J Fail. Anal. and Preven.

(2017) 17:1067–1080
DOI 10.1007/s11668-017-0340-1

TECHNICAL ARTICLE—PEER-REVIEWED

Erosion Failure of Horizontal Pipe Reducing Wall in Power-Law

Fluid Containing Particles via CFD–DEM Coupling Method
Jiarui Cheng . Ningsheng Zhang . Zhen Li . Yihua Dou .
Yinping Cao

Submitted: 15 July 2017 / Published online: 28 August 2017

Ó ASM International 2017

Abstract A CFD–DEM-based two-phase flow model and
a test-based erosion model are used to obtain the specific
erosion on the reducing wall of sudden contraction sec-
tion. The dimensionless filtered governing equations are
adopted for incompressible power-law fluid flow, and the
Hertz–Mindlin (no-slip) model for particle–particle and
particle–wall contact. The annular reducing wall is divided
into two erosion areas in radial direction based on erosion
form and divided into four parts in the circumferential
direction. The calculated result is verified with a full-scale
experiment, and it shows a good agreement. The calculated
results show that the erosion rate of the reducing wall is
mainly determined by the flow velocity, and the erosion
area is affected by liquid viscosity. The serious erosion
region is located in the inner edge of the sample lower part,
and this region expends to the outer circumference with the
increasing flow velocity and the reducing liquid viscosity.
The increase in flow velocity expands the flow region
where the particle can impact the wall and thus increases
the particle impact numbers.

J. Cheng (&)  N. Zhang

State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering,
Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049,
People’s Republic of China
e-mail: cjr88112@163.com; 352595699@qq.com

N. Zhang
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Xi’an Shiyou University,
Xi’an 710065, People’s Republic of China

Z. Li  Y. Dou  Y. Cao
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Xi’an Shiyou
University, Xi’an 710065, People’s Republic of China

123
1068 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080

Graphical Abstract

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080 1069

Keywords Erosion analysis 

Superscripts
Sudden contraction section  Power-law fluid flow 
n Flow behavior index
CFD–DEM coupling approach
m Impact velocity power-law coefficient
List of symbols Subscripts
Ap Particle cross-sectional area (m2) i First particle
Cd Drag coefficient (–) j Second particle
D Inside diameter of circular pipe (m) p Particle
dp Diameter of particle (m) l Liquid
Ee The measured erosion rate (mm/h)
Ep The calculated erosion rate (mm/h)
Fi,n Normal force of particle (N) Introduction
Ft Total force of particle (N)
Fd Fluid–particle drag force (N) Suspended particle carrying technique has been common-
Fd Inter-particle contact force in tangential place for particle transportation in petroleum and natural
direction (N) gas industries. For example, hydraulic fracturing technol-
Fn,ij Inter-particle contact force in normal ogy utilizes cross-linked fluid to carry particles into a
direction, N wellbore (for detailed description of hydraulic fracturing
Fs Particle shape coefficient (dimensionless) technology, reader is referred to [1]). The constant particle
Ii Moment of inertia of particle i (N m) impacts on the pipe wall and the inner surface of pipe sheet
K Flow consistency coefficient (Pa sn) (that connects the two pipes) during particle transportation
kn Normal spring stiffness (N/mm) can lead to serious erosion, frequent failure, and loss of
L Distance from the inner edge of the sample valuable production time for pipeline.
(m) Solid particle erosion of special pipe section has been
mp Single particle mass (kg) studied from many tests, such as mixed media flows, par-
nij Normal unit vector (–) ticle sizes and contents, mechanical properties of the metal
N Number of particles in contact (–) surface, and corrosive characteristics [2]. Malka et al. [3]
rp Radius of particle (m) have investigated erosion–corrosion behavior in special
ri Radius of particle i (m) pipe section, and their results showed that erosion rate
rj Radius of particle j (m) suddenly increased in pipe constriction section. Hence,
R Relative error (%) most studies focused on sudden contraction pipe or pipe
Rl Inside radius of circular pipe (m) cavity in liquid or gas phase. Wong et al. [4] obtained
Rp Particle Reynolds number (–) material loss information in air-suspended sands flowing
Re Reynolds number of fluid flow (–) through aluminum pipe annular cavity. The results con-
Tt,i Torque generated by tangential forces firmed that the highest erosion rate occurred on the leading
(N m) edge of forward-facing step, and the depth of erosion per
Tr,ij Rolling friction torque (N m) unit mass on the cavity was one-third of metal loss on pipe
ux Axial velocity of fluid (m/s) surface. The results of Lin et al. [5] research also showed
u Fluid velocity (m/s) that micro-erosion occurred on the top area of aft wall, and
Vp Particle volume (m3) the height difference between cavity walls markedly
v Particle velocity (m/s) affected the maximum erosion rate.
a; b; w; x; y; z Empirical constants in angle functions (–) Although the erosion test in sudden contraction section
Greek symbols could obtain the eroded surface geometry or the trajectories
c Shear rate (s1) of particle movements, some critical parameters of erosion
s Shear stress (Pa) calculation, such as particle distribution, particle impact
g Apparent viscosity (mPa s) velocity and angle, were often obtained by numerical
gn Normal damping coefficient (N/s/m) simulation. Habib et al. [6] used the steady-state time-av-
cd Dimensionless shear rate (–) eraged conservation equations to solve the continuous
ql Liquid density (kg m3) phase flow, and particles were tracked using Lagrangian
u Scaling coefficient (–) particle tracking. Their results indicated a region close to
a Particle impact angle (°) the corner where erosion did not occur, and the maximum
h Critical angle of particle impact (°) erosion occurred at the inner tip of contraction. Beside this,

