Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yongli Zhang
Brenton S. McLaury
Siamack A. Shirazi
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
Zhang et al. (2006) utilized computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to examine the validity
of erosion models that have been implemented into CFD codes to predict solid-particle
erosion in air and water for inconel 625. This work is an extension of Zhangs work and
is presented as a step toward obtaining a better understanding of the effects of fluid viscosity and sand-particle size on measured and calculated erosion ratios, where erosion
ratio is defined as the ratio of mass loss of material to mass of solid particles. The erosion
ratios of aluminum 6061-T6 were measured for direct impingement conditions of a submerged jet. Fluid viscosities of 1, 10, 25, and 50 cP and sand-particle sizes of 20, 150,
and 300 lm were tested. The average fluid speed of the jet was maintained at 10 m/s. Erosion data show that erosion ratios for the 20- and 150-lm particles are reduced as the
viscosity is increased, whereas, surprisingly, the erosion ratios for the 300-lm particles
do not seem to change much for the higher viscosities. For all viscosities considered,
larger particles produced higher erosion ratios, for the same mass of sand, than smaller
particles. Concurrently, an erosion equation has been generated based on erosion testing
of the same material in air. The new erosion model has been compared to available models and has been implemented into a commercially available CFD code to predict erosion
ratios for a variety of flow conditions, flow geometries, and particle sizes. Because
particle speed and impact angle greatly influence erosion ratios of the material,
calculated particle speeds were compared with measurements. Comparisons reveal that,
as the particles penetrate the near wall shear layer, particles in the higher
viscosity liquids tend to slow down more rapidly than particles in the lower viscosity
liquids. In addition, CFD predictions and particle-speed measurements are used to
explain why the erosion data for larger particles is less sensitive to the increased
viscosities. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4005683]
Keywords: erosion modeling, CFD, viscosity, particle size
Introduction
Oil and gas, produced from reservoirs, usually contain impurities, such as sand particles. The sand particles impinge the wall
of flow lines and remove material from the pipe wall. The removal
of material by solid particles is called erosion. The erosion damage caused by particles can be very dangerous because pipes and
fittings can rupture suddenly without prior indication of failure.
Failures caused by erosion also can result in expensive repairs and
lost production time. To save money and increase safety, many
industries are using erosion models to predict when the pipeline
and fittings are susceptible to significant erosion damage.
In the literature, there are many equations developed to predict
solid-particle erosion [14]. The erosion equations normally
depend on particle impact speed and angle, as well as particle and
material properties. However, in various flow situations fluid
properties affect particle impact speed and angle. Therefore, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is normally used to predict particle impact speed and angle so that this information can be used in
erosion models to predict solid-particle erosion [57]. Previously,
Zhang et al. [6] conducted a series of erosion measurements and
calculations to show that erosion equations can be utilized in CFD
software to predict erosion. They conducted a series of erosion
1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the
JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received February 24, 2011; final manuscript received December 8, 2011; published online May 29, 2012. Assoc. Editor:
Mark F. Tachie.
C 2012 by ASME
Copyright V
Fig. 1
again, at this stage, the CFD predicted erosion ratios are validated
by comparisons with actual erosion measurements from step (4).
Background
(1)
Lindsley and Marda (1999) studied the effect of velocity on erosion rates on 7030 brass and FeC martensite. Lindsley and
Marda reported that the empirical constant n is independent of target material and erosion mechanism, but governed by test conditions, such as particle characteristics and erosion test apparatus.
According to their work, erosion resulting from both brittle cracking and plastic deformation mechanisms showed the exponent n
to be 2.9, even though the erosion mechanisms are completely different [11]. Finnie (1978) examined the effect of particle velocity
on erosion and found that the exponent n should increase with
impact angle for a given range of velocities. He also compared the
value of n from other literature and said n ranges from 2.05 to
2.44 depending on test conditions [1].
Particle impact angle is another important factor for erosion.
Finnie (1972) derived the angle function from the equation of
motion for a rigid abrasive particle striking a ductile surface. For
aluminum alloys, the model shows that the maximum erosion
occurs at 13 deg and decreases to zero at 0 deg and 90 deg. This
angle function is in good agreement with experimental data,
except for high impact angles. As a reason for the discrepancy
between measurements and the model, Finnie states that the erosion mechanism at high angles is very different from the one at
low angles. At low angles, erosion is mostly caused by the cutting
mechanism, whereas at high angles, it is caused by the surface
roughening and low cycle fatigue fracture [10].
