Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272

www.elsevier.com/locate/compfluid

Application and experimental validation of a

computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based erosion
prediction model in elbows and plugged tees
Xianghui Chen *, Brenton S. McLaury, Siamack A. Shirazi
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Tulsa, 600 South College Avenue,
Tulsa, OK 74104, USA
Received 13 August 2003; received in revised form 20 December 2003; accepted 25 February 2004
Available online 30 April 2004

Abstract
This paper presents a computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based erosion prediction model and its
application to oilfield geometries specifically elbows and plugged tees. This comprehensive procedure
consists of three major components: flow simulation, particle tracking, and erosion calculation. The effect
of the particle rebound model on the particle trajectories as well as erosion pattern in the elbow and plugged
tee is also investigated. Experimental erosion tests were performed in both an elbow and a plugged tee to
evaluate the simulation results. The results from the model show good agreement of the erosion trend with
the erosion data for elbow and plugged tee geometries. Experiment confirms that a stochastic rebound
model is required in simulations to give a reasonable estimate of erosion rate and pattern in a plugged tee.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Many engineering industries, such as the oil and gas industry, have the need to transport fluids
with entrained solid particles. The momentum of particles carries them across streamlines and the
particles impinge the wall of the fittings resulting in erosion damage. Erosion of the fittings may
result in the failure of the piping system, which can be extremely dangerous and expensive. It is
essential to have a method to determine the erosion rate for a given set of operating conditions to
prevent any failures from occurring. The prediction of erosion not only allows one to estimate

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-918-631-2755; fax: +1-918-631-2397.
E-mail address: xianghui-chen@utulsa.edu (X. Chen).

0045-7930/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2004.02.003
1252 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272

service life, but also enables the detection of locations in the geometry where severe erosion is
likely to occur. Elbows and plugged tees are common geometries used in piping systems to redirect
fluids. Both elbows and plugged tees are susceptible to erosion when sand particles are present
because particles deviate from the fluid streamlines and impact the wall when they pass through
the transition section (such as the bend section of the elbow and the joint section of the plugged
tee) of these geometries.
Sand erosion phenomenon is highly complicated and a wide range of factors contribute to the
erosion severity. These parameters include fluid flow rate, sand rate, properties of the fluid,
properties of sand particles, wall material of equipment or fitting, and the characteristics of
geometries such as size and shape. In order to combat the erosion caused by solid particles, a
variety of erosion prediction methods have been developed. Most methods are based on a limited
amount of experimental data, so these models are only applicable to specific conditions. Due to
the lack of an accurate and general erosion prediction model, ‘‘rule of thumb’’ design guidelines
are adopted for many situations in industrial practice, which usually lead to designs that are too
conservative or not realistic. The most well-known guideline in oil and gas industry is the
American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 14E (API RP 14E) [1]. This guideline
suggests a limiting flow velocity for erosive service. The guideline states that severe erosion should
not occur if production velocities are maintained below this limit. The velocity recommended by
API RP 14E is given by Eq. (1):
C
Ve ¼ pffiffiffi ð1Þ
q
where Ve is the erosional velocity limit in ft/s, q is the carrier fluid density in lb/ft3 , and C is a constant.
The API guideline recommends that the value of C should be 100 for continuous service and 125 for
intermittent service. The only variable accounted for directly in Eq. (1) is fluid density. Therefore,
API RP 14E is not capable of incorporating all the important factors involved such as fluid viscosity,
properties of sand particles, and the sand production rate. Industrial applications have demon-
strated these parameters can have a significant impact on the erosion. Salama and Venkatesh [2] and
Svedeman and Arnold [3] have introduced significant modifications to API RP 14E. McLaury and
Shirazi [4] have provided alternative methods, which include the effect of parameters such as
properties of carrier fluid, sand particles, as well as material of pipe, to API RP 14E.
Significant efforts have been taken by researchers and engineers to study the erosion problem
and many erosion prediction models have been developed. For example, Nesic and Postlethwaite
[5] studies the local erosion in chokes by determining the local fluid velocity and particle im-
pingement information. McLaury [6] and Shirazi et al. [7,8] developed mechanistic models for
predicting erosion in elbows. Salama [9] formulated a semi-mechanistic model for erosion in
multi-phase flow. In another study, McLaury [10] proposed a generalized erosion prediction
procedure that involves flow simulation, particle tracking, and erosion prediction. Wang et al. [11]
applied this approach to investigate the effects of elbow radius of curvature on erosion rate. The
erosion in oilfield control valves was calculated by Forder et al. [12] using flow simulation and
particle tracking method. More recently, Edwards [13] implemented the generalized erosion
prediction procedure in a commercially available Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code. In
another study, Keating and Nesic [14] applied the CFD approach to investigate the erosion–
corrosion problems in U-bends.
 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272 1253

