GeMer, D.. I d . Eng. Chem., Fundam., 10, 534 (1971). Shah, Y. T., Pearson, J. R. A.. Ind. Eng. Chem.

J. R. A.. Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam.. 11, 150 (1972).

Kase, S..J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 18, 3279 (1974).
Matovich. M. A,, Pearson, J. R. A,. Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., 8, 512 (1969).
Miller, J. C., S.P.E. Trans., 3, 134 (1963).
Nickell, R . E., Tanner, R. I., Caswell. E., J. FIMMech., 65, 189 (1974).
Pearson. J. R. A,, Matovich. M. A,. Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., 8, 605 (1969).
Pearson, J. R. A,, Shah, Y. T., Trans. SOC.Rheol., 16, 519 (1972).
Pearson, J. R. A., Shah, Y. T.. Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., 13, 134 (1974).
Trouton, F. T.. Proc. Roy. SOC.Ser. A, 77, 426 (1906).
Weinberger, C. B., Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970
Weinberger, C. B., Goddard, J. D., Int. J. Multiphase Now, 1, 465 (1974).
Received for reuiew January 20, 1975
Accepted June 30,1975

A Model for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Horizontal and Near Horizontal

Tubes

Abraham E. Dukler’ and Martin G. Hubbard

Chemical Engineering Department, Universify of Houston, Houston, Texas 77004

A model is presented which permits the prediction in detail of the unsteady hydrodynamic behavior of gas-liquid
slug flow. The model is based on the observation that a fast moving slug overruns a slow moving liquid film ac-
celerating it to full slug velocity in a mixing eddy located at the front of the slug. A new film is shed behind the
slug which decelerates with time. Mixing in the slug takes place first due to the mixing eddy and then due to the
usual diffusion due to turbulence. The model predicts slug fluid velocity, velocity of propagation of the nose of
the slug, film velocity as a function of time and distance, length of the slug, film region behind the slug, and mix-
ing eddy and shape of the surface of the film region. Agreement with experimental data is good.

Introduction measured pressure drop and in some cases average holdup

Gas-liquid flow in conduits is a more complex phenome-
non than single-phase flow primarily because the spacial
distribution of the two phases is unknown and difficult to
specify quantitatively. A variety of such distributions have
been qualitatively described by numerous investigators
(Hewitt and Hall Taylor, 1970; Hoogendoorn and Welling,
1965; Kosterin, 1949). Hubbard and Dukler (1966) suggest-
ed that these many observed patterns really represented
the superposition of only three basic distributions: sepa-
rated, intermittent or slug, and distributed flows. A still
unresolved problem is the prediction of the particular com-
bination to be expected given the flow rates, fluid proper-
ties, conduit size, and inclination. A useful empirical corre-
lation has been proposed (Baker, 1954).
Intermittent or slug flow exists over a wide range of flow
rates for moderate pipe sizes in a horizontal configuration.
Such a flow pattern is inherently unsteady with large time
variation of the mass flow rate, pressure, and velocity at
any cross section normal to the tube axis. This is so even
when the gas and liquid flow to the system is steady. As a
result, processes of heat and mass transfer are also un-
steady with substantial fluctuations in temperature and
concentration. This poses special and difficult problems for
the designer. I t is the purpose of this paper to present a
systematic model for the hydrodynamics of slug flow from
which the time varying behavior can be predicted. The
model presented here is based partly on the work of Hub-
bard (1965) which was presented by Hubbard and Dukler
(1968) but unpublished. That version has been substantial-
ly revised to eliminate certain empirical aspects and certain
simplifications made in the original work which have now
been found to be unnecessary.
Some Related Research
A number of early investigations (Govier and Omer,
1962; Hoogendoorn, 1959; Martinelli and Nelson, 1948)
under conditions where slug flow was observed to exist. A
careful study of these data and the experimental tech-
niques reveal serious limitations in the results. In many in-
stances a portion of the pressure measuring system was not
in fully developed slug flow. In some cases the slug length
(estimated by methods to be reported here) exceeded the
distance between pressure taps. In most of these studies
only air space existed between pressure taps at times. In all
cases pressure drop was measured using highly damped
manometers to smooth out the fluctuations. Furthermore,
these studies provide no information on the characteristics
of slug flow such as frequencies, spacing, slug length veloci-
ties, etc.
The earliest attempt to study the details of slug flow
were by Kordyban (1961). He proposed a simple model
where slugs move at the velocity of the gas and “skate” or
slide over the top of a substrate film without interaction or
mixing between the slug and film. Experimental data were
taken in 6 ft long tubes of 0.315 and 0.420-in. i.d. with pres-
sure taps separated by 1 ft. Thus the validity of the data is
seriously in question. Based on their concept, the authors
develop an expression for pressure drop but this is in poor
agreement with their data. In fact the classical Martinelli
correlation is shown to be a better predictor of the data
than their own correlation. In 1963 Kordyban and Ranov
(1963) reported new experimental data from a 10-ft long
pipe of 1.25-in. diameter. They generate slugs by forcing
the two-phase mixture through a riser before entering the
test section. If this riser had not been used it is doubtful if
they would have been able to observe slug flow, especially
a t the higher flow rates in their work. In this instance the
pressure measuring technique produced data that were
more meaningful. However, comparison with the earlier
Kordyban model leads the authors themselves to suggest
that the model is not adequate.
The beginnings of an attempt to understand the details

Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., Vol. 14, No. 4, 1975 337


POSITION (OR TIME)
Figure 1. The physical model for slug flow.
of slug flow can probably be found in the work of Nicklin et
al. (1962), who attempted to modify expressions for the
slug velocity which was developed theoretically for a verti-
cal system to the horizontal case. These ideas were general-
ized somewhat by Hughmark (1965), who was concerned
with the heat transfer problem and by Neal (1963), who ex-
amined some of the limited data of Richardson (1958) on
slug velocity. This was further examined by Marrucci
(1966).
Oliver and Wright (1964) reported on heat transfer dur-
ing slug flow in a test section of 0.25-in. diameter and 4 f t
long. They made no measurements of the detailed charac-
teristics of the flow since their concern was the heat trans-
fer process. Slug flow in these small sizes is a very special
situation which is equivalent to bubble flow with Taylor
type bubbles having bullet shaped noses separated by liq-
uid plugs moving in laminar flow. There is little or no
asymmetry and the similarity with slug flows in larger di-
ameter tubes is small.
Greskovich and Shrier (1972) applied the model present-
ed by Hubbard and Dukler (1968) to horizontal systems in
pipes of 1.5 to 6.07-in. diameter but used independent rela-
tionships for slug frequency and holdup. In general the re-
sults were shown to predict pressure drop with good reli-
ability. In a subsequent paper (Bonnecaze et al., 1971) they
modified the preliminary model to account for tube incli-
nation. New relations for slug velocity were prepared based
on a potential flow model but the relative importance of
gravity and friction forces was not clearly demonstrated.
Despite these untenable assumptions, agreement with
some field data taken by Esso on a 10,000-ft section of 6-in.
line was good.
Vermeulen and Ryan (1971), following some aspects of
Hubbard's model, compared their own data taken in a 0.5-
in. x 18-ft test section with their simplified form of the
model. Their data included, in addition to the horizontal
flow configuration, some results at positive and negative in-
clinations of 7'. Agreement was good but the model did not
account for film acceleration and the data itself was used to
estimate this quantity. Since such acceleration is over 50%
of the whole, the compromise involved is clear. No compar-
ison was presented between experiment and the simplified
theory for many of the details of the flow.
Application of two-phase flow in capillary tubing could
be of industrial importance in a few specialized instances.
Here the flow is laminar, the gas bubbles are almost sym-
metrically located in the pipe, liquid film exists at all
points on the wall and the analysis is subject to a near rig-
orous development. The papers of interest are those by Cox
(1964), Bretherton (1961), Goldsmith and Mason (1963),
Suo and Griffith (19641, and Suo (1968). Most of these pa-
pers are directed toward determining the rate of propaga-
tion of the gas bubble out of the tube but they also consider
the velocity distribution and residence time of the gas
phase.
338 Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., Vol. 14, No. 4, 1975
LEVEL DROPS
SLUG JUST PASSES OUT OF VIEW TO THE RIGHT LEVEL DROPS
LEVEL REBUILDS AND WAVE NEARLY BRIDGES PIPE
BRIDGING OF PIPE BY LIQUID SLUG FORMATION
0
SLUG SWEEPS UP LIOUID LEVEL DROPS
Figure 2. The process of slug formation.
A Description of the Condition of Slug Flow, Its
Initiation and Dissipation
The process of slug flow is a highly complex unsteady
phenomenon. An understanding of the flow mechanism has
been developed from extensive visualization studies includ-
ing short exposure time still photographs, motion picture
sequences at several speeds, and dye tracer work. The
study was carried out in a 1.5-in. i.d. horizontal pipe, 65 f t
long. The mechanism proposed was substantiated by mea-
surements of wall pressure using fast response pressure
transducers located flush with the wall. The results are
summarized below.
Visual Observations. Refer to Figure 1 for a sketch of
an idealized slug which has been fully established and to
Figure 2 for a sketch of the process of slug formation in
horizontal pipes. The picture of slug flow which emerges
from these observational studies is as follows.
1. Liquid and gas flow concurrently into a pipe. Near the
entrance the liquid flows as a stratified phase with the gas
passing above. At gas and liquid velocities under which slug
flow takes place, the liquid layer decelerates as it moves
along the pipe. As a result, its level increases, approaching
the top of the pipe. At the same time, waves appear on the
liquid surface. Eventually the sum of the rising liquid level
plus the wave height is sufficient to bridge the pipe mo-
mentarily blocking the gas flow. (See Figure 2A, B, and C).
2. As soon as the bridging occurs, the liquid in the bridge
is accelerated to the gas velocity. The liquid appears to be
accelerated uniformly across its cross-section, thereby act-
ing as a scoop, picking up all the slow moving liquid in the
film ahead of it and accelerating it to slug velocity. By this
mechanism, the fast moving liquid builds its volume and
becomes a slug. (See Figure 2D.) A fully formed slug is
shown in Figure 1.
3. As the slug is formed and moves down the pipe, liquid
is shed uniformly from its back and forms a film with a free
surface. This liquid in the film decelerates rapidly from the
slug velocity to a much lower velocity as controlled by the
wall and interfacial shear. (See zone l f in Figure 1.)
4. Once a slug is formed as it travels down the pipe it
first sweeps up all the excess liquid which had entered the
pipe since the last slug was formed. From that point on it
picks up liquid film which has been shed from the preced-
ing slug. Since the slug is now picking up liquid at the same
rate that it is shed, its length stabilizes.
5 . The slug has a higher kinetic energy than that of the
 I 4 k O . l S /
Vs= 5.0 ft./sec.
Figure 3. Pressure-time trace for slug flow.
liquid film. Thus, the film penetrates a distance into the
slug before it is finally assimilated a t the slug velocity. This
over-running phenomenon creates an eddy at the front of
the slug which is essentially a mixing vortex. The distance
of penetration constitutes the length of the mixing eddy. In
this mixing zone gas is entrapped due to the violent mixing
operation. (See zone 1, in Figure 1.)
6. As the gas rate and consequently the slug velocity in-
crease, the degree of aeration of the slug increases. Ulti-
mately the gas forms a continuous phase through the slug.
When this occurs the slug begins bypassing some of the gas.
At this point the slug no longer maintains a competent
bridge to block the gas flow so the character of the flow
changes. This point is the beginning of “blow-through’’ and
the start of the annular flow regime.
Qualitative Confirmation of the Model. Figure 1
shows an idealized pressure profile through a slug unit
viewed a t an instant in time and based on the mechanism
presented above. A sharp rise in pressure takes place across
the mixing zone associated with the force necessary to ac-
celerate the slow moving liquid in the film ahead of the slug