Particle properties also greatly affect the erosion of ductile material. For example, difference in angularity of particle shape can
061301-2 / Vol. 134, JUNE 2012
(3)
1
sin hn1 1 Hnv3 1 sin hn2
f
(4)
BH
Fh
Table 1
Okas equation
Variables
Values
Hv (GPa)
1.12
k
65
k1
0.12
k2
2.3(Hv)0.038
k3
0.19
n1
0.71(Hv)0.14
n2
2.4(Hv)0.94
Variables
150 lm
300 lm
Hv (GPa)
1.12
1.12
Fs
0.50
1.00
f
5.27
2.19
n1
0.59
0.50
n2
3.60
2.50
n3
2.50
0.50
C
1.50E07
3.28E07
k2 k3
kg
V
D
k1
K Hv
ER
0
q Fh
kg
V0
D
(5)
(6)
2.3 CFD Background. The first step in CFD erosion prediction is flow simulation. Time-averaged Navier-Stokes equations
applying a Reynolds stress model (RSM) are applied in this work
to calculate the flow fields presented. Equation (7) shows the modeled transport equation for the RSM.
@qu01 u0j
@t
(7)
where
"
#
@ lt @u0l u0j
DT;ij
@xk rk @xk
"
#
@u0l u0j
@
DL;ij
l
@xk
@xk
@uj
@ui
u0j u0k
Pij q u0l u0k
@xk
@xk
e 0 0 2
2
/ij C1 q ul uj dij k 6C2 Pij Cij dij P C
k
3
3
2
eij dij qe
3
(7a)
(7b)
(7c)
(7d)
(7e)
The first term on the LHS is the local time derivative term and
the second term is the convection term. DT;ij is the turbulent diffusion term, DL;ij is the molecular diffusion, Pij is the stress production term, Uij is the pressure strain term, and eij is the dissipation
2
term. The turbulent viscosity lt is computed as lt qCl ke .
The value of Cl is 0.09. The value of rk is 0.82. C1 is 1.8 and C2
is 0.6, Pij and Cij are defined in Eqs. (2)(10) and P 1/2Pkk,
Journal of Fluids Engineering
@t
@xi
@xj
lt @e
1
e
e2
C1e Pii C2e q
l
2
k
re @xj
k
(8)
The values of constants in Eq. (8) are re 1:0, C1e 1:44, and
C2e 1:92. Turbulent kinetic energy k is obtained using either
Eq. (9) away from the wall or Eq. (10) near the wall:
1
k u0l u0l
2
@qk @qui k
@
@t
@xi
@xj
l @k
1
l t
qe
2Pii
rk @xk
(9)
(10)
Fig. 2
ER
M
ER
sm2
kg
Af
(11)
ERkg=kg on the RHS of the equation is the erosion ratio calculated directly from the erosion models based on single impact
_ p . An
information. In CFD, each particle has its mass flow rate, M
erosion ratio is multiplied by a mass flow rate of the particle
impacting and divided by an area of the face being impacted, Af.
The resulting erosion rate is in units of mass loss per time and
area (kg/sm2). The erosion rates from multiple impacts in each
cell are summed in the end and reported as an overall erosion rate
for that cell. The total erosion rates, ER(kg/sm2) is converted to
ERkg=kg by multiplying the area of entire wall and dividing by
the total mass sand flow rate.
Fig. 3
3.1 Experimental FacilityLiquid Testing. An experimental facility was constructed to measure erosion for carrier fluids
with different viscosities and different particle sizes. Figure 2
shows a schematic of the experimental facility. The viscous liquid
is prepared in the reservoir tank prior to conducting the experiments by mixing CMC (carboxymethyl cellulose) and water. The
density of the mixture was essentially the same as the density of
water. The viscosities of the carrier fluid tested were 1, 10, 25,
and 50 cP. The CMCwater mixture is known to be a nonNewtonian fluid; however, at the low viscosities of the current test
conditions, the CMCwater mixture behaves as a Newtonian fluid.
Sand particles are mixed with liquid in the reservoir tank. The ratio of sand particles and liquid are usually 0.1% by volume. The
slurry mixer is turned on while taking measurements to maintain
the homogeneity of the mixture. The mixture of sand and liquid
circulates in the system as follows. The mixture travels from the
reservoir tank to the hydraulic pump and from the pump to the
straight nozzle in the testing tank. The bypass valve is used to
control the flow rate in the system during the measurements. The
mixture exits the nozzle and impinges the target wall and drains
from the testing tank back to the reservoir tank. The nozzle and
target wall are completely submerged in the mixture. The nozzle
inner diameter is 8 mm, and the distance from nozzle exit to the
wall is 12.7 mm. The average fluid speed at the nozzle exit was
kept at 10 m/s.
