Prediction of holdup in two-phase gas-liquid inclined flow

Prediction of Holdup in Pipe Two‐phase Gas‐Liquid Co‐current Down Flow at −45d̀

“…The stratified-plus-roll wave regime is affected by gravity and became easier to predict at downward angles. The film-plus-droplet regime was predicted by two models for horizontal [15] and seven models for the -6.17' angle [22]. Therefore the film-plus-droplet regime shows an increasing similarity to the stratified-type flow regimes for prediction for down flow.…”

“…As the angle of inclination was moved down from the horizontal it became more difficult to predict holdup. For example, in horizontal flow [15,16] over 30 models were successful in prediction of at least one flow regime, while the corresponding number for -6.17" [22] and -20" [23] were 17 and 13 models respectively. This increase in the difficulty of prediction is not inconsistent with the abnormal twophase pressure drop reported at these geometries 1241.…”

“…Such flow would be similar to the equivalent case in the horizontal geometry because the effect of the high gas rate would be predominant regardless of the gravitational influence on the heavier phase. This would not be the case for stratified-type flows which became predominant at downward angles of flow [22,23] because of the stabilising effects of gravitational forces on the liquid. By contrast, in upward flow angles [17,21], slug and intermittent flows were predominant.…”

“…This would not be the case for stratified-type flows which became predominant at downward angles of flow [22,23] because of the stabilising effects of gravitational forces on the liquid. By contrast, in upward flow angles [17,21], slug and intermittent flows were predominant. In downward flow [22,23] the stratified regimes extended over a much wider range (typically two-thirds) of the flow rate ranges of the two phases, when compared to the horizontal case in which the stratified regimes extended over about a third of the range [15,16].…”

“…By contrast, in upward flow angles [17,21], slug and intermittent flows were predominant. In downward flow [22,23] the stratified regimes extended over a much wider range (typically two-thirds) of the flow rate ranges of the two phases, when compared to the horizontal case in which the stratified regimes extended over about a third of the range [15,16]. Figure 2 illustrates the predominance of the stratified regimes over the flow regime range at -45' geometry.…”

Prediction of Holdup in Pipe Two‐phase Gas‐Liquid Co‐current Down Flow at −45d̀

“…The stratified-plus-roll wave regime is affected by gravity and became easier to predict at downward angles. The film-plus-droplet regime was predicted by two models for horizontal [15] and seven models for the -6.17' angle [22]. Therefore the film-plus-droplet regime shows an increasing similarity to the stratified-type flow regimes for prediction for down flow.…”

“…As the angle of inclination was moved down from the horizontal it became more difficult to predict holdup. For example, in horizontal flow [15,16] over 30 models were successful in prediction of at least one flow regime, while the corresponding number for -6.17" [22] and -20" [23] were 17 and 13 models respectively. This increase in the difficulty of prediction is not inconsistent with the abnormal twophase pressure drop reported at these geometries 1241.…”

“…Such flow would be similar to the equivalent case in the horizontal geometry because the effect of the high gas rate would be predominant regardless of the gravitational influence on the heavier phase. This would not be the case for stratified-type flows which became predominant at downward angles of flow [22,23] because of the stabilising effects of gravitational forces on the liquid. By contrast, in upward flow angles [17,21], slug and intermittent flows were predominant.…”

“…This would not be the case for stratified-type flows which became predominant at downward angles of flow [22,23] because of the stabilising effects of gravitational forces on the liquid. By contrast, in upward flow angles [17,21], slug and intermittent flows were predominant. In downward flow [22,23] the stratified regimes extended over a much wider range (typically two-thirds) of the flow rate ranges of the two phases, when compared to the horizontal case in which the stratified regimes extended over about a third of the range [15,16].…”

“…By contrast, in upward flow angles [17,21], slug and intermittent flows were predominant. In downward flow [22,23] the stratified regimes extended over a much wider range (typically two-thirds) of the flow rate ranges of the two phases, when compared to the horizontal case in which the stratified regimes extended over about a third of the range [15,16]. Figure 2 illustrates the predominance of the stratified regimes over the flow regime range at -45' geometry.…”

