On Air-Water Two-Phase Flows in Return Bends

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Pedro Magalhaes de Oliveira
ON AIR-WATER TWO-PHASE FLOWS IN
RETURN BENDS
Florianopolis
2013
ESCOAMENTO BIF
ASICO AR-
AGUA EM
CURVAS DE 180
Disserta c ao submetida ao Programa

de P os-Gradua cao em Engenharia Mecanica
para a obtenc ao do ttulo de Mestre
em Engenharia Mec anica.
Orientador: Prof. Jader Riso Barbosa
Jr., Ph.D.
Florianopolis
2013
atravs do Programa de Gerao Automtica da Biblioteca Universitria da UFSC.
de Oliveira, Pedro Magalhes
Escoamento bifsico ar-gua em curvas de 180 / Pedro
Magalhes de Oliveira ; orientador, Jader Riso Barbosa Jr.
- Florianpolis, SC, 2013.
155 p.
Dissertao (mestrado) - Universidade Federal de Santa
Catarina, Centro Tecnolgico. Programa de Ps-Graduao em
Engenharia Mecnica.
Inclui referncias
1. Engenharia Mecnica. 2. escoamento bifsico. 3. curva
de 180 . 4. queda de presso por atrito. 5. frao de vazio.
I. Barbosa Jr., Jader Riso. II. Universidade Federal de
Santa Catarina. Programa de Ps-Graduao em Engenharia
Mecnica. III. Ttulo.
ESCOAMENTO BIF
ASICO AR-
AGUA EM
CURVAS DE 180
Esta Disserta cao foi julgada aprovada para a obten cao do ttulo
de Mestre em Engenharia Mecanica, e aprovada em sua forma nal
pelo Programa de Pos-Gradua cao em Engenharia Mecanica.
Florianopolis, 13 de dezembro 2013.
Armando Albertazzi Goncalvez Jr., Dr. Eng.
Coordenador do Curso
Banca Examinadora:
Prof. Jader Riso Barbosa Jr., Ph.D.
Orientador
Prof. Alvaro Toubes Prata, Ph.D.
Prof. Emilio Ernesto Paladino, Dr. Eng.
Prof. J ulio Cesar Passos, Dr.
Prof. Marco Jose da Silva, Dr.-Ing.
Somos duplamente prisioneiros: de n os
mesmos e do tempo em que vivemos.
Manuel Bandeira
ABSTRACT
Return bends are found in various applications involving two-phase
ow, including heat exchangers, transport pipes and separators. Gas-
liquid ows in bends are aected by centrifugal forces that tend to
separate both phases. If the bend is oriented vertically, the ow is also
subjected to gravitational eects. The resulting eect of such forces
is a change of the ow conguration as it passes through the bend,
which depends on several aspects, such as ow direction (i.e., upward
and downward), curvature, ow rates, and physical properties. Thus,
the ow shows a distinct behavior in the return bend if compared to
a straight tube. The main objective of this study is the characteri-
zation of air-water two-phase ows in 180
return bends that connect

two 5-m long 26-mm ID horizontal tubes. The bend lies in the vertical
position and the two-phase ow can be set as upward or downward.
The behavior of the static pressure downstream and upstream of the
return bend was measured for a wide range of ow regimes, as was
the pressure drop and change in gas holdup associated with the return
bend itself. The behavior of the phases in the bend was investigated
with a high-speed camera, illustrating several particular features of the
two-phase ow in the bend in both directions. The experiments were
carried out with bend curvatures 2R/d of 6.1, 8.7, and 12.2 in both
upward and downward directions. Supercial velocities varied from 0.2
to 40
m
/s for the gas, and were set as 0.05, 0.2 and 1
m
/s for the liquid.
The irreversible pressure changes in the bend were determined based
on the dierential pressure and gas holdup measurements, resulting in
an empirical correlation. The gas holdup was measured at 12 dierent
positions, downstream and upstream of the bend, covering the plug,
slug and annular ow regimes in both upward and downward ow di-
rections. This allowed a better understanding of the inuence of the
return bend on the ow and the evaluation of ow parameters along
the axis of the tube.
Keywords: two-phase ow, return bend, frictional pressure drop, gas
holdup.
RESUMO
Tubula coes com curvas de 180
sao frequentemente encontradas na

ind ustria em aplica coes envolvendo escoamentos bifasicos, como tro-
cadores de calor e dutos de transporte. Nestes equipamentos, o escoa-
mento gas-lquido sofre um efeito centrfugo devido à curva, que tende
a separar ambas as fases. A inuencia deste tipo de singularidade e
ainda mais intensa quando a curva e posicionada na vertical, pois o es-
coamento e sujeito a uma complexa combinacao de forcas: centrfuga,
atrito e gravitacional. Ainda, o efeito resultante depende de parametros
do escoamento, como sentido (ascendente ou descendente), curvatura,
vazoes e propriedades fsicas. Devido à acao combinada das forcas,
o escoamento apresenta na curva um comportamento distinto daquele
observado em tubos retos, sendo a sua investiga cao o principal obje-
tivo deste estudo. Mais especicamente, este propoe-se a caracterizar
o escoamento bifasico aragua em uma curva de 180
que conecta dois

tubos retos de 5,5 m e diametro de 26,4 mm. A curva e posicionada
na vertical e o escoamento pode ser imposto nos sentidos ascendente
e descendente. Inicialmente, o comportamento da pressao estatica a
montante e a jusante da curva foram medidos em in umeras condicoes
de escoamento, bem como a queda de pressao e a varia cao da fracao de
vazio entre a entrada e a sada da curva. O comportamento das fases na
curva foram observados com uma camera de alta velocidade, ilustrando
aspectos particulares do escoamento bifasico na curva em ambos sen-
tidos. Experimentos foram conduzidos para curvaturas 2R/d de 6,1,
8,7 e 12,2 nos sentidos de escoamento ascendente e descendente. As
velocidades superciais das fases foram determinadas entre 0,2 e 40
m
/s
para o ar, e em 0,05, 0,2 e 1
m
/s para a agua. A partir da medicao
de queda de pressao total na curva e da varia cao da fracao de vazio,
avaliou-se somente a parcela irreversvel da queda de pressao na curva,
resultando em uma correlacao emprica. Em uma segunda parte, a
fracao de vazio foi medida em 12 pontos posicionados a montante e a
jusante da curva, compreendendo os regimes em tampoes, em golfadas e
anular, nas direcoes ascendente e descendente, possibilitando uma mel-
hor compreensao acerca da inuencia da curva no escoamento, alem de
permitir avaliacao dos parametros do escoamento ao longo do eixo da
tubula cao.
Palavras-chave: escoamento bifasico, curva de 180
, queda de pressao
por atrito, fracao de vazio.
AGRADECIMENTOS
Agradeco ao Professor Jader R. Barbosa Jr., por manter a porta de
sua sala sempre aberta, pelos rascunhos corrigidos do ttulo ao ultimo
ponto nal, por todas as oportunidades e pela amizade nestes tres anos
de pesquisa e trabalho duro.
Aos que, ao meu lado, desenvolveram este trabalho: os alunos de ini-
ciacao cientca Eduardo Strle, Marcos Abe e Rafael Dantas, e os
tecnicos Marcelo Cardoso, Marcos Espndola e Pedro Cardoso.
Aos que trocaram suas noites e ns de semana pelo subsolo do POLO.
A todos os colegas de mestrado e de laboratorio com quem tive o
prazer de aprender e trabalhar; em especial a Dalton Bertoldi, Gus-
tavo Portella e Moises Marcelino, que me guiaram nos meandros da
pratica experimental e na construcao do aparato.
Ao Prof. Marco da Silva, Nikolas Libert e Leonardo Lipinski, da Uni-
versidade Tecnologica Federal do Parana, por toda a colabora cao e por
nos fornecerem os sensores de fracao de vazio, parte fundamental do
aparato e que distingue este trabalho.
Ao Prof. Georey F. Hewitt, por gentilmente nos ceder os lmes 16 mm
gravados em Harwell em 1971, e ao Helder Martinovsky por nos auxil-
iar no processo de telecinagem destes.
`
A Petrobras e ao Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientco e
Tecnologico, pelo suporte nanceiro.
`
A Maria.
A meus pais e minha famlia.
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.1 MOTIVATION AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.2 OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2 LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.1 TWO-PHASE FLOW IN HORIZONTAL TUBES . . . . . . . . . 27
2.1.1 Pressure drop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.1.2 Gas holdup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.2 TWO-PHASE FLOW IN 180
BENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2.1 Pressure drop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2.2 Flow behavior and gas holdup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.3 SUMMARY AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.1 GENERAL ASPECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2 COMPONENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2.1 Air line, water line and mixing system. . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2.2 Test section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2.3 Measuring devices and techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.4 Equipment information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.3 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4 VALIDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.5 A FIRST LOOK AT THE FLOW PARAMETERS. . . . . . . . 63
3.6 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1 VISUAL OBSERVATION OF THE FLOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1.1 Stratied and wavy ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1.2 Plug and slug ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.1.3 Annular ow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.2 FLOW PARAMETERS IN THE BEND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.2.1 Pressure distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.2.2 Gas holdup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.2.3 Frictional pressure drop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.3 A FRICTIONAL PRESSURE DROP CORRELATION . . . . 93
4.4 DEVELOPING FLOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.4.1 Gas holdup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.4.2 Pressure gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.4.3 Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.5 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK. . . . . . . . . . . . 107
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
APPENDIX A -- Experimental procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
APPENDIX B -- Uncertainty analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
APPENDIX C -- Movie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
APPENDIX D -- Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Rendered CAD drawing of the experimental apparatus. 45
Figure 2 Operational range of the experimental apparatus (cross-
hatched region) on the Mandhane et al. (1974) ow regime map
for horizontal ows of air and water at atmospheric pressures in
25.4 mm ID tubes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 3 Schematic of the experimental apparatus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 4 Components of the water line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 5 Components of the air line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 6 Flow mixers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 7 Axial view of one of the mixers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 8 Geometric parameters of the tube bends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 9 Perspex sleeve used to connect borosilicate tubes to each
other, allowing pressure and temperature measurements. . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 10 Positions of the pressure taps and gas holdup sensors
positions. The measurements were taken at symmetric locations
between the upper and lower tubes. (Dimensions in meters) . . . . . . 54
Figure 11 Set of valves and tubings, absolute pressure sensor and
dierential pressure transducers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 12 Test section and gas holdup capacitive probes. . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 13 Details of the capacitive probe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 14 Equivalent electric circuit of the capacitance sensor as
presented by Libert et al. (2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Figure 15 Supercial velocities of the test conditions shown on the
Mandhane et al. (1974) ow regime map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 16 Frictional pressure drop in a single-phase (water) ow of
(a) bend (2R/d = 8.7) and straight sections upstream and down-
stream of it (b) single straight section of 1 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 17 Gas holdup characteristic signal of (a) plug, (b) slug, and
(c) annular ow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Figure 18 Pressure characteristic signal of (a) plug, (b) slug, and
(c) annular ow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 19 Liquid mass ow rate (relative) characteristic signal of
(a) plug, (b) slug, and (c) annular ow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 20 Gas mass ow rate (relative) characteristic signal of (a)
plug, (b) slug, and (c) annular ow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 21 Flow intermittency in the bend for upward ow with j
l
= 0.05
m
/s, j
g
= 1
m
/s. From left to right, images were taken with a
40 ms time interval between consecutive frames. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 22 Oscillatory ow in upward direction (low liquid ow
rate). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 23 Plug ow in upward direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 24 Phase distribution in upward plug ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 0.4
m
/s). The sequence illustrates the nose and body of a rising
bubble. The time interval between frames is 152 ms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 25 Phase distribution in downward plug ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 0.4
m
/s). The sequence shows the nose and body of a descending
bubble. The time interval between frames is 532 ms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
l
= 0.2
m
/s,
j
g
= 0.4
m
/s). The sequence shows the tail of a descending bubble,
followed by roughening and breakup of the gas-liquid interface. The
time interval between frames is 91 ms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Figure 27 Phase distribution in upward (left) and downward (right)
slug ow in the bend (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 4
m
/s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Figure 28 Phase distribution for downward annular ow in the bend
(j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 20
m
/s), showing the detachment of disturbances
waves from the lm towards the outer part of the curve. Time
interval between frames is 30 ms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 29 Phase distribution for upward annular ow in the bend
(j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 20
m
/s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 30 (a) Pressure distribution in upward ow for 2R/d = 8.7,
j
l
= 0.2 m/s and j
g
= 0.2 - 30 m/s. (b) Detailed view of the low
gas ow rate data (plug and slug ow regimes). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Figure 31 (a) Pressure distribution in downward ow for 2R/d =
8.7, j
l
= 0.2 m/s and j
g
= 0.2 - 30 m/s. (b) Detailed view of the
low gas ow rate data (plug and slug ow regimes). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Figure 32 Measured gas holdup values at top and bottom positions
of the bend for all ow conditions and curvatures of 6.1, 8.7, and
12.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Figure 33 Liquid level at the position of the lower gas holdup probe.
Downward ow, j
l
= 0.05
m
/s, j
g
= 1
m
/s. From the top, curvatures
of the bend are 6.1, 8.7, and 12.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Figure 34 Average gas holdup values in the bend for (a) upward
and (b) downward ow for j
l
= 0.2
m
/s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Figure 35 Components of pressure drop; (a) upward ow, 2R/d =
6.1, j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, (b) downward ow, 2R/d = 8.7, j
l
= 1
m
/s. . . . . . 84
Figure 36 Histograms of probability density of the experimental
results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Figure 37 Frictional pressure drop in the bend for upward and
downward ow, curvatures of 6.1, 8.1 and 12.2. (continues in Fig.
38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Figure 38 ...Comparisons with Chisholm (1983), Chen et al. (2004),
Domanski & Hermes (2008), and Padilla et al. (2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Figure 39 Experimental pressure drop data in (a) upow and (b)
downow compared to the correlations of Chisholm (1983), Chen
et al. (2004), Domanski & Hermes (2008), and Padilla et al. (2009). 91
Figure 40 Frictional pressure gradient in the bend. (a) upward ow,
(b) downward ow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 41 Correlation based on the two-phase multiplier for the
frictional pressure drop in (a) upward ow and (b) downward ow. 95
Figure 42 Gas holdup distribution in upward and downward ow
for the plug, slug, and annular ow regimes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Figure 43 Gas holdup distribution for upward and downward plug
ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 0.4
m
/s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure 44 Gas holdup distribution for upward and downward slug
ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 4
m
/s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure 45 Gas holdup distribution for upward and downward an-
nular ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 20
m
/s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 46 Frictional and accelerational pressure gradients in (a)
downward and (b) upward plug ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 0.4
m
/s). . . 100
downward and (b) upward slug ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 4
m
/s). . . . . . 102
downward and (b) upward annular ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 20
m
/s). 103
Figure 49 Velocity distribution of Taylor bubbles in upward and
downward plug ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 0.4
m
/s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Figure 50 Velocity distribution of liquid slugs in upward and down-
ward slug ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 4
m
/s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Figure 51 Experimental calibration curves of the gas holdup sensors
based on the stratied regime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
based on the stratied regime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Figure 53 Probability density plots of expanded uncertainty of se-
lected parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Coecient C of Eqs. 2.10 and 2.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 2 Summary of experimental works (bend geometries). . . . . . 42
Table 3 Summary of experimental works (uids and measurement
information). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 4 Test conditions of the experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 5 Geometric details of the tube bends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 6 Equipment details. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 7 Uncertainty of measured parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table 8 Parameters of the statistical analysis for the pressure drop
correlations based on the presented experimental data. . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Table 9 Empirical parameters of the two-phase multiplier correla-
tion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Table 10 Standard uncertainty of gas holdup sensors using the ex-
perimental stratied regime-based calibration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Table 11 Main ow parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Table 12 Total pressure drop measurements and frictional pressure
drop in the bend. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Table 13 Uncertainty of main ow parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Table 14 Main ow parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Table 15 Gas holdup measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Table 16 Total pressure drop measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Table 17 Uncertainty of main ow parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Table 18 Uncertainty of gas holdup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Table 19 Uncertainty of total pressure drop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Table 20 Uncertainty of accelerational pressure drop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Table 21 Uncertainty of frictional pressure drop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
23
NOMENCLATURE
Greek
Gas holdup -
Volumetric quality -
p Pressure dierence Pa
Absolute roughness m
Viscosity
Ns
/m
2
p Pressure gradient
Pa
/m
2
Two-phase ow multiplier -
2
k
Two-phase ow multiplier (k-phase alone) -
2
ko
Two-phase ow multiplier (total ow assumed k-uid) -
Density
kg
/m
3
Momentum density
kg
/m
3
Roman
d Internal diameter m
f Friction factor -
f
aq
Data acquisition frequency Hz
Fr Froude number -
G Mass ux
kg
/m
2
s
g Gravity
m
/s
2
H Height of the return bend m
j Supercial velocity
m
/s
L Horizontal tube length m
p Static pressure Pa
R Curvature radius of the bend m
Re Reynolds number -
S
r
Slip ratio -
T Temperature K
t Time s
u Velocity
m
/s
W Mass ow rate
kg
/s
We Weber number -
x Quality -
X
2
Martinelli parameter -
z Axial coordinate m
Subscript
b Return bend
d Downstream
down Downward ow direction
f Frictional
g Gas phase
h Homogenous mixture
in Inlet of return bend
k k-phase
l Liquid phase
n Pressure tap index number
out Outlet of return bend
s Straight segment
tp Two-phase ow
u Upstream
up Upward ow direction
25
1 INTRODUCTION
Gas-liquid ows are found in the majority of energy-related and
cooling applications. The ow of a refrigerant in a heat exchanger and
the transport of crude oil or natural gas in a pipe are typical gas-liquid
ow problems.
Historically, engineering problems involving two-phase ows have
been strongly related to steam generation, dating back to the days of
the Industrial Revolution. However, the rigorous study of two-phase
ows was initiated in the second half of the twentieth century, after
the World War II. At that time, nuclear research started to be used
for a noble cause: producing electrical energy. Thus, the consolida-
tion of two-phase ow and boiling as research disciplines was associ-
ated with the development of the rst water-cooled nuclear reactors,
as researchers faced challenging design issues in transferring enormous
amounts of thermal energy out of the reactor core and into the steam
turbines.
Recently, environmental catastrophes such as the Deepwater Hori-
zon oil spill (Gulf of Mexico, 2006) and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
disaster (Japan, 2011) have encouraged governments to push safety
standards to stricter levels.
1
These requirements, as well as the inter-
est in the economical value associated with energy production, have
stimulated the research on Multiphase Flows in the last decade.
1.1 MOTIVATION AND OBJECTIVES
Two-phase ow equipment such as heat exchangers and trans-
port pipes often include several return bends. Gas-liquid ows in bends
are aected by centrifugal forces that tend to separate both phases. If
the bend is oriented vertically, the ow is also subjected to gravita-
tional eects. The resulting eect of such forces is a change of the ow
conguration as it passes through the bend, which depends on several
aspects, such as ow direction (i.e., upward and downward), ow rates,
physical properties and bend curvature.
In order to accurately design two-phase ow equipment, a better
assessment of irreversible losses in singularities is required. The objec-
1
Refer to the following reports: Deepwater Horizon Study Group (2011), Det
Norsk Veritas (2011), The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation
Comission (2012).
26 1 Introduction
tive of the present study is to characterize air-water two-phase ows in
a vertically-oriented 180
return bend. To this end, an experimental

apparatus capable of reproducing the majority of ow regimes found in
horizontal tubes was designed and constructed, allowing the investiga-
tion of the reversible and irreversible pressure changes occurring in the
bend and in the straight tube segments upstream and downstream of
it.
This work was carried out at Polo Research Laboratories for
Emerging Technologies in Cooling and Thermophysics, under the aus-
pices of a research program on Multiphase Flow in Pipes funded by
CENPES/Petrobras.
1.2 OVERVIEW
This thesis is structured as follows. Chapter 2 presents a brief
review of pressure drop and gas holdup calculation methods for hori-
zontal tubes, followed by a detailed review of two-phase ow in 180
return bends. The specic objectives of the dissertation are presented

after the literature review, at the end of Chapter 2. Chapter 3 con-
tains information about the general features and main components of
the experimental apparatus, its measuring devices and techniques, and
the validation procedures. Chapter 4 presents the results of the study,
and is divided into four main sections: visual observations of the ow,
analysis of the ow parameters in the bend, development of a frictional
pressure drop correlation, and aspects of developing ow in the vicinity
of the bend. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions and recommendations
for future works. Further information on the experimental procedures,
uncertainty analysis, edited high-speed image secquences, and tabu-
lated experimental data can be found in the appendices.
27
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Firstly, a review of pressure drop and gas holdup in straight hor-
izontal tubes is presented, emphasizing the empirical correlations eval-
uated in this work. Next, a detailed review of the works on two-phase
ow in 180
return bends is carried out, highlighting some unresolved

questions and research gaps that motivated the specic objectives of
the present work.
2.1 TWO-PHASE FLOW IN HORIZONTAL TUBES
Despite the availability of detailed (i.e., three-dimensional) mod-
els for two-phase ows, the majority of the models employed in indus-
try are one-dimensional. These models often resort to empirical cor-
relations to evaluate frictional losses and phase holdup. Thus, several
experimental works have focused on the development of accurate cor-
relations for the frictional pressure drop and gas holdup in tubes and
singularities for a range of ow conditions.
2.1.1 Pressure drop
In the homogenous model, the two-phase mixture behaves as
a pseudo-uid with average thermophysical properties. The frictional
pressure gradient is calculated with the Darcy-Weisbach equation,
_
dp
dz
_
f
= f
1
d
G
2
2
, (2.1)
where p is the static pressure, z is the axial coordinate of the tube, f
is the Darcy friction factor, d is the tube diameter, and G is the total
mass ux. The uid density is taken as the homogeneous mixture
density given by (COLLIER; THOME, 1996),
h
=
_
x
g
+
1 x
l
_
1
. (2.2)
where x is dynamic gas mass fraction (quality),
x =
G
g
G
, (2.3)
28 2 Literature review
and the subscripts g and l denote gas and liquid, respectively. For
laminar ow, the Darcy friction factor is given by,
f =
64
Re
, (2.4)
while for conditions of turbulent ow, Colebrook (1939) proposed the
following implicit expression,
1
f
= 2log
10
_

3.7d
+
2.51
Re
f
_
(2.5)
where Re is the Reynolds number and is the absolute roughness of
the tube wall. In order to evaluate both Eqs. 2.4 and 2.5 in the case of
homogenous two-phase ow, the Reynolds number must be calculated
using a model for the homogeneous viscosity such as the one proposed
by McAdams et al. (1942) apud Collier & Thome (1996),
h
=
_
x
g
+
1 x
l
_
1
(2.6)
where represents the uid dynamic viscosity.
In the separated ow model, empirical correlations are used in
order to assess the frictional pressure gradient. Lockhart & Martinelli
(1949) introduced the concept of a two-phase ow multiplier,
2
, which
relates the frictional pressure drop of two-phase ow with that of single-
phase ow by,
p
f,tp
=
2
k
p
f,k
, (2.7)
where p
f,k
is the pressure drop of the single-phase ow of phase k
with mass ux equal to the mass ux of this phase in the two-phase
ow. Other multipliers can be conveniently dened as follows,
p
f,tp
=
2
ko
p
f,ko
, (2.8)
where the subscript ko, denotes the single-phase ow of phase k with
a mass ux equal to the total mass ux of the two-phase mixture.
Following the above denitions, four dierent two-phase multiplier can
be proposed for gas-liquid ows:
2
l
,
2
g
,
2
lo
,
2
go
.
Lockhart & Martinelli (1949) assumed that the two-phase mul-
tipliers are function of the so-called Martinelli parameter, X
2
, dened
as,
2.1 Two-phase ow in horizontal tubes 29
X
2
=
p
f,l
p
f,g
. (2.9)
In their work, graphical correlations of two-phase multipliers in terms of
this parameter were proposed based on the ow regimes associated with
the corresponding single-phase ow of the individual phases (viscous or
turbulent). Chisholm (1967, 1983) suggested the following relations for
2
, which have been more extensively used thereafter,
2
l
=
1
X
2
+
C
X
+ 1, (2.10)
and,
2
g
= X
2
+CX + 1. (2.11)
The coecient C is determined based on the ow conditions shown in
Table 1.
Table 1 Coecient C of Eqs. 2.10 and 2.11 .
Liquid Gas C
Viscous Viscous 5
Turbulent Viscous 10
Viscous Turbulent 12
Turbulent Turbulent 20
One of the most widely used pressure drop correlations was pro-
posed by Friedel (1979), and is considered the most accurate method
available (GHIAASIAAN, 2007). The author suggests the following ex-
pression to evaluate the liquid-only two-phase multiplier,
2
lo
,
2
lo
= A+ 3.24x
0.78
(1 x)
0.24
_
g
_
0.91
_
l
_
0.19
_
1

g
l
_
0.7
Fr
0.0454
h
We
0.035
h
, (2.12)
where Fr
h
and We
h
are the homogeneous-ow Froude and Weber num-
bers. The parameter A is given by,
A = (1 x)
2
+x
2
l
f
go
g
f
lo
, (2.13)
where f
ko
is the Fanning friction factor for single-phase ow of uid k
with a mass ux equal to the total mass ux of the two-phase ow.
M uller-Steinhagen & Heck (1986) developed an empirical expres-
sion to evaluate the frictional pressure gradient in horizontal tubes
given by,
_
dp
dz
_
f,tp
=
_
_
dp
dz
_
f,lo
+ 2x
_
_
dp
dz
_
f,go
_
dp
dz
_
f,lo
__
(1 x)
1/C
+x
C
_
dp
dz
_
f,go
. (2.14)
The value of the constant C was determined as 3 from experimental
data, and the frictional pressure gradients for single-phase ow are
calculated based on the following relation for the Darcy friction factor,
f
ko
=
_
64
Re
ko
, Re
ko
1187;
0.3164
Re
0.25
ko
, Re
ko
> 1187.
(2.15)
2.1.2 Gas holdup
In the separated ow model, empirical relationships are also used
to correlate the gas holdup, , to the independent parameters of the
ow. Using the Lockhart-Martinelli method for pressure drop, an ex-
pression for gas holdup was derived by Collier & Thome (1996). It
follows that, for the annular ow regime,
2
l
= (1 )
2
. (2.16)
Substitution of Eq. 2.16 in 2.10 (with C = 20) provides an
explicit expression for the gas holdup in terms of the Martinelli param-
eter. Yet, other empirical correlations available in the literature are
known to provide better results. Smith (1969) proposed the following
expression for the gas holdup in horizontal tubes,
=
_
_
1 +
_
l
__
1 x
x
_
_
_
0.4 + 0.6
g
+ 0.4
_
1x
x
_
1 + 0.4
_
1x
x
_
_
_
_
_
1
. (2.17)
2.1 Two-phase ow in horizontal tubes 31
According to Ghiaasiaan (2007), one of the most accurate em-
pirical methods for calculating the gas holdup is the CISE correlation
(PREMOLI et al., 1971). In this method, the slip ratio, S
r
, dened as
the ratio of the gas and liquid in-situ velocities can be calculated from,
S
r
= 1 +E
1
_
y
1 +yE
2
yE
2
_
1/2
, (2.18)
where
y =