Flat surface coupons shown in Fig. 2 are used to measure the
erosion at the target wall. The target material is Aluminum 6061.
The weight of a coupon is measured before and after each test to
determine the metal weight loss (kg). The weight loss of material
_ sand kg=s
is divided by mass flow rate of sand in the system, M
and testing time, ttest(s) to calculate the erosion mass ratio (kg/kg).
The calculation is shown in Eq. (12):
kg
Wbefore Wafter
(12)
ERmass
_ sand ttest
kg
M
The types of sand used for testing are silica flour, Oklahoma #1
sand, and California 60 mesh sand. The average particle sizes are
20, 150, and 300 lm, respectively. Microscopic pictures of these
sand particles are shown in Fig. 3. Silica flour and California 60
mesh sand have sharper particles than the Oklahoma #1 sand.
3.2 Experimental FacilityAir Testing. The erosion model
for aluminum 6061-T6 is developed based on direct impingement
test results in air. Air is used as the carrier fluid to generate erosion equations, because in such low-density and low-viscosity fluids, the particle speed and direction do not change much as
particles approach the target wall, therefore, it is easy to control
particle impact speed and angle. Figure 4 is a schematic of the
direct impingement testing in air. A compressor provides the air
Fig. 4
air
flow in the nozzle. The flow rate of the gas was controlled by the
valve positioned upstream of the flow meter. Sand is injected
from the sand feeder. The pressure drop at the nozzle creates suction in the feeding tube and draws the sand particles in the nozzle.
The mixture of the sand and air flow out of the nozzle, and particles impinge the target material.
In air, it is common that there is a relative slip velocity between
a particle and the gas. The particles leaving the nozzle are traveling at a lower speed than the gas at this location. The particle
speeds, Vp, of 150- and 300-lm particles are measured by LDV
and the gas speeds were measured by a Pitot tube. The Pitot tube
was installed at the center of the nozzle approximately 3 mm
downstream of the nozzle exit. The measured gas speed at this
location by the Pitot tube was divided by 1.2 (assuming fully
developed turbulent pipe profile) to obtain an approximate average gas speed across the nozzle exit. The gas speed was measured
before sand was injected in the system, and the measured gas
speeds are not influenced by the sand particles. It should be noted
that Pitot tube is only used as a reference for calibration and the
gas velocities that are measured by the Pitot tube may not accurately represent the average gas speed at the nozzle exit and they
are not used in any calculations. The graph of the particle speed
versus gas speed is shown in Fig. 4. As shown in the graph, the
particle speed is directly proportional to the fluid speed. A linear
equation was used to fit the data points. The data show that there
is more slip between the fluid and the 300-lm particles than for
the 150-lm particles. The linear equations in Fig. 4 were used to
determine the gas speeds necessary to produce the desired particle
speeds during the erosion measurements. It should be noted that,
for these larger particles entrained in a gas, only axial velocities at
the nozzle exit were measured. For larger particles flowing in a
gas, CFD results, as well as observed erosion patterns on the
specimens, indicate that the momentum of the particles near the
target wall are not affected by the reduction in gas speed near the
wall. After the particle speeds were measured, the erosion measurements were conducted for aluminum 6061-T6 in air. From the
LDV measurements, particle speeds of 13, 24, and 42 m/s were
chosen to conduct erosion tests. At each speed, measurements
were taken for impact angles of 90 deg, 60 deg, 30 deg, and
15 deg. At each particle speed and angle, the measurements were
taken at least three times with 300 g of sand each time. Erosion ratios
(kg/kg) are calculated by mass loss of a target coupon (kg) divided
by the total mass of sand throughput (kg). Particle sizes of 150
and 300 lm are used as abrasive sands for these measurements.
3.3 Laser Doppler Velocimeter (LDV) Measurement
Conditions. To help examine erosion results for liquid cases, in a
parallel study, particle axial and radial speeds and liquid axial and
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Fig. 6
radial speeds were measured utilizing LDV by Miska [8]. Aluminum particles with average sizes of 3, 120 and 550 lm were used
as seeding particles. 3-lm particles were assumed to travel with
liquid with no slip. 120- and 550-lm particles were used to measure the speeds of particles representing relatively small and large
particles. Figure 5 shows the measurement locations between the
nozzle exit and the target wall. The measurements were performed
for r 0 to r 12 mm, and z 1 to z 12.5 mm. The particle
speeds could not be measured near or on the target surface
(z 12.7 mm) because of interference of the measuring volume of
the laser beams of LDV system and the wall.
