I did some serious research in this area a few years ago. It is really "fun" to read a 300 page doctoral dissertation and reach the conclusion that the "new" method presented in the paper "matched measured data almost 50% of the time." I saw similar statements in several papers that were approved by theses committees. I could do just as well with a coin toss.
The problem with predicting multiphase flow (liquid and gas, or liquid, gas, and solid, it doesn't matter) is that any given "steady state" has a duration of fractions of a second and fractions of a meter. You never see pure bubble flow or pure wavy flow for more than miliseconds. It is enlightening to look at some of the flow visualization work that has been done by Welker, the exact same input conditions will produce widely differing flow regimes every snapshot in every run.
Of course, the flow regime is some sort of function of flow energy (maybe with a secondary function of the position of Mars in Aquarius), but every learned paper that I've ever seen that tries to predict flow regime based on temperature, pressure, velocity, pipe angle, or day of the week has failed to produce repeatable results.
My approach to the original question is to use the AGA equation, tempered with the Duckler correlation as modified by the Flanigan method for inclined sections--take the result into Excel and adjust it with a random number generator.
David