2. CFD-based erosion prediction model and computational models

The erosion prediction procedure [13] was implemented into a commercially available CFD
code, CFX, which was developed by AEA Technology [15]. This CFD-based erosion technique is
a comprehensive procedure that is able to predict the erosion for a wide range of three-dimen-
sional geometries. By applying this procedure, the maximum erosion for a certain case can be
calculated, as well as the erosion profile on the surface of the geometry. This comprehensive
procedure has three major steps: flow modeling, particle tracking, and erosion prediction. This
section discusses some important issues of the comprehensive procedure and relative theories and
computational models for each step.

2.1. Erosion simulation procedure

Flow simulation of the continuous fluid (carrier fluid) is the first step of the CFD-based erosion
prediction procedure. CFX uses a finite difference approach to solve the Navier–Stokes equations.
The first task of flow simulation is to generate the computational grid of the geometry. Pre-
processors available in the software are used to perform this task. CFX uses a multi-block
structured grid. The second task is to specify the boundary conditions as well as solution options
such as differencing scheme and turbulence model. The final step is to run the solver to generate
the flow field simulation. Patankar [16] describes the procedure that is used to solve the equations
of fluid motion.
For flow conditions of interest in oil and gas production, the sand concentration is fairly small
so that the effect of sand particles on the carrier fluid is assumed negligible. Thus, one-way
coupling method is employed to calculate sand particles trajectories in this study. One-way
coupling assumes that the presence of solid particles has little effect on the flow field. CFX has the
option of applying two-way coupling, but it is not used in this study. In two-way coupling, the
interaction between the carrier fluid and the particles is accounted for to calculate the continuous
flow field as well as the trajectories of solid particles. In this step, the user can specify the
appropriate particle–wall rebound model as well as the forces exerted on the sand particles.
Usually, for a given mass of sand, the trajectories of tens of thousands of particles that are
randomly distributed at the inlet are determined to obtain statistically representative sand
impingements on the wall in order to acquire representative erosion profiles for the geometry.
Impingement information, such as particle impact speed, impact angle, and impact locations,
are obtained from the particle trajectory calculations. The impingement information is applied to
erosion models to finally predict the erosion caused by sand particles within the entire simulated
geometry. The properties of pipe wall material as well as particle shape can be accounted for to
quantify the erosion. In the post-processor section, the user can visualize the profile of erosion as
well as flow variables such as velocity components.

2.2. Description of computational models

2.2.1. Governing equations of fluid motion (Navier–Stokes equations)

The governing equations of flow employed in CFX-4 are discussed in this section. The conti-
nuity and momentum equations are given in Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively [15]:
1254 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272

oq ~Þ ¼ 0
þ r
ðqU ð2Þ
ot
~Þ
oðqU ~U
þ r
ðqU ~Þ ¼ ~
B þ r
ðqu0  u0 þ rÞ ð3Þ
ot
where q is the fluid density, U~ is the instantaneous velocity vector, ~B is the body force, u0 is the
~ 0
fluctuating velocity due to turbulence (i.e. U ¼ u þ u , where u is the mean velocity component),
qu0  u0 is the Reynolds stress; and the stress tensor, r, is given by
p l ~ ~ ÞT 
r ¼  I þ ½rU þ ðrU ð4Þ
q q
where p and l are the local pressure and viscosity of the fluid, and I is the identity matrix. Several
turbulence models are included in CFX-4, such as Standard, Low Reynolds Number and RNG
versions of Turbulent Kinetic Energy-Dissipation ðk  eÞ models; Differential and Algebraic
Reynolds Stress models; and a Reynolds Flux model. According to Edwards’ findings [17], the
Differential Reynolds Stress turbulence model [18] is utilized in this research. A third order dif-
ferencing scheme, QUICK [15], is used to solve the governing equations.

2.2.2. Particle tracking

According to Newton’s second law, Clift et al. [19] proposed the governing equation of particle
motion:
dV~p ~
mp ¼ FD þ~ FP þ~FB þ~ FA ð5Þ
dt
The above equation consists of

• Drag force:
pdp2
~
F D ¼ CD qf jV~f  V~p jðV
~f  V~p Þ ð6Þ
8
where CD is the drag force coefficient, defined as
24
CD ¼ ð1 þ 0:15Re0:687
S Þ ð7Þ
ReS
where ReS is the particle relative Reynolds number, defined by
qf jV~p  V~f jdp
ReS ¼ ð8Þ
l
• Pressure gradient force:
~
F P ¼ 14pdp3 rP ð9Þ
• Buoyancy force:
~
F B ¼ 16pdp3 ðqp  qf Þ~
g ð10Þ
 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272 1255

