See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317633404

Abrasion erosion modeling in particulate flow

Article · April 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.wear.2017.01.042

CITATIONS READS

17 2,332

4 authors, including:

Hadi Arabnejad Siamack Shirazi

University of Tulsa University of Tulsa
29 PUBLICATIONS 553 CITATIONS 241 PUBLICATIONS 4,312 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Brenton McLaury
University of Tulsa
146 PUBLICATIONS 3,288 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dispersed Oil-Water Flow View project

Accoustic Monitors for Sand Transport View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hadi Arabnejad on 27 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Wear 376-377 (2017) 1194–1199

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

Abrasion erosion modeling in particulate flow

H. Arabnejad n, A. Mansouri, S.A. Shirazi, B.S. McLaury
Erosion/Corrosion Research Center, Department of Mechanical Engineering The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104, USA

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Solid particle erosion is of great importance to many industries including oil and gas production, drilling,
Received 2 September 2016 process and transportation of minerals including oil sands. The particles that may cause erosion are of
Received in revised form various sizes, shapes and hardnesses. These particles may impact the surface at various speeds and
10 January 2017
angles, and the influence of these parameters is characterized to some extent in the literature. Experi-
Accepted 11 January 2017
mental and numerical studies have shown that when particles are transported by liquid (e.g. slurry
transport in the pipe) or dense gas, the particle impact angles are very low. The impact angles in these
Keywords: cases are sometimes less than the smallest value that can be obtained in a direct impingement erosion
Particulate flow test in gas. In this work, the mechanistic erosion equation developed previously is extended to near zero
Slurry
impact angles for sharp particles. The abrasion erosion equation is developed by introducing an initial
Erosion
penetration of the sharp particle in the equation of the motion. This initial penetration may be attributed
Abrasive wear
CFD to the sharp particle rotation and/or turbulent flow fluctuations of the carrier fluid near the wall. The
Mechanistic modeling empirical constants are obtained from submerged erosion experiments in liquid. The equation has been
implemented in a commercially available Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code (ANSYS FLUENT) to
calculate erosion for a submerged impingement jet geometry, and the result is compared with the ex-
periment. It is shown that by neglecting the abrasive term in the erosion equation, the specimen mass
loss does not match the experimental measured mass loss. While by including the abrasive term, the
total mass loss of the specimen agrees well with the experimental data. Moreover, the erosion pattern
becomes closer to the experimentally measured pattern especially farther from the center of the highly
eroded area where abrasive wear is expected to dominate.
& 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Many industrial processes involve particulate multiphase flow
in which the carrier phase is continuous and the solid phase is
dispersed in the carrier phase. A mixture of water, oil, gas and sand
particles is an example of particulate flow in oil and gas industry.
Sand particles that impact the wall at high velocity can cause se-
vere erosive damage to the production, process and transportation
facilities in the petroleum industry [1]. Power plants and aero-
space industries also deal with particulate flows and may suffer
from solid particle erosion.
Erosive wear, commonly known as erosion, is defined as material
loss resulting from impact of solid particles on the material surface. In
complex piping systems, with sand particles present in the fluid,
particles sliding or hitting the material surface will result in material
deformation, cutting, fatigue cracking or a combination of these. The
type of erosion depends on many factors including but not limited to
particle shape and size, material brittleness and ductility, and particle
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hadi-arabnejad@utulsa.edu (H. Arabnejad).
impact speed and angle. Meng et al. [2] presented a list of wear
mechanisms caused by particle impact used commonly in the lit-
erature. From this list, abrasive wear is defined as a combination of
cutting, fatigue failure and material transfer.
When slurries are transported through a pipe at a typical bulk
velocity, the particles settle at the lower pipe wall due to grav-
itational forces. This creates a dense, sliding bed of particles that
moves slower than the fluid along the pipe [3,4]. This action of the
solid bed inflicts erosive damage on the pipe walls. This is the wear
mechanism better known as abrasive wear and is one of the main
wear mechanisms in slurry erosion. The remaining particles above
the bed are assumed to be suspended by turbulence effects and
particle lift forces. These effects cause particles to impinge the pipe
walls, and this erosion effect is called impact based erosion. Slurry
erosion of materials due to the impingement and/or abrasive
motion of solid particles is a major problem in various components
in fracturing equipment dealing with injection of particles and
proppants and transport of cuttings in the oil and gas industry.
There are many cases in industry where the particle impact angle
is very low (less than 5°). Fig. 1 shows CFD simulation and particle
tracking results for a 4” elbow where the fluid is water and the
tracked particles are 150 mm. The left figure is a surface contour

