Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Investigations on the slug two-phase flow in horizontal pipes: Past,

presents, and future directives
Abdalellah O. Mohmmed a, Hussain H. Al-Kayiem b, A.B. Osman b
a
College of Engineering, Emirates Aviation University, 53044 Dubai International Academic City, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
b
Mechanical Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610 Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia

g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Precise prediction of the gas–liquid slug flow is crucial for proper design and operation at various industrial
Received 29 October 2020 processes. This paper provides a comprehensive review of published experimental and numerical works in
Received in revised form 24 February 2021 horizontal pipes, including a critical analysis of state-of-the-art parameters used to characterize the slug
Accepted 22 March 2021
flow regime. The discussed slug characteristics are slug length, slug frequency, and slug velocity.
Available online 26 March 2021
Throughout the paper, an endeavor does devote to discerning the areas where modern development work
is needed. Accordingly, some observed gaps in the literature, comprising hydrodynamic behavior at the
Keywords:
transition zone and the interaction between slug flow and structural pipe. The lack of comprehensive lab-
Two-phase slug flow
Behavioral slug characteristics
oratory experimental information for high liquid viscosity and the viscosity impact on the slug character-
Experimental istic is also observed. On the contrary, robust and less empirically independent CFD models are required for
CFD accurately predicting the slug characteristics with a minimal computational cost.
Horizontal pipe Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Among the potential two-phase flow regimes in a horizontal

pipe, intermittent flow occurs over a broad spectrum of gas–liquid
E-mail addresses: eaus376@eau.ac.ae (A.O. Mohmmed), hussain_kayiem@utp.
superficial velocities. The intermittent flow in horizontal pipes
edu.my (H.H. Al-Kayiem), anotood@yahoo.com (A.B. Osman)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2021.116611
0009-2509/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
appears as the bulk of liquid regions fill the entire pipe (plugs or
slugs) followed by elongated gas bubbles or stratified flow regions.
Accordingly, the intermittent flow is classified into slug and elon-
gated bubble flow regimes. When the flow is stable and the liquid
slug is non-aerated, the flow pattern is termed as elongated bubble
flow. As the flow rates increased, the slug liquid entrained with gas
bubbles, and the flow is termed as slug flow. Despite the distinc-
tion between these two flow regimes, the general intermittent flow
is often known as slug flow (Taitel and Barnea, 1990). Slug flow is
an extremely complex and unsteady flow regime, even when the
superficial gas and liquid velocity are kept constant at the pipe
inlet. During stable slug flow, liquid shed at the slug tail is similar
to the liquid picked up at the slug front. Thus, the developed slug
length remains constant as the slug travel along the pipe (Fabre,
2003). The wall shear stresses deaccelerate the liquid shed at the
back and forms a stratified layer for horizontal or near-horizontal
pipes. By contrast, for vertical or near-vertical pipes, the liquid
picked up to accelerate and developed a falling annular film as
the slug moves downward. The elongated bubbles separated the
slug liquid have a cylindrical interface shape in the vertical flow
and a nearly flat interface in the horizontal flow (Fabre, 2003).
Slug two-phase flow is a complex phenomenon occurred in var-
ious industrial applications and processes, such as oil and gas,
nuclear power plants, and chemical industries. The existence of slug
flow causes severe problems for designers and operators. The slug
liquids encompass high momentum that creates significant forces
at the elbows, tees, or other process equipment. These force fluctu-
ations induce vibration, which consequently causes cyclic fatigue
damage (Wang et al., 2018) or even pipe rupture, as reported by
(Gong, 2010). Furthermore, the low frequencies of slug flow can res-
onate with the fundamental natural frequency of large piping struc-
tures, which cause severe damage due to vibrational fatigue.
Besides, the elongated slug liquid contains a large quantity of liquid,
which results in flooding at the separators and damage to the other
process facilities (Fabre, 2003). Physically, the slug flow regime con-
solidates the properties of the single-phase fluid flow (shear forces,
inertia forces, and pressure forces), along with the two-phase flow
(interface forces, contact angle, mass transfer, heat, and momentum,
etc.) (López et al., 2016). Due to these complexities and the encoun-
tered problems associated with slug flow, extensive studies have
been conducted to investigate this phenomenon in various applica-
tions and structures.
The prediction of fluid properties such as pressure drop, inter-
face forces, heat and mass transfer, and momentum is a tedious
task due to the unsteady nature of slug flow. There are significant
challenges encountered while modeling the hydrodynamic slug
flow, namely: the dynamic behavior of the interface, which sepa-
rates the gas–liquid in the pipes, gas entrainment on the slug liq-
uid, and liquid droplets into the gas phase, besides the existence
of the turbulence effect near the vicinity of the interface layer.
Owing to these challenges, precise prediction for the slug charac-
teristics is beyond the capabilities of the existing 1D models (Mo
et al., 2014). Although there are several attempts to analytically
scrutinize the impact of the slug characteristics on the solid struc-
tures (Li et al., 2020, Wang et al., 2018), obtaining an exact solution
of the continuum govern equations has not achieved yet. There-
fore, a diversity of approximate techniques have been adopted to
assess the hydrodynamic slug characteristics. The former methods
utilized the empirical correlations derived from the ancient
researchers’ experimental results to the current advanced compu-
tational methods such as image processing and Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) techniques. Hence, in the recent survey,
the evolutionary voyage of predicting and determining the slug
characteristics is thoroughly discussed.
Modeling the slug flow entails a keen understanding of various
fundamental principles. However, the modeling complexity is
2
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
simplified by assuming the slug flow as a sequence of identical
cells known as the unit cell concept. The unit cell concept takes
steady fluid velocity and fully developed flow. Besides, it requires
four closure laws to complete the solution process, and the solu-
tion accuracy is partially relying on these closures. However, these
closure laws are abundant with unequal values, as reported by
(Taitel and Barnea, 1990, Fabre and Liné, 1992, Dukler and Fabre,
1994). These closures were developed from various flow condi-
tions, pipe diameter, and fluid properties, consequently generate
variant results under identical slug flow conditions. The initially
introduced unit cell concept (Dukler and Hubbard, 1975) has been
used widely for modeling the gas–liquid slug flow. The slug flow is
divided into two structures: the slug liquid, which carries the liq-
uid phase, and an elongated bubble that flows over the liquid film.
This concept assumes these two structures appear in the pipe suc-
cessively and repeatedly, as shown in Fig. 1. Although several
authors, for instance (Dukler and Hubbard, 1975, Mishima and
Ishii, 1980, Ruder et al., 1989, Zhang et al., 2000, Soleimani and
Hanratty, 2003, Taitel and Dukler, 1976, Ujang et al., 2006,
Sanchis et al., 2011, Nieckele et al., 2013) have investigated the
mechanisms of slug formation, limited studies focused on slug flow
characteristics as reported by (Dinaryanto et al., 2017). The con-
temporary trend moves toward the formulation of approximate
models capable of simulating the slug characteristics such as the
pressure drop, slug transitional velocity, and slug length accurately
and confidently. A sophisticated slug flow model computes the
slug liquid length, bubble length, slug frequency, slug initiation,
slug transitional velocity, void fraction, wall shear stresses, and
pressure drop (Fabre, 2003). Among these parameters, the slug ini-
tiation, void fraction, slug length, slug frequency, and pressure
drop are crucial characteristics that provide clear insight into the
slug flow behavior.
This study strives to provide a thorough review of the slug flow
analysis and investigations in horizontal pipes involving the mod-
eling, prediction of slug characteristics, and the impact of various
parameters on the slug flow behavior. In what follows, this study
aims to demonstrate the previous arts, advancement, and develop-
ment of the slug flow analysis chronologically.
2. Slug flow formation and transition
In the two-phase flow, the transition from one regime to another
depends on fluids properties, pipe inclination angles, superficial
velocities, etc. Among all, stratified to slug flow transition is crucial,
as the slug induces a transient internal pressure, which causes sev-
ere damage to the pipe structures. At low liquid velocities, the liquid
occupies the bottom of the pipe. The gas occupies the upper section
due to the gravitational effect; the resulted flow regime is called a
stratified or a wavy–stratified regime. As the liquid velocity increase,
the interfacial waves propagate and form a slug liquid. The formed
liquid slug fills the entire pipe cross-section while the gas occupies
small voids inside, and the slug liquid is depicted as an aerated slug.
The aeration level is highly dependent on gas velocities (Vaze and
Banerjee, 2011). Considerable theoretical work has been carried
out in the past few decades to understand the mechanism of the
transition to intermittent flow. One approach is to examine the sta-
bility of the flow. Ancient endeavors by (Kordyban and Ranov, 1970)
and (Wallis and Dodson, 1973) discovered a stability mechanism
whereby the slugs developed due to wave growth due to infinitesi-
mal disturbances at the interface between the gas–liquid phases.
Years later, (Taitel and Dukler, 1976) proposed an approach widely
utilized to predict the transition to the slug flow regime. In their
approach, the shear stresses were neglected, and the non-linear
effect of wave pressure fluctuations at the interface was considered
using inviscid Kelvin–Helmholtz (IKH) instability. (Taitel and
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
(a)
Density Density
Slug Pocket
Slug Liquid Slug Pocket
Flow Direcon
(b)
Fig. 1. Slug flow in a horizontal pipe. (a) Idealized slug flow (Mohmmed et al., 2019); (b) Actual typical slug two-phase flow (Al-Kayiem, 2017 #18).
Dukler, 1976) concluded that the transition from stratified to inter-
mittent flow could be identified through one or more of three crite-
ria: stability of slug flow, viscous linear instability for long-
wavelength disturbance, and Kelvin–Helmholtz (KH) instability
for stratified flow. Kelvin–Helmholtz for Viscous fluid (VKH) has
been used by (Wallis, 1969, Lin and Hanratty, 1986, Wu et al.,
1987, Andritsos et al., 1989, Barnea, 1991, Crowley et al., 1992) to
determine the stability of the stratified two-phase flow considering
the wall shear stress with the two fluids model. As reported by
(Barnea and Taitel, 1993a), both IKH and VKH provided similar
results for high viscous flow while a large discrepancy between
IKH and VKH for the low viscous fluids was observed. Also, at the
low amplification zone, (Barnea and Taitel, 1993a) confirmed that
the slug flow or roll wave region was located between the neutral
stability line of the VKH and IKH analysis. For the high amplification
zone, either slug or annular flow regimes were situated above the
IKH neutral stability line. Moreover, two mechanisms for the transi-
tion from stratified to slug flow were proposed (Woods and
Hanratty, 1999). (1) at subcritical flow rate where the superficial
gas and liquid velocities are shallow, the slug liquid formed due to
large amplitude gravitational waves; whereas. (2) at supercritical
flow rates, the slug liquid formed due to the roll-waves coalescence.
Furthermore, the theory of viscous long wavelength (VLW) was uti-
lized to predict the slug flow transitions at low gas velocities. This
theory is capable to track and trigger the growth of long wavelength
waves and their transition into a slug as reported by (Woods et al.,
2000). Later, (Hurlburt and Hanratty, 2002) recommended that the
transition to the slug flow region can be predicted accurately using
VLW model for low superficial gas velocities, while the for high
gas velocities, slug stability model performed better. Besides, they
suggested to include the interfacial friction factors, hydraulic gradi-
ents, bubble velocity, the void fraction, and the slip ratio over a wide
spectrum of fluid properties for better prediction.
Correlations of the interfacial friction factors in air–water two-
phase flow have been developed in the previous works, e.g.,
(Andritsos and Hanratty, 1987b, Bontozoglou and Hanratty, 1989,
Simmons and Hanratty, 2001). wave transition model was devel-
oped by (Kadri et al., 2009a) to predict the transition from strati-
fied to slug or roll wave flow regimes for various superficial gas–
liquid velocities and pipe diameters. This model provided intrinsic
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
Density
Slug Liquid
Slug Liquid Slug
Pocket
Idealized Slug Unit
information regarding slug and roll wave flow regimes’ behavior in
terms of the relation between the slug formation and superficial
gas–liquid velocities. (Kadri et al., 2009a) concluded that the slug
formation time decreased with increasing the superficial liquid
velocity. While, at low superficial gas velocity, slug formation time
increase with increasing the gas velocity. Besides, increasing the
pipe diameter leads to larger axial growth, consequently minimiz-
ing the probability of long slug appearance. In continuation of his
previous study, (Kadri et al., 2009b) explained that an elongated
slugs liquid was formed from the development of gravitational
waves at low superficial velocities. They recommended consider-
ing the interfacial friction factor, gas entrainment, and the wave-
length to foster the model accuracy.
The stability of the stratified two-phase flow in horizontal pipes
was examined analytically by (Barmak et al., 2016), considering
the potential wave numbers. Comparing their experimental
results, they concluded that at relatively low flow rates, the gas–
liquid stratified flow stability was observed controllable. Besides,
using previous long-wave analysis, (Barmak et al., 2016) could
not predict their results, which further affirms the discrepancies
of the developed analytical models are high yet. In contrast, a mas-
sive difference between the published results was observed. Fur-
thermore, extensive experimental investigations were conducted
by (Kong et al., 2018) in small and large pipe diameters to investi-
gate the air–water slug flow’s interfacial behavior utilizing four-
sensor conductive probes. Their results indicated that the pipe
diameter has immense effects on the interfacial structure of the
slug flow. At the same time, the bubble size increased with increas-
ing the pipe diameter. On the other hand, the constant electric cur-
rent method (CECM) was utilized by (Rahmandhika et al., 2018) to
investigate stratified to slug flow transition in a horizontal pipe.
Based on their work, different stratified to slug flow transition
mechanisms existed for various superficial gas (JG) and liquid
velocities (JL). They found that the onset of slugging was formed
by the wave coalescence mechanism at high JG. While at low JG
and JL, the slug formation was observed fast, and the transition
was similar to the previous outcomes of (Lin and Hanratty, 1986,
Andritsos and Hanratty, 1987b). They concluded that there is an
agreement between most researchers about the transition mecha-
nisms at low superficial velocities. However, at higher superficial
3
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
gas velocity JG > 3 m/s, the transition to slug flow is different
among the previous studies. Following the previous research,
(Rahmandhika et al., 2019) extended their work on the transition
from stratified to slug flow regime. They concluded that the slug
formed due to wave growth mechanism at JG
1.88 m/s and
0.05 m/s
JL
0.2 m/s. Also, for the JG  2.83 m/s, the slug formed
due to wave coalescence. Their experimental results were under-
ated using the theory of slug stability, although the comparison
provided similar trend. While for the comparison with K H instabil-
ity theory, the theory overrated the experimental data, and the
agreement was achieved for the cases where JG > 6.2 m/s. Even
though there were massive data obtained from the experimental
and analytical investigation for the interfacial structure of slug
flow, the mechanism of slug initiation and formation is not fully
understood. Therefore, ancillary experimental investigations
regarding the hydrodynamic behavior at the transition zone are
required. Additional experimental data is necessary to enhance
the interfacial friction factor’s accuracy ratio to the stratified inter-
facial factor (Rahmandhika et al., 2019). Based on these experimen-
tal data, supported correlations for the previously developed
theories were developed, consequently resolving the associated
ambiguity with slug initiation, formation, and transition.
3. Slug flow characterization
As indicated by (Sharma et al., 1998), the slug length, slug fre-
quency, volume fraction distribution, slug velocity, momentum,
and energy transfer at the interface are the most crucial parame-
ters for characterizing the slug flow. These slug characteristics
are unsteady and transient due to slug flow intermittency and
irregularity. Hence, determining the mean values of these parame-
ters may not be sufficient for design purposes. Accordingly, a
sophisticated statistical analysis was utilized widely to provide a
coherent preview of the slug phenomenon. This section thoroughly
reviews the slug length, slug frequency, volume fraction distribu-
tion, and slug translational velocity.
3.1. Slug length
The entire proposed slug flow models acquired the determina-
tion of the slug length, LS or frequency; mS which indicates that they
are the key characterization parameters. According to Perez 2008,
the slug length estimation is challenging compared to the other
slug flow characteristics. As the slug length is strongly dependent
on the pipe diameter, which restricts the application of the devel-
oped correlations on small pipe diameter in the larger field-scale
pipes. In long pipes instead of the short ones, (Taitel, 1987) argued
that slug length increases due to an increase of mean slug velocity
at the downstream direction. Consequently, the slugs shedding
rate downstream is higher than the shedding rate upstream, which
increases added liquid level to the precursor slugs. Tacitly, the the-
oretical arguments of Taitel theoretical regarding the slug length
indicate that slug frequency decreases due to bubbles coalescence.
However, due to a deficiency of relevant experimental data, he
failed to corroborate his findings. Accordingly, his model was
unable to predict the experimental data of the Prudhoe Bay field.
Later, (Shea et al., 2004) investigated the influence of pipe’s length
(from the entry) in the slug frequency and proposed a first correla-
tion that considered the pipe’s entry length as an input prediction
parameter. Indeed, the distributions of slug length are evolving sig-
nificantly as the slugs travel downstream. Thus, the measured slug
length and frequency at various measuring sections vary along the
pipe (Arabi et al., 2020). Recently, in a large scale experiment with
a pipe of 189 mm diameter and 766 m long, (Kjølaas et al., 2020)
found that at high gas–liquid flow rates, pairs of slugs sometimes
4
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
coalesce into one due to gas carry-under between the slugs, which
entrained the entire gas between the slugs into the precursor slug.
Besides, they reported that the mean slug length continues to
increase as the slug travel inside the pipe due to slug death and
slug coalescence mechanisms. Moreover, the slug length varies
within wide spectrums around a mean value, unlike the other
characteristics of slug flow. Thus, it has been predicted using
empirical correlations and analytical methods. The slug flow and
the film mixing process in vertical and horizontal pipes were inves-
tigated by (Barnea and Brauner, 1985) utilizing a wall jet. They dis-
covered that the tail behind a short slug moved with higher
velocity than a tail behind a fully developed velocity profile. Conse-
quently, this causes the tails of short slugs to overtake their fronts
and dissipate into a form of waves while moving inside the pipe. In
horizontal flow, (Barnea and Brauner, 1985) found that the mini-
mum stable length that can propagate on the pipe without dissipa-
tion was 32D. While (Dukler et al., 1985) found that the minimum
stable slug length is approximately 20D, it is in reasonable agree-
ment with the finding (Barnea and Brauner, 1985). The utilized
technique assumed the short slugs’ tails move faster than in the
long slugs because short slugs’ velocity profile is not fully devel-
oped. However, this outcome contradicts the observations
(Fagundes Netto et al., 1998), who concluded that slug length var-
ied with tail velocity randomly.
The mean slug liquid length was found within the range of 12D-
30D by (Dukler and Hubbard, 1975, Nicholson et al., 1978) from their
experimental investigations in horizontal pipes. For small diameter
pipes, (Barnea and Taitel, 1993b) concluded that the mean and max-
imum slug lengths were 1.5 and 3 times the minimum stable slug
length, respectively. Whereas (Dukler et al., 1985), from their devel-
oped model, found the minimum stable slug lengths could reach up
to 20D. A comprehensive analysis comparing the model solutions
with the experimental data concluded that the mean slug lengths
were of the order of 1–2 times the minimum slug length. However,
several investigators (Barnea and Taitel, 1993b, Dukler et al., 1985,
Taitel and Dukler, 1977, Nydal et al., 1992) have reported that the
minimum stable slug length for horizontal and inclined pipes within
the range of 15D–40D. Most ancient studies concluded that the slug
length is fairly insensitive to the gas and liquid flow rates and sub-
stantially depends on the pipe diameter. However, (Wang et al.,
2007) argued that the mean slug liquid length at the higher mixture
velocities is comparatively insensitive to the gas–liquid flow rate. At
the lower mixture velocity, the mean liquid slug length is suscepti-
ble to the gas–liquid flow rate.
The average values and the slug parameters’ statistical distribu-
tions were investigated by Nydal et al. (1992) in pipes with 53 mm
and 90 mm internal diameters. Air-water was used as the primary
fluid medium. They observed that the slug length increased with
increasing gas velocity and decreased with increasing liquid veloc-
ity, which is similar to the findings (Al-Kayiem et al., 2017). Nydal
et al. (1992) observed that the lognormal function was the best
representation of slug lengths distribution, which is similar to
the finding of (Woods et al., 2006, Ujang et al., 2006, Bernicot
and Drouffe, 1989, Bernicot and Drouffe, 1991, Dhulesia et al.,
1991, Dhulesia et al., 1993). While (Conte et al., 2017, Al-Kayiem
et al., 2017) found that the slug length was normally distributed,
they claimed that slug length distributions are discrepant with
(Nydal et al., 1992, Woods et al., 2006, Ujang et al., 2006) due to
the difference in the generated slug lengths as well as the pipe
diameter. Moreover, for large pipe (ID = 189 mm), (Kjølaas et al.,
2020) reported that the effect of water cut on the slug length dis-
tribution is significant; however, they could not establish any rela-
tion regarding this complex phenomenon. On the contrary,
(Dhulesia et al., 1993) suggested that the inverse Gaussian distri-
bution is the best fit for their experimental measurements. Table 1
presents an overview of the slug length from the previous studies.
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611

