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

net/publication/307942244

A Semi-Mechanistic Model for Predicting Sand

Erosion Threshold Velocities in Gas and
Multiphase Flow Production

Conference Paper · September 2016

DOI: 10.2118/181487-MS

CITATIONS READS

0 98

3 authors:

Siamack Shirazi Brenton McLaury

University of Tulsa University of Tulsa
178 PUBLICATIONS 1,500 CITATIONS 119 PUBLICATIONS 1,001 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hadi Arabnejad
University of Tulsa
14 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Abrasive erosion modeling in particulate flow View project

Advanced Inspection Technology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hadi Arabnejad on 03 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
SPE-181487-MS

A Semi-Mechanistic Model for Predicting Sand Erosion Threshold Velocities

in Gas and Multiphase Flow Production

S. A. Shirazi, B. S. McLaury, and H. Arabnejad, The Erosion/Corrosion Research Center, The University of Tulsa

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dubai, UAE, 26-28 September 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Sand production causes many operational problems for the oil and gas industry and can cause erosion
of production equipment, well tubing, elbows and fittings. Operators would like to predict a threshold
operational flow condition below which erosion failure is minimized. The API RP 14 E provides a guide
to calculate a "threshold erosional velocity" in multiphase flow production, but this guideline is not
intended for sand erosion! As an alternative to API RP 14E, a modified model for calculation of erosion in
multiphase flow is presented that considers the effects of particle velocities in gas and liquid phases upstream
of the elbow. Local fluid velocities in multiphase flow are used as a basis to determine representative
particle impact velocities. Additionally, the effects of turbulent eddies near the elbow walls are considered
through a particle Stokes number. Erosion experiments are also conducted on elbows in a 2 to 4-inch
large scale multiphase flow loop with gas, liquid and sand flowing in vertical and horizontal test sections.
Based on the experimental data for different flow regimes including slug, wet gas and annular flow, a
method for improving a previous model has been discussed and is implemented to predict erosion rates in
multiphase flow. The results from the model are compared to a variety of data and also to a state-of-the-art
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) erosion calculation model for multiphase flow for cases where data
is available. The results from the current predictions are also compared to CFD calculation models for larger
diameter pipes and higher pressure conditions, and the model predictions are found to be in good agreement
with CFD results. The current model is by far much simpler than CFD methods that are utilized by some
operators to predict erosion in elbows and tees. Yet the model predictions match CFD results for larger
diameter pipes and field conditions. Additionally, this model can be used to determine threshold erosional
velocity and thus is a potential candidate to replace the guideline provided by the API RP 14E.

Introduction
Sand production is inevitable in many production conditions. Erosion of production equipment, well tubing,
elbows and fittings is a major operating problem that costs the petroleum industry millions of dollars each
year. Produced sand particles in the oil/gas production fluid impinge on the inner surfaces of the pipes,
fittings, and valves that result in solid particle erosion. In certain production situations with corrosive
fluids, erosion is compounded with corrosion causing severe erosion-corrosion. Even in situations when
2 SPE-181487-MS

sand control means are utilized such as well gravel packing and sand screens, small sand particles can
pass through these preventive means and plug sand screens promoting higher flow velocities through other
portions of sand screens causing failure of sand screens. This in turn allows higher sand production rates of
even larger particles promoting higher erosion at threshold flow velocities and resulting in loss of equipment
and production downtime.
Solid particle erosion is a mechanical process by which material is removed gradually from a solid surface
due to repeated impingement of small solid particles on the metal surface. Since sand particles are entrained
in produced oil and gas, sand erosion is an important problem in flow assurance. Operators would like to
determine threshold operating conditions below which erosion as a result of sand production is minimized.
Traditionally many operators relied on guidelines such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) RP 14E
to determine an "erosional threshold velocity," but they now realize, as discussed in the literature, that the
guideline does not account for sand erosion (McLaury and Shirazi, 2000; Salama, 2000). Previously, a
method for predicting an erosional threshold velocity was developed (Shirazi et al., 1995). This method
accounted for many variables that governed sand erosion rate and in the current work has been updated
accounting for additional physics, a newly developed mechanistic erosion model, and empirical factors
utilizing a larger database. The current model has been compared to available experimental data in the
literature and data collected at the E/CRC. The method is also compared to several Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) simulations and the advantages of the current model are described.

Background
The erosion process is highly complicated due to the number of parameters affecting its severity in the oil
and gas production such as production flow rate, sand rate, fluid properties, flow regime, sand properties,
sand shape and size, wall material of equipment, and geometry of the equipment. The parameters affecting
erosion rate are schematically shown in Figure 1. There are three important parts to the erosion model. One is
impact condition characterized by impact velocity of particles. The other parameters are particle properties
and material characteristics. Ideally, an erosion model can account for all these factors. However, due to the
complexity of erosion, commonly empirical erosion models are available in the literature that are used to
predict erosion. A multitude of empirical erosion models exist in the literature, but recently Arabnejad et
al. (2015a), based on earlier work of Finne (1960) and Bitter (1963), developed a semi-mechanistic erosion
model that accounts for several material characteristics and particle sizes. Arabnejad et al. (2015b) have
also developed a correlation that can account for the effects of relative hardness of particles and materials.
Most erosion models including the models developed by Arabnejad et al. (2015a) account for the impact
speed and angle of particles as well. But, one of the most challenging parts of erosion prediction faced by
flow assurance is calculating impact speed and angle of the particles with the pipe or well surface for a
variety of flow variables and conditions and for various particle sizes and shapes that may be entrained in
the produce fluids.
SPE-181487-MS 3

Figure 1—Parameters Affecting Solid particle Erosion.

