377

HYDRAULIC PLANT AND MACHINERY GROUP

MIXING OF MISCIBLE BUT DISSIMILAR LIQUIDS

IN SERIAL FLOW IN A PIPELINE

By J. E. Austin, RA.* and J. R. Palfrey, RSc. (Eng·)t

New formulae for determining the length of an interface that occurs during consecutive flow of fluids through
a single pipeline are deduced in this paper.
They result from an analysis carried out using data obtained from pipes varying from t inch to 40 inches in
diameter, and from a few feet to hundreds of miles in length.
Whilst previous theory, that the volume of mixing varies to an extent with diameter of pipe and distance
travelled by the interface, is confirmed, it is also shown that there are two distinct regions of commingling in
turbulent flow for each pipe diameter. The transition from one region to the other occurs quite sharply at
different Reynolds number for each diameter of pipe. Below these critical values for Reynolds number com-
mingling will increase rapidly as the Reynolds number decreases, even though flow may nominally still be well
within the turbulent range.
An explanation for this phenomenon-which hitherto appears to have received little or no attention-is
attempted.
The work is of practical significance for the oil industry in the field of 'products pipelines' design.

INTRODUCTION To acquaint the general reader with some idea of the

AMONG THE MORE RAPID DEVELOPMENTS associated with the
oil industry over the past few years has been that of 'face-
to-face' pumping through the same pipeline of products
having different characteristics. The swiftness of the
development has been such, in fact, that hardly any
major products pipeline is built today where the use of
this operating technique is not envisaged.
One of the problems which has arisen in the operation
of a multi-products pipeline system is the estimation of the
commingling, or mixing, that occurs at the interface(s) of
the liquids being pumped. This is a prerequisite both for
economic design of the pipeline and associated tankage,
and in order to facilitate disposal of the contaminated
stocks which arise during passage of products through the
system.
The MS. of this paper was first received at the Institution on 27th
December 1962 and in its revised form, as accepted by the Council
for publication, on 9th June 1963. For a report of the meeting at
which this paper was presented, seep. 396.
* Co-ordinator (Transportation and Operations), Distribution
Engineering Branch, The British Petroleum Company Ltd.
t Section Head (Transportation), Distribution Engineering Branch,
The British Petroleum Company Ltd.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-64
problem and what is involved, it seems appropriate here to
set down a few remarks concerning multi-product pipeline
operation. Such an operation involves the transportation
of a wide variety of petroleum products'through a single
line over distances that may extend from a few to several
hundred miles. All the different products are dispatched
through the line in continuous succession with no medium
employed to separate or segregate the several groups or
grades. Under these conditions there is always a mixing at
the boundary of two adjacent streams, and a slug of con-
taminated material is formed between batches of different
uncontaminated products. This slug of contaminated
material gradually increases in length as the two streams
flow along the line in the direction of the receiving point(s).
The effect of this mixing is shown diagrammatically in
Fig. 1.
The economic significance attaching to an accurate
calculation in advance of the length of the intermixing
distance will doubtless be apparent when it is realized that
today's major oil pipelines are up to about 40 inches in
diameter, that each foot length of such diameter pipe holds
Vol 178 Pt 1 No 15