1
(2.19)
E
1
= 1.578Re
0.19
lo
_
g
_
0.22
, (2.20)
E
2
= 0.0273We
l
Re
0.51
lo
_
g
_
0.08
. (2.21)
and is the dynamic volume fraction (volumetric quality),
=
G
g
g
G
g
g
+
G
l
l
. (2.22)
Thus, a direct expression for in terms of S
r
is given by substituting
Eq. 2.18 in the following relationship between mass quality and gas
holdup (GHIAASIAAN, 2007),
x
1 x
=

g
l
S
r
1
. (2.23)
A very accurate but rather involved method for calculating the
gas holdup was proposed by Chexal et al. (1991). The proposed correla-
tion covers a wide range ow conditions, and yet provides a continuous
function. This method is based on the parameters of drift ux two-
phase ow models and consists of a large number of implicit equations
and over twenty arbitrary constants. Although the Chexal et al. (1991)
correlation was used in the present work, its equations were omitted
for the sake of simplicity.
2.2 TWO-PHASE FLOW IN 180
BENDS
Substantial experimental research has been conducted on two-
phase ow in return bends. Numerous works dealt with pressure drop
in two-phase ow of refrigerants in small curvature bends focusing
on cooling applications (PIERRE, 1964a; TRAVISS; ROHSENOW, 1971;
GEARY, 1975; CHEN et al., 2004; SILVA LIMA; THOME, 2010; PADILLA
et al., 2011). Others carried out experiments with air-water ows in
return bends (USUI et al., 1980; HOANG; DAVIS, 1984; WANG et al., 2008)
and discussed in detail the hydrodynamics of two-phase ow in the
bend. Among these, dierent approaches for evaluating the irreversible
pressure change in the bend have been discussed. A rst and sim-
pler approach is to directly measure the pressure drop in the bend,
neglecting any possible reversible pressure change. Another approach,
rst adopted by Geary (1975), consists of measuring the pressure drop
in two dierent segments: a straight segment upstream of the bend,
and another segment that includes the bend and the straight section
downstream of it. In this way, it is possible to estimate the frictional
component of pressure drop in the bend assuming that the average
frictional pressure gradient downstream is equal to the one upstream.
Accurate predictions with this method would require a straight section
downstream of the bend long enough to allow for ow development (or
recovery).
Although the previous methods of pressure drop evaluation seem
reasonable for horizontal return bends, they are questionable if the bend
is oriented vertically. In this case, the static pressure head, which de-
pends on the gas holdup in the bend, must also be accounted for. This
was discussed by Usui et al. (1980), who identied that no study had
been conducted on the behavior of average gas holdup and pressure
drop in the bend at that time. More recently, Chen et al. (2008) and
Padilla et al. (2013) evaluated the static pressure change in vertical
return bends by estimating the gas holdup in the bend using the cor-
relations of gas holdup for straight tubes. The correlation of Smith
(1969) was used by Chen et al. (2008), while Padilla et al. (2013) used
the correlation of Steiner (1997).
The method proposed by Geary (1975) was used extensively in
several works that focused on the irreversible losses in bends. Although
this method is strongly dependent on the extent of the ow recovery
at the pressure tap located downstream of the bend, only a few studies
attempted to quantify this eect (TRAVISS; ROHSENOW, 1971; HOANG;
DAVIS, 1984; PADILLA et al., 2012; SILVA LIMA; THOME, 2012; DE KER-
2.2 Two-phase ow in 180
bends 33
PEL et al., 2013b). Among these, no agreement has been reached re-
garding the ow recovery length.
2.2.1 Pressure drop
The rst study of two-phase ow in return bends is attributed to
Castillo (1957), who carried out a theoretical and experimental inves-
tigation of pressure drop in air-water ow. In his work, the two-phase
ow in a horizontally-oriented return bend was modeled as the rotation
of separated phases in the bend. Thus, predictions with this method
only agreed with the experimental data for low gas velocities and the
stratied ow regime. Although the phases were assumed to ow at
the same velocity, the author argued that the relative motion of the
phases played an important role on the pressure drop in the bend.
Pierre (1964a, 1964b), carried out tests with R-12 and R-22
in straight tubes (10.9 mm ID). He proposed an empirical correlation
for friction factor based the experimental data (PIERRE, 1964a apud
GEARY, 1975). In the same work, the pressure drop of R-12 in hori-
zontal return bends was investigated and mathematically expressed in
terms of two components: the loss due to turning of the ow, and the
loss due to friction. Experiments were conducted with bend curvatures
(dened as the ratio of the bend radius to the pipe radius, or 2R/d) of
3.5 and 6.9. According to Geary (1975), the pressure drop correlation
proposed by Pierre (1964a) did not take into account the eect of the
bend curvature radius, because of the relatively low mass uxes. Be-
cause of that, it could lead to incorrect predictions when used at other
ow conditions.
Geary (1975) investigated the two-phase ow of refrigerants in re-
turn bends using a test section comprising two horizontal return bends
and three straight-tube segments. Eight return bends of approximately
11.1 mm ID with dierent curvature radii were used, covering values of
bend curvature from 2.3 to 6.5. The mass ux of refrigerant was varied
between 100 and 400
kg
/m
2
s. The pressure drop was measured between
two taps, one located 40 diameters upstream of the bend and another
40 diameters downstream (L
u
= 40d and L
d
= 40d). This approach
was used to account for the eect of the bend on the straight sections.
The pressure drop in the bend p
b
was evaluated by the following
expression,
p
b
= p
t
L
u
+L
d
L
s
p
s
(2.24)
where p
t
is the measured pressure drop between the upstream and
downstream segments, and p
s
is the pressure drop in a straight seg-
ment of length L
s
far upstream of the bend. Although the accuracy
of this approach strongly depends on the ow recovery length down-
stream of the bend, only a few works
1
have dealt with this matter.
The upstream and downstream straight-tube measuring lengths are of-
ten dened based on subjective criteria and lack of scientic rigor. Still,
the work of Geary (1975) revealed a linear relation between the pres-
sure gradient in the bend and its curvature, leading to an empirical
correlation for the pressure drop in the bend, which took into account
the inuence of the curvature.
Chisholm (1980) developed a correlation for the pressure drop
in horizontal 90
bends and compared its predictions with the steam-

water ow data of Fitzsimmons (1964). The method was later extended
to cover data for bends other than 90
and bend orientations other

than the horizontal (CHISHOLM, 1983). The suggested correlation for
the bend pressure drop is,
p
b
=
2
b,l
p
b,l
, (2.25)
where the pressure drop for single phase liquid ow in the bend is given
by,
p
b,l
= k
l
G
2
2
l
, (2.26)
and k
l
is the loss coecient for single-phase ow in the bend. In the
present work, this coecient was evaluated using the method proposed
by Idelchik (1992). The two-phase multiplier proposed by Chisholm
(1980) is given by,
2
b,l
= 1 +
_
g
1
_
_
Bx(1 x) +x
2
, (2.27)
where the coecient B is,
B = 1 +
2.2
k
l
_
2 +
R
d
_, (2.28)
and R is the curvature radius of the return bend.
Usui et al. (1980, 1981) carried out experiments with air and
water in 24-mm ID vertical return bends with curvatures of 11.3, 16.6,
and 22.5. The mass uxes ranged from 20 to above 1500
kg
/m
2
s, covering
1
Refer to Section 2.2.2
bends 35
all horizontal ow regimes. Pressure drop was measured in two straight
segments and in the bend, similarly to Geary (1975). However, as the
return bends were positioned in the vertical plane, Eq. 2.24 must now
also account for the static head, and becomes,
p
b
= p
t
L
u
+L
d
L
s
p
s
[
g
+
l
(1 )] g2R, (2.29)
where 2R corresponds to the height of the bend, and the sign of the
gravitational term is positive for the upward direction and negative for
the downward direction. The average values of the phase densities and
gas holdup are considered as average values in the bend. Usui et al.
(1980, 1981) used a pair of quick-acting solenoid valves at the inlet
and outlet of the bend, which were simultaneously closed so the liquid
volume could be measured and, from that, an average value of the gas
holdup in the bend could be estimated. Although a correlation based
on the single-phase frictional pressure drop was proposed, most of their
ndings were related to the hydrodynamic behavior of the ow, which
will be discussed in the next section.
In a series of papers on pressure drop in return bends, Chen et al.
(2004, 2005, 2007, 2008) reported several experiments in a coil-type test
section consisting of consecutive bends (U-type wavy tubes). Chen et
al. (2004) carried out experiments with R-410A, using four bends with
curvatures ranging from 3.9 to 8.2 and internal diameters between 3.3
and 5.07 mm ID. The mass ux of refrigerant was varied between 100
and 900
kg
/m
2
s. The orientation of the bend was not informed, but later
works indicated that the bends lied in the horizontal plane. The pres-
sure drop in the wavy section was evaluated according to Eq. 2.24,
with the measuring section between the two pressure taps encompass-
ing two straight sections upstream and downstream (L
u
= 110d and
L
d
= 140d) of the wavy tubes. The pressure drop of a single bend was
evaluated by dividing the measured pressure drop associated with the
entire wavy segment by the number of consecutive bends. The Chen et
al. (2004) database was combined with that of Geary (1975) to yield
the following correlation for pressure drop in return bends (CHEN et al.,
2004),
_
dp
dz
_
b
= f
g
j
2
g
2d
, (2.30)
where j
g
is the supercial gas velocity, i.e., the average velocity of the
gas phase if it was owing alone in the channel. The Darcy friction
factor, f, was expressed as,
f =
10
2
Re
0.35
tp
We
0.12
g
exp(0.194
2R
d
)x
1.26
, (2.31)
and Re
tp
is the combined Reynolds number of the ow dened as,
Re
tp
= Re
l
+Re
g
. (2.32)
Chen et al. (2005, 2007) investigated the inuence of lubricating
oil on the pressure drop of R-410A and R-134a in the same experimental
setup used by Chen et al. (2004). Chen et al. (2008) also conducted
experiments in the same experimental setup, but examined the eect
of the orientation of the test section (horizontal and vertical) on the
ow behavior. In this work, experiments were carried out with R-134a
using only the wavy test section of 5.07 mm ID and bend curvature of
5. In the evaluation of the pressure drop in the vertically-oriented wavy
section, the contribution due to acceleration of the ow was neglected,
and the total frictional loss due to the wavy and the straight segments
was expressed as,
p
f
= p [
g
+
l
(1 )] g18R, (2.33)
where p is the measured pressure drop, 18R corresponds to the height
of the wavy section consisting of consecutive bends, and the sign of the
gravitational term is positive for the upward direction and negative
for the downward direction. The phase densities and gas holdup are
considered as average values in the test section.
As no gas holdup measurements were performed in their work,
Chen et al. (2008) estimated the gas holdup usign Eq. 2.33 for the
upward and downward directions. With one equation for each ow
direction, and assuming that the frictional component of pressure drop
was the same for both directions, it was possible to estimate the gas
holdup in the bend,
=

l
_
(p
b
)
down
(p
b
)
up
_
36Rg (
l

g
)
. (2.34)
The pressure drop experimental data of Chen et al. (2008) were
inserted in Eq. 2.34 and the results were compared to Smith (1969)
correlation. Although a good agreement was reported, the actual com-
parison was not shown in the Chen et al. (2008) paper. Nevertheless,
the Smith (1969) correlation was used in the calculation of the gravita-
bends 37
tional contribution in Eq. 2.33. To the present authors knowledge, the
assumption of identical frictional pressure drop for both ow directions
is incorrect. It is also contradictory because the authors themselves
reported higher values of pressure drop in downward ow, particularly
at low qualities. As will be seen in the present dissertation, the ac-
celeration component of the pressure drop is not always negligible nor
can the averaged holdup be assumed always equal to that for straight
tubes.
Using the experimental data from Geary (1975) and Chen et al.
(2004), Domanski & Hermes (2008) proposed an empirical correlation
for predicting the pressure drop in horizontal bends. The pressure drop
in a straight segment was correlated to the pressure drop in the bend
by a curvature multiplier,
_
dp
dz
_
b
=
_
dp
dz
_
s
, (2.35)
which was obtained based on the Buckingham-Pi theorem, and is given
by the expression,
= 6.5 10
3
_
Gxd
g
_
0.54
_
1
x
1
_
0.21
_
g
_
0.34
_
2R
d
_
0.67
. (2.36)
Padilla et al. (2009) used the experimental data from Chen et
al. (2004, 2007, 2008) and Traviss & Rohsenow (1971) to propose a
new correlation. The pressure gradient was calculated in terms of the
pressure gradient in straight tubes plus a local contribution due to the
centrifugal eect in the bend (dp/dz)
sing
, given by,
_
dp
dz
_
b
=
_
dp
dz
_
s
+
_
dp
dz
_
sing
, (2.37)
where (dp/dz)
s
was calculated using the M uller-Steinhagen & Heck
(1986) correlation and,
_
dp
dz
_
sing
= 0.047
_
g
j
2
g
R
_
_
j
2
l
R
_
1/3
, (2.38)
which resembles the bend pressure drop due to rotation proposed by
Castillo (1957), where j
l
is the supercial liquid velocity.
Later, Padilla et al. (2011) conducted experiments using R-410A
in horizontal bends with curvatures ranging from 3.7 to 4, and internal
diameters between 7.90 and 10.85 mm. The test section used consists
of two straight tubes, two return bends and one sudden contraction.
The measurement procedure was similar to that of Geary (1975), i.e.,
based on two static pressure taps placed upstream and downstream of
the bend (L
u
= 10d and L
d
= 20d). The mass ux ranged between 179
and 1695
kg
/m
2
s. A preliminary investigation of the ow development
downstream of the bend was also carried out, which was later discussed
in more details by Padilla et al. (2013).
Pressure drop measurements were carried out by Silva Lima &
Thome (2010) using R-134a in horizontal return bends (13.4 mm ID
and curvature of 9). The total pressure drop was measured between
7 segments, resulting in average values of the pressure gradient in the
bend and at positions upstream and downstream of it (at 141, 59 and
6 diameters in both segments). The contribution of the acceleration of
the ow to the total pressure drop was neglected. Thus, the frictional
pressure drop in the bend was directly associated with the measured
values by the following expression,
_
dp
dz
_
b
=
_
p
b
d
2
_
_
dp
dz
_
b
+
_
dp
dz
_
6d
__
1
R
+
_
d
2
_
_
dp
dz
_
b
+
_
dp
dz
_
+6d
__
1
R
, (2.39)
where the measured pressure dierence in the bend, p
b
, includes the
bend itself and two straight segments of length 1d at the inlet and out-
let of the bend. The pressure drop in the straight segments of the bend
was subtracted from the total pressure dierence by approximating the
pressure gradient in the straight segments to the average gradient be-
tween the bend and the nearest pressure taps (located at 6d upstream
and downstream). Silva Lima & Thome (2010) also investigated the
dierence between pressure measurements taken at dierent circumfer-
ential positions of the straight tubes (from the inner to the outer part
of the curve), which were considered to be insignicant even very close
(at 3.7d) to the bend.
bends 39
2.2.2 Flow behavior and gas holdup
The issue of ow development downstream of return bends has
received some attention in the literature, being rst addressed by Traviss
& Rohsenow (1971), who measured the pressure drop and condensation
heat transfer coecient of R-12 along a horizontal segment (4.4-m long,
8-mm ID) immediately downstream of a vertical return bend. They
concluded that the eect of a return bend on the downstream pressure
drop was negligible when averaged over a length of 90 diameters, and
that the pressure gradient did not deviate more than 10% from the
fully-developed pressure gradient. In their work, two bends made of
glass, with curvatures of 3.2 and 6.4, were used to allow ow visualiza-
tion with a high-frequency light source. The ow regime was found to
readjust very rapidly when disturbed by the presence of the bend; a
fact that was veried years later by Silva Lima & Thome (2012) and
De Kerpel et al. (2013b) with more sophisticated and precise methods.
A high-speed cine analysis of two-phase air-water ows in verti-
cal return bends was presented by George (1971), who demonstrated
that disturbance waves are somewhat destroyed as annular ow passes
through the bend in upward ow. The high-speed lm contains axial
viewing sequences of the ow in the outlet of the bend, which help
to understand the inuence of the bend on the phase distribution in
annular ow.
Usui et al. (1980, 1981) carried out air-water ow pressure drop
experiments in 24-mm vertical return bends with curvatures of 11.3,
16.6, and 22.5. In order to evaluate the frictional pressure drop con-
tribution, the authors identied the need for a precise assessment of
the static head in the return bend. Usui et al. (1980) used a pair of
quick-acting solenoid valves at the inlet and outlet of the bend, which
were simultaneously closed so the liquid content in the bend could be
measured and, from that, an average value of the gas holdup in the
bend could be estimated. They observed that the average gas holdup
in the bend was not signicantly inuenced by the centrifugal force in
the upward ow direction and, therefore, presented a good agreement
with the Smith (1969) correlation. The opposite was observed for down-
ward ow, where the gas holdup values diered signicantly from those
in straight tubes. The local gas holdup was measured by Usui et al.
(1981) at the outlet of the bend and at positions of approximately 66
diameters upstream and downstream of it using an electrolytic probe.
Measurements in the plug ow regime showed that the local gas holdup
at the outlet of the bend was signicantly higher than upstream due to
acceleration of the liquid phase at the bottom part of the bend. At the
downstream position, the cross sectional prole of the gas holdup was
very similar to the one upstream of the bend, suggesting the existence
of developed state of the ow. Besides measuring pressure drop and
gas holdup in the bend, they also conducted visual observations of the
ow and presented details on the dierent phenomena observed, e.g.,
ow reversal and ooding in the upward direction, and back ow of
bubbles and coalescence in the downward ow direction.
Hoang & Davis (1984) conducted experiments with air-water
ow in return bends connecting two 25.4-mm ID vertical tubes with
curvatures of 4 and 6, in an inverted U conguration. Their study
was limited to the bubbly ow regime, i.e., only high liquid mass uxes
were used. Static pressure was measured downstream and upstream of
the bend, and within the bend itself. For the latter, the pressure taps
were distributed every 30
from the inlet to the outlet, both on the in-

ner and outer parts of the curve (i.e., concave and convex parts). High
pressure losses were observed as high as 20 times the pressure loss in
single-phase ow which were attributed to separation and remixing of
the phases in the bend. The authors established a developing length of
9 diameters downstream of the bend, where the ow was considered to
be well remixed. This value is 10 times lower than the one observed by
Traviss & Rohsenow (1971), probably due to the very high liquid ow
rates used in the more recent experiments. By comparing the angular
pressure proles with the high-speed lm, it was veried that the onset
of rotation and stratication (separation) of the ow occurred in and
after the rst half of the bend, respectively.
Studies focusing on the inuence of the bend on the ow regimes
of an air-water mixture were carried out by Wang and coauthors in
horizontal return bends (WANG et al., 2003, 2004) and vertical return
bends (WANG et al., 2005, 2008). In these works, the distribution of
the phases was observed via still photography. Return bends of 3 to
6.9-mm ID and curvature of 3, 5 and 7 were used in the horizontal
experiments, while a single bend geometry was used in the vertical
experiments (6.9 mm ID and 2R/d = 3, where R is the bend radius
and d is the pipe diameter). Phenomena such as ow regime transition
from stratied to annular ow were observed in horizontal bends, being
more pronounced in the small curvature radii and large pipe systems.
In the vertical bends, ow reversal and frozen slug ow were observed.
In their experiments using R-134a and horizontally oriented re-
turn bends (13.4 mm ID and curvature of 9), Silva Lima & Thome
(2010) veried dierences in pressure gradient as far as 141 diameters
bends 41
downstream of the bend. Later, Silva Lima & Thome (2012) conducted
experiments of R-134a two-phase ow in return bends in both horizon-
tal and vertical orientations. Glass return bends (internal diameters of
8, 11 and 13 mm, and curvatures of approximately 3 and 5) were used to
allow visualization of the ow with a high-speed camera. The recovery
length downstream of the bend was evaluated qualitatively based on
the visual characteristics of the ow, and was found to be larger in the
vertical orientation of the bend, specially in upward ow. The authors
observed a larger inuence of the centrifugal force on the ow rather
than the eect gravity, probably due to the small curvatures. Several
ow phenomena observed by the authors were in agreement with ob-
servations made by Usui et al. (1980, 1981) and Traviss & Rohsenow
(1971), such as liquid segregation and droplet deposition in the bend,
on the outer part of the curve.
Padilla et al. (2013) conducted a visual observation of HFO-
1234yf and R-134a in vertical return bends (6.7 mm ID, curvature of
7.46) in order to determine the perturbation lengths downstream and
upstream of the bend in both upward and downward ows. Addition-
ally, the total pressure drop was measured at dierent pressure taps
upstream and downstream of the bends (7.9 and 10.85 mm, curvatures
of 3.68 and 4.05), for the above mentioned uids and R-410A in the
downward direction. In their work, the authors evaluate the gravi-
tational term of pressure drop by estimating the gas holdup in the
bend with the Steiner (1993) correlation. Perturbation lengths of the
downward ow were determined as being 5 diameters upstream and 20
diameters downstream of the bend.
Recently, De Kerpel et al. (2013b) developed a method for deter-
mining the downstream development length based on the measurement
of the ow capacitance by a probe placed on the outer pipe wall. A
clustering algorithm was used to group similar signals associated with
specic ow regimes for developed ow conditions in straight tubes.
Tests were performed with R-134a in a return bend of 8 mm ID and
curvature of 2.75. Measurements of ow capacitance were taken at dif-
ferent positions downstream of the bend (from 2.5 to 31.5d), and com-
pared with those obtained at developed ow conditions. This method
was able to detect ow disturbances up to 10 diameters downstream of
the bend.
2.3 SUMMARY AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
Tables 2 and 3 show a summary of the experimental works re-
viewed in this chapter. In Tab. 3, the columns represent the number of
the work shown in Tab. 2 (#), the uids used (uid), and if measure-
ments of pressure drop (p) and gas holdup () were carried out. The
table also shows if ow visualization was conducted (vis.), and if the
issue of ow development (ow dev.) was in some way investigated.
The matter of ow recovery downstream of the bend has been
approached by means of ow visualization, total pressure drop mea-
surements, and local gas holdup (or capacitance) measurements. The
works dealing with vertically-oriented return bends are shown in bold
typeface (Tables 2 and 3; except Hoang & Davis (1984) which uses an
inverted U conguration). Among these, only Usui et al. (1980, 1981)
have experimentally evaluated the gas holdup in the bend in order to
accurately calculate the static head.
Despite the number of works dealing with two-phase ow in ver-
tical return bends, some unresolved questions have remained open until
the present moment. In order to precisely evaluate the contribution of
friction to the pressure drop, is it reasonable to neglect or over simplify
the estimation of the reversible pressure changes occurring in the bend?
Table 2 Summary of experimental works (bend geometries).
# author d 2R/d dir.
1 Pierre (1964) 10.9 3.5, 6.9 hor.
2 Traviss et al. (1971) 8 3.2, 6.4 ver.
3 Geary (1975) 11.1 2.3 - 6.5 hor.
4 Usui et al. (1980,1981) 24 11.3 - 22.5 ver.
5 Hoang et al. (1984) 25.4 4 - 6 ver.
6 Chen et al. (2004) 3.3 - 5.1 3.9 - 8.2 hor.
7 Chen et al. (2005,2007) 5.07 5 both
8 Wang et al. (2003,2004) 6.9 3 - 7 hor.
9 Wang et al. (2005,2008) 6.9 3 ver.
10 Silva Lima et al. (2010) 13.4 9 hor.
11 Silva Lima et al. (2012) 8 - 13 3, 5 both
12 Padilla et al. (2011) 7.9 - 10.9 3.7 - 4 hor.
13 Padilla et al. (2013) 7.9 - 10.9 3.7 - 4 ver.
14 De Kerpel et al. (2013) 8 2.75 ver.
2.3 Summary and specic objectives 43
To what extent the ow parameters are inuenced by the bend or, in
other words, how does the bend aect the frictional pressure gradient,
the gas holdup, and other ow parameters downstream of it?
The present work aims at contributing to answering these ques-
tions by presenting a complete set of experimental data on gas-liquid
ows in vertical return bends for both upward and downward ow con-
ditions. To this end the following specic objectives have been pro-
posed:
1. Design and build an experimental apparatus for low-pressure air-
water ows, capable of reproducing the majority of ow regimes
found in horizontal tubes;
2. Characterize experimentally the main independent parameters of
the problem, viz. the gas holdup and the frictional pressure gra-
dient as a function of position relative to the bend;
3. Conduct a visual observation of the two-phase ow in the bend
using high-speed imaging to identify the relevant phenomena tak-
ing place in the bend;
4. Verify the extent of the inuence of the bend on the ow by eval-
uating the axial distribution of pressure gradient and gas holdup
Table 3 Summary of experimental works (uids and measurement
information).
# uid p vis. ow dev.
1 R-12, R-22
2 R-12 (p)
3 R-22
4 air-water (p, )
5 air-water (p)
6 R-410A
7 R-134a
8 air-water (visual)
9 air-water (visual)
10 R-134a (p)
11 R-134a (visual)
12 R-410A (p)
13 HFO-1234yf, R-134a, R-410A (p)
14 R-134a ()
in the straight sections upstream and downstream of the bend;
5. Propose a more accurate method for evaluating the local frictional
pressure drop in return bends that quanties the irreversible pres-
sure changes and includes:
i) an evaluation of the average gas holdup in the bend and a
comparison it against existing correlation for straight tubes,
ii) the quantication of the magnitude of each component of the
total pressure drop in the bend,
iii) an investigation of the eect of the bend radius on the fric-
tional pressure drop,
iv) development of a simple pressure drop correlation based on
ow parameters and bend geometry.
45
3 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS
The present chapter contains information about the experimen-
tal apparatus built to investigate the hydrodiynamics of the two-phase
ow in return bends. At rst, general aspects of the experimental ap-
paratus are presented. In the following sections, detailed information
is presented on the main components of the apparatus and measuring
techniques.
Figure 1 Rendered CAD drawing of the experimental apparatus.
3.1 GENERAL ASPECTS
An experimental apparatus was built for the purpose of this re-
search and is represented in Fig. 1. The setup consists of two individual
uid ow lines equipped with inlet ow mixers where the two phases
are introduced. The air-water mixture ows from either of the two mix-
ers through 26.4 mm ID horizontal borosilicate glass tubes. The test
section consists of a 180
bend connecting the two horizontal tubes,

which are approximately 5 m long
1
. Along the text, the two 5-m hor-
1
The horizontal tubes were made long enough to allow the development of the
ow. The development length in two-phase ow is not as established as in single-
46 3 Experimental apparatus
j
g
(m/s)
j
l