Table 1
Previous studies concern about the slug length.

Author Diameter jL (m/s) jG (m/s) Mean Comments and findings

(mm) Slug
Length
(Dukler and 38 – – 12D–30D High aeration of the slug front caused difficulty in the determination of the arrival time
Hubbard, 1975)
(Nicholson et al., 26 – – 30D Air-light oil
1978) 50
(Gregory et al., 25.8 0.03– 0.088– 30D Air-light oil fluids and some slug length reached up to 37.5 D
1978) 51.2 2.316 15.376
(Barnea and 25.4 0.01–1 0.1–10 32D the gas within the developed liquid slug behaves as dispersed bubbles
Brauner, 1985)
(Andreussi and 50 & 90 22D The mixture velocities of the air and water phases are within the range between ̴5 to ̴14 m/s
Bendiksen,
1989)
(Scott and Kouba, 609.6 0.5– 2.44– 3D–11D Slug length at low superficial gas and liquid velocities are dominated by pipeline, while at high
1990) 7.01 13.14 superficial gas velocities, increased aeration tends to increase slug length.
(Nydal et al., 53 & 90 0.6–3.5 0.5–20 15D–20D Length increases with increasing gas velocity and decreases with increasing liquid velocity
1992) 12D–16D
(Barnea and Taitel, 50 0.01 0.25 4D–14D The slug length distribution for fully developed flow follow the log-normal function
1993b) & & &
0.75 0.75 4D–24D
(Grenier et al., 53 0.35– jG < 2 m/ 20D The mean slug liquid was found to be 20D when jm > 1.2 m/s
1997) 1.6 s
(Al-Lababidi, 50 0.3– 0.6– 16D–17D Slug length measured using a non-invasive ultrasonic method and validated using conductivity
2006) 1.03 m/ 3.15 m/s measurement
s
(Woods et al., 76.3 0.6–1.2 2– 4 18D The mean length at the outlet pipe section is insensitive to the superficial liquid velocity and
2006) & & weakly sensitive to gas velocity
95 1 16D
(Ujang et al., 2006) 78 0–1.5 2–16 25D–42D The minimum and maximum slug length decreased with increasing the liquid flow rate
(Wang et al., 50 0.16– 1–20 15D–40D At higher jm velocities, the mean slug length is insensitive to gas and liquid velocity. while for low
2007) 1.5 jm velocities, the slug length decreased then increased with increasing the jm
(Kadri et al., 2010) 69 0.05– 0.2–8 16D–32D Air or Sulfur hexafluoride gas and oil were used. Slight changes in the liquid velocities can cause a
0.5 large difference in the final slug length
(Al-Kayiem et al., 74 0.7– 0.7–3.84 3D–15D the slug liquid length was observed to be normally distributed
2017) 1.33
(Eyo and Lao, 357 0.45– 0.15– ~20D– The average slug length was increased up to 1.5 times due to the eccentricity effect
2019) 3.49 2.77 75D

Few empirical correlations have been developed to predict the
slug length. For larger diameter, (Brill, 1981) and (Scott, 1989)
developed correlations that predict liquid slug length as follow:
Brill et al. (1981) correlation
0:5
lnð3:2808  Ls Þ ¼ 2:663 þ 5:441  ½lnð39:37dÞ þ 0:059
 lnð3:2808jm Þ
While (Scott, 1989) proposed the following correlation to deter-
mine the slug length:
lnð3:2808  Ls Þ ¼ 25:413 þ 28:4949  ½lnð39:37  DÞ
0:1
Based on data taken at Prudhoe Bay oil field, (Gordon and
Fairhurst, 1988) proposed an empirical correlation for the slug
length for the pipe of 1200 , 1600 and 2000 internal diameter:
0:1
lnðLs =0:3048Þ ¼ 25:413 þ 28:4949  ½lnðD=0:0254Þ
However, Nydal et al. (1992) proposed the following correlation
to predict the slug length in a small diameter horizontal pipe.
Ls ¼ 15  D
3.2. Slug frequency
Slug frequencyðmS Þ, among other slug characteristics, is a crucial
parameter that causes several operational issues such as pipeline
structural instability, flooding of separators, and wellhead pressure
fluctuation. Besides, it was observed that high slug frequency has a
severe corrosion impact on the pipe (Hill et al., 1996). On the other
hand, predicting the distributions of the slug frequency and slug
length are critical issues in developing the slug flow models. As
the pressure drop is strongly frequency-dependent, precise deter-
minations of the slug frequency would enhance the pressure drop
prediction. The slug frequency model is the backbone for develop-
ing ancillary correlations, which retain the essential physics.
(Gregory and Scott, 1969) defined the slug frequency as the num-
ð1Þ ber of slug units passed through a fixed point in the pipe over a
specific time.
A flush-mounted piezoelectric pressure transducer near the
pipe outlet was utilized to measure the slug frequency. In this
ð2Þ method, the pressure pulse indicates the slug passage described
by (Lin and Hanratty, 1986, Fan et al., 1993, Woods and
Hanratty, 1999). A conductance probe was used by (Eyo and Lao,
2019, Al-Lababidi, 2006, Fossa et al., 2003, Ujang, 2003) to measure
the slug frequency. However, (Woods and Hanratty, 1999) illus-
trated a comparison of time series traces for the pressure captured
ð3Þ
using the pressure transducer and liquid hold-up captured using a
conductance probe at jG = 5.5/m/s. Their comparison demonstrated
the merit of using the pressure traces at high superficial gas veloc-
ities where it is difficult to distinguish between the aerated slug
ð4Þ
and high amplitude waves. Other measuring techniques were also
used to determine the slug frequency, such as the wire mesh sen-
sor (Antunes et al., 2014), capacitance sensor (Al-Safran, 2009), and
high-speed camera (Al-Kayiem et al., 2017).
Due to the slug flow regime’s fickle nature, the slug frequency is
the least reliable assessed parameter among the other slug charac-
teristics as it reflects the flow intermittency. Also, most of the
researchers have demonstrated their slug frequency outcomes as
a function of liquid and gas superficial velocities or in the form
of unpretentious correlations that are confined to the conditions