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015

378 J. E. AUSTIN AND J. R. PALFREY
LENGTH OF
PRODUCT A
(LEADS)
Jl>-I-ST-A-T-IO-N----------O-----------~~:-:--
STATION
PRODUCT B I 1
(FOLLOWS) I
I
I
I ~LE~~TH~
1 iIXTUR'
_ _ _ _ PRODUCT
B
Fig. 1. When one product A is followed by another B a zone of mixing is formed: the length
of the mixture increases as it moves along the pipeline
approximately 54 imperial gallons of product, and that the
all-in costs of a pipeline system, depending upon the area
or country in which installed, are likely to range between
£2,000 and £3,000 per inch of diameter per mile run of
pipe. Bearing these figures in mind it will be appreciated
that a large error in the calculations could easily result in
considerable financial loss to the pipeline operator, one
way or another-for example, too large a size of line for
actual product handling requirements, or a failure to meet
optimum product quality requirements through 'cutting'
the interface at the wrong point or, for the same reason of
wrong point interface cut, a 'throw-away' of valuable
material through too great a downgrading of the higher
quality product.
There have been a number of papers and articles written
already on interfacial product-mixing in pipelines. In
several of these an attempt has been made, both experi-
mentally and using a theoretical approach-the intermix-
ing of two adjacent fluid streams being considered as a
diffusion phenomenon-to investigate systematically the
conditions in the intermixing zone; and a mathematical
formula or formulae has been set down aimed at enabling
a prior estimation to be made of the amount of fluid
commingling that occurs. A comprehensive theory, how-
ever, including all the factors and confirmed by practical
field measurements, does not yet appear to exist.
This lack of a proven comprehensive theory has, with
justifiable reason, led to some misgiving among pipeline
operators as to which one, among the existing formulae, is
most likely to give the best prediction; and whilst there
have recently been attempts at rationalization between
predictive theory and actual practice-articles by
Levenspeil and Weyer in particular might be noted
here (1)* (z)-there still remains, nevertheless, a divergence
* References are given in Appendix III.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-64
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015
PIPELINE L _
o
o
STATION
2 3
PRO:UCT PRODUCT
A
of opinion as to which of the several formulae will yield
the best results.
The present paper derives from a study of the whole
problem of multi-products handling carried out by the
authors with the basic intention of establishing the most
acceptable formula by which the length of an interface
under normal operating conditions might be determined.
In the outcome, the study has led to new formulae being
deduced covering interfacial commingling in 'products
pipelines'. These new formulae, it is felt, will not only give
greater accuracy, but will also permit of simple graphical
solution to problems of multi-products pipeline design.
ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLISHED DATA
In undertaking this re-examination of the problem, it was
decided that all the factors which might have a bearing on
the length of intermingled product (interface) should be
investigated; and graphical plots made where possible,
using one independent variable at a time, to establish
empirically any relationships between them.
A review of the already published work on the mixing of
products during serial pumping indicated that there was
sufficient material available to enable this to be done with-
out the necessity for setting up a further test programme
to accumulate additional data.
However, many of the earlier data derived from experi-
ment or in practice seemed to be inaccurate, owing either
to inadequacies in the measuring instruments or because
the pipelines from which they were obtained possessed
features which had a detrimental effect on the interface.
A prime requirement at the commencement of the present
investigation was thus to eliminate any data which were
obtained in abnormal conditions, or which seemed un-
reliable through doubtful methods of measurement. In
Vol 178 Pt I No 15
 MIXING OF MISCIBLE BUT DISSIMILAR LIQUIDS IN SERIAL FLOW IN A PIPELINE
certain cases, where the information given was incomplete,
this also was excluded from the study.
Two aspects of the problem were accepted at the outset
of this work as having been established by previous in-
vestigators. These were:
(1) The kinematic viscosity to be used in calculating the
Reynolds number (one of the factors influencing product
mixing) is that of the mixture of equal volumes of the two
products being serially pumped.
(2) The order in which any two products are serially
pumped has no effect on the length of the interface (3).
Results of the present study later proved that these were
not unreasonable assumptions.
In making use of the acceptable data it was considered
necessary to have a strict definition of the length of the
interface. This has been taken to be the distance between
two points in the interface where sampling indicates a
change in composition from 99 per cent purity of one
product to 99 per cent purity of the other. As a result,
interface lengths given to 97 or 98 per cent end purity
were increased to lengths equivalent to 99 per cent purity
to obtain a uniform basis of comparison. The correction
factor used for this purpose was the ratio of the inverse
error function for the purities concerned.
The practical requirement underlying the present study
-the need to find a suitable formula which could easily be
put together with other data for rapid assessment of
'contamination', and so assist towards most economic
design of a pipeline and tankage system for specified
conditions-suggested a limitation of the scope of the
investigation to the turbulent flow region in pipes, since
for the majority of commercial systems carrying products
in the viscosity range up to light fuel oils it is always aimed
to maintain the flow pattern in this region. This is because
in turbulent flow the intermixing of two immediately
adjacent product streams is much less than in the case of
streamline, or laminar, flow where the velocity along the
axis of the pipe is twice that of the mean velocity in the
cross-section.
CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS AFFECTING
INTERFACE LENGTH
The following factors, separately or together, have been
reviewed by previous workers in the field of product
mixing concerning their possible effect on the length of the
interface formed by two products flowing successively in
a pipeline:
(1) The distance travelled by the interface.
(2) The mean velocity of flow in the pipeline.
(3) The internal diameter of the pipe.
(4) The Reynolds number.
(5) The kinematic viscosity of the product mixture
(50-50 mixture by volume).
(6) The difference in specific gravity of the flowing
products.
(7) The pipe friction coefficient.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-64
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015
379
(8) The relative roughness in the pipe.
(9) The curvature of the pipe.
(10) The intensity of turbulence in the stream flow.
(11) The scale of the turbulence.
(12) The molecular diffusion coefficient of the product
mixture.
All these factors have been given consideration in the
present study, and the relationship with interface length,
as far as possible, established. With those factors where the
investigation showed no correlation to exist, or where there
were insufficient data to enable a correlation to be estab-
lished, detailed discussion has been omitted in subse-
quent paragraphs.
Effect of interface travel
Sufficient evidence from both theoretical studies and
experimental work is already available to show that the
interface length, C, increases with the distance, L,
travelled by the interface, if all other variables are kept
constant. This relationship has been set down by various
writers as:
Co: L00482 up to C o: LO'62 (Appendix II).
Only in one case, however, that given by Birge (4) when
dealing with a gasoline-gasoline mix, is the power of L less
than 0-5. In this case, since no account was taken of the
considerable variations in both diameter of pipe and
velocity of flow, the relationship is suspect.
Figs 2a, b, and c have been prepared from data con-
tained in Tables 7-14 (Appendix I). The interface length,
C, is plotted against the distance, L, travelled by the inter-
face-both dimensions in the same units. Each series of
plotted points represents the results obtained from a single
pipeline at constant velocity and constant Reynolds
number. Except in three cases of plots obtained from a
2-in laboratory pipeline system (3), a graph of slope 0-5
has been drawn for each of the series of points.
The actual slope of each series of plotted points is given
in Table 1.
It will be seen from this table that with few exceptions
the slope compares with that drawn. The more notable
deviations from the slope of 0-5, apart from the 2-in line
already mentioned, exist with a 20-in diameter field pipe-
line (5) and, in a lesser degree, with a 10-in diameter
pipeline. A slight deviation only occurs with the i-in
diameter pipe.
A possible explanation for the deviations in the large
diameter lines might lie in the operation of the respective
pipeline systems. Experience has shown that several factors
are capable of accelerating product mixing and causing an
increase in the length of the interface over what would
normally be expected as the minimum in a pipeline. These
are:
(1) Laminar flow at the commencement of pumping.
(2) Slow valve switching from one product to the other
at the beginning of the pipeline.
Vol 178 Pt I No 15
380 J. E. AUSTIN AND J. R. PALFREY

10000 Table 1. Slope of graphs expressing the relationship between

8 interface length and distance travelled, for constant
1 ..fJ'!:Y
+'
<J
6 ·0
velocity flow
<J 5
~x x ./". /
T 4
I Reynolds I Slope I Reynolds I Slope
k::::== ~ ~
o
"i-" .... Diameter, Diameter,

.>: >
3 inches No. (R) inches No. (R)
V »:
2
/ V ~ 0·124 3000 0·5 6·0 143000 0·5
V ~:

