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

net/publication/336888964

A Numerical Study on Erosion Model Selection and Effect of Pump Type and
Sand Characters in Electrical Submersible Pumps by Sandy Flow

Article in Journal of Energy Resources Technology, Transactions of the ASME · October 2019
DOI: 10.1115/1.4044941]

CITATIONS READS

7 580

6 authors, including:

Haiwen Zhu Jianjun Zhu

University of Tulsa China University of Petroleum - Beijing
35 PUBLICATIONS 277 CITATIONS 75 PUBLICATIONS 1,027 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Risa Rutter
Baker Hughes inc
14 PUBLICATIONS 55 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Mechanistic modeling in Electrical Submersible Pumps (ESP) View project

Data analytics and machine learning in oil/gas production View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Haiwen Zhu on 25 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Haiwen Zhu
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering,
The University of Tulsa,
800 S Tucker Dr.,
Tulsa, OK 74104
e-mail: haz328@utulsa.edu
Jianjun Zhu1
Assistant Professor
College of Petroleum Engineering,
China University of Petroleum-Beijing,
18 Fuxue Road, Changping,
Beijing 102249, China
e-mail: jianjun-zhu@utulsa.edu
Risa Rutter
Baker Hughes, a GE company,
200 W Stuart Roosa Dr.,
Claremore, OK 74107
e-mail: risa.rutter@bhge.com
Hong-Quan Zhang
Professor
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering,
The University of Tulsa,
800 S Tucker Dr.,
Tulsa, OK 74104
e-mail: hong-quan-zhang@utulsa.edu
A Numerical Study on Erosion
Model Selection and Effect of
Pump Type and Sand Characters
in Electrical Submersible Pumps
by Sandy Flow
The electrical submersible pump (ESP) is one of the most widely used artificial lift methods
in the petroleum industry. Although not recommended to be used in sand production well,
ESP is still applicable in high producing well with a minimal percentage of solid concen-
tration. Besides, the temporarily produced fracture sand from the proppant backflow can
also severely reduce ESP boosting ability in weeks or months. Therefore, it is crucial to
study the wear in ESP stages under sandy flow condition. Various erosion equations and
models were developed for different materials and affecting factors. However, the predic-
tions of these erosion models in ESPs need to be evaluated to make a proper selection. Com-
parisons of wear patterns and erosion rates were conducted using the computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) software ANSYS. In order to validate the simulation results, an experimen-
tal facility was designed and constructed to study the sand erosion process in an ESP.
Stages were painted to obtain erosion patterns, and the weight loss was measured. Six
erosion models were implemented in the simulations to select the most accurate one in pre-
dicting ESP erosion rates. Then, three ESPs, including two mixed-type pumps and one
radial-type pump, were modeled to study the effect of pump types with the selected
erosion model. Finally, the steady-state discrete phase model (DPM) erosion simulations
were carried out to investigate particle density and size effects.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4044941]

Keywords: deep-water petroleum, petroleum engineering, petroleum transport/pipelines/

multiphase flow, petroleum wells-drilling/production/construction

Introduction Semi-Empirical Erosion Model. A fully empirical erosion

The electrical submersible pump is one of the most efficient arti-
ficial lift methods that is commonly employed in both onshore and
offshore high production wells [1]. However, sand produced from
unconsolidated sandstone or proppant backflow can cause severe
damage to the pump [2,3]. Sand wear in electrical submersible
pumps (ESPs) usually includes erosion (impingement wear) and
abrasion (shear wear). The erosion, which can be observed on
the inside and outside shrouds of impeller and diffuser, impeller
blades and diffuser vanes as shown in Fig. 1, is caused by sand
particles that impinge the primary flow channel. The abrasion is
due to the hard grains present between two soft sliding surfaces
[4], which can be observed on pump bearings, bushings, seals,
and sleeves [5,6]. Pump-boosting ability and efficiency will be
reduced gradually by abrasion on seals and will be further affected
if the erosion has damaged the blade geometry. Unlike viscosity
and gas effect, erosion and deteriorated performance are hard to
predict using Affinity Law [7]. Using the commercial software
ANSYS, the erosion rate and pattern in ESPs are analyzed in
this paper.
1
Corresponding author.
The original paper (FEDSM2018-83179) was accepted for presentation in the 5th
Joint US-European Fluids Engineering Summer Conference, July 15–20, 2018,
Montreal, uebec, Canada.
Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in
the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 9, 2019;
final manuscript received September 3, 2019; published online September 24, 2019.
Assoc. Editor: Esmail M. A. Mokheimer.
model for a certain flow domain requires four primary parameters:
solids concentration, velocity, particle size, and material hardness.
However, it is expensive and time-consuming to run the erosion
test for all conditions and equipment. Thanks to the development
of computing speed, those parameters can be obtained by computa-
tional fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. Therefore, more attention
can be paid to secondary parameters, for example, material hard-
ness, density, etc. Semi-empirical erosion models were developed
based on the direct impingement test, which controls primary
parameters and studies the effect of secondary parameters. Most
of the semi-empirical erosion equations have similar formulas and
can be summarized as an empirical correlation with the help of
extensive databases as below:
ER = KVPn F(θ) (1)
where ER is the target material removed by a unit mass particles in
kg/kg, K and n are experimentally determined constants that depend
on the material properties. F(θ) is a function of the impact angle and
the target material ductile/brittle behavior and Vp is the particle
impact velocity in m/s. The value of F(θ) reaches the maximum
for ductile materials such as steel at impact angles of 20 deg–
40 deg, and at 90 deg for brittle materials such as ceramics.
Theoretically, those equations can be applied to different condi-
tions if the flow field and the material properties of particle and
target surface are known. Therefore, commercial CFD software or
the self-developed CFD code are always required to obtain the
primary parameters before applying those equations to a field
condition.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright © 2019 by ASME DECEMBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 122004-1
 Fig. 1 Components of ESP impeller and diffuser in meridional views: (a) impeller and (b) diffuser

