Estimation of Two-Phase Flow

Heat Transfer in Pipes

R. D. Kaminsky
Exxon Production Research Company,
P.O. Box 2189,
Houston, TX 77252-2189
e-mail; rdl<amin@epr.exxon.com
Heat transfer can be of importance in the design of multiphase petroleum flowlines.
However, heat transfer data for gas-liquid flows are available only for small-diameter
pipes at low pressures. Moreover, existing prediction methods are largely not suited
to petroleum pipeline conditions due to implicit use of simplistic two-phase flow
models. In this work heat transfer estimation methods are derived for nonboiling
gas-liquid flow in pipes of high Prandtl number liquids, such as crude oil. The
methods are readily evaluated for engineering applications and are applicable to all
flow regimes, except those with low liquid holdup. Comparison is made with literature
data. Accuracies of ±33 percent are obtained in general. The methods explicitly
couple with arbitrary prediction methods for two-phase flow pressure drop and liquid
holdup. This explicit coupling makes plausible the hypothesis that predictions will
be robust at conditions well beyond the range of the existing experimental data.

Introduction
Research on heat transfer estimation for nonboiling gas-liquid
flow in pipes dates back at least 50 yr. Nevertheless, no general
predictive methods exist for engineering applications, particu-
larly for gas-oil systems. Increasingly, subsea petroleum pro-
duction systems are being engineered to transport full well-
streams. How these multiphase systems behave thermally is
critical to the prevention of costly gas hydrate and wax deposi-
tion blockages (Furuholt, 1988). The goal of the present work
is to develop a readily applied method suitable for the estimation
of inside heat transfer coefficients for two-phase petroleum
flowlines. Only nonboiling flows are considered in the present
work. Two-phase boiling heat transfer is reviewed by Butter-
worth and Hewitt (1977).
Reviews of heat transfer in nonboiling two-phase flow sys-
tems are given by several authors (Kim et al., 1998; Rezkallah,
1987; Shah, 1981; Michiyoshi, 1978). Pubhshed experimental
data are limited to primarily small-diameter pipes (<2.5 cm)
at low pressure ( < 6 bar). Moreover, much of the data are
for air-water systems. Any estimation method for engineering
application in gas-oil pipelines must incorporate sufficient phys-
ical theory to provide adequate predictions well beyond the
range of the experimental pipe sizes and pressures. Empirical
methods for frictional pressure loss in two-phase flow which
are based on small-diameter and low-pressure systems tend to
be inaccurate for petroleum pipeline systems (Govier and Aziz,
1972). Similarly, it is likely that empirical heat transfer methods
may be satisfactory over the range of existing data, but inaccu-
rate for large-pipe diameter and high-pressure systems.
At first glance the problem of two-phase heat transfer may
appear to have a trivial solution; simply average the properties
of the gas and liquid phases and apply standard single-phase
heat transfer calculation methods. The quality of predictions by
this approach, however, is in general quite poor (Vijay, 1978).
The poor agreement is not due to the details of the averaging
method, but rather a fundamental flaw in the approach. Specifi-
cally, heat transfer behavior is largely a function of the fluid
conditions near the wall, especially for high Prandtl number
fluids, such as oil. Hence, it is the properties of the liquid, which
wets the walls and has the bulk of the sensible heat, which
dominate heat transfer behavior. Thus, any approach which av-
Contributed by the Petroleum Division and presented at the Twentieth Annual
Energy-Sources Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Febru-
ary 1-3, 1999, of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manu-
script received by the Petroleum Division, August 3, 1998; revised manuscript
received January 18, 1999. Associate Technical Editor; C. Sarica.
erages properties based on the overall gas-liquid ratios does not
reflect the relevant physics of the situation.
Previous work on heat transfer prediction in multiphase sys-
tems primarily consists of methods limited to specific flow re-
gimes. Approaches fall into three classes: 1) empirical correla-
tions (Rezkallah and Sims, 1987; Shah, 1981; Kudirka et al.,
1965; Davis and David, 1964; Fried, 1954); 2) modified single-
phase flow methods (Oliver and Wright, 1964; Knott et al.,
1959); and 3) momentum transfer-heat transfer analogies, par-
ticularly for annular and stratified flow (Davis et al., 1975,
1976, 1979; Pletcher and McManus, 1972; Hughmark, 1963).
The correlation methods are usually in terms of the superficial
velocity ratio Usg/Vji and/or Reynolds number based on the su-
perficial liquid velocity (Rezkallah et al., 1986).
Considering the physical analogy between heat and momentum
transfer, heat transfer estimation should be of similar complexity
to multiphase flow modeling, which has advanced far beyond
correlative methods to detailed mechanistic models (Dhulesia and
Lopez, 1996; Govier and Aziz, 1972). Moreover, in large part
the features of two-phase flow which impact frictional pressure
loss should similarly impact heat transfer. Highly detailed mecha-
nistic models for multiphase flow heat transfer eventually should
and wiU be developed, but this is at least several years away given
the problem's complexity, experimental data requirements, and
current interest levels. Some strides in this direction have already
been taken for specific flow regimes (Shohamet al., 1982). How-
ever, the goal of the present work is not to undertake the large
task of developing new and separate mechanistic models for two-
phase heat transfer, but rather to satisfy better the engineering need
in the meantime for plausible and readily applicable prediction of
multiphase heat transfer, particularly in petroleum pipeline sys-
tems. The approach taken here is to interface strongly with the
extensive existing work on two-phase flow modeling. In the fol-
lowing sections, methods are described which mathematically sep-
arate the heat transfer physics from the two-phase flow behavior.
The methods allow heat transfer to be predicted directly from
estimations of frictional pressure loss, liquid holdup, and flow
regime by whatever predictive methods are most appropriate to
determine the two-phase flow behavior given the pipe size, op-
erating pressure, and fluids. In this way, two-phase flow predictive
methods known to be accurate for large, high-pressure systems
may be employed, and, hence, increase the confidence in heat
transfer estimations for such systems. The new methods are evalu-
ated against literature data.
Experimental Database
Table 1 shows the extent of the database used in the present
work. The database consists of 786 data points, all for low-