123
1070 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080

Badr et al. [7] have proven inlet velocity and particle size
exerted significant effects on erosion rate of reducing wall.
However, as for power-law fluid containing particles,
the time-varying fluid flow inevitably causes various par-
ticle distributions in the pipe and erosion patterns on metal
surface, which requires measurements to be taken in a very
short time due to the time-varying liquid viscosity. But
such a short test time reduces the surface erosion depth,
thus increasing the measuring errors.
In the present work, the CFD–DEM (computational fluid
dynamics and discrete element method) coupling method,
which is based on the test coefficients, was used to predict
the erosion rate on the reducing wall at different flow
velocities and liquid viscosities, and the calculated data
were verified by comparing with the experimental result.
Finally, the erosion-affected flow region and the erosion
pattern of reducing wall have been discussed in detail.

Method

Governing Equations

Power-law fluid can be subdivided into three different

Fig. 1 Graphic representation of the linear-spring/dashpot
soft-sphere model (from Gupta et al. [11]) types based on their flow behavior index value:

Table 1 Erosion sub-model parameters for use in erosion prediction

u Fs m a b x y z w h

8.94 9 108 0.35 1.57 5.9 9 105 7.2 9 105 0.75 0.21 0.83 1.2 70

Fig. 2 Erosion simulation

scheme

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080 1071

pseudoplastic, Newtonian, and dilatant fluids. Shear stress for incompressible non-Newtonian flow. These equations
s is given by s ¼ Kðou=oyÞn . When the exponent n is less are as follows [9]:
than one, the power law predicts that effective viscosity o
ui
will decrease with indefinitely increasing shear rate [8]. ¼0
oxi
The fully developed pipe flow of power-law fluids in a   
o
ui oui uj op 1 o n1 o ui o
uj o
sij
sudden contraction can be treated as governing equations þ þ ¼ c þ 
ot oxj oxi Re oxj d oxj oxi oxj
ðEq 1Þ
Table 2 CFD–DEM simulation parameters and geometric
dimensions of domain The apparent viscosity g of fluid is given by g ¼ Kcn1 ,
DEM parameter Value and the Reynolds number is defined as Re ¼ ql u2n n
x D =K.
The dimensionless shear rate is defined as: cd ¼ cD=ux .
Liquid phase The fluid is assumed to enter the upstream region with fully
Liquid density (kg/m3) 1020 developed velocity.
Liquid viscosity (mPa s) 200–300
Solid phase Discrete Element Model
Diameter (mm) 0.65
Mass (mg) 0.26 The discrete element method (DEM) is based on the inte-
Sphericity 0.85 gration of Newton’s second law to obtain the evolution in
Particle density (kg/m3) 1850 time of the (translational and rotational) velocity and
Number of particles in each calculation 1000 position of the particles. The translation and rotational
Geometry motions of each and individual particle can be expressed by
Upstream pipe length in the axial direction (mm) 2000 [10]:
Downstream pipe length in the axial direction (mm) 1000
dvi X N
Circumferential phase angle for each erosion area (°) 60 Ft;i ¼ mi ¼ ðFt;ij þ Fn;ij Þ þ Fd;i þ mi g ðEq 2Þ
The critical erosion area width in radial direction (mm) 4
dt j¼1
Discretization length for critical erosion area Dr (mm) 0.02
and