(
m
/
s
)
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
bubbly
2 bar
3 4
5
6
7
slug
stratified
wavy
annular
plug
Figure 2 Operational range of the experimental apparatus
(cross-hatched region) on the Mandhane et al. (1974) ow regime map
for horizontal ows of air and water at atmospheric pressures in
25.4 mm ID tubes.
izontal tubes and return bend are referred as the test section, where
absolute pressure, pressure drop, gas holdup, temperature and velocity
measurements were taken. The system is an open loop, that is, after
the ow exits the test section the air is vented to the ambient, while
water ows back to the reservoir.
The experimental apparatus was designed to work in a wide
range of ow regimes. The operating range of the ow loop is shown
in Fig. 2 together with the ow regime map of Mandhane et al. (1974)
(dashed lines). The solid lines are the result of a numerical evaluation of
the absolute pressure required at the inlet of the ow loop (considering
atmospheric pressure at the outlet) in order to overcome the ow losses
in the test section, for a given pair of air and water supercial velocities.
As can be seen, the majority of ow conditions can be achieved with
inlet pressures below 2 bar. Experiments were carried out at room tem-
perature and low pressure, close to the atmospheric condition, setting
the mass uxes of air and water. Operating conditions are summarized
in Table 4.
phase ow (BRENNEN, 2009), being strongly dependent on the inlet conditions.
3.2 Components 47
Table 4 Test conditions of the experiments
Test conditions
Pressure 101 400 kPa
Temperature 24
C
Air mass ux 0.15 60
kg
/m
2
s
Water mass ux 10 1400
kg
/m
2
s
3.2 COMPONENTS
A schematic representation of the experimental apparatus is shown
in Fig. 3. In this gure, the test section is represented by a double line
and appears at the top. Other than the test section, the experimental
apparatus consists of the following parts, represented by single contin-
uous lines: the mixing system (1 and 10), the water line (2-4), and the
air line (5-9). The mixing system is formed by two mixers (1), each
located at the ends of the test section, and a set of three-way valves.
These valves direct the ow from the air and the water lines into one of
the mixers, and also direct the two-phase ow leaving the test section
back to the reservoir.
3.2.1 Air line, water line and mixing system
The water line comprises a thermostatic bath (2), a centrifugal
pump (3) controlled by a frequency inverter, a gate valve and a by-
pass line, and a Coriolis mass ow meter (4), also shown in Fig. 4. The
thermostatic bath keeps the temperature of the water at 24
o
C in a 30 L
reservoir, and allows for particle ltration through a lter attached to
its internal circulation system. Water is pumped from the reservoir
by the centrifugal pump (3), and the ow rate is set by selecting the
rotational speed of the pump in the frequency inverter and adjusting
the gate valve and the by-pass. The ow is measured in the Coriolis
ow meter and is directed to the top or bottom mixer, depending on
the position of the three-way valves.
The air line is attached to a main compressed air line, and con-
sists of a particulate lter (5), a coalescent lter (6), a pressure regulator
(7), a micrometric valve (8), and a hot wire anemometer-based mass
ow meter (9) (Fig. 5). Water and particles present in the air are
removed in the particle lter, while smaller contaminants such as oil
A
i
r
W
a
t
e
r
R
R
p
P P
P
T
P
T
p
(
1
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
(
1
0
)
(
5
)
(
6
)
(
7
)
(
8
)
(
9
)
r
e
f
.
{
T T
r
e
f
.
*
{
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
S
c
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
p
p
a
r
a
t
u
s
.
3.2 Components 49
2
3
4
9
Figure 4 Components of the water line.
droplets are removed in the coalescent lter. The air ow is controlled
by a pressure regulator and a micrometric valve, and then measured at
the ow meter before entering one of the mixers.
The two inlet ow mixers (1) are attached to the ends of the
horizontal sections (Fig. 6) through a set of three-way valves, so it is
possible to set the air-water mixture to ow upwards or downwards
through the return bend. As the ow exits the loop, both uids are
separated in a hydrocyclone; air is released to the atmosphere and water
returns to the thermostatic bath.
Although the arbitrary introduction of the phases in a pipe would
eventually result in a specic ow regime, a ow mixer located at the
inlet of the test section reduces the length required for the ow to
develop. In the mixer, this result is accomplished by mixing both phases
according to the topology of the expected ow regime. For example, in
annular ow, air was injected axially, and water was injected radially.
In this way, a lm is formed close to the wall and dragged by the air
core.
Two mixers designed and built in the course of this work were
placed at the upper and lower ends of the test section. Thus, it is
possible to set the air-water mixture to ow upward or downward in
the bend (i.e., entering from the bottom or top tube). Figure 7 shows
an axial view of one of the mixers, which consist of a cylindrical perspex
5
6
7
8
Figure 5 Components of the air line.
Figure 6 Flow mixers.
3.2 Components 51
Figure 7 Axial view of one of the mixers.
shell with and a porous annular core. Each mixer is equipped with an
axial and a radial connection. In this way, one can choose the direction
in which each phase will be introduced in the mixer according to the
desired ow regime in the test section by setting the position of the
three-way valves.
3.2.2 Test section
The test section is a circular channel of 26.4 mm ID, and consists
of a 180
o
return bend that connects two horizontal 5-m long tubes. The
return bend, also made of borosilicate glass, comprises a C-shaped sec-
tion and two straight sections of approximately 0.1 m in length, which
allow for the mounting of the bend.
The inuence of the bend on the behavior of ow parameters (gas
holdup, pressure drop) has been investigated using bends with dierent
curvatures (2R/d = 6.1, 8.7, and 12.2)
2
. Geometric details of the tube
bends are shown in Table 5 and Fig. 8. The manufacturer of the tube
bends (Schott) ensured minimal distortion of the circular cross-section
2
In order to replace the return bends, the lower horizontal section moves verti-
cally by means of a lifting system, while the upper section is kept xed. Even though
this system guarantees a rough alignment of the lower section, a ne alignment was
always performed.
of the bends during the fabrication process. The curvature radii of
the bends were measured indirectly with image processing software and
photographs of the tubes in front of a graph (squared) paper. Since the
curvature radius is not perfectly constant along the bend, the distance
H was measured with a caliper and does not correspond to the exact
value of 2R.
The test section was made fully transparent and therefore suited
for optical measurements along its full length. Air and water were
selected as working uids on account of their simple use, thus making
calibration procedures easier in Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and
Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) measurements, which are intended
to be used in a later stage of this research.
Table 5 Geometric details of the tube bends.
Bend 2Rd
1
(-) R (mm) L (mm) H (mm)
A 6.1 81 106 155.85
B 8.7 115 113 207.45
C 12.2 161 108 312.50
Each horizontal section has a length of 5.65 m, approximately
214 diameters. The long sections are formed of small borosilicate tubes
connected to each other by perspex sleeves (Fig. 9), containing pressure
taps and thermocouple wells.
3.2.3 Measuring devices and techniques
a) Pressure
The inuence of the bend on the straight segments upstream and
downstream of it has been investigated by evaluating the distribution
of ow parameters along the axis of the tube. Absolute pressure was
measured at taps located 1.85 m upstream and downstream of the re-
turn bend. Pressure drop was measured between the inlet and outlet
of the bend and between sections of 0.11, 0.22, 0.51, and 1.01 m in
length along the 1.85-m long segments in the upper and lower tubes
(Fig. 10). It should be noted from Fig. 10 that the origin of the main
coordinate system (z = 0) is the position of the pressure taps closest
to the bend. Two other auxiliary references, z
ref
and z
ref
, are also
shown in Figure 10. The origin of the auxiliary coordinates is always
located upstream of the bend; e.g. in downward ow, z
ref
is located in
3.2 Components 53

H

R
L
L
1
2
Figure 8 Geometric parameters of the tube bends.
27.3
1/4" NPT

5
0

5
0

2
6
.
4

64.6
10

3
2
.
2
5

Figure 9 Perspex sleeve used to connect borosilicate tubes to each
other, allowing pressure and temperature measurements.
1.01 0.51 0.22 0.11
p p p p p
0.88 0.61
0.16
0.05

0.16 1.04
z
0
z
ref
z
ref
*
Figure 10 Positions of the pressure taps and gas holdup sensors
positions. The measurements were taken at symmetric locations
between the upper and lower tubes. (Dimensions in meters)
the upper horizontal section (at the most upstream pressure tap).
A set of valves and tubings connect three dierential pressure
transducers and an absolute pressure sensor to the pressure taps, as il-
lustrated in Fig. 11. This system was completely lled with water and
no air bubbles were left inside. Each dierential transducer measured
exclusively the pressure dierence between segments of the upper hori-
zontal tube, between segments of the lower horizontal tube, or between
the inlet and outlet of the bend. Two additional absolute pressure
sensors are located at the inlet and outlet mixers.
Total pressure drop in the bend is evaluated by the dierence in
height between the two pressure taps located at the upper and lower
parts of the bend,
p
b
= p +
l
gH, (3.1)
where p is the measured pressure drop,
l
is the density of the liquid
(water) inside the tubings connecting the pressure taps and the sensor
manifold, and H is the height dierence between the two segments,
which is approximately 2R.
The frictional pressure drop was estimated via the conservation
of momentum in a control volume between the inlet and outlet of the
tube segment. For the return bend, the frictional pressure drop in the
bend, p
f,b
, is given by,
p
f,b
= p +G
2
_
1
out
in
_
tp
g2R, (3.2)
3.2 Components 55
Figure 11 Set of valves and tubings, absolute pressure sensor and
dierential pressure transducers.
Similarly for a straight tube segment, the frictional pressure drop,
p
f,s
, was evaluated as follows,
p
f,s
= p +G
2
_
1
out
in
_
. (3.3)
In the above equations, p is the total measured pressure drop (p =
p
out
p
in
), G is the total mass ux and g is the gravitational accelera-
tion. The positive sign of the gravitational term corresponds to upward
ow in the bend, while the negative sign corresponds to downward ow.
The subscripts in and out refer to the inlet and outlet sections of the
tube, respectively. The momentum density,
, is dened as (GHIAASI-
AAN, 2007),
=
_
(1 x)
2
l
(1 )
+
x
2
_
1
(3.4)
and is evaluated using gas holdup values, , measured at the inlet and
outlet of the tube. In Eq. 3.4, x is the dynamic vapor mass fraction, i.e.,
the ratio of the air and the total mass ow rates. The average density of
the mixture in the bend,
tp
, is taken as the arithmetic average mixture
density between the inlet and outlet of the bend. The mixture density
is given by,
tp
=
g
+
l
(1 ). (3.5)
From Eq. 3.2 one can also dene the pressure drop term con-
cerning acceleration of the ow,
p
a
= G
2
_
1
out
in
_
, (3.6)
which also applies for a straight tube section. The gravitational term
of pressure drop is given by,
p
g,b
=
tp
gH, (3.7)
which is positive for the downward ow direction.
While pressure drop is measured between nine consecutive tube
segments (including the bend), absolute pressure is measured only at
two positions, as shown in Fig. 3. Nevertheless, the pressure distri-
bution along the tube axis can be determined at discrete positions (at
pressure taps) as the sum of consecutive pressure drops, given by the
following equation,
p
n
= p
1
+
n
i=2
p
i1,i
, (3.8)
where p
1
is the measured static pressure, and n is the pressure tap
index, starting at 1 at the farthest upstream position (specied as ref.
in Fig. 3).
The gradients of the pressure drop components were calculated
as follows,
p
f
=
p
f
z
out
z
in
, (3.9)
and,
p
a
=
p
a
z
out
z
in
, (3.10)
where z
in
and z
out
are the axial positions of the inlet and outlet sections
of the respective tube segment. For consistency in the presentation of
the data, the pressure gradient components calculated according to
Eqs. 3.9 and 3.10 are associated with the positions in the middle of the
segment.
3.2 Components 57
b) Gas holdup
During the experiments on pressure drop in the bend, gas holdup
was evaluated by two non-intrusive capacitance sensors positioned at
the straight portions of the tube bend segment, as seen in Fig. 12. For
the experiments focusing on the inuence of the bend on the straight
segments upstream and downstream of it, gas holdup was measured
with the capacitance sensors positioned at dierent locations of the
test section at each run. The gas holdup variation along each horizontal
tube was determined from measurements taken at 6 positions as shown
Fig. 10. During each run, the probes were positioned in pairs according
to 3.
The technique consists in measuring the electrical capacitance of
the mixture, which is known to vary according to the gas holdup. The
electronics and sensors were designed and built according to Libert
et al. (2011) and Libert (2013). Each sensor probe was made up of
two electrodes (Fig 13) mounted ushed on the outer wall of the tube,
thus constituting a capacitor in which the dielectric is formed by the
air-water ow and the tube wall.
An equivalent electric circuit of the capacitance sensor is shown
in Fig. 14. A high frequency (MHz) signal is applied in the transmit-
ting electrode and read at the receiving electrode. The signal is then
amplied in the electronics, ltered, and read in the acquisition sys-
tem. The calibration details and accuracy of the sensors are presented
in Appendices A.2 and B.2.5.
c) Velocity
The velocity of the characteristic ow structures of the ow
regimes, such as Taylor bubbles in plug ow and liquid slugs in slug
ow, was calculated based on the normalized capacitance signal (V
)
of the two gas holdup sensors. During each run, the probes were po-
sitioned at a known distance, z
s
, from each other. Two simultaneous
discrete signals were acquired by the same acquisition system, in a syn-
chronous manner and with a frequency of 1000 Hz. These two signals
(consisting of a relatively long time interval) were compared by means
of a normalized cross-correlation (ORFANIDIS, 1996),
Figure 12 Test section and gas holdup capacitive probes.
Figure 13 Details of the capacitive probe.
3.2 Components 59

C
tp

R
tp

C
w

C
w

Figure 14 Equivalent electric circuit of the capacitance sensor as
presented by Libert et al. (2011).
R
V

1
V

2
(m) =
1
N
Nm1
n=0
V
1,n+m
V
2,n
, 0 m N 1 (3.11)
where V
1
and V
2
are vectors of the measured ow capacitance of probes
1 and 2, each of which with N elements.
The time lag between the signals, t, was estimated based on
the value of m that gives the maximum value of

R
V

1
V

2
(m),
t = m
max
1
f
aq
, (3.12)
where f
aq
is the data acquisition frequency. Thus, the velocity of the
ow structures
3
is given by,
u =
t
z
s
. (3.13)
d) Temperature
Water temperature and room temperature were kept at 24
C.
3
It should be noted that this method allows for an evaluation of the average
velocity of the ow structures using the entire signal (e.g., in plug ow the signal
consists of a time interval covering several bubbles), as opposed to evaluating the
velocity of each structure individually and than averaging the results.
Nonetheless, ow temperature was evaluated by four T-type thermo-
couples measuring temperature right at the inner wall of the channel.
Two are located at the ow mixers, and the other two at the inlet and
outlet of the pressure measurement segment (Fig. 3).
e) Visualization
A Phantom V310 high-speed camera was used to record the fast
phenomena related to the motion of the phases. The ow was recorded
at a rate of 3287 frames per second (at resolution of 1024800 pixels).
Three light-emitting diode sources were used to illuminate the ow,
and were synced with the exposure time interval of the camera.
3.2.4 Equipment information
Table 6 shows the specication of sensors and other relevant
equipment used in this work. Table 7 presents the expanded uncertainty
and range of sensors (for a condence interval C.I.) according to the
manufacturers. A detailed uncertainty analysis has been conducted
and is presented in Appendix B.
Table 6 Equipment details.
Sensors Manufacturer Model
Absolute pressure HBM P3MB
Dierential pressure Rosemount 3051S
Air mass ow rate Kurz 504FTB
Water mass ow rate Micromotion CMF050
Gas holdup UTFPR SICEM
Temperature Omega Type T
Others Manufacturer Model
Acquisition system NI SCXI
Glass tubes Schott Duran
Thermostatic bath Marconi MA184
Pump KSB P1000
Frequency inverter Weg CFW08
Pressure regulator Parker 06R
3.3 Experimental procedure 61
Table 7 Uncertainty of measured parameters.
Sensor U
C.I. Range
Absolute pressure 0.72 kPa 0.99 0 1000 kPa
Dierential pressure 2.6 Pa 0.99 4000 Pa
Air mass ow rate 2.125% of rate 0.95 0 120
kg
/h
Water mass ow rate
0.163
rate
% of rate 0.99 < 163
kg
/h
Water mass ow rate 0.1% of rate 0.99 163 6800
kg
/h
Gas holdup 17.32% (max.) 0.95 0 1
Temperature 1
C 0.95 40 125
C
3.3 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The experimental procedure is described as follows. The test rig
is initialized by turning the thermostatic bath on and setting the valve
system so only air enters the test section. The pressure regulator and
the micrometric valve are set to generate a ow of air inside the test
section. After the test section is completely free of liquid water, voltage
signals of both gas holdup sensors are read and stored for calibration
(signal normalization
4
) purposes. The valves are then set to a position
where only water enters the test section and the pump is turned on.
A shut-o valve (10) located downstream the test section is partially
closed, thus generating an increase of pressure inside the test section.
Following that, any air bubbles inside the tubing connecting the pres-
sure transducers to the test section are purged from the system. Then,
the shut-o is opened after the system has been purged, and voltage
signals of both gas holdup sensors are again read and stored.
After performing the previous procedure, experiments can be
carried out. As the pump is turned on and the pressure regulator is
opened, mass uxes of air and water are set by adjusting the valves and
pump speed. Mass uxes of each phase are measured individually up-
stream of the inlet mixer. Only a few minutes are required for the ow
rates to stabilize in the test section at each condition. Figure 15 shows
the supercial velocities (depicted on the ow regime map of Madhane
et al., 1974) used in the tests to evaluate the pressure drop in the bend.
In this case, 174 experimental runs were performed. Supercial gas
velocities at the inlet of the measuring section (marked as ref. in Fig.
3) were varied between 0.2 and 40
m
/s for three nominal values of super-
cial liquid velocity (0.05, 0.2 and 1
m
/s) covering the stratied, plug,
4
Refer to Section A.2
slug and annular ow regimes. The ow regimes observed upstream of
the bend for all experimental conditions agreed with the ow regime
map.
In the experiments dedicated to evaluating the inuence of the
bend on the straight segments upstream and downstream, tests were
carried out for three ow regimes in both upward and downward direc-
tions, accounting for six distinct ow conditions. For each condition,
the supercial liquid velocity was set as 0.2
m
/s, and the supercial gas
velocity was varied between the nominal values of 0.4, 4 and 20
m
/s,
corresponding to the plug, slug and annular ow regimes, respectively.
Measurements were taken at 12 positions of the gas holdup probes. In
total, 36 experimental runs were performed (six ow conditions), with
the pair of gas holdup probes placed at six dierent positions along the
test section (Fig. 3).
As the majority of the ow conditions involve intermittent ow
regimes, the sampling interval needed to be signicantly larger than
the characteristic time scales of the ow structures (e.g. slug and wave
periods), as suggested by Coleman & Steele (2009) for timewise exper-
iments. The sampling interval used in the present study varied from
a few seconds (single-phase ow and annular ow) to several minutes
(plug and slug ows) depending on the condition. The sampling rate
used was 1 kHz. While data were saved, one had to select the horizontal
tube segments where the dierential pressure measurements were being
taken, by adjusting the 5-way valves (seen in Fig. 11).
5
3.4 VALIDATION
The validation of the experimental apparatus was carried out by
measuring pressure drop at the test section for single-phase water ow,
and comparing it with values obtained from the Darcy-Weisbach equa-
tion and correlations proposed by Idelchik (1992) and Kitto & Stultz
(2005). A single bend with curvature of 8.7 was used. Figure 16(a)
shows the frictional pressure drop of the two horizontal sections and the
bend, measured at dierent ow conditions represented by the Reynolds
number. At high Reynolds numbers, experimental results slightly di-
verge from the proposed correlations. However, the frictional pressure
drop of the 1 m straight tube segment upstream of the bend agrees with
the values obtained from the Darcy-Weisbach equation (Fig. 16(b)),
5
Details of the experimental procedures are presented as an itemized list in
section A.1.
3.5 A rst look at the ow parameters 63
j
g
(m/s)
j
l

(
m
/
s
)
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
bubbly
slug
stratified
wavy
annular
plug
Figure 15 Supercial velocities of the test conditions shown on the
Mandhane et al. (1974) ow regime map.
suggesting that the discrepancy in Fig. 16(a) is due to a minor devia-
tion of both Idelchik (1992) and Kitto & Stultz (2005) bend correlations
at those specic test conditions.
3.5 A FIRST LOOK AT THE FLOW PARAMETERS
The dynamics of gas-liquid ows is very complex due to inter-
facial phenomena and compressibility of the gas phase. In such ows,
the concept of fully developed ow is subjected to uncertainty as ow
regimes are very dependent on inlet conditions and external oscilla-
tions, e.g., those introduced by centrifugal pumps. The assumption of
steady-state ow is also simplistic because of the intermittent behavior
of some regimes. The overall ow parameters, such as ow rate and
pressure drop, are generally evaluated in terms of their average values,
despite their time-dependent characteristic.
In this section, in order to introduce the aforementioned oscil-
latory behavior of gas-liquid ows, the characteristic signals of some
ow parameters are illustrated. These signals are shown in Figs. 17 to
0 1 2 3 4
x 10
4
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Reynolds, Re [-]
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
r
o
p
,

p
f

[
P
a
]
Experimental
Idelchik
Kitto and Stultz
(a)
0 1 2 3 4
x 10
4
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Reynolds, Re [-]
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
r
o
p
,

p
f

[
P
a
]
Experimental
Darcy-Weisbach
(b)
Figure 16 Frictional pressure drop in a single-phase (water) ow of
(a) bend (2R/d = 8.7) and straight sections upstream and
downstream of it (b) single straight section of 1 m.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.5
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.5
1

[
-
]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.5
1
t [s]
(b)
(a)
(c)
Figure 17 Gas holdup characteristic signal of (a) plug, (b) slug, and
(c) annular ow.
20, each containing plots of the respective parameter for three dierent
ow regimes: (a) plug (j
g
= 0.4 m/s), (b) slug (j
g
= 4 m/s), and (c)
annular ow regimes (j
g
= 20 m/s), for a supercial liquid velocity,
j
l
, of 0.2 m/s. The signals are shown over a 30 s time interval for all
conditions.
Figure 17 shows the gas holdup signal. In (a) plug ow, there
are two very distinct values: the high values correspond to the instants
of a passing bubble, where a reasonably at interface is seen, and the
low values correspond to the liquid cells between two bubbles.
6
From
this signal, it is possible to estimate the bubble period as being about
5 s, that is, a frequency of the order of 0.2 Hz. In the case of (b) slug
ow, where the supercial gas velocity is higher, a higher frequency
signal is noted, with a smaller variance than in (a) plug ow.
Figure 18 shows the pressure signal for the same ow conditions
as before. The (b) slug ow regime presents the largest variance of
6
In plug ow regimes it is also possible that the lower value of gas holdup is
slightly above zero, due to a high concentration of small bubbles traveling at the
tail of the Taylor bubble. However, the current gas holdup sensor does not allow for
a precise detection of such small bubbles due to the design of the probe (LIBERT,
2013), accounting for errors up to 8% in this kind of ow regime.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
100
110
120
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
100
110
120
p
1

[
k
P
a
]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
150
160
170
t [s]
(b)
(a)
(c)
Figure 18 Pressure characteristic signal of (a) plug, (b) slug, and (c)
annular ow.
the pressure signal. This strong pressure oscillations are transmitted
to the centrifugal pump, thus aecting the liquid ow rate. This can
be seen in Fig. 19, which shows the variation of the liquid mass ow
rate (relative to the mean value) as a function of time. In this gure,
as the supercial liquid velocities are the same for all conditions, the
absolute values of the liquid mass ow rate is also very similar. The
ow rate in the plug and slug ow regimes presented the largest oscil-
lations. The annular ow regime shows almost no variation of the ow
rate, similar to the stratied and the wavy ow regimes. In order to
suppress such oscillations in the ow rate, the gate valve positioned at
the discharge of the pump was operating almost fully closed. This gen-
erates a high local pressure drop, resulting in higher working pressure
of the centrifugal pump, which becomes less sensitive to the operating
condition downstream of the valve. Regarding the air mass ow rate,
the plug ow regime shows a higher variation around the mean ow
rate value. Pressure and air ow rate oscillations are of the same order
of magnitude for each of the ow regimes, but have a stronger inuence
on plug ow, due to its low j
g
.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.98
1
1.02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.98
1
1.02
W
l
/
W
l