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright © 1999 by ASME JUNE 1999, Vol. 121 / 75

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jertd2/26482/ on 03/01/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Table 1 Range of data used to validate heat transfer models

cm cp dyne/ °C "C
cm
Count Source Liquid - Gas Orien- D ^1 CT| Pr, Tb T ^w/^b Regimes Re,i
tation (L/D)
183 Vijay Water-Air V 1,2 0.7 72 4.9 10 23 0.54 All 231
(52) 1.3 9.3 34 38 0.95 206637
61 Vijay Glycerine - Air V 1.2 718 63 6142 27 33 0.47 AH except 2
(52) 817 6965 28 38 0.61 ann.-mist 24
102 Vijay 75wt% Glycerine/ V 1.2 20 65 173 23 34 0.55 All except 6
25wt% water - Air (52) 31 258 31 38 0.78 ann.-mist 4568
57 Rezkallah Water - Air V 1.2 0.8 71 5.3 19 24 0.70 All 708
(52) 1.0 7.2 31 43 0.92 128071
158 Rezkallah Silicone Liquid - V 1.2 4.5 20 65 19 23 0.75 All 171
Air (52) 5.4 77 27 41 0.89 20991
108 Rezkallah 58wt% Glycerine/ V 1.2 6.2 67 47 21 25 0.57 All 70
42wt% water - Air (52) 9.2 70 31 47 0.90 13240
21 King Water - Air H 1.9 0.5 70 2.9 58 85 0.61 Slug 22500
(252) 0.7 3.1 63 100 0.70 119000
62 Knott et Oil - Nitrogen V 1.3 75 25 1116 25 40 0.41 Bubbly, 7
al. (119) 133 1917 40 59 0.80 Slug 156
30 Johnson and Water - Air H 2.2 0.4 70 2.6 47 80 0.61 All 14247
Abou-Sabe (207) 0.6 3.7 69 98 0.73 220517
4 Johnson Oil - Air H 1.9 17.8 25 292 53 98 0.25 Bubbly, 2118
(253) 19.9 321 56 100 0.28 Slug 2312

