Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 218 (2022) 111042

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Solid particle erosion prediction in elbows based on machine learning and

swarm intelligence algorithm
Zhiguo Wang a, *, Haoyu Chen a, Meng Wang b, Xu Zhang a, Yihua Dou a
a
Xi’an Key Laboratory of Wellbore Integrity Evaluation, New Energy College, Xi’an Shiyou University, Xi’an, 710065, China
b
Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, PetroChina, Beijing, 100083, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Continuous impact of solid particles causes severe pipeline wear, and may result in leakage in directional change
Elbow areas such as elbows. Accurate prediction of erosion is essential in the petroleum industry. In this study, a new
Erosion machine learning (ML)-based model for predicting elbow erosion was established. Seven parameters were
Multiphase flow
selected as feature inputs from the fluid characteristics, particle characteristics, and pipe characteristics. The
Swarm intelligence algorithm
Hybrid kernel extreme learning machine
maximum erosion rate was used as the predicted output. Based on the gas–solid flow data, the prediction ac­
curacy of different ML models was compared. The kernel extreme learning machine (KELM) model was
considered as the optimal model. For gas–liquid–solid flow, incorporating swarm intelligence (SI) algorithms, the
whale optimization algorithm–hybrid kernel extreme learning machine (WOA–HKELM) erosion prediction model
was proposed; the predictions were compared with the experimental values. The root mean square error (RMSE)
of the prediction was 0.82 × 10− 3, which is consistent with the experimental results. It was also demonstrated
that the model can capture the trend of the influence of mixed dimensionless inputs on the prediction results in
churn and annular flow.

1. Introduction laboratory to build a simulation device based on actual working con­

Erosion is a wall-damaging phenomenon caused by the impact of
solid particles carried in a fast-flowing fluid (Wee and Yap, 2019).
High-pressure and high-speed fluids flowing with solid particles are
frequently encountered in oil and gas production processes. It is then
formed sophisticated multiphase flow environment. The fluids flowing
in the gathering pipeline can reduce the thickness of the pipeline wall
and cause perforation, especially in components that change the flow
direction such as elbows (Wang et al., 2022). Research has shown that
the erosion rate in the elbow area is approximately 50 times that in
straight pipe (Zolfagharnasab et al., 2021). Thus, it is critical in the oil
and gas industry to accurately predict the pipeline erosion rate and
replace the components in time to prevent economic and production
efficiency losses.
Erosion is influenced by numerous factors, as well as interactions
between parameters, making erosion prediction particularly difficult.
Current pipeline erosion research primarily utilizes experimental
investigation and numerical simulation as research methods (Q. Wang
et al., 2021).
The experimental research method refers to experiments in the
ditions. This method can effectively provide the performance parame­
ters of material erosion. The main experimental facilities include
rotating electrode testers, jet erosion testers, and flow loop erosion
testers (Ding et al., 2021).Vieira et al. (2017) investigated the pipe
erosion rate at different superficial velocities in the gas–liquid phase
with a two-element ultrasonic sensor. The results demonstrated that
vertical elbows eroded 1.5 times faster than horizontal elbows. Cao et al.
(2020) investigated the impact of varying superficial gas and liquid
velocities on the erosion characteristics of 316L stainless steel in slug
flow. The results demonstrated that erosion rate was more affected by an
increase in superficial gas velocity than in liquid velocity. Haider et al.
(2021) conducted vertical upward annular flow experiments in pipes
76.2 mm in diameter with different superficial gas and liquid velocities
and particle sizes. The influence of particle size on the rate of elbow
erosion and its distribution was investigated by measuring the wall
thickness loss using an ultrasonic detection technique. Sedrez and
Shirazi (2021) experimentally investigated the effects of different series
elbow configurations on erosion. It was demonstrated that for
gas–liquid–solid multiphase flow, erosion varies with the direction of
gravity. A structure of two consecutive elbows was less affected than

