inclination of the pipe with
respect to the horizontal, with angles
downward in the direction of the flow
assumed to be positive
fl
input volumetric ratio
p
density
rc
characteristic shear stress of equation
(ll)
Zw wall shear stress
v
kinematic viscosity.
Subscripts
f
friction
G
gas phase
i
interface
L
liquid phase
S
superficial.
[(dP/dL)L/(dP/dL)GI ~/2
Y
Superscript
dimensionless parameter.
Flow
(7)
(8)
f = 0.008+2 x IO-SReL.
(9)
Neither of the models by Agrawal et al. [13] and
Cheremisinoff and Davis [15] predicted satisfactorily
according to Spedding and Hand [7, 9].
Andritsos [18] conducted experiments in horizontal
pipelines having diameters of 0.0252 m and 0.09525
m with liquid viscosities ranging from 1 to 80 cp. An
iterative solution to the phase momentum balance
equations (i.e. equations (1) and (2)) was proposed
with new equations for the liquid wall shear stress
(rwL) and interfacial friction factor (f). He suggested
that TWL could be predicted using a correlation for
dimensionless liquid film height (h +) and the liquid
phase Reynolds number which was capable of
accounting for changes in the liquid phase velocity
profile caused by gas drag at the gas-liquid interface.
h~ = [(1.082ReS) 5 + [0.098Re TM/(1-hL/D)5]5] 2
(10)
[-h + yL]2[-hL]
=O
tT j
(11)
I I I1[1111
I I IIIIIII
I I 1111111
I I IIIIIII
1925
0.9
0.80.70.6
Y=-I00
0.5
Y=-I0
0.4
v=-
"~'
0,3
0,2
~~
0.1 !
Y=-5
,,,
turb-turb
Y_-10
. ~ " ~ , ~ , ,
0.001-
-~l
l l | , ,
0.01
, l l , i
0.1
, , l |
10
. . . .
100
| , ,
1000
X
Fig. 2. The Taitel and Dukler [25] relation between liquid level and the Lockhart-Martinelli parameter
(X) for turbulent-turbulent flow in a 0.0455 m i.d. pipe. The pipeline is inclined upwards for negative
values of the parameter Y.
3% - T i
~WL -- 2(1-hL/D)
(12)
(13)
fo
1 +. _FhLq"l- Vso
"L J
-l
(14)
Spedding and Hand [7] showed that the model predicted pressure loss satisfactorily in the stratified long
and short roll wave and droplet regimes
JL.O =
16Ret,~
fLG = 0.046Ret, 2
(15)
(16)
(17)
Kowalski [19] compared direct experimental measurements of the interfacial stress extrapolated from Reynolds shear profiles to indirect values determined from
the momentum balance equation and showed a 1320% deviation. Interfacial friction factor relationships
were proposed for smooth stratified and stratifiedwavy flow defined by equations (18) and (19), respectively,
f = 0.96Res 52
(18)
(19)
1926
J /
Data labels
0.4
)(I
/
/
~
O.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
I I
10
X
Fig. 3. Re against log (X) with the smooth stratified flow data of Hand and Spedding [21], D = 0.0935 m,
- - Taitel-Dukler [25] relation.
Hold-up and pressure loss data for two-phase cocurrent ai~liquid flow in horizontal pipelines were
utilised in evaluating stratified flow models. The data
were obtained on 0.0935 m i.d. pipe by Hand and
Spedding [21], on 0.0508 m i.d. pipe by Spedding and
Ferguson [22], on 0.0935 m and 0.02515 m i.d. pipe
by Andritsos [18] and on 0.0454 m i.d. pipe by Nguyen
[23].
3. NON-UNIFORM STRATIFIED FLOW
(~wO
The experimental single phase gas wall friction factor data measurements were in all cases consistent
with the turbulent Blasius equation (16). This was in
agreement with other investigators such as Taitel and
Dukler [25] ; Andreussi and Presen [27] and Kowalski
[19]. However, liquid-wall friction data were in error
with this type of approach. Values of the liquid-wall
shear stress were estimated from measurements of
liquid hold-up and pressure loss using equation (6) by
assuming fG was accurately predicted from equation
1927
(a)
0.20
0.19
80 diameters
o 160 diameters
A 220 diameters
0.18
.1 0.17
0.16
0.15
E
.~ 0.14
0.13
O
"~ 0.12
E 0. ll
0.10
0.09
0
(b)
0.45
+80 diameters
o 160 diameters
A220 diameters
~
~~' "~~' a0.40 ~
~. 0.35
.2 0.30
0.25
fL = 24ReL I.
(20)
1928
,, ~.
"
C St+RW
K F+D
W+D
.
,
= 1.0=
O
.M
tT"
..
|l
10
100
1000
0.10
__
- A St
m B St+R
- C St+RW
H St+LRW+D
I St+RW+D
K F+D
VsL = 0.018 m s l
B K i~~, ~ _
VSL= 0.097 m s -1
0.01
CCJ~
B
!
lOOO
10000
100000
5.