[
-
]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.98
1
1.02
t [s]
_
(b)
(a)
(c)
Figure 19 Liquid mass ow rate (relative) characteristic signal of (a)
plug, (b) slug, and (c) annular ow.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.5
1
1.5
W
g
/
W
g

[
-
]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.5
1
1.5
t [s]
_
(b)
(a)
(c)
Figure 20 Gas mass ow rate (relative) characteristic signal of (a)
plug, (b) slug, and (c) annular ow.
3.6 SUMMARY
The experimental apparatus built to investigate air-water two-
phase ow in return bends was presented in this chapter. This ap-
paratus was designed to reproduce the majority of the two-phase ow
regimes in horizontal tubes, thus being capable of operating in a wide
range of supercial gas and liquid velocities. The apparatus is com-
prised of air and water lines connected to ow mixers placed at both
ends of the test section. The two-phase mixture is formed in one of the
two mixers and the mixture ows into the test section. Three bends
with distinct curvature radii were used and the ow can be set as up-
ward or as downward in the bend. Pressure drop measurements were
taken between several segments downstream and upstream of the bend.
In a rst set of experiments, gas holdup was measured only at the inlet
and outlet positions of the bend, and was used in order to evaluate the
frictional pressure drop in the bend. In the second set of experiments,
gas holdup was measured at several positions along the test section,
thus allowing the evaluation of the reversible and irreversible compo-
nents of pressure drop along the tube downstream and upstream of the
return bend. The validation of the experimental apparatus was carried
out and a brief discussion on the typical behavior of the parameters of
two-phase ow was conducted.
69
4 RESULTS
The two-phase mixture is subjected to inertia, gravity and fric-
tion forces, as well as surface tension forces, as it ows through the
return bend. The resulting eect of these forces depends on the geo-
metric parameters of the bend, the direction of the ow, and the ow
rates. In this chapter, the inuence of the bend on the air-water ow
is rst reported in a qualitative way, showing visual observations of
the ow with a high-speed camera and describing the relevant ow
phenomena observed. Then, measurements of pressure drop and gas
holdup are presented and correlated with the visual observations made.
The frictional pressure drop in the bend was calculated based on the
measurements, resulting in a pressure drop correlation for the bend
segment. Finally, an analysis of the inuence of the bend on the ow
development in the upstream and downstream straight segments is pre-
sented.
4.1 VISUAL OBSERVATION OF THE FLOW
The following observations made for the stratied and wavy, plug
and slug, and annular ow regimes were made based on high-speed
imaging of the ow. The image sequences were edited as a single movie
appended to this work.
1
4.1.1 Stratied and wavy ow
At low ow rates and upward direction, countercurrent ow was
observed in the bend, as the gas ow lacked the required momentum
to lift the liquid continuously along the bend. Figure 21 illustrates
this phenomenon for a supercial liquid velocity of 0.05
m
/s, that is, the
velocity corresponding to the stratied and wavy ow regimes in which
this phenomenon was observed to be the most intense. From left to
right, starting at the top, images taken with a 40 ms time interval show
the oscillatory motion of the liquid. As is shown schematically in Fig.
22, liquid ows from the upper section of the bend and accumulates
at the bottom. As liquid holdup increases, a single wave is formed.
1
The time-codes and information related to each part of the movie are shown in
Appendix C.
70 4 Results
Figure 21 Flow intermittency in the bend for upward ow with j
l
=
0.05
m
/s, j
g
= 1
m
/s. From left to right, images were taken with a
40 ms time interval between consecutive frames.
The growth of the wave is promoted by the acceleration of the gas as
it ows over the crest of the wave, decreasing the local pressure. The
wave eventually touches the upper wall of the tube, forming a liquid
plug. The upward ow of the liquid is resumed when the static pressure
building up behind the liquid plug pushes the liquid up the bend.
4.1 Visual observation of the ow 71
u
l
u
l
u
g
u
l
u
g
u
l
u
g
Figure 22 Oscillatory ow in upward direction (low liquid ow rate).
u
l
u
g
u
g
u
l
u
l
u
l
u
g
Figure 23 Plug ow in upward direction.
The resulting eect of this oscillatory motion of the liquid is a
ow behavior that resembles that of churn ow in a vertical pipe (HE-
WITT et al., 1985). This bidirectional ow behavior in the bend was also
observed at intermediate ow rates corresponding to the plug and slug
ow regimes and, as will be seen, inuences signicantly the frictional
pressure drop contribution in the bend. The oscillatory motion of the
liquid in the bend eventually vanishes as the gas ow rate increases
and the ow regime changes from wavy, or slug, to annular ow in the
upstream section.
In downward ow at low gas ow rates, a hydraulic jump was
observed immediately downstream of the bend. At these conditions,
the liquid holdup at the outlet (bottom) was seen to increase slowly
with time, locally accelerating the air phase. Thus, small disturbances
(ripples) are created at the stratied ow interface and propagate down-
stream as in wavy ow. As the liquid holdup increases, the small waves
grow in amplitude until a large wave reaches the tube upper wall, gen-
erating a single slug of liquid that propelled along the bottom tube.
This phenomenon was observed for supercial gas velocity lower than
72 4 Results
4
m
/s. For a higher supercial gas velocity (j
g
= 10
m
/s) with wavy ow
upstream of the bend, a high level of liquid entrainment was observed
in the gas due to its acceleration and spiral motion (secondary ow)
when in the bend; waves detached from the bulk ow forming liquid
jets and droplets. After the rst 90
of the bend, most of the inner wall

perimeter was wetted by a thin liquid lm, and a ow behavior similar
to annular ow was observed in the rst few diameters of the bottom
part.
4.1.2 Plug and slug ow
Figure 23 depicts the rise of a Taylor bubble in the bend, for a
high liquid ow rate in upward ow. Due to the centrifugal eect that
both phases experience in the bend, the gas remains at the inner part
of the curve while the liquid moves to the outer part. The bubble is
subjected to the swirling liquid and shows a very irregular interface.
Stretching of the tail of the bubble is observed as it enters the bend
and, as the bubble tail reaches 90
along the bend, the gas suddenly

accelerates. At this position, it is observed (by tracking the motion of
very small bubbles) that the liquid lm ows downward and towards
the tail of the bubble, where a high degree of agitation occurs. This
high acceleration of the ow is a result of buoyancy, and a reverse
eect (deceleration of the Taylor bubbles) is observed in downward
ow conditions.
Another eect observed in upward plug ow is the expansion and
acceleration of the Taylor bubbles in the second half of the bend. This
is caused by the sudden reduction in static pressure, mainly as a result
of the change in static head experienced by the bubble while it ows
upward in the bend (as depicted in Fig. 24). At low liquid ow rates
(j
l
= 0.2
m
/s), long Taylor bubbles are observed with ow reversal still
taking place in the bend due to the low inertia of the liquid phase, as
shown in the third frame of Fig. 24.
In the case of downward plug ow, the liquid phase is accelerated
towards the bottom part of the bend because of the combined eect of
centrifugal forces and gravity. This ow regime is depicted in Fig. 25,
which shows the descent of a Taylor bubble in the return bend at two
instants: when the bubble nose is at the inlet (left), and when the nose
is at the outlet (right).
Figure 26 shows three distinct instants of the descent of the tail of
a Taylor bubble in the bend. Since buoyancy acts against the net ow,
Figure 24 Phase distribution in upward plug ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
=
0.4
m
/s). The sequence illustrates the nose and body of a rising
bubble. The time interval between frames is 152 ms.
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 0.4
m
/s). The sequence shows the nose and body of a descending
bubble. The time interval between frames is 532 ms.
74 4 Results
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 0.4
m
/s). The sequence shows the tail of a descending bubble,
followed by roughening and breakup of the gas-liquid interface. The
time interval between frames is 91 ms.
Figure 27 Phase distribution in upward (left) and downward (right)
slug ow in the bend (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 4
m
/s).
the bubble is decelerated in the bend. This, combined with interfacial
friction and centrifugal eects, gives rise to a breakup of the gas-liquid
interface and large disturbances that propagate downstream along the
bottom tube.
At higher gas ow rates, in the slug ow regime, the ow experi-
ences a high degree of agitation as the liquid slug enters the bend. This
eect is stronger in the upward direction since some countercurrent ow
occurs. Between liquid slugs, dierent phase distributions are observed
for each ow direction: in upward ow there is a strong stratication
of the liquid at the outer wall and the gas at the inner wall, which
is milder for downward ow. Figure 27 shows the phase distribution
for slug ow in the upward (left frame) and downward (right frame)
directions, where each frame shows the liquid slug entering the curved
section. In the left frame, signicant mixing of the ow is observed due
to the descending liquid, while in the right frame the liquid phase is
concentrated mostly in the outer part of the bend.
4.1.3 Annular ow
Annular ow is the ow regime least aected by the bend. In
this regime, phase distribution presents minor variations between the
upward and downward directions. Nevertheless, the bend does aect
the ow, and its eect is observed on small ow structures such as dis-
turbance waves and entrained droplets. As the bend imposes a change
of direction in the main ow, liquid droplets traveling with a high iner-
tia in the gas core do not follow this change and are deposited on the
outer wall, in the rst half of the bend (after the inlet).
In downward ow, the liquid concentrated in the bottom part of
the disturbance waves traveling in the upper horizontal tube is detached
from the bottom lm towards the outer part of the curve as a result of
centrifugal forces. This behavior is depicted in Fig. 28; in the left frame,
the dark region located between the middle and the top of the bend
is a disturbance wave being ejected towards the outer wall. This wave
appears in the right frame (after 30 ms) as a dark region at the bottom
portion of the bend. In upward annular ow, as seen in Fig. 29, the lm
is already thicker at the outer part of the curve when the ow enters
the bend, however, a minor entrainment of liquid occurs at the inner
part of the curve. In the upper part of the bend, the liquid is gradually
redistributed from the upper region of the tube to the bottom due to
gravity. In both ow directions, the resulting eect is a disintegration of
76 4 Results
Figure 28 Phase distribution for downward annular ow in the bend
(j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 20
m
/s), showing the detachment of disturbances
waves from the lm towards the outer part of the curve. Time
interval between frames is 30 ms.
Figure 29 Phase distribution for upward annular ow in the bend
(j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 20
m
/s).
4.2 Flow parameters in the bend 77
the disturbance waves in annular ow, as demonstrated in the Harwell
high-speed lm of two-phase ow in bends (GEORGE, 1971). In other
words, ...the bend destroyed the disturbance waves in annular ow.
These waves were essential to keeping the top wet so (immediately after
the bend) dryout could occur in heated systems. (HEWITT, 2013)
4.2 FLOW PARAMETERS IN THE BEND
4.2.1 Pressure distribution
Figures 30 and 31 illustrate the pressure distribution as function
of distance along the test section for upow and downow conditions,
respectively. The pressure and the distance are written with respect
to the absolute pressure and the axial position of the point at which
the absolute pressure is measured furthest upstream from the bend
(see reference point in the diagram of Fig. 3). The bend is located at
around 1.85 m downstream of this reference point, which corresponds
to the fth marker in each curve. The markers have been distinguished
by ow regime, i.e., plug, slug and annular ow. The region close to
the bend is hydrodynamically aected by its presence, as noted by
change in pressure gradient. As a matter of fact, the ow is aected
not only downstream of the tube bend, but also upstream of it due
to the oscillatory countercurrent behavior observed; for lower gas ow
rates (Fig. 30(b)), there is a small increase in pressure reaching an
equivalent length of approximately 15d upstream. In annular ow,
the pressure gradient remains fairly constant along the horizontal tube
length, indicating a minor inuence of the bend on the ow behavior
in the straight section (Fig. 30(a)).
In the case of downward ow (Fig. 31), the gravitational and the
frictional terms of pressure gradient have opposite signs. The gravita-
tional term dominates the frictional part for low gas ow rates, resulting
in an increase of pressure downstream of the bend. Also for low gas
ow rates, a small increase in pressure occurs upstream, starting at
about 15d upstream of the bend (z = 1.52 m). As the gas ow rate
increases and friction becomes higher, the pressure loss is increased.
Downstream of the bend, the eect of the bend on the pressure drop
is not well dened as it seems to extend beyond the measuring sta-
tions and becomes negligible when j
g
reaches the boundary between
the slug and the annular ow regimes. Systematic experiments have
been conducted to quantify this eect (Section 4.4).
78 4 Results
0 1 2 3 4
-16000
-14000
-12000
-10000
-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
z
ref
[m]
p

-

p
r
e
f

[
P
a
]

Plug
Slug
Annular
(a)
0 1 2 3 4
2000
1500
1000
500
0
z
ref
[m]
p

p
r
e
f

[
P
a
]

Plug
Slug
Annular
j
g
(b)
Figure 30 (a) Pressure distribution in upward ow for 2R/d = 8.7,
j
l
= 0.2 m/s and j
g
= 0.2 - 30 m/s. (b) Detailed view of the low gas
ow rate data (plug and slug ow regimes).
0 1 2 3 4
-16000
-14000
-12000
-10000
-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
z
ref
[m]
p

-

p
r
e
f

[
P
a
]

Plug
Slug
Annular
(a)
0 1 2 3 4
2000
1500
1000
500
0
z
ref
[m]
p

p
r
e
f

[
P
a
]

Plug
Slug
Annular
j
g
(b)
Figure 31 (a) Pressure distribution in downward ow for 2R/d =
8.7, j
l
= 0.2 m/s and j
g
= 0.2 - 30 m/s. (b) Detailed view of the low
gas ow rate data (plug and slug ow regimes).
80 4 Results
4.2.2 Gas holdup
Gas holdup values given by the sensors positioned at the top and
bottom of the bend are shown in Fig. 32 for each ow condition and
dierent curvatures, which are represented by markers with distinct
shades of grey. Upward ow seems more aected by the tube bend
than downward ow, as gas holdup values dier signicantly between
the inlet and the outlet. This eect is stronger at lower gas ow rates,
for the same reasons discussed previously for the pressure distribution.
Gas holdup tends to remain more uniform between the inlet and outlet
when the liquid ow rate is increased, or when gas ow rate is increased.
As the liquid ow rate increases, the higher ow inertia reduces the
inuence of the body forces associated with the bend. When the gas
ow increases, it gives rise to a less intermittent ow condition as it
approaches the boundary between slug and annular ow, which also
makes the ow less aected by the bend. For the annular ow regime,
when j
g
= 20
m
/s and j
l
= 0.05 and 0.2
m
/s, gas holdup values are
independent of the ow direction.
In the case of downward ow at low ow rates (j
l
= 0.05
m
/s), Fig.
32 shows large dierences in gas holdup at the bottom sensor between
the dierent bend curvatures, which was caused by the presence of a
hydraulic jump downstream of the bend. The position at which the
hydraulic jump was formed relative to the curve was seen to depend on
the curvature itself, being the curvature of 6.1 the one for which the
hydraulic jump was located furthest upstream to the position of the
probe, resulting in lower values of gas holdup for that curvature. Figure
33 shows the liquid level at the position of the probe (right side of the
perspex sleeve) at a specic time for the three curvatures. Although the
values presented in Fig. 32 are time-averaged values, Fig. 33 shows the
event at similar instants. For the curvature of 12.2, the hydraulic jump
is hardly seen, and appears on the left side of the picture, in the smaller
tube segment. At the conditions of low liquid ow rate and downward
ow (top left-hand side graph), the gas holdup at the outlet (bottom)
was seen to decrease slowly with time, accelerating the air phase and
generating small disturbances (see Sec. 4.1.1). This phenomenon was
observed for supercial gas velocities less than 4
m
/s. For values greater
than 4
m
/s, a minor dierence between gas holdup values between upper
and lower positions was observed.
In Fig. 34, the arithmetic mean values of gas holdup between the
inlet and outlet of the bend are compared with the correlations of Smith
(1969), Premoli et al. (1971), and Chexal et al. (1991). For upward
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
downward, j
l
=0.05 m/s
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
upward, j
l
=0.05 m/s
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
downward, j
l
=0.20 m/s

[
-
]
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
upward, j
l
=0.20 m/s
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
downward, j
l
=1.00 m/s
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
upward, j
l
=0.99 m/s

Top Bottom 6.1 8.7 12.2
j
g
[m/s]
Figure 32 Measured gas holdup values at top and bottom positions
of the bend for all ow conditions and curvatures of 6.1, 8.7, and 12.2.
82 4 Results
Figure 33 Liquid level at the position of the lower gas holdup probe.
Downward ow, j
l
= 0.05
m
/s, j
g
= 1
m
/s. From the top, curvatures of
the bend are 6.1, 8.7, and 12.2.
ow (Fig. 34(a)) a better agreement is achieved with the correlation of
Chexal et al. (1991). For downward ow (Fig. 34(b)), this correlation
provides a good t only for high values of j
g
. In fact, the predictions of
the straight-tube correlations dier signicantly from the experimental
data in the present experiment and, therefore, their use could account
for an inaccurate estimate of pressure drop components in the bend.
Similar behavior was identied for the other supercial liquid velocities.
4.2.3 Frictional pressure drop
The frictional pressure drop in the bend, p
f,b
, was evaluated
according to Eq. 3.2 for all ow conditions. In Figs. 35(a) and 35(b),
the total pressure drop in the bend (square marker) is presented in
terms of the contributions due to friction, acceleration of the ow and
static head. In these gures, the lled regions denote the contribution
of each pressure drop term, with the cross-hatched pattern represent-
ing the static head, which overlaps the other terms in the downward
condition. Figure 35(a) illustrates an upward ow condition, for which
the static head has the same sign as the total pressure drop, that is,
the pressure decreases as the ow goes up the bend. This is not the
case for the downward ow condition shown in Fig. 35(b). In this
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Upward, j
l
=0.20 m/s
j
g
[m/s]

[
-
]

2R/d=6.1
2R/d=8.7
2R/d=12.2
Chexal et al. (1991)
Premoli et al. (1971)
Smith (1969)
(a)
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Downward, j
l
=0.20 m/s
j
g
[m/s]

[
-
]

(b)
Figure 34 Average gas holdup values in the bend for (a) upward and
(b) downward ow for j
l
= 0.2
m
/s.
84 4 Results
10
0
10
1
10
2
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
Gas superficial velocity, j
g
[m/s]
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
r
o
p
,

p

[
P
a
]

Friction Static
Acceleration
p
g,b
+p
a,b
+p
f,b
p
g,b
+p
a,b
p
g,b
(b)
10
0
10
1
10
2
-1600
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
g
[m/s]
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
r
o
p
,

p

[
P
a
]

(a)
Figure 35 Components of pressure drop; (a) upward ow, 2R/d =
6.1, j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, (b) downward ow, 2R/d = 8.7, j
l
= 1
m
/s.
situation, there is a positive contribution of the static head when the
ow goes down the bend, resulting in a positive or negative total pres-
sure drop depending on the magnitude of the frictional term, which
is always negative in this condition. In both gures, the gravitational
term of pressure drop decreases with increasing supercial gas velocity
(and consequently of gas holdup, as seen in Fig. 34), while the fric-
tional term is proportional to the square of j
g
. As for the acceleration
contribution to the total pressure drop, its magnitude varies with the
ow condition. This contribution can account for a small portion of
the total pressure change, such as in Fig. 35(a), but can also account
for almost a third of the total pressure drop, as shown in Fig. 35(b).
So far in the literature, the majority of works concerning pressure
drop in return bends have neglected the contribution due to accelera-
tion of the ow in the calculation of the frictional pressure drop. Still, in
the case of vertical return bends, a second approximation is made when
evaluating the static head based on gas holdup correlations for straight
tubes. Figure 36 shows the total pressure drop and its terms (based
on all 174 experimental conditions), each represented by a histogram
showing the density of data. The area of the density distribution cor-
responds to a condence interval shown in the plot (from 94.5% to
100%). The terms corresponding to acceleration and gravity are pre-
sented relative to the value of the frictional term. In general, neglecting
the acceleration of the ow is reasonable for a rough estimate of the
frictional term, but can account for large errors (up to 200%) in certain
cases. These errors are likely to be larger in the cases involving phase
change in the bend. However, the largest errors can be introduced in
the evaluation of the static head; this term can represent more than 50
times the value of the frictional term.
The values of frictional pressure drop calculated for each ow
condition are shown in Figs. 37 and 38. The data are compared with
the correlations of Chisholm (1983), Chen et al. (2004), Domanski &
Hermes (2008), and Padilla et al. (2009). The upward ow conditions
are represented by upward pointing triangles, while downward ow is
represented by inverted triangles. In this gure, which presents nine
dierent plots, rows represent dierent curvatures and columns repre-
sent dierent supercial liquid velocities j
l
. In the upward direction,
as a result of countercurrent liquid ow in the bend (see Sec. 4.1.1
and 4.1.2), some small and positive values of frictional pressure drop
are observed, which means that the average wall shear stress is approxi-
mately zero or has the same direction of the net ow, respectively. This
periodic ow reversal eect on the wall shear stress seems to occur for
86 4 Results
the majority of ow conditions since, in general, the absolute values of
pressure drop in the upward direction are substantially lower than in
the downward direction. This dierence between the upward and the
downward pressure drop values has also been observed by Chen et al.
(2008), who generically attributed this eect to buoyancy. Not surpris-
ingly, the frictional pressure drop values are all negative for downward
ow.
3 2 1 0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
p
b
[kPa]
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
2 1 0
0
0.5
1
p
f,b
[kPa]
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
0.5 1 1.5 2
0
5
10
|p
a,b
/p
f,b
| []
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
20 40 60
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
|p
g,b
/p
f,b
| []
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
% 0 . 0 0 1 = I C % 0 . 0 0 1 = I C
% 5 . 4 9 = I C % 6 . 6 9 = I C
Figure 36 Histograms of probability density of the experimental
results.
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
r
o
p
,

p

[
k
P
a
]
f
,
b
g
[m/s]
j
l
= 0.2 m/s j
l
= 0.05 m/s
2R/d:
6.1 8.7 12.2
Dir.:
Upwward Downward
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
-3
-2
-1
0
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
-3
-2
-1
0
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
-3
-2
-1
0
Figure 37 Frictional pressure drop in the bend for upward and
downward ow, curvatures of 6.1, 8.1 and 12.2. (continues in Fig. 38)
88 4 Results
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
j
l
= 1 m/s
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
r
o
p
,

p

[
k
P
a
]
f
,
b
g
[m/s]
Correlation: Chen et al.
Chisholm
Domanski & Hermes
Padilla et al.
Figure 38 ...Comparisons with Chisholm (1983), Chen et al. (2004),

Domanski & Hermes (2008), and Padilla et al. (2009).
A direct evaluation of the performance of the correlations in
predicting the data is shown in Figs. 39(a) and 39(b) for upow and
downow, respectively. The statistical parameters associated with the
correlations presented in Table 8 are the following: the mean absolute
deviation (MAD),
MAD =
1
n
n
1
|p
f,b,c
p
f,b,e
| ; (4.1)
the mean absolute percentage deviation (MAPD),
MAPD =
1
n
n
p
f,b,c
p
f,b,e
p
f,b,e
100; (4.2)
the relative root mean squared deviation (RRMSD),
RRMSD =
_
1
n
n
1
_
p
f,b,c
p
f,b,e
p
f,b,e
_
2
100; (4.3)
and the bias,
Bias =
1
n
n
1
_
p
f,b,c
p
f,b,e
p
f,b,e
_
100. (4.4)
The number of data points is n, and the subscripts c and e refer to
the correlation prediction of the frictional pressure drop and the exper-
imental data, respectively. R (last column of Table 8) is the coecient
of determination (HOLMAN, 2001).
The best agreement with the experimental data was observed
for the correlation of Chen et al. (2004), closely followed by that of
Padilla et al. (2009). Both correlations show their best performance
for upow at low and intermediate values of j
l
(< 0.2 m/s). For all
correlations, the MAPD and the RRMSD are signicantly larger for
upward ow than for downward ow because some experimental values
of the frictional pressure drop are close to zero at low gas velocities for
upward ow (due to countercurrent ow in the bend). The MAD, in
turn, gives a clearer picture of the data scatter for the lower values of
the bend frictional pressure drop (low mixture velocities). As can be
seen from Fig. 39(b), there is signicant deviation, in absolute terms,
between the data and the correlations for low mixture velocities in
downward ow. This can be clearly seen in Fig. 37 and becomes evident
90 4 Results
when the MAD values for downward ow are compared with those for
upward ow. For downward ow, there is a clear tendency of some
correlations to underpredict the data, which is quantied by the bias
values in Table 8.
In order to better assess the eect of the curvature, the frictional
pressure drop are presented in terms of an average pressure gradient in
Fig. 40. In general, the absolute value of the frictional pressure gradient
increases substantially as the supercial gas velocity increases. The
eect of dierent bend curvatures becomes more evident at high liquid
ow rates, in the slug ow regime. At high supercial gas velocities, for
j
l
= 0.05 and 0.2
m
/s, there is almost no dierence between the dierent
bend radii due to the existence of annular ow, which is known to be
the ow regime least aected by the presence of the bend.
Table 8 Parameters of the statistical analysis for the pressure drop
correlations based on the presented experimental data.
Upward ow
MAD MAPD RRMSD Bias R
[Pa] [%] [%] [%] [-]
Chen et al. 176 160 468 10 0.958
Chisholm 1043 533 1605 263 0.950
Domanski & Hermes 361 161 410 -15 0.856
Padilla et al. 230 204 636 36 0.950
Downward ow
MAD MAPD RRMSD Bias R
[Pa] [%] [%] [%] [-]
Chen et al. 761 70 75 -70 0.960
Chisholm 1025 69 77 -4 0.955
Domanski & Hermes 1000 82 85 -82 0.724
Padilla et al. 801 69 73 -69 0.944
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
-10
1
-10
0
-10
-1
-10
-2
-10
-3
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

p
f
,
b

[
k
P
a
]

Chen (2004)
Chisholm (1983)
Domanski and Hermes (2008)
Padilla (2009)
Experimental p
f,b
[kPa]
-50%
+50%
(a)
-4 -3 -2 -1 0
-10
1
-10
0
-10
-1
-10
-2
-10
-3
Experimental p
f,b
[kPa]
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

p
f
,
b

[
k
P
a
]