NOTE: Minimum and maximum values are given for |Xi, Pr,, T,,, T„, and n^/Rb- "H" Indicates horizontal orientation and "V"
Indicates vertical orientation,

pressure ( < 6 bar) systems. No data were located for signifi-
cantly higher pressures. The database represents the large bulk
of published data. Other data sources were considered, but not
used, due to incomplete reporting of conditions or low L/D
ratios. No data are included for inclined flow, of which the
only identified source is Hetsroni et al. (1998) for air-water.
Dorresteijn (1970) and Chu and Jones (1980) studied both
upwards and downwards vertical flow, but the reported data
were incomplete for incorporation into the database and L/D
was low ( — 15) for Dorresteijn's data. Data are limited for
horizontal flow. No quality data were identified for laminar
horizontal flow. Johnson (1955) reports some for an oil-air
system, but due to very large differences in the bulk and wall
temperatures, the physical properties varied considerably across
the pipe. Except for the air-water data of Johnson and Abou-
Sabe (1951), none of the sources report experimental liquid
holdup fractions. Some of the systems in the database have
large temperature differences over the pipe length (usually since
steam was used as the heating medium), leading to non-negligi-
ble property changes over the pipe length. Additionally, some
systems have relatively large pressure drops. In this work prop-
erties are evaluated at the average pipe temperatures and pres-
sures for calculation purposes.
Vijay (1978) and Rezkallah (1987) report the most complete
and detailed data. Both used the same experimental apparatus.
Reported estimated uncertainties and repeatabilities of their heat
transfer experimental data are ± 7 - 2 1 percent. Small pressure
drops associated with very low flow rates could not be accu-
rately measured in their experiments, and such cases are not
included in the database used in the present work.
Heat Transfer in Gas-Liquid Flow With Turbulent
Liquid Flow
For turbulent flow in a pipe, a laminar boundary layer exists
near the wall. Prandtl demonstrated that, to a reasonable approx-

Nomenclature

c = parameter defined in Eq. (4) T = temperature b = bulk

Cp = heat capacity V = velocity calc = calculated
D = diameter X = generic variable exp = experimental
h = heat transfer coefficient y = distance from wall fric = frictional
H = liquid holdup fraction (p = Lockhart-Martinelli parameter h = hydraulic
k = thermal conductivity 7 = D,/D / = liquid
L = length IX = viscosity lb = laminar boundary layer
Nu = Nussult no.: hD/k p — density sg = superficial gas
P = pressure a = surface tension si = superficial liquid
Pr = Prandtl no.: jiCp/k T = shear stress tp = two-phase
q = heat flux ^ = laminar boundary layer parameter turb = turbulent
Re = Reynolds no.: Dvp/n w = wall
S = circumference fraction Subscripts 00 = far from wall
ave = averaged

