Predicting erosion in wet gas pipelines/elbows by mathematical formulations and computational fluid dynamics modeling

Abstract

Sand erosion has been identified as a potential damage and failure mechanism in pipelines/elbows employed to transport gas from wells to terminals. Erosion can cause localized material loss decreasing the structural integrity of pipelines/elbows leading to failure. As a result, sand erosion has been the object of much research work in the oil and gas industry. The prediction of erosion caused by sand transported by hydrocarbons flow is a difficult task due to the large number of variables involved. At present, a great number of empirical models have been developed to predict sand erosion in smaller diameter pipelines under laboratory conditions. Therefore, such formulations generally present uncertainties for their application in larger diameter pipelines employed to transport oil and gas because there is no fundamental basis showing how the empirical formulations can be extrapolated to large diameters pipelines as most of the models have been developed on the basis of elementary laboratory experiments, which may not represent the real sand erosion conditions. Furthermore, most of the analytical/empirical models were developed for specific pipeline/elbows diameters and cannot be employed to predict erosion in different engineering structures. Hence, in the present work a computational fluid dynamic modeling strategy is proposed, which incorporated fundamental physically erosion parameters to predict erosion in larger diameter pipelines/elbows. The methodology was applied to different elbows/pipelines diameters in order to investigate how pipeline's diameter, sand production rate, and sand particles sizes affect the erosion mechanism and the erosion rate. The results showed the importance of including fluid and flow conditions, sand particles trajectory, and self-particles movement. The computational fluid dynaimcs results were compared with those obtained with the most employed empirical models to predict sand erosion in the oil and gas industry models published in the literature, and it was shown that the proposed modeling strategy can be used to predict erosion in larger diameters pipelines/elbows with good results.

Keywords

Pipeline/elbows sand particles size computational fluid dynamics sand erosion modeling particles impact angle particles impact velocity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Finnie

. Erosion of surfaces by solid particles. Wear 1960, pp. 3.

Barton NA. Erosion in elbows in hydrocarbon production systems. Review document. Research Report 115, Health & Safety Executive 2003, East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK, 2003.

Weiner PD and Toll GC. Detection and prevention of sand erosion of production equipment. API OSAPR Project No 2, Research Report, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA, 1967.

Praveen Kumar

Byron Smith

Damodaran

et al.

Sand fines erosion in gas pipelines-experiments and CFD modeling. In: Corrosion conference expo. San Antonio, TX, USA 2014, pp. 9–13.

Mazunder

Shirazi

McLaury

. Experimental investigation of the location of maximum erosive wear damage in elbows. J Press Vess Technol 2008; 130: 7.

Shirazi

Shadley

McLaury

et al.

A procedure to predict solid particle erosion in elbows and tees. J Press Vess Technol 1995; 117: 45–52.

Azmran

Bart

H-J

. Investigation of hidroabrasion in slurry pipeline elbows and t-junctions. J Energy Power Eng 2014; 8: 65–78.

Mazumder

Zhao

Ahmed

. Effect of bend radius on magnitude and location of erosion in S-bend. Hindawi Model Simul Eng 2014; 2015: 7.

Patil, M.S., Deore ER, Jahagirdar RS, et al. Study of the parameters affecting erosion wear of ductile material in solid-liquid mixture. In: Proceedings of the world congress on engineering, London, UK, 2011, p. 5.

10.

API RP 14E. Recommended practice for design and installation of offshore production platform piping system, 5th ed. Washington DC: API, 2000.

11.

Salama MM and Venkastesh ES. Evaluation of API RP 14E erosional velocity limitations for offshore gas wells. In: Ocean technology conference, OTC 4484, Houston, USA, 2–5 May 1983, pp.371–376.

12.

Deng Y, Liu YH and Zhang Y. Numerical simulation of the erosion in the 90° elbow. In: 7th international symposium on multiphase flow, heat mass transfer and energy conversion. AIP conference proceedings, Vol. 1547, 2013, pp.671–683.

13.

Parsi

Najmi

Najafifard

et al.

A comprehensive review of solid particle erosion modeling for oil and gas wells and pipelines applications. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2014; 21: 850–873.

14.

Russell R, Shirazi S and Macrae J. A new computational fluid dynamics model to predict flow profiles and erosion rates in down hole completion equipment. In: SPE 90734, Houston, TX, USA, 2004, pp.1–27.

15.

McLaury BS, Wang J, Shirazi SA, et al. Solid particle erosion in long radius elbows and straight pipes. In: Annual technical conference, SPE 38842, San Antonio, TX, USA, 5–8 October 1987, pp.997–986.

16.

Mohyaldin ME, Elkhatib N and Ismail M. Evaluation of different modelling methods used for erosion prediction. NACE, Shanghai China Section, Paper 11005, 2013.

17.

Salama MM and Venkatesh ES. Evaluation of erosional velocity limitations in offshore gas wells. In: 15th annual OTC, Houston, TX, USA, 1983.

18.

Meng

Ludema

. Wear models and predictive equations: Their form and content. Wear 1994, pp. 15.

19.

Chen

McLaury

Shirazi

. Application and experimental validation of a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) based erosion prediction modelo in elbows and plugged tees. Comput Fluid 2004; 33: 1251–1272.

20.

Sun

Jin

. Modeling and numerical analysis of the solid particle erosion in curved ducts. Hindawi Chem Eng 2013; 2013: 1–8.

21.

Hadziahmetovic

Hodžić

Kahrimanović

et al.

Computational Fluid Dinamics (CFD) based erosion prediction model in elbows. Tech Gazette 2014; 21: 8.