Fig. 3 Test sample mesh of the

reducing wall

123
1072 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080

Fig. 4 Schematic diagram and actual picture of experimental setup: 1 electrical control cabinet; 2 liquid storage tank containing electric heater
(2 m3); 3 screw pump; 4, 6 cutoff valve; 5 flow meter; 7 computer; 8 high-speed camera; 9 test section; 10 pressure transducer

dxi X N [11]. A simplest model is proposed by Cundall and Strack

Ii ¼ ðTt;ij þ Tr;ij Þ ðEq 3Þ [12] where a linear-spring and dashpot model is applied to
dt j¼1 calculate the inter-particle contact force (Fig. 1). In this
The total force acting on a particle is calculated as a sum model, the normal contract force between particle i and j is
of the total contact, the gravitational force, and the fluid expressed by:
interaction force. The total torque Ti results from a vector
Fn;ij ¼ kn Dxnij þ gn Dvn ðEq 4Þ
summation of the torque at each particle–particle contact

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080 1073

The overlap Dx between two particles is given by: Fs = 1.0 for sharp, 0.53 for semi-rounded, or 0.2 for
    fully rounded sand particles [17], and f(a) is the function
Dx ¼ ri þ rj  xj  xi  ðEq 5Þ
of the impact angle that is given by the following
where xi and xj are the positions of particle i and j, equations:
respectively. The normal unit vector is defined as:
xj  xi aa2 þ ba for a  h
nij ¼   ðEq 6Þ f ðaÞ ¼
xj  xi  x cos2 a sinðwaÞ þ y sin2 a þ z for a [ h
ðEq 14Þ
The relative velocity of particle contract point is
expressed by: According to the previous studies using jet flow system
  at the Xi’an Shiyou University [18], the erosion rate of
Dv ¼ vi  vj þ Li xi þ Lj xj  nij ðEq 7Þ super 13Cr stainless steel decreases with increasing impact
The normal component of the relative velocity is: angle when the angle is less than 70°, and the new erosion
  sub-model parameters used in Eq 13 are listed in Table 1.
Dvn ¼ Dvnij nij ðEq 8Þ

With the similar form, tangential component of the

contact force is given by: Implementation
Ft;ij ¼ kt Dy þ gt Dvt ðEq 9Þ
As has been noted, the erosion prediction process involved
The fluid–particle contract force mainly refers to drag calculations of liquid–particle, particle–particle, and parti-
force, because it plays the major role in the force acting on cle–wall, which was completed via CFD coupling DEM.
the particles by the fluid [6]. The drag force model [13] can The CFD code, ANSYS FLUENT, was employed to model
be expressed by:

~ 1
F d ¼ Cd ql Ap ju  vjðu  vÞ ðEq 10Þ
2
where the following equation for the drag coefficient is
obtained:
( .
24 1 þ 0:15Re0:687 Rep Rep \1000
Cd ¼ p
0:44 Rep [ 1000
ðEq 11Þ
where the particle Reynolds number Rep is defined as:
ql ju  vjdp
Rep ¼ : ðEq 12Þ
Kcn1
Erosion Model

