2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2012.08.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Terminal velocities of clean and fully-contaminated drops in vertical pipes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
23
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
4
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The average terminal error of the simulations is 3.9% and 7.4%, with a standard deviation of 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively (see figure 3). Based on these results, the correlation of [71] appears to be an accurate tool to predictcalculate the terminal velocity of Taylor bubbles in vertical pipes, although the correlation of [37] predicts more accurately for air-water systems with Eo < 30. Furthermore, the dimensionless film thickness,h = h/d, is compared with the correlation of [44].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The average terminal error of the simulations is 3.9% and 7.4%, with a standard deviation of 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively (see figure 3). Based on these results, the correlation of [71] appears to be an accurate tool to predictcalculate the terminal velocity of Taylor bubbles in vertical pipes, although the correlation of [37] predicts more accurately for air-water systems with Eo < 30. Furthermore, the dimensionless film thickness,h = h/d, is compared with the correlation of [44].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…For vertical pipes, the F r obtained numerically is compared with the results obtained using the correlations of [71] and [37]. The average terminal error of the simulations is 3.9% and 7.4%, with a standard deviation of 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively (see figure 3).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In literature, various studies either theoretical and/or experimental are done to account for the terminal bubble velocity. A good review for the main correlations for , to account for bubble terminal velocity, starting from the theoretical investigation of Dumitrescu (1943) and ending with the resent study of Kurimoto et al (2013) and is given by Morgado et al (2016).…”
Section: Taylor Bubble Rise Velocitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Values predicted from Viana et al (2003) correlations, and values from the recent correlation of Kurimoto et al (2013) are added to Figure 9 for comparison purposes. It can be seen that the proposed correlation agrees well with a wide range of correlations with a maximum deviation of ±10%.…”
Section: Taylor Bubble Rise Velocitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Almatroushi & Ghannam [2] has carried out a study on droplet motion, surface active material, salt concentrations and polymer concentrations and concluded that the presence of NaCl in the aqueous phase increases the droplet translation velocity for all droplet sizes. Researchers such as Myint et al [3] and Kurimoto et al [4] claims that the initial shape deformation does not affect the terminal velocity due to strong viscous damping shape oscillations and that the surfactants in the external phase increase the drag co-efficient. Cai et al [5] deems that the drag coefficient of bubbles increases until the Reynolds number is about 1200, while Borhan & Pallinti [6] claims that the walls of the experimental setups affects the kinetics of the crude oil particle.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%