1000
10000
~x
V ;::;~ a
0·124
0·313
0·313
0·375
5000
4000
5000
19300
0·5
0·5
0·5
0·46
8'0
8·0
8'0
10·0
49000
86700
218800
24000
0·5
0·5
0·5
0·5
8 2·0 6000 0·5 10·0 485000 0·40
7
6 .- 2·0 8000 0·5 12·0 585000 0·5
5 ~ 2·0 14160 0·62 20'0 135000 0·31
2'0 24420 0·62 20·0 265000 0'5
4
~
....----- V 2·0 121000 0'62
3 ./ ~
....
2 x""'-= ~ r5
A ~
V
+'
<J (3) Complicated pipework at depot and pump-station
~ 1000
I manifolds,
o 8
7 (4) Passage of the interface through filters (laminar
6 effect).
2 in
5
4
• 2-in diarne ter- x lO-in diam e t er
The effect of any of these features would be more pro-
3 + 6-in diame t er c 12- in dlarne ter- - nounced at the start of a pipeline and this has been con-
6 a-in diarnet er- o zo-In di ame ter
2
firmed by actual field tests. The resultant plotted data
would give a slope less than 0'5.
b Although one or other of these factors might be the
reason for the deviation in the 20-in and 10-in pipelines,
2 3 4 5 678 106 2 3
L-f.... t the same arguments cannot be put forward in the case of
the 2-in laboratory line. Here the curvature of the pipe-
work or passage through the pumps of the flowing media
2 might have had some influence on the interface length. It
Ir has been established experimentally that when a fluid is
flowing in a coiled pipe, the Reynolds number at which
10·0
" ..... transition from laminar to turbulent flow occurs depends
8
7 ,.... ... .,.'
.
. ."
-.:' ".
upon the ratio of the radius of curvature of the coil to the
pipe radius. As this ratio decreases, the transition Reynolds
6
5
... ... V
Y K number increases (6). In the laboratory pipeline, the bends
4 - 7-/./
.;...... at each end of the building had an effective ratio of
3
/' approximately 100, and an expected transition Reynolds
2
1/10" number of 4800. Sir Geoffrey Taylor, in his paper dealing
.... ./
with turbulent flow through a pipe (7), makes reference
~ V
I
01·0 V also to the importance of the curvature of the pipe axis. He
showed, in experiments with a i-in pipe, that the effect
8 was to increase the value of the virtual coefficient of
7
6 diffusion (K), and hence the dispersion characteristics
5 of the flowing substance. Another effect of pipe curvature
4
is that the friction coefficientin both laminar and turbulent
3 flow is increased. In the paper just mentioned the pipe
C
2
friction coefficient is, in fact, adjudged to be the principal
• 0·124-in diameter factor determining fluid diffusion. If the effects so noted
x 0'313-in diamatar
o 0'375-in diamatar were present in the 2-in laboratory pipe system, it seems
o·13 4 5 67810 2 3 4 5678100 2 3
most probable that the interface lengths were increased
L-f.... t consistently either by an extended region of laminar flow
or by an increase in the friction factor in the system bends.
Fig. 2. Relationship between length of interface C and Considering all the points noted above and their effects,
distance travelled L at constant velocity of flow and it seems a fair proposition to state that for a simply de-
constant Reynolds number signed and reasonably long straight pipeline system, the
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-64 Vol 178 Pt 1 No 15

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015

 MIXING OF MISCIBLE BUT DISSIMILAR LIQUIDS IN SERIAL FLOW IN A PIPELINE 381

relationship between interface length and distance Examination of all the plotted points shows that for
travelled, for constant velocity of flow, is C oc LO.5. each pipe diameter there are two distinct regions in each
That is, C2/L = constant. of which the points are grouped on a straight line.
(1) 'Flat region': here the factor C2/dL increases slowly
Effect of Reynolds number, pipe diameter, viscosity as Reynolds number decreases, the slope of the graph
and density being -0,2. In this region the curve can be expressed by
the equation:
Previous investigators have established that the length of C2
the interface is a function of the Reynolds number. - - 138R-0-2 (1)
In Fig. 3, which is based on data contained in Tables 3- dL -
12 (Appendix I), the factor C2/dL-all units consistent, (2) 'Steep region': the same direct relationship, how-
and d = pipe diameter-is plotted against Reynolds ever, does not exist in the steep region of the curves.
number, R. Whenever possible the values of C2/dL have Although there is a discrete relationship between C2 /dL
been established from the plots in Fig. 2. This reduces the and d, the expression C2/dL = constant for a constant
effect, previously referred to, of induced interface spread- Reynolds number no longer holds, and the curves are
ing caused by slow valve switching or bad manifolding. expressed by the following equation:
For the 2-in diameter pipe, data (3) for Reynolds C 2
numbers greater than 11 000 conform to the relationship dL = 3·38 X 10 8 X R-l'8 e2-43d O• 8 • (2)
C cc LO.62, whereas when the Reynolds number is less
than 8000 they obey the relationship C o: LO·5. As dis- The last term on the right-hand side of this equation re-
cussed above, the relationship C cc LO'62 is thought to presents the effect of a progressively larger value for the
arise from the effects of the unusual arrangement of the term C2/dL as the diameter of the pipe increases. As it
experimental line, and these should be less the shorter the stands, the constant in this term has the dimension L -to
distance travelled by the interface. Thus, data valid for the From these two equations the value of C, for the 'flat'
present investigation should be obtained by considering a region and 'steep' region respectively of the curves, can be
length L = 2500 ft, which is a half circuit in the laboratory obtained from the following expressions:
rig (between pumps). Smith and Schultz do not quote C = 11·75 dO' 5L o'5R - o'1
results for L = 2500 ft, hence the values of C applicable and C = 18420 d O•5L o·5R - o·g el.21dOo8
at L = 2500 ft have been calculated from their curve for
L = 100000 ft using the relationship C oc LO'62 for where C is the interface length, d is the pipe diameter, L
R> 11 000 and C a: LO'5 for R < 8000. The data so is the distance travelled by the interface, all in feet, R is
obtained have been listed in Table 3 (Appendix I). The the Reynolds number of a 50 per cent-50 per cent mixture
values of C.l/dL lie on a smooth curve which is consistent of the two products in serial flow, and e is the Naperian
with the rest of the published data that has been con- base.
sidered, and they are included in Fig. 3. In drawing:the series of parallel lines of slope -1,8
100
8
8
7 • 0-124-;n dismatar A 8-in diamatar
6 ' , \ i n * 10 in X 0-313-in diamatar + 10·in diamatllr
• 8 in\ 1\ c 12-in diamatar
,
5 o 2 -o-In dlarneter-
4
\ 1\ v 4-0-in dlarne ter- .q. 20';n diamatllr
+ 6'0-;n dlame ter-
3
\ 1\
Ii 40';n diam atar

f- 0'124 -'In" -"

2 I---
0-313 in--' ~. 1\ I\~
.~ 1\

c2
(J[
100
9
f\~ 1\ ~,
x
e
7
6
5
~
~,
"
1'\
4
\ \i\
1'\
3
\ 1\-"

2
~~ '\ l'\.
~ ~~ ~ f"
Nt ~ ~.-io.
T
.I> .6 I'r~1
10
103 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 4 2 3 4 56 8 10 5 2 3 5 06/
1\ ~
REYNOLDS NUMBER

Fig. 3. Relationship between longitudinal dispersion factor C2/dL and Reynolds number
Proc lnstn Mech Engrs 1963-64 Vol 178 Pt 1 No 15