From Levy and Chik’s study [8], the hardness of erodent particles  K2  K3
VP dP
no longer influences erosion rate on AISI 1020 steel, Brinell hard- E90 = K(Hv) K1
(7)
ness of 119–235 kgf/mm2, when the solids’ Vickers hardness is V* d*
higher than 700 (SiO2). The hardness of produced particles is
usually close to that of SiO2, and the tested pump is made of type n1 = S1 (Hv)q1 (8)
1 Ni-resist iron, with Brinell hardness from 131 to 183 kgf/mm2.
Therefore, six models without considering the particle hardness n2 = S2 (Hv)q2 (9)
are selected for CFD simulation. The following equations are
changed to SI units for convenience.
Ahlert’s erosion model [9] was established by TUE/CR/C and K2 = 2.3(Hv)0.038 (10)
has been used in the ANSYS manual as a reference. The coefficients
are listed in Table 1, where BH is Brinell hardness in kg/mm. F(θ) = [sin(θ)]n1 {1 + Hv[1 − sin(θ)]}n2 (11)
ER = KVPn F(θ) (2) where V* and d* are the reference velocity and the reference particle
diameter, which is 104 m/s and 326 µm for SiO2-1, respectively, ρt is

the target material density (kg/m3), and Hv is Vicker’s hardness
aθ2 + bθ, θ ≤ θ0
F(θ) = (3) (GPa). The empirical coefficients are shown in Table 3.
x cos2 θ sin(wθ) + y sin2 θ + z, θ > θ0 Zhang derived his erosion equation from Ahlert’s study with a
polynomial impact angle function [12] and added a particle shape
The Haugen et al. erosion model [10] has a similar formula, but a coefficient Fs, which is 1.0 for sharp (angular), 0.53 for semi-
different particle impact angle function that is shown below: rounded, or 0.2 for fully rounded sand particles. The value of the
polynomial coefficient Ai is shown in Table 4.
ER = K × 10−9 VPn F(θ) (4)
ER = 2.17 × 10−7 (BH)−0.59 Fs VP 2.41 F(θ) (12)

    
8
θπ i 
5
θπ i
F(θ) = Ai (5) F(θ) = Ai (13)
i=1
180 180
i=1

where K is 2 for carbon steel, and Ai can be found in Table 2.

Mansouri developed another erosion model from TUE/CR/C by
Oka used E90 as a reference erosion rate from their test results and
further improving the previous study with a trigonometric impact
developed the equation [11]:
angle function [13]. The coefficient is shown in Table 5.
ER = 10−9 ρt E90 F(θ) (6)
ER = C(BH)−0.59 Fs VPn F(θ) (14)

Table 1 Empirical coefficient in Ahlert et al.’s erosion model F(θ) = A[sin(θ)]n1 {1 + Hvn3 [1 − sin(θ)]}n2 (15)

Material Table 3 Empirical coefficient in Oka et al.’s model

Empirical constant Carbon steel Aluminum K K1 K3 S1 S2 q1 q2
−9 −0.59
K 1559 × 10 BH 2.388 × 10−7 60 −0.12 0.19 0.71 2.4 0.14 −0.94
θ0 15 10
a −38.4 34.79
b 22.7 12.3
w 1.0 5.205 Table 4 Empirical coefficient in Zhang et al.’s model
x 0.3147 0.147
y 0.03609 −0.745 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
z 0.2532 1.0
n 1.73 1.73 5.4 −10.11 10.93 −6.33 1.42

Table 2 Empirical coefficient in Haugen et al.’s model Table 5 Empirical coefficients in Mansouri’s model

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A N n1 n2 n3 C

9.37 −42.295 110.864 −175.804 170.137 −98.298 31.211 −4.17 0.6536 2.41 0.15 0.85 0.65 4.62 × 10−07

122004-2 / Vol. 141, DECEMBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

 The DNV model [14] used the model by Haugen et al. [10] as a
reference. A new impact angle function was developed for both
brittle and ductile materials.
ER = K × 10−9 VPn F(θ) (16)
2θ
F(θ) = (Brittle) (17)
π
F(θ) = 0.6[sin(θ) + 7.2(sin(θ) − sin2 (θ))]0.6
  
