Prediction of Slug-Liquid Holdup For High-Viscosity Oils in Upward Gas/Liquid Vertical-Pipe Flow

PO187957 DOI: 10.
2118/187957-PA Date: 16-September-17 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 19
Prediction of Slug-Liquid Holdup

for High-Viscosity Oils in Upward
Gas/Liquid Vertical-Pipe Flow
F. Al-Ruhaimani, Kuwait University; E. Pereyra and C. Sarica, University of Tulsa;
E. Al-Safran, Kuwait University; and C. Torres, University of Los Andes, Venezuela
Summary
Slug-liquid holdup is a critical slug-flow parameter, which affects average liquid holdup and pressure gradient in pipes. Most experi-
mental slug-liquid-holdup studies in the literature were conducted either by use of low-viscosity liquid for all inclination angles or
high-viscosity liquid for horizontal and slightly inclined pipes, indicating a lack of experimental data for vertical flow of high-viscosity
liquid. Therefore, the objective of this study is to experimentally and theoretically investigate the effect of oil viscosity on slug-liquid
holdup in gas/liquid upward vertical flow, and to develop a new closure model to predict slug-liquid holdup in vertical pipes. In this
study, experiments were conducted in a 50.8-mm inner-diameter (ID) vertical pipe for six oil viscosities: 586, 401, 287, 213, 162, and
127 mPas.
A new slug-liquid-holdup closure model derived from Froude and inverse viscosity numbers was developed in this study for high-
viscosity-liquid two-phase upward vertical flow. The proposed model was validated against independent experimental data and showed
excellent prediction for high-viscosity data. Furthermore, the proposed model was compared with existing models that take into account
the viscosity effects showing better performance. The new model was incorporated in the Tulsa University Fluid Flow Projects
(TUFFP) unified model (all versions; Zhang et al. 2003b), improving the prediction of pressure gradient and average liquid holdup for
high-viscosity upward vertical flow.
Introduction
Heavy oils are characterized by their high density and viscosity compared with light and medium oils. Gas and highly viscous oil
(lL>100 mPas) are required to flow in a vertical tubing during heavy-oil exploitation. Al-Ruhaimani et al. (2016) experimentally and
numerically studied the effect of high liquid viscosity on flow pattern, pressure gradient, and average liquid holdup. They observed con-
siderable discrepancies between the acquired data and the prediction of available models.
Slug flow is the dominant flow pattern in upward vertical flow. It is characterized by flow of alternating liquid slugs and gas pockets.
A typical slug unit usually consists of two zones: the slug body and the liquid film/Taylor bubble. The liquid volume fraction in the slug
body is known as the slug-liquid holdup. Slugs can have different volumes of entrained gas, which primarily depend on flow rates, fluid
properties, pipe diameter, and inclination angle. Slug-liquid holdup is an essential parameter for slug-flow modeling, especially for esti-
mating the gravitational-pressure gradient. Thus, this study focuses on the investigation of slug-liquid holdup for highly viscous oil
(lL>100 mPas) in vertical pipes.
Many experimental studies were conducted to measure the slug-liquid holdup. As can be seen in Fig. 1, a wide range of viscosities
(0.2 mPas<lL<580 mPas) has been considered for horizontal and slightly inclined pipes. However, only two studies have provided
slug-liquid-holdup measurements for vertical flow: Schmidt (1977) and Felizola (1992), with liquid viscosities of lL<7 mPas. Thus,
there is a lack of experimental data for vertical flow, at least for liquid viscosities lL>7 mPas.
Several models and correlations have been proposed to predict the slug-liquid holdup (Table 1). Gregory et al. (1978) suggested
that the slug-liquid holdup is a unique function of the mixture velocity, neglecting the possible dependency on fluid properties. In
spite of this assumption, this correlation presented a fair agreement compared with experimental data (Pereyra et al. 2012). This
indicates that the superficial mixture velocity is the dominant parameter to predict the slug-liquid holdup. By use of a large set of
experimental data, Pereyra et al. (2012) showed that the inclination angle and liquid viscosity also affected the slug-liquid holdup.
Only five studies considered the inclination-angle effect: Andreussi and Bendiksen (1989), Gomez et al. (2000), Abdul-Majeed
(2000), Zhang et al. (2003a), and Al-Safran (2009). The last four studies also considered the liquid viscosity. However, the Gomez
et al. (2000) and Abdul-Majeed (2000) models perform poorly for high-viscosity-oil data in horizontal flow (Kora et al. 2011; Brito
2012). Al-Safran (2009) proposed a semimechanistic correlation, which is a function of one independent mechanistic dimensionless
variable: the momentum transfer rate between the slug body and the liquid film. The correlation has been developed by use of a
large set of data that did not include highly viscous fluids in vertical or inclined flow. The only available mechanistic models are
Barnea and Brauner (1985) and Zhang et al. (2003a). The Barnea and Brauner (1985) model is dependent on the assumption that
the gas void fraction in the slug is the same as the void fraction at the transition boundary to dispersed bubble flow, for the same
mixture velocity. Zhang et al. (2003a) used slug-flow characteristics to solve the momentum and continuity equations for slug flow.
The model has a fair prediction for Schmidt (1977) and Felizola (1992) data (Pereyra et al. 2012). The basic principle of this model
is the balance between the turbulence kinetic energy of the liquid phase and the surface free energy of dispersed gas bubbles in the
slug body. The turbulent fluctuations are estimated by the law of the wall considering fully developed turbulent flow within
the slug body. However, this assumption is not valid for highly viscous vertical flow, and further evaluation is required under
these conditions.
This study presents an experimental and theoretical investigation on the effect of liquid viscosity on slug-liquid holdup. A new ex-
perimental data set has been presented for a viscosity range from 127 to 586 mPas. A new slug-liquid-holdup correlation is proposed
by use of two representative dimensionless numbers and the acquired data.
Copyright V
C 2017 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 7 November 2016. Revised manuscript received for review 22 June 2017. Paper (SPE 187957) peer approved 28 June 2017.
2017 SPE Production & Operations 1
ID: jaganm Time: 09:38 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170040/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170040

PO187957 DOI: 10.2118/187957-PA Date: 16-September-17 Stage: Page: 2 Total Pages: 19
90
60
θ (degrees)
30
–30
–60
–90
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
μ (mPa·s)
Schmidt (1977) Gregory et al. (1978) Kouba (1986)
Rothe et al. (1986) Kokal (1987) Brandt and Fuches (1989)
Felizola (1992) Roumazeilles et al. (1996) Lunde et al. (1997)
Nuland et al. (1997) Nuland (1999) Abdul-Majeed (2000)
Pan (2010) Kora et al. (2011) Brito et al. (2012)
Fig. 1—Range of slug-liquid-holdup experimental data available in the literature.
Param-
eters Time
vM √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
ρL × √ √ √ × √ × √ × √ √ √ √ √
ρg × × √ √ × √ × × × √ √ √ √ √
μL × × × × × × × √ √ √ √ √ √ √
μg × × × × × × × × √ × √ √ × ×
σ × √ √ √ × √ × × × √ √ √ √ √
d × √ √ √ × √ × √ × √ √ √ √ √
θ × × × × × √ × √ √ × √ √ × ×
vT × × × × × × × × × × √ √ × ×
vF × × × × × × × × × × √ √ × ×
Bendiksen (1989)
Kora et al. (2011)

Al-Safran (2009)
Sylvester (1987)
Marcano (1996)
Brauner (1985)
Brauner (1985)
Al-Safran et al.
Malnes (1982)
Andreussi and
Abdul-Majeed
Ferschneider
Gomez et al.
et al. (1978)
Zhang et al.
Barnea and
Barnea and
Gregory
(2003a)
(1983)
(2000)
(2000)
(2013)
Table 1—Liquid-holdup-model and-correlations history.
Experimental Setup
Fluid properties, instrumentation, and a brief facility description are presented in this section. For a full description of the test facility,
see Alruhaimani (2015).
Test Fluids. A lubricant oil (ND 50 or ISO 220) is used as liquid phase. Six different temperatures have been considered: 21.1, 26.7,
32.2, 37.8, 43.3, and 48.9 C. The corresponding liquid viscosities are 546, 401, 287, 213, 162, and 127 mPas. Compressed air is used
as gas phase.
Test Section. The test section consists of a 50.8-m-ID polycarbonate pipe. The total test section is 21.5 m long, and it is connected to a
return section of the same length, as depicted in Fig. 2.
Instrumentations and Measurements. Fluid temperature was acquired by four Rosemount resistance-temperature detectors. Two
Rosemount pressure transducers were used to measure the absolute pressure. Pressure gradients were measured by use of four Rose-
mount differential-pressure transducers along the test section. Seven two-wire capacitance sensors were used to measure the slug char-
acteristics and study the slug-flow evolution. High-speed cameras and surveillance cameras were used to visualize the flow. The high-
speed video recordings were acquired at 1,000 frames/sec. A set of quick closing valves, separated with a distance of 8.16 m, were used
to measure the average liquid holdup. Details on instrument calibrations and uncertainty analysis are given in Alruhaimani (2015).
2 2017 SPE Production & Operations