5
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
that were first developed. Therefore, few phenomenological mod-
els have been established to determine the slug frequency (Taitel
and Dukler, 1977) developed a model to predict the slug frequency
based on the slug formation process inside a horizontal pipe. The
inverse of triggered time required by the dropped liquid film to
rebuild and form a new slug was considered the slug frequency.
The rebuild process of the liquid film and slug formation is gov-
erned by the following momentum and continuity Eqs. (5) and (6):
@h @ v L @v L sL SL si Si 1 @P
g cos h þ þ uL ¼ þ  þ g sin h ð5Þ
@x @t @x qL AL qL AL qL @x
@h @h AL @ v L
þ vL þ 0 ¼0 ð6Þ
@t @x AL @x
Abdulkadir et al. (2016) explained that the slug length and its
frequency are strongly interrelated slug parameters. The prediction
of the slug frequency based on slug length can be obtained using
Eq. (7). However, Eq. (7) is valid for constant slug length only,
and since the distribution of the slug length is evolved substan-
tially as the slug travel along the pipe, the usage of Eq. (7) is lim-
ited. Although Eq. () illustrates that the slug length and
frequency are firmly related, it is still arguably enough to report
only one of these parameters (Kjølaas et al., 2020).
jB
mS ¼ ð7Þ
LS þ LB
However, several correlations have been developed to predict
the slug frequency in horizontal pipes, as shown in Table 2.
The aforementioned studies demonstrated that the applicability
of those correlations is limited and restricted for specific condi-
tions. However, some models are too general. (Taitel and Dukler,
1977), which is the only valid model for broad flow conditions,
including inclined flow. On the other hand, some correlations are
straightforward yet don’t involve the entire affecting variables of
the slug frequency; thus, they are less precise. Hill and Wood
(1990, 1994) and (Shea et al., 2004)are the third correlations group
that is applicable for a broad spectrum of conditions. However,
their usage is tedious as they comprise independent parameters.
Later, (Shea et al., 2004) demonstrated that the (Taitel and
Dukler, 1977) model over-predicting the slug frequency notably
when applied for large-scale field data, with an approximate error
of 2000%. Simultaneously, a good validation for (Taitel and Dukler,
1977) model was achieved by (Zabaras, 1999) with a tiny bunch of
laboratory data for the horizontal and inclined flow. Besides,
(Zabaras, 1999) mentioned that the difficulties of developing a
sophisticated numerical solution are attributed to the high compu-
tation time required to calculate a single slug frequency. Also, he
mentioned that the expensive computational cost is the major
drawback of the Taitel and Dukler model. Later, (Taitel and
Dukler, 1977) validated their model with short slugs data that
merged with elongated slugs. Accordingly, (Taitel, 1987) justified
the discrepancy of their model is ought to the model deficiency
in capturing the slug frequency at the pipe inlet, which conse-
quently underrates slug frequency. Furthermore, (Taitel, 1987)
described that their numerical solution acquired a few seconds to
run on an old computer, which contradicting with (Zabaras,
1999) finding as reported by (Al-Safran, 2009). Based on the afore-
mentioned discussion, the prominent Taitel and Dukler model is
applicable and more accurate for the cases of not fully developed
flow where the slug frequency is relatively high and the slug length
is short (Al-Safran, 2009). Furthermore, the entire presented corre-
lations and models are deterministic and none of them is capable
to determine the related probability of the predicted slug fre-
quency (Al-Safran, 2016). Therefore, (Al-Safran, 2016) proposed a
new mean slug frequency correlation as a function of superficial
6
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
liquid velocity, pipe diameter, and slip factor. His correlation was
validated against experimental data (Woods et al., 2006) with a
satisfactory agreement. The probability statements and distribu-
tion could be obtained utilizing the outcomes of the proposed cor-
relation as an input.
(Al-Safran, 2016) concluded the pipe length is insignificant for
slug frequency except in certain flow circumstances, particularly
at high gas flow rate with a low liquid flow rate and vice versa.
Also, (Al-Safran, 2016) recommended a thorough investigation in
a long, high-pressure pipeline that conveys essential fluids to
investigate these observations. Besides, he described that the slug
initiation mechanism is a major contributing factor for slug fre-
quency randomness as the developed models are considered a solo
initiation mechanism (wave growth or coalescence). While mostly
a combination of these mechanisms exists within the same flow
conditions. Woods et al. (2006) and Dinaryanto et al. (2017)
reported that the slug frequency primarily depends on the liquid
superficial velocity and it would increase when the liquid superfi-
cial velocity increased. As the slugs move toward the pipe outlet,
the slug frequency decreased due to coalescence or collapse effects
(Dinaryanto et al., 2017).
Furthermore, (Dinaryanto et al., 2017) added that significant
endeavors are required to resolve the developed slug frequency
correlations’ discrepancies and inherent uncertainty. On the other
hand, (Al-Kayiem et al., 2017) concluded that the slug frequency at
constant superficial gas velocity increased with increasing superfi-
cial liquid velocity and decreased at constant superficial liquid
velocity with increasing the superficial gas velocity. These observa-
tions are similar to the findings of (Abdulkadir et al., 2016, Fan
et al., 1993, Manolis et al., 1995, Fossa et al., 2003). On the contrary,
(Wang et al., 2020) used the fast Fourier transformation method to
determine the slug frequency. He found that the superficial liquid
velocity has an immense effect on the slug frequency distribution,
while the impact of the superficial gas velocity on the slug fre-
quency is insignificant. Additionally, (Wang et al., 2020) outcomes
were in good agreement with (Dinaryanto et al., 2017).
As reported by (Arabi et al., 2020), each correlation was devel-
oped based on the available data, which interprets the significant
discrepancy of the predictions between different correlations.
Heretofore, there is no unanimous correlation valid for the entire
operational conditions. Therefore, (Arabi et al., 2020) determined
the slug frequency based on three methods, which namely are:
counting method (Hubbard, 1965), differential pressure method
(Wilkens and Thomas, 2008), and Power Spectral Density (PSD)
method (Bertola, 2003, Lin et al., 2013). He found that the PSD is
the most suitable technique for computing the slug frequency.
Based on a collected experimental data, (Arabi et al., 2020) pro-
posed a new correlation that considers the intermittent flow sub-
regimes. Best predictions of the experimental data were obtained
using this correlation. However, (Kim et al., 2020) explained that
an ancillary experimental data is still required to identify the
appropriate correlations for the slug characteristics. Morover,
(Kim et al., 2020) recommended that the usage of the artificial
intelligence method such as machine learning could be a suitable
route to eliminate the subjective utilization of the previous empir-
ical correlations as these correlations required the experimental
slug characteristics known in advance.
3.3. Slug velocity
The normal slugs propagation and development are substan-
tially depending on the shedding rate at the back and the pickup
rate of the liquid at the slug front. However, there is a strong rela-
tionship between the shedding and the pickup rates, as the pickup
is the process of collecting the liquid left behind the preceding slug.
The shedding process is caused by distributing the slug tail velocity
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611

Table 2
The developed slug frequency correlations.

Authors Pipe Fluids Slug frequency Correlation

Diameter
(mm)
(Gregory and Scott, 19 Co2- water h
i1:2
mS ¼ 0:0226 jL
gD
19:75
jm
þ jm (8)
1969)
(Greskovich and 38–152.4 air–water h  i1:2
mS ¼ 0:0226 jjL 2:02
D þ Fr S (9)
Shrier, 1971) m

FrS ¼ pjmffiffiffiffiffi (10)$1

gD
(Heywood and 42 air–water h  i1:02
mS ¼ 0:0434 jjL 2:02 D þ Fr S (11)
Richardson, 1979) m

(Fetter, 1988) 82 air–water- mS ¼ 0:0175Fr1:37

Fet (12)
oil
h i
jL 21:3þj2m
FrFet ¼ gD jm
(13)$1
h i
(Hill and Wood, 1990) 75 air- mS ¼ 0:275
3600
jL þjG
D :102:68ð1ae Þ (14)
200–400 kerosene
air–water
(Nydal et al., 1992) 52.9 and 90 air–water mS ¼ 0:088 2
gD ½jl þ 1:5 (15)
(Jepson and Taylor, 306 air–water mS ¼ jDL ½0:00759jm þ 0:01(16)
1993)

0  
(Hill and Wood, 1994) 75 air- mS D
0 0

jm ¼ 24:73 þ 0:00766e 9:9121HLe

þ 24:72eð0:20524HLe Þ (17)
150.4–400 kerosene
air–water

0

mS D
jm ¼ mjS D ð1  0:05jG ÞD0:3 (18)
m

0
HLe ¼ HLe ð1  0:068
j Þ (19) L

(Manolis et al., 1995) – air–water mS ¼ 0:037Fr1:8

Man (20)
2 
jL jm;min þj2m
FrMan ¼ gD jm
(21)a

(Zabaras, 1999) 25–203 air–water h
i1:2 h i

mS ¼ 0:0226 jL
gD
19:75
jm þ jm 0:836 þ 2:75 sin0:25 h (22)
air-oil
(Shea et al., 2004) – – mS ¼ 0:47j L
(23)
0:75

D1:2 L0:55 P


(Al-Safran, 2009) 50.8 air-oil LnðmS Þ ¼ 0:8 þ 1:53LnðjL Þ þ 0:27 jL
 34:1ðDÞ(24)
jm
(Gokcal et al., 2010) 50.8 air-oil tS ¼ 2:623 N0:612 ðdÞ(26) jL

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f

d
3=2
qL ðqL qG Þg
Nf ¼ lL (27)
(Schulkes, 2011) – – tS ¼ wðaÞ  UðNRe;L Þ  Hðh; NFr Þ(28)
( pffiffiffiffiffi
  12:1N 0:37 1 þ N2Fr sin h jhjFor jhj
0:17
wðaÞ ¼ 0:016 / ð2 þ 3aÞU N Re;L ¼ Re;L ForN Re;L < 4000 Hðh; N Þ ¼
Fr
1ForN Re;L  4000 1:8
NFr  ð0:6 þ 2h  h2 ÞFor jhj > 0:17
(
(Zhao et al., 2013) 26 and 74 air-oil
tS 10:84N 0:38
4000
Re;L ForN Re;g
wðaÞ ¼ (29)
6:40N 0:141
Re;L > 4000
ForN Re;g
(Picchi et al., 2015) 73.66 air- CMCb h
i0:88
0:07
mS jL 32:2014
¼ 0:0448 gD j þ jm n2:85 Re
Ren
(30)
(water) m w

(Al-Safran, 2016) 25–203 air-oil mS ¼ EXPð1:51  17:04ðDH Þ þ 0:77LnðjL Þ  0:181LnðsÞ(31)

air-
kerosene Where S is the slip factor
air–water
Freon-
water
N2-Disel
a
Frs, FrFet, and FrMan denotes the Froude number of the slug frequency, Fetter, and Manolios Froude number.
b
CMC denotes CarboxyMethyl Cellulose solution.

profile near the slug liquid (Dukler and Hubbard, 1975, Nicholson
et al., 1978). Due to friction, the liquid velocity increased in the
radial direction toward the pipe centerline and decreased near
the pipe wall. Consequently, the amount of the liquid from the slug
body moves with small velocity backward and forms a liquid film
behind the slug. This liquid film moves with a velocity similar to
the slug translational velocity, called the interface velocity, ji.
Therefore, the shedding rate is assessing the slug translational
velocity (Taitel, 1987). Fig. 2 illustrates the tail slug velocity profile
Fig. 2. The shedding mechanism.
behind the liquid slug.
Slug velocity plays a significant role in understanding the
gas–liquid slug flow because it estimates slug kinetic energy, conducted experimental works have focused on the velocity of a
consider the fluctuation of the pressure pulse, and the effect of single elongated bubble rather than a full slug unit’s motion.
the flow rate variations. Unfortunately, most of the previously Besides, most of the previous correlations have been developed

7
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
based on ducts with an internal diameter not greater than 0.05 m
(Bertola, 2002). For decades, the propagation of long bubbles in the
pipe has been thoroughly investigated. Previous researchers, e.g.
(Dumitrescu, 1943, Davies and Taylor, 1950, Collins et al., 1978,
Bendiksen, 1984, Bendiksen, 1985) have computed the bubble
velocity through 3D liquid flow around the bubble nose. While
the other developed correlations for horizontal gas–liquid slug
flow have determined the bubble velocity at its tail, these correla-
tions can be classified into two groups. The first group predicts the
slug tail velocities based on the mean fluid velocity (Dukler and
Hubbard, 1975, Nydal et al., 1992). In contrast, another group
determines the slug tail velocities based on Froude number and
the drift velocity (Nicholson et al., 1978, Ferre, 1978, Bendiksen,
1984, Fabre and Liné, 1992). Generally, the correlations of both
groups can be summarized using the developed correlation by
(Nicklin, 1962) as follow:
jB ¼ C o jm þ C 1 jD ð32Þ
where jB, Co, jm, and jD are the slug velocity, the distribution param-
eter, mixture velocity, and drift velocity. The effect of pipe diameter
on the distribution parameters of the mixture velocity and drift
velocity is negligible.
The distribution parameter Co in Eq. (32) is derived by assuming
that the slug bubble velocity is similar to the maximum local liquid
velocity jmax at the slug nose (Nicklin, 1962, Bendiksen, 1984,
Shemer, 1987, Polonsky et al., 1999). Therefore, the distribution
parameter is determined as the ratio between the maximum to
the mean liquid velocities inside the pipe, which is approximately
equal to 1.2 for fully developed turbulent flow and 2.0 for laminar
flow (Van Hout et al., 2002). Recently, (Bendiksen et al., 2018)indi-
cated the importance of considering the pipe diameter on the slug
tail velocity computation. Accordingly, he introduced the slug tail
velocity as a function of pipe diameter, inclination angle, gas–liq-
uid properties, mixture flowrates, and the associated non-
dimensional numbers. These non-dimensional numbers are Rey-
nolds number (Re), Froude number (Fr), Archimedes number (Ar),
and Eötvös number (Eo) (Wan et al., 2019), which they are depend-
ing on fluid properties and flow conditions. Various endeavors
have been conducted to evaluate the distribution parameter, Co
and the drift constant, C1, as tabulated in Table 3.
Compared to the vertical pipe configurations, fewer works have
been conducted to investigate the motion of elongated bubbles in
the horizontal pipe. Investigations scarcity could be attributed to
the complexity of modeling an asymmetric bubble shape. Conse-
quently, the drift velocity was avoided or purposely ignored by most
of the previous studies due to the trivial gravity effect in the horizon-
tal direction (Wallis, 1969, Dukler and Hubbard, 1975). However,
later investigations (Nicholson et al., 1978, Bendiksen, 1984,
Kouba and Jepson, 1990) revealed that the gravity effect induced
drift caused by the different bubble nose elevations. These discrep-
ancies caused ample distribution of the parameters Co (0.95–1.54)
and the drift constant, C1 (0–0.6). In the same context, Bendiksen
1984, discovered the plot of the translational velocity versus mix-
ture velocity is non-linear as it bends slightly upwards. Accordingly,
it was observed the drift velocity determined after fitting the exper-
imental data was linearly different from the calculated drift velocity
before plotting the linear fit. Hence, three potential reasons were
introduced by (Nydal et al., 1992) to justify the differences between
experimental distribution parameter C0 and the measured value
obtained by the mean to the centerline velocity ratio. Firstly, bubbles
that appear in the slug flow create a difference between the slug liq-
uid velocity in front of the bubble and the centerline velocity of pure
liquid, which consequently alter the slug tail velocity profile at the
same Reynolds number (Andreussi et al., 1991). Secondly, as the slip
occurs between the gas–liquid phases, the distribution parameter
fluctuates to compensate for the variation between the mixture
8
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
velocity and the superficial liquid velocity. Thirdly, aerated slugs
generated small bubbles that coalesce at the bubble nose and conse-
quently affect the translational bubble velocity. However, (Hale,
2001) has addressed these factors’ effect on the translational veloc-
ity by conducting a ‘‘gassy pushout” experiment. He realized that the
distribution parameter value C0 was increased with increasing the
slug liquid’s aeration level, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Furthermore,
the distribution parameter’s augment was attributed to several fac-
tors, such as the strong relationship between the distribution
parameter and the slug liquid velocity profile. In addition to the con-
tribution of the drift velocity to translational slug velocity and the
de-aeration of the liquid film (Hale, 2001). Therefore, a modified cor-
relation was introduced by (Hale, 2001) as follow:
jB C o ð1  eGS Þ jD
¼1þC ¼ þ ð33Þ
jm ð1  C o eGS Þ jm ð1  C o eGS Þ
where eGS is the gas holdup at the centerline position
A viscosity number was added to the distribution parameter for
a highly viscous fluid to comprise the effect of the liquid viscosity
on the translational slug velocity. Viscosity number was success-
fully utilized by many authors (Al-Safran et al., 2011b, Al-safran
et al., 2013b, Baba et al., 2018, Baba et al., 2019) to characterize
highly viscous slug flow in the pipelines, which yield the slug
translation velocity as follow:
 
