1. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
Operational drag coefficients for bubbles in a centrifugal field

2. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
Operational and predicted drag coefficients for bubbles in a centrifugal field from Eq.

3. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
Drag coefficients for bubbles in a centrifugal field from Eq. and comparison with Ihme’s correlation

4. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
dmax versus db_surg

5. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
Nonslip gas void fraction versus db_surg

6. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
Comparisons between measured and predicted bubble diameter (db_surg)

7. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
Overall comparisons between measured and predicted bubble diameters

8. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
Comparison between predicted surging flow rates and experimental data at 600 rpm

9. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
Comparison between predicted surging flow rates and experimental data at 900 rpm

10. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
Comparison between predicted surging flow rates and experimental data at 1200 rpm

11. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
Comparison between predicted surging flow rates and experimental data at 1500 rpm

12. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
Overall comparison between predicted and measured surging flow rates for all rotational speeds tested

13. 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): doi: /
Figure Legend:
Curvilinear trajectory of a particle