Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 14 (2003) 151160

www.elsevier.com/locate/flowmeasinst

Void fraction measurement using impedance method

H.C. Yang, D.K. Kim, M.H. Kim
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology, San 31, Hyoja Dong, Pohang, 790-784, South Korea

Abstract
To investigate the relationship between void fraction and volume-averaged impedance in waterair mixtures, a Styrofoam simulator was designed and manufactured. Because the relative permittivity of Styrofoam is negligible compared to that of water,
Styrofoam spheres immersed in water act like air bubbles. Three kinds of rectangular conductance electrode were examined to
verify the performance of the Styrofoam simulator and to choose the optimum electrode shape. In addition, a waterair level swell
facility was designed and constructed to verify the performance of recommended electrode shape developed using the Styrofoam
simulator. Three circular conductance probes were designed and their impedance data in the waterair level swell facility were
compared. Two-probe designs, characterized by probe-I and probe-II, were shown to be the best candidates for the measurement
of volume-averaged void fraction. The impedances of the waterair mixtures with void fractions of 0.00.1 were similar to theoretical predictions, with a maximum error of 0.5%. Therefore, the Styrofoam simulator and circular conductance probes should prove
useful for the measurement of volume-averaged void fraction in pool conditions.
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Styrofoam simulator; Measurements; Volume-averaged void fraction; Two-phase flow; Impedance

1. Introduction
Methodologies for measuring the characteristics of
two-phase flows have been studied in nuclear, thermal
and fluid engineering for decades. The main parameters
determining the characteristics of a two-phase flow are
very important indicators of the flow mechanism. One
such key parameter is the void fraction, which determines the pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient in
two-phase flow. Additionally, if the quality is known,
the slip ratio of each phase can be expressed in terms
of the void fraction [1]. Void fraction is generally measured as either: (1) a time ratio of liquid/gas passing
through a certain local point per unit time; (2) a length
ratio of liquid/gas on a certain line; (3) an area ratio of
liquid and gas on a certain cross-section; or (4) a volumetric ratio of liquid and gas in a certain space [2].
Numerous measurement techniques have been used to
elucidate the void fraction characteristics of two-phase
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-54-279-2165; fax: +82-54-2793199.
E-mail addresses: hoonyang@postech.ac.kr (H.C. Yang);
dongkwan.kim@daikin.co.jp (D.K. Kim); mhkim@postech.ac.kr
(M.H. Kim).

0955-5986/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0955-5986(03)00020-7

flows, including the quick-closing method [3,9], conductance probe method [4], radiation attenuation method [5],
X-ray method [6], and impedance method [7-10].
The impedance method has been widely used for all
four of the measurement categories outlined above
because it is easy to implement and gives time resolved,
continuous signals. The impedance method is based on
the fact that the liquid and gas phases have different
electrical conductivities and relative permittivities [11].
The impedance method can be classified into two categories, depending on the liquid material selected: the electrical conductivity method and the capacitance method.
The electrical conductivity method uses a conducting
material like water to measure the void fraction of the
two-phase flow. It can also be used to measure the water
level and liquid film thickness. The capacitance method
is used to measure the void fraction in two-phase systems in which the liquid is a non-conducting material
such as a refrigerant or oil [12-15].
The impedance of a waterair flow is different from
that of a single-phase flow. The impedance method proposed by Ma et al. [7] and Wang et al. [8] measured
the area-averaged void fraction using copper electrodes
flushed with a 32 mm diameter acrylic tube. In this
impedance method, the performance of the probe was

152

H.C. Yang et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 14 (2003) 151160