jB ¼ C o þ N l jm þ C 1 jD ð34Þ
where
jm l L
Nl ¼ ð35Þ
gD2 ðqL  qG Þ
On the other hand, (Ruder et al., 1989) defined slug front as a
hydraulic jump and utilized this definition to introduce the neces-
sary criteria for the existence of non-aerated stable slug in the pipe.
(Ruder et al., 1989) derived these criteria based on the inviscid
steady-state model (Benjamin, 1968) and formulate it as follow:
ðjF  jLF Þ 4ALF
¼ 0:54 ð36Þ
ðgDÞ1=2 pD2
where jLF and ALF are the velocity and area of the liquid film ahead of
the slug unit.
While (Bendiksen and Espedal, 1992) estimated the slug front
velocity based on the mass balance across the slug front, presum-
ing that there is no droplet entrainment on the gas phase. In their
calculation, the expression introduced by (Bendiksen, 1984) for the
translational velocity was used to determine the slug tail velocity.
Then, the slug front velocity was estimated by:
eGF  eGS jjGFG
jF ¼ jGF ð37Þ
eGF  eGS
where jGF, jG, eGF,eGS are gas velocity on the region above the liquid
film, gas velocity, superficial gas velocity, the void fraction of the
region above the liquid film in front of the slug, and gas void fraction,
respectively. By contrast, the slug front velocity jF was assumed like
the translational velocity of a head slug. This assumption was formu-
lated based on the condition that the slug bubbles not crumbling as
they flow inside the pipe (Barnea and Taitel, 1993b).
Moreover, the investigations of (Ruder et al., 1989) were
extended by (Woods and Hanratty, 1996) to determine the liquid
velocity with the slug body considering the slip between the
gas–liquid phases. The superficial liquid velocity was determined
using Eq. (38):
jm
jL ¼ ð38Þ
½1 þ ðS  1ÞeGS 
where the slip ratio S within the slug liquid is given by
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611

Table 3
Comparison of the distribution and drift constant parameters from the previous studies.

Authors ID Co C1 jL (m/s) ReL (103) Remark

(mm)
(Nicklin, 1962) 1.2 0.35 – – 1.2 for turbulent
2 2 for laminar flow
(Gregory and Scott, – 1.35 0 – – jB ¼ C o jm
1969)
(Dukler and Hubbard, 38.1 0.021 ln(Re) + 0.022 0 – 30–400 Smooth friction factors
1975)
(Nydal et al., 1992) 52.9 1.2 0 0.6–3.5 32–184 Drift velocity was neglected
90
(Nicholson et al., 1978) 25.8 1.196 0.54 0.03– 0.1–7 Drift velocity is existing for horizontal pipe
51.2 1.128 0.4 2.13 0.2–7.8
0.06–
2.29
(Ferre, 1978) 45 1.1 0.24 05–2 22.4–90 Frcrit < 2
1.3 0 Frcrit < 2 < 8
1.02 1.61 Frcrit > 8
(Bendiksen, 1984) 24.2 1.2 0.54 0.3–5 0.6 < 10.4 FrM > Frcrit
1.05 FrM
Frcrit
(Dukler et al., 1985) 38.1 1.225 0 – – Co is the 7th power law for turbulent flow
(Kouba and Jepson, 150 1.25 – 0–6 – At jm < 3 m/s, the drift velocity should be considered and Co = 2
1990) 2
(Manolis, 1995) 74 1.033 0.48 0.05– – If Frc  2.86
0.51 C 1 ¼ 0C o ¼ 1:216
(Woods and Hanratty, 95.3 1.1 0.52 0.6–1.5 – At jm > 3 m/s,
1996) C 1 ¼ 0C o ¼ 1:2
  h i0:25
(Petalas and Aziz, – :031
(1:64 þ 012sinhÞReml 0:3 1  eb – –
jB ¼ 1:53 g ðqLq2qG Þr sin h
2000) L
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(Choi et al., 2012) 76.2 1:20:2 qG =qL ð1expð18aG ÞÞ 0.01–1 – To consider the inclination angle
2
þ
0:25
1þðRe =1000Þ2 1þðRe =1000Þ2
jD ¼ A cos h þ B gqrLD2q sin h
(Kim et al., 2018) 50.8 2.11–2.2 – 0.2–1 – for the elongated bubble flow Co = 2.11–2.2 while for laminar slug
2.27 flow Co = 2.27
(Wan et al., 2019) 50 1 0.3–8.2 6.7–160 atmospheric pressure
27.9 1.04 4.2
54.8 0.95 1.35 0.2–3.5 10–234 At 1 bar
108 0.5 0.2 1.7–7.3 1.7–7.3

Fig. 3. Distribution parameter as a function of mixture velocity - Low-Pressure Rig (Hale, 2001).

jG Thus, the translational slug velocities can be estimated using Eq.

S¼ ð39Þ
jL (41)

Therefore, the distribution parameter for the case of the slip jB ¼ C o;s jm þ jD ð41Þ
velocity within the slug liquid was obtained by
Later, (Bendiksen et al., 2018) explained that the slug transla-
Co
C o;s ¼ ð40Þ tional velocity is too independent of slug length LS/D > 5, while the
½1 þ ðS  1ÞeGS  slug front is relatively independent slug length LS/D > 5. Also,
9
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
Fig. 4. Distribution parameter as a function of mixture velocity – WASP (Hale, 2001).
(Bendiksen et al., 2018) mentioned that the slug front velocity might
vary significantly along the pipe if only one slug flows inside the pipe.
Furthermore, (Wan et al., 2019) explained the difficulties behind
modeling slug front could be attributed to its chaotic, turbulent nat-
ure. A random distribution of the slug front velocity was observed
with the slug translational velocity, yet the slug front value is pre-
dictable when the slug translational velocity is known. However,
when the slug translational velocity is unknown, the slug velocity
became unpredictable. Therefore, (Wan et al., 2019) resolved this
issue through developing a statistical deterministic problem which
allows modeling the slug front velocity as a function of mean slug
translational velocity and internal pipe diameter as follow:
jF ¼ AJ bB þ C
where
A ¼ 6:7D þ 0:16; b ¼ 0:7D0:25 ; C ¼ 0:6
4. Numerical modeling of slug flow
The slug initiation, growth, and development have been pre-
dicted intensively using numerical simulations. However, most of
the existing numerical models required closure relationships due
to the difficulty of possessing the whole flow process details (Lu,
2015). In general, two simulation methods were used to model
the slug flow which is: ‘‘slug-tracking” which utilizes the adapta-
tion of the basic unit cell model to track the tail and front of the
slug (Zheng et al., 1994, King, 1998, Manfield, 2000, Rosa et al.,
2015, Nydal and Banerjee, 1996, Rodrigues et al., 2008, Smith,
2017, Naidek et al., 2017, Han et al., 2019); ‘‘slug-capturing” where
slugs growth are initially captured from stratified to slug flow tran-
sition until the fully-developed slug flow. The slug-capturing
approach is based on the transient two-fluid model equations
(Issa and Kempf, 2003, Renault, 2007, Ansari and Shokri, 2011,
Kjølaas et al., 2013, Bonizzi and Issa, 2003, Bonizzi, 2003,
Montini, 2011, Azizi et al., 2019, Ferrari et al., 2019). For long pipes,
One-dimensional modeling of two-phase flows was broadly used
on diverse codes comprising different modeling formulations. Most
of the prediction Methods of slug dynamics are strongly dependent
on the flow transition criteria and the predefined initial conditions
and the slug initiation assumptions. The studies of (De Henau and
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
Raithby, 1995a, De Henau and Raithby, 1995b, Barnea and Taitel,
1993b, Nydal and Banerjee, 1996, Al-safran et al., 2004, De
Leebeeck and Nydal, 2010) simulated the slug flow using a two-
fluid model employing slug unit and slug tracking schemes. How-
ever, modeling of the slug flow initiation and the dynamic growth
using these schemes is challenging, as they relied on the empirical
correlations to assess the slug properties (Nieckele et al., 2013).
Therefore, a hybrid method proposed by (Renault, 2007) to lessen
the dependency on the empirical correlations, but the prior need
for the statistical distributions of the slug characteristics has
remained a challenge. By contrast, the high resolution capturing
techniques were utilized by (Issa and Kempf, 2003, Carneiro
et al., 2011, Danielson et al., 2012) to capture the hydrodynamic
ð42Þ instabilities of the gas–liquid interface. The capturing of the hydro-
dynamic instabilities and the transition from stratified to slug flow
was performed numerically by solving the two-fluid model as
demonstrated by (Issa and Kempf, 2003, Carneiro et al., 2011).
However, several challenges were posed while modeling the
hydrodynamic slug flow, such as modeling the dynamic behavior
of the gas–liquid interface, which separates both phases. Mean-
while, the occurrence of significant air entrainment is leading to
concurrent gas dispersion into the slug liquid and liquid droplets
into the gas bubble. The predictions of these bubbles and droplets’
size are extremely difficult owing to the intricate turbulence phe-
nomena in the vicinity of the elongated gas–liquid interface. Due to
these complex, interrelated phenomena, the current 1D-modeling
was found inadequate to provide precise predictions (Mo et al.,
2014). Fig. 5 illustrates the typical time tracking of the liquid
holdup in slug flow.
Moreover, for modeling the slug flow in horizontal pipes, three
computational approaches have been identified by (Frank, 2005),
which are:
 Frozen slug with moving wall boundaries. In which the prede-
fined wall velocity is equal to the slug propagation velocity.
Thus, the propagation velocity, slug length, and slug frequency
must be known before executing the simulation.
 Three-Dimensional (3D) simulation in a short pipe with peri-
odic boundary conditions. In which, the pressure losses due to
wall shear forces should be compensated by defining a driving
pressure force at the inlet boundary condition.
10
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
Fig. 5. Real-time tracking of liquid holdup for the slug flow in a horizontal pipe (Issa
and Kempf, 2003).
 Three-Dimensional (3D) Transient simulation in a long pie with
inlet/outlet boundary conditions. The typical inlet boundary
condition of the experiment is acquired to simulate the slug for-
mation and predict the slug characteristic numerically. Initially,
the flow morphology, shape, interfacial area, and the free sur-
face that separates gas–liquid phases are unknown parameters.
Thus, the transient 3D simulation with inlet/outlet boundary
conditions is a suitable technique to compute the slug charac-
teristics (Mohmmed et al., 2018).
Recently, after the computer revolution, light has been shed on
the usage of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to investigate
two-phase flow using numerous approaches. All these approaches
under the umbrella of 3D transient simulation with inlet/outlet
boundary conditions, which are the Eulerian-Lagrangian (Hirt
et al., 1974), Eulerian–Eulerian (Ishii and Mishima, 1984), and
the interface capturing techniques. The Eulerian-Lagrangian
approach does not allow the modeling of a large interface; thus,
it is frequently applied for cases where a dispersed phase exists,
such as bubbly flow. While the Eulerian–Eulerian approach is an
average time approach that utilizes a single set of equations for
each fluid separately. Whereas, the interface capturing techniques
encompasses various method such as Volume of Fluid (VOF) (Hirt
and Nichols, 1981) and Level Set (LS) (Sussman et al., 1994). VOF
method shares a single set of equations for both gas–liquid phases.
It uses ancillary transport equations based on the volume fraction
to distinguish between the phases at each cell. (Guerrero et al.,
2017) conducted a comparison between Eulerian and VOF models
based on modeling six experiments with an orthogonal mesh. They
found that the Eulerian model provides results with the least mean
square errors in comparison to the VOF model at low void fraction
flow. Besides, their results demonstrated that the Eulerian model is
insensitive to grid number variation. Accordingly, it requires less
computational time than VOF. Furthermore, their results show that
only the VOF model can predict and identifying the flow pattern.
Therefore, VOF is a suitable method for two-phase applications
because it allows tracking the interface and the liquid holdup as
well as its capability of predicting the flow regime (Pineda-Pérez
et al., 2018). Due to the ultimate prediction accuracy and low com-
putational cost, the VOF method has been used extensively to
model the slug flow in a horizontal pipe (Mohmmed et al., 2018,
Al-Hashimy et al., 2016, Mohmmed, 2016, Ghorai and Nigam,
2006, Lu et al., 2007, Andrianto et al., 2016, Horgue et al., 2012,
Frank, 2005, López et al., 2016, Pineda-Pérez et al., 2018, Al-
Kayiem et al., Gupta et al., 2009, Taha and Cui, 2004, Akbar and
11
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
Ghiaasiaan, 2006, Qian and Lawal, 2006, Kashid et al., 2008,
Carlson et al., 2008, Fukagata et al., 2007). Fig. 6 illustrates a com-
parison between the experimental and numerical slug flow in a
horizontal pipe, in which the interface and slug flow morphology
were predicted with high accuracy. From Fig. 6, the dispersed bub-
bles and the water droplet in the gas phase were not reproduced by
the developed VOF model as it requires dense mesh for this small-
est length scale. Therefore, to capture the infinitesimal details of
the complex flow, the two-fluid model became the best alternate
in term of the computational cost (Godino et al., 2020).
There are other methods, such as LS (Fukagata et al., 2007),
Lattice-Boltzmann (Yu et al., 2007), or Phase-field (He and Kasagi,
2008). As reported by (Horgue et al., 2012), the thin liquid film in
the slug flow was not captured successfully in the previous studies
using diffusive-interface methods as they induce significant errors
in the prediction of flow properties. For accurate prediction, these
methods required ultra-dense mesh with long computational time,
which restricts their applications at large scale model. However,
(Horgue et al., 2012) concluded that suitable parametrization of
the VOF method could precisely capture flow properties compris-
ing thin liquid films with high accuracy and less computational
cost. The process of bubble generation is shown in Fig. 7.
The aforementioned models provide comparatively precise and
reliable outcomes for either dispersed or segregated flows. How-
ever, in real-world applications, most of the multi-phase flows
are a combination of a successive two flow regime. For instance,
slug flow is a simultaneous amalgamation of aerated slug liquid
(dispersed flow) and elongated bubbles (segregated flow). There-
fore, the previous models are impractical methods of simulating
the two-phase slug flow (Akhlaghi et al., 2019). Accordingly, The
Multifluid-VOF model, which is a combination of two-fluid and
VOF approaches, has been developed by (Cerne et al., 2001). Ini-
tially, this method was developed to simulate 2D Rayleigh–Taylor
instability. Multifluid-VOF is capable of modeling a large scale of
the gas–liquid interface in segregate flow regimes as well as utiliz-
ing the mean values for each phase in the dispersed flow. The
reconstruction accuracy of interface capturing was enhanced to
lessen the diffusion effects. (Yan and Che, 2010, Štrubelj and
Tiselj, 2011, Denèfle et al., 2015) utilizing the Level Set method
for tracking the interface in the Multifluid-VOF method. The
Multifluid-VOF model was built in the OpenFOAM Software to sim-
ulate a liquid–liquid extraction device. Also, (Denèfle et al., 2015)
was investigated gas–liquid churn flow in the vertical pipe using
the developed Multifluid-VOF method in ANSYS software. The
results exhibited a reasonably good correlation between the
empirical and numerical mean void fraction. Also, (Parsi et al.,
2016) utilized the Eulerian–Eulerian MultiFluid VOF model to sim-
ulate high flow rate air–water multiphase flow in a 76.2 mm-
diameter pipe. Their model was successfully predicting the phase
distributions, mean void fractions, and average void fraction time
series. A comparison with experimental data revealed good agree-
ment between the numerical and experimental results in terms of
capturing different liquid structures within the flow and the void
fraction data. Recently, (Akhlaghi et al., 2019) used the
Multifluid-VOF model to simulate the horizontal air–water inter-
mittent flow considering the gravity force’s effects on the flow
field. A pipe of 44 mm diameter and 6 m length was modeled in
OpenFOAM software, and the simulations were executed on Mul-
tiphaseEulerFoam solver. A detailed comparison between Multi-
Fluid VOF and VOF models was conducted and the numerical out-
comes of both methods have been assessed against experimental
outcomes, as shown in Fig. 8. An excellent agreement between
the Multifluid-VOF and the experimental results was achieved.
Furthermore, (Akhlaghi et al., 2019) concluded that the simulation
time is the only disadvantage of the Multifluid-VOF over VOF as it
entails 14 times the simulation execution of VOF.
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611

Fig. 6. Comparison between the experimental and numerical water volume fraction (Mohmmed et al., 2020).