• Added mass force:

~ 1 dV~p
F A ¼  pdp3 qp ð11Þ
12 dt
Gosman and Ioannides approach [20] is employed to incorporate the effect of the turbulence
dispersion on the particle motion. This model takes into account the crossing trajectories and
eddy lifetime to calculate the interaction time of particle and the eddy. In this approach, the
turbulence is assumed to be isotropic and to possess a Gaussian probability distribution in the
fluctuating velocity. The mean of the fluctuating velocities is zero and the standard deviation, q, is
given by the predicted local turbulent kinetic energy field:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
q ¼ ð2k=3Þ ð12Þ
The standard deviation and mean velocity are used to sample the fluctuation velocity, u0 .
In order to accurately predict the particle trajectories an appropriate rebound model describing
the particle–wall collision must be used. At impact, the reflected velocity of the particle is lower
than the incoming velocity due to energy transfer. This impact signature is described by the
momentum-based coefficient of restitution, e. Researchers have shown that the particle incoming
angle may have a significant effect on the coefficient of restitution. Forder et al. [12] proposed the
following coefficient relationships for perpendicular and parallel velocity components for AISI
4130:
eper ¼ 0:988  0:78h þ 0:19h2  0:024h3 þ 0:0027h4 ð13Þ

epar ¼ 1  0:78h þ 0:84h2  0:21h3 þ 0:028h4  0:022h5 ð14Þ

Grant and Tabakoff [21] and Sommerfeld [22,23] treated the rebound dynamics of the particles in
a statistical sense. Based on experimental data (for 2024 Aluminum and 200 lm sand particles),
Grant and Tabakoff postulated the mean values of the coefficients of restitution (eper and epar ),
which are incoming angle-dependent distributions with angle-dependent standard deviations (rper
and rpar ).
eper ¼ 0:993  1:76h þ 1:56h2  0:49h3 ð15Þ

epar ¼ 0:998  1:66h þ 2:11h2  0:67h3 ð16Þ

rper ¼ 0:0005 þ 0:62h  0:535h2 þ 0:089h3 ð17Þ

rpar ¼ 2:15h  5:02h2 þ 4:05h3  1:085h4 ð18Þ

2.2.3. Erosion prediction

Impingement information, such as impact speed and impact angle, is gathered as particles hit
the wall of the geometry. Using this information the erosion ratio can be calculated. The erosion
ratio is defined as the mass loss of the pipe wall due to erosion divided by the mass of particle
impacting the wall. The erosion ratio depends on the particle impact speed and impact angle.
According to Ahlert [24] and McLaury [10], the erosion ratio is given by
1256 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272

Table 1
Erosion model empirical constants
Constants Material
Carbon steel Aluminum
a 38.4 )34.79
b 22.7 12.3
u 1 5.205
x 0.3147 0.147
y 0.03609 )0.745
w 0.2532 1
n 1.73 1.73

ER ¼ AFs V n f ðhÞ ð19Þ

where ER is the erosion ratio (kg/kg), A is an empirical constant, V is the particle impingement
speed, n is an empirical coefficient. Previous studies at the Erosion/Corrosion Research Center at
The University of Tulsa demonstrated that a value of n equal to 1.73 was a representative value
that fits erosion experiments using various oilfield materials. Thus a value of 1.73 was used in this
work. Fs is a particle shape coefficient; Fs ¼ 1:0 for sharp (angular), 0.53 for semi-rounded, or 0.2
for fully rounded sand particles. While f ðhÞ is the function of the impact angle that is given by
 2
ah þ bh for h 6 u
f ðhÞ ¼ ð20Þ
x cos2 h sinðwhÞ þ y sin2 h þ z for h > u
where u, a, b, w, x, y, and z are empirical constants that depend on the material being eroded. The
suitable values of the model constants, assuming V has units of ft/s, are provided in Table 1 for
carbon steel [24] and aluminum [10]. In the post-processor, the erosion is visualized as the pen-
etration rate profile within the geometry. The penetration rate is defined as the local wall thickness
loss rate caused by erosion. The penetration rate is determined when the local wall mass loss rate
is divided by the local cell area and the density of wall material. For this work, the penetration
rate is converted to penetration per mass of sand, to remove the dependence on sand rate.

3. Application of the CFD-based erosion prediction procedure

The CFD-based erosion prediction procedure is applied to simulate the flow field and thus
predict the erosion in an elbow and a plugged tee. In this section, a grid refinement study is
presented. A study on the effect of the number of particles released at the inlet on the maximum
erosion is also shown. This section also discusses the influence of particle–wall collision model on
particle’s trajectories and consequently the predicted erosion profile in the geometry.

