Brenton S.

McLaury
e-mail: brenton-mclaury@utulsa.edu

Siamack A. Shirazi Distribution of Sand Particles in

Vinod Viswanathan
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Horizontal and Vertical Annular
The University of Tulsa,
800 S. Tucker Drive, Multiphase Flow in Pipes and
Tulsa, OK 74104

Quamrul H. Mazumder
the Effects on Sand Erosion
Department of Computer Science,
Predicting erosion resulting from the impact of solid particles such as sand is a difficult
Engineering Science and Physics,
task, since it is dependent on so many factors. The difficulty is compounded if the par-
University of Michigan-Flint,
ticles are entrained in multiphase flow. Researchers have developed models to predict
213E Murchie Science Building,
erosion resulting from solid particles in multiphase flow that account for a variety of fac-
303 East Kearsley Street,
tors. However, no model currently accounts for the flow orientation on the severity of
Flint, MI 48502
erosion. This work provides three sets of experimental results that demonstrate pipe ori-
e-mail: qmazumde@umflint.edu
entation can have a significant impact on the amount of erosion for annular flow. A semi-
mechanistic model to predict erosion in annular flow is also outlined that accounts for
Gerardo Santos the upstream flow orientation. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4004264]
Ecopetrol, Corrosion and
Materials Engineering, Keywords: annular flow, erosion, sand
A.A. 4185,
Bucaramanga, Columbia
e-mail: gsantos@ecopetrol.com.co

1 Background and Introduction anticipated during production have been addressed [2,3] and this
has led many producers to seek out other models intended to pre-
Many oil and gas producers are forced to address issues result-
dict solid particle erosion. Recognizing the need for models to
ing from the production of formation sand along with oil and gas.
replace API RP 14E, Salama and Venkatesh [4] and Svedeman
The produced sand causes several problems such as potential
and Arnold [5] presented models to calculate an erosional thresh-
damage to the reservoir, sand accumulation in lines or equipment,
old velocity. Both of these models accounted for the amount of
sand separation issues, and erosion. Erosion problems result from
sand flowing in the system. The model of Salama and Venkatesh
sand impacting the surfaces of lines and equipment removing pipe
was based on data of Weiner [6] and assumed the particles
wall material. The material removal can result from several differ-
impacted the surface at velocities similar to the flow velocity.
ent mechanisms including cutting, ploughing, fatigue, and brittle
This is approximately valid for gases at relatively low pressures.
fracture. For all mechanisms the severity of erosion depends on
However, this model did account for the pipe diameter. The model
many factors including wall material, type and size of geometry,
of Svedeman and Arnold [5] also accounts for the size and type of
flow regime, fluid properties, and particle properties and size.
fitting. This model relies on an empirical constant derived from
Regardless of the mechanism, erosion is a serious concern. Ero-
experimental data presented by Bourgoyne [7]. These two proce-
sion can result in failure of equipment posing a danger to person-
dures are based on the experimental data and are only valid for a
nel and the environment and also result in economic losses from
limited range of conditions. For example, these procedures are not
production losses and repairing or replacing the eroded compo-
general and should not be used for a broad range of fluid proper-
nent. To alleviate the risk of unforeseen failures from sand ero-
ties. The models also do not account for particle properties such
sion, design engineers need a tool capable of predicting erosion
as size.
rates in a given geometry exposed to a given set of operating con-
Shirazi et al. [8] developed a model to predict maximum ero-
ditions. With this tool, the production rate could be optimized
sion that accounted for geometry type, size, and material; fluid
allowing the largest production rate that would produce only an
properties and rate; and sand size, shape, and density. The model
allowable amount of erosion. However, developing this tool is dif-
is based on Eq. (1) and was originally developed for use with a
ficult since the severity of erosion depends on many factors.
single-phase carrier fluid.
For years, oil and gas producers used the American Petroleum
Institute Recommended Practice 14E, API RP 14E [1], to calcu-
WV1:73
L
late a threshold erosional flowstream velocity. However, this h ¼ FM FS FP (1)
guideline does not consider sand nor does it account for many fac- ðD=Do Þ2
tors that affect erosion. Speculation on the origin of the practice
has been discussed, but the form demonstrates that it was not where h ¼ penetration rate, FM, FS ¼ empirical factors for material
intended for use in the presence of sand [2]. Misuse of the practice and sand sharpness, FP ¼ penetration factor, W ¼ sand production
resulted from its ease of application and lack of other available rate, VL ¼ characteristic particle impact velocity, D ¼ pipe diame-
methods. The shortcomings of API RP 14E for use when sand is ter, and Do ¼ reference pipe diameter, 1 in. (25.4 mm)
Values for FM are determined experimentally by direct
impingement erosion testing of the material of interest. Values for
Contributed by the Petroleum Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL
OFENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 30, 2009; final
FS have also been determined experimentally and range from 0.2
manuscript received May 5, 2011; published online June 27, 2011. Assoc. Editor: for spherical particles (glass beads) to 1.0 for sharp, angular par-
Andrew K. Wojtanowicz. ticles. FP is a penetration factor that is a function of geometry.

