An improved method for applying the lockhart–martinelli correlation to three‐phase gas–liquid–solid horizontal pipeline flows

Abstract

Three‐phase (G/L/S) horizontal pipe flow data collected from the literature are used to evaluate the performance of a number of correlations designed to predict the pipeline pressure gradient. In the present study, a number of popular two‐phase gas–liquid pressure loss correlations were modified for three‐phase flow predictions. The primary modification is to assume that the slurry (L/S) mixture behaves as a singlephase. The modified Dukler and the Beggs and Brill correlations did not provide accurate estimates of the three‐phase pressure gradients. When the classical Lockhart–Martinelli (L–M) correlation was used, along with a kinematic friction loss model to calculate the slurry (L/S) superficial flow pressure gradient, accurate predictions of the three‐phase (G/L/S) pressure gradient were obtained provided the slurry did not exhibit non‐Newtonian behaviour and that Coulombic (sliding bed) friction was negligible. Additional experiments should be conducted before the improved version of the L–M correlation is applied to commercial installations with pipe diameters greater than 100 mm.

Visualization and measurement of two-phase flows in horizontal pipelines

“…7, the performance of the three correlations are plotted together. By plotting the measured values vs. the predicted values it is noticeable how the L-M correlation predicts much better the frictional pressure drop, with an average absolute percent deviation of 10% using the recomended C parameter from the Chisholm simplification, and 6.2% with the fitted value of C. The Dk correlation underestimates the pressure drop with very large differences with respect to L-M and B&B, and this is in concordance with the study of Rahman et al (2013).…”

A wavelet based numerical simulation technique for two-phase flows using the phase field method

“…For a comparison, the variation of rise velocity (w/W) with respect to the surface tension parameter (σ/ρ l W 2 D) is presented in Fig 4. The result has to be interpreted carefully. The agreement between the present simulation and the experiment -as depicted in Fig 4 -shows the accuracy of the present method of implementing surface tension force on the right hand side of (2). Note that surface tension force has been calculated with the method demonstrated by Jacqmin [39] and Ding et al [18] based on the Cahn-Hilliard phase field method.…”

“…For example, plugging up pipeline/wellbore usually causes a huge loss for petroleum industries due to production shutdowns [7]. To develop an effective commercial design for the transportation of multiphase flows in such pipelines/wellbores one requires a better understanding of the surface tension, frictional pressure loss, and the operating condition necessary to avoid particle deposition and hydrate formation in pipelines and wellbores [2]. In principle, pressure loss in a wellbore flow may be characterized by studying the dispersed multiphase flow regime.…”

Experimental Analysis of Gas–Liquid–Solid Three-Phase Flows in Horizontal Pipelines

“…Thus it is important to optimize three phase flows, a process in which there is still plenty of room for improvement. As highlighted by Rahman et al (2013), there are three main parameters to consider when designing a pipeline to transport three-phase flow mixtures. (1) The first one, which is also important in single phase flows, is the frictional pressure gradient (FPG) along the installation, which allows to make predictions of power consumption during operation; (2) the flow regime, that is the spatial distribution of the phases over the pipe volume, which is important to establish precisely, because specific regimes may be needed for different processes; and (3) the deposition velocity which is the minimum operational velocity required to avoid accumulation of particles at the bottom of the pipeline.…”