θπ
× 1 − exp (Ductile) (18)
9
As shown above, various erosion equations were proposed under
different conditions, and some of them behave very well in diverse
applications. However, none of them was validated in an ESP
system. Therefore, an experimental facility was designed and tests
were conducted in this study in order to help compare and select
the most suitable erosion model in the ESP application.
Numerical Erosion Simulation. To accurately obtain the
erosion rates in a complicated geometry, the CFD method has
been widely used. The prediction procedure of sand erosion given
by Shirazi et al. [15] was originally designed for elbows and tees.
Edwards [16] revised the method and proposed a generalized three-
step procedure: flow modeling, particle tracking, and erosion calcu-
lation. The flow model with CFD codes is employed to solve the
conservation equations of mass and momentum to obtain the flow
structure. Then, particle trajectories, including concentration, veloc-
ity, and angle, are calculated by particle-tracking models, in which
the particle size and density are set to be input parameters. Conse-
quently, all four primary erosion parameters are obtained. Finally,
different erosion models can be incorporated to compute erosion
rates regarding secondary erosion parameters.
The method is widely used in commercial software, such as
ANSYS FLUENT and CFX. Chen et al. [17] conducted CFD erosion
simulation on elbows and plugged tees. Zhang et al. [12] validated
the erosion equations by simulating the erosion of impingement
tests with air and liquid flow. Marsis and Russel [18] predicted
erosion rates in a single-stage ESP using erosion models presented
by Russell et al. [19] and ERC-2008. Pirouzpanah et al. and Pirouz-
panah and Morrison [20,21] developed a new empirical–numerical
erosion model related to turbulence kinetic energy and examined it
with CFD simulation of a single-stage ESP. Pirouzpanah [22] and
Basaran [23] conducted two-stage ESP erosion simulations under
different viscosity fluid and gas void fraction and found that the
head increment and erosion patterns are different between the first
and the second stages, especially when gas is present. Zhang [24]
conducted a comprehensive CFD erosion simulation in elbows,
sudden contractions and expansions, and sharp bends under gas
dominant multiphase flows to analyze the near-wall modeling
approach, grid refinement, turbulence models, and rebound models.
Rather than the extensive erosion simulation in direct impingement
tests, elbows and tees, simulations in ESPs are restricted to a certain
type of pump and fluid properties. By applying the best erosion
model and simulation setup that is validated by the sand–water test
in this study, the effects of pump type and sand characters are well ana-
lyzed. The simulated erosion rate and impact parameters can offer sig-
nificant guidance in ESP hydraulic design and field application.
Electrical Submersible Pumps Erosion and Abrasion
Experiments. With the development of the unconventional and
subsea reservoir, ESPs are more commonly applied to harsh condi-
tions [25]. The industry pays more attention and provides funding
for ESP design and tests with abrasive solids. Designs with new
hydraulic geometry and hard materials have been extensively
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
studied in recent years. Morrison et al. and Pirouzpanah and Morrison
[6,21] conducted erosion tests with a mixed-type WJE1000 ESP. The
test was more focused on abrasion in the secondary flow passage and
pump vibration, and only weight loss and stage photos were provided
for erosion analysis. Then, they conducted a three-phase erosion test
on a split-vane ESP, in which ESP blades were worn out rapidly
and pump-boosting ability completely disappearing [26]. Later on,
Zhu et al. [27,28] conducted a sand–water test with another mixed-
type ESP, in which stages were coated and weight losses were mea-
sured. Recently, Beck et al. conducted four years of ESP erosion
tests with more than 3000 h of run times on SF1700 and SF1750
[29]. The influence of bearing types and pump vibration on the
failure modes was well analyzed and concluded.
Although ESP wear tests were widely conducted recently, more
effort was paid to the abrasion in the second flow passage.
However, the altered geometries within stage channel surfaces
will gradually affect pump performance. Due to the complexity of
the ESP primary flow passage, it is hard to quantitatively measure
the erosion damage on the surface. Even the qualitative 3D scans
by Morrison et al. [26] were not able to reach the inside geometry
of the pump stages. Therefore, weight loss, erosion paint-removal
photos, and CFD simulations are analyzed together to help select
the best erosion equation, effect of pump types and sand characters,
and predict erosion rate and location inside ESP stages.
Experimental Setup and Results
The newly constructed Tulsa University Artificial Lift Projects
(TUALP) sand erosion flow loop shown in Fig. 2 was designed
to test wear in a 12-stage ESP, which is referred to as MTESP
due to confidentiality. The slurry is circulated in the square area,
which was designed to minimize the potential dead points that
may trap solids. The sand was added in a 15-gallon gas separator
without any baffle inside. The separator is mainly used as a pressure
buffer vessel in this study and will be used to separate gas if a three-
phase test is of interest. Most particles are believed to be carried out
since the outlet is on the bottom of the separator and the particle
remaining time is less than 10 s in the separator according to a
95 gal/min (3100 bpd) testing flow rate. The intake pressure was
controlled by a regulator at the top of the separator, which is directly
connected to gas lines. The flow rate was controlled by a gate valve
at the downstream of the ESP and was measured by a Coriolis
flowmeter.
Weight Loss. The pump performance is shown in Fig. 3. The
erosion testing condition was under Pin = 200 psi, Q = 3100 bpd,
N = 3500 rpm, and 1 wt% sand concentration. According to the sand
Fig. 2 Schematic of the experimental facility for testing erosion
on ESP stages
DECEMBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 122004-3
 stages were tested under the same flow conditions as shown above.
Different paints and primers were tested, among which the brown
primer on stage 5 was selected to present the results. As Figs. 5(b)
and 5(f ) show, no paint was scratched after a 2-h water test. There-
fore, the water effect can be ignored. Thereafter, a 2-h slurry test was
conducted. The paint patterns are shown in Figs. 5(c) and 5(g). After
that, another 4-h slurry test was conducted to obtain a clearer pattern
as presented in Figs. 5(d) and 5(h). Obviously, more paint was
scratched out from the diffuser throat area. Besides, both the blade
and vane edge suffered from the sandy flow. In addition, slight
paint removal can be observed on the impeller-outside shroud that
is close to the impeller outlet and on the impeller-inside shroud that
is close to the hub. Both paint-removal photos and area-weighted-
average erosion rates of the impeller and diffusers can be used to val-
idate erosion simulations in the Results and Discussion section.

Numerical Methodology
Fig. 3 Pump head and efficiency
Simulations in this study were conducted using commercial CFD
software—ANSYS 17.2 FLUENT. High-quality meshes were gener-
ated using ICEM and TURBOGRID. The steady-state single-phase
sample collected during the test, the solid concentration before the
water flow was solved with κ-epsilon equations and scalable wall
pump intake varied from 1% to 1.2% by weight. The average
function model by employing the frozen-rotor technique in three
weight of impellers and diffusers and radius of skirts, balance rings,
ESPs (MTESP, TE2700, and DN1750) [32]. Particle trajectories
inter-stages, and hubs were measured and shown in Table 6. According
and erosion rates were calculated using the DPM model. Since
to Fig. 1, radius changes are in the secondary flow region (seals region,
the inlet mass flow profile deviates from the real profile, two
balance holes, and inter-stages), which was damaged due to abrasion
stages were simulated, and only the results of the second stage
(particles between two surfaces). Erosion in the primary flow
were used in order to eliminate the inlet effect. The monitoring
channel (created by impeller blades and diffuser vanes) is of interest
faces for pressure and mass flow rate were set at the impeller inlet
in this study. Therefore, the abrasion weight loss was roughly calcu-
and diffuser outlet of each stage to check the convergence. The
lated from the measured radius changes and subtracted from the total
default residual criterion is 10−3, which offers a good compromise
weight loss. According to geometry in ANSYS FLUENT, the surface
between the computational cost and numerical accuracy. The simu-
area of the primary flow channel in the diffuser is 0.028 m2, while
lated ESP head curves agree well with the pump catalog curves.
that of the impeller is 0.015 m2 [30]. Then, the area-weighted-averaged
erosion rates on the diffuser and impeller were calculated to be 1.83 ×
10−6 kg/m2 s and 9.19 × 10−7 kg/m2 s. Geometry and Meshing. The 4-in. MTESP is the mixed-type
centrifugal pump with a specific speed of Ns = 2000. There are
six blades in the impeller and eight vanes in the diffuser. The
Sand Properties. Commercial hydraulic sand particles from a
pump is designed to resist solid particle wear within the liquid
local company were used in the test to mimic sand produced from
flow range of 0.002–0.006 m3/s and a rotational speed of
proppant backflow. The sand was replaced every 2 h in the 64-h
3500 rpm. TE2700 is a 5-in. radial-type pump, while DN1750 is
erosion test to keep the sand properties [31]. Scanning electron
another 4-in. mixed-type ESP. The detailed pump information can
microscopy (SEM) analysis and advanced first-trimester screening
be found in Table 7.
(AFS) test before and after the 2 h of recirculation are shown in
The optimum grid number was obtained by comparing pressure
Fig. 4. As can be seen, solids were damaged in the test, but the
increment and hydraulic efficiency results from one-stage
sharpness remained to unity. The AFS number was 106 at the begin-
MTESP. As shown in Fig. 7(a), both parameters become stable
ning and increased to 195 in the end. Therefore, the averaged par-
when the grid number reaches 1.5 × 106. Therefore, the mesh of
ticle size was assumed to be 100 µm. Stages were coated to
MTESP has 1.863 × 106 grids per stage as shown in Fig. 6(b).
investigate the erosion pattern inside the pump.
Thereafter, DN1750 and TE2700 were meshed in the same way
with the quality above 0.3 and near-wall grid refinement. The
Paint-Removal Photo. In order to capture the detailed erosion mesh with a grid number around 1.5 × 106 per stage was generated
pattern and detect the most severe erosion location, the coated as shown in Figs. 6(a) and 6(c).