76 / Vol. 121, JUNE 1999 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jertd2/26482/ on 03/01/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 imation, the flow can be sharply divided into two zones: a Pr only. Moreover, this approach reduces the error in assuming
laminar boundary layer and a turbulent core (Schlichting, 7* = Too by to partial cancellation of errors. Applying Eq. (6)
1979). In the laminar boundary layer, momentum transfer (i.e., and taking the ratio of the two-phase case to the single-phase
shear force) is given by superficial liquid case
T = ii{dv/dy) (1) [{dPldLX,uJ{dPldL\, (7)
,turb, fric J '-'
and heat transfer is given by The first term is recognized to be the definition of the Lockhart-
q = -kidT/dy) (2) Martinelli (1949) two-phase flow parameter </). Equation (7) is
recommended over Eq. (6) for the calculation of two-phase
Prandtl proposed the approximation that q/r is constant over turbulent heat transfer. In the following, the single-phase turbu-
the entire laminar-flow boundary layer. Taking the ratio of Eqs. lent heat transfer is estimated by the widely used Sieder-Tate
(1) and (2) and integrating over the laminar boundary layer correlation:
JT„ = -(k/fi)(Ti^- r„)/% (3) Nu = 0.023 Re"'' ?x"\ii,,lfi^f (8)
where the subscript w indicates values at the wall and the sub-
Note in Eq. (7), although the parameter S accounts for some
script lb indicates values at the laminar boundary layer edge.
dependence on two-phase flow regime, the bulk of the regime
The velocity at the wall is understood to be zero due to no-slip
dependence is captured through its analogous impact on fric-
conditions. The integration leading to Eq. (3) assumes hydrau-
tional pressure loss.
lically smooth surfaces since no contribution to the shear stress
is included from form drag (e.g., large protrusions).
Equation (3) may be rewritten as Heat Transfer in Gas-Liquid Flow With Laminar Liq-
qJ(T^ - T„) = -cikliDiTjv,,) (4) uid Flow
Heat transfer in laminar flow can have significant entrance
where T„ is the temperature far from the wall and c is defined
length effects. Indeed, for laminar flow in many engineering
as (Tib - T„)/(T„ — T„). For high Pr fluids, the large majority
situations, the heat transfer entrance effects dominate. Heat
of inside thermal resistance occurs in the laminar boundary
transfer is commonly modeled via the Sieder-Tate (1936) corre-
layer. Hence, if the liquid wets the walls, the gas phase has
lation
minimal impact on the heat transfer. Thus, for high Pr fluids,
Tib *** T„ (i.e., c !=» 1). Moreover, for high Pr fluids in turbulent
Nu.ve = 1.86 (Re ?r DILy'\p.Jp.„f (9)
flow, the average bulk temperature is nearly T„, particularly at
high Re. Assuming T,, = T„ where Nu„ve is the average over the pipe length L. The equation
is appropriate for LID > - 1 0 , Pr > 0.50 and Nu„ve > 3-66.
h = q,,S/(T„ - Th) = cSiUfj,)(Tjvib) (5) For sufficiently long pipes, NUave for single-phase laminar flow
where h is by definition the heat transfer coefficient based on approaches an asymptotic limit of 3.66 for systems with con-
the whole pipe surface area. The parameter S reflects the circum- stant wall temperatures. It is important to note, however, that
ference fraction over which the bulk of the heat transfer occurs. laminar flow systems with strong radial temperature gradients,
This factor is relevant for cases where heat transfer is not uni- especially in large-diameter pipes, are subject to natural convec-
form over the circumference, such as in stratified horizontal tion. This effect can significantly increase the overall heat trans-
flow. fer observed. Natural convection is not addressed in this work.
At the inner edge of the laminar boundary layer, Vn, = £,(T,J Heat transfer in laminar flow is conduction dominated, as
p)"^, where p is the fluid density and <^ is a constant depending opposed to convection dominated in turbulent flow. As such, it
on the exact definition of the edge of the laminar boundary is proposed that the estimation of two-phase heat transfer with
layer, but is generally taken as equal to 5 (Schlichting, 1979). laminar liquid flow is best accomplished by relating the two-
By a momentum balance, the average shear stress at the wall phase liquid flow to that of an effective single-phase system.
where the bulk of the heat transfer occurs can be related to the This approach more readily allows incorporation of entrance
frictional pressure drop via T„ = idPldL\;^DI{AS), where effects than the heat-momentum analogy used for turbulent
(dP/dL)[,[c is the pressure loss due solely to friction. Thus, Eq. flow. Specifically, it is proposed that the heat transfer behavior
(5) may be rewritten as for two-phase laminar flow is equivalent to single-phase laminar
flow at the same average liquid velocity in a pipe with a diameter
h = (c/lO)(kJtJ.t)[S(dP/dL)i,,,Dp,]' (6) characteristic of the average heat transfer distance. This ap-
proach is similar to that of Knott et al. (1959). In particular,
Equation (6) is applicable to any flowing situation where the the characteristic length is the hydraulic diameter D,,, and the
walls are wetted by a high Pr fluid, a laminar boundary layer average velocity is given by v^JH. If the liquid phase in gas-
exists (i.e., turbulent flow), and the walls do not impart any liquid flow wets the entire pipe wall, the hydraulic diameter for
form drag. Heat transfer is circumferentially uniform (i.e., S = the liquid phase is Df, = DH. For stratified flow, D,, is a complex
1) for vertical flow. In horizontal flow, heat transfer is expected function of H (Govier and Aziz, 1972). Substituting D,, for D
to be reasonably uniform around the circumference for annular and vJH for v into Eq. (9) gives
flow and strongly slugging flow, since the majority of the fric-
tional loss, and hence heat transfer, is associated with the pipe /z,p = lMf3(H)(k/D)(Re,,Pr,D/Ly'\ij.,/ix„)''''/(Hy(H)y"
filling slugs. For horizontal stratified flow, S is implicitly given
by H = S - sin (2TTS)/2n. For low Pr fluids, the assumption (10)
that Th = Too is poor and Eq. (6) will overestimate the heat
transfer. Moreover, in mist flow the laminar boundary layer will where RCsi = Dvs\Pi/fj.\ and y(H) is the function of// such that
be distorted by impacting droplets and Eq. (6) may be not Al = y(H)D. The viscosities are those of the liquid phase.
applicable. P{H) is a holdup-dependent factor which must be added to
For two-phase flow, a more accurate relation may be obtained account for the shape effects of changing from circular flow at
by taking the ratio of the two-phase case to the superficial liquid H = I to near-planar flow at low H. Taking the ratio of the
single-phase case. This approach divides out the constants ^ two-phase and single-phase superficial liquid estimates by Eqs.
and c, assuming that the parameter c is a function of the liquid (10) and (9) gives