A detailed literature survey by Meng and Ludema [14]

revealed that more than 30 erosion models exist for particle
impact erosion to date. Most of these models focused on
the following aspects of research work: material properties
of eroded material (specimen hardness and toughness),
impact properties of erodent particles (size, shape, velocity,
and angle), and erosion conditions (temperature, fluid
medium, and corrosive characteristics). The most impor-
tant factors for erosion models used in simulation are
particle impact velocity and impact angle. Most of these
models are semiempirical model that was proposed by
Chen et al. [13], McLaury [15] and Ahlert [16]. According
to Ahlert’s research, the erosion ratio is given as follows: Fig. 5 Structure of the test section and the installation diagram of
m two annular samples
ER ¼ uFs v f ðaÞ ðEq 13Þ

123
1074 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080

Fig. 6 Ccomparison between the simulation results and experimental results

the continuous phase flow. And the discrete particle motion

modeling was accomplished by the DEM code EDEM. As
shown in Fig. 2, when a stable fluid solution was obtained,
the drag and contract forces between fluid and particle were
calculated by DEM using DEM time step. Subsequently,
the new particle positions transferred to the coupling
module between the CFD and DEM. Flow field was
updated until the results satisfied the accuracy requirement
(the calculated residual is less than 103). Two calculations
were performed independently, but they were coupled at
regular intervals, commonly with multiple DEM time steps
for a single CFD time step. The particles were continuously
injected from the inlet, and the total particle number was
1000. Once the parameters of particle impact on the wall
were obtained, the next step was to put them into Eq 13 to Fig. 7 Relative error between the calculated erosion rate Ep and
calculate erosion rate. measured erosion rate Ee
The full-scale test section was simulated with parame-
ters for fluid, particle, and geometry, as summarized in annular erosion zones (the total width was 4 mm, and grid
Table 2. The sample wall was divided into four erosion precision was 0.02 mm), as shown in Fig. 3. A grid sen-
areas, and the inner edge of the target consisted of four sitivity study was found that a grid with 1,256,000 cells is

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080 1075

suitable for erosion calculation. The physical boundary

conditions for the flow system under consideration can be
written as follows:
On the reducing wall: no-slip condition was applied,
ouy
ux ¼ uy ¼ 0; ¼ 0: ðEq 15Þ
ox
At inlet: a fully developed flow was assumed,
 1
n dp n nþ1n nþ1
ux ¼ Rl  r n ; uy ¼ 0: ðEq 16Þ
n þ 1 2Kdx
At outlet: it is located sufficiently far contraction
section,
oux ouy
¼ 0; ¼ 0: ðEq 17Þ
ox ox

Verification and Results

Experimental Description

A full-scale pipe flow experiment was used to verify the

calculated results. The detail of a flow loop and an image of
the test system are shown in Fig. 4. The test section con-
sisted of a sudden contraction and two straight pipes as
shown in Fig. 5. The large-diameter pipe (D = 50 mm)
was connected to a small-diameter pipe (D = 25 mm).
Two annular samples (super 13Cr tubing steel) were fixed
by four screws on the reducing wall. The outer diameter of
the sample was 45 mm, and the inner diameter was 25 mm.
The base fluid used in this test was added 0.4 wt.%
hydroxypropyl guar gum as the thickener and 0.3 wt.%
inorganic boron as the cross-linking agent. The liquid
viscosities before and after experiments were larger than
375 and 150 mPa s, respectively, and the liquid viscosity
was stabilized in a range of 300–200 mPa s during Fig. 8 Division of sample surface area in radial direction. a Image of
experiment. In order to avoid excessive temperature rise erosion area; b surface erosion morphology at the inner edge
measured by confocal scanning laser microscopy; c surface erosion
and to ensure adequate erosion time, the inlet flow veloc-
morphology at outer circumference
ities in this experiment were set to 1.5–3.5 m/s,
respectively, and each erosion test was limited to 1 h.
relative errors are almost less than 20% near the inner edge
Comparison of Experimental and Simulation Results of the sample but are more than 30% at the outermost
circumference. As shown in Fig. 8, the inner edge of
To verify the accuracy of the computational scheme, the sample surface underwent multiple overlapping impacts
simulation results were compared with the experimental with formation of craters, platelets, and extruding lips and
data at the velocity of 2.5 m/s in erosion area 2 (Fig. 6). the outer circumference surface suffers from independent
The experimental result was presented as a surface profile, particle impingement. The repeated particle impacts cause
which was verified by H1200WIDE confocal scanning uniform thinning of wall thickness, thus leading to a good
laser microscopy (Lasertec. Co., Ltd., Japan). And the agreement with the calculated results. But for the inde-
calculated results were given in the manner of discrete pendent impact area of metal surface, the random particle
data. If the relative error between the calculated erosion impact position and too-small erosion depth both will
rate Ep and measured erosion rate Ee is treated as increase the relative error. Therefore, the numerical pre-
R = (Ep  Ee)/Ee 9 100% (Fig. 7), we will find that the diction results are more satisfactory in the area where the