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright V

C 2011 by ASME JUNE 2011, Vol. 133 / 023001-1

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The purpose of this factor is to account for the variation in thick-
ness loss resulting from the geometry specific erosion pattern. The
diameter ratio (D=Do)2 term is also used to account for the differ-
ence in internal surface area that is being eroded, but in this case,
the variation in eroded area results from difference in pipe size
instead of geometry type. A key component of the approach is the
determination of a representative characteristic particle impact ve-
locity, VL, which is accomplished by solving the particle equation
of motion through a given distance that is a function of geometry
type and size. The initial particle and fluid velocities are set equal
to the average flow velocity. The fluid velocity profile is assumed
to be linear starting at the average flow velocity for single-phase
flow and then reaching a value of zero at the wall. The particle ve-
locity is solved numerically as it approaches the wall. In this
work, only the drag force acting on the particle is used. The parti-
cle impact velocity is taken when the particle is a particle radius
away from the wall.
This model was then extended to multiphase flow [9]. The first
variation of the model for multiphase flow used the mixture den-
sity and viscosity to represent the fluid properties, and the initial
particle velocity was a function of superficial gas and liquid veloc-
ities but was not flow regime dependent [9]. The next variation
developed by Mazumder [10] used initial particle velocities that
were a function of the flow regime. For example, the initial parti-
cle velocity used in the particle tracking for annular flow was a
mass-weighted average of the gas core velocity and liquid film ve-
locity. Mazumder took the model one step further for annular flow
by calculating the erosion from particles in the gas core and in the
liquid film separately then adding together [11]. The gas and liq-
uid properties along with the gas core and liquid film velocities,
respectively, were used in the particle tracking to determine the
representative impact velocities. The fraction of particles present
in the gas core was assumed to be equal to the entrainment frac-
tion of the liquid in the gas core.
Jordan [3] also extended the McLaury and Shirazi semi-empiri-
cal model to multiphase flow. He also analyzed the gas and liquid
phases separately. Salama also developed an empirical model for
use with a multiphase carrier fluid [12]. This model uses mixture
properties and mixture velocity to determine erosion. This model
still calculates the erosion as a function of the fluid (mixture) veloc-
ity, effectively assuming that the particle impact velocity is similar
to the fluid velocity. This model also relies on a geometry depend-
ent constant that must be determined experimentally. DNV (Det
Norske Veritas) has also developed a recommended practice based
on the experimental data and computational fluid dynamic results
[13]. Details of the practice are not published in open literature.
Several researchers have used a computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) approach to calculate erosion [14–16]. This approach gen-
erally consists of three steps: calculating the flow field for a given
geometry, calculating thousands of representative particle trajec-
tories, and using the impingement information in erosion equa-
tions to determine a penetration rate. The CFD approach is the
most general approach and is the best way to capture the effects of
geometry. This approach also accounts for a variety of parameters
that influence the severity of erosion. However, this approach is
essentially limited to a single-phase carrier fluid or multiphase
flow with a homogenous flow structure such as bubbly flow. This
limitation results from difficulties in obtaining solutions for multi-
phase flow regimes such as annular flow due to lack of appropriate
models. CFD for multiphase (gas-liquid) flow is still in its begin-
nings, but work is progressing in this area. Chen [17] performed
some preliminary erosion simulations in multiphase flow that used
a combination of CFD and mechanistic models. For example, he
used CFD to simulate an annular flow using the gas core proper-
ties and velocities. However, when the particles hit the wall, an
additional routine would be used to simulate the particle crossing
the liquid film to impact the wall. Information on the film thick-
ness and velocities were generated using mechanistic models. All
of the CFD approaches are computationally intensive and require
the CFD software and expertise of its use.
023001-2 / Vol. 133, JUNE 2011
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
In order for any erosion prediction model to work effectively,
information must be determined about the impact characteristics
of the particles. Any factor that can change the representative par-
ticle impact velocity should be taken into account. The authors
have noticed that the erosion rates vary depending on the
upstream flow orientation, horizontal, or vertical. The purpose of
this work is to examine the effect of upstream flow orientation on