-50%
+50%
(b)
Figure 39 Experimental pressure drop data in (a) upow and (b)
downow compared to the correlations of Chisholm (1983), Chen et
al. (2004), Domanski & Hermes (2008), and Padilla et al. (2009).
92 4 Results
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1000
g
[m/s]
p
f
,
b
R
+
2
L
[
P
a
/
m
]

(a)
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
g
[m/s]
p
f
,
b
R
+
2
L
[
P
a
/
m
]

j
l
=0.05 m/s
j
l
=0.20 m/s
j
l
=1.00 m/s
2R/d=6.1
2R/d=8.7
2R/d=12.2
(b)
Figure 40 Frictional pressure gradient in the bend. (a) upward ow,
(b) downward ow.
4.3 A frictional pressure drop correlation 93
4.3 A FRICTIONAL PRESSURE DROP CORRELATION
The frictional pressure drop in the bend was correlated using the
two-phase multiplier of Lockhart & Martinelli (1949),
p
f,b
=
2
b,g
p
f,b,g
, (4.5)
where the two-phase multiplier
2
b,g
is correlated in terms of the Mar-
tinelli parameter for the tube bend segment, X
2
b
, dened as,
X
2
b
=
p
f,b,l
p
f,b,g
. (4.6)
Equation 4.6 represents the ratio of the single-phase frictional pressure
drops in the bend corresponding to each phase, calculated with the
correlation of Idelchik (1992) for return bends.
Based on the work of Chisholm (1967, 1983), a similar expression
for the two-phase multiplier is proposed:
2
b,g
= AX
2
b
+BX
b
+ 1, (4.7)
where A and B are empirical constants. In order to account for the
relevant physical parameters concerning the two-phase ow in the bend,
each constant can be expressed as a power function of a modied Froude
number:
A = k
A
Fr
n
A
b,l
(4.8)
B = k
B
Fr
n
B
b,l
(4.9)
where,
Fr
b,l
=

l
j
2
l
(
l
g
)gR
. (4.10)
All available data for the curvatures of 6.1, 8.7 and 12.2 have
been used to evaluate A and B. Nevertheless, as the upward ow
condition presented a few positive values of frictional pressure drop,
these positive values have been omitted from the data regression, which
was developed independently for each ow direction.
The values of the empirical parameters are presented in Table
9. Figure 41 shows the two-phase multiplier,
2
b,g
, correlation (solid
line) together with the experimental data, associated with the dierent
94 4 Results
modied Froude numbers. The upward and downward ow correlations
predicted 85% of the data within 60% and 35%, respectively.
Table 9 Empirical parameters of the two-phase multiplier
correlation.
k
A
n
A
k
B
n
B
Upward 0.6 -0.7 23.3 0.3
Downward 2.0 -0.8 12.9 0.6
4.4 DEVELOPING FLOW
In the absence of phase change in a horizontal tube, a gas-liquid
ow is said to be developed when the frictional pressure gradient
and the gas holdup remain fairly unchanged along the tube (TRAVISS;
ROHSENOW, 1971; SILVA LIMA; THOME, 2012). In the present section,
an evaluation of the behavior of these parameters as a function of the
axial position was used to evaluate how the local disturbances associ-
ated with the bend propagate in the upstream and downstream direc-
tions for the dierent ow regimes.
4.4.1 Gas holdup
Figure 42 depicts the gas holdup distribution in upward and
downward ow for the plug, slug, and annular ow regimes. The lower
horizontal axis is the distance in relation to the reference position at
the inlet of the gas holdup measuring section (z
ref
) See Figs. 3 and
10 and the upper horizontal axis is the distance in diameters to the
inlet (negative values) and from the outlet (positive values) of the bend,
with respect to the main axial coordinate, z. It should be noted that,
in terms of z
ref
, the distance between the data points corresponding to
the inlet and outlet of the bend is the actual length of the pipe bend (in
meters). On the other hand, for the scale based on the number of pipe
diameters, both the inlet and outlet sections of the bend (in and out)
correspond to z/d = 0. In this way, negative values of z/d are always
associated with the ow upstream of the bend (and positive values with
the ow downstream of it), irrespective of the ow orientation in the
test section (upward or downward).
Of all ow regimes, plug ow presented the largest variations
4.4 Developing ow 95
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
X
b

R = 0.965
2
A
X

+

B
b
b
,
g
-

1
+60%
-60%
(a)
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
X
b

AX
b
2
+ BX
b
+1
Fr
b,l
= 0.002
Fr
b,l
= 0.025
Fr
b,l
= 0.632
R = 0.959
2
A
X

+

B
b
b
,
g
-

1
+35%
-35%
(b)
Figure 41 Correlation based on the two-phase multiplier for the
frictional pressure drop in (a) upward ow and (b) downward ow.
96 4 Results
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
z
ref
*
[m]

[
-
]
-100 -75 -50 -25 in out 25 50 75 100
z/d [-]
Upward
Downward
Plug
Slug
Annular
Figure 42 Gas holdup distribution in upward and downward ow for
the plug, slug, and annular ow regimes.
of gas holdup, being visibly more aected by the bend. As the gas
velocity increases, the inuence of the bend on the gas holdup seems
to decrease and concentrate only at the vicinity of the bend. The gas
holdup distributions shown in Fig. 42 are presented in greater detail
in separate plots in Figs. 4345 for each specic ow regime.
In plug ow (Fig. 43), distinct features are associated with each
ow direction. In upward ow, the gas holdup enters the measuring
section with a fairly constant value, but starts to decrease at some 25
diameters upstream of the bend as a result of the ow deceleration
brought about by the change in ow direction. In the bend, a change
in gas holdup is observed due to the expansion and acceleration of
the Taylor bubbles (see Sec. 4.1.2). For this reason, the gas holdup
of developed ow far downstream of the bend is higher than at the
upstream region. Additionally, the occurrence of liquid ow reversal
(see Sec. 4.1.2) contributes to the high values of gas holdup at the outlet
(top) of the bend, as well as to the low gas holdup values at the inlet
(bottom). The intermittent liquid accumulation in the bottom region
of the bend reduces the time averaged gas holdup that is measured
by the inlet gas holdup sensor. As a result of the changes in ow
structure due to the bend, signicant variations in holdup were observed
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
z
ref
*
[m]

[
-
]

Upward
Downward
-100 -75 -50 -25 in out 25 50 75 100
z/d [-]
Figure 43 Gas holdup distribution for upward and downward plug
ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 0.4
m
/s).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
z
ref
*
[m]

[
-
]

Upward
Downward
-100 -75 -50 -25 in out 25 50 75 100
z/d [-]
Figure 44 Gas holdup distribution for upward and downward slug
ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 4
m
/s).
98 4 Results
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.9
0.905
0.91
0.915
0.92
0.925
0.93
0.935
0.94
z
ref
*
[m]

[
-
]

Upward
Downward
-100 -75 -50 -25 in out 25 50 75 100
z/d [-]
Figure 45 Gas holdup distribution for upward and downward
annular ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 20
m
/s).
within 40 diameters upstream and 70 diameters downstream of the
bend, approximately.
Although points of maximum gas holdup in upward and down-
ward ow occur at the outlet of the bend (Fig. 43), they are caused
by dierent physical phenomena. In the case of downward plug ow,
the liquid phase is accelerated towards the bottom part of the bend
because of gravity. This eect was also observed in downward slug and
annular ows, though in a smaller scale than in plug ow. As a re-
sult of the increase in the phase velocities at the outlet, a decrease in
the time-average liquid holdup is observed at the bottom of the bend.
In contrast with upward plug ow, a slight increase in gas density is
expected due to the larger static head. This contributes to the gas
holdup being smaller in the bottom part. Still, the developing length
downstream of the bend seems to extend beyond 100 diameters for the
gas holdup in this case; this eect is attributed to the disturbances
generated in the bend that propagate downstream along the tube.
In the slug and annular ow regimes (Figs. 44 and 45), a much
smaller axial variation was observed. The values of gas holdup farthest
downstream remained within approximately 7% and 1% of the initial
upstream value for the conditions of slug and annular ow, respectively.
As the supercial gas velocity increases and the ow regime changes
from slug to annular, the gas holdup distributions for both ow direc-
tions become more similar to each other due to a predominance of the
inertial eects. In Fig. 45 (annular ow), the dierences in gas holdup
between the upward and downward ows are conned to approximately
30 diameters to the inlet and from the outlet of the bend. In slug ow,
the dierences in holdup between the two ow directions persist well
beyond this limit. In qualitative terms, however, the gas holdup dis-
tributions for slug ow are similar to those for plug ow, indicating
that centrifugal and buoyancy forces still inuence quite signicantly
the ow behavior of the phases in the bend.
4.4.2 Pressure gradient
In addition to the changes in gas holdup, the ow development
upstream and downstream of the bend was also investigated through
an assessment of the friction and acceleration components of the axial
pressure gradient.
The components of the pressure gradient due to friction and ac-
celeration are shown in Figs. 4648 for plug, slug and annular ow.
The bottom horizontal axis shows the distance in relation to the refer-
ence position at the inlet of the pressure drop measuring section (z
ref
).
Again, the upper horizontal axis represents the distance in diameters
to the inlet and from the outlet of the bend. The change in pressure
due to static head was subtracted from the total pressure change in the
bend (Eq. 3.2) to allow for a better visualization of the gradients of
the other terms.
Figure 46 shows the pressure gradients for plug ow in the (a)
downward and (b) upward directions. In downward ow, the frictional
pressure gradient is approximately constant up to 10 diameters up-
stream of the bend, when gravity accelerates the liquid down the bend,
thus increasing the average wall shear stress. The negative peak in the
frictional pressure gradient is due to friction and recirculation losses in
the bend and, as the ow enters the bottom tube, is reestablished to
virtually the same values upstream of the bend after 30-50 diameters or
so. The largest variation of the accelerational pressure gradient occurs
immediately downstream of the bend, where it sharply changes from
negative to positive. Far from the bend, where the frictional compo-
nent is almost constant, the inuence of inertia is almost negligible, as
expected. The decreasing trend of the accelerational pressure gradient
100 4 Results
0 1 2 3 4
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
z
ref
[m]
p

[
P
a
/
m
]

p
f
p
a
p
f
+p
a
-60 -40 -20 in out 20 40 60
z/d [-]
(a)
0 1 2 3 4
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
z
ref
[m]
p

[
P
a
/
m
]
-60 -40 -20 in out 20 40 60
z/d [-]
(b)
downward and (b) upward plug ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 0.4
m
/s).
upstream of the bend is easily justied by the acceleration of the liquid
in the bend, and consequent thinning of the liquid lm in the long Tay-
lor bubbles upstream of the bend (see Fig. 25). The change in sign of
the inertia component of the pressure gradient coincides with the axial
reduction of the gas holdup after the bend (see Fig. 43), which occurs
as a result of the deceleration of the liquid lm and breakup of the tail
of the Taylor bubbles into smaller parts. Overall, the ow seems to be
recovered at about 60 diameters downstream, with the fading of the
reversible pressure changes.
In upward plug ow, the frictional pressure gradient is strongly
inuenced by the liquid ow reversals in the bend, as can be seen in
Fig. 46(b). Immediately upstream of the bend, the frictional and accel-
erational components reach their maximum values, but with opposite
signs. The (positive) peak in p
a
results from the (periodic) liquid
accumulation at the bottom of the bend, which increases the liquid
holdup (see Fig 43) and creates recirculation in the liquid, thus giving
rise to friction losses. The time-average frictional pressure gradient at
the outlet of the bend is positive due to periodic reversals of the liquid,
which falls back in the bend, creating a ow condition that resembles
the behavior of churn ow in a vertical pipe, with a chaotic mixing of
the liquid in the bend, as illustrated in Fig 24. At this ow condition,
ow recovery takes place at around 60 diameters downstream, which is
almost equivalent to the ow length aected by the bend upstream of
it.
The behavior of downward slug ow (Fig. 47(a)) is qualitatively
very similar to downward plug ow for both the frictional and accel-
erational components. Nevertheless, ow recovery seems to occur at
a shorter length downstream (approximately 30 diameters), and no
inuence is seen 30 diameters upstream of the bend. Virtually the
same upstream and downstream limits apply to upward slug ow (Fig.
47(b)). In this case, although some liquid ow reversal was observed
in the bend it was not sucient to change the sign of the frictional
component of the pressure gradient due to the larger inertia of the gas
(in comparison to the plug ow condition).
As far as the annular regime is concerned (Fig. 48), both pressure
gradient distributions indicate that this ow regime is the least aected
by the bend, due to the predominance of inertia eects. Still, some
slight dierences occur. In both orientations, the maximum absolute
value of the accelerational pressure gradient takes place at the vicinity
of the bottom turn of the bend.
102 4 Results
0 1 2 3 4
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
z
ref
[m]
p

[
P
a
/
m
]
-60 -40 -20 in out 20 40 60
z/d [-]
(a)
0 1 2 3 4
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
z
ref
[m]
p

[
P
a
/
m
]

p
f
p
a
p
f
+p
a
-60 -40 -20 in out 20 40 60
z/d [-]
(b)
downward and (b) upward slug ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 4
m
/s).
0 1 2 3 4
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
z
ref
[m]
p

[
P
a
/
m
]
-60 -40 -20 in out 20 40 60
z/d [-]
(a)
0 1 2 3 4
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
z
ref
[m]
p

[
P
a
/
m
]

p
f
p
a
p
f
+p
a
-60 -40 -20 in out 20 40 60
z/d [-]
(b)
downward and (b) upward annular ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 20
m
/s).
104 4 Results
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
z
ref
*
[m]
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

[
m
/
s
]

Upward
Downward
-100 -75 -50 -25 in out 25 50 75 100
z/d [-]
Figure 49 Velocity distribution of Taylor bubbles in upward and
downward plug ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 0.4
m
/s).
4.4.3 Velocity
Figure 49 shows the variation of the mean velocity of the Taylor
bubbles along the tube. In upward ow, the bubbles in the bend rise
with higher velocity due to buoyancy, but decelerate right at the outlet
of the bend. In downward ow, the opposite behavior is observed: the
bubbles go down the return bend with lower velocities due to buoyancy.
In slug ow, as shown in Fig. 50, the centrifugal eects seem to be the
dominant ones, as the slug velocities in the bend are quite similar for the
upstream and downstream segments for both directions. Still, liquid
slugs were seen to be faster in downward ow, at the outlet of the bend,
because of gravity.
4.5 SUMMARY
In this chapter, several phenomena associated with air-water
ows in return bends were detailed and illustrated by means of high-
speed imaging, such as acceleration and deceleration of Taylor bubbles,
ow reversal, breakup of the gas-liquid interface, phase segregation,
4.5 Summary 105
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
z
ref
*
[m]
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

[
m
/
s
]

Upward
Downward
-100 -75 -50 -25 in out 25 50 75 100
z/d [-]
Figure 50 Velocity distribution of liquid slugs in upward and
downward slug ow (j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 4
m
/s).
hydraulic jump, fading of disturbance waves, droplet deposition and
others.
Measurements of pressure drop and gas holdup change in the
bend were presented for a wide range of ow conditions. From the gas
holdup measurements, the average gas holdup in the return bend was
calculated and compared with Smith (1969), Premoli et al. (1971), and
Chexal et al. (1991), whose correlations for straigh tubes were seen to
dier from the calculations. Further, the frictional pressure drop in the
bend was evaluated for all ow conditions and compared with corre-
lations of Chisholm (1983), Chen et al. (2004), Domanski & Hermes
(2008), and Padilla et al. (2009). From the frictional pressure drop
data, correlations for upward and downward ow were proposed. Ad-
ditionally, the acelerational, frictional, and gravitational components
of the total pressure drop in the bend were evaluated and presented
as a function of the supercial gas velocity for specic ow conditions.
In order to conrm the importance of the correct evaluation of the
accelerational and gravitational components, probability density plots
concerning the absolute and relative values of the pressure drop com-
ponents and all ow conditions were presented.
As means to investigate the eect of the bend on the ow up-
106 4 Results
stream and downstream of it, additional measurements of the gas holdup
along the axis of the tube were carried out for upward and downward
plug, slug, and annular ows. Based on those measurements, the re-
versible and irreversible components of the pressure gradient were eval-
uated and plotted as a function of the axial distance. An analysis of
the variation of the gas holdup and pressure gradients was carried out,
and corroborated with the visual observations of the ow and with ve-
locity measurements of the Taylor bubbles and liquid slugs. Finally,
a quantitative assessment of the upstream and downstream developing
lengths of the ow was made.
107
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
An experimental apparatus was built in order to evaluate air-
water two-phase ows in vertical 180
bends. In the rst set of ex-

periments, measurements of pressure drop in the test section and gas
holdup change between the inlet and outlet of the bend were presented
for a wide range of ow rates and ow regimes, two orientations (up-
ward and downward) and three curvature radii. In order to quantify
the inuence of vertical return bends on the development of air-water
ows in horizontal tubes, the gas holdup was later obtained as a func-
tion of distance in the test section. This second set of experiments was
carried out for the plug, slug and annular ow regimes only, covering
both upward and downward directions.
Frictional pressure drop in the bend was evaluated and a two-
phase multiplier correlation was proposed for downward and upward
ow as a function of a modied Froude number and empirical constants.
Later, frictional, accelerational, and gravitational components of the
total pressure gradient were evaluated not only in the bend, but along
the axial length of the tube including the horizontal sections.
The main conclusions of this study are as follows:
The accelerational pressure drop can account for twice the value
of the frictional term in the bend in a small number of cases.
However, in general, neglecting the acceleration of the ow is
a reasonable assumption for a rough estimate of the frictional
pressure drop in ows without phase change;
The largest errors in the calculation of the frictional pressure drop
in the bend can arise from an incorrect evaluation of the static
head, which in the worst cases represented as much as 50 times
the frictional term. Thus, the use of straight-tube gas holdup
correlations to estimate the average value in the bend, as it has
been presented in the literature, seems inadequate;
Flow reversal of the liquid phase was observed in all upward ow
regimes except for annular ow. Increasing the ow inertia re-
duces the inuence of the body forces associated with the bend.
On account of ow reversal, small and positive values of frictional
pressure drop were veried, meaning that the average wall shear
stress can have the same direction of the net ow in certain cases.
Therefore, the absolute values of pressure drop in the upward di-
108 5 Conclusions and future work
rection are, in general, substantially lower than in the downward
direction;
A hydraulic jump was observed at the outlet of the bend in down-
ward ow conditions due to the acceleration of the liquid phase
towards the bottom part of the bend because of gravity and cen-
trifugal forces. This eect is increased for larger curvatures of
the bend, and was observed for stratied-wavy and plug ow and
also, in a smaller scale, for slug and annular ow. Due to this ef-
fect, a positive peak was observed at the outlet of the bend in the
distributions of gas holdup and accelerational pressure gradient
for the above mentioned ow regimes;
According to the measurements of pressure and gas holdup, and
the frictional pressure drop analysis, it has been seen that the
annular ow regime at the bend is highly aected to frictional
eects and less inuenced by centrifugal and gravitational eects,
being the least inuencend of the ow regimes. This ow regime
presented the smaller axial variation of the ow parameters, which
was conned only to the vicinity of the bend;
Several phenomena have been identied in the plug ow regime,
which seemed to be very inuenced by the gravitational eects
in the bend. In the downward direction, a large frictional pres-
sure drop in the bend was associated with the acceleration and
thinning of the liquid lm and with the strong mixing of the
phases due to the breakup of the tail of the Taylor bubble. In
the upward direction, the frictional losses are strongly inuenced
by the liquid ow reversals in the bend. Additionally, the sudden
change in static head experienced by the plug ow was reected
in the expansion and contraction of the gas phase for the up-
ward and downward directions, respectively, resulting in dierent
gas holdup values between the positions farthest downstream and
upstream of the bend;
The frictional pressure drop correlation presented good results
for the downward ow, predicting 85% of the data within 35%.
However, the proposed correlation for upward ow does not take
into account the eect of positive pressure drop values since it is
based on single-phase values. Still, in the literature, this eect
has not been accounted in pressure drop correlations so far;
According to the gas holdup measurements, the inuence of the
bend was observed at around 70 diameters upstream of the bend,
5 Conclusions and future work 109
and was seen to extend beyond the measuring limits (more than
100 diameters) in downward plug ow. Nevertheless, signicant
changes in pressure gradient were conned to 40 diameters up-
stream and 60 diameters downstream of the bend.
The following topics are suggested as future work:
More work is required to improve the proposed correlation for
frictional pressure drop in the bend for upward ow, accounting
for ow reversal occuring in the bend. Supplementary correla-
tions are also needed in order to account for the pressure drop
in the developing length upstream and downstream of the bend.
Additionally, a more general method for calculating pressure drop
can be reached by extending the present pressure drop database
to other uids (with no phase change, e.g., air and water-glycerol
mixture), thus investigating the eect of the thermophysical prop-
erties on the ow in the bend.
Further investigation of the frictional losses in gas-liquid ow is
needed. Experiments can be carried out for each of the ow
regimes with simultaneous high-speed lming and wall shear stress
measurements (with a mini-Laser Doppler Velocimetry sensor) in
the straight and return bend segments. For intermittent ow
regimes, wall shear and pressure drop measurements can be ei-
ther a in the frequency domain or, better still, in the time domain
performing a phase decomposition of the signal. In the latter case,
the gas holdup signals could be used in order to decompose the
wall shear signals in dierent parts, e.g., in plug ow, the signals
concerning the nose, body and tail of the Taylor bubble, and the
liquid cell.
A characterization of the velocity eld in the bend can be carried
out. Through Particle Image Velocimetry, it is possible to deter-
mine the ow eld in the vertical plane of the bend, and in the
cross-sectional plane along the axial length of the bend, therefore
allowing a quantitative evaluation of the rotation of the ow (sec-
ondary ow) and other ow phenomena already identied in the
present study.
110 5 Conclusions and future work
111
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BRENNEN, C. E. Fundamentals of Multiphase Flow. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2009. 368 p.
CASTILLO, J. R. Study of Two-Phase Flow in Pipe Bends. 65 p.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1957.
CHEN, I.; WON, C.; WANG, C. Inuence of oil on R-410A two-phase
frictional pressure drop in a small U-type wavy tube. International
Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, v. 32, n. 6, p. 797808,
2005.
CHEN, I.; WU, Y.; LIAW, J.; WANG, C. Two-phase frictional
pressure drop measurements in U-type wavy tubes subject to
horizontal and vertical arrangements. Applied Thermal Engineering,
v. 28, n. 8-9, p. 847855, 2008.
CHEN, I. Y.; WANG, C.-C.; LIN, S. Y. Measurements and correlations
of frictional single-phase and two-phase pressure drops of R-410A ow
in small U-type return bends. International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, v. 47, n. 10-11, p. 22412249, 2004.
CHEN, I. Y.; WU, Y.-S.; CHANG, Y.-J.; WANG, C.-C. Two-phase
frictional pressure drop of R-134a and R-410A refrigerant-oil mixtures
in straight tubes and U-type wavy tubes. Experimental Thermal and
Fluid Science, v. 31, n. 4, p. 291299, 2007.
CHEXAL, B.; LELLOUCHE, G.; HOROWITZ, J.; HEALZER,
J.; OH, S. The Chexal-Lellouche Void Fraction Correlation for
Generalized applications. Palo Alto, California: NSAC Report-139,
1991.
CHISHOLM, D. A theoretical basis for the Lockhart-Martinelli
correlation for two-phase ow. International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, v. 10, n. 12, p. 17671778, 1967.
CHISHOLM, D. Two-phase ow in bends. International Journal of
Multiphase Flow, v. 6, n. 4, p. 363367, 1980.
CHISHOLM, D. Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines and Heat Exchangers.
London: George Godwin, 1983. 304 p.
112 BIBLIOGRAPHY
COLEBROOK, C. Turbulent ow in pipes, with particular reference
to the transition region between smooth and rough pipe laws. Journal
of the Institution of Civil Engineers, v. 11, n. 4, 1939.
COLEMAN, H.; STEELE, W. Experimentation, Validation, and
Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers. 3rd ed.. ed. Hoboken: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 2009. 317 p.
COLLIER, J. G.; THOME, J. R. Convective Boiling and
Condensation. Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 1996. (Oxford
science publications).
DE KERPEL, K.; AMEEL, B.; TJOEN, C.; CANIèRE, H.; DE
PAEPE, M. Flow regime based calibration of a capacitive void
fraction sensor for small diameter tubes. International Journal of
Refrigeration, v. 36, n. 2, p. 390401, 2013.
DE KERPEL, K.; DE GROOF, C.; DREESEN, M.; DE
KEULENAER, T.; DE PAEPE, M. Capacitive Sensor Measurements
on Two-Phase Flow In Smooth Return Bends. In: Proceedings
of the 8th Experimental Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics and
Thermodynamics. Lisbon: A.Faria, 2013.
DEEPWATER HORIZON STUDY GROUP. Final Report on the
Investigation of the Macondo Well Blowout. 2011. 124 p.
DET NORSK VERITAS. Forensic Examination of Deepwater
Horizon Blowout Preventer, Vols. I and II (Appendices). Final
Report for U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Washington, D.C. Report
No. EP030842. 2011.
DOMANSKI, P.; HERMES, C. An improved correlation for two-phase
pressure drop of R-22 and R-410A in 180 return bends. Applied
Thermal Engineering, v. 28, n. 7, p. 793800, 2008.
FITZSIMMONS, D. Two-phase pressure drop in piping components -
HW-80970 Rev.1. [S.l.], 1964. 64 p.
FRIEDEL, L. Improved friction pressure drop correlations for
horizontal and vertical two-phase pipe ow. European Two-Phase
Flow Group Meeting, Ispra, Italy, paper E2., 1979.
GEARY, D. F. Return Bend Pressure Drop in Refrigeration Systems.
ASHRAE Transactions, v. 81, n. 1, p. 250265, 1975.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 113
GEORGE, K. K. Two-phase ow in 180 return bends - High speed
cine lm. UK AEA: Report AERE-M 2459, 1971.
GHIAASIAAN, S. M. Two-Phase Flow, Boiling, and Condensation:
In Conventional and Miniature Systems. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2007. 636 p.
HEWITT, G. F. Private communication. 2013.
HEWITT, G. F.; MARTIN, C. J.; WILKES, N. S. Experimental and
modelling studies of annular ow in the region between ow reversal
and the pressure drop minimum. Physico-Chemical Hydrodynamics,
v. 6, p. 4350, 1985.
HOANG, K.; DAVIS, M. R. Flow Structure and Pressure Loss for
Two Phase Flow in Return Bends. Journal of Fluids Engineering,
v. 106, n. 1, p. 30, 1984.
HOLMAN, J. Experimental Methods for Engineers. 7th ed.. ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 2001. 672 p.
IDELCHIK, I. E. Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance. 3rd. ed. Moscow:
Mashinostroenie, 1992. 672 p.
KITTO, J. B.; STULTZ, S. C. (Ed.). Steam: Its Generation and Use.
41st. ed. Barberton: The Babcock & Wilcox Company, 2005. 1040 p.
LEMMON, E.; JACOBSEN, T.; PENONCELLO, S.; FRIEND, D.
Thermodynamic properties of air and mixtures of nitrogen, argon,
and oxygen from 60 to 2000 K at pressures to 2000 MPa. Journal of
Physical and Chemical Reference Data, v. 29, n. 3, 2000.
LEMMON, E. W.; MCLINDEN, M. O.; HUBER, M. L. REFPROP:
Reference uid thermodynamic and transport properties. NIST
standard reference database, v. 23, n. 8.0, 2007.
LIBERT, N. Sistema de Medicao Capacitivo para Determinac ao da
Fracao de Vazio em Escoamentos Bifasicos. 119 p. Universidade
Tecnologica Federal do Parana, 2013.
LIBERT, N.; LIPINSKI, L.; SILVA, M. da. Capacitive Probe for
Gas-Liquid Flow Characterization. In: Proceedings of XVIII IMEKO
TC4 Symposium and IX Semetro. Natal: -, 2011.
114 BIBLIOGRAPHY
LOCKHART, R. W.; MARTINELLI, R. C. Proposed Correlation of
Data for Isothermal Two Phase Flow, Two Component Flow in Pipes.
Chem. Eng. Prog., v. 45, p. 3948, 1949.
MANDHANE, J. M.; GREGORY, G. A.; AZIZ, K. A ow pattern
map for gasliquid ow in horizontal pipes. International Journal of
Multiphase Flow, v. 1, n. 4, p. 537553, 1974.
MCADAMS, W.; WOODS, W.; Heroman Jr., L. Vaporization inside
horizontal tubes - II - Benzene-oil mixtures. Transactions of ASME,
v. 64, p. 193200, 1942.
MOFFAT, R. Describing the uncertainties in experimental results.
Experimental thermal and uid science, v. 1, n. 1, p. 317, 1988.
M
ULLER-STEINHAGEN, H.; HECK, K. A simple friction pressure

