Summary
This paper studied the effects of system pressure on oil/gas low–liquid–loading flow in a slightly upward inclined pipe configuration using new experimental data acquired in a high–pressure flow loop. Flow rates are representative of the flow in wet–gas transport pipelines. Results for flow pattern observations, pressure gradient, liquid holdup, and interfacial–roughness measurements were calculated and compared to available predictive models. The experiments were carried out at three system pressures (1.48, 2.17, and 2.86 MPa) in a 0.155–m–inside diameter (ID) pipe inclined at 2° from the horizontal. Isopar™ L oil and nitrogen gas were the working fluids. Liquid superficial velocities ranged from 0.01 to 0.05 m/s, while gas superficial velocities ranged from 1.5 to 16 m/s. Measurements included pressure gradient and liquid holdup. Flow visualization and wire–mesh–sensor (WMS) data were used to identify the flow patterns. Interfacial roughness was obtained from the WMS data.
Three flow patterns were observed: pseudo-slug, stratified, and annular. Pseudo-slug is characterized as an intermittent flow where the liquid does not occupy the whole pipe cross section as does a traditional slug flow. In the annular flow pattern, the bulk of the liquid was observed to flow at the pipe bottom in a stratified configuration; however, a thin liquid film covered the whole pipe circumference. In both stratified and annular flow patterns, the interface between the gas core and the bottom liquid film presented a flat shape. The superficial gas Froude number, FrSg, was found to be an important dimensionless parameter to scale the pressure effects on the measured parameters. In the pseudo-slug flow pattern, the flow is gravity–dominated. Pressure gradient is a function of FrSg and liquid superficial velocity, vSL. Liquid holdup is independent of vSL and a function of FrSg. In the stratified and annular flow patterns, the flow is friction–dominated. Both pressure gradient and liquid holdup are functions of FrSg and vSL. Interfacial–roughness measurements showed a small variation in the stratified and annular flow patterns. Model comparison produced mixed results, depending on the specific flow conditions. A relation between the measured interfacial roughness and the interfacial friction factor was proposed, and the results agreed with the existing measurements.