Measurements were collected for 5 different viscosities of 1,
10, 25, 50, and 100 cP. The data sampling rate is 1000 s1. The
duration of each measurement is approximately 10 to 20 s. Data
obtained utilizing the LDV is compared with CFD predictions in
Sec. 5.3.
Fig. 7
150 lm
20 lm
Value
STDV
Value
STDV
Value
3.21E06
2.56E06
2.69E06
2.83E06
4.37E07
8.12E08
1.81E07
4.04E07
1.46E06
1.07E06
7.03E07
4.29E07
2.18E07
9.21E08
6.57E08
2.39E07
9.78E08
3.83E08
2.30E08
1.28E08
erosion ratios are higher for lower impact angles for all the particle speeds. 300-lm particles give higher erosion ratios than
150 lm because of their size and shape. The microscopic pictures
of these particles are shown in Fig. 3. Note that the 300-lm particles erosion ratios have a trend that is slightly different from that
of the 150-lm particles. Erosion ratios for the 150-lm particles
increase more significantly than the 300-lm particles as the
impact angle decreases. The differences in the two types of sand
can result in not only a difference in magnitude but also in trend
of erosion ratio with impact angle (angle function).
Utilizing the information gained through erosion measurements
in air, the erosion model for aluminum was generated. At first, all
the experimental results from Figs. 10 and 11 are normalized and
plotted together in Fig. 12. The erosion ratio for each test condition is normalized by dividing it by the value of erosion ratio at
h 15 deg (corresponding to the maximum value) for each velocity (Eq. (13)). Because the results are normalized, the results for
different particle speeds are close in value to each other which
indicate that particle speed only affects the erosion equations in
magnitude but not the shape of the erosion versus impact angle
profile. The angle function shown in Eq. (3) is defined by finding
n1, n2, and n3, which fit the experimental data. Because the experimental data are normalized, the angle function must be normalized as well by dividing the function by f, which is the maximum
value of the function:
kg
kg
ERh15
(13)
ERnormalized ER
kg
kg
After the angle functions are defined, the erosion equations are
defined by finding an empirical constant C for each sand type.
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Fig. 15
velocity (10 m/s) is used for Vp for all the cases. For air testing,
viscosity of room temperature air is used for all the test
conditions.
Rep
Dp Vp
v
(14)
From Fig. 15, it should be noted that in both air and liquid,
higher particle Reynolds numbers give higher erosion ratios which
is intuitive. However, closer examination reveals that air results
have a steeper profile than liquid results. Also, for liquid testing,
larger particles are not influenced by particle Reynolds number as
much as smaller particles while in air, there is no significant difference in profile for 150- and 300-lm particles. Figure 15 also
indicates that the particle Reynolds number is not the only parameter that influences erosion and other parameters such as local particle and fluid response times (perhaps local Stokes numbers) may
affect erosion ratios. This also may indicate that the erosion mechanism in liquid may be different from the one in air.
5.3 Comparison of Predicted And Measured Particle
Speeds. Although erosion is influenced by many factors, particle
impact speed is the biggest factor that affects erosion. To study
the effect of viscosity and particle size on particle speed, which
affects erosion ratio, axial and radial particle speeds of 3-, 120and 550-lm-diameter particles were measured in 1-, 50-, and
100-cP fluid viscosities and compared to the CFD predicted
speeds. Note that the results shown in this paper are speeds that
are magnitudes of the resultant velocity calculated from axial and
radial velocity components. The predicted particle impact speeds
061301-8 / Vol. 134, JUNE 2012
lytical equations of particle motion based on its inertia and hydrodynamic lift and drag. He states that the particle motion at a fixed
flow condition is classified either as unstable or stable. In unstable
motion, particles escape rapidly from the surface into the main
flow. The particle motion becomes unstable when the initial
velocity of particle is smaller than the local fluid velocity and wall
induced lift is larger than the inertia of the particle. When the wall
induced lift is smaller than the inertia, the particle approaches the
wall and its motion becomes stable. The instability of particle
motion depends on particle speed, inertia, and the fluid shear rate.
He has shown analytically and numerically that whether particle
motion becomes unstable and leaves the near wall region depends
on the location of particle from the wall [24,25].