Prediction of erosion in multiphase pipelines is a complex problem mainly due to the lack of information
on solid particle distribution in the liquid and gas phases and their corresponding velocities. The particle
impact velocity is affected by the pipe geometry, carrying fluid properties and velocity, flow pattern, particle
size and distribution in the flow. Among different multiphase flow patterns in horizontal and vertical flows,
severe erosion damage can occur in annular and slug flows with high gas velocities and low liquid velocities.
There is a lack of accurate mechanistic models to predict solid particle erosion, so there is a need to develop
engineering prediction models for multiphase flows.
Currently the most accurate models to predict solid particle trajectories are based on Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) (Edwards, et al., 1998; Chen et al., 2006; Forder et al., 1998; Zhang et al., 2007). Within
a CFD modeling approach for dilute concentration of solids, first a flow field is calculated. Then particles
are entrained in the flow stream and their trajectories are calculated. Depending on solid concentration,
various modeling approaches are available to predict or to account for particle-fluid and particle-particle
interactions. The output of the CFD based models are particle impact characteristics that are input to an
erosion model, such as the one developed by Arabnejad et al., to predict solid particle erosion. These
modeling approaches work relatively well for simple geometries such as elbows and tees when sand is
entrained in a single-phase carrier fluid such as a gas or liquid. Even these approaches are based on
significant number of assumptions that are used to account for particle motion in a turbulent velocity field.
Additionally, in actual production situations, particles of various sizes and shapes may be produced and
again simplifying assumptions are used and average particle sizes are normally used to determine particle
trajectories. CFD models to predict multiphase flows (particles are carried in gas and liquid flows) are
even much more challenging due to existence of various flow patterns in multiphase flows. The existence
of different flow patterns and sand and liquid holdup in vertical and horizontal pipes makes CFD based
approaches very time consuming if not impossible for present engineering predictions of erosion for various
operational conditions. However, this modeling approach is being used at the Erosion/Corrosion Research
Center (E/CRC) along with experiments to develop simplified models for erosion predictions in multiphase
flows (Vieira et al., 2016; Parsi et al., 2016; Zahedi et al.; 2016; Zhang et al., 2016).
In addition to the above mentioned challenges in predicting particle trajectories using CFD based models,
in many production design considerations, engineering calculations are made for a variety of situations and
erosion calculations are done during the life of the well and flow lines. This also makes CFD based models
less attractive for engineering calculations in the oil and gas industry. But again, the CFD models are a very
important part of validation and also developing simplified models for predicting erosion.
4 SPE-181487-MS

Current efforts for predicting erosion in multiphase flows utilize CFD and experimental data to develop
simplified erosion prediction models. The existence of different flow patterns in multiphase flows means
that a unique model has to be developed for each flow regime if the model has to account for the number and
velocity of impacting particles. A framework for developing mechanistic models for calculating particle
impact speed in various flow regimes has been established for predicting erosion rates of elbows in
multiphase flow, Mazumder et al. (2005), Chen et al. (2006). These modeling approaches consider the
effects of particle velocities in gas and liquid phases upstream of the elbow and local fluid velocities in
multiphase flow are used as a basis to determine representative particle impact velocities. Additionally,
based on some data and assumptions of sand holdup in several flow regimes, the mass of impacting particles
are estimated. These approaches are also limited to the accuracy of simplified multiphase flow models
that are used to determine liquid holdup and velocity of various phases. Additionally, one-dimensional and
two-dimensional approaches were also used (Zhang et al., 2010). Two-dimensional approaches are more
attractive; however since they also track a large number of particles, their use for calculating erosion in a
large number of cases can take a few hours to a couple of days.
Thus, the objective of this current work is to develop a simple and yet effective method for predicting sand
erosion in multiphase flow production situations that can be used to determine a threshold erosional velocity.
Previously, Shirazi and McLaury (2000) and McLaury and Shirazi (2000) developed a simplified approach
(called flow regime independent model) for calculating erosion rates in multiphase flows. Additionally,
over the years, extensive data has been collected on erosion in multiphase flows on elbows in 2-inch, 3-inch
and 4-inch large scale multiphase flow loops with gas, liquid and sand flowing in vertical and horizontal
test sections. Based on new information from the experimental data for different flow regimes including
slug, wet gas and annular flows this semi-mechanistic method for predicting sand erosion is modified to
additionally account for the response of particles to turbulent eddies thus improving the previous model
significantly for situations involving small particles flowing in compressed gases with high densities and
particles moving in liquid streams.

Model Description
The solid particle erosion process is highly complex due to the large number of parameters that affect
erosion. Many of these parameters are indeed variables themselves including particle shape, sand size
distribution, impact velocity and frequency distribution on pipe walls, and gas and liquid speed variations
within oil and gas production equipment and pipes. As stated before, the goal of this work is to develop
a simple and yet effective method to predict erosion for oil and gas production pipelines that can be used
to determine threshold velocities. The method presented here is based on a previous concept of stagnation
length (Shirazi et al., 1995) but has been improved to account for additional physics. In the current approach,
the solid particle erosion of pipes is assumed to be composed of two parts namely direct impingement
and random impingement as described by McLaury et al. (1998) and McLaury and Shirazi (1998). The
direct impingement of particles occurs in geometries that change the flow direction such as elbows and
tees. Solid particles, depending on momentum exchange between the particles and the carrying fluid, can
cross streamlines and impact the pipelines as shown schematically in Figure 2. On the other hand, particles
can also impact pipes as a result of turbulent eddies that throw particles toward the pipe wall, and particles
may impact the pipe walls at velocities that are close to the flow velocities near the pipe walls. This is
called random impingement that is shown schematically in Figure 2 for a straight section of pipe. For
some geometries such as straight pipe, the primary means of erosion is by random impingement. But, for
geometries such as elbows and tees both direct and random impingement can cause particle impacts with
the pipe wall. Computational Fluid Dynamics based erosion prediction models and those that are based on
CFD simulations can capture both of these effects.
SPE-181487-MS 5

Figure 2—Direct Impingement as Particles Cross the Streamlines Due to Their Momentum
Versus Random Impingement as a Result of Turbulent Eddies (McLaury et al., 1997).

Thus, in order to model erosion resulting from random impingement, in addition to modeling the direct
impingement erosion, Stokes number is utilized to characterize the propensity of particles to impact the
pipe as a result of the random motion of high energy turbulent eddies. Stokes number is a parameters that
characterizes the ratio of the particle response time to that of fluid defined as

(1)

(2)

where U is a characteristic fluid velocity and L is a characteristic length (typically pipe diameter for pipe
flow). τp is the characteristic time of the particle which can be estimated from Equation (2) where dp is the
particle diameter, ρp is the particle density and μf is the fluid viscosity. In order to compare the response of
particle characteristics to turbulent flow eddy characteristics, a turbulent time scale can be defined as

(3)

where ℓt is the turbulent eddy length scale and vt is the turbulent eddy velocity scale. This characteristic time
scale can be used instead of (L/U) in Equation (1). So, if particle Stokes number is high, then the particles do
not respond so quickly to the motion of the fluid flow including eddy motion and their momentum is much
larger than fluid eddies. However, when the particle-turbulence Stokes number is low, then the particles
respond to motion of the fluid turbulence quickly before the particle has a chance to move out of the elbow
along with fluid streamlines. When the particle Stokes number is extremely low (<1), then the particles are
moving with speeds that are affected significantly by turbulent eddies and move with a speed that is very
close to the local flow stream velocity.
Thus, the model for calculating erosion is based on two characteristic velocities: (1) the characteristic
velocity of the impacting particles and (2) another velocity component characterizing motion of the eddies
in the flowstream or the turbulent layer flowstream velocity close to the wall. The mechanistic model for
calculating erosion rate in simple pipe geometries such as elbows and tees has been developed that accounts
for random impingement of particles in addition to direct impact that is affected by geometry type, size,
and material; fluid properties (density and viscosity) and rate; and sand sharpness, density and rate. The
model computes the maximum penetration rate by considering two characteristic velocities, namely: the
characteristics impact velocity of particles, VL, and the flow mixture velocity, Vm

(4)

where symbols are defined in the Nomenclature section.