to the velocity of the slug. There follows a linear change in
pressure due to gradient shear in the body of the slug and
equivalent to that which would take place in full pipe flow
with no slip between the distributed gas and liquid. In the
film zone the pressure is essentially constant since the
pressure drop is small compared to that in the liquid slug.
Consider a wall pressure transducer located a t point, T ,
along the test section. This point is selected so that there is
never more than one slug between T and the discharge
location. Then the pressure measured a t T is that due to
the pressure drop across one slug. When the slug passes out
of the pipe so that vapor space exists between T and the
exit (before another slug arrives) the pressure drops to es-
sentially that at the exit. As a slug moves across the station
a t T the profile of pressure through the slug can be record-
ed.
Figures 3-5 are time traces obtained using air-water in a
1.5-in. horizontal pipe with the pressure transducer located
8.5 f t upstream of the discharge. Three different slug flow
conditions appear. Figure 3 represents a low flow rate
where the film and slug velocities approach each other and
thus where film acceleration and its associated pressure
drop are small. Figure 5 represents a very high slug velocity
and a low film velocity so that a large pressure drop is re-
quired to accelerate the film. In each trace the time during
which a slug passes over the measuring station is indicated
by a bar as determined from a separate conductivity probe.
These figures show the principal contributions to the pres-
sure pulse associated with a slug. The zone, labeled 1, is the
pressure rise due to the increase in hydrostatic pressure on
the arrival of the slug over the measuring station. Zone 2 is
an additional abrupt rise in pressure a t the front of the slug
associated with the acceleration of the liquid film in front
of the slug. Zone 3 is a gradual linear pressure rise due to
the frictional pressure gradient across the back of the slug
behind the mixing zone. The pressure trace as measured a t
T also displays changes in pressure when the slug drops out
of the pipe and also reflects changes in the static pressure
Figure 4. Pressure-time trace for slug flow.
r vs= 174 f t /sec
Figure 5. Pressure-time trace for slug flow.
of the entire system. In particular this is evident in Figure
4 after the slug passes and these variations can be ex-
plained in terms of coupling between the slugs (Hubbard,
1965). Note that as the slug velocity increases there is a
corresponding increase in the fraction of the total pressure
drop across a slug which is due to acceleration of the liquid
film.
In these experiments independent measurements were
made of slug and film velocity as well as of film flow rate. It
was thus possible to calculate the pressure drop due to ac-
celeration and that due to friction. These were shown to
agree very well with the measurements made from several
hundred traces of the type shown in these figures. Thus
there has been demonstrated the reasonableness of this
two-zone model which requires a pickup of the film in a
mixing zone, the existence of a “full pipe flow” region be-
hind the mixing vortex and a process of shedding of the
film behind the slug to form a film region.
In the discussion which follows, the process of slug flow
is treated as a fully deterministic one. In fact, experiments
make it evident that slug flow has certain random features.
In particular, the time and space between slugs does vary
and so does the pressure drop across slugs, the film veloci-
ty, and other features. There has been no satisfactory treat-
ment of this randomness. However, the data show that the
probability distributions are narrow. In the work that fol-
lows each quantity can be interpreted as the mean of a set
of values which distribute about the mean.
The Hydrodynamic Model
Pressure Drop across a Slug. Figure 1 shows that there
are two contributions to the pressure drop across a slug.
The first, APa, is the pressure drop that results from the
acceleration of the slow moving liquid film to slug velocity.
The second, APf, is the pressure drop required to overcome
wall shear in the back section of the slug. The total pres-
sure drop across a slug is thus
AP, = A P , -k APi (1)
Pressure drop in the gas phase above the liquid film is neg-
ligible.
Acceleration Contribution. A slug that ha5 stabilized
in length can be considered as a body receiving and losing
mass a t equal rates. The velocity of the liquid in the film
just before pickup is lower than that in the slug and a force
is therefore necessary to accelerate this liquid to slug veloc-
ity. This force manifests itself as a pressure drop given by
where x is the rate at which mass is picked up by the slug,
Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., Vol. 14, No. 4, 1975 339
 -+ “fe-
I
AB C
t I
Figure 6. The pickup process at the front of a slug.
V, is the mean velocity of fluid in the slug, and Vf, is the
mean velocity of fluid in the film in front of a slug. This
pressure drop due to acceleration takes place over a mixing
eddy at the front of the slug which penetrates a distance,
l, into the body of the slug.
Frictional Contribution. Behind the mixing eddy in
the body of the slug pressure drop takes place due to wall
friction. For the calculation of this term, the similarity
analysis for two-phase frictional pressure drop developed
by Dukler et al. (1964) is applied. Within this part of the
slug the two phases are homogeneously mixed with negligi-
ble slip. Under this condition, the recommended pressure
drop equation becomes
The similarity analysis showed that for “non-slip” condi-
tions f, could be correlated as a unique function of Re,
when this parameter is defined in the following manner
and that when the liquid holdup exceeded 0.7 ( R , > 0.7)
this correlation is identical to ones for single phase flow.
In order to calculate pressure drop across a slug using eq
2, 3, and 4 the following quantities must be determined:
liquid pickup and shedding rate, x ; film velocity, Vf,; aver-
age fluid velocity in the slug, V,; slug holdup, R,; slug
length 1,; and length of acceleration section, 1.,
Slug Velocity. The scooping model requires that two
characteristic slug velocities be defined. V, represents the
mean velocity of the fluid in a slug relative to the pipe wall.
The observed rate of advance of the slug, Vt, is the sum of
V, and the rate of buildup a t the front due to film pickup.
As discussed above, the slug length remains constant be-
cause the amount of liquid shed from the rear is identically
equal to the amount which adds to the front.
To develop a relationship between these two velocities,
consider the overall balance between liquid entering the
pipe and that which leaves with a slug unit of length, l,, as
it passes out of the pipe. The mass of liquid in a slug unit is
+
(lsRs IfRf)ApL and the time for the slug unit to pass out
of the pipe is l / u s . However, as the slug unit passes out of
the pipe, the slug which follows overruns and captures part
of the liquid in the film. This liquid does not move out with
the slug unit as calculated above. The mass of liquid picked