21.47 m Upward flow
Oil
TT Visualization TT PT TT TT PT
box
CS7 QCV2 QCV CS6 CS5 CS4 CS3 CS2 CS1

QCV1
system Gas
DP DP DP
1.23 m DP
QCV5
Oil tank
Downward flow
Fig. 2—Schematic of test section.
Capacitance Sensors (CSs). The CS principle is dependent on differences in the dielectric constants of the air and oil phases. Two-
wire-type CSs were used is this study. Static and dynamic calibrations of the CSs were performed to accurately calculate the slug-liquid
holdup from the capacitance-voltage signal. A detailed description of the CSs and calibration results are given in Appendix A.
Quick-Closing Valve System (QCVS). QCVS was used to trap a representative portion of slug body to determine slug-liquid holdup
during CS calibration. Liquid holdup calculated by QCVS is slightly different from the CS static calibration caused by flow distribution.
Therefore, to minimize this error, the system was dynamically calibrated. Detailed QCVS description and calibration results are given
in Appendix A.
Test Matrix. The superficial liquid and gas velocities varied from 0.05 to 0.7 m/s and from 0.5 to 1 m/s, respectively. The upper limit
of superficial liquid velocity was caused by facility limitation on pumping, whereas the upper limit of superficial gas velocity was a
result of flow-pattern change from slug to churn flow at vSg>1 m/s. A total of six different oil viscosities were considered (586, 401,
287, 213, 162, and 127 mPas). The pipe-inclination angle was upward vertical. Each experimental condition was tested at least three
times to verify the repeatability.
Experimental Results
The experimental matrix resulted in 68 high-viscosity oil/air two-phase tests. Slug-liquid holdup (HLS) was obtained by use of the CS
output-voltage signal (V). Processing the CS signals for a specific run requires the full-pipe CS reading (Vmax) and empty-pipe CS read-
ing (Vmin). Daily measurements of Vmax and Vmin were used to normalize V, and obtain a dimensionless voltage, V0 , by use of
Vread Vmin
V0 ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
Vmax Vmin
Then, HLS was calculated from V0 by use of the obtained relationships from the CS calibration (see Appendix A).
Fig. 3 presents the measured slug-liquid holdup vs. mixture velocity for various liquid velocities at liquid viscosities of 586, 401,
287, 213, 162, and 127 mPas, respectively. In general, slug-liquid holdup decreases as the mixture velocity increases. The same obser-
vation is made when superficial liquid velocity is kept constant. This indicates that the slug-liquid holdup slightly decreases as the su-
perficial gas velocity increases.
Fig. 4 presents the measured slug-liquid holdup vs. mixture velocity for liquid viscosities of 586, 401, 287, 213, 162, and 127 mPas
at superficial liquid velocities of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 m/s. The slug-liquid holdup slightly increases with increasing the liquid viscosity.
Fig. 5 presents the slug-liquid holdup vs. mixture velocity for high-viscosity oil and kerosene. The kerosene data are from Felizola
(1992), where lL ¼ 1.34 mPas. The Felizola (1992) data were obtained by use of ring-type CSs, which are different from the two-wire
type used in this study. Although this may add some uncertainty to the comparison, the results clearly show that the slug-liquid holdup
for high-viscosity oil is higher than that for kerosene. This indicates that liquid viscosity significantly affects the slug-liquid holdup.
Therefore, the slug-liquid-holdup correlations obtained by use of low liquid viscosity cannot be readily used for high liquid viscosities.
Fig. 6 presents the horizontal slug-liquid holdup vs. the vertical slug-liquid holdup for the same operating conditions. The horizontal
slug-liquid-holdup data are from Kora (2010) for liquid viscosities of 586, 401, 287, and 213 mPas, and from Brito (2012) for 162 and
127 mPas. The comparison between the measured slug-liquid holdups for high-viscosity-oil/air vertical and horizontal flows shows
that the slug-liquid holdup in horizontal flow is on average 4% greater than that in vertical flow for the same flowing conditions.
Fig. 7 presents the slug-liquid holdup in vertical and horizontal flows vs. the mixture velocity for liquid viscosities of 586 and 213
mPas. The horizontal slug-liquid-holdup data are from Kora (2010). Comparison between the measured slug-liquid holdups in vertical
and horizontal flows at 586 and 213 mPas shows that, on average, the differences between the slug-liquid holdups in vertical and hori-
zontal flows are approximately 0.02 at 586 mPas and 0.04 at 213 mPas. This shows that at the same operating conditions, the higher
the liquid viscosity is, the closer the values of vertical and horizontal slug-liquid holdups are. This observation may indicate that for
very-high liquid viscosity, the effect of inclination angle on slug-liquid holdup is minimal. Therefore, it is postulated that high-viscosity
horizontal-flow slug-liquid-holdup correlations may give more-accurate predictions than low-viscosity vertical-flow slug-liquid-holdup
correlations for estimating high-viscosity slug-liquid holdup in vertical flow.
Models Evaluation
Available slug-liquid-holdup models and correlations are evaluated in this section by use of the acquired data. The evaluation is per-
formed with six statistical parameters: average relative error (e1); absolute average relative error (e2); standard deviation (SD) of relative
error (e3); average actual error (e4); absolute average actual error (e5); and SD of actual error (e6).

1.00 1.00
0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90
HLS
HLS
0.85 0.85
0.80 0.80
0.75 0.75
0.70 0.70
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
vM (m/s) vM (m/s)
(a) (b)
1.00 1.00
0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90
HLS
HLS
0.85 0.85
0.80 0.80
0.75 0.75
0.70 0.70
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
vM (m/s) vM (m/s)
(c) (d)
1.00 1.00
0.95 0.95
0.90 0.90
HLS
HLS
0.85 0.85
0.80 0.80
0.75 0.75
0.70 0.70
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
vM (m/s) vM (m/s)
(e) (f)
vSL = 0.05 m/s vSL = 0.07 m/s vSL = 0.1 m/s vSL = 0.3 m/s
vSL = 0.4 m/s vSL = 0.5 m/s vSL = 0.6 m/s vSL = 0.7 m/s
Fig. 3—Measured slug-liquid holdup for (a) lL 5 586 mPas, (b) lL 5 401 mPas, (c) lL 5 287 mPas, (d) lL 5 213 mPas, (e) lL 5 162
mPas, and (f) lL 5 127 mPas.
The detailed description or equations of these parameters are given in Alruhaimani (2015).
Gregory et al. (1978), Malnes (1982), Barnea and Brauner (1985), Sylvester (1987), Gomez et al. (2000), Kora et al. (2011), TUFFP
unified (Version 2012), and Al-Safran et al. (2013) were the models evaluated. Fig. 8a shows the slug-liquid-holdup model comparisons
for all data points with all the models. The Sylvester (1987) and Gomez et al. (2000) models highly underestimate the slug-liquid
holdup, and the Barnea and Brauner (1985) model highly overestimates the slug-liquid holdup. The underestimation of the Sylvester
(1987) and Gomez et al. (2000) models is not surprising because the results of comparing high-viscosity oil with kerosene HLS showed
that the slug-liquid holdup for high-viscosity oil is higher than that for kerosene. The overestimation of the Barnea and Brauner (1985)
mechanistic model may be attributed to the assumption that the model is valid for a stable slug length of 16d for vertical flow, which is
very high compared with the observed average slug length in this study of approximately 5d for the high-viscosity case. Figs. 8b and 8c
show the slug-liquid-holdup-model comparisons for all data points with the Gregory et al. (1978), Malnes (1982), Kora et al. (2011),