Table 6 Weight loss and secondary clearance changes

Weight and clearance 0 8 16 32 64 Ave weight loss (kg) Ave ER (kg/m2 s)

Impeller weight (kg) 3.15 × 10−01 3.14 × 10−01 3.13 × 10−01 3.12 × 10−01 3.09 × 10−01 6.26 × 10−03 9.19 × 10−07
Impeller balance ring OD (m) 6.27 × 10−02 6.26 × 10−02 6.26 × 10−02 6.25 × 10−02 6.24 × 10−02 4.78 × 10−04
Impeller skirt ring OD (m) 5.23 × 10−02 5.22 × 10−02 5.22 × 10−02 5.21 × 10−02 5.20 × 10−02 4.22 × 10−04
Impeller-outside shroud OD (m) 7.88 × 10−02 7.88 × 10−02 7.88 × 10−02 7.88 × 10−02 7.88 × 10−02 1.18 × 10−04
Impeller hub ID (m) 1.75 × 10−02 1.75 × 10−02 1.75 × 10−02 1.75 × 10−02 1.75 × 10−02 4.01 × 10−05
Impeller hub OD (m) 2.22 × 10−02 2.22 × 10−02 2.22 × 10−02 2.21 × 10−02 2.21 × 10−02 1.38 × 10−04
Diffuser weight (kg) 1.12 × 10+00 1.11 × 10+00 1.11 × 10+00 1.11 × 10+00 1.10 × 10+00 1.36 × 10−02 1.83 × 10−06
Diffuser balance ring ID (m) 6.30 × 10−02 6.31 × 10−02 6.32 × 10−02 6.32 × 10−02 6.33 × 10−02 5.21 × 10−04
Diffuser skirt ring ID (m) 5.27 × 10−02 5.28 × 10−02 5.28 × 10−02 5.29 × 10−02 5.29 × 10−02 3.47 × 10−04
Diffuser-outside shroud ID (m) 7.98 × 10−02 7.99 × 10−02 7.99 × 10−02 7.99 × 10−02 7.99 × 10−02 1.64 × 10−04
Diffuser skirt depth (m) 1.25 × 10−02 1.25 × 10−02 1.25 × 10−02 1.25 × 10−02 1.25 × 10−02 1.34 × 10−06
Diffuser bore ID (m) 2.25 × 10−02 2.25 × 10−02 2.26 × 10−02 2.26 × 10−02 2.28 × 10−02 2.08 × 10−03

122004-4 / Vol. 141, DECEMBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

 Fig. 4 Sand property: (a) AFS test original, (b) AFS test after recirculation, (c) SEM scan original, and (d) SEM
scan after recirculation

Fig. 5 Paint-removal view: (a) impeller original, (b) impeller 2 h water, (c) impeller 2 h slurry, (d) impeller 6 h slurry, (e) diffuser
original, ( f ) diffuser 2 h water, (g) diffuser 2 h slurry, and (h) diffuser 6 h slurry

Then, a three-stage geometry of MTESP was created to investi-
gate inlet and outlet effects [17]. The boosting pressure accuracy of
each stage was compared with catalog curves in Fig. 7(b). As can
be seen, the calculated head deviates from catalog data at the first
stage, but the difference disappears at the second stage. In addi-
tion, the area-weighted-average erosion rate of the first stage is
almost 50% lower than that of the second and third stages in
Figs. 7(c) and 7(d ). Due to the comparable simulation results at
the two stages downstream, the two-stage geometry was selected
in order to save the computational cost. Using the same metho-
dology, the two-stage computational domains of TE2700 and
DN1750 were generated by ICEM and TURBOGRID software
separately. The calculated head curves of the second stage of
both pumps in Fig. 7(b) show a good agreement with catalog
data, which verifies the validity of the adopted methodology in
this study.
Boundary Conditions and Numerical Scheme. In this study,
the boundary conditions of the parametric studies were set as Q =
3100 bpd, N = 3500 rpm, and the outlet pressure 220 psig, which
are similar to the test conditions. Sand properties were set according
to correspondent test samples. The frozen-rotor method was used in
the simulation, which applied an individual frame of reference to
each component in the computational domains. By using this

Journal of Energy Resources Technology DECEMBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 122004-5

 Table 7 Input parameters of three ESPs

Pump Qbep (m3/s) Head (m) RMP Sand (wt%) Blade Vane OD (m) Ns Pump type
−3
MTESP 5.7 × 10 7.38 3500 1 6 8 0.1016 2000 Mixed
TE2700 5.5 × 10−3 16.17 3500 1 5 9 0.127 1100 Radial
DN1750 3.3 × 10−3 5.62 3500 1 6 8 0.1016 1900 Mixed

Fig. 6 Mesh: (a) DN1750, (b) MTESP, and (c) TE2700

Fig. 7 Mesh validation: (a) pressure increment and hydraulic efficiency versus grid number, (b) head increment
error analysis, (c) three-stage MTESP area-weighted-average erosion rate in the impeller, and (d) three-stage
MTESP area-weighted-average erosion rate in the diffuser

method, the relative orientation can be kept at the interface. This
method requires the least amount of computational effort compared
to other interface models [33,34]. In the cell zone, the properties of
the diffuser cell were kept at the default, while the frame motion was
selected for impeller cells. The rotation-axis direction was set to
global z-axis, and the rotational velocity was 3500 rpm. The mesh
interfaces were created at the connections between rotating and sta-
tionary parts.
Sand particles with a density of 2637 kg/m3 were used to
compare erosion models in three pumps. The Rosin-rambler
method with a mean diameter of 100 µm, the maximum diameter
of 200 µm, the minimum diameter of 50 µm, a spread parameter
of 3.5, and the number of diameters of 10 was used. The Discrete
Random Walk Model and Random Eddy Lifetime Model were
enabled to analyze the particle random movement. Parametric
studies on particle diameter and density were simulated with the