ESTIMATION
OF
THE
INTERFACIAL
(21)
FRICTION
FACTOR
The apparent interfacial friction factor was estimated using the experimental measurements of pressure gradient and hold-up, and evaluated against the
various relationships proposed in the literature. Most
of the suggested models performed badly. For example the Ellis and Gay [14] relationship based on the
single phase gas Reynolds number grossly underestimated f , as illustrated in Fig. 9. An improvement
1929
/J
/
H St+LRW+D
I St+RW+D
K F+D
/'
/
/
cO
0.01
m
3
,...,
, - /
,"
,,
0.01
0.04
0.10
II111
I 11111
..
I 1 III1
Flow regime
A St
B St+R
C St+RW
I 1111,
I~1'|
labels
H St+LRW+D
I St+RW+D
K F+D
e-
.2
0.01
,..3
10
f fill
l l f l l I
100
1000
I fill
10000
100000
equation (17),
1930
0.09
II
0.08 0.07'-
h
B
St
St+R
C
D
St+RW
St+IW
H St+LRW+D
I St+RW+D
K F+D
0.06
fi 0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
J
-/--1--1"-l--l--r-
10000
100000
200 000
0.10
0.09
equation (7).
0.08
A
B
C
D
0.07
St
St+R
St+RW
St+IW
H St+LRW+D
I St+RW+D
I1 F+D
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.0142
0.01 -
B
I
1O0000
10 000
1000
fso
The constant kl varied with VsL as shown in Fig.
13 plotted against (BL)r (where (flL)r represented a
reference volumetric fraction calculated at the reference gas superficial velocity of 6 m s- 1). The reaction
was correlated by
ki = 2.78471og~0(BL)r+7.8035
(23)
VSL
(flL)r - VsL + 6
equation (9),
(24)
1931
I
0.09
0.08 !
0.07
A St
E St+R
H St+LRW+D
I St+RW+D
St+RW
F+D
D St+IW
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0,01
I
100
50
I
150
I
200
I
250
I
300
I
350
I
400
I
450
!
500
I
550
600
Rf0.25Re~0.3Re 0.83
Fig. 11. Kowalski [19] friction factor plot with air water data of Hand and Spedding [21].
10--
9
8 7 q-'-
6-
5-
I"
I=
equation (19).
I
/
Liquid velocities
+ VsL= 0.015 m sl
W VSL= 0 , 0 4 9 m s -I
X VSL = 0 . 0 9 7 m s ]
..a..~ 'w
c~
m
4~x
32-~
...4,.. "q"
+~ "+" %
>
~K
I.
equation (22).
I'
1-
I
0,005
k.
0.010
|,
0,015
VsL/(Vs~. + 6)
Fig. 13. ki against (fie)r, for air-water data of Hand and Spedding [21].
0.020
equations (23)-(24).
1932
11
B
g
13
L
St+R
St+RW
St+IW
A+RW
/'g
H St+LRW+D
I St+RW+D
K F+D
i I
-~
r,.)
/.m/~
"I
10
11
12
Experimental fi/fsc
Fig. 14. Comparison betweenf/jsG calculated using equation (22) and experimental values, with uniform
air-water data of Hand and Spedding [21].
if
J~ = 0.0262(RL ReSL)-J 39
if
Re < 2100,
.[~ = 16ReG I
./s~ = 16Resd
if
.[~ = 0.046Re 2
fsG = 0.046Res=.
(c) Calculate the interfacial friction factor using the
following relationships :
(i) For ai~water systems use equations (22)-(24)
to determine f / f s ~
(ii) For air-viscous liquid systems the Andritsos
[18] method of equations (13) and (14) is
recommended where (Vs~)t = 5 m s -j at atmospheric pressure.
I 1 i i
1933
I/i
0.1
,/
-~
i
I~ ,,
C,~///
~
/
.~W~/
z t
I III
0.01
0.1
0.7
~" 100
,a
'~
5)
10
100
Experimental pressure drop
200
Fig. 16. Comparison between pressure loss (N m m-~) predicted using new procedure and experimental
values, with the air-water data of Hand and Spedding [21].
1934
t J iitl
,~
=
.././t It)-I:-
r,f~//,, "
,,~1,," , /
,'~.,,"
.z O.l:
~"S'~
i/ill@
~
I
I I I11
0.1
Experimental liquid hold-up
0.7
Fig. 17. Comparison between calculated hold-up /~L predicted using new procedure and experimental
values, with air-83% (wt/wt) glycerinesolution data of Hand and Spedding [21].
200
j j
~v -
~sA(/
,/K /
.~'~./
.,"
,qX z/
e~
### ~ !##i
"~
s, I's'
_~
A-
,*
x~;'~//"
jl.#~.
,, I/"5
10
I I I
100
Experimental pressure drop
200
Fig. 18. Comparison between calculated pressure loss (N m m ') predicted using new procedure and
experimental values, with air-83% (wt/wt) glycerinesolution data of Hand and Spedding [21].
9. CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
1935
APPENDIX--GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS
For the stratified flow shown in Fig. 1, the following
dimensionless parameters follow from geometry.
= n - cos 1(2,~L-- 1)
So = cos-' (2,~L-- 1)
g,
= ~/l -(2~L- 0 2
hL = f i ' D
~
4AL
D L = SL
D G --
4A G
S~ + Si
ReL = DL "[~GPL/#L
ReG = DGVGPG/IIG.