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2017.01.042
0043-1648/& 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 H. Arabnejad et al. / Wear 376-377 (2017) 1194–1199
Nomenclature
A Area (m2)
c Particle concentration (kg/kg)
C1 Cutting erosion constant
C2 Deformation erosion constant
ER Erosion ratio (kg/kg)
F Force (N)
Fs Particle sharpness factor
K Ratio of vertical to horizontal projected contact area
m Particle mass (kg)
plot of impact velocity and on the right is a surface contour plot of
average impact angle. It is observed that the maximum impact
angle is less than 4°, considering a liquid viscosity of 1 cP. So, for a
more viscous fluid, the particle impact angle would be even less
and a typical erosion equation may not be valid.
Although many authors have examined slurry erosion and
abrasion erosion of materials, very few have developed models
that can be used to determine erosion caused by abrasive wear.
Hashish [5] conducted an experimental and theoretical study of an
abrasive jet and developed a model utilizing the theory originally
proposed by Finnie [6]. Jain et al. [7,8] presented a stochastic
methodology to evaluate the interaction between spherical abra-
sive grains and a workpiece surface in abrasive flow machining.
The models developed in these works are for a specific geometry
and cannot be applied to other configurations. Much research
[9–12] has been conducted in the literature to determine slurry
erosion, but they used empirical models based on experiments
with gas to determine slurry erosion. In this study, a new semi-
mechanistic abrasion erosion equation has been developed based
on the experimental data from direct impingement testing and
microscopic images of the eroded specimens. The previous work
on the development of erosion equations has been extended to
near zero impact angles. The new equation is implemented via a
user defined function (UDF) into a commercially available CFD
code (ANSYS FLUENT) and is used to simulate a submerged slurry
jet, and the results are compared with the experimental data.
2. Abrasion erosion modeling
There are many studies of slurry flows in the literature con-
ducted on erosion to develop an erosion equation theoretically or
Fig. 1. Average particle impact velocity and angle (VSL ¼15 m/s, D¼ 4′′).
1195
n Ratio of contact area to the removed area
P Material flow pressure (Pa)
R Particle size (m)
t Time (s)
U Velocity (m/s)
Utsh Deformation erosion threshold velocity
x Particle tip horizontal location (m)
y Particle tip vertical location (m)
yo Particle initial penetration (m)
θ Impact angle (deg)
ρ Density (kg/m3)
empirically [13–19]. The application of empirical correlations is
limited to the experimented materials with specific particles and
impact conditions, and theoretical formulations may not be in
agreement with experimental data as they have been developed
with many simplifying assumptions. Moreover, most of the equa-
tions are developed for impact angles greater than 15 degrees. For
the cases where the impact angle is very low (E1°), the abrasion
erosion equation should be used to calculate erosion.
The model development is based on cutting erosion modeling
assuming the same conditions for the particle motion in the de-
velopment of a mechanistic erosion equation [20]. The forces in
the x and y (Fig. 2) directions resist against the motion of the
particle with respect to the surface, but for a sharp particle, there
is an initial penetration to the surface that is caused by sharp
particle rotation and/or turbulent flow fluctuations or by particle-
particle interaction in a dense slurry flow.
Fig. 2. Force balance of particle cutting into the surface.
1196 H. Arabnejad et al. / Wear 376-377 (2017) 1194–1199

The equations of the motion for the particle at a low impact

angle are the same as the equations for high impact angles, but an
initial penetration is introduced in the initial condition
U sin (θ )
y=y0 cos (βt )+ sin ( βt )
β (1)

where

PnR
β=
m (2)

U sin (θ ) ⎡⎣ tβ−sin ( βt ) ⎤⎦
x=tU cos ( θ )−
Kβ (3)