up by a second slug during the time the first slug unit pass-
es out of the pipe is xl,/Vt. Since u, = Vt/lu, the material
balance becomes
W X
= (Z,R, + IfRf)v, -- (5)
APL PLA
Similarly developed, the gas phase material balance is
Adding eq 5 and 6 and simplifying yields for the slug trans-
lational velocity
340 Ind. Eng. Chem.. Fundam., Vol. 14, No. 4, 1975
Figure 7. The shedding process at the back of a slug.
The translational velocity, Vt, must also satisfy the fol-
lowing relationship
translational mean fluid apparent velocity
velocity at = velocity in + gained by adding
the slug nose the slug fluid at the slug
nose
X
vt VS
P L ARS
Comparing this equation with eq 7 indicates that the cor-
rect definition of the mean slug velocity is
Thus, V, can be calculated from a knowledge of the input
volumetric flow rates and the pipe area and is independent
of the distribution of liquid between the film and the slug.
Equation I can now be written as
X
v, = v, + ~
PLARS
It is convenient to define a term C
which is the ratio of the rate of shedding to the rate of flow
in the slug.
v, = (1 + C)V, (11)
In order to use eq 9 for calculating Vt it is necessary to de-
velop independent expressions for the pickup or shedding
rate, x , and liquid holdup in a slug, R,. The mechanism for
pickup and shedding are quite different. This provides for
independent relationships between the variables.
The Pickup Process. Refer to Figure 6. Consider a slug
whose outline is designated by the solid line and whose
front is located at the plant A-A a t a specified instant in
time. In the interval A t , the front of the slug shown dotted
moves to plane C-C. The film, formerly located at AA,
moves only to BB because of its lesser velocity. The
amount of film shown cross-hatched is picked up and
mixed into the slug. Thus the mass rate of pickup is
x = p L A R f , ( V , - vfJ (12)
The Shedding Process. Consider the region of the slug
behind the mixing zone. According to the model the flow in
this region is equivalent to fully established pipe flow and,
as seen in eq 3, the pressure drop is calculated as if a pipe
flow turbulent velocity distribution existed there. The
mechanism for shedding can now be understood by refer-
ence to Figure 7 . The average velocity of the liquid in the
slug is distributed radially from a value of zero at the wall
to a value above V, a t the center. There is one specific radi-
al location where the local velocity, u , equals the average
velocity, V,. Designate this radial position as r p . At values
of r < r p the fluid moves faster than V,. Thus it advances
in the direction of flow with respect to the motion of the
slug. But in the region r > r p (see cross-hatched area) the
fluid moves slower than the average fluid in the slug. Thus
it eventually is shed from the rear of the slug. This rate of
shedding is the mass rate of flow in the slug across any
plane drawn normal to the pipe axis less that which flows
in the area r < rp.
x = R,pLV,A -s,” 2avpLudr (13)
There exist well established relationships for the velocity
distribution for turbulent pipe flow in terms of the dimen-
sionless parameters, u f and y + where
u+ = -U‘ Y + - ’*’
- - ( y = R - r) (14)
u* ’ U
(15)
Written in terms of these variables the equation for C be-
comes
where y is the value of y + a t the pipe centerline.
A well accepted equation for the central region of the pipe,
y + > 30, in terms of these variables is
1 pressure in the vapor space is constant snd independent of
u+ = A + - In y +
K
(18)
where K is the von Karman constant. There exist some dif-
ferences in the literature concerning the values to be as-
signed to A and K . For this work we use A = 5.75, K = 0.38.
Note that a t u = V,
(u+),, =
while
cy = K [ ~ - A ]
There is now sufficient information to perform the integra-
tion of eq 16. Using smooth friction factors for smooth
pipes all terms in the equation can be calculated once Re is
specified.
The integrations, which are straightforward, were carried
out over the range 30,000 IRe, I400,000 and the resulting
values of C are presented in Figure 8. I t is seen that, in ac-
cord with experiment, the value of C varies only slightly
over a wide range of Reynolds numbers. The integration of
eq 16 is cumbersome to carry out but the relation between
Re, and C can be approximated by observing the near log-
linear relationship shown in Figure 8. For purpose of com-
putation the following equation is recommended
C = 0.021 In (Re,) + 0.022 (21)
Hydrodynamics of the Film. In developing the equa-
tion for the pickup rate a new parameter was introduced,
Rf,,the fractional pipe area occupied by film just before
pickup by a slug. As seen from eq 2 it is also necessary to
find Vf,, the film velocity a t this same point. Both of these
quantities depend on the process of deceleration in the film
behind the slug after shedding takes place. In order to ar-
rive a t these quantities, the momentum balance is applied
to the film. By making the application to a differential
length of film, it will be possible to derive expressions for
.30 n
20
50 100 500
~ e ,iIO-?
Figure 8. Relationship between C and slug Reynolds number.
*E.-
-
dxt
1 2 3
Figure 9. Definition of control volume in the film.
the film velocity, Vf, and the film holdup, Rf, as a function
of position from the rear of the slug (or of time since slug
passage).
Refer to Figure 9 and consider the principle of momen-
tum conservation as applied to the control volume of fluid
which exist between plane 1 and 2 separated by dxf. The
x f as shown by experiment. Thus a balance in the xf direc-
tion is
In this equation the momentum associated with the gas
phase is neglected since the density is small compared to
the liquid and its change in velocity across the control vol-
ume is small. P represents the average hydrostatic pressure
acting on the liquid over the liquid area which exists in the
plane normal to xf. This, of course, depends on the value of
the pressure in the gas phase, P,, and the distance from the
surface to the center of pressure in the liquid.
= P , i-
pLgL 50 (22)
gC
where .$ is the ratio of the distance from the surface to the
center of pressure in the liquid to the diameter. F , is the
force a t the pipe wall due to friction and this force tends to
retard the flow. F , is the force due to gravity acting in the
xf direction. With /3 the angle between the horizontal and
the axis (for up flow this angle is positive), then
F , = pLg4 AR, (sin p ) dx (23)
gc
The subscripts 1 and 2 designate the planes to which the
bracketed term applies.
If plane 1 and 2 are allowed to approach each other then
in the limit the momentum equation becomes
7wpw - g L R f sin p (24)
gc PLA
T, is the wall shear stress and P , is the perimeter wetted
by liquid film. Note that Vf designates a film velocity aver-
aged over its cross-sectional area, (RfA). In order to inte-
grate this equation, it is necessary to develop expressions
for T,, P,, E and a relationship between Rf and Vf.
Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., Vol. 14. No. 4, 1975 341
 The Wetted Perimeter, P,: Let b' be the angle which
subtends the liquid in the film as shown in Figure 11. Then
by definition
OD
3 Pw = - (33)
2
Figure 10. Flow relative to the stagnation point, S.
Thus
2nBR
Re, = -
0
Re, (34)