123
1076 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080

particle impact repeatedly. We call this area a fatigue

erosion area (FEA) and another erosion area is transition
erosion area (TEA). The depth of transition erosion area is
almost less than one-tenth of maximum erosion depth of
fatigue erosion area as shown in Fig. 6, and this difference
becomes more obvious over erosion time.

Erosion Distribution

Similar to previous research results [6, 7], both of the

erosion widths and the erosion depths of each erosion area
increase with increasing flow velocity, and moreover, the
closer to the inner edge is, the larger the erosion rate gra-
dient there is, as shown in Fig. 9. Besides this, the serious
erosion region is located in the lower part of the inner edge Fig. 10 Maximum erosion depth of different erosion areas vs. flow
(Erosion area 3) and only a small amount of particles velocity

u=1.5m/s, γ=300mPa·s u=1.5m/s, γ=250mPa·s u=1.5m/s, γ=200mPa·s

Erosion u=2.5m/s, γ=300mPa·s u=2.5m/s, γ=250mPa·s u=2.5m/s, γ=200mPa·s

rate
(mm/h)

u=3.5m/s, γ=300mPa·s u=3.5m/s, γ=250mPa·s u=3.5m/s, γ=200mPa·s

Fig. 9 Erosion rates and distributions of reducing wall obtained by numerical calculation at different flow velocities and liquid viscosities, each
column: the inlet flow velocities are 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 m/s, respectively, each row: the liquid viscosities are 300, 250, 200 mPa s, respectively

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080
impact the outer circumference, which causes some dis-
continuous erosion areas on the surface.
When the inlet flow velocity is increased, the change in
erosion rate is more significant than that in erosion area, as
shown in each column of Fig. 9. Most particle impact
positions focus on the inner edge of the reducing wall and
expend gradually to the outer circumference. Meanwhile,
the difference in erosion rate among different erosion areas
is also reduced. Erosion area 4 has the maximum erosion
depth when the flow velocity is less than 2.5 m/s (Fig. 10);
however, most serious erosion area becomes erosion area 3
when the flow velocity is greater than 2.5 m/s.
When the liquid viscosity is decreased, as shown in each
row of Fig. 9, the erosion area extends to the outermost
circumference, especially in erosion area 3, which is
caused by the impingement between deposited particles the
lower surface of the reducing wall. The width of FEA
Fig. 11 Erosion widths of different erosion areas vs. flow velocity
Fig. 12 Schematic diagram of
particle movement in different
upstream flow regions before
particles impact the sample
surface. The inlet flow velocity
is 2.5 m/s
1077
accounts for 25 or 35% of the width of TEA, and all of
their widths increase slowly with the increasing flow
velocity (Fig. 11).
Discussion
Particle Dynamical States
According to the particle impact properties, as shown in
Fig. 12, the flow region in sudden contraction section can
be divided as follows:
Erosion-unaffected flow region In the flow region 1,
most of the particles flow into the downstream without
impacting the sample surface. These particles will rarely
erode the sample surface.
Erosion-affected flow region This region includes flow
regions 2 and 3. In flow region 2, some particles directly
impact the inner edge of sample and are carried by the
incoming flow into the flow region 1. And other particles
will move into the viscous sub-layer region (flow region
3) due to particle–particle collisions and subsequently
impact the sample surface.
If a particle is located in flow region 2, as shown in
Fig. 13, the particle movement will exhibit three states
including horizontal, curvilinear, and radial movements.
The increase in inlet flow velocity directly causes the growth
of liquid radial velocity, thereby increasing the erosion-af-
fected flow region and causing more particles impact the
reducing wall. Figure 14 shows that the number of impact
particles at the flow velocity of 3.5 m/s is almost twice at the
flow velocity of 1.5 m/s (c = 300 mPa s), and this change is
more significant at the viscosity of 200 mPa s.
123
1078 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080