TUFFP unified (Version 2012), and Al-Safran et al. (2013) models. The comparisons show that the models can predict the slug-liquid
holdup within 6 10% accuracy.
1.00
0.95
0.90
HLS
0.85
0.80
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
vM (m/s)
(a)
1.00
0.95
0.90
HLS
0.85
0.80
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
vM (m/s)
(b)
1.00
0.95
0.90
HLS
0.85
0.80
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
vM (m/s)
(c)
μL = 586 mPa.s μL = 401 mPa.s μL = 287 mPa.s

μ = 213 mPa.s
L μ = 162 mPa.s
L μ = 127 mPa.s
L
Fig. 4—Slug-liquid-holdup comparison for (a) vSL 5 0.1 m/s, (b) vSL 5 0.3 m/s, and (c) vSL 5 0.5 m/s.
Fig. 9 shows the slug-liquid-holdup model comparison for liquid viscosities of 586, 401, 287, 213, 162, and 127 mPas. The higher
the oil viscosity is, the better the slug-liquid holdup is predicted by the models. Fig. 10 presents the performances of slug-liquid-holdup
models for all data points and for each of the viscosities. The values of e1 and e4 are negative for the Malnes (1982) model, which indi-
cates underestimation of the slug-liquid holdup, and positive for the Gregory et al. (1978), Kora et al. (2011), TUFFP unified (Version
2012), and Al-Safran et al. (2013) models, which indicates overestimation of the slug-liquid holdup. For all the data points, the absolute
average relative errors for Gregory et al. (1978), Malnes (1982), Kora et al. (2011), TUFFP unified (Version 2012), and Al-Safran et al.
(2013) models are 2, 2, 3, 3, and 3%, respectively, and the absolute average actual errors are 0.02, 0.02, 0.03, 0.03, and 0.03, respec-
tively. For high-viscosity-liquid vertical flow, the Gregory et al. (1978), Malnes (1982), Kora et al. (2011), TUFFP unified (Version
2012), and Al-Safran et al. (2013) models show good prediction of slug-liquid holdup, where the closest slug-liquid-holdup prediction
is by the Malnes (1982) model. This might be attributed to the functionality of the Malnes (1982) correlation of surface tension. Al-
Safran et al. (2013) showed that surface tension has a noticeable effect on slug-liquid holdup, which is related to bubble size, and behav-
ior in slug body. Fig. 10 also shows that the Gregory et al. (1978), Kora et al. (2011), and Al-Safran et al. (2013) HLS predictions
improve (less e1 and e4) with increasing oil viscosity. This is mainly because these models were developed for horizontal flow, and the

results of slug-liquid-holdup comparison between horizontal and vertical flow showed that the higher the viscosity is, the closer the HLS
in horizontal flow is to that of vertical flow. Although the Malnes (1982) model is also developed for horizontal flow, its HLS prediction
improves with decreasing oil viscosity, which is attributed to the inclusion of surface tension in the correlation. Finally, the TUFFP uni-
fied model (Version 2012) (TUFFP 2012) HLS prediction also improves with decreasing oil viscosity. This is because that model uses
the Zhang et al. (2003a) HLS mechanistic model that is valid for all inclination angles, but was developed for turbulent flow and vali-
dated with low-viscosity data. Finally, poor performance of the Gomez et al. (2000) model is related to the absence of high-viscosity
data (lL>6.5 mPas) during the development of this correlation.
1.0
0.9
μL = 586 mPa.s
0.8
μ = 127 mPa.s
L
0.7 Kerosene (Felizola 1992)
0.6
HLS
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
vM (m/s)
Fig. 5—Slug-liquid-holdup–viscosity comparison.
1.00
0.96
μL = 586 mPa.s
μL = 401 mPa.s
μL = 287 mPa.s
Vertical HLS
0.92
μL = 213 mPa.s
μL = 162 mPa.s
0.88 μ = 127 mPa.s
L
0.84
0.80
0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.00
Horizontal HLS
Fig. 6—Vertical vs. horizontal slug-liquid holdup.
1.00
0.96
μL = 586 mPa.s (Vertical)
0.92 μL = 586 mPa.s (Horizontal)

μL = 213 mPa.s (Vertical)
HLS
0.88 μL = 213 mPa.s (Horizontal)
0.84
0.80
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
vM (m/s)
Fig. 7—Vertical and horizontal slug-liquid-holdup comparison.

1.0
0.9 Gregory et al. (1978)

Malnes (1982)
0.8
HLS Calculated
Barnea and Brauner (1985)
Sylvester (1987)
0.7 Gomez et al. (2000)
Kora et al. (2011)
0.6 TUFFP unified (Version 2012)
Al-Safran et al. (2013)
0.5
0.4
0.8 0.9 1.0
HLS Experimental
(a)
1.0
Gregory et al. (1978)

+10%
Malnes (1982)
HLS Calculated
Kora et al. (2011)

TUFFP unified (Version 2012)
0.9
–10%
0.8
0.8 0.9 1.0
HLS Experimental
(b)
1.0
Gregory et al. (1978)

Malnes (1982)
Kora et al. (2011)
HLS Calculated

0.9
10%
0.8
0.8 0.9 1.0
HLS Experimental
(c)
Fig. 8—Slug-liquid-holdup-model comparisons for (a) all HLS models, (b) closely predicted HLS models, and (c) closely predicted
HLS models with uncertainty.
Modeling Study
Although the Gregory et al. (1978), Malnes (1982), Kora et al. (2011), TUFFP unified (Version 2012), and Al-Safran et al. (2013) mod-
els showed fair performance, a new empirical correlation was developed to predict slug-liquid holdup for gas/high-viscosity-oil upward
vertical flow. This new correlation should improve the performance of mechanistic models in predicting the pressure gradient and the
average liquid holdup.
In addition to using the statistical parameters (e1 through e6) to evaluate the proposed model performance for predicting the slug-
liquid holdup, a regression analysis is used to evaluate the proposed model. The analysis includes calculating the error degree of free-
dom, the sum of the squares of all the residual errors, the mean-square error, and the coefficient of variation. The detailed descriptions
of these parameters are provided in Al-Safran (2009).

1.0 1.0
+10% +10%
HLS Calculated
HLS Calculated
0.9 0.9
–10% –10%
0.8 0.8
0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0
HLS Experimental HLS Experimental
(a) (b)
1.0 1.0
+10%
HLS Calculated
HLS Calculated
0.9 0.9
–10%
0.8 0.8
0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0
(c) (d)
1.0 1.0
+10% +10%
HLS Calculated
HLS Calculated
0.9 0.9
–10% –10%
0.8 0.8
0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0
(e) (f)
Gregory et al. (1978) Malnes (1982) Kora et al. (2011) TUFFP unified (Version 2012) Al-Safran et al. (2013)
Fig. 9—Slug-liquid-holdup-model comparisons for (a) lL 5 586 mPas, (b) lL 5 401 mPas, (c) lL 5 287 mPas, (d) lL 5 213 mPas, (e)
lL 5 162 mPas, and (f) lL 5 127 mPas.
Model Development. Fig. 11 shows the experimental slug-liquid holdup vs. the mixture velocity. An inverse relationship is observed
between the slug-liquid holdup and mixture velocity. This agrees with the Gregory et al. (1978) model. Fig. 12 shows the experimental
slug-liquid holdup vs. the liquid viscosity for all data points. The slug-liquid holdup slightly increases as the liquid viscosity increases.
Under steady-state flow conditions, the rate of liquid mass introduced into the film at the slug front is equal to the rate of liquid mass
shed back at the tail of the Taylor bubble. This results in constant lengths for slug and film regions. This also facilitates the equality of
the gas influx and outflux of the Taylor bubble. For upward vertical slug flow, Fernandes et al. (1983) described the gas motion around
the Taylor bubble as follows: As the liquid in the slug flows around the nose of the Taylor bubble, it forms a film (slug shedding) too
thin to accommodate the bubbles carried with that liquid. These bubbles coalesce, with the Taylor bubble forming a flow rate of gas
entering the Taylor bubble at the top (Fig. 13). In addition, at the bottom of the Taylor bubble, the falling film entrains gas as it mixes
with the liquid slug (slug pickup) in the mixing zone.
The picking-up and shedding processes in slug flow are responsible for the bubble entrainment in the slug and the bubble coalescing
with the Taylor bubble (escaping from the slug), which affect the slug-liquid holdup. The pickup and shedding rates, x, are expressed
by Shoham (2006) with Eqs. 2 and 3, respectively:

Average Relative Error Average Relative Error

5 0.05
4 0.04
All All
3 0.03
μL = 586 mPa.s μL = 586 mPa.s
μ = 401 mPa.s
L μL = 401 mPa.s
2 0.02
ε1 (%)
ε4
μ = 213 mPa.s μ = 213 mPa.s
1 L 0.01 L
μ = 127 mPa.s 0.00 μ = 127 mPa.s
0 L L
–1 –0.01
–2 –0.02
Gregory et al.
Al-Safran et al.
Gregory et al.
Al-Safran et al.
(1978)
Malnes (1982)
Kora et al. (2011)
TUFFP unified
(Version 2012)
(2013)
(1978)
Malnes (1982)
Kora et al. (2011)
TUFFP unified
(Version 2012)
(2013)
Absolute Average Relative Error Absolute Average Relative Error
5 0.05
0.04
4 0.04
All
All 0.03 μL = 586 mPa.s
μL = 586 mPa.s
3 0.03 μL = 401 mPa.s
μ = 401 mPa.s
ε2 (%)
ε5
μL = 287 mPa.s
L
0.02
μL = 287 mPa.s
2 μ = 213 mPa.s
μ = 213 mPa.s 0.02 L
μL = 162 mPa.s
L
μL = 162 mPa.s 0.01

μ = 127 mPa.s
1 μ = 127 mPa.s
L
L 0.01
0.00
0
Gregory et al.
Al-Safran et al.
(1978)
Malnes (1982)
Kora et al. (2011)
TUFFP unified
(Version 2012)
(2013)
Gregory et al.
Al-Safran et al.
(1978)
Malnes (1982)
Kora et al. (2011)
TUFFP unified
(Version 2012)
(2013)
Standard Deviation of Relative Error Standard Deviation of Relative Error

5
0.05
0.04
4
0.04
All All
3 μL = 586 mPa.s 0.03
μL = 586 mPa.s
μ = 401 mPa.s 0.03 μL = 401 mPa.s
ε3 (%)
L
ε6
μL = 287 mPa.s 0.02 μL = 287 mPa.s

2
μ = 213 mPa.s
L μ = 213 mPa.s
L
0.02
1
μ = 127 mPa.s
L
0.01
μ = 127 mPa.s
L
0.01
0
0.00
Gregory et al.
Al-Safran et al.
Gregory et al.
Al-Safran et al.
(1978)
Malnes (1982)
Kora et al. (2011)
TUFFP unified
(Version 2012)
(2013)
(1978)
Malnes (1982)
Kora et al. (2011)
TUFFP unified
(Version 2012)
(2013)
Fig. 10—Model evaluation by use of measured slug-liquid holdup.
x ¼ ðvT vF ÞqL AHLF ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
x ¼ ðvT vS ÞqL AHLS : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
The rates are functions of translational velocity. Gokcal et al. (2009), Moreiras et al. (2014), and Alruhaimani (2015) showed
that viscosity affects the translational velocity. This implies that effects of gravity and viscosity are important in modeling slug-
liquid holdup.

1.00
0.98 HLS = –0.022vM + 0.954
R 2 = 0.451
0.96
HLS Experimental
0.94
0.92
0.90
0.88
0.86
0.84
0.82
0.80
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
vm (m/s)
Fig. 11—Slug-liquid holdup vs. mixture velocity.
1.00
HLS = 0.042μL + 0.919
R 2 = 0.384
0.95
HLS Experimental
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
μL (Pa.s)
Fig. 12—Slug-liquid holdup vs. liquid viscosity.
vT
vC
LF
HLF
vF
HLS
LS vLS vgS
Fig. 13—Schematic of slug flow.

Wallis (1969) completed an extensive dimensionless analysis for inertia, viscous, and surface-tension forces for two-phase flow. The
influences of inertia and gravity forces on slug-liquid holdup were considered by use of the Wallis (1969) dimensionless Froude num-
ber, expressed as
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vM qL
NFr:W ¼ 0:5
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
ðgdÞ qL qg
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where (gd)0.5 is constant and qL =ðqL qg Þ 1 for qL>>qg. This shows that NFr.W is directly proportional to vM. In addition, because
HLS is inversely proportional to vM, HLS is inversely proportional to NFr.W.
The influence of viscosity on slug-liquid holdup was also accounted for by use of the inverse viscosity number, expressed as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 1=4 gd 3 qL ðqL qg Þ
NE€o
Nf ¼ ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
NMo lL
where NEö and NMo are the Eötvös and Morton numbers given in Eqs. 6 and 7, respectively:
gd2 ðqL qg Þ
NE€o ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ
r
gl4 ðqL qg Þ
NMo ¼ L 2 3 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
qL r
A high value of the Eötvös number (NE€o >40) indicates that the system is relatively unaffected by surface-tension effects, which is
the case in the present experimental results. The powers of the Eötvös and Morton numbers in Eq. 5 were selected so that surface ten-
sion can be eliminated. pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
The terms in Eq. 5 can be further evaluated because gd 3 is constant and qL ðqL qg Þ q2L constant for the present experimental
data range. This shows that Nf is inversely proportional to lL. In addition, because HLS is directly proportional to lL, HLS is inversely
proportional to Nf.
Slug-liquid holdup was plotted against the product of the NFr.W and Nf numbers. The powers of the NFr.W and Nf numbers were opti-
mized to obtain the best curve fit for the data points and minimum error between the data and the model. All slug-liquid-holdup values
fall on a line after the optimization, as shown in Fig. 14. The powers of the NFr.W and NFr.W numbers were determined as –1 and –0.5,
respectively. The new correlation is expected to improve the predictions of slug-liquid holdup for high-viscosity oil, especially in
upward vertical flow. The proposed slug-liquid-holdup-closure model is given as
1
HLS ¼ 0:266NFr:W Nf0:5 þ 0:912: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð8Þ
1.00
–1 –0.5
HLS = 0.266 NFr Nf + 0.912
2
R = 0.786
0.97
HLS Experimental
0.94
0.91
0.88
0.85
0.00 0.05 1.10 1.15 1.20
NFr–1Nf–0.5
Fig. 14—Slug-liquid holdup vs. multiplication of Froude number and inverse viscosity number.
Evaluation of the Proposed Model. Fig. 15 shows the performance of the newly proposed slug-liquid-holdup closure relation by use
of the measured data. Table 2 summarizes the overall statistics of the regression model and shows that the coefficient of variation
equals 0.786. This indicates that the model is reliable and capable of predicting HLS. Table 3 presents the uncertainty with 95% confi-
dence for each coefficient in the linear model (y ¼ b0þb1x). In addition, Table 3 gives the 95% confidence upper and lower limits for
each coefficient, which provides the flexibility to the model coefficients so that the model can be tuned to existing measurements to
improve the model prediction. Fig. 16 is the residual plot (residuals vs. predicted values), which illustrates that a linear model is suitable
because no curve pattern exists, and the variation of residuals is within the acceptable range.
The proposed-model performance was compared with the performance of the Gregory et al. (1978), Malnes (1982), Kora et al.
(2011), TUFFP unified (Version 2012), and Al-Safran et al. (2013) models. Table 4 presents the results of the comparisons. The pro-
posed model shows better performance than the other models, where the absolute average relative error is lower (e2 ¼ 0.428%) and the
coefficient of determination is higher than all other models.
In the literature, there is no independent slug-liquid-holdup data set for gas/high-viscosity-oil upward vertical flow. Data sets from
Schmidt (1977), Felizola (1992), Kora (2010), and Brito (2012) were used to test the proposed model. The data sets cover a range
of operational conditions for 50.8-mm-ID pipe. The experiments were conducted with air/kerosene for upward vertical flow and