The limit of the swept volume where impact angle is ap-

proaching zero is
Uβy0 β2y02
limVol =m − 2
θ→ 0 C KP 2K P (4)
Fig. 4. Erosion scars on SS-316 (U ¼ 28 m/s and θ¼ 5°) created by a) 150 mm glass
beads, b) 150 mm sand, and c) 300 mm sand.
and the resulting abrasion erosion ratio equation will be
ρβy0 ⎛ βy ⎞ by sharp sand is approximately twice the value for semi-round
ERA= ⎜ U− 0 ⎟
KP ⎝ 2K ⎠ (5) sand, and the difference can be addressed by the sharpness factor
for these two particles. As described in detail in [20], the sharpness
factor (Fs) is 1 and 0.5 for sharp and semi-round particles, re-
spectively. The sharpness effect may be attributed to the efficiency
3. Experimental details
of cutting by the particle or stress concentration on the target
3.1. Cumulative results of multiple impacts material.

In order to verify the erosion equations, direct impingement 3.2. Tracks of individual impacts
testing has been performed on different materials at low impact
angle (5°). Fig. 3 shows a schematic of the test apparatus that is The initial indentation (y0) needs to be quantified based on
similar to the apparatus used in the previous study [20]. Pressur- experimental observations. Fig. 5 shows a 3D scanning micro-
ized air that is supplied to the nozzle takes in particles from the scopic image of SS-316 after the 5° impact test with 150 mm sand.
sand feeder at a constant flow rate. These particles are accelerated Individual indentations found on the surface of the specimen and
by the gas flow to impact the target material and cause material the depth of each crater is measured. The results of average depth
loss of the coupon. In these experiments, particle impact velocity of penetration versus the normal component of impact velocities
is an important parameter and is measured using a Particle Image are summarized in Table 1.
Velocimeter (PIV). The PIV system (TSI Inc.) utilizes a double- It can be observed that the average depth of penetration is
pulsed Nd:YAG laser, CCD camera, synchronizer and processor. The proportional to the normal component of impact velocity and not
light sheet is provided by a double-pulsed laser to illuminate the the impact velocity magnitude and may be estimated from the
particles, and the camera is synchronized with the laser pulses. following equation.
The camera captures two consecutive images of the field. The
y0 =1. 6 × 10−9 ⎡⎣ U sin (θ ) ⎤⎦ −1. 8 × 10−9U sin ( θ )+1. 1 × 10−6 (6)
2
images are then transferred to the processor to correlate between
the two images and track particle movement and finally produce
the measured flow/particle velocity field. These numbers are obtained for 150 mm particles and may be
Fig. 4 shows the erosion scars on SS-316 specimens after tests
with 150 mm spherical glass beads, 150 mm semi-round sand and
300 mm sharp sand where the particle velocity and impact angle
are 28 m/s and 5°, respectively. The erosion ratio of these three
samples is 5.3  10  7, 1.0  10  5, 2.3  10  5 kg/kg. The erosion
caused by glass beads is about 20 times less than that observed for
semi-round sand which indicates that the effect of particle
sharpness is significant at low impact angles. The erosion caused

Fig. 3. Schematic of direct impingement apparatus. Fig. 5. 3D scanning microscopic image of SS-316 specimen after the test.
 H. Arabnejad et al. / Wear 376-377 (2017) 1194–1199 1197

Table 1
Average particle depth of penetration of semi-rounded 150 um particles impacting
SS-316.

Impact vel. mag. Particle normal vel. Depth of penetration

(m/s) (m/s) (mm)

57 5 1.2
29 14 1.4
32 16 1.6
29 29 2.4
32 32 2.8

scaled based on the momentum of the particle to estimate the

initial penetration for other particle sizes.
The final form of the erosion equation is
⎧ U 2.41 sin (θ ) ⎡⎣ 2K cos (θ )−sin (θ ) ⎤⎦ Fig. 6. Erosion ratio of SS-316 eroded with 150 mm sand.
⎪ C1 θ < tan−1 ( K )
⎪ 2K 2
ERC =⎨
⎪ U 2.41 cos2 (θ )
⎪ C θ > tan−1 ( K )
⎩ 1 2 (7)

2
ERD=C2 ( U sin θ − Utsh ) (8)

ER=FS ( ERC +ERD+ERA ) (9)

where C1, C2, K and Utsh are empirical constants, FS is particle

sharpness factor that is 1 for sharp, 0.5 for semi-round and 0.25 for
fully rounded particles. The empirical constants for 7 materials
tested are provided in Table 2.

