0
Research Papers: Petroleum Transport/Pipelines/Multiphase Flow

Distribution of Sand Particles in Horizontal and Vertical Annular Multiphase Flow in Pipes and the Effects on Sand Erosion

[+] Author and Article Information
Brenton S. McLaury

brenton-mclaury@utulsa.edu

Siamack A. Shirazi, Vinod Viswanathan

Mechanical Engineering Department,  The University of Tulsa, 800 S. Tucker Drive, Tulsa, OK 74104

Quamrul H. Mazumder

Department of Computer Science, Engineering Science and Physics,  University of Michigan-Flint, 213E Murchie Science Building, 303 East Kearsley Street, Flint, MI 48502qmazumde@umflint.edu

Gerardo Santos

 Ecopetrol, Corrosion and Materials Engineering, A.A. 4185, Bucaramanga, Columbiagsantos@ecopetrol.com.co

J. Energy Resour. Technol 133(2), 023001 (Jun 27, 2011) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4004264 History: Received June 30, 2009; Revised May 05, 2011; Published June 27, 2011; Online June 27, 2011

Predicting erosion resulting from the impact of solid particles such as sand is a difficult task, since it is dependent on so many factors. The difficulty is compounded if the particles are entrained in multiphase flow. Researchers have developed models to predict erosion resulting from solid particles in multiphase flow that account for a variety of factors. However, no model currently accounts for the flow orientation on the severity of erosion. This work provides three sets of experimental results that demonstrate pipe orientation can have a significant impact on the amount of erosion for annular flow. A semimechanistic model to predict erosion in annular flow is also outlined that accounts for the upstream flow orientation.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of 1-in. multiphase erosion test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Test cell used for erosion experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Sand size distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Schematic of liquid and sand sampling probe and locations sampled

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Schematic of 2-in. multiphase erosion test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Photograph of boom for 2-in. erosion test facility

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Comparison of erosion for horizontal and vertical test sections for Vsg  = 34 m/s and Vsl  = 0.30 m/s, aluminum specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of erosion for horizontal and vertical test sections for Vsg  = 27 m/s and Vsl  = 0.30 m/s, aluminum specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of erosion for horizontal and vertical test sections for Vsg  = 19 m/s and Vsl  = 0.30 m/s, aluminum specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of erosion for horizontal and vertical test sections for Vsg  = 34 m/s and Vsl  = 0.30 m/s, stainless steel specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of erosion for horizontal and vertical test sections for Vsg  = 27 m/s and Vsl  = 0.30 m/s, stainless steel specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of erosion for horizontal and vertical test sections for Vsg  = 19 m/s and Vsl  = 0.30 m/s, stainless steel specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Fraction of liquid and sand by location, Vsg =34 m/s and Vsl =0.30 m/s, vertical orientation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Fraction of liquid and sand by location, Vsg  = 27 m/s and Vsl  = 0.30 m/s, vertical orientation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Fraction of liquid and sand by location, Vsg  = 19 m/s and Vsl  = 0.30 m/s, vertical orientation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Fraction of liquid and sand by location, Vsg  = 34 m/s and Vsl  = 0.30 m/s, horizontal orientation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Fraction of liquid and sand by location, Vsg  = 27 m/s and Vsl  = 0.30 m/s, horizontal orientation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Fraction of liquid and sand by location, Vsg  = 19 m/s and Vsl  = 0.30 m/s, horizontal orientation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Normalized average acoustic monitor output for annular flow, Vsg =20.3 m/s and Vsl =0.15 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Normalized average acoustic monitor output for annular flow (three conditions)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Gas core and liquid film in annular flow (elbow and simplified one-dimensional representation)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Computed penetration rate ratios (horizontal/vertical) for experimental data and mechanistic model versus gas superficial velocity

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In