erosion for annular flow. In order to investigate the effect of flow
orientation, three types of experiments were performed to either
directly or indirectly provide insight into the erosion process. The
first type of experiment was the most direct. Annular flow was
produced in a flow loop and an erodent was added, then the result-
ing erosion was measured for both horizontal and vertical orienta-
tions for comparison. The second type of experiment measured
the relative concentration of sand at various radial positions
upstream of the bend for both orientations. The distribution of par-
ticles within the flow affects the ability of the particles to impact
the wall especially in multiphase (gas–liquid) flows. The third
type of test was to measure acoustic monitor response on the
bend, which effectively aids in examining particle impact
strength. The Secs. 2 and 3 are divided into these three types of
testing.
2 Experimental Procedure
The data available for erosion resulting from solid particles in a
multiphase carrier fluid is very limited. Salama [12] presents a rel-
atively large set of data obtained at AEA and DNV; this data is
for a variety of superficial gas and liquid velocities and uses a cou-
ple different pipe sizes and particle diameters. Bourgoyne [7] also
presents a limited amount of multiphase erosion data. His data for
a multiphase carrier fluid is for very high gas rates with very little
liquid, basically a wet gas flow. The present work was initiated in
an effort to understand the effects of flow orientation on impact
velocity of particles in multiphase flow. The following sections
will describe work performed examining effects of sand particles
moving in a multiphase carrier fluid in horizontal and vertical
multiphase flow by three investigators at The University of Tulsa:
Mazumder (erosion testing), Santos (erosion testing and sand dis-
tribution testing), and Viswanathan (acoustic monitor testing).
2.1 Erosion Testing. Erosion testing was performed by both
Santos and Mazumder. Santos’ original goal was to gather erosion
data for sand in multiphase flow, specifically annular flow. The
annular flow pattern was selected, since the erosion is relatively
aggressive in this flow regime. A schematic of the testing facility
is shown in Fig. 1. The facility used has a diameter of 25.4 mm
(1.0 in.) for both the piping and the test sections. Two elbow
specimens are the erosion test sections: one was placed down-
stream of a horizontal pipe section and one downstream of a verti-
cal pipe section. The horizontal test section (the elbow) has
horizontal flow upstream and vertical flow downstream. The verti-
cal test section has vertical flow upstream and horizontal flow
downstream. The lengths of the pipe sections upstream of the
elbow test sections are approximately 4 m (13 ft). A representative
elbow test cell is shown in Fig. 2. The figure shows the erosion
specimen placed in the test cell. Aluminum bar stock, which is the
erosion specimen, is bent to match the outer wall curvature of a
standard elbow. In order to determine the thickness of the material
removed from erosion, thin scratches were placed at several loca-
tions along with the specimen. A profilometer was then used to
determine the depth of the scratch before and after testing. The
change in measured depth is the thickness loss. The test cell is
made of two halves and along with the specimen forms the elbow.
Water and air are used as the carrier fluid, and the erodent was
sand with an average size of approximately 150 lm. The sand size
distribution is provided in Fig. 3. The sand is mixed with water in
the slurry tank and introduced into the gas phase. The sand con-
centration in the slurry was 2% by mass. The facility is open to
atmosphere and operates at low pressures.
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 1 Schematic of 1-in. multiphase erosion test facility
Mazumder [11] performed erosion experiments under very sim-
ilar conditions to Santos. In fact, the same 1-in. experimental fa-
cility including test cell was used for both studies. The same type
of sand with an average diameter of 150 lm was also used. How-
ever, Mazumder used a stainless steel erosion specimen instead of
an aluminum specimen.
2.2 Sand Distribution Measurements. Since the results
obtained for the erosion testing present a phenomenon that is not
documented as will be discussed in Sec. 3, additional studies were
proposed to gain insight to the reason behind the differences. The
next set of experiments was to gather information on the sand dis-
tribution in the upstream flow. Intrusive probes were placed
upstream of the horizontal and vertical test sections of the facility
described in Sec. 2.1. The Pitot-type probes were able to traverse
most of the inner diameter of the pipe. A schematic of the probe
and the five locations, where samples of liquid and sand were col-
lected are shown in Fig. 4. The samples were collected for the test
conditions used for the erosion experiments: a fixed superficial
liquid velocity and three superficial gas velocities. A fixed quan-
tity of sand and liquid were used for each test, and once again the
concentration of the sand was approximately 2% by mass of the
liquid. The probe collected the mixture of water and sand during