3.1. Grid refinement study

The CFD-based erosion prediction procedure is applied to predict the erosion in an elbow and
a plugged tee (both with 1-in. diameter), as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. In Fig. 1, the elbow is a
 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272 1257

Fig. 1. Schematic of standard elbow geometry.

Fig. 2. Schematic of plugged tee geometry.

standard elbow with a curvature ratio ðr=DÞ equal to 1.5. In Fig. 2, the relative plugged length
ðL=DÞ is equal to 1.5. In order to accurately predict the erosion, a grid sensitivity study must be
performed. As an example, the grid refinement study for the elbow is demonstrated. The erosion
in the elbow is predicted under the flow conditions as listed in Table 2. The solution options are
also summarized in Table 2. Instead of simulating the actual number of particles that correspond
to the specified mass of sand (40 lb/day or 2.08 · 104 kg/s), CFX tracks a certain number of
particles to represent the mass of sand. In this section, 100,000 particles were tracked which means
the mass rate that each sand particle conveys is 2.08 · 109 kg/s. It is needed to point out that the
actual physical properties of sand particles (diameter and density) are used to determine the

Table 2
Summary of flow conditions and solution options
Temperature 298 K
Carrier fluid Air
Fluid velocity 150 ft/s (45.72 m/s)
Sand particle diameter 150 lm
Sand flow rate 40 lb/day (2.08 · 104 kg/s)
Sand volume concentration 0.0042%
Pipe material Aluminum
Turbulence model Differential stress [18]
Differencing scheme QUICK [13]
Particle rebound model Stochastic rebound model [21]
1258 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272

particle trajectories and the mass of each particle is required to calculate the erosion for individual
particle impingements. Since one-way coupling is used the number of particles (or mass flow
of particles) does not affect the flow solution and particle trajectories, so concentration effects are
not considered.
The grid refinement process was performed in two steps. The first step was to refine the grid on
the plane that is normal to the flow direction with the axial grid spacing fixed. The second step is
to adopt an appropriate mesh of the cross-area plane and to refine the axial direction grid,
especially for the elbow curved section. In order to generate structured grids that are compatible
with the solver, a five-block geometry is built for the elbow, as shown in Fig. 3. In Fig. 3, the
length ratio AB/AC is equal to 2.4. In the first step, the erosion prediction is performed for 9
different meshes. The grid number on length AB and AC for each mesh is listed in Table 3. As a
representative case, the cross-area plane mesh of Mesh No. 5 is plotted in Fig. 4. For all these
9 meshes, the grid number of the elbow curved section (DE) is 30 where length DE is shown in
Fig. 5.
The stochastic particle–wall collision rebound model is used to predict the erosion. 50,000 sand
particles are released randomly at the inlet of the elbow to represent the sand mass flow rate as
specified in Table 2. As a sample, the predicted erosion profile using Mesh No. 5 is shown in Fig.
6, where the erosion is in mil/lb (the wall thickness loss per unit mass of sand). Fig. 6 shows that
the maximum erosion of 11.8 mil/lb (659 lm/kg) occurs at the center area of the elbow section.
The predicted maximum erosion normalized using the coarsest grid (Mesh No. 1) of each mesh
is shown as Fig. 7. In Fig. 7, the horizontal axis represents the cross-area plane grid density
normalized with respect to grid density of Mesh No. 1. From Fig. 7, the erosion approaches a
specific value as the grid density increases. The variation of the maximum erosion between Mesh
No. 8 and Mesh No. 9 is about 2%, and it is about 20% between Mesh No. 5 and Mesh No. 9. 20%
is well within the acceptable tolerance for erosion calculations. So Mesh No. 5 is deemed suffi-
cient.

Fig. 3. Five-block elbow.

Table 3
Grid numbers of the cross-area plane meshes
Meshes No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7 No. 8 No. 9
N1 3 4 6 8 10 12 16 20 24
N2 5 6 9 12 15 18 24 30 36
 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272 1259

Fig. 4. Representative cross-area plane mesh.

Fig. 5. Elbow section mesh.