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhgwang@xsyu.edu.cn (Z. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2022.111042
Received 4 June 2022; Received in revised form 23 August 2022; Accepted 4 September 2022
Available online 13 September 2022
0920-4105/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Z. Wang et al.
other structures by the direction of the liquid–solid flow based on
gravity.
Experiments provide the most reliable and realistic data but labor
and time costs are relatively high. In addition, the method of controlling
a single variable or multiple variables used in conventional experiments
cannot accommodate complicated environmental parameters in engi­
neering. Generally, experimental results are only generalizable within a
limited range and cannot be readily applied to other systems. With
development of computer technology, numerical simulation has become
increasingly popular, gradually becoming an effective low-cost method
for erosion prediction (Sheng et al., 2020).
Lu and Agrawal (2014) used the Eulerian–Granular method on the
basis of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations to study
erosion characteristics in oil–gas–water–sand multiphase flow sur­
roundings, capturing information on the internal flow conditions and
phase distribution in the pipeline. Parsi et al. (2015a) calculated the
gas–liquid two-phase flow using the multi-fluid VOF model and particle
tracking and erosion prediction models. They obtained an erosion cloud
map and particle distribution regularity in the churn flow condition. The
relationship between the solid particle motion trajectory and the elbow
erosion distribution was investigated. Yu et al. (2019) conducted CFD
research on wall erosion with polydisperse fluid particle flow in a 90-de­
gree standard elbow with a multi-fluid approach. Their modeling results
closely matched the experimental data. Bilal et al. (2021) performed
CFD simulations using elbows with different curvature radii and
bending angles. The results indicated that erosion rate decreases as
curvature radius increases, and that the erosion rate in 90-degree elbows
was twice that in 45-degree elbows.
With the complexity of the fluid–solid phase interactions and
multiphase flow interfaces, CFD-based multiphase flow erosion predic­
tion is complex; multiphase flow is non-constant, with different flow
regimes. CFD-based methods are time-consuming and require significant
computational resources.
Previous erosion prediction research has often been based on offline
laboratory data and steady-state CFD simulation results, without a
linkage between data interfaces and production sites. To more accu­
rately predict the erosion rate, new methods of studying pipeline erosion
rates with ML and intelligence algorithms have emerged in recent years
(Karimi et al., 2020). These new algorithms provide new approaches for
accurately predicting the degree of pipeline thinning, ensuring pro­
duction safety. In the future, with increasing oil and gas pipeline safety
management requirements, pipeline intelligence and digital twins will
be incorporated into the design, construction, and operating processes
(W. Wang et al., 2021). With the vast amount of available data and
advances in algorithms and computing power, ML is advantageous in
terms of time and cost.
For the last two decades, ML has been used in oil and gas storage and
transportation (Chen et al., 2022). Jones et al. (1997) described the
application of artificial intelligence-based techniques to specific prob­
lems encountered during operation of oil and gas transportation facil­
ities to highlight the advantages of these approaches.
Shamshirband et al. (2015) constructed an adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference system to predict the maximum erosion rate of 90-degree el­
bows. The training data was obtained using CFD simulations. The root
mean square error (RMSE) and determination coefficient were consid­
ered as evaluation indicators for prediction. The results indicated that
the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system could improve prediction
accuracy and generalization ability.
Pandya et al. (2017) used artificial neural networks (ANN) combined
with CFD to develop a particle erosion model with 90-degree elbows that
included Bayesian regularization to reduce overfitting. Compared to
shear stress erosion models, turbulent kinetic energy erosion models,
and Baker–Hughes results, the prediction errors were reduced by
approximately 20%.
Zahedi et al. (2018) applied a random forest model to predict erosion
using experimental data from a standard elbow in multiphase flow
2
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 218 (2022) 111042
conditions. The model produced moderate errors in stirred flow condi­
tions with high liquid flow rate and high liquid viscosity.
Tran et al. (2019) proposed the “WearGP” method based on the
Gaussian process algorithm and ML method. CFD simulation results
were used as the dataset to compare the numerical accuracy and
computational efficiency of the “WearGP” and CFD models. The results
indicated that the ML approach saved time and accurately approximated
the solved CFD values.
Bahrainian et al. (2021) pretreated the dataset using the method of
dimensionality reduction to transform multiple characteristic parame­
ters into functions of dimensionless arrays. Guided by the principle of
Gaussian process regression, a prediction model for standard elbow
erosion with churn flow and annular flow was constructed. The pre­
diction results were validated using experimental data.
In this study, four elbow erosion prediction models are formulated by
applying ML methods to the gas–solid flow condition with clear flow
characteristics. The feasibility of ML for elbow erosion prediction is
analyzed and the optimal model is obtained. Based on the experimental
data in gas–liquid–solid multiphase flow, the model is optimized and an
erosion prediction model coupling ML and SI algorithms is established.
The tendency of predicted values with dimensionless mixing parameters
is observed in churn flow and annular flow to verify model generaliza­
tion performance. The model can be combined with digital twin tech­
nology to expand the dataset, improving the prediction accuracy and
expanding the application scenarios.
2. Modeling approach
2.1. Extreme learning machine
Huang et al. (2004) presented the Extreme Learning Machine (ELM),
a revolutionary neural network technique. Its network structure is the
same as that of the single hidden layer feedforward neural network
(SLFN). Its structure is illustrated in Fig. 1 (Jamei et al., 2021).
The training phase of ELM is not a gradient-based backward propa­
gation algorithm as in traditional neural networks, but an arrangement
that randomly generates input layer weights and hidden layer biases
(Wang et al., 2011). In this network, only the hidden layer nodes are
required to be set and training is completed by calculating the output
weights by least squares. The test data uses the derived weights to
calculate the predicted output. ELM is superior in learning rate and
generalization ability to the support vector regression (SVR) and
back-propagation neural network (BPNN), and is primarily used in cases
involving instantaneous calculation (Ulas et al., 2020).
The neural network model output is represented by the matrix (Ding
et al., 2015),
f (x) = h(x) × β = H × β = L (1)
β = H∗ × L (2)
where x is the network input; h(x) and H are the feature mapping matrix;
β is the output weight; L is the desired output, and H* is the generalized
inverse matrix of H.
To achieve a more stable model, a unit matrix I and penalty coeffi­
cient C are imposed (Ding et al., 2015). The output weights of the least
squares solution are shown in Equation (3).
( )− 1
I
β = H T HH T + L (3)
C
2.2. Kernel extreme learning machine
Incorporating the concept of kernel function in SVM into ELM, the
Kernel Extreme Learning Machine (KELM) is produced. With the faster
learning speed of ELM, the prediction performance is improved by
mapping the low-dimensional input space to the high-dimensional
Z. Wang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 218 (2022) 111042