The Distance to Center of Pressure on the Liquid, 4.

The force due to pressure is obtained by an integration of
the pressure over the liquid crossectional area and this re-
sult is
8 + -
[ - R , 71~ 02 c o s - 2 ./2 sin3 -
Figure 11. Definition of the angle, 8.
2 3
But the force in terms of the distance to center of pressure
Relationship between Vf and Rf.The profile of the is
film behind a slug appears as shown by the solid curve in
Figure 9. The curvature a t the top of the pipe is due to sur-
face tension. If surface tension were zero, then the curve
would be as shown by the dotted extension to point S. In Equating these two expressions and solving for E gives
fact, the forces due to surface tension are easily shown to be
1 8 1
small compared to the other forces acting and the shape of 4 = -- cos -
2 2
+ - sin3
3nR,
the film at the back of the slug is assumed to end a t the
point designated as S. Since the slug moves without a Note that Rf and b' are uniquely related by
change in length, S must move along the pipe a t the same
B-sint,
velocity as the front of the slug, namely Vt. Define a veloci- R, = (36)
ty, w, measured relative to the velocity of propagation of 2n
this stagnation point, S. Then at any point Substituting the equation for Vf in terms of Rf (28), and
the equations for T, (30), P , (34), and E ( 3 5 ) into eq 24
Wf = Vf - vt (2 5) gives, after considerable transformation and simplification
Let the coordinate system translate to the right a t this ve-
locity, Vt. The point, S, is then stationary and flow then
takes place relative to S as shown in Figure 10. A material
balance between flow across plane 3 and any other plane
drawn normal to the film flow is
WfRiPLA = W ~ R ~ P L A (26)
From eq 11 and 25 In this equation, Fr is the Froude number
v, - v, = cv, = -w, (2 7)
(38)
Substituting (25) and (27) into (26) and recognizing from
+
(11)that Vt = (1 C)V, provides the needed relationship and $ is the dimensionless distance measured from the
between Vf and Rf. stagnation point, S.

V, = V, [1 - C R1)] = SVs (28)

$ =
1, -
D
Xf
(39)
Wall Shear Stress, T ~ In. the film region the wall shear The variables are separated and integrated to give
due to liquid flow is estimated by assuming pseudo parallel
flows.
(4 Oa)
(29)
where
Substituting for Vf from eq 28 gives

(30)
W(R,) =

C2Rs2 - -
Ri2 Fr
[: 8
R, s i n 5
1 - cos 8
+ 8
sin2 -
;
- - cos-
The friction factor for the film is evaluated from smooth
tube f(Re) data with the Reynolds number of the film f f B 2O- + R Sin P
based on the hydraulic diameter n Fr
(4Ob)
(31)
Note that W is a function of Rf as given by eq 40b and
varies along the film. At xf = 0, just before pickup of the
nDR B (32) next slug, J. = lf/D and R f = Rf,. At point S, x = lf, J. = 0,
Re, = Re,
P W and Rf = R,. The profile for Rf vs. xf can be obtained from

342 Ind. Eng. Chem.. Fundam., Vol. 14. No. 4, 1975

 sRs Rf
W(Rf)dRf =
1, -
D
Xt
(41)
Velocity of the Gas Phase. Consider a coordinate sys-
tem moving with the velocity, Vt. Now examine velocities
of the gas phase relative to this moving coordinate system
as shown in Figure 10 for the liquid phase. In order to satis-
The integration of eq 40a must be accomplished numerical-
ly and requires a value of lf. The procedure starts by evalu- fy continuity requirements
ating W at the upper limit and adding increments of hRf
until a value of Rf is produced for which the integral equals
lf/D. This value of Rf = Rf,.
The Length of the Slug, I,, and the Film Region, If.
The length of a slug unit is

(42)

and that of the film region is With some rearranging this equation becomes

(43) (45)

The length of the slug can be calculated from a material Note that for liquid slugs that are free of entrained gas, R,
balance on the liquid. The rate of liquid flow into the pipe = 1.0. Then the gas velocity equals the velocity of propaga-
is WL. Consider a plane normal t o the flow a t some position tion of the slug, Vt, at all positions behind the slug. When
downstream where fully developed slug flow exists. We R, is not unity, then the gas velocity varies slightly with
proceed by calculating the mass of liquid crossing the plane location. At the point of pickup, where Rf = Rf,, the gas ve-
in (a) the time it takes for the slug to pass, T,, and (b) the locity is
time it takes for the film to pass, Tf. The sum of these two
quantities is then divided by the time for passage of one (46)
slug unit, 1/uS.
M , = mass c a r r i e d in the slug = While the gas phase velocity has no influence on the pres-
sure drop it is important to the modelling of heat and mass
JOT’ V$RspLdt = vfiRsp,Ts transfer operations for slug flow.
Length of the Mixing Eddy, I,. The depth of penetra-
tion of the liquid film into the slug appears to depend on
the relative velocity between slug and film. This observa-
1 tion derived on physical grounds is verified from studies of
;
II, V&RgL9 high speed films and still photographs. The relative veloci-
vt
ty is (V, - Vfe). A simple and effective estimate can be ob-
Similarly for the film tained using the “velocity head” concept. This velocity
head is defined as
,!A! = Jo VfARfpLdt
Tf

VH = PL(’S - ‘fJ2
2sLgc
where SL is the specific weight of the liquid. Resistance to
flow in unusual geometries has been shown to be related to
the velocity head as is the trajectory distance of h fluid re-
leased from a nozzle. A convenient measure of each of these
From eq 28, VfRf = V,[Rf - C(R, - Rf)] quantities is the “number of velocity heads.” From the ob-
servations mentioned above a simple correlation emerges
1, = 0.3VH
Solving for 1, and rearranging gives
(47)
_ _wL
__
[ R f e ( l + C) - CR,]Z A Summary of Equations, Variables, and Procedure
1“ = PLA v, for Solution. In Table I the equations are listed in se-
%{R, - [Rf,(l + C) - CR,]Z} quence and the new variables which are introduced in each
vt are identified. Note that the variables appearing in the
where equation set are 16 in number, namely: AP,,APa, APf, x,