Fig. 7. Erosion ratio of SS-316 eroded with 300 mm sand.

4. Results and simulation

4.1. Comparison of erosion equation with experimental data

interpenetrating continua by introducing phasic volume fraction.
It solves momentum and continuity equations for each phase and
The predicted erosion ratio values from the presented erosion
tracks volume fractions which are continuous functions of space
equation including the abrasive part are compared to experi-
mental data. Fig. 6 shows the results for 150 mm sand, and Fig. 7 and time. A single pressure field is shared for all phases and in-
shows the results for 300 mm sand. It should be noted that the terphase drag coefficient is used for modelling momentum
abrasion erosion equation does not change the results for impact transfer between phases. The manner in which this coupling is
angles greater than 1°. handled depends upon the type of phases involved. For granular
flows, the properties are obtained from application of kinetic
4.2. CFD simulation of submerged slurry jet theory. An overview of these two approaches can be found in [21].
In this study, the geometry and mesh is created by ANSYS
Models describing particle-laden flows can be roughly divided Design Modeler and Meshing tool, respectively and ANSYS FLUENT
into two groups, Eulerian-Lagrangian models and Eulerian-Eu- 15.0 is used to solve the Time-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations to
lerian models. In the Eulerian-Lagrangian approach, the fluid obtain the fluid dynamics solution. Fig. 8a shows the computa-
phase is treated as a continuum by solving Navier-Stokes equa- tional domain and boundary conditions for the submerged im-
tions while the dispersed phase is solved by tracking a large pinging jet, and the nozzle dimensions and stand-off distance are
number of particles. The Eulerian-Eulerian model is the most provided in Fig. 8b. Although two symmetry planes can be found
complex multiphase model in ANSYS FLUENT as it solves a set of in the geometry, the full body is modeled as the results will be
equations for each phase. This model treats different phases as used for particle tracking in liquid. The Discrete Particle Model
(DPM) performance is poor in geometries with symmetry planes.
Table 2 Moreover, it is sensitive to the surface mesh on the wall and will
Empirical constants for the erosion equation.
not work well if the surface mesh on the wall is not uniform. So,
Material C1 C2 K Utsh (m/s) the mesh that is created in this study is structured in the nozzle
and unstructured for the rest of geometry (Fig. 8c).
Carbon steel 1018 5.90E-08 4.25E-08 0.5 5.5 ANSYS FLUENT calculates the trajectory of a discrete phase
Carbon steel 4130 4.94E-08 3.02E-08 0.4 3.0
Stainless steel 316 4.58E-08 5.56E-08 0.4 5.8
particle by integrating the force balance on the particle, which is
Stainless steel 2205 3.92E-08 2.30E-08 0.4 2.3 done in a Lagrangian frame. This force balance equates the particle
13 chrome steel 4.11E-08 3.09E-08 0.5 5.1 inertia with forces acting on the particles such as drag, pressure,
Inconel 625 4.58E-08 4.22E-08 0.4 5.5
buoyancy and added mass or virtual forces. This can be written as
Aluminum alloy 6061 3.96E-08 3.38E-08 0.4 7.3
[22]:
1198 H. Arabnejad et al. / Wear 376-377 (2017) 1194–1199

Fig. 8. a) Computational domain, b) nozzle dimension and stand-off distance, and c) mesh configuration of submerged jet.

du⃗p (
g ⃗ ρp −ρ ) ⃗ 1
Finteraction=− ∇τs
=FD ( u⃗ −u⃗p )+ +F ⃗ ρp ̅ (12)
dt ρp (10)