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015

382 J. E. AUSTIN AND J. R. PALFREY
through the points plotted for the steep region the reli-
ability of the data was considered. Whilst all the points for
pipelines up to 2-in diameter can be considered reliable
owing to the ideal conditions in which the data were
obtained, only one point (that corresponding to R =
24000 on the 10-in diameter pipeline) can be considered
wholly reliable for the pipelines above 2 inches in diameter.
Additional data obtained from an 8-in diameter heated
black oil pipeline being operated in Britain does tend,
however, to confirm the slope and position of the steep
section of the 8-in curve, though these data have not been
included here as they were not obtained under constant-
flow conditions. The cooling of the products during their
passage through the pipeline resulted in a progressive in-
crease in their viscosities with a consequent decrease in
Reynolds number.
A comparison of the expressions derived above for C
with expressions for C which are obtainable from other
published formulae is made in Appendix II. Some ex-
planation is offered here also as to why existing formulae
are thought not to be entirely reliable for practical use in
pipeline design and operation.
Before leaving this particular side of the subject, it
might be well to note that products which have kinematic
viscosities up to 100 cS and specific gravities varying from
0·5 to 1·0 are represented in the plotted points of the
curves. Although initially Birge (4), and latterly Weyer (z),
have both put forward the hypotheses, using the data from
the operation of Plantation Pipeline Company's 'Baton
Rouge-Bremen' system, that viscosity and density dif-
ferences between products are likely factors influencing
the intermixing at an interface, there appears to be little
positive evidence, in fact, to support their contentions.
In connection with viscosity effect, Birge noted that
when gasoline-gasoline batches and diesel-diesel batches
were handled through the Baton Rouge-Bremen line, the
measured intermixing of the diesel-diesel products was
only half that of gasolines, although the relative viscosities
of the two gasoline batches .and the two diesel batches were
practically equal. This variation in intermixing could, he
suggested, only be accounted for by the difference in the
absolute viscosities of gasolines and diesel fuels; the
absolute viscosity of diesel fuel being much larger than
that of gasoline. Weyer, in turn, uses the same argument.
As regards the effect of density differential at an inter-
face, Birge stated that a difference in density between pro-
ducts was thought to add a gravitational effect which
apparently acts to accelerate the spread of contamination,
a lighter product tending to be underrun by a heavier
product. Such an influence, he went on, would lessen as
the mixture reached a point where the change from the
density of one product to that of the other became very
gradual. He offered this hypothesis in explanation of the
fact that, as the products moved through the Plantation
Pipeline Company's distribution systems, a diminishing of
the 'rate of spread' was noted.
In his paper, Weyer has a set of curves showing the de-
viation of theoretical mixing lengths compared to those
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-<i4
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015
given by the Plantation Pipeline Company as a function
of relative density. Those curves, as drawn, suggest that
the length of the intermixing distance is in direct relation
to the difference between products with regard to density.
He does point out, however, that in evaluating this set of
curves, along with others drawn in respect of product
intermixing as a function of viscosity, it is well to note that
the diagrams contain both factors, and never only one
value for either variable at a constant value of the other.
In the graphical plots prepared as a basis for the present
paper, it has not been possible to establish any correlation
as regards the two factors, viscosity and density, singly.
The suggestion has nevertheless been put privately that
the effect of density differences at the interface during
flow at low velocities would be very important. This has
not, however, so far been seen to be the case in respect of a
number of products pipelines being operated by one of the
companies of the group to which the authors belong.
CRITICAL TRANSITION ZONE
It will be seen from Fig. 3 that the transition zone between
the two mixing regimes occurs at a progressively higher
Reynolds number as the diameter of the pipeline increases.
Solution of equations (1) and (2) for R in terms of d
gives the following expression for the point of intersection
of the two straight regions:
R == 10000 el·52dO'5
The corresponding values of d and R are given in
Table 2.
These Reynolds numbers are critical, since below the
values set down product mixing, and hence interface
length, increases rapidly with a relatively small decrease in
Reynolds number.
Other data (3), though not included in the present paper,
tend towards substantiating the value of Reynolds number
at which transition occurs in a 6-in pipeline. Nevertheless,
it has not been practicable to use the data as positive cor-
roboration of this fact; the reason being that, as Smith and
Schulze themselves were at pains to point out, their figures
were from data that used 99 per cent purity of single pro-
duct as the end point of the mixture and at this degree of
purity there could be argument regarding the degree of _
accuracy of the analysis of gravitometer readings employed
in checking the field samples.
Table 2. Critical Reynolds numbers for various
diameters of pipe
d, inches R
2 18500
4 22000
6 29000
8 34000
10 40000
12 46000
20 72 000
Voll78 Pt 1 No 15
 MIXING OF MISCIBLE BUT DISSIMILAR LIQUIDS IN SERIAL FLOW IN A PIPELINE
EFFECT OF OTHER FACTORS
When analysing the factors influencing mixing of products
in a pipeline network, other dimensionless groups, in
addition to Reynolds number, should be considered to
establish complete hydraulic similarity between systems.
(1) 'Roughness factor', expressed as Bid, where E is a
dimension representing the roughness of the internal pipe
wall, and d is the pipe diameter.
Taylor (7) has contended that high roughness factors-
Ejd approaching 0'2-have the effect of increasing the
length of an interface. Normal commercial pipelines carry-
ing products within the range of Reynolds numbers under
review have, however, roughness factors which in practice
seldom exceed 0'0005. They may thus be considered to be
hydraulically smooth. Moreover, a study of Fig. 3 will
reveal that in the steep region of the curves, the factor
C 2jdL increases as the diameter of the pipe increases for
constant Reynolds number. Ifit is assumed that E remains
substantially constant for steel pipes, then C2jdL increases
as Ejd (the roughness factor) decreases; which is the con-
verse of the effect pointed out by Taylor. For the reasons
here stated, it is felt that roughness factor as a strong
influence on the interfacial mixing length may, for com-
mercial steel pipelines, be discounted.
(2) 'Schmidt number', expressed as kjD, where k is the
kinematic viscosity, and D is the molecular diffusion
coefficient.
It has been determined experimentally that the product
Dk is very nearly constant for a wide range of hydro-
carbons, the value for water being a little less (8). The
Schmidt number in these cases is thus very nearly propor-
tional to k2. This being so, if the Schmidt number was a
major factor influencing mixing in the steep zone there
ought to be considerable scatter in the points plotted for
the 2-in pipeline, as these were all obtained over a wide
range of viscosities. Such is not the case, and the effect of
the Schmidt number as an influence on mixing can thus
for practical purposes be ignored.
(3) 'Intensity of turbulence', expressed as UjV, where
U is the root mean square value of velocity of turbulent
motions in the direction of stream flow, and V is the mean
stream velocity.
When transition from laminar to turbulent flow occurs
(generally accepted as at R = 2100 approximately), the
flow is not immediately fully turbulent. There is a region
over a limited range of Reynolds numbers in which the
laminar flow is interspersed with turbulent eddies in the
direction of mean flow. Thereafter turbulent motions in-
crease in scale as Reynolds number increases until the
whole flow pattern has once more reached a stage of com-
plete structural equilibrium. In this condition all the fluid
volumesin the pipe at a particular section of the flow, with
the exception possibly of the more extreme boundary layer
at the pipe wall surface, might be said to have similar
turbulent intensities. Although a great deal of experi-
mental work (quoted by Townsend (9)) has been carried
out in which the distributions of turbulent intensity across
a pipe section have been carefully measured, there appears
Proclnstn Mech Bngrs 1963-64
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015
383
to be little precise evidence as yet to connect changes in the
intensity of turbulence with the degree of mixing that
occurs at fluid interfaces in serial product flow.
CONSIDERA TlON OF DISPERSION
MECHANISMS IN THE TWO REGIONS
Examination of the flat and steep regions of Fig. 3 suggests
that there are two separate mechanisms affecting the
amount of mixing. The abrupt change of slope of the curves
would appear to indicate that one of these is eliminated
at the critical Reynolds number.
Although the experimental work has been reviewed and
a considerable amount of literature searched in an effort to
find some indication of the particular mechanisms at work,
it must be admitted that on the basis of present know-
ledge the relationship expressed by the empirical
formula (2) seems to be inexplicable. This is not to state
that the formula, for this reason, must be suspect; but its
explanation requires further research. If the authors
might be permitted to say so, here perhaps is something
well worth the attention of future research workers in the
field of fluid flow in pipes.
A possible starting point for such investigation could,
in the authors' opinion, lie in the theory of diffusion
mixing along with the boundary layer theory. Taylor (7)
has already given a classical exposition of the former, and
has stated that dispersion can be described by means of a
virtual coefficient of diffusion representing the combined
action of variation of velocity over the cross-section of the
tube or pipe and molecular diffusion in a radial direction.
For streamline flow conditions this virtual coefficient of
diffusion K (dimensions L2T-l) along the pipe has been
assigned the value
d2V 2
K= 192D
where d is the pipe diameter, V is the mean speed of flow
and D is the coefficientof molecular diffusion between the
two liquids. Arranged in dimensionless form this gives the
relationship:
C2 k
dL cc R X Sc, where Sc = D(Schmidt number)
Hence for constant Reynolds number, the more rapid the
diffusion across the pipe (D increasing) the less the diffu-
sion along the pipe.
For turbulent flow.at high Reynolds numbers, if the
Reynolds number and kinematic viscosity are kept
constant, the product Vd is constant. Thus as the pipe
diameter increases (C2jL increases) the velocity of flow
decreases. Accepting that under these conditions the
intensity of turbulence U j V remains constant, then U will
also decrease. The turbulent diffusion across the pipe
would thus seem to be governed by both the diameter and
the root mean square velocity of the turbulent motions.
An increase in the former or decrease in the latter has
the effect of increasing the diffusion along the pipe.
Without evidence to the contrary, it would seem to be a
Vol 178 Pt 1 No 15
384 J. E. AUSTIN AND J. R. PALFREY

