Void Fraction in Bubbly and Slug Flow in
Downward Vertical and Inclined Systems
A.R. Hasan, SPE, U. of North Dakota
Summary
Much work has been done in the area of two-phase upflow, while the
flow of gas and liquid in the downward direction has not received
~uc~ attention. This paper presents a model for estimating void frac-
tion m downward flow for vertical and inclined systems for the two
dominant flow regimes, bubbly flow and slug flow. We use the drift-
flux approach to determine slip between the phases and the transition
between the flow regimes. The flowing mixture densities calculated
from the model are useful for pressure gradient estimation.
Extensive data are used to validate the model. The data show that
for both .bubbly and s.lug flow the effect of buoyancy, expressed by
the termmal bubble-nse velocity, has the same magnitude as that for
.the case of upflow. In addition, the flow distribution parameter in
bubbly flow appears to have the same value of 1.2 as in upflow. For
slug flow, however, the flow parameter is represented by a some-
what lower value (1.12) than for upflow.
Introduction
Downward simultaneous flow of gas and liquid, although rarer than
two-phase upflow, is important in chemical process industries and
petroleum production. Wet steam injection into high-viscosity-oil-
bearing formations is an example oftwo-phase downflow. Another
example is the design of gas anchors, which separate gas from oil
by reversing the direction of flow.
The static head is most often the major contributor to the total
pressure gradient during two-phase flow. The static head is directly
pr?portio?al to the in-situ volume fraction of the phases. Therefore,
It IS very Important to estimate the gas void fraction,/g, accurately.
However, two-phase flow in the downward direction is not yet suffi-
ciently understood to allow proper estimation of void fraction under
various circumstances. The available correlations for predicting
flow. ~attern transition, void fraction, and pressure drop are largely
empmcal. Some of these correlations are discussed here before
presenting the method proposed in this work.
The classic study of Beggs and Brill l probably gives the most
comprehensive method currently available for predicting void frac-
tion and pressure gradient in inclined systems. The correlation is
based on a predictive method for horizontal systems and modifica-
tions to account for the system inclination in upward and downward
directions. Mukherjee and Bri1l2 also present extensive data and a
correlation for downward two-phase flow. Both the correlations are
quite robust and generally predict void fraction accurately. Howev-
er, they are less reliable at low liquid flow rates because oftheir para-
metric dependence on input liquid fraction.
Barnea3 presents a unified model for flow pattern transitions in
both upward and downward flow. Crawford et al. 4 present data and
take an empirical approach in predicting flow pattern transition in
downflow by modifying the Weisman and Kang 5 method in inclined
two-phase upflow. Crawford et al. 6 also propose a simplified drift-
flux approach to predicting void fraction in bubbly and slug flow in
downflow. Spedding et al.? present frictional gradient data and a
correlation for downward bubbly and slug flow, among other flow
regimes. Yamazaki and Yamaguchi 8 find that a modified Bankoff
variable-density approach is suitable for estimating void fraction
~nd p~ess~re drop in all flow regimes in downflow. A preliminary
Investigation by Hasan 9 indicates that the drift-flux approach that
recognizes the different flow regimes is likely to be superior to these
empirical methods for estimating void fraction in downflow.
Copyright 1995 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review Del. 25, 1993. Revised manuscript received