where u⃗ is the fluid velocity, up⃗ is the particle velocity, ρ is the fluid Mansouri [23] has conducted submerged erosion experiments
( )
density, ρp is the density of particle, FD u⃗ −up⃗ is the drag force per and measured the erosion pattern with a 3D profilometer. The
comparison of the CFD predictions and erosion measurements for
unit particle mass and F ⃗ is an additional acceleration term that
the two particle sizes are presented in Figs. 9 and 10. The erosion
accounts for virtual mass force and Saffman's lift force.
A large number of particles are tracked in the field after ob- profile is obtained by averaging the erosion depth on the radial
taining a converged flow solution. In this approach, the particles lines passing through the center in experimental measurements as
are modeled as a point mass that does not affect the flow. The well as CFD predictions and the error bars represent the standard
particle-particle interaction is also neglected in the standard for- deviation. The value of integral erosion ratio (in kg/kg), which is
mulation of DPM. It is though possible to incorporate the effect of defined as the ratio of specimen mass loss to the total sand
the discrete phase on the continuum and achieve a two-way throughput, is compared with experimental data with and without
coupling between the phases. This is accomplished by alternately considering abrasion erosion in Table 3. The results in Fig. 9 are for
solving the discrete and continuous phase equations until the semi-rounded particles where abrasion erosion effects are less
solutions in both phases have stopped changing. than those shown in Fig. 10 with 300 mm particles where both
The individual particle-particle interaction may be resolved impact and abrasion erosion effects are more severe.
through Discrete Element Model (DEM), but it is very computa-
tionally expensive. Dense Discrete Phase Model (DDPM) is a spe-
cial form of DPM that can model the particle-particle interaction
statistically instead of resolving the individual interactions. It also
incorporates the effect of particles to the primary phase flow by
modeling the discrete phase as granular phase which is sharing
the pressure with the primary Eulerian phase. The Eulerian model
makes it possible to model multiple separate but interacting
phases. Simulations with almost any combination of solid, liquid
and gas phases can be performed where an Eulerian approach is
used for each phase. The particle-particle interaction is modelled
through solid stresses acting on the particles in a dense flow by an
additional acceleration in the particle force balance. This addition
results in the following expression [22]

du⃗p
=FD ( u⃗ −u⃗p )+
(
g ⃗ ρp −ρ )
+F ⃗+Finteraction
⃗
dt ρp (11)