the entire test. More details on the testing procedure are described
by Santos [18].
Fig. 2 Test cell used for erosion experiments
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
2.3 Acoustic Sand Monitor Testing. Viswanathan [19] also
performed work examining the effect of upstream flow orientation
for multiphase flow. Instead of examining erosion, Viswanathan
investigated acoustic sand monitor performance. A commercially
available acoustic monitor was utilized for this work. The monitor
is a passive device that “listens” for acoustic signals generated by
flow noise and particles striking the walls. In an effort to reduce
the effect of flow noise, the transducer signal for a given fre-
quency range associated with particle impacts is evaluated. The
transducer signal is converted to a voltage that is reported in real
time. Calibration of the monitor is necessary if it is desired to
determine the sand rate from the monitor output. However in this
work, calibration is not necessary since the goal is simply to com-
pare the acoustic monitor output for horizontal and vertical orien-
tations for fixed flow conditions and sand rates. He examined
annular, slug, bubble, and dispersed bubble flows as well as sin-
gle-phase gas and liquid. However, this work will only focus on
the annular flow cases. The output created by the acoustic sensor
is a function of the number and size of particles impacting the sur-
face and the impacting velocity of the particles. In this sense, a
correlation between the acoustic monitor output and measured
erosion is expected.
A schematic of the 2-in. diameter facility used for acoustic
monitor testing is shown in Fig. 5. The water and sand from the
slurry mixing tank are injected at the base of the boom, and for
the annular flow cases considered, no additional water was
required from the liquid tank. A commercially available acoustic
sensor was placed downstream of a metallic elbow. The elbow
was at the end of a 7.6 m (25 ft) pipe placed on a boom that could
Fig. 3 Sand size distribution
JUNE 2011, Vol. 133 / 023001-3
 Fig. 4 Schematic of liquid and sand sampling probe and locations sampled
be raised from the horizontal to the vertical position. A photo-
graph of the boom is shown in Fig. 6. Most of the piping on the
boom was clear PVC, so that visualization of the flow pattern
could be performed. The sand used during this testing was similar
to the sand used by Santos and Mazumder.
3 Experimental Results
3.1 Erosion Testing. Erosion experiments were performed
by Santos using aluminium specimens at a superficial liquid ve-
locity, Vsl, of 0.30 m=s (1.0 ft=s) and for superficial gas velocities,
Vsg, of 34 m=s (112 ft=s), 27 m=s (90 ft=s), and 19 m=s (62 ft=s).
Additional details of the testing are provided in Sec. 2.1. The
amount of erosion was quantified by measuring the mass loss of
the erosion specimen. Figures 7–9 show the mass losses of the
horizontal and vertical specimens as a function of the sand
throughput for the superficial gas velocities of 34, 27, and 19 m=s,
respectively. For each test condition, the erosion in the vertical
section was higher than in the horizontal section. Based on the av-
erage erosion, the erosion was higher in the vertical specimens by
Fig. 5 Schematic of 2-in. multiphase erosion test facility
023001-4 / Vol. 133, JUNE 2011
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
factors of 1.9, 4.7, and 2.7 for the superficial gas velocities of 34,
27, and 19 m=s, respectively.
Mazumder also used a superficial liquid velocity of 0.30 m=s
and three superficial gas velocities of 34, 27, and 19 m=s (112, 90,
and 62 ft=s) to conduct erosion testing on stainless steel speci-
mens. Figures 10–12 show the mass loss versus sand throughput
for the three gas velocities for both horizontal and vertical orienta-
tions. The results demonstrate similar results as gathered by San-
tos. It is interesting to note that the erosion is higher for the
vertical orientations by factors of approximately 2.5, 4.9, and 2.6
for the superficial gas velocities of 34, 27, and 19 m=s. These fac-
tors are very similar to those presented previously by Santos.
3.2 Sand Distribution Measurements. The next sets of data
were collected to aid in the understanding of the effects of pipe
orientation on the erosion results. The following results are pre-
sented as percentages of the water and sand collected by the probe
at a given location of the total mass of liquid and sand used for
the test. Figures 13–15 show the percentage of liquid and sand for
Vsl ¼ 0.30 m=s and Vsg ¼ 34, 27, and 19 m=s, respectively, for the
vertical orientation. These figures demonstrate the distributions of
the liquid and sand are relatively uniform across the pipe. The fig-
ures may indicate that the amount of water and sand collected in
the center of the pipe decreases with decreasing gas rate. (The
Fig. 6 Photograph of boom for 2-in. erosion test facility
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 7 Comparison of erosion for horizontal and vertical test Fig. 10 Comparison of erosion for horizontal and vertical test
sections for Vsg 5 34 m=s and Vsl 5 0.30 m=s, aluminum sections for Vsg 5 34 m=s and Vsl 5 0.30 m=s, stainless steel
specimen specimen