drop correlation for two-phase ow in pipes. Chemical Engineering
and Processing: Process Intensication, v. 20, n. 6, p. 297308, 1986.
ORFANIDIS, S. J. Optimum Signal Processing: An Introduction. 2nd.
ed. Englewood Clis: Prentice Hall, 1996. 377 p.
PADILLA, M.; REVELLIN, R.; BONJOUR, J. Prediction and
simulation of two-phase pressure drop in return bends. International
Journal of Refrigeration, v. 32, n. 7, p. 17761783, 2009.
PADILLA, M.; REVELLIN, R.; BONJOUR, J. Two-phase ow
visualization and pressure drop measurements of HFO-1234yf and
R-134a refrigerants in horizontal return bends. Experimental Thermal
and Fluid Science, Elsevier Inc., v. 39, p. 98111, 2012.
PADILLA, M.; REVELLIN, R.; HABERSCHILL, P.; BONJOUR, J.
Two-phase pressure drop in return bends: Experimental results for
R-410A. International Journal of Refrigeration, n. 1964, p. 112, 2011.
PADILLA, M.; REVELLIN, R.; WALLET, J.; BONJOUR, J. Flow
regime visualization and pressure drops of HFO-1234yf, R-134a and
R-410A during downward two-phase ow in vertical return bends.
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, v. 40, p. 116134, 2013.
PIERRE, B. Flow resistance with boiling refrigerants - Part I.
ASHRAE J., v. 6, n. 9, p. 5865, 1964.
PIERRE, B. Flow resistance with boiling refrigerants - Part II.
ASHRAE J. 6, v. 6, n. 10, p. 7377, 1964.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 115
PREMOLI, A.; FRANCESCO, D.; PRINA, A. A dimensionless
correlation for determining the density of two-phase mixtures.
Termotecnica, v. 25, 1971.
SILVA LIMA, R.; THOME, J. Two-phase pressure drops in adiabatic
horizontal circular smooth U-bends and contiguous straight pipes
(RP-1444). HVAC&R Res., v. 16, n. 3, p. 383398, 2010.
SILVA LIMA, R. J.; THOME, J. R. Two-phase ow patterns in
U-bends and their contiguous straight tubes for dierent orientations,
tube and bend diameters. International Journal of Refrigeration,
Elsevier Ltd and IIR, v. 35, n. 5, p. 14391454, 2012.
SILVA, M. J. da; SCHLEICHER, E.; HAMPEL, U. Capacitance
wire-mesh sensor for fast measurement of phase fraction distributions.
Measurement Science and Technology, v. 18, n. 7, p. 22452251, 2007.
SMITH, S. L. Void fractions in two-phase ow: a correlation based
upon an equal velocity head model. ARCHIVE: Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers 1847-1982 (vols 1-196), SAGE
Publications, v. 184, n. 1969, p. 647664, 1969.
STEINER, D. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure VDI-Warmeatlas,
chapter HBB. D usseldorf: VDI-Gesellshaft Verfahrenstechnik und
Chemieingenieurwesen (GVC), 1997.
THE FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR ACCIDENT INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION COMISSION. Ocial Report (Global Version).
2012.
TRAVISS, D.; ROHSENOW, W. The inuence of return bends on the
downstream pressure drop and condensation heat transfer in tubes.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971.
USUI, K.; AOKI, S.; INOUE, A. Flow Behavior and Pressure Drop
of Two-Phase Flow through C-Shaped Bend in Vertical Plane, (I)
Upward Flow. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, v. 887, n.
December, p. 875887, 1980.
USUI, K.; AOKI, S.; INOUE, A. Flow Behavior and Pressure Drop
of Two-Phase Flow through C-Shaped Bend in Vertical Plane, (II)
Downward Flow. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, v. 18,
n. 3, p. 179190, 1981.
116 BIBLIOGRAPHY
WAGNER, W.; PRUSS, A. The IAPWS formulation 1995 for the
thermodynamic properties of ordinary water substance for general and
scientic use. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, v. 31,
n. 2, 2002.
WANG, C.; CHEN, I.; HUANG, P. Two-phase slug ow across small
diameter tubes with the presence of vertical return bend. International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, v. 48, n. 11, p. 23422346, 2005.
WANG, C.; CHEN, I.; LIN, Y.; CHANG, Y. A visual observation of
the air-water two-phase ow in small diameter tubes subject to the
inuence of vertical return bends. Chemical Engineering Research and
Design, v. 86, n. 11, p. 12231235, 2008.
WANG, C.-C.; CHEN, I. Y.; YANG, Y.-W.; CHANG, Y.-J. Two-phase
ow pattern in small diameter tubes with the presence of horizontal
return bend. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, v. 46,
p. 29752981, 2003.
WANG, C.-C.; CHEN, I. Y.; YANG, Y.-W.; HU, R. Inuence of
horizontal return bend on the two-phase ow pattern in small diameter
tubes. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, v. 28, n. 2-3, p.
145152, 2004.
APPENDIX A -- Experimental procedures
A.1 Experimental apparatus 119
In the present chapter, two experimental procedures are desci-
bred: the initialization of the experimental apparatus, and the mea-
surement procedure. Also, details of the calibration of the gas holdup
sensors are presented.
A.1 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS
Initialization of the apparatus:
1. Air conditioning system is turned on a few hours prior to con-
ducting any experiments;
2. The electric panel of the apparatus is turned on if the ther-
mostatic bath is o, it must be turned on manually;
3. The gas holdup probes are xed in the desired measurement
position;
4. The valve system is set so only air enters the test section;
5. The pressure regulator is set to 1.5 bar and micrometric valve
is fully open, generating a ow of air inside the test section;
6. While the air ow dries the test section, the conguration pa-
rameters (signal frequency and amplitude) of both gas holdup
sensors must be sent to the sensor electronics;
7. After the test section is completely free of liquid water, voltage
signals of both gas holdup sensors are read and stored at the ac-
quisition interface for calibration (signal normalization) purposes;
8. The valve system is set to a position where only water enters
the test section (the pressure regulator is left at 1.5 bar);
9. The gate valve and ow by-pass are checked and the pump is
turned on at the acquisition inteface;
10. A shut-o valve located downstream the test section is partially
closed until the pressure reaches 3 bar;
11. Any air bubbles inside the tubing connecting the pressure trans-
ducers to the test section are purged out of the system;
12. The shut-o valve is opened after the system has been purged,
and voltage signals of both gas holdup sensors are again read and
stored.
120 Appendix A -- Experimental procedures
Measurements:
13. If the pump is running and the air line is pressurized, then
the valve system must be set to a position where both air and
water enter the test section at the desired conguration (i.e., ow
direction and mixer conguration);
14. The test condition parameters (ow direction, curvature, etc)
must be set at the data acquisition program user interface.
15. The absolute pressure valve (central valve, Fig. 11) must be
set at the reference (inlet) position, so that the ow parameters
are calculated correctly;
16. The pump speed, gate valve and ow by-pass are adjusted in
order to set j
l
to the desired value. A ow regime map is shown
at the data acquisition interface program with j
l
and j
g
evaluated
instantly;
17. The pressure regulator and the micrometric valve are adjusted
in order to set j
g
;
18. Steps 16 and 17 must be repeated until the desired condition
is reached;
19. The positions of the valves (Fig. 11) are set so dierential pres-
sure is measured at the desired straight tube sections. Parameters
are set at the acquisition interface according the position of the
valves;
20. Data recording is turned on;
21. Step 19 is repeated so that the pressure drops associated with
the dierent straight tube sections are measured;
22. Data recording is turned o.
If gas holdup needs to be measured at dierent positions of the
test section, the initialization procedure must be repeated from Step 3
and the measurement procedure must be performed from the beggining.
A.2 Calibration of the gas holdup sensors 121
A.2 CALIBRATION OF THE GAS HOLDUP SENSORS
Both gas holdup sensors were calibrated using a closed borosili-
cate glass pipe section inside of which specied amounts of water were
placed, generating known values of gas holdup. This stratied regime
calibration procedure is alternative to the linear relationship between
voltage and holdup, which is known to give errors up to 18% (DE KER-
PEL et al., 2013a) for the slug ow regime. The calibration curve was
normalized with respect to voltage signals V
water
and V
air
, correspond-
ing to gas holdup values of 0 and 1, i.e., pipe full of water or full of air,
respectively. Based on the logarithmic response of the demodulator in
the sensor electronics, the normalized voltage, V
, is given by,
V
=
10
V
water
/k
10
V/k
10
V
water
/k
10
V
air
/k
, (A.1)
where V is the measured voltage signal and k is a constant of the log-
arithmic amplier, which was empirically determined by Libert et al.
(2011) as 0.45. This calibration accounts for small variations in electri-
cal properties of both uids due to contamination or small changes in
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
V* []
]

Sensor 1
Sensor 2
Fit 1
Fit 2
based on the stratied regime.
temperature. The calibration data and curve concerning the two gas
holdup sensors is shown in Fig. 51.
Firstly, in the calibration procedure, amplitude and frequency
settings are sent to the sensors. When the room temperature is stable
at 24
C, the voltage signal corresponding to V

air
( = 1) is acquired.
Then, the tube is lled by a syringe with specied amounts of water
from the reservoir, until it becomes completely full. Voltage signals are
acquired while the tube is being lled.
Using the denitions of liquid and gas holdup, the following ex-
pression can be written:
(1 ) =
A
l
A
. (A.2)
By multiplying the right side of the equation by the length of
the tube, L,
(1 ) =
A
l
A
L
L
=
V
l
V
, (A.3)
gas holdup can be written in terms of volume assuming that it does
not change along the tube.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
V* []
]

Sensor 1
Sensor 2
Fit 1
Fit 2
FEM S.
FEM D.+A.
based on the stratied regime.
A.2 Calibration of the gas holdup sensors 123
In the second set of the experiments, a Finite Element Method-
based calibration was also used in order to increase the measurement
accuracy in annular ow. Libert (2013) conducted numerical simula-
tions using this method to evaluate the capacitance of the ow and
tube wall for all ow regimes in horizontal pipes. In his work, the mea-
surements of the capacitance sensors using the FEM-based calibrations
were compared with a reference wire-mesh sensor for all ow conditions
except annular ow. Fig. 52 shows two of the calibration curves ob-
tained by Libert (2013) and the curves obtained by the experimental
calibration carried out in the present work; the long-dashed curve cor-
responds to the FEM-based calibration curve based on the annular and
dispersed bubbles ow regime, and the dotted curve corresponds to the
stratied ow regime.
APPENDIX B -- Uncertainty analysis
B.1 Denitions 127
B.1 DEFINITIONS
The elemental sources of uncertainty of the measured param-
eter, X, can be dened as systematic and random. The systematic
uncertainty, b
X
, accounts for the elemental uncertainties of the mea-
surement instrument, while the random uncertainty, s
X
, accounts for
random sources that varied with time during the measurement of X
(MOFFAT, 1988; COLEMAN; STEELE, 2009). The combined uncertainty
of the direct measured parameter, X, over a sampling period, t, is,
u
2
X
= b
2
X
+s
2
X
, (B.1)
where s
X
is dened as the sample standard deviation,
s
X
=
_
1
N 1
N
i=1
_
X
i

X
_
2
_
1/2
, (B.2)
where N is the number of measurements of X, and the mean value of
X is dened as,
X =
1
N
N
i=1
X
i
. (B.3)
The combined uncertainty of a derived parameter,
R = f(

X
1
,

X
2
, ...,

X
k
), (B.4)
can be calculated using the Taylor Series Method for propagation of
uncertainties described in Moat (1988),
u
R
=
_
_
k
j=1
_
R
X
j
_
2
u
2
X
j
_
_
1/2
. (B.5)
The expanded uncertainty for a condence interval of 95% and
a large number of measurements N, is
U
95
= 1.96u
R
. (B.6)
However, considering now a time dependent parameter X = f(t),
whose variation does not originate from random sources nor system un-
steadiness, but from the actual physical behavior of a transient process
(e.g. pressure oscillations in intermittent gas-liquid ows), the uncer-
128 Appendix B -- Uncertainty analysis
tainty associated with a single observation of X at a specic time t
1
is
u
X
1
= b
X
. (B.7)
The most representative value of X in the sampling interval t is the
time-averaged value

X that can also be dened as an arithmetic mean,
X =
1
n
n
i=1
X
i
, (B.8)
where X has been measured with a determined sampling frequency
1
,
and n is the total number of observations of X, constituting a time
signal X(t). Thus, the combined uncertainty of the parameter

X is
calculated substituting Eq. B.8 in Eq. B.5, which leads to
u
2
X
=
1
n
n
j=1
_
u
2
X
j
_
. (B.9)
B.2 UNCERTAINTY OF THE MEASURED PARAMETERS
The present experiment is based on the assumptions that the
ow is isothermal and the ow rates of both air and water are constant
during each test condition. However, temperature and mass ow rates
values do uctuate with time and, therefore, are not constant. This
variation is considered as unsteadiness of the experiment, thus being
accounted for in the evaluation of uncertainty of temperature and ow
rates. For these parameters, Eq. B.1 is used to calculate the standard
uncertainties. All other ow parameters, e.g., static pressure, pressure
drop and gas holdup, are time dependent due to the intermittent be-
havior of the ow. As these parameters are expected to vary with time
as a result of ow phenomena as opposed to what is expected of tem-
perature and ow rates they have been represented as time-averaged
parameters using Eq. B.8. The notation

X (overbar) has been omitted
for convenience, and Eq. B.9 was used to evaluate their uncertainty.
1
In this work, all parameters have been measured at a sampling frequency of
10 kHz and averaged every 1 ms. This eliminates high frequency noise, and results
in a better representation of the values within 1 ms, resulting in data with a sampling
frequency of 1 kHz, which is then recorded.
B.2 Uncertainty of the measured parameters 129
B.2.1 Pressure
The elemental standard uncertainties associated with the mea-
surement of pressure are the standard uncertainty of the pressure trans-
ducer evaluated from calibration data and the standard uncertainty
associated with the curve tting of data. Combining these uncertain-
ties, the resulting uncertainty accounting for systematic eects, b
p
, is
b
2
p
= u
2
p,cal
+u
2
p,fit
. (B.10)
The standard uncertainties of the acquisition system, which are
associated with the voltage reading of the transducer and conversion of
data from analog to digital form, have been neglected in all uncertainty
evaluations of this chapter. This is due to the high accuracy of the
acquisition system in reading voltage (u
v
= 10
999
V) and in converting
signals from the analog to the digital form (A/D converter of 16-bits).
Attributing values to Eq. B.10,
b
p
=
_
0.36
2
+ 0.22
2
= 0.42 kPa.
B.2.2 Dierential Pressure
The standard uncertainty of dierential pressure measurements
can be calculated using the expanded uncertainty of the sensor provided
by the manufacturer for a 99% level of condence:
b
p
=
U
0.99
t
99
. (B.11)
Evaluating Eq. B.11 gives,
b
p
=
2.96
3
= 0.867 Pa.
B.2.3 Water mass ow rate
The Coriolis sensor manufacturer gives the expanded uncertainty
of the mass ow rate with 99% condence for two dierent ow rates.
For ow rates higher than 163 kg/h, U
0,99
= 0, 1 % of the reading. For
lower mass ow rates, the expanded uncertainty of the measurement is
given by,
U
0.99
=
_
1.25 0.007055W
l
100
_
W
l
. (B.12)
In both cases, the standard uncertainty of liquid mass ow rate,
W
l
, is
b
W
l
=
U
0.99
3
. (B.13)
B.2.4 Air mass ow rate
The air mass ow rate standard uncertainty can also be esti-
mated in terms of calibration data provided by the sensor manufac-
turer, which is U
0.95
= 2.125 % of the reading. Thus, the standard
uncertainty of the air mass ow rate is
b
W
g
=
0.02125
1.96
W
g
. (B.14)
B.2.5 Gas holdup
The standard uncertainty associated to the gas holdup measure-
ments with the experimental calibration of the probes was evaluated
individually for each of the ow regimes, based on the work of Libert
(2013). Libert contributed to the present work by comparing measure-
ments of the capacitance sensor (using a stratied regime calibration)
with a wire-mesh sensor (SILVA et al., 2007), used as reference. As Lib-
ert did not carried out experiments for the annular ow regime, the
comparison was strictly numerical for this ow regime: the admittance
value of the cross-sectional area of the tube (wall and the two-phase
ow) was obtained from nite element method simulations for the strat-
ied and annular ow regimes, and then compared with each other.
The standard uncertainty was calculated based on the maximum
error between the measured and the reference value, being 5% for strat-
ied and wavy ow, 8% for plug ow, and 15% for slug and annular
ow. A square probability distribution was assumed, and the resulting
values of standard uncertainty based on the ow regime are presented
in Table 10.
The experimental calibration was used in the experiments con-
cerning the pressure drop in the return bend. In later experiments, fo-
B.2 Uncertainty of the measured parameters 131
cusing on the gas holdup distribution upstream and downstream of the
bend, a second calibration curve was used in order to increase the sen-
sor accuracy in the annular ow regime, also reducing the experimental
uncertainty. Libert (2013) suggests proposed specic calibration curves
based on the simulated admittance values for each of the ow regimes
found in horizontal tubes. This values were also compared with values
obtained from the reference gas holdup sensor, providing an estimate
of the maximum errors of the sensor. The simulated calibration curve
for the annular ow regime, which was used in this work, can account
for errors up to 7.2%, thus,
b
=
0.072
3
.
B.2.6 Temperature
The temperature standard uncertainty was calculated using data
provided by the thermocouple manufacturer for a 95% level of con-
dence.
b
T
=
1
1.96
= 0.51
C
Table 10 Standard uncertainty of gas holdup sensors using the
experimental stratied regime-based calibration.
Flow regime b
Stratied
_
0.05/
3
_
Wavy
_
0.05/
3
_
Plug
_
0.08/
3
_
Slug
_
0.15/
3
_
Annular
_
0.15/
3
_

B.3 UNCERTAINTY OF FLUID PROPERTIES AND GEOMETRIC
PARAMETERS
B.3.1 Fluid properties
The combined uncertainty of the uid property
k
= f(p, T)
concerning the k-phase of the mixture is expressed as,
u
2
k
=
_
k
T
_
2
u
2
T
+
_
k
p
_
2
u
2
p
+u
2
k
,refprop
, (B.15)
where u
2
k
,refprop
is the standard uncertainty of the property related to
software Refprop 8 (LEMMON et al., 2007).
Evaluating the derivatives using a numerical approach, the com-
bined uncertainties of the liquid and gas densities are
u
2
g
=
_
lim
T0
g
,
T+T

g
T
_
2
u
2
T
+
_
lim
p0
g
,
p+p
g
p
_
2
u
2
p
, (B.16)
and,
u
2
l
=
_
lim
T0
l
,
T+T