found to be very sensitive to the void fraction and flow

pattern. This shortcoming can be partially alleviated by
using a small probe [9]. Andreussi et al. [10] showed
that the theory developed by Maxwell and Bruggman for
dispersed flow can be adapted to describe the electrical
behavior of their ring-electrode design. In the development of impedance sensor design, ORNL/NUREG-65
report [16] presented two Pt-30%-Rh probes to measure
the void fraction. However, because of the probe shape,
only the line-averaged void fraction could be obtained
from the impedance of the watervapor mixture.
In this paper, the rectangular sensors used in the Styrofoam simulator are referred to as electrodes, and the
circular sensors used in the waterair level swell facility
are referred to as probes.
This study aims to obtain the volume-averaged void
fraction in waterair mixtures using electrical conductivity probes whose performance has first been verified
in the Styrofoam simulator. By calculating the shape factor and measuring the electrical conductivity of water, it
was shown that water had a constant electrical conductivity. The Styrofoam simulator was designed and manufactured to investigate the relationship between void
fraction and volume-averaged impedance in the twophase flow. Systems of known void fraction were easily
created by immersing series of Styrofoam spheres tied
together with cotton string into an acrylic reservoir.
Three kinds of conductance electrodes were designed
and compared for different Styrofoam configurations at
a range of void fractions. In addition, a waterair level
swell facility in the pool condition was designed and
constructed to compare the performance of probes that
could measure the impedance of waterair mixture.
Three kinds of circular probes were designed and examined in the waterair level swell facility. The results
obtained in the waterair level swell facility were compared with previous results from experiments [10], theoretical equations [17,18] and FLUENT simulations [9].
Comparison of the impedances measured in the Styrofoam simulator with those measured in the waterair
flow showed that the probes used in the waterair flow
effectively measure the volume-averaged void fraction.

Styrofoam spheres immersed in water can be used to

simulate air bubbles. We acquired the volume-averaged
impedance of systems with a range of void fractions, and
at each void fraction we considered various distributions
of the Styrofoam spheres within the water reservoir.
2.1. Styrofoam simulator
Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of the Styrofoam
simulator. The dimensions of the acryl reservoir were
400 400 450 mm (w dh). The dimension of the
rectangular electrodes, referred to as the total volume,
was 200 200 350 mm. Fig. 2 shows the Styrofoam
arrays in which Styrofoam spheres of diameter 50 mm
were connected with cotton string and paper tape. At the
end of each Styrofoam array, a hook was attached to
connect the Styrofoam array to a stainless steel screen.
Therefore, the Styrofoam arrays immersed in water are
held in place by attachment to a stainless steel screen
sitting on the bottom plate of the acryl reservoir.

2. Styrofoam simulator test

The void fraction, a can be expressed as
a

Gas Volume
.
Total Volume

(1)

The Styrofoam simulator was developed to measure the

volume-averaged impedances of systems whose void
fractions are known. The relative permittivity of Styrofoam, = 1.03, is almost the same as that of air, =
1.0005 [19]. Because the relative permittivity of Styrofoam is negligible compared to that of water ( = 80),

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the Styrofoam simulator. (a) Electrodes; (b) Extension cable; (c) Reservoir; (d) Styrofoam; (e) Stainless
steel screen.

H.C. Yang et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 14 (2003) 151160

153

Variations in the water temperature had a significant

effect on the impedance measurements; to minimize
such effects, the water temperature was maintained at
25.0 1.0 C.
The impedance of water in the Styrofoam simulator
was measured using an impedance meter (HP-4285A).
This impedance meter had a 2 m long correction cable
that allowed the electrodes to be set up in any position
near the Styrofoam simulator. The impedance signal was
transferred from the electrodes to the impedance meter
and data logger through a GPIB interface. At each
experimental condition, the data logger acquired 500
data at a sampling rate of 5 Hz.
Brown et al. [20] showed that the double layer effect
becomes negligible at frequencies greater than 100 kHz.
In all the present experiments the phase of the impedance
was very close to zero. Hence, the frequency of the
impedance meter was set to 100 kHz in all experiments.
In the experiments, the water was assumed to be
purely conductive; hence the electrical conductivity was
determined by calculating the shape factor of a cylindrical electrode and by measuring the current and the voltage difference. Fig. 5(a) shows two cylindrical electrodes. The shape factor of the cylindrical electrode was
calculated from the electrode shape. The resistances
were measured using the impedance meter as discussed
above. The electrical conductivity, s, of water can be
expressed in terms of the current, I, as follows:
I S s V,

(2)

Here, V is the voltage difference and S is the shape

factor of the cylindrical electrodes, which can be calculated using:
Fig. 2. Photograph of a Styrofoam array. (a) Hook; (b) Cotton wire;
(c) Paper tape; (d) Styrofoam.