In the second step of the grid refinement, the erosion is predicted for four different axial grid
spacings with the cross-area plane grid spacing fixed. As a combined consideration of prediction
accuracy and computational cost, the cross-area plane Mesh No. 5 is selected in the second step.
The axial grid number used on the elbow section curve (DE) is listed in Table 4. It is worth noting
that Mesh No. 5 of Table 3 is equivalent to Mesh No. 11 of Table 4.
The variation of the normalized predicted maximum erosion for each mesh listed in Table 4 is
plotted as Fig. 8. The predicted maximum erosion of each mesh is normalized by that of Mesh
No. 10. The grid density of the elbow curved section using Mesh No. 10 is defined as 1. The
erosion appears to converge with the increase of elbow curved section axial grid density.
The remaining simulations of this study adopted Mesh No. 5 (No. 11). Identical grid spacing is
used in the generation of the mesh of the plugged tee.
1260 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272

Fig. 6. Sample erosion profile of the elbow.

Normalized Predicted Maximum

2.4
2.2
2.0
Erosion

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61
Cross-Area Plane Grid Density

Fig. 7. Variation of the maximum erosion with the cross-area grid density.

Table 4
Number of grid in the elbow section curve meshes
Meshes No. 10 No. 11 (No. 5) No. 12 No. 13
DE 20 30 40 60

3.2. Particle number independent study

As stated previously, a certain number of particles are used in CFX to represent the given mass
of sand to calculate the erosion and the mass of each particle is determined by applying the mass
of sand divided by the number of sand particles used. The erosion on the wall due to individual
particle impacts is related to the mass that each particle represents. In order to insure that a
statistically representative set of particle impingements are obtained, the effect of particle number
on the quantity of the predicted erosion needs to be investigated. The purpose of this section is to
 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272 1261

1.08
1.07

Normalized Predicted
Maximum Erosion
1.06
1.05
1.04
1.03
1.02
1.01
1
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Elbow Section Axial Grid Density

Fig. 8. Variation of the maximum erosion with the axial direction grid density.

obtain the particle number that is sufficiently large to insure the predicted erosion due to the given
amount of sand is independent of the number of particles simulated.
The erosion prediction procedure is applied to the elbow and the plugged tee for six particle
numbers: 1000, 5000, 10,000, 25,000, 50,000, and 100,000 for the flow conditions and sand volume
concentration given in Table 2. Figs. 9 and 10 demonstrate how the normalized predicted

1
Normalized Predicted
Maximum Erosion

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Number of Particles

Fig. 9. Variation of the predicted maximum erosion with the number of particles in the elbow.

1
Normalized Predicted
Maximum Erosion

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Number of Particles

Fig. 10. Variation of the predicted maximum erosion with the number of particles in the plugged tee.
1262 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272

maximum erosion changes with the input particle number in the elbow and the plugged tee,
respectively. The predicted maximum erosion obtained for each particle number is normalized by
erosion obtained using 1000 particles in the elbow and the plugged tee. Figs. 9 and 10 demonstrate
that the effect of particle number on the predicted erosion is negligible when the particle number is
greater than 50,000, which means 50,000 particles are sufficient to provide statistically represen-
tative results. Thus, 50,000 particles were released at the inlet of the elbow and plugged tee for the
remaining simulations of this study.

3.3. Effect of particle–wall collision rebound model

The particle rebound model proposed by Forder et al. [12] and the stochastic particle rebound
model by Grant and Tabakoff [21] are evaluated in a standard elbow and a plugged tee. The flow
conditions and sand flow rate are listed in Table 2.
Figs. 11 and 12 show the sample particle trajectories and the erosion rate profile predicted by
the Forder rebound model. Figs. 13 and 14 demonstrate the sample particle trajectories and the
erosion profile in the elbow predicted by the stochastic particle rebound model. Ten representative
particle trajectories are shown in Figs. 11 and 13. As shown in these figures, similar particle
trajectories are predicted by the Forder rebound model and the stochastic rebound model in the
elbow. From Figs. 12 and 14, a slight difference of the erosion pattern in the elbow as well as the
maximum value of the erosion is observed. The maximum erosion predicted by the Forder re-
bound model is 13.7 mil/lb (765 lm/kg) that is about 15% greater than the stochastic rebound
model. In Fig. 12, two antenna-like high erosion regions are observed. Simulations explain that
multiple impingements of one particle may occur in the elbow section. The antenna-like high
erosion region is due to the secondary impingements of the particles that have similar impact
angle and incoming speed as the first impingement. This behavior did not occur when the sto-
chastic particle rebound model was applied.
For the plugged tee, the sample particle trajectories in Fig. 15 using the Forder rebound model
demonstrate that the particles become trapped in the plugged section of the tee. Some individual

Fig. 11. Sample particle trajectories in the elbow predicted by the Forder particle rebound model.
 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272 1263

Fig. 12. Erosion rate profile in the elbow predicted by the Forder particle rebound model.