l
T
_
2
u
2
T
. (B.17)
In both cases, u
2
k
,refprop
has been neglected since its value is of
a higher order than the other terms of the equation.
2
B.3.2 Geometric parameters
The standard uncertainty related to the tube diameter, d, is
given by the manufacturer as being u
d
= 0.125 mm. The curvature
radius of the curved sections has been determined by photographing
the tubes on top of a graph (squared) paper and post-processing the
2
Refprop density calculation is based on Lemmon et al. (2000) and Wagner &
Pru (2002), and account for uncertainties of u
g
,refprop
= 0.1 % and u
l
,refprop
=
0.0001 % of given values.
B.4 Uncertainty of calculated parameters 133
image in the software Matlab. Several measurements of the inner and
outer curvature radii were performed and the average curvature radius
was calculated. The highest value of the standard uncertainty (consid-
ering the three curved tubes) was estimated as being u
R
= 7 mm.
As two times the curvature radius does not correspond to the
exact value of the distance H of the curved tube (Fig. 8), this parameter
was also measured using a Mitutoyo caliper; the associated uncertainty
is u
H
= 0.025 mm.
The upper and lower horizontal tube sections were aligned using
a digital inclinometer Bosch DNM 120L, within 0.5
. The instrument
uncertainty is 0.057
.
B.4 UNCERTAINTY OF CALCULATED PARAMETERS
B.4.1 Mass uxes
The k-phase mass ux, G
k
, is dened as,
G
k
=
4W
k
d
2
, (B.18)
and its combined uncertainty is given by,
u
2
G
k
=
_
G
k
W
k
_
2
u
2
W
k
+
_
G
k
d
_
2
u
2
d
. (B.19)
Substituting Eq. B.18 in Eq. B.19,
u
2
G
k
=
_
4
d
2
_
2
u
2
W
k
+
_
8W
k
d
3
_
2
u
2
d
. (B.20)
The derivation of the the combined uncertainty for the total mass
ux is straightforward and has been omitted. Its value is given by the
following expression,
u
2
G
=
_
4
d
2
_
2
_
u
2
W
l
+u
2
W
g
_
+
_
(W
l
+Wg)
8d
3
_
2
u
2
d
. (B.21)
B.4.2 Quality
Quality, x, is dened as,
x =
W
g
W
g
+W
l
. (B.22)
The combined uncertainty of quality is given by,
u
2
x
=
_
x
W
l
_
2
u
2
W
l
+
_
x
W
g
_
2
u
2
W
g
. (B.23)
u
2
x
= (W
g
+Wl)
4
_
W
2
g
u
2
W
l
+W
2
l
u
2
W
g
_
. (B.24)
B.4.3 Supercial velocities
The supercial k-phase velocity, j
k
, is given by,
j
k
=
G
k
k
. (B.25)
The combined uncertainty of j
k
can be expressed as,
u
2
j
k
=
_
j
k
G
k
_
2
u
2
G
k
+
_
j
k
k
_
2
u
2
k
. (B.26)
u
2
j
k
=
_
1
k
2
_
_
u
2
G
k
+
_
G
k
k
_
2
u
2
k
_
. (B.27)
B.4.4 Dierential pressure
As the pressure taps in the bend are positioned at dierent
heights, the combined uncertainty of the bend pressure drop, p
b
,
is given by,
B.4 Uncertainty of calculated parameters 135
u
2
p
b
=
_
p
b
p
_
2
u
2
p
+
_
p
b
l
_
2
u
2
l
+
_
p
b
H
_
2
u
2
H
. (B.28)
Substituting 3.1 in B.28,
u
2
p
b
= u
2
p
+ (gH)
2
u
2
l
+ (
l
g)
2
u
2
H
. (B.29)
For the acceleration term of pressure drop, the combined
uncertainty is,
u
2
p
a
=
_
p
a
G
_
2
u
2
G
+
_
p
a
x
_
2
u
2
x
+
_
p
a
_
2
u
2
+
_
p
a
l
_
2
u
2
l
+
_
p
a
g
_
2
u
2
g
. (B.30)
Substituting the terms of Eq. B.30, it can be written as,
u
2
p
a
= u
2
p
a
,out
+u
2
p
a,b
,in
, (B.31)
where the subscripts in and out represent the inlet and outlet positions
of the respective tube section (straight or the return bend), respectively.
The term u
p
a
,n
evaluated at the position n is given by,
u
2
p
a
,n
= 4G
2
_
x
2
g
+
(1 x)
2
(1 )
l
_
2
u
2
G
+
G
4
_
2x
g
+
2(1 x)
(1 )
l
_
2
u
2
x
+G
4
_
x
2
g
+
(1 x)
2
(1 )
2
l
_
2
u
2
+
G
4
_
(1 x)
2
(1 )
2
l
_
2
u
2
l
+G
4
_
x
2
2
g
_
2
u
2
g
. (B.32)
The combined uncertainty of the gravitational term of pres-
sure drop in the bend is expressed as,
u
2
p
g,b
=
_
p
g,b
_
2
u
2
+
_
p
g,b
l
_
2
u
2
l
+
_
p
g,b
g
_
2
u
2
g
+
_
p
g,b
H
_
2
u
2
H
. (B.33)
Substituting the terms of Eq. B.33, it can be written as,
u
2
p
g,b
= u
2
p
g,b
,out
+u
2
p
g,b
,in
, (B.34)
where the term u
p
g,b
,n
evaluated at the position n is given by,
u
2
p
g,b
,n
=
g
2
H
2
4
_
(
g
l
)
2
u
2
+ (1 )
2
u
2
l
+
2
u
2
g
_
+
g
2
4
[
g
+ (1 )
l
]
2
u
2
H
. (B.35)
Finally, the uncertainty of the frictional pressure drop term
in a straight segment can be written as the combined uncertainty,
u
2
p
f,s
= u
2
p,s
+u
2
p
a,s
. (B.36)
Similarly, the uncertainty of the frictional pressure drop term in
the bend is given by,
u
2
p
f,b
= u
2
p
b
+u
2
p
a,b
+u
2
p
g,b
. (B.37)
B.4.5 Pressure distribution
Other than at the positions where absolute pressure is directly
measured (labeled ref in Fig. 3), absolute pressure is subjected to other
sources of uncertainties. The combined uncertainty of the absolute
pressure in a position n > 1 is given by,
u
2
p
n
=
n
i=2
_
p
n
p
ni
_
2
u
2
p
n
. (B.38)
Substituting Eq. 3.8 in Eq. B.38 and rewriting the terms leads
to,
B.5 Results 137
u
2
p
n
= u
2
p
1
+
n
i=2
_
u
p
i1,i
_
2
. (B.39)
B.5 RESULTS
Figure 53 shows probability density plots of expanded uncer-
tainty (relative values) of the following parameters: supercial veloci-
ties, inlet pressure, pressure drop in the 1 m straight segment, total and
frictional pressure drop in the bend. Each plot covers the condence
interval (CI) shown in each gure, approximately 95%. The absolute
values of expanded uncertainty for all test conditions are shown to-
gether with the measurement data in Appendix D.
Most of the uncertainty values of j
l
are below 5%. Higher values
are associated with slug ow conditions with j
l
= 1
m
/s, in which the
pressure oscillations are suciently large to be transmitted to the cen-
trifugal pump. The oscillation associated with j
g
is generally higher,
but as mentioned in Section 3.5 these values are reasonable and ex-
pected for the intermittent ow regimes.
3
The high values of relative uncertainty of pressure drop, p
1,2
,
are mostly associated with low (absolute) measured pressure drop val-
ues. Also, the uncertainty of the frictional pressure drop in the bend
might have been overestimated due to the Taylor Series Method, as
discussed by Coleman & Steele (2009). A better estimate of the un-
certainty of p
f,b
may be reached using the Monte Carlo Method, also
described by Moat (1988).
3
There was an eort to compare these values with similar two-phase ow stud-
ies. Despite the common argument that strong oscillations in the intermittent ow
regimes aect dramatically the ow parameters, no uncertainty values considering
these variations were presented in other works.
2 3 4 5
0
1
2
3
4
U
95
(j
l
) [%]
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
5 10 15 20
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
U
95
(j
g
) [%]
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0
5
10
U
95
(p
1
) [%]
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
10 20 30 40
0
0.2
0.4
U
95
( p
1,2
) [%]
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
2 4 6
0
1
2
3
4
U
95
( p
b
) [%]
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
50 100 150 200
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
U
95
( p
f,b
) [%]
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
CI=94.5% CI=94.8%
CI=100% CI=95.0%
CI=95.4% CI=95.5%
Figure 53 Probability density plots of expanded uncertainty of
selected parameters.
APPENDIX C -- Movie
Appendix C -- Movie 141
The high-speed image sequences used in this work were edited
as a single movie, found on DVD in the printed version of this work.
The movie is also available at:
http://www.vimeo.com/pedromo/airwater-returnbends
It consists of the following parts, denoted by the time-codes:
I. Stratied and wavy ow
0027 Stratied ow: ow reversal and oscillatory motion of
the ow in upward direction j
l
= 0.05
m
/s, j
g
= 1
m
/s, and
curvature 6.1.
0051 Stratied ow: comparison between upward and down-
ward ow curvature of 6.1.
0121 Stratied ow: upward ow comparison between dif-
ferent curvature radii. Larger curvature radius exhibit a
more severe ow oscillation.
0218 Stratied ow: detailed view of liquid accumulation at
the bottom part of the bend in upward ow curvature of
8.7.
0318 Wavy ow: increase in supercial gas velocity dimishes
ow reversal in upward ow j
l
= 0.05
m
/s, j
g
= 10
m
/s, and
curvature 6.1.
0343 Wavy ow: comparison between upward and downward
ow curvature of 6.1.
0410 Wavy ow: upward ow comparison between dierent
curvature radii.
0510 Wavy ow: detailed view of liquid accumulation and
entrainment (liquid jets) at the bottom part of the bend in
upward ow curvature of 12.2 .
0608 Stratied ow: hydraulic jump formed at the outlet of
the bend (bottom) in downward ow curvature 6.1.
0615 Stratied ow: downward ow comparison between
dierent curvature radii.
0629 Stratied ow: detailed view of the position of hydraulic
jumps downstream of the bend curvatures of 12.2, 8.7,
and 6.1 (top to bottom). Hydraulic jump is located farther
downstream in larger curvature radius.
142 Appendix C -- Movie
0647 Wavy ow: waves are accelerated and detached from
the bulk liquid lm forming jets in downward ow curva-
ture of 6.1.
0654 Wavy ow: downward ow comparison between dif-
ferent curvature radii.
II. Plug and slug ow
0725 Plug ow: bubble acceleration in upward direction
j
l
= 1
m
/s, j
g
= 0.3
m
/s, and curvature 6.1.
0749 Plug ow: bubble acceleration comparison between
0837 Plug ow: detailed view of countercurrent ow and
breakup of the tail of the Taylor bubble at the lower half
of the bend in upward ow curvature of 12.2.
0919 Plug ow: detailed view of change in direction of the
liquid lm (by tracking of the small bubbles) at the middle
of the bend in upward ow curvature of 8.7.
0956 Plug ow: bubble deceleration and breakup of its inter-
face (tail region) in downward direction curvature 6.1.
1020 Plug ow: downward ow comparison between dier-
ent curvature radii.
1106 Plug ow: detailed view of the swirling liquid phase at
the upper half of the bend in downward ow curvature of
12.2.
1144 Slug ow: Phase segregation in upward direction j
l
=
1
m
/s, j
g
= 4
m
/s, and curvature 6.1.
1208 Slug ow: upward ow comparison between dierent
curvature radii.
1352 Slug ow: downward ow comparison between dier-
ent curvature radii.
1448 Slug ow: detailed view of liquid segregation at the
outer part of the curve (upper half of the bend) in downward
ow curvature of 12.2.
III. Annular ow
1543 Annular ow ow: upward direction j
l
= 0.2
m
/s, j
g
= 30
m
/s, curvature 6.1.
Appendix C -- Movie 143
1607 Annular ow: comparison between upward and down-
ward ow curvature of 6.1.
1637 Annular ow: upward direction comparison between
1656 Annular ow: detailed view of droplet deposition and
suppresion of disturbance waves curvature of 12.2
1732 Annular ow ow: downward direction curvature 6.1.
1740 Annular ow: downward direction comparison be-
tween dierent curvature radii.
IV. Credits
1753 Experimental apparatus shown at regular frame rate (not slow
motion).
144 Appendix C -- Movie
APPENDIX D -- Data
D.1 Experiment #1: Pressure drop in the bend 147
D.1 EXPERIMENT #1: PRESSURE DROP IN THE BEND
This section presents the data of the rst set of experiments re-
lated to the pressure drop in return bends. In the following tables,
absolute pressure, p
ref
, and its uncertainty values are shown in kPa,
while all other parameters follow the standard of the text.
Table 11 Main ow parameters.
# Dir. 2R/d F.R. j
l
j
g
G
in

out
T p
ref
1 U 6.1 ST 0.05 0.19 50 0.25 0.60 298 106.99
2 U 6.1 ST 0.05 0.40 50 0.28 0.67 298 107.04
3 U 6.1 ST 0.05 0.58 50 0.31 0.72 298 106.98
4 U 6.1 ST 0.05 1.01 51 0.37 0.77 298 107.23
5 U 6.1 ST 0.05 1.95 52 0.45 0.76 298 107.35
6 U 6.1 ST 0.05 3.94 55 0.56 0.77 298 107.52
7 U 6.1 W 0.05 5.83 57 0.75 0.79 297 108.29
8 U 6.1 W 0.05 9.81 63 0.86 0.82 297 110.55
9 U 6.1 A 0.05 19.46 78 0.91 0.90 296 121.90
10 U 6.1 A 0.05 29.68 103 0.94 0.95 296 150.70
11 U 6.1 A 0.05 38.03 134 0.96 0.96 296 187.94
12 U 6.1 P 0.20 0.20 200 0.26 0.57 298 107.28
13 U 6.1 P 0.20 0.40 200 0.30 0.60 298 107.73
14 U 6.1 P 0.20 0.59 200 0.33 0.63 298 108.16
15 U 6.1 P 0.20 1.01 201 0.39 0.66 298 108.82
16 U 6.1 SL 0.20 1.97 203 0.52 0.68 298 110.41
17 U 6.1 SL 0.20 3.91 205 0.65 0.67 298 113.51
18 U 6.1 SL 0.20 5.92 208 0.71 0.70 298 116.98
19 U 6.1 SL 0.20 9.90 214 0.76 0.75 298 125.17
20 U 6.1 A 0.20 19.92 239 0.84 0.86 297 171.00
21 U 6.1 A 0.19 27.68 268 0.89 0.89 297 240.70
22 U 6.1 P 1.00 0.19 998 0.23 0.16 298 129.25
23 U 6.1 P 1.00 0.40 997 0.29 0.22 298 132.71
24 U 6.1 P 1.00 0.60 999 0.32 0.28 298 135.24
25 U 6.1 P 1.00 0.99 999 0.38 0.34 298 139.98
26 U 6.1 SL 1.00 1.98 1001 0.47 0.36 298 155.76
27 U 6.1 SL 1.00 3.93 1006 0.52 0.47 298 185.26
28 U 6.1 SL 1.00 5.93 1011 0.57 0.53 298 221.57
29 U 6.1 SL 0.96 9.90 995 0.62 0.62 298 289.69
30 D 6.1 ST 0.05 0.20 50 0.69 0.27 298 106.57
31 D 6.1 ST 0.05 0.40 50 0.69 0.29 298 106.47
32 D 6.1 ST 0.05 0.60 50 0.69 0.31 298 106.53
33 D 6.1 ST 0.05 0.97 51 0.71 0.37 297 106.80
34 D 6.1 ST 0.05 2.00 52 0.70 0.51 298 106.78
35 D 6.1 ST 0.05 4.03 54 0.72 0.81 298 107.17
36 D 6.1 W 0.05 6.14 58 0.74 0.83 298 107.70
37 D 6.1 W 0.05 10.32 63 0.85 0.88 297 110.18
38 D 6.1 A 0.05 20.60 79 0.94 0.92 296 121.95
39 D 6.1 A 0.05 30.17 103 0.96 0.94 296 147.96
40 D 6.1 A 0.05 37.70 127 0.97 0.95 297 174.58
41 D 6.1 P 0.20 0.20 200 0.56 0.64 298 107.75
42 D 6.1 P 0.20 0.40 200 0.58 0.68 298 107.91
43 D 6.1 P 0.20 0.60 200 0.61 0.69 298 108.21
44 D 6.1 P 0.20 1.04 201 0.63 0.71 298 108.77
45 D 6.1 SL 0.20 2.10 202 0.67 0.74 298 109.91
46 D 6.1 SL 0.20 4.07 204 0.65 0.73 298 112.66
47 D 6.1 SL 0.20 6.10 208 0.69 0.77 298 116.17
48 D 6.1 SL 0.20 10.02 214 0.77 0.81 298 123.49
49 D 6.1 A 0.20 20.38 239 0.85 0.87 297 164.82
50 D 6.1 A 0.20 29.11 287 0.91 0.89 297 251.85
51 D 6.1 P 1.00 0.22 997 0.20 0.27 299 125.80
52 D 6.1 P 1.00 0.41 999 0.25 0.30 298 128.51
53 D 6.1 P 1.00 0.61 998 0.29 0.33 298 131.05
54 D 6.1 P 1.00 1.01 999 0.36 0.37 298 136.02
55 D 6.1 SL 1.00 2.03 1001 0.43 0.46 298 150.75
56 D 6.1 SL 1.00 4.03 1007 0.49 0.55 298 177.91
57 D 6.1 SL 1.00 6.05 1010 0.52 0.61 297 211.37
58 D 6.1 SL 0.99 9.89 1015 0.61 0.66 298 275.89
59 U 8.7 ST 0.05 0.19 50 0.21 0.56 298 106.48
60 U 8.7 ST 0.05 0.39 50 0.28 0.71 298 106.41
61 U 8.7 ST 0.05 0.59 50 0.32 0.75 298 106.29
62 U 8.7 ST 0.05 0.99 51 0.38 0.78 298 106.40
148 Appendix D -- Data
63 U 8.7 ST 0.05 1.98 52 0.46 0.75 298 106.69
64 U 8.7 ST 0.05 3.91 54 0.54 0.78 297 106.92
65 U 8.7 W 0.05 5.89 57 0.73 0.79 298 107.43
66 U 8.7 W 0.05 9.81 62 0.86 0.80 297 109.78
67 U 8.7 A 0.05 19.81 78 0.91 0.87 297 121.94
68 U 8.7 A 0.05 29.60 101 0.94 0.92 297 143.88
69 U 8.7 A 0.05 39.20 139 0.96 0.95 296 194.60
70 U 8.7 P 0.20 0.20 199 0.28 0.57 298 108.09
71 U 8.7 P 0.20 0.38 200 0.31 0.61 298 108.30
72 U 8.7 P 0.20 0.58 200 0.35 0.64 298 108.63
73 U 8.7 P 0.20 1.00 201 0.39 0.66 298 109.40
74 U 8.7 SL 0.20 1.95 202 0.52 0.69 298 111.06
75 U 8.7 SL 0.20 3.98 204 0.66 0.66 298 114.07
76 U 8.7 SL 0.20 5.93 207 0.71 0.68 298 117.58
77 U 8.7 SL 0.20 9.97 214 0.76 0.73 298 125.64
78 U 8.7 A 0.20 19.87 238 0.83 0.82 297 166.29
79 U 8.7 A 0.20 29.14 293 0.90 0.85 297 272.66
80 U 8.7 P 1.00 0.19 995 0.24 0.17 299 130.40
81 U 8.7 P 1.00 0.39 997 0.29 0.23 299 133.28
82 U 8.7 P 1.00 0.59 998 0.33 0.28 299 136.11
83 U 8.7 P 1.00 1.01 998 0.39 0.33 299 141.78
84 U 8.7 SL 1.00 1.97 1001 0.46 0.37 299 154.16
85 U 8.7 SL 1.00 3.91 1004 0.53 0.43 299 185.05
86 U 8.7 SL 1.00 5.94 1009 0.57 0.50 299 226.00
87 U 8.7 SL 0.96 10.02 988 0.63 0.59 299 303.00
88 D 8.7 ST 0.05 0.22 50 0.74 0.40 298 105.36
89 D 8.7 ST 0.05 0.41 50 0.74 0.51 298 105.32
90 D 8.7 ST 0.05 0.59 50 0.75 0.57 298 105.32
91 D 8.7 ST 0.05 1.01 50 0.75 0.72 298 105.59
92 D 8.7 ST 0.05 2.03 51 0.75 0.85 298 105.82
93 D 8.7 ST 0.05 4.03 54 0.76 0.84 298 106.03
94 D 8.7 W 0.05 6.02 57 0.78 0.86 298 107.58
95 D 8.7 W 0.05 10.17 63 0.86 0.90 297 110.03
96 D 8.7 A 0.05 19.74 78 0.91 0.92 297 120.37
97 D 8.7 A 0.05 30.54 104 0.94 0.94 297 148.99
98 D 8.7 A 0.05 40.06 139 0.96 0.95 296 187.86
99 D 8.7 P 0.20 0.20 199 0.55 0.70 298 107.08
100 D 8.7 P 0.20 0.41 199 0.60 0.72 298 107.44
101 D 8.7 P 0.20 0.58 200 0.62 0.74 298 107.78
102 D 8.7 P 0.20 0.99 201 0.66 0.75 298 108.21
103 D 8.7 SL 0.20 2.06 202 0.69 0.79 298 110.00
104 D 8.7 SL 0.20 4.10 204 0.67 0.79 298 112.64
105 D 8.7 SL 0.20 6.00 207 0.69 0.80 298 115.91
106 D 8.7 SL 0.20 10.24 214 0.71 0.84 298 123.89
107 D 8.7 A 0.20 20.40 238 0.81 0.88 298 163.38
108 D 8.7 A 0.20 29.75 293 0.88 0.90 297 262.72
109 D 8.7 P 1.00 0.19 997 0.18 0.31 298 125.58
110 D 8.7 P 1.00 0.40 997 0.23 0.36 298 128.08
111 D 8.7 P 1.00 0.61 998 0.27 0.41 299 130.36
112 D 8.7 P 1.00 1.01 998 0.33 0.48 299 134.45
113 D 8.7 SL 1.00 2.06 1001 0.43 0.55 299 149.55
114 D 8.7 SL 1.00 4.06 1004 0.50 0.64 299 178.35
115 D 8.7 SL 1.00 6.04 1011 0.54 0.69 299 211.94
116 D 8.7 SL 1.00 9.91 1024 0.59 0.74 299 280.43
117 U 12.2 ST 0.05 0.20 50 0.22 0.66 298 106.50
118 U 12.2 ST 0.05 0.37 50 0.27 0.74 298 106.49
119 U 12.2 ST 0.05 0.59 50 0.31 0.79 298 106.33
120 U 12.2 ST 0.05 0.95 50 0.36 0.82 298 106.17
121 U 12.2 ST 0.05 1.95 51 0.44 0.80 298 106.75
122 U 12.2 ST 0.05 3.83 54 0.52 0.80 297 106.99
123 U 12.2 W 0.05 5.79 57 0.72 0.81 297 107.61
124 U 12.2 W 0.05 9.72 62 0.85 0.83 297 109.83
125 U 12.2 A 0.05 19.32 78 0.91 0.88 297 121.98
126 U 12.2 A 0.05 29.27 100 0.94 0.92 297 144.15
127 U 12.2 A 0.05 39.04 139 0.96 0.95 297 192.42
128 U 12.2 P 0.20 0.20 200 0.28 0.58 298 108.82
129 U 12.2 P 0.20 0.39 200 0.32 0.63 298 109.09
130 U 12.2 P 0.20 0.59 200 0.35 0.64 298 109.34
131 U 12.2 P 0.20 0.95 199 0.38 0.67 298 109.78
132 U 12.2 SL 0.20 1.94 199 0.50 0.67 298 110.98
133 U 12.2 SL 0.20 3.76 203 0.64 0.64 298 114.12
134 U 12.2 SL 0.20 6.00 207 0.70 0.65 298 117.67
135 U 12.2 SL 0.20 9.71 215 0.75 0.70 297 126.76
136 U 12.2 A 0.20 19.64 238 0.83 0.79 297 165.76
137 U 12.2 A 0.20 29.43 296 0.90 0.85 297 274.56
138 U 12.2 P 1.00 0.20 998 0.23 0.18 298 131.98
139 U 12.2 P 1.00 0.39 999 0.29 0.25 298 134.72
140 U 12.2 P 1.00 0.59 998 0.33 0.31 298 137.49
141 U 12.2 P 1.00 0.99 1000 0.39 0.34 298 142.53
142 U 12.2 SL 1.00 1.94 1002 0.46 0.41 298 159.36
143 U 12.2 SL 1.00 3.96 1006 0.52 0.43 298 188.81
144 U 12.2 SL 1.00 5.84 1014 0.56 0.50 298 225.92
145 U 12.2 SL 0.93 10.04 965 0.62 0.60 298 297.69
146 D 12.2 ST 0.05 0.21 50 0.72 0.32 298 104.73
147 D 12.2 ST 0.05 0.40 49 0.72 0.51 298 104.84
148 D 12.2 ST 0.05 0.63 49 0.72 0.61 298 104.88
149 D 12.2 ST 0.05 0.96 49 0.72 0.84 298 104.98
150 D 12.2 ST 0.05 2.01 51 0.72 0.87 298 105.35
151 D 12.2 ST 0.05 4.10 55 0.73 0.87 298 105.56
152 D 12.2 W 0.05 6.15 57 0.76 0.87 298 106.50
153 D 12.2 W 0.05 10.22 63 0.86 0.89 297 108.94
154 D 12.2 A 0.05 20.49 80 0.92 0.92 297 123.56
155 D 12.2 A 0.05 30.60 104 0.94 0.95 297 149.35
156 D 12.2 A 0.05 40.39 141 0.97 0.96 296 190.76
157 D 12.2 P 0.20 0.18 199 0.50 0.74 298 106.86
158 D 12.2 P 0.20 0.43 200 0.57 0.74 298 107.30
159 D 12.2 P 0.20 0.60 199 0.57 0.76 298 107.64
160 D 12.2 P 0.20 1.02 199 0.61 0.78 298 108.20
161 D 12.2 SL 0.20 2.13 201 0.64 0.81 298 109.70
162 D 12.2 SL 0.20 4.01 205 0.62 0.79 298 112.58
163 D 12.2 SL 0.20 6.17 203 0.66 0.80 298 115.90
164 D 12.2 SL 0.20 10.18 214 0.71 0.82 298 124.53
165 D 12.2 A 0.20 20.21 241 0.80 0.86 297 168.98
166 D 12.2 A 0.20 30.15 294 0.88 0.89 297 267.72
167 D 12.2 P 1.00 0.20 998 0.17 0.31 298 125.42
168 D 12.2 P 1.00 0.41 999 0.22 0.36 298 127.79
169 D 12.2 P 1.00 0.60 998 0.26 0.40 298 130.30
170 D 12.2 P 1.00 1.03 999 0.32 0.46 298 135.27
171 D 12.2 SL 1.00 2.03 1000 0.39 0.54 298 149.77
172 D 12.2 SL 1.00 4.04 1007 0.46 0.60 298 179.17
173 D 12.2 SL 1.00 6.05 1014 0.49 0.62 298 213.02
174 D 12.2 SL 0.98 10.08 1010 0.56 0.67 298 288.08
Table 12 Total pressure drop measurements and frictional pressure
drop in the bend.
p
# 1, 2 2, 3 3, 4 4, 5 b 6, 7 7, 8 8, 9 9, 10 f, b
1 0 4 3 5 -811 17 -18 -7 -15 62
2 -1 4 2 4 -775 31 -19 -12 -22 27
3 -3 3 1 4 -766 44 -13 -12 -25 -21
4 -4 3 1 5 -758 36 12 -17 -24 -98
5 -5 4 0 6 -687 34 -6 -18 -37 -83
6 -6 8 -15 5 -578 13 5 -5 -35 -72
7 -34 -6 -7 -6 -498 1 -7 -23 -38 -150
8 -190 -47 -27 -5 -401 -14 -46 -87 -59 -153
9 -467 -225 -99 -46 -377 -56 -121 -239 -433 -232
10 -1171 -598 -281 -131 -675 -136 -309 -623 -1182 -589
11 -1935 -997 -478 -238 -1080 -251 -551 -1123 -2086 -1008
12 -73 -23 -12 2 -964 19 -46 -46 -62 -33
13 -93 -22 -17 -5 -938 30 -48 -56 -113 -60
14 -119 -26 -20 -4 -902 38 -55 -64 -123 -61
15 -158 -42 -24 -6 -830 21 -71 -91 -153 -54
16 -240 -81 -37 -23 -834 13 -88 -106 -179 -185
17 -270 -118 -62 -39 -822 -31 -120 -122 -177 -301
18 -319 -152 -84 -45 -798 -69 -155 -144 -232 -346
19 -494 -245 -123 -70 -775 -110 -210 -254 -447 -399
20 -1438 -753 -358 -179 -1019 -284 -525 -780 -1468 -765
21 -2803 -1489 -717 -337 -1411 -449 -1001 -1674 -3004 -1226
22 -665 -353 -165 -101 -1613 -65 -265 -357 -677 -504
23 -742 -393 -189 -120 -1591 -40 -333 -349 -769 -586
24 -813 -432 -228 -124 -1568 -75 -428 -309 -842 -590
25 -842 -685 -166 -143 -1505 -118 -514 -433 -1004 -644
26 -1360 -735 -285 -212 -1573 -126 -583 -846 -1054 -986
27 -2027 -1026 -471 -312 -1746 -430 -871 -1044 -1795 -1177
28 -2552 -1451 -629 -418 -1892 -648 -1107 -1383 -2370 -1347
29 -3397 -1936 -854 -555 -2297 -1058 -1494 -2133 -3318 -1731
30 -13 -7 -18 4 76 -6 -7 -7 -15 -716
31 -13 -7 -18 3 71 -6 -7 -8 -14 -705
32 -13 -7 -18 2 67 -6 -8 -7 -9 -696
33 -13 -6 -16 2 56 -7 -8 -6 -9 -655
34 -21 -5 -19 1 32 -8 -11 -4 -11 -575
35 -47 -6 -20 -1 -14 4 -9 -23 -10 -374
36 -65 -21 -17 -3 -19 -2 -15 -34 -42 -348
37 -176 -67 -29 -23 -50 -32 -54 -97 -81 -260
38 -514 -254 -120 -46 -263 -61 -132 -322 -437 -414
39 -1238 -624 -300 -137 -656 -151 -351 -644 -1232 -843
40 -1898 -953 -466 -206 -1022 -250 -558 -1057 -1973 -1269
41 -85 -41 -28 -15 150 10 -13 -20 -62 -434
42 -104 -45 -33 -21 109 3 -18 -31 -61 -430
43 -135 -54 -26 -30 88 3 -22 -50 -31 -422
44 -133 -43 -13 -52 58 0 -28 -104 -113 -419
45 -240 -82 4 -89 -48 -21 -40 -85 -61 -476
46 -260 -114 -38 -59 -101 -26 -49 -127 -188 -545
47 -383 -154 -82 -59 -185 -50 -73 -160 -281 -578
48 -563 -252 -140 -63 -357 -77 -113 -262 -499 -679
49 -1541 -760 -375 -147 -976 -184 -373 -759 -1463 -1275
50 -3368 -1674 -848 -334 -1948 -417 -952 -1930 -3565 -2495
51 -747 -360 -150 -117 413 -35 -128 -349 -720 -645
52 -809 -351 -162 -137 337 -45 -159 -403 -768 -679
53 -918 -370 -201 -146 245 -51 -162 -472 -805 -720
54 -1111 -370 -255 -185 144 -61 -197 -652 -875 -795
55 -1562 -639 -302 -222 -285 -124 -347 -632 -1288 -1038
56 -2123 -1069 -483 -311 -858 -174 -551 -919 -1626 -1351
57 -2861 -1389 -665 -366 -1328 -297 -836 -1376 -2506 -1642
58 -4000 -2079 -948 -484 -2159 -581 -1230 -2113 -3763 -2533
59 2 0 -1 1 -1066 17 -19 -8 -19 184
60 10 16 16 25 -972 30 -13 -10 -21 61
61 -4 33 28 34 -938 43 -1 -13 -26 14
62 -19 17 17 25 -915 36 19 -7 -29 -56
63 -37 18 0 -1 -836 35 -2 -22 -41 -38
64 -47 -39 -3 7 -704 21 -2 -14 -34 -16
65 -40 -7 -9 -4 -624 16 -13 -36 -46 -137
66 -180 -60 -73 -6 -501 -1 -54 -93 -113 -149
67 -465 -223 -107 -46 -458 -45 -124 -241 -448 -219
68 -1001 -516 -249 -119 -737 -106 -262 -500 -1039 -562
69 -2064 -1062 -506 -247 -1430 -246 -561 -1145 -2260 -1283
70 -73 -27 -12 -5 -1224 13 -37 -41 -61 -12
71 -92 -27 -15 -9 -1180 24 -38 -51 -80 -37
72 -105 -29 -20 -12 -1123 20 -51 -59 -114 -42
73 -135 -29 -33 -12 -1057 19 -66 -80 -170 -45
74 -239 -80 -49 -23 -1025 19 -66 -108 -164 -180
75 -258 -114 -65 -31 -1029 -12 -113 -131 -174 -338
76 -304 -160 -79 -44 -991 -50 -144 -167 -265 -382
77 -497 -236 -126 -65 -958 -94 -212 -263 -475 -441
78 -1335 -722 -355 -163 -1199 -260 -503 -722 -1356 -839
79 -3338 -1739 -853 -386 -2018 -514 -1142 -1999 -3653 -1689
80 -694 -354 -173 -94 -2049 -43 -261 -351 -696 -548
81 -754 -382 -187 -94 -2045 -70 -296 -337 -698 -667
82 -805 -461 -191 -96 -2055 -91 -285 -318 -824 -748
83 -904 -625 -178 -128 -2041 -108 -412 -322 -922 -897
84 -1340 -652 -133 -153 -2136 -160 -533 -632 -1375 -1206
85 -1886 -1061 -478 -276 -2084 -364 -819 -978 -1838 -1397
86 -2687 -1382 -637 -426 -2423 -598 -1080 -1513 -2405 -1791
87 -3677 -1917 -895 -548 -2975 -1047 -1570 -2146 -3417 -2353
88 -11 -8 -14 -13 79 1 -5 -29 -11 -793
89 -11 -7 -13 -14 64 5 -5 -6 -15 -700
90 -11 -7 -12 -15 51 11 -5 -6 -12 -645
91 -12 -7 -10 -16 23 23 0 -6 -13 -527
92 -17 -7 -7 -17 -30 15 47 -7 -27 -437
93 -45 -9 -8 -15 -48 11 12 -18 -6 -450
94 -63 -20 -11 -12 -27 -5 -14 -29 -36 -403
95 -193 -71 -43 -40 -59 -40 -37 -85 -59 -316
96 -471 -236 -105 -45 -280 -52 -120 -275 -424 -489
97 -1243 -630 -305 -139 -834 -167 -348 -671 -1240 -1038
98 -2147 -1088 -515 -336 -1415 -249 -663 -1240 -2255 -1672
99 -82 -40 -19 -23 158 5 12 -2 -49 -554
100 -112 -47 -24 -30 134 10 3 -21 -45 -514
101 -95 -49 -21 -43 97 15 -3 -29 -82 -512
102 -121 -51 -8 -57 57 20 13 -93 -129 -495
103 -235 -93 12 -88 -118 17 0 -81 -80 -581
104 -289 -106 -34 -66 -132 -6 -36 -120 -202 -630
105 -355 -166 -73 -77 -217 -22 -68 -162 -299 -678
106 -578 -271 -131 -84 -430 -44 -122 -256 -467 -825
107 -1448 -761 -489 -29 -1146 -169 -349 -721 -1421 -1488
108 -3536 -1773 -694 -661 -2237 -453 -1015 -2102 -3781 -2740
109 -721 -364 -154 -92 597 -3 -85 -268 -735 -713
110 -783 -389 -131 -120 455 1 -114 -304 -790 -707
111 -837 -394 -172 -140 322 6 -109 -380 -828 -690
112 -997 -392 -229 -161 130 31 -130 -482 -876 -670
113 -1423 -627 -305 -232 -330 26 -279 -534 -1145 -894
114 -2148 -1049 -502 -335 -1112 -78 -471 -942 -1679 -1283
115 -2912 -1391 -670 -404 -1705 -165 -736 -1324 -2479 -1551
116 -4166 -2040 -1002 -519 -2663 -383 -1139 -1983 -3833 -2208
117 -2 1 1 2 -1497 15 -9 -10 -17 224
118 -5 0 1 1 -1327 31 -9 -15 -21 203
119 -12 -2 1 1 -1173 46 14 -14 -23 211
120 -15 -4 -2 0 -964 44 13 -19 -25 291
121 -20 -5 -3 3 -1077 34 8 -19 -30 74
122 -23 -5 -5 5 -978 26 10 -7 -37 67
123 -37 -14 -8 -7 -858 13 4 -51 -26 -128
124 -226 -10 -70 -1 -667 -14 -34 -117 -83 -175
125 -435 -228 -97 -52 -604 -47 -109 -195 -396 -257
126 -997 -511 -237 -125 -916 -114 -242 -509 -1005 -678
127 -1982 -1030 -482 -227 -1722 -242 -523 -1089 -2144 -1530
128 -98 -36 -4 -7 -1764 17 -26 -40 -56 19
129 -109 -40 -7 -8 -1650 23 -22 -53 -63 -1
130 -123 -38 -16 -9 -1562 8 -21 -68 -102 32
131 -143 -42 -13 -15 -1491 8 -43 -76 -143 11
132 -205 -78 -39 -15 -1383 17 -67 -116 -187 -82
133 -277 -120 -60 -38 -1399 -9 -97 -121 -220 -306
134 -291 -157 -71 -43 -1353 -40 -122 -176 -243 -370
135 -531 -272 -131 -67 -1291 -102 -233 -300 -484 -455
136 -1308 -693 -329 -168 -1532 -238 -487 -749 -1381 -935
137 -3366 -1769 -860 -406 -2651 -518 -1125 -2016 -3677 -2183
138 -673 -360 -161 -93 -2893 -50 -272 -346 -691 -559
139 -751 -376 -214 -107 -2843 -35 -244 -358 -729 -681
140 -822 -413 -245 -85 -2837 -108 -209 -373 -783 -810
141 -824 -713 -169 -163 -2803 -77 -468 -243 -997 -969
142 -1302 -734 -184 -165 -3018 -134 -571 -444 -1289 -1434
143 -1908 -1011 -468 -314 -2919 -344 -831 -1034 -1631 -1613
144 -2706 -1444 -604 -454 -3188 -580 -1051 -1333 -2510 -1996
145 -3469 -1950 -917 -589 -3814 -986 -1467 -2023 -3124 -2717
146 -14 -10 -2 1 79 1 -4 -5 -9 -1393
147 -14 -10 -1 1 49 15 1 -6 -10 -1139
148 -14 -11 1 1 36 19 2 -6 -9 -997
149 -15 -10 2 -2 -10 43 16 -9 -5 -673
150 -23 -11 -1 1 -51 3 73 -3 -13 -670
151 -43 -9 -12 4 -44 7 12 5 -5 -653
152 -62 -24 -18 4 -39 -6 -5 -16 -37 -614
153 -168 -57 -49 -29 -70 17 -19 -89 -98 -466
154 -544 -268 -128 -34 -368 -66 -144 -250 -504 -653
155 -1247 -630 -310 -126 -976 -162 -376 -655 -1237 -1233
156 -2209 -1113 -538 -231 -1837 -282 -685 -1266 -2307 -2160
157 -76 -33 -14 -10 196 19 11 13 -16 -898
158 -97 -49 -22 -21 194 27 20 4 -32 -797
159 -115 -56 -25 -27 132 23 33 1 -17 -821
160 -153 -54 -22 -33 57 6 51 -28 -41 -800
161 -219 -78 -15 -71 -125 11 40 -55 -71 -870
162 -292 -121 -34 -60 -132 12 -16 -100 -210 -954
163 -368 -164 -87 -56 -199 11 -56 -158 -299 -969
164 -584 -263 -144 -61 -419 -49 -141 -260 -498 -1091
165 -1599 -785 -403 -153 -1338 -193 -409 -783 -1512 -1918
166 -3626 -1814 -909 -366 -3026 -480 -1081 -2125 -3884 -3658
167 -729 -358 -168 -88 942 39 -77 -207 -732 -1135
168 -787 -389 -164 -92 716 34 -91 -209 -777 -1180
169 -875 -396 -185 -114 522 26 -95 -283 -850 -1216
170 -1040 -435 -314 -154 298 46 -134 -432 -805 -1181
171 -1432 -647 -275 -219 -301 -3 -236 -493 -1099 -1438
172 -2215 -1004 -526 -296 -1170 -99 -468 -919 -1696 -2012
173 -2967 -1415 -701 -360 -1810 -239 -753 -1320 -2384 -2584
174 -4024 -2033 -1089 -417 -3103 -500 -1203 -1993 -3874 -3835
Table 13 Uncertainty of main ow parameters.
U
# j
l
j
g
G
in