Dec. 5, 1994. Paper peer approved Jan. 10, 1995. Paper (SPE 26522) first presented at the
1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Del. :Hl.
172
The gas void fraction depends on the in-situ velocity of the gas
phase, VG. For upflow, the buoyancy effect and the tendency of the
gas b~bbles to ~ow through the channel center cause the in-situ gas
velOCity to be higher than the mixture velocity. For downflow, buoy-
ancy opposes the flow of the gas phase. The cross-sectional distribu-
tion ofthe gas phase in the channel may also be different from that
in upflow. The effect of buoyancy and bubble distribution across the
channel depends on the existing flow pattern. In this paper, we de-
velop relationships for void fraction in terms of phase velocities and
system properties for bubbly and slug flow regimes. The upper limit
for the flow regime is then established. We use data from diverse
sources to validate the model.
Bubbly Flow
For upflow in vertical and inclined channels, VG has been expressed
as the sum of the terminal bubble-rise velocity, v 00, and the mixture
velocity at the channel center, Covm .10-13 Because v 00 acts in op-
position to flow in the downward direction, we express VG by
VG = Covm - vox>' (I)
With VG = vGs/fg, Eq. 1 may be used to arrive at the following ex-
pression for the gas void fraction:
fg = VGS ......•.•••.....••........•.•.• (2)
Covm - v",
For upflow, V oo is well represented by the Harmathy l4 correlation
for both vertical and inclined channels. 12,13
.................. (3)
The flow parameter Co reflects the higher mixture velocity at the
channel center that the gas phase experiences. For turbulent flow, the
ratio ofthe maximum velocity at the channel center to the channel av-
erage velocity is 1.2.'Although not all the gas bubbles flow exactly
throug~ the center, very few flow close to the wall and the velocity
profile IS flat enough for Co= 1.2 to be applicable. Hasan and Kabir l2
found a value of 1.2 for Co to agree with their void fraction data and
data from other sources for upflow at all angles of inclination.
The vertical downflow data of Clark and Flemmer l5 and Hasan 9
support the applicability ofEq. 2 to downflow. However, the values
of Co and v 00 may be different from those for vertical upflow and
may depend on the extent of wellbore deviation. To establish the
values of these parameters, we analyzed data from three sources,
including air/water data gathered by Beggs l6 with 25- and 38-mm
pipes at various inclinations; air/kerosene and air/lube oil data gath-
ered by Mukherjee l ? in a 38-mm pipe at various inclinations; and
air/oil data gathered by Kokal 18 in 25.4-, 50.8-, and 76.2-mm pipes
inclined at 5 and 9° from horizontal.
Beggs' downflow air/water data in terms of VG (= vGs/fg) vs. Vm
are shown in Fig. 1 for pipe inclinations (from horizontal) of 90 and
85° (shown as squares, D), 75 and 55° ( +), 35 and 20° (<», and 15,
10, and 5° (.6.). The linear relationship observed between the in-situ
gas velocity and the mixture velocity in this figure supports the ap-
plicability of Eqs. 1 and 2 for two-phase downflow.
The solid line in Fig. I, with an intercept of - 0.24 m/s and a slope
of 1.2, appears to represent data for all inclination angles quite well.
The Harmathy correlation gives a value of 0.24 m/s for the rise ve-
locity of air bubbles in water at normal temperatures and pressures.
Thus, Fig. 1 suggests that Co and v 00 are unaffected by the flow
direction. In addition, as with upflow (Hasan and Kabir l2 and Ha-
san 13), pipe inclination does not appear to influence the flow param-
eter or the terminal rise velocity in downward bubbly flow.
SPE Production & Facilities, August 1995
 10,-------------------------,
12

