A note on the prediction of liquid hold-up with the stratified roll wave regime for gas/liquidco-current flow in horizontal pipes.

This note presents a simple model for prediction of liquid hold-up in two-phase horizontal pipe flow for the stratified roll wave (St+RW) flow regime. Liquid hold-up data for horizontal two-phase pipe flow [1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6] exhibit a steady increase with liquid velocity and a more dramatic fall with increasing gas rate as shown by Hand et al. [7 and 8] for example. In addition the liquid hold-up is reported to show an additional variation with pipe diameter. Generally, if the initial liquid rate for the no-gas flow condition gives a liquid height below the pipe centre line, the flow patterns pass successively through the stratified (St), stratified ripple (St+R), stratified roll wave, film plus droplet (F+D) and finally the annular (A+D, A+RW, A+BTS) regimes as the gas rate is increased. Hand et al. [7 and 8] have given a detailed description of this progression in flow regime development and definitions of the patterns involved. Despite the fact that there are over one hundred models which have been developed to predict liquid hold-up, none have been shown to be universally useful, while only a handful have proven to be applicable to specific flow regimes [9, 10, 11 and 12]. One of the most intractable regimes to predict has been the stratified roll wave pattern where the liquid hold-up shows the most dramatic change with gas flow rate. It has been suggested that the momentum balance-type models, which give both hold-up and pressure drop prediction, can predict universally for all flow regimes but particularly in the case of the difficult stratified roll wave pattern. Donnelly [1] recently demonstrated that the momentum balance models experienced some difficulties in the prediction of this regime. Without going into lengthy details, these models differ in the assumed friction factor or shear stress on the surfaces within the pipe particularly at the liquid–gas interface. The Baker–Jardine model [13] when tested against the 0.0454 m i.d. data of Nguyen [2] exhibited a wide scatter for both liquid hold-up and pressure drop as shown in Fig. 1. The Andritsos–Hanratty model [14] gave better prediction of pressure drop but a wide scatter for liquid hold-up estimation (cf. Fig. 2) when tested against the 0.0935 m i.d. data of Hand [5]. The Spedding–Hand model [15], shown in Fig. 3 against the data of Hand [5], gave improved performance but was still unsatisfactory with the prediction of hold-up for stratified-type flows. The MARS model of Grolman [6] gave better prediction of hold-up (cf. Fig. 4) but deterioration in the estimation of pressure drop when tested against the data of Nguyen [2]. Thus no method is available that will accurately predict liquid hold-up across the whole range of flow patterns but particularly for the stratified plus roll wavy regime. The position is particularly unfortunate since the stratified-type regimes are perhaps the most predominant pattern found in multiphase lines.

Modelling of Unsteady Gas-Dynamic Flow in a Pipe and at its Exit Using CFD

Traditionally the simulation of the thermodynamic aspects of the internal combustion engine has been undertaken using one-dimensional gas-dynamic models to represent the intake and exhaust systems. CFD analysis of engines has been restricted to modelling of in-cylinder flow structures. With the increasing accessibility of CFD software it is now worth considering its use for complete gas-dynamic engine simulation. This paper appraises the accuracy of various CFD models in comparison to a 1D gas-dynamic simulation. All of the models are compared to experimental data acquired on an apparatus that generates a single gas-dynamic pressure wave. The progress of the wave along a constant area pipe and its subsequent reflection from the open pipe end are recorded with a number of high speed pressure transducers. It was found that there was little to choose between the accuracy of the 1D model and the best CFD model. The CFD model did not require experimentally derived loss coefficients to accurately represent the open pipe end; however, it took several hundred times longer to complete its analysis. The best congruency between the CFD models and the experimental data was achieved using the RNG k-e turbulence model. The open end of the pipe was most effectively represented by surrounding it with a relatively small volume of cells connected to the rest of the environment using a pressure boundary.