Characterization of horizontal air–water two-phase flow

•A visualization study is performed to develop flow regime map in horizontal flow.•Database in horizontal bubbly flow is extended using a local conductivity probe.•Frictional pressure drop analysis is performed in horizontal bubbly flow.•Drift flux analysis is performed in horizontal bubbly flow. This paper presents experimental studies performed to characterize horizontal air–water two-phase flow in a round pipe with an inner diameter of 3.81cm. A detailed flow visualization study is performed using a high-speed video camera in a wide range of two-phase flow conditions to verify previous flow regime maps. Two-phase flows are classified into bubbly, plug, slug, stratified, stratified-wavy, and annular flow regimes. While the transition boundaries identified in the present study compare well with the existing ones (Mandhane et al., 1974) in general, some discrepancies are observed for bubbly-to-plug/slug, and plug-to-slug transition boundaries. Based on the new transition boundaries, three additional test conditions are determined in horizontal bubbly flow to extend the database by Talley et al. (2015a). Various local two-phase flow parameters including void fraction, interfacial area concentration, bubble velocity, and bubble Sauter mean diameter are obtained. The effects of increasing gas flow rate on void fraction, bubble Sauter mean diameter, and bubble velocity are discussed. Bubbles begin to coalesce near the gas–liquid layer instead of in the highly packed region when gas flow rate increases. Using all the current experimental data, two-phase frictional pressure loss analysis is performed using the Lockhart–Martinelli method. It is found that the coefficient C=24 yields the best agreement with the data with the minimum average difference. Moreover, drift flux analysis is performed to predict void-weighted area-averaged bubble velocity and area-averaged void fraction. Based on the current database, functional relations for ≪vg≫ vs. and vs. / have been studied. It is found that ≪vg≫ – method predicts the void-weighted area-averaged bubble velocity and area-averaged void fraction better compared to – / method.