Fig. 1. ELM network structure.

space. The traditional activation function is substituted with a kernel intelligent groups with self-organizing behavior based on aggregation of
function (Mei et al., 2019). individual swarm members that exhibit independent intelligence (Phan
The kernel matrix of the KELM is expressed in Equation (4). et al., 2020). As an intelligent behavior algorithm, SI is ultimately pro­
( ) ( ) duced by the interaction between simple individuals or between com­
ΩKELM = h(xi )h xj = K xi , xj (4)
munity and environment. Individuals in a community follow a simple
This matrix is used instead of the random matrix HHT in the ELM. behavioral code, with no uniform central control between communities.
The kernel function is used to map the input features to a high- Individual interactions eventually manifest as intelligence for the whole
dimensional hidden feature space, enabling the KELM model to better population (Argatov, 2019). With their expandability and generality, SI
generalize. The weight and model outputs are expressed as (He et al., algorithms are widely used in fields such as regression prediction and
2018), image recognition (Sun et al., 2020).
Researchers have recently proposed many new SI algorithms
β = (ΩKELM + 1/C)− 1 L (5) including the Butterfly Optimization Algorithm (BOA), Marine Predator
⎡ ⎤T ⎡ ⎤T Optimization Algorithm (MPA), Gray Wolf Optimization Algorithm
K(x, x1 ) (
I
) K(x, x1 ) (GWO), Sooty Tern Optimization Algorithm (STOA), Sine Cosine Opti­
⎣
f (x) = ... ⎦ ΩKELM + ⎣
L = ... ⎦ β. (6) mization Algorithm (SCA), Chimpanzee Optimization Algorithm
C
K(x, xN ) K(x, xN ) (ChOA), and Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) (Phan et al., 2020).
As a novel class of stochastic search algorithms, the SI algorithm has
2.3. Hybrid kernel extreme learning machine demonstrated promising performance in optimal solution problems.
Optimization of ML model parameters with SI algorithms is a popular
The kernel function is a key determinant of the performance of KELM research topic (Kicska and Kiss, 2021).
regression, routinely classified into two types (Ding et al., 2016). A local As indicated by the KELM output format, the regulation ability of the
kernel function is represented by a Gaussian kernel, with better learning regularization parameter C is critical. From the form of the hybrid kernel
ability. The other is a global kernel function represented by a polynomial function expression, four kernel parameters, σ, γ, d, η, must be deter­
kernel, with strong generalization ability but weak learning ability. The mined. The model involves identifying these five parameters. The
conflict between fitting and generalization is not well-balanced by a traditional method to determine the value of each parameter based on
single kernel function. A hybrid kernel function is created by combining manual selection is inefficient and inaccurate. Thus, the SI algorithm is
both kernel functions, expressed as (Ahuja and Vishwakarma, 2021), used in the parameter search optimization of the HKELM model.
( )
− ‖x − xi ‖2
KRBF (x, xi ) = exp (7) 3. Prediction results
σ
2

3.1. Model validation in Gas–Solid flow

KPoly (x, xi ) = (γ(x, xi ) + 1)d (8)
In this section, 55 experimental datasets for elbow erosion in
where σ is the pending coefficient of the Gaussian kernel function; γ and
gas–solid two-phase flow are summarized to produce a dataset based on
d are the pending parameters of the polynomial kernel function.
the study by Zahedi et al. (2018). Compared with gas–liquid or
The hybrid kernel function is expressed as (Ahuja and Vishwakarma,
gas–liquid–solid multiphase flow, the gas–solid two-phase flow charac­
2021),
teristics are relatively explicit, and fewer influencing factors must be
( )
− ‖x − xi ‖2 considered. The five variables, pipe diameter (D), curvature radius (R),
KH (x, xi ) = η × exp + (1 − η) × (γ(x, xi ) + 1)d (9)
2 σ pipe material hardness (Hv), superficial gas velocity (VSG), and particle
size (dp), are the characteristic variables; the predicted output is the
where η is the impact factor. maximum pipeline erosion rate.
All datasets are regarded as both training and test sets. Four models,
2.4. Swarm intelligence algorithm BPNN, SVR, ELM, and KELM, are used for erosion prediction. Fig. 2
shows a comparison of the degrees to which the predicted values of the
Swarm intelligence (SI) is a comprehensive term for a class of four models deviate from the actual values. For better display, the

