A Model To Predict Liquid Holdup and Pressure Gradient of Near-Horizontal Wet-Gas Pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A mechanistic two-fluid model with new closure relationships is proposed to predict liquid holdup and pressure gradient of stratified flow. The proposed closure relationships include correlations of wetted-wall fraction factor, liquid-wall friction factor, and interfacial-friction factor. An iterative calculation procedure is implemented to solve for liquid holdup and pressure gradient for a given set of operating conditions, pipe geometry, and fluid properties. Two sets of facilities, a small-scale facility with 51-mm internal diameter (ID) and a large-scale facility with 150-mm-ID test sections, were used to tune the model. Superficial gas and liquid velocities were varied from 5 to 25 m/s and 0.00025 to 0.03 m/s, respectively, in the small-scale facility while they were varied from 7.5 to 21 m/s and 0.005 to 0.05 m/s, respectively, in the large-scale facility. The pipe inclination angle varied from −2 to 2°. The liquid holdup was ranged between 0.003 and 0.12, emphasizing the low-liquid-loading two-phase flow. The tuned model performance was then benchmarked against the high-pressure (up to 90 bar) SINTEF-stratified flow data. The model predictions agreed well with measured values of liquid holdup and pressure gradient. The comparison between the present model and OLGA® (a commercial transient multiphaseflow simulator by Scandpower Petroleum) performance was also presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".