Fluctuation of Air-Water Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal and Inclined Water Pipelines

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

School of Engineering, Civil Engineering Division, ShahreKord University, ShahreKord, Irankabiri@eng.sku.ac.ir

S. M. Borghei

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

M. H. Saidi

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


Corresponding author.

J. Fluids Eng 129(1), 1-14 (Jun 17, 2005) (14 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2375134 History: Revised June 17, 2005; Received May 24, 2006

Air in water flow is a frequent phenomenon in hydraulic structures. The main reason for air entrainment is vortices at water intakes, pumping stations, tunnel inlets, and so on. The accumulated air, in a conduit, can evolve to a different flow pattern, from stratified to pressurized. Among different patterns, slug is most complex with extreme pressure variations. Due to lack of firm relations between pressure and influential parameters, study of slug flow is very important. Based on an experimental model, pressure fluctuations inside a circular, horizontal, and inclined pipe (90mm inside diameter and 10m long) carrying tow-phase air-water slug flow has been studied. Pressure fluctuations were sampled simultaneously at different sections, and longitudinal positions. The pressure fluctuations were measured using differential pressure transducers (DPT), while behavior of the air slug was studied using a digital camera. The objective of the paper is to predict the pressure variation in a pipeline or tunnel, involving resonance and shock waves experimentally. The results show that the more intensive phase interaction commences stronger fluctuations. It is shown, that the air-water mixture entering the pipe during rapid filling of surcharging can cause a tremendous pressure surge in the system and may eventually cause failure of the system (e.g., the maximum pressure inside the pipe would reach up to 10 times of upstream hydrostatic pressure as suggested by others too). Relations for forecasting pressure in these situations are presented as a function of flow characteristics, pipe geometry, longitudinal, and cross-sectional positions and head water.

Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Observed versus measured data: (a) Eq. 17; (b) Eq. 18; (c) Eq. 19.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

NRMSE and R2 for presented relations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Stages of flow from pressurized to free-surface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic view of the experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

The arrangement of sensors at a pipe section

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Examples of pressure fluctuation pulses for different conditions in slug flow at different longitudinal positions (x)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Typical mean pressure distribution on the pipe wall in a horizontal pipe (at x=1.61m)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Normalized maximum and minimum instantaneous pressure versus mean pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Normalized mean pressure versus the pipe distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Dimensionless pressure gradient as a function of (a)Qw∕Qc, and (b)Qa∕Qw

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Dimensionless mean pressure versus air/water flow rates ratio for different pipe inclinations: (a) data; (b) best fit curves

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Dimensionless mean pressure against strouhal number for different pipe inclinations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

The effect of dimensionless parameter Frah∕Fr versus dimensionless mean pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Relation between pipe inclination and dimensionless mean pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Dimensionless parameter Kf=fTPL∕D versus dimensionless mean pressure for different pipe inclinations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

The relation between Ph∕h and dimensionless parameter wfs

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Influence of void fraction on Ph∕h

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Variation of dimensionless mean pressure versus Frc

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Variation of Ph∕h with concentration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Comparison of present results with Yakubov for zero slope pipe: (a) pressure loss versus water flow rate; (b) dimensionless mean pressure versus water flow

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Comparison of present results with previous works (pressure loss versus air/water rates ratio)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Comparison of present data with Tarasevich



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