Perhaps the reason for the high number of impacts for smaller
particles is because of the stable particle motion and low number
of impacts for larger particles is because of the unstable particle
motions. After particles impinge the wall and rebound, the smaller
particles do not have enough momentum to overcome the drag of
the fluid and leave the shear layer but instead get pushed back to
the wall region and repeat the impingement motion. On the other
hand, big particles have greater momentum to overcome the drag
of the fluid and leave the shear layer after a few impacts. Drag the
fluid exerts on the particle is increased for high viscous liquid;
therefore, if the particle size is the same, particles tend to impact
more frequently in high viscous liquid than the particles in low
viscous liquids.
The number of impacts for 20-lm particles is very high as compared to other particles. To demonstrate that the number of particles impacting is the major source of the difference between the
CFD predictions and measurements, the erosion ratio for aluminum was recalculated for 20-lm particles using only the first
impact and discarding the rest of the impacts for an individual particle. The results are shown in Fig. 29. The graph shows the new
JUNE 2012, Vol. 134 / 061301-11
6.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of Erosion/Corrosion Research Center (E/CRC). Comments of Dr. Edmund F.
Rybicki are also appreciated. The authors also wish to acknowledge Contributions of Edward Bower of E/CRC, Stephen Miska,
and Sepinood Torabzadehkhorasani.
References
[1] Finnie, I., and McFadden, D., 1978, On the Speed Dependence of the Erosion
of Ductile Metals by Solid Particles at Low Angles of Incidence, Wear, 48, pp.
181190.
[2] McLaury, B., 1993, A Model to Predict Solid Particle Erosion in Oilfield Geometries, M.S. thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
[3] Oka, Y. I., Okamura, K., and Yoshida, T., 2005, Practical Estimation of Erosion Damage caused by Solid Particle Impact, Part 1: Effects of Impact Parameters on a Predictive Equation, Wear, 25, pp. 95101.
[4] Oka, Y. I., and Yoshida, T., 2005, Practical Estimation of Erosion
Damage Caused by Solid Particle Impact, Part 2: Mechanical Properties
of Materials Directly Associated with Erosion Damage, Wear, 259, pp.
102109.
[5] Zhang, Y., 2006, Application and Improvement of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) in Solid Particle Erosion Modeling, Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
[6] Zhang, Y., Reuterfors, E. P., MClaury, B. S., Shirazi, S. A., and Rybicki, E. F.,
2007, Comparison of Computed and Measured Particle Speeds and Erosion in
Water and Air Flows, Wear, 263, pp. 330338.
[7] Zhang, Y., Okita, R., Miska, S., McLaury, B. S., Shirazi, S. A., and Rybicki,
E. F., 2009, CFD Prediction and LDV Validation of Liquid and Particle
Speeds in a Submerged Jet Impinging a Flat Surface for Different Viscosities
and Particle Sizes, Proceedings of ASME 2009, Fluids Engineering Division,
Vail, Colorado.
[8] Miska, S., 2008, Particle and Fluid Speed Measurements for Viscous Liquids
in a Direct Impingement Flow Resulting in Material Erosion, M.S. thesis, The
University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
[18] Oka, Y. I., Ohnogi, H., Hosokawa, T., and Matsumura, M., 1997, The Impact
Angle Dependence of Erosion Damage Caused by Solid Particle Impact,
Wear, 203204, pp. 573579.
[19] FLUENT, 2006, FLUENT 6.3 Users Guide, FLUENT Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
[20] Forder, A., Thew, M., and Harrison, D., 1998, A Numerical Investigation of
Solid Particle Erosion Experienced within Oilfield Control Valves, Wear, 216,
pp. 184193.
[21] Tabakoff, W., 1992, High Temperature Erosion Resistance of Coatings for
Use in Gas Turbine Engines, Surf. Coat. Technol., 52, pp. 6579.
[22] Grant, G., and Tabakoff, W., 1975, Erosion Prediction in Turbomachinery Resulting from Environmental Solid Particles, J. Aircr., 12, pp.
471478.
[23] Chen, X., McLaury, B. S., and Shirazi, S. A., 2004, Application and Experimental Validation of a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)-Based Erosion
Prediction Model in Elbows and Plugged Tees, Comput. Fluids, 33, pp.
12511272.
[24] Ziskind, G., Fichman, M., and Gutfinger, C., 1998, Effects of Shear on Particle
Motion near a SurfaceApplication to Resuspension, J. Aerosol Sci, 29(3),
pp. 323338.
[25] Ziskind, G., and Gutfinger, C., 2002, Shear and Gravity Effects on Particle
Motion in Turbulent Layers, Powder Technol., 125, pp. 140148.