Journal of Energy Resources Technology JUNE 1999, Vol. 121 / 77

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jertd2/26482/ on 03/01/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 0.75

(b)
0.50

A...K>i.^..^>^.^.4
]6"§
! iS - y^t

-stratified
0 fTS ^S^^jiP ^ T - ^
A Bubble rn 8na Dr7,w, 4.°-" •
DSlug £ -0.25 4 - 4 , - - - - V a D O - - - ' ^ '
X Froth O ^ °° S+D • a
+Churn
O Annular -stratified A Bubble DSiug X Froth
• Annular-Mist + Churn O Annular •Annular-Mist
I I 11 =
0.8 1 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Experimental: h(p/hs| Liquid Holdup Fraction (Est.)
0.75
tfo +
(d)
0.50

O 0.25 '• " - >CT~^pT" • • 'Ji ' B • •• i f ^ • • jl^B a n a l

tu V-
C 0.00
.2 ^.mh^^Wr
+
2 -0.25 4-J.:-
X X
+Water
DOii
AS8wt% Giyoerine/42wt% water -0.50 - +Water nOil
X75wt% Giyoerine/25wt% water
A58wt%Glycerlne/42wt%water X76wt%Glycerine/26wt% water
—Glycerine
0 Silicone -Glycerine O Silicone
-0.75
0.8 1. 2. 5. 10. 20. 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Experimental: h|p/lis| Liquid Holdup Fraction (Est.)

0.75

u X A * ^
,? -0.25

-0.50
• Turb;horiz XLann;vert ATurb;vert
- L a m ; 1-phase DTurb; 1-phase
-0.75
0.8 1 2. 5. 10. 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Experimental: htp/hg)
Liquid Holdup Fraction (Est.)

Fig. 1 Comparison of heat transfer predictions and experimental data. Ail figures report the same data plotted In various ways. Dashed ilnes
indicate ± 3 3 percent. Fractional Error = (Xoaio - Xe,p)/iVIAX[Xcate, x.xp]-

hp/h,,)^^ = f3(H)/(Hy(H))"^ (11) suggested that l3(H) be approximated as 2 - H. Hence, for

^ , . „ .. .. , , ^, gas-liquid flow in pipes with developing thermal profiles and
For laminar flow with a fully developed radial thermal profile, ? ii Netted walls
Nu is a function only of flow geometry and thermal boundary
conditions. In particular for constant temperature walls, NUpia„ar /j, //!,,nam = (2 - H)/H^'^ (12)
= 7.60 as opposed to Nudjcuiar = 3.66. Hence, P(H) = 7.60/
3.66 ra 2.08 a.s H -* 0 and P{H) = 1 as /f -• 1. Thus, it is where /isijam is calculated via Eq. (9). Note that for pipes suffi-