Fig. 8 Comparison of erosion for horizontal and vertical test

sections for Vsg 5 27 m=s and Vsl 5 0.30 m=s, aluminum Fig. 11 Comparison of erosion for horizontal and vertical test
specimen sections for Vsg 5 27 m=s and Vsl 5 0.30 m=s, stainless steel
specimen

Fig. 9 Comparison of erosion for horizontal and vertical test Fig. 12 Comparison of erosion for horizontal and vertical test
sections for Vsg 5 19 m=s and Vsl 5 0.30 m=s, aluminum sections for Vsg 5 19 m=s and Vsl 5 0.30 m=s, stainless steel
specimen specimen

Journal of Energy Resources Technology JUNE 2011, Vol. 133 / 023001-5

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 13 Fraction of liquid and sand by location, Vsg534 m=s
and Vsl50.30 m=s, vertical orientation
Fig. 14 Fraction of liquid and sand by location, Vsg 5 27 m=s
and Vsl 5 0.30 m=s, vertical orientation
data collected at probe location 4 for Vsg¼19 m=s seems suspi-
cious; it would be anticipated that data at location 4 should be
similar to data at location 2 for the vertical orientation.) Similar
data were collected for the horizontal orientation. The results for
Vsg¼34, 27, and 19 m=s are shown in Figs. 16–18, respectively.
These figures demonstrate that gravity affects the water and sand
distribution, and as expected more water and sand flow at the bot-
tom of the pipe. The difference in distribution from top to the bot-
tom of the pipe becomes more pronounced as the gas rate
decreases. This is to be expected for two reasons. First, the
entrainment of liquid reduces with decreased gas rate; this also
Fig. 15 Fraction of liquid and sand by location, Vsg 5 19 m=s and Vsl 5 0.30 m=s, vertical orientation
023001-6 / Vol. 133, JUNE 2011
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
indicates that the sand entrained in the core would also decrease
with a decrease in gas rate. Second, the ratio of liquid film thick-
ness at the top to the bottom also decreases as the gas rate
decreases, essentially saying that relatively the film thickness at
the bottom would increase with decreases in gas rate.
These results are important for two reasons. First, they indicate
that particles follow the liquid. Figures 13–18 show that the rela-
tive percentages of the liquid and sand are nearly the same for all
probe positions for the vertical orientation and only show minimal
changes in the horizontal orientation. Where there is more liquid
there is more sand. This supports the assumption that the entrain-
ment of liquid can be used to estimate the entrainment of sand.
Second, the results show that the distribution of particles is axi-
symmetric and fairly uniform for vertical flow, but more particles
are flowing toward the bottom of the pipe for horizontal flow.
This may result from less entrainment in horizontal flow and also
the thicker film at the bottom of the pipe for horizontal flow. Since
a thicker film means more water, this also means more particles.
The differences observed in the distribution of sand and liquid in
vertical and horizontal flow appears to be responsible for the dif-
ferences in erosion results for the vertical and horizontal elbow
specimens. This is further discussed below.
3.3 Acoustic Sand Monitor Testing. As described in Sec.
2.3, tests were also performed in another experimental facility in
which acoustic sand monitors were used. The range of test flow
rates examined in this study for annular flow was relatively nar-
row. Very similar average monitor output was obtained for each
of these three settings. Figure 19 shows a normalized monitor out-
put for Vsg ¼ 20 m=s (66.5 ft=s) and Vsl ¼ 0.15 m=s (0.50 ft=s) for
both the vertical and horizontal positions. The average outputs for
both the vertical and horizontal positions have been normalized
using the same value. Each symbol on the figure represents a sepa-
rate test using a fixed amount of sand injected during the test with
liquid. The average monitor output was obtained for the duration
of a test for a given sand rate for the given flow conditions. The
curves for both orientations have the same trends. The data points
at the leftmost position represent the zero sand condition; this pro-
vides the background noise level for the flow. The zero sand rate
data are interesting in the fact that the vertical orientation has a
higher background noise level than the horizontal flow. This may
indicate the difference in entrainment between the flow orienta-
tions. The vertical flow may have more entrained liquid droplets
in the gas core. As discussed by Williams et al. [20], the deposi-
tion of droplets in vertical annular flow is primarily a function of
free flight; however, the deposition of droplets in horizontal flow
is also a function of gravity and turbulence. The liquid droplets in
the gas core will be travelling at a higher velocity than the liquid
in the annular film, so the droplets from the gas core will impact
the elbow at a greater velocity resulting in a larger monitor output.
Fore and Dukler [21] found that on average the liquid droplets in
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 16 Fraction of liquid and sand by location, Vsg 5 34 m=s and Vsl 5 0.30 m=s, horizontal orientation
the gas core travelled at a velocity 80% of the gas velocity; this is
substantially higher than the average liquid film velocity. As the
sand rate increases, the monitor output will remain approximately
the same until the sand impacts increase the noise level above the
background value. The point at which the noise level increases
above the background noise is referred to as the threshold sand
rate that can be detected by the acoustic sand detector. As the
sand rate increases beyond the threshold value, the monitor output
varies fairly linearly on a log–log plot with sand rate. Figure 20
show the results for two additional annular flow conditions for
both orientations along with the data presented in Fig. 19. The
results for each flow orientation are very similar with the vertical
orientation being consistently higher than the same condition for
the horizontal orientation. The results do show that the lowest gas
rate produces slightly lower monitor output. Figure 20 demon-
strates that the acoustic monitor output for the vertical section is
consistently higher than for the horizontal section for all three
conditions considered. Even if the effect of the background noise
is removed, the adjusted output is still higher for the vertical ori-
entation. This indicates the particle impact momentum is less in
the horizontal case. This can mean that either fewer particles are
striking the wall near the elbow test section and=or that the par-
ticles are impacting the walls at lower velocities for the horizontal
section.
4 Semi-Mechanistic Erosion Model to Account for
Flow Orientation
No erosion prediction model is currently available that accounts
for the upstream pipe orientation. This section presents a model
that predicts erosion in elbows for annular flow conditions that
Fig. 17 Fraction of liquid and sand by location, Vsg 5 27 m=s
and Vsl 5 0.30 m=s, horizontal orientation
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
can be used for horizontal and vertical upstream flow. This model
is an extension of the single-phase model proposed by Shirazi et
al. [8] discussed in detail in Sec. 1. There is some similarity to
models proposed by Viswanathan [19] and Mazumder [11].
The model assumes that particles are present in the gas core
and the liquid film of annular flow. The particles are assumed to
travel in the same manner as the liquid; meaning if a certain frac-
tion of liquid is in the gas core in the form of droplets (entrain-
ment fraction), then an equal fraction of the particles is also in the
gas core. So, a liquid entrainment relation is used to determine the
fraction of sand in the gas core and in the liquid film. The entrain-
ment model used for this study is provided by Ishii and Mishima
[22]. More discussion on the selection of this model is provided
by Mazumder [11]. For this work, the entrainment is assumed to
be equal for the vertical and horizontal cases for a given set of
operating conditions. Once the split of particles between the gas
core and liquid film is known, the next step is to determine the
representative impact velocity of particles in each region. An im-
portant factor affecting the impact velocity of the particles is the
liquid film thickness. A mechanistic model proposed by Paz and
Shoham [23] is used to determine the film thickness for both the
vertical and horizontal orientations. The film thickness for the ver-
tical orientation is assumed to be symmetric around the pipe. The
film thickness at the top and bottom of the pipe are calculated for
the horizontal orientation. The film thickness at the bottom of the
pipe is used for the semimechanistic model being proposed in this
work for horizontal flow.
A two-step approach is used to determine the representative
impact velocity of particles present in the gas core. Figure 21 is a
schematic representing the approach used. The motion of a repre-
sentative particle is simplified to a one-dimensional path. A
Fig. 18 Fraction of liquid and sand by location, Vsg 5 19 m=s
and Vsl 5 0.30 m=s, horizontal orientation
JUNE 2011, Vol. 133 / 023001-7
 Fig. 19 Normalized average acoustic monitor output for annular flow, Vsg520.3 m=s and
Vsl50.15 m=s