Fig. 7. VOF simulation in a microchannel using the HRIC Scheme (a) the process of bubble generation (b) volume fraction and pressure distribution (Horgue et al., 2012).

On the other hand, (Lakehal et al., 2002) discussed the trends of
various prediction methods related to the numerical simulation of
multiphase flows based on the one-fluid formalism. Their discussion
covers broad spectrums of interface tracking algorithms coupled
with one-fluid formalism. These algorithms are based on solving a
single set of transport equations for the entire computational
domain, which considers gas–liquid phases as a single fluid with dif-
ferent material properties. This study concluded that LS method has
limited applicability due to its inherent inability to conserve mass.
While the VOF approach coupled with the Front Tracking (FT)
scheme is more accurate than LSs, their extension to an extremely
complex 3D multiphase flow poses serious challenges. Therefore,
they introduced a novel approach referred to as the boundary fitting
method. Later, (Lakehal et al., 2012) used LS Techniques combined
with the Very-Large Eddy Simulation (V-LES) approach to simulate
the transition from stratified to slug flow. They utilized this model
to reproduce WASP experimental data along with the droplet
entrainment in a stratified flow. Their 3D model provides clear
insights about the flow details; in particular, the slug formation
and frequency were predicted precisely. Their model also provides
promising results about the droplet entrainment, including the liga-
ment formation and sheet break up into droplets. However, (Lakehal
et al., 2012) commented that the grid refinement is still an
unresolved issue, particularly for turbulent flow cases where the

12
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
Fig. 8. Void fraction distribution of slug and plug flow under various superficial liquid and gas velocities (Akhlaghi et al., 2019).
generated droplet and entrained bubbles are massive. Therefore,
(Mo et al., 2014) averaged down the 3D method to 2D using a unique
Quasi-3D approach to obtain a compromise solution in terms of cost
and accuracy. This model was originally developed by (Laux et al.,
2007), and it is based on a multi-fluid multi-field formulation com-
bined with construction and tracking of the large-scale interfaces
(LSIs). In which the equations are derived based on ensemble and
volume averaging of the Navier-Stokes equations. (Mo et al., 2014)
utilized this model to predict the experimental results of the slug ini-
tiation and the subsequent evolution of hydrodynamic slug in a hor-
izontal pipe. These numerical investigations were performed based
on experiments carried out by (Ujang et al., 2006). Fig. 9 illustrates
snapshots of the slug evolutions in the horizontal pipe. Parts of the
(Laux et al., 2007) model concept are also detailed in a patent for
steady-state flows (Johansen, 2019). Recently, (Schmelter et al.,
2021) investigated the influence of the interface instability imposed
by the inlet velocity perturbation using the VOF model. Their simu-
lation results provide a first systematic guideline regarding the
impact of inlet perturbations slug growth and initiation in the pipe.
However, they recommended that future work should address the
correlations related to unstable slug and saturated slug flow with
registered uncertainties of measurement. Moreover, a patent aims
13
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
to determine the slug birth rate along with the slug initiation in mul-
tiphase fluid flow is introduced by (Lawrence and Hu, 2020). They
determined the slug birth rate based on the difference between
the slug front and slug tail velocities.
5. Factors affecting the slug two-phase flow characteristics
5.1. Drag and frictional effect
According to (Toms, 1948), adding a tiny concentration of high
molecular weight polymer to any solvents is substantially reducing
the frictional pressure drop in turbulent flows. Which conse-
quently enhance the pipeline capacity and production rate. Slug
two-phase flow has various distinguished features that must be
investigated in each situation. Unlike the other two-phase flow
phenomena, the axial pressure gradient is highly undesirable as
it creates considerable energy consumption per unit volume of liq-
uid (Mowla and Naderi, 2006). The turbulence effect in the gas–liq-
uid two-phases is higher than in the single-phase (Liu, 2013),
especially in oil and gas pipelines. Thus, the prospective reduction
of drag in two-phase turbulent flows is larger than single-phase
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611

Fig. 9. Snapshots of Q3D results showing the evolution of slugs in a 30 m long pipe (Mo et al., 2014).