.fo’ R f ( l + C) - CR
= R f e ( l + C) - CR: (7)
The relationship between R f and xf can be calculated from
eq 41. Such calculations indicate the Z approaches 1.0 for
all flow conditions. This confirms what is observed in ex-
periment, that the film drops quickly to near its value of
Rf, a t a short distance behind the slug and then continues
to decrease only slightly. With Z set equal to 1.0
Vs, Vfe, Rs, L, if, L, Res, WL, WG,Vt, Rfe, us. The physical
, MG) and the tube size and orientation
properties ( p ~p, ~ ML,
(D, A, p) are, of course, known. As shown, the number of
independent equations is 12. Thus four variables must be
specified to effect a solution. W Land WGare input data. It
has been shown (see section on “Description of Slug Flow”)
that the slug frequency is controlled by conditions near the
entrance and is not coupled to the behavior of a slug. At
this time no independent relationship exists for R,. Thus
the independent variables which are required as input to
the model are WL, WG,us, R,.
Despite the complex appearance of the equation set the

Ind. Eng. Chem.. Fundam.. Vol. 14, No. 4. 1975 343

Table I. A Summary of Equations and Variables
SEOUENCE
NUMBER EPUATION
I I
2 2
3 3
4 4
S 8
8 10
T = 0.021 In Re. + 0.022
P LRSAVS
+ ClVS
8 v, = v, +*A' (I
9 40A
8: I - C [ v ]
IO
I1 PI'
".
2 -1,
I2 l.'o.lslvs-vf,,~~
'L
approach to solution is quite straightforward and is accom-
plished readily by computer, given the required four input
variables. In fact, only one calculation loop is needed due to
the coupling between eq 40 and 49. The block diagram of
Table I1 details the calculational procedure.
Comparison of Model Prediction with Experiment
An experimental study of slug flow for an air-water sys-
tem has been carried out in a horizontal smooth glass tube
1.5-in. i.d. and 65-ft total length. The test section length
was made up of 8.5-ft pipe lengths joined in Plexiglas
blocks which were carefully machined to match the i.d.
with no discontinuities. Fast response pressure transducers
were located in each block and connected to the flow chan-
nel through small drill holes kept full of water. A tee type
entrance section was used with water introduced on the run
and air on the tee. Extensive experimental studies with
various entrance sections demonstrated that slug frequency
and other fluid characteristics are independent of the con-
figuration.
The following variables were directly measured over a
wide range of liquid and gas rates, V,, Vt, Vf,, U sl,,, l,,
R,, us. Tabulated data may be found in Hubbard (1965)
along with detailed discussion of experiment techniques.
The measurements clearly demonstrated the stochastic
nature of the slug flow phenomenon. All the quantities
above except for frequency displayed a range of values. Be-
cause of this fact, repeated measurements were made over
the passage of many slugs a t each gas-liquid rate pair.
Sample mean values were calculated from 25-100 observa-
344 Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., Vol. 14, No. 4, 1975
Table 11. Computational Sequence
EPUATION
NO. I N TEXT
P L . P O , PLI D w ~ WG,
t RS. vs
CALCULITE
C4LCULATE Vs
C4LCUL4TE
R e s Ea 4
'L' 'G
C 21 *NUMERICALLY
Ea
INTEGRATE
A F R O M R , TO A
V A L U E OF R t e WHICH M A K E S
1NTEGR4L 1 ,/ D
2
9. I1
4-7
C4LCULATE 1 NOTE V I L U E S OF R f . V f . V s .
X i , C4N BE OBTAINED
B Y STORING THE INTER-
408 M E D l 4 T E V b L U E S OF
THE lNTEGR4L 4S THE
C A L C U L I T I O N PROCEEDS.
20
34
36
tions. Standard deviations associated with these measure-
44 "s ments are as follows: Vt = 8%; V, = 5%; Vf, = 22%; 1, =
43
35%; hp, = 20%. Part of this deviation is due to the ran-
domness of the slug formation process with the result that
each slug is somewhat different in length with different as-
47 sociated film velocities. In part, the deviation is due to
error in measurement. Measurement error is estimated to
be: V, and Vt = 5%;Vf, = 15%; 1, = 25%; AP, = 15%.
As indicated above, test of the model requires as input
data values of the frequency, us and slug holdup, R,. Exper-
imentally measured frequencies as obtained from slug
count are shown in Figure 12. In a future paper the slug ini-
tiation phenomena will be explored and a model will be
presented for predicting these data. In the meantime, if the
model presented here is to be applied to other conditions,
the correlation of Grescovich and Shrier (1972) is recom-
mended.
Values of the slug holdup, R,, were measured using an
impact probe especially designed to follow the transient as
a slug passed. A water filled, Ih-in. tube formed in the shape
of the impact tube of a pitot was placed at the centerline
with the opening facing upstream. This tube was connected
to a sealed water reservoir located outside of the test sec-
tion into which was fitted a pressure transducer. A second
transducer was located at the wall of the test section a t the
plane of the mouth of the impact tube. Stagnation and
static pressure were recorded continuously during slug
flow. When the slug passed across the tube a sharp rise of
momentum flux and impact pressure was observed. Since
the fluid velocity could be calculated and the liquid and gas
moved without slip, it was a straightforward matter to de-
termine p , and R , using the pitot tube equations. Results of
these experiments appear in Figure 13. It should be noted
that the detector was positioned a t the axis and radial gra-
dients in air concentration exists. In addition, considerable
fluctuation in impact pressure with time was observed
making it difficult to determine the impact pressure char-
acteristic of that slug. For these reasons considerable scat-
 c I I I

20 L 4. 15
14-
13
.

-
I:! r

Y
L.C"

0 01 02 03 04
WG ilb/sec)
2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 IO I1 12 13 14 15 16 17

Figure 12. Slug frequency data of Hubbard (1965) MEASURED Vr

Figure 14. Comparison of theory with experiment: V,.

10

i
R,

075

>
-
a FLOW RATE OF
20
a WATER IN A 1.5" Q
4
Y) HORIZONTAL TUBE
Y
05
0 10 20 30
v,

Figure 13. Hubhard data for slug holdup. CALCULATED Vt

Figure 15. Comparison of theory with experiment: VT.

ter was observed and this is clearly evident in the data.

