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

net/publication/319206209

Erosion Modeling in High Concentration Slurry Flow

Conference Paper · July 2017

DOI: 10.1115/FEDSM2017-69355

CITATIONS READS
0 865

4 authors:

Hadi Arabnejad Peyman Zahedi

University of Tulsa University of Tulsa
30 PUBLICATIONS   820 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   676 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Siamack Shirazi Brenton McLaury

University of Tulsa University of Tulsa
263 PUBLICATIONS   5,829 CITATIONS    148 PUBLICATIONS   4,410 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Abrasive erosion modeling in particulate flow View project

Unified Mechanistic Model for predicting Critical Particle Transport in Pipelines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hadi Arabnejad on 21 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting
FEDSM2017
July 30-August 3, 2017, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA

FEDSM2017-69355

EROSION MODELING IN HIGH CONCENTRATION SLURRY FLOW

H. Arabnejad Khanouki*, P. Zahedi, S.A. Shirazi†, B.S. McLaury

The Erosion/Corrosion Research Center
Department of Mechanical Engineering
The University of Tulsa
Tulsa, OK, USA

ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE
Many industrial processes involve high concentration c Particle concentration (kg/kg)
particulate multiphase flow in which the carrier phase is
C1 Cutting erosion constant
continuous and the solid particles are dispersed in the carrier
phase. Although much research has been directed toward C2 Deformation erosion constant
modeling of solid particle erosion, very few have presented a ER Erosion ratio (kg/kg)
generalized approach for erosion modeling under high Fs Particle sharpness factor
concentration slurry impact. Experimental and numerical studies
have shown that when particles are transported by liquid or dense K Ratio of vert. to horiz. projected contact area
gas, the particle impact angles are very low. The impact angles m Particle mass (kg)
in these cases are sometimes less than the smallest angle that can n Ratio of contact area to the removed area
be obtained in a direct impingement erosion test. Moreover,
particle-particle interaction is significant when particle loading P Material flow pressure (Pa)
is high, and the effect should be accounted for in the numerical U Velocity (m/s)
simulation. In this work, a mechanistic erosion equation that Utsh Deformation erosion threshold velocity
includes an abrasion term for low angle impacts is implemented
yo Particle initial penetration (m)
in CFD simulation of submerged slurry impinging jet with
ANSYS Fluent. The Eulerian-Lagrangian method is used to θ Impact angle (deg)
model the carrier fluid flow and particle tracking, respectively, ρ Density (kg/m3)
while the particle-particle interaction is resolved statistically
through a two-fluid Eulerian-Granular model. In this approach, INTRODUCTION
particle-particle interaction is modelled through solid stresses Applications of slurry flows span many industries, including
acting on the particles in a dense flow by an additional oil and gas exploitation and production as well as mining and
acceleration in the particle force balance for the Lagrangian food processing. The erosive nature of solid particles entrained
phase. The CFD erosion predictions are compared with in the liquid endanger integrity of pipelines and operation of
experimental data from a previous work in the literature. It is slurry handling equipment. While many studies have been
shown that by including the abrasion term, the total mass loss of directed toward modeling of solid particle erosion, very few have
the specimen agrees better with experimental data, and the presented a generalized approach for erosion modeling under
obtained erosion pattern is more comparable to the data collected high concentration slurry impact.
by 3D profilometry. It was found that the combined two-fluid Different experimental configurations have been used in the
model is capable of capturing the decrease in the erosion ratio literature to characterize erosion resistance of metallic and non-
(defined as the ratio of material loss to the particle throughput) metallic samples. Direct impingement in gas, slurry jet
with increase in particle loading which can be ascribed to a impingement, rotary slurry pot and Coriolis erosion tester are
shielding effect caused by particles moving close to the wall. among the most common apparatuses used for this purpose