flows. However, few attempts have been conducted to study the

drag reduction on gas–liquid two-phase flow (Wang et al., 2019).
In the first study of two-phase drag reduction, the interfacial waves
were suppressed by a macro-molecular-polymeric drag reducer
(Oliver and Hoon, 1968). Previous studies (Kang and Jepson,
1999, Kang and Jepson, 2000, Daas et al., 2000) discovered for a
high polymer concentration of 10 ppm to 50 ppm, the drag reduc-
tion amount varied from 30% to 50% for gas–liquid two-phase flow.
Also, for high superficial gas velocity, the drag reduction decreased
from 50% to 30%. Besides, (Kang et al., 1999) found that adding
50 ppm drag reducing agents cause a flow regime transition for
slug two-phase flow to stratified flow. More studies were reviewed
thoroughly by (Al-Sarkhi, 2010).
On the interval between every two successive slugs, frictional
losses occurred in both of the slug unit components. Therefore,
an excessive pressure loss in the slug liquid occurred, which highly
affect the slug characteristics. The rate of the pressure losses due to Fig. 10. The effect of polymer concentration on the liquid holdup at various
friction has proportional relation with the gas content inside the superficial liquid velocity (Soleimani et al., 2002).
slug liquid and the slug velocity. A longer slug liquid has greater
accompanied pressure loss comparing to the short slug liquid.
flow. Additional studies concern about the drag reduction effect on
However, shorter slug liquid usually has high slug frequency,
two-phase flow behavior can be found in (Pouranfard et al., 2015,
which causes multiple significant magnitudes of the total pressure
Alsurakji et al., 2018, Nesyn et al., 2018). All these studies
loss. Using the drag reduction agents can reduce the total pressure
described various crucial factors on the drag reduction rate of
losses through any of its components, consequently decreasing the
gas–liquid turbulent flow. However, most of these findings are
slug frequency (Daas and Bleyle, 2006).
based on experimental observations, which address the two-
On the other hand, it was observed that critical liquid holdup,
phase drag-reducing flow’s general behavior. Whereas the local
hL/D, and JL are increasing with increasing the polymer concentra-
characteristics have not been extensively investigated as reported
tion for the initiation of slugs and roll waves, as shown in Fig. 10. At
by (Wang et al., 2019). Deficiency in understanding the local
the same time, the interfacial friction coefficient decreased with
behavior of the two-phase drag-reducing flow induced by polymer
increasing the polymer concentration, which might be significantly
additives bounds the understanding of the drag reduction mecha-
large in the pseudo-slug regime. Due to the reduction of the inter-
nism in two-phase flow.
facial friction fi, a noticeable increase of hL/D was observed. Also, a
significant decrease in the frictional pressure drop was observed
(Soleimani et al., 2002). As the polymers suppress the turbulence 5.2. Liquid viscosity effect
effect of the slugs and damp waves at the interface. (Soleimani
et al., 2002) suggested that slug laminarization is associated with For decades, various models have been developed to predict the
the increase of the transitional slug velocity. slug flow behavior. However, modern defiance has emerged in the
It was discovered by (Al-Sarkhi and Hanratty, 2001, Soleimani oil and gas industry, where high viscosity liquid and gas flows are
et al., 2002, Al-Sarkhi and Soleimani, 2004) from their experimen- considered. As reported in the previous studies, the Liquid viscosi-
tal studies; polymer drag-reducing agents provide ultimate drag ties were significantly affecting the two-phase slug behavior, such
reduction in the transition from a slug or annular flow to stratified as liquid holdup, slug frequency, and length, along with wave
14
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
Fig. 11. A comparison of slug translational velocity vs. mixture velocity for several studies at different flow conditions (Baba et al., 2019).
behaviors at the gas–liquid interface. The viscosity effect has been
investigated experimentally by many researchers. (Dukler and
Taitel, 1986) conducted experiments for gas–liquid two-phase flow
in a horizontal pipe under various liquid viscosities of 1 cP, 90 cP,
and 165 cP. Reasonable agreement between their obtained results
and the results of their previously developed model (Taitel and
Dukler, 1976) was achieved for liquid with a viscosity of 165 cP.
Also, (Andritsos et al., 1989) proposed a new slug initiation mech-
anism, in which the slug formed and initiated after the presence of
KH waves with a small wavelength. From their study, the slug sta-
bilized with increasing the liquid viscosities. Whereas (Gokcal
et al., 2006) compared their experimental results of slightly higher
liquid viscosity (up to 587 cP) with models developed by (Xiao
et al., 1990, Zhang et al., 2003). They concluded that the accuracy
of these models could be enhanced by considering liquid viscosity.
However, for the liquid with high viscosity, no validation studies
were carried out. Later, Gokcal (2008) found the Reynolds number
decreased with increasing the viscosity, which might damp the
turbulence of the mixing zone at the slug front. As a result, the slug
length decreased with increasing liquid viscosity along with the
mixing zone length reduction. This conclusion was contradicted
by the finding of (Buitrago et al., 2017). Thus, further investigations
of slug length and the mixing zone under various liquid viscosities
need to be ascertained. By contrast, (Marquez and Trujillo, 2010)
tested the flow regime transition with liquid viscosity of 10 cP,
392 cP, and 1000 cP. They discovered that the slug flow regime
range on the map increased with increasing the liquid viscosity.
Moreover, a similar trend was observed by (Matsubara and
Naito, 2011) for high liquid viscosity of 11,000 cP. They concluded
that roll wave and stratified flow at low liquid viscosity in the flow
regime map were substituted by the intermittent and annular flow.
Moreover, (Eskerud Smith et al., 2011) conducted a large-scale
experiment on a pipe with 69 mm ID and 51.9 m length for high
and low viscous oil. The oil’s viscosity within the range of 0.08–
0.11 Pa. s, which approximately 100 times denser than water. Their
results revealed that liquid fraction decreases significantly with
increased gas Reynolds number (ReL) at constant liquid Reynolds
number (ReL). Consequently, the liquid phase velocity increased
four times the highest gas flow rate. Therefore, the liquid passed
through the transition from laminar to turbulent liquid flow due
to the increase of the gas Reynolds number. Ancillary details about
the flow regime transition’s viscosity effect are found in (Barnea,
1991, Andritsos and Hanratty, 1987a). Viscous slug flow was char-
acterized by the high frequency (Gokcal et al., 2009), short length
(Al-Safran et al., 2011a, Brito, 2012, Kim et al., 2018), and a high
liquid holdup (Al-Safran et al., 2013a), a high liquid holdup in slug
film (Nädler and Mewes, 1995, Kora et al., 2011, Farsetti et al.,
15
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
2014, Khaledi et al., 2014), and high translational velocity (Foletti
et al., 2011, Losi and Poesio, 2016). However, the influence of the
liquid viscosity on the slug length and velocity is unclear and
required ancillary investigation. Besides, most of the developed
mechanistic models required hypothetical input parameters to
perform the prediction process (Losi et al., 2016).
The slug body flow is usually presumed fully developed, which
implies a steady wall shear stress in the slug body. However,
(Buitrago et al., 2017) found for high liquid viscosity, the wall shear
stress increased in the slug body and decrease in the liquid film.
Besides, they reported that a longer length is required to scoop
the liquid film upstream and induce an elongated mixing zone at
the slug front. Then, the slug body liquid mass dragged contained
liquid and continuously increased the wall shear stress. Mean-
while, the shear stresses decreased at the tail of the slug body
due to flow deceleration. Despite these investigations, there is a
lack of comprehensive flow field information, such as the velocity
field for highly viscous liquids. Although numerous studies have
been conducted to investigate the viscosity effect on slug flows,
however, the available experimental data and validated correla-
tions for high liquid viscosity are scarce (Zhao et al., 2015). Also,
the adopted methods through the previous mechanistic models
such as Dukler and Hubbard (1975), (Gomez, 1999), and Zhang
et al. (2003 a, b) required additional modifications to be applied
for highly viscous slug flow (Pineda-Pérez et al., 2018). Recently,
(Baba et al., 2019) developed an empirical correlation for slug
translational velocity. The proposed correlation demonstrated
immense prediction capabilities in predicting the slug velocity
for oil with a viscosity between 1 and 6 cP. They found that the
translational velocity increased with increasing the liquid viscos-
ity, as shown in Fig. 11. However, they recommended expanding
the data set and the operation conditions such as fluid properties
and pipe diameter to ensure the developed correlation’s
robustness.
6. Conclusion
This literature article is compiling the previous arts on gas–liq-
uid slug flow in a horizontal pipe. It elucidates the developed the-
oretical models and empirical correlations that have been used to
determine the slug characteristics. Most of the previously devel-
oped correlations are applicable to limited operational conditions,
pipe materials, and pipe diameters. They are generating results
with high discrepancies when utilized at different circumstances
from those at which developed. Therefore, a comprehensive model
that can be used for various operational conditions, fluid proper-
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
ties, pipe diameter, and material is highly desired. There is a scar-
city of available experimental data and validated correlations for
high liquid, viscous slug flow. Besides, it is proven that there is a
lack of a comprehensive flow field and experimental laboratory
information for high liquid viscosity, in addition to the impact of
drag reduction on slug flow. By contrast, a full-scale experiment
is required to investigate the bubble-centering phenomenon as it
was hypothesized to have an immense role in the dynamic of slug
flow with relatively high liquid viscosity. On the other hand, the
slug flow is formed and initiated as a result of various mechanisms
such as wave interaction and long-wave stability theory. Therefore,
additional mathematical models are required to predict the transi-
tion lines between the flow regimes particularly, the transition
from stratified flow to slug flow. Intelligence computational meth-
ods are used to identify the flow regime and slug characteristics
using Artificial Neural Networks (ANN). However, more attempts
are required to enhance prediction accuracy, computational cost,
and computational slug analysis. The usage of these artificial intel-
ligence methods could be a suitable route to eliminate the previous
empirical correlations’ subjective utilization.
It is recommended to enhance the understanding and predic-
tion of slug flow parameters in pipe flow by extra experimental,
validated numerical, and empirical results. The authors suggest
in-depth scrutiny of the pressure and fluid–structure interaction
of slug flow with the internal pipe wall, as there is a noticeable
gap in this field. Those recommended studies are necessary to sup-
port industrial designer’s and operators’ decisions in piping sys-
tems’ design and operation. Moreover, additional experimental
investigations about the hydrodynamic behavior at the transition
zone are recommended to develop supported correlations, which
can ameliorate the understanding of the slug initiation, formation,
and transition. Immense endeavors are required to enhance under-
standing the local behavior of the two-phase drag-reducing flow
induced by polymer additives.
Further investigations are recommended to resolve the discrep-
ancies and inherent uncertainty of the developed slug frequency
correlations. These investigations should consider the abrupt shift
between the slug formation mechanisms within the same opera-
tional parameters. On the contrary, the existent numerical models
can predict the slug characteristic accurately; however, the compu-
tational cost is yet high. Therefore, a robust numerical model is
required to simulate the slug flow precisely. This model must pre-
dict the general and the local characteristic behaviors of the slug
flow accurately with less computational time.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Abdulkadir, M., Hernandez-Perez, V., Lowndes, I., Azzopardi, B., Sam-Mbomah, E.,
2016. Experimental study of the hydrodynamic behaviour of slug flow in a
horizontal pipe. Chem. Eng. Sci. 156, 147–161.
Akbar, M., Ghiaasiaan, S., 2006. Simulation of Taylor flow in capillaries based on the
volume-of-fluid technique. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 45, 5396–5403.
Akhlaghi, M., Mohammadi, V., Nouri, N.M., Taherkhani, M., Karimi, M., 2019. Multi-
Fluid VoF model assessment to simulate the horizontal air–water intermittent
flow. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 152, 48–59.
Al-Hashimy, Z.I., Al-Kayiem, H.H., Nasif, M.S., Mohmmed, A., 2016. Numerical
simulation of the transient development of slug flow in horizontal pipes. Appl.
Mech. Mater., Trans Tech Publ, pp. 300–304.
Al-Kayiem, H.H., Al-Hashimy, Z.I., Time, R.W., Kadhim, Z.K. Comparative
experimental and numerical investigations on the characteristics of air/water
slug flow in horizontal pipes.
Al-Kayiem, H.H., Mohmmed, A.O., Al-Hashimy, Z.I., Time, R.W., 2017. Statistical
assessment of experimental observation on the slug body length and slug
16
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
translational velocity in a horizontal pipe. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 105, 252–
260.
Al-Lababidi, S., 2006. Multiphase Flow Measurement in the Slug Regime Using
Ultrasonic Measurement Techniques and Slug Closure Model. Cranfield
University.
Al-Safran, E., 2009. Investigation and prediction of slug frequency in gas/liquid
horizontal pipe flow. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 69, 143–155.
Al-Safran, E., Gokcal, B., Sarica, C., 2011. High viscosity liquid effect on two-phase
slug length in horizontal pipes. In: 15th International Conference on Multiphase
Production Technology. BHR Group.
Al-Safran, E., Kora, C., Sarica, C., 2013. Prediction of liquid volume fraction in slugs in
two-phase horizontal pipe flow with high viscosity liquid. In: 16th International
Conference on Multiphase Production Technology. BHR Group.
Al-Safran, E.M., 2016. Probabilistic modeling of slug frequency in gas/liquid pipe
flow using the Poisson probability theory. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 138, 88–96.
Al-Safran, E.M., Gokcal, B., Sarica, C., 2011. Analysis and prediction of heavy oil two-
phase slug length in horizontal pipelines. In: SPE Heavy Oil Conference and
Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Al-Safran, E.M., Gokcal, B., Sarica, C., 2013b. Investigation and prediction of high-
viscosity liquid effect on two-phase slug length in horizontal pipelines. SPE
Prod. Oper. 28, 296–305.
Al-Safran, E.M., Taitel, Y., Brill, J.P., 2004. Prediction of slug length distribution along
a hilly terrain pipeline using slug tracking model. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 126,
54–62.
Al-Sarkhi, A., 2010. Drag reduction with polymers in gas-liquid/liquid-liquid flows
in pipes: a literature review. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2, 41–48.
Al-Sarkhi, A., Hanratty, T., 2001. Effect of drag-reducing polymers on annular gas–
liquid flow in a horizontal pipe. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 27, 1151–1162.
Al-Sarkhi, A., Soleimani, A., 2004. Effect of drag reducing polymers on two-phase
gas–liquid flows in a horizontal pipe. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 82, 1583–1588.
Alsurakji, I.H., Al-Sarkhi, A., Habib, M., Badr, H.M., 2018. An experimental study on
the performance of drag-reducing polymers in single-and multiphase
horizontal flow using particle image velocimetry. J. Energy Res. Technol. 140.
Andreussi, P., Bendiksen, K., 1989. An investigation of void fraction in liquid slugs
for horizontal and inclined gas-liquid pipe flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 15, 937–
946.
Andreussi, P., Pintus, S., Nydal O.J., Sanchez Silva, F., 1991. Measurement of the
mean gas velocity in horizontal bubbly flow.
Andrianto, M., Widyaparaga, A., Dinaryanto, O., 2016. CFD studies on the gas-liquid
plug two-phase flow in a horizontal pipe. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 147, 779–787.
Andritsos, N., Hanratty, T., 1987a. Influence of interfacial waves in stratified gas-
liquid flows. AIChE J. 33, 444–454.
Andritsos, N., Hanratty, T., 1987b. Interfacial instabilities for horizontal gas-liquid
flows in pipelines. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 13, 583–603.
Andritsos, N., Williams, L., Hanratty, T., 1989. Effect of liquid viscosity on the
stratified-slug transition in horizontal pipe flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 15, 877–
892.
Ansari, M., Shokri, V., 2011. Numerical modeling of slug flow initiation in a