Three kinds of conductance electrode were designed

used to measure the volume-averaged impedance over a
range of void fractions, varying the location of the Styrofoam at each void fraction. Fig. 3 shows the shapes of
the electrodes. The dimensions of each electrode were
the same as those of the total volume. Electrode-I and
Electrode-II were placed around the Styrofoam arrays,
whereas Electrode-III was set up both in the center of
and around the Styrofoam arrays. The water level and
electrode height were maintained at a height of 380 mm
including the height of the stainless steel screen.
2.2. Impedance measurement
Fig. 4 shows schematic diagrams of the distributions
of the Styrofoam arrays between the electrodes that were
used for the void fraction. In these diagrams, the graydotted circles represent the Styrofoam and the black dot
and heavy black line represent the electrode.

S 2pH / cosh1[(W22r2) / 2r2],

(3)

where H is the height of the cylindrical electrodes, W is

the distance between the cylindrical electrodes and r is
the radius of the cylindrical electrodes. Fig. 5(b) shows
the electrical conductivity of water as a function of the
distance between the electrodes. The resistance can be
calculated from the current and voltage difference. The
conductivity is almost constant for electrode separations
of 010 W / D.
2.3. Analysis of the Styrofoam simulator test
If the output of the impedance meter is directly proportional to the conductivity of the two-phase flow,
Maxwell [17] and Bruggman [18] predict that the
relationship between the output of impedance ratio, R,
and the liquid fraction, e, is as follows:
2e
,
3e

(4)

e(3/2).

(5)

Maxwell

Bruggman

154

H.C. Yang et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 14 (2003) 151160

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Schematic diagram of the rectangular electrode.

Styrofoam distributions within the rectangular electrodes.

H.C. Yang et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 14 (2003) 151160

155

water versus the resistance of the waterair mixed flow)

versus the void fraction for each of the electrode geometries. The resistance ratios of electrode-I and electrode-II deviate substantially from the theoretical predictions for bubbly flow (Eqs. (4) and (5)). In contrast, the
data measured using electrode-III are similar to the
theoretical predictions except at low void fractions. Electrode-III shows a deviation at low void fractions because
the Styrofoam located near the center electrode can generate large resistance in the same void fraction.
Styrofoam arrays should be uniformly arranged inside
the reservoir to acquire reasonable data. However, the
Styrofoam arrays were fixed only within the space
defined by the total volume. Therefore, in order to
express the impedance in the Styrofoam simulator test,
the definition of total volume should be expressed.
According to these results, the gradient of impedance
obtained using electrode-III is closest to the theoretical
values of Eqs. (4) and (5). It is noted that the impedance
data measured in waterair mixture were expressed as
time-averaged and volume-averaged values.

3. Waterair level swell facility test

Fig. 5.

Electrical conductivity of water.

In a typical bubbly flow, the bubbles are usually nonspherical, non-uniform in size, small compared to their
spacing, and homogeneously distributed Eq. (4) is frequently quoted as being representative of bubbly flow.
Fig. 6 shows the resistance ratio (the resistance of

Low and zero liquid flow runs were used to compare

the time averaged void fraction measured by impedance
meter, with values deduced from the two-phase level
swell [9]. A static vertical column of liquid in a pool
has a level Ll. If gas is allowed to flow through this
column, the height of the two-phase mixture rises to
LTP, where the extent of the rise is determined by the
mean density of the mixture. If the gas flow rate is low,
the pressure drop in both is equal to the static head, and
the mean void fraction is given by
a 1

Ll
.
LTP

(6)

In the present study, the waterair level swell facility

was designed and constructed to measure the void fraction. Three kinds of circular probe were designed and
examined in this facility.
3.1. Waterair level swell facility

Fig. 6. Non-dimensional resistance ratio with electrode shapes in

Styrofoam simulator.

Fig. 7 shows the waterair level swell facility for measuring the volume-averaged impedance of waterair
mixtures. To simulate real dispersed bubbly flow, the
test facility was modified to resemble the tester reported
in ORNL/NUREG-65 [16]. The size of the acrylic pipe
was 250 mm (diameter) 1000 mm (height) 10 mm
(thickness). A disk plate of stainless steel symmetrically
perforated with 49 holes of diameter 1 mm was placed
on the bottom of test facility; this plate was used to make
uniformly distributed bubbles. Air was inserted into the

156

H.C. Yang et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 14 (2003) 151160

4. Experimental method and results

4.1. Experimental method

Fig. 7.