122004-6 / Vol. 141, DECEMBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

 Table 8 Empirical constants in six models

Model Ahlert et al. (1994) Haugen et al. (1995) Oka et al. (2005) Zhang et al. (2007) Mansouri (2014) DNV (2015)
−8 −9 −9 −8 −8
K 7.3 × 10 2 × 10 6.23 × 10 1.02 × 10 2.17 × 10 2 × 10−9
n 1.73 2.6 2.35 2.41 2.41 2.6

geometry of MTESP. The number of tries was set to be 1. The

simple and coupled methods were selected for different cases to
achieve convergence criteria.
The particle–particle interaction was neglected due to low parti-
cle concentration. Therefore, the Euler-Lagrange DPM model in
ANSYS FLUENT was used to study the erosion in ESPs. In liquid–
solid condition, the fluid phase is the continuous phase, which is
solved by Navier–Stokes equations, and solids are treated as the dis-
persed phase [35]. Whenever the flow field of the liquid phase is
solved, the particle trajectory is calculated by solving particle
force balance equation below, where FD is the drag force and
other forces are included in F. Since the pump rotation speed is
high and the particle diameter is larger than 50 µm, only pressure
gradient force and moving frame force are included in F.

dup g(ρp − ρ)
= FD (u − up ) + +F (19)
dt ρp

Fig. 8 Impact angle function of six erosion models The particle trajectories are identical with the same boundary con-
ditions, fluid properties, and sand properties. Therefore, the
impact angle and the velocity are also identical with the same
inlet mass flow rate. Different erosion rates and patterns result

Fig. 9 MTESP impeller erosion contour: (a) Haugen (1995), (b) DNV (2015), (c) Zhang (2007), (d) Oka (2004),
(e) Mansouri (2014), and ( f ) Ahlert (1994)

Journal of Energy Resources Technology DECEMBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 122004-7

from different erosion models. From empirical erosion correlation,
the experimentally determined parameters K and n are constant for
the selected particles and target surface material. The pump material
Brinell hardness is assumed to be 170, and sand particle sharpness
is 1. All parameters were substituted, and six erosion models were
changed to the same formula as given in Eq. (1), K and n values for
six models are calculated as shown in Table 8.
The trend of impact angle function F(θ) is shown in Fig. 8. The
impact angle functions of six erosion models have comparably
similar trends and values. However, the values calculated by
Ahlert [9] erosion equations are three times higher than that com-
puted by other models.
Results and Discussion
A two-stage pump geometry is applied in CFD simulations to
compare erosion simulations and to select the best model. The
erosion patterns, facet maximum erosion rate (maximum erosion
rate among all facet created on the selected wall surface), and
area-weighted-average erosion rate were calculated by six erosion
models and compared with the tested results. Particle impact param-
eters were extracted and compared using a user define function to
evaluate the pump-type effect. Extended parametric studies were
performed on particle mean diameters from 50 to 1000 µm and den-
sities from 1500 to 6000 kg/m3.
Fig. 10 MTESP diffuser erosion contour: (a) Haugen (1995), (b) DNV (2015), (c) Zhang (2007), (d) Oka (2004), (e) Mansouri (2014),
and (f ) Ahlert (1994)
122004-8 / Vol. 141, DECEMBER 2019
Erosion Model Comparison and Selection. Although severe
difference can be found in the erosion rate magnitude, the erosion
patterns of six erosion models in the impellers have similar trends.
Simulated erosion pattern is comparable with the paint-removal
test as shown in Fig. 5(c). The diffuser throat, followed by edges
of blades and vanes, suffers mostly from erosion in Figs. 9 and 10.
The area-weighted-average erosion rate as displayed in Fig. 11(d )
shows more erosion on the outside shrouds and relatively low on
vanes, which is consistent with the simulated erosion patterns that
only the pressure side of the vanes and the diffuser throat area
suffer from severe erosions.
Validated by the paint-removal photos in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b),
high erosion on the blades and the outside shroud are observed in
the impeller. Slight erosion can be found on the impeller-inside
shroud as shown in Fig. 9. Compared to the diffuser, the magnitude
of erosion rate in the impeller is several times lower. However, the
pump-boosting pressure of ESP is mainly generated by the impeller
rotation to convert fluid kinetic energy to pressure head [36,37]. The
impeller blade length and projection angle are the key factors affect-
ing pump-boosting pressure [12]. Thus, it is still important to study
the erosion inside ESP impellers.
Since the particle trajectory is identical in six simulations, the
local particle concentration, impact speed, and impact angle are
also the same. According to Table 6 and Fig. 8, it is possible to
assume that the erosion patterns, regarding the magnitude, gener-
ated by six erosion models are similar in the pump, which is also
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 11 Facet maximum erosion rate and area-weighted-average erosion rate on MTESP impeller and diffuser: (a) impeller
maximum, (b) impeller average, (c) diffuser maximum, and (d) diffuser average

Fig. 12 Area-weighted-averaged erosion rate comparison: (a) diffuser and (b) impeller

validated by Figs. 9 and 10. Therefore, the proper erosion model is
selected based on the weight loss test.
As mentioned in the test result section, the area-weighted-averaged
erosion rates on impeller and diffuser were 9.19 × 10−7 kg/m2s and
1.83 × 10−6 kg/m2s. Figures 12 and 13 show the comparison of
area-weighted-averaged erosion rate among six erosion models.
Although these models were derived from the air impingement
erosion test, some models surprisingly perform well in the ESP
under liquid–sand flow. As seen in Fig. 13, the Oka erosion model
offers the best agreement against experimental measurement on the
impeller with a 37% error, while the Haugen et al. model predicts
best on the diffuser with −14% error. The average error of impeller

Journal of Energy Resources Technology DECEMBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 122004-9