reasonable assumption that this is also the main mechan-
ism of diffusion across the pipe for turbulent flow at low
Reynolds numbers. Such being the case, then another
mechanism influencing mixing in this region must be
operative. It is precisely in this range of Reynolds numbers
that there exists an appreciable thickness of fluid near the
pipe wall which is in laminar flow. This laminar sublayer,
which is the part of the boundary layer nearest the wall,
is a function of pipe diameter and Reynolds number. The
relationship is given by
f(thickness) xdxR-OR,S
It has been shown that the length of the interface C for
each diameter in the steep region is given by
C ex (dL)O"R 0>1
The similarity between these two expressions suggests
that the laminar sublaycr has an appreciable influence on
the length of the interface. Hence, to the main mechanism
of diffusion across the pipe in this region should be added
the effect (at constant Reynolds number) of the increased
thickness of the laminar sublaycr as the diameter increases.
It would seem likely that the transfer of matter from the
(10) laminar sublaycr into the central turbulent core is effected

-,.., I i ' , , ,
u
>-
<.?L~
I
_. -- , \\-- - r--r-
DIA'v1l TER
- 20
inch<2S

I [£fL
-

\~
z -- r-... 1\ \ 18 -
0' --- \\\
barrilis/h

- .
m<2tr<2s3
I
/n ~~
~
~.- - ,d?
I G~~_.
---
~
~

___
··;;G o
;0:>:"
v-.Jnn
L...JQ<t
---
--
1\ \
~
.\\\
\\\~
- 16
14
O' - - .

tJO cr w
\ y •?

~~~
gal/min I n. u. n, -.J \
l~
INTERFACE ~IWU~t.CE yc
~.

jZ--. 7
REYNOLDS
LENGTHf'!( TC H --- 5. -
I RA:IO
\." "
~ro
,ocj- .. q.. ---. f-. 1\--- 6 --
u.. L I .(.d· _. -
e.,C
~, - - -
I

Q''?-
",<,;
'~<v
Q'
'?-
~
0.'"
.~:>
W
>-
z>
?- ~<v
<o'",,~
_
---..
..
1- -
--f\ '\
\
'\

\
\ \ '< :0; ,2
/,
-- .-

I n addition to starting with the flow, as shown, the graph can be

u sed starting at any other point working backwards or forwards. _._. -- \ \ y\ lX", ......

20 40 100 200
barrcz.s/h
400 1000 2000 5000 10000_
\ '\
~~~ "r--'
--
:::::::::r--::::1-

----
I I I 11111 Ilt+~- - -
I I I I I I I III I I
f----
-
v- I- I'""-
mlltrlls 3/h
.. "-
4 6810 20 40 100 200 400 1000 2000 ....... i r- I-!,-
I I II I " I t-
I-~
-
REYNOLDS NUMBER
1'""-1-
gal/min I

10 20 30 50 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000 10 3 10

4
I I I 111110 5 10
- . _~ ... L_
-KINEMATIC VISCOSITY cs DIAMETER, ioc ne s -I
f-0·6
1/1/ ;>0,

B
f-
f - 0·8
r/
II .-
~ 1.0",
"- v./ II 1['.
16",,-
"
"\ qI - - 1
<,
~~ 1/ I/ V 14'1": -, !
f--1·5 -, "i"" ~ -Z
2·0 '" <,
=3·0
-, r, 80 ~ V VII
l/1/
1?
1~ ~
-,,,b. ~
+
r-, ~ t%~ /.1
1".1
- 8 ~ ~.