This relation was developed based on earlier work (McLaury and Shirazi, 2000) and extensive empirical
information gathered at the Erosion/Corrosion Research Center (E/CRC) at The University of Tulsa and
6 SPE-181487-MS

data gathered at DNV and AEA. A major difference between the present model and the earlier work is that
the current model accounts for the impact of particles as a result of turbulent eddies modeled by the term
. Currently, a constant is used for FC but CFD is being used to generalize this term to a variety of
situations. The exponential term e−βSt tends to 0 for high St number situations and is 1 when St number is
very low, and a value of 0.01 is used for β based on available data. The particle St number is calculated by

(5)

According to many CFD codes (see for example, CFD on Line, 2016), the empirical equation for the
turbulent length scale for pipes of diameter D is
(6)
v' is turbulent eddy velocity scale and is assumed to be the same as the frictional velocity that is based on
the wall shear stress,

(7)

and the wall shear stress, τw, is calculated from the pipe friction factor given by Haaland (1983) correlation.
The method to find the "characteristic impact velocity of the particles" on the pipe wall, VL is similar to
the earlier work (McLaury and Shirazi (2000)) and is given in Appendix A. The values for FS, FP and Fr/D can
be obtained from the earlier work (Shirazi and McLaury (2000)). The material factor FM is obtained from
the earlier work by Arabnejad et al. (2015a). The equations used for the predictions listed in this paper are

(8)

(9)
where ERC and ERD are cutting and deformation erosion, and C1, C2, K and Utsh are empirical constants. The
total erosion is ERC + ERD. The empirical constants for 7 materials tested are provided in Table 1. In this
work, only the maximum erosion with respect to the impact angle is used. So,
(10)

Table 1—Empirical Constants for the Erosion Equation.

Material C1 C2 K Utsh (m/s)

Carbon steel 1018 5.90E-08 4.25E-08 0.5 5.5

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

Stainless 3.92E-08 2.30E-08 0.4 2.3

steel 2205

13 chrome steel 4.11E-08 3.09E-08 0.5 5.1

Inconel 625 4.58E-08 4.22E-08 0.4 5.5

Aluminum 3.96E-08 3.38E-08 0.4 7.3

alloy 6061
SPE-181487-MS 7

Results: Verification of the Erosion Prediction Model

The ability to predict erosion in single and multiphase flows with liquid and gas involving small particles
in compressed gases is a new addition to the erosion prediction model. Previously, the erosion prediction
model was verified for use with single-phase flow (Shirazi et al., 1995 and McLaury et al. 1997). The
ability of the model to account for a variety of parameters (particle diameter, fluid density and viscosity,
flow velocity, and particle shape) was verified through comparisons with experimental data (McLaury et al.,
1995). In addition to data that is provided by Salama (2000) and Bourgoyne (1989) for multiphase flow, high
pressure experimental data provided by Evans et al. (2004) and data collected at E/CRC during past several
years by Vieira (2014), Parsi (2015) and Zahedi (2016) is also used to verify the present erosion prediction
model for multiphase flow. Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 provide the test conditions and the fluid and material types.
Figure 3 shows a summary of the results presented in Tables 2 and 3 for 1" and 2" pipes, and Figure 4 shows
the comparison with data for 3" and 4" pipes. These results indicate relatively good agreement between
the experimental and predicted results over a broad range of erosion rates for single-phase and multiphase
flows. There are however a few cases for annular flow for which the trend of the model does not agree well
with the experimental data. This is due to the effects of the liquid film in the annular flow cases which is not
included in the current model. CFD simulations of annular flow and experimental data are currently being
investigated to add a correction to the current model to include the annular film effects.

Table 2—Comparison of Bourgoyne (1989) Erosion Data to Model Predictions.

Material Superficial Superficial Sand Size (μm) Elbow Measured Pred. Erosion
Gas Vel. (m/s) Liquid Vel. (m/s) Diameter (inch) Erosion (μm/kg) (μm/kg)

Seamless Ell 32 0 550 2 8.1 5.2

Seamless Ell 47 0 550 2 4.9 13.1

Seamless Ell 72 0 550 2 14.0 36.5

Seamless Ell 93 0 550 2 28.2 67.6

Seamless Ell 98 0 550 2 35.4 76.7

Seamless Ell 98 0 550 2 35.5 76.7

Seamless Ell 103 0 550 2 37.6 86.5

Seamless Ell 122 0 550 2 215.6 130.0

Seamless Ell 167 0 550 2 182.5 277.2

Seamless Ell 169 0 550 2 190.9 285.2

Seamless Ell 177 0 550 2 238.4 318.9

Seamless Ell 177 0 550 2 253.5 318.9

Seamless Ell 178 0 550 2 226.0 323.2

Seamless Ell 203 0 550 2 261.8 443.7

Seamless Ell 205 0 550 2 208.8 454.3

Seamless Ell 222 0 550 2 232.3 550.4

Seamless Ell 108 0 550 2 71.2 96.9

Seamless Ell 109 0 550 2 61.1 99.1

Seamless Ell 108 0 550 2 55.1 96.9

Seamless Ell 104 0 550 2 64.6 88.5

Seamless Ell 108 0 550 2 80.7 96.9

Seamless Ell 108 0 550 2 66.0 96.9

Seamless Ell 107 0 550 2 48.2 94.8

8 SPE-181487-MS

Material Superficial Superficial Sand Size (μm) Elbow Measured Pred. Erosion
Gas Vel. (m/s) Liquid Vel. (m/s) Diameter (inch) Erosion (μm/kg) (μm/kg)

Seamless Ell 111 0 550 2 58.1 103.6

Seamless Ell 107 0 550 2 59.3 94.8

Seamless Ell 106 0 550 2 51.3 92.7

Seamless Ell 103 0 550 2 39.7 86.5

Cast EII 86 0.53 550 2 127.0 54.7

Cast EII 92 0.53 550 2 121.0 64.7

Cast EII 89 0.12 550 2 108.0 63.7

Cast EII 84 0.53 550 2 93.4 51.6

Cast EII 72 0.53 550 2 53.7 35.1

Cast EII 84 0.12 550 2 75.1 55.3

Cast EII 92 0.12 550 2 99.4 69.0

Cast EII 107 0.53 550 2 105.0 94.1

Table 3—Comparison of Experimental Erosion Data to Model Predictions.