Fig. 13. Sample particle trajectories in the elbow predicted by the stochastic particle rebound model.

particles impinge the wall in this section hundreds of times along a recirculation path before they
go to the downstream section. This simulation result is not physical because of the nature of the
particle–wall collision rebound process. The repeating particle impingements result in highly
localized erosion on the wall near the intersection of the plug, as shown in Fig. 16. The maximum
erosion predicted by the Forder rebound model is 30 mil/lb (1675 lm/kg) at the corner of the
plugged tee. However, from experimental observations it is anticipated that the maximum erosion
occurs on the surface of the plugged end. When simulations with the stochastic rebound were
conducted, due to variation in particle rebound introduced using the stochastic rebound model,
the localized repeating impingements are not predicted (as seen in Fig. 17). The randomly scat-
tered particle rebound results in more distributed particle impingements as well as erosion damage
in the plugged section. From Fig. 18, the maximum erosion is 5 mil/lb (279 lm/kg) in the plugged
1264 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272

Fig. 14. Erosion rate profile in the elbow predicted by the stochastic particle rebound model.

Fig. 15. Sample particle trajectories in the plugged tee predicted by the Forder particle rebound model.

end of the plugged tee. The simulations in the plugged tee demonstrate that the application of the
stochastic particle rebound model is required for the cases that posses strong particle recircula-
tion.

4. Experimental validation of predicted erosion in elbow and plugged tee

In order to evaluate the erosion predicted by the CFD-based erosion procedure, the trend of the
erosion with respect to the air velocity in the elbow and plugged tee are obtained numerically as
 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272 1265

Fig. 16. Erosion rate profile in the plugged tee predicted by the Forder particle rebound model.

Fig. 17. Sample particle trajectories in the plugged tee predicted by the stochastic particle rebound model.

well as experimentally. Erosion predictions and experiments are performed in a standard elbow
and a plugged tee with 1-in. diameter for three air velocities: 50, 100, and 150 ft/s. The relative
plugged length ðL=DÞ of the plugged tee is equal to 1.5. For all simulations in this section, the grid
spacing of Mesh No. 5 is applied for both elbow and plugged tee. The Reynolds Differential Stress
turbulence model and the QUICK (third order) differencing scheme are used to simulate the flow
field. The stochastic particle rebound model is employed in the particle trajectories calculation.
50,000 particles are released in the inlet of the elbow and plugged tee to obtain the particle number
independent solution.
1266 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272

Fig. 18. Erosion rate profile in the elbow predicted by the stochastic particle rebound model.

4.1. Experimental facilities and procedure

Air is used as the carrier fluid for all experimental tests. Erosion tests are performed on test cells
representing an elbow and a plugged tee with 1-in. diameter. The flow is incoming vertically
upward and discharged horizontally. The schematic of the test flow loop is shown in Fig. 19. The
test cells and specimens of the elbow and plugged tee are shown as Figs. 20 and 21, respectively.
00 00
The specimens are made of aluminum. The elbow specimen is a 0.25 · 0.25 bar that is bent to
match the radius of curvature of the elbow. Specimen 1 of the plugged tee covers the plugged end
00
surface. Specimens 2–4 have the width of 0.25 and are placed on the center plane of the plugged
tee test cell. Mass loss measurements are taken for the elbow and plugged tee specimens. The tests
in the elbow and plugged tee are repeated three times for each air velocity. 500 g of sand is injected

Fig. 19. Schematic sketch of the test flow loop.

 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272 1267

Fig. 20. Test cell and specimen of the elbow.

Fig. 21. Test cell and specimens of the plugged tee.

through the sand injector continuously during a fixed period of time (40 min), which is about 40
lb/day. In addition, the local thickness loss was also determined for the elbow specimen and
specimen 1 of the plugged tee by using a profilometer for the case with the air velocity of 150 ft/s.
Measurements are taken at seven locations that are evenly distributed along the elbow specimen
as well as the center line of the plugged tee specimen 1.
1268 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272

4.2. Experimental data

The mass losses of the elbow and plugged tee specimens are taken for different air velocities,
and the average values are summarized in Table 5. From Table 5, it is apparent that the mass
losses of specimens 3 and 4 of the plugged tee are negligible as compared to the elbow specimen
and specimens 1 and 2 of the plugged tee. For the elbow specimen and specimens 1 and 2 of the
plugged tee, the average mass loss and 95% confidence intervals are plotted versus the air velocity
as Fig. 22.