-4·0 "S;~
6'~
f-
f -- 6.0 "

" " ~ r/
<,
y
IY

//
./
/
/ /1/
1/

4 ~""-~ " ~/V

"/ / V

~'/
I-- "- .I
r"-..."'- ./ V V
....- - 8·0-
~ "i' rvv !
-, \
/~

~~
S( / .I
f--- :/ / ?
,
/ ,

;;
~~ / . ./ V 80 ~
10'0", / / V I' ,
~,)o( 1!
I - - 15·0 -, /.1 j 'l'~/
I--
f==. 20·0 "'>"t-.J' - /.-=

.~
;/ ".- . l-

/ /1)'
V 1/
I'J'" X
../ 1/
/'./
/
./V ...
-

./ r/ ,
VA x- t> /
h ~ /1/ r0 V V ..II' y/V V

~ ~ / 1/
V VI'
~~
V
~~ V V /1'1.1 ' ,
.J_
Fig. 4. Chart for calculating amount
Proc Instn Mcch E'IKrs /963-fJ4 Vol /78 PI/Xv /5

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015

 .\\lXI:-';(; OF .\\lSCIllLE BUT DISSIMILAR LIQUIDS IN SERIAL FLOW 1:-'; A I'II'ELIl';'E 3W5

by residual turbulent eddies extending into the sublayer.
The magnitude of these eddies close to the pipe wall is in-
dependent of the Reynolds number, and is directly pro-
portional to the distance from the wall. The measure of the
transfer would thus appear to be a function of the thick-
ness of the laminar sublayer-and so also of the diameter
and Reynolds number-and of the magnitude of the tur-
bulent eddies, which in turn is independent of both of
these factors.
A more elaborate treatment of this subject than can be
set out in the scope of this paper is dealt with both by
Townsend (9) and by Schlichting (II).
GRAPHICAL SOLUTION TO PROBLEMS OF
INTERFACE LENGTH
To enable actual contamination of various batches of pro-
duct to be readily determined, the curves set out in Fig. 3
may be incorporated with other data relating to fluid flow.
An example is provided in Fig. 4, which includes in-
formation concerning batch size and the point at which a
cut in the interface may be made by valve switching at the
reception terminal. The graphs included in Fig. 4 may be
read forwards or backwards from any point in the chart.
It must, of course, be remembered that as each batch of
product has a preceding and following batch during serial

n
<l
w
-'

c..~
?
-
~
0
-'
_J
o: 0
u.
u,
0

100

././
././ 7
V/ V
VV /
»: V

11'/ / ....
'" '"' 50 000
/ / V 1/ V/ v r-,
V / V V / VI"-- r-. ~ 40 000

/ V/ .~ -........ 30000
~ 20 000

of commingling bcttceen products

VI / ~ 10000

\',,1 /78 1'1 J ,,",> J5

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015

386 J. E. AUSTIN AND J. R. PALFREY

10 it is hoped that the approach made here to the problem of

9 turbulent mixing may have clarified a number of features
8 concerning this phenomenon, particularly in the transi-
\
7 tion region between streamline and fully turbulent flows,
6
\ where boundary layer effect would seem to be of some
5
\ importance.

4
\ Several facts emerge from this analysis which are of
considerable importance from the viewpoint of the pipe-
line designer and operator. Provided the flow pattern is
3
\ maintained consistently in the turbulent region, with the

2
\ pipeline designed to eliminate those factors described
earlier and known to accelerate product mixing, these facts
are:
(I) The length of the interface is directly proportional
to the square root of the distance travelled.

\
Vl
u
I
(2) There are two distinct regions (rapid and slow
>-
t:
mixing) in turbulent flow for each pipe diameter.
Vl
o 10
(3) The transition from one region to the other occurs
u \ quite sharply at different Reynolds numbers for each
Vl 9
:> 8
\ diameter of pipe.

"r\\
u
.... 7 (4) For interproduct contamination to be kept within
< reasonable limits the velocity of flow must be maintained
~
w 6
z sufficiently high to ensure the critical transition value of
~ 5

4
-, Reynolds number in turbulent flowis exceeded at all times.
The formulae and graphs set out in this paper will, it is
hoped, enable the amount of mixing which occurs between
3
"", products in a pipeline during serial pumping to be
'\ accurately and quickly predicted.

2
r. Nevertheless, there are some features relating to the
turbulent mixing process which, in spite of the present
investigation and the formulae deduced as a result, are
still not completely explained. Reference has already been
made to the need for further research into the cause for the
change of slope of the curves at what appear to be 'critical'
Reynolds numbers. Considerably more measurements
0'1
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 than those at present available for pipelines of large
BLENDING INDEX diameter are desirable. The intermixing distance for
To calculate the viscosity of a mixture of two products at a given various pairs of fluids, especially those having very close
temperature, add the blending indices of individual products by specification, should be determined on a large number of
volume fraction: the resulting sum converted back on the graph
gives the viscosity of the mixture. pipes over the entire length of the distribution network.
Fig. 5. Viscosity blending chart And not least, experiments should be aimed at determin-
ing the influence on mixing lengths of those variables for
pumping, the effect of two interfaces on each batch must which, at present, little or no direct evidence is available;
be assessed if product specification is to be maintained. in particular the influence of density, viscosity and topo-
Again, it should be noted that the graphs set out in the graphy of the pipeline. The latter is probably an important
final panel of Fig. 4 may be altered to read: 'Point of cut factor, though so far all the data that has been forthcoming
(per cent) measured from rear of interface'. The resulting from the large oil companies suggest that it is an in-
contamination would then read: 'Percentage of leading significant one.
product in following batch'. The large increase in the number of products pipelines
As a means to easy calculation of the kinematic viscosity now being built or projected in many parts of the world
of the SO-SO volume mixture of two products-a feature makes it highly desirable that answers to the several queries
discussed earlier in the paper-a viscosity blending chart raised in this paper should be forthcoming as soon as
is given in Fig. S. possible.

CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is impracticable within the scope of a paper of this The authors wish to thank the Directors of the British
length to deal otherwise than very briefly with certain of Petroleum Company Ltd for permission to publish the
the more theoretical aspects of the subject. Nevertheless, paper.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-64 Vol 178 Pt 1 No 15

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015

 MIXING OF MISCIBLE BUT DISSIMILAR LIQUIDS IN SERIAL FLOW IN A PIPELINE 387

They would also like to record, with gratitude, the Table 6

considerable help received from some of their colleagues Pipe diameter, 4 inches
at the Sunbury Research Centre of the British Petroleum
Company in preparing this paper, and to make due
acknowledgement to those whose work has been referred
Reynolds No.1 C, ft L, ft I Reference
to in the paper and Appendixes. 67000 1590 447000 16'8
165000 1530 447000 15·6 (4)
202000 1400 447000 13'2
APPENDIX I
Table 3
Pipe diameter, 0'124 inch Table 7