Note Material Superficial Superficial Sand Size (μm) Elbow Measured Pred. Erosion
Gas Vel. (m/s) Liquid Diameter (inch) Erosion (μm/kg) (μm/kg)
Vel. (m/s)

1 Carbon Steel 30 1 150 1.93 0.525 1.438

1 Carbon Steel 30 0.5 150 1.93 2.460 1.891

1 Carbon Steel 20 5.8 150 1.93 0.052 0.666

1 Carbon Steel 20 3.1 150 1.93 0.069 0.581

1 Carbon Steel 15 5 150 1.93 0.064 0.156

1 Carbon Steel 15 1 150 1.93 0.147 0.197

1 Carbon Steel 10 5 150 1.93 0.013 0.070

1 Carbon Steel 10 0.7 150 1.93 0.070 0.073

1 Carbon Steel 8 0.2 150 1.93 0.123 0.127

1 Carbon Steel 3.5 4 150 1.93 0.005 0.011

2 Duplex Steel 9 6.2 250 1.04 0.18 0.21

2 Duplex Steel 14.4 1.5 250 1.04 0.23 0.50

2 Duplex Steel 14.6 1.5 250 1.04 0.42 0.52

2 Duplex Steel 34 2.1 250 1.04 2.83 4.30

2 Duplex Steel 35 1 250 1.04 6.56 6.24

2 Duplex Steel 34.3 0.5 250 1.04 7.20 7.08

2 Duplex Steel 37 0.7 250 1.04 8.03 8.01

2 Duplex Steel 38.5 0.5 250 1.04 8.03 9.56

2 Duplex Steel 44 1.5 250 1.04 10.50 10.11

2 Duplex Steel 51 0.6 250 1.04 13.40 19.16

SPE-181487-MS 9

Note Material Superficial Superficial Sand Size (μm) Elbow Measured Pred. Erosion
Gas Vel. (m/s) Liquid Diameter (inch) Erosion (μm/kg) (μm/kg)
Vel. (m/s)

2 Duplex Steel 52 0.7 250 1.04 13.30 19.58

3 Carbon Steel 32 0 25 2 2.3 3.8

Notes:
1) Data from Salama (2000), Fluid is air and water at 2 bar.
2) Data from Salama (2000), Fluid is nitrogen and water at 7 bar.
3) Data from Kumar (2014), Fluid is air at atmospheric pressure.

Table 4—Comparison of Vieira (2014) Erosion Data to Model Predictions.

Material Superficial Superficial Sand Size (μm) Elbow Measured Pred. Erosion
Gas Vel. (m/s) Liquid Vel. (m/s) Diameter (inch) Erosion (μm/kg) (μm/kg)

SS-316 48.8 0.457 300 3 0.72 4.42

SS-316 48.8 0.183 300 3 2.54 4.88

SS-316 48.8 0.040 300 3 2.50 5.19

SS-316 48.8 0.020 300 3 1.90 5.25

SS-316 48.8 0.020 300 3 1.96 5.25

SS-316 48.8 0.010 300 3 2.11 5.28

SS-316 48.8 0.003 300 3 2.40 5.31

SS-316 41.0 0.041 300 3 1.79 3.50

SS-316 41.0 0.020 300 3 1.46 3.54

SS-316 41.0 0.010 300 3 1.46 3.57

SS-316 41.0 0.005 300 3 1.78 3.58

SS-316 35.0 0.088 300 3 1.19 2.27

SS-316 36.0 0.091 300 3 0.80 2.36

SS-316 35.7 0.091 150 3 0.25 1.23

SS-316 27.0 0.085 300 3 1.55 1.25

SS-316 27.0 0.018 300 3 0.61 1.31

SS-316 15.0 0.018 300 3 0.30 0.32

SS-316 27.4 0.040 300 3 0.64 1.29

SS-316 27.4 0.009 300 3 0.89 1.32

SS-316 27.4 0.005 300 3 1.11 1.33

SS-316 27.4 0 300 3 1.39 1.34

SS-316 15.2 0 300 3 0.35 0.33

SS-316 15.2 0.008 300 3 0.23 0.33

SS-316 15.2 0.012 300 3 0.31 0.33

SS-316 15.2 0.040 300 3 0.40 0.32

SS-316 15.2 0.098 300 3 0.28 0.30

SS-316 27.4 0.482 300 3 0.22 1.02

SS-316 23.0 0.000 150 3 0.39 0.46

SS-316 15.2 0.000 150 3 0.15 0.18

SS-316 27.4 0.000 150 3 0.72 0.71

10 SPE-181487-MS

Material Superficial Superficial Sand Size (μm) Elbow Measured Pred. Erosion
Gas Vel. (m/s) Liquid Vel. (m/s) Diameter (inch) Erosion (μm/kg) (μm/kg)

SS-316 15.2 0.000 300 3 0.39 0.33

SS-316 22.9 0.000 300 3 0.97 0.87

SS-316 27.4 0.098 300 3 0.88 1.24

SS-316 22.9 0.098 300 3 0.66 0.80

SS-316 23.0 0.009 300 3 0.32 0.86

SS-316 22.9 0.040 300 3 0.87 0.83

SS-316 23.0 0.040 150 3 0.36 0.44

SS-316 34.0 0.100 25 3 0.22 1.38

SS-316 15.2 0.100 25 3 0.10 0.12

SS-316 15.0 0.100 150 3 0.17 0.15

SS-316 33.5 0.097 300 3 1.22 2.02

SS-316 23.0 0.040 25 3 0.13 0.56

SS-316 11.0 0.100 300 3 0.08 0.12

SS-316 23.0 0.040 300 3 0.93 0.83

SS-316 22.9 0.040 300 3 0.85 0.83

SS-316 27.4 0.039 300 3 0.76 1.29

SS-316 27.0 0.040 300 3 0.73 1.29

SS-316 15.2 0 300 3 0.36 0.32

SS-316 15.0 0.040 300 3 0.51 0.32

SS-316 11.0 0 300 3 0.22 0.14

SS-316 11.0 0 150 3 0.07 0.08

SS-316 15.0 0 300 3 0.40 0.33

SS-316 15.0 0 300 3 1.05 0.33

Table 5—Comparison of Experimental Erosion Data to Model Predictions.