11

.!!!
E
10
o .0
":?
'"
";».0> ..
".
o.
.·0 o •• ;3-
'0

.
0
Q; o

. ....
>
l/) o~
o ttl
<!l
[J 90 & 8:· degree
T 75 & 55 degree .2 c 90 <'legree
o <) 35 & 20 degree 'f ... 80 & 70 oeq'ee
t:. 15, 10 & = degree E o
to
5C & 30 deg~ee
20 & 5 degreo:>

6 10

Mixture Velocity, Vm, m/s Mixture Velocity, Vm, m/s

Fig. 1-ln-situ gas velocity vs. mixture velocity, Beggs bubbly Fig. 2-Predlcted vs. experimental void fraction, Beggs bUbbly
flow data. flow data.

The airlkerosene and air/lube-oil data of Mukherjee 17 and the air/
oil data of Kokal 18 also support the conclusion that the flow parame-
ter and the terminal rise velocity in downflow are the same as in up-
flow. Note that for these data, the magnitude of the terminal rise
velocity varies from 0.18 to 0.24 mls. Therefore, we propose Eq. 2
for estimating void fraction in downward bubbly flow with a value
of 1.2 for the flow parameter Co, and the terminal rise velocity esti-
mated from the Harmathy correlation, Eq. 3.
Fig. 2 compares our predictions with the downward bubbly flow
data of Beggs. 16 Eq. 2 underestimates these data with an average er-
e:
ror, of - 0.005 and a standard deviation of 0.022. We did not ob-
serve a definite pattern in prediction error with the inclination angle;
the errors appeared to be random. Our attempts at optimizing the val-
ue of the flow parameter resulted in a slight improvement in the aver-
age error and standard deviation of predictions for a slightly lower
value of Co = 1.18 (e = 0.0, standard deviation equals 0.0217).
We predict the airlkerosene bubbly-flow data of Mukherjee with
an average error of - 0.011 and a standard deviation of 0.0497. The
higher standard deviation for the Mukherjee data reflects larger
scatter in the data. For this data set the optimum value of Co is 1.16,
giving an average error of 0.0003 and a standard deviation of
0.0472. The air/lube-oil void fraction data of Mukherjee and the air/
oil data of Kokal 18 are also estimated with similar accuracy by Eq.
2. Table 1 shows the performance of Eg. 2 in predicting these data.
The marginal improvement in predicting void fraction with op-
timized values of the flow parameters for these data sets lead us to
recommend that Co = 1.2, as used in upflow, is appropriate for
downflow.
Bubbly/Slug Flow Regime Transition. The transition from bubbly
to slug flow occurs because of bubble agglomeration resulting from
increased collision between bubbles at higher void fractions. For
vertical upflow, the transition from bubbly to slug flow occurs at a
void fraction of about 0.25. 3,12,19,20 We propose that this criterion
would apply to downward flow as well. This transition criterion for
vertical downflow may be expressed in terms of the superficial
phase velocities by using 18 = 0.25.
COVLS - v",
vas = (/.J = 0.43 v LS - 0.36v",. . (4)
1 0.25 - Co
Although the rise velocity appears to be unaffected by pipe in-
clination angle, it is necessary to modify Eg. 4 before it can be ap-
plied to bubbly/slug flow transition in deviated wells. In inclined
systems, bubbles flow preferentially at the upper wall of the pipe,
causing a higher local void fraction there compared with the cross-
sectional average value. Consequently, the local void fraction at the
upper pipe wall exceeds the transition value of 0.25 even though the
cross-sectional average void fraction is well below 0.25.
Assuming that the gas velocity at the upper portion of the pipe is
e
higher by a factor of IIsin (ratio of actual to projected flow area)
compared with the cross-sectional average value, Hasan 13 and Ha-
san and Kabir l2 derive an expression that is similar to Eq. 4 for tran-
sition from bubbly to slug flow for upwardly inclined pipes. The
same transition equation is proposed for downflow as well, using
the negative sign for the terminal rise velocity.
.vas = (0.43VLS - 0.36v",) sine, (5)
.
where eis the positive angle of inclination from horizontal. Barnea3
proposes a criterion for bubbly/slug flow transition that is quite sim-
ilar to Eq. 5. The data of Crawford et al. 4 also show that, except at
low mass flow rates, the transition to slug flow occurs at a void frac-
tion of about 0.25.
Fig. 3 compares the predictions ofEq. 5 with the bubbly-to-slug-
flow transition data for downflow systems of Crawford et al. 4 as
well as those of others. 4 The agreement appears acceptable. Note
that the log-log axes used in Fig. 3 make comparisons between the
predictions and the data somewhat difficult. However, like many
other researchers, we used log-log axes to accomodate the wide
range of data and to avoid de-emphasizing low-flow-rate data. 4

TABLE 1-eOMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED MODEL WITH DATA FROM VARIOUS SOURCES
Inclination
Data Angles Flow Average Standard
Source (degrees) Fluids Regime Error Deviation
Beggs 5,10,15, Air/water Bubbly -0.005 0.022
20,35,55, Air/water
75,85,90 Slug 0.0048 0.044
Mukherjee 5, 20, 30, 50, Air/water Bubbly -0.011 0.0472
70,80,90 Air/water Slug 0.021 0.069
30,90 Air/lube oil Bubbly 0.060 0.109
Slug -0.0056 0.108
Kokal 5,9 Air/oil Bubbly 0.011 0.043
Slug 0.086 0.101