Fig. 20 Normalized average acoustic monitor output for annular flow (three conditions)

simplified Lagrangian particle tracking routine similar to the one

used by Shirazi et al. [8] is applied across both the gas core and the
liquid film representing the two-steps. The first step is to determine
the representative velocity of a particle leaving the core region and
entering the liquid film. The particle motion through the gas core is
represented by the particle passing through a one-dimensional flow
field that has an initial velocity equivalent to the gas core velocity
and a final velocity of zero at the interface between the gas core
and the liquid film. The fluid properties, density, and viscosity, in
this region are assumed to be that of the gas. The representative
length used for the particle tracking calculation is a function of the
pipe diameter and is the same as the single-phase model by Shirazi
[8]. The initial particle velocity is assumed to be the gas core veloc-
ity. The particle velocity at the end of the representative length is
assumed to represent the particle velocity at the interface of the gas
core and liquid film. For many cases, the particle velocity at the
interface is similar to the gas core velocity due to the differences in
density between the particle and gas. However, the exchange of
momentum between the gas and the particle is greater for a more
dense gas causing the deceleration of the gas to slow the particles
more effectively. The next step is to represent the motion of the Fig. 21 Gas core and liquid film in annular flow (elbow and
particle through the liquid film. The particles travel through the simplified one-dimensional representation)