Note Material Superficial Superficial Sand Size (μm) Elbow Measured Pred. Erosion
Gas Vel. (m/s) Liquid Diameter (inch) Erosion (μm/kg) (μm/kg)
Vel. (m/s)

1 SS-316 9.8 0.58 300 3 0.02 0.06

1 SS-316 9.8 0.59 300 3 0.01 0.06

1 SS-316 9.8 0.70 300 3 0.01 0.06

1 SS-316 10.7 0.40 150 3 0.01 0.04

1 SS-316 11.2 0.44 300 3 0.01 0.11

1 SS-316 15.4 0.40 150 3 0.01 0.11

1 SS-316 15.2 0.40 150 3 0.03 0.10

1 SS-316 17.7 0.37 300 3 0.15 0.35

1 SS-316 17.7 0.56 300 3 0.10 0.32

1 SS-316 18.1 0.59 300 3 0.08 0.33

1 SS-316 18.3 0.76 300 3 0.06 0.31

1 SS-316 17.8 0.36 150 3 0.06 0.17

SPE-181487-MS 11

Note Material Superficial Superficial Sand Size (μm) Elbow Measured Pred. Erosion
Gas Vel. (m/s) Liquid Diameter (inch) Erosion (μm/kg) (μm/kg)
Vel. (m/s)

1 SS-316 18.7 0.46 150 3 0.03 0.17

1 SS-316 18.3 0.55 150 3 0.02 0.15

1 SS-316 18.4 0.39 25 3 0.02 0.13

1 SS-316 18.2 0.36 300 3 0.07 0.42

1 SS-316 18.5 0.50 150 3 0.01 0.15

1 SS-316 20.0 0.36 150 3 0.08 0.23

1 SS-316 27.4 0.55 300 3 0.18 0.99

1 SS-316 27.1 0.32 150 3 0.21 0.53

1 SS-316 27.1 0.41 150 3 0.14 0.49

1 SS-316 27.1 0.42 150 3 0.13 0.49

1 SS-316 26.9 0.31 25 3 0.10 0.44

1 SS-316 27.3 0.30 300 3 0.27 1.21

1 SS-316 27.2 0.30 150 3 0.14 0.55

1 SS-316 31.1 0.47 300 3 0.23 1.41

2 ER probe 23 0 150 4 0.03 0.08

(Inconel)

2 ER probe 35 0 150 4 0.09 0.21

(Inconel)

2 ER probe 63 0 150 4 0.40 0.79

(Inconel)

2 ER probe 23 0 150 4 0.01 0.07

(Inconel)

2 ER probe 35 0 150 4 0.06 0.17

(Inconel)

2 ER probe 63 0 150 4 0.15 0.64

(Inconel)

2 ER probe 35 0 150 4 0.02 0.15

(Inconel)

3 SS-316 22 0.10 300 4 0.12 0.42

3 SS-316 23 0.10 300 4 0.27 0.46

3 SS-316 23 0.10 300 4 0.24 0.46

3 SS-316 23 0.04 300 4 0.35 0.48

3 SS-316 23 0.04 300 4 0.26 0.48

3 SS-316 23 0.02 300 4 0.73 0.49

3 SS-316 23 0.01 300 4 0.38 0.50

3 SS-316 23 0.14 300 4 0.99 0.45

3 SS-316 23 0.04 75 4 0.76 0.49

3 SS-316 23 0.04 75 4 0.62 0.49

Notes:
1) Data from Parsi (2015), Fluid is air and water at atmospheric pressure.
2) Data from Evans (1998), Fluid is Natural Gas.
3) Data from Zahedi (2016), Fluid is air at atmospheric pressure.
12 SPE-181487-MS

Figure 3—Comparison of SPPS 1D Predicted Erosion Rates with Experimental Data for 1" and 2" Pipes.

Figure 4—Comparison of SPPS 1D Predicted Erosion Rates with Experimental Data for 3" and 4" Pipes

The results from the present multiphase erosion prediction model are also compared with CFD results
presented by Zahedi et al. (2016) for several cases involving gas flows at various conditions and pipe
sizes and are presented in Table 5 and Figure 5. The test cases include CFD simulations of higher pressure
conditions, larger diameter pipes and long radius elbows. The CFD erosion pattern and results for these
example cases are shown in Figure 6 with comparison to the current model predictions. One of the main
advantages of the CFD erosion prediction is that it provides the location of maximum erosion for various
SPE-181487-MS 13

cases as shown in Figure 6. The current model can be used to predict the maximum erosion values only.
The results show that the model results agree with CFD results of Zahedi et al. (2016) as well as some CFD
simulations for 12 inch diameter pipes at high pressures ranging from 1000 to 1700 psi.

Figure 5—Comparison of SPPS 1D Predicted Erosion Rates with CFD Simulation Results.

Figure 6—Predicted Erosion Ratio (mm/kg) Contours for a Standard Radius Bend (r/D=1.5), a Long
Radius Bend (r/D=5) and High Pressure and Comparison with the Predicted Results from Current Work

One of the main disadvantages with the CFD approach for erosion predictions is that the grid spacing
and choice of turbulence models can affect the CFD results especially when erosion in larger diameter pipes
are calculated. The requirement of having a small grid spacing near the wall especially for cases involving
a liquid film can make CFD simulations of erosion for multiphase flow very time consuming (Zahedi et al.,
2016). But, the current model is by far much simpler than CFD methods that are utilized by some operators
to predict erosion in elbows and tees. Yet, the model predictions match CFD results for larger diameter
14 SPE-181487-MS

pipes and field conditions. However, there is a need to add additional physics of multiphase flow such as
the effects of a thin film along the outer radius of the bend (Zahedi et al., 2016).

Table 6—Comparison of SPPS predictions with CFD results.