3
Z. Wang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 218 (2022) 111042

with larger absolute values indicating stronger correlation, closer to 1

Fig. 2. Comparison of prediction with experiment using different ML methods.
horizontal and vertical coordinates are logarithmically distributed. The
horizontal axis represents the experimental value, and the vertical axis
represents the model prediction. The diagonal points indicate where the
predicted values coincide with the actual values. For erosion rates
greater than 0.001 mm/kg, all four models provided excellent prediction
ability. However, it is obvious that for prediction of erosion rates less
than 0.001 mm/kg, the KELM model exhibits a better fit to the actual
values, indicating that the overall accuracy of the KELM model is su­
perior to that of the other models. Thus, the KELM model is optimized
for predicting the erosion rate of elbows in more complex flow patterns.
for positive correlations and closer to − 1 for negative correlations (Liang
and Zeng, 2020). Fig. 3 indicates that superficial gas velocity, curvature
radius, and particle diameter are positively correlated with the erosion
rate. All three correlation coefficients for superficial gas velocity are
greater than 0.5, indicating that the erosion rate increases considerably
with the strongest positive correlation. Pipe diameter, pipe material
hardness, superficial liquid velocity, and liquid viscosity are negatively
correlated. Of these, the pipe diameter correlation is slightly more
influential than those of the other parameters. No significant differences
were detected in the correlation coefficient values for the other three
factors, indicating that erosion rate mitigation can be affected by mul­
tiple factors, and no dominant influence exists.
The seven emerging SI algorithms were compared in terms of their
merit-seeking performance. With the benchmark function as the objec­
tive function and the iteration number set to 1000, the adaptation curve
changes are shown in Fig. 4. After 500 iterations, the fitness value of the
WOA is still decreasing, indicating a marked superiority in seeking an
extremum; the other six algorithms converge. Thus, WOA is chosen as
the parameter optimization algorithm for the HKELM, and an elbow
erosion-rate prediction model based on WOA–HKELM is proposed.
The WOA is a heuristic algorithm that mimics the hunting strategy of
humpback whales, including three main stages: random search, local
envelopment, and spiral predation (Mirjalili and Lewis, 2016). The
random probability P and control parameter A determine the whale
position update approach. The mathematical model can be found in the
literature (Ding et al., 2022).
The specific process of the WOA–HKELM model is described as
follows.
• Normalize datasets.

3.2. Erosion prediction in gas–liquid–solid flow

In two-phase flow erosion research, the spatial distribution of solid

particles in gas–liquid–solid multiphase flow is highly random, and its
flow pattern is more complicated. The erosion rate is directly related to
the particle motion and flow pattern; thus, investigation is extremely
challenging. Common prediction approaches used in previous studies
include semi-empirical formulations or CFD modeling simulations.
However, semi-empirical formulation is not universal and CFD simula­
tion cannot guarantee accuracy. ML models based on existing data are
better in terms of prediction cost and accuracy.
In this study, 130 datasets were extracted from the research of Vieira
et al. (2017). The main flow patterns were annular and churn flows. The
liquid viscosity (μL) and superficial liquid velocity (VSL) were added to
the input characteristic parameters; the predicted output was still the
maximum erosion rate. The value ranges and origins of each parameter
are shown in Table 1.
Correlation analysis was performed on the input parameters and
output results. The Pearson correlation coefficient, the Kendall corre­
lation coefficient, and the Spearman correlation coefficient were
Fig. 3. Correlation coefficients between each parameter input and output.
calculated. The three correlation coefficients are between − 1 and 1,

Table 1
Experimental data parameter range and origin.
Reference Pipe material D R dp VSG VSL μL
mm D um m/s m/s cP

Salama (1998) Carbon Steel 25.4, 50.8 1.5, 5 150, 250 8–30 0.2–5.8 1
Mazumder (2004) Carbon Steel 25.4 1.5 150 9.8–34.3 0.03–0.3 1
Pyboyina (2006) Carbon Steel 25.4 1.5 150 27.4 0.03–0.3 1
Parsi et al. (2015b) SS-316 76.2 1.5 20, 150, 300 9.8–27.3 0.09–0.76 1
Vieira et al. (2017) SS-316 76.2 1.5 150, 300 15.2–48.8 0.01–0.18 1,10
Zahedi et al. (2018) SS-316 101.6 1.5 75, 300 15–36 0.01–0.28 1

