0
Research Papers: Petroleum Engineering

Effect of Particle Size and Liquid Viscosity on Erosion in Annular and Slug Flow

[+] Author and Article Information
N. R. Kesana

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, OK 74104
e-mail: nrk301@utulsa.edu

J. M. Throneberry

New Dominion LLC,
1307 S Boulder Avenue # 400,
Tulsa, OK 74119
e-mail: jon-throneberry@utulsa.edu

B. S. McLaury

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, OK 74104
e-mail: brenton-mclaury@utulsa.edu

S. A. Shirazi

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, OK 74104
e-mail: siamack-shirazi@utulsa.edu

E. F. Rybicki

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, OK 74104
e-mail: ed-rybicki@utulsa.edu

Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received October 12, 2012; final manuscript received June 9, 2013; published online September 12, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Sarma V. Pisupati.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 136(1), 012901 (Sep 12, 2013) (10 pages) Paper No: JERT-12-1239; doi: 10.1115/1.4024857 History: Received October 12, 2012; Revised June 09, 2013

Erosion measurements in multiphase slug and annular flow regimes have been made in a horizontal 76.2 mm (3-in.) diameter pipe. These flow regimes are selected since they produce higher metal losses than other flow regimes, and they also occur for a wide variety of operating conditions. Experiments are performed with superficial gas velocities ranging from 15.2 m/s (50 ft/s) to 45.7 m/s (150 ft/s) and superficial liquid velocities ranging from 0.46 m/s (1.5 ft/s) to 0.76 m/s (2.5 ft/s), for liquid viscosities of 1 cP and 10 cP. Three different sand sizes (20, 150, and 300 μm sand) were used for performing tests. The shapes of the sand are also different with the 20 and 300 μm sand being sharper than the 150 μm sand. Erosion measurements are obtained using electrical resistance (ER) probes which relate the change in electrical resistance to the change in the thickness of an exposed element resulting from erosion. Two probes are placed in a bend and another probe is placed in a straight section of pipe. The probes in the bend are flat-head probes, and they are placed flush with the outer wall in the 45 deg and 90 deg positions. The probe in the straight pipe is an angle-head probe which protrudes into the flow with the face placed in the center of the pipe.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Sciubba, E., and Zeoli, N., 2007, “A Study of Sootblower Erosion in Waste-Incinerating Heat Boilers,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 129, pp. 50–53. [CrossRef]
Zhang, L., Sazonov, V., Kent, J., Dixon, T., and Novozhilov, V., 2001, “Analysis of Boiler-Tube Erosion by the Technique of Acoustic Emission Part І. Mechanical Erosion,” Wear, 250, pp. 762–769. [CrossRef]
Brown, G., 2006, “Use of CFD to Predict and Reduce Erosion in an Industrial Slurry Piping System,” Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on CFD in the Process Industries, CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.
Kadambi, J. R., Charoenngam, P., Subramanian, A., Wernet, M. P., Sankovic, J. M., Addie, G., and Courtwright, R., 2004, “Investigations of Particle Velocities in a Slurry Pump Using PIV: Part 1, The Tongue and Adjacent Channel Flow,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 126, pp. 271–278. [CrossRef]
Salama, M., and Venkatesh, E., 1983, “Evaluation of Erosional Velocity Limitations in Offshore Gas Wells,” Proceedings of 15th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, Paper No. OTC-4485.
Bourgoyne, A., 1989, “Experimental Study of Erosion in Diverter Systems Due to Sand Production,” Proceedings of SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, LA, Paper No. SPE/IADC-18716.
McLaury, B., 1993, “A Model to Predict Solid Particle Erosion in Oilfield Geometries,” M.S. thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
Okita, R., 2010, “Effects of Viscosity and Particle Size on Erosion Measurements and Predictions,” M.S. thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
Torabzadehkhorasani, S., 2009, “Erosion Experiments and Calculations in Gas and Liquid Impacts Varying Particle Size and Viscosity,” M.S. thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
Miska, S., 2008, “Particle and Fluid Speed Measurements for Viscous Liquids in a Direct Impingement Flow Resulting in Material Erosion,” M.S. thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
Oka, Y. I., Ohnogi, H., Hosokawa, T., and Matsumura, M., 1997, “The Impact Angle Dependence of Erosion Damage Caused by Solid Particle Impact,” Wear, 203–204, pp. 573–579. [CrossRef]
Nidasanametla, S. A., 2012, “Effects of Viscosity, Particle Size and Shape on Erosion Measurements and Predictions,” M.S. thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
Kouba, G., 1986, “Horizontal Slug Flow Modeling and Metering,” Ph.D. thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
Pereyra, E., Arismendi, R., Gomez, L. E., Mohan, R. S., Shoham, O., and KoubaG. E., 2012, “State of the Art of Experimental Studies and Predictive Methods for Slug Liquid Holdup,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 134(2), p. 023001. [CrossRef]
Al-Safran, E., 2009, “Prediction of Slug Liquid Holdup in Horizontal Pipes,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 131, p. 023001. [CrossRef]
Zhang, H.-Q., Wang, Q., Sarica,C., and Brill, J. P., 2003, “A Unified Mechanistic Model for Slug Liquid Holdup and Transition Between Slug and Dispersed Bubble Flows,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 29, pp. 97–107. [CrossRef]
Zhang, H.-Q., Wang, Q., Sarica, C., and Brill, J. P., 2003, “Unified Model for Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow via Slug Dynamics—Part 1: Model Development,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 125, pp. 266–272. [CrossRef]
Zhang, H.-Q., Wang, Q., Sarica, C., and Brill, J. P., 2003, “Unified Model for Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow via Slug Dynamics—Part 2: Model Validation,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 125, pp. 266–272. [CrossRef]
Taitel, Y., and Barnea, D., 1990, “Two Phase Slug Flow,” Adv. Heat Transfer, 20, pp. 83–132. [CrossRef]
Fabre, J., and Line, A., 1992, “Modeling of Two-Phase Slug Flow,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 24, pp. 21–46. [CrossRef]
Al-safran, E., M., Taitel, Y., and Brill, J. P., 2004, “Prediction of Slug Length Distribution Along a Hilly Terrain Pipeline Using Slug Tracking Model,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 126, pp. 54–62. [CrossRef]
Chen, X., McLaury, B. S., and Shirazi, S. A., 2006, “A Comprehensive Procedure to Estimate Erosion in Elbows for Gas/Liquid/Sand Multiphase Flow,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 128, pp. 70–78. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Y., McLaury, B. S., Shirazi, S. A., and Rybicki, E. F., 2011, “Predicting Sand Erosion in Slug Flows Using a Two-Dimensional Mechanistic Model,” NACE International Annual Conference, Houston, TX, Paper No. 11243.
Magrini, K. L., 2009, “Liquid Entrainment in Annular Gas-Liquid Flow in Inclined Pipes,” M.S. thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
Abdulkadir, M., 2011, “Experimental and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Studies of Gas-Liquid Flow in Bends,” Ph.D. thesis, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
McLaury, B. S., Shirazi, S. A., Viswanathan, V., Mazumder, Q. H., and Santos, G., 2011, “Distribution of Sand Particles in Horizontal and Vertical Annular Multiphase Flow in Pipes and the Effects on Sand Erosion,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 133(2), p. 023001. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Plug flow/elongated bubble flow (not to scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Slug flow (not to scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Pseudo slug flow/annular-slug flow (not to scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Annular flow (not to scale)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic of the experimental facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Influence of viscosity on erosion magnitudes using 150 μm sand size measured using ER probe oriented at 45 deg to the bend