air/medium- and high-viscosity oil for horizontal flow. Table 5 briefly describes the data sets. The proposed slug-liquid-holdup model
was compared with these data sets, and the error statistics are presented in Table 6. Results show that the proposed model gave low av-
erage errors for the Kora (2010) and Brito (2012) data, and high average errors for Schmidt (1997) and Felizola (1992) data. The poor
prediction results for the Schmidt (1997) and Felizola (1992) data vs. the excellent prediction for the Kora (2010) and Brito (2012) data
is not surprising because the liquid viscosities are low for the former data sets and high for the latter data sets. In addition, similar instru-
mentation to Kora (2010) and Brito (2012), two-wire-type CS, are used in the present experimental study, compared with the ring-type
CSs used by Felizola (1992) and an older version of CS by Schmidt (1997). The results show that the proposed model is sensitive to
changes in liquid viscosity. The proposed slug-liquid-holdup model is a better alternative than existing correlations for high-viscosity
oils, especially in upward vertical flow. To test and improve the performance of the developed slug-liquid-holdup closure model, more
experiments with higher viscosities in vertical flow are required.
1.00
HLS Experimental
+2%
0.95
–2%
0.90
0.85
0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
HLS Experimental
Fig. 15—Performance of proposed HLS correlation.
2
Error df SSE MSE R
–5
67 0.0016 2.439×10 0.786
Table 2—Slug-liquid-holdup regression statistics. SSE 5 sum of the

squares of all the residual errors; MSE 5 mean square error; R2 5
coefficient of variation.
Coefficient Coefficient Value U95 Lower 95% Limit Upper 95% Limit
β0 0.912 0.003 0.909 0.915
β1 0.266 0.033 0.233 0.299
Table 3—Model-coefficient statistics.
0.015
0.010
0.005
Residuals
0.000
–0.005
–0.010
–0.015
0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00
Calculated HLS
Fig. 16—Proposed HLS model residual plot.
TUFFP-Unified-Model Performance. The slug-liquid holdup is a closure value used in the TUFFP mechanistic model (Zhang et al.
2003b). The new HLS closure model was used in a modified version of the TUFFP unified model (TUFFP unified model, Version 2015)
to compare its performance to the original version (TUFFP unified model, Version 2012). The model-performance comparisons include
the prediction of the total pressure gradient and the average liquid holdup.

2
Correlation/Model ε1 (%) ε2 (%) ε3 (%) ε4 ε5 ε6 R
Proposed model 0.034 0.427 0.531 0.000 0.004 0.005 0.786
Malnes (1982) –0.994 1.695 1.921 –0.009 0.016 0.018 0.607
Gregory et al. (1978) 2.181 2.380 1.660 0.020 0.022 0.015 0.558
TUFFP unified (Version 2012) 1.389 3.033 3.272 0.013 0.028 0.030 0.587
Al-Safran et al. (2013) 3.137 3.204 1.760 0.029 0.030 0.016 0.521
Kora et al. (2011) 3.318 3.366 1.717 0.031 0.031 0.016 0.518
Table 4—Slug-liquid-holdup-model evaluation.
Data Source θ (°) d (m) vSL Range (m/s) vSg Range (m/s) μL (mPa·s) Fluid System No. of Data Points
Schmidt (1977) 90 0.0508 0.02–2.4 0.1–13 1.71 Air/kerosene 124
Felizola (1992) 90 0.0508 0.05–5.0 0.3–1.9 1.34 Air/kerosene 8
Kora (2010) 0 0.0508 0.1–0.8 0.1–3.5 181–587 Air/oil 144
Brito (2012) 0 0.0508 0.01–3.0 0.1–7.5 39–166 Air/oil 247
Table 5—Slug-liquid-holdup data sets.
Statistical Parameters
Model Data Source ε1 (%) ε2 (%) ε3 (%) ε4 ε5 ε6
Proposed model Schmidt (1977) 143.7 143.7 78.5 0.50 0.50 0.14
Proposed model Felizola (1992) 87.1 87.1 20.7 0.42 0.42 0.06
Proposed model Kora (2010) 1.7 4.4 5.0 0.01 0.04 0.04
Proposed model Brito (2012) 2.5 8.7 11.9 0.01 0.07 0.09
Table 6—Proposed-model evaluation by use of other slug-liquid-holdup data.
Pressure Gradient. The experimentally measured total pressure gradient was compared with the original TUFFP unified (Version
2012) and the modified TUFFP unified (Version 2015) models. Only test conditions that were detected by the models as slug flow are
used in the comparisons. Fig. 17 shows the total pressure-gradient-model comparisons for all data points. The predictions of the modi-
fied TUFFP unified model clearly improved the original version. Fig. 18 presents the total-pressure-gradient evaluation for all data
points. For both the original and modified versions, e1 and e4 present negative values, which indicate underestimation of the total pres-
sure gradient. The absolute average relative error has decreased from 30% for the original TUFFP unified model to 9% for the modified
TUFFP unified model.
12000
–dp /dL Calculated (Pa/m)
10000
8000 +30%
6000 –30%
4000
2000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
–dp /dL Experimental (Pa/m)
Fig. 17—Total pressure-gradient-model comparisons.
Average Liquid Holdup. The experimentally measured average liquid holdup was compared with the original TUFFP unified (Ver-
sion 2012) and the modified TUFFP unified (Version 2015) models. Only test conditions that were detected by the models as slug flow
are used in the comparisons. Fig. 19 shows the average liquid-holdup-model comparisons for all data points. The modified TUFFP uni-
fied performance in predicting average liquid holdup slightly improved for most test conditions. Fig. 20 presents the average liquid-
holdup evaluation for all data points. For both the TUFFP unified model versions, e1 and e4 present positive values, which indicate over-
estimation of the average liquid holdup. The absolute average relative error has decreased from 4.85% for the original TUFFP unified
model to 4.1% for the modified TUFFP unified model. The details of how the average liquid holdup was experimentally measured are
given in Al-Ruhaimani et al. (2016).

Relative Error Actual Error

40 2000
30 1500
20 1000
10 500
ε (Pa/m)
ε (%)
0 0
–10 –500
–20 –1000
–30 –1500
–40 –2000
ε1 (%) ε2 (%) ε3 (%) ε4 (Pa/m) ε5 (Pa/m) ε6 (Pa/m)
TUFFP unified (Version 2012) TUFFP unified (Version 2015)
Fig. 18—TUFFP unified model evaluation by use of measured total pressure gradient.
0.9
+15%
0.8
0.7
HL Calculated
–15%
0.6 TUFFP unified (Version 2012)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
HL Experimental
Fig. 19—Average liquid-holdup-model comparisons.
Relative Error Actual Error

6 0.04
0.04
5
0.03
4
0.03
ε (%)
3 0.02
ε
0.02
2
0.01
1
0.01
0 0.00
ε1 (%) ε2 (%) ε3 (%) ε4 ε5 ε6
TUFFP unified (Version 2012) TUFFP unified (Version 2015)
Fig. 20—TUFFP unified model evaluation by use of measured average liquid holdup.
Summary and Conclusions

Experimental results show that for all considered liquid viscosities, the slug-liquid holdup tends to decrease as the mixture velocity
increases. In addition, considering a constant superficial liquid velocity, HLS also decreases as superficial gas velocity increases. Fur-
thermore, the slug-liquid holdup decreases as liquid viscosity increases. This effect of viscosity on slug-liquid holdup becomes signifi-
cant when comparing slug-liquid holdup of high-viscosity oil acquired in this study with kerosene data from Felizola (1992), under the
same operating conditions. This indicates that the previously obtained low-liquid-viscosity HLS correlations cannot be used for high liq-
uid viscosities. The measured vertical HLS data of this study were compared with the Kora (2010) and Brito (2012) horizontal HLS data
for the same operating and geometrical conditions. Results showed that slug-liquid holdup in horizontal flow is slightly larger than that
of vertical flow, and the higher the liquid viscosity is, the closer the values of vertical and horizontal slug-liquid holdup are. This
strongly indicates that, for very-high liquid viscosity, the effect of inclination angle on slug-liquid holdup is minimal.