Reynolds No.1 C,ft L, ft C2/dL Reference Pipe diameter, 6 inches

I I
2220 25·15 105·56 577 L, ft C2/dL
2320 19·60 105'56 352
Reynolds No. C,ft
I I Reference
2380 14·06 50·25 381 90000 148 3100 Private
2530 9·27 22'00 378 (n) 14'0}
123000 143 3100 13·2 communi-
3040 14·33 105·56 189 135000 270 11 600 12'6 cation
3500 9·36 50'25 168 143000 1430 299060}
3670 10'65 50·25 218 13·2 (3)
143000 1850 517440
4290 3·26 8·13 126 183000 132 3100 11'2 Private com-
4830 2·69 8·13 86 rnunication
5650 4·02 22'00 70
I

All values have been corrected from data for 95 per cent-5 per
cent interface. Table 8
Table 4 Pipe diameter, 8 inches
Pipe diameter, 0·313 inch
Reynolds No.1 c, ft L, ft
I C'/dL
I Reference
C, ft L, ft C2/dL
Reynolds No.1
I I Reference 8000 5030 246000 155·0 (14)
2300 7·33 4·97 413 I 16000 3080 246000 57'0 (14)
3800 6·75 10·31 134 26000 2200 246000 29-1 (14)
4960 7·73 20·56 111 40000 1750 246 000 18·7 (14)
5070 6·55 20'56 80 49000 1935 292000}
5300 6·33 20·56 73 49000 2460 607000 18·3 (ra)
5440 5·52 10'31 88 49000 3310 903000
6280 4·55 15·56 50 52000 1650 246000 16·5 (14)
6570 4·48 10'31 57 (12) 86700 922 291298}
6940 5·23 20'56 50 86700 2425 606514
7530 2·74 4·97 57 15·3 (3)
86700 3080 895488
8630 3·79 10'31 42 86700 3460 1168147
9380 3·68 15·56 33 140 000 2750 140 000 11'0 (4)
9910 3·75 20·56 26'4 218800 1406 291298}
10620 3·71 20·56 25'6 218800 2070 606514
19800 3·18 20·56 18·8 10'4 (3)
218800 2520 895488
218800 3435 1 168 147
All figures except Reynolds number 2300 have been corrected 300 000 960 129500 10·6 (IS)
from data given for 98 per cent-2 per cent interface. The data I I
for Reynolds number 2300 have been calculated from values given
for 95 per cent-S per cent interface.
Table 9
Table 5
Pipe diameter, 10 inches
Pipe diameter, 2 inches

Reynolds No.1 C, ft L, ft C2/dL I Reference Reynolds No.1 c, ft L, ft C 2/dL Reference

I I
4000 356* 2500 303 8000 780 3000 244'0 (14)
5000 285* 2500 195 24000 1330 7280
6000
7000
8000
11 000
13000
14160
245*
214*
190*
143*
122*
97*
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
144
109
84
50
35·8
22·6
(3)
24000
24000
24000
24000
176000
280000
3030
4320
4400
5790
4200
3970
227000
573000
660000
970000
1885000
1650898
1 38·2

11·3
11·4
(IS)

(4)
(3)
15000 102* 2500 24·9 299000 4350 1883746 12·0 (3)
26400 89* 2500 18·7 448000 4520 1885000 13'0 (4)
121000
250000
74*
70*
2500
2500
13·2
11·8
485000
486000
2050
2510 289915}
591730
I 482000 2970 859003 12·3 (3)
* These figures have been calculated from values taken from the 485000 3460 1134250
graph giving length C (ft) at L =
100000 ft (3). The procedure for 489000 3695 1393867
the calculation used has been described in the text of the paper.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-64 Vol 178 Pt 1 No 15

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015

388 J. E. AUSTIN AND J. R. PALFREY

Table 10 Table 14
Pipe diameter, 12 inches
Reynolds No. Pipe dia- C,ft L, ft Reference
meter,
Reynolds No.1 C,ft
\
L, ft
I C2/dL Reference inches
375000 4600 2270000 9·4 (4) 3000 0·124 7,41*
538000 4720 2270000 9·8 (4) 3000 22'OO}
0·124 10'72* 50·25 (12)
3m~}
590000 1700 3000 0·124 15,37* 105·25
576500 2430 661109 4000 0·313 4'06*
584000 2890 1018301 4000 0·313 5,55* 4'97}
10·31
591000 3500 1402896 9·6 (3) (12)
4000 0·313 6'98* 15'56
579000 3890 1726085 4000 0·313 8'05* 20'56
579000 4350 2033803 5000 0·313 3,34*
5000 0'313 4,38* 4-97}
10·31
5000 0·313 (12)
5'58* 15·56
5000 0·313 6,45* 20·56
Table 11 5000 0'124 2'65
5000 0·124 4,44* 8'13}
22·00
Pipe diameter, 20 inches 5000 0·124 6,77* (12)
50·25
5000 0·124 9,82* 105'25
C,ft L,ft C2/dL Reference
19 300 0'375 1-10 10'55} i (7)
Reynolds No.1
I 19 300 0·375 2·30 53'50
I
140 000
136000
134000
4230
3710
4340
.WOO
420000
716000 15'0 (5)
* Interpolated for Reynolds numbers of 3000, 4000 and 5000
from data given for interface of 98 per cent-2 per cent.
134 000 4540 716000
128000 5630 1230000 APPENDIX II
~~}
274000 3310
271 000 3670 420000 COMPARISON WITH OTHER FORMULAE
264000 4680 716000 12·8 (5) (See References, Appendix III)
266000 4530 716000
254000 6530 1230000 S.S. Smith and R. K. Schulze
262000 5260 1230000
C = (1~?:"+0'55)LO'62, with C and L in feet
This is independent of diameter, and for constant Reynolds
Table 12 number reduces to C = KLo·6'.

Pipe diameter, 40 inches E. A. Birge

C = 1·93Lo.'29 (gasoline-kerosine), with C and L in feet, and
Reynolds No.1 C, ft I L, ft C'/dL Reference C = 1·84L0066' (gasoline-gasoline), with C and L in feet. It will be
noted that these are independent of diameter and Reynolds
970000 I 103'6. I 355 9·0 number.