* Corresponding Author; hadi-arabnejad@utulsa.edu

†
ASME Fellow 1 Copyright © 2017 ASME
(Arabnejad et al. 2015b). Hashish (Hashish 1984) conducted an shows the computational domain, boundary conditions and
experimental and theoretical study of an abrasive jet and dimensions for the submerged impinging jet. Although two
developed a model utilizing the theory originally proposed by symmetry planes can be found in the geometry, the full body is
Finnie (Finnie, Wolak, and Kabil 1967). Jain and Adsul (2000) modeled as the results are to be used for particle tracking. The
and Jain and Jain (2004) presented a stochastic methodology to Discrete Particle Model (DPM) performance is poor in
evaluate the interaction between spherical abrasive grains and a geometries with symmetry planes. Moreover, it is sensitive to the
workpiece surface in abrasive flow machining. The models surface mesh on the wall and will not work well if the surface
developed in these works are for a specific geometry and cannot mesh on the wall is not uniform. So, the created mesh is
be applied to other configurations. Much research (Wood et al. structured in the nozzle and unstructured tetrahedral mesh is used
2004; Gnanavelu et al. 2011; Shah and Jain 2008) has been
for the rest of geometry.
conducted in the literature to determine slurry erosion, but they
used empirical models based on experiments with gas to
Erosion model
determine slurry erosion.
In this study, a mechanistic erosion equation based on the
There are many studies of slurry flows in the literature
experimental data from direct impingement testing is
conducted on erosion to develop an erosion equation
implemented via a user defined function (UDF) into a
theoretically or empirically (Finnie (1960); Sheldon & Finnie
commercially available CFD code (ANSYS FLUENT). The
(1966); Bitter (1963a; 1963b); Hutchings (1981); Sundararajan
method is combined with Dense Discrete Phase Model (DDPM)
(1991); Oka et al. (2005)). The application of empirical
to calculate erosion resulting from slurry jet impingement with
correlations is limited to the materials used in the experiments
different concentrations, and the results are compared with the
with specific particles and impact conditions, and theoretical
experimental data.
formulations may not be in agreement with experimental data as
they have been developed with many simplifying assumptions.
Numerical models
Arabnejad et al. (2015a) developed a mechanistic erosion
model by solving the equations of motion of the particle while
Models describing particle-laden flows can be roughly penetrating into the surface. The equation that has been
divided into two groups, Eulerian-Lagrangian models and previously validated with experimental data is (Arabnejad et al.,
Eulerian-Eulerian models. In the Eulerian-Lagrangian approach, 2015b):
the fluid phase is treated as a continuum by solving Navier-
Stokes equations, while the dispersed phase is solved by tracking
a large number of particles. The Eulerian-Eulerian model is the Velocity inlet
most complex multiphase model in ANSYS FLUENT as it
solves a set of equations for each phase. This model treats
different phases as interpenetrating continua by introducing
phasic volume fraction. It solves momentum and continuity
equations for each phase and tracks volume fractions which are
continuous functions of space and time. A single pressure field
is shared for all phases, and an interphase drag coefficient is used Nozzle
ID: 0.008 m
for modelling momentum transfer between phases. The manner
(0.3 inch)
in which this coupling is handled depends upon the types of
phases involved. The kinetic theory of granular flows (KTGF)
(Lun et al. 1984; Gidaspow, Bezburuah, and Ding 1992) defines Pressure outlet
a granular temperature to quantify the energy contained in
random motion of the particles. Dense Discrete Phase Model
(DDPM) (Popoff and Braun 2007) in which a discrete phase
model is combined with a granular model has been shown to be
successful in modelling fluidized beds and resolving particle- Specimen Stand-off distance:
particle interaction in high concentration flows (Cloete et al. 0.012 m
r
2011). An overview of these two approaches can be found in van (0.5 inch)
Wachem & Almstedt (2003).