023001-8 / Vol. 133, JUNE 2011 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 film in the downstream section of the bend, where the primary fluid
velocity component is perpendicular to the trajectory of the particle
at the inlet of the bend, so the film is assumed not to have a velocity
component in the direction of the motion of the particle. The fluid
properties are assumed to equal that of the liquid for particle track-
ing through the liquid film. So, the particle starts with a velocity
equal to the value calculated at the interface and travels through a
stagnant liquid region with a thickness equal to the film thickness.
The film thickness for the horizontal cases will be greater than the
vertical orientations; this causes the particles to have slower particle
impact velocities for the horizontal orientation. This procedure pro-
vides a representative impact velocity for particles initially in the
gas core.
The next step is to determine the representative impact velocity
of the particles initially in the liquid film. The particles travel
through a one-dimensional flow field with a linear velocity profile
that varies from the average film velocity to zero at the wall. The
initial particle velocity is also equal to the average film velocity.
The film properties are once again assumed to be that of the liq-
uid. The particle tracking is then used to obtain the representative
particle impact velocity at the wall for particles that started in the
liquid film.
The particle impingement information can then be used to cal-
culate erosion. Erosion equations are often presented in the form
shown in Eq. (2), which has similarities to Eq. (1)
ER ¼ A Vnimp (2)
where ER is the erosion ratio, Vimp is the representative impact
velocity of the particles, n is an empirical constant equal to 1.73
in this work, and A represents several of the other empirical fac-
tors in Eq. (1). The erosion ratio is defined as the mass loss of the
target material to the mass of particles impacting the target.
Equation (2) is split into two parts since two representative par-
ticle impact velocities are calculated. The equation is also modi-
fied by multiplying by the sand rate to convert the dimensionless
erosion ratio to a penetration rate to form Eq. (3). After obtaining
the particle impact velocities, Eq. (3) is used to calculate the pene-
tration rate resulting from the particle impacts in the gas core and
liquid film
h i
h ¼ A W E VnGðimpÞ þ ð1  EÞ VnLðimpÞ (3)
where E is the entrainment fraction, VG(imp) is the representative
impact velocity of particles in the gas core, VL(imp) is the represen-
tative impact velocity of particles in the liquid film, and W is the
sand rate.
The ratio of the predicted erosion for horizontal to vertical ori-
entations using this procedure is compared to the ratio of experi-
mental results for horizontal to vertical orientations obtained by
Mazumder [11] presented in Sec. 4.3. These ratios are shown in
Fig. 22. The ratios of the results show excellent agreement
between the proposed model and the experimental data. This
model is mechanistic in nature, but relies on results from other
models to describe characteristics of annular flow such as entrain-
ment fraction and liquid film thickness. So, the limitations on
these models impose limitations on the model as a whole. For
example, the entrainment fraction model is intended for use for
Reynolds numbers based on total liquid volumetric flux greater
than 160 [22]. Also, the entrainment fraction model does not dis-
tinguish between horizontal and vertically upward flow. Addition-
ally, the film thickness model was verified with data obtained in
50.8 mm (2-in.) pipe or smaller [23]. The erosion equation also
presents an opportunity for uncertainty. Erosion experiments that
are used to develop erosion equations for specific materials often
have variations in the data of 20%, if not more. So, it is important
to keep in mind that this is a limited comparison and further vali-
dation is required of this model. However, it provides a frame-
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 22 Computed penetration rate ratios (horizontal=vertical)
for experimental data and mechanistic model versus gas super-
ficial velocity
work for future models to predict erosion in annular flow and
current results are very promising.
5 Conclusions
This work presents finding of three investigators that performed
experiments varying the orientation from horizontal to vertical in
annular flow. Two investigators, Santos and Mazumder, measured
erosion directly, and both found the erosion to be higher for
upstream orientations of vertical than horizontal. Viswanathan
examined acoustic monitor output that provides a measure of the
number and speed of particle impacts. He also found higher output
levels for annular flows that had a vertical upstream orientation.
The erosion and acoustic monitor data collected in horizontal flow
indicate that fewer particles are striking the wall, the particles are
impacting at lower velocities, or a combination of both. In hori-
zontal flow, the liquid film at the bottom of the pipe will be thicker
than at the top. The thicker film at the bottom of the horizontal
pipe may continue around the outer wall of the elbow providing a
thicker liquid film through, which particles must pass to impinge
the outer wall. The thicker film would retard the motion of par-
ticles and result in less erosion for the horizontal orientation.