I. Kh. Khizgilov

Table 13 -Va
V
= 4ak (d-L X 3000+60'7RO'545)0'5
L
--'--;~--
R
Pipe diameter, 2 inches where Va is interface volume, V L is the volume of the pipe, k is a
function of the instantaneous composition, and a is a correction
factor for laminar boundary layer effect. Therefore,
Reynolds No. C,ft L, ft Reference
I -C = 4akd o'5 L - 0,' (3000+60'7RO"4')0.,
6000 1500* 100 000 L R
6000 2600* 300000 For values of R > 100 000, this reduces to approximately
6000 3400* 500 000
6000 4000* 700 000 C = 32akdo. 5 LO'5 R-O'228
8000 1200* 100 000
8000 1700* 200 000 Sir Geoffrey Taylor
8000 2400* 400 000
8000 3000* 600 000 C' = 437rL (IJ)
8000 3400* 800 000
8000 3800* 1000000 where V. is friction velocity, U is mean stream velocity, r is pipe
14160 630 50000 (3)
radius.
14160
14160
950
1225
100 000
150000 J
As V = ( ~ )0" .. .
s where ylsfnctlOnfactor,andas y = 0·316R-o·25
26420 590 50000
26420 890 100 000 in Blasius region then
26420 1140 150000 C' = 218·5dLxO·199R-o.125 = 43·5dLR-o·125
26420 1340 200 000 That is, C = 6'6d o'5 LO·5 R-O'062
121000 740 100 000
121000 1140 200 000
121000 1470 300 000 F. C. Fowler and C. G. Brown
IOglO Va 1 L
* Figures taken from graph. V = P-0'4 Og10 d
L

Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-64 Vol 178 Pt 1 No 15

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015

 MIXING OF MISCIBLE BUT DISSIMILAR LIQUIDS IN SERIAL FLOW IN A PIPELINE 389

where Va is interface volume, V L is volume of pipe, P is function With Taylor's formula, where d and L are also both to the power
of Reynolds number and range of instantaneous composition. 0,5, the corresponding interface lengths are given by
C = 3·88Lo·5 at R = 5000
Therefore, as ~: = ~' the equation reduces to
and C = 3·21Lo.s at R = 100 000
C = lOPLo. 6do· 4
It will be seen that these show little difference between the pre-
F. Sjenitzer dicted lengths for low and high Reynolds numbers. At the higher
Reynolds number, however, there is considerable agreement with
C = 32 100 ( rL ) O.07 (rL)O.5 i'" the formula derived in this paper. The variance is apparently due
to 'tail' effect, which has not been allowed for by Taylor. This
where f is friction factor = ~ = 0·079R-o·25 in Blasius region. causes a slight asymmetry in the mixture distribution pattern of the
interface, which must be allowed for in practice.
_ (2L)O.07 (dL) (0'079)1'8
Therefore C - 32 100 d 2" RO.., APPENDIX III
That is, C = 246do.4 3 LO'57 R-O'45 REFERENCES
D. E. Hull and J. W. Kent (I) LEVENSPEIL, O. 'Longitudinal mixing of fluids flowing in
circular pipes', Industr. Engng Chern. 195850 (3), 343.
The interface length is given as proportional to LO.5, although their (2) WEYER, M. 'The intermixing of successive flows in pipelines'
experience showed it to be proportional to LO·58. (in German), Brennst.-Wiirmekr. 1962 14 (6), 267.
In the formulae derived-Fowler and Brown, and Khizgilov being (3) SMITH, S. S. and SCHULZE, R. K. 'Interfacial mixing
exceptions-the interface length varies inversely with a constant characteristics of products in product pipelines', Petrol.
power of Reynolds number. Hence they do not predict the rapid Engr 1948 19 (Sept.), 94, and 20 (Oct.), 330.
increase in the length of an interface which has been shown to (4) BIRGE, E. A. 'Contamination control in products pipelines',
occur as the Reynolds number falls below the 'critical'. This is par- Oil GasJ. 194748,176.
ticularly so with the formulae of Smith and Schulze and of Birge, (5) KHlZGILOV, I. KH. 'The mixture content formed in pipelines
which neglect pipe-diametral effects and suggest that the length of in serial delivery of petroleum products' (in Russian), Oil
the interfacial mixture is a function solely of the length of the run. Ind., Moscow (Neft. Khoz) 196038 (12), 52.
Taking the formulae derived by Fowler and Brown, and (6) FRANKLIN, N. L. and CASS, F. H. 'Flow within Tubes and
Khizgilov, and comparing them with the formulae derived in the Ducts', Chem. Engng Pract 1957 4, 407 (Butterworths
present paper, only with that given by Khizgilov is a direct com- Pub!. Ltd).
parison possible, since only here are the powers of d and L both (7) TAYLOR, Sir G. 'The dispersion of matter in turbulent flow',
given as 0·5. Proc. roy. Soc. 1954 223, 446.
Thus,
_ dO' s
C - 4ak U'5
(3000+60·7RO'5(5)O.5
R
(8) MCCALL, D. W., DOUGLASS, D. C. and ANDERSON, E. W.
'Diffusion in liquids',J. chem. Phys. 195931 (6), 1155.
(9) TOWNSEND, A. A. The structure of turbulent shear flow, 1956
where a = 1·3 (given in reference (5» and k = 1·64 for interface
of 99 per cent-I per cent. (University Press, Cambridge).
(10) PRANDTL, L. and TIETJENS, O. Applied hydro- and aero-
For values of R = 5000 and R = 100 000 this reduces respec-
dynamics, 1957,80 (Dover Publications, New York).
tively to
(II) SCHLICHTING, Dr H. Boundary layer theory, 1960, 4th
C = 11·63do·5 LO'5 and C = 5'06d o'5 LO'5 edition (McGraw-Hill, New York; Verlag G. Braun,
which, for a 12-in diameter pipe, in turn give Karlsruhe).
C = 11·63Lo.s and C = 5·06U·5 (12) FOWLER, F. C. and BROWN, C. G. 'Contamination by
successive flow in pipelines', Petrol. Engr 1944 15 (Aug.),
These compare with the formulae now recommended forcalculat- 121.
ing interface length, for the same pipe diameter, of (13) ALLEN, C. M. and TAYLOR, E. A. 'The salt velocity method
C = 29·0Lo,s at R = 5000 of water measurement', Trans. Amer. Soc. mech. Engrs
192345,285.
and C = 3·71U·5 at R = 100000 (14) SJENITZER, F. 'How much do products mix in a pipeline?'
It will be seen that Khizgilov's formulae tend to underestimate Petrol. Engr 195830 (Dec.), D31.
the contamination length at low Reynolds numbers, but over- (IS) HULL, D. E. and KENT, J. W. 'Radioactive tracers to mark
estimate it in the higher range of Reynolds numbers. This is interfaces and measure intermixing in pipelines', Industr.
attributable to miscalculations regarding boundary layer effect. Engng Chern. 195244 (11), 2745.

Proc [nsrn Mech Engrs 1963-64 Vol 178 Pr 1 No 15

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at Monash University on November 22, 2015