Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: Operational drag coefficients for bubbles in a centrifugal field

Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: Operational and predicted drag coefficients for bubbles in a centrifugal field from Eq.

Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: Drag coefficients for bubbles in a centrifugal field from Eq. and comparison with Ihme’s correlation

Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: dmax versus db_surg

Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: Nonslip gas void fraction versus db_surg

Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: Comparisons between measured and predicted bubble diameter (db_surg)

Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: Overall comparisons between measured and predicted bubble diameters

Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: Comparison between predicted surging flow rates and experimental data at 600 rpm

Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: Comparison between predicted surging flow rates and experimental data at 900 rpm

Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: Comparison between predicted surging flow rates and experimental data at 1200 rpm

Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: Comparison between predicted surging flow rates and experimental data at 1500 rpm

Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: Overall comparison between predicted and measured surging flow rates for all rotational speeds tested

Date of download: 12/26/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Modeling Two-Phase Flow Inside an Electrical Submersible Pump Stage J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2011;133(4):042902-042902-10. doi:10.1115/1.4004967 Figure Legend: Curvilinear trajectory of a particle