SPE Production & Facilities, August 1995 173

 ... -15 0 d=2.5cm
~ -30· d=2.5cm
f:,. -45· d=2.5cm
0-60·
o -90·
• -90·
---
d=2.5cm
d=2.5cm
d=3.8cm
-90· Prediction
- . - -45· Prediction
0. •
(J:
'"
. 0 '"
~,/
~,,'
"
" r -1I VooT
LT
____ -15· Prediction ~ """"" I
1.0
L
,,"
INTERMITTENT
f ;,,/
<:Y o

tj /,' ~

a Voo
D I 0
O.

o D

0.1 fl: BUBBLE

• 0 •
c:l 0

'iI ?'"V'V'~ 0'"

•
I
I
I " .
0 1 0
•
0.1
{ Vgs + VLsl/-J;j
Fig. 3-Transition from bubbly to intermittent (slug) flow. Com-
parison of predictions of the model with data.
Dispersed Bubbly Flow. The bubbly/slug transition criteria dis-
cussed so far apply to low or moderate flow rates only. At higher
flow rates, the shear stress caused by turbulence tends to break up
the larger bubbles, inhibiting the transition to slug flow even when
void fraction exceeds the transition value of 0.25. Bubbly flow re-
sulting from the dispersion of larger bubbles is known as dispersed
bubbly flow. Taitel et al. 20 develop a model, later modified by Sho-
ham 21 , for the onset of dispersed bubbly flow for vertical upflow.
Hasan and Kabir22 find the model to be applicable for flow through
annuli in vertical and inclined channels. Based on the maximum
bubble diameter possible under highly turbulent conditions, the
model outlines the following relationship between phase velocities,
pipe diameters, and fluid properties:
Fig. 4-Cellular model for slug flow.
10
Slug Flow
Slug flow is characterized by a large bullet-shaped bubble, which
almost fills the entire channel cross section, followed by a liquid
slug that contains small gas bubbles. The large bubble, called the
Taylor bubble, is governed by dynamics that are different from the
small bubbles in the liquid slug. However, if we assume that the drift
flux for the bubbles in the liquid slug is approximately the same as
that for the Taylor bubble, then we arrive at an expression for the gas
void fraction in a manner very similar to that for bubbly flow. Using
v ooT for the rise velocity of a Taylor bubble in downflow, we express
void fraction during ideal slug flow by
ig = Clv - V ' ••.•.....•.••••••••••••.•.••••• (7)
m ooT
where the value of the flow parameter C1, in analogy to bubbly flow,
is expected to be 1.2.
Assuming that the entire gas phase has the same drift velocity as
that of the Taylor bubble, Hasan 13 and Hasan and Kabir 12 are able to
correlate inclined upflow void fraction data in slug flow from several
sources with satisfactory accuracy. The applicability of the simple ap-

2'~2f'·u,n'd)"'[g(o~:"'P,J " 0.725 + 415(:~t

(6)
Because of the high velocities associated with dispersed bubbly
flow, pipe inclination and flow direction are unlikely to have a sig-
nificant effect and Eq. 6 may be used to determine transition to this
flow regime even for downflow. Bamea3 finds a similar equation in
satisfactory agreement with the data of Shoham,21 although he ob-
serves a slight dependency of this transition on the inclination angle.
Thus, if the mixture velocity is greater than that given by Eq. 6,
bubbly flow will persist even whenig is greater than 0.25. However,
Taitel et al. 20 show that even for small gas bubbles, the gas void frac-
tion cannot exceed 0.52. For estimating void fraction, Eq. 2 with v 00
given by the Harmathy14 equation, which treats dispersed bubbly
proach derives from the fact that the gas phase in the liquid slug is usu-
ally a small fraction of the total gas phase and the difference in drift
velocities in the slug and the Taylor bubble usually is small.
To account for the differing drift velocities in the liquid slug and the
Taylor bubble, a few rigorous models have been advanced for vertical
upflow (Sylvester23 and Fernandes et al. 24). Caetano et al. 25 success-
fully apply this approach to a vertical annular channel. The cellular
approach pioneered by Fernandes et al. 24 for vertical upflow is sim-
plified by Hasan and Kabir2 2 for slug flow in vertical and inclined an-
nuli. In this work, we adapt the Hasan-Kabir22 approach for down-
flow. Fig. 4 shows a model cell of length L, consisting of a Taylor
bubble of length LT and a liquid slug of length 4. Denoting the gas
fraction in the Taylor bubble portion by iT and that in the liquid slug
portion by fs, we express the average void fraction for the cell by
ig = i iT + i is. (8)