Qualitative sand distribution measurements show that the liquid
and particles tend to accumulate toward the lower portion of the
pipe for horizontal flow. This indicates that the entrainment of liq-
uid and particles may also be less for horizontal flow for the cases
considered. A semimechanistic model for erosion in elbows was
described that accounts for the variation in particle impact veloc-
ities for the horizontal and vertical orientations. Preliminary
results comparing the ratio of erosion in the horizontal orientation
to that of the vertical orientation from the model show good agree-
ment with experimental data. More work is needed for further ver-
ification and to account for variations in entrainment resulting
from changes in orientation.
Acknowledgment
This paper was originally presented at the 12th International
Conference on Multiphase Production Technology ’05 in Barce-
lona, Spain: May 25–27, 2005 and published in Volume I of the
Conference Proceedings. The authors would like to acknowledge
BHR Group Limited for permission to publish this work.
References
[1] American Petroleum Institute, API Recommended Practice for Design and In-
stallation of Offshore Production Platform Piping Systems. API RP 14E, Amer-
ican Petroleum Institute, 5th ed., Washington D.C. (1991)
JUNE 2011, Vol. 133 / 023001-9
 [2] Salama, M., 1993, “Erosion Velocity Limits for Water Injection Systems,”
Mater. Perform., 32(7), pp. 44–49.
[3] Jordan, K., 1998, “Erosion in Multiphase Production of Oil and Gas. Corrosion
98, NACE International Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX, Paper No. 58.
[4] Salama, M., and Venkatesh, E., 1983, “Evaluation of Erosional Velocity Limi-
tations in Offshore Gas Wells,” Proceedings of 15th Offshore Technology Con-
ference, Houston, Paper No. OTC-4485.
[5] Svedeman, S., and Arnold, K., 1993, “Criteria for Sizing Multiphase Flow
Lines for Erosive=Corrosive Service,” Proceedings of 68th SPE Annual Fall
Technical Conference, Houston, Paper No. SPE-26569.
[6] Weiner, P., and Tolle, G., 1976, “Detection and Prevention of Sand Erosion of
Production Equipment,” API OSAPER Project No. 2, American Petroleum
Institute, Texas A&M Research Foundation.
[7] Bourgoyne, A., 1989, “Experimental Study of Erosion in Diverter Systems Due
to Sand Production,” Proceedings of SPE=IADC Drilling Conference, LA, Pa-
per No. SPE=IADC-18716.
[8] Shirazi, S. A., McLaury, B. S., Shadley, J. R., and Rybicki, E. F., 1995, “A Pro-
cedure to Predict Solid Particle Erosion in Elbows and Tees,” J. Pressure Vessel
Technol., 117(1), pp. 45–52.
[9] McLaury, B. S., and Shirazi, S. A., 2000, “An Alternate Method to API RP 14E
for Predicting Solids Erosion in Multiphase Flow,” ASME J. Energy Resour.
Technol., 122(3), pp. 115.
[10] Mazumder, Q. H., Shirazi, S. A., and McLaury, B. S., 2004, “A Mechanistic
Model to Predict Sand Erosion in Multiphase Flow in Elbows Downstream of
Vertical Pipes,” Corrosion, 2004, Paper No. 04662.
[11] Mazumder, Q. H., 2004, 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, OK.
[12] Salama, M. M., 1998, “An Alternative to API 14E Erosional Velocity Limits
for Sand Laden Fluids,” Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Paper No. OTC-8898.
023001-10 / Vol. 133, JUNE 2011
Downloaded From: http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/27/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[13] Det Norske Veritas, 1996, “Recommended Practice, Erosion Wear of Piping
Systems,” DNV RP O501.
[14] Forder, A., Thew, M., and Harrison, D., 1998, “Numerical Investigation of
Solid Particle Erosion Experienced Within Oilfield Control Valves,” Wear,
216, pp. 184–184.
[15] Huser, A., and Kvernvold, O., 1998, “Prediction of Sand Erosion in Process and
Pipe Components,” Proceedings 1st North American Conference on Multiphase
Technology, Banff, Canada, BHR group Conference Series Publication No. 31.
[16] Edwards, J. K., McLaury, B. S., and Shirazi, S. A., 2001, “Modeling Solid Par-
ticle Erosion in Elbows and Plugged Tees,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol.,
123(4), pp. 277.
[17] Chen, X., 2004, “Application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to Flow
Simulation and Erosion Prediction in Single-Phase and Multiphase Flow,” Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, OK.
[18] Santos, G., 2002, “Effect of Sand Distribution on Erosion and Correlation between
Acoustic Sand Monitor and Erosion Test in Annular Multiphase Flow,” M.S. The-
sis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
[19] Viswanathan, V., 2004, “Effect of Flow Orientation and Estimated Particle
Impact Velocities on Acoustic Sand Sensor Output,” M. S. Thesis, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
[20] Williams, L. R., Dykhno, L. A., and Hanratty, T. J., 1996, “Droplet Flux Distri-
butions and Entrainment in Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flows,” Int. J. Multiphase
Flow, 22(1), pp. 1–18.
[21] Fore, L. B., and Dukler, A., 1994, “The Distribution of Drop Size and Velocity
in Gas-Liquid Annular Flow,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 21(2), pp. 137–149.
[22] Ishii M. and Mishima, K., 1989, “Droplet Entrainment Correlation in Annular
Two Phase Flow,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 12(10), pp. 1835–1846.
[23] Paz, R. J., and Shoham, O., 1994, “Film Thickness Distribution for Annular
Flow in Directional Wells – Horizontal to Vertical,” SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, SPE 28541.
Transactions of the ASME