4.3. Experimental data and simulations

In this study, the mass loss of the elbow and plugged tee specimens, as listed in Table 3, is
converted to a thickness loss by applying the density of aluminum and assuming the erosion is
uniform over the entire specimen surface that is exposed to particles. From Table 3, for the case
that the air velocity is 150 ft/s (45.72 m/s), the average experimental erosion rate of specimen 1 of
the plugged tee is 0.25 mil/lb (14 lm/kg) which is three times greater than specimen 2 of the
plugged tee. From Fig. 18, the maximum erosion predicted by the stochastic particle rebound
model occurs on the plugged end surface. Fig. 18 also shows that the maximum erosion on the
plugged end surface is about two times greater than the maximum erosion at the plug intersection
corner. This is consistent with experimental data.

Table 5
Average mass loss of the elbow and plugged tee specimens
Weight loss (g) Air velocity (ft/s)
50 100 150
Elbow specimen 0.0019 0.0051 0.0094
Plugged tee specimen 1 0.00137 0.0059 0.0098
Plugged tee specimen 2 0.00053 0.00123 0.00183
Plugged tee specimen 3 0.0001 0.00043 0.0006
Plugged tee specimen 4 0 0.0002 0.0003

Fig. 22. Averaged mass loss and 95% confidence interval of the elbow and plugged tee specimens.
 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272 1269

For the case of air velocity equal to 150 ft/s, the measured erosion profile of the elbow specimen
and specimen 1 of the plugged tee are compared with predicted erosion profiles, as shown in Figs.
23 and 24. From Fig. 23 it is clear that the predictive erosion model is able to accurately predict
the erosion profile for the elbow as well as the location where the maximum erosion occurs. Good

Fig. 23. Comparison of predicted erosion profile with measured erosion profile in the elbow.

Fig. 24. Comparison of predicted erosion profile with measured erosion profile in the plugged tee.
1270 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272

agreement between the predicted erosion profile of the plugged tee and the experimental data is
also observed in Fig. 24. The numerically and experimentally based trends of erosion with respect
to air velocity in the elbow and plugged tee are plotted in Figs. 25 and 26 by calculating the
average erosion for different air velocities. The measured average erosion is determined from the
average thickness loss based on mass loss measurements. The predicted average erosion of
the elbow is obtained for the location that corresponds to the elbow specimen used in the
experiment. In Figs. 25 and 26 the predicted average erosion values of the elbow and plugged have
similar trends as the data, which indicates that the CFD-based erosion prediction procedure is
reliable in predicting the trend of erosion.
In Figs. 23–26 it is demonstrated that the predicted erosion in the elbow and plugged tee is
over-predicted by an order of magnitude. Good agreement between the predicted and measured
erosion profiles as well as the trends of erosion implies that the CFD-based erosion model is
accurate in predicting the flow field, and calculating particle trajectories when the stochastic

100 Predicted Average Erosion of Elbow

Measured Average Erosion of Elbow

Erosion (mil/lb)

10

0.1
40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Air Velocity (ft/s)

Fig. 25. Trend of erosion of the elbow.

100
Predicted Average Erosion of Plugged Tee
Measured Average Erosion of Plugged Tee
10
Erosion (mil/lb)

0.1

0.01
40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Air Velocity (ft/s)

Fig. 26. Trend of erosion of the plugged tee.

 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272 1271

particle rebound model is applied. Thus the over-prediction of erosion may indicate that refine-
ment of the erosion correlation given in Eq. (19) should be investigated to provide more accurate
prediction of the magnitude of erosion.
Simulations based on the stochastic particle rebound model show that the maximum erosion
occurs at the plug end surface of the plugged tee, which is consistent with the experimental data
shown in Figs. 22 and 24. The analysis of Figs. 22, 24 and 26 concludes that the application of the
stochastic particle rebound model is effective to reasonably estimate the erosion rate and pattern
in a plugged tee.

5. Conclusion

A CFD-based erosion prediction procedure is presented in detail in this paper. This compre-
hensive procedure includes: flow simulation, particle tracking and erosion calculation. Essential
issues, such as grid space and particle number effects, of predicting erosion by applying this
procedure are discussed. Since classic particle rebound models that can provide reasonable pre-
diction in elbows are not suitable for plugged tees, the focus of this paper is to investigate the
impact of a stochastic particle rebound model on erosion of elbows and plugged tees. Further-
more, the effectiveness of the CFD-based erosion prediction model is validated against experi-
mental data.
Numerical simulations as well as experimental erosion tests are performed in an elbow and a
plugged tee with 1-in. diameter. Simulations show that particle rebound model plays an important
role in determining the motion of particles. The particle rebound model may have a significant
impact on the particle trajectories as well as the erosion profile. For cases where the strong particle
recirculation potentially occurs, such as in a plugged tee, the application of the stochastic particle
rebound model is required to acquire realistic simulation results of erosion. Good agreement is
achieved between the experimental results and simulations based on the application of the sto-
chastic particle rebound model.
This erosion prediction procedure is validated by comparison of the predicted erosion profiles
as well as the trend of average erosion with the experimental data in the elbow and plugged tee.
Comparisons show that the CFD-based erosion prediction procedure is able to reasonably predict
the erosion profile and satisfactorily capture the trend of erosion with respect to the carrier
velocity. However, the quantity of erosion is over-predicted by about one order of magnitude,
which suggests that the erosion correlation needs to be re-evaluated in order to accurately
quantify the erosion. The accurate determination of the empirical constant A in Eq. (19) will be
crucial to improve the performance of the predictive erosion model. Currently this work is in
progress in a separate study of the Erosion/Corrosion Research Center at The University of Tulsa.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the member companies of the Erosion/Corrosion
Research Center at The University of Tulsa for supporting this project.
1272 X. Chen et al. / Computers & Fluids 33 (2004) 1251–1272