4
Z. Wang et al.
Fig. 4. Comparison of fitness values and iterations for SI algorithms.
• Set iteration number and population size of the WOA.
• The five pending parameters in the HKELM are treated as individual
whales in the algorithm and the population is initialized randomly.
• Determine the hidden layer output weight matrix.
• Compute the output of the hidden layer nodes to obtain the test set
predictions.
• The RMSE is used to calculate the fitness of each individual and
determine the current optimal whale individual.
• Refresh WOA parameters.
• Update individual whale positions. The fitness of each individual
whale is recalculated and compared with the previous optimal in­
dividual. The individual with the optimal adaptation is chosen as the
current optimal whale individual.
• If the maximum number of iterations is reached, return to step 7.
Otherwise, proceed to the next step.
• The individual with the best fitness is stored; its optimal model pa­
rameters are assigned to the HKELM model, and the prediction re­
sults are output.
The mean absolute error (MAE), RMSE, and determination coeffi­
cient (R2) were chosen as the model performance evaluation indexes. R2
is used to evaluate the applicability of the regression model, the accu­
racy of the model. Its value is between 0 and 1; closer to 1 indicates
greater model reliability. The MAE and RMSE are used to assess the error
of the regression model; higher values indicate greater model prediction
error.
In this evaluation, the K-fold cross-validation statistical analysis
approach was used. K-fold cross-validation splits the initial sample into
K subsamples, retaining one subsample as the test set and the other K-1
samples for training (Giffen et al., 2022). This process is repeated
crosswise K times, taking turns using each subsample as the test set; the
average of K operation results is the final evaluation criterion of this
model. Fig. 5 shows the learning curve of the HKELM model. The curve
converges when the training set reaches 80%; thus, the optimal size ratio
of the training set to the test set is 4:1.
Five-fold cross-validation was used to assess the model behavior.
Fig. 6 shows a comparison of the predicted and experimental values in
the cross-validations. The line graph on the left shows a visual com­
parison between the experimental and predicted values; the graph on
the right shows the similarity of the two in terms of distribution. From
the figure, it is observed that the WOA–HKELM model can capture the
trends of the data points, with only slight differences in the prediction
accuracy of individual points, indicated by all data points located near
the diagonal line in the relative distribution plot on the right.
5
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 218 (2022) 111042
Fig. 5. Learning curves for HKELM model.
4. Discussion
4.1. Comparison of erosion prediction with different models
To validate the superiority of the WOA–HKELM model for elbow
erosion prediction, the same sample set and standardized method were
used. The KELM, HKELM, and WOA–HKELM were compared using five-
fold cross-validation. The parameters of each model are presented in
Table 2.
A comparison of evaluation indexes for the three models is shown in
Fig. 7. The MAE and RMSE values of the WOA–HKELM model are the
lowest, 0.42 × 10− 3 and 0.82 × 10− 3, respectively, indicating that the
prediction of this model is closest to the experimental values. Its R2 value
is the highest, indicating that the model exhibits the best fit. Compared
with the KELM model, the hybrid kernel function in the HKELM model
can better regress the mapping relationship between the objective value
and the influencing factors. The HKELM produced 33% and 17% de­
creases in MAE and RMSE, respectively, and a 0.04 increase in R2.
Compared with the HKELM model without optimized parameters, the
MAE and RMSE of the WOA–HKELM model are 78% and 54% lower,
respectively, and the R2 is approximately 12% higher, demonstrating
that optimization of the model parameters using the WOA can sub­
stantially increase prediction accuracy.
4.2. Erosion in churn flow
Churn flow is similar to slug flow but more unstable; it occurs only in
vertical pipes. In this flow pattern, the gas–liquid phase is always
oscillating in the pipe, without clear boundaries (Nimwegen et al.,
2018), as shown in Fig. 8.
As the superficial gas velocity increases in slug flow, the segment
plug section shortens or breaks. The adjacent segment plug sections mix
with each other and churn flow is produced.
Fig. 9 illustrates the effect of superficial gas velocity (VSG) and liquid
velocity (VSL) on the erosion rate. Fig. 9(a) indicates that the erosion
rate decreases as VSL increases with a 76.2-mm pipe diameter, 300-μm
particle size, and 27-m/s VSG. Fig. 9(b) indicates that the erosion rate
increases with increasing gas velocity with a 76.2-mm pipe diameter,
150-μm particle size, and 0.4-m/s VSL. Within a certain limit, the film
thickness on the pipe wall increases due to the increasing liquid velocity.
The fluid film reduces the speed of particle transport, reducing particle
impact on the wall, leading to a lower erosion rate. An increase in VSG
increases the kinetic energy of the particles, causing greater impact on
Z. Wang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 218 (2022) 111042

Fig. 6. Comparison of predicted and experimental data distributions for five-fold cross-validation.

6
Z. Wang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 218 (2022) 111042

Fig. 6. (continued).

Table 2
Model parameters.
Model Parameters

KELM Kernel = RBF′ , C = 50

HKELM Kernel1 = ‘RBF’, Kernel2 = ‘Poly’,
C = 50
WOA–HKELM Population size = 30,
Maximum iterations = 100, C = 50,
Kernel1 = ‘RBF’, Kernel2 = ‘Poly’

the wall and increasing the erosion rate. The WOA–HKELM model ad­
dresses the effects of changes in both factors and forecasts their trends
accordingly.
Bahrainian et al. (2021) integrated the VSG and VSL, and proposed a
dimensionless number VSG/VSL for measuring the influence of both on
erosion. Fig. 10 indicates that the erosion rate increases in a near power
series with velocity ratio with particle sizes of 150 μm and 300 μm.
Erosion rate tends to increase the velocity ratio in a near power series.
The increase in the velocity ratio can only be attributed to an in­
crease in VSG or a decrease in VSL. Both conditions lead to thinning or Fig. 7. Evaluation index values for each model.