Gas Vel. (m/s) Gas Pressure (psi) Sand Size (μm) Elbow Diameter (inch) CFD Pred. SPPS Pred.
Erosion (μm/kg) Erosion (μm/kg)

27 14.7 300 2 3.20 2.89

23 14.7 300 2 2.18 1.96

15 14.7 300 2 0.79 0.71

11 14.7 300 2 0.40 0.34

27 14.7 150 2 1.64 1.50

23 14.7 150 2 1.16 1.03

15 14.7 150 2 0.44 0.38

11 14.7 150 2 0.29 0.18

27 14.7 300 3 1.29 1.29

23 14.7 300 3 0.87 0.88

15 14.7 300 3 0.33 0.32

11 14.7 300 3 0.24 0.15

27 14.7 150 3 0.71 0.69

23 14.7 150 3 0.44 0.47

15 14.7 150 3 0.20 0.17

11 14.7 150 3 0.13 0.08

27 14.7 300 6 0.43 0.33

23 14.7 300 6 0.28 0.23

15 14.7 300 6 0.10 0.08

11 14.7 300 6 0.05 0.04

27 14.7 150 6 0.19 0.18

23 14.7 150 6 0.13 0.12

15 14.7 150 6 0.04 0.04

11 14.7 150 6 0.02 0.02

27 1500 300 3 0.83 0.43

27 1500 150 3 0.46 0.15

25 1000 250 12 0.030 0.039

19 1000 250 12 0.015 0.021

13 1000 250 12 0.004 0.008

6 1000 250 12 0.001 0.001

15 1700 250 12 0.005 0.009

Results: Application of the Model

Unlike the API RP 14E practice, the current model can be applied in two ways: one is that the model can
be used to provide a maximum penetration rate (i.e., mm/kg can be converted to mm/year if it is multiplied
by sand rate in kg/year) for a given set of operating conditions. Another application of the model is that
SPE-181487-MS 15

threshold superficial liquid and gas velocities can be determined if an allowable maximum penetration rate
(in mm/year) is specified. The procedure to determine threshold operational velocities or production rates
are to specify a penetration rate and a pair of superficial gas and liquid velocities are determined, by an
iterative procedure, that yield the specified maximum tolerable erosion rate (or wall thickness penetration
rate). For comparison, the API RP 14E (1991) equation given by

(11)

is used to calculate the threshold sum of the superficial liquid and gas velocities. In order to perform the
comparison, a sample case with the following conditions is considered: 4 inch elbow made of a carbon steel
with a Brinell hardness of 140, 10 lb/day of 150 micron sand, and the carrier fluids are water and methane at
500 psig and 100 °F. Figure 7 shows the results of the current model and API RP 14E where the multiphase
erosion prediction model was applied for three allowable penetration rates: 1, 5, and 10 mpy. The threshold
velocity curve indicates that if one operates above the curve, then the anticipated erosion is higher than the
allowable. Clearly, Figure 7 shows that as the allowable penetration rate increases, the threshold superficial
gas velocity increases for a given superficial liquid velocity. API RP 14E does not account for changes in
the allowable penetration rate, so only one curve is presented for this method. For all API RP 14E results
presented in this section, a c value of 100 has been used. The comparison shows that at low superficial
liquid velocities API RP 14E is not conservative enough; however, at high superficial liquid velocities API
RP 14E, it is too conservative.

Figure 7—Predicted Threshold Erosional Velocity Curves for Different Allowable Penetration Rates.

It is obvious that sand rate would significantly change the erosion rates, and Figure 8 shows the effects
of sand rate on threshold velocities for sand rates of 1, 10, and 100 lb/day. Again the API equation does
not account for sand and use of this equation can result in significant error if sand production is expected.
Another parameter that has a significant effect on threshold velocities is the pipe size. Figure 9 shows
the effects of a moderate pipe size change on the corresponding threshold velocities. Again, API RP 14E
16 SPE-181487-MS

predicts the same threshold curve as the pipe size is changed. The current model obviously accounts for the
effects of pipe size. It is clear from these results that for many cases considered here, compared with the
multiphase erosion prediction model, API RP 14E is too conservative at high superficial liquid velocities
but not conservative enough for low superficial liquid velocities. The results presented in this section show
that the present model can be utilized to predict an erosional flowstream velocity in situations involving
sand production. Thus, this model can be used as an alternative to API RP 14E when sand production is
anticipated even at very small rates.

Figure 8—Predicted Threshold Erosional Velocity Curves for Different Sand Rates.

Figure 9—Predicted Threshold Erosional Velocity Curves for Different Pipe Sizes.
SPE-181487-MS 17

Summary and Conclusions

A model has been presented which can be used to predict erosion for sand producing wells that accounts for
a variety of operating conditions. The ability of the model to predict erosion in single and multiphase flow
with liquid and gas involving small particles in compressed gases is a new addition to the erosion prediction
model. The ability of the model to account for a variety of parameters (particle diameter, fluid density and
viscosity, flow velocity, and particle shape) was verified through comparisons with experimental data that
is available in the literature and obtained at E/CRC. These results indicate good agreement between the
experimental and predicted results over a broad range of erosion rates for single-phase and multiphase flow.
There are however a few cases for annular flow for which the trend of the model does not agree with the
experimental data and this is currently under investigation. As new information becomes available, it will
be incorporated into the current model. The present model was used to obtain threshold superficial velocity
curves for several conditions, and these results were compared with predictions made using API RP 14E.
Compared with the multiphase erosion prediction model, API RP 14E was shown to be too conservative at
high superficial liquid velocities but not conservative enough for low superficial liquid velocities.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the member companies of the Erosion/Corrosion Research Center for
supporting this work. The authors would also like to thank many students and co-workers who contributed
to development of the model and the data presented in this work.

Nomenclatures
c = empirical constant for API RP 14E
Cstd = r/D for a standard elbow, 1.5
D = pipe diameter, in or mm
Do = reference (1 inch) pipe diameter, in or mm
dp = paricle diameter, L, m
FC = empirical function accounting for fraction of particles and flowstream eddy
velocity close to the wall
FM = empirical constant that accounts for material hardness and density discussed above
FP = penetration factor for material (based on reference pipe diameter), L/m, m/kg
Fr/D = penetration factor for elbow radius of curvature, Wang et al. (1996)
FS = empirical sand sharpness factor (1 for sharp sand and 0.53 for semi-rounded sand)
h = Penetration rate, L/t, m/s (can be converted to mm/yr or mpy)
QG = volume flow rate of gas, L3/t, m3/s
QL = volume flow rate of liquid, L3/t, m3/s
Reo = particle Reynolds number
St =Stokes number (particle time scale/eddy time scale)
Ve = erosional velocity, L/t, ft/s
VL = characteristics particle impact velocity, L/t, m/s
Vo = mean flow velocity, L/t, m/s
Vm = mixture flow stream velocity, L/t, m/s
VSG = superficial gas velocity, L/t, m/s
VSL = superficial liquid velocity, L/t, m/s
W = sand production rate, m/t, kg/s
18 SPE-181487-MS