Fig. 13 Area-weighted-averaged erosion rate error analysis
and diffuser calculated using the models by Zhang et al. and Oka
et al. is the lowest among six models with 39% error. The results
of Zhang’s and Oka’s models are similar since Zhang’s model was
developed based on Oka’s formula. The Oka et al.’s model is incor-
porated to study the effect of pump type, particle size, and particle
density in the following studies.
Fig. 14 Impeller and diffuser erosion contour using Oka et al.’s model: (a) MTESP impeller, (b) TE2700 impeller, (c) DN1750 impel-
ler, (d) MTESP diffuser, (e) TE2700 diffuser, and ( f ) DN1750 diffuser
122004-10 / Vol. 141, DECEMBER 2019
Pump-Type Effect. Since two types of ESPs were simulated in
this study, mixed- (DN1750 and MTESP) and radial-type (TE2700)
ESPs, the pump-type effect on erosion can be accounted for. For
simplicity, the Oka et al.’s model is incorporated in CFD simula-
tions. The preliminary results are shown in Fig. 14. Erosion is
likely to be observed on blade tips and on the outside shroud in
the mixed-type ESPs, MTESP and DN1750. In the radial-type
ESP (TE2700), a higher erosion rate is predicted on the impeller-
inside shroud as displayed in Fig. 14(b). The erosion pattern on
radial-type ESP impeller is analogous to sand and cavitation
erosion patterns in Crant and Tabakoff’s [38] study.
As mixed-type ESPs, DN1750 and MTESP, have similar erosion
patterns in the impeller. The lower boosting ability gives a lower
erosion rate in the DN1750 as shown in Figs. 15(c) and 15(d).
On the other hand, Figs. 14(a)–14( f ) illustrate significant differ-
ences in erosion patterns and magnitudes between MTESP
(mixed) and TE2700 (radial). With close boundary conditions, the
erosion is more prominent in TE2700, especially on the inside
shroud surface. TE2700 possesses a flatter impeller, which results
in a sudden change of flow direction. Therefore, the solid particles
are more prone to collide with the impeller-inside shroud surface.
The relative position in the vertical direction (z-axis) is used in
Fig. 15, where 0 and 1 represent outlet and inlet. Both maximum
and moving average impact parameters are calculated within a
range of 0.01. In Fig. 15(a), the average impact angle varies from
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 15 Impact information on impeller-inside shroud of three pumps: (a) impact angle, (b) impact speed, (c) hit times, and
(d) erosion rate
0 deg to 5 deg for two mixed pumps (MTESP and DN1750) and
0 deg–10 deg for the radial pump (TE2700). The maximum
impact angle is around 14 deg for two mixed pumps and 25 deg
for the radial pump. Similarly, in Figs. 15(b) and 15(c), the
impact velocity and hit times of TE2700 are much higher. As a
result, the erosion rate is much higher on TE2700 than the others
as shown in Fig. 15.
Particle Diameter Effect. Tilly [39] proposed that the erosion
rate increases with the particle size before a more flat and stable
relationship is reached. Three-phase erosion tests conducted by
Kesana et al. [40] also show that the erosion rate does not always
increase with the particle diameter in an elbow. With the larger
size, the grains possess more inertia to resist the flow direction
changes and higher impact velocities when colliding the target sur-
faces. On the contrary, the particle number decreases with the
increase in the particle diameter. The erosion phenomenon
becomes more complicated with complex geometry, i.e., ESPs
[41]. Therefore, the particle size was changed from 50 µm to
1000 µm to investigate its effect.
Comparing erosion patterns as displayed in Fig. 16, it is convinc-
ing that erosion rate increases on the impeller-outside shroud
surface with the particle size increases from 50 µm to 200 µm.
However, increasing the particle diameter further to 1000 µm can
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
reduce the erosion on the impeller-outside shroud surface and
increase that on the impeller-inside shroud surface. The difference
can be caused by the significant mass change of a single particle.
In a mixed-type ESP impeller primary flow channel, the drag
force from fluid helps protect the impeller-inside shroud. For
large particles, the drag force is no longer strong enough to elimi-
nate the inertia of the solid. In the diffuser, the outside shroud
surface is always eroded more from solids and erosion rate increases
and becomes more concentrated with larger particles. The facet
maximum erosion rates and area-weighted-average erosion rates
shown in Figs. 17(a) and 17(b) illustrate that the larger particles
cause more wear when the sand diameter is smaller than 300 µm.
Above 300 µm, the changes depend on the selected surfaces.
Particle Density Effect. Normally, the particle density is
closely related to its hardness. The density will affect the trajec-
tory, while the effect of particle hardness is summarized as an
empirical factor in most erosion equations. However, particle hard-
ness may take less effect in downhole situations as mentioned in
the Introduction section [8]. Therefore, only particle density was
analyzed. Although normally produced sand particles only have
a density from 1500 kg/m3 to 3000 kg/m3, density of minerals
can vary from 3000 kg/m3 to 6000 kg/m3 or higher, and carbide
debris from drilling and production equipment can have an even
DECEMBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 122004-11
 Fig. 16 Particle size effect on the erosion patterns on the impeller and diffuser (a) 50 µm impeller, (b) 200 µm impeller,
(c) 1000 µm impeller, (d) 50 µm diffuser, (e) 200 µm diffuser, and ( f ) 1000 µm diffuser

higher density up to 15,000 kg/m3. Therefore, particles with
density from 1500 kg/m3 to 6000 kg/m3 were simulated in this
study in order to obtain the trend of density effect on particle tra-
jectory and erosion rate.
As shown in Fig. 18, the highest erosion is on the outside shroud
of both impeller and diffuser with simulated particle densities. With
higher density, the enlarged particle inertia is not big enough to
affect the erosion pattern. Therefore, the eroded surfaces are compa-
rable in Fig. 18. Both the maximum and average erosion rates,
shown in Figs. 19(a) and 19(b), increase with the density when it
is relatively small. The relation becomes flat and stable when the
density is higher than 3000 kg/m3. Therefore, the density of com-
monly produced sand particles has a strong influence on erosion
inside ESP.