78 / Vol. 121, JUNE 1999 Transactions of tlie ASiVIE

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jertd2/26482/ on 03/01/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 ciently long, Nu,p = h^pD/ki will approach approximately the pipe size and pressure since no empirical fitting was employed
value 3.66 (2 - H). Thus, Eq. (11) or (12) should only be in the methods. That is to say, the applicability of the two-phase
applied for cases that result in Nu,p greater than this value. flow method determines the range of applicability of the heat
transfer predictions. Comparisons with literature two-phase heat
Comparison With Experimental Data transfer methods are not given since some are undoubtedly quite
The quality of heat transfer predictions by Eqs. (7) and (11) satisfactory at the conditions of the literature data (Kim et al.,
are shown in Figs. l ( c ) - ( / ) . All the figures show the same 1998; Rezkallah, 1987). However, as discussed previously, ex-
data, but are plotted in differing ways to highlight the flow isting literature methods tend to be unconnected to accurate
regimes, liquid types, and flow conditions. The transition be- two-phase flow methods, and hence are not expected to be as
tween laminar and turbulent flow is taken as Re^i > 2100. This satisfactory at petroleum pipeline conditions.
criterion appears in general satisfactory despite its simplicity.
Only a third of the database points are plotted in the figures
for improved readability. Fractional error is calculated as (Xcak Summary and Conclusions
— Xexp)/MAX[A:caic, Xoxp] • All input conditions were obtained
Methods have been derived for the estimation of two-phase
from the data sources, except liquid holdups for which experi-
heat transfer in pipes for all flow regimes except annular-mist
mental values are not reported. Liquid holdups are calculated by
flow. The methods are readily applicable and work in conjunc-
Chisholm's (1967) analytic version of the Lockhart-Martinelli
tion with existing two-phase flow prediction methods. In this
(1949) method, which is based on data from low-pressure,
way the most appropriate flow prediction method may be ap-
small-diameter systems. Frictional pressure drops for vertical
plied given a system's pipe size, operating pressure, and fluids.
flow cases were calculated using the estimated liquid holdup
This removes from the heat transfer estimation error due to
and the reported total pressure drop and liquid densities. The
poor flow condition estimation. The derived methods include
quality of the Chisholm method for vertical flow was compared
no empirical parameters, and hence are expected to be robust
to that of the more sophisticated correlation by Hughmark and
beyond the range of data used in the validation, which were all
Pressburg (1961) and a mechanistic method widely used in the
small-diameter (<2.5 cm i.d.), low-pressure ( < 6 bar) systems.
petroleum industry (Dhulesia and Lopez, 1996). The agreement
The methods were extensively tested for vertical flow, for which
between the methods was satisfactory for the lower-viscosity
there are much data. For horizontal flow, the available data are
fluids. However, for the high-viscosity fluids, the Hughmark-
limited. Effectively, no heat transfer data were available for
Pressburg and mechanistic method were not applicable. The
laminar horizontal two-phase flow. The methods appear accu-
mechanistic model was developed primarily for large-diameter,
rate to ±33 percent in general, except for cases with liquid
high-pressure systems. Only the Chisholm method provided rea-
holdup fractions below about 0.10. For these low holdup cases,
sonable extrapolation to high-viscosity fluids. It is emphasized
there is a systematic overestimation. The methods have in-
that for high-pressure, large-diameter systems, the Chisholm
creased accuracy for high Prandtl number liquids, such as oils.
method is not appropriate and more sophisticated mechanistic
models should be applied. The methods are deceptively simple, but in fact capture the
complexities of two-phase flow via input frictional pressure
From the figures it is seen that estimations of the bulk of the drop, liquid holdup, and flow regime. These methods are meant
data fall within ±33 percent accuracy. Reported single-phase as engineering tools which can be plausibly applied beyond the