Physical model Figure 1. Physical domain, boundary conditions and

In this study, the geometry and mesh are created by ANSYS dimensions
Design Modeler and Meshing tool, respectively, and ANSYS
FLUENT 17.2 is used to solve the Time-Averaged Navier-
Stokes equations to obtain the fluid dynamics solution. Figure 1

2 Copyright © 2017 ASME

 𝐸𝑅𝐶 90
𝑈 2.41 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃)[2𝐾 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃) − 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃)]

Average Impact Angle (deg)

𝐶1 𝜃 < 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (𝐾) c = 1%
2𝐾 2 (1) 75
= c = 10%
𝑈 2.41 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 (𝜃)
𝐶1 𝜃 > 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (𝐾) 60 c = 15%
{ 2

𝐸𝑅𝐷 = 𝐶2 (𝑈 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃 − 𝑈𝑡𝑠ℎ )2 (2) 45

30
where ERC and ERD are cutting and deformation, respectively.
The abrasion erosion equation is developed based on similar 15
principles (Arabnejad et al. 2017) which can capture the erosion
caused by particles at low impact angles 0
0 5 10 15 20
𝜌𝛽𝑦0 𝛽𝑦0 r (mm)
𝐸𝑅𝐴 = (𝑈 − ) (3)
𝐾𝑃 2𝐾 Figure 2. Average impact angle vs. radial distance

where 𝑦𝑜 is the initial penetration calculated from the following 12

empirical correlation,

Average Impact Velocity (m/s)

10
𝑦0 = 1.6 × 10−9 [𝑈 sin(𝜃)]2 − 1.8 × 10−9 𝑈 sin(𝜃)
(4)
+ 1.1 × 10−6 8

In these equations C1, C2, K and Utsh are empirical constants, FS 6

is particle sharpness factor that is 1 for sharp, 0.5 for semi-round c = 1%
4
and 0.25 for fully-rounded particles. The empirical constants for c = 10%
SS-316 are provided in Table 2. 2 c = 15%

Table 2. Empirical constants for SS-316 erosion equation 0

C1 C2 K Utsh (m/s) 0 5 10 15 20
4.58E-08 5.56E-08 0.4 5.8 r (mm)
Figure 3. Average impact velocity vs. radial distance
The total erosion is 1.2
Normalized No. of Impacts

𝐸𝑅 = 𝐹𝑆 (𝐸𝑅𝐶 + 𝐸𝑅𝐷 + 𝐸𝑅𝐴 ) (5) 1 c = 1%

c = 10%
0.8
COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA c = 15%
0.6
Experimental studies (Mansouri 2016) and CFD simulations
(Arabnejad et al., 2017) have shown that in the submerged slurry 0.4
tests, particle impact angles are generally lower than gas jet
impinging cases with the same fluid velocity as particle 0.2
experience significant drag in the liquid.
In these experiments, particle was 150 µm semi-round silica 0
sand (with density of 2650 kg/m3), fluid was water and average 0 5 10 15 20
nozzle velocity was 14 m/s. The tests were conducted on r (mm)
Stainless Steel 316. Figures 2 and 3 show the average impact Figure 4. Normalized Number of Impacts vs. radial
angle and velocity with respect to the radial distance from the jet distance
centerline, respectively. The profiles are obtained by averaging
over the radial lines with 5 degree spacing from 0 to 360 degrees. For 1% concentration case presented here, the average
The normalized profile of number of impacts per unit area is impact angle drops below 5 degrees after a radial distance of
presented in Fig. 4. The values at 1% concentration are taken as about 10 mm. This is the smallest impact angle that has been
the reference for this comparison. Figures 2, 3 and 4 are obtained addressed in most of the experimental erosion studies with gas
from CFD simulation with DDPM particle tracking. jets. The erosion after this point is dominated by abrasion
mechanism as expressed in Eqn. (3). In order to evaluate the

3 Copyright © 2017 ASME

contribution of abrasion erosion, the average erosion profile
obtained from CFD simulation with and without incorporating
abrasion erosion is compared with experimental data from
Mansouri (2016) (Fig. 5).
In this figure, the erosion profile is obtained by averaging
the erosion depth on the radial lines passing through the center
in experimental measurements as well as CFD predictions, and
the error bars represent the standard deviation.
0.0
-0.5
Erosion (µm/kg)
particles moving in the vicinity of the wall that protect the wall
against incoming particles or reduce the particle impact velocity.
The effect is stronger when particle concentration increases.
Figures 2, 3 and 4 clearly demonstrate the effect of particle
concentration on erosion. While impact angle and impact
frequency does not change significantly with particle
concentration, the particle impact velocity drops considerably
when concentration increases. Erosion is a trigonometric
function of impact angle and linear function of impact frequency
as described in Eqns. (1-3), but a power function of impact
velocity with an exponent of approximately 2.41 for impact
angles greater than 1 degree. So, even small changes (~20%) in
the impact velocity can translate into about 50% drop in erosion