Fig. 17 Particle diameter effect: (a) facet maximum erosion rate and (b) area-weighted-average erosion rate

122004-12 / Vol. 141, DECEMBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

 Fig. 18 Particle density effect on the erosion patterns on the impeller and diffuser: (a) 1500 kg/m3 impeller, (b) 2000 kg/m3 impel-
ler, (c) 3000 kg/m3 impeller, (d) 1500 kg/m3 diffuser, (e) 2000kg/m3 diffuser, and (f ) 3000 kg/m3 diffuser

Fig. 19 Particle density effect: (a) facet maximum erosion rate and (b) area-weighted-average erosion rate

Journal of Energy Resources Technology DECEMBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 122004-13

Conclusion
In this study, a numerical and experimental study of erosion
pattern and average weight loss of the impeller and diffuser was
conducted. The concluding remarks can be drawn as below:
(1) Erosion is more likely to occur on impeller blade edges, the
impeller-inside shroud around balance holes, impeller-outside
shroud adjacent to the impeller outlet, diffuser-outside shroud
in the throat area, and diffuser vane leading edges in ESPs.
(2) The Oka et al.’s erosion model has the best accuracy among
six studied models. The steady DPM simulation incorporated
with equations by Oka et al. is suggested to simulate erosion
in ESPs if the computational cost is a major concern.
(3) More severe erosion is observed in the radial-type ESPs. The
average impact angle can be 0–5 deg for 4-in. mixed-type
pumps (MTESP and DN1750), and 0–10 deg for a 5-in.
radial-type pump (TE2700).
(4) The predicted erosion rate in the mixed-type ESPs increases
with the corresponding pump best efficient liquid flowrate.
(5) In general, the produced sand has a density between 1500
and 3000 kg/m3 and a diameter less than 300 µm. Within
the above range, solid size and density almost have a linear
closure relationship with the erosion rate.
(6) The experimental and simulation results in this study can be a
guideline in the ESP field application to roughly estimate the
erosion damage. The CFD methodology can help design the
pump system and predict the pump life.
Acknowledgment
The authors appreciate Baker Hughes a GE company and
Schlumberger for their pump information, as well as Tulsa Univer-
sity Artificial Lift Projects (TUALP) members’ financial and techni-
cal support.
Nomenclature
n = empirical impact velocity exponential constant
K = empirical erosion parameter constant
M = total mass of impinging particles, kg
N = rotation speed, rpm
Q = flow rate, m/s
V = velocity, m/s
dP = particle diameter, m
BH = Brinell hardness, kg/mm
ER = erosion rate, target surface material removed by one particle,
kg/kg
Fs = particle shape factor, 1 for sharp, 0.53 for semi-round, or 0.2
for fully rounded sand particles
Hv = Vicker’s hardness, GPa
Rr = particle roundness factor from 0.1 to 1
VP = particle impact velocity, m/s
Greek Letters
θ = impact angle, deg
ρt = target material density, kg/m3
References
[1] Sun, B., Fu, W., Wang, Z., Xu, J., Chen, L., Wang, J., and Zhang, J., 2019,
“Characterizing the Rheology of Methane Hydrate Slurry in a Horizontal
Water-Continuous System,” SPE J., SPE Paper No. SPE-195586-PA.
[2] Bautista, J. F., and Taleghani, A. D., 2017, “The State of the Art and Challenges in
Geomechanical Modeling of Injector Wells: A Review Paper,” ASME J. Energy
Resour. Technol., 139(1), p. 012910.
[3] Mahmoud, M., 2017, “New Formulation for Sandstone Acidizing That Eliminates
Sand Production Problems in Oil and Gas Sandstone Reservoirs,” ASME
J. Energy Resour. Technol., 139(4), p. 042902.
[4] King, D., Traylor, F., and Stewart, R., 1983, “Abrasion Technology for
Electric Submergible Pumps,” Proceedings of the 58th SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 5–8, SPE Paper No.
SPE-12199-MS.
[5] Hashish, M., 1988, “Visualization of the Abrasive-Waterjet Cutting Process,”
Exp. Mech., 28(2), pp. 159–169.
122004-14 / Vol. 141, DECEMBER 2019
[6] Morrison, G., Carvajal, N., Saleh, R., and Bai, C., 2015, “The Measured Impact of
Erosion on the Rotodynamic and Performance Characteristics of a Mixed Flow
ESP,” Proceedings of the 44th Turbomachinery & 31st Pump Symposia,
Houston, TX, Sept. 14–17.
[7] Morrison, G., Yin, W., Agarwal, R., and Patil, A., 2018, “Development of
Modified Affinity Law for Centrifugal Pump to Predict the Effect of
Viscosity,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 140(9), p. 092005.
[8] Levy, A. V., and Chik, P., 1983, “The Effects of Erodent Composition and Shape
on the Erosion of Steel,” Wear, 89(2), pp. 151–162.
[9] Ahlert, K., 1994, “Effects of Particle Impingement Angle and Surface Wetting
on Solid Particle Erosion of AISI 1018 Steel,” MS thesis, University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, OK.
[10] Haugen, K., Kvernvold, O., Ronold, A., and Sandberg, R., 1995, “Sand Erosion
of Wear Resistant Material: Erosion in Choke Valves,” Wear, 186–187(1), pp.
179–188.
[11] Oka, Y. I., Okamura, K., and Yoshida, T., 2005, “Practical Estimation of Erosion
Damage Caused Part 2: Mechanical Properties of Materials Directly Associated
With Erosion Damage,” Wear, 259(1–6), pp. 102–109.
[12] Zhang, Y., Reuterfors, E. P., MacLaury, B. S., Shirazi, S. A., and Rybicki, E. F.,
2007, “Comparison of Computed and Measured Particle Velocities and Erosion in
Water and Airflows,” Wear, 263(1–6), pp. 330–338.
[13] Mansouri, A., 2014, Development of Erosion Equations for Slurry Flows,
Advisory Board Report, Erosion/Corrosion Research Center, the University of
Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
[14] DNV GL. 2015. “Managing Sand Production and Erosion,” Recommended
Practice DNVGL-RP-O501. DNV GL Company, Oslo, Norway.
[15] Shirazi, S. A., Shadly, J. R., McLaury, B. S., and Rybicki, E. F., 1995, “A
Procedure to Predict Solid Particle Erosion in Elbows and Tees,” ASME
J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 117(1), pp. 45–57.
[16] Edwards, J. K., 2000, “Development, Validation, and Application of a
Three-Dimensional, CFD-Based Erosion Prediction Procedure,” Ph.D. thesis,
University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
[17] Chen, Y., Patil, A., Chen, Y., Bai, C., Wang, Y., and Morrison, G., 2019,
“Numerical Study on the First Stage Head Degradation in an Electrical