flow as ordinary bubbly flow, is proposed. The high fluid velocities We use Eq. 7 for the Taylor bubble portion of the cell for calculat-
involved imply that pipe inclination would have little influence on ingiT . For estimatingfs, we note that the circular channel data pres-
Co. Therefore, a value of 1.2 is recommended for Co in Eq. 2 for dis- ented by Akagawa and Sakaguchi 26 show that the average volume
persed bubbly flow. fraction of gas in the liquid slug (based on the total system volume,

174 SPE Production & Facilities, August 1995

i.e., J~L,/L) is approximately equal to 0.1 when vcs is greater than
0.4 mls and is equal to 0.25 vcs for lower superficial gas velocities.
fg (i)fT +
= 0.1 for vcs > 0.4 mls
andfg = (i)fr+ 0.25vcsfor vcs S; 0.4 m/s (9)
For superficial gas velocities higher than 0.4 mis, Hasan and Ka-
bir22 derive the following expression for the fraction LT/L
[= 1 - (L,/L)] using Eq. 2 for gas void fraction in bubbly flow to the
liquid slug and noting that it is equal to 0.1.
cs
(LLs)fs = JLsILJ...v
oVm v:o
= 0.1 (10)
L
or L
s = 01
.
(Cov vcs v",) .
m -
(11)
Similarly, for vcs lower than 0.4 mis, we obtain
7= 0.25(Covm - v",j (12)
Thus, Eq. 9 in combination with Eqs. 7 and 11 allows one to calcu-
late gas void fraction in slug flow provided that values of C1and v ocT
are available.
Using arguments similar to those used in bubbly flow, we can
show that the value of the parameter C 1would be 1.2 for vertical up-
flow, especially because turbulent flow is very likely in slug flow.
During flow in inclined channels, bubbles tend to flow closer to the
upper wall of the channel where the mixture velocity is expected to
be less than 1.2 vm . In spite of this, Bendiksen,27 Hasan,13 and Hasan
and Kabir22 find that the value of C1 remains constant at 1.2 for slug
flow in upwardly inclined circular channels and annuli. The work
of Martin28 with a single Taylor bubble indicates a lower value than
1.2 for CI in downflow. In this work, the void fraction data of
Beggs,16 Mukherjee,17 and Kokal 18 are used to establish an ap-
propriate value for CI.
Besides the value of C I, an expression for the rise velocity of Tay-
lor bubbles in downwardly inclined systems is needed for estimat-
ing void fraction in Eq. 9. For vertical upflow, Eq. 13, proposed by
Nicklin et al. 29 for Taylor-bubble-rise velocity, has become well es-
tablished:
V"'T = 0.345 gd(pe ;/g) (13)
For upwardly inclined pipes, significant variation in the rise ve-
locity of a Taylor bubble with pipe deviation from vertical has been
reported. 13,22,27,30 Taylor-bubble-rise velocity increases with pipe
deviation from vertical up to a deviation angle of about 45°. The rise
velocity then gradually declines as the channel approaches a hori-
zontal position. We can derive an expression for the rise velocity of
a bubble in an upwardly inclined pipe by balancing the buoyancy
force against the drag force experienced by a rising bubble. 12, 13
Analyses show that the Taylor-bubble-rise velocity in inclined
channels depends on the drag coefficient and the projected area of
the bubble, as well as the reduction in buoyancy with inclination an-
gels. For small deviations from vertical, the reduction in drag forces
on the bubble outweighs the decrease in buoyancy, while the oppo-
site is true when the pipe is nearly horizontal. When the deviation
is small the net effect is an increase in the terminal rise velocity with
pipe deviation, compared to that for a vertical system. This effect re-
sults in a decreased void fraction in a deviated well compared to that
for a vertical well. At large deviations from vertical, the buoyancy
force decreases more quickly than the drag force, resulting in de-
creasing bubble-rise velocity with increasing deviation from verti-