data are included on the figures and themselves show compara- range of available experimental data with adequate accuracy
ble accuracy. Notable outliers include low liquid holdup cases for many pipeline design purposes. There continues to be a
(H < ~0.10), parficularly for mist-annular flow. The outliers need for the development of detailed mechanistic models of
are to be expected, especially for low Pr fluids, since the liquid multiphase heat transfer and for more experimental data, partic-
film coating the walls may approach the thickness of the laminar ularly for horizontal flow, and which simultaneously measure
boundary layer. Some of the horizontal flow cases also show pressure drop and liquid holdup fraction.
significant deviations. These cases are all for water in bubble
or slug flow at lower liquid holdups (H < ~0.40). The error
may be due to the assumption of 5 = 1 being poor for these
cases. Although not shown, estimation of Johnson's (1955) References
data on oil-air laminar horizontal flow is relatively poor. As Butterworth, D., and Hewitt, G. F., 1977, Two-Phase Flow and Heat Transfer,
previously indicated, these data are the only identified published Oxford University Press, London, England.
source for laminar horizontal flow. The poor prediction is likely tionChisholm, D., 1967, "A Theoretical Basis for the Lockhart-Martinelli Correla-
for Two-Phase Flow,'' International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
due to the large viscosity variations, both radially and axially, Vol. 10, pp. 1767-1778.
resulting from large T„ — T,, differences. Additionally, natural Chu, Y-C, and Jones, E.G., 1980, "Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient
convection may be significant for these systems. Both these Studies in Upward and Downward, Vertical, Two-Phase, Non-Boiling Flows,"
effects are not as critical in turbulent flow due to the inherent AlChE Symposium Series, Vol. 76(199), pp. 81-90.
Davis, E. J., Cheremisinoff, N. P., and Guzy, C. J., 1979, "Heat Transfer with
mixing. Despite the lack of appropriate data for laminar hori- Stratified Gas-Liquid Flow," AIChE Journal, Vol. 25(6), pp. 958-966.
zontal flow, it is expected that the estimation method is suitable Davis, E. J., Cheremisinoff, N. P., and Sambasivan, G., 1976, "Heat and Mo-
considering its success for laminar vertical flow. Admittedly, mentum Transfer Analogies for Two-Phase Transfer Stratified and Annular
however, proper choice of S may need refinement when data Flows," Proceedings, Two-Phase Flow and Heat Transfer Symposium Workshop,
Fort Lauderdale, FL, pp. 577-608.
become available. Davis, E. J., Hung, S. C , and Arciero, S., 1975,' 'An Analogy for Heat Transfer
The accuracy of the turbulent flow predictions appears to with Wavy/Stratified Gas-Liquid Flow," AIChE Journal, Vol. 21(5), pp. 872-
decrease only weakly with decreasing Pr. Even for high-temper- 878. Davis, E. J., and David, M. M., 1964, "Two-Phase Gas-Liquid Convection
ature water cases (Pr « 3), fair accuracy is obtained for the Heat Transfer," Industrial Engineering and Chemistry Fundamentals, Vol. 3(2),
higher liquid holdups. Apparendy, although the derivation of pp. 111-118.
the estimation method assumes a high Pr fluid, a Pr as low as Dorresteijn, W. R., 1970,' 'Experimental Study of Heat Transfer in Upward and
3 is adequate, at least at higher liquid holdups. Accuracy of Downward Two-Phase Flow of Air and Oil through 70-mm Tubes," Proceedings,
Fourth International Heat Transfer Conference, Paper B5.9, Pai'is, France.
predictions decreased somewhat for cases with Re^i near 2100. Dhulesia, H., and Lopez, D., 1996, "Critical Evaluation of Mechanistic Two-
Presumably, this is due to some of the cases being misidentified Phase Flow Pipeline and Well Simulation Models,'' presented at Society of Petro-
as turbulent or laminar in addition to neglecting the complexities leum Engineers European Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Paper
of transitional flow. 36611, Denver, CO, October 6 - 9 .
Fried, L., 1954, "Pressure Drop and Heat Transfer for Two-Phase, Two-Com-
Note that the agreement with the experimental data strongly ponent Flow," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, Vol. 50, pp.
implies applicability beyond the range of the data in terms of 47-51.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology JUNE 1999, Vol. 121 / 79