The additional term accounts for interparticle interaction and is

computed from the stress tensor given by the kinetic theory of Fig. 9. Comparison of CFD prediction with experimental data for 150 mm sand and
granular flows as [22]: c ¼1% kg/kg.
 H. Arabnejad et al. / Wear 376-377 (2017) 1194–1199
Fig. 10. Comparison of CFD prediction with experimental data for 300 mm sand and
c ¼ 1% kg/kg.
Table 3
Comparison of Integral Erosion Ratio (ER).
Particle Particle Experimental CFD w/o CFD w/ abrasive
size conc. ER abrasive
(mm) (% kg/kg) (kg/kg) (kg/kg) (kg/kg)
6 6
150 1 2.94  10 1.15  10 1.78  10  6
300 1 4.35  10  6 2.61  10  6 3.92  10  6
5. Summary and conclusion
The applications of erosion caused by particles at very low
impact angles are identified. CFD simulation with Lagrangian
particle tracking of liquid slurry passing through an elbow showed
that the maximum impact angle is less than 5°. Direct impinge-
ment erosion testing in gas has been conducted at 5° on SS-316
specimens with three different particles. The particles are fully
rounded glass beads and semi-rounded and sharp silica sands. The
results show that the erosion caused by fully rounded particles is
twenty times less than the value for semi-round sand at this low
impact angle although the impact velocity was the same for all
three particles. Additional testing with 150 mm semi-rounded sand
was conducted on the same material but at very low particle rate
so that individual erosion craters can be identified on the speci-
men by 3D scanning microscope. The crater depth is measured for
a number of indentations at different particle impact velocities. It
is found that the average crater depth is proportional to the mo-
mentum of the particle resulting from its normal impact velocity
component.
The equations of motion of the particle while it is engaging
with the material are solved for a very low impact angle case by
assuming an initial penetration for the particle in the wall while it
is moving very close to the wall. The initial penetration can be
attributed to the turbulence fluctuations or sharp particle rotation.
The new abrasion erosion equation along with cutting and de-
formation erosion equations developed previously by the author
are implemented in CFD to calculate erosion for a submerged
slurry impinging jet case with two particle sizes, and the results
are compared with the experiment. It was observed that by in-
cluding the abrasive term, the total mass loss of the specimen
agrees better with experimental data and the obtained erosion
View publication stats
1199
pattern is more comparable to the data collected by 3D
profilometry.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Erosion/Corrosion Re-
search Center (E/CRC) member companies for supporting this
work.
References
[1] H.Arabnejad, A.Mansouri, S.A.Shirazi, B.S.McLaury, Evaluation of solid particle
erosion equations and models for oil and gas industry applications, in: SPE
Annu. Tech. Conference Exhib., Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2015. 〈http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/174987-MS〉.
[2] H.C. Meng, K.C. Ludema, Wear models and predictive equations: their form
and content, Wear 181–183 (1995) 443–457, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0043-1648(95)90158-2.
[3] R. Dabirian, R. Mohan, O. Shoham, G. Kouba, Critical sand deposition velocity
for gas-liquid stratified flow in horizontal pipes, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 33 (2016)
527–537, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.05.008.
[4] R.Dabirian, R.S.Mohan, O.Shoham, G.Kouba, Sand transport in stratified flow in
a horizontal pipeline, in: SPE Annu. Tech. Conference Exhib., Society of Pet-
roleum Engineers, 2015. 〈http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.2118/174960-MS〉.
[5] M. Hashish, A modeling study of metal cutting with abrasive waterjets, J. Eng.
Mater. Technol. 106 (1984) 88, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.3225682.
[6] I. Finnie, J. Wolak, Y. Kabil, Erosion of metals by solid particles, J. Mater. 2
(1967) 682–700.
[7] V.K. Jain, S.G. Adsul, Experimental investigations into abrasive flow machining
(AFM), Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 40 (2000) 1003–1021, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0890-6955(99)00114-5.
[8] R.K. Jain, V.K. Jain, Stochastic simulation of active grain density in abrasive
flow machining, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 152 (2004) 17–22, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2003.11.024.
[9] R.J.K. Wood, T.F. Jones, J. Ganeshalingam, N.J. Miles, Comparison of predicted
and experimental erosion estimates in slurry ducts, Wear 256 (2004) 937–947,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2003.09.002.
[10] A. Gnanavelu, N. Kapur, A. Neville, J.F. Flores, N. Ghorbani, A numerical in-
vestigation of a geometry independent integrated method to predict erosion
rates in slurry erosion, Wear 271 (2011) 712–719, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
wear.2010.12.040.
[11] S.N. Shah, S. Jain, Coiled tubing erosion during hydraulic fracturing slurry flow,
Wear 264 (2008) 279–290, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2007.03.016.
[12] K. Pagalthivarthi, P. Gupta, V. Tyagi, M. Ravi, CFD prediction of erosion wear in
centrifugal slurry pumps for dilute slurry flows, J. Comput. Multiph. Flows 3
(2011) 225–246, http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/1757-482X.3.4.225.
[13] I. Finnie, Erosion of surfaces by solid particles, Wear 3 (1960) 87–103, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(60)90055-7.
[14] G.L. Sheldon, I. Finnie, The mechanism of material removal in the erosive
cutting of brittle materials, J. Eng. Ind. 88 (1966) 393, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/
1.3672667.
[15] J.G.A. Bitter, A study of erosion phenomena: part I, Wear 6 (1963) 5–21, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(63)90003-6.
[16] J.G.A. Bitter, A study of erosion phenomena: part 2, Wear 6 (1963) 169–190,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(63)90073-5.
[17] I.M. Hutchings, A model for the erosion of metals by spherical particles at
normal incidence, Wear 70 (1981) 269–281, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0043-1648(81)90347-1.
[18] G. Sundararajan, A comprehensive model for the solid particle erosion of
ductile materials, Wear 149 (1991) 111–127, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0043-1648(91)90368-5.
[19] Y.I. Oka, K. Okamura, T. Yoshida, Practical estimation of erosion damage caused
by solid particle impact, Wear 259 (2005) 95–101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
wear.2005.01.039.
[20] H. Arabnejad, A. Mansouri, S.A. Shirazi, B.S. McLaury, Development of me-
chanistic erosion equation for solid particles, Wear 332–333 (2015)
1044–1050, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2015.01.031.
[21] B.G.M. van Wachem, A.E. Almstedt, Methods for multiphase computational
fluid dynamics, Chem. Eng. J. 96 (2003) 81–98, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2003.08.025.
[22] ANSYS, ANSYS FLUENT User’s Guide, 2015.
[23] A. Mansouri, A Combined CFD-Experimental Method for Developing an Ero-
sion Equation for both Gas-Sand and Liquid-Sand Flows (Ph.D. dissertation),
The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 2016.