Schematic diagram of waterair level swell facility.

test section through the nozzle attached to an air tank

maintained at a pressure of 10 bar. The air distributor
under disk plate was divided into 90o interval to maintain
the constant airflow condition. To eliminate contaminants from the air, an air filter was attached in front of
the nozzle connector. An air flow meter was placed in
front of the air distributor to measure the airflow rate
and to calibrate the void fraction of the waterair flow.
An auxiliary acrylic pipe of dimensions 60 mm
(diameter) 1000 mm (height) 5 mm (thickness) was
included above the main test section to enable accurate
measurement of the water level. The probe was fixed to
the lower end of the stainless steel supporter attached to
the flange of the test facility. The lead wires were connected to the impedance meter and probes through the
stainless steel supporter. Fig. 8 shows the three kinds of
probes used in the experiment. Probe-I and probe-III had
coaxial designs with different lengths. Probe-II had two
facing semi-circular surfaces.

To simulate two-phase flow between probes, air was

injected through the nozzle into the acrylic pipe reservoir
at a constant flow rate. In these experiments, the flow
pattern was dispersed bubbly flow. To ensure that the
bubbly flow pattern was stable and homogeneous in the
region where the impedance was measured, the probe
was installed 600 mm above the bottom of the reservoir.
The impedance signal of the bubbly flow was transferred
from the probes to the impedance meter and data logger
through the GPIB interface. The time-averaged impedance was measured at a sampling rate of 5 Hz. The injection of air into the reservoir causes the water level to
rise. At that moment, the static pressure can affect the
water level. The water level was kept constant with 1 m
height from the bottom to eliminate static pressure
effect. The end of auxiliary pipe was opened to discharge
air into the ambient atmosphere. Therefore, the impedance was acquired for the case in which air flowed
through the stationary state water. Table 1 shows the
variables of the experiment and the range of values considered for each variable. The void fraction was calculated using the calibration curve that gives the relation
between airflow rate and void fraction, shown in Fig. 9.
The void fraction is well fitted by a second order polynomial. Using the calibration curve in Fig. 9, the real
void fraction can be acquired. The uncertainty in the
void fraction from the calibration was 2.0%. Flow fluctuations can lead to errors in the impedances measured
by the probes. The data obtained in this study showed
reliable values, with fluctuation errors of less than
0.5%. Because contaminants in the water have a severe
effect on the conductivity, the conductance probes were
calibrated for every experiment.
4.2. Impedance measurements
Fig. 10 shows photographs of waterair mixtures in
the acryl reservoir at a range of void fractions. At a void
fraction of 0.00.1, the dispersed bubbly flow pattern
could be achieved in the reservoir. However, above a
void fraction of 0.1, bubbles were constantly merging
and separating with each other and it was difficult to
discern a dispersed bubbly flow pattern with the naked
eye.
Fig. 11 shows the resistance of the waterair mixture
as a function of void fraction as measured by each of
the three probes. The resistance of the waterair mixture
increased with increasing void fraction. The R-square of
probe-I was good compared to those of probe-II and
probe-III.
Fig. 12 shows variation in the electrical resistance
ratio, R, with respect to liquid fraction. The resistance

H.C. Yang et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 14 (2003) 151160

Fig. 8.

157

Void fraction probes.

ratio is a dimensionless parameter that represents the

ratio of the electrical resistance of water (i.e. the zero
void fraction mixture) to that of the waterair mixture
at a particular void fraction. A dimensionless resistance
can be expressed by
R

R(water)
.
R(mixture)

(7)

The electrical resistance ratios of the three probes

showed a similar trend. Most of the impedance data
obtained at void fractions in the range 0.00.1 were
similar to the predictions of Eqs. (4) and (5). However,
the impedances obtained at void fractions of 0.10.2 did
not follow Eqs. (4) and (5). In that void fraction range,
bubbles were merged into one another diminishing the
homogeneous characteristics required for dispersed bubbly flow. The impedances obtained using probe-II were
Table 1
Experimental parameters in waterair level swell test
Variable

Range

Air flow rate

Void fraction
Water temperature
Pressure
Input frequency of impedance meter

055 l/min
020%
298 K
1 kg/cm2
100 kHz

Fig. 9.