If a particle is located in flow region 3, the fluid will
either calm the particle or drive it to new flow region. In
this region, as shown in Fig. 15, there is a vortex that varies
with the upstream flow velocity. When the drag force
acting on a particle is far greater than its own gravity, the
particle will be carried to the flow region 2 and impact the
sample or move to the downstream pipe. The drag force is
0.03, 0.06, and 0.07 N, respectively, at the inlet velocity of
1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 m/s, which are far greater than the gravity
(2.6 9 106 N). Therefore, the vortex in flow region 3
carries the settling particles into the main flow region and
makes particle impact on the wall again.
Additionally, Fig. 16 shows that the impact angles at
outer circumference are several times larger than that the
inner edge of sample, and the impact angles in erosion
area 3 are generally smaller than those in other areas. As
shown in our previous experimental results [18], the ero-
sion rate decreases with increasing impact angle when the
angle is less than 70° for super 13Cr stainless steel.
Therefore, the low angle impact is the main reason for
causing a serious erosion at the inner edge of sample
lower part.

Failure Form of Reducing Wall

The particle impact energy is generally affected by the

impact velocity and angle. Meanwhile, the particle velocity
component is typically controlled by changing the particle
impact angle. Therefore, according to the particle impact
angle greater than or less than 45° [19], the surface erosion
pattern under single particle impact for ductile material can
be divided into deformation control (45° \ a ^ 90°) and
cutting removal control (0° \ a ^ 45°). The deformation
control is sufficient to produce plastic extrusion, and the
cutting removal action causes the material to be peeled off
at once. Figure 16 shows that the most impact angles are
less than 30 degrees on the reducing wall, which indicates
the erosion pattern on the reducing wall tending to cutting Fig. 14 Number of impact particles on the reducing wall vs. flow
removal control. velocity and fluid viscosity in each of 1000 injected particles

Fig. 13 Influence of flow velocity on erosion-affected flow region in the sudden contraction section

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080 1079

Flow velocity
(m/s) u=1.5 m/s u=2.5m/s u=3.5m/s

Fig. 15 Flow streamlines in different inlet flow velocities in sudden contraction section

2. The erosion rate of the reducing wall is mainly

determined by the flow velocity, and the erosion area
is affected by liquid viscosity in power-law fluid flow.
3. The growth of flow velocity increases the distribution
range of particle movements in upstream flow section,
and moreover, it causes more particles to impact the
reducing wall. Meanwhile, the increase in the number
of particle impacts at the lower edge of reducing wall
results in serious erosion rate. This serious erosion area
expends to the outer circumference with the increasing
flow velocity and the decreasing liquid viscosity and
reaches a steady state finally.
4. The most particle impact numbers and lowest impact
angle are the main reasons for causing serious erosion
in the lower part of the reducing wall.
Fig. 16 Particle impact angles vs. the distance from the inner edge

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the National Nat-

Conclusion
In this study, the CFD–DEM coupling method was used to
predict the erosion of different circumferential areas on the
reducing wall. The conclusions derived from the present
study can be summarized as follows:
ural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51404198), and it was
also performed by the group of profession and innovation for well
testing integrity and safety of Xi’an Shiyou University.
References