cal. We propose the following expression, suggested by Hasan 13
and Hasan and Kabir l2 , for downflow:
(14)
SPE Production & Facilities, August 1995
Note that Eq. 14 predicts zero rise velocity for Taylor bubbles in hor-
izontal systems, while some researchers have noted nonzero veloci-
ties in horizontal pipes (Alves 30 and Weber et al. 31). Other ap-
proaches to estimate v ocT(} are available. 27 .30 However, because of
the reduced importance of void fraction for calculating pressure
drop in near-horizontal systems, refining estimates for VocT(} for
such systems is perhaps unwarranted.
The applicability of the proposed method for void fraction es-
timation during slug flow in downward two-phase flow is verified
in Fig. 5, where the void fraction data of Beggs l6 for pipe inclina-
tions of90 and 85° (shown as squares, D), 75 and 55° (+),35 and
20° (0), and 15, 10, and 5° (Ll) are plotted againstthe predicted val-
ues. A value of 1.12 for CI is used in these predictions for all pipe
inclinations, which appears to minimize the standard deviation of
predictions. On average, we underestimate the data by 0.0048 with
a standard deviation of 0.044.
The proposed method predicts the airlkerosene data of Mukher-
jee 17 with an average error of -0.021 and a standard deviation of
0.069 using CI = 1.12. Mukherjee's airllube-oil data are underesti-
mated with an average error of 0.0056 and a standard deviation of
0.108. The slug flow data of Kokal l8 also is well represented by the
proposed method. The average error of prediction for Kokal's data
is 0.086, and the standard deviation is 0.010.
As can be expected, the standard deviation of prediction for each in-
clination angle for these data sets may be improved for slightly different
values of CI. However, our attempts at optimizing the parameter values
for each data set show that the improvement in predictions are minimal
and CI values optimized in this manner do not exhibit any particular
pattern with pipe inclination angles. Therefore, a constant value of 1.12
for C1 is recommended for downward slug flow.
We argued that slight deviation of the well from vertical makes
the bubble nose sharper during upflow. A sharper bubble nose
causes a greater decrease in drag force compared with the decrease
in buoyancy, resulting in a higher rise velocity. Similar arguments
probably apply for downward slug flow, although the opposing mo-
tion of the liquid might deform the shape of the Taylor bubble. In-
deed, Martin28 shows that even for vertical downward flow of a
single Taylor bubble, the bubble is often distorted and unstable.
Martin's data for single Taylor-bubble-rise velocity also indicate a
lower value for C1(about 0.9) and a larger value for the terminal rise
velocity. However, Martin does not report any void fraction data.
Discussion and Conclusions
In this paper, we present a modification of the drift-flux approach for
predicting void fraction in bubbly and slug flow.in downwardly in-
clined systems. We show data analysis to support the proposed model.
For downward bubbly flow, no modification from upflow is needed
except to note that the terminal bubble-rise velocity acts in the direc-
tion opposite to that of the flow. Crawford et al. 4 note a somewhat
lower value of Co of between 0.8 to 0.85 for this flow regime,
compared with a value of 1.2 for upflow. However, they use the Nick-
lin et al. 29 equation for Taylor-bubble-rise velocity in bubbly flow
instead of the Harmathy l4 equation suggested in this work.
0.9 -
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 -
0.3 - o 90 &: 85 degree
+ 75 &: 55 degree
02 <:> .35 &: 20 degree
[:,. 15, 10 &: 5 degree
0.1
. ---,--,--:-.,--------.-------.--.-.....--,--- ------,- - - , - - -
0.2 0.4 0.6 0,8
Experimental f9
Fig. 5-Predicted vs. experimental void fraction, Beggs slug