Fortunately, the predicted results from the model are not
especially senSitive to the value of R, used as input.
Theory vs. Experiment: V,. Values of V, were mea-
sured by removing the end of the tube and allowing the
slugs to flow out the end and then undergo a free fall tra-
,--.
$19
jectory to the floor. Knowing the centerline height of the W
w
0
test section and measuring the horizontal distance from the 3
end of the test section to the point where floor contact was $ 0 4 FLOW RATE OF
Y
I WATER IN A 1 5 ' D
made, the velocity of the slug as it left the tube could be HORIZONTAL TUBE
calculated from well established trajectory equations. A 0 2 0 3 31 I b / $ e c

comparison of measured values of V, with values calculated

from the model, eq 8, appears in Figure 14 where agree- 0
ment is seen to be excellent. 0 0 2 0 4 06 OB 10

Theory vs. Experiment: Vt. Electrical contact probes CALCULATED (?)

were located 8.5 f t apart in the last two Plexiglas blocks of
the test section. These probes were introduced into the top
of the block and penetrated only Y 4 - h into the test section.
The circuits were such that when the front of a slug passed,
the conducting water closed a circuit which started a timer.
When the front of the same slug reached the next contact
probe the timer was stopped. In this way the rate of ad-
vance of the front of the slug, or Vt, was measured.
Equation 21 was used to calculate C as predicted from
the model and Vt was then calculated from eq 15. A com-
parison of predictions of the model and experiment appear
in Figure 15. Again agreement is seen to be excellent.
Theory vs. Experiment: Vfe.Experimental values of
Vf, were obtained by observing the trajectory of the film as
it flowed out of the end of the pipe in free fall in the man-
ner similar to that described above for V,. It was observed
that the horizontal distance reached by the film decreased
Figure 16. Comparison of theory with experiment: Vf,.
with time since the last slug passed and this is in accord
with the prediction of the model. This distance was record-
ed just before the next slug left the pipe and values of Vf,
were calculated.
Values of VfJV, can be predicted from the model using
eq 28 with Rf, calculated from eq 40a. A comparison of cal-
culated and measured values of this ratio appear in Figure
16. There appears to exist a small systematic error with
measured values being 10-15% lower than calculated ones.
In these measurements air resistance was not considered in
the trajectory equation and as a result the values of Vf, will
be somewhat higher than those indicated here. Considering
the fact that there exists some controversy on correct rela-

Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., Vol. 14, No. 4, 1975 345


I SOLID LINES INDICATE PREDICTION
OF MODEL
WATER IN A I 5 " D
HORIZONTAL TUBE
0
0 5 IO IS 20 25 30
",
Figure 17. Comparison of theory with experiment:slug length.
n-
P 1, = length of slug unit
U
0 lm = length of mixing eddy
Y
a P = average hydrostatic pressure acting on film cross-sec-
VI
2 tional area
n P, = perimeter wetted by the film
m
J
0 10 20
",
Figure 18. Comparison of theory with experiment: U s .
tionships to predict wall shear for open channel flow, this is
very good agreement indeed.
Theory vs. Experiment: Slug Length 1,. Slug length
was measured using a single electrical contact probe de-
scribed for the determination of Vt. In this case a counter
was started when the nose of the slug contacted the probe
and was stopped when the contact was broken as the back
of the slug passed over the probe contact. Using this time
interval and the measured value of Vt it was possible to cal-
culate an experimental value of l s . Because of the highly
aereated nature of the front of the slug an accurate deter-
mination of arrival time was difficult. Furthermore, ran-
domness in the system is particularly evident in slug
length.
A comparison of predicted slug length from the model
(solid lines) and the measurements (data points) appears in
Figure 17. Despite difficulties in measurement the agree-
ment is within experimental error and the correct trend is
observed.
Theory vs. Experiment: AP,. For each flow condition
pressure traces were recorded similar to those of Figures
4-6 and from these AP, was measured for 25-50 successive
slugs and an average calculated. AP,,from the model is
predicted eq 1, 2, and 4 as indicated in Table 11. A compari-
son of experiment with the prediction of the model appears
in Figure 18. There is a weak dependence of predicted
values on the liquid rate through the appearance of WL in
eq 42. For almost all conditions agreement between predic-
tion and experience is within 20%. Considering that these
difficult transient measurements are within this accuracy
the agreement seems to be very good indeed.
346 Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., Vol. 14, No. 4, 1975
Conclusion
A model has been presented which can predict the de-
tailed structure of slug flow, given flow rates, fluid proper-
ties, tube geometry and inclinations, and measured or pre-
dicted values of slug frequency and slug liquid holdup. In a
future paper prediction of v, and R , will be discussed.
Notation
A = cross-sectional area of the pipe
A f = cross-sectional area of the film
C = ratio of rate of mass pickup to rate of mass flow in the
35
slug (see eq 10)
D = pipe diameter
f s = friction factor for the slug
f f = friction factor for the film
F , = force acting on an element of film in the flow direction
due to gravity
F , = force at the pipe wall acting on an element of film in
the flow direction due to friction
g, = conversion factor
gL = acceleration of gravity
12 = Von Karman constant
1, = length of slug
l f = length of film
AP, = pressure drop due to acceleration across slug
APf = pressure drop due to friction across slug
U s= pressure drop across slug
r = radial coordinate
30
Rf = fraction of pipe flow area occupied by film
R f , = fraction of pipe flow area occupied by film just before
pickup
R, = fraction liquid holdup in the slug
Ref = Reynolds number of film
Re, = Reynolds number of slug
SL = specific weight of the liquid
Tf = time for passage of a film
T , = time for passage of a slug
u = local velocity
u* = friction velocity
u+ = dimensionless local velocity (See eq 14)
Vf = average velocity of fluid in the film
Vf, = average velocity of fluid in the film just prior to pick-
up by the next slug
V, = average velocity of fluid in the slug
Vt = average translational velocity of the nose of the slug
W , = gas mass flow rate
WL = liquid mass flow rate
W = grouping of variables (see eq 40b)
y = distance coordinate measured from the wall
y+ = dimensionless y (see eq 14)
1: = rate of mass pickup by slug
a = defined by eq 20
/3 = angle between pipe axis and the horizontal
y = value of y c at y = R
0 = angle which subtends the liquid film (see Figure 11)
p~ = viscosity of gas
p~ = viscosity of liquid
V, = slug frequency
5 = ratio of the distance from the film surface to the center
of pressure to the tube diameter
p~ = density of gas
p~ = density of liquid
w = velocity measured relative to Vt (see eq 2 5 )
Literature Cited
Baker, O., OilGas J., 185 (July 1954).
Bonnecaze. R. H., Erskine, W., Grescovich, E. J., AlChEJ., 17, 1109 (1971).
Bretherton.F. P.. J. NuidMech.. 10. 166 (1961).
Cox, B. G., J. FluidMech , 20, 13 (1964).
Dukler, A. E.,Wicks, M., Cleveland, R. G., AlChE J., 10, 44 (1964).
Goldsmith, H. L., Mason, S.G.. J. ColbidSci., 18, 237 (1963).
Govier, G. W., Omer, M. M., Can. J. Chern. Eng., 40, 93 (1962).
Greskovich. E. J.. Shrier, A. L., lnd. Eng. Chern.. Process Des. Dev., 11, 317
(1972).
Hewitt, G. F., Hall Taylor, N.S. "Annular Two Phase Flow" Pergamon Press,
1970.
Hoogendoorn, C. J., Chern. Eng. Sci., 9, 205 (1959).
Hoogendoorn, C. J., Welling, W. A. "Symposium on Two Phase Flows," E x 6
ter, 1965.
Hubbard, M. G.. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Houston, 1965.
Hubbard. M. G., Dukler, A. E., "Proc. 1966 Heat Transfer 8 Fluid Mech.
Inst.," M. A. Saad and J. A. Miller, Ed., Stanford University Press, 1966.
Hubbard, M. G., Dukler, A. E., paper presented at the AlChE National Meet-
ing, Tampa, Fla.. 1968.
Hughmark, G. A,, Chern. Eng. Sci., 20, 1007 (1965).
Johnson, H. A,, Trans. ASME, 77, 1257 (1955).
Kosterin. S. I., lzv. Ak. Nauk SSSR, Otd. Tekh. Nauk, No. 12, 24 (1949).
Kordyban, E. S., Trans. ASME, 83, 613 (1961).
Kordyban, E. S..Ranov, R . R., "ASME Mukiphase Flow Symposium," p 1,
1963.
Marruci, G., Chern. Eng. Sci.. 21, 718 (1966).
Martinelli, R. C., Nelson, B. D., Trans A S K , 70, (1948).
Neal, L. G.. "An Analyses of Slip in Gas-Liquid Flow" Report of lnstitutt for
Atomenergi, Kjeller Res. Est. (1963).
Nicklin, D. J., Wilkes, J. O., Davidson, J. F., Trans. lnst. Chern. Eng., 40, 61
( 1962).
Oliver, D. R., Wright, S.I., Brit. Chern. Eng., 9, 540 (1964).
Richardson, B.,Argonne National Laboratory Report ANL-5949 (1958).
Suo, M.. Trans. ASME, J. Basic Eng., 90, 140 (1968).
Suo, M., Griffith, P., Trans. ASME, J. BasicEng., 86, 576 (1964).
Vermuellen, L. R., Ryan, J. T., Can. J. Chern. Eng., 49, 195 (1971).
Received for review February 5,1975
Accepted June 5,1975