Correlation curve of void fraction vs air flow meter.

close to the theoretical equations. Because air bubbles

located near electrode can generate large resistance,
probe-I and probe-III showed higher resistance than
probe-II at high void fractions.
Maxwell [17] pointed out that the theory used to

158

H.C. Yang et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 14 (2003) 151160

Fig. 10. Photograph of acryl reservoir containing a waterair flow at various void fractions.

obtain Eq. (4) is only valid at low void fractions. In general, the level swell data agree well with the void fraction
output at void fraction less than 0.3. Costigan and Whalley [9] found a discrepancy between their void meter
FLUENT simulation results and Eq. (4). They used the
fluid dynamics code FLUENT to model the conductance
probes behavior, and employed the steady heat conduction equation to simulate the void in a circular tube. The
meter responded more to voids located near the electrodes than it did to those locating near the tube centerline. The error bars expressed in Fig. 12 show the resistance of the waterair mixture. The center points of the
error bars show the mean values.
Considering the R2 values of the void fraction
measurements, the results obtained using probe-I are the
closest to Maxwells equation in the liquid fraction
0.91.0. At liquid fractions in the range 0.80.9, however, the data obtained using probe-II are the closest to
Maxwells equation. The fall-off in the accuracy of

probe-I results from the generation of a large resistance

when bubbles gather in the center point of this probe at
higher void fractions. Probe-III had the largest standard
deviation among the three probe designs, but it also
showed excellent linear characteristics. This indicates
that the length ratio is unimportant in these probe
designs.
The bubbles in the waterair flow were about 10 mm
in size. The diameter of the probes 60 mm was determined by the bubble size. In the Styrofoam simulator, the
magnitude ratio of Styrofoam 50 mm to electrode width
200 mm was set to 1:4. The interference of air bubble
to the electrode can be minimized by considering the
larger magnitude ratio of air bubble to probe diameter
1:6 in the waterair level swell test.
The measurement uncertainties of the variables used
in this study are listed in Table 2.

H.C. Yang et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 14 (2003) 151160

Fig. 11.

Resistance vs. void fraction in waterair flow.

Fig. 12. Non-dimensional resistance ratio with liquid fraction in

waterair flow.

5. Conclusions
In this study, we measured the volume-averaged void
fraction and developed the impedance electrode designs
using two approaches: the Styrofoam simulator test and
the waterair level swell test.
The major conclusions of the present work are as follows:
1. A new impedance measuring method, called the

159

Styrofoam simulator, was designed and manufactured. Styrofoam is suitable for the simulation of air
bubbles, because the relative permittivity of Styrofoam ( = 1.03) is negligible compared to that of
water ( = 80).
2. Three distinct conductance electrode designs were
used to record the impedances at void fractions in the
range 0.00.52. In the Styrofoam simulator test, the
gradient of impedance obtained using electrode-III
resembled theoretical predictions (Eqs. (4) and (5)).
3. A waterair level swell facility was designed and constructed to verify the performance of the electrode
shape that gave the best results in the Styrofoam
simulator. Three kinds of circular conductance probe
were developed and their performances were compared over the void fraction range of 0.00.2. Probe-I
showed the best R-square values for the void fraction
measurements in the waterair level swell facility. In
the void fraction range of 0.00.1, the impedances
obtained by the three probes all showed good agreement with the theoretical equations (Eqs. (4) and (5)).
However, at void fractions of 0.10.2, the impedance
was underestimated compared to the theoretical equations. It also existed in the results of numerical simulations conducted previously [9].
4. The Styrofoam simulator was proposed to measure
the change in impedance with changing the bubble
location and to choose the electrode shape with minimizing the effect of bubble location at the same void
fractions. The Styrofoam simulator showed relatively
large impedances with locating the Styrofoam near
the electrodes compared to those with locating the
Styrofoam between the electrodes. At low void fraction, therefore, the Styrofoam simulator generated a
variety of impedance values depending on the
location of the Styrofoam, shown in Fig. 6, despite
preserving the same void fraction. In the waterair
level swell experiments, however, the change in averaged impedance measuring by probe-I which had
essentially the same design as electrode-III, showed
the fluctuation error of less than 0.5% at the same
void fraction. The effect of bubble location in the
waterair level swell facility is supposed to be very
small because the bubbles are well distributed over
the flow field. The variation of the probe length at a
given probe diameter also did not affect the impedance measurement.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI),
South Korea and NRL.