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Influence of viscosity on erosion magnitudes using 300 μm sand size measured using ER probe oriented at 45 deg to the bend

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Influence of sand size on erosion for different operating conditions with 1 cP liquid viscosity using 3 different sand sizes 20, 150, and 300 μm measured using ER probe oriented at 45 deg to the bend

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Screen shot of cormon software showing sample output in a 3 in. diameter pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Location of flat-head and angle-head probes inside the pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Angle-head and flat-head ER probes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Influence of sand size on erosion for different operating conditions with 10 cP liquid viscosity using three different sand sizes 20, 150, and 300 μm measured using ER probe oriented at 45 deg to the bend

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Influence of sand size on erosion for different operating conditions with 1cP liquid viscosity using 3 different sand sizes 20, 150, and 300 μm measured using angle-head ER probe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Influence of sand size on erosion for different operating conditions with 10 cP liquid viscosity using 3 different sand sizes 20, 150, and 300 μm measured using angle-head ER probe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of erosion magnitudes measured using ER probes mounted at 45 deg and 90 deg to the bend using 20 μm sand particles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of erosion magnitudes measured using ER probes mounted at 45 deg and 90 deg to the bend using 150 μm sand particles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of erosion magnitudes measured using ER probes mounted at 45 deg and 90 deg to the bend using 300 μm sand particles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparison of erosion magnitudes for a probe at 45 deg to the bend and the angle-head probe mounted into the straight section of pipe for the 20 μm sand particles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparison of erosion magnitudes for a probe at 45 deg to the bend and the angle-head probe mounted into the straight section of pipe for the 150 μm sand particles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Comparison of erosion magnitudes for a probe at 45 deg to the bend and the angle-head probe mounted into the straight section of pipe for the 300 μm sand particles

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