7
Z. Wang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 218 (2022) 111042

The increasing liquid flow velocity reduces the pipeline erosion rate
due to the increase in liquid film thickness. The increase in liquid ve­
locity also enables more particles to be trapped in the liquid film area
and impact the wall, leading to increased erosion. These two factors are
interrelated and balance each other.
Fig. 12 shows the effect of VSL on erosion rate in annular flow for two
pipe diameters, 76.2 mm and 101.6 mm. Neither exhibits a single trend
as the fluid flow velocity increases. With a pipe diameter of 76.2 mm,
erosion first decreases and then increases; with a pipe diameter of 101.6
mm, erosion first increases and then decreases. Due to the influence of
pipe diameter, different erosion rates are observed. Bourgoyne (1989)
indicated that the erosion rate decreased with increasing bending
diameter ratio for the same pipe diameter. After reaching a certain ratio,
the bend path lengthens, the flow in the pipeline flattens, and the impact
of solid particles on the wall is weakened. Fig. 13 shows the influence of
VSG on pipe erosion rate in annular flow at 0.1 m/s and 0.01 m/s VSL.
With VSG increasing, the pipe erosion rate generally tends to increase
linearly.

Fig. 8. Churn and annular flow patterns (Zahedi et al., 2018).

intermittent disappearance of the liquid film on the sides of the pipe

wall. The buffering effect of particles striking the wall is weakened,
resulting in a higher erosion rate. Fig. 11 shows the variation in erosion
rate with the velocity ratio at a fluid viscosity of 10 cP. The model
predicts with relative accuracy, demonstrating the generality of the
model at high liquid viscosities.

4.3. Erosion in annular flow

Annular flow occurs with high gas velocity and low liquid velocity.
Erosion is more severe than with other flow patterns owing to high gas
velocity. In this flow pattern, gas flows at high speed in the central zone
of the pipe; the liquid flows slowly in the form of a homogeneous film
Fig. 10. Variation in erosion rate with VSG/VSL with different particle sizes.
close to the pipe wall (Nimwegen et al., 2018), as shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 9. Variation in erosion rate with superficial gas/liquid velocity.

8
Z. Wang et al.
Fig. 11. Variation in erosion rate with 10-cP liquid viscosity.
Liu et al. (2018) proposed the mixing Reynolds number for predic­
tion of erosion in annular flow, and considered it as an essential
parameter. The average flow speed in the Reynolds number is replaced
by the mixed flow velocity of the phases.
Vm = VSG + VSL
Remix =
ρVm D
μL
where Remix is the mixing Reynolds number; Vm is the mixing average
velocity, and ρ is the gas density.
The erosion measurement is set as Er ρD2 . It is a dimensionless
number; Er is the erosion rate. Fig. 14 shows the change in elbow erosion
rate with mixing Reynolds number at different pipe diameters in annular
flow. With higher mixing Reynolds numbers, pipeline erosion is exac­
erbated and Er ρD2 exhibits a power growth. The error between the
prediction and the experimental value is relatively small.
This performance validates the importance of the mixing Reynolds
Fig. 12. Variation in erosion rate with VSL with different pipe diameters.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 218 (2022) 111042
number in predicting erosion in annular flow. It also shows that the
WOA–HKELM model involves the effect of a single parameter and cap­
tures the effect of mixing between partial parameters on erosion.
5. Conclusion
A new intelligent approach to elbow erosion prediction for multi­
phase flow conditions was developed based on ML and SI algorithms.
The predicted erosion results were compared with experimental data
from the literature to verify the accuracy of the method.
For gas–solid flow, the KELM model was superior in terms of pre­
diction accuracy. The WOA and hybrid kernel function were incorpo­
rated into the KELM model; the WOA–HKELM elbow erosion prediction
model was proposed for gas–liquid–solid flow. The MAE and RMSE of
the proposed model prediction results were decreased and R2 was
increased compared to the single-kernel KELM model and the HKELM
model without WOA optimization, indicating the effectiveness of the
model improvement.
The effect of different parameters on erosion was investigated. With
partial nondimensionalization of the input parameters, it was observed
that the WOA–HKELM model can precisely capture the erosion rate
trend with VSG/VSL in churn flow and with Remix in annular flow. The
model prediction is robust and reliable.
As the available data continues to expand and digital twin technol­
ogy develops, the model will be improved and is expected to enable real-
time predictions.
(10) Credit author statement
(11) Zhiguo Wang: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Su­
pervision, Funding acquisition. Haoyu Chen: Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing,
Visualization, Software. Meng Wang: Methodology, Validation. Xu
Zhang: Data curation, Investigation. Yihua Dou: Conceptualization,
Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
9
Z. Wang et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 218 (2022) 111042

Fig. 13. Variation in erosion rate with VSG with different VSL.

Fig. 14. Variation in erosion rate with Remix with different particle sizes.

Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the supports of the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (No.52074220 and
No.5227042548) and the Key R&D Plan of Shaanxi Province
(No.2022GY-129).
References
Ahuja, B., Vishwakarma, V.P., 2021. Deterministic multikernel extreme learning
machine with fuzzy feature extraction for pattern classification. Multimed. Tool.
Appl. 80, 32423–32447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-11097-3.
Argatov, I., 2019. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) as a novel modeling technique in
tribology. Front. Mech. Eng. 5, 30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2019.00030.
Bahrainian, S.S., Bakhshesh, M., Hajidavalloo, E., Parsi, M., 2021. A novel approach for
solid particle erosion prediction based on Gaussian Process Regression. Wear
466–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2020.203549.
Bilal, F.S., Sedrez, T.A., Shirazi, S.A., 2021. Experimental and CFD investigations of 45
and 90 degrees bends and various elbow curvature radii effects on solid particle
erosion. Wear 476, 203646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2021.203646.
Bourgoyne, A.T., 1989. Experimental study of erosion in diverter systems due to sand
production. In: SPE/IADC Drilling Conference. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana. https://doi.
org/10.2118/18716-MS.
Cao, X., Li, X., Fan, Y., Peng, W., Xie, Z., 2020. Effect of superficial air and water
velocities on the erosion of horizontal elbow in slug flow. Powder Technol. 364,
785–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2020.01.067.
Chen, L., Zhang, X., Chen, A., Yao, S., Hu, X., Zhou, Z., 2022. Targeted design of
advanced electrocatalysts by machine learning. Chin. J. Catal. 43, 11–32. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1872-2067(21)63852-4.