References

[1] American Petroleum Institute, API recommended practice for design and installation of offshore production
platform piping systems. API RP 14E, American Petroleum Institution, Fifth Edition. Washington DC, October
1991.
[2] Salama M, Venkatesh E. Evaluation of erosional velocity limitations in offshore gas wells. Paper No. 4485, 15th
Annual OTC, Houston, TX, May 2–5, 1983.
[3] Svedeman SJ, Arnold KE. Criteria for sizing multiphase flow lines for erosive/corrosive service. SPE 26569, paper
presented at 1993 APE Conference, Houston, TX.
[4] McLaury B, Shirazi S. Is API RP 14E reliable for predicting an erosional production velocity when sand
production is anticipated? In Proceedings of ETCE/OMAE Joint Conference, Paper No. ETCE00-PR054,
February 14–17, 2000. New Orleans, LA.
[5] Nesic S, Postlethwaite J. Predictive model for localized erosion–corrosion. Corrosion (Houston) 1991;47:582–9.
[6] McLaury B. A model to predict solid particle erosion in oilfield geometries. Master Thesis, The University of Tulsa,
1993.
[7] Shirazi S, Shadley J, McLaury B, Rybicki E. A procedure to predict solid particle erosion in elbows and tees.
J Pressure Vessel Technol 1995;117(1):45–52.
[8] Shirazi S, McLaury B, Shadley J, Rybicki E. Generalization of the API RP 14E guideline for erosive service.
J Petroleum Technol 1995:693–8.
[9] Salama M. An alternative to API 14E erosional velocity limits for sand laden fluids. In Proceedings of Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, USA, Paper no. OTC-8898, May 4–7, 1998.
[10] McLaury B. Predicting solid particle erosion resulting from turbulent fluctuations in oilfield geometries. PhD
Dissertation, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, 1996.
[11] Wang J, Shirazi S, Shadley J, Rybicki E. Application of flow modeling and particle tracking to predict sand erosion
rates in elbows. ASME FED 1996;236:725–34.
[12] Forder A, Thew M, Harrison D. Numerical investigation of solid particle erosion experienced within oilfield
control valves. Wear 1998;216:184–93.
[13] Edwards JK. Development, validation, and application of a three-dimensional, CFD-based erosion prediction
procedure. PhD Dissertation, The University of Tulsa, 2000.
[14] Keating A, Nesic S. Numerical prediction of erosion–corrosion in bends. Corrosion 2001;57:621–33.
[15] CFX-4.2 solver. AEA Technology, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 1997.
[16] Patankar S. Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. 1st ed. Taylor and Francis; 1980.
[17] Edwards JK, Erdal F, McLaury B, Shirazi S. Validation of a CFD code for tangentially injected swirling flows and
flows in 90 elbows. In Proceedings of 3rd ASME/JSME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference, San Francisco, CA,
July 18–23, 1999.
[18] Clarke DS, Wilkes NS. The calculation of turbulent flows in complex geometries using a Differential Stress Model.
AERE-R 13428.
[19] Clift R, Grace JR, Weber ME. Bubbles, drops, and particles. USA: Academic Press; 1978.
[20] Gosman A, Ioannides E. Aspects of computer simulation of liquid-fuelled combustors. J Energy 1981;7(2).
[21] Grant T, Tabakoff W. Erosion prediction in turbomachinery resulting from environmental solid particles.
J Aircraft 1975;12:471–547.
[22] Sommerfeld M. Modeling of particle–wall collisions in confined gas-particle flows. Int J Multiphase Flow
1992;18:905–26.
[23] Sommerfeld M. Particle–wall collisions: experimental studies and numerical models. ASME FED 1993;166:183–91.
[24] Ahlert K. Effects of particle impingement angle and surface wetting on solid particle erosion of AISI 1018 Steel. MS
Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Tulsa, 1994.