Prediction of Holdup in Pipe Two‐phase Gas‐Liquid Co‐current Down Flow at −45d̀

“…The stratified-plus-roll wave regime is affected by gravity and became easier to predict at downward angles. The film-plus-droplet regime was predicted by two models for horizontal [15] and seven models for the -6.17' angle [22]. Therefore the film-plus-droplet regime shows an increasing similarity to the stratified-type flow regimes for prediction for down flow.…”

“…As the angle of inclination was moved down from the horizontal it became more difficult to predict holdup. For example, in horizontal flow [15,16] over 30 models were successful in prediction of at least one flow regime, while the corresponding number for -6.17" [22] and -20" [23] were 17 and 13 models respectively. This increase in the difficulty of prediction is not inconsistent with the abnormal twophase pressure drop reported at these geometries 1241.…”

“…Such flow would be similar to the equivalent case in the horizontal geometry because the effect of the high gas rate would be predominant regardless of the gravitational influence on the heavier phase. This would not be the case for stratified-type flows which became predominant at downward angles of flow [22,23] because of the stabilising effects of gravitational forces on the liquid. By contrast, in upward flow angles [17,21], slug and intermittent flows were predominant.…”

“…This would not be the case for stratified-type flows which became predominant at downward angles of flow [22,23] because of the stabilising effects of gravitational forces on the liquid. By contrast, in upward flow angles [17,21], slug and intermittent flows were predominant. In downward flow [22,23] the stratified regimes extended over a much wider range (typically two-thirds) of the flow rate ranges of the two phases, when compared to the horizontal case in which the stratified regimes extended over about a third of the range [15,16].…”

“…By contrast, in upward flow angles [17,21], slug and intermittent flows were predominant. In downward flow [22,23] the stratified regimes extended over a much wider range (typically two-thirds) of the flow rate ranges of the two phases, when compared to the horizontal case in which the stratified regimes extended over about a third of the range [15,16]. Figure 2 illustrates the predominance of the stratified regimes over the flow regime range at -45' geometry.…”

Prediction of Holdup in Pipe Two‐phase Gas‐Liquid Co‐current Down Flow at −45d̀

“…The stratified-plus-roll wave regime is affected by gravity and became easier to predict at downward angles. The film-plus-droplet regime was predicted by two models for horizontal [15] and seven models for the -6.17' angle [22]. Therefore the film-plus-droplet regime shows an increasing similarity to the stratified-type flow regimes for prediction for down flow.…”

“…As the angle of inclination was moved down from the horizontal it became more difficult to predict holdup. For example, in horizontal flow [15,16] over 30 models were successful in prediction of at least one flow regime, while the corresponding number for -6.17" [22] and -20" [23] were 17 and 13 models respectively. This increase in the difficulty of prediction is not inconsistent with the abnormal twophase pressure drop reported at these geometries 1241.…”

“…Such flow would be similar to the equivalent case in the horizontal geometry because the effect of the high gas rate would be predominant regardless of the gravitational influence on the heavier phase. This would not be the case for stratified-type flows which became predominant at downward angles of flow [22,23] because of the stabilising effects of gravitational forces on the liquid. By contrast, in upward flow angles [17,21], slug and intermittent flows were predominant.…”

“…This would not be the case for stratified-type flows which became predominant at downward angles of flow [22,23] because of the stabilising effects of gravitational forces on the liquid. By contrast, in upward flow angles [17,21], slug and intermittent flows were predominant. In downward flow [22,23] the stratified regimes extended over a much wider range (typically two-thirds) of the flow rate ranges of the two phases, when compared to the horizontal case in which the stratified regimes extended over about a third of the range [15,16].…”

“…By contrast, in upward flow angles [17,21], slug and intermittent flows were predominant. In downward flow [22,23] the stratified regimes extended over a much wider range (typically two-thirds) of the flow rate ranges of the two phases, when compared to the horizontal case in which the stratified regimes extended over about a third of the range [15,16]. Figure 2 illustrates the predominance of the stratified regimes over the flow regime range at -45' geometry.…”