-1.0
which is verified in Fig 5.
-1.5 The total mass loss in these tests may be attributed to both
impingement and abrasive motion of solid particles. So while in
-2.0 the gas tests, impingement erosion is much higher than abrasion
Exp. Data
-2.5 erosion, particles entrained in the liquid cause significant erosion
CFD w/o Abrasion while moving along the wall.
-3.0 CFD w/ Abrasion SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
-3.5
0 5 10 15
r (mm) The mechanistic erosion equation that includes cutting,
Figure 5. Erosion profile vs. radial distance for c = 1% deformation and abrasion erosion terms is implemented in CFD
to calculate erosion for a submerged slurry impinging jet case
Mansouri et al. (2015) presented experimental erosion with 1, 10 and 15% particle concentrations, and the results are
measurements of SS-316 specimens under slurry jet compared with the experimental data. DDPM model is
impingement with various particle concentrations. In these implemented to resolve particle-particle interactions. It was
experiments the particle concentration is varied from 1 to 15% observed that by including the abrasion term and using DDPM
by mass. In order to validate the simulation results and evaluate model, the total mass loss of the specimen agrees with
the performance of erosion equations, CFD based erosion experimental data. It is found that erosion ratio is decreasing with
predictions for different mass concentrations (1, 10 and 15%) are particle concertation which is ascribed to the increase in particle-
compared against experimental data in Fig. 5. Erosion ratio is particle interaction that results in reduction of particle impact
defined as the ratio of specimen mass loss to the particle velocity. The predicted erosion profile along the radial line for
throughput. 1% concentration case is also compared with experimental data
that showed the contribution of abrasion becomes more
important as radial distance from jet centerline increases.
7.E-06
Experimental Data
6.E-06 CFD w/ Abrasion ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the E/CRC member
Erosion Ratio (kg/kg)

5.E-06 CFD w/o Abrasion

companies for supporting this work.
4.E-06
3.E-06 REFERENCES
2.E-06
Arabnejad, Hadi, Amir Mansouri, Siamack A Shirazi, and
1.E-06 Brenton S McLaury. 2015a. “Development of Mechanistic
0.E+00 Erosion Equation for Solid Particles.” Wear 332–333
0% 5% 10% 15%
(May): 1044–50. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2015.01.031.
Arabnejad, Hadi, Amir Mansouri, Siamack A Shirazi, and
Particle Conentration (kg/kg)
Brenton S McLaury. 2015b. “Evaluation of Solid Particle
Figure 5. Comparison of erosion ratio computed from Erosion Equations and Models for Oil and Gas Industry
CFD simulations vs. experimental data Applications.” In SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
It is observed that the erosion ratio decreases with particle doi:10.2118/174987-MS.
concentration. This may be attributed to the shielding effect of Arabnejad, Hadi, Amir Mansouri, Siamack A Shirazi, and