160

H.C. Yang et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 14 (2003) 151160

Table 2
Experimental measurement uncertainty
Experiment

Source

Measurement uncertainty

Styrofoam simulator test

Styrofoam
Impedance meter
Scale
Thermometer
Flow meter
Pressure gauge
Impedance meter
Thermometer
Scale

1 mm
0.25
0.1 mm
0.5 K
3 l/min
0.2 kg/cm2
0.25
0.5 K
0.1 mm

Waterair level swell test

References
[1] J.G. Collier, Convective Boiling and Condensation, McGrawHill, New York, 1980.
[2] S.Y. Lee, B.J. Kim, M.H. Kim, Two-Phase Flow Heat Transfer,
Daeyoung Press, Seoul, South Korea, 1993.
[3] D.J. Nicklin, J.F. Davidson, The onset of instability in two-phase
slug flow, in: Symposium on Two-phase Fluid Flow, Institute of
Mechanical Engineers, London, 1962.
[4] A. Serizawa, Fluid dynamics characteristics of two-phase flow,
Ph. D. thesis, Kyoto University, 1993.
[5] O.C. Jones, N. Zuber, The interrelation between void fraction
fluctuations and flow patterns in two-phase flow, Int. J. of Multiphase Flow 2 (1975) 273306.
[6] M.A. Vince, R.T. Lahey, On the development of an objective
flow regime indicator, Int. J. of Multiphase Flow 8 (1982) 93
124.
[7] Y.P. Ma, N.M. Chung, B.S. Pei, W.K. Lin, Two simplified
methods to determine void fractions for two-phase flow, Nuclear
Technology 94 (1991) 124133.
[8] Y.W. Wang, B.S. Pei, W.K. Lin, Verification of using a single
void fraction sensor to identify two-phase flow patterns, Nuclear
Technology 95 (1991) 8794.
[9] G. Costigan, P.B. Whalley, Slug flow regime identification from
dynamic void fraction measurements in vertical airwater flows,
Int. J. of Multiphase Flow 23 (2) (1997) 263282.
[10] P. Andreussi, A.D. Donfrancesco, M. Messia, An impedance

[11]

[12]
[13]
[14]

[15]
[16]

[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]

method for the measurement of liquid hold-up in two-phase flow,

Int. J. of Multiphase Flow 14 (1988) 777785.
J.T. Kwon, An experimental study on the void-fraction measurement and flow pattern identification by capacitance method, MS
thesis, Pohang University of Science and Technology, 1993.
J.V. Solomon, Construction of a two-phase flow regime transition
detector, MS thesis, MIT, 1962.
R.E. Haberstrah, P. Griffith, The slug-annular two-phase flow
regime transition, 1965, ASME paper, 65-HT-52.
D. Barnea, O. Shoham, Y. Taitel, Flow pattern characterization
in two-phase flow by electrical conductance probe, Int. J. of
Multiphase Flow 6 (1980) 387397.
H.C. Kang, M.H. Kim, The development of a flush-wire probe
and calibration, Int. J. of Multiphase Flow 18 (3) (1992) 423438.
A.J. Moorhead, M.B. Herskovitz, C.S. Morgan, J.J. Woodhouse,
R.W. Reed, Fabrication of sensors for high-temperature steam
instrumentation systems, ORNL/NUREG-65 report, 1980.
J.C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1873.
D.J.G. Bruggman, Calculation of different physical constants of
heterogeneous substances, Ann. Phys 24 (1935) 636679.
H.H. William, Engineering Electromagnetics, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1989.
R.C. Brown, P. Andreussi, S. Zanelli, The use of wire probes for
the measurement of liquid film thickness in annular gasliquid
flows, Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 56 (1978)
754757.