Submersible Pump With Population Balance Model,” ASME J. Energy Resour.
Technol., 141(2), p. 022003.
[18] Marsis, E., and Russel, R., 2013, “A State-of-the-Art Computational Fluid
Dynamics Simulation for Erosion Rates Prediction in a Bottom Hole Electrical
Submersible Pump,” Proceedings of the SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Calgary,
AB, June 11–13, SPE Paper No. SPE-165452-MS.
[19] Russell, R., Shirazi, S., and Macrae, J., 2004, “A New Computational Fluid
Dynamics Model to Predict Flow Profiles and Erosion Rates in Downhole
Completion Equipment,” Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Sept. 26–29, SPE Paper No. SPE-90734-MS.
[20] Pirouzpanah, S., Patil, A., Chen, Y., and Morrison, G., 2019, “Predictive Erosion
Model for Mixed Flow Centrifugal Pump,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol.,
141(9), p. 092001.
[21] Pirouzpanah, S., and Morrison, G. L., 2014, “Predictive Erosion Modeling in an
ESP Pump,” Proceedings of the 4th Joint US-European Fluid Engineering
Division Summer Meeting, Chicago, IL, Aug. 3–7, ASME Paper No.
FEDSM2014-21101, p. V01BT10A004.
[22] Pirouzpanah, S., 2014, “Experimental Measurement of Multiphase Flow and CFD
Erosion Modeling in Electrical Submersible Pumps,” Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX.
[23] Basaran, B., 2017, “CFD Simulation for the Erosion on Electrical Submersible
Pump due to Viscosity and Air Presence,” MS thesis, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX.
[24] Zhang, J., 2018, “Improvements to a Semi-Mechanistic Erosion Prediction
Procedure,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
[25] Wang, Z., Sun, B., Wang, J., and Hou, L., 2014, “Experimental Study on the
Friction Coefficient of Supercritical Carbon Dioxide in Pipes,”
Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 25, pp. 151–161.
[26] Morrison, G., Chen, Y., Steck, D., Chen, Y., Bai, C., and Patil, A., 2017, “Effect
of Gas Presence on Erosive Wear of Split-Vane Electrical Submersible Pump,”
Proceedings of the 46th Turbomachinery & 33rd Pump Symposia, Houston,
TX, Dec. 11–14.
[27] Zhu, H., Zhu, J., Zhou, Z., Rutter, R., and Zhang, H.-Q., 2019, “Wear and Its Effect
on Electrical Submersible Pump ESP Performance Degradation by Sandy Flow:
Experiments and Modeling,” Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, TX, May 6–9, SPE Paper No. OTC-29480-MS.
[28] Zhu, H., Zhu, J., Zhou, Z., Rutter, R., and Zhang, H.-Q., 2019, “Experimental Study of
Sand Erosion in Multistage Electrical Submersible Pump ESP: Performance
Degradation, Wear and Vibration,” Proceedings of the International Petroleum
Technology Conference, Beijing, Mar. 26–28, SPE Paper No. IPTC-19264-MS.
[29] Beck, D., Nowitzki, W., and Shrum, J., 2019, “Electric Submersible Pump ESP
Vibration Characteristics Under Wear Conditions,” Proceedings of the SPE
Gulf Coast Section Electric Submersible Pumps Symposium, Woodlands, TX,
May 13–17, SPE Paper No. SPE-194388-MS.
[30] Zhu, J., Zhu, H., Cao, G., Zhang, J., Peng, J., Banjar, H., and Zhang, H.-Q., 2019,
“A New Mechanistic Model to Predict Boosting Pressure of Electrical
Submersible Pumps ESPs Under High-Viscosity Fluid Flow with Validation by
Experimental Data,” Proceedings of the SPE Gulf Coast Section Electric
Submersible Pumps Symposium, Woodlands, TX, May 13–17, SPE Paper No.
SPE-194384-MS.
[31] Zhou, S., Yan, H., Su, D., Navaneethakannan, S., and Chi, Y., 2018,
“Investigation on the Kinetics of Carbon Dioxide Hydrate Formation Using
Flow Loop Testing,” J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., 49, pp. 385–392.
Transactions of the ASME
[32] Zhu, H., Zhang, J., Zhu, J., Rutter, R., and Zhang, H.-Q., 2019, “A Numerical
Study of Turbulence Model and Rebound Model Effect on Erosion Simulations
in an Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP),” Proceedings of ASME-JSME-
KSME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference, San Francisco, CA, Jul. 28–
Aug. 1, ASME Paper No. AJKFLUIDS2019-5538.
[33] Zhu, J., and Zhang, H.-Q., 2017, “Numerical Study on Electrical-Submersible-Pump
Two-Phase Performance and Bubble-Size Modeling,” SPE Prod. Oper., 32(3),
pp. 267–278.
[34] Zhu, J., Zhang, J., Zhu, H., and Zhang, H.-Q., 2018, “A Mechanistic Model
to Predict Flow Pattern Transitions in Electrical Submersible Pump
Under Gassy Flow Condition,” Proceedings of the SPE Artificial Lift
Conference and Exhibition, Woodlands, TX, Aug. 28–30, SPE Paper No.
SPE-190927-MS.
[35] Zhu, H., Zhu, J., Rutter, R., Zhang, J., and Zhang, H.-Q., 2018, “Sand Erosion
Model Prediction, Selection and Comparison for Electrical Submersible Pump
(ESP) Using CFD Method,” Proceedings of the 5th Joint US-European Fluids
Engineering Division Summer Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, July
15–20, ASME Paper No. FEDSM2018-83179, p. V003T17A003.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
View publication stats
[36] Shi, Y., Zhu, H., Zhang, J., Yin, B., Xu, R., and Zhao, J., 2017, “Investigation of
Condition Parameters in Each Stage of a Three-Stage Helico-Axial Multiphase
Pump via Numerical Simulation,” Proceedings of the International Ocean
and Polar Engineering Conference, San Francisco, CA, June 25–30, SPE Paper
No. ISOPE-I-17-683.
[37] Shi, Y., Zhu, H., Zhang, J., Zhang, J., and Zhao, J., 2018, “Experiment and
Numerical Study of a New Generation Three-Sage Multiphase Pump,” J. Pet.
Sci. Eng., 159, pp. 471–484.
[38] Crant, G., and Tabakoff, W., 1975, “Erosion Prediction in Turbomachinery
Resulting From Environmental Solid Particles,” J. Aircr., 12(5), pp. 471–478.
[39] Tilly, G., 1973, “A Two Stage Mechanism of Ductile Erosion,” Wear, 23(1),
pp. 87–96.
[40] Kesana, N. R., Throneberry, J. M., Mclaury, B. S., Shirazi, S. A., and Rybicki,
E. F., 2013, “Effect of Particle Size and Liquid Viscosity on Erosion in Annular
and Slug Flow,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol, 136(1), p. 012901.
[41] Dabirian, R., Mohan, R., Shoham, O., and Kouba, G., “Sand Transport in Slightly
Upward Inclined Multiphase Flow,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 140(7),
p. 072901.
DECEMBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 122004-15