22.

Abdolkarimi

Mohammadikhah

. CFD Modeling of particulates erosive effect on a commercial scale pipeline bend. Hindawi Chem Eng 2013; 2013: 10.

23.

Huser A and Kvernvold O. Prediction of sand erosion in process and pipe components. In: Proceedings of 1st North American conference on multiphase technology. Banff, Canada, 1998, pp.217–227.

24.

Bozzini

Ricotti

Boniardi

et al.

Evaluation of erosion-corrosion in multiphase flow via CFD and experimental analysis. Wear 2003; 255: 237–245.

25.

Wood

Jones

Ganeshalingam

et al.

Comparison of predicted and experimental erosion estimates in slurry ducts. Wear 2003; 256: 11.

26.

Dobrowolski

Wydrych

. Computational and experimental analysis of gas-particle flow in furnace power boiler instalations with respect to erosion phenomena. J Theoret Appl Mech 2007; 45: 513–537.

27.

Shahata

Talaat Youssef

Saqr

et al.

CFD Investigation slurry seawater flow effect in steel elbows. Int J Eng Res Technol 2014; 3: 364–370.

28.

Mazumder

. Effect of liquid and gas velocities on magnitude and location of maximum erosion in u-bend. J Fluid Dyn 2012; 2: 29–34.

29.

Li CG and Mazumder QH. CFD comparison of erosive wear in elbows due to particulate gas-solid flow. Research Report, Department of Computer Science, Engineering and Physics University of Michigan-Flin.

30.

Pandya D, Dennis B and Russell R. An improved computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model for erosion prediction oil and industry applications. In: 33rd international conference on ocean, offshore and artic engineering, ASME, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2014, p. 10.

31.

Abdulla A. Estimating erosion in oil and gas pipe line due to sand presence. PhD Thesis, Bleckinge Institute of Technology, Sweden, 2011.

32.

Bitter

. A study of erosion phenomena. Part 1. Wear 1963; 6: 5–21.

33.

Bitter

. A study of erosion phenomena. Part 2. Wear 1963; 6: 161–190.

34.

Gnanavelu AB. A geometry independent integrated method to predict erosion wear in a slurry environment. PhD Thesis, The University of Leeds, UK, 2010.

35.

Dent Norske Veritas DNV. Recommended practice RP O501: Erosive wear in piping systems 2007. Rev. 4.2, 2007.

36.

Majid

Mohsin

Omar

. Erosive wear of natural gas pipeline. J Teknologi 2008; 49: 342–356.

37.

Parslow

Stephenson

Strutt

et al.

Erosion damage mapping in a standard 90 degree take-off subsea christmas treee assembly. J Soc Underwater Technol 1997; 22: 95–101.

38.

Ballard

Beare

. Media sizing for premium sand screens: Ducth twill weaves. SPE Int 2003, pp. 1–9.

39.

Salim SM and Cheah SC. Wall y + strategy for dealing with wall-bounded turbulent flows. In: Proceedings of the international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists, IMECS, Hong Kong, 2009.

40.

Smart J. Keep on moving. Report, 2009, pp.1–5.

41.

Safaei

M.R

et al.

Investigation of micro-and nanosized particle erosion in a 90° pipe bend using a two-phase discrete phase model. Hindawi 2014; 2014: 1–12.

42.

Elsaadawy

Papini

Al-Sherik

et al.

Solid particle erosion in a partially closed ball control valve. Saudi Aramco J Technol 2013, pp. 70–77.

43.

Oka

Olmogi

Hosokawa

et al.

The impact angle dependence of erosion damage caused by solid particle impact. Wear 1997; 203–204: 573–579.

44.

Oka

Yoshida

. Practical estimation of erosion damage caused by solid particle impact. Part 2: Mechanical properties of materials directly associated with erosion damage. Wear 2005; 264: 322–330.

45.

Oka

Ocamura

. Practical estimation of erosion damage caused by solid particle impact. Part 1: Effects of impact parameters on a predictive equation. Wear 2005; 259: 95–101.

46.

Version 14.5, A.F.S. Particle erosion and accretion theory, User's guide, 2014.

47.

Wang

Shirazi

. A CFD based correlation for erosion factor for long-radius elbows and bends, New York: ASME, 2003, pp. 125.

48.

Achebo JI. Computational analysis of erosion wear rate in a pipeline using the drift flux models based on Eulerian Continuum Equations. In: World congress on engineering 2009, London, UK, 2003, p. 3.

49.

PEMEX. PEMEX Gas infrastructure. 2016.

50.

Catalogue TT. Erosion, 2015.

51.

Hariprasad J, Rhyne DL and Vedapuri D. Sand fine erosion and asset integrity management. In: Offshore technology conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Paper No. 24944, 2014, pp.25–29.

52.

Salama MM. An alternative to API 14E erosional velocity limits for sand laden fluids. In: Ocean technology conference, Houston, TX, USA, 4–7 May 1998, pp.721–733.

53.

Gerasimov

. Modeling turbulent flow with fluent software, introductory course 2006.

54.

SSC G. Introduction to Ansys Fluent. 2013.

55.

Benzley SE, Perry E, Merkley K, et al. A comparison of all hexagonal and all tetrahedral finite element meshes for elastic and elasto-plastic analysis, B.Y. University, Sandia National Laboratories, 1995, p. 13.

56.

Carrillo SJM and Castillo ELG. Mesh considerations applied to the computation of two-phase flow with the computational fluid dynamics technique (translated from the spanish version), May 2011. IV introduction research workshop in Polytechnique University of Cartagena, Spain.