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jertd2/26482/ on 03/01/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Furuholt, E. M., 1988, "Multiphase Technology: Is it of Interest for Future
Field Developments?," presented at Society of Petroleum Engineers European
Petroleum Conference, Paper 18361, London, England, October 16-19.
Govier, G. W., and Aziz, K., 1972, The Flow of Complex Mixtures in Pipes,
Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar, FL.
Hetsroni, G., Yi, J. H., Hu, B. G., Mosyak, A., Yarin, L. P., and Ziskin^, G.,
1998, "Heat Transfer in Intermittent Air-Water Flows—Part II; Upward Inclined
Tube," International Journal of Multiphase Flow, Vol. 24(2), pp. 189-212.
Hughmark, G. A., 1963, "Heat Transfer in Horizontal Annular Gas-Liquid
Flow," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series, Vol. 57(61), pp.
176-178.
Hughmark, G. A., and Pressburg, B. S., 1961, "Holdup and Pressure Drop with
Gas-Liquid Flow in a Vertical Pipe," AIChE Journal, Vol. 7(4), pp. 677-682.
Johnson, H. A., and Abou-Sabe, A. H., 1951, "Heat Transfer and Pressure
Drop for Turbulent Flow of Air-Water Mixtures in a Horizontal Pipe," ASME
Paper No. 51-A-lll.
Johnson, H. A., 1955, "Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop for Viscous-Turbulent
Flow of Oil-Air Mixtures in a Horizontal Pipe," TRANS. ASME, Vol. 77, pp.
1257-1264.
Kim, D., Sofyan, Y., Ghajar, A. J„ and Dougherty, R. L., 1997, "An Evaluation
of Several Heat Transfer Correlations for Two-Phase Flow with Different Flow
Patterns in Vertical and Horizontal Tubes," Proceedings, National Heat Transfer
Conference, Baltimore, MD.
King, C. D. G., 1952, "Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop for an Air-Water
Mixture Flowing in a 0.737 Inch I.D. Horizontal Tube," M.S. thesis. University
of California, Berkeley, CA.
Knott, R. F., Anderson, R. N., Acrivos, A., and Peterson, E. E., 1959, "An
Experimental Study of Heat Transfer to Nitrogen-Oil Mixtures," Industrial Engi-
neering and Chemistry, Vol. 51(11), pp. 1369-1372.
Kudirka, A. A., Grosh, R. J., and McFadden, P. W., 1965, "Heat Transfer in
Two-Phase Flow of Gas-Liquid Mixtures," Industrial Engineering and Chemistry
Fundamentals, Vol. 4 ( 3 ) , pp. 339-344.
80 / Vol. 121, JUNE 1999
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jertd2/26482/ on 03/01/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Lockhart, R. W., and Martinelli, R. C , 1949, "Proposed Correlation of Data for
Isothermal Two-Phase, Two-Component Flow in Pipes," Chemical Engineering
Progress, Vol. 45(1), pp. 39-48.
Michiyoshi, I., 1978, "Two-Phase Two-Component Heat Transfer," 6th Inter-
national Heat Transfer Conference, Toronto, Canada, Vol. 6, pp. 219-233.
Ohver, D. R., and Wright, S. J., 1964, "Pressure Drop and Heat Transfer in
Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Horizontal Tubes," British Chemical Engineering, Vol.
9(9), pp. 590-596.
Fletcher, R. H., and McManus, H. N., 1972, "A Theory for Heat Transfer to
Annular Two-Phase, Two-Component Flow," International Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer, Vol. 15, pp. 2091-2096.
Rezkallah, K. S., and Sims, G. E., 1987, "An Examination of Correlations of
Mean Heat Transfer Coefficients in Two-Phase and Two-Component Flow in
Vertical Tubes," AIChE Symposium Series, Vol. 83(257), pp. 109-114.
Rezkallah, K. S., Vijay, M. M., and Sims, G. E., 1986, "A Comparison of
Correlations of Heat-Transfer Coefficients in Two-Phase Gas-Liquid Flow in
Vertical Tubes," 8th International Heat Transfer Conference, San Francisco, CA,
Vol. 5, pp. 2349-2354.
Rezkallah, K. S., 1987, "Heat Transfer and Hydrodynamics in Two-Phase Two-
Component Flow in a Vertical Tube," Ph.D. thesis. University of Manitoba,
Canada.
Schlichting, H., 1979, Boundary-Layer Theory, 7th Edition—English,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Shah, M. M., 1981, "Generalized Prediction of Heat Transfer During Two
Component Gas-Liquid Flow in Tubes and Other Channels," AIChE Symposium
Series, Vol. 208(77), pp. 140-151.
Shoham, O., Dukler, A. E., and Taitel, Y., 1982, "Heat Transfer during Inter-
mittent/Slug Flow in Horizontal Tubes," Industrial Engineering and Chemistry
Fundamentals, Vol. 21(3), pp. 312-319.
Sieder, E. N., and Tate, G. E., 1936, "Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop of
Liquids in Tubes," Industrial Engineering and Chemistry, Vol. 28(12), pp.
1429-1435.
Vijay, M. M., 1978, "A Study of Heat Transfer in Two-Phase Two-Component
Flow in a Vertical Tube," Ph.D. thesis. University of Manitoba, Canada.
Transactions of the ASME