Research Papers: Multiphase Flows

Pressure Loss in a Horizontal Two-Phase Slug Flow

[+] Author and Article Information
A. R. Kabiri-Samani1

Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, P.O. Box 84156, Isfahan, Iranakabiri@cc.iut.ac.ir

S. M. Borghei

Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, P.O. Box 11365-9313, Azadi Avenue, Tehran, Iranmahmood@sharif.edu


Corresponding author.

J. Fluids Eng 132(7), 071304 (Jul 22, 2010) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4001969 History: Received January 24, 2009; Revised June 08, 2010; Published July 22, 2010; Online July 22, 2010

The study of air-water, two-phase flows in hydraulic structures such as pressurized flow tunnels, culverts, sewer pipes, junctions, and similar conduits is of great importance for design purposes. Air can be provided by vortices at water intakes, pumping stations, aerators, steep channels, etc. Under certain conditions, air may also be introduced into pressurized intake systems, which may form large bubbles in portions of the pipe. The bubbles may, in turn, cause an unstable slug flow, or other flow patterns, that leads to sever periodic transient pressure. In this paper, an experimental model (a circular and transparent pipeline, 90 mm in ID and 10 m in length) is used to predict pressure loss in a pipeline or tunnel involving resonance and shock waves introduced by a two-phase air-water slug flow. For this purpose, differential pressure transducers were used to measure pressure loss variations in time along the pipeline at different sections and for different air/water flow rates. The experimental results of pressure loss for different hydraulic and geometric properties indicate that Weber number (We), Froude number (Fr), and air concentration (C) are the most important parameters affecting pressure loss. Finally, relations for forecasting pressure loss in these situations are presented as a function of flow characteristics.

Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of measured and predicted values of λmix/λ0 (a) for Fr≤1 and (b) for Fr>1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Variation of λmix/λ0 with C: (a) 5 Fr/ln(We) for Fr≤1 and (b) Fr/ln(We) for Fr>1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Variation of λmix/λ0 versus C for Fr=2 and We=200 using Eq. 19(29-30)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Friction factors for both the pressurized two-phase flow in a pipe and the free surface aerated flow over spillway

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Some two-phase flow patterns

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic view of the experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Flow pattern map from present data compared with that Ref. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Variation in λmix/λ0 with Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

The values of λmix/λ0 versus concentration (a) for Fr≤1 and (b) for Fr>1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Correlation of experimental data for different Froude numbers

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Variation of λmix/λ0 versus Weber number for different concentrations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

NRMSE values (a) for Fr≤1 and (b) for Fr>1



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In