The measured slug-liquid-holdup data were compared with the predictions of Gregory et al. (1978), Malnes (1982), Barnea and
Brauner (1985), Sylvester (1987), Gomez et al. (2000), Kora et al. (2011), TUFFP unified (Version 2012), and Al-Safran et al. (2013)
models. Results showed that the Malnes (1982), Sylvester (1987), and Gomez et al. (2000) models underpredicted HLS, whereas the
other models overpredicted HLS. A fairly accurate prediction of HLS was achieved by the Gregory et al. (1978), Malnes (1982), Kora
et al. (2011), TUFFP unified (Version 2012), and Al-Safran et al. (2013) models.
A new slug-liquid-holdup closure model was developed for gas/high-viscosity-liquid two-phase flow. The model is a function of the
Froude and inverse viscosity numbers. By use of the measured HLS data of this study, the proposed model showed better performance
than other existing models. Testing the proposed model with independent high- and low-viscosity data showed small errors for high vis-
cosity and large errors for low viscosity. The proposed slug-liquid-holdup model outperforms the existing models for high-viscosity
oils, especially in upward vertical flow. Furthermore, incorporating the proposed HLS closure model into the TUFFP unified (Version
2015) model improved the unified model performance in predicting total pressure gradient and average liquid holdup for high-viscosity
two-phase gas/liquid upward vertical flow. By use of liquid, the viscosity-dependent HLS closure model is essential in determining the
total pressure gradient and average liquid holdup, especially for gas/high-viscosity-liquid flow. This improved prediction is critical for
proper design and evaluation of heavy-oil-production systems.
Nomenclature
A ¼ pipe cross-sectional area, m2
d ¼ pipe ID, m
dp/dL ¼ pressure gradient, Pa/m
g ¼ gravity acceleration, m/s2
h~L ¼ dimensionless liquid height
hL ¼ liquid height, m
HL ¼ liquid holdup
HLF ¼ film-liquid holdup
HLS ¼ slug-liquid holdup
HL.DC ¼ CS dynamic calibrations liquid holdup
HL.QCVS ¼ calculated liquid holdup in QCVS
HL.SC ¼ CS static calibrations liquid holdup
HLC ¼ calculated liquid holdup
LF ¼ film length, m
LS ¼ average slug length, m
me ¼ QCVS equilibrium mass, kg
mt ¼ QCVS mass in trap section, kg
mv ¼ QCVS mass in vessel, kg
N ¼ number of points
NEö ¼ Eötvös number
Nf ¼ inverse viscosity number
NFr.W ¼ Froude number by Wallis (1969)
NMo ¼ Morton number
Pe ¼ QCVS equilibrium pressure, psia
Pt ¼ QCVS trap-section pressure, psia
Pv ¼ QCVS vessel pressure, psia
R ¼ gas constant
Te ¼ QCVS equilibrium temperature, K
Tt ¼ QCVS trap-section temperature, K
Tv ¼ QCVS vessel temperature, K
U95 ¼ combined uncertainty with confidence level of 95%
vC ¼ gas velocity in Taylor bubble, m/s
vF ¼ film velocity, m/s
vgS ¼ gas velocity in slug, m/s
VL ¼ liquid volume, m3
vLS ¼ liquid velocity in slug, m/s
vM ¼ mixture velocity, m/s
vS ¼ slug velocity, m/s
vSg ¼ superficial gas velocity, m/s
vSL ¼ superficial liquid velocity, m/s
vT ¼ translational velocity, m/s
Vmax ¼ maximum CS voltage reading, V
Vmin ¼ minimum CS voltage reading, V
Vread ¼ CS voltage reading, V
Vt ¼ QCVS trap-section volume, m3
Vv ¼ QCVS vessel volume, m3
V0 ¼ dimensionless CS voltage reading
x ¼ slug-pickup rate, slug-shedding rate, kg/s
z ¼ gas-compressibility factor
ze ¼ QCVS equilibrium gas-compressibility factor
zt ¼ QCVS trap-section gas-compressibility factor
zv ¼ QCVS vessel gas-compressibility factor
a ¼ coefficient
b ¼ coefficient
h ¼ pipe-inclination angle, degrees

e1 ¼ average relative error

e2 ¼ absolute average relative error
e3 ¼ SD of relative error
e4 ¼ average actual error
e5 ¼ absolute average actual error
e6 ¼ SD of actual error
lg ¼ gas viscosity, Pas
lL ¼ liquid viscosity, Pas
qg ¼ gas density, kg/m3
qL ¼ liquid density, kg/m3
r ¼ surface tension, interfacial tension, N/m
References
Abdul-Majeed, G. H. 2000. Liquid Slug Holdup in Horizontal and Slightly Inclined Two-Phase Slug Flow. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 27 (1–2): 27–32. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0920-4105(99)00056-X.
Alruhaimani, F. 2015. Experimental Analysis and Theoretical Modeling of High Liquid Viscosity Two-Phase Upward Vertical Pipe Flow. PhD disserta-
tion, the University of Tulsa, Tulsa.
Al-Ruhaimani, F., Pereyra, E., Sarica, C. et al. 2016. Experimental Analysis and Model Evaluation of High-Liquid Viscosity Two-Phase Upward Verti-
cal Pipe Flow. SPE J. 22 (3): 712–735. SPE-184401-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/184401-PA.
Al-Safran, E. 2009. Prediction of Slug-Liquid Holdup in Horizontal Pipes. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 131 (2): 023001–023008. https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.3120305.
Al-Safran, E., Kora, C., and Sarica, C. 2013. Prediction of Liquid Volume Fraction in Slugs in Two-Phase Horizontal Pipe Flow with High Viscosity Liq-
uid. Presented at 16th International Conference on Multiphase Production Technology, Cannes, France, 12–14 June. BHR-2013-H4.
Andreussi, P. and Bendiksen, K. 1989. An Investigation of Void Fraction in Liquid Slugs for Horizontal and Inclined Gas–Liquid Pipe Flow. Int. J. Mul-
tiphas. Flow 15 (6): 937–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-9322(89)90022-0.
Barnea, D. and Brauner, N. 1985. Holdup of the Liquid Slug in Two-Phase Intermittent Flow. Int. J. Multiphas. Flow 11 (1): 43–49. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0301-9322(85)90004-7.
Brandt, I. and Fuches, P. 1989. Liquid Holdup in Slugs: Some Experimental Results from the SINTEF Two-Phase Flow Laboratory. Oral presentation
given at the BHRG 4th International Conference on Multiphase Flow, Nice, France.
Brito, R. 2012. Effect of Medium Oil Viscosity on Two-Phase Oil-Gas Flow Behavior in Horizontal Pipes. Master’s thesis, University of Tulsa, Tulsa.
Felizola, H. 1992. Slug Flow in Extended Reach Directional Wells. Master’s thesis, University of Tulsa, Tulsa.
Fernandes, R. C., Semiat, R., and Dukler, A. E. 1983. Hydrodynamic Model for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Vertical Tubes. AIChE J. 29 (6): 981. https://
doi.org/10.1002/aic.690290617.
Ferschneider, G. 1983. Ecoulement Diphasiques Gas-Liquide a Poches et a Bouchons en Conduits. Revue Inst. Fr. Petrole 38 (2): 153–182. https://
doi.org/10.2516/ogst:1983010.
Gokcal, B., Al-Sarkhi, A. S., and Sarica, C. 2009. Effects of High Oil Viscosity on Drift Velocity for Horizontal and Upward Inclined Pipes. SPE Proj
Fac & Const 4 (2): 32–40. SPE-115342-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/115342-PA.
Gomez, L. E., Shoham, O., and Taitel, Y. 2000. Prediction of Slug Liquid Holdup: Horizontal to Upward Vertical Flow. Int. J. Multiphas. Flow 26 (3):
517–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-9322(99)00025-7.
Gregory, G. A., Nicholson, M. K., and Aziz, K. 1978. Correlation of the Liquid Volume Fraction in the Slug for Horizontal Gas-Liquid Slug Flow. Int. J.
Multiphas. Flow 4 (1): 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-9322(78)90023-X.
Kokal, S. 1987. An Experimental Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes. PhD dissertation, University of Calgary, Calgary.
Kora, C. 2010. Effects of High Oil Viscosity on Slug-liquid holdup in Horizontal Pipes. Master’s thesis, University of Tulsa, Tulsa.
Kora, C., Sarica, C., Zhang, H.-Q. et al. 2011. Effects of High Oil Viscosity on Slug-Liquid Holdup in Horizontal Pipes. Presented at Canadian Uncon-
ventional Resources Conference, Calgary, 15–17 November. SPE-146954-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/146954-MS.
Kouba, G. E. 1986. Horizontal Slug Flow Modeling and Metering. PhD dissertation, University of Tulsa, Tulsa.
Lunde, O., Valle, A., and Malvik, I. M. 1997. Detailed Measurements of Slug Flow Behavior in Inclined Multiphase Flow. Proc., 8th International Con-
ference Multiphase ’97, Cannes, France, 18–20 June, 343–368.
Malnes, D. 1982. Slug Flow in Vertical, Horizontal and Inclined Pipes. Report No. IFE/KR/E-83-002, Institute for Energy Technology, Kjeller, Norway.
Marcano, R. 1996. Slug Characteristics for Two-Phase Horizontal Flow. Master’s thesis, University of Tulsa, Tulsa.
Moreiras, J., Pereyra, E., Sarica, C. et al. 2014. Unified Drift Velocity Closure Relationship for Large Bubble Rising in Stagnant Viscous Fluids in Pipes.
J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 124 (December): 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.09.006.
Nuland, S. 1999. Bubble Fraction in Slugs in Two-Phase Flow with High Viscosity Liquid. Proc., International Symposium on Two-Phase Flow Model-
ing and Experimentation, Rome, Italy, 23–26 May, 731–738.
Nuland, S., Malvik, I., Valle, A. et al. 1997. Gas Fractions in Slugs in Dense-Gas Two-Phase Flow from Horizontal to 60 Degrees of Inclination. Oral
presentation given at the 1997 ASME Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, 22–26 June.
Pan, J. 2010. Gas Entrainment in Two-Phase Gas-Liquid Slug Flow. PhD dissertation, Imperial College London, London.
Pereyra, E., Arismendi, R., Gomez, L. E. et al. 2012. State of the Art of Experimental Studies and Predictive Methods for Slug-Liquid Holdup. J. Energy
Resour. Technol. 134 (2): 023001–023010. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4005658.
Rothe, P. H., Crowley, C. J., and Sam, R. G. 1986. Investigation of Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal Pipes at Large Pipe Size and High Gas Density. AGA
Pipe Research Committee Project, Report No. PRCI PR-172-507.
Roumazeilles, P. M., Yang, J., Sarica, C. et al. 1996. An Experimental Study on Downward Slug Flow in Inclined Pipes. SPE Prod & Fac 11 (3):
173–178. SPE-28546-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/28546-PA.
Schmidt, Z. 1977. Experimental Study of Two-Phase Slug Flow in A Pipeline-Riser Pipe System. PhD dissertation, University of Tulsa, Tulsa.
Shoham, O. 2006. Mechanistic Modeling of Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Pipes. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Sylvester, N. D. 1987. A Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase Vertical Slug Flow in Pipes. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 109 (4): 206–213. https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.3231348.
Wallis, G. B. 1969. One Dimensional Two-Phase Flow. New York City: McGraw-Hill.
Zhang, H.-Q., Wang, Q., Sarica, C. et al. 2003a. A Unified Mechanistic Model for Slug-Liquid Holdup and Transition between Slug and Dispersed Bub-
ble Flows. Int. J. Multiphas. Flow 29 (1): 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-9322(02)00111-8.