Greek Letters
β = empirical constant
μf = fluid viscosity, m/Lt, Pa-s
μm = mixture viscosity, m/Lt, Pa-s
ρf = fluid density, m/L3, kg/m3
ρm = mixture density, m/L3, kg/m3 (or lb/ft3 for API RP 14E)
ρp = particle density, m/L3, kg/m3
Φ = dimensionless parameter

References
API Recommended Practice for Design and Installation of Offshore Production Platform Piping Systems, API RP 14E,
1991, American Petroleum Institute, Fifth edition, Washington D.C., October 1991.
Arabnejad, H., Mansouri, A., Shirazi, S.A., and McLaury, B.S., "Development of Mechanistic Erosion Equation for Solid
Particles", Wear, 2015, Vol. 332-333, pp. 1044–1050.
Arabnejad, H., Shirazi, S.A., McLaury, B.S., Subramani, H.J., and Rhyne, L.D., "The Effect of Erodent Particle Hardness
on the Erosion of Stainless Steel", Wear, 2015, Vol. 332-333, pp. 1098–1103.
Bitter, J.G.A., 1963, "A Study of Erosion Phenomena: Part I," Wear, Vol. 6, pp. 5–21.
Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr., 1989, "Experimental Study of Erosion in Diverter Systems Due to Sand Production," paper presented
at the 1989 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, SPE/IADC 18716.
CFD on Line, 2016, "http://www.cfd-online.com/."
Chen, X., McLaury, B.S., and Shirazi, S.A., 2006, "A Comprehensive Procedure to Estimate Erosion in Elbows for Gas/
Liquid/Sand Multiphase Flow," Journal of Energy Resources Technology, Vol. 128, pp. 70–78.
Edwards, J.K., McLaury, B.S., and Shirazi, S.A., 1998, "Supplementing a CFD Code with Erosion Prediction
Capabilities," paper FEDSM98-5229 in ASME FED Summer Meeting Proceedings 1998, Washington D.C., June
21-25.
Evans, T., Bennett, H., Sun, Y., Alvarez, J., Babaian-Kibala, E. and Martin, J.W., 2004, "Studies of Inhibition and
Monitoring of Metal Loss in Gas Systems Containing Solids," CORROSION 2004, 28 March-1 April, New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Finnie, I., 1960, "Erosion of Surfaces by Solid Particles," Wear, Vol. 6, pp. 87–103.
Forder, A., Thew, M., and Harrison, D., 1998, "A numerical investigation of solid particle erosion experienced within
oilfield control valves," Wear, Volume 216, pp. 184–193.
Haaland, S.E., 1983, "Simple and Explicit Formulas for the Friction Factor in Turbulent Flow," Journal of Fluids
Engineering, Vol. 105, pp. 89–90.
Mazumder, Q., Shirazi, S., McLaury, B., Rybicki, E., and Shadley, J., 2005, "Development and Validation of a Mechanistic
Model to Predict Solid Particle Erosion in Mulitphase Flow," Wear, Vol, 259, Issue 1-6, pp. 203–207.
McLaury, B.S., 1993, "A Model to Predict Solid Particle Erosion in Oilfield Geometries," Master's Thesis, The University
of Tulsa.
McLaury, B.S., Wang, J., Shirazi, S.A, Shadley, J.R., and Rybicki, E.F., 1997, "Solid Particle Erosion in Long Radius
Elbows and Straight Pipe," paper 38842 presented at 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, October 5-8.
McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.A., Shadley, J.R., and Rybicki, E.F., 1995, "Parameters Affecting Flow Accelerated Erosion
and Erosion-Corrosion," Corrosion 95, Paper No. 120, NACE International Annual Conference, Orlando.
McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.A., 1998, "Predicting Erosion in Straight Pipes," Paper No. FEDSM98-5228, ASME Fluids
Engineering Meeting, Washington D.C., June 21-25.
McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.A., Shadley, J.R., and Rybicki, E.F., 1999, "How Operating and Environmental Conditions
Affect Erosion," Corrosion 99, Paper No. 34, NACE International Annual Conference, San Antonio.
McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.A., 2000, "An Alternate Method to API RP 14E for Predicting Solids Erosion in Multiphase
Flow," Journal of Energy Resources Technology, Vol. 122, pp. 198–204.
Parsi, M., 2015, "Sand Particle Erosion in Vertical Slug/Churn Flow," PhD in Mechanical Engineering, The University
of Tulsa.
Parsi, M., Agrawal, M., Srinivasan, V., Vieira, R.E., Torres, C., McLaury, B.S. and Shirazi, S.A., 2015, Journal of Natural
Gas Science and Engineering, 27 (2015) 706–718.
Salama, M.M., 2000, "An Alternative to API 14E Erosional Velocity Limits for Sand Laden Fluids," Journal of Energy
Resources Technology, Vol. 22, Issue 2, pp. 71–77.
SPE-181487-MS 19

Shirazi, S.A., McLaury, B.S., Shadley, J.R., and Rybicki, E.F., 1995, "Generalization of the API RP 14E Guideline for
Erosive Services," Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 693–698.
Shirazi, S.A., McLaury, B.S., 2000, "Erosion Modeling of Elbows in Multiphase Flow," Paper No. FEDSM00-11251,
ASME Fluids Engineering Meeting, Boston, MA, June 11-15.
Vieira, R.E., 2014, "Sand Erosion Model Improvement for Elbows in Gas Production, Multiphase Annular and Low-
Liquid Flow, "PhD Mechanical Engineering, The University of Tulsa.
Viera, R.E., Mansouri, A., Mclaury, B.S., and Shirazi, S. A, 2016, "Experimental and Computational Study of Erosion in
Elbows Due to Sand Particles in Air Flow," Powder Technology, Accepted for Publication.
Wang, J. and Shirazi, S.A., Shadley, J.R., and Rybicki, E.F., 1996, "Application of Flow Modeling and Particle Tracking
to Predict Sand Erosion Rates in Elbows," ASME FED Vol. 236, pp. 725–734.
Zahedi, P., Vieira, R.E., Shirazi, S.A., McLaury, B.S., 2016, "Liquid Film Thickness and Erosion of Elbows in Gas-Liquid
Annular Flow," NACE International Conference, CORROSION 2016, Vancouver, Canada.
Zahedi, P., Karimi, S., Mahdavi, M., McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.A., 2016, "Parametric Analysis of Erosion in 90 Degree
and Long Radius Bends," Proceedings of the 90th Fluid Engineering Division Summer Meeting FEDSM July 10-14,
2016, Washington, DC, USA.
Zhang, Y, Reuterfors, E.P., McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.A., and E.F. Rybicki, 2007, "Comparison of Computed and Measured
Particle Velocities and Erosion in Water and Air Flows, Wear, v 263, n 1-6, pp. 330–338.
Zhang, J., McLaury, B.S., and Shirazi, S.A., 2016, "CFD Simulation and 2-D Modeling of Solid Particle Erosion in
Annular Flow," International Conference in Multiphase flow, Banff, Canada.
Zhang, Y., McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.A., and Rybicki, E.F., 2010, "A Two-Dimensional Mechanistic Model for
Sand Erosion Prediction Including Particle Impact Characteristics," Paper No. 14741, NACE International Annual
Conference, San Antonio, TX, March 14-18.
20 SPE-181487-MS