flow data.
175
 For downward slug flow, the Taylor-bubble-rise velocity estimated
from the expression for upflow represents the void fraction data of
Beggs t6 , Mukherjee 17, and Kokal t8 quite well. However, a lower
value of 1.12 for Ct, compared with 1.2 for upflow, is indicated by
the data for all inclination angles. Crawford et at. 4 note even lower
values of between 0.9 and 0.95 for this parameter for their two-phase
flow (refrigerant 113) data gathered in a 2.5-cm vertical tube.
A criterion for transition from bubbly flow to slug flow is pres-
ented in this work. The transition criterion appears to be well sup-
ported by data from several sources.
Nomenclature
Ap = projected area of bubble, L2, m2
CD = drag coefficient for bubble, dimensionless
Co = flow parameters in bubbly flow, dimensionless
Ct = flow parameters in slug flow, dimensionless
d= pipe diameter, L, m
de = equivalent diameter of annuli = do - dj, L, m
e= average error = sum of errors/no. of data
f= Fanning friction factor, dimensionless
/g = in-situ volume fraction of gas phase, dimensionless
Is = in-situ gas fraction in liquid slug portion of cell,
dimensionless
fT = in-situ gas fraction in the Taylor bubble portion of
cell, dimensionless
g= acceleration caused by gravity, Llt2, mls 2
L= cell length in slug flow, L, m
Ls = length of liquid slug in slug flow, L, m
LT = length (\f Taylor bubble in slug flow, L, m
VG = in-situ gas velocities, LIt, mls
VI = in-situ liquid velocities, LIt, mls
Vm = superficial velocity of mixture = total volumetric
flow rate/cross-sectional area, LIt, mls
VGS = superficial gas velocities, LIt, mls
VLS = superficial liquid velocities, LIt, mls
v 00 = rise velocity of small bubbles, LIt, mls
v ooT = rise velocity of Taylor bubbles, LIt, mls
e= channel inclination angle from horizontal, degrees
fl = viscosity, mILt
P= density, mlL3
p (= liquid density, mlL3
pg = gas density, mlL3
a= surface tension, mlt2
Acknowledgment
I am grateful to a number of graduate (M.M. Hossain, R. Zielin-
ski, and R. Holmes) and undergraduate (G. Anderson, J. Dunklee,
and P. Kaspari) students who helped with data analysis. Thanks also
to J.P. Brill and S. Kokal for sharing data with me.
References
1. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: "A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined
Pipes," JPT(May 1973) 607; Trans.• AIME,255.
2. MukheIjee, H. and Brill, J.P.: "Liquid Holdup Correlations for Inclined
Two-Phase Flow," JPT(May 1983) 1003; Trans.. AIME,275.
3. Barnea, D.: "A Unified Model for Predicting Flow Pattern Transition for
the Whole Range of Pipe Inclination," IntI. J. Multiphase Flow (1986)
13, No.1, 1-12.
4. Crawford, T.J., Weinberger, C.B., and Weisman, J.: "Two-Phase Flow
Patterns and Void Fractions in Downward Flow. Part I: Steady-State
Flow Patterns," Inti. J. Multiphase Flow (1985) 11, No.6, 761.
5. Weisman, J. and Kang, S.Y.: "Flow Pattern Transitions in Vertical and
Upwardly Inclined Lines," Inti. J. Multiphase Flow (1981) 7, 271.
6. Crawford, TJ., Weinberger, C.B., and Weisman, J.: "Two-Phase Flow
Patterns and Void Fractions in Downward Flow. Part II: Void Fractions
and Transient Flow Patterns," IntI. J. Multiphase Flow (1986) 13, No.
2,219.
7. Spedding, PL., Chen, UJ., and Nguyen, V.T.: "Pressure Drop in Two-
Phase Gas-Liquid Flow in Inclined Pipes," Inti. J. Multiphase Flow
(1982) 8, No.4, 407.
8. Yamazaki, Y. and Yamaguchi, K.: "Characteristic of Cocurrent Two-
Phase Downflow in Tubes; Flow Pattern, Void Fraction and Pressure
Drop," J. Nuclear Sci. & Tech (April 1979) 161, 245.
176
9. Hasan, A.R.: "Void Fraction in Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Down-
ward Vertical Systems," paper presented at the 1989 AIChE Annual
Meeting, San Francisco, Nov. 5-10.
10. Zuber, N. and Findlay, J.: "Average Volumetric Concentration in Two-