1. The simulation results show a good agreement with the
experiment in the area (fatigue erosion area) where the
particle impact repeatedly, but the accuracy of the
results in few and scattered erosion areas (transition
erosion area) is relatively poor. Although the width of
transition erosion area is almost three times the width
of fatigue erosion area, the depth of transition erosion
area is less than one-tenth of maximum erosion depth.
1. C. Rivard, D. Lavoie, R. Lefebvre et al., An overview of Cana-
dian shale gas production and environmental concerns. Int. J.
Coal Geol. 126(5), 64–76 (2013)
2. A.K. Mahmood, A.A. Khadom, Erosion–corrosion of low-carbon
steel in the absence and presence of slurry in saline water: kinetic
and mathematical views. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 16, 1071–1081
(2016)
3. R. Malka, S. Nešić, D.A. Gulino, Erosion–corrosion and syner-
gistic effects in disturbed liquid-particle flow. Wear 262(7–8),
791–799 (2007)

123
1080
4. C.Y. Wong, C. Solnordal, A. Swallow et al., Experimental and
computational modelling of solid particle erosion in a pipe
annular cavity. Wear 303(1–2), 109–129 (2013)
5. Z. Lin, H. Xu, Y. Wang et al., Experimental study of particle
erosion in a cavity with a height difference between its walls.
Powder Technol. 286, 378–384 (2015)
6. M.A. Habib, H.M. Badr, R.B. Mansour et al., Erosion rate cor-
relations of a pipe protruded in an abrupt pipe contraction. Int. J.
Impact Eng. 34(8), 1350–1369 (2007)
7. H.M. Badr, M.A. Habib, R.B. Mansour et al., Numerical inves-
tigation of erosion threshold velocity in a pipe with sudden
contraction. Comput. Fluids 34(6), 721–742 (2005)
8. S. Dhinakaran, M.S.N. Oliveira, F.T. Pinho et al., Steady flow of
power-law fluids in a 1:3 planar sudden expansion. J. Non
Newton. Fluid 198(8), 48–58 (2013)
9. P.S. Gnambode, P. Orlandi, M. Ould-Rouiss et al., Large-Eddy
simulation of turbulent pipe flow of power-law fluids. Int. J. Heat
Fluid Flow 54, 196–210 (2015)
10. N. Iqbal, C. Rauh, Coupling of discrete element model (DEM)
with computational fluid mechanics (CFD): a validation study.
Appl. Math. Comput. 277, 154–163 (2016)
11. P. Gupta, J. Sun, Y.J. Ooi, CFD-DEM simulation of a dense
fluidized bed: wall boundary and particle size effects. Powder
Technol. 293, 37–47 (2016)
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2017) 17:1067–1080
12. P.A. Cundall, O.D.L. Strack, A discrete numerical model for
granular assemblies. Géotechnique 29(18), 47–65 (1979)
13. X. Chen, B.S. McLaury, S.A. Shirazi, Application and experi-
mental validation of a computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based
erosion prediction model in elbows and plugged tees. Comput.
Fluids 33(10), 1251–1272 (2004)
14. H.C. Meng, K.C. Ludema, Wear models and predictive equa-
tions: their form and content. Wear 181(95), 181–183 (1995)
15. B. McLaury, Predicting solid particle erosion resulting from
turbulent fluctuations in oilfield geometries, Master’s Thesis, The
University of Tulsa, 1996
16. K. Ahlert, Effects of particle impingement angle and surface
wetting on solid particle erosion of AISI 1018 steel, Master’s
Thesis, The University of Tulsa, 1994
17. I. Finnie, An experimental study of erosion. Wear 3(2), 76 (1960)
18. Y.A. Zhao, W.B. Cai, L. Cui, et al, Erosion of premium con-
nection cross-over joint in solid-liquid flow, in Proceedings of the
International Conference on Engineering Technology and
Application, May 29–30, Xia Men, China, EDP Sciences, 2015
19. C. Huang, S. Chiovelli, P. Minev et al., A comprehensive phe-
nomenological model for erosion of materials in jet flow. Powder
Technol. 187(3), 237–279 (2008)