APPENDIX
A method for computing the "characteristic impact velocity" of the particles with the pipe wall or VL for a
tee and an elbow geometry has been presented in previous work for sand in a single-phase flow (McLaury,
1993 and Shirazi et al. 1995). The characteristic impact velocity of the particles is obtained by creating
a simple model of the pipe geometry near the outer radius of an elbow or a tee. Thus, particle impact in
a more complex geometry is assumed to be similar to a direct, or normal, impingement situation. This
procedure is presented conceptually in Figure A-1. In order to impinge the target wall, the sand particles
must penetrate the fluid layer close to the solid wall (so called stagnation zone) for each of the geometries
that are shown in Figure A-1. The behavior of the particles in the stagnation region strongly depends on
the pipe fitting geometry, fluid properties, flow composition, and sand distribution and properties. For two-
phase flow, this region can be assumed to be composed of a homogenous mixture of gas and liquid phases
according to the flowing volumes of gas and liquid. Thus, the impact velocity of the sand particles with a
pipe wall is a strong function of the fluid properties as well as the amounts of gas and liquid phases that are
present in the "stagnation zone" or stagnation length through which the particles must penetrate in order to
strike the pipe wall. A characteristic length, called the equivalent stagnation length (Figure A-2), is used to
represent this distance. A simplified particle tracking procedure is used in this region to determine the so
called characteristic impact velocity of the particles, VL.

Figure A-1—Concept of Equivalent Stagnation Length. (Shirazi et al., 1995)

SPE-181487-MS 21

Figure A-2—Stagnation Length versus Pipe Diameter for Elbow and Tee (Shirazi et al., 1995).

The equivalent stagnation lengths for an elbow as well as a tee geometry were obtained by erosion testing,
simplified CFD modeling and particle tracking for sand in gas or liquid (McLaury, 1993) and are shown in
Figure A-2. Figure A-2 is used for estimating the equivalent stagnation length for elbow and tee geometries.
This figure shows how the equivalent stagnation length varies with the pipe diameter, D. A simplified
particle tracking model (McLaury, 1993) was used to compute the characteristic impact velocity of the
particles. The results are shown in Figure A-3. The model assumes that the stagnation region is composed
of a one-dimensional flow field that has a linear velocity in the direction of the particle motion and uses
a simplified drag coefficient model. For single-phase flow, the initial particle velocity was assumed to be
the same as the flowstream velocity. However, in a two-phase gas-liquid flow, sand is normally entrained
in the liquid phase. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that sand particles have the same velocity as the liquid
velocity (this is not the same as the liquid superficial velocity) in the two-phase flow mixture.
22 SPE-181487-MS

Figure A-3—The Effect of Different Factors on Particle Impact Velocity (Shirazi et al., 1995).

Assuming this "equivalent or characteristic liquid (and sand) flowstream velocity" is known before the
sand particles reach the stagnation zone, a simplified particle tracking model, identical to the one used
previously (McLaury (1993)), can be used to determine the characteristic impact velocity of the particles.
The results for the characteristic impact velocity of the particles with the pipe wall as a function of several
production parameters are shown in Figure A-3. The impact velocity for two-phase flow depends on
"equivalent liquid flowstream velocity", a characteristic length scale (L) describing geometry and size,
density of the fluid in the stagnation zone, viscosity of the fluid in the stagnation zone, density of the particle,
and diameter of the particle. As done previously for single-phase flow, the results (VL/Vo) are presented in
terms of two dimensionless parameters related to one another as shown in Figure A-3. The dimensionless
groups are a particle Reynolds number, Reo, based on the "equivalent flowstream velocity" and particle
diameter:

(A-1)

where
Vo = equivalent flowstream velocity, m/s
ρm = density of fluid (mixture), kg/m3
μm = viscosity of fluid (mixture), Pa-s (or N s/m2)
dp = diameter of particle, m
and a dimensionless parameter which is proportional to the ratio of the mass of the fluid being displaced
by the particle to the mass of the impinging particle:

(A-2)

where
L = equivalent stagnation length, m
SPE-181487-MS 23

ρp = density of particle, kg/m3

The density and viscosity of the fluid in the stagnation layer is computed based on the volume flows of
gas and liquid at the flowing conditions,

(A-3)

(A-4)

where
QL = volume flow rate of liquid, m3/s
QG = volume flow rate of gas, m3/s
VSL = superficial liquid velocity, m/s
VSG = superficial gas velocity, m/s
Figure A-3 contains much useful information about how various parameters affect the characteristic
impact velocity of the particles, VL, and sand erosion rates. Note that to determine the particle Reynolds
number, Reo, the so called "equivalent liquid flowstream velocity", Vo, must be specified. This velocity
represents sand and liquid velocity for sand in a two-phase gas-liquid flow. For sand in a single-phase
(gas or liquid) flow, it is assumed that the equivalent flowstream velocity is the same as the average flow
velocity in the pipeline. For two-phase flow, a set of equations for the equivalent liquid flowstream velocity
was developed and evaluated by comparison with erosion data for a variety of two-phase flow conditions.
A graphical representation of the set of equations for equivalent liquid flowstream velocity is provided
in Figure A-4. Therefore, given the gas and liquid superficial velocities, the equivalent liquid flowstream
velocity can be determined.

Figure A-4—Liquid Flowstream Velocity as a Function of Superficial Gas and Liquid Velocities.

View publication stats