horizontal channels using a two-fluid model. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 32, 145–
155.
Antunes, M.M., Cozin, C., Barbuto, F.A., Morales, R.E., Rodrigues, H.T., 2014. Analysis
of slug frequency correlations for two-phase gas-liquid horizontal slug flow. In:
ASME 2014 4th Joint US-European Fluids Engineering Division Summer
Meeting collocated with the ASME 2014 12th International Conference on
Nanochannels, Microchannels, and Minichannels. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.
Arabi, A., Salhi, Y., Zenati, Y., Si-Ahmed, E., Legrand, J., 2020. On gas-liquid
intermittent flow in a horizontal pipe: Influence of sub-regime on slug
frequency. Chem. Eng. Sci. 211, 115251.
Azizi, H.Z., Naghashzadegan, M., Shokri, V., 2019. Comparison of numerical methods
for two-fluid model for gas-liquid transient flow regime and its application in
slug modeling initiation. Iran. J. Sci. Technol., Trans. Mech. Eng. 43, 663–673.
Baba, Y.D., Aliyu, A.M., Archibong, A.E., Abdulkadir, M., Lao, L., Yeung, H., 2018. Slug
length for high viscosity oil-gas flow in horizontal pipes: Experiments and
prediction. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 165, 397–411.
Baba, Y.D., Archibong-Eso, A., Aliyu, A.M., Fajemidupe, O.T., Ribeiro, J.X., Lao, L.,
Yeung, H., 2019. Slug translational velocity for highly viscous oil and gas flows
in horizontal pipes. Fluids 4, 170.
Barmak, I., Gelfgat, A., Vitoshkin, H., Ullmann, A., Brauner, N., 2016. Stability of
stratified two-phase flows in horizontal channels. Phys. Fluids 28, 044101.
Barnea, D., 1991. On the effect of viscosity on stability of stratified gas-liquid flow-
application to flow pattern transition at various pipe inclinations. Chem. Eng.
Sci. 46, 2123–2131.
Barnea, D., Brauner, N., 1985. Holdup of the liquid slug in two phase intermittent
flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 11, 43–49.
Barnea, D., Taitel, Y., 1993a. Kelvin-Helmholtz stability criteria for stratified flow:
viscous versus non-viscous (inviscid) approaches. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 19, 639–
649.
Barnea, D., Taitel, Y., 1993b. A model for slug length distribution in gas-liquid slug
flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 19, 829–838.
Bendiksen, K., Espedal, M., 1992. Onset of slugging in horizontal gas-liquid pipe
flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 18, 237–247.
Bendiksen, K.H., 1984. An experimental investigation of the motion of long bubbles
in inclined tubes. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 10, 467–483.
Bendiksen, K.H., 1985. On the motion of long bubbles in vertical tubes. Int. J.
Multiph. Flow 11, 797–812.
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
Bendiksen, K.H., Langsholt, M., Liu, L., 2018. An experimental investigation of the
motion of long bubbles in high viscosity slug flow in horizontal pipes. Int. J.
Multiph. Flow 104, 60–73.
Benjamin, T.B., 1968. Gravity currents and related phenomena. J. Fluid Mech. 31,
209–248.
Bernicot, M., Drouffe, J.-M., 1991. A slug-length distribution law for multiphase
transportation systems. SPE Prod. Eng. 6, 166–170.
Bernicot, M., Drouffe, J., 1989. Slug length distribution in diphasic transportation
systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Multiphase
Flow, Nice. pp. 19–21.
Bertola, V., 2002. Slug velocity profiles in horizontal gas–liquid flow. Exp. Fluids 32,
722–727.
Bertola, V., 2003. Experimental characterization of gas–liquid intermittent
subregimes by phase density function measurements. Exp. Fluids 34, 122–129.
Bonizzi, M., 2003. Transient one-dimensional modelling of multiphase slug flows.
Bonizzi, M., Issa, R., 2003. On the simulation of three-phase slug flow in nearly
horizontal pipes using the multi-fluid model. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 29, 1719–
1747.
Bontozoglou, V., Hanratty, T., 1989. Wave height estimation in stratified gas-liquid
flows. AIChE J. 35, 1346–1350.
Brill, J.P.Schmidt, Z.R., Coberly, W.A., Herring, J.D. and Moore, D.W., 1981. Analysis of
two-phase tests in large diameter flow lines in Prudhoe Bay field. Sot. Pet. Eng. J
3, 363–378. https://doi.org/10.2118/8305-PA. In this issue.
Brito, R., 2012. Effect of Medium Oil Viscosity On Two-Phase Oil-Gas Flow Behavior
In Horizontal Pipes. University of Tulsa.
Buitrago, L., Kim, T., Pereyra, E., Sarica, C., 2017. Wall shear stress measurements of
horizontal two-phase slug flow for high viscosity liquids using constant
temperature anemometry. In: 18th International Conference on Multiphase
Production Technology. BHR Group.
Carlson, A., Kudinov, P., Narayanan, C., 2008. Prediction of two-phase flow in small
tubes: a systematic comparison of state-of-the-art cmfd codes. In: 5th European
Thermal-Sciences Conference, The Netherlands, pp. 126–130.
Carneiro, J., Fonseca Jr, R., Ortega, A., Chucuya, R., Nieckele, A., Azevedo, L., 2011.
Statistical characterization of two-phase slug flow in a horizontal pipe. J. Braz.
Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 33, 251–258.
Cerne, G., Petelin, S., Tiselj, I., 2001. Coupling of the interface tracking and the two-
fluid models for the simulation of incompressible two-phase flow. J. Comput.
Phys. 171, 776–804.
Choi, J., Pereyra, E., Sarica, C., Park, C., Kang, J.M., 2012. An efficient drift-flux closure
relationship to estimate liquid holdups of gas-liquid two-phase flow in pipes.
Energies 5, 5294–5306.
Collins, R., de Moraes, F., Davidson, J., Harrison, D., 1978. The motion of a large gas
bubble rising through liquid flowing in a tube. J. Fluid Mech. 89, 497–514.
Conte, M.G., Hegde, G.A., da Silva, M.J., Sum, A.K., Morales, R.E., 2017.
Characterization of slug initiation for horizontal air-water two-phase flow.
Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 87, 80–92.
Crowley, C., Wallis, G., Barry, J., 1992. Validation of a one-dimensional wave model
for the stratified-to-slug flow regime transition, with consequences for wave
growth and slug frequency. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 18, 249–271.
Daas, M., Bleyle, D., 2006. Computational and experimental investigation of the drag
reduction and the components of pressure drop in horizontal slug flow using
liquids of different viscosities. Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 30, 307–317.
Daas, M., Kang, C., Jepson, W., 2000. Quantitative analysis of drag reduction in
horizontal slug flow. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Danielson, T.J., Bansal, K.M., Djoric, B., Larrey, D., Johansen, S.T., De Leebeeck, A.,
Kjolaas, J., 2012. Simulation of slug flow in oil and gas pipelines using a new
transient simulator. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 2012. Offshore
Technology Conference.
Davies, R., Taylor, G.I., 1950. The mechanics of large bubbles rising through
extended liquids and through liquids in tubes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 200, 375–
390.
de Henau, V., Raithby, G., 1995a. A transient two-fluid model for the simulation of
slug flow in pipelines-I. Theory. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 21, 335–349.
de Henau, V., Raithby, G., 1995b. A transient two-fluid model for the simulation of
slug flow in pipelines-II. Validation. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 21, 351–363.
de Leebeeck, A., Nydal, O., 2010. Simulation of large amplitude waves in a slug
tracking scheme compared to roll wave experiments at high pressure. Int. J.
Multiph. Flow 36, 40–50.
Denèfle, R., Mimouni, S., Caltagirone, J.-P., Vincent, S., 2015. Multifield hybrid
approach for two-phase flow modeling–Part 1: adiabatic flows. Comput. Fluids
113, 106–111.
Dhulesia, H., Bernicot, M., Deheuvels, P., 1991. Statistical analysis and modelling of
slug lengths. In: Proceedings of the ÿfth international conference on multiphase
production, Cannes, France, BHRA, Cranfield, Beds. pp. 80–112.
Dhulesia, H., Hustvedt, E., Todal, O., 1993. Measurement and analysis of slug
characteristics in multiphase pipelines. Proc.
Dinaryanto, O., Prayitno, Y.A.K., Majid, A.I., Hudaya, A.Z., Nusirwan, Y.A.,
Widyaparaga, A., 2017. Experimental investigation on the initiation and flow
development of gas-liquid slug two-phase flow in a horizontal pipe. Exp. Therm
Fluid Sci. 81, 93–108.
Dukler, A., Taitel, Y., 1986. Flow pattern transitions in gas-liquid systems:
measurement and modeling. Multiphase Sci. Technol. 2.
Dukler, A.E., Fabre, J., 1994. Gas-liquid slug flow. Multiphase. Sci. Technol. 8.
Dukler, A.E., Hubbard, M.G., 1975. A model for gas-liquid slug flow in horizontal and
near horizontal tubes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 14, 337–347.
17
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
Dukler, A.E., Maron, D.M., Brauner, N., 1985. A physical model for predicting the
minimum stable slug length. Chem. Eng. Sci. 40, 1379–1385.
Dumitrescu, D.T., 1943. Strömung an einer Luftblase im senkrechten Rohr. ZAMM-J.
Appl. Math. Mech./Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik 23,
139–149.
Eskerud Smith, I., Krampa, F., Fossen, M., Brekken, C., Unander, T., 2011.
Investigation of horizontal two-phase gas-liquid pipe flow using high
viscosity oil: comparison with experiments using low viscosity oil and
simulations. BHR Group.
Eyo, E.N., Lao, L., 2019. Slug flow characterization in horizontal annulus. AIChE J. 65,
e16711.
Fabre, J., 2003. Gas-liquid slug flow. Modelling and experimentation in two-phase
flow. Springer.
Fabre, J., Liné, A., 1992. Modeling of two-phase slug flow. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 24,
21–46.
Fagundes Netto, J., Fabre, J., Grenier, P., Péresson, L., 1998. An experimental study of
an isolated long bubble in an horizontal liquid flow. In: Third International
Conference on Multiphase Flow, ICMF, pp. 8–12.
Fan, Z., Lusseyran, F., Hanratty, T., 1993. Initiation of slugs in horizontal gas-liquid
flows. AIChE J. 39, 1741–1753.
Farsetti, S., Farisè, S., Poesio, P., 2014. Experimental investigation of high viscosity
oil–air intermittent flow. Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 57, 285–292.
Ferrari, M., Bonzanini, A., Poesio, P., 2019. A slug capturing method in
unconventional scenarios: The 5ESCARGOTS code applied to non-Newtonian
fluids, high viscous oils and complex geometries. Petroleum 5, 171–177.
Ferre, D., 1978. Experimental study of two-phase flows with pockets in horizontal
pipes.
Fetter, C., 1988. Development of a clamp-on acoustic two-phase flowmeter.
Foletti, C., Farisè, S., Grassi, B., Strazza, D., Lancini, M., Poesio, P., 2011. Experimental
investigation on two-phase air/high-viscosity-oil flow in a horizontal pipe.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 66, 5968–5975.
Fossa, M., Guglielmini, G., Marchitto, A., 2003. Intermittent flow parameters from
void fraction analysis. Flow Meas. Instrum. 14, 161–168.
Frank, T., 2005. Numerical simulation of slug flow regime for an air-water two-
phase flow in horizontal pipes. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Topical
Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics (NURETH-11), Avignon,
France, October, 2005. pp. 2–6.
Fukagata, K., Kasagi, N., Ua-Arayaporn, P., Himeno, T., 2007. Numerical simulation of
gas–liquid two-phase flow and convective heat transfer in a micro tube. Int. J.
Heat Fluid Flow 28, 72–82.
Ghorai, S., Nigam, K., 2006. CFD modeling of flow profiles and interfacial
phenomena in two-phase flow in pipes. Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif.
45, 55–65.
Godino, D.M., Corzo, S.F., Ramajo, D.E., 2020. Two-phase modeling of water-air flow
of dispersed and segregated flows. Ann. Nucl. Energy 149, 107766.
Gokcal, B., Al-Sarkhi, A., Sarica, C., Al-Safran, E.M., 2010. Prediction of slug frequency
for high-viscosity oils in horizontal pipes. SPE Projects, Facil. Constr. 5, 136–144.
Gokcal, B., Al-Sarkhi, A.S., Sarica, C., 2009. Effects of high oil viscosity on drift velocity
for horizontal and upward inclined pipes. SPE Projects, Facil. Constr. 4, 32–40.
Gokcal, B., Wang, Q., Zhang, H., Sarica, C., 2006. Effects of high oil viscosity on oil/gas
flow behavior in horizontal pipes. SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib, 24–27.
Gomez, L.E.O. Shoham Z. Schmidt R.N. Chokshi A. Brown T. Northug, 1999. A Unified
Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow in Wellbores and
Pipelines. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. https://doi.org/
10.2118/56520-MS.
Gong, Z., 2010. Explosion analysis of the steam pipeline. Guangzhou Chem. Ind. 38,
181–182.
Gordon, I., Fairhurst, C., 1988. Multi-phase pipeline and equipment design for
marginal and deep-water field development. Pipes Pipelines Int. 1965 (33), 13–21.
Gregory, G., Nicholson, M., Aziz, K., 1978. Correlation of the liquid volume fraction
in the slug for horizontal gas-liquid slug flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 4, 33–39.
Gregory, G., Scott, D., 1969. Correlation of liquid slug velocity and frequency in
horizontal cocurrent gas-liquid slug flow. AIChE J. 15, 933–935.
Grenier, P., Fabre, J., Fagundes Netto, J., 1997. Slug flow in pipelines: recent advances
and future developments. BHR Group Conference Series Publication, 1997.
Mechanical Engineering Publications Limited, pp. 107–124.
Greskovich, E., Shrier, A., 1971. Pressure drop and holdup in horizontal slug flow.
AIChE J. 17, 1214–1219.
Guerrero, E., Muñoz, F., Ratkovich, N., 2017. Comparison between Eulerian and VOF
models for two-phase flow assessment in vertical pipes. CT&F-Ciencia,
Tecnología y Futuro 7, 73–84.
Gupta, R., Fletcher, D.F., Haynes, B.S., 2009. On the CFD modelling of Taylor flow in
microchannels. Chem. Eng. Sci. 64, 2941–2950.
Hale, C.P., 2001. Slug formation, growth and decay in gas-liquid flows.
Han, G.-Q., Shi, S.-Z., Wu, X.-D., You, C.-C., Cen, X.-Q., Zhang, Z.-G., Zhu, Z.-Y., Sun, K.,
Tao, Y.-C., 2019. Characteristics analysis and slug flow model in undulated
wellbore. In: International Petroleum and Petrochemical Technology
Conference. Springer, pp. 190–203.
He, Q., Kasagi, N., 2008. Phase-field simulation of small capillary-number two-phase
flow in a microtube. Fluid Dyn. Res. 40, 497.
Heywood, N., Richardson, J., 1979. Slug flow of air-water mixtures in a horizontal
pipe: Determination of liquid holdup by c-ray absorption. Chem. Eng. Sci. 34,
17–30.
Hill, T., Fairhurst, C., Nelson, C., Becerra, H., Bailey, R., 1996. Multiphase production
through hilly-terrain pipelines in Cusiana oilfield, Colombia, SPE 36606. SPE
ATCE, Denver, CO.
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
Hill, T., Wood, D., 1990. A new approach to the prediction of slug frequency. In: SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Hill, T., Wood, D., 1994. Slug flow: Occurrence, consequences, and prediction. In:
University of Tulsa Centennial Petroleum Engineering Symposium. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Hirt, C.W., Amsden, A.A., Cook, J., 1974. An arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian computing
method for all flow speeds. J. Comput. Phys. 14, 227–253.
Hirt, C.W., Nichols, B.D., 1981. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of
free boundaries. J. Comput. Phys. 39, 201–225.
Horgue, P., Augier, F., Quintard, M., Prat, M., 2012. A suitable parametrization to
simulate slug flows with the Volume-Of-Fluid method. Comptes Rendus
Mécanique 340, 411–419.
Hubbard, M.G., 1965. An analysis of horizontal gas-liquid slug flow, Tex.] University
of Houston.
Hurlburt, E., Hanratty, T., 2002. Prediction of the transition from stratified to slug
and plug flow for long pipes. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 28, 707–729.
Ishii, M., Mishima, K., 1984. Two-fluid model and hydrodynamic constitutive
relations. Nucl. Eng. Des. 82, 107–126.
Issa, R., Kempf, M., 2003. Simulation of slug flow in horizontal and nearly horizontal
pipes with the two-fluid model. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 29, 69–95.
Jepson, W., Taylor, R., 1993. Slug flow and its transitions in large-diameter
horizontal pipes. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 19, 411–420.
Johansen, S.T., 2019. Method for simulation of multiphase fluid flow in pipelines.
Google Patents.
Kadri, U., Mudde, R., Oliemans, R., 2010. Influence of the operation pressure on slug
length in near horizontal gas–liquid pipe flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 36, 423–431.
Kadri, U., Mudde, R., Oliemans, R., Bonizzi, M., Andreussi, P., 2009a. Prediction of the
transition from stratified to slug flow or roll-waves in gas–liquid horizontal
pipes. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 35, 1001–1010.
Kadri, U., Zoeteweij, M., Mudde, R., Oliemans, R., 2009b. A growth model for
dynamic slugs in gas–liquid horizontal pipes. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 35, 439–449.
Kang, C., Jepson, W., 1999. Multiphase flow conditioning using drag-reducing
agents. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Kang, C., Jepson, W., 2000. Effect of drag-reducing agents in multiphase, oil/gas
horizontal flow. In: SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in
Mexico. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Kang, C., Jepson, W., Gopal, M., 1999. Effect of drag-reducing agent on slug
characteristics in multiphase flow in inclined pipes.
Kashid, M.N., Rivas, D.F., Agar, D., Turek, S., 2008. On the hydrodynamics of liquid–
liquid slug flow capillary microreactors. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 3, 151–160.
Khaledi, H.A., Smith, I.E., Unander, T.E., Nossen, J., 2014. Investigation of two-phase
flow pattern, liquid holdup and pressure drop in viscous oil–gas flow. Int. J.
Multiph. Flow 67, 37–51.