Nonideality of Binary Adsorbed Mixtures of Benzene and Freon-I 1 on

Highly Graphitized Carbon at 298.15 K

Earle D. Sloan, Jr. and J. C. Mullins'

Chemical Engineering Department, Clernson University, Clernson, Sooth Carolina 2963 1

Experimentaladsorption isotherms of binary gas mixtures of benzene and Freon-11 are presented for compari-
son with predictions by the ideal solution theory and by a two-dimensionalvan der Waals equation of state. The
homogeneous carbon black, Sterling MTFF-D-7 (310OOC) with a surface area of 9.6 m2/g, was the adsorbent.
A commercial electrobalance was used to measure both mixture isotherms at 298.15 K below 10 Torr and
pure component isotherms at 273.15 K and 298.15 K at pressures up to 125 Torr. A chromatographic tech-
nique was used to correct the mixing rule for the energy parameter crii The calculated isotherms, using the
corrected mixing parameter for the van der Waals equation, are shown to agree with the experimental iso-
therms. A small departure from the ideal adsorbed solution theory was found.

Introduction N
A
Many theories of adsorption such as the early BET theo- - -dd.rr
n
+ 2
i=l
xi dpia = 0 (constant T ) (1)
ry (Brunauer et al., 1938) and a more recent theory by Lee
and O'Connell (1972) assume sitewise homogeneity for the The chemical potential of species i in the ideal gas mixture
adsorbent. In spite of this basic assumption there is a pau- is given by
city of data for adsorption equilibria of mixtures on either
sitewise homogeneous adsorbents or adsorbents with a ho- pig(^, p , y i ) = G i o ( T ) + RT In P y l ( 2)
mogeneous field. The basic difficulty is that the composi- Since a t equilibrium the chemical potential of component i
tion of the adsorbed phase, which is frequently less than a is equal in the adsorbed and gas phases, the differential of
monomolecular layer on a relatively small (e.g., 10 m2/g) eq 2 may be substituted into eq 1 to obtain a useful rela-
surface area, must be determined. Friederich and Mullins tion.
(1972) obtained data for ideal mixtures of similar molecules
using an equilibrium calculation method suggested by Van --A d n + d l n P +
Ness (1969). The purpose of this paper is to present a dif- nRT
N
ferent method for determining homogeneous absorbent ( x i d In y i ) = 0 (constant T ) (3)
mixture equilibria and to extend the mixture data available i.1
to include components which exhibit nonideality in the
monomolecular layer region. If eq 3 is restricted to constant gas phase composition, a
means for calculating spreading pressure results
Adsorption Equilibrium Relations P
Two equilibrium relations have been used here in the = n d(ln P) (constant T and y i ) (4)
measurement of mixture equilibria on homogeneous adsor-
bents: a modification of the Gibbs-Duhem relation for the In eq 4 the number of moles adsorbed may be determined
adsorbed phase and a relation for determining infinite dilu- by the mass adsorbed and an average molecular mass
tion activity coefficients by a chromatographic technique.
Gibbs Adsorption Isotherm. The Gibbs-Duhem rela-
tion for a two dimensional adsorbed film, restricted to con-
stant temperature, is known as the Gibbs adsorption iso-
therm (Van Ness, 1969) i=1

Ind. Eng. Chem., Fundam., Vol. 14, No. 4, 1975 347