10
Z. Wang et al.
Ding, S., Zhao, H., Zhang, Y., Xu, X., Nie, R., 2015. Extreme learning machine: algorithm,
theory and applications. Artif. Intell. Rev. 44, 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10462-013-9405-z.
Ding, S., Zhang, J., Xu, X., Zhang, Y., 2016. A wavelet extreme learning machine. Neural
Comput. Appl. 27, 1033–1040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-1918-8.
Ding, H., Tang, Q., Zhu, Y., Zhang, C., Yang, H., 2021. Cavitation erosion resistance of
316L stainless steel fabricated using selective laser melting. Friction 9, 1580–1598.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-020-0443-7.
Ding, Y., Chen, Z., Zhang, H., Wang, X., Guo, Y., 2022. A short-term wind power
prediction model based on CEEMD and WOA-KELM. Renew. Energy 189, 188–198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.02.108.
Giffen, B., Herhausen, D., Fahse, T., 2022. Overcoming the pitfalls and perils of
algorithms: a classification of machine learning biases and mitigation methods.
J. Bus. Res. 144, 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.076.
Haider, G., Othayq, M., Zhang, J., Vieira, R.E., Shirazi, S.A., 2021. Effect of particle size
on erosion measurements and predictions in annular flow for an elbow. Wear 476,
203579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2020.203579.
He, C., Xu, F., Liu, Y., Zheng, J., 2018. A fast kernel extreme learning machine based on
conjugate gradient. Netw. Comput. Neural Syst. 29, 70–80. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0954898X.2018.1562247.
Huang, Guang-Bin, Zhu, Qin-Yu, Siew, Chee-Kheong, 2004. Extreme learning machine: a
new learning scheme of feedforward neural networks. In: 2004 IEEE International
Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37541). Presented at the
2004 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE Cat.
No.04CH37541). IEEE, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 985–990. https://doi.org/10.1109/
IJCNN.2004.1380068.
Jamei, M., Hasanipanah, M., Karbasi, M., Ahmadianfar, I., Taherifar, S., 2021. Prediction
of flyrock induced by mine blasting using a novel kernel-based extreme learning
machine. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 13, 1438–1451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrmge.2021.07.007.
Jones, S.P., Jansen, R., Fusaro, R.L., 1997. Preliminary investigation of neural network
techniques to predict tribological properties. Tribol. Trans. 40, 312–320. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10402009708983660.
Karimi, S., Xu, B., Asgharpour, A., Shirazi, S.A., Sen, S., 2020. Predicting solid particle
erosion and uncertainty in elbows by artificial intelligence methods. In: Fluid
Mechanics; Multiphase Flows. Presented at the ASME 2020 Fluids Engineering
Division Summer Meeting, vol. 2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Virtual, Online. V002T04A014. https://doi.org/10/gqnhr9.
Kicska, G., Kiss, A., 2021. Comparing swarm intelligence algorithms for dimension
reduction in machine learning. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 5, 36. https://doi.org/
10.3390/bdcc5030036.
Liang, S., Zeng, J., 2020. Fault detection for complex system under multi-operation
conditions based on correlation analysis and improved similarity. Symmetry 12,
1836. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12111836.
Liu, H., Yang, W., Kang, R., 2018. A correlation for sand erosion prediction in annular
flow considering the effect of liquid dynamic viscosity. Wear 404– 405, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2018.02.011.
Lu, Y., Agrawal, M., 2014. A computational-fluid-dynamics-based eulerian-granular
approach for characterization of sand erosion in multiphase-flow systems. SPE J. 19,
586–597. https://doi.org/10.2118/159921-PA.
Mei, Y., Cheng, S., Hao, Z., Guo, L., Li, X., Zeng, X., Ge, J., 2019. Quantitative analysis of
steel and iron by laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy using GA-KELM. Plasma Sci.
Technol. 21, 034020 https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-6272/aaf6f3.
Mirjalili, S., Lewis, A., 2016. The whale optimization algorithm. Adv. Eng. Software 95,
51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.01.008.
Nimwegen, A.T., Portela, L.M., Henkes, R.A.W.M., 2018. Modelling of upwards gas-
liquid annular and churn flow with surfactants in vertical pipes. Int. J. Multiphas.
Flow 105, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2017.09.012.
Pandya, D.A., Dennis, B.H., Russell, R.D., 2017. A computational fluid dynamics based
artificial neural network model to predict solid particle erosion. Wear 378–379,
198–210 https://doi.org/10/f98bgh.
Parsi, M., Agrawal, M., Srinivasan, V., Vieira, R.E., Torres, C.F., McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.
A., 2015a. CFD simulation of sand particle erosion in gas-dominant multiphase flow.
J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 27, 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.09.003.
11
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 218 (2022) 111042