Phase Flow Systems," Trans.• ASME J. Heat Transfer (1965) 87,453.
11. Govier, G.W. and Aziz, K.: The Flow ofComplex Mixtures in Pipes. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York City (1972) 381.
12. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: "Predicting Multiphase Flow Behavior in
a Deviated Well," SPEDE (Nov. 1988) 474; Trans.• AIME, 285.
13. Hasan, A.R.: "Inclined Two-Phase Flow: Flow Pattern, Void Fraction
and Pressure Drop in Bubbly, Slug and Chum Flow," Particulate Phe-
nomena and Multiphase Transport, Hemisphere Publishing Corp., New
York City (1988) 229.
14. Harmathy, T.Z.: "Velocity of Large Drops and Bubbles in Media oflnfi-
nite or Restricted Extent," AlChE J. (June 1960) 6, 281.
15. Clark, N.N. and Flemmer, R.L.: "Predicting the Hold-Up in Two-Phase
Upflow and Downflow Using the Zuber and Findlay Drift-Flux Model,"
AlChE J. (March 1985) 31, 500.
16. Beggs, RD.: "An Experimental Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined
Pipes," PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1972).
17. MukheIjee, H.: "An Experimental Study of Inclined Two-Phase Flow,"
PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1979).
18. Kokal, S.: "Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes," PhD disserta-
tion, U. of Calgary, Calgary (1987).
19. Griffith, P. and Snyder, G.A.: "Bubbly-Slug Transition in a High Veloc-
ity Flow," MIT Report No. 5003-29 (TID-20947) Massachusetts Inst. of
Technology, Boston (1964).
20. Taitel, Y., Barnea, D., and Dukler, A.E.: "Modelling Flow Pattern Tran-
sition for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in Vertical Tubes," AlChE
J. (May 1980) 26,345.
21. Shoham, 0.: "Flow Pattern Transition and Characterization in Gas-Liq-
uid Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes," PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv U.,
Tel Aviv (1982).
22. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: "Two-Phase Flow in Vertical and Inclined
Annuli," Inti. J. Multiphase Flow (1992) 18, No.2, 279.
23. Sylvester, N.D.: "A Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase Slug Flow in
Pipes," J. Energy Resource Tech. (Dec. 1987) 109, 206.
24. Fernandes, R.C., Semiat, R., and Dukler, A.E.: "Hydro-Dynamic Model
for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Vertical Tubes," AlChE J. (Nov. 1983) 29,
981.
25. Caetano, E.F., Shoham, 0., and Brill, J.P.: "Upward Vertical Two-Phase
Flow Through an Annulus, Part II: Modeling Bubble, Slug, and Annular
Flow," J. Energy Resource Tech. (Sept. 1991).
26. Akagawa, K. and Sakaguchi, T.: "Fluctuation of Void Ratio in Two-
Phase Flow," Bull. JSME (1966) 9,104.
27. Bendiksen, K.H.: "An Experimental Investigation of the Motion of
Long Bubbles in Inclined Tubes," IntI. J. Multiphase Flow (1984) 10,
No. 4,467.
28. Martin, S.C.: "Vertically Downward Two-Phase Slug Flow," J. Fluid
Eng. (Dec. 1976) 98,715.
29. Nicklin, DJ., Wilkes, J.O., and Davidson,J.F.: "Two-Phase Flow in Ver-
tical Tubes," Trans., Inst. Chern. Engrs. (1962) 40, 61.
30. Alves, LN.: "Slug Flow Phenomena in Inclined Pipes," Report, Tulsa U.
Fluid Flow Projects (1991).
31. Weber, M.E., Aleri, A., and Ryan, M.E.: "Velocities of Extended
Bubbles in Inclined Tubes," Chern. Eng. Sci. (1986) 41, 2235.
51 Metric Conversion Factors
ftx 3.048* E-Ol =m
in. x 2.54* E+OO =cm
*Conversion factor is exact. SPEPF
A. Rashid Hasan is a professor of chemical engineering at the U.
of North Dakota in Grand Forks. His research interests include
heat transfer and multiphase flow in wellbores. rheology of non-
Newtonian fluids, and pressure-transient analysis. He holds MS
and PhD degrees in chemical engineering from the U. of Water-
100. Canada. Hasan serves on the Editorial Review Committee.
SPE Production & Facilities, August 1995