Zhang, H.-Q., Wang, Q., Sarica, C. et al. 2003b. Unified Model for Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow via Slug Dynamics–Part 1: Model Development. J. Energy
Resour. Technol. 125 (4): 266–273. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1615246.
Appendix A
QCVS Calibration. Fig. A-1 shows a schematic of the QCVS; the QCV trap section is connected to a pressurized vessel. The total
volume trapped within the QCV trap section corresponds to Vt, whereas the temperature and pressure of trapped fluids are given by Tt
and Pt. The volume, temperature, and pressure of the pressurized vessel are given by Vv, Tv, and Pv, respectively. After the fluid is
trapped, the pressure and temperature of the two control volumes are recorded. Next, the isolation valve is opened and the equilibrium
temperature and pressure, Te and Pe, are measured after stabilization is reached.
Tv Pv Te Pe
Vessel (Vv) Vessel (Vv)
Tt Pt Te Pe
QCV trap section (Vt ) QCV trap section (Vt )
Fig. A-1—QCVS.
Neglecting the volume of the tubing connecting the two control volumes, the total mass in the system is
me ¼ mv þ mt : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-1Þ
By use of the real-gas equation, the mass balance can be written as

Pv Vv Pt ðVt VL Þ Pe ðVv þ Vt VL Þ
þ ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-2Þ
zv RTv zt RTt ze RTe
Rearranging Eq. A-2 to solve for VL gives
ðje jv Þ
VL ¼ Vv þ Vt ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-3Þ
ðje jt Þ
P
where j ¼ .
zT
Assuming the air temperature in the vessel equals the temperature in the trap section, and assuming ideal gas, Eq. (A-3) is simplified to
ðPe Pv Þ
VL ¼ Vv þ Vt : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-4Þ
ðPe Pt Þ
After obtaining liquid volume VL, liquid holdup is calculated by dividing the liquid volume trapped to the trap-section volume, Vt:
VL
HLC ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-5Þ
Vt
or
Vv ðPe Pv Þ
HLC ¼ þ 1: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-6Þ
Vt ðPe Pt Þ
Liquid holdup calculated by QCVS will be slightly different from the actual holdup because of possible errors in the volume measure-
ments. Therefore, to minimize this error, the system was calibrated. Table A-1 shows the QCVS calibration-curve coefficients and
uncertainty. For detailed calibration procedure, results, and uncertainty analysis, we refer to Alruhaimani (2015).
CS Calibrations. Brito (2012) compared the ring-type and two-wire-type CSs by conducting static calibration under stratified condi-
tions, and evaluating the effect of the fluid temperature on the output signal under static conditions. Brito (2012) found that for different
ring-type CSs, liquid holdup HL vs. dimensionless voltage V0 exhibited fourth-, fifth-, or sixth-degree-polynomial behavior, which made
the static calibration more complex and less accurate compared with the linear response of the two-wire CS. Moreover, static calibration
was found to be dependent on the fluid temperature for the ring-type CS. For the two-wire CS, HL vs. V0 presents a linear relationship,
and the two-wire static calibration does not change with fluid temperature.
The linear response and low sensitivity to temperature change made the two-wire CS the most suitable for measuring liquid holdup.
Therefore, the two-wire CSs are used in this study. The two-wire CS consists of two parallel copper wires positioned perpendicular to
the flow at a distance of 6.4 mm, as can be seen in Fig. A-2. The sensor requires an electronic circuit to filter, amplify, and convert the
measured capacitance to a voltage.

Vv (Pe − Pv )
HLC = +1
Vt (Pe − Pt ) C
HL.QCVS = αHL + β
Calibration
Vv /Vt α β Uncertainty
1.098 1.0004 0.0058 0.0224
Table A-1—QCVS calibration coefficients and uncertainty.
0.76 mm
diameter
6.4 mm
50.8 mm
Fig. A-2—Schematic two-wire CS.
Static Calibration. The static calibration of the CS is conducted under stratified conditions by measuring oil height (hL) correspond-
ing to CS voltage reading (Vread). The calibration is used to obtain a relation between liquid holdup (HL) and dimensionless capacitance
voltage reading (V0 ). V0 is calculated as
Vread Vmin
V0 ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-7Þ
Vmax Vmin
where Vmax is the CS voltage reading when the pipe section is full of oil, and Vmin is the voltage reading when the pipe section is empty.
HL is calculated by the following expression:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p cos1 ð2h~L 1Þ þ ð2h~L 1Þ 1 ð2h~L 1Þ2
HL ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-8Þ
p
where h~L ¼ hL =d. The curve fit of the data will give the following straight-line equation:
HL:CS ¼ aV 0 þ b: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-9Þ
Table A-2 shows the static calibration-curve coefficients and uncertainty for all the CSs.
HL.SC = αV′ + β
CS α β Calibration Uncertainty
CS1 1.094 –0.067 0.0403
CS2 1.098 –0.067 0.0403
CS3 1.093 –0.066 0.0403
CS4 1.066 –0.038 0.0401
CS5 1.088 –0.053 0.0402
CS6 1.074 –0.049 0.0401
CS7 1.073 –0.075 0.0403
Table A-2—Static calibration-curve coefficients and uncertainty.
Dynamic Calibration. Because the static calibration is conducted under stratified conditions, dynamic calibration of the CSs is nec-
essary to improve the slug-liquid-holdup estimates under slug-flow conditions. The QCVS is used to conduct the dynamic calibration of