out
T p
ref
p
s
p
b
p
f,b
1 0.0012 0.0395 1.7 0.01 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 29
2 0.0013 0.0473 1.8 0.02 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 32
3 0.0014 0.0522 2.0 0.02 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 34
4 0.0016 0.0692 2.3 0.02 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 38
5 0.0023 0.0999 3.2 0.03 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 39
6 0.0019 0.1424 2.7 0.03 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 42
7 0.0013 0.1934 1.9 0.04 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 49
8 0.0012 0.3022 1.6 0.05 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 55
9 0.0013 0.7520 1.8 0.16 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 195
10 0.0012 0.8789 1.7 0.16 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 303
11 0.0012 1.1134 1.7 0.17 0.17 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 496
12 0.0040 0.0586 5.6 0.02 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 46
13 0.0041 0.0844 5.7 0.03 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 50
14 0.0041 0.1068 5.8 0.03 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 53
15 0.0041 0.1238 5.8 0.04 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 59
16 0.0051 0.1596 7.2 0.09 0.12 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 124
17 0.0048 0.1975 6.7 0.11 0.12 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 133
18 0.0043 0.2213 6.1 0.12 0.12 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 145
19 0.0041 0.3087 5.7 0.13 0.13 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 161
20 0.0047 0.6256 6.7 0.14 0.15 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 251
21 0.0044 0.8417 6.2 0.15 0.15 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 282
22 0.0193 0.0370 27.2 0.02 0.01 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 107
23 0.0193 0.0326 27.2 0.03 0.02 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 123
24 0.0192 0.0296 27.1 0.03 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 140
25 0.0192 0.0437 27.1 0.07 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 260
26 0.0193 0.0719 27.2 0.08 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 357
27 0.0198 0.1411 28.0 0.09 0.08 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 500
28 0.0198 0.1942 27.9 0.10 0.09 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 660
29 0.0194 0.3153 27.4 0.11 0.11 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 905
30 0.0016 0.0451 2.2 0.04 0.02 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 33
31 0.0018 0.0492 2.6 0.04 0.02 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 33
32 0.0021 0.0567 3.0 0.04 0.02 1.1 0.840 1.7 1.8 34
33 0.0018 0.0809 2.5 0.04 0.02 1.1 0.840 1.7 1.8 35
34 0.0022 0.1086 3.1 0.04 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 38
35 0.0016 0.1415 2.3 0.04 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 48
36 0.0012 0.2103 1.7 0.04 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 50
37 0.0012 0.3153 1.6 0.05 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 57
38 0.0011 0.6291 1.6 0.16 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 188
39 0.0012 0.8937 1.7 0.17 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 266
40 0.0012 1.1037 1.6 0.17 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 468
41 0.0039 0.0484 5.5 0.05 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 65
42 0.0040 0.0603 5.6 0.05 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 69
43 0.0040 0.0754 5.7 0.06 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 72
44 0.0042 0.1062 5.9 0.06 0.07 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 76
45 0.0050 0.1573 7.0 0.12 0.13 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 155
46 0.0047 0.1876 6.6 0.11 0.13 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 149
47 0.0043 0.2221 6.0 0.12 0.13 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 165
48 0.0041 0.3169 5.7 0.13 0.14 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 204
49 0.0046 0.6890 6.4 0.15 0.15 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 280
50 0.0043 0.8711 6.1 0.16 0.15 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 471
51 0.0190 0.0260 26.8 0.02 0.02 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 115
52 0.0191 0.0270 27.0 0.02 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 130
53 0.0190 0.0418 26.8 0.03 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 145
54 0.0191 0.0425 26.9 0.06 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 261
55 0.0191 0.0823 26.9 0.07 0.08 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 390
56 0.0194 0.1463 27.3 0.08 0.10 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 592
57 0.0194 0.1894 27.3 0.09 0.11 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 774
58 0.0198 0.3518 27.9 0.11 0.11 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.8 1107
59 0.0014 0.0379 2.0 0.01 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 35
60 0.0016 0.0414 2.3 0.02 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 45
61 0.0020 0.0504 2.8 0.02 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 48
62 0.0017 0.0656 2.4 0.02 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 51
63 0.0021 0.0965 3.0 0.03 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 52
64 0.0029 0.1460 4.1 0.03 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 56
65 0.0016 0.1960 2.2 0.04 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 64
66 0.0013 0.3037 1.8 0.05 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 71
67 0.0013 0.5989 1.8 0.16 0.15 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 251
68 0.0016 0.8930 2.3 0.16 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 386
69 0.0012 1.1923 1.7 0.17 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 685
70 0.0039 0.0471 5.5 0.03 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 60
71 0.0039 0.0681 5.5 0.03 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 66
72 0.0039 0.0876 5.6 0.03 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 70
73 0.0040 0.1313 5.6 0.04 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 75
74 0.0044 0.1598 6.3 0.09 0.12 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 160
75 0.0043 0.2127 6.0 0.11 0.11 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 171
76 0.0041 0.2080 5.8 0.12 0.12 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 183
77 0.0040 0.3235 5.7 0.13 0.13 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 196
78 0.0039 0.6035 5.5 0.14 0.14 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 227
79 0.0040 0.8919 5.6 0.16 0.15 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 443
80 0.0193 0.0363 27.2 0.02 0.02 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 110
81 0.0191 0.0270 26.9 0.03 0.02 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 127
82 0.0190 0.0326 26.8 0.03 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 144
83 0.0191 0.0446 26.9 0.07 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 269
84 0.0191 0.0720 26.9 0.08 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 350
85 0.0196 0.1378 27.6 0.09 0.07 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 498
86 0.0196 0.1856 27.7 0.10 0.09 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 639
87 0.0194 0.3099 27.4 0.11 0.10 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 797
88 0.0014 0.0408 2.0 0.04 0.02 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 50
89 0.0016 0.0517 2.3 0.04 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 53
90 0.0018 0.0649 2.6 0.04 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 55
91 0.0023 0.0837 3.2 0.04 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 61
92 0.0026 0.0974 3.7 0.04 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 66
93 0.0020 0.1425 2.8 0.04 0.05 1.1 0.840 1.7 1.9 67
94 0.0017 0.1964 2.4 0.04 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 68
95 0.0013 0.3203 1.8 0.05 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 75
96 0.0011 0.6018 1.6 0.16 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 243
97 0.0011 0.9127 1.6 0.16 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 372
98 0.0012 1.2524 1.7 0.17 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 693
99 0.0040 0.0507 5.6 0.05 0.07 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 90
100 0.0040 0.0710 5.6 0.06 0.07 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 96
101 0.0040 0.0838 5.6 0.06 0.07 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 100
102 0.0041 0.1140 5.7 0.06 0.07 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 107
103 0.0046 0.1694 6.4 0.12 0.14 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 231
104 0.0047 0.2316 6.6 0.12 0.14 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 218
105 0.0042 0.2243 5.9 0.12 0.14 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 232
106 0.0041 0.3342 5.8 0.12 0.15 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 282
107 0.0039 0.6242 5.5 0.14 0.15 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 362
108 0.0040 0.9001 5.6 0.15 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 364
109 0.0191 0.0324 26.9 0.02 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 125
110 0.0191 0.0348 26.9 0.02 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 146
111 0.0191 0.0392 26.9 0.02 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 173
112 0.0190 0.0472 26.8 0.06 0.08 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 367
113 0.0192 0.0802 27.1 0.07 0.10 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 567
114 0.0196 0.1414 27.7 0.09 0.11 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 918
115 0.0195 0.1896 27.5 0.09 0.12 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 1284
116 0.0201 0.3252 28.4 0.10 0.13 1.0 0.840 1.7 1.9 1902
117 0.0012 0.0448 1.7 0.01 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 61
118 0.0014 0.0507 2.0 0.02 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 69
119 0.0017 0.0582 2.4 0.02 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 75
120 0.0023 0.0797 3.2 0.02 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 79
121 0.0027 0.1005 3.8 0.03 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 81
122 0.0018 0.1323 2.5 0.03 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 84
123 0.0014 0.1872 2.0 0.04 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 95
124 0.0012 0.3079 1.7 0.05 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 106
125 0.0011 0.6065 1.6 0.16 0.15 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 351
126 0.0011 0.8689 1.6 0.16 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 448
127 0.0012 1.1773 1.7 0.17 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 711
128 0.0039 0.0421 5.5 0.03 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 92
129 0.0040 0.0491 5.6 0.03 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 102
130 0.0042 0.0727 5.9 0.03 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 105
131 0.0044 0.1110 6.1 0.04 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 112
132 0.0054 0.1756 7.5 0.09 0.12 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 226
133 0.0055 0.2319 7.7 0.11 0.11 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 244
134 0.0046 0.2150 6.4 0.12 0.11 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 257
135 0.0043 0.3149 6.0 0.13 0.12 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 277
136 0.0039 0.6197 5.6 0.14 0.14 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 320
137 0.0042 0.9019 6.0 0.16 0.15 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 522
138 0.0190 0.0244 26.8 0.02 0.02 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 114
139 0.0191 0.0277 27.0 0.03 0.02 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 135
140 0.0191 0.0302 26.9 0.03 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 157
141 0.0190 0.0433 26.9 0.07 0.06 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 284
142 0.0191 0.0783 27.0 0.08 0.07 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 394
143 0.0198 0.1475 27.9 0.09 0.07 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 493
144 0.0199 0.1905 28.0 0.10 0.09 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 621
145 0.0190 0.3154 26.8 0.11 0.10 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 787
146 0.0028 0.0442 3.9 0.04 0.02 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 69
147 0.0039 0.0423 5.5 0.04 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 78
148 0.0048 0.0597 6.7 0.04 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 83
149 0.0061 0.0698 8.6 0.04 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 98
150 0.0033 0.1070 4.7 0.04 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 100
151 0.0011 0.1348 1.6 0.04 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 100
152 0.0013 0.2007 1.9 0.04 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 102
153 0.0011 0.3224 1.6 0.05 0.05 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 110
154 0.0011 0.6109 1.6 0.16 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 355
155 0.0011 0.9069 1.6 0.16 0.16 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 441
156 0.0012 1.2710 1.7 0.17 0.17 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 687
157 0.0042 0.0547 5.9 0.05 0.07 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 132
158 0.0042 0.0721 5.9 0.05 0.07 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 139
159 0.0045 0.0814 6.4 0.05 0.07 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 143
160 0.0052 0.1036 7.4 0.06 0.07 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 153
161 0.0055 0.1707 7.7 0.11 0.14 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 315
162 0.0055 0.1836 7.8 0.11 0.14 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 295
163 0.0049 0.2387 6.9 0.11 0.14 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 301
164 0.0042 0.3136 5.9 0.12 0.14 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 326
165 0.0041 0.6321 5.8 0.14 0.15 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 356
166 0.0043 0.9335 6.0 0.15 0.15 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 454
167 0.0192 0.0387 27.1 0.02 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 131
168 0.0192 0.0392 27.1 0.02 0.03 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 152
169 0.0192 0.0402 27.0 0.02 0.04 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 174
170 0.0192 0.0489 27.1 0.06 0.08 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 361
171 0.0193 0.0791 27.2 0.07 0.09 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 523
172 0.0195 0.1463 27.5 0.08 0.10 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 737
173 0.0197 0.1910 27.8 0.09 0.11 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 841
174 0.0196 0.3109 27.6 0.10 0.12 1.0 0.840 1.7 2.0 1020
D.2 EXPERIMENT #2: FLOW DEVELOPMENT
This section presents the data of the second set of experiments
focused on the evaluation of ow recovery in the straigh-tube segments
upstream and downstream of the bend. In the following tables, abso-
lute pressure, p
ref
, and its uncertainty values are shown in kPa.
Table 14 Main ow parameters.
# Dir. 2R/d F.R. j
l
j
g
G T p
ref
1 U 8.7 P 0.200 0.398 200 298 109.43
2 D 8.7 P 0.200 0.403 200 297 108.20
3 U 8.7 SL 0.200 3.914 205 298 114.77
4 D 8.7 SL 0.200 4.045 205 298 113.41
5 U 8.7 A 0.200 19.969 239 297 167.60
6 D 8.7 A 0.200 20.392 239 297 164.68
Table 15 Gas holdup measurements.
#
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12
1 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.43 0.47 0.29 0.65 0.61 0.61 0.59 0.57 0.58
2 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.72 0.67 0.59 0.50 0.44 0.49
3 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.61 0.67 0.65 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.68 0.67
4 0.70 0.68 0.68 0.66 0.66 0.69 0.77 0.73 0.69 0.68 0.66 0.64
5 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.92
6 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.91
Table 16 Total pressure drop measurements.
# p
1,2
p
2,3
p
3,4
p
4,5
p
b
p
6,7
p
7,8
p
8,9
p
9,10
1 -98 -25 -22 -9 -1174 24 -36 -52 -74
2 -101 -48 -28 -25 140 8 2 -11 -47
3 -268 -107 -60 -41 -1036 -18 -93 -116 -199
4 -261 -123 -49 -63 -129 4 -41 -118 -192
5 -1445 -780 -358 -171 -1224 -268 -507 -804 -1462
6 -1549 -789 -394 -159 -1186 -161 -361 -806 -1485
Table 17 Uncertainty of main ow parameters.
U
# j
l
j
g
G T p
ref
1 0.0043 0.062 6.0 1.1 0.840
2 0.0044 0.0659 6.3 1.1 0.840
3 0.0057 0.1836 8.1 1.1 0.840
4 0.0055 0.2067 7.7 1.1 0.840
5 0.0041 1.3999 5.8 1.1 0.840
6 0.0040 1.2599 5.7 1.1 0.840
D.2 Experiment #2: Flow development 155
Table 18 Uncertainty of gas holdup.
U
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05
2 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
3 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06
4 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
5 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
6 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Table 19 Uncertainty of total pressure drop.
U
p
# 1, 2 2, 3 3, 4 4, 5 b 6, 7 7, 8 8, 9 9, 10
1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
2 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
3 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
4 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
Table 20 Uncertainty of accelerational pressure drop.
U
p
a
# 1, 2 2, 3 3, 4 4, 5 b 6, 7 7, 8 8, 9 9, 10
1 13 14 12 10 9 20 26 23 22
2 15 16 16 16 19 38 42 28 16
3 32 33 29 28 31 33 37 39 42
4 37 34 33 30 34 60 65 45 36
5 600 649 502 475 614 678 645 607 588
6 596 632 534 498 536 813 832 557 546
Table 21 Uncertainty of frictional pressure drop.
U
p
f
# 1, 2 2, 3 3, 4 4, 5 b 6, 7 7, 8 8, 9 9, 10
1 13 14 12 10 52 20 26 23 22
2 15 16 16 16 79 38 42 28 17
3 32 33 29 28 92 33 37 39 42
4 37 34 33 30 95 60 65 45 36
5 600 649 502 475 623 678 645 607 588
6 596 632 534 498 547 813 832 557 546

On Air-Water Two-Phase Flows in Return Bends

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

On Air-Water Two-Phase Flows in Return Bends

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Disserta c ao submetida ao Programa

return bends that connect

sao frequentemente encontradas na

que conecta dois

return bend. To this end, an experimental

return bends. The specic objectives of the dissertation are presented

return bends is carried out, highlighting some unresolved

bends and compared its predictions with the steam-

and bend orientations other

from the inlet to the outlet, both on the in-

bend connecting the two horizontal tubes,

of the bend, most of the inner wall

along the bend, the gas suddenly

Figure 38 ...Comparisons with Chisholm (1983), Chen et al. (2004),

bends. In the rst set of ex-

ULLER-STEINHAGEN, H.; HECK, K. A simple friction pressure

C, the voltage signal corresponding to V

132 Appendix B -- Uncertainty analysis

Você também pode gostar