4 Copyright © 2017 ASME

 Brenton S McLaury. 2017. “Abrasion Erosion Modeling
in Particulate Flow.” Wear of Materials.
doi:10.1016/j.wear.2017.01.042.
Bitter, J.G.A. 1963a. “A Study of Erosion Phenomena : Part I.”
Wear 6 (1): 5–21. doi:10.1016/0043-1648(63)90003-6.
Bitter, J.G.A. 1963b. “A Study of Erosion Phenomena: Part 2.”
Wear 6 (3): 169–90. doi:10.1016/0043-1648(63)90073-5.
Cloete, Schalk, S T Johansen, M Braun, B Popoff, and S Amini.
2011. “Evaluation of a Lagrangian Discrete Phase
Modeling Approach for Application To Industrial Scale
Bubbling Fluidized Beds.” Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Circulating Fluidized Beds
and Fluidization Technology - CFB-10 7 (2013): 1–8.
Finnie, Iain. 1960. “Erosion of Surfaces by Solid Particles.”
Wear 3 (2): 87–103. doi:10.1016/0043-1648(60)90055-7.
Finnie, Iain, Jan Wolak, and Yehia Kabil. 1967. “Erosion of
Metals by Solid Particles.” Journal of Materials 2 (3):
682–700.
Gidaspow, D, R Bezburuah, and J Ding. 1992. “Hydrodynamics
of Circulating Fluidized Beds: Kinetic Theory Approach.”
In 7th International Conference on Fluidization. Gold
Coast, Australia.
Gnanavelu, A., N. Kapur, A. Neville, J.F. Flores, and N.
Ghorbani. 2011. “A Numerical Investigation of a
Geometry Independent Integrated Method to Predict
Erosion Rates in Slurry Erosion.” Wear 271 (5): 712–19.
doi:10.1016/j.wear.2010.12.040.
Hashish, Mohamed. 1984. “A Modeling Study of Metal Cutting
With Abrasive Waterjets.” Journal of Engineering
Materials and Technology 106 (1): 88.
doi:10.1115/1.3225682.
Hutchings, I.M. 1981. “A Model for the Erosion of Metals by
Spherical Particles at Normal Incidence.” Wear 70 (3):
269–81. doi:10.1016/0043-1648(81)90347-1.
Jain, Rajendra K., and V.K. Jain. 2004. “Stochastic Simulation
of Active Grain Density in Abrasive Flow Machining.”
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 152 (1): 17–
22. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2003.11.024.
Jain, V.K., and S.G. Adsul. 2000. “Experimental Investigations
into Abrasive Flow Machining (AFM).” International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 40 (7): 1003–
5 Copyright © 2017 ASME
View publication stats
21. doi:10.1016/S0890-6955(99)00114-5.
Lun, C. K. K., S. B. Savage, D. J. Jeffrey, and N. Chepurniy.
1984. “Kinetic Theories for Granular Flow: Inelastic
Particles in Couette Flow and Slightly Inelastic Particles in
a General Flowfield.” Journal of Fluid Mechanics 140 (1):
223. doi:10.1017/S0022112084000586.
Mansouri, Amir. 2016. “A Combined CFD-Experimental
Method for Developing an Erosion Equation for Both Gas-
Sand and Liquid-Sand Flows.” The University of Tulsa.
Mansouri, Amir, Marzieh Mahdavi, Siamack A Shirazi, and
Brenton S McLaury. 2015. “Investigating the Effect of
Sand Concentration on Erosion Rate in Slurry Flows.”
Corrosion 2015, no. August 2016: 1–10.
Oka, Y.I., K. Okamura, and T. Yoshida. 2005. “Practical
Estimation of Erosion Damage Caused by Solid Particle
Impact.” Wear 259 (1–6): 95–101.
doi:10.1016/j.wear.2005.01.039.
Popoff, B, and M Braun. 2007. “A Lagrangian Approach to
Dense Particulate Flows.” In 6th International Conference
on Multiphase Flow. Leipzig, Germany.
Shah, Subhash N., and Samyak Jain. 2008. “Coiled Tubing
Erosion during Hydraulic Fracturing Slurry Flow.” Wear
264 (3): 279–90. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2007.03.016.
Sheldon, G. L., and I. Finnie. 1966. “The Mechanism of Material
Removal in the Erosive Cutting of Brittle Materials.”
Journal of Engineering for Industry 88 (4): 393.
doi:10.1115/1.3672667.
Sundararajan, G. 1991. “A Comprehensive Model for the Solid
Particle Erosion of Ductile Materials.” Wear 149 (1–2):
111–27. doi:10.1016/0043-1648(91)90368-5.
Wachem, B. G M van, and A. E. Almstedt. 2003. “Methods for
Multiphase Computational Fluid Dynamics.” Chemical
Engineering Journal 96 (1–3): 81–98.
doi:10.1016/j.cej.2003.08.025.
Wood, R.J.K., T.F. Jones, J. Ganeshalingam, and N.J. Miles.
2004. “Comparison of Predicted and Experimental
Erosion Estimates in Slurry Ducts.” Wear 256 (9): 937–47.
doi:10.1016/j.wear.2003.09.002.