the CSs, where a curve-fit relationship between QCVS liquid holdup (HL.DC) and the static calibration liquid holdup (HL.SC) is obtained.
The curve fit will give the following straight-line equation to determine liquid holdup:
HLS:DC ¼ aHL:SC þ b: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-10Þ
Table A-3 shows the dynamic calibration-curve coefficients and uncertainty. For complete CS calibration results and detailed uncer-
tainty analysis, we refer to Alruhaimani (2015).
HLS.DC = αHL.SC+ β
CS α β Calibration Uncertainty
CS1 0.5497 0.4326 0.0470
CS2 0.0470
CS3 0.0469
CS4 0.0468
CS5 0.0468
CS6 0.0467
CS7 0.0469
Table A-3—Dynamic calibration-curve coefficients and uncertainty.
Feras Al-Ruhaimani is an assistant professor of petroleum engineering in the College of Engineering and Petroleum at Kuwait Uni-
versity. Previously, he was employed as a petroleum engineer at Kuwait Oil Company from 2002 to 2010, where he worked on
projects that included the Marrat Waterflood Pilot and asphaltene study projects. Al-Ruhaimani’s research interests include
heavy oil, production operation, and multiphase flow in pipes. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in petroleum engineer-
ing from Kuwait University, and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Tulsa. Al-Ruhaimani is a member
of SPE.
Eduardo Pereyra is an assistant professor at the McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering and the associate director of the
Fluid Flow Project and Horizontal Wells Artificial Lift Project at the University of Tulsa. His research interests are multiphase-flow sys-
tems and transport, flow assurance, artificial lift, and separation technologies. Pereyra has authored or coauthored several refer-
eed journal and conference papers in his areas of interest. He holds two bachelor’s degrees, one in mechanical engineering
and one in system engineering, from University of Los Andes, Venezuela, and master’s and PhD degrees in petroleum engineer-
ing from the University of Tulsa.
Cem Sarica, the F. H. “Mick” Merelli/Cimarex Energy Professor of Petroleum Engineering at the University of Tulsa, is currently serv-
ing as the director of three industry-supported consortia at the university: Fluid Flow, Paraffin Deposition, and Horizontal Well Artifi-
cial Lift Projects. His research interests are production engineering, multiphase flow in pipes, flow assurance, and horizontal wells.
Sarica has authored or coauthored more than 150 publications. Sarica is a member of the Technical Advisory Committee of the
British Hydrodynamics Research Group (BHRg) for multiphase production conferences. He was the technical program chair of
the BHRg 2008 and 2012 Conferences. Sarica holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in petroleum engineering from Istanbul
Technical University, and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Tulsa. He currently serves as a member of
the SPE Projects, Facilities and Construction Advisory Committee; as vice chair of the SPE Flow Assurance Technical Section; and
as the chairperson for the Projects, Facilities, and Construction Committee for the 2017 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition. Sarica has previously served as a member of the SPE Production Operations and SPE Books Committees; as chair of
the SPE International Projects, Facilities, and Construction Award and SPE Production and Operations Award committees; and
he was a member of the editorial board for SPE Journal between 1999 and 2007. Sarica also served as an associate editor of the
Journal of Energy Resources Technology of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers between 1998 and 2003. Sarica is the
recipient of the 2010 SPE International Production and Operations Award. He was recognized as a Distinguished Member of SPE
in 2012, and received the SPE John Franklin Carll Award and SPE Cedric K. Ferguson Certificate in 2015.
Eissa Al-Safran is an associate professor of petroleum engineering and former Vice Dean for Research and Academic Affairs at
the College of Engineering and Petroleum at Kuwait University, and was a visiting research professor at the Petroleum Engineer-
ing Department at the University of Tulsa. He is currently a visiting professor at the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Al-Safran is the founder and director of the Kuwait University Petroleum Production
Research Projects and cofounder and associate director of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Production and
Drilling research consortium. Previously, he was a reservoir engineer (1995–1997) and a consultant (2007–2015) in Kuwait Oil Com-
pany. Al-Safran is the coauthor of the SPE book Applied Multiphase Flow in Pipes and Flow Assurance, and has authored or
coauthored numerous peer-reviewed publications in oil and gas production, multiphase flow in pipes, and flow assurance. He
received the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science 2016 Scientific Production Award in Engineering Sciences and
the University of Tulsa Thomas C. Frick Award for outstanding academic achievements in petroleum engineering. Al-Safran holds
bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD degrees, all in petroleum engineering, and a master’s degree in mathematics and science edu-
cation, all from the University of Tulsa. He is a member of SPE and an SPE Kuwait section board member; has served on several
SPE committees and events; and received the 2017 SPE Regional Distinguished Achievement Award for Petroleum Engineering
Faculty. Al-Safran is also a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Statistical Association, and
the American Society for Engineering Education.
Carlos F. Torres is a professor at the University of Los Andes, Venezuela. He has worked as a research associate with the Fluid Flow
Projects and Horizontal Wells Artificial Lift Projects at the University of Tulsa, and also in the Chemical Engineering Department at
University College London. Torres’ research interests are single-phase and multiphase flow, computational fluid dynamics, and
mathematical modeling of energy systems. He holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and a master’s degree in
applied mathematics, both from the University of Los Andes, and a PhD degree in mechanical engineering from the University
of Tulsa.

Prediction of Slug-Liquid Holdup For High-Viscosity Oils in Upward Gas/Liquid Vertical-Pipe Flow

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prediction of Slug-Liquid Holdup For High-Viscosity Oils in Upward Gas/Liquid Vertical-Pipe Flow

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PO187957 DOI: 10.

2118/187957-PA Date: 16-September-17 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 19

Prediction of Slug-Liquid Holdup

2017 SPE Production & Operations 1

ID: jaganm Time: 09:38 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170040/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170040

Schmidt (1977) Gregory et al. (1978) Kouba (1986)

Rothe et al. (1986) Kokal (1987) Brandt and Fuches (1989)

Felizola (1992) Roumazeilles et al. (1996) Lunde et al. (1997)

Nuland et al. (1997) Nuland (1999) Abdul-Majeed (2000)

Pan (2010) Kora et al. (2011) Brito et al. (2012)

Fig. 1—Range of slug-liquid-holdup experimental data available in the literature.

Kora et al. (2011)

2 2017 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 09:38 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170040/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170040

21.47 m Upward flow

CS7 QCV2 QCV CS6 CS5 CS4 CS3 CS2 CS1

Fig. 2—Schematic of test section.

2017 SPE Production & Operations 3

ID: jaganm Time: 09:38 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170040/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170040

4 2017 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 09:38 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170040/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170040

μL = 586 mPa.s μL = 401 mPa.s μL = 287 mPa.s

2017 SPE Production & Operations 5

ID: jaganm Time: 09:38 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170040/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170040

Fig. 5—Slug-liquid-holdup–viscosity comparison.

Fig. 6—Vertical vs. horizontal slug-liquid holdup.

0.92 μL = 586 mPa.s (Horizontal)

0.88 μL = 213 mPa.s (Horizontal)

Fig. 7—Vertical and horizontal slug-liquid-holdup comparison.

6 2017 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 09:38 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170040/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170040

0.9 Gregory et al. (1978)

Gregory et al. (1978)

Kora et al. (2011)

Gregory et al. (1978)

TUFFP unified (Version 2012)

2017 SPE Production & Operations 7

ID: jaganm Time: 09:38 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170040/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170040

8 2017 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 09:38 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170040/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170040

Average Relative Error Average Relative Error

Kora et al. (2011)

Kora et al. (2011)

μL = 162 mPa.s 0.01

Kora et al. (2011)

Kora et al. (2011)

Standard Deviation of Relative Error Standard Deviation of Relative Error

μL = 287 mPa.s 0.02 μL = 287 mPa.s

Kora et al. (2011)

Kora et al. (2011)

Fig. 10—Model evaluation by use of measured slug-liquid holdup.

x ¼ ðvT vF ÞqL AHLF ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ

x ¼ ðvT vS ÞqL AHLS : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ

2017 SPE Production & Operations 9

ID: jaganm Time: 09:38 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170040/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170040

Fig. 11—Slug-liquid holdup vs. mixture velocity.

Fig. 12—Slug-liquid holdup vs. liquid viscosity.

Fig. 13—Schematic of slug flow.

10 2017 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 09:38 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170040/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170040

2017 SPE Production & Operations 11

ID: jaganm Time: 09:38 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/170040/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##170040

Fig. 15—Performance of proposed HLS correlation.