Kim, T.-W., Woo, N.-S., Han, S.-M., Kim, Y.-J., 2020. Optimization and extended
applicability of simplified slug flow model for liquid-gas flow in horizontal and
near horizontal pipes. Energies 13, 842.
Kim, T., Aydin, T., Pereyra, E., Sarica, C., 2018. Detailed flow field measurements and
analysis in highly viscous slug flow in horizontal pipes. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 106,
75–94.
King, M.J.S., 1998. Experimental and Modelling Studies of Transient Slug Flow.
Imperial College London (University of London).
Kjølaas, J., De Leebeeck, A., Johansen, S., 2013. Simulation of hydrodynamic slug flow
using the LedaFlow slug capturing model. In: 16th International Conference on
Multiphase Production Technology. BHR Group.
Kjølaas, J., Unander, T.E., Wolden, M., Schümann, H., Leinan, P.R., Smith, I.E.,
Shmueli, A., 2020. Large scale experiments on slug length evolution in long
pipes. In: Offshore Technology Conference, 2020. Offshore Technology
Conference.
Kong, R., Rau, A., Kim, S., Bajorek, S., Tien, K., Hoxie, C., 2018. Experimental study of
horizontal air-water plug-to-slug transition flow in different pipe sizes. Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 123, 1005–1020.
Kora, C., Sarica, C., Zhang, H.-Q., Al-Sarkhi, A., Al-Safran, E., 2011. Effects of high oil
viscosity on slug liquid holdup in horizontal pipes. In: Canadian Unconventional
Resources Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Kordyban, E.S., Ranov, T., 1970. Mechanism of slug formation in horizontal two-
phase flow.
Kouba, G., Jepson, W., 1990. The flow of slugs in horizontal, two-phase pipelines.
Lakehal, D., Labois, M., Narayanan, C., 2012. Advances in the large–eddy and
interface simulation (leis) of interfacial multiphase flows in pipes. Prog.
Comput. Fluid Dyn., Int. J. 12, 153–163.
Lakehal, D., Meier, M., Fulgosi, M., 2002. Interface tracking towards the direct
simulation of heat and mass transfer in multiphase flows. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow
23, 242–257.
Laux, H., Meese, E., Johansen, S., Ladam, Y., Bansal, K., Danielson, T., Goldszal, A.,
Monsen, J., 2007. Simulation of multiphase flows composed of large scale
interfaces and dispersed fields. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
on Multiphase Flow.
Lawrence, C.J., Hu, B., 2020. Slug flow initiation in fluid flow models. Google Patents.
Li, F., An, C., Duan, M., Su, J., 2020. Combined damping model for dynamics and
stability of a pipe conveying two-phase flow. Ocean Eng. 195, 106683.
Lin, M., Liu, Y., Hu, Y., Che, D., 2013. Influence of the gas and liquid superficial
velocity on slug frequency. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. American Institute
of Physics, pp. 253–263.
Lin, P., Hanratty, T., 1986. Prediction of the initiation of slugs with linear stability
theory. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 12, 79–98.
18
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
Liu, L., 2013. A new method for evaluating drag reduction in gas–liquid two-phase
flow based on energy dissipation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 95, 54–64.
López, J., Pineda, H., Bello, D., Ratkovich, N., 2016. Study of liquid–gas two-phase
flow in horizontal pipes using high speed filming and computational fluid
dynamics. Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 76, 126–134.
Losi, G., Arnone, D., Correra, S., Poesio, P., 2016. Modelling and statistical analysis of
high viscosity oil/air slug flow characteristics in a small diameter horizontal
pipe. Chem. Eng. Sci. 148, 190–202.
Losi, G., Poesio, P., 2016. An experimental investigation on the effect of viscosity on
bubbles moving in horizontal and slightly inclined pipes. Exp. Therm Fluid Sci.
75, 77–88.
Lu, G.-Y., Wang, J., Jia, Z.-H., 2007. Experimental and numerical investigations on
horizontal oil-gas flow. J. Hydrodyn. 19, 683–689.
Lu, M., 2015. Experimental and Computational Study of Two-Phase Slug Flow.
Imperial College London.
Manfield, P.D., 2000. Experimental, computational and analytical studies of slug
flow.
Manolis, I., Mendes-Tatsis, M., Hewitt, G., 1995. The effect of pressure on slug
frequency in two-phase horizontal flow. In: Multiphase Flow 1995. Elsevier.
Manolis, I.G., 1995. High Pressure Gas-Liquid Slug Flow. Imperial College London.
Marquez, J.G., Trujillo, J.N., 2010. Overview: slug-flow characterization for heavy-oil
fields. In: SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Matsubara, H., Naito, K., 2011. Effect of liquid viscosity on flow patterns of gas-
liquid two-phase flow in a horizontal pipe. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 37, 1277–1281.
Mishima, K., Ishii, M. 1980. Theoretical prediction of onset of horizontal slug flow.
Mo, S., Ashrafian, A., Barbier, J.-C., Johansen, S.T., 2014. Quasi-3D modelling of two-
phase slug flow in pipes. J. Comput. Multiphase Flows 6, 1–12.
Mohmmed, A., 2016. Effect of Slug Two-Phase Flow on Fatigue of Pipe Material.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi, Petronas.
Mohmmed, A.O., Al-Kayiem, H.H., Nasif, M.S., Time, R.W., 2019. Effect of slug flow
frequency on the mechanical stress behavior of pipelines. Int. J. Press. Vessels
Pip. 172, 1–9.
Mohmmed, A.O., Al-Kayiem, H.H., Osman, A., Sabir, O., 2020. One-way coupled
fluid–structure interaction of gas–liquid slug flow in a horizontal pipe:
experiments and simulations. J. Fluids Struct. 97, 103083.
Mohmmed, A.O., Nasif, M.S., Al-Kayiem, H.H., 2018. Numerical investigation of slug
characteristics in a horizontal air/water and air/oil pipe flow. Prog. Comput.
Fluid Dyn., Int. J. 18, 241–256.
Montini, M., 2011. Closure relations of the one-dimensional two-fluid model for the
simulation of slug flows.
Mowla, D., Naderi, A., 2006. Experimental study of drag reduction by a polymeric
additive in slug two-phase flow of crude oil and air in horizontal pipes. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 61, 1549–1554.
Nädler, M., Mewes, D., 1995. Effects of the liquid viscosity on the phase distributions
in horizontal gas-liquid slug flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 21, 253–266.
Naidek, B.P., Conte, M.G., Cozin, C., Barbuto, F.A., Morales, R.E., 2017. Performance
analysis of the slug tracking modeling for intermittent flows in horizontal pipes
with long lengths. In: ASME 2017 International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital
Collection.
Nesyn, G.V., Sunagatullin, R., Shibaev, V., Malkin, A.Y., 2018. Drag reduction in
transportation of hydrocarbon liquids: From fundamentals to engineering
applications. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 161, 715–725.
Nicholson, M., Aziz, K., Gregory, G., 1978. Intermittent two phase flow in horizontal
pipes: predictive models. Canadian J. Chem. Eng. 56, 653–663.
Nicklin, D., 1962. Two-phase bubble flow. Chem. Eng. Sci. 17, 693–702.
Nieckele, A., Carneiro, J., Chucuya, R., Azevedo, J., 2013. Initiation and statistical
evolution of horizontal slug flow with a two-fluid model. J. Fluids Eng. 135.
Nydal, O., Banerjee, S., 1996. Dynamic slug tracking simulations for gas-liquid flow
in pipelines. Chem. Eng. Commun. 141, 13–39.
Nydal, O., Pintus, S., Andreussi, P., 1992. Statistical characterization of slug flow in
horizontal pipes. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 18, 439–453.
Oliver, D., Hoon, A.Y., 1968. Two-phase non-newtonian flow. Part II: Heat transfer.
Trans. Instn Chem. Engrs 46, T116–T122.
Parsi, M., Agrawal, M., Srinivasan, V., Vieira, R.E., Torres, C.F., McLaury, B.S., Shirazi,
S.A., Schleicher, E., Hampel, U., 2016. Assessment of a hybrid CFD model for
simulation of complex vertical upward gas–liquid churn flow. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 105, 71–84.
Petalas, N., Aziz, K., 2000. A mechanistic model for multiphase flow in pipes. J. Can.
Pet. Technol. 39.
Picchi, D., Manerba, Y., Correra, S., Margarone, M., Poesio, P., 2015. Gas/shear-
thinning liquid flows through pipes: modeling and experiments. Int. J. Multiph.
Flow 73, 217–226.
Pineda-Pérez, H., Kim, T., Pereyra, E., Ratkovich, N., 2018. CFD modeling of air and
highly viscous liquid two-phase slug flow in horizontal pipes. Chem. Eng. Res.
Des. 136, 638–653.
Polonsky, S., Shemer, L., Barnea, D., 1999. The relation between the Taylor bubble
motion and the velocity field ahead of it. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 25, 957–975.
Pouranfard, A., Mowla, D., Esmaeilzadeh, F., 2015. An experimental study of drag
reduction by nanofluids in slug two-phase flow of air and water through
horizontal pipes. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 23, 471–475.
Qian, D., Lawal, A., 2006. Numerical study on gas and liquid slugs for Taylor flow in a
T-junction microchannel. Chem. Eng. Sci. 61, 7609–7625.
Rahmandhika, A., Dinaryanto, O., Widyatama, A., Hudaya, A.Z., Indarto
Deendarlianto, 2018. Visualization study in the transition flow pattern of
A.O. Mohmmed, H.H. Al-Kayiem and A.B. Osman
stratified to slug flow of air-water two phase flow in a horizontal pipe. In: AIP
Conference Proceedings. AIP Publishing LLC, 030003.
Rahmandhika, A., Widyatama, A., Dinaryanto, O., Widyaparaga, A., 2019.
Experimental study on the hydrodynamic behavior of gas-liquid air-water
two-phase flow near the transition to slug flow in horizontal pipes. Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 130, 187–203.
Renault, F., 2007. A Lagrangian slug capturing scheme for gas-liquid flows in pipes.
Rodrigues, H.T., Morales, R.E., Mazza, R.A., Rosa, E., 2008. Horizontal slug flow
properties captured by intermittent slug tracking model. In: 12th Brazilian
Congress of Thermal Engineering and Sciences, pp. 10–14.
Rosa, E., Mazza, R., Morales, R., Rodrigues, H., Cozin, C., 2015. Analysis of slug
tracking model for gas–liquid flows in a pipe. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 37,
1665–1686.
Ruder, Z., Hanratty, P., Hanratty, T., 1989. Necessary conditions for the existence of
stable slugs. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 15, 209–226.
Sanchis, A., Johnson, G.W., Jensen, A., 2011. The formation of hydrodynamic slugs by
the interaction of waves in gas–liquid two-phase pipe flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow
37, 358–368.
Schmelter, S., Knotek, S., Olbrich, M., Fiebach, A., Bär, M., 2021. On the influence of
inlet perturbations on slug dynamics in horizontal multiphase flow-a
computational study. Metrologia 58, 014003.
Schulkes, R., 2011. Slug frequencies revisited. In: 15th International Conference on
Multiphase Production Technology. BHR Group.
Scott, S., Kouba, G., 1990. Advances in slug flow characterization for horizontal and
slightly inclined pipelines. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Scott, Stuart LOvadia Shoham, James P Brill, 1989. Prediction of slug length in
horizontal, large-diameter pipes. SPE Production Engineering (03), 335–340.
https://doi.org/10.2118/15103-PA.
Sharma, S., Lewis, S., Kojasoy, G., 1998. Local studies in horizontal gas–liquid slug
flow. Nucl. Eng. Des. 184, 305–318.
Shea, R., Eidsmoen, H., Nordsveen, M., Rasmussen, J., Xu, Z., Nossen, J., 2004. Slug
frequency prediction method comparison. In: Proceedings of the 4th North
American Conference on Multiphase Technology, pp. 227–237.
Shemer, L., 1987. Visualization of the instantaneous velocity profiles in gas-liquid
slug flow. PhysicoChem. Hydrodyn. 8, 243–253.
Simmons, M.J., Hanratty, T.J., 2001. Transition from stratified to intermittent flows
in small angle upflows. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 27, 599–616.
Smith, I.E., 2017. A 7-field Lagrangian slug capturing and slug tracking model with
higher order methods.
Soleimani, A., Al-Sarkhi, A., Hanratty, T.J., 2002. Effect of drag-reducing polymers on
pseudo-slugs––interfacial drag and transition to slug flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow
28, 1911–1927.
Soleimani, A., Hanratty, T., 2003. Critical liquid flows for the transition from the
pseudo-slug and stratified patterns to slug flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 29, 51–67.
Štrubelj, L., Tiselj, I., 2011. Two-fluid model with interface sharpening. Int. J. Numer.
Meth. Eng. 85, 575–590.
Sussman, M., Smereka, P., Osher, S., 1994. A level set approach for computing
solutions to incompressible two-phase flow.
Taha, T., Cui, Z., 2004. Hydrodynamics of slug flow inside capillaries. Chem. Eng. Sci.
59, 1181–1190.
Taitel, Y., 1987. Effect of gas expansion on slug length in long pipelines. Int. J.
Multiph. Flow 13, 629–637.
Taitel, Y., Barnea, D., 1990. Two-phase slug flow. Adv. Heat Transfer 20, 83–132.
Taitel, Y., Dukler, A., 1976. A model for predicting flow regime transitions in
horizontal and near horizontal gas-liquid flow. AIChE J. 22, 47–55.
Taitel, Y., Dukler, A., 1977. A model for slug frequency during gas-liquid flow in
horizontal and near horizontal pipes. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 3, 585–596.
Toms, B.A., 1948. Some observations on the flow of linear polymer solutions
through straight tubes at large Reynolds numbers. Proc. In. Cong. Rheol. 1948,
135.
Ujang, P.M., 2003. Studies of Slug Initiation and Development in Two-Phase Gas-
Liquid Pipeline Flow. Imperial College London (University of London).
19
Chemical Engineering Science 238 (2021) 116611
Ujang, P.M., Lawrence, C.J., Hale, C.P., Hewitt, G.F., 2006. Slug initiation and
evolution in two-phase horizontal flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 32, 527–552.
van Hout, R., Barnea, D., Shemer, L., 2002. Translational velocities of elongated
bubbles in continuous slug flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 28, 1333–1350.
Vaze, M., Banerjee, J., 2011. Experimental visualization of two-phase flow patterns
and transition from stratified to slug flow. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C: J. Mech.
Eng. Sci. 225, 382–389.
Wallis, G., 1969. One-Dimensional Two-Phase Flow. McGraw-Hil Co., New York
City.
Wallis, G.B., Dodson, J.E., 1973. The onset of slugging in horizontal stratified air-
water flow. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 1, 173–193.
Wan, T.T., Loh, W.L., Nguyen, D.T., Perez, V.H., Premanadhan, V.K., 2019. Diameter
scaling correlations for near atmospheric air-water slug velocities in horizontal
pipe. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 172, 349–359.
Wang, L., Yang, Y., Li, Y., Wang, Y., 2018. Dynamic behaviours of horizontal gas-
liquid pipes subjected to hydrodynamic slug flow: modelling and experiments.
Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 161, 50–57.
Wang, S.-Q., Xu, K.-W., Kim, H.-B., 2020. Slug flow identification using ultrasound
Doppler velocimetry. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 148, 119004.
Wang, X., Guo, L., Zhang, X., 2007. An experimental study of the statistical
parameters of gas–liquid two-phase slug flow in horizontal pipeline. Int. J. Heat
Mass Transf. 50, 2439–2443.
Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Cheng, Z., 2019. Direct numerical simulation of gas-liquid drag-
reducing cavity flow by the VOSET method. Polymers 11, 596.
Wilkens, R., Thomas, D., 2008. A simple technique for determining slug frequency
using differential pressure. J. Energy Res. Technol. 130.
Woods, B., Hanratty, T., 1996. Relation of slug stability to shedding rate. Int. J.
Multiph. Flow 22, 809–828.
Woods, B.D., Fan, Z., Hanratty, T.J., 2006. Frequency and development of slugs in a
horizontal pipe at large liquid flows. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 32, 902–925.
Woods, B.D., Hanratty, T.J., 1999. Influence of Froude number on physical processes
determining frequency of slugging in horizontal gas–liquid flows. Int. J.
Multiph. Flow 25, 1195–1223.
Woods, B.D., Hurlburt, E.T., Hanratty, T.J., 2000. Mechanism of slug formation in
downwardly inclined pipes. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 26, 977–998.
Wu, H., Pots, B., Hollenberg, J., Meerhoff, R., 1987. Flow pattern transitions in two-
phase gas/condensate flow at high pressure in an 8-inch horizontal pipe. In:
Proc. BHRA Conf., The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 13–21.
Xiao, J., Shonham, O., Brill, J., 1990. A comprehensive mechanistic model for two-
phase flow in pipelines. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Yan, K., Che, D., 2010. A coupled model for simulation of the gas–liquid two-phase
flow with complex flow patterns. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 36, 333–348.
Yu, Z., Hemminger, O., Fan, L.-S., 2007. Experiment and lattice Boltzmann
simulation of two-phase gas–liquid flows in microchannels. Chem. Eng. Sci.
62, 7172–7183.
Zabaras, G., 1999. Prediction of slug frequency for gas-liquid flows. In: SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Zhang, H.-Q., Jayawardena, S.S., Redus, C.L., Brill, J.P., 2000. Slug dynamics in gas-
liquid pipe flow. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 122, 14–21.
Zhang, H.-Q., Wang, Q., Sarica, C., Brill, J.P., 2003. Unified model for gas-liquid pipe
flow via slug dynamics-part 1: model development. J. Energy Resour. Technol.
125, 266–273.
Zhao, Y., Lao, L., Yeung, H., 2015. Investigation and prediction of slug flow
characteristics in highly viscous liquid and gas flows in horizontal pipes.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 102, 124–137.
Zhao, Y., Yeung, H., Lao, L., 2013. Slug frequency in high viscosity liquid and gas flow
in horizontal pipes. In: 16th International Conference on Multiphase Production
Technology. BHR Group.
Zheng, G., Brill, J., Taitel, Y., 1994. Slug flow behavior in a hilly terrain pipeline. Int. J.
Multiph. Flow 20, 63–79.