Parsi, M., Vieira, R.E., Kesana, N., McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.A., 2015b. Ultrasonic
measurements of sand particle erosion in gas dominant multiphase churn flow in
vertical pipes. Wear 328– 329, 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wear.2015.03.013.
Phan, H.D., Ellis, K., Barca, J.C., Dorin, A., 2020. A survey of dynamic parameter setting
methods for nature-inspired swarm intelligence algorithms. Neural Comput. Appl.
32, 567–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04229-2.
Pyboyina, M., 2006. Experimental Investigation and Computational Fluid Dynamics
Simulations of Erosion on Electrical Resistance Probes,. M.S. Thesis Department of
Mechanical Engineering, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Salama, M.M., 1998. An alternative to API 14E erosional velocity limits for sand laden
fluids. In: All Days. Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference. OTC, Houston,
Texas. https://doi.org/10.4043/8898-MS. OTC-8898-MS.
Sedrez, T.A., Shirazi, S.A., 2021. Erosion evaluation of elbows in series with different
configurations. Wear 476, 203683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2021.203683.
Shamshirband, S., Malvandi, A., Karimipour, A., Goodarzi, M., Afrand, M., Petković, D.,
Dahari, M., Mahmoodian, N., 2015. Performance investigation of micro- and nano-
sized particle erosion in a 90◦ elbow using an ANFIS model. Powder Technol. 284,
336–343 https://doi.org/10/gqgqxj.
Sheng, M., Huang, Z.-W., Tian, S.-C., Zhang, Y., Gao, S.-W., Jia, Y.-P., 2020. CFD analysis
and field observation of tool erosion caused by abrasive waterjet fracturing. Petrol.
Sci. 17, 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-020-00425-1.
Sun, W., Tang, M., Zhang, L., Huo, Z., Shu, L., 2020. A survey of using swarm intelligence
algorithms in IoT. Sensors 20, 1420. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20051420.
Tran, A., Furlan, J.M., Pagalthivarthi, K.V., Visintainer, R.J., Wildey, T., Wang, Y., 2019.
WearGP: a computationally efficient machine learning framework for local erosive
wear predictions via nodal Gaussian processes. Wear 422– 423, 9–26. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wear.2018.12.081.
Ulas, M., Altay, O., Gurgenc, T., Özel, C., 2020. A new approach for prediction of the
wear loss of PTA surface coatings using artificial neural network and basic, kernel-
based, and weighted extreme learning machine. Friction 8, 1102–1116. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40544-017-0340-0.
Vieira, R.E., Parsi, M., Zahedi, P., McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.A., 2017. Ultrasonic
measurements of sand particle erosion under upward multiphase annular flow
conditions in a vertical-horizontal bend. Int. J. Multiphas. Flow 93, 48–62. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2017.02.010.
Wang, Y., Cao, F., Yuan, Y., 2011. A study on effectiveness of extreme learning machine.
Neurocomputing 74, 2483–2490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2010.11.030.
Wang, Q., Huang, Q., Wang, N., Wen, Y., Ba, X., Sun, X., Zhang, J., Karimi, S., Shirazi, S.
A., 2021. An experimental and numerical study of slurry erosion behavior in a
horizontal elbow and elbows in series. Eng. Fail. Anal. 130, 105779 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105779.
Wang, W., Wang, J., Tian, J., Lu, J., Xiong, R., 2021. Application of digital twin in smart
battery management systems. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 34, 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s10033-021-00577-0.
Wang, Q., Ba, X., Huang, Q., Wang, N., Wen, Y., Zhang, Z., Sun, X., Yang, L., Zhang, J.,
2022. Modeling erosion process in elbows of petroleum pipelines using large eddy
simulation. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 211, 110216 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
petrol.2022.110216.
Wee, S.K., Yap, Y.J., 2019. CFD study of sand erosion in pipeline. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 176,
269–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.01.001.
Yu, W., Fede, P., Climent, E., Sanders, S., 2019. Multi-fluid approach for the numerical
prediction of wall erosion in an elbow. Powder Technol. 354, 561–583. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.powtec.2019.06.007.
Zahedi, P., Parvandeh, S., Asgharpour, A., McLaury, B.S., Shirazi, S.A., McKinney, B.A.,
2018. Random forest regression prediction of solid particle Erosion in elbows.
Powder Technol. 338, 983–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2018.07.055.
Zolfagharnasab, M.H., Salimi, M., Zolfagharnasab, H., Alimoradi, H., Shams, M.,
Aghanajafi, C., 2021. A novel numerical investigation of erosion wear over various
90-degree elbow duct sections. Powder Technol. 380, 1–17 https://doi.org/10/
gmfs8c.
Mazumder, Q., Development and Validation of a Mechanistic Model to Predict Erosion in
Single-Phase and Multiphase Flow, Ph.D. Dissertation Department of Mechanical
Engineering, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 2004.